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

[Focslain]

 

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 I think that’s a lame and outdated argument/reason for wanting removal of allies.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

 

 

Another way would be to have only mono-dex forces get the +3cp for battle-forged as well as making the SHA detachment -1CP liek the standard Aux detachment. That way there is still a dip in the CP but not too much that make allies a bad idea.

[Huggtand]

I do agree with the sentiment that a single codex list should be as good as a soup list. The soup should just add different flavors 

 

But I don´t think it´s the CP generation that is the real problem. Changes like that won´t make for example marines better, it will only make imperial soup worse and something else (Aeldari) will be the best again. The mono-codices that struggle now will still continue to struggle.

 

To make for example marines better I personally think they must be made stronger rules-wise.
- Better saves
- More firepower
- Better mobility
- More mortal wound generation

 

Just tweaking points or CP wont help much, they are simply to outclassed in to many fields

[Panzer]

 

 

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.

 

 

I don't dismiss them. But claiming them to do much more damage than a Knight is just ridiculous. I acknowledge they are a very strong unit. They get played for a reason. They can't compete with a Knight though and while support from the rest of the army does a lot for the Riptide so do Knights get a lot of support from the CP battery alone already. Objectively T'au troops are better than AM troops and they also don't have anything like a Smash Captain etc so if Riptides are better than Knights overall then we should see much more T'au lists on the top tables, however that's not the case. T'au are a strong mid tier army while imperial soups are on the top tables constantly.

[Focslain]

I do agree with the sentiment that a single codex list should be as good as a soup list. The soup should just add different flavors 

 

But I don´t think it´s the CP generation that is the real problem. Changes like that won´t make for example marines better, it will only make imperial soup worse and something else (Aeldari) will be the best again. The mono-codices that struggle now will still continue to struggle.

 

To make for example marines better I personally think they must be made stronger rules-wise.

- Better saves

- More firepower

- Better mobility

- More mortal wound generation

 

Just tweaking points or CP wont help much, they are simply to outclassed in to many fields

 

Well adding some grey knights will give you more MW generation, but then we hit the CP generation issue.

 

Now the top eldar list was an allied list (Aeldari, Durkari, and Yannri), can a straight codex do the same?

[PiñaColada]

 

 

Well adding some grey knights will give you more MW generation, but then we hit the CP generation issue.

 

Now the top eldar list was an allied list (Aeldari, Durkari, and Yannri), can a straight codex do the same?

I'm sure it's possible, but it's just so much more difficult. Look at the space elf lists that placed in top 25 at the LVO.

2nd - Alex Harrison, Ynnari

5th - Sean Nayden, Ynnari

10th - Matthew Allee, Ynnari

12th - Justin Pizzoferrato, Drukhari (contains Harlequins)

14th - Trent Northington, Ynnari

25th (tied) - Brad Chester, Ynnari 

 

Not a single one is a mono-codex list amongst them. I'd wager because there's simply no point in forcing that restriction upon yourself. That's a design flaw in my book.

[PeteySödes]

To point though, Ynarri is basically a soup anyways.

[Focslain]

 

 

 

Well adding some grey knights will give you more MW generation, but then we hit the CP generation issue.

 

Now the top eldar list was an allied list (Aeldari, Durkari, and Yannri), can a straight codex do the same?

I'm sure it's possible, but it's just so much more difficult. Look at the space elf lists that placed in top 25 at the LVO.

2nd - Alex Harrison, Ynnari

5th - Sean Nayden, Ynnari

10th - Matthew Allee, Ynnari

12th - Justin Pizzoferrato, Drukhari (contains Harlequins)

14th - Trent Northington, Ynnari

25th (tied) - Brad Chester, Ynnari 

 

Not a single one is a mono-codex list amongst them. I'd wager because there's simply no point in forcing that restriction upon yourself. That's a design flaw in my book.

 

 

So to just add a little more to this. What mono-dex forces actually placed high? 

[PiñaColada]

We had a pure astartes list at 8th (but that placing is weird because it was eliminated in the ghost round). It was 8th before that round but essentially ends up in the 9-12 spot. I mean it was several marine chapters but basically lots of marines and repulsors backed up by Guilliman.

The 11th spot was a pure IG list, with elysians, vostroyans and vulture gunships. 

Both of those lists are impressive seeing they placed high and had options for easily slotting in soup. 

Then at the 20th spot we had necrons and that guy should certainly be lauded as well.

 

To point though, Ynarri is basically a soup anyways.

I'm counting Ynnari as soup, I don't see how they're not.

[Kargrym]

I think everyone should try a soup list game and experiment with this rule addition and see if it helps.

 

You can only use the Stratagems of the army Warlord.

 

It makes an amazing difference.

 

Ynnari get reduced to the universal Strats or as a small detachment. Knights can only rotate Ion Shields if they are in an Admech army or a knight army. Relics are reduced to the ones the warlords codex can CP for.

 

Tell me where this does not improve the game balance for soup?

[Finkmilkana]

 

 

The 11th spot was a pure IG list, with elysians, vostroyans and vulture gunships.

 

Both of those lists are impressive seeing they placed high and had options for easily slotting in soup.

 

 

I wouldn’t count that as a “mono-list”. Mixing different regimental/chapter etc to me already is almost as soupy as mixing different codices (and in many cases even more against the fluff). If he indeed used elysians, then that is technically a different codex (or index) as they have a completely different unit list from forgeworld.

 

In general, once you say “restrict to a single codex” then you kinda also have to restrict FW. Marines or custodes for example effectively have two ‘codices’ (one from GW and one from FW), while other factions often have even less units overall than either of those single books. (I’m not saying restrict FW, but it kinda has to be done if you restrict to single codex or you get other imbalances)

[PiñaColada]

 

The 11th spot was a pure IG list, with elysians, vostroyans and vulture gunships.

 

Both of those lists are impressive seeing they placed high and had options for easily slotting in soup.

 

I wouldn’t count that as a “mono-list”. Mixing different regimental/chapter etc to me already is almost as soupy as mixing different codices (and in many cases even more against the fluff). If he indeed used elysians, then that is technically a different codex (or index) as they have a completely different unit list from forgeworld.

 

In general, once you say “restrict to a single codex” then you kinda also have to restrict FW. Marines or custodes for example effectively have two ‘codices’ (one from GW and one from FW), while other factions often have even less units overall than either of those single books. (I’m not saying restrict FW, but it kinda has to be done if you restrict to single codex or you get other imbalances)

 

Well I do agree with you in the sense that mixing in different chapters/regiments etc is still soup (not sure if I'd lump in FW there). It's just refreshing to see a Guard list being comprised of Guard and not the "mandatory" IK addition. 

 

The same thing can be said for the astartes list that had brought a group of black templars just for the deny psychic power stratagem, it is gamey, but it's also at the very least a list that tried something different. 

 

The sad part about soup is while it does give you the options to play with millions of different combinations you most often just see the same list or two over and over again, with minor variations. These lists are at the very least not some common "net-lists" and I respect that. It would've been nice to see someone run a pure Ulthwé/Blood Angels/Salamanders/Deffskullz etc army and place in the top 8, but I think we need changes to the current system before that can become a reality with some sort of consistency.

 

I still really like 8th edition but GW dragging their feet on even implementing a symbolic fix to the issue is a bit disappointing.

 

Edit: Oh and Kargrym, me and some of my friends have tried that solution and it does work well. However that does seem like far too strict of a fix for it to be something GW would consider, hence the "lighter touch" I've tried with my suggestion

[Happy-inquisitor]

We had a pure astartes list at 8th (but that placing is weird because it was eliminated in the ghost round). It was 8th before that round but essentially ends up in the 9-12 spot. I mean it was several marine chapters but basically lots of marines and repulsors backed up by Guilliman.

 

The 11th spot was a pure IG list, with elysians, vostroyans and vulture gunships. 

 

Both of those lists are impressive seeing they placed high and had options for easily slotting in soup. 

 

Then at the 20th spot we had necrons and that guy should certainly be lauded as well.

 

 

 

 

And there was a T'au list in the top 8.

 

The game is pretty much working as intended. I am not sure that the tournament scene is quite working as everyone would like. I think the comment about lauding the Necron player gets to the heart of this - single faction players are not really getting a look-in within this tournament format. If you play pure BA you are going to get stomped by a supposed BA player who allies in stuff to cover the weakness of the faction and they will win "best BA" over the pure BA players. I actually think this is more of the cause of low diversity in lists than anything - how many supposed factions were won at LVO by a list that had a Castellan dropped in it to make it good? Cult mechanicus and Astra Militarum for sure but it could be quite a few more.

 

There would be a lot more single codex lists out there and therefore a lot more list diversity if the faction rules were that you have to be single faction to compete for the best in faction award. The current ITC faction rules are neither simple nor are they doing much to achieve a broad diversity where everyone has something to play for; unless you play Necrons, T'au or Orcs you are basically a chump for not playing allies as a result of their faction rules. At this point in time I really have no idea what the ITC faction rules and faction prizes are even supposed to achieve, whatever it is I struggle to believe that they do so.

[chapter master 454]

Quick Reminder to all those who may be forgetting a few things:

 

Imperial Soup is often targetted here but want to just real quickly and gently remind all that Ynnari is just space elf talk for "Elf Soup". Not to mention lets remember Ynnari bring far more horrible mechanics to the game like say soul burst where they can double tap and even break game sequence without any penalty.

 

Other than that, love the commentary so far. Some nice low-blows at the castellan I see here and there but that's fine, the volcano lance is dirty enough to deserve it (and I should know, I've used it enough! Really does get rid of armour quite nicely. It's like Cillet Bang, but for armour! Bang and the tank is gone!).

Some nice ideas too. Certainly the top two imo are some simple but elegant solutions:

 

You only get +3 CP to your list (you know, for being battle-forged) if you entire army shares in only one keyword (that isn't imperium or any of the other MASSIVE faction words. Might want to slap astartes in there and make it down to the regiment and chapter too).

 

Can only use stratagems from your warlords faction.

 

Those two certainly ring out and would be nice SUBTLE changes to how the current top tier works. Certainly stops Eldar bringing their darker cousins along purely as counter magic and even would help make ynnari actually pay a price for their soulburst. As for Imperial lists, would mean our castellan now has an actual weakness instead of having a 3++ available to tank the hits along with consistency with their raven strat (which to be honest isn't even that needed. Seriously, the thing hits like a dump truck already).

 

Just remember folks, don't just focus on the top dogs. You take out the top dogs too hard you might just install a new villain instead of balancing things. Gentle adjustments will always be slow to work but are far less damaging than massive overhauls in the overall.

[H311fi5h]

I've done some thinking on this topic for a while now.

 

Reducing the issue too CP batteries and strategem access is missing the root problem.

When you add a second codex to your army you get access to things that you otherwise wouldn't be able to get. Those things can be CP, they can be strategems, but that's not the fundamental issue.

 

Simple example: Take a mono DE army, say a coven with talos spam and some cabal stuff. That's a pretty competitive list to start with. Now you just add in an auxiliary support detachment with a Farseer to get access to Doom. Your list just got 30% stronger. No CP or strategems were gained in the example (in fact CP were lost). Yet the mixing of factions improved the previous mono-list.

 

A codex is like a tool box with a specific set of tools. A plumber's toolbox looks different that a watchmaker's or a car mechanic's. Every set of tools is good a dealing with certain things, and lacks in some other department. And some cover a wider range than others. But when you can just pick any tool you want straight from the hardware store, all limitations are gone. That is why "souping" is almost always better than going mono.

 

So what can a solution look like? For that you need to define a goal first. Some people here don't want mixed faction armies at all, some love it. I think a reasonable goal to make as many players as possible happy is this: Enable all styles of play to create competitive lists. Whether you collect an all Imperium mix, or pure Space Marines. Let the guy who likes pure Black Templars be competitive, but don't ruin it for guy who likes guardsmen side by side with knights.

 

How can this be achieved? I say add a cost to choice and reward accepting limitations. The CP system is a pretty good basis, but needs some rework. My idea: Every faction detachment should get a specific benefit/cost for primary and allied use (defined by the warlord), while the default 3 CP for battle forged go away.

Some examples: Astra Militarum get +2/-3 meaning if you take an Astra Militarum Warlord, every Astra Militarum detachment adds 2 CP to your army. If you have a different Warlord, every AM detachment will cost you 3 CP. Custodes would get +4/-2 since they have a much harder time fielding multiple detachments, but add fewer options. 

This change does two things: A primary AM battalion is now worth 7 CP, while a Custodes battalion is worth 9, balancing how hard it is for different factions to generate CP. And more importantly, it means mixing in a Custodes detachment into an AM army will cost you effectively 4 CP (over taking another AM detachment of the same type).

 

Craftworld Eldar might get +3/-4 since they add a huge selection of options but have a harder time to get CP as a main faction compared to AM. At -5 CP total that Doomseer would be a really hard sell suddenly.

 

This is not hard to do for all factions and could be a simple update with Chapter Approved or even an FAQ. No fundamental rules rewrite required, just two numbers per codex. That way mono-builds get buffed, especially those factions with a hard time generating CP's. But mixing factions is still possible at a cost, making it not necessarily a better choice than going pure.

[Cryptix]

I'm against any solution that prevents me from using stratagems from other codex, because it means I can't use my things like the Loci stratagems or warpsurge on possessed units in my daemonkin army, which is extremely fluffy and one of the main selling points of chaos.

[CaptainMarsh]

The Knight Codex made filling out a Knight army in a certain fashion give extra CP. It makes mono-Knight armies not intensely CP starved, even if Soup Knights still get access to more and are thus more efficient. Point being, that little nugget makes Knight armies far more viable than they would have been otherwise. The idea I have jumps off from there

Similarly, doing such with most other codices (choose a detachment type, filling it out gives X/Y benefit) would at least give them more individual girth. Then make it so they get the additional CP and another additional gameplay benefit, and all of this is lost if you have detachments in your army from outside of the same codex. 

You boost mono, don't harm soup, have more options. Perfect? By no means perfect. I can see flaws. But it would be interesting to see.

[kombatwombat]

I've done some thinking on this topic for a while now.

 

Reducing the issue too CP batteries and strategem access is missing the root problem.

When you add a second codex to your army you get access to things that you otherwise wouldn't be able to get. Those things can be CP, they can be strategems, but that's not the fundamental issue.

 

Simple example: Take a mono DE army, say a coven with talos spam and some cabal stuff. That's a pretty competitive list to start with. Now you just add in an auxiliary support detachment with a Farseer to get access to Doom. Your list just got 30% stronger. No CP or strategems were gained in the example (in fact CP were lost). Yet the mixing of factions improved the previous mono-list.

 

A codex is like a tool box with a specific set of tools. A plumber's toolbox looks different that a watchmaker's or a car mechanic's. Every set of tools is good a dealing with certain things, and lacks in some other department. And some cover a wider range than others. But when you can just pick any tool you want straight from the hardware store, all limitations are gone. That is why "souping" is almost always better than going mono.

 

So what can a solution look like? For that you need to define a goal first. Some people here don't want mixed faction armies at all, some love it. I think a reasonable goal to make as many players as possible happy is this: Enable all styles of play to create competitive lists. Whether you collect an all Imperium mix, or pure Space Marines. Let the guy who likes pure Black Templars be competitive, but don't ruin it for guy who likes guardsmen side by side with knights.

 

How can this be achieved? I say add a cost to choice and reward accepting limitations. The CP system is a pretty good basis, but needs some rework. My idea: Every faction detachment should get a specific benefit/cost for primary and allied use (defined by the warlord), while the default 3 CP for battle forged go away.

Some examples: Astra Militarum get +2/-3 meaning if you take an Astra Militarum Warlord, every Astra Militarum detachment adds 2 CP to your army. If you have a different Warlord, every AM detachment will cost you 3 CP. Custodes would get +4/-2 since they have a much harder time fielding multiple detachments, but add fewer options.

This change does two things: A primary AM battalion is now worth 7 CP, while a Custodes battalion is worth 9, balancing how hard it is for different factions to generate CP. And more importantly, it means mixing in a Custodes detachment into an AM army will cost you effectively 4 CP (over taking another AM detachment of the same type).

 

Craftworld Eldar might get +3/-4 since they add a huge selection of options but have a harder time to get CP as a main faction compared to AM. At -5 CP total that Doomseer would be a really hard sell suddenly.

 

This is not hard to do for all factions and could be a simple update with Chapter Approved or even an FAQ. No fundamental rules rewrite required, just two numbers per codex. That way mono-builds get buffed, especially those factions with a hard time generating CP's. But mixing factions is still possible at a cost, making it not necessarily a better choice than going pure.

This person talks sense. We should all try to emulate this person.

 

Your defining of the problem and the aim of a solution are excellent. Your solution is pretty good, but it does penalise soup slightly - which GW have stated they’re conceptually against. Which is extraordinary unfortunate as it really makes solving their problem incredibly hard.

[kombatwombat]

CaptainMarsh has just given me an idea on how to kill - or at least injure - two birds with one stone. The second bird being a common complaint that armies that ‘look like the ones in the stories’ just suck competitively.

 

It’s kind of similar vein to Vigilus Formations:

 

- Release a set of army-specific Detachments, one or two for each Codex, where every unit in the Detachment has to share a specified keyword, such as <Chapter>/<Regiment>

 

- Make every one give +3CP for up to a 1000pt game, +6CP for up to 1500pts or +9CP for up to 2000pts

 

- If you choose to use this Detachment, you may only use one Detachment total

 

- Make this an option only; still allow players to use normal Detachments if they prefer

 

- Since they’re Codex-specific, you can tailor the Detachment to each army; for instance, Custodes might have 2-6 Troops, 1-4 Elites and 1-2 HQs and 0-3 of the rest, while Guard might have 6-12 Troops, 2-5 HQs, 3-6 Heavy and 0-3 of the rest, and Eldar might have 1-3 HQs, 3-6 Fast Attack, etc etc

 

- down the track, you’ve got the option of adding more themed ones - like Deathwing or Haemonculus Covens

 

You end up with an army that looks like the stories, from a mono-Codex, has 12CP and can compete on a closer-to-fair footing with Soup armies. You can also sell players a book of these things, and you don’t stop people playing their current armies or penalising Soup, you just add options.

 

Another idea that isn’t perfect, but I reckon this one has merit.

[Huggtand]

GW already have one rule that would make mixing factions less attractive. In Kill Team Rogue Trader the CP generated by the Elucidian starstrider warlord trait can only be used by that faction.

 

If CP only could be used by the faction that generated it I actually think it would be a more balanced game. Now you cant boost your talos with the CP from your allied guardians or bost a castellan with CP from a guard brigade. It would mean a little more bookkeeping but not much more then to have markers in different colors to keep track on what CP belongs to witch detachment.

 

This would of course just make allies less attractive. To make mono-codex more viable is a different kettle  
One big reason why people takes allies is to fill a shortcoming in their own codex, be it to ad a cheap screen for knights or close combat hammer for guards. So long as there is a big weakness in a codex an allied list that removes that weakness will always be better than the mono-codex list.

[Panzer]

I'd be fine with that but it would be quite a bit more bookkeeping I guess.

[PiñaColada]

I think separate CP pools require too much bookkeeping, if you have 3 different detachments then you'd have three different pools. Would you be able to spend a CP for a generic command re-roll on a unit from detachment B with CPs from detachment A? I find that some players already has trouble keeping up with a singular pool, even at higher levels of play. You'll see it a tournaments because of the time crunch. It's also a chore to explain to newer players.

Not to mention that if the opponent you're facing is someone you don't know/don't really trust for whatever reason you have to keep track of potentially 6 CP pools and the regeneration that comes along with them.

I feel like any solution needs to be really simple to understand both from a rules perspective and when you're actually playing and seeing your own and your opponents CP. That's one of the reasons I really like the structured approach to new CP generation. Everyone goes through the same steps to calculate their starting CPs, so it's super easy.

I don't understand how any balance can be achieved if GW truly does not want to "punish" allies at all. The benefits you can potentially get from allies are too many to count, so whatever bonus you'd give mono-dex armies would have to be crazy good. Would you still give that bonus to armies that can't ally, like tau? Or do you only give it if someone brings lets say, a pure Borkan list? Stabilising CP generation makes even a small CP cost significant because you can no longer go into a game with a brigade and a battalion netting you 20CPs to start with.

[MARK0SIAN]

Whilst I have no problem with the principle that each faction can only use their own CP I would only support it myself if it came with some adjustments to how easy it is for some factions to generate CP whilst others really struggle.

[Slasher956]

I'd be fine with that but it would be quite a bit more bookkeeping I guess.

 

Sure I've said this before.... but that would hurt the game... lets have a look at what a  sisters of battle player would have to track:

 

Victory points

Objective cards

CP - primary

CP - secondary

Strategems (differing costs & timings)

Faith points

Acts of faith (they have different values and timings)

unit stats

weapon stats

[Panzer]

 

I'd be fine with that but it would be quite a bit more bookkeeping I guess.

 

Sure I've said this before.... but that would hurt the game... lets have a look at what a  sisters of battle player would have to track:

 

Victory points

Objective cards

CP - primary

CP - secondary

Strategems (differing costs & timings)

Faith points

Acts of faith (they have different values and timings)

unit stats

weapon stats

 

 

Literally just one more thing than others. I don't count Faith points and Acts of faith as two separate points.

[killersquid]

The new genestealer cult codex I think has a good way of mitigating soup. Allied detachments earn half cp, and cannot get a warlord trait or artifacts. That alone would fix a lot of problems.