Jump to content

Big FAQ 2 discussion


USNCenturion

Recommended Posts

One BA detachment, one AM detachment and one Knight detachment is an allied force.

One mixed detachment including BA, AM and a Knight is "soup".

If the first example of one BA detachment, one AM detachment and one Knight detachment is in your opinion "soup" then what exactly constitutes an allied force?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez does it really matter how it's called? Everybody knows what is meant. For all I care call it stew or whatever. It really doesn't matter what's defined as soup and what not. What matters is the actual problem as I described in my earlier post.

Nerfing the CP regeneration was a good nerf to soup/stew/imperial allies/whatever. It doesn't solve the problem completely tho and increasing the CP cost of the BA and the Imperial Knight Stratagem actually makes people just want to ally in AM for cheap CP even more. The cheap board control AM detachments provide then is just the cherry on top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know the Caestus Assault Ram is "only" a Forge World model, but I think it's the best example of how the new FLY rule has unintended consequences:

 

"This model can only declare charges in the Charge phase against units that can FLY, and may only attack or be attacked in the Fight phase by units that can fly."

 

...except now, the way the rule is worded, if there is any kind of ground pounder screen between the (FLYING) Caestus and its intended (FLYING) target, the Caestus can't fly over them in the Charge phase... even if said Ground Pounders have no ranged weaponry to plink off its hull. Ditto with terrain which should be of no consequence as the Caestus moves on a straight trajectory over it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Caestus Assault Ran and the Heldrake both showcase nicely how silly the new FLY rule is on a narrative level, yeah. The cheeky <9" charges out of deep strike by abusing terrain needed to go but not being able to jump/fly over models when charging is too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I know the Caestus Assault Ram is "only" a Forge World model, but I think it's the best example of how the new FLY rule has unintended consequences:

 

"This model can only declare charges in the Charge phase against units that can FLY, and may only attack or be attacked in the Fight phase by units that can fly."

 

...except now, the way the rule is worded, if there is any kind of ground pounder screen between the Caestus and its intended (FLYING) target, the Caestus can't fly over them in the Charge phase... even if said Ground Pounders have no ranged weaponry to plink off its hull. Ditto with terrain which should be of no consequence as the Caestus moves on a straight trajectory over it...

Exactly, it’s just not been thought through properly. It’s like a lot of their fixes which are knee jerk reactions to problems.

 

Frankly it’s just ludicrous that a winged daemon prince can’t charge over a line of guardsmen to hit the tank behind, or jetbikes can’t pass over some Necron scarabs to hit anything useful. And as for assault marines, I would say this is just another nail in their coffin but that coffin has long since been nailed shut and buried :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not impressed by the faq, sadly.

 

Nerfing flying assaults is good: fly is by far the single most powerful ability in the game and either this or increase the pts cost of most units.

Knights got nerfed where they did not need it, but anyway. They deserved some form of fix, I just hope they won't skyrocket in pts in December.

Killing blow to deepstrike is bad. Just sad.

Destroying CP farms is ok, but that did not nerf or discourage soup *that* much. I have the stonger and stronger impression that eventually they will nerf imperial soups by definitely killing off guard.

 

Worst of all, if anything this Faq confirmed that any printed rules sold by GW is pure garbage in terms of durability, and that this edition already needs to be redone in a 9th iteration. Having a 10-page ruleset which requires 3x that amount of faqs & c., along with codexes full of post-it patches and adjustments, is both ridiculous and incredibly unpractical. I had stopped months ago already buying any codex from GW, and this has just confirmed that they need to go full-digital and full-free if they want to keep any credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not argue about how Daemon Princes got a short end of the stick from Fly when they're part of the reason it had to change.

 

Helldrakes and Rams could get a special rule that let's them jump over units as long as they're charging another flyer, but honestly if you're charging something on the ground behind someone else there needs to be a mitigating factor to that, be it not being allowed (ala past editions where jump infantry walked instead of flew into assault) or you eat overwatch for every unit you charge over.

 

Cinematics be damned when it breaks the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s like playing Warmachine without warjacks.

 

Now that the crux of my point is stated, I’ll attempt to lay out why I feel this is where things are headed for some armies/factions.

 

GW clearly wants to sell Imperial Knights. They’re not going to prohibitively raise their point costs to offset the number of allies they can have, as this would affect their viability as a faction and thusly, their overall sales. GW clearly wants to dial back the 9 out of 10 tourney list showings of soup (also known these days as Ynnari or BA/IK/AM/Custodes) but they appear unwilling to limit usage of these factions alongside each other, minus the CP regen adjustment.

 

My fear as a guard player is the impending nerf bat to my abilities to play straight up guard, with the numbers of bodies and CP I need to be competitive and completely removed from any ally battery charging. If GW ups their points so much it becomes a matter of “ welp, just better go and buy that knight like everyone else” then the game becomes Warhammer 40k Imperial Knights. I want to play Imperial Guard, and not feel forced to have a super heavy just to not get wiped off the table. Hence my “would be like playing Warmahordes without warjacks”.

 

I think a reasonable fix, at least in my wheelhouse in regards to guard, is for them to have a separate battle brother entry akin to brood brothers. Limit their special abilities to an allied force in favor of providing that force with more bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main gripe is the usual one that emerges with nearly all FAQs and Erratas: being punished for the abuse of other armies.  Deep Strike was my one way of playing Templars as they "should be," (and no, that's a discussion not worth having...again...or here for that matter).  Alpha striking was my way to level the playing field, not crush opponents outright, but since other people could with their Alphas, I get gimped.  :dry.:

 

And with the usual uncanny timing, it was just as I'd purchased a load of Terminators.  Seriously, almost every rule change invalidates or cripples what I've just purchased or just painted.  It's surreal. :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the Fly change, I think GW needs to be more forthcoming with its intent behind these changes.  As far as I know, we don't know for sure whether not being able to jump over screens is a feature, or a bug in them trying to fix deploying on top of terrain and then getting a zero inch charge off.

 

If it's the latter, I think the easiest fix would have been that Flying units just measure distances directly.  I.e., on the hypotenuse of the triangle, rather than adding up vertical and horizontal distance like non-Flying units.  This way, a unit charging straight down does not get a zero inch charge, but has to charge the height that they are trying to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My main gripe is the usual one that emerges with nearly all FAQs and Erratas: being punished for the abuse of other armies.  Deep Strike was my one way of playing Templars as they "should be," (and no, that's a discussion not worth having...again...or here for that matter).  Alpha striking was my way to level the playing field, not crush opponents outright, but since other people could with their Alphas, I get gimped.  :dry.:

 

And with the usual uncanny timing, it was just as I'd purchased a load of Terminators.  Seriously, almost every rule change invalidates or cripples what I've just purchased or just painted.  It's surreal. :ermm:

 

 

Feeling this too. A lot of this stuff has been directed at people intentionally trying to break balance just screws over people who weren't netlisting from tourneys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Soup" keeps getting watered down from being the ultimate mix of ultimateness, to being 3 subfactions with FOC requirements. To make it worse I keep seeing "soup" being used to describe all allies, and equally frowned on despite there being people out there running a variant of the old Daemonhunters codex by taking Grey Knights with an Inquisitor, the Inquisitor's warband and an Assassin and yet it's shoved under the same "soup" label just because it takes a mix of forces.

 

"Soup" as a term needs to die if we're using it to describe a specific problem because as a term it's being used to describe all allying. Min-maxing (as described above) is a competitive issue every game has to deal with and I don't feel it's as much of a problem as it was namely because the way things work has limited how far that CP battery goes. Especially for Knights who have to pay more for all their cool tricks.

I know it may be semantics but I agree the distinction is important. Allies has been a thing since at least 2nd edition that i remember.

 

Mono-dex armies should get a +1 on dice rolls for CP regeneration In My Opinion.  Except Eldar ... they can just die :) (okay maybe not but teachers pets get no pity and Eldar have been GW's love children for 20some years.

 

I miss my 3rd edition Demonhunters ... glad someone still remembers those days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Soup" keeps getting watered down from being the ultimate mix of ultimateness, to being 3 subfactions with FOC requirements. To make it worse I keep seeing "soup" being used to describe all allies, and equally frowned on despite there being people out there running a variant of the old Daemonhunters codex by taking Grey Knights with an Inquisitor, the Inquisitor's warband and an Assassin and yet it's shoved under the same "soup" label just because it takes a mix of forces.

 

"Soup" as a term needs to die if we're using it to describe a specific problem because as a term it's being used to describe all allying. Min-maxing (as described above) is a competitive issue every game has to deal with and I don't feel it's as much of a problem as it was namely because the way things work has limited how far that CP battery goes. Especially for Knights who have to pay more for all their cool tricks.

I know it may be semantics but I agree the distinction is important. Allies has been a thing since at least 2nd edition that i remember.

 

Mono-dex armies should get a +1 on dice rolls for CP regeneration In My Opinion.  Except Eldar ... they can just die :smile.: (okay maybe not but teachers pets get no pity and Eldar have been GW's love children for 20some years.

 

I miss my 3rd edition Demonhunters ... glad someone still remembers those days

 

First game I ever saw played was between Nurgle Chaos and Daemonhunters back in 3rd. :wink:

 

I feel like a bonus based on having the same <chapter/regiment/ect> keyword would be nice. Kind of like how Dark Eldar get one for taking three patrol detachments. Something like +3 CP for having the two subfaction keywords (example being Astartes and <Chapter>) and +2 if you only share share one subfaction (so the guy playing Dark Angels and Space Wolves gets some love :wink:). +0 if you only share the main faction keyword (Imperium, Chaos, Those Other Guys, Ect). I mean it'd need cleaning up to be really well balanced and less abusable, but I feel like it's at least something that recognizes armies that have more in common than what they think about the Emperor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dislikes are the heavy handed reserves and FLY changes and that GW things soup is “still“ off the menue when it wasn't off the menue in the first place. AM still provides tons of CP to any other imperial army, they just don't regenerate as much anymore.

 

What I like is basically everything else but mainly that AM can't regenerate as many CP anymore and the 2CP fee cover Stratagem if you go second (tho I think that should be a default bonus without any costs attached).

 

What GW says is soup is what the term used to mean before it was twisted with hyperbole and unnaturally used to define any army that uses allies. CSM with Daemons is soup now. A space marine force with an assassin is soup now. It's ridiculous and therefore means absolutely nothing. 

 

Secondary to that, allies are not a problem. Cross contamination of CP is. It was very clear right from the outset that the intent from GW was that certain factions would have zero problems generating CP, but their stratagems would be less impactful and would affect units that wouldn't have a huge immediate impact on the field. This was juxtaposed against elite armies that had trouble generating CP, but had more powerful and more impactful stratagems to spend it on. The problem is entirely based on the fact that you can get the best of both worlds. 

 

Don't make the mistake of conflating allies with the actual problem here. Allies aren't the problem - CP generation is. Regen is nerfed, and now let's see if CA comes with matched play changes that address CP generation at the list building stage.

 

First game I ever saw played was between Nurgle Chaos and Daemonhunters back in 3rd. :wink:

 

 

 

I feel like a bonus based on having the same <chapter/regiment/ect> keyword would be nice. Kind of like how Dark Eldar get one for taking three patrol detachments. Something like +3 CP for having the two subfaction keywords (example being Astartes and <Chapter>) and +2 if you only share share one subfaction (so the guy playing Dark Angels and Space Wolves gets some love :wink:). +0 if you only share the main faction keyword (Imperium, Chaos, Those Other Guys, Ect). I mean it'd need cleaning up to be really well balanced and less abusable, but I feel like it's at least something that recognizes armies that have more in common than what they think about the Emperor.

 

 

I feel like the best way to approach it is to limit CP to the detachment that generated it. The two biggest issues here is what to do with the Battleforged CP and what to do with multiple detachments of the same faction. The first is easy - attribute that +3 to the Warlord's faction. The second could probably use Battle Brothers to detail who can share, that way you don't have issues where CP generated by a Space Marine battalion can't be used on stratagems that affect units in the army's Space Marine Outrider detachment. Sure, you're potentially managing multiple pools - but that's not a big issue if it solves the problem of Guard feeding Knights. 

 

If we're just going to throw bonuses at monofaction armies, from a competitive standpoint, you'd have to start with about 10 CP as a bonus to most elite Imperial factions because that's what they could buy with less than 400 points of Guard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My dislikes are the heavy handed reserves and FLY changes and that GW things soup is “still“ off the menue when it wasn't off the menue in the first place. AM still provides tons of CP to any other imperial army, they just don't regenerate as much anymore.

 

What I like is basically everything else but mainly that AM can't regenerate as many CP anymore and the 2CP fee cover Stratagem if you go second (tho I think that should be a default bonus without any costs attached).

 

What GW says is soup is what the term used to mean before it was twisted with hyperbole and unnaturally used to define any army that uses allies. CSM with Daemons is soup now. A space marine force with an assassin is soup now. It's ridiculous and therefore means absolutely nothing. 

 

Secondary to that, allies are not a problem. Cross contamination of CP is. It was very clear right from the outset that the intent from GW was that certain factions would have zero problems generating CP, but their stratagems would be less impactful and would affect units that wouldn't have a huge immediate impact on the field. This was juxtaposed against elite armies that had trouble generating CP, but had more powerful and more impactful stratagems to spend it on. The problem is entirely based on the fact that you can get the best of both worlds. 

 

Don't make the mistake of conflating allies with the actual problem here. Allies aren't the problem - CP generation is. Regen is nerfed, and now let's see if CA comes with matched play changes that address CP generation at the list building stage.

 

First game I ever saw played was between Nurgle Chaos and Daemonhunters back in 3rd. :wink:

 

 

 

I feel like a bonus based on having the same <chapter/regiment/ect> keyword would be nice. Kind of like how Dark Eldar get one for taking three patrol detachments. Something like +3 CP for having the two subfaction keywords (example being Astartes and <Chapter>) and +2 if you only share share one subfaction (so the guy playing Dark Angels and Space Wolves gets some love :wink:). +0 if you only share the main faction keyword (Imperium, Chaos, Those Other Guys, Ect). I mean it'd need cleaning up to be really well balanced and less abusable, but I feel like it's at least something that recognizes armies that have more in common than what they think about the Emperor.

 

 

I feel like the best way to approach it is to limit CP to the detachment that generated it. The two biggest issues here is what to do with the Battleforged CP and what to do with multiple detachments of the same faction. The first is easy - attribute that +3 to the Warlord's faction. The second could probably use Battle Brothers to detail who can share, that way you don't have issues where CP generated by a Space Marine battalion can't be used on stratagems that affect units in the army's Space Marine Outrider detachment. Sure, you're potentially managing multiple pools - but that's not a big issue if it solves the problem of Guard feeding Knights. 

 

If we're just going to throw bonuses at monofaction armies, from a competitive standpoint, you'd have to start with about 10 CP as a bonus to most elite Imperial factions because that's what they could buy with less than 400 points of Guard.  

 

 

It's not THAT clear. Lots of people have referred to soup as lists that take the best of different Codexes regardless of whether it's in the same detachment or not even back then. Hence why I and others never bought into the "we fixed soups" and still kept using the term soup because essentially the problem lists that were meant didn't change at all with the Battle Brothers rule.

 

Anyway I'm not saying allies is the problem. Never did, never will. I like allies and want them to stay. I said that AM providing cheap CP is the problem here myself so no need to lecture me about that.

Also I WISH it would be lots CP = mediocre Stratagems vs few CP = awesome Stratagems, however that was never true. Marines have some of the worst Stratagems and I can't think of any super elite army that has strictly better Stratagems than horde armies. The powerlevel of Stratagems across the Codexes has been pretty random so far.

 

 

My idea to approach the whole problem would be not to restrict the CP usage but instead to homogenize the CP generation for all factions. That would also equal the playing field mono-dex vs mono-dex armies between elite and horde armies and would take away the pressure to take the cheapest Troop options available.

How would I do that? Simple. In Matched play we have points as means to balance things. This should include CP. Using detachment slots to balance CPs completely independing from points is bound to lead to problems.

 

So I'd change detachments to instead of having "requires 3+ Troop units" to "requires at least x% of the agreed points limit invested in Troop units".

 

That way an Astra Militarum list would generate as many CP as a Custodes list or a Marine list and the only reason to ally in Astra Militarum would be because you either really want them in your list or to have more bodies on the board (something that should be factored in in a units cost the same way as Toughness and Saves are anyway). It would also equalize Troop choices within the same Codex since there would be no point in going for the cheaper units to fill the detachment quicker. The only reason to go with Scouts over Tacticals now would be the ability to infiltrate and have slightly more models ... or Cultists over Chaos Marines only to have more bodies and the use of the Cultist Stratagem once per play. So the way it should've been all along.

 

 

Ah well, now I did go more into detail after all even tho that's not really the topic of the thread. My bad, guys. :ermm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What GW says is soup is what the term used to mean before it was twisted with hyperbole and unnaturally used to define any army that uses allies. CSM with Daemons is soup now. A space marine force with an assassin is soup now. It's ridiculous and therefore means absolutely nothing.

 

If we're just going to throw bonuses at monofaction armies, from a competitive standpoint, you'd have to start with about 10 CP as a bonus to most elite Imperial factions because that's what they could buy with less than 400 points of Guard.

In the absolute highest, strictest, most academic sense you are correct in your definition of Soup. However, as much (or even most) of the community does, I will use the term as what it has evolved to mean: a shorthand for ‘cherry-picking the best units from multiple Codexes because to hell with theme, I want to win’. Or, more simply, the as the polar opposite of a Pure (mono-Codex) army.

 

Even aside from CP, Soup armies are stronger than Pure armies, even within the same overall faction. A Soup army of Custodes + Guard is natively better than a Pure army of Custodes. A Soup Army of Blood Angels + Knights is natively better than a Pure army of Blood Angels. The reason is simply that cherry-picking from multiple factions allows you to bypass the structural weaknesses built into your faction. Custodes rock in close combat and are very durable, but lack board presence and long-range punch. Guard have great board presence and long-range punch, but lack durability and close combat teeth. A Guard + Custodes army has great board presence, long range punch, close combat teeth and durability. Why would you ever not take the Soup option?

 

Now I want the Soup option to be an option. But I want it to be an option, not the option. For the game to be fun for everyone, there must be some downside to the Soup option. I’ve had a potential solution I’ve been banging on about for about a year now:

 

For an army to gain access to Chapter Tactics and the relevant Chapter-specific Stratagem/Warlord Trait/Relic, the army must be pure. That is, every model in the army must share that Chapter Keyword. Suddenly there is a real advantage for Pure armies to balance the native strengths of Soup armies.

 

It’s an easy enough change to implement - every Codex has a section stating that in order to get Chapter Tactics, the entire Detachment must share the Chapter keyword. All you do is change ‘Detachment’ to ‘army’ for Matched Play. You could include an ‘Auxiliary Forces’ rule that states units with that rule neither gain Chapter Tactics, nor prevent the rest of the army getting it. It’d be a rule applied to things like Assassins and Inquisitors, as well as any unit in an Auxiliary Detachment (since you’re paying 1CP for the privilege of using that Detachment).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What GW says is soup is what the term used to mean before it was twisted with hyperbole and unnaturally used to define any army that uses allies. CSM with Daemons is soup now. A space marine force with an assassin is soup now. It's ridiculous and therefore means absolutely nothing.

 

If we're just going to throw bonuses at monofaction armies, from a competitive standpoint, you'd have to start with about 10 CP as a bonus to most elite Imperial factions because that's what they could buy with less than 400 points of Guard.

In the absolute highest, strictest, most academic sense you are correct in your definition of Soup. However, as much (or even most) of the community does, I will use the term as what it has evolved to mean: a shorthand for ‘cherry-picking the best units from multiple Codexes because to hell with theme, I want to win’. Or, more simply, the as the polar opposite of a Pure (mono-Codex) army.

 

Even aside from CP, Soup armies are stronger than Pure armies, even within the same overall faction. A Soup army of Custodes + Guard is natively better than a Pure army of Custodes. A Soup Army of Blood Angels + Knights is natively better than a Pure army of Blood Angels. The reason is simply that cherry-picking from multiple factions allows you to bypass the structural weaknesses built into your faction. Custodes rock in close combat and are very durable, but lack board presence and long-range punch. Guard have great board presence and long-range punch, but lack durability and close combat teeth. A Guard + Custodes army has great board presence, long range punch, close combat teeth and durability. Why would you ever not take the Soup option?

 

Now I want the Soup option to be an option. But I want it to be an option, not the option. For the game to be fun for everyone, there must be some downside to the Soup option. I’ve had a potential solution I’ve been banging on about for about a year now:

 

For an army to gain access to Chapter Tactics and the relevant Chapter-specific Stratagem/Warlord Trait/Relic, the army must be pure. That is, every model in the army must share that Chapter Keyword. Suddenly there is a real advantage for Pure armies to balance the native strengths of Soup armies.

 

It’s an easy enough change to implement - every Codex has a section stating that in order to get Chapter Tactics, the entire Detachment must share the Chapter keyword. All you do is change ‘Detachment’ to ‘army’ for Matched Play. You could include an ‘Auxiliary Forces’ rule that states units with that rule neither gain Chapter Tactics, nor prevent the rest of the army getting it. It’d be a rule applied to things like Assassins and Inquisitors, as well as any unit in an Auxiliary Detachment (since you’re paying 1CP for the privilege of using that Detachment).

I agree there needs to be some penalty to soup or perhaps a bonus to mono-Dex armies but losing chapter tactics doesn’t make sense. Why would the iron hands suddenly become less durable because there’s a knight on the same side, or why would Catachans be S4 when fighting on their own but if they’ve got some Marine allies they drop to S3?

 

Too many of the chapter tactics are designed as skills or attributes of the individual models for it to make sense that they can sometimes use it and sometimes not.

 

If the Chapter tactics had always been focussed on command and control elements then it might work but when you make chapter tactics part of that marine/guardmen/Skittari/tyranid’s personal skills/experience/attributes then you can’t just turn it on and off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What GW says is soup is what the term used to mean before it was twisted with hyperbole and unnaturally used to define any army that uses allies. CSM with Daemons is soup now. A space marine force with an assassin is soup now. It's ridiculous and therefore means absolutely nothing.

 

If we're just going to throw bonuses at monofaction armies, from a competitive standpoint, you'd have to start with about 10 CP as a bonus to most elite Imperial factions because that's what they could buy with less than 400 points of Guard.

In the absolute highest, strictest, most academic sense you are correct in your definition of Soup. However, as much (or even most) of the community does, I will use the term as what it has evolved to mean: a shorthand for ‘cherry-picking the best units from multiple Codexes because to hell with theme, I want to win’. Or, more simply, the as the polar opposite of a Pure (mono-Codex) army.

 

Even aside from CP, Soup armies are stronger than Pure armies, even within the same overall faction. A Soup army of Custodes + Guard is natively better than a Pure army of Custodes. A Soup Army of Blood Angels + Knights is natively better than a Pure army of Blood Angels. The reason is simply that cherry-picking from multiple factions allows you to bypass the structural weaknesses built into your faction. Custodes rock in close combat and are very durable, but lack board presence and long-range punch. Guard have great board presence and long-range punch, but lack durability and close combat teeth. A Guard + Custodes army has great board presence, long range punch, close combat teeth and durability. Why would you ever not take the Soup option?

 

Now I want the Soup option to be an option. But I want it to be an option, not the option. For the game to be fun for everyone, there must be some downside to the Soup option. I’ve had a potential solution I’ve been banging on about for about a year now:

 

For an army to gain access to Chapter Tactics and the relevant Chapter-specific Stratagem/Warlord Trait/Relic, the army must be pure. That is, every model in the army must share that Chapter Keyword. Suddenly there is a real advantage for Pure armies to balance the native strengths of Soup armies.

 

It’s an easy enough change to implement - every Codex has a section stating that in order to get Chapter Tactics, the entire Detachment must share the Chapter keyword. All you do is change ‘Detachment’ to ‘army’ for Matched Play. You could include an ‘Auxiliary Forces’ rule that states units with that rule neither gain Chapter Tactics, nor prevent the rest of the army getting it. It’d be a rule applied to things like Assassins and Inquisitors, as well as any unit in an Auxiliary Detachment (since you’re paying 1CP for the privilege of using that Detachment).

I agree there needs to be some penalty to soup or perhaps a bonus to mono-Dex armies but losing chapter tactics doesn’t make sense. Why would the iron hands suddenly become less durable because there’s a knight on the same side, or why would Catachans be S4 when fighting on their own but if they’ve got some Marine allies they drop to S3?

 

Too many of the chapter tactics are designed as skills or attributes of the individual models for it to make sense that they can sometimes use it and sometimes not.

 

If the Chapter tactics had always been focussed on command and control elements then it might work but when you make chapter tactics part of that marine/guardmen/Skittari/tyranid’s personal skills/experience/attributes then you can’t just turn it on and off.

 

 

Agreed. Things like Chapter tactics etc. should remain even in mixed lists. However things like relics, stratagems and maybe even warlord traits could get a bit more separation so that the more you limit to specific faction keywords the more access to those things you get.

So an Imperium army consisting of AM and Marines would have just a general set of Imperium specific relics&stratagems but an Imperium army with only AM units of different homeworlds would have access to all the Imperium specific relics&stratagems AND the more specific AM relics&stratagems and an Imperium army with only AM units of a specific homeworld would have access to all the Imperium specific relics&stratagems AND the more specific AM relics&stratagems AND the even more specific homeworld relics&stratagems.

 

I think that change together with my proposed change to the detachment requirements I've posted above would do a LOT to improve the game and the balance overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there needs to be some penalty to soup or perhaps a bonus to mono-Dex armies but losing chapter tactics doesn’t make sense. Why would the iron hands suddenly become less durable because there’s a knight on the same side, or why would Catachans be S4 when fighting on their own but if they’ve got some Marine allies they drop to S3?

 

Too many of the chapter tactics are designed as skills or attributes of the individual models for it to make sense that they can sometimes use it and sometimes not.

 

If the Chapter tactics had always been focussed on command and control elements then it might work but when you make chapter tactics part of that marine/guardmen/Skittari/tyranid’s personal skills/experience/attributes then you can’t just turn it on and off.

It’s a concession to making good gameplay rather than a cinematic rule. (If we wanted cinematic rules we’d be playing 7th Ed; 8th leans more towards being a game than a simulation.) Which is why it specifically targets Matched Play. Or hell, if you must, make it for ‘Tournament Play’.

 

Unfortunately it would have been way easier to implement if they’d done it at the start of the edition. If you’d done it with the release of the Marine Codex people might have seen it as a reasonable idea. Now people have become entitled and don’t want their Chapter Tactic taken away from them; similar to how people complain about having to wait until Turn 2 for Reserves - how quickly we felt entitled about that when for 7 Editions Turn 1 Reserves generally weren’t a thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree there needs to be some penalty to soup or perhaps a bonus to mono-Dex armies but losing chapter tactics doesn’t make sense. Why would the iron hands suddenly become less durable because there’s a knight on the same side, or why would Catachans be S4 when fighting on their own but if they’ve got some Marine allies they drop to S3?

 

Too many of the chapter tactics are designed as skills or attributes of the individual models for it to make sense that they can sometimes use it and sometimes not.

 

If the Chapter tactics had always been focussed on command and control elements then it might work but when you make chapter tactics part of that marine/guardmen/Skittari/tyranid’s personal skills/experience/attributes then you can’t just turn it on and off.

It’s a concession to making good gameplay rather than a cinematic rule. (If we wanted cinematic rules we’d be playing 7th Ed; 8th leans more towards being a game than a simulation.) Which is why it specifically targets Matched Play. Or hell, if you must, make it for ‘Tournament Play’.

 

Unfortunately it would have been way easier to implement if they’d done it at the start of the edition. If you’d done it with the release of the Marine Codex people might have seen it as a reasonable idea. Now people have become entitled and don’t want their Chapter Tactic taken away from them; similar to how people complain about having to wait until Turn 2 for Reserves - how quickly we felt entitled about that when for 7 Editions Turn 1 Reserves generally weren’t a thing...

It’s a concession too far though, the rules have still got to make sense from a narrative standpoint. We can’t be willing to sacrifice everything cinematic or fluffy or introduce any rule (whether it makes sense or not) in the name of balance or we just end up with different models with the exact same rules for each army. Like one of those chess sets representing two different armies.

 

The designers even say in this FAQ that the reason they changed the reserve rule was because it broke the players suspension of disbelief. I would say that this shows they still care a lot about the narrative aspect even of matched play.

 

I also wouldn’t say its anything to do with entitlement. The Chapter tactics are, in a lot of cases, literally the only thing that gives some chapters any identity or uniqueness whatsoever. Without chapter tactics everyone might as well just be ultramarines because they have more unique characters to choose from. The same applies to guard regiments, Tau septs, hive fleets or pretty much any of the armies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a concession too far though, the rules have still got to make sense from a narrative standpoint. We can’t be willing to sacrifice everything cinematic or fluffy or introduce any rule (whether it makes sense or not) in the name of balance or we just end up with different models with the exact same rules for each army. Like one of those chess sets representing two different armies.

 

The designers even say in this FAQ that the reason they changed the reserve rule was because it broke the players suspension of disbelief. I would say that this shows they still care a lot about the narrative aspect even of matched play.

 

I also wouldn’t say its anything to do with entitlement. The Chapter tactics are, in a lot of cases, literally the only thing that gives some chapters any identity or uniqueness whatsoever. Without chapter tactics everyone might as well just be ultramarines because they have more unique characters to choose from. The same applies to guard regiments, Tau septs, hive fleets or pretty much any of the armies.

It’s a concession too far in your opinion, which is fine. The loss of templates was a concession too far in my opinion. The ability of a Shadowsword to fire its Volcano Cannon backwards over a hill through a window on the other end of the board from its goddamn aerial was a concession way too far in my opinion. Personally, I don’t think this is a concession too far. Particularly if it’s limited to organised events/‘Tournament Play’. Who’s it going to affect in that scenario? Is That Guy who brought a Smash Captain, Knight Castellan and a barebones Guard Brigade to a tournament going to complain ‘muh immersion!’? If I rolled my eyes any harder at that particular complaint I might detach my optic nerve. :P

 

I think mechanically it would work very neatly; it introduces a strong incentive to go Pure, but not an overpowering one. It leaves room to choose whether to Soup or not. If it’s a step too far for your immersion then that’s just, like, your opinion, man. (Which I completely respect, but it doesn’t really dispute the merits of the idea beyond saying ‘I don’t like it’.)

 

Edit: I think there is an element of entitlement to it. Players went more than two decades without anything distinguishing their subfaction beyond paint job and army selection just fine. Even Marine players went most of that time without it. But you give them subfaction rules for 15 months - or less in most cases - and they become entitled such that if you try to take them away they look at you like you’re taking their firstborn child away. (I should probably point out that I like subfaction traits, by the way.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It’s a concession too far though, the rules have still got to make sense from a narrative standpoint. We can’t be willing to sacrifice everything cinematic or fluffy or introduce any rule (whether it makes sense or not) in the name of balance or we just end up with different models with the exact same rules for each army. Like one of those chess sets representing two different armies.

 

The designers even say in this FAQ that the reason they changed the reserve rule was because it broke the players suspension of disbelief. I would say that this shows they still care a lot about the narrative aspect even of matched play.

 

I also wouldn’t say its anything to do with entitlement. The Chapter tactics are, in a lot of cases, literally the only thing that gives some chapters any identity or uniqueness whatsoever. Without chapter tactics everyone might as well just be ultramarines because they have more unique characters to choose from. The same applies to guard regiments, Tau septs, hive fleets or pretty much any of the armies.

It’s a concession too far in your opinion, which is fine. The loss of templates was a concession too far in my opinion. The ability of a Shadowsword to fire its Volcano Cannon backwards over a hill through a window on the other end of the board from its goddamn aerial was a concession way too far in my opinion. Personally, I don’t think this is a concession too far. Particularly if it’s limited to organised events/‘Tournament Play’. Who’s it going to affect in that scenario? Is That Guy who brought a Smash Captain, Knight Castellan and a barebones Guard Brigade to a tournament going to complain ‘muh immersion!’? If I rolled my eyes any harder at that particular complaint I might detach my optic nerve. :P

 

I think mechanically it would work very neatly; it introduces a strong incentive to go Pure, but not an overpowering one. It leaves room to choose whether to Soup or not. If it’s a step too far for your immersion then that’s just, like, your opinion, man. (Which I completely respect, but it doesn’t really dispute the merits of the idea beyond saying ‘I don’t like it’.)

 

Edit: I think there is an element of entitlement to it. Players went more than two decades without anything distinguishing their subfaction beyond paint job and army selection just fine. Even Marine players went most of that time without it. But you give them subfaction rules for 15 months, and they become entitled such that if you try to take them away they look at you like you’re taking their firstborn child away.

Fair enough, I don’t think we will agree on this particular element of it but I do support the idea of creating some more tournament specific rules so that those of us who like to play matched play aren’t continually getting messed up because of tournament exploits and abuses. Matched play should not exist solely for tournaments.

 

Also, for what it’s worth, I totally agree about templates and the shadowsword :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything in the FAQ is good aside from the fly nerf which imo needs some other fix. I only say this because it makes screening units even stronger.

 

Turn 2 for deepstrike makes the game better and only actually nerfs the turn one alpha-strike shooters who weren't as affected after the last BETA rules as CC units were.

 

What I will say, however, is that we shouldn't complain too much YET as unit re-balancing in Chapter Approved might have an impact on cheap hordes and more elite units and their viability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.