Jump to content

Big FAQ 2 discussion


USNCenturion

Recommended Posts

Here is an example why horde is so good...

 

Take a maximum squad of Trzangors. Take Dark Matter Crystal. First turn use DMC to reposition them 9” from enemy line. Next use psy powers to make them -1 to hit, +1 invul then warp time them up into the grill. This is mostly psy power and only requires one relic. Even if you can deny warp time they need an 8” charge with a reroll.

 

Space Marines have nothing close to this level of buffing.

That's not a great example to show why hordes are so good. It's a great example of something TSons are capable of. They can (and do) pull the same thing with a huge blob of Rubric Marines as well.

I don't think we need yet another example to showcase why hordes are good tho. Nobody is even trying to deny it at this point except for Schlitzaf. ^^

 

 

Also, the detachments need adjusting. Why is a battalion the same for Guard and Custodes for example?

Surely a Guard Battalion should consist of a minimum of 6 troops and 3 HQ, whilst for Marines its 3 troops and 2 HQ, and for Custodes 2 troops and 1 HQ? This way each army will generate the same CP per invested points. No need for complicated restrictions on CP usage. The generation of CP should be equally achievable by any faction.

So basically what I proposed in one of my earlier posts. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I maintain that "CP generated by a Detachment may only be spent on Stratagems of that Detachment's Type" would fix a ton of 40K's problems right now.

 

I was really hoping for this to be introduced, and was pretty disappointed when it wasn't. And I say that as someone planning to make an Imperial Soup army featuring BA's, IG (Savlar), Knights, Mechanicus, GK, Custodes, basically everything except for other non-GK/BA Marines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soup is popular because some armies are more efficient.

 

The problem can be solved with balance adjustments. If, for example, Marines were more competitive and efficient then yes - you would see more mono Astartes armies. Just an example. It's not a great mystery why things are taken.

 

Also, the detachments need adjusting. Why is a battalion the same for Guard and Custodes for example?

Surely a Guard Battalion should consist of a minimum of 6 troops and 3 HQ, whilst for Marines its 3 troops and 2 HQ, and for Custodes 2 troops and 1 HQ? This way each army will generate the same CP per invested points. No need for complicated restrictions on CP usage. The generation of CP should be equally achievable by any faction.

It isn’t just an internal unit balance thing though. The idea of asymmetrical balance - that is, factions that have different units but are balanced as a whole relative to one another - is simply incompatible with the ‘take whatever you want with no (or token) restrictions’ mentality. Imagine if Tau could take Khorne Berserkers or Custodes, or if Dark Eldar could take Poxwalkers. Asymmetrical balance depends on different armies having different core strengths and weaknesses. Being able to ally subverts that whole model by letting you plug your weaknesses with no downside. I’m not saying internal unit balance isn’t a huge and important factor, but for the good of the game there needs to be some downside to allying. I like allies being in the game - diversity is good - but they need to come with a drawback to balance their enormous natural strengths over Pure armies.

 

The idea of faction-specific Detachments is an excellent one though. I think you could take it even further - for example, you could make it harder for Custodes to get extra Captains by only including 1 HQ slot in their Detachment, and you could do things like giving Dark Eldar more Fast Attack at the cost of some Heavy Support. It’s also something you could easily fit in a Chapter Approved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Soup is popular because some armies are more efficient.

 

The problem can be solved with balance adjustments. If, for example, Marines were more competitive and efficient then yes - you would see more mono Astartes armies. Just an example. It's not a great mystery why things are taken.

 

Also, the detachments need adjusting. Why is a battalion the same for Guard and Custodes for example?

Surely a Guard Battalion should consist of a minimum of 6 troops and 3 HQ, whilst for Marines its 3 troops and 2 HQ, and for Custodes 2 troops and 1 HQ? This way each army will generate the same CP per invested points. No need for complicated restrictions on CP usage. The generation of CP should be equally achievable by any faction.

It isn’t just an internal unit balance thing though. The idea of asymmetrical balance - that is, factions that have different units but are balanced as a whole relative to one another - is simply incompatible with the ‘take whatever you want with no (or token) restrictions’ mentality. Imagine if Tau could take Khorne Berserkers or Custodes, or if Dark Eldar could take Poxwalkers. Asymmetrical balance depends on different armies having different core strengths and weaknesses. Being able to ally subverts that whole model by letting you plug your weaknesses with no downside. I’m not saying internal unit balance isn’t a huge and important factor, but for the good of the game there needs to be some downside to allying. I like allies being in the game - diversity is good - but they need to come with a drawback to balance their enormous natural strengths over Pure armies.

 

The idea of faction-specific Detachments is an excellent one though. I think you could take it even further - for example, you could make it harder for Custodes to get extra Captains by only including 1 HQ slot in their Detachment, and you could do things like giving Dark Eldar more Fast Attack at the cost of some Heavy Support. It’s also something you could easily fit in a Chapter Approved.

 

 

I think this hits the nail on the head. It almost seems that GW don't quite comprehend that Soup armies aren't multiple factions in the one Detachment, but rather multiple Detachments alongside each other, of which there is currently no downside. They've got the whole "Chapter Tactics" thing making it less beneficial to combine factions within a Detachment, but currently, there's absolutely no downside to taking a Guard CP Battery, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The idea of faction-specific Detachments is an excellent one though. I think you could take it even further - for example, you could make it harder for Custodes to get extra Captains by only including 1 HQ slot in their Detachment, and you could do things like giving Dark Eldar more Fast Attack at the cost of some Heavy Support. It’s also something you could easily fit in a Chapter Approved.

 

No. That's the first step in the door to the silliness we had in 7th with special detachments and formations, just in the reverse direction. And if certain factions get nerfed detachments, that just means others bubble up to the top and we still end up with a lack of balance overall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detachments and formations weren't the problem of 7th. The problem were badly designed formations. The kinds that just take multiple of an already good unit and slap a strong bonus on it and the ones that grant tons of free stuff and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. That's the first step in the door to the silliness we had in 7th with special detachments and formations, just in the reverse direction. And if certain factions get nerfed detachments, that just means others bubble up to the top and we still end up with a lack of balance overall.

GW making an abortion of formations in 7th doesn’t make faction-specific army construction a bad concept. FW has done it just fine with Rites of War in 30k. They’re not perfectly balanced, but they’re generally pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faction specific detachments seem like a no brainer to me. In fact I think it’s more surprising that people think the detachments can possibly be fair with a one-size fits all approach when they are based primarily on troops units and faction troops can vary from 4 points per model in some factions to 54 points per model in others. How the game designers ever thought that could possibly lead to a fair distribution of CP is beyond me.

 

And, as has already been said, just because 7th edition formations were a huge problem it doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad, just that they were done badly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Detachments and formations are not the same thing.

Squares and rectangles. The 7th rules state that Formations were a type of Detachment.

 

I honestly loved faction unique detachments and formations. But there were just a handful of really badly balanced ones that just spoiled things for everyone. Detachments and formations can be done well or poorly. Just like codexes. Or faction traits. Or unit dataslates. Writing and balance isn't in a vacuum. It's all up to how much effort GW decides to put into it.

 

Allies really do need a downside. I would propose paying 2cp for every detachment from a faction that isn't the same as your warlord. This means that the Loyal 32 will give you a total of 3cp. And your Knight will cost you 2cp as well.

 

But to swing it the other way to give mono factions something. You should get an extra cp for each detachment you take with a faction the same as your warlord.

 

These seem like fair proposals to cull the obvious advantage that allies bring to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying for allied detachments with CP is an interesting idea. However doing that AND giving bonus CP for non-allied detachments is kinda doubling down on it and rather unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying for allied detachments with CP is an interesting idea. However doing that AND giving bonus CP for non-allied detachments is kinda doubling down on it and rather unnecessary.

Well honestly, I think allies are just THAT good. And monodex factions, especially marines, are just THAT bad. Combined could equalize the situation a little better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bottom line is there are solutions to the CP dillema.

 

We can base it on total points, limit CP to the faction of the detachment that generated it, offer a flat amount for competitive play (ie. 12 CP for 2k points), etc.

 

Every single attempt to balance CP has been a half measure to avoid adjusting allied factions. Either set a point limit for allies, limit CP use, or give us flat CP for competitive. Just pick something!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not artifactial. 30 Gaurdsman deployed in 12” long edges cannot all get into rapid range against a target that is 2-3” by 6-7” that starts 24” away from their deployment side. Only 14-16 of the gaurdsman will be in range because the gaurdsman whom standing directly parallel with the marines start 25” away. Assuming 1” base that means as the gaurdsman further away the distance is increase due to the pytheorem theorem. And moving diagonally is longer than moving straightforward if the side gaurdsman to the left or right of them try move into range they get less closer than the squad directly parallel.

 

Resulting in up to about 8-15 not being in range. And they you have 3 las pistols armed sargeants. Secondly the part people bemeon about the loyal 32 is their ability to spread out so now we assume they are in tightly back formation?

 

It’s not an artificial creation. It’s how the table interacts with models. Sense models take up space.

 

It is an artificial creation because there isn't a rational reason for the guard player to deploy like that in 30 guardsman vs 10 tactical marine matchup. In game with objectives, or if there are other units to screen for it makes sense to spread out. In fact the guard player gains a benefit for doing so but that won't be reflected in the example you provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to swing it the other way to give mono factions something. You should get an extra cp for each detachment you take with a faction the same as your warlord.

"Faction" is a problem, here, since it's not a singular concept. A model has as many Factions as it has Faction Keywords, so are we talking about exact matches? Partial matches? There's a lot of weird, impossible corner-cases if it's the former, and the latter doesn't really solve any of the current issues that plague the game. Full match would also all but invalidate "mini-factions" like the Inquisition, Assassins and the two new ones from the RT boxed set. Those are going to be a large part of 40K's future, so it's a situation that won't work, and it makes the game less fun and varied besides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It’s not artifactial. 30 Gaurdsman deployed in 12” long edges cannot all get into rapid range against a target that is 2-3” by 6-7” that starts 24” away from their deployment side. Only 14-16 of the gaurdsman will be in range because the gaurdsman whom standing directly parallel with the marines start 25” away. Assuming 1” base that means as the gaurdsman further away the distance is increase due to the pytheorem theorem. And moving diagonally is longer than moving straightforward if the side gaurdsman to the left or right of them try move into range they get less closer than the squad directly parallel.

 

Resulting in up to about 8-15 not being in range. And they you have 3 las pistols armed sargeants. Secondly the part people bemeon about the loyal 32 is their ability to spread out so now we assume they are in tightly back formation?

 

It’s not an artificial creation. It’s how the table interacts with models. Sense models take up space.

It is an artificial creation because there isn't a rational reason for the guard player to deploy like that in 30 guardsman vs 10 tactical marine matchup. In game with objectives, or if there are other units to screen for it makes sense to spread out. In fact the guard player gains a benefit for doing so but that won't be reflected in the example you provide.

Okay let me explain it this way.

 

You have 30 Gaurdsman each on 1” base. You have 10 Marines on 1”-1.5” base. I deploy my marines 12” out. You deploy first 10 Gaurdsman parallels to them 24” away. For sake of ease each Squad is setup 2 by 5. Then you deploy the next 10 Gaurdsman.

 

Given you already setup Gaurd Squad A directly parallel to Tactical Squad, you have deploy guard squad B to left or right of gaurd Squad A. Gaurd Squad A11 (column 1, row 1), is already 24” directly parallel to Tactical11. That means Gaurd S B15 has to be atleast a few milimeter further away then A11.

 

So B15 starts more than 24” away form Tactical11. B25 starts more than 24” away +1” because B15 base is a inch. As you get further down the line of B Squad that difference/issue is only made worse. Once we get take B13 you are just over 3” away from A11 which is 24” away from Tactical11. Sense this is a right triangle, you have 4(4) + 24(24) = ?? . Or per Pytheroem (Sp), is just over 24” away. Once you get to second row and more. As you have to move diagonally but given the fact even if you move full six inches you are actually moving less then 6”. Meaning it’s quite possible even likely that the back 5 from the Gaurd Squad C and B won’t be in range. Unless Marines move first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I maintain that "CP generated by a Detachment may only be spent on Stratagems of that Detachment's Type" would fix a ton of 40K's problems right now.

 

I agree, but I think there's additional clarification needed here. It needs to be worded in such a way that multiple detachments from a single faction aren't blocked from sharing CP. I think that's what you mean by "type" here, but I wanted to know if you mean specifically subfaction? How granular? Personally, I'm of the mind that the Battle Brothers text be used to define what 'type' would mean in this case. 

 

But then the second question is what to do with the CP gained from being Battleforged. I say just attribute that to the Warlord's detachment. The most you'll ever have to manage is 3 pools, and that's so woefully inefficient that I doubt it would be the norm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I maintain that "CP generated by a Detachment may only be spent on Stratagems of that Detachment's Type" would fix a ton of 40K's problems right now.

I agree, but I think there's additional clarification needed here. It needs to be worded in such a way that multiple detachments from a single faction aren't blocked from sharing CP. I think that's what you mean by "type" here, but I wanted to know if you mean specifically subfaction? How granular? Personally, I'm of the mind that the Battle Brothers text be used to define what 'type' would mean in this case.

 

But then the second question is what to do with the CP gained from being Battleforged. I say just attribute that to the Warlord's detachment. The most you'll ever have to manage is 3 pools, and that's so woefully inefficient that I doubt it would be the norm.

I'm not opposed to that, but there's also a lot of weird corner cases;

Should ministorum block sisters? Guard?

Should sisters of Silence conflict with anyone?

Should assassin's/inqusition conflict with anyone?

How about Celestine or Custodes, who are designed with interfaction synergy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Soup is popular because some armies are more efficient.

 

The problem can be solved with balance adjustments. If, for example, Marines were more competitive and efficient then yes - you would see more mono Astartes armies. Just an example. It's not a great mystery why things are taken.

 

Also, the detachments need adjusting. Why is a battalion the same for Guard and Custodes for example?

Surely a Guard Battalion should consist of a minimum of 6 troops and 3 HQ, whilst for Marines its 3 troops and 2 HQ, and for Custodes 2 troops and 1 HQ? This way each army will generate the same CP per invested points. No need for complicated restrictions on CP usage. The generation of CP should be equally achievable by any faction.

It isn’t just an internal unit balance thing though. The idea of asymmetrical balance - that is, factions that have different units but are balanced as a whole relative to one another - is simply incompatible with the ‘take whatever you want with no (or token) restrictions’ mentality. Imagine if Tau could take Khorne Berserkers or Custodes, or if Dark Eldar could take Poxwalkers. Asymmetrical balance depends on different armies having different core strengths and weaknesses. Being able to ally subverts that whole model by letting you plug your weaknesses with no downside. I’m not saying internal unit balance isn’t a huge and important factor, but for the good of the game there needs to be some downside to allying. I like allies being in the game - diversity is good - but they need to come with a drawback to balance their enormous natural strengths over Pure armies.

 

The idea of faction-specific Detachments is an excellent one though. I think you could take it even further - for example, you could make it harder for Custodes to get extra Captains by only including 1 HQ slot in their Detachment, and you could do things like giving Dark Eldar more Fast Attack at the cost of some Heavy Support. It’s also something you could easily fit in a Chapter Approved.

 

 

I think this hits the nail on the head. It almost seems that GW don't quite comprehend that Soup armies aren't multiple factions in the one Detachment, but rather multiple Detachments alongside each other, of which there is currently no downside. They've got the whole "Chapter Tactics" thing making it less beneficial to combine factions within a Detachment, but currently, there's absolutely no downside to taking a Guard CP Battery, etc.

 

 

I think that's likely because GW doesn't see this as a problem. And it isn't. Allies should be in the game. They shouldn't be inherently weaker because people mischaracterize 'pure' armies as somehow inherently superior. The problem is Guard CP batteries, and to a lesser extent, Ynnari. Solve that first before we start outright killing allies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you guys would argue against factions generating the same amount of CP per points invested?

 

You could do it even more simple, however. CP generated are based on the invested points of the primary faction in a list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but I think there's additional clarification needed here. It needs to be worded in such a way that multiple detachments from a single faction aren't blocked from sharing CP. I think that's what you mean by "type" here, but I wanted to know if you mean specifically subfaction? How granular? Personally, I'm of the mind that the Battle Brothers text be used to define what 'type' would mean in this case.

 

There's every chance I'm essentially making this up, but I think "Type" is like a set of Faction Keywords for a Detachment, made up of any Faction Keywords that are shared by all units in the Detachment. So, a Blood Angels unit would have three "Types": Imperium, Adeptus Astartes, Blood Angels, and those CP would be able to be spent on Stratagems with those Types - so, effectively, Blood Angels and Adeptus Astartes Stratagems, since I don't think there's any general Imperium ones.

 

But then the second question is what to do with the CP gained from being Battleforged. I say just attribute that to the Warlord's detachment. The most you'll ever have to manage is 3 pools, and that's so woefully inefficient that I doubt it would be the norm.

Good point. Offhand, I'd say these would just be their own little pool that could be used on any Stratagems. Similarly, I'd amend the original statement to say that CP generated by a Detachment would only be able to be spent on Stratagems of that Detachment's Type, or generic Stratagems.

 

I'm not opposed to that, but there's also a lot of weird corner cases;

Should ministorum block sisters? Guard?

Should sisters of Silence conflict with anyone?

Should assassin's/inqusition conflict with anyone?

How about Celestine or Custodes, who are designed with interfaction synergy?

"Conflict" and "block" aren't really the right ways to think about this, IMO. More that it divides CP into different Detachment "pools" that can only be spent on Stratagems keyed to Faction Keywords shared by the whole Detachment. So, Guard-generated Stratagems wouldn't be able to buy Stratagems keyed to Sisters (of either variety), just Guard ones, as well as those specific to any Regimental keywords the Detachment has. They're also, notably, not restricted to the Detachment itself, so a more coherent army would be able to utilize its CP more effectively.

 

(as a note, I play a lot of Infinity these days, so it's probably not a coincidence that this is similar to the Order Pool system from that game, if anyone's familiar)

 

That said, there might be some inherent problems created by smaller factions. The goal here is to use the Stratagem/Keyword system in a way that keeps with 8th's fairly non-restrictive, freeform philosophy about army building, but prevents Soup/CP battery abuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I maintain that "CP generated by a Detachment may only be spent on Stratagems of that Detachment's Type" would fix a ton of 40K's problems right now.

I agree, but I think there's additional clarification needed here. It needs to be worded in such a way that multiple detachments from a single faction aren't blocked from sharing CP. I think that's what you mean by "type" here, but I wanted to know if you mean specifically subfaction? How granular? Personally, I'm of the mind that the Battle Brothers text be used to define what 'type' would mean in this case.

 

But then the second question is what to do with the CP gained from being Battleforged. I say just attribute that to the Warlord's detachment. The most you'll ever have to manage is 3 pools, and that's so woefully inefficient that I doubt it would be the norm.

I'm not opposed to that, but there's also a lot of weird corner cases;

Should ministorum block sisters? Guard?

Should sisters of Silence conflict with anyone?

Should assassin's/inqusition conflict with anyone?

How about Celestine or Custodes, who are designed with interfaction synergy?

 

 

Well the questions here seem a bit unfocused, no? The goal is clear - you want to remove the option for players to use a cheaper force to generate CP that is then used entirely on another allied detachment outside of what that detachment could efficiently generate itself. The first step was tackling CP regen. No more unlimited CP.  

 

If you look at AM in a vacuum, you see a large capacity for CP generation, but a large number of weak or situational stratagems. On the other hand, look at Deathwatch, which would have trouble matching the CP generation of AM without making big sacrifices to the army's composition - compelling choices at the list building stage. Their stratagems are significantly more powerful and less situational, and that seems to be the goal. 

 

The point is with this change you don't actually lose CP you've generated, you just can't use a cheaper force to generate fuel the stratagems for a more elite one. There's no conflict. It's not like you CAN'T use those stratagems, you're just locked to that faction's options. You can still bring a Guard Battalion if you want the bodies for board control and screening, and it'll come with 5 CP - but you can't use those on Victor of the Blood Games, for example. They have to be specifically AM stratagems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In regards to CP and Buffing/Nerfing allies I stand by my feeling that one thing help if you get an additional CP for each degree of armywide shared Faction keyword. (So a mono Chaos/Khorne would get +2 but a mono world eater +4). As that would encourage pure but not invalidate Soup. And secondly it would also make an interesting cost to taking auxiliaries in gaurd like Rattling or Ogryns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, the big thing I see, is that basically GW handed out factions like SoSilence and said "You guys have no tools to handle certain things, so here's some tools---"

 

And then have already had to make them super hard to use. Instead of taking them in one detachment and losing out on traits, which was fine when I was taking Inquistor + them, I now need to take 3 squads to get a detachment for them. If CP isn't allowed to be used on them, or on Inquisition, it means that we have zero CP for the SoS or Assassins -- they can't possibly get more than that. So, no to even basic strategems. No rerolling that charge you so desperately need with your sword-sisters, because they aren't allowed to have CP. That faction just got nerfed even harder.

 

Which is a shame, because when they came out, I got Greyfax and them to give me some much needed psykic defense for my sister's. Otherwise, I'd just get mailed by tyranids spamming smite and psychic scream and what not.

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.