Opinions about a possible way forward for monofaction armies

[jaxom]

I had a thought while reading through the Grey Knights codex. What if  elite monofaction armies had a rule where their bread-and-butter strategies had a -1 to CP cost of their were no detachments with other keywords? Obviously the details would need fine-tuning (What's bread-and-butter? Is it to a minimum of 1 CP or is CP spamming okay with theses armies? Which armies are elite?), but do folks think the concept has steam? 

[Azekai]

I would be more in favor of CP penalizing mixing factions. You should be able to do it, but it shouldn't be manifestly efficient like it is now.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I'd prefer that army tactics be built in tiers. The basic tier that you get if they are a battleforged detachment, and then extra abilities that unlock if the entire army shares the tactic. Doubling down on the strengths of a force and opening up unique possibilities that only that group of warriors have mastered. It would take an adjustment of some faction tactics to strike the right balance, but that is what I'd like to see.

 

For example, a single detachment of Black Templar might be able to shut down a psychic power, but an entire army of Black Templar might be able to shut down a psychic phase. That's a whole lot of hate to mind bullet your way through.

[Halandaar]

I would be more in favor of CP penalizing mixing factions. You should be able to do it, but it shouldn't be manifestly efficient like it is now.

 

While there are obvious issues with the Loyal 32 and similar, a mixed Imperial army can be pretty fluff-friendly, so I'm not a huge fan of penalising people for taking a mixed army. I'd rather see CP buffs for mono armies to make them a bit more competitive.

[Lexington]

“Mono-faction” is a reallly difficult thing to define. Does every model have to have the exact same same Faction Keywords? There’s a number of models in the game that have a stray Faction Keyword or two, but are still generally considered part of a faction. That or things like Scions and Ork Freebootas.

 

Im generally convinced that the only way to fix a lot of the issues in 8th is to eliminate CP/Strategems from the game. It’s suprisingy easy to do.

[ERJAK]

Here's an idea, how about GW stop making codexes with only 1 or 2 decent units in them?

 

Pre rule of 3 it was more or less okay that the vast majority of units in the game were trash, post rule of 3 it's pretty bad now.

 

Even if you neuter CP batteries and get rid of Ynnari and Nerf Rotate Ion shield and the Castellan, you STILL won't be seeing very many mono-faction armies (outside of the ones you already see like Orkz and GSC) because the majority of armies simply can't field enough of anything good to compete.

 

What mono dark angels list is gonna stand up to mono-orks, assuming equal skill? What mono BA setup is gonna be able to deal with Mono guard after the fly nerf? What mono grey knight list is EVER going to stand a chance against GSC?

 

Too many factions are lugging around codexes that are 90% dead weight for soup to not be the only option. Nerf soup hard enough and armies like Space Wolves, DA, BA, BetaDex SoB, GK, and Even non-guiliman SM go from being rare one offs in soup lists to totally nonexistant.

[Schlitzaf]

There are two issues with Soup v Mono faction, lets lay both on the table;

1) CP. I often hear from “Marine” the necessity of taking Loyal 32 or Rusty 17 (180 or 165 points). But if they are only taking those detachments for CP, they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

SM Captain and by extension many of our support characters, are amazing, and Captains especially. should be maxed out. Meaning that the HQ slot is definitely not a tax. Then 3 Scout squads are 165 enabling a battalion I.e same price or cheaper then the imperium CP detachments.

 

Fixing this is less about Soup and just as much about perception. The CP detachments are actually good for another reason. But the CP has two easy fixes, one grant additional CP for each degree an army has a universally shared keyword (mono imperium marines, would have +3, Imperium, Adeptus Astartes and (Chapter).*

 

Increasing the CP gain of the “speciality” (Vangaurd/etc) And Patrol by 1-2. What shouldn’t be done is CP = Points level. Because you’ll see a return to the start of 8th of Battlelion and Brigade detachments being ignored.

 

2) Cherry Pick: Now this is more complicated, as you cannot cherry pick willy nilly. There are detachment (3) restrictions. Secondly as I like to say that famous loyal 32, cost the same as 2 tactical squads. In the actual game will have less impact tactically then those squads. And your paying a tax for two characters. Detachments by and large are a tax onto themselves. But loyal 32/Rusty 17 detachments are good for this reason.

 

Better lists are actually CP Detachment + Toys. The famous one is the thing you see whines about, when players complain about Gaurd batteries. Is not loyal 32, in fact a straight loyal 32 is rare on top tables. But IG Brigade. Which brings me to my point. Fixing mono faction is that mono factions need to be good enough in their thing that needing the cherry pick shoring weakness becomes a conscious decision. The suggestion of Strategem reduction is good.

 

I think have two or three teirs of tactics. In vein of Red Corsairs granting more cp when being themetic is a strong route to take.

[MARK0SIAN]

Here's an idea, how about GW stop making codexes with only 1 or 2 decent units in them?

 

Pre rule of 3 it was more or less okay that the vast majority of units in the game were trash, post rule of 3 it's pretty bad now.

 

Even if you neuter CP batteries and get rid of Ynnari and Nerf Rotate Ion shield and the Castellan, you STILL won't be seeing very many mono-faction armies (outside of the ones you already see like Orkz and GSC) because the majority of armies simply can't field enough of anything good to compete.

 

What mono dark angels list is gonna stand up to mono-orks, assuming equal skill? What mono BA setup is gonna be able to deal with Mono guard after the fly nerf? What mono grey knight list is EVER going to stand a chance against GSC?

 

Too many factions are lugging around codexes that are 90% dead weight for soup to not be the only option. Nerf soup hard enough and armies like Space Wolves, DA, BA, BetaDex SoB, GK, and Even non-guiliman SM go from being rare one offs in soup lists to totally nonexistant.

This sums it up quite well for me. Even if you could wave a magic wand and implement the perfect, fair and appropriate CP system that everyone loved tomorrow, it still wouldn’t make mono-factions more appealing in a lot of cases. Too many of the codexes are simply too underpowered to ever stand a realistic chance against others.

 

CP is exacerbating the imbalance in the game but if encouraging mono-factions is the goal then firstly those factions need to be able to hold their own.

[Finkmilkana]

CP is exacerbating the imbalance in the game but if encouraging mono-factions is the goal then firstly those factions need to be able to hold their own.

Which is exactly why I’m usually advocating against them discouraging soup (at the current state of the game). With soup, it’s possible to patch up holes certain armies just have, making the faction playable. Maybe not at the top tier, but for friendly yet somewhat competetive games. Without soup, a lot of factions would just be simply terrible even in a semi-competetive setting.

That obviously doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try to limit certain broken combos and it also doesn’t mean that some minor fluffy boni (like 2 tier chapter tactics etc) for mono factions couldn’t be a great addition (if done right). But in my opinion, they should stay the hell away from discouraging soup overall or they might end up making lives a lot worse for many armies.

[Trevak Dal]

Command points are limited to point level. Fixes a lot more than it breaks.

[ERJAK]

 

CP is exacerbating the imbalance in the game but if encouraging mono-factions is the goal then firstly those factions need to be able to hold their own.

Which is exactly why I’m usually advocating against them discouraging soup (at the current state of the game). With soup, it’s possible to patch up holes certain armies just have, making the faction playable. Maybe not at the top tier, but for friendly yet somewhat competetive games. Without soup, a lot of factions would just be simply terrible even in a semi-competetive setting.

That obviously doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t try to limit certain broken combos and it also doesn’t mean that some minor fluffy boni (like 2 tier chapter tactics etc) for mono factions couldn’t be a great addition (if done right). But in my opinion, they should stay the hell away from discouraging soup overall or they might end up making lives a lot worse for many armies.

The big issue I have with using a carrot instead of a stick to encourage mono faction armies is the fact that there are hyper competitive mono-faction armies atm.

 

Orkz (whether ork players want to acknowledge it or not), Ynnari, and GSC have all had extremely high tournament placings recently and even Tau are doing reasonably well. That's in a meta that DOES have unnerfed castellan soup. What are those armies going to be like if they suddenly get bonuses for being mono-faction?

 

(Yes, I know Ynnari tends to soup and GSC takes Mortar squads, but the amount of performance they lose by going totally monofaction is actually relatively small, especially when you compare it to something like knights.)

[HandsWithLegs]

I think the idea of changing CP costs for mono vs. soup does have merit, but with CP costs so low adding or subtracting one form them would massively shift balance. Most are going to be changing between 33% and 50% and that would break them completely. I think the solution rests in reworking detachments to unique ones per faction that give different CP amounts instead of universal ones that everybody uses

[thewarriorhunter]

I see a couple problems with mono-faction coming from a vanilla Marines codex, which is the only thing I play.

 

My stratagems suck. There's no way around that. I have a couple good ones and that's it. I think stratagems need to be reworked across the board so that early books have more quantity and quality. Right now I feel my CPs are better spent on rerolls.

 

The other problem as mentioned above is that many mono-armies have holes in them that soup armies help to fill. I think a very messy but potential fix is to give mono-armies unit bonuses. I realize this brings back nightmares from 7th ed formations with half the army being free - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm thinking more subtle changes like a free heavy/special weapon or wargear upgrade, or maybe the ability to get the 10th member of a unit free to encourage larger unit sizes. Little things that - if applied across a whole army - would leave enough points for an extra unit or two or allow for more well kitted armies. While these extra points don't provide units to fix holes that may just blatantly exist in the codes it does provide more quantity, which can be a quality all on its own.

[Interrogator Stobz]

“Mono-faction” is a reallly difficult thing to define. Does every model have to have the exact same same Faction Keywords? There’s a number of models in the game that have a stray Faction Keyword or two, but are still generally considered part of a faction. That or things like Scions and Ork Freebootas.

 

Im generally convinced that the only way to fix a lot of the issues in 8th is to eliminate CP/Strategems from the game. It’s suprisingy easy to do.

 

Couldn't agree more; I regularly play without them, it's way more fun and balanced. CP and Strats were never very good and now they have gotten way out of hand, and GW are trying to add even more at every turn. Wowza.

 

Their points balancing is getting much better than previously, mono armies do fine without the abuse of the gimmick known as Strats.

[Finkmilkana]

Couldn't agree more; I regularly play without them, it's way more fun and balanced. CP and Strats were never very good and now they have gotten way out of hand, and GW are trying to add even more at every turn. Wowza.

The problem with that (besides that many people actually like stratagems) is that currently certain units seem to be balanced around the fact that stratagems are available. Simply removing them (without rebalancing many units) would lead to better balance in some areas, but completely wreck balance in others.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Hey Brother,

 

I don't really mind if others like them or not, because that is not the issue. Strats and CP generation are often the cause of imbalances too, especially in multi faction armies. Hence this topic.

 

GW attempt to re-balance points each year (I think they should do it every 6 months personally); as they get better at it poor units or mono faction armies also get better in relation to multi faction ones.

Relying on gimmicks to save a faction is a lazy and misguided mechanism and doomed to fail due to player abuse, regardless of their popularity.

 

If GW do indeed get better at their point balancing I will be even happier, the game has gotten far too much like 2nd Ed(my second least favorite edition), time for a streamline imho.

All my games without them have been fun, I cannot say that about my games with them. Just my perspective of course.

[Ishagu]

What could work is a rule where a mono army gets a point bonus and CP bonus.

For example, a mono army gets an extra 10% of it's total cost to spend on units, and an extra 3 - 5 CP.

 

In effect this means that at 2k a mono GK or Marine army would have an extra 200 points to spend on units. This would be a real, tangible bonus.

 

Of course the issue is that Tau, Dark Eldar, Eldar and Orks are already fantastic as mono armies and that would make them even more powerful.

 

I find that a big problem with Imperium factions is how limited each sub faction is. For example, Astartes lack cheap and numerous infantry for board control. Knights lack numbers. Guard suffer against anything with hit modifiers. Custodes and GK are too elite and too few. Chaos don't suffer from this, as an example. Even a basic black Legion force has access to Cultists, Elite units, effective psychic powers, etc. It's why we often see allied Guard or combinations of other sub factions.

 

Why don't Astartes armies have access to their non transhuman military elements like the Mcragge PDF as an example? It would be both thematic, and would remove the incentive of bringing in Guard.

 

To put it bluntly, if mono factions become the main or only way to play in general games than the Imperium factions are at risk of becoming a punching bag for Dark Eldar, Orks, Tau, etc as those factions have armies without holes in their capabilities.

 

Going full circle, I'd rather have Soup stay popular than have multiple armies no longer be viable. More balancing of the game will be required before anything drastic can happen, and armies will need holes in their capabilities to be plugged. Some of you will say that Astartes should stay elite but the truth is that it won't work when you come up against a horde army with a beta strike element that swamps you whilst destroying your key units.

[FlamingDeth]

Ultramarines with Maccrage PDF is basically just marines with guard from a crunch perspective and from a fluff perspective means your marines would always be fighting at Maccrage, because a planetary defense force is there to defend a planet. I'm rather they just make the marine basic infantry worth their points. It's possible to make an army where the cheapest option isn't the only one taken in the troops slot, grots and conscripts don't outnumber orks and guardsmen after all.

 

I'm in board with ditching CP and strategems entirely. That would help get rid of the minmax nonsense like loyal 32 and most of the time I don't remember what the opponent's strategems actually do anyways.

[Marshal Valkenhayn]

I'd rather not ditch CP and strategems entirely. The idea is fine. But it needs to be standardized. Personally, I love how Sigmar handles theirs better. 1 CP generated per round, you start out with 1 to 3ish CP initially, and your strategems are granted by the units and specific army you take. Your army might give you 1, and each of your hero units might give you another that only they can use. Strategems also seem to all originate from a heroic unit, effecting a unit within range of that one, or giving that hero a temporary aura. It makes each hero feel more like a commander and rallying point, rather than a mobile buff generator or heat seeking missile.

 

I'm not saying 40K should adopt Sigmar's way of doing things entirely, but something more along those veins, with some balance tweaks to plug Sigmar's own issues.

 

Sigmar also uses the mono faction rules. You cna build an army of just about anythign that shares a keyword, but only certain of those units can get added to Batallians, which give buffs, or made part of a special war host, which also gives buffs and the above mentioned army-wide strategem. Each army can have multiple batallians, but only one war host. I'd really suggest any 40K fan who hasn't checked out Sigmar's rules do so. They may have taken a giant dump on the lore, and rolling for turns every battle round is an awful idea, but there is some gold in there.

[Guest Triszin]

I like soup and mono.

 

I like command points.

 

 

I think it needs to be balanced, what that is I don't know at the moment.

 

Maybe something where mono armies can spend cp either to upgrade their units, or make elites into troops.

 

Space wolf mono. Spend 1-2 points to make your wolf gaurd squad info a troop choice

[Lord_Caerolion]

I'd love to see a change where in a soup list, CP's generated by one sub-faction can only be spent to on stratagems affecting that sub-faction.

[Ishagu]

Ultramarines with Maccrage PDF is basically just marines with guard from a crunch perspective and from a fluff perspective means your marines would always be fighting at Maccrage, because a planetary defense force is there to defend a planet. I'm rather they just make the marine basic infantry worth their points. It's possible to make an army where the cheapest option isn't the only one taken in the troops slot, grots and conscripts don't outnumber orks and guardsmen after all.

 

I'm in board with ditching CP and strategems entirely. That would help get rid of the minmax nonsense like loyal 32 and most of the time I don't remember what the opponent's strategems actually do anyways.

It was just an example. Lots of Astartes fight alongside mortal elements under their direct command.

 

As for ditching CP and starts, why on Earth would you want that? They enrich the game and add variety.

[PiñaColada]

I also like soup and mono armies, I just dislike that there are no drawbacks to soup as is. Simply deleting CP and stratagems might work but unless a lot of it is introduced back as abilities to unit datasheets I feel like the game is going to end up being quite basic.

 

Just making mono-codex armies get 6CP instead of 3CP for being battleforged could work, it's not a huge difference but it starts to become somewhat of a tradeoff. - This would require specifying some exceptions, assassins probably shouldn't break that etc. But overall that shouldn't take long.

 

Then even further, with true non-soup, where everything is from the same codex but also the same chapter/clan/craftworld etc you'd get an additional bonus. This bonus probably shouldn't be unlocked if you have those units previously excluded from counting you as soup.

If your army checks all these boxes you get the 6CP battleforged as stated above, in addition you get an extra free relic (meaning the stratagem to buy more relics is 1CP to get you 3 and 3CP to buy you 4 in total) and battalions&brigades are worth 1 additional CP.

 

Just something like that could be a pretty good solution IMO, none of the bonuses are crazy but they clearly show that there are some benefits to having a pure force. Note however that these changes shouldn't be made in a vacuum so they might introduce some balance issues where the strong mono-codices grow (marginally) stronger. Meaning other adjustments should be made in the actual codices for balance, but a system that gives you incentive for playing a mono-codex build is better than one that does not I feel.

[TrawlingCleaner]

I also like soup and mono armies, I just dislike that there are no drawbacks to soup as is. Simply deleting CP and stratagems might work but unless a lot of it is introduced back as abilities to unit datasheets I feel like the game is going to end up being quite basic.

 

Just making mono-codex armies get 6CP instead of 3CP for being battleforged could work, it's not a huge difference but it starts to become somewhat of a tradeoff. - This would require specifying some exceptions, assassins probably shouldn't break that etc. But overall that shouldn't take long.

 

Then even further, with true non-soup, where everything is from the same codex but also the same chapter/clan/craftworld etc you'd get an additional bonus. This bonus probably shouldn't be unlocked if you have those units previously excluded from counting you as soup.

If your army checks all these boxes you get the 6CP battleforged as stated above, in addition you get an extra free relic (meaning the stratagem to buy more relics is 1CP to get you 3 and 3CP to buy you 4 in total) and battalions&brigades are worth 1 additional CP.

 

Just something like that could be a pretty good solution IMO, none of the bonuses are crazy but they clearly show that there are some benefits to having a pure force. Note however that these changes shouldn't be made in a vacuum so they might introduce some balance issues where the strong mono-codices grow (marginally) stronger. Meaning other adjustments should be made in the actual codices for balance, but a system that gives you incentive for playing a mono-codex build is better than one that does not I feel.

 

While this does sound pretty cool in theory, I don't think this would work in practice. Dark Eldar wouldn't have a way of unlocking you extra CP as Covens, Cults and Kabals all have different keywords and have to all take separate detachments and keywords/traits. There are other armies I'm sure that wouldn't be able to do this, which you could make exceptions for but then you'll just have players complaining that their army doesn't have these exceptions.

 

IMO armies are getting too many CPs currently, I agree with someone above that said that Sigmar does it well with CP. Less is better, GW should have stuck with their mantra at the beginning of 8th where they said that CP should be flavours not lynchpins. I don't really think there's a way of making Soup less optimal than mono.

[Lexington]

It was just an example. Lots of Astartes fight alongside mortal elements under their direct command.

Uh, they do? Isn’t a pretty big part of the Imperium’s post-Heresy reformation the fact that Astartes don’t get to command huge armies of non-Astartes?

 

As for ditching CP and starts, why on Earth would you want that? They enrich the game and add variety.

They break the game, more than anything. It plays fine without them, just as it did for the 30ish years before their introduction.