The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.
Why you talk about imperial castellan as justification to nerf chaos castellan? Chaos castellan was stuck with 4++ max from get go, no cawl's wrath, no companion, no krast relics etc. Totally different beast to imperial castellan.
I'm talking about Castellans being justification for nerfing the Castellan. It was never worth 600 even without relics.
So you're just going to ignore the 10 heavy bolters that the shadowsword would also have?
And if you're going to give buffs to the castellan you're analyzing then you should also provide buffs to the shadowsword.
Also while we are at it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but some of your calculations for the Chaos Castellan seem to be missing out the invun, but its very hard to tell as you've not labeled any of your multiplications.
secretForge wrote: So you're just going to ignore the 10 heavy bolters that the shadowsword would also have?
And if you're going to give buffs to the castellan you're analyzing then you should also provide buffs to the shadowsword.
Also while we are at it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but some of your calculations for the Chaos Castellan seem to be missing out the invun, but its very hard to tell as you've not labeled any of your multiplications.
So, they do about the same for cost under the consideration that both shoot a RIS Castellan. This doesn't account for the 4 melta guns or the stomps. Nor does it deal with a tactic or trait.
I will agree that a Chaos Castellan is now technically worse that a Shadowsword - by averages when fighting another Castellan, but that is the role of the SS.
The Chaos Castellan gibs the Shadowsword entirely and doesn't suffer a BS penalty when shooting at non-titanic units.
As far as I'm aware, if you're taking the las cannons, you must also have the heavy bolters (or flamers). which brings it up in cost. But also means its more of an all rounder vehicle, having significant anti infantry firepower.
Admittedly yes when fighting each other the chaos castellan has a significant advantage, but realistically, its more who gets the first shot off, but sometimes that's just the way the game works. Units cant have perfect parity.
Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
AM synergy is amazing and every unit is points efficient. That’s what needs fixed. Knock the the synergy a little and ramp up some points. We won’t see batteries anymore. It’s not only knights. It’s custodes and other lists too.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
AM synergy is amazing and every unit is points efficient. That’s what needs fixed. Knock the the synergy a little and ramp up some points. We won’t see batteries anymore. It’s not only knights. It’s custodes and other lists too.
WHAT?!?!? Custodes? Yeah, lets talk about the giant gold elephant in the room.
GUYS, CUSTODES ARE BEATING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from, but Custodes are BOTTOM tier. FW Custodes are ok, but still. Anything with a half decent Psyker destroys them.
I suppose next up is that Salamanders are OP with their re-roll flamer shots and Necrons with their re-animation protocols? So OP.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
AM synergy is amazing and every unit is points efficient. That’s what needs fixed. Knock the the synergy a little and ramp up some points. We won’t see batteries anymore. It’s not only knights. It’s custodes and other lists too.
WHAT?!?!? Custodes? Yeah, lets talk about the giant gold elephant in the room.
GUYS, CUSTODES ARE BEATING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from, but Custodes are BOTTOM tier. FW Custodes are ok, but still. Anything with a half decent Psyker destroys them.
I suppose next up is that Salamanders are OP with their re-roll flamer shots and Necrons with their re-animation protocols? So OP.
Guard are undercosted, I'll give you that.
When did I state they were winning tournaments? Why are you typing in all caps? Are you ok?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
AM synergy is amazing and every unit is points efficient. That’s what needs fixed. Knock the the synergy a little and ramp up some points. We won’t see batteries anymore. It’s not only knights. It’s custodes and other lists too.
WHAT?!?!? Custodes? Yeah, lets talk about the giant gold elephant in the room.
GUYS, CUSTODES ARE BEATING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from, but Custodes are BOTTOM tier. FW Custodes are ok, but still. Anything with a half decent Psyker destroys them.
I suppose next up is that Salamanders are OP with their re-roll flamer shots and Necrons with their re-animation protocols? So OP.
Guard are undercosted, I'll give you that.
He's talking about Custodes Jetbike Captains in guard based imperial soup lists. You let the triggering stop you from seeing the point.
Also, pure custodes are a lower mid tier army, that isn't really even intended to be played as a mono-faction. The only real bottom tier codexes that are out right now are the SoB beta codex and Grey Knights, and even those have some very useful tools they can offer allied armies.
Also, didn't a list with like 1500pts of Custodes take top 3 in a major tournament recently?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Thing is, I can't think of a single superheavy unit in the AM list that has dedicated Strats like the Knights have. Call me crazy, but this isn't a AM problem. Nerfing the shield fixed the problem. Trying to ram an overpowered meta breaking unit into a tactical squad based game caused this. Not AMCP.
AM synergy is amazing and every unit is points efficient. That’s what needs fixed. Knock the the synergy a little and ramp up some points. We won’t see batteries anymore. It’s not only knights. It’s custodes and other lists too.
WHAT?!?!? Custodes? Yeah, lets talk about the giant gold elephant in the room.
GUYS, CUSTODES ARE BEATING ALL THE TOURNAMENTS. I honestly don't know where you are getting this from, but Custodes are BOTTOM tier. FW Custodes are ok, but still. Anything with a half decent Psyker destroys them.
I suppose next up is that Salamanders are OP with their re-roll flamer shots and Necrons with their re-animation protocols? So OP.
Guard are undercosted, I'll give you that.
He's talking about Custodes Jetbike Captains in guard based imperial soup lists. You let the triggering stop you from seeing the point.
Also, pure custodes are a lower mid tier army, that isn't really even intended to be played as a mono-faction. The only real bottom tier codexes that are out right now are the SoB beta codex and Grey Knights, and even those have some very useful tools they can offer allied armies.
Also, didn't a list with like 1500pts of Custodes take top 3 in a major tournament recently?
Yes but he got triggered and entered super scary CAPS mode, so he missed the point
Reemule wrote: Ideally the nerf should have made it more desirable in the lists it wasn't being used in, and less desirable in one it was over exposed in.
Cawls Wrath profile should have been made the standard profile. The price of the castellan should have been increased with this in mind.
The Cawls Wrath relic itself should have been changed to something more in-line with other relics, like an extra wound on a 6 to hit or no overheating.
Barebones Castellan was the best super heavy in the game. Only FW Knights and that one I never remember the name Knight were comparable.
That was why he was nerfed. All the strats and relics did made the Castellan go from "One of the best superheavies in the game " to "Meta defining unit", and that was just toxic.
Crimson wrote: Having relics to not cost points was a terrible idea from the get-go, this is just an extreme example of that.
Free relics normally isn't a big deal, but they simply never consider scaling in this game. They're fine when they're minor and almost trivial on a normal character - but scaled up to bonuses to Knight weapons, it's completely out of whack.
Crimson wrote: Having relics to not cost points was a terrible idea from the get-go, this is just an extreme example of that.
Free relics normally isn't a big deal, but they simply never consider scaling in this game. They're fine when they're minor and almost trivial on a normal character - but scaled up to bonuses to Knight weapons, it's completely out of whack.
ERJAK wrote: Also, didn't a list with like 1500pts of Custodes take top 3 in a major tournament recently?
Spikeybitz lists Los Angeles GT.
Pre-faq Raven, pre-faq assassin, admech CP battery, a bunch of forgeworld custodes units and... valdor?, who doesn't even have rules afaik.
Crimson wrote: Having relics to not cost points was a terrible idea from the get-go, this is just an extreme example of that.
Free relics normally isn't a big deal, but they simply never consider scaling in this game. They're fine when they're minor and almost trivial on a normal character - but scaled up to bonuses to Knight weapons, it's completely out of whack.
Even with relics with less impact there are usually one of two which are always taken, and others might as well not exist. With points you could at least address that by making the worse relics cheaper.
ERJAK wrote: Also, didn't a list with like 1500pts of Custodes take top 3 in a major tournament recently?
Spikeybitz lists Los Angeles GT.
Pre-faq Raven, pre-faq assassin, admech CP battery, a bunch of forgeworld custodes units and... valdor?, who doesn't even have rules afaik.
However even that isn't pure. It's got a CP battery, two primaris psykers, and a execution force+. So yeah, not pure Custodes. Also, before anyone says Callidus tanks or Telemon, those are broken as all hell, and unless you are supreme That Guy, you don't run them.
No, because of the 4+ shooting. It's got Guard disease, as where the Castellan is at least 3+. Then there is the difference in wound charts, ZERO invuln save, the model size is extremely restrictive, and finally a kitted out SS still only is really good at targeting other Titanic units. It sucks against most everything else.
Crimson wrote: Having relics to not cost points was a terrible idea from the get-go, this is just an extreme example of that.
Free relics normally isn't a big deal, but they simply never consider scaling in this game. They're fine when they're minor and almost trivial on a normal character - but scaled up to bonuses to Knight weapons, it's completely out of whack.
Even with relics with less impact there are usually one of two which are always taken, and others might as well not exist. With points you could at least address that by making the worse relics cheaper.
There are many relics I wouldn’t take even if they cost me negative points to run. I don’t think that’s the solution here
A shadowsword and a Castellan are not even nearly on the same level.
A shadowsword can delete no more than one target per turn (and even there, against something non titanic with an invul save like a flyrant, it fails more than it should for that cost).
A castellan simply pushed all mid/heavy vehicles out of the meta, since it can take out 2 of them per turn quite easily, while ALSO making a mess of your elite infantry.
Salamander doesn't give re-rolls, it gives plus 1 to shooting rolls till end of phase.
Secondly, while this does give you a larger chance of doing damage, you are still dedicating almost half your list to a anti-titan vehicle that will get CC'd on turn 2 and be useless for the rest of the game, if it doesn't get deleted on turn 1.
No invuln means all those -4AP weapons make you go bye bye very quick. Hell, I can delete you with three Lehman Russ, for less points, more mobility, survivability, and options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting topic for debate:
Give the Baneblade and all variants a 5++. No change in points. Thoughts?
Or a 6+++, call it "Reflective Plating" and on a 6+ the wound is ignored. Right now as a superheavy it needs an invuln or something.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Salamander doesn't give re-rolls, it gives plus 1 to shooting rolls till end of phase.
Secondly, while this does give you a larger chance of doing damage, you are still dedicating almost half your list to a anti-titan vehicle that will get CC'd on turn 2 and be useless for the rest of the game, if it doesn't get deleted on turn 1.
No invuln means all those -4AP weapons make you go bye bye very quick. Hell, I can delete you with three Lehman Russ, for less points, more mobility, survivability, and options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting topic for debate:
Give the Baneblade and all variants a 5++. No change in points. Thoughts?
Or a 6+++, call it "Reflective Plating" and on a 6+ the wound is ignored. Right now as a superheavy it needs an invuln or something.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Salamander doesn't give re-rolls, it gives plus 1 to shooting rolls till end of phase.
Secondly, while this does give you a larger chance of doing damage, you are still dedicating almost half your list to a anti-titan vehicle that will get CC'd on turn 2 and be useless for the rest of the game, if it doesn't get deleted on turn 1.
No invuln means all those -4AP weapons make you go bye bye very quick. Hell, I can delete you with three Lehman Russ, for less points, more mobility, survivability, and options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting topic for debate:
Give the Baneblade and all variants a 5++. No change in points. Thoughts?
Or a 6+++, call it "Reflective Plating" and on a 6+ the wound is ignored. Right now as a superheavy it needs an invuln or something.
I don't think it would be bad for the IG super heavy tank brigade to get something to help them. a universal 6+++ would be find and help them.
Additionally I think some stratagems and specific traits wouldn't be out of place. And a Relic or two, not to mention the ability to have a Warlord Super Heavy, with some traits.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Salamander doesn't give re-rolls, it gives plus 1 to shooting rolls till end of phase.
Secondly, while this does give you a larger chance of doing damage, you are still dedicating almost half your list to a anti-titan vehicle that will get CC'd on turn 2 and be useless for the rest of the game, if it doesn't get deleted on turn 1.
No invuln means all those -4AP weapons make you go bye bye very quick. Hell, I can delete you with three Lehman Russ, for less points, more mobility, survivability, and options.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Interesting topic for debate:
Give the Baneblade and all variants a 5++. No change in points. Thoughts?
Or a 6+++, call it "Reflective Plating" and on a 6+ the wound is ignored. Right now as a superheavy it needs an invuln or something.
Any additional rules needs a points increase.
Don't just post GIFs as a response.
Oof someone is but at least you didn’t go all CAPS MODE on us again. Special rules, wounds, saves, toughness etc should always determine points. Want more resiliency? Cost more points. And as said above.. stop trying to make anti tank weaponry useless. If you are really that upset my skyweavers destroy anything you have in one turn.. idk, complain to GW I guess?
Galas wrote: But the baneblade chassis is as good. It only droped out of favour after the Imperial Knight codex that had the most busted superheavies of the game.
Compare the baneblade with every other superheavy and they are far superior.
I was pointing out what the idea was. I never said I agreed with it.
I feel like Baneblades are a good superheavy, but not a broken one. (Maybe the Shadowsword, but certainly not most of the variants.) They're vulnerable to high AP weapons and mortal wounds, but still pretty beastly.
The Castellan just was (and might still be) a vastly superior choice-so, relative to the TOURNAMENT META, you could buff Baneblades without increasing the points cost. Whether or not that's a GOOD IDEA... Well, I'd say it's not.
Ok, rather than move the Baneblade UP to the Castellan, which is the current place holder for top Superheavy in the game, 3 years running, how about we drop the Castellan down to the level of other Superheavies? Castellan loses it's invuln. Now it costs more still, but it still has way better shooting, way better defenses, movement, melee, and stratagems.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, rather than move the Baneblade UP to the Castellan, which is the current place holder for top Superheavy in the game, 3 years running, how about we drop the Castellan down to the level of other Superheavies?
Ah, hyperbole - here I was thinking we might go a day without it on here.
How can a model released in 2018 - less than 12 months ago - have been top of the tree for three years running?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, rather than move the Baneblade UP to the Castellan, which is the current place holder for top Superheavy in the game, 3 years running, how about we drop the Castellan down to the level of other Superheavies?
Ah, hyperbole - here I was thinking we might go a day without it on here.
How can a model released in 2018 - less than 12 months ago - have been top of the tree for three years running?
Don't bring facts to this argument all the cool kids want knights removed from 40k.
The fact that not a single knights primary list that I've ever seen place has had a Castellen is also irrelevant.
Though that people believe that the guard codex needs buffed with invulnerable saves is laughable poorly balanced.
At the end of the day the Castellan will still se play but as a balanced unit it won't appear anymore (Or maybe, I'm not a guru, this is my impresion) in the top tables because by definition the lists that reach top tables are the strongest of the game, not middle of the road ones.
Spoiler:
A little of fun for all that people that is selling their castellans dirty cheap on ebay right now
The point increase was not elegant. The issue was Cawl's Wrath (get rid of it) and House Raven. Get rid of the strat of make strats not accessible in aux slot. Or keep Cawl's Wrath and make relics not accessible in the aux slot, either.
Martel732 wrote: The point increase was not elegant. The issue was Cawl's Wrath (get rid of it) and House Raven. Get rid of the strat of make strats not accessible in aux slot. Or keep Cawl's Wrath and make relics not accessible in the aux slot, either.
Oh my sweet summer child. Those things were only a problem because it was hard to destroy. Now it can be removed reliably in a single turn. It will struggle to ever earn it's points back.
Earning points back is not always the standard of analysis.
Furthermore, non-Raven Castellans are all unfairly suffering because of a single build that was only ever taken as an aux choice.
4++ is not that much worse than 3++. You still won't be able to melee it. It's still T8. It can still fire on bottom bracket as if it were on top. The Raven strat is still a problem.
There plenty of lists than can't remove T8 W28 with NO invuln in one turn. So I don't really agree with your analysis at all.
I think you're showing a lack of experience here. The 3++ in combination with key strats made the Knight almost invulnerable.
A 4++ Knight is easy to destroy if you need to do so. I've done it, it's been done to me. My Castellan was removed from play on turn 1 in the last game I played a few days ago.
You're playing in some very friendly meta lol. I've faced armies that teleport in 25 Hellblasters for 50 plasma shots with re rolls, or fire 20+ Lascannons, or 20+ dark lances a turn.
I think you do lack experience actually. Very much so.
Martel732 wrote: It's not lack of experience. It's math. Learn some. There's not that big of a difference between 3++ and 4++.
Well...66% up from 50% is a 33% increase in durability...
And there were strats to play to mitigate failed rolls. The invul nerf was a big deal. As was the point increase. You are giving up substantial resources from the rest of your list in one 700+ point model that cannot hide and might never shoot.
I said it was inelegant. I didn't say it wasn't going to work. It's certainly unfair to non-Raven Castellans.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: You're playing in some very friendly meta lol. I've faced armies that teleport in 25 Hellblasters for 50 plasma shots with re rolls, or fire 20+ Lascannons, or 20+ dark lances a turn.
I think you do lack experience actually. Very much so.
Sounds like an extreme skew to smoke castellans to me.
Galas wrote: Stop adding layers and layers of FNP and invuls that make anti tank weaponry useless. If you want more resilient tanks give them more wounds.
I'm good with that also. Recon the Baneblade family to have 30 wounds.
Galas wrote: Stop adding layers and layers of FNP and invuls that make anti tank weaponry useless. If you want more resilient tanks give them more wounds.
I'm good with that also. Recon the Baneblade family to have 30 wounds.
There plenty of lists than can't remove T8 W28 with NO invuln in one turn. So I don't really agree with your analysis at all.
Wha... wh..
Why do we care about none viable lists?
Viable just means to work successfully, if you're insinuating it's impossible to win a game of 40k without one shotting a castellan that's not a good benchmark.
For the love of crap. We are back to this now. NEWS FLASH. THE SHADOW SWORD IS OP. It can go to a 1+ save with a -1 to hit for 1 CP and and 2 spells from CAF hq's. Putting out 10 HB and 4 LC and a doom cannon. If cadian it can hit on 2's rerolling 1's to hit for 2CP. It will murder any titan in the game twice it's cost. The Castellan was special because of it's ability to 1 shot shadowswords and take it's punishment and ignore it with a 3++ and fight at full power for 1 CP.
Do you know how popular the shadowsword was before the Castellan?
Xenomancers wrote: For the love of crap. We are back to this now. NEWS FLASH. THE SHADOW SWORD IS OP. It can go to a 1+ save with a -1 to hit for 1 CP and and 2 spells from CAF hq's. Putting out 10 HB and 4 LC and a doom cannon. If cadian it can hit on 2's rerolling 1's to hit for 2CP. It will murder any titan in the game twice it's cost. The Castellan was special because of it's ability to 1 shot shadowswords and take it's punishment and ignore it with a 3++ and fight at full power for 1 CP.
Do you know how popular the shadowsword was before the Castellan?
To qualify for the 2+ it needs to be shooting a titan and you need to have wounded the target with another unit first. SS was great. Still is. But it still can't easily ace a Castellan even with a 4++. Two of them are really obnoxious. I really expected to see them go up in points ages ago, but the Castellan hid them from view.
JNAProductions wrote: How do you get a 1+? +1 save from Psychic Barrier, -1 hit from Nightshroud, and... what?
Take Cover only works on Infantry.
And the Castellan can also get a 2+ and -1 to be hit, without the ability to be denied.
Now you're throwing out rediculous unqualified deflection.
If it goes imperial so no fight at top bracket strategum, no mortal wound save strategum, and no cawls wrath.
It can have -1 to at 18 inches warlord trait and a 2+ Save relic, congratulations but your now fighting a 2d6 S7 Ap-3 D1 plasma weapon with or S8 D2 overheating without access to re-roll 1's
While your shadowsword can still be whatever regiment it wants.
Jeezuz... what made the Castellan so much better then the Shadowsword was its ability to have a 3+ save against the SSs biggest gun. And could reroll 2 of them in a turn with Grand stratagest.Then as long as it was alive it could use a universal strat to shoot at full effect if needed. Thats it in a nutshell. The SS has no invuln period and once it was tagged by a Castellan it usually didnt survive.
On the other hand it took an awful amount of SS shooting to hurt a Castellian.
I spent many of a Game shooting 3 Shadowswords at Castellans... in most cases they survived to shoot at full effect for a round or 2.
So yea.. for a 600 point unit to be able to survive 1600 points of shooting at it a turn (designed to kill it mind you !).. is the reason why the SS fell out of favor for the Castellan.. it was simple math.
Martel732 wrote: It's not lack of experience. It's math. Learn some. There's not that big of a difference between 3++ and 4++.
You need to take your own advice if you're going to snark on the internet. Dropping from 3+ to 4+ is a 33% drop in durability. That means you need only 2/3s the firepower as before to achieve the same effect when trying to damage it. And this is before factoring in CP rerolls on saves, which makes the difference even bigger.
zedsdead wrote: Jeezuz... what made the Castellan so much better then the Shadowsword was its ability to have a 3+ save against the SSs biggest gun. And could reroll 2 of them in a turn with Grand stratagest.Then as long as it was alive it could use a universal strat to shoot at full effect if needed. Thats it in a nutshell. The SS has no invuln period and once it was tagged by a Castellan it usually didnt survive.
On the other hand it took an awful amount of SS shooting to hurt a Castellian.
I spent many of a Game shooting 3 Shadowswords at Castellans... in most cases they survived to shoot at full effect for a round or 2.
So yea.. for a 600 point unit to be able to survive 1600 points of shooting at it a turn (designed to kill it mind you !).. is the reason why the SS fell out of favor for the Castellan.. it was simple math.
Which it again needed guard warlord trait and CP to be able to do.
Once again the issue was allies, limiting the invlunerable to 4++, was needed and minimal effect on mono knights, but that 100 points is just taking the model way off ever being playable outside of a guard list.
so a Shadowsword shooting full effect (volcano Cannon and 4 Lascannons) at a 3+ Castellan with a Trojen support vehicle Does on average 10 Damage to it. With Old grudges you do 12 damage.
So the reality it took 3 Shadowswords to kill 1 castellan. Thats actually with 3 trojens...which i never saw. Thats 1800 points to kill it... thats silly
zedsdead wrote: so a Shadowsword shooting full effect (volcano Cannon and 4 Lascannons) at a 3+ Castellan with a Trojen support vehicle Does on average 10 Damage to it. With Old grudges you do 12 damage.
So the reality it took 3 Shadowswords to kill 1 castellan. Thats actually with 3 trojens...which i never saw. Thats 1800 points to kill it... thats silly
Why are you just ignoring the Heavy bolters?
3++ isn't a thing, stop living in the past
If you put 24 wounds onto it for ~1000 points the rest of the list should be more than capable of doing the rest.
And you don't neee the trojen.
Galas wrote: Stop adding layers and layers of FNP and invuls that make anti tank weaponry useless. If you want more resilient tanks give them more wounds.
I'm good with that also. Recon the Baneblade family to have 30 wounds.
There plenty of lists than can't remove T8 W28 with NO invuln in one turn. So I don't really agree with your analysis at all.
Wha... wh..
Why do we care about none viable lists?
Agreed, with just my beta codex SoB list I could kill 2 T8 28 would units with no invul with just melta and exorcist fire. And the SoB beta codex is a dumpster fire.
Xenomancers wrote: For the love of crap. We are back to this now. NEWS FLASH. THE SHADOW SWORD IS OP. It can go to a 1+ save with a -1 to hit for 1 CP and and 2 spells from CAF hq's. Putting out 10 HB and 4 LC and a doom cannon. If cadian it can hit on 2's rerolling 1's to hit for 2CP. It will murder any titan in the game twice it's cost. The Castellan was special because of it's ability to 1 shot shadowswords and take it's punishment and ignore it with a 3++ and fight at full power for 1 CP.
Do you know how popular the shadowsword was before the Castellan?
To qualify for the 2+ it needs to be shooting a titan and you need to have wounded the target with another unit first. SS was great. Still is. But it still can't easily ace a Castellan even with a 4++. Two of them are really obnoxious. I really expected to see them go up in points ages ago, but the Castellan hid them from view.
Yeah I agree - with the Castellan in the house - it could not stand. Mainly because it's typically not getting a save against a castellans 2 main guns and never from it's missile. It is unlikely to survive a strong round of shooting from the castellan. When it was a 3++ - there were a lot of scenarios where the castellan takes little to no wounds against a shadow sword. So it fell out of favor. If castellans truly are going to fall out of favor (yet to be seen) the Shadows word will be a direct beneficiary. Other knights don't do nearly enough damage to 1 shot a shadow sword consistently. Also - with the 4++ only I think the shadowsword + 3 command russ shooting at 2+ to hit will pretty consistently kill a castellan + old grudges....
In my opinion the army benefiting most from the FAQ is Astra Militarium AGAIN. Mainly because instead of the Castellan - They can take the much cheaper Shadow sword and they can put even more points into super "efficient" guard units...and no more Ynnari to contend with. Really it was even more important to nerf infantry squads and CC than it was the Castellan. Infantry squads not being nerfed is such an extreme enigma....I have nothing more to say about it.
Galas wrote: Stop adding layers and layers of FNP and invuls that make anti tank weaponry useless. If you want more resilient tanks give them more wounds.
I'm good with that also. Recon the Baneblade family to have 30 wounds.
There plenty of lists than can't remove T8 W28 with NO invuln in one turn. So I don't really agree with your analysis at all.
Wha... wh..
Why do we care about none viable lists?
Viable just means to work successfully, if you're insinuating it's impossible to win a game of 40k without one shotting a castellan that's not a good benchmark.
No, he's insuating that if your list can't do 28 wounds to a T8 unit with 0 invul, then your list sucks. Which is correct.
zedsdead wrote: so a Shadowsword shooting full effect (volcano Cannon and 4 Lascannons) at a 3+ Castellan with a Trojen support vehicle Does on average 10 Damage to it. With Old grudges you do 12 damage.
So the reality it took 3 Shadowswords to kill 1 castellan. Thats actually with 3 trojens...which i never saw. Thats 1800 points to kill it... thats silly
Why are you just ignoring the Heavy bolters?
3++ isn't a thing, stop living in the past
If you put 24 wounds onto it for ~1000 points the rest of the list should be more than capable of doing the rest.
And you don't neee the trojen.
zedsdead wrote: so a Shadowsword shooting full effect (volcano Cannon and 4 Lascannons) at a 3+ Castellan with a Trojen support vehicle Does on average 10 Damage to it. With Old grudges you do 12 damage.
So the reality it took 3 Shadowswords to kill 1 castellan. Thats actually with 3 trojens...which i never saw. Thats 1800 points to kill it... thats silly
It's now a 4+ castellan. Plus you are leaving out 30 ap-1 shots RR all wounds. You are also ignoring +1 to hit Strat and the fact you'll be rerolling 1's for being cadian.
2+ RR 1's and reroll all wounds for old grudges....
Just the volcano cannon should average 3 wounds getting through. That alone is 21 damage. The lascannons and HB do the rest. The HB alone do 8ish wounds in this set up. Looks a lot like 500ish wounds killing 700 points for the cost of 2CP and a friendly wound getting through from a cheapo shot earlier in the round.
Honestly - Shadowswords were pretty dang good at killing Castellans before - it's just Castellans are a lot better against the rest of the field because they can split their shots up a lot better...are reasonable in CC and can be detonated reliably if you are losing the game and need a miracle. It's also not just great at killing titans. It kills all.
's
JNAProductions wrote: The +1 Hit strat is Vostroyan, unless you're talking about Overlapping Fields Of Fire, which requires you to first wound it with something else.
Yeah I mention that. I mention them being cadian and getting a cheapo wound through,
JNAProductions wrote: The +1 Hit strat is Vostroyan, unless you're talking about Overlapping Fields Of Fire, which requires you to first wound it with something else.
Yeah I mention that. I mention them being cadian and getting a cheapo wound through,
You mention Cadian. You don't mention getting a cheap wound through with another unit first.
But, assuming you do, you get...
Main cannon has 6 shots
35/6 hits
1,225/216 wounds
1,225/432 unsaved
8,575/432 damage, or 19.85 damage
Lascannons have 4 shots
35/9 hits
280/81 wounds
140/81 unsaved
490/81 damage, or 6.05 damage
Heavy Bolters have 30 shots
175/6 hits
875/54 wounds
875/108 unsaved
875/108 damage, or 8.10
Total damage is 34, assuming you manage to get a wound off beforehand AND have Old Grudges AND use Overlapping Fields Of Fire AND get first turn (no fight at top bracket for Baneblades).
Going to anydice, odds of killing are just over 3/4. Assuming you get that wound off ahead of time-how you doing that?
In my opinion the army benefiting most from the FAQ is Astra Militarium AGAIN. Mainly because instead of the Castellan - They can take the much cheaper Shadow sword and they can put even more points into super "efficient" guard units...and no more Ynnari to contend with. Really it was even more important to nerf infantry squads and CC than it was the Castellan. Infantry squads not being nerfed is such an extreme enigma....I have nothing more to say about it.
You may very well be right that without Ynnari there is no clean check to AM. I'm perplexed that they didn't up the cost of mortars like GSC, but I guess that's too small of a point change for a FAQ focus.
Just for fun, let's do a Cawl's Wrath Castellan versus the Shadowsword!
Cawl's Wrath has 47/6 shots
329/54 hits
2,303/489 wounds
2,303/486 unsaved
2,303/162 damage, or 14.22 damage
Volcano Lance has 47/12 shots
329/108 hits
658/243 wounds
658/243 unsaved
4,606/243 damage, or 18.95 damage
Sigebreakers have 28/3 shots
196/27 hits
686/243 wounds
343/243 unsaved
2,401/729 damage, or 3.29 damage
Shieldbreaker has 1 shot
7/9 hits
49/81 wounds
49/81 unsaved
2,303/972 damage, or 2.37 damage
So with just the two main guns, the Castellan can easily wipe a Shadowsword. Anydice says with just the Plasma Decimator (given 8 shots) and the Volcano Lance (given only 3 shots) it's already got a greater than 60% chance of wiping a Shadowsword.
Add on the Shieldbreaker, and it goes to greater than 70%.
my point was that the 3+ save made it alot better. Now with only a 4+ its far easier to kill. and like JNA above shows.. a SS with no invulnerable save will die alot easier to a Castellan then the other way around.
JNAProductions wrote: The +1 Hit strat is Vostroyan, unless you're talking about Overlapping Fields Of Fire, which requires you to first wound it with something else.
Yeah I mention that. I mention them being cadian and getting a cheapo wound through,
You mention Cadian. You don't mention getting a cheap wound through with another unit first.
But, assuming you do, you get...
Main cannon has 6 shots
35/6 hits
1,225/216 wounds
1,225/432 unsaved
8,575/432 damage, or 19.85 damage
Lascannons have 4 shots
35/9 hits
280/81 wounds
140/81 unsaved
490/81 damage, or 6.05 damage
Heavy Bolters have 30 shots
175/6 hits
875/54 wounds
875/108 unsaved
875/108 damage, or 8.10
Total damage is 34, assuming you manage to get a wound off beforehand AND have Old Grudges AND use Overlapping Fields Of Fire AND get first turn (no fight at top bracket for Baneblades).
Going to anydice, odds of killing are just over 3/4. Assuming you get that wound off ahead of time-how you doing that?
It's really not that difficult to stick a single wound on with Old Grudges around. And while not Cadian or Vostroyan, fight at top bracket technically exists for Valhallan Shadowswords.
You'll also notice that, especially with Old Grudges, Heavy Bolters outperform Lascannons against Castellans, point for point. (80 points of LC and 70 points of HB in the above example.) The most cost effective setup is the Arkurian pattern. Also, the HK missile is excellent value in this scenario.
castellan seems to be in the the right ballpark not, may need a few tweeks up or down, but between the points and the 4++ max it is still a strong option just not the go to hands down best option.
The shadowsword i hope gets an adjustment too in Chaper approved but that means it will be the new big bad on the table.
I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.
In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.
Karol wrote: In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.
Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.
Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.
Karol wrote: In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.
Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.
Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.
I doubt it will be tripple shadowswords, it's more likely to be a supreme comand with a shadowsword, the other option is a BA supreme comand of Smashfethers. That combined with the vigilous formations Guard are on the up.
Also a shadowsword without knights etc didn't have much to target, also a shadowsword still mugs 2 medium Vehicals itself.
Karol wrote: In a way one has to say that IG are very lucky with the update schedule first they miss the update aka nerf to shadowswords, because GW is slow, then shadowswords don't pop up in the meta because castellans came. they get to play a year with them, and now that castellans get nerfed they can get back to using shadowswords they used before. that is like 2-3 years of having fun.
Seriously the sky isn't falling. There are no Shadowswords dominating Meta, no one is suddenly kitting out SS lists, no one is even talking about how they are dropping Castellans. Castellans are not going away, they are still the top dog in the meta, for single model effectiveness. People are still going to base lists around them.
Now, if in the next 6-7 months every major sees three SS lists, then fine. But in the entirety of 8th, have we ever seen Baneblade lists in top 3 of any ITC major? Not a snarky ask, honest question. People are making this out to be OP, and I can see why, but not to the extent that everyone says it is.
No I don't think the sky is falling. For me the FAQ changed nothing, other making me chuckle a bit, which I class as good, considering everything. I am just saying that some faction are lucky. I mean even the Inari nerf doesn't seem so ground breaking. Eldar players were already playing soups without Inari, and they worked. It is not like they are now left with no way to play.
And from what I remember IG with shadowswords wasn't winning big events, because Inari were a hard counter to them. Maybe now with them gone, the shadowsword are going to be more valid. It is not like they weren't placing high pre castellan. At least as far as soups go. No idea how mono IG with shadows did to be honest. But I don't think anyone plays mono IG, they are too flexible to not add some assasins or BA or custodes.
I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.
Yea I indicated 6 months on the survey. Any faster than that might be too chaotic.
I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
I really think GW needs to do points for competitive online and adjust at a higher frequency than annually and then the occupational emergency points increase in the annual FAQ that way they can do more incremental changes to get things right. with lots of community feedback alongside the ability to walk back or further change point values. warmachine/warmahordes style app where you track games would help a lot too so they get actual unit performance in thousands of games weekly.
Yea I indicated 6 months on the survey. Any faster than that might be too chaotic.
as long as they are small changes done incrementally i think it would be fine to do monthly. you would not see 100 point swings. program it in for a maximum swing of 5% per month per unit and in the cases of most infantry it will take a long time to even see a unit go up or down a point. a 5 point unit woudl take 2 months to reach 6 points if it were overperforming and then it would have to keep over-performign to ever reach 7 points. even than a max 5% means it would have to have some insane win rate, like being present in a 75% win rate. set parameters and then adjust those perameters if they are too fast/slow. plus if it is in an app and tool on thier website boom we have a list building tool with up to date points.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
Because both a 3++ and a 4++ fail on a roll of 1 or 2.
So the only change is the loss of 3, so depending upon the way you work out the percentage change its a 25% reduction 4 results to 3 results are a save or 33% as its 1 additional results over the 3.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
Because both a 3++ and a 4++ fail on a roll of 1 or 2.
So the only change is the loss of 3, so depending upon the way you work out the percentage change its a 25% reduction 4 results to 3 results are a save or 33% as its 1 additional results over the 3.
This doesn't make sense to me. Its math, there may be several ways to get to the correct answer, but there is only one correct answer. both fail on a 1 or 2, that's true. that's where the 33% failure rate comes from. 33% of the time, if the dice and averages are held to perfectly, you will get a 1 or a 2 on any given die roll. the 4+ fails 50% of the time under the same circumstances. the difference between the two is essentially 16 or 17% depending on how geeky you want to do the math. I cannot see anywhere where 25% or 33% less survivable even get close to this.
G00fySmiley wrote:
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
OK. I was kind of curious as to the nature of that number. Funny things, those numbers.
With that math being correct then, it seems that the cost change to Castellans was quite needed, as just a 16% decrement to survivability would not have stunted or changed the risk in taking it in the army much at all, especially when considering how cost efficient AM units are on the whole.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
I made a similar mistake in thinking up above because I was in a rush. A single pip has a 16% chance of coming up on each roll of said die. That does NOT mean the probability of events tied to the die only shift by 16%.
So the easiest way to see the difference here is to consider 30 incoming wounds.
A 3++ will allow only (1/3)(30)=10 cleared wounds.
A 4++ will allow (1/2)(30)=15 cleared wounds.
33% of 15 is 5, which is the drop in cleared wounds going from 4++ to 3++.
Another even more depressing way to look at it is that the 4++ clears 50% more wounds than 3++.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
Because both a 3++ and a 4++ fail on a roll of 1 or 2.
So the only change is the loss of 3, so depending upon the way you work out the percentage change its a 25% reduction 4 results to 3 results are a save or 33% as its 1 additional results over the 3.
G00fySmiley wrote:
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
OK. I was kind of curious as to the nature of that number. Funny things, those numbers.
With that math being correct then, it seems that the cost change to Castellans was quite needed, as just a 16% decrement to survivability would not have stunted or changed the risk in taking it in the army much at all, especially when considering how cost efficient AM units are on the whole.
it is honestly an issue of soup to an extent. we would not need as big of a nerf if cp were more limited. a 3++ catellan is bad but in a pure knights list that would cost most of your command points. and you would be doing little else with them. the issue lies in all the cp you can push into them with allies. guard or admech just fed them command points so cheaply and admech cna even buff and repair to the point of absurdety. I really hope chapter approved addresses and reworks soup somehow. I have 2 pitches here for gw that are nto new and many have stated them
1st would be all players get the same amoutn of CP per game turn and can spend on offense or defensive strats.
2nd the detachment that provided the cp can be the only thing those cp can be spent on.
So, in effect, the defensive capability of the unit has been hit, but the method of use has not? Still hoping for a turn 1 blitz on the opponent to wipe major targets off the map?
I am just questioned whether or not this has actually changed anything. Past turn 1, sure. But not the basic 1 turn usage.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
No.
A 6++ is 16.7%.
A 4++ is 50%.
A 4++ is factually three times better than a 6++. It isn't (16.7% + 16.7%) 33% better.
JNAProductions wrote: Just for fun, let's do a Cawl's Wrath Castellan versus the Shadowsword!
Cawl's Wrath has 47/6 shots
329/54 hits
2,303/489 wounds
2,303/486 unsaved
2,303/162 damage, or 14.22 damage
Volcano Lance has 47/12 shots
329/108 hits
658/243 wounds
658/243 unsaved
4,606/243 damage, or 18.95 damage
Sigebreakers have 28/3 shots
196/27 hits
686/243 wounds
343/243 unsaved
2,401/729 damage, or 3.29 damage
Shieldbreaker has 1 shot
7/9 hits
49/81 wounds
49/81 unsaved
2,303/972 damage, or 2.37 damage
So with just the two main guns, the Castellan can easily wipe a Shadowsword. Anydice says with just the Plasma Decimator (given 8 shots) and the Volcano Lance (given only 3 shots) it's already got a greater than 60% chance of wiping a Shadowsword.
Add on the Shieldbreaker, and it goes to greater than 70%.
Totally. Which is why people moved to the Castellan from the shadowsword. With it being 100 more points though...Who knows what will happen. I still think the Castellan has a roll to play.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
No.
A 6++ is 16.7%.
A 4++ is 50%.
A 4++ is factually three times better than a 6++. It isn't (16.7% + 16.7%) 33% better.
16.7% * 1.33 = 22%
16.7% * 3.00 = 50%
Correct. To make things simple.
Imagine 6 wounds getting through. Compared to a 6++/5++/4++ ect.
A 6++ lets 5 wounds through
A 5++ lets 4 wounds through
A 4++ lets 3 wounds through
A 3++ lets 2 wounds through
A 2++ lets 1 wound through
So how much better is a 3++ over a 4++? 3/2 = 1.5 = 50% How much better is a 3++ over a 5++? 4/2 = 2 = 100%.
To expand on this:
It takes 6 wounds to kill a model with a 2+.
The same 6 wounds would kill 2 models with a 3+.
Going from a 2+ to a 3+ only differs 16% of the time, but when only 16% of the time matters to begin with, that's a doubling.
Focusing on it only affecting 16% of the time, let's improve a 2+ to a 1+ and drop the "ones always fail" rule. The change *still* only matters 1 out of every 6 wounds. But you've gone from taking a lot of firepower to kill to being *literally unkillable*. Clearly, that was a bigger buff than going from always-dying (7+) to almost-always-dying (6+)?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, in effect, the defensive capability of the unit has been hit, but the method of use has not? Still hoping for a turn 1 blitz on the opponent to wipe major targets off the map?
I am just questioned whether or not this has actually changed anything. Past turn 1, sure. But not the basic 1 turn usage.
Yes, they are pushing blitz instead of fixing raven/cawls.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.
If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.
Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.
Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.
If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.
Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.
Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.
Whoah! pump the hate brakes there Thanos...
Im the one that didnt understand the math, it was my mistake. no need to be quite that virulent. My error. I see where I made the mistake from and now that i have been reminded of probability 201, I get it.
I forgot this phenomenon myself in my hasty post above. D6 math is surprisingly swingy, which is why it's not such a great base for a game with so many units.
Reemule wrote: Starting to see Triple Crusader lists. I expect that is going to be the next hot spot, as the Castellan exited the scene.
I fail to see how that would be a problem. It doesn't bring to the table even half of the AT firepower of a castellan, they are not ultrapropelled by the raven stratagem. Good luck taking out T7/T8 targets with 3 crusaders. You are talking about 1500 points, you have nothing else in your list except that and the loyal 32 (at 1750, at 2000 you can squeeze in something more, but still no brigade for you).
No, i don't see 3 crusaders as being a problem ever. Too skewed, not enough firepower.
The shadowsword too is being vastly blows out of proportion in this thread. It is not going to replace the castellans in the lists, for the following simple reasons:
1) No invul, so dependent on going first.
2) No way to ignore brackets, so only useful on turn 1.
3) Not nearly as good against anything which isn't a titan. There doesn't exist only knights in the game. Especially with less castellans around, be ready to see a lot more medium/heavy vehicles. A shadowsword can only take out one per turn, and it isn't even guaranted to do so if the target has an invul save.
4) Cannot defend in melee.
If what truly happens is that the lists will just switch from Castellan to SS, then this means that this FAQ was ultra succesful, since it dropped by a lot the power of top lists.
Seabass wrote: I've seen a lot of posts about how its a 33% drop in survivability with the change to rotate ion shields.
This doesn't make sense to me, can someone help me understand it?
A single pip is worth about 16% on a standard die. The difference in survivability should be 16%.
a 3+ happens 66% of the time (or two thirds) if the averages play out exactly. a 4+ is a 50% chance.
So, how is it a 33% drop in survivability when the probability of success vs a failure is changed by only 16%?
I'm not asking to be an @$$, I'm asking because I'm curious if there is some modifier that I'm not considering because this just makes no sense to me at all.
they are basing 33% on it only losing wounds on a 1 or 2, and now losing wounds on a 1 2 or 3. they are using this math to make it seem worse than it is. you have it correct with 16.7% being the real number as it overall survives 16.7% less
You really need to learn to math better. It is exactly as bad as we say it is.
If it took 15 models firing to kill it on average before, it now takes 10. That's a 33% drop, not 16.7, going from 3+ to 4+.
Looking at it from the other side, going from a 4+ to a 3+ is a 50% increase in durability.
Looking at the chance of rolling a particular result on a die face is a terrible way to look at it and you should never, ever do that again. Next you'll be telling people that improving a unit's to hit from 6+ to 5+ increases it's firepower by 16.7% instead of 100%.
Whoah! pump the hate brakes there Thanos...
Im the one that didnt understand the math, it was my mistake. no need to be quite that virulent. My error. I see where I made the mistake from and now that i have been reminded of probability 201, I get it.
And I didn't respond directly to your post because I wasn't responding to the math. It should be quite clear that I was responding to the accusation that people were using math in some malevolent way. In addition, your post left it as sort of an open question, which is fine. His didn't.
BTW, the only one name-calling here so far, is you.
Shadowsword becomes more viable, but doubt it becomes dominant. It is such a one trick pony unlike the Castellan who could do literally everything well.
I even believe its priced ok. The fact that it has no invulnerable, and has BS4 and no real stratagem buffs will keep it becoming ultra competitive.
Smirrors wrote: Shadowsword becomes more viable, but doubt it becomes dominant. It is such a one trick pony unlike the Castellan who could do literally everything well.
I even believe its priced ok. The fact that it has no invulnerable, and has BS4 and no real stratagem buffs will keep it becoming ultra competitive.
This isn't completely correct. Vostroyan has quite a nasty strat.
Martel732 wrote: It's not lack of experience. It's math. Learn some. There's not that big of a difference between 3++ and 4++.
Huh???????????? 12 dmg taken on a 4+ nets 6 wounds and on a 3+ nets 4. 3+ compared to a 4+ is 50% increase in functional survivabilty. Once you add command rerolls to the mix 3+ is such a vast difference from 4+ it honestly makes me wonder whether you have actually played a game of 8th or are just very slow.
Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
3++ is basically the most common stat on non balanced units.
Also 4++ with 5+++ is a decent substitute for it
A 5++ is basically useless on 2+ save models though, since you need to be fighting AP-4 out of cover before it even kicks into effect.
I think the eldar codex has 27 AP-4 options (don't remember exactly how many) Lots of armies have melta. AP-4 and 5 actually exist in huge abundance (too much for my taste). Not that I disagree with that 5++ is pretty useless on a 2+ save unit - I don't think that is a good reason not to remove 3++ saves entirely and scale down invos across the board.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
3++ is basically the most common stat on non balanced units.
Also 4++ with 5+++ is a decent substitute for it
When was the last time you saw Hammernators or Sentinel Guard dominating a competitive battlefield?
I'm sure he'll claim they would be playable if everything else just wasn't OP.
The simple fact is anything that is 10 times or more a guardman or 3 times a non infantry unit needs to be sporting a 4++ these days to be remotely competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
3++ is basically the most common stat on non balanced units.
Also 4++ with 5+++ is a decent substitute for it
When was the last time you saw Hammernators or Sentinel Guard dominating a competitive battlefield?
They are a melee unit that moves at the speed of 5'' and hits on 4's with 2 attacks? Not sure what sentinel guard are. Units need to do things to be effective.
As much as Xenomancers is prone to hyperbole he has a point. 3++ is something that shouldn't exist at all. And if it exist, it should be to small units that shouldn't be all that powerfull, or have high offensive outputs.
If you wan't big things to be more resilient give them wounds.
Galas wrote: As much as Xenomancers is prone to hyperbole he has a point. 3++ is something that shouldn't exist at all. And if it exist, it should be to small units that shouldn't be all that powerfull, or have high offensive outputs.
If you wan't big things to be more resilient give them wounds.
Archon with a Shadowfield is broken? Or Succubus with a 3++?
Galas wrote: As much as Xenomancers is prone to hyperbole he has a point. 3++ is something that shouldn't exist at all. And if it exist, it should be to small units that shouldn't be all that powerfull, or have high offensive outputs.
If you wan't big things to be more resilient give them wounds.
Archon with a Shadowfield is broken? Or Succubus with a 3++?
The shadow field acknowledges the fact it is OP by allowing it to be only failed once and can't be rerolled for any reason - so it doesn't protect you forever. Not gonna sit here and describe every 3++ save in the game as it is obviously more effective on certain units. However - if invunes were turned down on the whole - the game would be in a lot better place. There is nothing more unfun or overbearing than units you can't kill. Lessons GW and the community as a whole should be in consensus about by now.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
3++ is basically the most common stat on non balanced units.
Also 4++ with 5+++ is a decent substitute for it
When was the last time you saw Hammernators or Sentinel Guard dominating a competitive battlefield?
They are a melee unit that moves at the speed of 5'' and hits on 4's with 2 attacks? Not sure what sentinel guard are. Units need to do things to be effective.
Custodian Guard + Sentinel Blade/Storm Shield.
So you're acknowledging that a 3++ isn't enough to make a unit broken by itself?
Galas wrote: As much as Xenomancers is prone to hyperbole he has a point. 3++ is something that shouldn't exist at all. And if it exist, it should be to small units that shouldn't be all that powerfull, or have high offensive outputs.
If you wan't big things to be more resilient give them wounds.
Archon with a Shadowfield is broken? Or Succubus with a 3++?
if we were to go by what GW did to heed, then yes a shadowfield on anything is broken.
3++ on infantry is easy to overpower with dice.
well that is why the really good stuff is either too fast to be shot at, or is not infantry. castellan are no longer ++3, but when it was a whole army of storm bolters could be shoting at it for 5 turns and it still would be standing.
Xenomancers wrote: Lets chill guys. A 3++ is basically godmode compared to a 4++ and a 4++ is amazing. Basically nothing in the game should have a 3++.
Not Gman - Not smash captains. Super elites should have 4++ and tough units a 5++. That is how it should work with the AP system the way it currently is.
You might notice units that have 3++ being spammed...and dominating competitive.
So you're acknowledging that a 3++ isn't enough to make a unit broken by itself?
Naah naah. 3++ is the problem. Nevermind units with 3++ that aren't issue. It's always the 3++!
Clearly in isolation a 3++ means nothing, it feels like this is turning into a bit of a straw man. Of course the 3++ has to be on something dangerous. A terminator with a 3++ isn't too bad because Terminators baseline are kind of terrible. Knights are already decent, then a 3++ is problematic.
The fact remains that 3++ saves need to be given out extremely carefully because they have potential to be extremely problematic.
3++ on a Dire Avenger(for sake of argument) is nice to have, but will die quickly. 3++ on a huge ass robot that is already hard enough to wound is another matter entirely.
I would say that there were 2 units with 3++ saves that were causing issues and both had cofactors that attenuated the 3++ issue. First we had a high wound and high toughness walking fortress. It was hard enough to wound it with most weapons only for them to be negated by a few 3++ saves.
The other unit is 3++ Smash Captains. Although they are easier to wound they are harder to target due to the character rules so they often managed to get into combat.and wreak havoc and the targeting rule made it harder for an opponent to focus fire the model in question.
As I said, 3++ is much less impactfull in small models that aren't all that offensively powerfull.
Yeah, a small HQ can have a good invul, or a bunch of weak troops.
But when people ask for 3++ and 4++ invuls in giant vehicles that are supposed to be destroyed with high damage high AP weapons I can't but crynge at the idea of how far the game has fallen into the rabbit hole.
Giving giant vehicles those invulnerables only make Antitank weaponry useless. At the end of the day youll end up killing those vehicles with extremely unpleasant and strange combos like the haywire, mortal wound spam, things like autocannons, etc...
And as others have said the problem with smash captain is that it was a character+3++ + an enormous offensive cappability.
I feel like a ++ of any amount on a heavy support or a Super heavy should come with an extreme points tax. You are already getting wound armor, high toughness. The ++ is just spitting in the face of the opponent, and frankly breaking the flow of the game. It's not one army against another army, it's one army against one model in your army.
I'm a big believer in the Baneblade variants method of armor. You got a model with over 13 wounds, you don't get an invuln.
It boggles my mind how the Telemon, and up are harder to kill then dedicated Armored vehicles.
If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons. High T models are countered by high Str weapons. High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves. Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter. A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Spoletta 775130 10447503 wrote:
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.
Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.
You understand that Guard have been able to do that all edition right?
Spoletta 775130 10447503 wrote:
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Am not sure about that. 100 IG that suddenly die 1/3 less often in the open sounds scary, specially if your army does not have the ability to kill them all in a single turn. 200 could waltz on to an objective and ask the opponent to check how good they are at dice gambling, Orcs work like that with their KFF, only orcs cost more then IG, and don't have access to soup.
That's only true if you fire at them with weapons with any AP. I believe Spoletta's point is that a large amount of the time regular infantry get shot by weapons with no AP so turning their regular save into an Invulnerable would not have anywhere near the effect giving a good Invulnerable does to an already tough model. Additionally, IG are T3 with W1 so even when the Invulnerable would matter they'll still die quite quickly to regular anti-infantry fire and basic weapons. Invulnerables on models with good defensive stats are very good because they completely ignore potentially devastating wounds.
Spoletta wrote: If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Spoletta wrote: If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
AND MY AXE!!!! No but seriously, this times 1000.
Only in the last 2 years have we come to accept that pay to win models are ok.
Good. GW purposely has been moving the game to be more models for some time. They haven't fixed some of the hordes issues, Like weapon scaling, but they did introduce the correct top end by adding in Knights/ Other super heavy's.
Spoletta wrote: If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.
What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.
To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.
First time you ever saw a Knight Model, was your reaction, good or bad? Not on aesthetics, but on how it would improve or hurt the game.
If people are allowed to play 100+ models and laugh at my anti-tank, they have just as much right to play 3-7 models and laugh at my anti-infantry. I'm not going to call it an improvement, but I will say that the concept is as fair and valid as a skew-list horde (and you don't hear nearly as many complaints about them).
Spoletta wrote: If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.
What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.
To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.
You're, not your. Also, lasguns don't need a rebalance. Player accomodation does. We expect to be able to plop down a hunk of plastic and just throw dice with no impunity. Ala Knights. When did we stop expecting players to be careful, tactical, or methodical? Screening, LoSing, melee lockdowns, etc. Now it's just Here's my knight, I win. Anyone who tampers with that causes immediate ire and wrath of the neck beards who demand to not have to think when playing.
Spoletta wrote: If Str, AP and damage of weapons were completely unrelated to each other, invul saves would not be a huge issue.
Unfortunately, since weapons are not abstract concepts but try to represent something in the fluff, it happens that a weapon with high strenght is likely to have high AP and high damage.
High wound models are countered by high damage weapons.
High T models are countered by high Str weapons.
High armor models are countered by high AP weapons.
This is not a problem, since those 3 defensive stats are also related, and a model with high wound will have high T and usually also mid/high armor. This creates that category defined as "heavy targets" which are countered by "heavy weapons". Up to here, everything is fine.
Now you introduce invul saves.
Invul saves counter AP.
Now, an invul save on a "light target" is not that big of an issue, since it protects that model from something that hurts it but which is not his direct counter.
A light target with an invul save is a bit harder than one without an invul save, It's a nice bonus, but nothing model defining. A guardman with a 5++ is not much harder than one without an invul.
An invul save on a "heavy target" completely warps the model into something else, because it will remove the expected counter of that model. Those high AP, high Str high damage weapons which are meant to take down those targets, all of a sudden no longer work. Even a simple 5++ on a demon engine, already makes the model much harder. 3++ makes it orders of magnitude harder, since you are now forced to go after it with weapons that were not made to tackle that kind of target, and yet are the most efficent ones because the "heavy weapons" are no longer working.
Tldr: 3++ is not a problem. 3++ on an high wound, high T, high save target is.
Thirded. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
You know where your argument really starts to fall appart is how many non invulnerable save models that are 200 points plus exsist in the game as viable. None even with 2+ and other shenanigans having multiple wounds and everything wounds everything and only 5 saving values results in a situations where more dice solves every problem. Need to kill 200 guardsmen 400 shots dies that well, need to remove a baneblade, knight 400 shots still does that well enough.
With only a 2+ to a 7+ available as save values and T meaning little in this edition GW has had to pile on Invulnerable saves to give expensive units the resilience to last beyond turn 1.
What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.
To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.
Increasing the wounds would be a much better mechanic to increase survivability than giving out invul saves. An invul save creates an exotic target, which must be tackled with unconventional weapons, it doesn't make a "though" target. An invul save is a good solution to represent a necron model, a tyrant or a DEldar vehicle. Niche models which are expected to require different weapons (but which are weak to other class of weapons, tipically autocannons).
You cannot simply take a vehicle and say "Here, take an invul save! Now you are though!" NO! That is not a though target, that is an unconventional target.
If you simply give 40 wounds to a knights (random number) without an invul save, THAT is though. It means that it takes a lot of focused fire to go down, but it doesn't punish you for taking the right weapons for the right target. I don't feel like an idiot for using a Melta against your model, which is what i would expect to work.
What your talking about is an edition change level of redesigning core mechanics. Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue, GW did make thing's a little better giving vehicals wounds but they still haven't addressed that they die very quickly without either - to hit or invulnerable saves or FNP rules.
To get away from invulnerable saves you need to rebalance the core mechanics to include lasguns needing 6+ then 4+ to wound T9 or such as the current system doesn't work as medium AP high RoF weapons are the best solution to every problem.
Invulnerable save are needed to make a number of units viable.
What? If you think lasguns being effective against tough targets, how do you think that invulnerable saves, a mechanic that doesn't hamper the effectiveness of those lasguns one bit, but greatly reduces the effectiveness of dedicated anti-tough-stuff weapons is a good idea?
JNAProductions wrote: Just for the sake of knowledge, how do pure Knights place at tournaments?
Pretty low. But most of that data was pre nerf. I expect it might go lower.
For me when I play Pure knights at ITC events the scoring is against me. In general I can easily score on Kill 1, Hold 1, And general Kill more. But Hold More is very hard.
Secondary’s are tougher now also. Old school gets screwed over with people conceding early. Engineers, King of the Hill, are disallowed by the rules for Knights. But even choosing right, it’s a tough game to get all the points from them.
And the bonus points from the Missions are generally right out for Knights.
In general, a best effort from a knight force will be around 30 Victory points. A personal best was 32 points in a game, and the reality a clubbing a baby seal scenario.
Winning events with a ceiling of around 30 points from games is pretty tough.
Ice_can wrote: Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue
Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.
A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.
Reemule wrote: You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.
The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.
The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight. Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer. High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.
Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.
Ice_can wrote: Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue
Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.
A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.
Buuuht whut about 4ppm? How comes muh knight isn't 125ppm? Guards auh unfurr! NURF!!!
Seriously, if you are playing a Knight and worrying about being taken down by Lasfire, you have to re-think the strategy there. What infantry in the game survives a round of shooting with a castellan?
Reemule wrote: You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.
The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.
The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight.
Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer.
High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.
Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.
That is a lot of unfounded assertions. You also have expressed your opinion as fact many times.
Reemule wrote: You's think Knights do nothing but win from your posts. It is possibly your most constant fallacy.
The point of the discussion is not if the model is competitive or not, because if you point something high enough, in the end you can somehow balance it.
The problem is that it is bad for the game. The existence of high T high W high invul targets forces the game in a direction which is not the intended one. The game mechanics were not designed around the concept that there would be an abundance of such targets. The weapons were not costed on that basis, and the factions were not created to be able to face said targets, which is the reason that now you have competitive and uncompetitive factions decided almost solely on the their capacity of taking down a knight.
Factions are created to have a good amount of solutions to the "challenges" of the game. The "challenges" are vehicles, monsters, elites, hordes, characters and so on. All factions are more or less capable to deal with the common challenges that the game can offer.
High T High W High Invul saves were clearly not in the list of "challenges" during the design of factions, so you have some factions that can do it due to interactions that in the end let them do that, and other factions that can't. But it is random. There is no single "counter" to those targets, there is no unit designed for that role. There are rules and units that also happen to work well on this new challenge, but they were meant for other targets.
Knights (especially after codex) were a bad addition for the playability of the game, and this is true indipendently of the problems that they may cause or not on the balance.
That is a lot of unfounded assertions. You also have expressed your opinion as fact many times.
I agree with Lemondish. We are constantly begging for fundamental rules changes to balance an inherently unbalanced game. There are two methods of play, elite small model count armies, or large high model count armies. Everything is a variant of those two.
Knights and Super heavies ruin that, by making apocalypse/titan level play in conjunction with horde style play. This isn't about "Guard are too cheap" this is about there are a few models that were created for people who don't want to think hard (casuals) and they broke the entire style of play.
Imagine, a model that costs as much as your army, that puts out twice the attacks as the entire army, has better movement, range, and melee, and is frankly tougher to kill than the entire army. For the same points. That is a Titan. Now chop that in half, and you have a knight.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I agree with Lemondish. We are constantly begging for fundamental rules changes to balance an inherently unbalanced game. There are two methods of play, elite small model count armies, or large high model count armies. Everything is a variant of those two.
Knights and Super heavies ruin that, by making apocalypse/titan level play in conjunction with horde style play. This isn't about "Guard are too cheap" this is about there are a few models that were created for people who don't want to think hard (casuals) and they broke the entire style of play.
Imagine, a model that costs as much as your army, that puts out twice the attacks as the entire army, has better movement, range, and melee, and is frankly tougher to kill than the entire army. For the same points. That is a Titan. Now chop that in half, and you have a knight.
Firstly, a proper titan is nowhere near that powerful.
Second, your assertion about the kinds of armies being used is not based on any standard. The LVO winner used a Castellan (titan), Bullgryns / Rough Riders / Hell Hounds (elite), and IS (horde). This does not fit your binary perspective.
Third, the game is more balanced than it has ever been and only continues to improve.
Titans are in no way worth their points value in a standard 40k game. My anecdotal evidence is a dude who brought a chaos warhound(I think, it's the one that, at the time, was right at 1500 points) fairly causal tournament for silliness. He got obliterated by turn 1 or 2 in all 3 games by even casual lists, just by weight of dice. I killed it with mostly fire warriors.
IG needs a rebalance(either infantry +1ppm, and or units that give orders are upped +20/25 pts to represent that has actual value- orders are better than any aura buffs in other codexes)
The castellan was undercoated compared to other non knight LoW.
The reason we didn't see lots of chaos castellan's is because of lack of house/keyword/stratagem buffs and most importantly chaos lacked a cheap efficient useful faction for CP/CP Regen. Imperium has AM which fills that too well.
Reemule wrote: So your fine with hordes, but just don't like the large armored small model count stuff.
Got it.
And it reinforces that Players are terrible at balance.
That was not said anywhere. Your conclusion is based on a faulty premise.
What was said was that adding an invuln save to try and make something 'tougher' is counter-productive. It results in a skewed valuation in weapon types. This is shown by the frequent use of mid-str weapons and weight of dice as a solution to fighting high toughness invuln save targets. Adding wounds in place of an invuln save would instead shift today's skewed weapon priority situation so that heavy weapons with anti-vehicle properties would once again reign supreme as the solution for those heavier targets. What was said is that adding wounds is how a target should be made tougher, absent any reason to make it a more niche 'exotic' unit.
How you came to those conclusions above is a mystery.
Ice_can wrote: Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue
Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.
A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.
What is the probability of rolling a 6 on a D6? it is 1in 6 not 1 in 509.
But if we're being honest it's actually 1 in 5 of the viable results as GW insists on 1's always fail.
Also it's only 50 lasgun shots to do a wound not even close to your 509 number.
It results in a very overlapping position in 8th edition where bringin the cheapest firepower in volume after a certain point has no real downside.
GW designed the core rules around y to wound and z to save . When that gives like 20 different combinations the game isn't going to cope with the scale GW wants.
Yeah more wounds over invulnerable saves would probably work better but with d2, d3 and high rate of fire thing's that still convert hits at 20% your talking about having to massively scale shift in wounds to actually achieve the niche separation thats being talked about.
The only way to achieve the separation thats being talked about is move away from a d6 based system, which GW won't do.
The math is pretty simple really. They tend to base wounds off of size and im fine with that, but figuring out how many more wounds you need to match up with an invun save is like such:
5++ = 33% more wounds
4++ = 50% more wounds
3++ = 75% more wounds
The reason the 3++ is worth more is because it brings your chance of ignoring multi-damage wounds by more than 50%.
This would bring a castellan (using current rules) up to 42 wounds if it were to loose its invun, making small arms fire (and to an extent even 2 damage weapons) worthless againgst it, but make your melta's and lazcanons feel useful.
Note, im not suggesting to remove all invuns. Demon princes should all have a 5++ standard as they are demons, most characters should have an invun if they are over 50Pts (unless they are psychers or named), and its fine to give some vehicles a 5++ to represent super thick armor that absorbs some shots.
That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.
It also ignores that the impact of going from 50% chance to 0 chance to save also has to be assessed carefully as in your bid ti remove invlunerable saves you just create the absolute horde meta nirvana, where High AP renders vehicals useless but nothing working against just raw numbers.
Also does a 5++ on a 5+ save really represent the same durability and hecne wounds that say a 2+ 5++?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That's not how probability works, at all. Every increase in an Invuln save provides the same relative increase against 1-wound wounds as against multi-wounds. It's not Feel No Pain.
If everyone weapon did one wound, you would be correct. They don't, thus it modifies the formula. Granted I am not a matchmatician so I don't know the exact percentage that you would have to change it to when accounting for 2 damage, D3 damage, 3 damage, D6 damage, and D6 not less
than 3. However considering we are stuck using a D6 system I doubt being accurate to the tenth of a percent will make a difference.
Also I didn't not say to remove all invuns, just invuns on titanic stuff, sorry if I didn't clarify that. I did mention that most characters and all demons should keep their invuns I believe.
Ice_can wrote: Lasguns wounding a custodes to a titan 16% of the time flat is an issue
Great googly moogly, no. No one is bringing down a knight with lasguns. 509 shots is 250 IS shooting within 24" with a CC giving them FRFSRF (which is impossible to get that many orders). You can't even physically get that many IS in range.
A real world scenario is 10 or 20 IS shooting from 24" hoping to score one wound, if that.
What is the probability of rolling a 6 on a D6? it is 1in 6 not 1 in 509.
But if we're being honest it's actually 1 in 5 of the viable results as GW insists on 1's always fail.
Also it's only 50 lasgun shots to do a wound not even close to your 509 number.
It results in a very overlapping position in 8th edition where bringin the cheapest firepower in volume after a certain point has no real downside.
GW designed the core rules around y to wound and z to save . When that gives like 20 different combinations the game isn't going to cope with the scale GW wants.
Yeah more wounds over invulnerable saves would probably work better but with d2, d3 and high rate of fire thing's that still convert hits at 20% your talking about having to massively scale shift in wounds to actually achieve the niche separation thats being talked about.
The only way to achieve the separation thats being talked about is move away from a d6 based system, which GW won't do.
That was to down a Knight.
For reference:
24 wounds
72 wounds before saves needed
432 hits before wounds
864 shots before hits
So 509 WAS wrong-it was too low.
The number of shots to do ONE wound is:
1 wound
3 wounds before saves
18 hits before wounds
36 shots before hits
So, a single squad of Guardsmen with FRF,SRF should, on average, peel a wound off a 3+ knight (so probably not the Gallant that catapulted itself into your lines with Armor of the Sainted Ion) if they're all within 12".
As many others have said, wounds and not invuls is how you make your big targets more hard to kill without making antitank weaponry useless.
And all the "But this model with a 4++ sucks!" yeah sherlock. Theres models that share rules with OP options that suck everyplace because a model is the sum of is parts.
That does not mean that very good invulnerable saves on very tought targets aren't bad for the game just like Formations and Jump-Shoot-Jump were.
Even if there was units with JSJ that were fine, or Formations that sucked ASS , at the end of the day the mechanics themselves were bad for the game, because they breaked so many basic rules and created such a disbalanced playing enviroment, that I'm glad (And I play tau so I know what Riptide-wing was and JSJ) they removed them.
The same applies to this.
When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.
Besides, doubling the wounds on a knight would give you another bonus as well. You could remove the Rotate Ion Shields stratagem from the game completely, buffing pure knight armies a lot (as they wouldn't need as much CP to operate).
Theres no reason fluff-wise to have RIS in 8th edition anyway as AV facings are no longer a thing anyway. It was stupid to have a +1 to invun no matter where you got shot from mechanic on knights to begin with.
I don't even like the idea of 3++ invul saves in the first place. I think there should be a hard cap of 4++, regardless of any whatsoever modifiers. You run into a player who happens to be super lucky, and that he will roll 3+ the entire turn that model is down to 1 hp, despite the fact you just need it to die.
Mortal wounds by psychic or other means are just a bad answer. Not every army has stuff able to pump out mortal wounds. Some armies don't even have psykers (Necrons).
The problem with the castellan was also its weapon. It was just too good at killing vehicles. It basically invalidated most of the vehicles in the game. Even from a marketing perspective, that wasn't good. Imagine every time you came out with a new vehicle and people said "zzz, useless because a Castellan would kill it in one turn". Regardless of the number of Castellan models gamesworkshop have sold, I don't believe they wanted it to be at the cost of all future vehicles,
If such a dangerous unit could be tied up in combat somehow, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But Castellan can just fall back away from infantry and continue shooting happily. And its not like its close combat abilities were bad. 12 attacks at str 8 doing d3 wounds is no joke. You need a lot of stuff to go right and probably very specific non-infantry units to be able to really tie up a Castellan in combat, and you need to get that unit into place in the backfield where the Castellan is because most of its guns are range 48 inches.
When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.
for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.
When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.
for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.
I feel like that is bad design. No army should be reliant on that one model with a good Invul save. This implies that the majority of that army's units are terrible. It should never be the case. I would still nerf Invul in general to a hard cap of 4++ regardless of any and all modifers and then faq that one or two army reliant on one high invul model so that its other units can help to pull their weight.
When I see so many people advocating for even more invulnerable creep in the game, I can't but realise how far we have fallen in the rabbit hole.
for some armies good inv on a single model was one of the few things that was good about them. Making them lose that makes bad armies even worse.
But the biggest kick in the nuts would be, if somehow castellans after the change still ended up being played, a bit like reapers were after their first nerf.
Then give that model something else to be more durable - toughness or a FNP or a better armour save or more wounds. All of these are better than invuln saves, design wise
I agree with those saying that large models should have more wounds rather than invulnerable saves.
This would have the added benefit of making weapons with good AP actually mean something. As it stands, you have a lot of weapons with AP-4 or AP-5 that are supposed to be effective against armoured targets. However, so many of those models have invulnerable saves that anything more than AP-2 is usually worthless.
I also agree that Invulnerable saves really need to be scaled back. I think the real problem, though, is not merely models with good invulnerable saves but the fact that models don't trade anything for good invulnerable saves.
I actually think Terminators are an example of how saves should be done. They've got good saves but are slow-moving.
I think the best illustration of the current problem is when you look at a Space Marine Captain. You could buy him Terminator Armour, but that only gives him a 5++ and he already has a 4++ by default. So why not just take a Bike instead? That way he still gets an extra wound but also gets a point of toughness (rather than a redundant invulnerable save) and also a massive increase in movement.
Now imagine if SM Captains didn't have a native 4++. He could still take a bike for speed but it's no longer giving him better protection than the terminator armour (Relics notwithstanding).
Basically, the issue is that too many units are allowed to eat their cake and still have it. So the units that do actually sacrifice something get left in the dirt.
The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.
The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.
Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.
I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.
The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.
Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.
I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.
Result: Broken shooting units
You understand that the Storm Cannon you're citing does nearly three times the damage to a 4++ knight in its Beam (Ie: AT) mode than it does in its Burst (Ie: AI) role right?
The issue isnt that people don't like the way you look at things. Its that the facts and assertions you present are flat out incorrect the overwhelming majority of the time.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The other big problem is that in an effort to fix this, GW gave a lot of armies a VERRRRRY shooty unit that is tough to kill, because 8 shots at 1 damage each will end up doing more damage than 2 shots at d6 damage against the castellan.
The problem with uppping the shots across the boards, is the infantry wasn't buffed to compensate for the increase. So you have squads of infantry getting mulched by what was essentially a weapon designed for fighting off heavy vehicles.
Check out the Custodes tank/telemon weapon: 48" range 12 shots of S7 ap2 d1 damage? who is this for? It's for the fighting the Castellan.
I know people hate the binary way I look at things, but you have anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons. The castellan's high defense and good invulns required the creation of anti-tank weapons with anti-infantry shot counts.
Result: Broken shooting units
Well, let's see. 12 Shots (we'll assume all hits, since they hit the same anyway) at S7 AP-2 D1 deal 4 wounds and 2 unsaved, for 2 damage.
2 Shots (again, assuming all hit) at S9 AP-4 D3, rerolling wounds against vehicles, deals 16/9 wounds and 8/9 unsaved, for 24/9 or 2.67 damage.
While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.
Edit: Oh, the STORM CANNON? I was looking at the Twin Arcahnus!
The Storm Cannon is exactly the same, only half the shots in burst mode-so halve damage for the burst mode calculations.
While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.
It's even more pronounced, as you're comparing the shooting output of two guns in the anti-infantry mode against one gun in AT mode.
Telemon puts out 2 shots per gun in AT, 6 shots per gun in AI.
While the Invuln is problematic (against a Leman Russ, for instance, the numbers are 8/3 or 2.67 for the burst, but a whopping 5.33 for the beam) the anti-tank mode is still better than the anti-horde mode against a Knight.
It's even more pronounced, as you're comparing the shooting output of two guns in the anti-infantry mode against one gun in AT mode.
Telemon puts out 2 shots per gun in AT, 6 shots per gun in AI.
Yeah, I realized I was looking at the wrong weapon. They're pretty similar, but as I said in my edit, halve the anti-horde calculations for the Storm Cannon.
Yeah, I realized I was looking at the wrong weapon. They're pretty similar, but as I said in my edit, halve the anti-horde calculations for the Storm Cannon.
It doesnt help that Fezzik was posting an obsolete unit entry from before the Custodes mini-dex was released by FW. Like I said, his accuracy is...dubious. At best. I'm fairly certain he doesn't even play (or play against) most of the things he kvetches about.
While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.
Phaeron Gukk wrote: While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.
Gwtting 1 round of shooting as if undamaged for 1/6th of your CP is bull?
Or is allies and CP generation system bull.
I know more match ups that have bull CP inbalances than 1 person not loosing 25%of their lists effect is bull
Phaeron Gukk wrote: While the 3++ -> 4++ is a significant nerf, it still doesn't solve the problem of having to alpha a knight before it gets a chance to blender a chunk of your army. My one final adjustment would be to nerf Machine Spirit Resurgent so it bumped the model to the next highest (i.e. not top) bracket if it's used on Knights. The idea that I have to nuke a 500+pt model off the map or it'll just fire back at full blast for 1CP(!!!) is bull.
Gwtting 1 round of shooting as if undamaged for 1/6th of your CP is bull?
Or is allies and CP generation system bull.
Look at it this way - even if the CP generation and allies were changed the Castellan could still shoot back for 1 CP. It is a stratagem that would mean nothing to small models, but everything to a monster like the Castellan.
I should state this: I'm not a fan of full-Knight armies at all, but if lists with 90+ Boyz are allowed to exist then I feel it it's imperative to allow players to play on the other end of the spectrum without grumbling about "Back in mah day...".
Make no mistake tho, we're talking about an entire skew codex and so said codex should be balanced accordingly. The downside of putting all your eggs into 3-5 robotic baskets is that if I bracket one of them, I bracket a 1/3rd to 1/5th of your list and if you didn't like that then don't put 2000pts into three to five models. The idea that after your opponent pumping everything above small-arms fire into a Knight Questoris/Dominus and knocking it down a bracket or two, the "acceptable downside" is spending 1 command point is beyond crazy.
Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.
A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.
cmspano wrote: Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.
A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.
cmspano wrote: Skimming the thread one of the things I didn't see mentioned is that a lot of the nerf from 3++ to 4++ comes from rerolls. Rerolls are of course stronger on a better save. You can get 2 rerolls in the shooting phase on a castellan, one free, one command reroll.
A 3++ with 2 rerolls was a massive amount of survivability.
A 4++ not only reduces the base save but reduces the efficiency of those rerolls.
Once again proving the issue was in grand strategist being an OP trait, and bad for the game.
I mean before the Castellan the reroll was nothing worth talking about. The CP regen has been heavily nerfed. The reroll just needs to apply to the actual model carrying it and it's all good.
Once again proving the issue was in grand strategist being an OP trait, and bad for the game.
I mean before the Castellan the reroll was nothing worth talking about. The CP regen has been heavily nerfed. The reroll just needs to apply to the actual model carrying it and it's all good.
Yeah and everyone else got CP regen nerfed to be exactly as useless when it's mandatory on every named charictor and doesn't include a free 1CP re-roll either.
Once again proving the issue was in grand strategist being an OP trait, and bad for the game.
I mean before the Castellan the reroll was nothing worth talking about. The CP regen has been heavily nerfed. The reroll just needs to apply to the actual model carrying it and it's all good.
Yeah and everyone else got CP regen nerfed to be exactly as useless when it's mandatory on every named charictor and doesn't include a free 1CP re-roll either.
I disagree. The CP regen mechanic works better with a large pool of CP to draw from. AM had the most and suffered the most.
Once again proving the issue was in grand strategist being an OP trait, and bad for the game.
I mean before the Castellan the reroll was nothing worth talking about. The CP regen has been heavily nerfed. The reroll just needs to apply to the actual model carrying it and it's all good.
Yeah and everyone else got CP regen nerfed to be exactly as useless when it's mandatory on every named charictor and doesn't include a free 1CP re-roll either.
I disagree. The CP regen mechanic works better with a large pool of CP to draw from. AM had the most and suffered the most.
Astra Militarum had the most busted and abused version I'll agree, but they didn't loose the most.
Ultramarines who MUST take it on all named charictors amd don't even get the free reroll, got most effected.
Marines pay more for their CP and unlike Astra Millicheese dont have the option to swap to one of the other options.
The game gets better if they fix CP/Stratagems to foster the game play they desire. Right now, the CP and Stratagem game rewards getting as much CP as you can, with as much access to as many effective Stratagems as you can. This leads to small detachments to either provide CP (loyal 32), or a small detachment to give you access to Stratagem you want (formerly the Castellan)
I’d like the game to move in a direction of detachments that are more than the minimum required models, but with models retaining access to all the portions of the game that make them unique.
Reemule wrote: The game gets better if they fix CP/Stratagems to foster the game play they desire. Right now, the CP and Stratagem game rewards getting as much CP as you can, with as much access to as many effective Stratagems as you can. This leads to small detachments to either provide CP (loyal 32), or a small detachment to give you access to Stratagem you want (formerly the Castellan)
I’d like the game to move in a direction of detachments that are more than the minimum required models, but with models retaining access to all the portions of the game that make them unique.
That's why I always suggest that the cp a formation brings can only be used for that armies strata ie loyal 32 only can be used on guard strats.
Reemule wrote: The game gets better if they fix CP/Stratagems to foster the game play they desire. Right now, the CP and Stratagem game rewards getting as much CP as you can, with as much access to as many effective Stratagems as you can. This leads to small detachments to either provide CP (loyal 32), or a small detachment to give you access to Stratagem you want (formerly the Castellan)
I’d like the game to move in a direction of detachments that are more than the minimum required models, but with models retaining access to all the portions of the game that make them unique.
That's why I always suggest that the cp a formation brings can only be used for that armies strata ie loyal 32 only can be used on guard strats.
The issue I have with that is it specifically neuters Assassins. They would get a Single CP. So they couldn't even play some of the better Stratagems they have. And it would cause arguments. Where do recovered CP go? What if you get CP from your opponent using CP where would those go? And even Battleforged?
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Yeah, but those risks are what makes things so much more dramatic. If you don't have to deal with perils much anymore, why even have that mechanic?
I'd rather more bombastic gak going wrong, and you having to adjust to it, than the trend we have now where we try and control as many outcomes as possible. Ya'll hate randomness, I get that.
But the test of skill isn't reducing randomness by pinpoint list building before even tossing a single die - its overcoming the random element in the heat of the moment.
Get rid of the command re-roll and let the dice decide your fate more often - you'll start thinking about how to handle things when the worst outcome hits. To each their own, but that sounds much more fun to me.
What if you had to decide before the match which detachment gets what CP? So, in effect, like the shooting of a multi-gun vehicle.
So you have 9 CP on your list, This BN gets 6 CP, this Vanguard gets 2, and this Outrider gets 1. Any recovered CP through tricks or strats can be given at the point of reward to the owner's discretion.
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Except having that reroll always available is also responsible for a number of balance issues, those events that are supposed to be rare but serious downsides or large bonuses have their probability altered dramatically by the auto reroll.
GW never seems to take these into consideration for the most part.
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Yeah, but those risks are what makes things so much more dramatic. If you don't have to deal with perils much anymore, why even have that mechanic?
I'd rather more bombastic gak going wrong, and you having to adjust to it, than the trend we have now where we try and control as many outcomes as possible. Ya'll hate randomness, I get that.
But the test of skill isn't reducing randomness by pinpoint list building before even tossing a single die - its overcoming the random element in the heat of the moment.
Get rid of the command re-roll and let the dice decide your fate more often - you'll start thinking about how to handle things when the worst outcome hits. To each their own, but that sounds much more fun to me.
There is plenty of drama. Ever rerolled a dice and it came up as the exact same result? A reroll isn't a guarantee of success nor are they limitless.
You don't "overcome" your lead psyker exploding himself to bits - you just manage with what you have left.
Except having that reroll always available is also responsible for a number of balance issues, those events that are supposed to be rare but serious downsides or large bonuses have their probability altered dramatically by the auto reroll.
GW never seems to take these into consideration for the most part.
A single reroll per phase is not typically upsetting any balance issues like you suggest. If that were the case then Salamanders of Deathskulls would be the most broken of armies.
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Yeah, but those risks are what makes things so much more dramatic. If you don't have to deal with perils much anymore, why even have that mechanic?
I'd rather more bombastic gak going wrong, and you having to adjust to it, than the trend we have now where we try and control as many outcomes as possible. Ya'll hate randomness, I get that.
But the test of skill isn't reducing randomness by pinpoint list building before even tossing a single die - its overcoming the random element in the heat of the moment.
Get rid of the command re-roll and let the dice decide your fate more often - you'll start thinking about how to handle things when the worst outcome hits. To each their own, but that sounds much more fun to me.
There is plenty of drama. Ever rerolled a dice and it came up as the exact same result? A reroll isn't a guarantee of success nor are they limitless.
You don't "overcome" your lead psyker exploding himself to bits - you just manage with what you have left.
Except having that reroll always available is also responsible for a number of balance issues, those events that are supposed to be rare but serious downsides or large bonuses have their probability altered dramatically by the auto reroll.
GW never seems to take these into consideration for the most part.
A single reroll per phase is not typically upsetting any balance issues like you suggest. If that were the case then Salamanders of Deathskulls would be the most broken of armies.
It's what gets rerolled that matters.
Salamanders and deathsculls can reroll the perills that kills a warlord or that 3++ against a flat damage weapon.
Can someone explain why Astra Militarum deserves more CP than any other faction? CP are a huge aspect of this game and giving one faction tons of this resource and others very limited doesn't seem all that fair, does it? Because there is no reason for AM to be entitled to more CP than anyone else. Yet, they get more than anyone else. It's bad design that favors one faction.
Marmatag wrote: Can someone explain why Astra Militarum deserves more CP than any other faction? CP are a huge aspect of this game and giving one faction tons of this resource and others very limited doesn't seem all that fair, does it? Because there is no reason for AM to be entitled to more CP than anyone else. Yet, they get more than anyone else. It's bad design that favors one faction.
To be fair, a competitive tau list can have anywhere between 14-18 cp easily as well. AM do it better, but there are other armies that can reach big heights.
Marmatag wrote: Can someone explain why Astra Militarum deserves more CP than any other faction? CP are a huge aspect of this game and giving one faction tons of this resource and others very limited doesn't seem all that fair, does it? Because there is no reason for AM to be entitled to more CP than anyone else. Yet, they get more than anyone else. It's bad design that favors one faction.
If Stratagems were all the same, I could kinda see IG getting the most CPs because they're based around many, cheap units.
e.g. if you're using a +1 to hit stratagem, you'd have to use it on 2 40pt IG squads to buff the same number of points as an 80pt Marine squad.
However, this completely breaks down when it comes to IG vehicles (which aren't significantly cheaper or less powerful than those of other factions), ans especially IG super-heavies.
To be perfectly honest, the whole stratagem system just seems like a complete mess at this point. Allies mean that available CPs is all over the place, stratagems don't seem to be costed with regard to the cost of the unit they're buffing (Imperial Knight stratagems aren't significantly more expensive than normal ones, in spite of buffing several hundred points at a time, nor is there any additional cost if you want to apply a normal buff to a super-heavy etc.).
I think it would be nice if 40k did not contain strategems, faction traits, warlord traits or cp at all. I mean would the castellan ever had been an issue if it was killable with it's standard 5+iv, and no cheesy way to ignore it's damage stacks?
I play a Renegade Knight household (yeah, I'm not a competitive player by any means).
While I welcomed the change capping Knight invulnerable saves to 4++, I'd really like to see a system that changes Ion shields to operate more like they did in 7th. Allow a base 4++, but only in something like a 90-45 degree arc on the model. Rotate ion shields allows a single Knight per turn to change that facing.
Why? I figure it allows both players greater depth of play. If you're looking to kill the Knight, you can do so more easily by out positioning it. The Knight player has to think far more carefully about where that Knight will be standing also, when to pop that single Rotate, and not just be reliant on a reliable invuln to cover errors in their play. Given how few models Knight players typically have to move, I'm not thinking one extra step like this would have any real impact on game speed either.
On the Castellan...
I've said this before, but I'm not completely convinced it was ever a truly problematic unit in and of itself. You never see Renegade Castellans, because without the Stratagems and Relics used to make the Imperial flavour so dominant, it's just not all that great. Even the strats etc are reasonably balanced within the context of the Knight Codex. Knight's are CP limited by themselves and the strats were often costly. You quickly get into issues though when you can feed a unit like that CP from souped sources that I'm not convinced it was ever intended to have.
CP and Stratagems need to change. I'd love to see CP set to game size, and to see some of the most powerful stratagems get a CP reduction, but changes to single use per game.
The Castellan never was the problem. People not able to understand that pouring countless CP though it when it was decked out with what might be the best relic in the game, and the one of the strongest Warlord Traits, that it could be the problem.
And then to further exacerbate the problem, you have a bunch of slow lemmings still insisting that its still really good.
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Yeah, but those risks are what makes things so much more dramatic. If you don't have to deal with perils much anymore, why even have that mechanic?
I'd rather more bombastic gak going wrong, and you having to adjust to it, than the trend we have now where we try and control as many outcomes as possible. Ya'll hate randomness, I get that.
But the test of skill isn't reducing randomness by pinpoint list building before even tossing a single die - its overcoming the random element in the heat of the moment.
Get rid of the command re-roll and let the dice decide your fate more often - you'll start thinking about how to handle things when the worst outcome hits. To each their own, but that sounds much more fun to me.
There is plenty of drama. Ever rerolled a dice and it came up as the exact same result? A reroll isn't a guarantee of success nor are they limitless.
You don't "overcome" your lead psyker exploding himself to bits - you just manage with what you have left.
Except having that reroll always available is also responsible for a number of balance issues, those events that are supposed to be rare but serious downsides or large bonuses have their probability altered dramatically by the auto reroll.
GW never seems to take these into consideration for the most part.
A single reroll per phase is not typically upsetting any balance issues like you suggest. If that were the case then Salamanders of Deathskulls would be the most broken of armies.
It's what gets rerolled that matters.
Salamanders and deathsculls can reroll the perills that kills a warlord or that 3++ against a flat damage weapon.
You meant can't, right?
And that exactly illustrates my point. Rerolls are more or less valuable depending on the scenario. I don't believe you can provide me any objective data that a reroll on perils breaks the game in any sense like a Castellan 3++ did.
Xenomancers wrote: It would be nice if all invo saves had the shadow field (can't be rerolled for any reason) stipulation.
Because that's totally needed-sure, Terminators can reroll their 2+ armor against bolters, but god forbid a Wych reroll their 6+ invuln against them!
Yes but vs a volcano lance that 2+ becomes a 7+. Armor saves have innate vulnerability so a reroll on an armor save(while annoying) is not the same as a reroll on an invo. Invo is pretty close to automatic damage reduction.
Backspacehacker wrote: How about they un-nerf the castellen, and make it so you can only use CP on the army that's brings it to the table
IE if you bring a guard battalion, the cp from that can ONLY be used on guard.
I got a pretty hardcore suggestion.
Remove the command re-roll stratagem entirely.
No thanks. I deal with perils enough to not want to have that go away, because of the Castellan.
Yeah, but those risks are what makes things so much more dramatic. If you don't have to deal with perils much anymore, why even have that mechanic?
I'd rather more bombastic gak going wrong, and you having to adjust to it, than the trend we have now where we try and control as many outcomes as possible. Ya'll hate randomness, I get that.
But the test of skill isn't reducing randomness by pinpoint list building before even tossing a single die - its overcoming the random element in the heat of the moment.
Get rid of the command re-roll and let the dice decide your fate more often - you'll start thinking about how to handle things when the worst outcome hits. To each their own, but that sounds much more fun to me.
There is plenty of drama. Ever rerolled a dice and it came up as the exact same result? A reroll isn't a guarantee of success nor are they limitless.
You don't "overcome" your lead psyker exploding himself to bits - you just manage with what you have left.
Except having that reroll always available is also responsible for a number of balance issues, those events that are supposed to be rare but serious downsides or large bonuses have their probability altered dramatically by the auto reroll.
GW never seems to take these into consideration for the most part.
A single reroll per phase is not typically upsetting any balance issues like you suggest. If that were the case then Salamanders of Deathskulls would be the most broken of armies.
It's what gets rerolled that matters.
Salamanders and deathsculls can reroll the perills that kills a warlord or that 3++ against a flat damage weapon.
You meant can't, right?
And that exactly illustrates my point. Rerolls are more or less valuable depending on the scenario. I don't believe you can provide me any objective data that a reroll on perils breaks the game in any sense like a Castellan 3++ did.
Except guess what Knights don't have free re-roll warlord traits guard do, knights lists with a 3++ castellen doesn't have CP for rerolls.
Getting cheap CP and Free rerolls on top super broken warlord trait to hand out to the kings of stupid CP generation.
Xenomancers wrote: It would be nice if all invo saves had the shadow field (can't be rerolled for any reason) stipulation.
Because that's totally needed-sure, Terminators can reroll their 2+ armor against bolters, but god forbid a Wych reroll their 6+ invuln against them!
Yes but vs a volcano lance that 2+ becomes a 7+. Armor saves have innate vulnerability so a reroll on an armor save(while annoying) is not the same as a reroll on an invo. Invo is pretty close to automatic damage reduction.
I'd honestly be fine with CP and Strategems going away entirely. I think it just added another difficult to balance mechanic to an already difficult to balance game.
Some armies have absolutely terrible strategems, and others have great ones. Some armies can easily get a lot of CPs and others can't.
Just remove the whole thing for 9th please. It was a cool idea that didn't really work well.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
Drop the assumption that Codex: Knights should be fielding standalone all-LOW armies, maybe? There's no Codex: Baneblades, no Codex: Stompas, why does there need to be Codex: Knights?
argonak wrote: II'd honestly be fine with CP and Strategems going away entirely. I think it just added another difficult to balance mechanic to an already difficult to balance game.
Some armies have absolutely terrible strategems, and others have great ones. Some armies can easily get a lot of CPs and others can't.
I like stratagems - they add another dimension to the game.
AnomanderRake wrote: Drop the assumption that Codex: Knights should be fielding standalone all-LOW armies, maybe? There's no Codex: Baneblades, no Codex: Stompas, why does there need to be Codex: Knights?
argonak wrote: I'd honestly be fine with CP and Strategems going away entirely. I think it just added another difficult to balance mechanic to an already difficult to balance game.
Some armies have absolutely terrible strategems, and others have great ones. Some armies can easily get a lot of CPs and others can't.
Just remove the whole thing for 9th please. It was a cool idea that didn't really work well.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
Drop the assumption that Codex: Knights should be fielding standalone all-LOW armies, maybe? There's no Codex: Baneblades, no Codex: Stompas, why does there need to be Codex: Knights?
You do realise that there is also nothing stopping someone from building a guard army that is nothing but LOW, or being even cheeser and using scions and a stormlord to create a technically not all LOW list that only allows you to interact with LOW.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
1.) Um. Shoot them? You have guns. . .
2.) Buuuuuut, also fix GW's terrain rules. They're just. . . not good.
a) Classify terrain into structures, woods, or broken terrain.
b) All structures have wounds and toughness based on their size and # of floors, and are destructable down to broken terrain.
c) Woods have a nonstacking -1 to hit if your LOS to target crosses through them.
d) broken terrain provide +1 cover bonus, but no -1 to hit.
e) structures provide -1 to hit, and +1 cover bonus, and block LOS past themselves. But you take mortal wounds when they get destroyed if you're inside.
Lol this topic has been one hilarious roller-coaster.
I think I understand why there are so many ridiculous hyperbolic opnions. A lot of you don't actually play the game often and recycle 2nd hand subjective information that gets more and more overblown each time.
I laughed when someone suggested that 3+ invuls shouldn't exist. Yeah, that's smart. I guess Terminators are way too powerful in this game?
Let's all calm down and stop dealing in absolutes. A wise individual knows nuance.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
Drop the assumption that Codex: Knights should be fielding standalone all-LOW armies, maybe? There's no Codex: Baneblades, no Codex: Stompas, why does there need to be Codex: Knights?
You do realise that there is also nothing stopping someone from building a guard army that is nothing but LOW, or being even cheeser and using scions and a stormlord to create a technically not all LOW list that only allows you to interact with LOW.
Yup. And I think normal-size games would be in a better place if the Lords of War slot was a thing you got one of in a Brigade rather than something you can take as many of as you like without regard to anything else; the fact that armies have to be prepared to kill multiple Knights is really screwing up the meta on a lot of levels. You can't take any vehicle that doesn't have to-hit penalties/Invulnerable saves/a ludicrously spammable pricepoint because all the armies you play against have to be prepared to fight multiple Knights, you can't build one-Codex armies out of Codexes that don't have an efficient answer to Knights (Deathwatch, for instance), you can't play armies without cheap screens lest something expensive get top-of-one ganked by a suicide Gallant...
You know thinking about it, I think another big problem here is the removal of April facings.
Now since all vehicles don't really have a weakness you don't need to be mindful of your units anymore, before you could deal with knight by dropping behind them with melta at watching them vanish. Now there is no punishment for being a lazy player.
I really think facings need to make a return in some way, maybe not hul points but like shooting a tank or knight from behind gives you a bonus AP, or if you are shooting them with a gun with str equal or greater then their toughness from.behind you can reroll wound rolls or get mortal wounds.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
1.) Um. Shoot them? You have guns. . .
2.) Buuuuuut, also fix GW's terrain rules. They're just. . . not good.
a) Classify terrain into structures, woods, or broken terrain.
b) All structures have wounds and toughness based on their size and # of floors, and are destructable down to broken terrain.
c) Woods have a nonstacking -1 to hit if your LOS to target crosses through them.
d) broken terrain provide +1 cover bonus, but no -1 to hit.
e) structures provide -1 to hit, and +1 cover bonus, and block LOS past themselves. But you take mortal wounds when they get destroyed if you're inside.
And you prove the point I was trying to make. You moved the goal. It was remove CP, now to remove CP you need to redo terrain. Maybe think that through before posting?
Ishagu wrote: Lol this topic has been one hilarious roller-coaster.
I think I understand why there are so many ridiculous hyperbolic opnions. A lot of you don't actually play the game often and recycle 2nd hand subjective information that gets more and more overblown each time.
I laughed when someone suggested that 3+ invuls shouldn't exist. Yeah, that's smart. I guess Terminators are way too powerful in this game?
Let's all calm down and stop dealing in absolutes. A wise individual knows nuance.
Well if Grey knight termintors have to deal with +5 inv, then other termintors should not have +3.
Ishagu wrote: Lol this topic has been one hilarious roller-coaster.
I think I understand why there are so many ridiculous hyperbolic opnions. A lot of you don't actually play the game often and recycle 2nd hand subjective information that gets more and more overblown each time.
I laughed when someone suggested that 3+ invuls shouldn't exist. Yeah, that's smart. I guess Terminators are way too powerful in this game?
Let's all calm down and stop dealing in absolutes. A wise individual knows nuance.
Well if Grey knight termintors have to deal with +5 inv, then other termintors should not have +3.
Those other terminators a, pay for the upgrade (though a pittance now, I agree); and b, lose out on an arm that could wield a weapon to do so.
So there is both a cost, and an opportunity cost, to getting that 3++.
Xenomancers wrote: It would be nice if all invo saves had the shadow field (can't be rerolled for any reason) stipulation.
Because that's totally needed-sure, Terminators can reroll their 2+ armor against bolters, but god forbid a Wych reroll their 6+ invuln against them!
Yes but vs a volcano lance that 2+ becomes a 7+. Armor saves have innate vulnerability so a reroll on an armor save(while annoying) is not the same as a reroll on an invo. Invo is pretty close to automatic damage reduction.
Who shoots a volcano lance at Terminators?
And in cover, they get a 6+. The same as a Wych.
I just chose an AP -5 weapon - there are plenty in the game. Where as there are almost no ignore invo weapons. Mortal wounds ofc ignore them but mortal wounds are rarely targetable in any huge quantity. Plus there are lots of units with 2+ armor the volcano lance doesn't mind shooting at. A good example would be centurions. 2+ save with no invo.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ishagu wrote: Lol this topic has been one hilarious roller-coaster.
I think I understand why there are so many ridiculous hyperbolic opnions. A lot of you don't actually play the game often and recycle 2nd hand subjective information that gets more and more overblown each time.
I laughed when someone suggested that 3+ invuls shouldn't exist. Yeah, that's smart. I guess Terminators are way too powerful in this game?
Let's all calm down and stop dealing in absolutes. A wise individual knows nuance.
Weak agreement - 3+ invo terms that all had assault cannons would be a top teir unit without question. Units can be bad for more than one reason. 3++ is so highly desirable it is clear if a unit has one and it isn't being used it is because the unit is bad for another reason. 3++ is bad for the game because it makes AP almost useless and most good guns rely on AP to do damage. blanket damage mitigation is unfun and unbalanced because not all armies have equal access to it.
Xenomancers wrote: It would be nice if all invo saves had the shadow field (can't be rerolled for any reason) stipulation.
Because that's totally needed-sure, Terminators can reroll their 2+ armor against bolters, but god forbid a Wych reroll their 6+ invuln against them!
Yes but vs a volcano lance that 2+ becomes a 7+. Armor saves have innate vulnerability so a reroll on an armor save(while annoying) is not the same as a reroll on an invo. Invo is pretty close to automatic damage reduction.
Who shoots a volcano lance at Terminators?
And in cover, they get a 6+. The same as a Wych.
I just chose an AP -5 weapon - there are plenty in the game. Where as there are almost no ignore invo weapons. Mortal wounds ofc ignore them but mortal wounds are rarely targetable in any huge quantity. Plus there are lots of units with 2+ armor the volcano lance doesn't mind shooting at. A good example would be centurions. 2+ save with no invo.
List the AP-5 weapons, please. There's the Volcano series (two weapons), and I believe the Culexus' ranged weapon and Disintegrators. That's 4 weapons-only one of which actually WANTS to shoot Terminators. And there are, to my knowledge, NO AP-6 weapons, meaning Terminators in Cover will never lose their entire save unless it's an AP-5 AND Ignores Cover weapon.
I'd love to see the Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment folded into the regular Auxiliary detachment, -1CP and all. Also, just delete the Supreme Command Detachment already. It just smacks of "Danger, danger, cheese approaching!" whenever I'm told a list has one in it.
Reemule wrote: How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
1.) Um. Shoot them? You have guns. . .
2.) Buuuuuut, also fix GW's terrain rules. They're just. . . not good.
a) Classify terrain into structures, woods, or broken terrain.
b) All structures have wounds and toughness based on their size and # of floors, and are destructable down to broken terrain.
c) Woods have a nonstacking -1 to hit if your LOS to target crosses through them.
d) broken terrain provide +1 cover bonus, but no -1 to hit.
e) structures provide -1 to hit, and +1 cover bonus, and block LOS past themselves. But you take mortal wounds when they get destroyed if you're inside.
And you prove the point I was trying to make. You moved the goal. It was remove CP, now to remove CP you need to redo terrain. Maybe think that through before posting?
Ok. Shoot them then. Same way Tyranids deal with unchargable models.
So, really, what are these plethora of AP-5 weapons you're talking about, Xeno?
While not native -4 AP weapons, T'au Fusion Blasters or Heavy Rail Rifles on platform with access to ATS (XV25 stealth, XV8 Crsis, XV88 Broadside) can reach -5 AP. However, nobody is playing that setup because the combination isn't very sensible; unless your specifically hunting centurions and land raiders which don't seem to make it into many lists.
So, really, what are these plethora of AP-5 weapons you're talking about, Xeno?
While not native -4 AP weapons, T'au Fusion Blasters or Heavy Rail Rifles on platform with access to ATS (XV25 stealth, XV8 Crsis, XV88 Broadside) can reach -5 AP. However, nobody is playing that setup because the combination isn't very sensible; unless your specifically hunting centurions and land raiders which don't seem to make it into many lists.
argonak wrote: I'd honestly be fine with CP and Strategems going away entirely. I think it just added another difficult to balance mechanic to an already difficult to balance game.
Some armies have absolutely terrible strategems, and others have great ones. Some armies can easily get a lot of CPs and others can't.
Just remove the whole thing for 9th please. It was a cool idea that didn't really work well.
I'd be okay with this.
Gods that would make this game so boring. I can see why you guys want it, but no thanks.
argonak wrote: I'd honestly be fine with CP and Strategems going away entirely. I think it just added another difficult to balance mechanic to an already difficult to balance game.
Some armies have absolutely terrible strategems, and others have great ones. Some armies can easily get a lot of CPs and others can't.
Just remove the whole thing for 9th please. It was a cool idea that didn't really work well.
I'd be okay with this.
Gods that would make this game so boring. I can see why you guys want it, but no thanks.
See, this would seem to highlight a real issue. Stratagems are little more than an add-on. If the game is boring without them then this would seem to indicate that the base game is badly-designed. Because the last 7 editions all lacked Stratagems and so if they're now the only thing that makes the game fun then it would seem there have been some real missteps in transposing the base game and its armies into 8th.
If I might ask: let's imagine for a moment that Stratagems and CPs were both removed entirely. In your mind, what could GW do to make 40k fun (beyond just bringing both back again)?
Many units had abilities native to themselves that have had those abilities taken away and turned into strats.
It was a core change to the game and 8th was designed to be used with them.
The problem is that the entire CP system was originally designed on a codex by codex basis and allies throw that out of whack.
Note, im not in favor of banning allies, but it makes the game almost impossible to balance without some kind of change to the way CP is generated.
Another issue with strats in 8th is the major change to rerolling dice and weapon statistics. In previous editions, you could only reroll dice with twin-linked weaponry. In this edition rerolls are given out like candy depending on your army trait or character buffs, and twin-linked now doubles the amount of shots you have. This hikes up the deadliness of the game to 11 considering all the shoot twice strats and abilities out there.
In a game where your entire army gets to go at once, increasing the offence of an army makes things even swingier than they were before.
