Capping invulnerable save at 5+ (infantry) and 4+ (vehicles), not more.
What would you do with storm shields (pretending people still use units with these)
This is a HORRID suggestion. Storm Shields exist and some armies (like Harlequins) are designed around having 4++ across the board. Capping Invuls at 5++ would make Haries unplayable (like they were in 7E) I do not feel that a blanket rule can apply fairly to all Invuls. It's better to just address the biggest abusers and make weapons a bit more reliable.
Several changes that would help off the bat would be: Cap Knight Invuls to 4++, revamp multi-damage weapons to do more than just D6 or D3. Lascannons would be far more reliable is they were D3+2 damage instead of D6, for example. It would make those instances in which they get through the Invul actually matter.
Same with Melta. Instead of 2d6 at half range taking the highest, it could be 2d6 total at half range, so even D6+3 at half. We could even ditch the whole "at half range" and just give all Meltas 2D6 damage against Vehicles & Monsters. And Multimeltas should have D3 shots, not just 1.
Make weapons that are SUPPOSED to be good against large targets actually reliable, and getting through Invuls isn't so bad (because you WILL for more damage when you do) Combine with capping certain models invuls and you fix the issue
The current situation is that elite armies ally in cheap battalions and typically run with 13CP (their own more expensive battalion and the allied el cheapo battalion)
While the hordier armies run Brigades and ally in low-CP elite allied detachments, and typically run with 15CP.
This tends to be fundamentally unfair favoring the armies that can run the brigades, as they have more CP and typically more flexibility in what they can take because they don't need to take 3 expensive troops and 2 expensive HQs to get close to parity.
And you want to create a situation where the elite armies will have their battalion and run with 8CP
and the cheap armies will run a brigade and have 15.
Capping invulnerable save at 5+ (infantry) and 4+ (vehicles), not more.
What would you do with storm shields (pretending people still use units with these)
What are these deathwatch veterans with SB/SS?
SS for 2 pts...
SS for 2pts isn't what you should focus on. 20ppm StormVets that die just a fast a regular Tac Marines to small arms fire (which there is a tons of out there) is how that balances out. 2-3ppm is about right for SSs on non-Characters. Anymore and why bother
Good point. I agree. Vanquisher Tank is a prime example of this.
I'm not a big fan of high invulnerable saves. I still think that for infantry, 5+ invuln should be the norm, with an exception here and there. But on vehicles, it's a horrible thing to get through. Especially Tau, that have 3+ invuln easily accessible.
Haha, you hit me with your strongest weapon but it did nothing, because I'm invulnerable, cause space magic shields, haha, now I kill you with 3D3 S9 AP-4 3D auto hit supermegaawesomeplasmaflamers, haha. That thing...
Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Adding to the durability suggestions here, would a system that reduces damage taken by under-strenght weapon be a good solution ? Anti-tank weaponry would be amped up accordingly.
For example:
Let's have a humble Rhino, T7, 10W, 3+ save. We could give him an "Armour Value" of 2, meaning it reduces every damage inflicted by weapons under S7 by 2, with no minimum. So with the actual weapon profiles we have to start shooting with an Autocannon to inflict damage, as it is S7 (same as T7). All of a sudden you can't just saturate your way through its T7 with lots of weaker weapons and things like Disintegrator Cannons or Heavy Bolters become useless.
Alternatively if it proves too powerful we can make it like a weapon that wounds on a 5+ against the armoured target ignores the Armour Value on a 6 to wound. It half the effectiveness while still allowing an army that has no more anti-tank weaponry to deal with it.
We could give this system to all Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles, with different Armour Values depending on the model. That way it encourages people to have actual anti-tank weaponry and not just rely on saturation for every target they encounter. Of course accordingly we'd have to adjust actual anti-tank weaponry so that they deal way more damage, like instead of 1d6 D for a Lascannon we'd have minimum 3 up to 6 like a Neutron laser. And reward Melta users for being in half-range like suggested earlier with better reliability.
Good point. I agree. Vanquisher Tank is a prime example of this.
I'm not a big fan of high invulnerable saves. I still think that for infantry, 5+ invuln should be the norm, with an exception here and there. But on vehicles, it's a horrible thing to get through. Especially Tau, that have 3+ invuln easily accessible.
Haha, you hit me with your strongest weapon but it did nothing, because I'm invulnerable, cause space magic shields, haha, now I kill you with 3D3 S9 AP-4 3D auto hit supermegaawesomeplasmaflamers, haha. That thing...
I'm sorry what? Someone lied to you about what their Y'Vahra does. Not a single one of those statements is true. Next time make them show you the stats in the index via a legit digital or physical copy. 3++ invulns are actually pretty hard to get for Tau without massively gimping your firepower with stupid nova charges or taking overcosted shield drones on Shadowsun/FW Riptide Variants. (which cannot use the Branched Nova Charge Strategem and cost as much as a knight with half the wounds) Edit: A single riptide can upgrade both its guns and shields for 1cp during the Tau players turn.
Aaranis wrote: Adding to the durability suggestions here, would a system that reduces damage taken by under-strenght weapon be a good solution ? Anti-tank weaponry would be amped up accordingly.
For example:
Let's have a humble Rhino, T7, 10W, 3+ save. We could give him an "Armour Value" of 2, meaning it reduces every damage inflicted by weapons under S7 by 2, with no minimum. So with the actual weapon profiles we have to start shooting with an Autocannon to inflict damage, as it is S7 (same as T7). All of a sudden you can't just saturate your way through its T7 with lots of weaker weapons and things like Disintegrator Cannons or Heavy Bolters become useless.
Alternatively if it proves too powerful we can make it like a weapon that wounds on a 5+ against the armoured target ignores the Armour Value on a 6 to wound. It half the effectiveness while still allowing an army that has no more anti-tank weaponry to deal with it.
We could give this system to all Monstrous Creatures and Vehicles, with different Armour Values depending on the model. That way it encourages people to have actual anti-tank weaponry and not just rely on saturation for every target they encounter. Of course accordingly we'd have to adjust actual anti-tank weaponry so that they deal way more damage, like instead of 1d6 D for a Lascannon we'd have minimum 3 up to 6 like a Neutron laser. And reward Melta users for being in half-range like suggested earlier with better reliability.
This might work if the only factions in the game were Imperium.
Drager wrote: This might work if the only factions in the game were Imperium.
I don't see why it would ? It could be used by every Vehicle/MC, the downside is that they'd have to rewrite all supposedly anti-tank weapons for reliable damage.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
SS for 2pts isn't what you should focus on. 20ppm StormVets that die just a fast a regular Tac Marines to small arms fire (which there is a tons of out there) is how that balances out. 2-3ppm is about right for SSs on non-Characters. Anymore and why bother
-
Issue is then how much is 4++ worth? 1 pts? 5++?
What about 6+++? Why are we supposed to pay 5 pts when there's 3++ for 2 pts? Even 1 pts would be joke.
Reemule wrote: Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
While I can certainly see your point, and agree with the "efficiency" of RIS on other Knights, Xenos isn't the only one with a bias here. As you seem to have played with a Castellan, you've probably seen it fail more than your opponents have, thus giving you a bias too.
But there is a good reason that the Castellan continues to show up in Imperial Soup lists over and over again. Often as the only Knight
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
You have a very different view of how powerful the Castellan is and I would wager it is not shared by the very large majority of the community - not subjectively or objectively.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
It sounds like you are playing mono-knights? Most of the complaints about Castellans are from souping them in with excess CP from IG and other threats besides the Castellan.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
Bharring wrote: But Castellans need to pay hundreds of points and CP *per model* for a 3++!
Shouldn't the same wargear cost the same on every model?
Hells no.
The more wounds it has the more chances that Invulnerable save will actually work.
Infantry with one or two wounds fail one save and more often than not die so they pay 2ppm and never actually get use out of it..
Characters and TWC have three or more wounds so usually two fails will end them and their shields cost 10ppm, I think TWC got ripped off but I play Space Wolves so I'm biased.
Dreadnoughts got dropped back to 4++ saves because their eight wounds were seeing genuine value from a 40ppm 3++ shield.
So let's talk about a 3++ save on an Imperial Knight at twenty eight wounds.
Three wounds to five wounds jumped five times, five wounds to eight wounds jumped four times and dropped to a 4++ but let's play fair and pretend it's still a 3++.
Assuming this actually follows an order eight wounds to twelve wounds is the next jump and it goes up three times to 120 ppm.
Then twelve to seventeen for a double jump hitting 240ppm for a 3++ save.
So, do we leave it at that because it's only against shooty threats or double it again from seventeen to twenty four and see where we go from there?
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
I wish we could play as to me that looks like a super easy matchup for my current tournament list, but you might have a trick the knight players I've fought don't know about.
Bharring wrote: But Castellans need to pay hundreds of points and CP *per model* for a 3++!
Shouldn't the same wargear cost the same on every model?
Hells no.
The more wounds it has the more chances that Invulnerable save will actually work.
Infantry with one or two wounds fail one save and more often than not die so they pay 2ppm and never actually get use out of it..
Characters and TWC have three or more wounds so usually two fails will end them and their shields cost 10ppm, I think TWC got ripped off but I play Space Wolves so I'm biased.
Dreadnoughts got dropped back to 4++ saves because their eight wounds were seeing genuine value from a 40ppm 3++ shield.
So let's talk about a 3++ save on an Imperial Knight at twenty eight wounds.
Three wounds to five wounds jumped five times, five wounds to eight wounds jumped four times and dropped to a 4++ but let's play fair and pretend it's still a 3++.
Assuming this actually follows an order eight wounds to twelve wounds is the next jump and it goes up three times to 120 ppm.
Then twelve to seventeen for a double jump hitting 240ppm for a 3++ save.
So, do we leave it at that because it's only against shooty threats or double it again from seventeen to twenty four and see where we go from there?
I totally agree. I was trying to use this as a perfect example of *why* the same buff on two different units/models is certainly not worth the same.
The idea that an individual Marine and a several-hundred-point Knight can both get a 3++ is enough to prove it a bad idea.
Whats your list? I mean - I'm beating tournament lists with it. You know tyranis knights come back to life right? So does Gman. It's a zombie list really. The only thing that scares it is CC bombs and 75% of the time even if they kill me I get back up and fight at full power. Gman gives all the knights reroll 1's too with a 12" aura.
GSC would absolutely pwn this but that is mostly because GSC powers are about to get nerfed because they are also absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Togusa wrote: The ATFAQ dropped this morning. Any chance we will see the CSM or BGFAQ today?
I am really getting tired of waiting on an answer for my Obliterators.
They will be 115. I rally wouldn't hold my breath on it ether.
You have more faith than I do. I'm worried death beam will be permanent. I mean Castellans have scared me off big stuff, but it sucks to get say, Dante death beamed. It's a cheap power and adds to the misery of 8th ed.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
Congratulations your balancing a codex based upon your use a a soup list.
Take away the 32 douche bags and then see how OP that list feels.
Uhhh...This is the game. It's how it's played. Heck my knight lance generates 6 CP.
If it wasn't loyal 32 it would just be admec
or if it wasn't that
It would be the next cheapest thing.
Trust me - there are no mono armies in competitive play. Cept orks and tau. Because cheap troops are OP and only certain armies have them. Fix the game. Don't hate the players.
I cant believe the last 3 pages of this have been on ways to reduce durability. What nonsense.
This is the killiest edition ever made, with more armies getting tabled that ever before and your trying to reduce invun saves?
Go back under your bridges trolls (no real offence, but need to wake some people up here).
If a weapon is underperforming againgst other weapons, either the weaker weapon needs a points drop, or the stronger weapons need an increase, whichever is easier to do.
ADD IN: Honestly the whole problem was the reduced points cost on many weapons to begin with. 2 point storm shields would never have been needed if AP-3 wasn't so cheap and easy to spam.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
Congratulations your balancing a codex based upon your use a a soup list.
Take away the 32 douche bags and then see how OP that list feels.
As much as I hate to say this, I think allies are the problem and they need to go. Mono codex ONLY this edition. If you want allies, go to Narrative or Open. But for matched play, total embargo. Then we can re-balance Knights as a mono-codex and get them to a spot where they can still be played, but not the defining list of the entire meta.
Xenomancers wrote: Uhhh...This is the game. It's how it's played. Heck my knight lance generates 6 CP.
If it wasn't loyal 32 it would just be admec
or if it wasn't that
It would be the next cheapest thing.
Trust me - there are no mono armies in competitive play. Cept orks and tau. Because cheap troops are OP and only certain armies have them. Fix the game. Don't hate the players.
Players can choose to not take advantage of a broken situation. You wouldn't take advantage of a grieving friend in real life to get what you want, so why do it in other aspects?
Martel732 wrote: You have more faith than I do. I'm worried death beam will be permanent. I mean Castellans have scared me off big stuff, but it sucks to get say, Dante death beamed. It's a cheap power and adds to the misery of 8th ed.
Oblitz erase everything typically hitting on 2's and rerolling 1's. Quite often ignoring invuns. Nothing is safe but cheap troops and sometimes my phobos libby with +2 to saves in cover and they roll a 1 for AP.
You can disagree, but I don't see BA/GK soup doing much. So how is soup the problem?
Or is it the infinite cheapo dum dums that come from the IG codex that turn off assault and provide infinite CP?
If you kill soup, it will just be Vostroyan Baneblades backed up by the stupid FW buff tank with primaris psyker buffs on it. Also protected by infinte dum dums that cost nothing and never die.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
You play soup, call it knights, and abuse the CP mechanic, and then conflate that with Castellan is good all the time is what you meant to say?
Xenomancers wrote: Uhhh...This is the game. It's how it's played. Heck my knight lance generates 6 CP.
If it wasn't loyal 32 it would just be admec
or if it wasn't that
It would be the next cheapest thing.
Trust me - there are no mono armies in competitive play. Cept orks and tau. Because cheap troops are OP and only certain armies have them. Fix the game. Don't hate the players.
None of those are a knight list, it's a soup list.
It's like complaining that thousand sons are OP, then bringing a list full of poxwalker spam and the a Supreme comand of ariman and 2 deamon prices, that's not a thousand sons list.
Your reducting the game to play these units from 5 codex's for imperial this list for choas and casual play 40k gets totally destroyed to preserve the cheesest soup abominations.
Xenomancers wrote: Uhhh...This is the game. It's how it's played. Heck my knight lance generates 6 CP.
If it wasn't loyal 32 it would just be admec
or if it wasn't that
It would be the next cheapest thing.
Trust me - there are no mono armies in competitive play. Cept orks and tau. Because cheap troops are OP and only certain armies have them. Fix the game. Don't hate the players.
Players can choose to not take advantage of a broken situation. You wouldn't take advantage of a grieving friend in real life to get what you want, so why do it in other aspects?
I don't bring this list against my friends. Unless they want to play a cutthroat game. In which case they are also going to abuse the rules as much as they can. The problem is the rules. Every unit in that army is OP. That is why it wins a lot.
Martel732 wrote: You have more faith than I do. I'm worried death beam will be permanent. I mean Castellans have scared me off big stuff, but it sucks to get say, Dante death beamed. It's a cheap power and adds to the misery of 8th ed.
Oblitz erase everything typically hitting on 2's and rerolling 1's. Quite often ignoring invuns. Nothing is safe but cheap troops and sometimes my phobos libby with +2 to saves in cover and they roll a 1 for AP.
Lol, not always. Prescience is WC 7 with no re-rolls outside of command points. They move 4 inches and have a 24inch threat range outside of DS or starting on the table. If you advance, they're hitting on 3+ with the power, 4+ without. In addition, S6 + D3 can be S7, AP can be -1 DMG can be 1. When this happens, I notice a huge drop in effectiveness of the unit. Over charged plasma kills them ever time, a hellblaster squad in rapid will knock the whole three man unit down to 1 remaining wound, effectively neutering the entire unit. If you aren't playing Alpha Legion, then you're legion traits for the unit are largely useless.
They're not as broken as people like to claim unless you get off the full combo works on them.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
You play soup, call it knights, and abuse the CP mechanic, and then conflate that with Castellan is good all the time is what you meant to say?
Xenomancers wrote: Uhhh...This is the game. It's how it's played. Heck my knight lance generates 6 CP.
If it wasn't loyal 32 it would just be admec
or if it wasn't that
It would be the next cheapest thing.
Trust me - there are no mono armies in competitive play. Cept orks and tau. Because cheap troops are OP and only certain armies have them. Fix the game. Don't hate the players.
Players can choose to not take advantage of a broken situation. You wouldn't take advantage of a grieving friend in real life to get what you want, so why do it in other aspects?
I don't bring this list against my friends. Unless they want to play a cutthroat game. In which case they are also going to abuse the rules as much as they can. The problem is the rules. Every unit in that army is OP. That is why it wins a lot.
Now I do not disagree with you on this point. I've often been a proponent of the "remember folks, you get to choose who you play games with" mantra. However, we should choose to be better when we're playing, I've been running my oblits for example at 115 ppm.
I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
That is nice of you. You certainly can play them at 65 and no one can say a dang thing. It's like a 50/50 around here as to how people do it. Right now I'm just avoiding competitive play and having much more fun casual games and trying out my new space marine units.
Xenomancers wrote: That is nice of you. You certainly can play them at 65 and no one can say a dang thing. It's like a 50/50 around here as to how people do it. Right now I'm just avoiding competitive play and having much more fun casual games and trying out my new space marine units.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. [...]
[...]
You
-Play a list you've never lost with
-Are 12-0
-Won 3 tournaments
-Tabled every opponent
-*Avoid Competitive games*
-*Play casual*
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
He's got 30 douche bags to make the castellen immune to assualt.
Hes got 8 additional CP and CP regenerate via Guilliman.
A Castellen in a pure knights list maxes out realistically at 9CP assuming you do nothing else in terms of warlord traits and relics, and your be spending atleast 2CP on those, thats 3 rotate ions on a castellen with nothing else strategums wise for the entire game with the other trait and relic it's 2 phases of rotate.
Those extra 8CP and regen buy you another 3 turns.
Simply put it couldn't be less relevant if he'd posted a pure Tau list.
Martel732 wrote: You can disagree, but I don't see BA/GK soup doing much. So how is soup the problem?
Or is it the infinite cheapo dum dums that come from the IG codex that turn off assault and provide infinite CP?
If you kill soup, it will just be Vostroyan Baneblades backed up by the stupid FW buff tank with primaris psyker buffs on it. Also protected by infinte dum dums that cost nothing and never die.
You think it'd be worth it to give up Catachan on your whole army just to get a Vostroyan baneblade?
Regardless, I think you're right on one point and purposefully ignoring another.
1) it is definitely correct that removing soup would result in less faction diversity, as factions that are currently only usable with supplemental allies like BA, GK, Chaos armies, Knights and CWE would probably exit stage left in favor of those armies that are strong without allies like Guard, Drukhari, Tau, Orks and GSC. There would be some shuffling if you also got rid of Subfaction Souping within a detachment that would largely also result in less diversity, as people would decide which buffs like Black Heart and Catachan were just too good to give up, and which like possibly Evil Sunz just didn't provide enough utility for the whole army to be run with them.
2) It is also definitely correct that there are certain factions and bugbear units people complain about who are only as dominant as they are because of supplemental benefits provided from other codexes, like Allied CWE doom, CPs from feeder detachments, and screening/etc that models like Castellans ordinarily would not have access to.
So while I definitely agree that just removing soup would not result in a better balanced game and would in fact do the opposite, I do think there are some unique problems caused by soup that should be addressed as such rather than punishing units that would definitely not be doing what they could do with the benefits soup provide. Cough cough, how are your BA captains feeling in your mono-BA army?
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
Martel732 wrote: You can disagree, but I don't see BA/GK soup doing much. So how is soup the problem?
Or is it the infinite cheapo dum dums that come from the IG codex that turn off assault and provide infinite CP?
If you kill soup, it will just be Vostroyan Baneblades backed up by the stupid FW buff tank with primaris psyker buffs on it. Also protected by infinte dum dums that cost nothing and never die.
You think it'd be worth it to give up Catachan on your whole army just to get a Vostroyan baneblade?
Regardless, I think you're right on one point and purposefully ignoring another.
1) it is definitely correct that removing soup would result in less faction diversity, as factions that are currently only usable with supplemental allies like BA, GK, Chaos armies, Knights and CWE would probably exit stage left in favor of those armies that are strong without allies like Guard, Drukhari, Tau, Orks and GSC. There would be some shuffling if you also got rid of Subfaction Souping within a detachment that would largely also result in less diversity, as people would decide which buffs like Black Heart and Catachan were just too good to give up, and which like possibly Evil Sunz just didn't provide enough utility for the whole army to be run with them.
2) It is also definitely correct that there are certain factions and bugbear units people complain about who are only as dominant as they are because of supplemental benefits provided from other codexes, like Allied CWE doom, CPs from feeder detachments, and screening/etc that models like Castellans ordinarily would not have access to.
So while I definitely agree that just removing soup would not result in a better balanced game and would in fact do the opposite, I do think there are some unique problems caused by soup that should be addressed as such rather than punishing units that would definitely not be doing what they could do with the benefits soup provide. Cough cough, how are your BA captains feeling in your mono-BA army?
Just fine, actually. I've stopped trying to use them as living torpedoes. But the BA units just suck in general.
Martel732 wrote: Who says it would be whole army? Multiple detachments of different regiments. All the sacrificial dum dums could be catachans.
I was honestly considering deleting that section of the post, because I knew it'd be like dangling a shiny object in front of a cat before trying to make my actual point. Sorry about that.
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
So a Castellan is OP in a pure-Knight list because pure lists can't compete with soup lists, and Castellans are too good in Soup lists?
In other news, mono-Marines are OP because they can't win against CWE, so the player drops Marines and takes CWE instead, and CWE is OP.
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
Wow don't even know the codex knights can't break 12CP under 2k period
Xenomancers wrote: Whats your list? I mean - I'm beating tournament lists with it. You know tyranis knights come back to life right? So does Gman. It's a zombie list really. The only thing that scares it is CC bombs and 75% of the time even if they kill me I get back up and fight at full power. Gman gives all the knights reroll 1's too with a 12" aura.
GSC would absolutely pwn this but that is mostly because GSC powers are about to get nerfed because they are also absurd.
Aeldari, Seer council CC bomb, Skyweavers with Haywire and venoms with shredder toting kabalites inside. I've played against tyranis. I had a game against a list similar to yours recently, not exactly the same (he had 2 gallants and a few more guard). I don't play ITC, cause I play int the UK tournament scene, but I doubt it would make much difference in this match up.
I'll give a quick summary of the matchup.
Knights went first, Castellan opened up on the Skyweavers (the council was out of LoS). I used LFR (naturally) and he managed to kill 4 Skyweavers and did 1 mortal to himself, which was pretty good for a castellan shooting into a -2 to hit 4++ I thought. The gallants moved up to try to get into combat, the infantry screened out the castellan.
On my turn I buffed up the Council and moved it out also doing about 5 wounds to a galllant with Smite. The venoms moved up and between those, their cargo and the Death Jesters I wiped all the infantry except a couple of characters out of los. The Council, skyweavers and accompanying characters shot the wounded gallant (he used RIS, I had doomed it), dropping it to 3 wounds remaining. The Council and Autarch then charged the other Gallant (they were ~18" apart), this second Gallant was Jinxed, they blew up the Gallant. My opponent tried to get it back up and I used Vect.
On the Knight turn 2, he shot everything from the castellan into the council, but only killed 2 and did 2 more mortal wounds to himself (council had -2 to hit with LFR, 3++, 5+++). The wounded gallant wrecked 2 venoms, as the council was too far away to charge.
On my turn the council killed the Castellan, Doom, Jinx, shoot+charge and the skyweavers put down the gallant. I was on all the objectives and he only had rowboat left. So he conceded.
Martel732 wrote: Who says it would be whole army? Multiple detachments of different regiments. All the sacrificial dum dums could be catachans.
I was honestly considering deleting that section of the post, because I knew it'd be like dangling a shiny object in front of a cat before trying to make my actual point. Sorry about that.
It's okay. It's a good reminder of how powerful that codex is.
Reemule wrote: Lets really discuss all the cost in a Castellan getting 3+.
A detachment.
604 points.
1 CP pre game to give the Castellan a Warlord Trait to have the 4++
3 CP each time you want to have a 3++ in game for a shooting phase.
As a pure knight player at times, the Castellan is already useless. I wish I hadn't bought the model and saved the money for a Cerastus knight. And then we have the well intention-ed but poorly informed that want to make it worse.
Yeah no - you are doing it wrong. Make the Castellan your warlord and give him the free relic plasma cannon. Take 2 armigers if you must to complete the detachment and for a knight lance and get army traits. Or If you must. Take 2 more knights. You also have to be smart about spending 3 CP to go to 3++. Realistically they can't kill your knight even with a 4++ so bait them into shooting it take some damage on it. Then fight at full power for 1 Freaking CP. At this point you've already won. No army can handle 2 turns of full knight firepower if they don't kill something. Because turn 2-3 you have 3 titans in CC and being unstoppable. Smart players don't even shoot the Castellan - it's a waste.
How can you say something so absurd as to say a Castellan is useless? Apart from Mortarian - the only model I'd never bring to a casual game.
Wait you think a 4++ and a turn of fighting at full power with a knight is a win? Man, your anti knight prejudges is on full display. Rein in your bias a little and work on gaining some perspective, to have some ability to see the middle.
The castellan is a powerful piece. So is all the knights. And when I have 9 CP spending 1/3rd my total to RIS one, isn't smart, or effective, when I can RIS others for a single CP.
I play knights dude.
I've never lost with this list. I think it's 12-0 right now and won 3 locals. Tabled every single opponent. I have no idea why I didn't just bring this to LVO. I think I was concerned about psychic powers.
I'm not bragging btw. I'm just saying I feel bad beating people with the Castellan and with knights in general. You are sitting here calling it useless. I find it absolutely absurd. It's almost as bad as Eldar defending SS all edition.
You play soup, call it knights, and abuse the CP mechanic, and then conflate that with Castellan is good all the time is what you meant to say?
The list has 1400 points of knights.
The overriding point was missed. People are arguing a Castellan in list that's 2000 pts of knights, no guard, no marines, no extras are under performing due to the cost of RIS. You initially made a good point about ensuring to screw with an opponents target priority, but your list doesn't reinforce your corner.
Allies are probably the root issue, as it allows design paradigms to be bent for each army. Guardsmen being 4pts with orders is a very good deal regardless, but when they can't suddenly pack in a 3++ point and click unit destroyer they would hopefully just go back to being "good". If IG is designed to be full of dirt cheap bodies that has a lot of CP but nothing meaningful to spam them on then that's fine.
When they can do that and feed them into a CP hungry, low head count army to bend the design vision to something unnatural is when the system breaks down, as seen.
I feel like this thread is definitely starting to reach the point where the one major thing that we can still agree on is that the FAQ should have been released already.
Burnage wrote: I feel like this thread is definitely starting to reach the point where the one major thing that we can still agree on is that the FAQ should have been released already.
Unless they are still debating it. Otherwise, I agree.
I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here but I'll just say this.
It is possible for more than one aspect of the game to be problematic.
Is it problematic that you can turn 1 charge with super charged units pumped up with CP like tzangoors or shinning spears ect? OFC it is. It mandates that you have loads of chaff to stop your good units from being deleted with opponents CP spells and gimmicks.
Is it problematic that a Castellan and infantry is really undercosted. OFC it is.
Is it problematic that armies gernerate CP based on cheap troops and hq's? OFC it is. It mandates that soup will always be better than mono.
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
Wow don't even know the codex knights can't break 12CP under 2k period
I was including the 3 CP for battle forged....
Automatically Appended Next Post: If a SS is worth 2 points....Every marine is overcosted at 13 and should probably be 11....So you are basically saying all marines should have 3++ saves. You know - that might help them be competitive choices.
Because when people keep telling people they run an X faction list, when it soup. The perception of the power of each codex gets distorted out of all relation to reality.
GW take this feedback and then make changes based on well we have guard players saying knights are too powerful and "knight" player's saying they don't have issues. Well we obviously didn't cost their strategums correctly.
Now the 32 douche bags are mandatory, If I wanted to play Guard I would still own my Pretorians.
Also if a Castellen is so undercosted why do they not show up in pure knights list or renegade knights lists.
Is it maybe less the model and it's CP habit that makes Tony Montana's cocaine habit look like light recrational use.
Xenomancers wrote: I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here but I'll just say this.
It is possible for more than one aspect of the game to be problematic.
Certainly. Probable even. Certain, in 40ks case.
Is it problematic that you can turn 1 charge with super charged units pumped up with CP like tzangoors or shinning spears ect? OFC it is. It mandates that you have loads of chaff to stop your good units from being deleted with opponents CP spells and gimmicks.
Your premise is fine, but your evidence shows why these conversations always go sideways. Shining Spears buffed to hell are a problem. But they are not super charged via CP - it's Powers *and* CP. They basically just get LQR and maybe Command Reroll. The double movement, double fighting, 5++, etc all come from elsewhere.
How can we reasonably discuss anything when half the comments are totally offbase?
Is it problematic that a Castellan and infantry is really undercosted. OFC it is.
Nobody argued otherwise.
The problem is you're arguing "Castellan + Infantry are OP" as a reason why "Castellan sans infantry is not OP" is wrong.
Is it problematic that armies gernerate CP based on cheap troops and hq's? OFC it is. It mandates that soup will always be better than mono.
Now you're practically just repeating yourself. However, while this point supports Soup being better than Mono, it does not mandate it - there are times (and armies) where that simply isn't the case, despite it's benefits. But that's not what anyone was saying.
At the end of the day, refuting "Castellan sans infantry isn't OP" by screaming "But my Castellan + Infantry is, therefore YOURE WRONG!" isn't helping.
I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here but I'll just say this.
It is possible for more than one aspect of the game to be problematic.
Is it problematic that you can turn 1 charge with super charged units pumped up with CP like tzangoors or shinning spears ect? OFC it is. It mandates that you have loads of chaff to stop your good units from being deleted with opponents CP spells and gimmicks.
Is it problematic that a Castellan and infantry is really undercosted. OFC it is.
Is it problematic that armies gernerate CP based on cheap troops and hq's? OFC it is. It mandates that soup will always be better than mono.
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
Wow don't even know the codex knights can't break 12CP under 2k period
I was including the 3 CP for battle forged....
Automatically Appended Next Post: If a SS is worth 2 points....Every marine is overcosted at 13 and should probably be 11....So you are basically saying all marines should have 3++ saves. You know - that might help them be competitive choices.
Your still wrong as it's 12CP including the 3 for battle forged.
3 Gallants the cheapest way to 6CP is over 1000points so you can't have 6 gallants in a 2k list
1 Gallant and 2 Warglaives is over 675 so you that doesn't help.
I've never understood this argument?
"Also if a Castellen is so undercosted why do they not show up in pure knights list or renegade knights lists. "
In competitive play everyone is abusing the system. So why do you assume an army not abusing the system to beat one that is?
Imagine we pay points for models and get a baseline power level - with stratagems and spells and buffs expanding on that power level.
If we made it a math problem it might be easier to understand my argument.
Lets just say a Castellan has a power level (not the in game points alternative - more like DBZ) of 20 when similarly costed units have a power level of only 15.
So 20 > 15....no debate there. However power level 15 unit can shoot twice in 1 turn for CP and soup shenanigans. So now power level 15x2 = power level 30. 20<30.
This is basically what I am saying and I am not saying that the 2x power level stratagems for CP and powers are balanced ether.
20>15 always though. So if you are going to say mono knights you have to compare against other mono army. Otherwise you are deliberately slanting against the knight player.
I'm not sure what kind of mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here but I'll just say this.
It is possible for more than one aspect of the game to be problematic.
Is it problematic that you can turn 1 charge with super charged units pumped up with CP like tzangoors or shinning spears ect? OFC it is. It mandates that you have loads of chaff to stop your good units from being deleted with opponents CP spells and gimmicks.
Is it problematic that a Castellan and infantry is really undercosted. OFC it is.
Is it problematic that armies gernerate CP based on cheap troops and hq's? OFC it is. It mandates that soup will always be better than mono.
Bharring wrote: I have to admit, that's a much more creative "Pure Knight" list than I expected.
Bonus points if you `Knight` each individual Guardsman, maybe even give them each their own heraldry.
On a more serious note, how is this any different from the "typical" Knight list when discussing how good or bad a Castellan is in a *pure* Knight list?
Listen...Mono can not compete with allies....ESP not knights. There are too many turn 1 charge gimmicks in the game. You have to have some screening to protect auto charge turn 1 or you lose. IMO that isn't balanced ether but that is the main reason for loyal 32 in most list anyways. You have to have chaff to block out turn 1 gimmick charges. You literally can't win without it. The CP is nice but I could easily get 15 CP (only 2 less than my soup list) with a full knight list.
Some combination of a castellan 2 helverines + gallants and crusaders or maybe a warden. The reason that list loses is not CP - it can't take up space and gimmicks run it over. You see the power of 4 point models now? Gimmicks don't work when guardsmen are in the way.
Wow don't even know the codex knights can't break 12CP under 2k period
I was including the 3 CP for battle forged....
Automatically Appended Next Post: If a SS is worth 2 points....Every marine is overcosted at 13 and should probably be 11....So you are basically saying all marines should have 3++ saves. You know - that might help them be competitive choices.
Your still wrong as it's 12CP including the 3 for battle forged.
3 Gallants the cheapest way to 6CP is over 1000points so you can't have 6 gallants in a 2k list
1 Gallant and 2 Warglaives is over 675 so you that doesn't help.
A detachment with 2 armigers and a knight gives you 3 CP.
Oh sorry I ment 12 - brain fart. So used to giving myself 3 CP for Gman being my warlord it auto calculated.
Xenomancers wrote: I've never understood this argument?
"Also if a Castellen is so undercosted why do they not show up in pure knights list or renegade knights lists. "
That's because you're not reading what people are saying. This thread hasn't suggested that Castellans aren't OP because mono-Knight lists aren't winning. The claim is that Castellans, when in mono-Knight lists, are not OP. That's a *very* different claim. And one that rejects your quoted statement inherently. You need to reread the posts, if that's what you read.
Xenomancers wrote: I've never understood this argument?
"Also if a Castellen is so undercosted why do they not show up in pure knights list or renegade knights lists. "
That's because you're not reading what people are saying. This thread hasn't suggested that Castellans aren't OP because mono-Knight lists aren't winning. The claim is that Castellans, when in mono-Knight lists, are not OP. That's a *very* different claim. And one that rejects your quoted statement inherently. You need to reread the posts, if that's what you read.
Nothing in mono list is OP against soup...In what world is mono army facing soup? In a world that does not exist. Plus yes...There are several people claiming the Castellan is not OP on it's own.
So your argument is that Castellans aren't "Not OP" in mono lists, because mono Knight lists aren't good enough to compete? Is that a serious argument?
As for the Castellan not being OP on it's own, how is a Castellan with the Loyal32 a Castellan "on it's own"?
It's probably a different kind of OP build, but aslong as the guard can make it un assualtable and feed it CP like a addict it's probably going to be more powered up that it's supposed to be and be balanced/costed for.
That said throwing 10 discounted CP into anything for 2-3 turns is pretty game breaking generally.
In the particular competitive build with a guard brigade raven is the go to. This build trashes the army trait because it doesn't get army trait in a SHAD. Tyranis knights with 6+ FNP against regular damage and zombification are even better in a difference army comp if they can complete a knight lance. Also the reroll all hits in CC house with bonkers +1 damage and +2 against super heavies is also REALLY good (forget it's name). Getting you knights some method of reroll 1's to hit in shooting is pretty important though. That is why I bring Gman (hes basically another Gallant and he buffs and gives me CP+regen) The reroll 1's on damage is far less important. Most knights do flat damage and it just some other bonus damage on your pidly guns and reroll of 1's to wound...That is a pretty steep price for reroll 1's to wound basically. For the same price I can bring a dead knight back to life and shoot at full power for 1 CP. Trust me. If you havn't seen it or had it done to you yet. Prepare to have your eyeballs sucked out of your face.
It's probably a different kind of OP build, but aslong as the guard can make it un assualtable and feed it CP like a addict it's probably going to be more powered up that it's supposed to be and be balanced/costed for.
That said throwing 10 discounted CP into anything for 2-3 turns is pretty game breaking generally.
Can you answer this question. Why should only guard have CP?
In the particular competitive build with a guard brigade raven is the go to. This build trashes the army trait because it doesn't get army trait in a SHAD. Tyranis knights with 6+ FNP against regular damage and zombification are even better in a difference army comp if they can complete a knight lance. Also the reroll all hits in CC house with bonkers +1 damage and +2 against super heavies is also REALLY good (forget it's name). Getting you knights some method of reroll 1's to hit in shooting is pretty important though. That is why I bring Gman (hes basically another Gallant and he buffs and gives me CP+regen) The reroll 1's on damage is far less important. Most knights do flat damage and it just some other bonus damage on your pidly guns and reroll of 1's to wound...That is a pretty steep price for reroll 1's to wound basically. For the same price I can bring a dead knight back to life and shoot at full power for 1 CP. Trust me. If you havn't seen it or had it done to you yet. Prepare to have your eyeballs sucked out of your face.
It's probably a different kind of OP build, but aslong as the guard can make it un assualtable and feed it CP like a addict it's probably going to be more powered up that it's supposed to be and be balanced/costed for.
That said throwing 10 discounted CP into anything for 2-3 turns is pretty game breaking generally.
Can you answer this question. Why should only guard have CP?
They shouldn't that's the problem. If strategums are being recosted around everyone having the same CP, everyone needs to get the same CP.
A strategum is way more balanceable when some factions arn't paying 36 points for CP.
While spending them on strategums costed for CP costing a minimum of 175 points
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: So.... making guardsmen 6 ppm would probably help that problem, right?
Maybe though halfing the CP they generate from detachments rounding down would also work
Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
Xenomancers wrote: That is nice of you. You certainly can play them at 65 and no one can say a dang thing. It's like a 50/50 around here as to how people do it. Right now I'm just avoiding competitive play and having much more fun casual games and trying out my new space marine units.
Where I play, you play them at 115ppm or you don't get a game.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
All factions should have a counter strategem. Not none.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
So are most horde lists, heck even powerarmour spam lists are skewing the defensive profile into 1 profile to try and reduce the effectiveness of your opponents damage output, heck if you don't most armies have enough of almost every damage output to table you in 3 turns in 8th.
You move everyone to 1CP per 100 points and You can quite happily double the CP cost of all of the strategums as printed in the knights codex.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
A couple questions.
1) Why include "no stratagems should cancel stratagems" in a discussion on basic power level of stratagems? I'd figure that a "cancel" strat would be a basic thing you'd add, to avoid certain strategies that totally revolve around them. Like, in Magic Cards should there be no card that prevents another card from being played because that's fundamentally OP?
2) How are knights TAC? We've already demonstrated that we understand in this thread that they have inherent weaknesses to alpha strike and poor objective control by definition, unless you bring allies to give them those capabilities. Sure, they can kill all types of units, to varying degrees of effectiveness.
Are Daemons "broken in concept, a skew army that is TAC" because they all have invulns? Are custodes that, because everything is T5+ and multiwound? Or is that just a buzzword you threw on at the end there to try and make people nod along and say "mhm, it's not fair, they're not playing by the rules that pretty much nobody actually plays by"
You know what codexes are not "skew lists that are TAC" that are super fething strong? As in, they have light infantry, heavy infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks, superheavies, bikes, flyers, psykers, close combat units, shooting units, specialists, generalists, etc etc etc? CWE and Guard.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
All factions should have a counter strategem. Not none.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
All factions should have a counter strategem. Not none.
That is another option.
Yeah, I'd love to be able to have choices when it comes to which cult or kabal to use tbh.
So like....now that we're discussing giving it to the armies you play, are counter-strat strats NOT fundamentally broken?
Well IG would get huge boost with that. It would be waaaay more efficient than any of their other stratagems so finally something to use all the CP's in mono IG. No need to get allies to spend CP's on really good stuff.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
All factions should have a counter strategem. Not none.
That is another option.
When they are priced “appropriately,” Militarum Tempestus will probably get the boot because the IG codex will only get one with the massive amount CP in mind, being crazy expensive, I bet. Actually, this would be a good opportunity to give Scions more stuff cheaper, requiring IG armies to take special operatives like Scions in order to do a counter stratagem.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
A couple questions.
1) Why include "no stratagems should cancel stratagems" in a discussion on basic power level of stratagems? I'd figure that a "cancel" strat would be a basic thing you'd add, to avoid certain strategies that totally revolve around them. Like, in Magic Cards should there be no card that prevents another card from being played because that's fundamentally OP?
2) How are knights TAC? We've already demonstrated that we understand in this thread that they have inherent weaknesses to alpha strike and poor objective control by definition, unless you bring allies to give them those capabilities. Sure, they can kill all types of units, to varying degrees of effectiveness.
Are Daemons "broken in concept, a skew army that is TAC" because they all have invulns? Are custodes that, because everything is T5+ and multiwound? Or is that just a buzzword you threw on at the end there to try and make people nod along and say "mhm, it's not fair, they're not playing by the rules that pretty much nobody actually plays by"
You know what codexes are not "skew lists that are TAC" that are super fething strong? As in, they have light infantry, heavy infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks, superheavies, bikes, flyers, psykers, close combat units, shooting units, specialists, generalists, etc etc etc? CWE and Guard.
Does that make them not broken?
1.) If the game is going to revolve around stratagems - if one has the ability to cancel and the other doesn't. That is OP. In magic every deck can include blue and counterspells. In 40k not every army has access to GSC and DE. As suggested by another - making that a generic stratagem seems like it would be okay too - it's too powerful not to be "all" or "none".
2.) Every list is vulnerable to alpha strike. This game is mostly decided by who goes first. It's always been that way.
3.) All knights are T8. Making the majority of all weapons low str weapons useless against them. That is what I mean by a skew list. Daemons have a lot of varying statlines.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
A couple questions.
1) Why include "no stratagems should cancel stratagems" in a discussion on basic power level of stratagems? I'd figure that a "cancel" strat would be a basic thing you'd add, to avoid certain strategies that totally revolve around them. Like, in Magic Cards should there be no card that prevents another card from being played because that's fundamentally OP?
2) How are knights TAC? We've already demonstrated that we understand in this thread that they have inherent weaknesses to alpha strike and poor objective control by definition, unless you bring allies to give them those capabilities. Sure, they can kill all types of units, to varying degrees of effectiveness.
Are Daemons "broken in concept, a skew army that is TAC" because they all have invulns? Are custodes that, because everything is T5+ and multiwound? Or is that just a buzzword you threw on at the end there to try and make people nod along and say "mhm, it's not fair, they're not playing by the rules that pretty much nobody actually plays by"
You know what codexes are not "skew lists that are TAC" that are super fething strong? As in, they have light infantry, heavy infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks, superheavies, bikes, flyers, psykers, close combat units, shooting units, specialists, generalists, etc etc etc? CWE and Guard.
Does that make them not broken?
1.) If the game is going to revolve around stratagems - if one has the ability to cancel and the other doesn't. That is OP. In magic every deck can include blue and counterspells. In 40k not every army has access to GSC and DE. As suggested by another - making that a generic stratagem seems like it would be okay too - it's too powerful not to be "all" or "none".
2.) Every list is vulnerable to alpha strike. This game is mostly decided by who goes first. It's always been that way.
3.) All knights are T8. Making the majority of all weapons low str weapons useless against them. That is what I mean by a skew list. Daemons have a lot of varying statlines.
Well, you know, except for the ones that are T7.
All daemons have invulnerable saves and not armor saves. All AP that you have in your army, every singular point of negative AP modifier you have is totally worthless vs daemons.
tneva82 wrote: Well IG would get huge boost with that. It would be waaaay more efficient than any of their other stratagems so finally something to use all the CP's in mono IG. No need to get allies to spend CP's on really good stuff.
In my version of the game all armies have equal access to CP. Mono armies can compete against soup. If CP is the same for almost every army.
Xenomancers wrote: Have you seen endless furry? Plus it's the combination of their shooting and CC. I typically table people with knights. I don't see why you think they don't shoot good.
So your soup nonsence beats pure knights lists nit really shure how that makes knight's more broken, if anything it says even strong codex's need buffed against the power abuse cheese of soup lists.
How about we fix the problem at it's core. Units should get actual comparable power level for their points. Stratagems of the same cost should have a similar level of effect. All armies have equal access to CP. No stratagems should cancel stratagems lol.
Knight are broken in concept. They are a skew list that is take all comers.
A couple questions.
1) Why include "no stratagems should cancel stratagems" in a discussion on basic power level of stratagems? I'd figure that a "cancel" strat would be a basic thing you'd add, to avoid certain strategies that totally revolve around them. Like, in Magic Cards should there be no card that prevents another card from being played because that's fundamentally OP?
2) How are knights TAC? We've already demonstrated that we understand in this thread that they have inherent weaknesses to alpha strike and poor objective control by definition, unless you bring allies to give them those capabilities. Sure, they can kill all types of units, to varying degrees of effectiveness.
Are Daemons "broken in concept, a skew army that is TAC" because they all have invulns? Are custodes that, because everything is T5+ and multiwound? Or is that just a buzzword you threw on at the end there to try and make people nod along and say "mhm, it's not fair, they're not playing by the rules that pretty much nobody actually plays by"
You know what codexes are not "skew lists that are TAC" that are super fething strong? As in, they have light infantry, heavy infantry, light tanks, heavy tanks, superheavies, bikes, flyers, psykers, close combat units, shooting units, specialists, generalists, etc etc etc? CWE and Guard.
Does that make them not broken?
1.) If the game is going to revolve around stratagems - if one has the ability to cancel and the other doesn't. That is OP. In magic every deck can include blue and counterspells. In 40k not every army has access to GSC and DE. As suggested by another - making that a generic stratagem seems like it would be okay too - it's too powerful not to be "all" or "none".
2.) Every list is vulnerable to alpha strike. This game is mostly decided by who goes first. It's always been that way.
3.) All knights are T8. Making the majority of all weapons low str weapons useless against them. That is what I mean by a skew list. Daemons have a lot of varying statlines.
Well, you know, except for the ones that are T7.
All daemons have invulnerable saves and not armor saves. All AP that you have in your army, every singular point of negative AP modifier you have is totally worthless vs daemons.
Lots of Daemons have 3+ saves.
Same armor save though for the armigers - cost wise you get just about as much durability per point regardless. Knights are a skew list...you aren't really disputing this are you? If so - why?
Maybe if you count, say...daemon engines as "lots of daemons" but AFAIK only the daemon prince gets a save where you might end up having a higher basic save than an invulnerable.
I'm not disputing that knights are by definition a skew list. just pointing out that you said something that is false while you were not addressing the actual point, which was not "knights are not a skew list" but instead "how are knights TAC."
The goalposts are over here, Xeno. Not there, here. You said "knights are a skew list that is also TAC."
I responded "knights are not TAC." They are limited to a single unit type, which grants them advantages, but as you obviously know because your own knight list has allies, comes packaged with weaknesses.
Like scoring. And screening. and the psychic phase.
Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
I have nothing against counter stratagems, since having some element of CC prevents the game form devolving into "Who has the best combo/DPS". I WOULD say there's a problem when it become a faction specific stratagem like the examples currently are, since much like the double shot stratagem it ends up becoming mandatory.
Luke_Prowler wrote: I have nothing against counter stratagems, since having some element of CC prevents the game form devolving into "Who has the best combo/DPS".
Sadly, its there. Already was a problem, CA's exaggerated it. There should be a blanket: "spend the cost on an opponent's strategm+1 to cancel it". Burn the CPs, Burn the Strategems, Save the Game
Plus, once they're culled, balancing can actually happen. With allies, and CPs, and Strategms, right now its clearly too many moving parts for GW to find good play balance. We left all this behind in 7th... started 8th clean with the indices... and now we've bloated up again to a menagerie of nonsense.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
Luke_Prowler wrote: I have nothing against counter stratagems, since having some element of CC prevents the game form devolving into "Who has the best combo/DPS".
Sadly, its there. Already was a problem, CA's exaggerated it. There should be a blanket: "spend the cost on an opponent's strategm+1 to cancel it". Burn the CPs, Burn the Strategems, Save the Game
Plus, once they're culled, balancing can actually happen. With allies, and CPs, and Strategms, right now its clearly too many moving parts for GW to find good play balance. We left all this behind in 7th... started 8th clean with the indices... and now we've bloated up again to a menagerie of nonsense.
I actually [/i]like[i] Stratagems. Before 8th, there was a lot of situational equipment and specialabiltied which often meant they rarely got used for their price or they were gated behind characters (or even special characters). Or even certain aspects of the fluff that never got touched on. So having a way to use those without feeling cheated because that item only works against maybe two armies. The real problem is that:
A: Some things that are stratagems that were wargear should just be wargear ('ard boyz).
B: Some are just universally useful and have no real reason to not be used (Shoot/Fight twice)
C: there's no way CP generation can be done that doesn't encourage a certain style. The current systems encourages cheap batteries, a fixed amount system would result in death stars. The best idea I've heard so far is making Stratagems on a cool down system, but that would result in a lot of book keeping.
Also. lets cut the hyperbole. 7th was a rolling dumpster fire of suck, 8th is nowhere near as bad
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Soorry buddy, even liking or defending Dark Eldar makes you a Dark Eldar apologist. Just ask anyone that who says “guard apologist” frequently.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Soorry buddy, even liking or defending Dark Eldar makes you a Dark Eldar apologist. Just ask anyone that who says “guard apologist” frequently.
No one really cares about guard, unless you just don’t how to competitively shut them down in which case why aren’t you playing master race aeldari soup spam? Anyway back on topic, I hope in the fac all aeldari factions get points decreases for all units. Everything is over costed. And the wraithknight needs to drop to 1/3 it’s points value
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Soorry buddy, even liking or defending Dark Eldar makes you a Dark Eldar apologist. Just ask anyone that who says “guard apologist” frequently.
No one really cares about guard, unless you just don’t how to competitively shut them down in which case why aren’t you playing master race aeldari soup spam? Anyway back on topic, I hope in the fac all aeldari factions get points decreases for all units. Everything is over costed. And the wraithknight needs to drop to 1/3 it’s points value
I hope in the FAQ that all guard units drop points. That’d Be nice.
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Soorry buddy, even liking or defending Dark Eldar makes you a Dark Eldar apologist. Just ask anyone that who says “guard apologist” frequently.
No one really cares about guard, unless you just don’t how to competitively shut them down in which case why aren’t you playing master race aeldari soup spam? Anyway back on topic, I hope in the fac all aeldari factions get points decreases for all units. Everything is over costed. And the wraithknight needs to drop to 1/3 it’s points value
I hope in the FAQ that all guard units drop points. That’d Be nice.
I wouldn’t mind 3 ppm guard going against appropriately priced free 20 man kitted out guardian squads
Pain4Pleasure wrote: Not every faction should have a counter strat.. neither should none.. right now two have them? That’s all that needs them. Sorry if you don’t hav done, maybe next edition.
Lol says a Dark Eldar player
Ridiculous mechanic and should be be metaphorically taken out back and shot
I own no drukhari forced at all. Harlequin and Craftworlds only so.. I guess there is that? Regardless I stand by my statement. If you want, you can email GW your woes. They won’t care, but you can. Until then, keep being upset while the superior races use it on you
If you are going to lie at least hide the evidence LMAO. Now you could just be making lists instead of actually owning the models or have sold them but you did in fact have DE at one point
So making lists without owning models or selling models is a crime and proves a point about what exactly? I owned drukhari in 6th edition into 7th, so I never got to use the 8th edition strats with them. Would I like them back? Of course, my army was huge. You point becomes invalid for the very reason I DONT own the models. now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
Soorry buddy, even liking or defending Dark Eldar makes you a Dark Eldar apologist. Just ask anyone that who says “guard apologist” frequently.
No one really cares about guard, unless you just don’t how to competitively shut them down in which case why aren’t you playing master race aeldari soup spam? Anyway back on topic, I hope in the fac all aeldari factions get points decreases for all units. Everything is over costed. And the wraithknight needs to drop to 1/3 it’s points value
I hope in the FAQ that all guard units drop points. That’d Be nice.
I wouldn’t mind 3 ppm guard going against appropriately priced free 20 man kitted out guardian squads
Luke_Prowler wrote: I have nothing against counter stratagems, since having some element of CC prevents the game form devolving into "Who has the best combo/DPS".
Sadly, its there. Already was a problem, CA's exaggerated it. There should be a blanket: "spend the cost on an opponent's strategm+1 to cancel it". Burn the CPs, Burn the Strategems, Save the Game
Plus, once they're culled, balancing can actually happen. With allies, and CPs, and Strategms, right now its clearly too many moving parts for GW to find good play balance. We left all this behind in 7th... started 8th clean with the indices... and now we've bloated up again to a menagerie of nonsense.
But a situation where everyone can counter everyone would just make all stratagems that can be countered, as am assuming the pre game ones would not be, useless for al armies, save for the one that can run double CP of other armies. If my opponent has 15-20CP and I have 9, and my stratagems cost 2-3CP, I will run out of CP turn 2 with using zero and my opponent will still have 5-7 to use, while I am going to have zero to counter anything my opponent uses.
I'm sort of wondering if they're not delaying it on purpose so it drops almost simultaneously as the Ynnari WD issue, meaning it'll drop on tuesday the 30th.
I really hope it's sooner than that but it's looking more likely by the minute. Then of course GW should've just stated that from the beginning though
If they would just communicate or say something, anything, about the egregious Type-O than people (me) wouldn't get their panties in a knot having to deal with TFG's using 65 point Obliterators in tournaments.
oni wrote: If the Chaos FAQ and Big FAQ aren't released today... Imma fly to Notingham and burn that gak to the ground.
And by "fly to Notingham and burn that gak to the ground" I obviously mean... Sit here with my computer and bitch on the internet.
Is there precedent for Faq's releasing on the weekend?
I would not expect it until after the weekend.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
PiñaColada wrote: I'm sort of wondering if they're not delaying it on purpose so it drops almost simultaneously as the Ynnari WD issue, meaning it'll drop on tuesday the 30th.
I really hope it's sooner than that but it's looking more likely by the minute. Then of course GW should've just stated that from the beginning though
Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
I can't say I've noticed any repeatable trend with their FAQ releases. It feels like its been all over the place and it's painfully obvious there's zero feths given about their own published FAQ schedule.
Sadly... Their inconsistency make them unreliable. If they're unreliable they lose credibility. Without credibility, everything they say is meaningless.
Ordana wrote: Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
Wouldn't matter. You'd all still whine, only then you'd have a focused target.
oni wrote: I can't say I've noticed any repeatable trend with their FAQ releases. It feels like its been all over the place and it's painfully obvious there's zero feths given about their own published FAQ schedule.
Sadly... Their inconsistency make them unreliable. If they're unreliable they lose credibility. Without credibility, everything they say is meaningless.
Same goes for the community. If we lose our minds so easily, why even take what we say as anything but a tantrum? You don't get anywhere by feeding into a tantrum.
Ordana wrote: Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
Wouldn't matter. You'd all still whine, only then you'd have a focused target.
I disagree. If I knew a firm release date or even a loose reason for delay, I wouldn't be champing at the bit for the Chaos FAQ. At that point I do not see an obvious reason for anyone to "whine" as you put it. Seems like you're being negative just for the sake of being negative.
Ordana wrote: Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
Wouldn't matter. You'd all still whine, only then you'd have a focused target.
I disagree. If I knew a firm release date or even a loose reason for delay, I wouldn't be champing at the bit for the Chaos FAQ. At that point I do not see an obvious reason for anyone to "whine" as you put it. Seems like you're being negative just for the sake of being negative.
Yeah, I wouldn’t be bothering each day if I had a date or something.
Personally, I'm an advocate of stratagems work like a side deck. You 'spend' your command points pre-game in what you decide to bring along as strats. When you use the strat you expend the card.
Whether I'd allow duplicates or not is something I'd have to ponder, I lean towards no, but maybe they could only be allowed every other player turn.
So a shoot twice strat that is used turn one could only be used again from turn 3 onwards.
This means that you have to carefully consider how you want the strats to work pre-game, you can't just pick what you need and when out of an expansive list.
I'd also potentially allow a period before a game where you declare your strats along with your army list to your opponent. At that point you have 5 minutes or so to change any of your strats based upong your opponents list and strats.
Once this change has been made, no further changes are allowed.
Ordana wrote: Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
Wouldn't matter. You'd all still whine, only then you'd have a focused target.
oni wrote: I can't say I've noticed any repeatable trend with their FAQ releases. It feels like its been all over the place and it's painfully obvious there's zero feths given about their own published FAQ schedule.
Sadly... Their inconsistency make them unreliable. If they're unreliable they lose credibility. Without credibility, everything they say is meaningless.
Same goes for the community. If we lose our minds so easily, why even take what we say as anything but a tantrum? You don't get anywhere by feeding into a tantrum.
Don't worry, i'm quite sure that GW is wise enough to disregard anything said on this forum.
Ordana wrote: Yeah. if they wanted to wait for the WD they should have said so.
Wouldn't matter. You'd all still whine, only then you'd have a focused target.
oni wrote: I can't say I've noticed any repeatable trend with their FAQ releases. It feels like its been all over the place and it's painfully obvious there's zero feths given about their own published FAQ schedule.
Sadly... Their inconsistency make them unreliable. If they're unreliable they lose credibility. Without credibility, everything they say is meaningless.
Same goes for the community. If we lose our minds so easily, why even take what we say as anything but a tantrum? You don't get anywhere by feeding into a tantrum.
Don't worry, i'm quite sure that GW is wise enough to disregard anything said on this forum.
They have a point. I've started playing so many games in the last few years and they've all had updates and FAQs that came out on time. Some game bigger than GW. I honestly forgot the FAQ was even coming out until I saw this thread pop up again.
I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
Actually, the April 2019 FAQ Release date has been the target since shortly after they released the Adepticon delayed FAQ in 2018.
And we should all stop being surprised that when GW says Month X, they mean the end of Month X. It's happened so many times (Fall FAQ, Orktober and the Codex release, etc.) to be a trend rather than an aberration.
alextroy wrote: Actually, the April 2019 FAQ Release date has been the target since shortly after they released the Adepticon delayed FAQ in 2018.
And we should all stop being surprised that when GW says Month X, they mean the end of Month X. It's happened so many times (Fall FAQ, Orktober and the Codex release, etc.) to be a trend rather than an aberration.
The delay was announced in this article from last month (https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/). You can say for sure that we should have expected it to be delayed, and indeed Games Workshop made a precedent last year when they changed the FAQ from the March FAQ to just the spring FAQ. They had good reason to do so as well, since it's difficult to predict the changes and work you'd have to do a year down the line. But what is questionable is why Games Workshop would announce they didn't have much work that had to be done. Seems like a silly thing for them to put in their article.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
They moved it permanently to April last year so no, it wasn't supposed to come in March.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
They moved it permanently to April last year so no, it wasn't supposed to come in March.
I think they moved it just to Spring. Would make the most sense, since it gives them time to play with depending on what needs done.
When a student turns in a paper at 11:59 PM, the teacher may not be surprised, but they don't have to be pleased either. Again, as others have said, if there really isn't much to the FAQ, they should've dropped it already. If it required substantial changes due to Adepticon, they should convey that info. GW doesn't owe anybody the FAQ... but we also don't owe them the money we spend to buy half-baked rules with obvious typos. When money is changing hands, it is the responsibility of the business to foster communication, trust, and transparency. If GW doesn't get that, the cashflow will dry up over time.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: Personally, I'm an advocate of stratagems work like a side deck. You 'spend' your command points pre-game in what you decide to bring along as strats. When you use the strat you expend the card.
Whether I'd allow duplicates or not is something I'd have to ponder, I lean towards no, but maybe they could only be allowed every other player turn.
So a shoot twice strat that is used turn one could only be used again from turn 3 onwards.
This means that you have to carefully consider how you want the strats to work pre-game, you can't just pick what you need and when out of an expansive list.
I'd also potentially allow a period before a game where you declare your strats along with your army list to your opponent. At that point you have 5 minutes or so to change any of your strats based upong your opponents list and strats.
Once this change has been made, no further changes are allowed.
Go for no duplication and that's not a bad idea actually. It would limit the broken combos to once per game and also make relying on such a combo dangerous since there are counter-strategems to worry about. You'd still have to straighten out CP generation though.
Maybe not the time-limit thing either outside tournaments.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
That change happened LAST YEAR so it's hardly fair to say it's been delayed when they LAST YEAR decided rather than march faq we have spring FAQ.
Only month we have been told for this year FAQ is april. March was NEVER EVER EVER mentioned for the FAQ this year. It's been spring faq. Then they said april after adepticos. Funny that, april is still going on.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
That change happened LAST YEAR so it's hardly fair to say it's been delayed when they LAST YEAR decided rather than march faq we have spring FAQ.
Only month we have been told for this year FAQ is april. March was NEVER EVER EVER mentioned for the FAQ this year. It's been spring faq. Then they said april after adepticos. Funny that, april is still going on.
Before you go all caps on me, please read my other responses first. They didn't change it to April specifically, but to Spring. I find this fair. It was last month that Games Workshop themselves announced they had delayed the release from March to April. Not my words, but theirs.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: When a student turns in a paper at 11:59 PM, the teacher may not be surprised, but they don't have to be pleased either. Again, as others have said, if there really isn't much to the FAQ, they should've dropped it already. If it required substantial changes due to Adepticon, they should convey that info. GW doesn't owe anybody the FAQ... but we also don't owe them the money we spend to buy half-baked rules with obvious typos. When money is changing hands, it is the responsibility of the business to foster communication, trust, and transparency. If GW doesn't get that, the cashflow will dry up over time.
To me it seems pretty likely they wanted to wait until after WD dropped with the Ynnari rules. Makes sense.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
I feel like it's just that they didn't want to step on the toes of bigger things, because if we're being honest the FAQs suck all the air out of the room. The survey and the return of Slaanesh are priority.
If that is the case then I imagine Monday might be the day.
I don't like it, but agree that they had to wait until Slaanesh was released or it would have overwhelmed their new release... and they missed their chance to release it before the Slaanesh release.
Gene St. Ealer wrote: When a student turns in a paper at 11:59 PM, the teacher may not be surprised, but they don't have to be pleased either. Again, as others have said, if there really isn't much to the FAQ, they should've dropped it already. If it required substantial changes due to Adepticon, they should convey that info. GW doesn't owe anybody the FAQ... but we also don't owe them the money we spend to buy half-baked rules with obvious typos. When money is changing hands, it is the responsibility of the business to foster communication, trust, and transparency. If GW doesn't get that, the cashflow will dry up over time.
I don't mind waiting to be honest. Better a good FAQ then an eariler one. But I also do agree, if I bring my medical a day before an event, am not going to go to the event and my trainer is going to be pissed at me.
Darsath wrote: I want to point out that the April release date was already a delay on the FAQ. Originally, they announced that the FAQ was to release in March, but chose to delay it to incorporate feedback from Adepticon. They also announced the game is in a pretty good place as it is. Curious as to whether they've changed their tone then, or if Adepticon showed some big problems, since otherwise they wouldn't have to be so late on their release.
That change happened LAST YEAR so it's hardly fair to say it's been delayed when they LAST YEAR decided rather than march faq we have spring FAQ.
Only month we have been told for this year FAQ is april. March was NEVER EVER EVER mentioned for the FAQ this year. It's been spring faq. Then they said april after adepticos. Funny that, april is still going on.
Before you go all caps on me, please read my other responses first. They didn't change it to April specifically, but to Spring. I find this fair. It was last month that Games Workshop themselves announced they had delayed the release from March to April. Not my words, but theirs.
So, what I'm to believe is this document that " won't do much " is delayed because all of these not big changes would somehow take the thunder out of some releases ? Someone has to be kidding here somewhere.
Also, you expect me to believe that this company that has ample PR people now and actually uses the net to spread information as well as a twitch channel to showcase their products can't get any kind of word out on when they will drop this item ?
If this was any other game developer we'd be calling them incompetent. Why does GW get a pass for seemingly being unable to function like a big boy company they look to be ? It's like we are just very proud they can at least manage to remember what they sell. I guess I can be thankful at least their customer service for what you buy is worlds better than rules support or even their editing skills.
Sim-Life wrote: You can't delay something that never had an official release date. Must we do this dance every April/September?
When they are too lazy to even make comment on it ? Yeah it seems we must. How hard would it be to put out any information on an ETA for something they know everyone is anxious for ? In the past, when they did no information drops with any kind of ease, I understood it. Now, there really is no reason for the zero interaction and no way they don't know when it's going to drop, even an estimate to tide people over would be great. I mean we had what 2 straight months of hype building for shadow spear, but to know when this will drop is top secret ?
How hard is it to simply wait before losing our minds? We have 2 days of april left. How hard is wait that 2 days? Play game or two. Paint unit or two. Read a book. Watch couple movies. Learn game of go. Lots of things you can do. It's only a faq. Not salvation of mankind we are waiting. GW isn't even late from deadline here.
tneva82 wrote: How hard is it to simply wait before losing our minds? We have 2 days of april left. How hard is wait that 2 days? Play game or two. Paint unit or two. Read a book. Watch couple movies. Learn game of go. Lots of things you can do. It's only a faq. Not salvation of mankind we are waiting. GW isn't even late from deadline here.
People want to know their rules to adjust. Nothing wrong with anticipation. Calm down your holier than thou mentality there, bud
Nobody is saying we can't wait, obviously we can. I was just wondering why they can't at least be bothered to let us know an ETA for the release rather than hints, then total radio silence on the matter. That would do a lot to make peoples day. Just having a more certain idea.
I don't think its an unreasonable wish either. If they were selling it to us best believe they'd been braining us over the head with it for months now.
tneva82 wrote: How hard is it to simply wait before losing our minds? We have 2 days of april left. How hard is wait that 2 days? Play game or two. Paint unit or two. Read a book. Watch couple movies. Learn game of go. Lots of things you can do. It's only a faq. Not salvation of mankind we are waiting. GW isn't even late from deadline here.
I'm looking forward to starting a new army for a about a month now. There is no way I am starting a new army with a faq about to drop.
So yeah, I wish we didn't have to wait this long.
Yeah the people mad about the FAQ are either people looking to buy models that won't become useless when the FAQ drops or tournament players that want to know which lists to use to train for future tournaments. There's nothing wrong about being impatient, GW's lack of communication is frustrating on that part and releasing it the last minute of April just because they said April is borderline "that guy". Especially if it's such a small FAQ as they said earlier, although I doubt it will be small given they have no idea what's happening in their game on a regular basis and won't realise they'll shake up everything with unexplainable nerfs like the Fly nerf from last time.
tneva82 wrote: How hard is it to simply wait before losing our minds? We have 2 days of april left. How hard is wait that 2 days? Play game or two. Paint unit or two. Read a book. Watch couple movies. Learn game of go. Lots of things you can do. It's only a faq. Not salvation of mankind we are waiting. GW isn't even late from deadline here.
I'm looking forward to starting a new army for a about a month now. There is no way I am starting a new army with a faq about to drop.
So yeah, I wish we didn't have to wait this long.
Really though?
Because it could all change again in a matter of months. Just get what you like.
Unless you're planning to make waves on the tournament scene (where you expect to regularly buy whole new armies anyway) this behaviour doesn't make much sense to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: But would it drop the sells of GW stuff. If they put something on their site that is close to , guys we maybe a bit late with the FAQ?
Plus if the FAQ is suppose to not be ground breaking, why does it take so long to write the thing down?
I don't think it would significantly impact sales. Outside of the Dakka echo chamber, people are a lot less bothered about FAQ dates. The group for my FLGS isn't talking about it at all.
I don't think it would significantly impact sales. Outside of the Dakka echo chamber, people are a lot less bothered about FAQ dates. The group for my FLGS isn't talking about it at all.
I envy you then. People here talk about nothing else. Two people didn't start armies because of FAQ. I myself lost all hope that GW is ever going to fix my army. Now I just hope they make marines that look like GK, are good, and look a bit the same. I mean if the game is good according to them, then they are never going to change bad factions.
tneva82 wrote: How hard is it to simply wait before losing our minds? We have 2 days of april left. How hard is wait that 2 days? Play game or two. Paint unit or two. Read a book. Watch couple movies. Learn game of go. Lots of things you can do. It's only a faq. Not salvation of mankind we are waiting. GW isn't even late from deadline here.
I'm looking forward to starting a new army for a about a month now. There is no way I am starting a new army with a faq about to drop.
So yeah, I wish we didn't have to wait this long.
Really though?
Because it could all change again in a matter of months. Just get what you like.
Unless you're planning to make waves on the tournament scene (where you expect to regularly buy whole new armies anyway) this behaviour doesn't make much sense to me.
GSC is a new enough codex that a fair few things could change in the FAQ.
I don't think it would significantly impact sales. Outside of the Dakka echo chamber, people are a lot less bothered about FAQ dates. The group for my FLGS isn't talking about it at all.
I envy you then. People here talk about nothing else. Two people didn't start armies because of FAQ. I myself lost all hope that GW is ever going to fix my army. Now I just hope they make marines that look like GK, are good, and look a bit the same. I mean if the game is good according to them, then they are never going to change bad factions.
That's deathwatch.... Just repaint them, no need to even convert.
Example @ ~1000 points:
HQ Watchmaster (Use someone with a Nemesis Halberd)
Terminator Librarian (Use a terminator Librarian)
Troops
3x Veterans
Watch Sergent w/ Storm bolter and power weapon (Strike Sergeant)
6x Veteranas with Stormbolter and Power Weapon (Strikes)
2x Terminators (Terminators)
Vanguard Veteran with Heavy Thunderhammer (Use a guy with a Nemesis Hammer)
I don't think it would significantly impact sales. Outside of the Dakka echo chamber, people are a lot less bothered about FAQ dates. The group for my FLGS isn't talking about it at all.
I envy you then. People here talk about nothing else. Two people didn't start armies because of FAQ. I myself lost all hope that GW is ever going to fix my army. Now I just hope they make marines that look like GK, are good, and look a bit the same. I mean if the game is good according to them, then they are never going to change bad factions.
People around here buy the kits they like, then use the rules to get the most out of them. If the rules change, it's no biggy usually. Because we all still have models we like and are proud of.
Wanting to win games is probably the worst reason to get into this hobby, in all honesty.
If I had to guess what's going on, it's the left hand (FAQ writers) not talking to the right hand (Slaanesh Writers) AGAIN. My necrodermis-foil hat theory is that when the FAQ writers took an extra week's extension on the deadline for their "minor changes" because muh Adepticon, they blundered into the Slaanesh release (which DOES deserve to be conducted without the FAQ sucking up oxygen) and marketing correctly told them to wait the gak up, "we have cool daemon models to sell you nerds".
Wanting to win games is probably the worst reason to get into this hobby, in all honesty.
Wanting your army not to be garbage =/= wanting to win.
Wanting to win games is probably the worst reason to get into this hobby, in all honesty.
Wanting your army not to be garbage =/= wanting to win.
That's fair.
All I'm saying though is that the pendulum swings. There will always be imbalance, and it will inevitably change who is on top and who is at the bottom eventually.
It helps a lot if you can make peace with that fact.
On the one you're probably right, but on the other hand GW is not some dinky little indie company. They've been doing this (and ONLY this) for donkey's years and so repeating the same mistakes over and over again, from massive gulfs between armies to dumb-dumb Codex misprints and perpetually delaying FAQs, just comes off as rank incompetence masked by an over-forgiving fan-base at this point.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: On the one you're probably right, but on the other hand GW is not some dinky little indie company. They've been doing this (and ONLY this) for donkey's years and so repeating the same mistakes over and over again, from massive gulfs between armies to dumb-dumb Codex misprints and perpetually delaying FAQs, just comes off as rank incompetence masked by an over-forgiving fan-base at this point.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I have a great time with these games.
I firmly believe them to not be incompetent. I think it's a mismatch of priorities between some sectors of the player base and the developers, combined with an underestimation of the difficulty of these things.
That isn't to say they never straight mess up of course. Only that from where I am it is never anywhere near as bad as people reading this forum might assume.
Salt aside, I DO have fun with this game post-CA, now that I'm not paying extortionate prices for my units. And for some rules fixes, I realize that GW might need some extra time. Codex re-writes aren't coming any time soon, because rushing them out was the problem in the first place.
But taking extra time to fix the 3++ Castellan? Or the disproportionate benefit of -1 to hit faction benefits? Printing an "updated" codex with no updates to the unit point costs? And leaving all of this to fester in 2019, with electronic FAQs? I love playing this game, but I hate feeling like I'm a bit of a mug for giving GW money.
Martel732 wrote: You have more faith than I do. I'm worried death beam will be permanent. I mean Castellans have scared me off big stuff, but it sucks to get say, Dante death beamed. It's a cheap power and adds to the misery of 8th ed.
If this edition is so miserable for you, please do what you said you were going to do months ago and take a break from playing (and posting on here) for a while...
I expect this FAQ will cause a stir no matter what. For those so upset about having to wait, the FAQ means more to them than anything else. I suppose even if I'll never understand why, it doesn't change that it does. Perhaps it's for the same reason why some posters put so much weight on how their faction performs on top tables even though they themselves aren't top table tournament players. I guess in many ways it's the idea that some people are fans of the game while others are fans of their faction, and are invested in that identity. If I compare it to sports fans, I can see major similarities.
As such, this FAQ will be a disappointment for most, with the small caveat that the only thing that can bring a majority of the community together will be a nerf to the villains.
Lemondish wrote: I expect this FAQ will cause a stir no matter what. For those so upset about having to wait, the FAQ means more to them than anything else. I suppose even if I'll never understand why, it doesn't change that it does. Perhaps it's for the same reason why some posters put so much weight on how their faction performs on top tables even though they themselves aren't top table tournament players. I guess in many ways it's the idea that some people are fans of the game while others are fans of their faction, and are invested in that identity. If I compare it to sports fans, I can see major similarities.
As such, this FAQ will be a disappointment for most, with the small caveat that the only thing that can bring a majority of the community together will be a nerf to the villains.
I think you are reading too far into it. How the faction performs on the top tables is reflective of the "performance ceiling" of the faction. Most players only play one or two factions, and they don't like having their playtime being wasted by playing a faction that is at a severe disadvantage compared to other factions. I think most would agree that a loss can still be fun if it is a "fair fight", but some of the factions are so imbalanced that it is equivalent to a 12 year old stepping into a boxing ring vs Mike Tyson. That isn't fun.
Lemondish wrote: I expect this FAQ will cause a stir no matter what. For those so upset about having to wait, the FAQ means more to them than anything else. I suppose even if I'll never understand why, it doesn't change that it does. Perhaps it's for the same reason why some posters put so much weight on how their faction performs on top tables even though they themselves aren't top table tournament players. I guess in many ways it's the idea that some people are fans of the game while others are fans of their faction, and are invested in that identity. If I compare it to sports fans, I can see major similarities.
As such, this FAQ will be a disappointment for most, with the small caveat that the only thing that can bring a majority of the community together will be a nerf to the villains.
I think you are reading too far into it. How the faction performs on the top tables is reflective of the "performance ceiling" of the faction. Most players only play one or two factions, and they don't like having their playtime being wasted by playing a faction that is at a severe disadvantage compared to other factions. I think most would agree that a loss can still be fun if it is a "fair fight", but some of the factions are so imbalanced that it is equivalent to a 12 year old stepping into a boxing ring vs Mike Tyson. That isn't fun.
Very much this, it's hard to have a fun game when it's supposed to be a fun game and your not trying list gets rofl stomped by their random selection of units.
AngryAngel80 wrote: So, what I'm to believe is this document that " won't do much " is delayed because all of these not big changes would somehow take the thunder out of some releases ? Someone has to be kidding here somewhere.
It doesn't matter if they aren't "big changes". Half the forum is still going to lose their collective gak all at the same time.
Just look at people posting about not getting the FAQs yet and you'll see what I mean.
GW is very fond of balancing units according to the most bleeding-edge version of their use (Space Marines and Guilliman, Chaos gak and Cacophony, etc.), so I'm certain it's the case here too.
Ohh im sure they were priced entirely on their own merits.(cmon... rly)
A powerful ability that made them activate twice was not an issue and did not reflect in their eventual point increase??? Well then colour me a silly wally. Must have imagined all ll the moaning and whinging about reapers/sp being too good because of sfd mechanics. And people will tell me CA point change had nothing to do with it...
Argive wrote: I would wish for a slight point drop for all the different Eldar units that have been priced up due to SFD being what it was.
Maybe I can now put more of my models on the table...
They were not priced in accordance with SfD...
If Strength From Death didn't factor into the old Ynnari's best units' points costs at all, then that was a massive oversight on GW's part.
Ynarri and non-Ynnari units cost the same. So ofcourse Ynnari either didn't pay for SfD or payed for it while not having it other detachments.
And yes that is a massive oversight. Why do you think people have been complaining about Ynnari all this time?
The units that saw the greatest point hikes were Ynnari stables, while non-Ynnari stables got a price drop. That was the pattern so it does appear some units were costed according to the Ynnari model rather than not. Also, if people had been following some Eldar threads they would have noticed that there were CW players asking for GW to give Ynnari its own points table so as to not nerf CW/Drukhari units just because they are overperforming in Ynnari lists.
Galas wrote: Lets not pretend Dark Reapers weren't nerfed because of Ynnari.
Now, is not like they weren't too good even without Ynnari. Maybe they deserve a slighly price drop now that they can't double shoot.
They weren't. They were 5 points base in the index. In no world is that even reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Ynarri and non-Ynnari units cost the same. So ofcourse Ynnari either didn't pay for SfD or payed for it while not having it other detachments.
And yes that is a massive oversight. Why do you think people have been complaining about Ynnari all this time?
Right...which is why SfD got nerfed.
That doesn't mean the units were ever priced as if SfD was a factor.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: The units that saw the greatest point hikes were Ynnari stables, while non-Ynnari stables got a price drop. That was the pattern so it does appear some units were costed according to the Ynnari model rather than not. Also, if people had been following some Eldar threads they would have noticed that there were CW players asking for GW to give Ynnari its own points table so as to not nerf CW/Drukhari units just because they are overperforming in Ynnari lists.
This misses the forest for the trees.
The units that got hikes were the most point efficient and so consequently the best picks for Ynnari.
Eldarsif wrote:The units that saw the greatest point hikes were Ynnari stables, while non-Ynnari stables got a price drop. That was the pattern so it does appear some units were costed according to the Ynnari model rather than not. Also, if people had been following some Eldar threads they would have noticed that there were CW players asking for GW to give Ynnari its own points table so as to not nerf CW/Drukhari units just because they are overperforming in Ynnari lists.
I can get behind this and makes more sense than not. I dont really care about how strong they are as a faction in competitive play. I really like the lore of Scheiss hits the fan and eldar need to come together. it's really the only reason I even started collecting them(other than the triumvirate looking dope).
GW really needs to figure out what they want Ynarri to be(as an identity). The WD index might be a placeholder until CA19 or an inevitable ynarri codex.
For Marines I do hope they get a couple of new strats or beta rules(ala bolter rule).
"muh dark reapers were 5 points" has got to be the most facepalm-worthy balance complaint in 8th edition. Like, come on. It's a model that comes with a compulsory weapon, and that weapon is an extremely powerful option on a character...so obviously almost all their cost was shifted over to the weapon so it could be pricy on the character.
Let's stop repeating this stupid line, we're like 2 years into the edition if you haven't figured out how Dark Reapers are priced by now and how they're not a "five point body" i cannot help you.
Why would the cost any drukhari, craftworld, or clowns as if they had SfD by default? That would be pretty stupid for anyone not playing Ynnari.
Because they have been designing games for what 20-30 years, and any ability that lets you get an extra turn of anything in a IGUG setting on super efficient unit is like getting free points?
muh dark reapers were 5 points" has got to be the most facepalm-worthy balance complaint in 8th edition. Like, come on. It's a model that comes with a compulsory weapon, and that weapon is an extremely powerful option on a character...so obviously almost all their cost was shifted over to the weapon so it could be pricy on the character.
they are still cheap for what they do at their cost, and with the buff abilities they have. A SB armed GK termintor is 40pts. Has no doom, no guide and no stratagams worth using on him, or a alaitoc buff etc. They are not costed right. And probably never will. From little expiriance I have with w40k, everything GW gives a point cost, either makes it cost not enough point or too many point to be worth taking.
Why would the cost any drukhari, craftworld, or clowns as if they had SfD by default? That would be pretty stupid for anyone not playing Ynnari.
Because they have been designing games for what 20-30 years, and any ability that lets you get an extra turn of anything in a IGUG setting on super efficient unit is like getting free points?
That still fails to answer the question. How exactly do you price a unit that may or may not receive a very strong buff?
Do you raise the cost of the unit for gaks and giggles? Or do you do what GW just did to Ynnari and remove the potential for overwhelming buffs?
they are still cheap for what they do at their cost, and with the buff abilities they have. A SB armed GK termintor is 40pts. Has no doom, no guide and no stratagams worth using on him, or a alaitoc buff etc. They are not costed right. And probably never will. From little expiriance I have with w40k, everything GW gives a point cost, either makes it cost not enough point or too many point to be worth taking.
Why are you trying to compare a terminator to a back line heavy weapon squad? Dark Reapers can't cast or deny with a +1, shoot from out of LOS, can't get +1 to wound in melee, can't get a 4++, and don't have 2 wounds or terminator armor. Nor do they have access to full rerolls to hit, S5 AP1 Stormbolters, or force weapons.
Karol wrote: Because comparing him to a 40pts hvy weapon guy from my codex would be kind of a unfair. A termintor at least has something in his favour.
But they're not even remotely the same type of unit. You also seem to have missed the point about only listing the benefits of one of the units and not the other in order to make the comparison seem more in the Eldar's favour.
The units that got hikes were the most point efficient and so consequently the best picks for Ynnari.
Yes and no. The Dark Reaper point increase I can get behind as I agree that was an overperforming unit on all accounts. What people are now asking: Was the increase too steep or not? We will start seeing more details about that as the Ynnari Index becomes official and whether Dark Reapers will see use in the future. Going over most recent tourney lists it seems mostly Ynnari were picking Reapers while Asuryani players were picking other things.
Shining Spears, however, were riding the Ynnari wave from start to finish. It's why GW didn't hit them as hard as Dark Reapers while Dark Reapers were dominating with the double-shooting at their old point cost. Regarding Shining Spears you will rarely see them in non-Ynnari lists as you are just not getting the best bang for the buck.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: GW is very fond of balancing units according to the most bleeding-edge version of their use (Space Marines and Guilliman, Chaos gak and Cacophony, etc.), so I'm certain it's the case here too.
Yep, this is what we see all the time, GW absolutely hates bringing their crap units up to speed, they would rather shift the tournament meta a little bit, this is what annoys me the most about "modern" GW.
The units that got hikes were the most point efficient and so consequently the best picks for Ynnari.
Yes and no. The Dark Reaper point increase I can get behind as I agree that was an overperforming unit on all accounts. What people are now asking: Was the increase too steep or not? We will start seeing more details about that as the Ynnari Index becomes official and whether Dark Reapers will see use in the future. Going over most recent tourney lists it seems mostly Ynnari were picking Reapers while Asuryani players were picking other things.
Shining Spears, however, were riding the Ynnari wave from start to finish. It's why GW didn't hit them as hard as Dark Reapers while Dark Reapers were dominating with the double-shooting at their old point cost. Regarding Shining Spears you will rarely see them in non-Ynnari lists as you are just not getting the best bang for the buck.
However is that because shinning spears are bad, I don't think they truly are, or is it more that like most assualt units they took a nerf from the fly change, (that does need fixed or screens need seriously rebalanced)
Also as for not being in Alitoc (all eldar seam to be Alitoc) lists answer why take Craftworld Spears when Yannari spears exsist?
They also probably benifit the least from the most common craftworld.
If GW finally admit -1 to hit stack isn't good game design spears could see more play.
the_scotsman wrote: "muh dark reapers were 5 points" has got to be the most facepalm-worthy balance complaint in 8th edition. Like, come on. It's a model that comes with a compulsory weapon, and that weapon is an extremely powerful option on a character...so obviously almost all their cost was shifted over to the weapon so it could be pricy on the character.
This is nonsense. Reaper launchers cost 22pts for a weapon that's basically an upgraded Missile launcher (25pts before CA, 20pts now). There was absolutely no cost shifted over to the Dark Reapers, they were just undercosted.
However is that because shinning spears are bad, I don't think they truly are, or is it more that like most assualt units they took a nerf from the fly change, (that does need fixed or screens need seriously rebalanced)
Also as for not being in Alitoc (all eldar seam to be Alitoc) lists answer why take Craftworld Spears when Yannari spears exsist?
They also probably benifit the least from the most common craftworld.
If GW finally admit -1 to hit stack isn't good game design spears could see more play.
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
The times Shining Spears truly worked in my favor was when my friends were using Marine Bikes and Primaris, but against other lists such as Tyranids, IG, Orks, and others, the Shining Spears are a lot of points for much less returns. I am also wondering if Shining Spears were getting a lot of use due to Ynnari and the fact that they could potentially deal with a Castellan when things fell into place.
So as much as I agree that Dark Reapers needed a point increase from the original codex release, I do feel that the verdict is yet not in regarding the Shining Spears. Especially now after the big Ynnari change.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: On a seperate note are we expecting mass disappointment or all of the salt for the FAQ later?
I am personally not expecting much from the FAQ. If they bring on some big changes I will be pleasantly surprised regardless of which way my armies go.
Ice_can wrote: On a seperate note are we expecting mass disappointment or all of the salt for the FAQ later?
People will be super disappointed when all the changes they want aren't in it. I think that is a given for every single FaqGW will ever bring out until the end of time.
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
Kdash wrote: Not sure if it's been mentioned anywhere, but, rumour has it, the faq will be dropping later today at some point.
That'd be nice. But also, it's a 50/50 shot it drops today just by virtue that it's the second last day of the month (unless I just jinxed it and it now drops may 8th or something)
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
I also like strawmen.
Strawman? what strawman. My point was that you considered this a large commitment and this was regular commitment for an other army to even work.
So pls look up what a strawman argument actually is.
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
I also like strawmen.
Strawman? what strawman. My point was that you considered this a large commitment and this was regular commitment for an other army to even work.
So pls look up what a strawman argument actually is.
Tell me what unit from CSM it is considered normal to need 2 sorcerors and a lord as support to work? I don't think I've ever seen a daemon prince in a competitive CSm list that wasn't operating selfishly (Ie using all its buffs primarily on itself) and you rarely see sorcerors as buffbots. Why bring a sorceror and a unit and use warptime on that unit when you can just bring a daemon prince who warptimes himself?
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
I also like strawmen.
Strawman? what strawman. My point was that you considered this a large commitment and this was regular commitment for an other army to even work. So pls look up what a strawman argument actually is.
Tell me what unit from CSM it is considered normal to need 2 sorcerors and a lord as support to work? I don't think I've ever seen a daemon prince in a competitive CSm list that wasn't operating selfishly (Ie using all its buffs primarily on itself) and you rarely see sorcerors as buffbots. Why bring a sorceror and a unit and use warptime on that unit when you can just bring a daemon prince who warptimes himself?
Possesed are now toyed around with support, Obliterators, even some havoc ideas are swirling around but there are more DA -1 to hit buffs used instead of another sorcerer. point is, 2 HQ buffing a squad is really nothing new or overly commiting. Granted i was a bit over the top with the 3 HQ's required.
I've actually tried to run Shining Spears for the longest time in both mono-Craftworld and Craftworld/Coven lists and I've always found Shining Spears to be underwhelming considering how much they cost. To get the most use out of them you need to sink a lot of points. You have to have a large unit for maximum impact(9 jetbikes preferably), then add Farseer and Warlock for Guide, Doom, and Jinx. That's a lot of commitment for something so I am not surprised if Ynnari is what gave them life. Tried them both as Alaitoc and as my favourite Craftworld: Saim-hann.
I like how this is considered a large commitment but when regular CSM need to field 2 sorcerer/ DP's and A lord for a unit to be effective it is fine.
I also like strawmen.
Strawman? what strawman. My point was that you considered this a large commitment and this was regular commitment for an other army to even work.
So pls look up what a strawman argument actually is.
Tell me what unit from CSM it is considered normal to need 2 sorcerors and a lord as support to work? I don't think I've ever seen a daemon prince in a competitive CSm list that wasn't operating selfishly (Ie using all its buffs primarily on itself) and you rarely see sorcerors as buffbots. Why bring a sorceror and a unit and use warptime on that unit when you can just bring a daemon prince who warptimes himself?
He's exaggerating a bit but he's not wrong about CMS/Loyalist Marine shooting being really mopey without their reroll buff auras. Not speaking for CMS, but the vanilla marine codex seems to have been balanced around rerolling 1s to hit and to wound on every single unit every turn.
In unrelated news, I would murder to have singing spears as an option to all my armies (chaos, daemons, thousand sons, tyranids and t'au) without any of the army buffs they can have. Promise.
But sure, let's bring their cost down because they won't be AS dominating any more.
Got an idea for you. How about you shelf them for a couple of editions, just like I do with most of my Tyranid models?
topaxygouroun i wrote: In unrelated news, I would murder to have singing spears as an option to all my armies (chaos, daemons, thousand sons, tyranids and t'au) without any of the army buffs they can have. Promise.
But sure, let's bring their cost down because they won't be AS dominating any more.
Got an idea for you. How about you shelf them for a couple of editions, just like I do with most of my Tyranid models?
...and just like people did with them for the last...what was the last time shining spears were usable, third ed?
topaxygouroun i wrote: In unrelated news, I would murder to have singing spears as an option to all my armies (chaos, daemons, thousand sons, tyranids and t'au) without any of the army buffs they can have. Promise.
But sure, let's bring their cost down because they won't be AS dominating any more.
Got an idea for you. How about you shelf them for a couple of editions, just like I do with most of my Tyranid models?
...and just like people did with them for the last...what was the last time shining spears were usable, third ed?
Shining spears have never been good outside of 8th really. They were ok in 3rd I guess.
The problem is Shining Spears are great at killing marines, it's kinda what they appear to be designed for.
The problem is being good a killing marines, isn't going to be enough to see play if everything else can kill them well enough or marines aren't realy that great and hence taking a unit optimised to kill them hampers you in your tougher matchups and makes your easy matchups even easier.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is Shining Spears are great at killing marines, it's kinda what they appear to be designed for.
The problem is being good a killing marines, isn't going to be enough to see play if everything else can kill them well enough or marines aren't realy that great and hence taking a unit optimised to kill them hampers you in your tougher matchups and makes your easy matchups even easier.
All Spears need is Doom and they can take out Russ’s with relative ease (in my experience anyway). Without doom and if they split attacks then they struggle against high T, high W models.
They still have a place in some lists – they just aren’t as spammed as they were before, and will be even less so now Ynnari got changed.
Got an idea for you. How about you shelf them for a couple of editions, just like I do with most of my Tyranid models?
My Shining Spears have been shelved from 2nd editions when I bought them up until I decided to try them again in 8th. I have now shelved them again because I found them lacking in my Mono and CW/Coven lists. Along with my Striking Scorpions, Howling Banshees, and more. I also have tyranids that were shelved for a long time(and some still do), but I have found the 8th edition codex to be a fresh air for my Nids. My Dark Angels, however, remain shelved until further notice.
He's exaggerating a bit but he's not wrong about CMS/Loyalist Marine shooting being really mopey without their reroll buff auras. Not speaking for CMS, but the vanilla marine codex seems to have been balanced around rerolling 1s to hit and to wound on every single unit every turn.
This is a problem with flat bonus auras. AoS has tried to change this paradigm by having you spend a CP to activate the aura. I have found that approach strangely compelling. Auras just tend to be problematic in my experience because they work only in certain given contexts and not in others.
Strawman? what strawman. My point was that you considered this a large commitment and this was regular commitment for an other army to even work.
Assuming that I find it "fine" for other armies to have commitment. „Svo skal böl bæta” as they say. I of course don't know the CSM 2.0 codex so I admit I can't speak for its commitment pits. I would, however, love to have Daemonic Princes(I have one marked for Slaanesh) in my Eldar army. Maybe we could have an exchange program?
Ultimately I am just looking forward to seeing how the meta changes in the coming months and then making a judgment call.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is Shining Spears are great at killing marines, it's kinda what they appear to be designed for.
The problem is being good a killing marines, isn't going to be enough to see play if everything else can kill them well enough or marines aren't realy that great and hence taking a unit optimised to kill them hampers you in your tougher matchups and makes your easy matchups even easier.
All Spears need is Doom and they can take out Russ’s with relative ease (in my experience anyway). Without doom and if they split attacks then they struggle against high T, high W models.
They still have a place in some lists – they just aren’t as spammed as they were before, and will be even less so now Ynnari got changed.
Great. You spent several hundred points plus a major HQ choice to kill a single Russ worth how many points?
Now you have a Shining Spear unit in the middle of the enemy force unengaged, and you've used over a quarter of your army to do it.
I do agree that Spears are good even without Ynnari, but trading them for a single Russ (or maybe a squadron, if you're really lucky) doesn't sound like a great trade.
Ice_can wrote: The problem is Shining Spears are great at killing marines, it's kinda what they appear to be designed for.
The problem is being good a killing marines, isn't going to be enough to see play if everything else can kill them well enough or marines aren't realy that great and hence taking a unit optimised to kill them hampers you in your tougher matchups and makes your easy matchups even easier.
All Spears need is Doom and they can take out Russ’s with relative ease (in my experience anyway). Without doom and if they split attacks then they struggle against high T, high W models.
They still have a place in some lists – they just aren’t as spammed as they were before, and will be even less so now Ynnari got changed.
Great. You spent several hundred points plus a major HQ choice to kill a single Russ worth how many points?
Now you have a Shining Spear unit in the middle of the enemy force unengaged, and you've used over a quarter of your army to do it.
I do agree that Spears are good even without Ynnari, but trading them for a single Russ (or maybe a squadron, if you're really lucky) doesn't sound like a great trade.
I know it’s well over a year ago now, but, at an ITC event (so old missions) I ran 9 Spears as Saim-Hann with an Autarch, a 2nd unit of 3 Spears and 2 Vypers for an Outrider. The Spears got all the buffs – conceal, empower, protect, LFR etc and they were a pain for armies to deal with. My biggest downfall was that I just couldn’t kill Mortarian.
Things have changed a lot since then though, but, one of the more competitive UK players ran a unit of Ynnari spears at the Warhammer Team event the weekend just gone and wasn’t using flyer spam. The only game he didn’t win was his last, and that was vs a team mate running 3 Discordants, Alpha Legion rotar cannon squads and Slaaneshi daemons.
Besides, I’d rather use those points to kill 1 Russ and tie up other tanks each turn, than try to rely on half a dozen flyers shooting.
Would love to see the FAQ put harder restrictions on detachment soup.
Like:
Only your primary (your choice) detachment generates CP (gameable)
Missing ANY faction keywords between detachments requires1cp per detachment and you don't get the standard 3.
Etc etc
So. It's April 29th. Only 30 days in April. Do we think the FAQ will be today (fingers crossed), tomorrow (ugh) or get a announcement today or tomorrow that it'll be delayed until May (eyes roll so hard they disappear in the socket)?
I wouldn't throw in the towel on it dropping today until it's after 6PM UK time.
I'd like for it to be today but as long as it's this month I'm okay with it. If they announce today (or tomorrow) that it's delayed to sometime next month then I'd be pretty annoyed by the lack of professionalism
There is no way the FAQ is released this month at this point...If by some miracle it is - what exactly was the logic behind releasing it mid week on the very last day of april? Other than procrastination?
The last spring FAQ was a monday, but the last big FAQ was a friday IIRC.
In regards to why it'd drop now, it's not unlikely that they were tweaking minor things and biding their sweet time. Then they were ready to drop it last week but were nixed on that since it was Slaanesh week. Also, hopefully so we're not caught in some perpetual torment where the spring FAQ is always a month late
Well I am fine with it always being on the end of the month, but I do think they could communicate the fact better. "End of April" instead of April and I am fine. I am absolutely positive there was no delay. End of April was always the target.
The units that got hikes were the most point efficient and so consequently the best picks for Ynnari.
Yes and no. The Dark Reaper point increase I can get behind as I agree that was an overperforming unit on all accounts. What people are now asking: Was the increase too steep or not? We will start seeing more details about that as the Ynnari Index becomes official and whether Dark Reapers will see use in the future. Going over most recent tourney lists it seems mostly Ynnari were picking Reapers while Asuryani players were picking other things.
Shining Spears, however, were riding the Ynnari wave from start to finish. It's why GW didn't hit them as hard as Dark Reapers while Dark Reapers were dominating with the double-shooting at their old point cost. Regarding Shining Spears you will rarely see them in non-Ynnari lists as you are just not getting the best bang for the buck.
And i'll tell you right now - dark reaper points drop is a pipe dream. They are in no way over costed.
Shining Spears can be debatable, but I have a big project for work to finish so I can't tackle that right this moment.
PiñaColada wrote: The last spring FAQ was a monday, but the last big FAQ was a friday IIRC.
In regards to why it'd drop now, it's not unlikely that they were tweaking minor things and biding their sweet time. Then they were ready to drop it last week but were nixed on that since it was Slaanesh week. Also, hopefully so we're not caught in some perpetual torment where the spring FAQ is always a month late
And friday being last weekday(mond-friday) of september.
And well month late this year would be end may.
GW should just not give any word about when they release as players are never happy. Give exact date and you get into trouble if you miss deadline, don't give exact date and you get complains anyway. Lose lose. Can't win.
PiñaColada wrote: The last spring FAQ was a monday, but the last big FAQ was a friday IIRC.
In regards to why it'd drop now, it's not unlikely that they were tweaking minor things and biding their sweet time. Then they were ready to drop it last week but were nixed on that since it was Slaanesh week. Also, hopefully so we're not caught in some perpetual torment where the spring FAQ is always a month late
And friday being last weekday(mond-friday) of september.
And well month late this year would be end may.
GW should just not give any word about when they release as players are never happy. Give exact date and you get into trouble if you miss deadline, don't give exact date and you get complains anyway. Lose lose. Can't win.
Why don't they, I don't know, give an exact date and not miss the deadline?
tneva82 wrote: Well seems coming today it seems. At least one person claims seen them and now lots of faq's missing for me so seems they are updating the faq page
There's a bunch up saying 4/29 so for sure!
I'm happy with this:
Q: Can I issue the Move! Move! Move! order to a unit which has Fallen Back this turn?A: No. The Move! Move! Move! order states the unit must Advance, and a unit which has Fallen Back cannot Advance.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
PiñaColada wrote: The last spring FAQ was a monday, but the last big FAQ was a friday IIRC.
In regards to why it'd drop now, it's not unlikely that they were tweaking minor things and biding their sweet time. Then they were ready to drop it last week but were nixed on that since it was Slaanesh week. Also, hopefully so we're not caught in some perpetual torment where the spring FAQ is always a month late
And friday being last weekday(mond-friday) of september.
And well month late this year would be end may.
GW should just not give any word about when they release as players are never happy. Give exact date and you get into trouble if you miss deadline, don't give exact date and you get complains anyway. Lose lose. Can't win.
Why don't they, I don't know, give an exact date and not miss the deadline?
No, obviously the best solution is to post an article about how the FAQ is "on the verge of reaching fruition," then go radio silent about it for six weeks and ignore everyone who asks about it before dropping it at the last second possible.
I don't think anyone is asking for a set in stone date six months in advance, but if they can't nail down a date a week or two in advance then there's something very wrong with either their design process or ability to communicate.
tneva82 wrote: Well seems coming today it seems. At least one person claims seen them and now lots of faq's missing for me so seems they are updating the faq page
There's a bunch up saying 4/29 so for sure!
I'm happy with this:
Q: Can I issue the Move! Move! Move! order to a unit which has Fallen Back this turn?A: No. The Move! Move! Move! order states the unit must Advance, and a unit which has Fallen Back cannot Advance.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
Because you know life isn't perfect and everything goes as planned? If it did stealer cult codex would have been out last year(before orks).
Why risk more annoyed people? Now you piss just people x. If you put in exact day and miss you piss of those and more. Nothing to gain, more to lose.
tneva82 wrote: Well seems coming today it seems. At least one person claims seen them and now lots of faq's missing for me so seems they are updating the faq page
There's a bunch up saying 4/29 so for sure!
I'm happy with this:
Q: Can I issue the Move! Move! Move! order to a unit which has Fallen Back this turn?A: No. The Move! Move! Move! order states the unit must Advance, and a unit which has Fallen Back cannot Advance.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
What are you talking about? Cant see anything new.
He's exaggerating a bit but he's not wrong about CMS/Loyalist Marine shooting being really mopey without their reroll buff auras. Not speaking for CMS, but the vanilla marine codex seems to have been balanced around rerolling 1s to hit and to wound on every single unit every turn.
This is a problem with flat bonus auras. Auras just tend to be problematic in my experience because they work only in certain given contexts and not in others.
Appologies if I'm misreading your intention, but nobody is denying that. The context of the argument was:
"If Shining Spears are only good with this big pile of buffs, why is that a problem for CWE when it's not considered a problem for my CSM to also need a couple of buffing characters to function?"
"That's a strawman."
"How is that a strawman?"
"Show me a CSM unit that needs an equivalent number of buffs to work."
And I pointed out in the post you're responding to that CSM and LSM are both entirely balanced around their buffing characters, so everyCSM and LSM unit needs a couple of buffing characters to work properly. For all practical purposes you're agreeing with me, in a way that looks like you're disagreeing.
tneva82 wrote: Well seems coming today it seems. At least one person claims seen them and now lots of faq's missing for me so seems they are updating the faq page
There's a bunch up saying 4/29 so for sure!
I'm happy with this:
Q: Can I issue the Move! Move! Move! order to a unit which has Fallen Back this turn?A: No. The Move! Move! Move! order states the unit must Advance, and a unit which has Fallen Back cannot Advance.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
What are you talking about? Cant see anything new.
Typical when faq's get updatet. For a while not all see them. I don't even see entire necron faq! Not even old one. Bit wait and all shou'd come.
Seen few screenshots though. Necron transports confirmed to not allow coming out t1 but emergency strategem works t1, wraiths gain ability to charge through models etc.
Kanluwen wrote: The FAQ section is updated for 40k, with almost everything showing 29/04/2019.
Any chance you can link to what you are looking at? I'm on the FAQ page of WC and I don't see a single 29/04/2019 date.
-
I'm on Warhammer Community, clicked Warhammer 40,000. I did a forced refresh and they popped up.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think people are gonna be happy with this...
Page 106 – Rotate Ion Shields Change the last sentence of this Stratagem to read: ‘Until the end of the phase, that vehicle unit’s invulnerable save is improved by 1 (to a maximum of 4 +).’
I see the new dates on the existing errata files. I thought this one in the Marine errata was odd:
Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems
interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the
weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem?
A: No. You can, however, use the Stratagem a
second time to affect the second shot (subject to the
usual restrictions).
I don't know why they bothered with anything past "No." since the core strategem rules stop you from using Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles a second time.
The Newman wrote: I see the new dates on the existing errata files. I thought this one in the Marine errata was odd:
Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems
interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the
weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem?
A: No. You can, however, use the Stratagem a
second time to affect the second shot (subject to the
usual restrictions).
I don't know why they bothered with anything past "No." since the usual restrictions stop you from using Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles a second time.
You know right that strat only once is not core rule? Answer needs to work without that extra restriction
The Newman wrote: I see the new dates on the existing errata files. I thought this one in the Marine errata was odd:
Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems
interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the
weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem?
A: No. You can, however, use the Stratagem a
second time to affect the second shot (subject to the
usual restrictions).
I don't know why they bothered with anything past "No." since the core strategem rules stop you from using Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles a second time.
Only in matched play. Otherwise, what restrictions would stop you from using the strat twice?
T'au Errata covers FTGG a bit better but still no official word on if you declare all units using FTGG before you start rolling your shots, or if you can go unit by unit until the enemy is destroyed. Come on guys.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
I've said many times that the reason it takes so long for FAQs to come out is the rules team has to sit in stunned silence for a good five minutes after the community teams read them some of the questions.
The Newman wrote: I see the new dates on the existing errata files. I thought this one in the Marine errata was odd:
Q: How do the Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shells Stratagems
interact with an Armorium Cherub? Are you able to ‘reload’ the
weapon and fire again with the benefit of the Stratagem?
A: No. You can, however, use the Stratagem a
second time to affect the second shot (subject to the
usual restrictions).
I don't know why they bothered with anything past "No." since the core strategem rules stop you from using Hellfire Shells / Flakk Missiles a second time.
Only in matched play. Otherwise, what restrictions would stop you from using the strat twice?
Ah, I had forgotten that restriction only applies to Matched Play. We never play anything else so I had no reason to remember it.
Q: When a rule allows a model or unit to take an action (move,
shoot, charge, fight or attempt to manifest a psychic power)
outside of the normal turn sequence, and that rule explicitly
mentions to make that action as if it were a different phase of the
turn structure to the current one, e.g. ‘That unit can shoot as if it
were the Shooting phase’, do rules that are normally used during
that phase (in the example this would be the Shooting phase) take
effect? Is the same true of Overwatch attacks?
A: With the exception of Stratagems, all rules (e.g.
abilities, Warlord Traits, psychic powers etc.) that would
apply in a specific phase apply to actions that are taking
place ‘as if it were that phase’. However, if a Stratagem
specifies that it must be used in a specific phase, then
it can only be used in that phase (e.g. you cannot use a
Stratagem that says ‘Use this Stratagem in the Shooting
phase’ to affect a unit that is Shooting ‘as if it were
the Shooting phase’). For the purposes of this FAQ,
Overwatch attacks are also considered to be attacks made
as if it were your Shooting phase.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
I've said many times that the reason it takes so long for FAQs to come out is the rules team has to sit in stunned silence for a good five minutes after the community teams read them some of the questions.
Page 113 – Mental Onslaught
Change the last sentence of this psychic power to read:
‘If your score is higher, the enemy model’s unit suffers 1
mortal wound; if the selected model is still alive you then
repeat this process (each player rolling a D6 and adding
their respective Leadership) until either the selected
model is destroyed, your opponent rolls a 6, and/or your
opponent’s result is equal to or higher than yours.’
Page 126 – Stratagems, Mob Up
Change the first and second sentences of this Stratagem
to read:
‘Use this Stratagem at the end of your Movement phase,
before setting up any reinforcement units in your army
on the battlefield (if any). Select two <Clan> Boyz units
from your army that are within 2" of each other.’
Automatically Appended Next Post: Obliterators are 115 and 1-3.
Castellans ^
Doom CWE only
Jinx CWE only
DW no Astartes rule.
115 Oblitz
Not effective Vehicles is dumb though. LRC went from being almost useable to total garbo again. (I think any rule that invalidates LR's even more is a bad rule) Exactly what vehicle was over performing with this?
Page 64 – Special Issue Ammunition
Change the first paragraph of this ability to read:
‘When this unit fires any ranged weapons from the
following list, you can choose for it to fire special
ammunition. If you do so, the Bolter Discipline ability
does not apply when resolving their shots, but you
instead choose one kind of ammunition from the table
to the right and apply the corresponding modifier.’
Page 64 – Special Issue Ammunition Change the first paragraph of this ability to read: ‘When this unit fires any ranged weapons from the following list, you can choose for it to fire special ammunition. If you do so, the Bolter Discipline ability does not apply when resolving their shots, but you instead choose one kind of ammunition from the table to the right and apply the corresponding modifier.’
For clarification, it does appear that DW CAN use Bolter Discipline, but not at the same time as they choose SIA. I'm sure the Math is out there on regular bolters/bolt rifles getting double shot vs SIA variants with single shots
I suspect double shots via BD have there place in some very niche situations (long range shooting at a light tank, maybe?) where Hellfire rounds do nothing, Kraken doesn't get you in half range and doing more wound will net you more than Vengeance's AP boost
Castellans ^
Doom CWE only
Jinx CWE only
DW no Astartes rule.
115 Oblitz
Not effective Vehicles is dumb though. LRC went from being almost useable to total garbo again. (I think any rule that invalidates LR's even more is a bad rule) Exactly what vehicle was over performing with this?
I read it as DW get Bolter Discipline if they don't use Special Issue Ammo, so basically they just got Beta Bolter as a 4th ammo type. Not thrilled with Vehicles losing it either, makes it harder to point Hurricane Bolters correctly.
Also, makes SM vehicles relatively less valuable overall. Also, also, not thrilled that they didn't even acknowledge that Bolter Discipline makes any non-rapid fire "bolt" weapon worse by comparison. I was hoping for some revision of Bolter Drill to fix that, but baring that at least a "we realize this has had unintended side effects, look for point revisions in the next CA" would have been welcome.
Castellans ^
Doom CWE only
Jinx CWE only
DW no Astartes rule.
115 Oblitz
Not effective Vehicles is dumb though. LRC went from being almost useable to total garbo again. (I think any rule that invalidates LR's even more is a bad rule) Exactly what vehicle was over performing with this?
I read it as DW get Bolter Discipline if they don't use Special Issue Ammo, so basically they just got Beta Bolter as a 4th ammo type. Not thrilled with Vehicles losing it either, makes it harder to point Hurricane Bolters correctly.
Also, makes SM vehicles relatively less valuable overall. Also, also, not thrilled that they didn't even acknowledge that Bolter Discipline makes any non-rapid fire "bolt" weapon worse by comparison. I was hoping for some revision of Bolter Drill to fix that, but baring that at least a "we realize this has had unintended side effects, look for point revisions in the next CA" would have been welcome.
You are correct. For example - a DW storm bolter on a dread does get astartes rule. Or you could chose to use astartes rule or SIA on anything else.
I can't believe it needed to be FAQ, but then again I can't believe they needed to make it clear the Relic of Lost Cadia was once per game.
I've said many times that the reason it takes so long for FAQs to come out is the rules team has to sit in stunned silence for a good five minutes after the community teams read them some of the questions.
I think I might want to sig this.
Feel free to correct my grammar. Dealing with the after effects of a fever, so my brain isn't fully functional today.
Eldarsif wrote: My Shining Spears have been shelved from 2nd editions when I bought them up until I decided to try them again in 8th.
You bought Shining Spears in 2nd edition? What sort of conversion did you do, as they weren't released as a kit until 3rd edition (metal add-on to the plastic jetbike, IIRC).
Xenomancers wrote: There is no way the FAQ is released this month at this point...If by some miracle it is - what exactly was the logic behind releasing it mid week on the very last day of april? Other than procrastination?
Nothing wrong with the occasional bit of procrastination.
For those that didn't read all the FAQ's, here is the rundown:
- The Castellan nerf. 100 point increase and a max of 4++ save is huge. They are still hella good, but now they're more manageable from an opponents perspective.
- FLY units can now charge over enemy units again, just not anything with a BUILDING keyword. Thank god for that change!
- AIRCRAFT (a new keyword for anything with the FLY keyword and a minimum move distance) now no longer blocks moving. As long as you don't end your movement on their base, you can move underneath them, so the old tactic with blocking a charge with a flyer is dead. (Heldrake is not affected by this, as it doens't have a minimum move requirement.)
- The beta bolter rule got removed from vehicles (except dreadnoughts and helbrutes). In addition Deathwatch lost it on their speciality ammo, which was WAY too good. Good changes overall, so hurricane bolter vehicles and 2+ to wound infantry doesn't murder the enemy at any given time.
- Orks got a nerf with the combining-units-stratagem, that is twofold. First off, it can only be used on Boyz now, so Lootahs are out. Secondly you have to do it before you set up units, that can deploy outside your zone (so no more infiltrate and combine for cheeky 60 boyz squad 12'' from the enemy.)
- Aeldar got a massive hit, with their psychic powers Doom, Guide and Jinx only being usable by Craftworld Aeldar units. No more debuffing enemies and unload with your Drukhari units. It only works on their own codex now.
- It now cost 2 CP to use the Assassin stratagem, where you include it in your normal detachment, you can only do it once per game (so no more 4 assassins in one list, unless you bring a whole detachment) and Fallen can no longer take assassins. No rule changes to the units themselves.
- Mental Onslaught is now passed on a 6, regardless of leadership values.
- Iron Grip from Imperial Knights is now passed on a 6, regardless of strength and toughness value.
From a chaos perspective, there are a few changes.
- Obliterators are back to 115 points. I was hoping they would meet in the middle, so don't expect to see many Obliterators anymore. 115 points is way too expensive.
- You can now only take 3 Daemon princes, regardless of what codex they are from. You can summon in though, to break the rule of 3. (it is even specifically stated that you can do this).
- The new renegade legions now have god-specific tags attached to them. Nurgle for Purge, Tzeentch for Scourged, Slaanesh for Flawless Host and Khorne for Brazen. No more Slaanesh Purge units.
- Legion traits now affect Characters, Infantry, Bikes and Helbrutes. This means that Juggerlord, Discsorcerer, etc. and Lord Discordant now have legion trait.
- The Voice of Lorgar warlord trait now also applies to Dark Apostles prayers. So you get +3'' to their effects.
- The Curzed Crozius and Black Mace can replace both a Powermaul and the new crozius weapon that Dark Apostles have.
Overall, not too shabby! I am happy with most of the changes and they do make sense. I might have missed some parts, but for me these are the key takeaways.
Spreelock wrote: Where is the points cost for obliterators, as 115ppm? Is it in the shadowspear? I checked the Chaos and vigilus ablaze faq, but it was not there..
No clarification on "army" for Renegade Traits. Not that it mattered, everyone was just ignoring the line that said your army needs to be taken from a Renegade Chapter so they can keep doing the Heretical 17. Yet these same people were arguing that RAW oblits were 65 because of the latest book. Funny how min/maxers selectively pick what RAW they apply.
Wayniac wrote: No clarification on "army" for Renegade Traits. Not that it mattered, everyone was just ignoring the line that said your army needs to be taken from a Renegade Chapter so they can keep doing the Heretical 17. Yet these same people were arguing that RAW oblits were 65 because of the latest book. Funny how min/maxers selectively pick what RAW they apply.
You have an American flag next to your name, so you must know that reading is un-American. Are you implying filthy communist readers are in our midst?
I don't fully understand the implications of Ork strategum nerf, but less deepstrike shenanigans sounds like a game improvement. I thought mob up could only be used on boyz anyway tbh!
Eldarsif wrote: My Shining Spears have been shelved from 2nd editions when I bought them up until I decided to try them again in 8th.
You bought Shining Spears in 2nd edition? What sort of conversion did you do, as they weren't released as a kit until 3rd edition (metal add-on to the plastic jetbike, IIRC).
Xenomancers wrote: There is no way the FAQ is released this month at this point...If by some miracle it is - what exactly was the logic behind releasing it mid week on the very last day of april? Other than procrastination?
Nothing wrong with the occasional bit of procrastination.
OHHHHH SNAP lying eldar player EXPOSED point about Shining Spears only ever having been good in one single edition of 40k COMPLETELY INVALIDATED fake news CONFIRMED!!!
I don't fully understand the implications of Ork strategum nerf, but less deepstrike shenanigans sounds like a game improvement. I thought mob up could only be used on boyz anyway tbh!
From what I understand, some would infiltrate some boyz of some kind in the deployment and the first action they did, was to use the stratagem. Then they could merge them at the infiltrated units location, effectively being 12'' away from the opponent turn one, before movement.
I personally haven't seen it, but it sounds nasty!
I don't fully understand the implications of Ork strategum nerf, but less deepstrike shenanigans sounds like a game improvement. I thought mob up could only be used on boyz anyway tbh!
From what I understand, some would infiltrate some boyz of some kind in the deployment and the first action they did, was to use the stratagem. Then they could merge them at the infiltrated units location, effectively being 12'' away from the opponent turn one, before movement.
I personally haven't seen it, but it sounds nasty!
Mostly 2nd turn only, but you could get shorter charges on large deepstriking units.
Common example would've been a small unit of Stormboyz in a Battlewaggon or so. They run up, advance and all and get within, say 4" of an enemy unit. Then the 30 Stormboyz deepstrike behind it and Mob Up with the unit just 4" away. Voila, 4" charge (before bonuses, etc..) from deepstrike.
Nordicus wrote: - The Castellan nerf. 100 point increase and a max of 4++ save is huge. They are still hella good, but now they're more manageable from an opponents perspective.
*Looks at Danish flag on profile*
*Looks at northern Californian slang*
Nordicus wrote: - The Castellan nerf. 100 point increase and a max of 4++ save is huge. They are still hella good, but now they're more manageable from an opponents perspective.
*Looks at Danish flag on profile*
*Looks at northern Californian slang*
Ha! I lived for a couple of years in LA. Some things just stick with you.
I don't fully understand the implications of Ork strategum nerf, but less deepstrike shenanigans sounds like a game improvement. I thought mob up could only be used on boyz anyway tbh!
From what I understand, some would infiltrate some boyz of some kind in the deployment and the first action they did, was to use the stratagem. Then they could merge them at the infiltrated units location, effectively being 12'' away from the opponent turn one, before movement.
I personally haven't seen it, but it sounds nasty!
No, nothing like that. The mob up changes targeted two things:
- Loota bomb. Having 25 lootas benefit from always hitting and generating extra shots on 5+ and shooting twice that could all be protected by a single grot shield was extremely powerful, now only available for 15 lootas. Still strong, but no longer bonkers.
- Dragging reserves into combat. If you had a unit of boyz (MANz, nobz) really close to the enemy, you could mob them up with a unit that just arrived from reserves to shorten the 9" charge. Nothing about turn 1 anything, orks just have regular deep strikes which ara not allowed before turn 2. Not really powerful, so it probably just got the axe for being unintended and counter-intuitive.
I don't fully understand the implications of Ork strategum nerf, but less deepstrike shenanigans sounds like a game improvement. I thought mob up could only be used on boyz anyway tbh!
From what I understand, some would infiltrate some boyz of some kind in the deployment and the first action they did, was to use the stratagem. Then they could merge them at the infiltrated units location, effectively being 12'' away from the opponent turn one, before movement.
I personally haven't seen it, but it sounds nasty!
No, nothing like that. The mob up changes targeted two things:
- Loota bomb. Having 25 lootas benefit from always hitting and generating extra shots on 5+ and shooting twice that could all be protected by a single grot shield was extremely powerful, now only available for 15 lootas. Still strong, but no longer bonkers.
- Dragging reserves into combat. If you had a unit of boyz (MANz, nobz) really close to the enemy, you could mob them up with a unit that just arrived from reserves to shorten the 9" charge. Nothing about turn 1 anything, orks just have regular deep strikes which ara not allowed before turn 2. Not really powerful, so it probably just got the axe for being unintended and counter-intuitive.
Pretty much this, I don't think the Loota bomb was broken to begin with though. 17pt model capable of on average 2 shots hitting on 5s. Honestly, this just means to me that Lootas need a price drop since we can't castle them up into 25 squads and shoot twice with dakka on 5s. Realistically they are priced based on using 2 2CP strats a turn, so now that they are limited to 15 loota squads they need a price cut.
As for the unintended consequence of nerfing Mob up....yup, but realistically it was never used except on Lootas anyway. Occasionally you would use it on boyz squads but even then rarely because it was usually better to keep them separated so you could use Green Tide on one of them when they got reduced.
Honestly, this just removes the Orkz ability to play at the top tables and giving the Castellan 100pt cost increase doesn't matter to us.
SemperMortis wrote:Pretty much this, I don't think the Loota bomb was broken to begin with though. 17pt model capable of on average 2 shots hitting on 5s. Honestly, this just means to me that Lootas need a price drop since we can't castle them up into 25 squads and shoot twice with dakka on 5s. Realistically they are priced based on using 2 2CP strats a turn, so now that they are limited to 15 loota squads they need a price cut.
Realistically, bad moon lootas just using the shoot twice stratagem blow index KMB right out of the water efficiency wise, and those were awesome. The efficiency of single lootas doesn't drop just because there are less of them.
Honestly, this just removes the Orkz ability to play at the top tables and giving the Castellan 100pt cost increase doesn't matter to us.
Many top table lists have already dropped lootas and done very well, while 15 lootas with more dakka shooting twice are still great.
BaconCatBug wrote:At least a max squad of Tankbustas that jump in can actually put some hurt (and potentially double bracket it) on a 4++ Knight now.
You might want to do the math on that before making such tall statements.
You bought Shining Spears in 2nd edition? What sort of conversion did you do, as they weren't released as a kit until 3rd edition (metal add-on to the plastic jetbike, IIRC).
3rd then, still, they've been more or less shelved since I got them.
now, please bring intelligent conversation next time
