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

[PiñaColada]

I get that GW want to reward mono-lists rather than punish allies but honestly that's going to be tough in a system where allies bring so much potential to the table. Their design ethos isn't really contradicted here IMO, sure there's a small disadvantage to bringing allies but getting access to an allied detachment for a singular command point doesn't seem like some great big sacrifice to me. Getting rid of CP and stratagems in general I think we can agree on won't actually happen and all those stratagems would have to become abilities instead basically necessitating all new codices.

 

I don't really want to see lists made up of just "what people want" for a balanced game. I'm honestly horrified at that concept.

And you'd need to do more than change the costs for a few strategems, you'd have to rebalance the whole lot of them. This isn't something an FAQ or CA could do, that's new edition territory. And honestly, if we're going that far, you have an "all restraints are off" situation
 

Perhaps no man should have all that power? :P I can see how having no restrictions in the rosters might get tricky enough that the rule of three won't be able to handle it but you could just restructure the suggestion that I had to only grant the 3 battleforged CP if you have either a battalion or brigade.

I really don't think you'd have to restructure the entire stratagem system if you changed CP generation. Most people would end up with fewer CP but it'd also bring us back to basically what we had before battalions and brigades were upgraded in amount of CP. 2 Battalions used to be 9CP with battleforges, 3 (or a single brigade) were 12CP. This brings us back to that. The only restructuring we'd need in regards to stratagems are what we already need in terms of rebalancing.
 

[USNCenturion]

Two fixes I can think of off the top of my head are as follows:

 

1. Mono dex armies get the bonus battle forged CP, allied armies do not. Make the bonus CP more than it currently is.

 

2. Tell the tournament organizers to ban allied lists, since this is apparently where all the griping comes from every few months.

[Trevak Dal]

I say if you base your grey knights with dead sisters of battle and put blood for the blood God effects on their armor, everything has Custodates statline and unmodifiable armorsaves with no points increase.

 

In all seriousness, I don't expect that. I throw bad after terrible and have my gkts in landraiders and yolo that :cuss up. Less stuff to transport, less stuff to take off.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

Personally I think command points should be generated differently than they are now and there should be a benefit to using one codex.

 

That said I'd love it if 40k had formats like how magic has standard/limited/modern that restricts what you can use.In my opinion alot of people would be interested in a 1500 point format without LoWs where your army comes from one codex.

[Prot]

It's a complex issue.

 

GW benefits (sales wise) from allowing soup.

 

GW have come out and said they noted soup, aren't quite sure what to do with it, and at LVO they were quoted as saying they are watching it from arm's length for now.

 

I would give 3 CP to a mono-dex but "WildCard" rules would be mandatory. (An assassin with Imperium keyword would be allowed Wild Card status for example)

 

IF you get rid of soup, the main course has to be better. That is to say: No more lazy codex writing. It has to have a better (not perfect- just better) chance of standing on its own.

 

 

The Castellan is an entirely different matter. GW have shown us they do not like re-writing Dataslates, and instead prefer _points_ adjustments. I used the Castellan in many games, and part of it's strength comes from its rules, but a lot of it is in Soup. It's already north of 600 points. I would change the rules of the guns to a degree. It is simply the most powerful Knight in 40K. Hands down. A great number of the top ranked 80 players at LVO did not take one, but the successful Soup lists nearly all had one.

 

The second part of the problem:

Why is soup so strong?

 

It's a gateway to CP which is the most powerful currency in competitive 40K. Soup allows you to make cheap battalions while still having points for the expensive units.

 

Cheap units are still too potent. And I don't just mean on the battlefield.

[Huggtand]

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

 

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

 

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

[Panzer]

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

 

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

 

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

 

Because when people decide on a faction and buy that Codex they expect to be able to play against other people on a similar level without having to buy two other Codexes just to ally in 1-2 units from each. And imo that's a completely justified reason. People don't dislike soups in general, people dislike not being able to play their chosen army on the same level as others with their chosen army. It also doesn't help that the Marine Codex is the biggest offender there and that a huge part of the playerbase is playing Marines. A codex should be designed in a way that it can stand on its own two feet but the way CP generation works makes that impossible without giving imperial soup lists a HUGE buff which it really doesn't need.

Also if you may look into the Chaos forums, people dislike Cultists being so much better than Chaos Marines as well and last time I checked the same goes for TSons with Tzaangors.

[Huggtand]

I totally agree that a codex should be able to stand on it´s own legs, but again we are talking about the imperials. No other major faction have this problem since their codices already have the soup build in. The way I see it, the current CP generation gives all factions except imperial mono-codex a huge buff. Imperial soup just lift it up to the same level as everybody else.

 

A solution would be to split up for example Eldar in more factions; a "guard" codex with guardians and tanks, an "marine" codex with aspect warriors and a "knight" codex with heavy walkers. That way there would be the same playing field with the CP generation between the factions 

 

With 8th edition I really think that it´s the structural differences between combine arms codices and the splintered imperial codices that is the root of the problem.  

[Slasher956]

Except the cheepest brigade in the craftworlds is  254 point... which is 2 2 wound HQs & 3 x 8 strong storm guardians armed with a pistol & sword,,,, 

 

So thats 74 points more for 6 less bodies and unable to do anything pass 18" (psychic powers) or 12" shooting.....

[Finkmilkana]

I totally agree that a codex should be able to stand on it´s own legs, but again we are talking about the imperials. No other major faction have this problem since their codices already have the soup build in. The way I see it, the current CP generation gives all factions except imperial mono-codex a huge buff. Imperial soup just lift it up to the same level as everybody else.

 

A solution would be to split up for example Eldar in more factions; a "guard" codex with guardians and tanks, an "marine" codex with aspect warriors and a "knight" codex with heavy walkers. That way there would be the same playing field with the CP generation between the factions

 

With 8th edition I really think that it´s the structural differences between combine arms codices and the splintered imperial codices that is the root of the problem.

This. Somehow no one complains about for example kroot being used as CP batteries for Stormsurges etc., just because they are in one book (and admittedly not that great, but that’s incidental). Or a dark eldar Kabal and Haemonculus Coven. In the fluff, those should be as far or even further, apart than a guard regiment and their for the campaign attached freeblade Knight etc.

 

Edit: Somehow mixed up this and the other similar thread (that started to focus more on lore). Didn’t want to mix up lore and balance arguments. The balance argument that all codices should be able to stand on their own is obviously valid, though just restricting soup won’t make weak codices magically better.

[Tyriks]

 

I totally agree that a codex should be able to stand on it´s own legs, but again we are talking about the imperials. No other major faction have this problem since their codices already have the soup build in. The way I see it, the current CP generation gives all factions except imperial mono-codex a huge buff. Imperial soup just lift it up to the same level as everybody else.

A solution would be to split up for example Eldar in more factions; a "guard" codex with guardians and tanks, an "marine" codex with aspect warriors and a "knight" codex with heavy walkers. That way there would be the same playing field with the CP generation between the factions :)

With 8th edition I really think that it´s the structural differences between combine arms codices and the splintered imperial codices that is the root of the problem.

This. Somehow no one complains about for example kroot being used as CP batteries for Stormsurges etc., just because they are in one book (and admittedly not that great, but that’s incidental). Or a dark eldar Kabal and Haemonculus Coven. In the fluff, those should be as far or even further, apart than a guard regiment and their for the campaign attached freeblade Knight etc.

Do Kroot and Stormsurge lists have a near monopoly on GT wins? No. That's why no one cares about that. Not because it's in one codex but because most armies have no way of competing with Knight soup.

[Scammel]

Why is soup bad?

 

Because the game has been predicated for decades on codex-based factions. GW releases 'Codex: Space Marines', 'Space Marine' models , markets these products alongside each other and wants players to buy into the 'Space Marine' faction, read 'Space Marine' literature and build 'Space Marine' armies. 'Space Marines' fight 'Eldar' and 'Orks' in Dawn of War, Gaunt's Ghosts nary meet an Astartes.

 

Codex factions are the building blocks of 99% of the hobby and this is absolutely reinforced by GW's outputs. It's therefore very odd that the 'ultimate' expression of the hobby - playing a game with painted armies - rewards a completely different approach.

[Panzer]

I totally agree that a codex should be able to stand on it´s own legs, but again we are talking about the imperials. No other major faction have this problem since their codices already have the soup build in. The way I see it, the current CP generation gives all factions except imperial mono-codex a huge buff. Imperial soup just lift it up to the same level as everybody else.

 

A solution would be to split up for example Eldar in more factions; a "guard" codex with guardians and tanks, an "marine" codex with aspect warriors and a "knight" codex with heavy walkers. That way there would be the same playing field with the CP generation between the factions :)

 

With 8th edition I really think that it´s the structural differences between combine arms codices and the splintered imperial codices that is the root of the problem.

 

No offense but that's the worst suggestion to solve the problem I've heard so far.

[Huggtand]

 

I totally agree that a codex should be able to stand on it´s own legs, but again we are talking about the imperials. No other major faction have this problem since their codices already have the soup build in. The way I see it, the current CP generation gives all factions except imperial mono-codex a huge buff. Imperial soup just lift it up to the same level as everybody else.

 

A solution would be to split up for example Eldar in more factions; a "guard" codex with guardians and tanks, an "marine" codex with aspect warriors and a "knight" codex with heavy walkers. That way there would be the same playing field with the CP generation between the factions :)

 

With 8th edition I really think that it´s the structural differences between combine arms codices and the splintered imperial codices that is the root of the problem.

 

No offense but that's the worst suggestion to solve the problem I've heard so far.

Yes I know

[toaae]

This narrative some of you are spinning that the Imperium is just other factions split up into more codices is insane. Come on, you have to be joking. To say Necrons have a similar set of options to the whole of the Imperium is a joke.

 

Besides, that isn't what the problem is. If Imperium soup wasn't good, you wouldn't see people complaining about it. If it was more varied, you would see less of a consensus that something needs to change. The problem is despite the Imperium's great multitude of options, top lists are made of the same dozen units, worh like a third of the lists' points left to fill out however you want. In a game with so many different units, it's a shame that we don't see more rise to the top.

 

Finally, most reasonable people are arguing about soup because we realize nerfing individual components wouldn't achieve the desired result. Increase the castellan by 150 points, and it would be replaced by something else, while screwing over the players running pure knights. This is what they did to Blood Angel's in the Big FAQs, and that did nothing to slow down "the" Imperium soup list, while BA have fallen real low in tournaments.

[PeteySödes]

This narrative some of you are spinning that the Imperium is just other factions split up into more codices is insane. Come on, you have to be joking. To say Necrons have a similar set of options to the whole of the Imperium is a joke.

 

Besides, that isn't what the problem is. If Imperium soup wasn't good, you wouldn't see people complaining about it. If it was more varied, you would see less of a consensus that something needs to change. The problem is despite the Imperium's great multitude of options, top lists are made of the same dozen units, worh like a third of the lists' points left to fill out however you want. In a game with so many different units, it's a shame that we don't see more rise to the top.

 

Finally, most reasonable people are arguing about soup because we realize nerfing individual components wouldn't achieve the desired result. Increase the castellan by 150 points, and it would be replaced by something else, while screwing over the players running pure knights. This is what they did to Blood Angel's in the Big FAQs, and that did nothing to slow down "the" Imperium soup list, while BA have fallen real low in tournaments.

 

The otherside of this well made point too is it would be unfortunate, in my opinion, to eventually have to have necrons or any other single dex faction buffed to a degree that youd need to run Imperial soup to compete. I know we're not even close to that yet but thats basically my fear, that I can't run a single codex space marine army going forward.

 

I think the essence atm is that while the motto seems to be "our worlds, your hobby" the tacit direction and some peoples attitudes are basically, "Well thats how imperium armies are meant to play". I don't accept that.

 

Sorry if im having trouble articulating my thoughts here, its such a complex bundle....

[MARK0SIAN]

Personally I think we need to think of some more elaborate ways to buff mono-dex armies. Currently a lot of the problems with allies are to do with CP, so naturally people are focussing a lot of the suggested solutions around CP. Unfortunately, as most of these ideas result in a nerf to allied armies which GW is unlikely to accept, we need to think of other areas at the Strategic level to help mono-dex armies. For a moment, let’s just accept that the CP system favours allies and look at other areas of the game that can be changed/altered to give mono-dex armies a boost.

 

I’ll preface these vague ideas by saying they would only apply in a mono-dex V Allied match, allies v allies or mono v mono would revert to normal rules:

 

These bonuses could include a big bonus to first turn rolls for mono-dex armies, rules that suggest they always choose the deployment map or always choose who deploys first. Extra bonuses for generating or swapping tactical objectives, more relaxed rules on how much of your army needs to be on the board at the start or allow first turn reserves for mono-dex army.

 

These are just ideas, some bad, some maybe have merit but my point is, we accept Allied lists will win the CP battle but create another strategic area of the game where mono armies have the upper hand to act as a counterweight to make choosing allies less of a no-brainer.

 

EDIT - I used ‘strategic’ a lot because a lot of people suggest rules like no chapter tactics for allied lists but tactical level changes like that just make no sense to me from any standpoint, a unit isn’t going to suddenly lose an ability like ignoring cover or rerolling charges just because they have an ally with them.

[Focslain]

 

If memory serves me, I think it was Winters SEO that called the Castellan a gate keeper. Right now it´s the only thing that keep the usual power lists in check. If it´s removed we will go back to the usual aeldari lists dominating the tournaments. Now at least there are one more faction in the top tier, so why do so many want to nerf one of the thing that keeps imperial soup competitive? 

 

For me the imperial soup-armies is just trying to bring what other codices already have. Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Necron, Orc, and Tyranids all have access to the full soup in one codex

• Guard infantry (cheap bodies) - guardians, cultist, fire warriors, grots, gants
• Marines (elite “power amour” units) - chaos marines, aspect warriors and tyranid warriors
• Tanks and flyers in all varieties
• Knights (super heavies) - wraith knights, riptides, gargants, renegade knights, Tyrannofex

Calling Riptides a Super Heavy and comparing it to something like Imperial Knights is kind of a stretch. About 200p cheaper, -1T -10W and much less damage output. It's a very strong elite choice but not even near Knight level lol

 

Also I really wouldn't call the Castellan a gatekeeper. Gatekeeper are tough units that prevent other lists from playing on the top tables but usually don't get there themselves. Daemon Primarchs are gatekeeper in that regard, but not the Castellan. The Castellan is simply a very competetive choice. ^^

 

Also also we don't necessarily want to nerf the one thing that makes imperial armies competetive. We want to make imperial armies competetive without being forced to take units from other Codexes.

 

 

A riptide is only worse then a knight in a vacuum. I've seen riptides do much more damage then knights, especially with the HBC/ATS combo, add in a few marker drones for shielding/buff and you have a deadly unit for less then the cost of a warden.

 

 

 

shandwen, on 13 Feb 2019 - 12:05 AM, said:

I personally wonder why knights get a household in an aux detachment when guard super heavies don't. If they fixed that one bit we would see either a drop in the amount of people who would take solo knights, or a slight rise in shadowswords.

 

Like Guard super heavies, the single knight doesn't get the trait in an SHA, but it does get access to the house strat, same with the guard super heavies. Just that I don't believe that many regimental strats can effect the unit or are worth using on said such.

[Panzer]

 

 

If memory serves me, I think it was Winters SEO that called the Castellan a gate keeper. Right now it´s the only thing that keep the usual power lists in check. If it´s removed we will go back to the usual aeldari lists dominating the tournaments. Now at least there are one more faction in the top tier, so why do so many want to nerf one of the thing that keeps imperial soup competitive? 

 

For me the imperial soup-armies is just trying to bring what other codices already have. Chaos, Eldar, Tau, Necron, Orc, and Tyranids all have access to the full soup in one codex

• Guard infantry (cheap bodies) - guardians, cultist, fire warriors, grots, gants
• Marines (elite “power amour” units) - chaos marines, aspect warriors and tyranid warriors
• Tanks and flyers in all varieties
• Knights (super heavies) - wraith knights, riptides, gargants, renegade knights, Tyrannofex

Calling Riptides a Super Heavy and comparing it to something like Imperial Knights is kind of a stretch. About 200p cheaper, -1T -10W and much less damage output. It's a very strong elite choice but not even near Knight level lol

 

Also I really wouldn't call the Castellan a gatekeeper. Gatekeeper are tough units that prevent other lists from playing on the top tables but usually don't get there themselves. Daemon Primarchs are gatekeeper in that regard, but not the Castellan. The Castellan is simply a very competetive choice. ^^

 

Also also we don't necessarily want to nerf the one thing that makes imperial armies competetive. We want to make imperial armies competetive without being forced to take units from other Codexes.

 

 

A riptide is only worse then a knight in a vacuum. I've seen riptides do much more damage then knights, especially with the HBC/ATS combo, add in a few marker drones for shielding/buff and you have a deadly unit for less then the cost of a warden.

 

Really now? The HBC + ATS is the exact same weapon as an Avenger Gatling Cannon with the difference that a Riptide has only BS4+ so it needs 5+ Markerlights to hit on a 3+ like the Knight does. Its secondary weapons are on the level of the shoulder weapons of a Knight that leaves the Knight with either a second potent shooting weapon or a potent melee weapon (though they do have their Titanic Feet anyway). So if you see a Riptide do more damage than a Knight it's most likely because of the dice.

Drones for protection are awesome but you can't ignore that the Knight has T8, 10 more wounds and can buff its invulnerable safe without suffering Mortal wounds. The Riptide is much cheaper for a reason. It definitely isn't on the level of a Knight even with support.

[Huggtand]

Just let me state that I talk about top competitive tournament play. There don´t seem to be these complains about normal casual play.

 

We all agree that mono-codices should stand on their own legs right? Well, some of them do. Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau and Orcs are mono-codices that don´t seem have any big problems. Why do they succeed when for example marines don´t?

 

Is it:

- CP-generation?
- Stratagems?
- Firepower?

- Mortal wound spam?
- Psychic powers?
- Staying power?
- Cost of troops?

- All of the above? (if this option is selected there is a serious problem )

 

That imperial soup is good now is just a symptom that guard, marines and knights can´t win competitive tournament play on their own. If imperial soup is removed it will not make marines better. (It will probably mean that Aeldari will dominate the top tables a couple of years more )

[Focslain]

 

Really now? The HBC + ATS is the exact same weapon as an Avenger Gatling Cannon with the difference that a Riptide has only BS4+ so it needs 5+ Markerlights to hit on a 3+ like the Knight does. Its secondary weapons are on the level of the shoulder weapons of a Knight that leaves the Knight with either a second potent shooting weapon or a potent melee weapon (though they do have their Titanic Feet anyway). So if you see a Riptide do more damage than a Knight it's most likely because of the dice.

 

Drones for protection are awesome but you can't ignore that the Knight has T8, 10 more wounds and can buff its invulnerable safe without suffering Mortal wounds. The Riptide is much cheaper for a reason. It definitely isn't on the level of a Knight even with support.

 

 

I've seen too many knights dropped to riptides to dismiss them. many dismiss them based on mathHammer and not field performance. With drones a riptide and take way more the wounds a knight can. Yes it needs support, but that is the point. For the same cost as a knight you can get a riptide and support units that make just as powerful if not more.

 

As stated, a riptide is only worse then a knight in a vacuum.

[USNCenturion]

And again, the crux of the anti-ally argument comes down to personal preference of the person running the mono dex; they don’t want to run allies, so because allies are so effective, nobody should run them. I think that’s a lame and outdated argument/reason for wanting removal of allies.

 

We couldn’t run anything other than a CAD in prior editions, but things changed. To expect the hobby to remain stagnant going forward is unreasonable.

 

There should be nothing wrong with a guard company having an allied knight and a small band of marines for support, thematically or rules-wise.

[toaae]

And again, the crux of the anti-ally argument comes down to personal preference of the person running the mono dex; they don’t want to run allies, so because allies are so effective, nobody should run them. I think that’s a lame and outdated argument/reason for wanting removal of allies.

 

We couldn’t run anything other than a CAD in prior editions, but things changed. To expect the hobby to remain stagnant going forward is unreasonable.

 

There should be nothing wrong with a guard company having an allied knight and a small band of marines for support, thematically or rules-wise.

 

I don't think anyone is really arguing that there is something wrong with allies, but that, currently, the same archetype is too strong.

[PiñaColada]

And again, the crux of the anti-ally argument comes down to personal preference of the person running the mono dex; they don’t want to run allies, so because allies are so effective, nobody should run them. I think that’s a lame and outdated argument/reason for wanting removal of allies.

 

We couldn’t run anything other than a CAD in prior editions, but things changed. To expect the hobby to remain stagnant going forward is unreasonable.

 

There should be nothing wrong with a guard company having an allied knight and a small band of marines for support, thematically or rules-wise.

That's sort of the point behind my idea of this post. I really don't think that system hurts allies much at all, but it does fix the problem of taking allies primarily to feed CP elsewhere, seeing as everyone would have the same amount of CP regardless (before any pre-game strats are applied of course)

 

I want allies to exist, the actual list that won the LVO is fluffy - it's just a guard brigade with a knight. The problem is that the brigade feeds so many CP to that knight that it becomes super tough to compete with. Allowing that same list to exist but with 10 CP (base 11CP -1 for allied detachment) instead of 15CP will make a difference. It'll still be highly viable, but you can't spam stratagems with the same reckless abandon

[Tordeck]

Side comparison. The current meta is the equivalent of the Mirrodin Standard in MTG. With Imperial Soup being Affinity and Eldar soup as the one RG deck that could beat it. Occasnioally you get a rogue deck here and there making a top 8 but its one of those two always at the top. And its been that way for a long time now. Again making the comparison, even Wizards would be swinging the banhammer by now.