Switch Theme:

On the Castellan  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




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.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Ice_can wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
Lemondish wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:

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.

   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






It would be nice if all invo saves had the shadow field (can't be rerolled for any reason) stipulation.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 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!

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 JNAProductions wrote:
 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.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Spoiler:
Lemondish wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:

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.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Ice_can wrote:

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.



....

And yet people were advocating for removal of the command reroll, which has nothing to do with guard.

Removing the command reroll solves nothing of what you mentioned and hurts more people than it helps.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Daedalus81 wrote:
Ice_can wrote:

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.



....

And yet people were advocating for removal of the command reroll, which has nothing to do with guard.

Removing the command reroll solves nothing of what you mentioned and hurts more people than it helps.

The whole CP system needs rewritten from the ground up as reroll for 1CP is costs way less when you have 20CP instead of 9CP

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/21 21:22:41


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




How would a Knight army deal with Unchargeable models then Argonak?
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







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?

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





UK

 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?

I think that ship has sailed.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2019/05/23 15:33:13


https://www.flickr.com/photos/brothercastor/
Ultramarines [800]
Chaos Knights [1500]
 
   
Made in gb
Irked Necron Immortal





 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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 AnomanderRake wrote:
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.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

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.
   
Made in us
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





Holy Terra

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.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







Ice_can wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
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...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/23 00:09:24


Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon






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.

kill ALL the orks!

1500 pts Legion of the Damned (Salamanders)
1500 point Dewathwings  
   
Made in gb
Perfect Shot Ultramarine Predator Pilot





Holy Terra

No, facings were rubbish in practice and slow things down.

The game rules are fine and individual units are being rebalanced regularly.

-~Ishagu~- 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Ishagu wrote:
No, facings were rubbish in practice and slow things down.

The game rules are fine and individual units are being rebalanced regularly.


I put the rules at about 80%.

Movement, Shooting, Close Combat are fine.

Psychic is mostly fine. Could use some help though.

Terrain rules and CP could both use a strong rework.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 argonak wrote:
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?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/23 15:47:47


 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




 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.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut







Karol wrote:
 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++.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 JNAProductions wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 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.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/23 21:42:20


If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 Xenomancers wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
 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.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Freaky Flayed One





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.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

Actually, aren't Disintegrators AP-3 only?

So, really, what are these plethora of AP-5 weapons you're talking about, Xeno?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Gig Harbor, WA

Reemule wrote:
 Ishagu wrote:
No, facings were rubbish in practice and slow things down.

The game rules are fine and individual units are being rebalanced regularly.


I put the rules at about 80%.

Movement, Shooting, Close Combat are fine.

Psychic is mostly fine. Could use some help though.

Terrain rules and CP could both use a strong rework.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 argonak wrote:
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.
   
Made in us
Drone without a Controller




Okinawa

 JNAProductions wrote:
Actually, aren't Disintegrators AP-3 only?

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.
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 Sleep Spell wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Actually, aren't Disintegrators AP-3 only?

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.


Ah, I see. Mind adding that to this thread?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/05/24 00:50:30


Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: