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.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
There is no other definition of balance. If List A is better than List B, it's not balanced. Period. As long as it's mathematically possible to put together a list that has a 1% mathematical disadvantage against at least one other list in the game, there's still an imbalance.
Of course, realistically, true balance will never be achieved in 40K, but to just concede and not even attempt to balance armies and thus truly make the game a test of skill, rather than finding the latest game-designer-snafu would a) be a sad thing and b) not what the word "balance" means as per the definition of the word.
If there is some type of "synergy" it needs to be "balanced" against a list without synergy, either by paying more points, getting a penalty elsewhere, perhaps introducing a handicap system awarding negative tournament points based on how frequently a given unit appears in a tournament, etc.. or there's no balance. Simple as that.
If that's not the definition of balance, it just becomes arbitrary.
Guy 1 : "Oh... balance means things need to be balanced against armies A, B, C, D and E, but we can ignore armies F, G, H, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO)"
Guy 2 : "No, I disagree, balance means it needs to be balanced against armies A, B, F, G, we can ignore armies C, D and E, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO) "
Etc.. ad infinitum.
Mathhammer doesn’t tell the whole story. When the game includes objectives beyond “Kill the other side”, the game interactions get a bit fuzzier.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 14:40:45
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
It's a lot better than a choas double gatling. Endless fury averages 12 hits to 16 hits for the choas double gat - 4 less hits. But it has 2-3 average hits with a str 9 melta (which costs almost 30 points less than an additional gatling) hit twice as hard and better vs more targets. It overwatches better too. It can stand up after it dies - fight at full power for 1 CP. 1 of those choas double gatlings was the centerpeice of a big tourmanet win for a DG mec spam army. It is certainly in the top units in the game. With the Castellan going up to 700+ points - the crusader will most likely be preferable to the castellan.
There are 2 stand out redonk OP units in the game right now.
Castellans and captain slamquin
Then there are about 20 really OP units
Crusaders and Gallants are both on there.
Now your just not making any sence a imperial knight with a relic is somehow compaired to a choas knight with no relic.
You then randomly bring up strategums?
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
If your balancing around playing kill the most games then yeah maybe knights don't work in that format, but personally I never thought those game styles ever worked.
Bring in objectives and other victory conditions and multiple armies can best mono Knights, Aldari can absolutely destroy them if they want to.
The Choas knight can't take a relic...and has access to none of the OP knight stratagems. Yet it wins a big tournament and the crusader is better - that's my point.
"If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex."
YES. Maybe not half the DE codex but kabalites/ravagers/both flyers/anything prophets of the flesh is OP. Vect is OP. Dawneagles are OP - not sure I've seen anyone argue otherwise. Harliquen bikes with haywire is OP.
Hellhounds are pretty OP too. 4+ explosion is the reason - they aren't taken to "fill out brigades" thats like comparing them to space marine scouts in a BA batallion. Hellhounds are having your cake and eating it too.
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
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Just because you don't see the Chaos Castellan at the top of tournaments, doesn't mean it's not a problem for may lists or above the power curve all things considered.
That's inherently the flaw with basing balancing-analysis on tournaments. The sample is too skewed to be a good representation of (over-/under-)power-levels in the game as a whole. It's about as reliable as doing a survey of eating habits, but only sampling pro-athletes. It's not a representative sample of the whole.
The Castellan IS probably the best argument for the problems with CP farms. Baseline its good, but not completely insane. Spending a CP on it to upgrade its Invul to a 4+ and another to substantially upgrade its plasma is a big part of it. 3 more CP to bump that Invul to a 3+ and more CP to keep the Plasma from failing and... well, its definitely not getting all that from the 0 CP its adding to the list.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Thank you for voicing what I was feeling.
The Castallen haters should stand down. Or perhaps change their anger to getting Cawls wrath changed. Or just wait and see what the anticipated CP changes are and see how this goes forward.
Just because you don't see the Chaos Castellan at the top of tournaments, doesn't mean it's not a problem for may lists or above the power curve all things considered.
That's inherently the flaw with basing balancing-analysis on tournaments. The sample is too skewed to be a good representation of (over-/under-)power-levels in the game as a whole. It's about as reliable as doing a survey of eating habits, but only sampling pro-athletes. It's not a representative sample of the whole.
Nope.
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
LunarSol wrote: The Castellan IS probably the best argument for the problems with CP farms. Baseline its good, but not completely insane. Spending a CP on it to upgrade its Invul to a 4+ and another to substantially upgrade its plasma is a big part of it. 3 more CP to bump that Invul to a 3+ and more CP to keep the Plasma from failing and... well, its definitely not getting all that from the 0 CP its adding to the list.
Yeah, CP sharing needs to be cut. It is by far the largest single balance issue looking at tournaments, GW's allies implementation has never been great and CP sharing is a big part of that problem. CP should be limited to the detachment, or at best, the specific faction, that generated them in the first place, and CP regen should probably be reduced or eliminated.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
Not sure how anyone could balance anything to "only part of the game". That's by definition not balance.
Whether its basements or tournaments or beerhammer doesn't matter. If balance is the objective, it must be a balance of all possible combination of gaming pieces in the game, irrespective of where they are used, or it isn't balanced. That's kinda the definition of balance.
The Imperial Castellan might be in the Top 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum and the Chaos Castellan only in the Top 20% of the 40K-powerspectrum. But balance means they are both balanced against each other (which is where the Imperial version needs an adjustment), but also against the bottom 20% and bottom 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum. Otherwise, again, it's failure to comprehend the basic dictionary meaning of balance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 19:35:19
Come on, the literal definition of balance is itself not relevant so can we please move past 'thats not technically balance'. Either it's perfect balance which is literally impossible, or it's arbitrary.
Your absolutism makes arriving at anything practical an exercise in futility.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 19:47:57
I understand there is a group of people that want to balance the game to some strange basement play standard that is undefined and only has the precept of "lets have fun".
I'm not one of them. I believe in realistic goals and not moving the goal posts.
The fact that you have a piece that is able to be used in 2 Factions, but is prevalent in only 1 shows the problems that exist are not inherent to the game piece. The problems are in the related factors to the piece.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
Not sure how anyone could balance anything to "only part of the game". That's by definition not balance.
Whether its basements or tournaments or beerhammer doesn't matter. If balance is the objective, it must be a balance of all possible combination of gaming pieces in the game, irrespective of where they are used, or it isn't balanced. That's kinda the definition of balance.
The Imperial Castellan might be in the Top 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum and the Chaos Castellan only in the Top 20% of the 40K-powerspectrum. But balance means they are both balanced against each other (which is where the Imperial version needs an adjustment), but also against the bottom 20% and bottom 1% of the 40K-powerspectrum. Otherwise, again, it's failure to comprehend the basic dictionary meaning of balance.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
Hm. Must have missed that.
That said, I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. Too many years of "THE SISTERS ARE COMING" to fall for that old trap again.
Well... the sisters ... are .... coming.... in plastic.
ballzonya wrote: I heard a rumor that the castellan is going up to over 700 points in the new faq. How mad would you be that a 200 dollar (Cdn) model got nerfered so hard because of command point spams. I play pure Knights no gaurd battalion and it bothers me.
When has GW raised points in any FAQs? I thought that was Chapter Approved's job.
Check the last FAQ. Points were changed at the end.
Hm. Must have missed that.
That said, I don't believe anything until I see it for myself. Too many years of "THE SISTERS ARE COMING" to fall for that old trap again.
Well... the sisters ... are .... coming.... in plastic.
That's only true if you believe that Warhammer Community, NOVA, ITC, and Warhammer World are real things and not government created red-flag operations to distract from the underground popularity of Napoleonic Historical Wargames. FIGHT THE POWER
Bender wrote:* Realise that despite the way people talk, this is not a professional sport played by demi gods, but rather a game of toy soldiers played by tired, inebriated human beings.
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 21:00:57
I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
That's the primary thing people miss when they say 40k can't be balanced. Yeah I don't expect all lists to perform equally as there are certain things you won't counter as well, but one artillery choice from an army shouldn't be strictly superior compared to another one. Whirlwinds as is are below mediocre, but they could be improved at least so that you aren't PUNISHED for taking them.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
StarHunter25 wrote: I had an idea on the CP issue. What if CP regeneration was removed from warlord traits and units entirely, and instead tied to holding objectives? For each objective you hold you get one on a 5+, with the current traits and relics either improving the roll or giving additional cp for objectives they hold. Add 4 objective to kill point missions that only exist for CP. If I can get a game in this week with a willing Guinea pig I'll report my findings.
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
How is the Command re-roll relevant here? Sorry, I'm a bit lost!
intreasting idea, personally though I just think CP regen should be rare, and mostly restricted to the more elite high points costs Stratigium hungry armies. Trajan's "moment shackle" ability is IMHO about right. a single use regain 1d3 CPs on a HQ for a expensive army. thats not gonna break the game
Yeah, but the equivalent CP is often far higher (admittedly, Trajan's ability isn't a WL trait) than maybe 3 CP.
Grand Strategist in a Brigade + Battalion army averages over 6 CP, more if you combine it with Kurov's Aquila and Veritas Vitae.
Ion Bulwark on a Dominus is effectively 18 free CP in a 6 round game, not counting the utility of having the actual Stratagem still available to stack on top.
Etc...
I assume you're math hammering this to compare to the basic re-roll in the core rules?
How is the Command re-roll relevant here? Sorry, I'm a bit lost!
I misunderstood what he meant, nevermind.
and yeah I used Trajan as a specific example because he's a pretty low key example of CP regen.
I think that fixing the mess would require a pretty big re-work, if I was going to do hypothetical 9th edition rules set, I'd delink command points and the stratigium system, CPs would be used to gain access to additional relics, and other special little things stratigiums meanwhile would work a little like the IG orders system, you may employ a number of orders tied to the number of your HQs (useally it'd be one order, obviously better quality leaders might be able to issue more then one, a military genius like a primarch or creed might even be able to direct up to 3 of them) to employ a stratigium the HQ then rolls a leadership test, agaisnt a set target number for the strat (just like casting a psykic power)
the end result is that strats would play a little like pre-8th edition guard orders, or... if you'd rather play like a variation of psyker powers.
I dunno it's 3 am and Im rambling
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Reemule wrote: Doing both at once leads to stupid stuff like Centurions, and the game has enough broken units.
For this edition, I think the pertinent example of how not to nerf would be Conscripts & Commissars, personally - which also sounds like it should be the name of an IG-focused 40kRPG...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 12:52:47
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
This guy gets it. Listen to this guy.
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
•The 3cp for being battleforged are available for the entire army.
•From there, for every 500 points each detachment has it gains 1cp. In order for different detachments to share command points gained in this way they must share the most specific faction keyword. So two <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> wouldn't, but if both were also <Rainbow Warriors> they could share.
•Armies which are composed of a single battalion detachment would get 2 bonus CP, and armies considering Brigade detachments over 1500 points would get 4 extra CP.
•At the end of your Fight phase, roll a d6 for each objective you control. On a 5+ you gain 1 command point. This is known as an Objective Secured roll.
•All current abilities which allow a model or unit to regain command points spent on friendly stratagems would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is holding an objective, or is within 3" of a friendly (chapter) unit holding an objective, add one to your Objective Secured roll result for that objective only. This ability may only affect one Objective Secured roll per turn.
•All current abilities which grant CP whenever a stratagem is played, friendly or enemy, would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is within 6" of an enemy controlled objective for which an Objective Secured roll was successful, you gain 1CP as well.
•A few select characters whom are definitive faction leaders, such as Roboute Guilliman, Abbadon the Despoiler and Ghazkhuul Thraka, could have abilities which allow all command points to be shared by detachments with one fewer common faction keyword. >
Edit: Realized I forgot a bit Any mission which victory points are only earned through destroying enemy units, if both players agree, set up 4 objectives on the battlefield. These grant no victory points, and are only present for Objective Secured rolls, ignore them for all other purposes.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/19 15:25:04
cmspano wrote: The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.
Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.
It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.
When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.
Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.
So...all the IK army rules are OP but the weapon of choice they use to feild them - is not OP.
I got someone above arguing with me that the Crusader is not OP with all those things. What would you say to that person?
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
•The 3cp for being battleforged are available for the entire army.
•From there, for every 500 points each detachment has it gains 1cp. In order for different detachments to share command points gained in this way they must share the most specific faction keyword. So two <Imperium> <Adeptus Astartes> wouldn't, but if both were also <Rainbow Warriors> they could share.
•Armies which are composed of a single battalion detachment would get 2 bonus CP, and armies considering Brigade detachments over 1500 points would get 4 extra CP.
•At the end of your Fight phase, roll a d6 for each objective you control. On a 5+ you gain 1 command point. This is known as an Objective Secured roll.
•All current abilities which allow a model or unit to regain command points spent on friendly stratagems would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is holding an objective, or is within 3" of a friendly (chapter) unit holding an objective, add one to your Objective Secured roll result for that objective only. This ability may only affect one Objective Secured roll per turn.
•All current abilities which grant CP whenever a stratagem is played, friendly or enemy, would change as follows. If a model with (warlord trait/relic) is within 6" of an enemy controlled objective for which an Objective Secured roll was successful, you gain 1CP as well.
•A few select characters whom are definitive faction leaders, such as Roboute Guilliman, Abbadon the Despoiler and Ghazkhuul Thraka, could have abilities which allow all command points to be shared by detachments with one fewer common faction keyword. >
While this idea might help balance, I feel it would become a book keeping nightmare.
At some point after multiple attempts to o change things on the periphery and acknowledging the issue they'd actually fix the problem and FAQ out the guard relic that recharges your cp.
Your not arguing for balance, your arguing for homogenisation, which is not the same.
Something can be balanced, yet totally outclassed by another unit at shooting as its obsec while the other isn't.
Balancing units for the game mode that most suits them will make them horrific to play in another game mode.
GW are balancing the armies people take to competitive settings with "balanced missions" and consistent house rules.
If you don't like that get out there and build something better.
But I doubt you'll find a large list of people wanting to play homogenized 40k.
I am not arguing homogenization. I am arguing representative sampling, which is basic high school maths/statistics.
You cannot base decisions on skewed, non-representative data. If you could, Hillary Clinton would be US president right now.
In the context of 40K, Chaos players might have, let’s keep it simple, 5 options for long-range firepower in the style of lists that might want to have a long ranged Knight.
Option A is the weakest, Option B is better then A, Option C better than B, etc..
So A < B < C < D < E
Now, in the microcosm of tournaments, you‘ll probably only ever see Option E, because that‘s the nature of tournaments, and people moving solely in those circles might not even realize there‘s a balance-issue between C and A, for example.
But if you want balance, you need to balance options A to E across all of them, otherwise you‘re just changing this months flavour of what‘s most imbalanced by whack-a-moling the top one, but never actually making improvements or returning meaningful agency to players in the listbuilding stage.
This guy gets it. Listen to this guy.
Well, except he is incorrect. His premise is that he knows that he has a hierarchy of his long range chaos options. If that was true, he would be right, and it should be fixed as he says.
But he has no realistic relevant data on that hierarchy. He has gut feels, and anecdotal evidence that is amplified by the echo chamber of Dakka Dakka.
And with that in mind, he is correct on his second point, but drawns the wrong conclusion. The game needs to whackamole down the top in a slow deliberate fashion. If you took the top 5 most common units used in competitive play, and increased their cost by 5 points, and reduced the cost of the bottom 10 by 10 points, chances are you would find a more balanced game in a few hundred passed later.
