I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
That would be pretty disappointing. A nerf on the near infinite farm which makes the BA captain and Castellan so over the top would be a better first step.
If they are still dominating in post CP farm nerf allied and pure Knight forces then adjust the unit it self.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
I would rather say why did you buy an expensive model because it was overpowered? It's not like you were not warned with multiple nerfs already in the year since 8th launched.
Chill out man, the faq isnt here yet. I think it's pretty unlikely that the castellan gets that much of a price hike.
I do not think they'd want a fresh new model like it to be underpowered. They have still have to make profit from it
On the other hand: I chose the valiant for my knights because it's just a ton more fun. The valiant is an underrated chassis. It hits like a wreckingball.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
Hm. Must have missed that.
That said, I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. Too many years of "THE SISTERS ARE COMING" to fall for that old trap again.
HuskyWarhammer wrote: I wouldn't be too sad. I've coped with the garbage fire that the wraithknight has become, I can cope with this.
There's your answer. Go play a few games with a Wraithknight and then run, skipping back to your slightly more expensive super knight.
Tasteless remark removed - BrookM
Maybe the Castellan is too cheap, or maybe there are other changes that force that points bump. Heck, maybe it doesn't even exist. Until we get the FAQ (which looks to be coming out next month at this rate) it's too soon to spend all your time being made about a possibility. Unless you're trying to get it out of your system just in case I guess.
I definatly agree that they need to fix the actual problem, and thats the guard CP farm. they can keep nerfing everyone else into the ground, or they can just fix the actual problem
Wait, isn't the Castellan considered extremely effective to borderline OP when used without CP, but become hilariously broken with a CP farm?
Yeah, I can see the argument that the CP farm can cause unbalance, but it's disingenuous to say that even without it it's pretty darn effective for its points.
Is it worth 700pts? Maybe. But until we get it in black and white threads like these will inevitably just be back and forth fests.
Dr. Mills wrote: Wait, isn't the Castellan considered extremely effective to borderline OP when used without CP, but become hilariously broken with a CP farm?
"GW changes points cost of over performing and expensive unit so it is no longer performing and hobbyists purchase other models begrudgingly. In other news - the sky is blue and do bears truly poop in the woods?"
Would seem like typical GW move. Once again try to fix issue by completely missing mark.
Castellan is broken when it\s raven and has plenty of CP's to use. Ie part of soup with IG.
What happens with this? Well for starters it hurts more PURE knights rather than soup. Indeed it drives pure knight armies toward soup as they might have to drop entire knight and then just to use points have to take something like IG battallion. Meanwhile soup armies can adapt more easily as they have more cheap stuff they can drop. With knights you are easily looking at dropping 400 pts knight to make room for 100 pts price increase...
And how big issue pure knights with zero allies are? Looking at tournament lists knights are invariably with soup allies.
So once again if true GW just swings wildly off the target. But then again everybody knows GW doesn't even care about balance so no surprise.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
How many would it be if rumours were actually worth a damn. We'd have had a Lion miniature with the Dark Angel codex late last year, joined a few weeks ago by a Leman Russ miniature, a plastic Thunderhawk for ages, the rumour engine tail pic of Moriathi would've been Fulgrim, as all rumour-sites at the time agreed and first army of Warhammer Fantasy 9th Edition would've been a complete re-launch of the Bretonnian range as rumour-royalty proclaimed in unity up to a week or so before GW did a weird new game called Age of Sigmar.
I'd say you missed the point of the hobby or have an extremely tournament focused playgroup if a model's worth is only determined by its current points values.
The Castellan is only good because of a mix of the Cawls Wrath relic, Raven Stratagem/House trait, WLTs and then access to easy CP aka, the CP farm. Take some of those away instead and suddenly it's not so hot.
MistaGav wrote: The Castellan is only good because of a mix of the Cawls Wrath relic, Raven Stratagem/House trait, WLTs and then access to easy CP aka, the CP farm. Take some of those away instead and suddenly it's not so hot.
Which shows the problem with all these traits and relics that do not cost points. They massively affect the effectiveness of the unit. So if the unit gets pointed based on its effectiveness with them, it will be absurdly overcosted without them, basically forcing everyone to run that one specific setup. Considering that both the relic and the stratagem are locked to Questoris Mechanicus, it is pretty damn annoying to Questoris Imperialis players who would still like to field a Castellan.
MistaGav wrote: The Castellan is only good because of a mix of the Cawls Wrath relic, Raven Stratagem/House trait, WLTs and then access to easy CP aka, the CP farm. Take some of those away instead and suddenly it's not so hot.
Which shows the problem with all these traits and relics that do not cost points. They massively affect the effectiveness of the unit. So if the unit gets pointed based on its effectiveness with them, it will be absurdly overcosted without them, basically forcing everyone to run that one specific setup. Considering that both the relic and the stratagem are locked to Questoris Mechanicus, it is pretty damn annoying to Questoris Imperialis players who would still like to field a Castellan.
Yea that's my take as well the Castellan doesn't need a points increase it needs a nerf to the CP farm and the Raven stratagem in particular as even a Crusader with that stratagem is still pretty effective. I don't mind some house specific stratagems but relics being restricted to mechanicus or imperial is really annoying as it forces people down specific builds. The relics for the Castellan and Valiant are almost mandatory in order to get the best out of the units are without they are really not great.
I think the fact that with Cawl's Wrath, they can almost one shot a Shadowsword (or knock an expected 22 wounds off one, leading it to shoot back on a 6+) if they get the first turn without using any CP or traits.
If the Shadowsword shoots first, it knocks off an expected 15.6 wounds - only knocking the knight down one damage band. With Ionbulwark and RIS, that drops to 7.8 wounds. Not enough to reduce the Knight's returning firepower.
Even if it gets lucky and does more damage, with wrath of the machine spirit you're still going to get hit by an undamaged Castellan.
Anything that can cripple a Shadowsword on an average shot without using stratagems, having just been hit by said Shadowsword, should probably cost more than just 100pts over the tank.
I mean it's crazy that people are saying the Castallan doesn't need a points hike! The thing is bonkers, and comes in about 50pts more than a Crusader, cheaper than a Lord of Skulls, etc.
Yes access to CP farms make it much nastier, due to rotate ion shields, but that's the only out-of-the-ordinary CP demand this thing makes.
It's also dominating all tournaments at the moment. I get that people have dropped big money on a model, but we all have, just on different models is all. Game balance trumps personal attachment to uber-builds.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It'll also help with internal balance, maybe giving people a reason to go Valiant instead, which is nice.
Tastyfish wrote: I think the fact that with Cawl's Wrath, they can almost one shot a Shadowsword (or knock an expected 22 wounds off one, leading it to shoot back on a 6+) if they get the first turn without using any CP or traits.
If the Shadowsword shoots first, it knocks off an expected 15.6 wounds - only knocking the knight down one damage band. With Ionbulwark and RIS, that drops to 7.8 wounds. Not enough to reduce the Knight's returning firepower.
Even if it gets lucky and does more damage, with wrath of the machine spirit you're still going to get hit by an undamaged Castellan.
Anything that can cripple a Shadowsword on an average shot without using stratagems, having just been hit by said Shadowsword, should probably cost more than just 100pts over the tank.
Yup. Especially when a Shadowsword is meant to be a hunter for these kind of units.
Tastyfish wrote: I think the fact that with Cawl's Wrath, they can almost one shot a Shadowsword (or knock an expected 22 wounds off one, leading it to shoot back on a 6+) if they get the first turn without using any CP or traits.
If the Shadowsword shoots first, it knocks off an expected 15.6 wounds - only knocking the knight down one damage band. With Ionbulwark and RIS, that drops to 7.8 wounds. Not enough to reduce the Knight's returning firepower.
Even if it gets lucky and does more damage, with wrath of the machine spirit you're still going to get hit by an undamaged Castellan.
Anything that can cripple a Shadowsword on an average shot without using stratagems, having just been hit by said Shadowsword, should probably cost more than just 100pts over the tank.
Yup. Especially when a Shadowsword is meant to be a hunter for these kind of units.
And with the fact that the Shadowsword is OP, is even worse how powerfull the Castellan is. (The Castellan is so OP in fact that people has forgotten how before it came out, the Shadowsword had his place as the king of broken super heavies, and now you have people that sais the shadowsword is fine or even weak)
I'm safe. I won a Valiant in a tournament, and he has been perfoming very well for me. People normally don't know how to react to it. And the relic flamer that repeats to wound rolls... pfff. He eats Dark Eldar vehicles alive. And if they try to charge it? Oh boy.
The harpoon is very "Go big or go home". You don't do anything with it in the whole game or you pop vehicles left and right.
The Castellan is undercosted that is beyond doubt to most people, unfortunately it does become another level when you stack relics and warlord traits and strategums with unlimited CP but the same goes for anything with unlimited CP.
It is unfortunate that GW has basically alignment locked the dominus class knights but then again they have done that with a number of other codex's already. It's a feature of 8th edition that is probably not going anywhere any time soon.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
They changed the Storm Shield cost in a FAQ for Dark Angels and Black Templars before their respective 5th Ed. codexes, IIRC.
There were actually several points adjustments in the big Spring FAQ. I would expect a few more in the upcoming one certainly!
Edit:
Just checked and there are 16 or 17 unit point adjustments in the Big FAQ. (Sly Marble is one and I'm not sure if that's an adjustment, or just publishing the points because he wasn't in the codex!).
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
This is GW, they will push the points into "wtf?" territory and nerf the CP batteries, at some point they will bring it back down when they want to sell more of them.
I have not actually gone against a Castellan yet, but my only real fear is that allied detachments will get messed up, just started a Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons army, would HATE if they nerfed the interactions of allied forces.
DudleyGrim wrote: I have not actually gone against a Castellan yet, but my only real fear is that allied detachments will get messed up, just started a Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons army, would HATE if they nerfed the interactions of allied forces.
We're expecting something in all honesty.
I HIGHLY doubt they will stop allying at all. Most probably it will be some restrictions on either sharing CP between armies or how CP are generated for mixed armies.
StarHunter25 wrote: I just hope my precious Valiant doesn't get whacked because it shares the hull. I love my meme harpoon...
The Vailiant is pretty much the perfect comparison of how much better than Castellan is for its points. The Valiant is super fun mind you, but what you get over it for a song is pretty ridiculous.
I do think the 3CP for shields might be a bit expensive with a proper cost, but we'll have to wait and see what all changes.
MistaGav wrote: The Castellan is only good because of a mix of the Cawls Wrath relic, Raven Stratagem/House trait, WLTs and then access to easy CP aka, the CP farm. Take some of those away instead and suddenly it's not so hot.
A castellan is only 100 points more than a fully decked out crusader and has about double the firepower and 4+ wounds. It clearly needs to be more than that. Lets also focus on this part too. Crusaders are REALLY good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
I play it without CP farm. It is OP without CP farm. It kills 3 units a turn pretty consistently.
StarHunter25 wrote: I just hope my precious Valiant doesn't get whacked because it shares the hull. I love my meme harpoon...
The Vailiant is pretty much the perfect comparison of how much better than Castellan is for its points. The Valiant is super fun mind you, but what you get over it for a song is pretty ridiculous.
I do think the 3CP for shields might be a bit expensive with a proper cost, but we'll have to wait and see what all changes.
MistaGav wrote: The Castellan is only good because of a mix of the Cawls Wrath relic, Raven Stratagem/House trait, WLTs and then access to easy CP aka, the CP farm. Take some of those away instead and suddenly it's not so hot.
A castellan is only 100 points more than a fully decked out crusader and has about double the firepower and 4+ wounds. It clearly needs to be more than that. Lets also focus on this part too. Crusaders are REALLY good.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
I play it without CP farm. It is OP without CP farm. It kills 3 units a turn pretty consistently.
Crusaders are fairly meh to be honest. I would say they need a points reduction (as the RFB also does in general).
I agree with fixing one at a time. My Castellan, in a recent game, did literally 0 damage to another Imperial Knight in 2 rounds of shooting. Not the norm, I know, but it goes to show the thing isn't just bonkers beyond belief.
The Valiant is appropriately costed/slightly over costed till you bring in his relic. Of course, Cawl's Wrath does the same thing to the Castellan.
Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
There's no way the Castellan will be pointed over 660. GW wants you to be able to field 3 dominus in a 2k game. If CP farm is fixed the castellan is at a decent point cost already.
LunarSol wrote: The RFBC is pretty grossly overcosted. The Thermal Cannon is also a tad pricey. This seems to be the primary issue with the Questor in general.
Nether is that bad when you subtract the wasted 30 points you'd be spending on a CC weapon which is basically always going to be trumped by your stomp attacks. The fist is great for deathgrip but you can only use that once per turn and gallants do that better.
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
Yeah, sounds like you're conflating the Castellans strength to be all that of the CP farm. It's not hard to recognise the problems of the Castellan on its own, seperating the two isn't some impossible challenge that we have to play through another year of Castellans to uncover.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
Executive Summary of Below: Get that OP model out quick, it is only a matter of time till a nerf, nothing is forever, you should know this.
Since it is possible to mix and match so many armies, all units especially those that generate CP's would be under the microscope.
One could argue that since the units are available to all of us, it is fair right? Well, with GW actually appearing to care about balance, you can guarantee it is a matter of time until the "broken" unit/model of the day will get a touch-up.
If you MUST get the latest and greatest hotness, slap that model together and get 3 colours on it and call it a day, time's a wastin.
I have a Castellen on it's way with assembly and I may only get the one done, I see some guy at my hobby shop fielding 3 of them in completely shiny silver with purple armor plate block painting and a brown base, no shade (gets some from his opponents however).
I fully paint my stuff with decals and everything so I have learned to let things go if I cannot get the darn thing fielded in under a month or two.
Talizvar wrote: Executive Summary of Below: Get that OP model out quick, it is only a matter of time till a nerf, nothing is forever, you should know this.
Talizvar wrote: Executive Summary of Below: Get that OP model out quick, it is only a matter of time till a nerf, nothing is forever, you should know this.
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
Yeah, sounds like you're conflating the Castellans strength to be all that of the CP farm. It's not hard to recognise the problems of the Castellan on its own, seperating the two isn't some impossible challenge that we have to play through another year of Castellans to uncover.
Humm I thought when you Edited you would include all your anecdotal evidence on how awesome the Castellen is sans CP farms.
The Castellan is game breaking. Soup or no. And because the Super Heavy Auxiliary exists, you cannot make the case that Knights weren't designed to complement full armies. Claiming "but soup" for a faction that was designed with soup in mind, seems silly.
Guard also need a nerf, but that's a different topic.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
They changed the Storm Shield cost in a FAQ for Dark Angels and Black Templars before their respective 5th Ed. codexes, IIRC.
Yes, but that is hardly relevant to how they use CA and FAQs in 8th edition tthough. I apparently missed some points changes in FAQs that did happen though, which is more relevant.
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
Yeah, sounds like you're conflating the Castellans strength to be all that of the CP farm. It's not hard to recognise the problems of the Castellan on its own, seperating the two isn't some impossible challenge that we have to play through another year of Castellans to uncover.
Humm I thought when you Edited you would include all your anecdotal evidence on how awesome the Castellen is sans CP farms.
Nope just edited my spelling within seconds of posting. Not sure why I'd include anecdotal evidence for a statement that neither hinged off it or referenced it, in fact the point of my post was literally that we didn't need such anecdotes to draw rational conclusions, but okay.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
Yeah, sounds like you're conflating the Castellans strength to be all that of the CP farm. It's not hard to recognise the problems of the Castellan on its own, seperating the two isn't some impossible challenge that we have to play through another year of Castellans to uncover.
Humm I thought when you Edited you would include all your anecdotal evidence on how awesome the Castellen is sans CP farms.
Nope just edited my spelling within seconds of posting. Not sure why I'd include anecdotal evidence for a statement that neither hinged off it or referenced it, in fact the point of my post was literally that we didn't need such anecdotes to draw rational conclusions, but okay.
You know it's a fun time when someone sees that a post is edited and jumps down your throat over it.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
It's a lot better than a choas double gatling. Endless fury averages 12 hits to 16 hits for the choas double gat - 4 less hits. But it has 2-3 average hits with a str 9 melta (which costs almost 30 points less than an additional gatling) hit twice as hard and better vs more targets. It overwatches better too. It can stand up after it dies - fight at full power for 1 CP. 1 of those choas double gatlings was the centerpeice of a big tourmanet win for a DG mec spam army. It is certainly in the top units in the game. With the Castellan going up to 700+ points - the crusader will most likely be preferable to the castellan.
There are 2 stand out redonk OP units in the game right now.
Castellans and captain slamquin
Then there are about 20 really OP units
Crusaders and Gallants are both on there.
DudleyGrim wrote: I have not actually gone against a Castellan yet, but my only real fear is that allied detachments will get messed up, just started a Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons army, would HATE if they nerfed the interactions of allied forces.
We're expecting something in all honesty.
I HIGHLY doubt they will stop allying at all. Most probably it will be some restrictions on either sharing CP between armies or how CP are generated for mixed armies.
But we really don't know yet!
I know, but I am still a little worried, never played during 6th or 7th editions so I was super excited to see allies in the game in a way that wasn't pants on head stupid. I am lucky in that most of the players at my FLGS do not really power game (hell, most don't even ally!), so the odds of finding any sort of IG player with any sort of ally is actually kind of rare! Not being able to share CP kinda sucks when you have allies who are only giving you 1cp detachments, maybe if they bumped how much cp outriders, vanguard, and spearheads gave it would work a bit better? It feels like if CP sharing were nerfed, they'd need to find a way to increase CP usage for certain detachments to fix that, otherwise it is going to hurt allies altogether.
I know, but I am still a little worried, never played during 6th or 7th editions so I was super excited to see allies in the game in a way that wasn't pants on head stupid.
We're not quite there just yet it's actually the cause of the games biggest imbalances atm
I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
It's too early to speak now. Maybe the Castellan gets new powers or more Wounds. Maybe everything else will get a nerf, making the Castellan still a decent unit.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
Uh, not a single unit you cited is top tier competitive. The Shadowsword wasn't being taken in bulk in the post-Spring FAQ meta (and for good reason). It's just not very competitive and hasn't been since around the time the Falchion got nerfed. I searched a ton of lists and found 2, taken by Brandon Grant at the Boise Idaho tournament and Matthew Obermark at Salt Lake. That's it. Hellhounds are used, more to fill out Brigades than "ZOMG OP" but they're at least, you know, there in some lists.
You know what are top tier competitive units (besides the Captain and the Castellan)? Wracks. Shining Spears. Ogryns. Vertus Praetors. Heavy Weapon Teams. Daemon Princes. Crimson Hunters. Razorwing Jetfighters.
Seriously, go look through the winning lists of May-July and see what you spot as patterns.
It would be my preference for GW to deal with thing in stages and given how close CA is it would have made sense to deal with game wide mechanics first followed by points adjustments in December.
But given the nature of how they publish CA, it may already be on its way to the printers so they may feel pressured to deal with everything within the FAQ.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
It's a lot better than a choas double gatling. Endless fury averages 12 hits to 16 hits for the choas double gat - 4 less hits. But it has 2-3 average hits with a str 9 melta (which costs almost 30 points less than an additional gatling) hit twice as hard and better vs more targets. It overwatches better too. It can stand up after it dies - fight at full power for 1 CP. 1 of those choas double gatlings was the centerpeice of a big tourmanet win for a DG mec spam army. It is certainly in the top units in the game. With the Castellan going up to 700+ points - the crusader will most likely be preferable to the castellan.
There are 2 stand out redonk OP units in the game right now.
Castellans and captain slamquin
Then there are about 20 really OP units
Crusaders and Gallants are both on there.
Now your just not making any sence a imperial knight with a relic is somehow compaired to a choas knight with no relic.
You then randomly bring up strategums?
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
If your balancing around playing kill the most games then yeah maybe knights don't work in that format, but personally I never thought those game styles ever worked.
Bring in objectives and other victory conditions and multiple armies can best mono Knights, Aldari can absolutely destroy them if they want to.
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
There is no other definition of balance. If List A is better than List B, it's not balanced. Period. As long as it's mathematically possible to put together a list that has a 1% mathematical disadvantage against at least one other list in the game, there's still an imbalance.
Of course, realistically, true balance will never be achieved in 40K, but to just concede and not even attempt to balance armies and thus truly make the game a test of skill, rather than finding the latest game-designer-snafu would a) be a sad thing and b) not what the word "balance" means as per the definition of the word.
If there is some type of "synergy" it needs to be "balanced" against a list without synergy, either by paying more points, getting a penalty elsewhere, perhaps introducing a handicap system awarding negative tournament points based on how frequently a given unit appears in a tournament, etc.. or there's no balance. Simple as that.
If that's not the definition of balance, it just becomes arbitrary.
Guy 1 : "Oh... balance means things need to be balanced against armies A, B, C, D and E, but we can ignore armies F, G, H, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO)"
Guy 2 : "No, I disagree, balance means it needs to be balanced against armies A, B, F, G, we can ignore armies C, D and E, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO) "
Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
While I do think the Castellan needs a slight point increase, I also think the Valiant should have a slight point decrease. There should be a 50 to 80 points difference between the two at least.
But I also think that a cost over 700pt would be to much.
Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
Wow
You clearly arn't playing 8th edition matched play as Kroot don't have a codex and can't make a battleforged army for crying out load.
You have also overlooked massively the fact that mission scoring makes a huge difference to the perception of balance.
As to the other nonsence, you don't balance to the bottom, you find the mid point and balance to that, some armies go up some go down but balance is achieved, you certainly don't drag everyone down to the lowest of of the low with no synergies no damage output.
What your talking about is creating Slow hammer, flood the objectives with as many obsec bodies as possible and wait the remaining 6 hours for a 2k game to finish.
Stux wrote: Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
Fair enough.
But the range is by definition very large. There're ... random, safe and underestimating guess .... 15 Codexes times, let's say, lowballing 25 data sheets in each codex which can be used in any combination of, again lowballing, 10 different units per army list. Ignoring allies, equipment options, etc.., that's about 131,128,140 lists per codex, or close to 2,000 Million lists from 15 Codexes, completely ignoring allies. If we assume just the top 10% are OP, the bottom 10% underpowered and the middle 80% fine (probably should be more top and bottom 25%), that alone would be nearly 200 Million 40K lists one would need to classify as OP and nerf to inch a tiny bit closer to balance.
Pretty sure the Crusader would be in there. In fact, there're barely 1000 ITC events per year, with, lets say, highballing 1000 participants each and every single one, including tiniest RTT, and let's assume there are no doublicate lists ever. That's just a 1,000,000 different lists in ITC in the entire 2018 season.
By the nature of people bringing the best/most/efficient stuff to tournaments, every single list played at any ITC event in the 2018 season, including all the most bottom tables, would just be about the top most 0.5% of just the top OP 10% of lists in 40K that would need a fix. It's extremely improbable that there's a single unit fielded at an ITC event this year that DOESN'T need to be nerfed. If you include allies, etc.. the numbers just get exponentially more extreme.
No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
If a list is "garbage", it's clearly not balanced.
If you personally have no issue with it, fine, but that's just not what balance means.
At this point, "balance" would just be completely arbitrary and subjective, completely dependent on what any given person thinks is in the "garbage pile" that doesn't need to be considered, and what is in the "not-garbage-pile" that does need to be considered by rules writers. Who should make that call? Where do you draw the line?
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
If a list is "garbage", it's clearly not balanced.
If you personally have no issue with it, fine, but that's just not what balance means.
At this point, "balance" would just be completely arbitrary and subjective, completely dependent on what any given person thinks is in the "garbage pile" that doesn't need to be considered, and what is in the "not-garbage-pile" that does need to be considered by rules writers. Who should make that call? Where do you draw the line?
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
Well, "list-building" is neither "fun" or "part of the game" if there's no choices between balanced. Quite the opposite. If things are not balanced and the list choices are "obvious", it becomes mute and a pointless aspect of the game.
If I have to agonise over whether I take a Knight Crusader or the equivalent points in White Scar Predators, because its a "tough choice", with both choices having pros and cons, yes, it is part of the game. If the Crusader is just better in every aspect: more toughness, fall-back-and-shoot, better melee, an invul, better Stratagems AND more firepower to boot, and the other option is just "garbage" relatively speaking, there's really no list building to begin with.
To actually have list building be meaningful, things need to be balanced to begin with. Example: ff there're 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits, but 90% of Imperial Guard Warlords have Grand Strategist, you've effectively removed any list-building aspect from the game. Conversely, if you see all 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits appear roughly equally across all tournament lists, depending on what kind of list they are included with and what they benefit in their specific list, things are balanced and list-building choices are actually meaningful.
Stux wrote: Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
Any game that uses point systems can never be truly balanced. Points by their nature is instant path to unbalanced game.
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
Well, "list-building" is neither "fun" or "part of the game" if there's no choices between balanced. Quite the opposite. If things are not balanced and the list choices are "obvious", it becomes mute and a pointless aspect of the game.
If I have to agonise over whether I take a Knight Crusader or the equivalent points in White Scar Predators, because its a "tough choice", with both choices having pros and cons, yes, it is part of the game. If the Crusader is just better in every aspect: more toughness, fall-back-and-shoot, better melee, an invul, better Stratagems AND more firepower to boot, and the other option is just "garbage" relatively speaking, there's really no list building to begin with.
To actually have list building be meaningful, things need to be balanced to begin with. Example: ff there're 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits, but 90% of Imperial Guard Warlords have Grand Strategist, you've effectively removed any list-building aspect from the game. Conversely, if you see all 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits appear roughly equally across all tournament lists, depending on what kind of list they are included with and what they benefit in their specific list, things are balanced and list-building choices are actually meaningful.
Balanced doesn't mean the same though. Context is important, that's basically all I'm saying.
Yes, there should be meaningful decisions between different units in your army. But those decisions should be informed by what else makes your force.
There should be lists where the Crusader is the better choice and lists where Predators are the better choice. But for an otherwise fixed given list, it's totally fine for one choice to be better than the other.
I 100% agree that the balance in most traits/relics for most armies is horrible though. Usually one choice is so much better than the others, REGARDLESS of the list, that the others almost never see play for most people.
Good balance for me would be that every army can build a range of decent lists for each major strategy (unless that army has an intended inherent weakness there such as Tau melee) and each supported faction, and that each unit has a role to play within a viable strategy somewhere. But there needs to be lots of room for optimisation within that still.
But that's where you get the information from the aggregate of lists, for example in the ITC.
If the White Scars Predators and the Crusader are equally good in their respective lists, you would still see them (and all other options) appear roughly equally often, relatively speaking, in the lists people play.
But if you see a good chunk more Crusaders than Predators, it's a good indicator that the choice isn't hard for most players because it is not balanced to begin with an one unit is plain better either in more types of lists or even in virtually any list, relative to ALL available alternatives or even only because the types of lists it enables are better than the types of lists that would favour and get more milage out of the White Scar Predators.
Thus it needs to be rebalanced against all potential options. Not just against Ynnari and Maguns-&-Morty and a handful other performing tournament lists, but against ALL things out there until list building choices are meaningful again.
But that's where you get the information from the aggregate of lists, for example in the ITC.
If the White Scars Predators and the Crusader are equally good in their respective lists, you would still see them (and all other options) appear roughly equally often, relatively speaking, in the lists people play.
But if you see a good chunk more Crusaders than Predators, it's a good indicator that the choice isn't hard for most players because it is not balanced to begin with an one unit is plain better either in more types of lists or even in virtually any list, relative to ALL available alternatives or even only because the types of lists it enables are better than the types of lists that would favour and get more milage out of the White Scar Predators.
Thus it needs to be rebalanced against all potential options. Not just against Ynnari and Maguns-&-Morty and a handful other performing tournament lists, but against ALL things out there until list building choices are meaningful again.
I think we're more in agreement here than it first seemed.
When I say it's ok that something like half of all possible army lists are terrible, that's because statistically most of those lists would be things no one would ever want to take. As an extreme example, say a Space Marine army that is basically entirely apothecaries. It would not be appropriate to buff apothecaries to the point that that list is viable, as long as apothecaries appear in some quantity in some viable lists then all is good.
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
People should still consider it as a great option and without the extra commandpoints of soup in general and with a slight points increase it should become much more manageable to beat. Not saying it should not get a point nerf, just saying that they should take it slowly without bashing it instantly into the ground as they have done with several other meta carriers.
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
That's a problem with Baneblades, not the Castellan.
It's almost like a pattern that's been repeated over multiple codexes.
Crazy.
Ok, but would that not also be true of the Valiant then?
Obviously they need a new kit to sell, and they won't know for certain what the correct point value will be just from internal testing. So they're going to err on the side of above average. I think that's inevitable and understandable.
On something like the Castellan they missed the mark for sure. But I don't for a second believe that anyone at GW intentionally made it as over powered as it is. They just wanted it to be good, and went too far in this case.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
There is no other definition of balance. If List A is better than List B, it's not balanced. Period. As long as it's mathematically possible to put together a list that has a 1% mathematical disadvantage against at least one other list in the game, there's still an imbalance.
Of course, realistically, true balance will never be achieved in 40K, but to just concede and not even attempt to balance armies and thus truly make the game a test of skill, rather than finding the latest game-designer-snafu would a) be a sad thing and b) not what the word "balance" means as per the definition of the word.
If there is some type of "synergy" it needs to be "balanced" against a list without synergy, either by paying more points, getting a penalty elsewhere, perhaps introducing a handicap system awarding negative tournament points based on how frequently a given unit appears in a tournament, etc.. or there's no balance. Simple as that.
If that's not the definition of balance, it just becomes arbitrary.
Guy 1 : "Oh... balance means things need to be balanced against armies A, B, C, D and E, but we can ignore armies F, G, H, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO)"
Guy 2 : "No, I disagree, balance means it needs to be balanced against armies A, B, F, G, we can ignore armies C, D and E, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO) "
Etc.. ad infinitum.
Mathhammer doesn’t tell the whole story. When the game includes objectives beyond “Kill the other side”, the game interactions get a bit fuzzier.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
It's a lot better than a choas double gatling. Endless fury averages 12 hits to 16 hits for the choas double gat - 4 less hits. But it has 2-3 average hits with a str 9 melta (which costs almost 30 points less than an additional gatling) hit twice as hard and better vs more targets. It overwatches better too. It can stand up after it dies - fight at full power for 1 CP. 1 of those choas double gatlings was the centerpeice of a big tourmanet win for a DG mec spam army. It is certainly in the top units in the game. With the Castellan going up to 700+ points - the crusader will most likely be preferable to the castellan.
There are 2 stand out redonk OP units in the game right now.
Castellans and captain slamquin
Then there are about 20 really OP units
Crusaders and Gallants are both on there.
Now your just not making any sence a imperial knight with a relic is somehow compaired to a choas knight with no relic.
You then randomly bring up strategums?
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
If your balancing around playing kill the most games then yeah maybe knights don't work in that format, but personally I never thought those game styles ever worked.
Bring in objectives and other victory conditions and multiple armies can best mono Knights, Aldari can absolutely destroy them if they want to.
The Choas knight can't take a relic...and has access to none of the OP knight stratagems. Yet it wins a big tournament and the crusader is better - that's my point.
"If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex."
YES. Maybe not half the DE codex but kabalites/ravagers/both flyers/anything prophets of the flesh is OP. Vect is OP. Dawneagles are OP - not sure I've seen anyone argue otherwise. Harliquen bikes with haywire is OP.
Hellhounds are pretty OP too. 4+ explosion is the reason - they aren't taken to "fill out brigades" thats like comparing them to space marine scouts in a BA batallion. Hellhounds are having your cake and eating it too.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Just because you don't see the Chaos Castellan at the top of tournaments, doesn't mean it's not a problem for may lists or above the power curve all things considered.
That's inherently the flaw with basing balancing-analysis on tournaments. The sample is too skewed to be a good representation of (over-/under-)power-levels in the game as a whole. It's about as reliable as doing a survey of eating habits, but only sampling pro-athletes. It's not a representative sample of the whole.
The Castellan IS probably the best argument for the problems with CP farms. Baseline its good, but not completely insane. Spending a CP on it to upgrade its Invul to a 4+ and another to substantially upgrade its plasma is a big part of it. 3 more CP to bump that Invul to a 3+ and more CP to keep the Plasma from failing and... well, its definitely not getting all that from the 0 CP its adding to the list.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Just because you don't see the Chaos Castellan at the top of tournaments, doesn't mean it's not a problem for may lists or above the power curve all things considered.
That's inherently the flaw with basing balancing-analysis on tournaments. The sample is too skewed to be a good representation of (over-/under-)power-levels in the game as a whole. It's about as reliable as doing a survey of eating habits, but only sampling pro-athletes. It's not a representative sample of the whole.
Nope.
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
LunarSol wrote: The Castellan IS probably the best argument for the problems with CP farms. Baseline its good, but not completely insane. Spending a CP on it to upgrade its Invul to a 4+ and another to substantially upgrade its plasma is a big part of it. 3 more CP to bump that Invul to a 3+ and more CP to keep the Plasma from failing and... well, its definitely not getting all that from the 0 CP its adding to the list.
Yeah, CP sharing needs to be cut. It is by far the largest single balance issue looking at tournaments, GW's allies implementation has never been great and CP sharing is a big part of that problem. CP should be limited to the detachment, or at best, the specific faction, that generated them in the first place, and CP regen should probably be reduced or eliminated.
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
Not sure how anyone could balance anything to "only part of the game". That's by definition not balance.
Whether its basements or tournaments or beerhammer doesn't matter. If balance is the objective, it must be a balance of all possible combination of gaming pieces in the game, irrespective of where they are used, or it isn't balanced. That's kinda the definition of balance.
The Imperial Castellan might be in the Top 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum and the Chaos Castellan only in the Top 20% of the 40K-powerspectrum. But balance means they are both balanced against each other (which is where the Imperial version needs an adjustment), but also against the bottom 20% and bottom 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum. Otherwise, again, it's failure to comprehend the basic dictionary meaning of balance.
Come on, the literal definition of balance is itself not relevant so can we please move past 'thats not technically balance'. Either it's perfect balance which is literally impossible, or it's arbitrary.
Your absolutism makes arriving at anything practical an exercise in futility.
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
Not sure how anyone could balance anything to "only part of the game". That's by definition not balance.
Whether its basements or tournaments or beerhammer doesn't matter. If balance is the objective, it must be a balance of all possible combination of gaming pieces in the game, irrespective of where they are used, or it isn't balanced. That's kinda the definition of balance.
The Imperial Castellan might be in the Top 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum and the Chaos Castellan only in the Top 20% of the 40K-powerspectrum. But balance means they are both balanced against each other (which is where the Imperial version needs an adjustment), but also against the bottom 20% and bottom 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum. Otherwise, again, it's failure to comprehend the basic dictionary meaning of balance.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
Hm. Must have missed that.
That said, I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. Too many years of "THE SISTERS ARE COMING" to fall for that old trap again.
Well... the sisters ... are .... coming.... in plastic.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
Hm. Must have missed that.
That said, I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. Too many years of "THE SISTERS ARE COMING" to fall for that old trap again.
Well... the sisters ... are .... coming.... in plastic.
That's only true if you believe that Warhammer Community, NOVA, ITC, and Warhammer World are real things and not government created red-flag operations to distract from the underground popularity of Napoleonic Historical Wargames. FIGHT THE POWER
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
That's the primary thing people miss when they say 40k can't be balanced. Yeah I don't expect all lists to perform equally as there are certain things you won't counter as well, but one artillery choice from an army shouldn't be strictly superior compared to another one. Whirlwinds as is are below mediocre, but they could be improved at least so that you aren't PUNISHED for taking them.
StarHunter25 wrote: I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
How is the Command re-roll relevant here? Sorry, I'm a bit lost!
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
How is the Command re-roll relevant here? Sorry, I'm a bit lost!
I misunderstood what he meant, nevermind.
and yeah I used Trajan as a specific example because he's a pretty low key example of CP regen.
I think that fixing the mess would require a pretty big re-work, if I was going to do hypothetical 9th edition rules set, I'd delink command points and the stratigium system, CPs would be used to gain access to additional relics, and other special little things stratigiums meanwhile would work a little like the IG orders system, you may employ a number of orders tied to the number of your HQs (useally it'd be one order, obviously better quality leaders might be able to issue more then one, a military genius like a primarch or creed might even be able to direct up to 3 of them) to employ a stratigium the HQ then rolls a leadership test, agaisnt a set target number for the strat (just like casting a psykic power)
the end result is that strats would play a little like pre-8th edition guard orders, or... if you'd rather play like a variation of psyker powers.
Reemule wrote: Doing both at once leads to stupid stuff like Centurions, and the game has enough broken units.
For this edition, I think the pertinent example of how not to nerf would be Conscripts & Commissars, personally - which also sounds like it should be the name of an IG-focused 40kRPG...
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
•The 3cp for being battleforged are available for the entire army.
•From there, for every 500 points each detachment has it gains 1cp. In order for different detachments to share command points gained in this way they must share the most specific faction keyword. So two <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> wouldn't, but if both were also <Rainbow Warriors> they could share.
•Armies which are composed of a single battalion detachment would get 2 bonus CP, and armies considering Brigade detachments over 1500 points would get 4 extra CP.
•At the end of your Fight phase, roll a d6 for each objective you control. On a 5+ you gain 1 command point. This is known as an Objective Secured roll.
•All current abilities which allow a model or unit to regain command points spent on friendly stratagems would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is holding an objective, or is within 3" of a friendly (chapter) unit holding an objective, add one to your Objective Secured roll result for that objective only. This ability may only affect one Objective Secured roll per turn.
•All current abilities which grant CP whenever a stratagem is played, friendly or enemy, would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is within 6" of an enemy controlled objective for which an Objective Secured roll was successful, you gain 1CP as well.
•A few select characters whom are definitive faction leaders, such as Roboute Guilliman, Abbadon the Despoiler and Ghazkhuul Thraka, could have abilities which allow all command points to be shared by detachments with one fewer common faction keyword. >
Edit: Realized I forgot a bit Any mission which victory points are only earned through destroying enemy units, if both players agree, set up 4 objectives on the battlefield. These grant no victory points, and are only present for Objective Secured rolls, ignore them for all other purposes.
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
So...all the IK army rules are OP but the weapon of choice they use to feild them - is not OP.
I got someone above arguing with me that the Crusader is not OP with all those things. What would you say to that person?
•The 3cp for being battleforged are available for the entire army.
•From there, for every 500 points each detachment has it gains 1cp. In order for different detachments to share command points gained in this way they must share the most specific faction keyword. So two <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> wouldn't, but if both were also <Rainbow Warriors> they could share.
•Armies which are composed of a single battalion detachment would get 2 bonus CP, and armies considering Brigade detachments over 1500 points would get 4 extra CP.
•At the end of your Fight phase, roll a d6 for each objective you control. On a 5+ you gain 1 command point. This is known as an Objective Secured roll.
•All current abilities which allow a model or unit to regain command points spent on friendly stratagems would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is holding an objective, or is within 3" of a friendly (chapter) unit holding an objective, add one to your Objective Secured roll result for that objective only. This ability may only affect one Objective Secured roll per turn.
•All current abilities which grant CP whenever a stratagem is played, friendly or enemy, would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is within 6" of an enemy controlled objective for which an Objective Secured roll was successful, you gain 1CP as well.
•A few select characters whom are definitive faction leaders, such as Roboute Guilliman, Abbadon the Despoiler and Ghazkhuul Thraka, could have abilities which allow all command points to be shared by detachments with one fewer common faction keyword. >
While this idea might help balance, I feel it would become a book keeping nightmare.
At some point after multiple attempts to o change things on the periphery and acknowledging the issue they'd actually fix the problem and FAQ out the guard relic that recharges your cp.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
This guy gets it. Listen to this guy.
Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.
But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.
And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.
Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.
But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.
And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.
Of course I don't have relevant data. But neither have you. That is the problem. You have something infinitely WORSE than no data. You have SKEWED data.
Of course, maybe all long-range Chaos long range options (or Imperial, etc..) are perfectly in balance and in full equilibrium, expect for one, but it's rather improbable.
Either way, you missed the point. It's not so much that there are options that need balancing that just aren't showing in tournaments because, while still OP, they are still eclipsed by stuff even more OP, though that is almost certainly the case, given we know that there are some things that are OP, thus assuming there are things that are also, OP, just less so isn't much of a logical leap.
The main point is that if you're a GW playtester, say, and you're basing your own "gut feelings" and "instincts" and "insights" on what you believe is OP and what is not on a non-representative, skewed sample, for example tournaments and the sub-set of the hobbyists and GW customers that attend tournaments, instead of making the effort to go and collect representative data, you're making things worse, not better.
History is littered with examples of people drawing the most harebrained and stupid conclusion, simply because they lazily relied on "the data they had" instead of "the data they would need to collect" when they drew their conclusions (and falsely mistaking "lots of data" for "good data", which is a freshman's mistake in data analysis).
Yes, Dakka is an echo chamber and nobody should ever draw any conclusions about what is OP or not OP based on dakka alone. The same is true tenfold over for the ITC tournament circuit however, precisely because the "effort" to attend a tournament is higher than the "effort" to log onto Dakka or other online places/social media and write a comment. Ergo, the latter is even more skewed, comprised of an even more self-selected and biased type of 40K players.
If Option X is 90% over powered and due to that we are missing that option y is 70% over powered, after Option X is nerfed, Option Y will be showing up all the time... and then get nerfed.
No wild eye accusations by the serious playtesters that exist in basements and that never go to Tournaments data needed.
If Option X is 90% over powered and due to that we are missing that option y is 70% over powered, after Option X is nerfed, Option Y will be showing up all the time... and then get nerfed.
No wild eye accusations by the serious playtesters that exist in basements and that never go to Tournaments data needed.
As mentioned before, you're not appreciating the scope of this.
As done above, let's assume there 15 Codexes in the game, with, let's say, lowballing 25 data sheets in each codex which can be used in any combination of, again lowballing, 10 different units per army list. Ignoring allies, equipment options, etc.., that's about 131,128,140 lists per codex, or close to 2,000 Million lists from 15 Codexes, completely ignoring allies.
If you just wanna adjust the Top 1% with a 5% price hike and boost the bottom 1% with a 5% deduction to work your "whack-a-mole" approach over time, you'll need to price-hike around 20 Million different lists and price-drop around 20 Million list (real numbers will be exponentially larger). More lists than would sign up to all ITC events combined in the next 50 years.
If you go at it top 5 units/combos/synergies and bottom 5 units/combos/synergies every single day, you'd still be here in roughly 54,000 years to complete just the top 1% (and I am, Dakka-biased as I am, quite sure the Knight Crusader and Chaos Castellan would come up at some point in those 54,000 years).
Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.
But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.
Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.
But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).
The issue is making the perfect the enemy of the good.
"Balance" in 40k is having units sufficiently close enough in power that it isn't obviously foolish to take a different option and so you see a variety of different units and factions on the table.
You don't want a situation where E is obviously better than D through A with clear tier differences.
Lets say you have a system where E is 100% efficient, D is 85% efficient, C is 70% efficient etc. Its obvious you take E, and its also obvious poor A, at just 40% efficiency, is garbage. Actually everything from D down is garbage.
By contrast a system where E is 100% efficient, D is 98% efficient, C is 96% efficient etc all the way down would be much closer. Sure, mathematically E might win out - but in terms of a discrete game, or even a discrete tournament, everything would be close enough that it wouldn't hugely matter. Correct targeting and positioning together with luck would have a greater impact on the outcome of the game than unit stats.
This applies whether you are talking long range chaos shooting options - or whether you should bring Imperial Soup or mono-Necrons (aka, Necrons).
Reemule wrote: Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.
But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.
Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.
But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).
Sure. CP is a big issue. But if the Castellan, by its lonesome, would be perfectly balanced, it wouldn't show up statistically more often than other Imperial long-range firepower options, which all have access to the same CP battery.
If under equal conditions (e.g. CP battery), there's a trend towards one (or even five) certain choices over others, it's by definition not just the CP battery.
Imperium also has access to Guard. You guys think of them as just a battery, but they add immense value beyond that. There are plenty of reasons Guard + Knights are dominating. Knights are a major part, but chaos can replicate NOTHING like imperial guard.
Reemule wrote: Of course it never ends. Too many factors change for it to ever end.
But the idea that multiple directional nerfs does anything but break models is blatant silliness.
Ideally, in a perfect world, GW would fix the rules first, then fix models.
But of course, that goes back to what has been said again and again on this thread by me and some others, fix CP (Rules) over Nerfing Castellan's (model).
Sure. CP is a big issue. But if the Castellan, by its lonesome, would be perfectly balanced, it wouldn't show up statistically more often than other Imperial long-range firepower options, which all have access to the same CP battery.
If under equal conditions (e.g. CP battery), there's a trend towards one (or even five) certain choices over others, it's by definition not just the CP battery.
Still no.
Now you are pointing out the flaw already... Skewwed data. THe Castellan can show in more than Imperium Forces. If it was head and shoulders above all other options, it would show in all places possible.
But it doesn't.
I can easily see a time where the Castellan gets changed. But will that come before the CP changes? We should all hope not.
I can easily see a time where the Castellan gets changed. But will that come before the CP changes? We should all hope not.
We should all hope it does, especially you, if you‘re so concerned about „breaking models“. Let‘s pray all those Vindicators, Basilisk, Hellhammers, etc.. don’t remain broken 2 weeks from now just because of special-snowflake-protection for one model out there.
Reemule wrote: And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).
Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.
The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often. GW has also made it increasingly difficult for a single player to know all the rules and ramifications of a proposed change. Something might be awesome for 90% of the factions, but turn the other 10% into the worst bottom tier drek.
But after that, I feel most players could get a good handle on it.
Galef wrote: The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
GWdevs are not less biased than players. I said it already in half a dozen threads, but when you look at Death Guard / Nurgle psychic powers and then other factions psychic powers (Thousand Sons, Eldar), you realise that devs are highly biased towards Nurgle (DG / Nurgle have identical or better powers, yet their Warp Charges are all lower).
Unfortunately, players do not own this game. GW does. The dev team we have now is the best GW's ever had, so all we can do is hope they'll make the game "reasonably" balanced for us to enjoy.
Reemule wrote: And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).
Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.
Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?
Reemule wrote: And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).
Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.
Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?
All one needs to do is look at the rules to the game they give us and we know it is true. These rules are Gak.
Reemule wrote: And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).
Players are infinitely more qualified than GW staff to balance this game as evidence of the previous 7 edditions. Except the ones that can't separate their heads from their own butts.
Given that GW staff ARE players, but ones with experience in the industry, how can that possibly be true?
All one needs to do is look at the rules to the game they give us and we know it is true. These rules are Gak.
That's just salty hyperbole. Or a severe lack of perspective. The game is a lot better than what the average armchair designer would make given free reign.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Honestly. The majority of ideas from players I see would make things worse. And the good ones come from people who are also adament about their other ideas that are terrible.
There's a lot more that goes into this than people give credit for. Especially considering the business, brand, and manufacturing pressures too.
Galef wrote: The only issue with players balancing the game is that they always have a bias, whether it be for their own army, or an army they'd like to see more often.
GW has also made it increasingly difficult for a single player to know all the rules and ramifications of a proposed change.
Something might be awesome for 90% of the factions, but turn the other 10% into the worst bottom tier drek.
But after that, I feel most players could get a good handle on it.
-
GW has a bias too and they are notoriously bad at making decisions about how to fix problems/ even understand there is a problem/ ect.
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
The points changes except for those direct at tyrants and conscripts and reapers seem to be randomly selected ignoring bigger problem units to make love taps to units that are still unplayable or in some cases nerf units that are already bad like warlocks.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad. Beta smite = bad. Beta Deep strike = bad Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
Of those 4, there's only one I consider actually bad, but whatever.
Players are pretty good at identifying issues in hindsight and insisting they either wouldn't make a similar mistake or at the very least have the perfect solution for it. Realistically, they're mostly analyzing current state and will more often than not find themselves in the exact same situation under slightly different circumstances once a large enough group has had the opportunity to cherry pick efficiency out of their new systems.
I've seen PLENTY of attempts by players to take games into their own hands or even storm off and make their own game. Pretty much every system cycles back to where 40k is now; overall more balanced than people will give it credit for with some obvious outliers and a community that insists that if it was up to them, it would be perfect.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.
40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.
So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad. Beta smite = bad. Beta Deep strike = bad Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
Yeah, I see what you are saying. Kinda like how "Unbound" was a joke in 7E. Because with minimal effort, you could take whatever you wanted anyway and still be Battle Forged + get bonuses. Still, that doesn't mean the rule is a bad one, just poorly executed.
If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one
morgoth wrote: Yup Xeno, everything has been bad, terrible even.
That's why zero list has been able to keep the head of the meta for a single year, let alone six months.
So far, 8th has seen more meta changes than any of the prior editions in the same timespan, and likely more than many other wargames.
I'm happy with that, even though I have zero time to play toy soldiers these days .
That is to be expected with a codex release like they have been doing. Every "beta rule" change has affect the meta adversely.
Beta DS nerfed half the competitive armies out of the game.
Beta Smite unnecessarily nerfed heavy psychic armies. For some reason you need diminished returns on smite - but not shooting weapons?
Rule of 3 made already not so great armies worse.
Plus you are wrong. The Meta has not changed one bit other than the obvious deep strike nerf. Still it's the same armies dominating - with some new comers from the power creep codex.
Eldar soup / Imperial soup / DG/TS and friends. It's been like this all edition.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
Yeah, I see what you are saying. Kinda like how "Unbound" was a joke in 7E. Because with minimal effort, you could take whatever you wanted and still be Battle Forged + get bonuses.
Still, that doesn't mean the rule is a bad one, just poorly executed.
If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one
-
Well I am at my wits end with GW. I used to be totally opposed to "house rules" but I am honestly having way more fun and so is everyone around me just playing by the rules we want to play by.
A friend of mine put it pretty clearly to me and it just blew my mind. He said "Why should we wait years for GW to maybe fix a problem when we can fix it right now, why are we waiting for this stupid FAQ when we know it's going to be garbage"? I really couldn't give him an answer without talking out of my butt. That's when I knew - I am just about to stop caring about this game unless they make some changes that actually make the game better.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.
40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.
So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.
That's really not true. 400 lings can kill 200 marines - they just need to surround them and attack them in a wide open area or use burrow to attack them when they are chaining through a choke point and can't ball up - or realistically - have a few defiler and queens and the zerglings will murder the marines with almost no chance. Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless.
If you BA example - relics are limit 1 per army of a type - because they would be OP on every model. If you could have 3 BA captains that ignore overwatch and possibly kill all 3 in a sigle turn that would be OP. Bad example there.
Plus really - this affect happens with all range vs CC in that game - it's not unique to the zergling/marine. A big ball of ranged units does not lose to even the most elite CC units.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
This guy gets it. Listen to this guy.
Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.
But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.
And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.
This is so ignorant. Your opinion is far from objective here either mate. You guys are trading opinions, this is not a topic on which dakkadakka has some unified echo chamber opinion on lmao, people just disagree with you. Perhaps you sure reconsider if your perspective is as ironclad as you think it is, though I'm not sure you're capable of even considering the idea.
GW have three objectives.
1. Have a game which is fun to play.
2. Have a game where units "feel" like the fluff.
3. Have a game which is "balanced" when played competitively.
Their beta changes have principally been about the first. Maybe there was variety in first turn deep strike - but it was awful for the game. Spam lists are the same deal.
Reemule wrote: And again, we prove why Players shouldn't be in charge of balance (I include myself).
I agree. Which is why applying logic, statistics and similar tools help at getting an objective view outside of the idiots' response of "hey, it's not a problem in my little ITC microcosm and I don't give a flying feth about the other 99.99% of 40K out there".
In truth GW should apply machine learning to game balance. With the volumes of data collected by BCP and the ITC, they could easily see the effects percentage wise play out across the body of lists as a whole. The idea that you need some duder in charge of a book, pulling numbers out of his ass based on "that dern thang looka too stronk" (case in point: flyrant nerf, on top of rule of 3) is kind of outmoded.
StarHunter25 wrote: I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
They could ALSO just make it so you can only ever get back a certain amount of CP in a turn.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad. Beta smite = bad. Beta Deep strike = bad Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ
-
Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.
True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.
You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.
40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.
So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.
That's really not true. 400 lings can kill 200 marines - they just need to surround them and attack them in a wide open area or use burrow to attack them when they are chaining through a choke point and can't ball up - or realistically - have a few defiler and queens and the zerglings will murder the marines with almost no chance. Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless.
If you BA example - relics are limit 1 per army of a type - because they would be OP on every model. If you could have 3 BA captains that ignore overwatch and possibly kill all 3 in a sigle turn that would be OP. Bad example there.
Plus really - this affect happens with all range vs CC in that game - it's not unique to the zergling/marine. A big ball of ranged units does not lose to even the most elite CC units.
I just tested a perfect 8 point surround with 400 lings vs 200 marines. All lings dead without losing 30 marines, and thats without using stim. I tried making the 400 lings burrow and catch the marines walking over them in the middle of a the map, this was better but the marines still won handily, with 60 bodies left, and once again without using stim. The choke doesn't help the Zergs at all, the backrows can still fire and the zerglings can't get a surround, it takes longer but the results are much the same as the first test. So you're wrong about that, and his example of critical mass was a good one. Also, late game bio 100% still makes lots of marines lol. I also think you're wrong about rule of 3. There are measured exceptions to the rule, and that's fine. It's like saying DS beta rules are no good because Genestealers get to ignore them and DS turn 1. That's not how we measure it, it's okay to change general game design and have a few units that are the exception to any rule.
Marmatag wrote: Just make it regen on a 6+ only, or remove the ability entirely.
Or hey, go back to the days where relics had a points cost.
THANK you. Free relics was easily the worst decision GW made since Scatterbikes. There IS a price point where you do become interested in a relic, and relic weapons will have an easier time being bought now thanks to the AP system working differently. As of now, the Spartean is like a million times better than the dinky one from 6th-7th, BUT I can't take it simply because The Shield Eternal/Teeth Of Terra/Crusaders Helm have the same cost: FREE!!!
Martel732 wrote: "Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "
That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.
I'm talking SC1 when defilers make them deal 0 damage.
The post you responded to when you said that though had specified SC2
That's my mistake - I mentioned defilers in one part of my response that should have been a dead give away. I was kind of combining the two games at once in that response. You are correct that marines will murder zerglings in bonzi charges. If you do the test with 400 burrowed lings under 200 marines. I bet you the Zerglings win.
Update.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMHXjYWZvh8 So the burrow scenario leaves 42 marines left. If this fight was on creep - It would be much closer - If the marines were moving in a line and on creep - I don't see them winning in that situation. I don't have the game installed so I can't test it for myself.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
Interesting as it is, this debate whether the zerglings could beat the marines while burrowed is kind of dodging the point isn't it?
The original post on this topic was about critical mass.
The claim was that you rush 2 zerglings at a marine, and the zerglings win. You rush 400 zerglings at 200 marines and the marines win.
If you start saying 'but what if the zerg burrowed', or 'what if they were on creep' or whatever, then it's no longer an extension of the same scenario.
I believe the point was that effectiveness doesn't always scale linearly with model count.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
You can't treat 3 squads of 10 dark reapers as the same as 6 squads of 5. Even ignoring movement the 6 squads are less vulnerable to morale and you have more information to choose your targets when you're choosing targets in blocks of 5 than in blocks of 10.
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.
A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.
*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well
Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.
Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.
If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one
-
Eh, to be fair, after being at this for over 30 years now as the dominant market entity, and *especially* after the dumpster fires of 6E and 7E, being naieve about the nature of gamers and their market is being negligent
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.
A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.
*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well
Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.
Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.
Actually taking away all regen doesn't balance out CP in Imperium soup.
I posted the points cost per CP for a lowest points battalion and guard are so far out of touch it no wonder soup doesn't work.
Knights pay a minimum of 177 points per CP more realistically thats over 200 points per CP.
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.
A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.
*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well
Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.
Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.
Faction specific CP also would make a massive difference.
A lone Raven Castellan has a max of 3 CP from your general battleforged points.
A Ravellan with 2 cheaper armigers would get you 6 CP between the 3 generic and 3 from SHD
A Ravellan with 2 questoris class knights gets you 6 from the detachment and 3 generics. An army with 1600 points tied up in knights should get to use a lot of CP to make their knights really strong.
Slam Captains have more from a BA battalion but that's still limited. You'd get a solid round of slam captain doing his thing but you couldn't buy another round of it for 180 points of guard.
CP batteries are the core of the issue. It might not be bad to nerf all CP regen to a 6, but that's not the primary issue.
I really hope that GW doesn't miss the mark with the balance attempt they're going to make, like how they ruined conscripts. Guard's ability to generate lots of CP shouldn't be nerfed. That's part of guard's thing in 8th. They have a bureaucratic command structure with officers on the field and all that translates into cheap battalions and brigades for lots of CP.
The issue lies where you can use Guard's shtick of getting lots of CP to make your slam captains and knights super powerful with stratagems. Unit special rules and auras very rarely buff models from a different army(there are a couple like celestine), CP farming shouldn't either.
And it absolutely has to be addressed at the CP level. You can't nerf Castellans and SlamCaptains just on the merit of strats making them super powerful. Slam Captains should probably cost a bit more, but you have to consider their points more in a vacuum. If you nerf Castellans and Captains but not CP farming then the next set of GTs people will a new super powerful thing to use guard CP on.
Totally agree with most people here, the CPs are what make it ridiculous.
1. CPs should be limited to the detachment that generated them (plus the base 3 for battleforged obviously)
2. You should only be able to use one type of CP regeneration per army, period.
3. Regenerated CPs can only be used in the detachment that was able to regenerate it (so if your Guard commander regenerated a CP, even if it was one used from Battleforged points, then only Guard units can utilize that CP)
This would tone the soup down significantly, and is so easy to execute. Yes, soup will have to track CPs better, but so what? It's not like players are not capable of tracking VPs in ITC missions that rely on many factors anyway.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.
I strongly disagree about every single beta rule. No army has been hit harder by the beta rules than the nids ether (GKs too but they almost don't count). They are fundamentally a different army now. So it's strange you like the rules.
Literally every beta rule was a reaction to another issue that has done nothing but hurt the game.
Smite spam was a reaction to 30 point renegade psykers with full smite. Yeah...Raising them in cost by over 100% was sufficient. Smite is strong but totally workable with 60+ point psykers.
Beta DS was a reaction to Nids deepstrikeing 1800 points because they have 200 points on the board but equal drops. This was more than fixed by giving tyrants a point increase and the 50% power level rule. Not every army needed to be nerfed as a result of those busted mechanics. (I guess I don't mind the nerfs to double moves after deep strike - that just makes sense)
Rules of 3 is the same deal - I mind this the least - it should have been a core rule probably BUT it doesn't really do anything to balance the game.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad. Beta smite = bad. Beta Deep strike = bad Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.
Explain to me how you can fit 15-18 commanders in a list, at 160 points per commander. I'll wait. Thanks.
Further, this is the perfect reason to have a rule of 3. Commanders should be strong. They're commanders. But you shouldn't be able to spam them.
The game should have strong, but limited, models. You already have the rule of 1 for named characters. Should we adjust Magnus the Red's points / rules so you can bring 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10 (if reduced?) of him? Or let him be one strong model, and priced based on bringing only one?
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.
Explain to me how you can fit 15-18 commanders in a list, at 160 points per commander. I'll wait. Thanks.
Further, this is the perfect reason to have a rule of 3. Commanders should be strong. They're commanders. But you shouldn't be able to spam them.
The game should have strong, but limited, models. You already have the rule of 1 for named characters. Should we adjust Magnus the Red's points / rules so you can bring 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10 (if reduced?) of him? Or let him be one strong model, and priced based on bringing only one?
This thread is bonkers.
You are literally sitting here telling us that it's okay if models are OP if you are limited to 3 of them. Where have I stated that it's okay to have OP rule of 1 characters ether? The right price for associated power level should be applicable to every model.
I am really not sure how we can agree on anything balance related if you have this opinion. I find it very flawed logically.
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
So...all the IK army rules are OP but the weapon of choice they use to feild them - is not OP.
I got someone above arguing with me that the Crusader is not OP with all those things. What would you say to that person?
Because most of those rules are limited by the amount of CP you have. Knights spend a huge amount of points to get CP. All that stacking is only enabled past turn 1 by being able to fuel it with guard CP. That's where the issue lies.
They're not as powerful with the crusader because the crusader isn't nearly as strong. These are force multiplying abilities. Force multiplying abilities that work on a single model will always be more powerful when used on a more powerful model.
When it comes to the abilities I do think the abilities need to be toned down, but not the base castellan itself. I don't think any super heavy should be able to have a 3++ save, and the Raven stratagem is too powerful on any Knight. Anecdotal but I've played against a non Raven castellan that isn't stacking all that and they're not that OP. They're solid, but for 650 points they're not OP when they have a 4 or 5++ save and aren't killing 4 units a turn.
Also, crusaders are not OP in any way. They're pretty good, but not OP. I almost always lose my turn 1 or it gets ignored because it doesn't do as much damage as 500 points worth of other stuff in my army can do. The thermal cannon is for the most part just a d6 shot lascannon with the melta rule. I always put lascannons on the front of my Russes and those always do more damage for less points than a crusader. Nothing sucks more than rolling a 2 for the number of shots on 1 of the 2 guns on your 500 point knight. At least the avenger is consistent.
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly
Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.
Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.
Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?
morgoth wrote: Yup Xeno, everything has been bad, terrible even.
That's why zero list has been able to keep the head of the meta for a single year, let alone six months.
So far, 8th has seen more meta changes than any of the prior editions in the same timespan, and likely more than many other wargames.
I'm happy with that, even though I have zero time to play toy soldiers these days .
That is to be expected with a codex release like they have been doing. Every "beta rule" change has affect the meta adversely.
Beta DS nerfed half the competitive armies out of the game.
Beta Smite unnecessarily nerfed heavy psychic armies. For some reason you need diminished returns on smite - but not shooting weapons?
Rule of 3 made already not so great armies worse.
Plus you are wrong. The Meta has not changed one bit other than the obvious deep strike nerf. Still it's the same armies dominating - with some new comers from the power creep codex.
Eldar soup / Imperial soup / DG/TS and friends. It's been like this all edition.
Actually, I'm fairly sure 8th started with Guard and more Guard.
Then something else.
Then slamguinius and Guard CP batteries.
And I even heard Drukhari got some kills in.
I may be following this from very far, but I'm 100% sure the early days of 8th were a very bad time for Imperial Knights, which according to this post, are #1 right now, as best combo with Slamguinius's and IGCP battery.
Honestly, I don't think there are many games where the meta shifts as fast, and a fast shifting meta is in my opinion much better than the same skewed meta shifting much slower, like 6th ed being all croissants, and then 100% seerstar for 6+ months.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: In truth GW should apply machine learning to game balance. With the volumes of data collected by BCP and the ITC, they could easily see the effects percentage wise play out across the body of lists as a whole. The idea that you need some duder in charge of a book, pulling numbers out of his ass based on "that dern thang looka too stronk" (case in point: flyrant nerf, on top of rule of 3) is kind of outmoded.
Therein lies the problem, I don't think ITC ever was "standard 40K', and many times, top armies in ITC were not top armies in non-ITC.
If GW were to balance based on ITC data, the balance would be utterly fethed except for ITC.
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly
Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.
Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.
Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?
The first 2 aren't fine. They distroyed nids and greyknights and did nothing to change the balance of power between armies - the same armies are still the best. This is how you know it's crap. If your change nerfs one of the weaker armies - pretty fair to say it's a horrible change - wouldn't you agree?
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
XV-8 Commander (normal), XV-85 Commander (with the extra wound), XV-86 Coldstar Commander (the flying one), XV-81 Commander (with the smart missile system), and XV-84 Commander (with the networked markerlight) are all separate datasheets. That's 15 with three of each, plus four different named Commanders if you want.
The Smite change was a band-aid patch that fails to address the fact that psykers are in general terribly designed; both internal and external balance of the powers is terrible, move-again powers are one of the worst things in 8e, and the people writing the rulebook have a completely different idea about how many psykers should be in an army than the people writing the Codexes. If psykers were written intelligently (i.e. if the powers weren't so massive and broken that the only possible way to balance them is to prohibit players from trying to cast the same power twice in a phase, or if the cast/deny mechanics weren't set up to punish the person with fewer psykers, or if psyker units weren't so overvalued they're all unplayably bad) the Smite patch wouldn't have been necessary.
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly
Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.
Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.
Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?
This kind of post and thread highlights the growing gap between competive 40k and standerd game store 40k. I’d say some of your statements are correct for a local game store setting, but wrong when it comes to competive 40k.
1) agreed that the beta smite rule is good, but I do think Tsons ignoring the rule outright makes them a tad too strong.
2) here is the first instance of you being correct for a local setting, but incorrect for a competitive one. It is true that before the FAQ came out a you could be run over by turn 1 deepstrike armies, but only if you weren’t adequately prepared. By the time the FAQ came out, most competitive players always had at least some sort of an infiltrate unit (rangers, nurglings, scouts, etc) and/or screens to protect their valuable stuff. Even today stuff like electro priests, gene-stealer cult units, and smash captains can very easily get turn 1 charges, it’s not like this rule stopped the what it intended to anyway. Therefore I disagree with this part of the FAQ I think we all agree that limiting the amount of stuff people could deepstrike was a good move.
3) It was an overnerf yes, but I don’t mind over-nerfs too much, as a unit being too strong affects the entire game, while it being too weak only affects itself and the faction it’s in.
4) the second point that I see as coming from a more standard gamer prospective. Simply put I think you underrating Super-Spam lists rule-of-3 prevents for 2 reasons. At a local shop or tournament you are unlikely to face many people who are willing to buy 10+ plague burst crawlers just to win, but a large GT with more incentives you will. Therefore by default the problem this addresses doesn’t have too much of impact on more casual players. Additionally, we can’t know exactly what lists rule-of-3 prevents. It’s very possible that we could be complaing about Castellan soup AND 18 talos list right now if this change hadn’t been put into place. But because we can’t feel the effect (i.e super spam lists) this chang is preventing, super spam lists seem weaker.
Xenomancers wrote: When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.
Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day
-
...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...
The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.
(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)
So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.
The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?
XV-8 Commander (normal), XV-85 Commander (with the extra wound), XV-86 Coldstar Commander (the flying one), XV-81 Commander (with the smart missile system), and XV-84 Commander (with the networked markerlight) are all separate datasheets. That's 15 with three of each, plus four different named Commanders if you want.
The Smite change was a band-aid patch that fails to address the fact that psykers are in general terribly designed; both internal and external balance of the powers is terrible, move-again powers are one of the worst things in 8e, and the people writing the rulebook have a completely different idea about how many psykers should be in an army than the people writing the Codexes. If psykers were written intelligently (i.e. if the powers weren't so massive and broken that the only possible way to balance them is to prohibit players from trying to cast the same power twice in a phase, or if the cast/deny mechanics weren't set up to punish the person with fewer psykers, or if psyker units weren't so overvalued they're all unplayably bad) the Smite patch wouldn't have been necessary.
Ok who are you playing thats letting you use 15 detachments or more in a game?
I’d like to point out to anomander that he is very wrong, becuase the “special” version of the rule of three for commanders allows only 3 models with the commander keyword, and only one per Detachment.
1) agreed that the beta smite rule is good, but I do think Tsons ignoring the rule outright makes them a tad too strong.
2) here is the first instance of you being correct for a local setting, but incorrect for a competitive one. It is true that before the FAQ came out a you could be run over by turn 1 deepstrike armies, but only if you weren’t adequately prepared. By the time the FAQ came out, most competitive players always had at least some sort of an infiltrate unit (rangers, nurglings, scouts, etc) and/or screens to protect their valuable stuff. Even today stuff like electro priests, gene-stealer cult units, and smash captains can very easily get turn 1 charges, it’s not like this rule stopped the what it intended to anyway. Therefore I disagree with this part of the FAQ I think we all agree that limiting the amount of stuff people could deepstrike was a good move.
3) It was an overnerf yes, but I don’t mind over-nerfs too much, as a unit being too strong affects the entire game, while it being too weak only affects itself and the faction it’s in.
4) the second point that I see as coming from a more standard gamer prospective. Simply put I think you underrating Super-Spam lists rule-of-3 prevents for 2 reasons. At a local shop or tournament you are unlikely to face many people who are willing to buy 10+ plague burst crawlers just to win, but a large GT with more incentives you will. Therefore by default the problem this addresses doesn’t have too much of impact on more casual players. Additionally, we can’t know exactly what lists rule-of-3 prevents. It’s very possible that we could be complaing about Castellan soup AND 18 talos list right now if this change hadn’t been put into place. But because we can’t feel the effect (i.e super spam lists) this chang is preventing, super spam lists seem weaker.
1. Spamming Smite and similar spells seems an odd way to base an army around. It was good they denied it for most armies as its not an enjoyable way to play against.
2. I think beta rules stopped most of it, it wasnt supposed to stop ALL of it. Its better that some armies have access to units with a turn 1 assault, but its not an army wide thing, nor should it be.
3. Dont think rule of 3 is an issue, if certain armies need it, they can make changes to specific armies. People cry that IG can have access to 20 Leman Russ or 9 basilisks. Outside of one off lists that honestly aren't even that good, you rarely see them so i think its a non issue.
IMO what would go a long way to reducing the effectiveness of units is both increasing the proliferation of cover in games and changing cover rules to reflect the Kill Team rules which make a lot more sense. Half cover gives you a flat -1 to hit in Kill Team, which makes space marines nearly impossible for guardsmen to dig out embedded marines or for imperial knights to wipe out infantry squads in one shooting phase. Going from 2+ BS to 3+ is a pretty huge nerf, and once wounds are being stripped off the knight(s) by lascannons that will quickly become a crappy 4+. The real issue with this edition is that a lot of the new rules are fundamentally poor ideas, both in the method in which allies work and how things such as cover saves or CP were integrated.
As it stands right now the cover save improving your armor save is pretty much complete garbage, as 3+/4+ armor saves becoming 2+/3+ respectively doesn't mean much when the saturation of AP in all 40k editions will result in you just getting a 5+ armor save at best. And sure, 5+ is better than nothing but with infantry units typically only having 1 wound it's still going to result in a squad getting deleted by sheer volume of dice. Which is something that plagues both this edition and prior editions of 40k - outside of tarpit blobs that are effectively purely for their use as screening, infantry is complete garbage. It's just a tax, doesn't achieve much, and can barely hold a point without getting shot to pieces. The only way infantry are even relevant is if either you're Dark Eldar kiting around the map with high AP squads in transports, Guardsmen abusing orders, or Death Guard with the wonderful Disgustingly Resilient save. Against knights most infantry will just cease to exist. Meanwhile IRL and in other (far more competently designed) games, infantry is probably the greatest threat posed to armor because it can hide in cover that makes it a pain to hit and carries weapons that can easily pop vehicles. Which is how 40k should work (and works in lore). A pure Imperial Knight army simply shouldn't be viable in the first place because infantry should have the ability to pose a significant threat to the Knights and Armigers via AT weapons that swiftly strip off wounds, and require either air support, artillery, or infantry of your own to dislodge. The place of armor is never being effective in of itself, it's providing fire support to infantry. Whereas in the Tabletop for both 8e, 7e, 6e, and going back beyond then, infantry is just a tax taken to get the big guns which flatten everything. Infantry is part of that triangle (square, pentagon?) of various military units that all counter and support each other in combined arms warfare. If you remove any aspect of that relationship, or nerf it into the ground, the system falls apart and you get something like the current mess of 40k.
'Cause it's not just Knights. Knights are just the latest example in the cycle of OP vehicle bs in 40k since the days of yore. Prior to Knights it was Fellblades. Then it was Eldar Knights and Tau Riptides. Then it was Leman Russes. Etc. And if you "fix" knights all you will do is just cause another vehicle/creature to become OP as all hell that breaks the game again and shifts the meta.
Eldarain wrote: They can't change cover that way as the already obnoxious - to hit armies would completely dominate.
The other thing is that army traits should be binned on a whole too. -1 to hit as an army trait is downright stupid and incentives it over all other options, which is just poor game design. Even in 6th edition the various chapter traits could get pretty silly, but those were far superior to the current ones which go beyond some nice flavorful rules and right into complete cheese. Or for factions like Necrons that shouldn't even have differentiation between Dynasties due to being mostly standardized as a force.
Why the Castellan? We see this "pointed to sell" power creep conspiracy thrown out all the time but tons of releases are complete garbage in game.
Why tool all those Custodes molds if it's going to be codex banana bike? Other than the Ravenwing plasma bikes the entire 6th DA release was crap.
The giant revamp the core faction Primaris release sure seemed like a good time to "point to sell" but old marines outperform them and their highest price point kits might be their weakest choices.
There is no conspiracy of power creep. They just don't release carefully considered rules. It's nice that in 8th they've at least tried adjusting after the obvious problems are out in the wild.
Eldarain wrote: Why the Castellan? We see this "pointed to sell" power creep conspiracy thrown out all the time but tons of releases are complete garbage in game.
Why tool all those Custodes molds if it's going to be codex banana bike? Other than the Ravenwing plasma bikes the entire 6th DA release was crap.
The giant revamp the core faction Primaris release sure seemed like a good time to "point to sell" but old marines outperform them and their highest price point kits might be their weakest choices.
There is no conspiracy of power creep. They just don't release carefully considered rules. It's nice that in 8th they've at least tried adjusting after the obvious problems are out in the wild.
They used to just leave them to fester.
It doesn't mean anything unless they can get to the heart of the rot, which is the base mechanics of the game system being met for a skirmish game and not escalation/apocalypse nonsense. Until GW redesigns the entire tabletop after scrapping all old mechanics, the game will never be in a good state. It will just be what has been for the past editions, a constantly application of band-aids and duct tape while something else breaks and requires fixing with the response to these problems moving like molasses. Knight soup and CP farming will probably be fixed, but just as soon as it is another form of broken nonsense will raise its ugly head and ravage the meta once more.
I don't get this weepy grimdark attitude. Look at the meta before IKs raised their big invun heads. There was the biggest diversity in top lists we've seen in quite a while. IK-led lists just bleached all that away, as players rapidly adapted to the hard-counter list that they represented.
So no, I don't think you're justified in saying a nerf would be pointless. If it were only to get us back to that brief period of diversity, it would be a grand thing. I really don't get people's attitude to the IK meta – they are skew lists, plain and simple, wrapped up in under-pointed and over-invulned units that necessitate bringing a shed-load of AT, or a mountain of warm bodies to throw on the fire, or, most commonly, in copypasta. Looking at their profiles, how is that a non-obvious conclusion?
I disagree with you. You have just a different pattern of meta, in that you had several horde lists, 1 counter meta flyrant list, and nothing else.
IK come along, along with the rule of 3, and now your at a meta where I would describe it as, CP farm, with the best advantage takers you can field of the CP farm.
The simple fact is that CP spent on the biggest baddest unit, with the best most effective Stratagems, is going to be the game your going to see with the CP farm.
Right now the Imperium can run the Farm, and 2 main CP spenders to go in a big way. The Castallen and Smash captains. Both really benefit from big numbers of CP.
If the Castellan is nerfed, your just going to see the same thing with a swap to a Valient, or a Crusader. If the BA slamguinus is nefted your just going to see the same thing with a Space wolf, or Raven, or whatever makes the second best Smash Captain.
Hopefully we get the FAQ today and we can end the speculation.
I feel like the Castellan is really great, but as others have said it's the strategems that take it over the top. Seems to me like those strategems should be limited to Knight Lance detachments only.
It is really more of an issue of unlimited relics and warlord traits.
It's kind of a really cool feature for mono knight armies but allied knights loading up on a warlord trait and a relic for just 2 CP is more than a little absrud. ESP when it's cawls wrath or endless furry and a 4++ to shooting.
Overall I think this is another important issue that kind of gets glossed over even though everyone probably agree that it needs fixing. What should qualify you to have access to a book stratagems / army traits / ect? This could go a long way to fixing allies.
Which is why we need faction based CP. You can't spend 2 CP on a WL trait and relic, and then 3 CP for a 3++ save, and 2 CP on the Raven strat when you get 0 CP from an Aux detachment and 3 generic CP for being battleforged.
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
Why?
I don't see why mono-dex should be the gimp choice and should bow down before the soup master race.
Because the non-fluff players are now screaming "it's fluffy!" when they take Guard CP batteries, etc. It just depends on the prevailing direction of the wind at the moment.
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
And if all the “fluffy Inquisition players” had played the game for more than a couple editions they’d know that it’d be expected such forces would have exceptions in the rules...like in the 4th ed Daemonhunters book (allies before allies were allowed). Or maybe all the “fluffy Inquisition players” are really just trying to justify their BA/IG/IK farms.
I think it comes down to two things. First the army you bought and want to play. I doubt any soup player that bought a castellan wants to see him turned in to a paper weight. And second how many people actually play something. It is not worth to sacrifice the over all game balance to make those 10 pure inqusition players around the world happy.
Although the counter argument to this is, that because the only valid way to play the game is soup right now, mono players should understand that maybe their army exists as a single model or a 3 units and some HQ, and that they should get used to the game being like that.
Mostly it is outside of people hands. I can imagine that there could be a large group of people that want to play Imperial fists or Dark Templar, and not imperial soup set up with this or that unit. The important question is, IMO, are those people a large enough group for GW to care.
Why?
I don't see why mono-dex should be the gimp choice and should bow down before the soup master race.
You can limit soup without completely gimping it. Having half of your units to be effectively unable to use stratagems is a massive disadvantage. My preferred solution id the soup losing the three battleforged CPs, though that obviously only works if the Guard's ability to infinitely regenerate CPs is removed.
But wouldn't it just mean that eldar soups who are immune to the whole CP nerf will just go back to how they were before the knights and custodes combo lists came?
Plus it would be horrible for all people who do not play the best of the best lists. An IG list can load up on shadow swords, but if some weak list loses the option to get the free CP to fuel a slamgiunius or castellan, how is it suppose to play at all?
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
And if all the “fluffy Inquisition players” had played the game for more than a couple editions they’d know that it’d be expected such forces would have exceptions in the rules...like in the 4th ed Daemonhunters book (allies before allies were allowed). Or maybe all the “fluffy Inquisition players” are really just trying to justify their BA/IG/IK farms.
So why do only a few get exceptions? Such forces ARE justifiable, and it's the core units that need fixing, not the CP.
Allies were mostly fine throughout the various iterations. Everytime a unit is broken and autotake in it's own codex and mono-armies, of course it'll be broken and autotake in Soup armies.
So why are you hitting soup instead of the actual issue? Is it because you refuse to accept any change to the game since 3rd? Maybe.
Karol wrote: But wouldn't it just mean that eldar soups who are immune to the whole CP nerf will just go back to how they were before the knights and custodes combo lists came?
Plus it would be horrible for all people who do not play the best of the best lists. An IG list can load up on shadow swords, but if some weak list loses the option to get the free CP to fuel a slamgiunius or castellan, how is it suppose to play at all?
Aeldai soups are far from immune to CPs going detachment only and CP farms in general. Between fire and fade, lightning reflexes, agents of vect, forewarning and stuff like that, they need a lot of CP. It is labirinthine cunning which makes the engine run.
That said, we are probably going to see some DE specific nerf. Either in the FAQ or in CA.
I'd personally just prefer if they took CP away from detachments entirely. As I've said before, just give each player 10 CP for being battle-forged. That's it. A generic warlord trait is added to the core rules for all factions that gives you 1 CP back on a 5+ every time you play a stratagem (Grand Strategist and its ilk are changed to be something else). Done. Now everyone gets enough CP they feel like they can do cool moves, everyone has some regen potential and we can go back to taking the units we actually want to take.
Audustum wrote: I'd personally just prefer if they took CP away from detachments entirely. As I've said before, just give each player 10 CP for being battle-forged. That's it. A generic warlord trait is added to the core rules for all factions that gives you 1 CP back on a 5+ every time you play a stratagem (Grand Strategist and its ilk are changed to be something else). Done. Now everyone gets enough CP they feel like they can do cool moves, everyone has some regen potential and we can go back to taking the units we actually want to take.
They won't do it this edition but I think it would be a good change, with penalties to this number for taking additional attachments and expanding your FOC, or unit choice.
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
Ultimately balance is about what's best for competitive play, and in that context it trumps catering for fluffy lists.
Certain factions would of course get exceptions, as you simply can't play them mono. But generally I would not have a problem with this.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
We'll see. If it's priced like a Titan I doubt it though. Just too early to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would be more proper to look at average rather than maximum by the way. Not that that isn't still scary, but it would be 12 shots with 1.33 mortal wounds.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
We'll see. If it's priced like a Titan I doubt it though. Just too early to say.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It would be more proper to look at average rather than maximum by the way. Not that that isn't still scary, but it would be 12 shots with 1.33 mortal wounds.
Ultimately balance is about what's best for competitive play, and in that context it trumps catering for fluffy lists.
Hell no! Any balancing must be so that it won't hurt more casual players.
More casual players have the option to ignore it.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.
What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.
What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.
1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.
1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.
1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.
Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.
It's cool, it's complicated stuff! I just happen to really like it
Personally I feel the game would be better for using 2d3 more often. As I say, the middle results become much more common. You only have a 1 in 9 chance of rolling a 2 for instance, but the same for rolling a 6. Evens things out a lot, which I feel would play better for weapons that are currently d6 shots.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.
Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.
It's cool, it's complicated stuff! I just happen to really like it
Personally I feel the game would be better for using 2d3 more often. As I say, the middle results become much more common. You only have a 1 in 9 chance of rolling a 2 for instance, but the same for rolling a 6. Evens things out a lot, which I feel would play better for weapons that are currently d6 shots.
I agree, D6 etc. for blast weapons doen't really work, rolling 1's or 2's is ridiculous especially for a vindicator cannon, I think GW figure 'yeah that's down to scattering' but you roll to hit so its stupid. Scattering was fun because the blast actually veered off and it was really realistic, but they should do 2+D3 instead of D6 etc.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
A big thing will be if it gets quantum shields or not as a knight level stat block with that and two of those weapons is going to be nasty at almost any points level.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.
The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.
that's the worst logic ever. You know nothing other than it's gun. It could be the cost of a Tau'nar for all you know. It might be T6 with no Quantum Shielding. The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
No...just no. That's massively wrong. You need to use the average and if you want you can see what results on the bell curve fall in the 40-60% range, which gives you a good idea of what you should expect. The more dice you roll the less likely you are to get outliers too. So the Necron model that rolls 6D3 for the shots of its two main guns is actually pretty consistent and much, much less likely to roll 18 shots than a weapon that rolls, say a single 18-sided dice. Incidentally, the probability of rolling 18 mortal wounds with this gun - assuming you've already rolled up 18 hits, which is itself hugely unlikely - is 1/101559956668416. Hopefully that makes it clear why you don't use maximum effectiveness to determine how good something is.
Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.
This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.
that's the worst logic ever. You know nothing other than it's gun. It could be the cost of a Tau'nar for all you know. It might be T6 with no Quantum Shielding. The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk.
I'm not whining , I merely said I feared it. I would have been good if you 'actually' read, what I 'actually' wrote..
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
No...just no. That's massively wrong. You need to use the average and if you want you can see what results on the bell curve fall in the 40-60% range, which gives you a good idea of what you should expect. The more dice you roll the less likely you are to get outliers too. So the Necron model that rolls 6D3 for the shots of its two main guns is actually pretty consistent and much, much less likely to roll 18 shots than a weapon that rolls, say a single 18-sided dice. Incidentally, the probability of rolling 18 mortal wounds with this gun - assuming you've already rolled up 18 hits, which is itself hugely unlikely - is 1/101559956668416. Hopefully that makes it clear why you don't use maximum effectiveness to determine how good something is.
Not if you are going to the effort of factoring in BS etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.
This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!
Reemule wrote: I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.
Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!
It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.
But the exact opposite also applies. Why shouldn't you be able to go mono force without gimping yourself. Why do we reward the people who cherry pick from multiple factions?
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.
The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?
if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.
Well, they already have divided them for a start! Matched, Narrative, Open.
What I'm saying is that for pickup games with strangers, to me balance is more important than every mixed army combination being allowed.
This. A huge amount of problem exist in this game due to Casual players not sticking with Narrative and Open play. Where they belong. Instead they jump into Match play and wonder why no one wants to have a Necrons and Orcs in the same codex and they get angry when people have an expectation that the game is going actually finish and not stop at turn 3.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.
The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?
if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.
I don't even know what that means. What are you trying to say here? Any calculation of the average damage output would take BS into account by definition. Maximum damage output is about the worst metric you can use. In fact, given that the minimum damage output is much more likely than the maximum, why wouldn't you use that?
Here's a quick example: the average damage output of the new Necron model against, say, a Leman Russ, is about 15-16 wounds, including the 1.33 mortal wounds from rolling a 6+ to wound. The maximum output is 126 wounds (18x6 wounds plus 18 mortal wounds). Those numbers are different by an order of magnitude, so why would you use the maximum damage output?
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.
The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?
if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.
I don't even know what that means. What are you trying to say here? Any calculation of the average damage output would take BS into account by definition. Maximum damage output is about the worst metric you can use. In fact, given that the minimum damage output is much more likely than the maximum, why wouldn't you use that?
Here's a quick example: the average damage output of the new Necron model against, say, a Leman Russ, is about 15-16 wounds, including the 1.33 mortal wounds from rolling a 6+ to wound. The maximum output is 126 wounds (18x6 wounds plus 18 mortal wounds). Those numbers are different by an order of magnitude, so why would you use the maximum damage output?
I said if you are like me and can't be bothered to take into account of the B.S. then comparing the maximum damage is fine. Both comparisons are going to have inflated numbers, their max damage is the max damage, so when you take that into account you just have to compare their BS, st, ap. Makes it quicker and simpler than working it out.
I was annoyed at the points rise of the Castallan. Quote the whole thing and add context; rather than trying to prove that you did read what I said properly. People are moaning about people moaning when they aren't even moaning, ppffttt now that is out of control lol
You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.
SHUPPET wrote: You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.
No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.
You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
SHUPPET wrote: You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.
No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...
Relax guys - I am sure all knowing GW will make this right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
Yeah true - you can't know if something is OP without knowing it's points cost. All we know right now is what it's weapon does. Which seems decent. If it's 400 points with 24 W and quantum shielding - it will be OP and make Necrons top tier instantly. If it's 900 points with those stats it won't even see play. It's all in the cost.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.
That is basically my point.
I'm prepared to accept the fact that soup may not be balancable. If so I'm ok with matched play not allowing it, because in that case it will be healthier for the game in the long run.
It may not come to that, but I'm open to the possibility.
Or tournament players can just put additional balancing restrictions in their tournament house rule packs.
If you're saying there needs to be good balance to allow for pickup games without bickering, then sacrifices on fluffy lists may need to be made to achieve that balance.
No. That's not an acceptable solution.
That is correct.
The game is not aimed at top competition levels, so the standard rules should reflect this. Casual gaming should never suffer due to the existence of competitive games.
I don't think that there is a need to divide the two in terms of rules, but if it where, this should be done with house rules on the tournaments, like it already happens.
In this case though this is not a problem, the solution here is to split CP in detachments, which is both more balanced and more fluffy.
Casual will never suffer at the expense of a good match play rules set. If it creates balance - it's good for all game types to use it. Casual suffers the most from a badly balanced rules set - because the players don't pick their units based on power. They pick based on what they like. So if your friend likes shinning spears and you like tactical marines - you will lose 100% of games. Not cool.
That is basically my point.
I'm prepared to accept the fact that soup may not be balancable. If so I'm ok with matched play not allowing it, because in that case it will be healthier for the game in the long run.
It may not come to that, but I'm open to the possibility.
Yeah - I am totally open to a mono only tournament scene. Game will still need a lot of fixes though.
1d6 has a linear distribution, meaning all results are equally likely.
2d3 has a bell curve meaning the middle results are more likely than the extremes.
Oh yeah, I never was that good at statistics.
Maybe that's why you think the new Necron model is OP when we know literally nothing else than the fact it has a decent gun.
SHUPPET wrote: You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model
Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
SHUPPET wrote: You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model
No, it's literally what I was referencing when I said it. Try to keep up.
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
Yeah well I won't, being in a similar boat as you. I think it's pretty clear the era of monodexing is gone. The better plan is to expand the soup options of factions with less soup.
SHUPPET wrote: You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
And that was irrelevant to the point of you saying that I was moaning about the OPness of the necron model
No, it's literally what I was referencing when I said it. Try to keep up.
You may have thought that; however, you didn't type that: "The fact that there's people like you already whining about it being too OP is a sign of how far this community has sunk."
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
You literally did state exactly what he said you did...
...what point are you trying to make at this stage? You made a comment, several people pointed out it was inaccurate, now you're determined to back pedal and derail any semblance of discussion going on. Just take it on the chin, and move on! We've all been wrong and/or said stupid s*%t.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
You literally did state exactly what he said you did...
...what point are you trying to make at this stage? You made a comment, several people pointed out it was inaccurate, now you're determined to back pedal and derail any semblance of discussion going on. Just take it on the chin, and move on! We've all been wrong and/or said stupid s*%t.
No I didn't, I never moaned about the OPness or suggested it shouldn't be that OP, so no I didn't. I said it was annoying because we are going to need all the help we can get taking on the necron unit. The only thing I moaned about is the points rise of the Castellan.
Don't we all know how this works?
New FW model will be crazy OP super low priced, crazy guns and weird special rules until next FAQ where the price will go up 2-300 points once they've sold out of the initial production...
I do think we should consider the max damage of a unit when discussing balance but the average should be where the emphasis is. I think models with high variance are a type of model (like orcs/demons should have units/models that are mad swingy while SM/crons should be more predictable) and add to the gaming experience but sometimes lead to frustrating results. I'm not sure how much GW sticks to this theory but it makes narrative sense to me
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.
Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?
Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.
Xenomancers wrote: Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.
I've felt the match play game would be better with a set number of command points based on point level.
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.
Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?
The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?
I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.
Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?
The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?
I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.
There is an inherent problem in soup that people can pick the best units from each army to make something stronger than any mono list can ever be.
So to answer your question: yes, if that is the best way to balance properly. Sorry.
Now, it may be that we can get good enough balance without going that far. But it will require some disincentive to allies to balance the fact you are getting a better selection of units. That might be a limit of CP or the types of detachment that can be taken for your secondary forces.
bananathug wrote: Don't we all know how this works?
New FW model will be crazy OP super low priced, crazy guns and weird special rules until next FAQ where the price will go up 2-300 points once they've sold out of the initial production...
I do think we should consider the max damage of a unit when discussing balance but the average should be where the emphasis is. I think models with high variance are a type of model (like orcs/demons should have units/models that are mad swingy while SM/crons should be more predictable) and add to the gaming experience but sometimes lead to frustrating results. I'm not sure how much GW sticks to this theory but it makes narrative sense to me
Xenomancers wrote: Custodes really are fine on their own it's just they won't have a lot of command points. This is the real issue here! Command points should not be distributed by the ability to spam cheap HQ and troops.
I've felt the match play game would be better with a set number of command points based on point level.
Absolutely agree - been playing this way for months now. It's just a better game like this.
Sure that gun looks good. But compare it to say a Scorpion, which doesn't seem to be meta relevant.
Living metal... uh, the other one. Quantum shields will help, but if its packing a weak invul and basically amounts to 3 Las predators stuck on top of each other for 700+ points its probably not going to be amazing.
If removing allies or making allies less viable than monobuild some people would have to buy new models. GW business model is based on getting you to buy models.
blaktoof wrote: If removing allies or making allies less viable than monobuild some people would have to buy new models. GW business model is based on getting you to buy models.
ya but over all I would think that the soup is better for business this way you need more than one codex and it is easier to find a monobuild army used then an imperial soup list.
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.
Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?
Honestly the entire closing off of allies was something that shouldn't have been done. One of my buddies has 3 Necrons that count as Callidus, Culexus, and Eversor and then I lend him my stand-in Vindicare (he likes it enough to use but I don't think it's the greatest thing in the world). Now those models are kinda useless.
2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.
So you're assuming the Seraptek Heavy Construct won't be a LOW because it's in the same article as a necromunda character called Kria the Huntress? Also it looks pretty big to me from that photo, but it can be difficult to gauge. Even if it isn't particularly big it's definitely bigger than an armiger and that's a LoW. Looks to me like it's probably about the size of Mortarion sans wings but with a much bulkier body.
2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.
So you're assuming the Seraptek Heavy Construct won't be a LOW because it's in the same article as a necromunda character called Kria the Huntress? Also it looks pretty big to me from that photo, but it can be difficult to gauge. Even if it isn't particularly big it's definitely bigger than an armiger and that's a LoW. Looks to me like it's probably about the size of Mortarion sans wings but with a much bulkier body.
It's enormous, unless the version they showed at Warhammer Fest Europe was a 3-up or something. It has easily the footprint of a Baneblade, probably more.
Sunny Side Up wrote: It's enormous, unless the version they showed at Warhammer Fest Europe was a 3-up or something. It has easily the footprint of a Baneblade, probably more.
I felt like it was probably a lot longer than it looked in the recent pic but I'd only seen the whole thing from the one angle.
Galas wrote: Guys why are you so combative about something that was allready done 2 pages ago.
Also, I'm a big Imperial Soup player. I have a ton of armies that I can't field as 2k armies alone (Adeptus Custodes, Tempestus Scions, Imperial Knights, Sisters of Battle, Assasins, Sisters of Silence), and It would suck to have allies or soup removed. But if GW choses to ban allies, I'll accept that outside narrative/open, even if that means having 0 games.
There is nothing stopping you fielding your Imperial armies alone at 2k points except the fact that you want to soup/ally excluding perhaps Assassins.
Custodes, Scions, IK and SoB can all be taken as standalone forces no problem. Some even perform really well as such.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, my army, Orks, can't soup. Should I just stop playing the game as it exists to accommodate soup players only now? How about all those people who prefer to play mono faction but are actively nerfing themselves if they do?
The same question can be asked in reverse, should people who have built soup armies and prefer to play that way have the option completely removed because others don't like it? I've been playing soup since the second it was available. I can't remember the last time I played a mono game. I play Aeldari (Dark Eldar/Craftworlds mainly) and my units are painted in a way that they look good together (purple/brass for DE, Purple/Bone for CE, Bone/Black for Wraith stuff), this is my main tournament army, although I also play Tyranids (Bone/Flesh for Nids, Black/Bone for GSC) as a tourney army sometimes. These two I used to play narratively in conjunction with a radical Ordo Xenos inquisitor (Black/Brass paint scheme). As you can see these armies are painted to blend and have been collected over a good number of years (started collecting 20+ years ago). If we were forced back to the old mono army design should I just quit because the playstyle I like is dead?
I think a more sensible option is to give Orks soup options, add a keyword (say Alien) to them, GSC (but not Nids), Tau and a maybe a select few Eldar units and/or give them a rule similar to the 'Brood Brothers' for GSC to let them be taken alongside select other forces.
There is an inherent problem in soup that people can pick the best units from each army to make something stronger than any mono list can ever be.
So to answer your question: yes, if that is the best way to balance properly. Sorry.
Now, it may be that we can get good enough balance without going that far. But it will require some disincentive to allies to balance the fact you are getting a better selection of units. That might be a limit of CP or the types of detachment that can be taken for your secondary forces.
That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.
I disagree. I don't think you can effectively balance the entirety of IMPERIUM as a soup against ORKS and still balance, say, DARK ANGELS against ORKS.
I don't believe it can be done. Not in a practical way that could ever be fully implemented before the edition rolls over and you start again.
Drager wrote: That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.
Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.
Drager wrote: That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.
Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.
Exactly this.
Though I feel we're just having the same debate over and over on a loop at this point.
We really need this darn FAQ to drop so we can see what the GW plan for all this is! (Or if they have one)
Drager wrote: That's not really a problem with soup, that's a problem with insisting on trying to balance mono lists instead of striving for balance at the top keword level. Orks should be balanced against Imperium, not Space Marines. I really don't think it is the best way to balance properly, in fact I think the opposite is true, balancing a smaller number of larger factions is an easier task and a better solution to balance issues. Should there be a trade off for playing soup (or an incentive to mono build), sure, I'd love to see that, but getting rid of allies is just a bad plan. The era of mono build was far worse balanced than today and I'm glad it's gone.
Ideally the game would be balanced so that each full codex had at least one build that was reasonably viable and soup would unlock additional play styles instead of being practically mandatory to be successful. Soup really needs to have some sort of trade off for mixing armies. Being able to just take the best of three separate codexes without paying any sort of opportunity cost for the benefits gained is very poor game design IMO. That said I'm yet to see an elegant solution for the problem.
I think that, from a conceptual level, we need to look at the fix as thus: if you are to soup, you get the benefit of additional flexibility of options and ability to pick the best, so there would need to be a corresponding downside to that. The form of the downside is what is up for debate - things like limiting CP's/stratagems/numbers or types of detachments/points/etc. are all potential solutions that are numeric and can be dialed up or down as needed to help enforce balance. There are some potential other solutions, but they're a more generic sort of game fix and might be harder to balance without a lot of testing.
Unfortunately, I admit that would mean a nerf to armies that are not built with power-soup in mind, but I think that is an acceptable casualty right now.
Spoletta wrote: Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.
Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?
Detachment feels better. Faction gets people too whiny because of the wide range available to imperium and other soup culprits.
Limit CP regeneration to the detachment with the regenerator that is proccing the strat.
So if I have two Dark Angels detachments in my army, a Battalion and a Patrol, I wouldn't be able to use any of the CP from the Battalion on units from the Patrol detachment?
Just making sure I understand the idea.
Seems a lot simpler to just divide by codex, as targeting on some strats is a bit ambiguous.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
If you look at the maximum potential GROTS outshoot CASTELLAN.
You sure you want to look at the full potential regardless of what's say average output and what sort of damage distribution they have?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Seriously, by this logic the Stock Baneblade is broken. 36 shots re-rolling 1s, 120 possible wounds. Then it gets to charge and melee! 9 attacks at S9 ap-3! thats 54 more wounds! NERFFFFFFFFFF.
This is why you need to pay attention in math class. Because Statistics matter!
That's nothing compared to might of the MIGHTY GROT! 120 wounds? Amateur!
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
By looking at it's average performance - as has already been explained to you - not what could happen once in a lifetime after you've rolled a dozen or more concurrent sixes. Comparisons are based on what it's likely to do, all things being equal - and even then, often we're being overgenerous given the nature of typical dice averages.
The Knight Porphyrion is capable of putting out 72 wounds in one volley from it's main guns (108 if you start messing around with relics etc also), but you're almost certain to never see it perform anything like that. And when was the last time you saw anyone field one? Even before it's points hike?
if you aren't taking into account the ballistic skill and you can't be bothered working it all out, then max is a good comparison, because what you are comparing is going to have the same inflated results as what you are comparing it to. If you do that its easy, all you have left to compare is the st and ap.
Umm if you are factoring in BS etc YOU AREN'T LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM!
Maximum is: Max shots, max wounds, max damage.
At that category grots outshoot pretty much everything. But you don't see grots hailed as uber killers of the game...Now I wonder why...Maybe because maximum isn't the way to rate units?
SHUPPET wrote: You said you would be annoyed if Knights were nerfed, based off the fact that the new Necron LoW looks OP based off nothing other than a glance at its gun.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.
Before telling others to read, you might want to pay better attention to what you write.
No I was annoyed that it was having its points increased, I added that its also annoying that the Necron unit looks OP. I wasn't moaning about the Necron unit being OP like you wrongly implied. 'Yeah annoying considering', read that a few times. Jesus...
Relax guys - I am sure all knowing GW will make this right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: You somehow seem to be missing the fact that my post is referencing the part where you decided a model you know nothing about is going to be OP. Which is actually an incredible because it was like 90% of your post. And I bolded it for you.
Yeah true - you can't know if something is OP without knowing it's points cost. All we know right now is what it's weapon does. Which seems decent. If it's 400 points with 24 W and quantum shielding - it will be OP and make Necrons top tier instantly. If it's 900 points with those stats it won't even see play. It's all in the cost.
I bet it'll end up being both.
It'll launch with stats & a points cost designed to get you to drop $$$. Then later on, once enough have been sold, the errata will come.
I think the Guard CP battery is its own issue that needs fixing. Personally I’m a fan of the Detachment that generated the CP, uses the CP (with the basic 3 being useable anywhere).
Quite separately, the sharp imbalance between soup and non-soup armies has a potential fix that I’ve been harping on about for a while now:
Chapter Tactics and the Chapter-specific Stratagem, Warlord Trait and Relic are only available if the entire army shares that Chapter keyword.
(Replace Chapter with Craftworld, Regiment etc for each faction.) Auxiliary Detachments are excepted, neither gaining access to Chapter Tactics etc nor preventing the rest of the army from getting them. You could give exceptions to mini ally-only factions like Inquisitors and Assassins.
This kind of already exists; in the Chapter Tactics section of each Codex there is a paragraph to that effect, the only difference being that it is restricted by Detachment, whereas I’m advocating it be restricted by army.
This solution gives you a real advantage to taking a pure army to balance the power of a soup army to fill the natural weaknesses in its list. The only thing is that I game up with this before the Dark Eldar Codex came out, and I’m not clued in enough with the nuances of that book to know how to sort them out.
kombatwombat wrote: I think the Guard CP battery is its own issue that needs fixing. Personally I’m a fan of the Detachment that generated the CP, uses the CP (with the basic 3 being useable anywhere).
Quite separately, the sharp imbalance between soup and non-soup armies has a potential fix that I’ve been harping on about for a while now:
Chapter Tactics and the Chapter-specific Stratagem, Warlord Trait and Relic are only available if the entire army shares that Chapter keyword.
(Replace Chapter with Craftworld, Regiment etc for each faction.) Auxiliary Detachments are excepted, neither gaining access to Chapter Tactics etc nor preventing the rest of the army from getting them. You could give exceptions to mini ally-only factions like Inquisitors and Assassins.
This kind of already exists; in the Chapter Tactics section of each Codex there is a paragraph to that effect, the only difference being that it is restricted by Detachment, whereas I’m advocating it be restricted by army.
This solution gives you a real advantage to taking a pure army to balance the power of a soup army to fill the natural weaknesses in its list. The only thing is that I game up with this before the Dark Eldar Codex came out, and I’m not clued in enough with the nuances of that book to know how to sort them out.
Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.
IronBrand wrote: Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.
See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.
We want different things out of this game, I guess.
IronBrand wrote: Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.
See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.
We want different things out of this game, I guess.
I agree with you, however id change to faction not detachment- That way as Ironbrand pointed out, you wouldn't be preventing a baneblade using a strat- which whilst powerful.... isn't unfair, but would be preventing the Castellan from blowing through 5 in its first shooting phase.
The whole issue is that people are using incredibly powerful stratagems on incredibly powerful LOW options that were intended to have a limited supply of CP, knights were never meant to have 15CP with the ability to regen- it removes the strategy of using stratagems.
Personally i feel the same about all stratagems and think the CP increase last FAQ wasn't necessary and removed an element of risk from the game- you basically are giving a guard player a free reroll every phase of every turn which isnt what the stratagem idea was intended for.
Spoletta wrote: Having CPs limited to the detachment generating it would already be a huge downside to bringing soups instead of mono lists.
Do you mean faction rather than detachment right?
Detachment feels better. Faction gets people too whiny because of the wide range available to imperium and other soup culprits.
Limit CP regeneration to the detachment with the regenerator that is proccing the strat.
So if I have two Dark Angels detachments in my army, a Battalion and a Patrol, I wouldn't be able to use any of the CP from the Battalion on units from the Patrol detachment?
Just making sure I understand the idea.
Seems a lot simpler to just divide by codex, as targeting on some strats is a bit ambiguous.
Nail on the head.
I find it simple in my head anyways and play it that way now with no problems.
I think of CP in MtG mana. Batallion has 5 white CP, allied Vanguard detachment has 1 blue CP and then there the 3 grey CP everyone gets from battleforged that can be used anywhere.
Strats to me were meant to be a cool twist to use at a critical moment that could tactically pay off. Unfortunately, it got used and abused into a crutch.
IronBrand wrote: Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.
See now, everything you just listed as a bug I see as a feature.
We want different things out of this game, I guess.
I agree with you, however id change to faction not detachment- That way as Ironbrand pointed out, you wouldn't be preventing a baneblade using a strat- which whilst powerful.... isn't unfair, but would be preventing the Castellan from blowing through 5 in its first shooting phase.
The whole issue is that people are using incredibly powerful stratagems on incredibly powerful LOW options that were intended to have a limited supply of CP, knights were never meant to have 15CP with the ability to regen- it removes the strategy of using stratagems.
Personally i feel the same about all stratagems and think the CP increase last FAQ wasn't necessary and removed an element of risk from the game- you basically are giving a guard player a free reroll every phase of every turn which isnt what the stratagem idea was intended for.
Guard Infinite CP is 1 huge issue that should be dealt with sperately, it's the true driving force behind imperium soup.
The changes to battalions etc made the guard farm worse not better, the change should have been to battle forged CP numbers not battalion and the rediculous brigade.
Battle forged should scale with game size at say 5CP to 1000 points 7CP 1k to 2k, 9CP 2x to 3k.
If you dip into multiple codex's you loose your battle forged CP idf your detachments only sharing Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword.
Add in a Assasins Vanguard, SoS vanguard, Inquisition detachment don't count towards the above rule.
Guard Infinite CP is 1 huge issue that should be dealt with sperately, it's the true driving force behind imperium soup.
The changes to battalions etc made the guard farm worse not better, the change should have been to battle forged CP numbers not battalion and the rediculous brigade.
Battle forged should scale with game size at say 5CP to 1000 points 7CP 1k to 2k, 9CP 2x to 3k.
If you dip into multiple codex's you loose your battle forged CP idf your detachments only sharing Imperium, Choas or Aeldari Keyword.
Add in a Assasins Vanguard, SoS vanguard, Inquisition detachment don't count towards the above rule.
I agree, we have two completely seperate issues right now;
First is using cheap horde factions to generate cp for units that really shouldn't have access to such a large amount of stratagems at such little cost- lets be honest, if the castellan player isnt using guard for his cpgen he's gonna be using another barebones battalion or maybe 2.
Second is just how many cp guard can generate because of how cheap their units are- my personal opinion is that guard are good, maybe really good, but when you can pop 10 stratagems in your fist shooting phase that then synergise with orders for both infantry and tanks, and are able to regen CP aswell! then they become a little silly.
First problem is solved quite easily by using kombatwombat's fix or a variation of such. Second is fixed by changing cp generation so that its not just "whoever has cheapest units gets the most".
IronBrand wrote: Having CP usage limited by detachment is IMO a terrible idea. It essentially relegates every detachment outside of battalions and brigades to being ally only detachments. It also essentially denies CP to all lords of war apart from knights outside of a full super-heavy detachment.
If they did this the thought is that perhaps at the same time all detachments would be reworked in CP given. I think if you had 3 cp for all detachments, and then 5 for the Battlion, and 10 for the Brigade, and you can put your battleforge points where you want them should be, but must be declared before the battle is the most common theme i see on how CP by detachment would work.
Overall, I favor the idea of 10 CP for 2K point games, and you can only use the Stratagems from your warlords faction.
18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.
That's not how you evaluate the power level of a unit. In fact, that's about the worst way to do it. You need to look at average results, not maximum potential, which is pretty much never going to happen. Also, points matter, a lot. You can't call something OP without knowing all of its stats and its points cost.
Yeah. Hell if we look at maximum potential grots would be silly broken level in damage output
Good luck hoping for 18 mortal wounds.
Even without any mortal wounds its still a titan worthy weapon. In order to compare weapon stats you have to take into account its full potential, how else would you compare them...
If you look at the maximum potential GROTS outshoot CASTELLAN.
You sure you want to look at the full potential regardless of what's say average output and what sort of damage distribution they have?
Yeah it literally makes no sense. Looking at max damage potential, 6 termagants will sink a Knight Gallant every turn.
This is just the worst way of looking at damage potential.
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
Now who's being reactionary
Banning soup is a big step, but it's still within the realms of possibility.
I'm talking about removing totally free ability to soup here mind. There would still be exceptions. Inquisitors and Assassins, maybe even allowing Auxiliary Support detachments for other armies, much in same way as Allied force orgs in past editions.
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
Your post reminds me of what people said pre-rule of 3, and how the rule would kill the player base and everyone is shortsighted and if it was going to happen it already would have blah blah blah
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
While I agree banning multiple faction lists in Match play is a bit extreme, I highly doubt it would have those affects.
Keep in mind that many players that have been around for a while were once used to only taking 1 Faction, as are many Xenos players that don't even have the option to mix factions right now. Also keep in mind that Open and Narrative play exist. Players who want to mix up factions still have those options, or can simply ignore a Matched play restriction on multiple factions when playing outside of Tournaments Matched play is meant to be a balanced version of the game intended for competitive play. Mixing factions skews this balance greatly, so it really isn't out of the question for an FAQ beta rule to do just as Reemule is suggesting
Then throw in the fact that this change would encourage many multi-faction players to expand on 1 or more of their factions to make them a full armies, and GW sees more purchases, so it actually starts to seem very likely
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
Your post reminds me of what people said pre-rule of 3, and how the rule would kill the player base and everyone is shortsighted and if it was going to happen it already would have blah blah blah
Yeah, definitely comes across as chicken-little-ing
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Reemule wrote: I'm starting to think that soup should be banned for match play. It would make the game easier to balance for match play.
Excellent! We'll fix Matched Play by removing half the player base! Next we can ban non-painted armies and anyone under the age of 40. If anyone still plays we can just insist everyone bring an orginal copy of the 5th edition rulebook and ban all models not present in it's pages.
These Trump-style 'I have a quick, drastic, unrealistic idea to fix everything in one sentence!' solutions need to stop. If there was a quick fix for Meta shifts and codex power imbalance that could thought of by someone into their third beer GW would have thought of and implemented it by now. The problem isn't that simple and all aspects of a change should be considered.
While I agree banning multiple faction lists in Match play is a bit extreme, I highly doubt it would have those affects.
Keep in mind that many players that have been around for a while were once used to only taking 1 Faction, as are many Xenos players that don't even have the option to mix factions right now.
Also keep in mind that Open and Narrative play exist. Players who want to mix up factions still have those options, or can simply ignore a Matched play restriction on multiple factions when playing outside of Tournaments
Matched play is meant to be a balanced version of the game intended for competitive play. Mixing factions skews this balance greatly, so it really isn't out of the question for an FAQ beta rule to do just as Reemule is suggesting
Then throw in the fact that this change would encourage many multi-faction players to expand on 1 or more of their factions to make them a full armies, and GW sees more purchases, so it actually starts to seem very likely
-
I'm not sure these 'older' players are the main shoppers anymore. 7th actually saw an expansion of the playerbase and, if tournament attendance is anything to go by, 8th is the golden age of expansionism. That expansion has been built off the back of an allies matrix. Custodes bring Psykers and Assassins, Space Marines work with Imperial Guard, Chaos Space Marines are frequently half Codex-Daemons, e.t.c. If you took away allies, I don't think the response of most of those people will be "well, better flesh out each faction". They'd at least be as likely to just ebay the thing and go find something else (even Age of Sigmar which would be less restrictive by that point).
Tournament play would be better with a few less options. it would allow the game to move forward with some design space, and it would allow them to get much better at matching factions, and open up letting people with sub factions actually have some bonuses for playing those sub factions.
I'm sure a few might drop out of the scene, but I think this would be offset by the gains of adding a few people who think it might be worth it now.
Let's put it this way, easy =/= right.
Sure, it's easier to balance fewer moving parts. It's also easier to balance if we remove CP and stratagems entirely. Those are fun gameplay elements, however. People like 'playing abilities' and they like customizing forces from wider options. The preference should always be towards preserving fun elements while balancing than to balance at the expense of popular items.
.
