LVO is in the bag & soup is still on the menu

[MARK0SIAN]

The thing to bear in mind with the GSC allies restriction is that they exist to ensure that GSC armies are predominantly made up of GSC models, not an imperial guard army with a few Genestealers thrown in for CC purposes.

 

I’m not saying that makes them bad or anything, just that balance and fairness wasn’t the main driving force in their design so that needs to be kept in mind.

[G8Keeper]

The thing to bear in mind with the GSC allies restriction is that they exist to ensure that GSC armies are predominantly made up of GSC models, not an imperial guard army with a few Genestealers thrown in for CC purposes.

 

I’m not saying that makes them bad or anything, just that balance and fairness wasn’t the main driving force in their design so that needs to be kept in mind.

 

Indeed, and perhaps my quoting of their rule skewed it a little.  I do think that limiting the benefits of stuff like the loyal 32 is a good thing to look at rather than hampering the main codex users of said units.

[Nova_Dew]

As a non competitive player (hell i haven't played since 2nd edition) my take is base games on points and command points, X points and Y command point battle, you want that mono Brigade it costs you only the base costs, you get the restrictions and drawbacks that, that mono army gets you, but you get more Command Points to spend to make up for that, you want the Battalion with the 2 Vanguard detachments with the air wing and super heavy detachments, you get the extra flexibility in unit form but you lose the command points because your warlord has to spend "time" aka command points to keep it all working as a functional force.

 

That fluff of entire IG regiments with only a few SM squads is now something you would see in competitive games with an IG Brigade and a SM Battalion for an X points 12 Command points game, you'd have no stratagems but you'd have the SM 3+ ness for more accurate firepower and CC strength, a single Brigade of IG would only have 3 Command Points to spend so they would have to become maybe stronger (units that give command points would also become auto includes though so something would have to be done with them).

 

GW gets to encourage sales with allowing soup, soup players get to soup for unit rewards, mono lists get a command point reward for mono-ing.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Here what I think allies are non issue. Why? I have yet to here how they take away from the game. Beside on a “my gut tells me it shouldn’t.” It MonoDex elitism. Second?

 

Loyal 32 and Rusty 17. Are ‘bad’. To include those units simply for a CP. You are paying 165-180 points for 5CP. In other words you start the game down 150-200 point lists. Best variants on the loyal 32 are the Loyal Brigade, which is 700+ Points. And that is not something I am gonna be angry about.

 

Lists that are good and have the loyal 32, USE the loyal 32. They are core component of the armies tactical plan of engagement. And often it’s worth Speeding 200-400 more points for that investment. To create something that can do SOMETHING.

 

(Armies) + Loyal 32/Rusty 17 are playing down almost 200 points. How would I fix soup?

 

Simply put, I would say, “you can only have 1 other Detachment that doesn’t share your two or more keywords with your warlord (Chapter/Regiment).”

 

It's an issue for two reasons:

1) You essentially cannot build an Imperium/Chaos/Aeldari (and probably soon Tyranid) army that draws from a single codex and doesn't put itself at a disadvantage. Ironically, having more choice results in having less choice. I cannot choose to only play Space Marines or only Knights or only Guard and be fully competitive at the same time. There are people who  don't want to collect multiple factions for any number of reasons. The current ally system takes something away from those people: It takes away the option to play the game the way they like to play. Myself, I don't mind - I play a Guard/Blood Angels/Knights mix on tournaments. Just as I don't want that taken away from me, I fully understand that other players don't want to play like this, and they should have that option without handicapping themselves.

 

2) The vast number of unit options available to the large alliances means that for every job there are always multiple units to pick from. As a result the sub-optimal units never get played. 

But sub-optimal units have a place in this game: They are a part of what creates a factions identity, it's strengths and weaknesses. Some factions have :cussty troops but great monsters and tanks. Other factions have great shooting but bad close combat options. The list continues.

It is both a challenge and one of the interesting aspects of creating and playing a competitive army to deal with weaknesses of your respective faction. Do you choose to live with the gap in your abilities and work around it? Or do you choose to use sub-optimal units and make the best of it?

With unlimited and free mixing of allies those questions never come up. For every task you can always just pick the optimal unit. Why should I ever play a Baneblade when I can take a Knight? Why run Reavers when there are Shining Spears? Why should I run CSM psykers when I can use the Thousand Sons variant? 

Again, more choice on paper results in less actual choice because for every job there is one optimal unit and 5 other that don't cut it.

 

Allies only create the illusion of choice, but they really take it away. Allowing allies but at some sort of cost would create real choice. 

 

 

Another issue that allies create for the game relates to how GW 'balance' things. Current thought has them nerfing units, rather than the ally system (or real issue, as happened when they hiked the cost of Imperial weapons because Gulliman gunlines were doing well, but this also hit armies like GKs, who didn't need further nerfs). But that then hurts the nerfed unit in the parent dex, which often isn't the problem in the first place. IIRC the most recent example of this is the push (I know GW haven't done this yet, but it would be keeping with other adjustments since 8th dropped) to increase the cost of Guard Infantry because of the prevalence of the loyal 32. But if they do this, that has a far greater impact on pure Guard armies, while the allied soups only have to pay 30-odd points more, or will just move to the next best source of easy CPs/new meta hotness. Or how they nerfed Commissars and Conscripts into the ground, so they weren't worth taking, even in Guard armies (have they rolled back the nerfs since?), but the soupers just moved to loyal 32.

[chapter master 454]

-sigh- and here I was enjoying the visuals people have of me being some monocled villain swilling a fine bourbon in my novelty team rocket mug. 

 

Alright let me spell some things out for people by asking people some questions.

 

Do you want to be a tournament player? Answer me.

If yes. Suck it up. You get two options, ether try and be creative and actually work on lists to overcome the top but don't expect to find some miraculous counter list that beats all that comes before it because at that point: well done, you have just become the villain. If you answer yes to this question you cannot become the hero, you only become the villain.

If no then you have remembered this is a game and you can play whatever you like. Why play a baneblade? BECAUSE IT IS A BIG MOTHER-TRUCKING TANK! I play knights because giant robots. I even started Tau because giant robots.

 

Let me put it on the table and point you to other games. Just have a tour of other games with list building as a tournament. I pull on my card game history often here because by all it is so similar to the complaints leveled here. I have seen it over. and over. and over.

 

Let me just point to the wealth of lists, armies and compositions you can build, play and enjoy. Let allies be your ally. Build compositions of armies that are to your liking and have fun. These results of LVO mean nothing to us who PLAY the game. Who take part in the HOBBY. I mean...seriously. People are complaining here as if the results of this tournament are a mandated law of heaven, past by the combined divine power of the emperor and the chaos gods to never play anything other than the lists presented in the tournaments.

 

Like I said in my first post. Just stop. Not for my sake but it was for your sake. You can never enjoy this hobby if all you do is obsess over "what is best". If you want to be competitive, then go for. I try to be but when I look at these lists I like to see what makes them tick and think "huh, cool". I never let them dictate my list building as I continue to tinker with my own lists, seeing how far I can get them to go and taking pride in it. I often like to see how much I can make those top tier lists work, knocking their "infallible" power by running some simple gimmicks. I may not win but I do enjoy blind-siding opponents who don't pay attention with units and rules they dismissed purely because it wasn't "top tier". That's me. I play to have fun and at the same time I try to win. I know, how can this be. Someone who is having fun but trying to win? yet he isn't a WAAC player? What is this myterious power I have? Oh right...it's called playing the game and not boiling it down to just whatever some sum of 8 others played to get top 8 at a tournament. I actually read my codexes regularly and try and look at units and see where they may have a place. May not be top tier but I certainly get people to enjoy a game when an underused unit does some real work.

 

Tournaments help breed competition. However you mustn't get lost in winning. Part of the game is the process. I assure you, there are those who went to that tournament with lists that didn't get near the top but will be brimming with joy because the list did well and performed and there will be those who played and won purely because to them, the game was fun! Tournaments are gatherings. Yes, we will announce the winner. There will be someone who came to win, we need that. Keeps us from having a game where balance is dictated by beer and pretzels but never forget. It is a hobby. Not a job. It is a past-time. Not a torture.

It is fine to discuss this for balance sake but do so for balance sake and consider what it means for other units yes but do not go on witch-hunts. My witch-hunt is against those who do this. It is an irony to witch-hunt witch-hunts and will, just like those I seek to stop, never find closure.

 

Just remember. When GW eventually make a balance change that does what you want and removes the current top dog of imperial soup. Just remember what you wanted. It wasn't what you thought it was.

 

Edit:

 For Toaae below me as to not clog the thread with a rebuttal. I too like discussing balance but really this thread devolved into witch-hunting units and various other things instead of trying to actually go into the issue at hand as many were really looking for their own agenda. Some were clearly not happy with castellans, some are just not happy about the loyal 32. No-one seems to mind smash master which is nice though I personally have a minor gripe with how it is always the same load-out but then again smash masters always exist. Always has, captain with a storm shield plus good melee gets work done!

 People here came in, literally went on a lynching and didn't actually offer ideas while some actually did. Personally I actually found a good few quite clever and I still think there may be design space in a the concept of giving a benefit for a single detactment list. What I was getting tired of is the straight up attacks on raw units purely in the Imperial Soup camp, MEANWHILE shining spears are just doing everything with ynnari backing and no-one bats an eye and eldar rangers with alaitoc still dominate objectives as the premium "exiled 15" for the eldar forces but somehow people find the castellan more outrageous. Suppose it is because Imperial soup did win out, easy to target.

 Just remember, I do enjoy discussion and I find that these threads can come up with some very clever ideas that I enjoy greatly. What I don't enjoy is the dredging through those who just want to see kneecaps removed from 1st place.

 And Naturally I take balance discussion seriously. How else do we progress? I take having fun as serious business, no laughing matter about joyous times! I want to see people improve. In relation to this topic, would you agree that the idea of taking away the 3CP boost for battle-forged if you use various different factions would be a simple change that could shift things towards mono-dex having options. Not a massive boost and I would suspect the current lists would still hold top dog but yet we would see more mono-dex lists coming up from below and even putting in a fairly good showing. 3CP is a fair chunk, as it is a rotate ion shields for the castellen (since people like to pick on it) it may just shift things in a good direction. I however would also like to push for armies to have unique benefits for certain detachments or even have their own unique versions (sort of like what knights have with how they modify a detachments CP boost).

[toaae]

-snip-

 

Nah, I like discussing possible balance changes, even if they are never the way GW goes. Like mock drafts for the NFL. The discussion alone is worth it.

 

You, however, seem to take this too seriously. Like I said on page 1, maybe consider not clicking on these threads?

[Volt]

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

[H311fi5h]

We shouldn't forget however, that some factions are designe from to ground up to serve as allies, not pure armies. Especially for Knights and Custodes this is true, both having rules and strategems that only work specifically with other Imperium allies.

The challenge is striking a balance between forcing mono-codex armies (which GW won't to anyway out of fear of hurting their sales, but TO's could) and enabling allies in a sensible way.

[Cryptix]

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

 

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

[Volt]

 

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably. 

 

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I must ask the question someone else asked before, why is soup bad?

 

Almost all discussion is about the guard-marines-knight combo (or similar). Why is that combo bad when it´s ok to have the guardian-aspect warrior-wraith knight, the cultist-chaos marine-renegade knight or the fire warrior-commander-riptide combo? The combos work in the same way, you fill up a brigade off cheap chaff to work as a command point battery, some elite smash-y thingy and some super heavy as support that gets all the stratagems.

 

Why is it bad to have guards as a cp-battery (and objective grabbers) but ok to have for example cultist or guardians as cp-battery (and objective grabbers)?

All armies in 40k are constructed with specific weaknesses and strengths, which is what you see in any game with multiple factions. Knights are crap at taking objectives. Guard lacks durable offensive infantry to project force across the table and relies upon armor. Marines rely upon mobility and durability to get a small number of units into effective range. Custodes are extremely powerful but very susceptible to being overrun due to low model count, etc.

 

Soup and allies in general are bad unless there is a very big detractor as it neutralizes this balance. Instead of Guard players having to deal with their weaknesses they can just ally in units to patch up the holes. Instead of marine players worrying about their infantry being overwhelmed and not getting into range/on objectives, they just ally in cheap guardsmen to pump CP into their herohammer smashcaptain. Instead of Custodes having to carefully move their units around the table they can patch the hole with allied guard infantry/vehicles. Instead of Knights aimlessly failing to take objectives you can just slap a bunch of guardsmen on a Castellan and sweep out the enemy. Allies need to be designed in a way that they do not actually help patch holes in an army's wearkness, but are an incredibly expensive/detracting flavor unit that doesn't net you wins reliably.

So you want to swing the usefulness of allies the other way, making them actively detrimental? Seems vindictive, I'd rather have allies be an option, just like you have to option of a dark apostle or chaos lord - you use them in the right situations.

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

[chapter master 454]

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

 The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

 Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

[PeteySödes]

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

This is the third(?) time you’ve asserted that “you guys” hate imperial soup more than ynarri. Nobody like playing against ynarri, a lot of people clearly don’t like being forced to USE imperial soup. Being that this is primarily an imperial forum that’s what people are talking about.

 

I challenge you to write something less than a novel and one that’s not quite so condescending going forward.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I have to agree with FearPeteySodes I don't hate allies I hate that I'm putting myself at a severe disadvantage by not taking them. I don't think the core rules have to change but I think there should be formats for those of us that like playing single codex armies.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

 

At the risk of putting words in Volt's mouth, that isn't what he's saying. The 'patch over weakness' issue is intrinsic to Allies, there's no getting around it (short of banning Allies, which I don't think anyone honestly expects). But the CP throttling is proposed as some form of downside to counter the inbuilt advantages allies can offer. The goal isn't to dis-incentivise allies to the point nobody takes them, it's to even out the Allies vs Mono-Dex choice so Mono isn't pure handicap.

 

Nobody's asking for GW to admit it, they just want the company to change it. Which has happened before, from assault rules (dominated in 3rd and 4th, nerfed for 5th) to formations (ruined 7th, gone for 8th) they have changes major aspects of the game over the years, and with the new FAQ/Chapter Approved update cycle, there's the opportunity to fix issues like this without the reboot of a new edition.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

Allies invalidate the entire point of army design by being able to patch the holes in each army. This also is mostly a human problem as the xenos factions don't suffer as much from the issue as the almighty soup of imperial armies in particular. They're fine in narrative, but in matched they just act as a headache that should be de-incentivized by kneecapping the CP generated by allies or outright banning the use of non-warlord detatchment CP's. This would also solve the nonsense of castellans overnight by eliminating how soup lists generate the CP for Rotate the Ion Shields to boost it to a 3++ (although they also still need a price hike by their own).

On one hand you’re saying the problem is they invalidate army design by letting you patch weaknesses; but then your solution is all about CP which, even if you gave allies 0 CP, wouldn’t do anything to solve the problem of them being able to patch weaknesses, unless that weakness was purely a CP one and no army in the game has a purely CP weakness.

 

Saying allies don’t belong in matched play is fundamentally opposed to the way GW have designed 8th. Allies need some downsides but trying to persuade GW to disincentivise them to the point where no one takes them is basically asking them to admit they completely screwed up one of the core parts of an edition. You’ve got more chance of persuading them to stop using tape measure and dice or of convincing them not to make Eldar overpowered for once.

At the risk of putting words in Volt's mouth, that isn't what he's saying. The 'patch over weakness' issue is intrinsic to Allies, there's no getting around it (short of banning Allies, which I don't think anyone honestly expects). But the CP throttling is proposed as some form of downside to counter the inbuilt advantages allies can offer. The goal isn't to dis-incentivise allies to the point nobody takes them, it's to even out the Allies vs Mono-Dex choice so Mono isn't pure handicap.

 

Nobody's asking for GW to admit it, they just want the company to change it. Which has happened before, from assault rules (dominated in 3rd and 4th, nerfed for 5th) to formations (ruined 7th, gone for 8th) they have changes major aspects of the game over the years, and with the new FAQ/Chapter Approved update cycle, there's the opportunity to fix issues like this without the reboot of a new edition.

To be honest, I think that is what he means. If you look at all the posts I quoted he says ‘they need to be designed so they don’t patch each other’s weakness’ which you yourself say is impossible. He also says they should only be in narrative/open play and that if they are in matched play they should be an extremely costly fluffy element. If that isn’t disincentivising them to the point they’re not taken I don’t know what is.

 

The other side is, which I’ve mentioned before but which people seem oblivious to, is that GW have repeatedly said they don’t want to go down the route of banning or penalising allies, they would rather give bonuses to monodex armies. They may have changed tack in the past but it’s always come with a new edition. I agree mono-dex armies need to be on a level playing field but it should be done with boosts to monodex forces. Boosts, incidentally that don’t have to revolve around CP. trying to use CP to balance things when CP itself isn’t even vaguely balanced is like trying to put out a fire with petrol.

[Indefragable]

I'd like to see "secondary chapter tactics*" unlocked if every model in your army has the same <(Chapter)*> keyword.

 

It could be as simple as using certain Strategems twice in the same Turn, getting bonus CP, or something like re-rolling x if y does z (I'm thinking x = charges for Assault Marines where y = devestators and z = causes unsaved wound on a target....you get the idea).



*/equivalent sub-faction naming conventions

[Panzer]

I'd like to see "secondary chapter tactics*" unlocked if every model in your army has the same <(Chapter)*> keyword.

 

It could be as simple as using certain Strategems twice in the same Turn, getting bonus CP, or something like re-rolling x if y does z (I'm thinking x = charges for Assault Marines where y = devestators and z = causes unsaved wound on a target....you get the idea).

 

 

 

*/equivalent sub-faction naming conventions

 

A second set of more powerful Stratagems if your whole army consists of the same Chapter/Legion/Sept/Craftworld/Dynasty/whatever keyword would be another idea I'd love.

[TheTrans]

Or what about costing of stratagems changes based on amount of secondary key words

Mono-Faction Cost x
2 Faction Cost X*2
3 Faction Cost X*3

Or something like that? 

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

CP generation does need a pass. A flat amount of CP based on the points of the game isn't a bad idea. Pair that with a game-wide re-evaluation of strategem costs, and we'd be golden. Sounds like a good Chapter Approved release. That would be enough to boost some of the stronger mono army lists, like Orks or Tau. It wouldn't really help SM or CSM, as they are suffering from first codex problems and are due for a second pass to patch them up. But it'd help make all of that easier to balance, so I'm for it.

 

Another way to boost mono armies is to give army wide boosts only applicable if every detachment in the army is from the same faction. Possibly even Sub Factions. So, an all Khorne detachment will get its mark of Khorne boost. But if the entire army is Khorne, it could unlock a bigger, better, stabbin' for the Blood God boost. Then, specialty legions like the Black Legion or certain ork WAAAGHs could give similar army wide bonuses if you take say, one of each chaos detachment. I believe Sigmar's battle lines are sort of like that. Either way, depending on how it is handled, this could buff mono armies just as well as fluffy mixed armies, while not hurting the current soup overmuch. Buffing rather than nurfing is a good policy in most cases. You should only pull out the nerf bat if things have really ran away from you, like CP has.

 

Just my thoughts.

 

((Shout out to Indefragable, who I just realized beat me to this idea, hahaha. Teaches me to read a whole thread before posting.))

[Marshal Reinhard]

Like most balancing problems, this essentially comes down to cost. Different stratagems from different armies are of different strength, yet the difference in strength isn't reflected enough in how many CP they cost. This works fine if all armies' CP pools were completely separate, but it breaks down when you can use the cheap CP of the guard to power the powerful stratagems of Knights.

 

You either need to make sure that there is consistent a CP-cost to Stratagem-utility ratio for all stratagems across all codices. Or as suggested earlier, simply limit the amount of CP available to soup armies would get rid of the problems.

[Indefragable]

((Shout out to Indefragable, who I just realized beat me to this idea, hahaha. Teaches me to read a whole thread before posting.))

 

No worries...if we have the same idea independently, then that means we're both smart (or crazy). :)

 

Like most balancing problems, this essentially comes down to cost. Different stratagems from different armies are of different strength, yet the difference in strength isn't reflected enough in how many CP they cost. This works fine if all armies' CP pools were completely separate, but it breaks down when you can use the cheap CP of the guard to power the powerful stratagems of Knights.

 

You either need to make sure that there is consistent a CP-cost to Stratagem-utility ratio for all stratagems across all codices. Or as suggested earlier, simply limit the amount of CP available to soup armies would get rid of the problems.

 

And that is the crux, in so many ways.

Custodes' power is limited by their abilitiy to bring enough CP to power themselves. Enter the Loyal 32 and voila! Problem solved! No mess! Only 19.95 plus S&H!

 

It works too well because it works so well that there is no game mechanic/crunch reason why you ever wouldn't want to do it. And that's my beef with it since it's no easy and reliable to do there's (aside from fluff) never a reason not to do it.

[GrinNfool]

 

It seems one person is trying to logic out while someone is looking for target.

 

Allies are indeed a good thing for the game. In fact, they themselves have been balanced out a lot better than last edition because...well...do you at all remember Tau'Dar? You know, those big stompy stormsurges en mass getting psychic support from eldar dooms and all that with scatter bikes too? was kinda nutty.

 

The bulk of the imperial soup list is "good stuff is good" just like how eldar do it as well (though they too are allying up with ynnari non-sense...seriously...you guys hate on imperial soup more than ynnari soul burst?). They use stratagems but really there isn't some clever string to it, if you look at it you could take away most of their stratagems all the way down to only allowing them to warlord the castellan and get extra relics and they still would do well with as little as 4 CP. 1 to warlord the castellan, 1 to give it the relic decimator and 1 to get an extra relic for the blood angels with 1 CP left for command re-roll. They would still do well because their list is good stuff is good...isn't that what we do with any army though? We take good stuff and put it in a list. I mean, if allies get adjusted we suddenly aren't going to see stalkers, hunters, assault centurions, assault marines and the like suddenly become important because the marine dexes themselves only have a few good units to put together.

 

Remember, adjustments. Not Witch-hunts. Yes, some codexes are worse than others, we can agree on that without doubt but us astartes need to remember we all go to the same bar to air our greivance over the matter...heck...the grey knight players are already drunk on the floor gibbering.

This is the third(?) time you’ve asserted that “you guys” hate imperial soup more than ynarri. Nobody like playing against ynarri, a lot of people clearly don’t like being forced to USE imperial soup. Being that this is primarily an imperial forum that’s what people are talking about.

 

I challenge you to write something less than a novel and one that’s not quite so condescending going forward.

 

I think this is pretty accurate, a lot of people play imperial soup because mono imperial is so bad if you aren't AM or able to spam custodes bikes.  Castellan Imperial rises even more to prominence because it is the only real answer to dealing with Ynnari, especially for imperium players.  But thats the issue with taking any game and trying to make it "competitive".  People will try to find the most broken thing out there and abuse it to every bit they can.  Result is as you see at LVO, castellans or ynnari otherwise you were lucky to go 4-2.  Both lists are insanely cancerous but removing 1 makes the other that much more dominant and even if you removed both some other BS would rise to the top.  Part of why friendly type games are sooooo much more enjoyable than being forced to build a hard core list.