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.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
Reemule wrote: I think their might be a conflation of 2 problems. CP farms, and Maybe the Castellan cost.
I'd prefer they fix one at a time. Fix the CP farm, and then see how OP it is, and if needed fix the Cost.
Yeah, sounds like you're conflating the Castellans strength to be all that of the CP farm. It's not hard to recognise the problems of the Castellan on its own, seperating the two isn't some impossible challenge that we have to play through another year of Castellans to uncover.
Humm I thought when you Edited you would include all your anecdotal evidence on how awesome the Castellen is sans CP farms.
Nope just edited my spelling within seconds of posting. Not sure why I'd include anecdotal evidence for a statement that neither hinged off it or referenced it, in fact the point of my post was literally that we didn't need such anecdotes to draw rational conclusions, but okay.
You know it's a fun time when someone sees that a post is edited and jumps down your throat over it.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
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.
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
DudleyGrim wrote: I have not actually gone against a Castellan yet, but my only real fear is that allied detachments will get messed up, just started a Death Guard + Nurgle Daemons army, would HATE if they nerfed the interactions of allied forces.
We're expecting something in all honesty.
I HIGHLY doubt they will stop allying at all. Most probably it will be some restrictions on either sharing CP between armies or how CP are generated for mixed armies.
But we really don't know yet!
I know, but I am still a little worried, never played during 6th or 7th editions so I was super excited to see allies in the game in a way that wasn't pants on head stupid. I am lucky in that most of the players at my FLGS do not really power game (hell, most don't even ally!), so the odds of finding any sort of IG player with any sort of ally is actually kind of rare! Not being able to share CP kinda sucks when you have allies who are only giving you 1cp detachments, maybe if they bumped how much cp outriders, vanguard, and spearheads gave it would work a bit better? It feels like if CP sharing were nerfed, they'd need to find a way to increase CP usage for certain detachments to fix that, otherwise it is going to hurt allies altogether.
I know, but I am still a little worried, never played during 6th or 7th editions so I was super excited to see allies in the game in a way that wasn't pants on head stupid.
We're not quite there just yet it's actually the cause of the games biggest imbalances atm
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 00:01:39
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
It's too early to speak now. Maybe the Castellan gets new powers or more Wounds. Maybe everything else will get a nerf, making the Castellan still a decent unit.
buddha wrote: I know the general hate in this thread is towards castellan's, and for some valid reasons. But my feeling on the OP nature of it really is strategems, warlord traits, and relics, not the model itself.
I cite as evidence the lack of chaos castellans in any top meta. They have the same kit, same points, and yet no one is concerned about the renegade version.
So I position that the OP nature is tied to 1) availability of CP farms, 2) the amazing cawl's wrath, and 3) the ion bulwark trait. I don't think an across the board price hike will then solve the legitimate issues posed by it in the meta unless it's just priced out of oblivion which is equally unjust.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
Uh, not a single unit you cited is top tier competitive. The Shadowsword wasn't being taken in bulk in the post-Spring FAQ meta (and for good reason). It's just not very competitive and hasn't been since around the time the Falchion got nerfed. I searched a ton of lists and found 2, taken by Brandon Grant at the Boise Idaho tournament and Matthew Obermark at Salt Lake. That's it. Hellhounds are used, more to fill out Brigades than "ZOMG OP" but they're at least, you know, there in some lists.
You know what are top tier competitive units (besides the Captain and the Castellan)? Wracks. Shining Spears. Ogryns. Vertus Praetors. Heavy Weapon Teams. Daemon Princes. Crimson Hunters. Razorwing Jetfighters.
Seriously, go look through the winning lists of May-July and see what you spot as patterns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 02:07:54
It would be my preference for GW to deal with thing in stages and given how close CA is it would have made sense to deal with game wide mechanics first followed by points adjustments in December.
But given the nature of how they publish CA, it may already be on its way to the printers so they may feel pressured to deal with everything within the FAQ.
Xenomancers wrote: Crusader is not meh. LOL. Give it them melta cannon. Save 30 points get a better gun.
In 1 game. I 1 shoot a shadowsword with volcano lance and sheildbreaker missle - 1 shot a command russ with cawls wrath - and killed a hellhound with the autocannons. Didn't even get to fire my 4 melta guns which could have 1 shot something else. The thing has absolutely too much firepower in combination with being practically impossible to kill in 1 turn.
I was referring to both Thermal and RFB when saying Crusaders were meh. There is a reason you didn't see much of them competitively. They're overpriced. The Chaos double Avenger is probably the closest to balanced.
Your Castellan examples are not very good. All of those vehicles lack invulnerable saves, which is why you could kill them. They're all on the fragile 'glass-cannon' side of things and you could kill them as easily or almost as easily with equivalent points or less of Slamguinus, Custodes Bikes, Earthshakers or even Grey Knight Hammernators. It doesn't say much you blew those up with 600ish points.
Every single unit I listed is a highly competitive model lol - and this actually happend. You don't see crusaders because Castellan is OP - kind of like you didn't see infantry squads when conscripts were 3 points - doesn't mean infantry at 4 points isn't also really good.. That is what this thread is about. Crusader is borderline OP itself. As your warlord it has a 3++ save to shooting for 1 CP a turn. It just reliably kills 2 units a turn instead of 3. Lets not forget... Endless furry is absolutely amazing.
It's also clear to basically everyone that slamquinius is on the same level of OP as the castellan. In fact - I am pretty sure slamguinious is the most OP unit in the game right now.
I'm going to disagree with you on a knight crusader being OP, it's strong but seriously it's not even close to the OP list of stuff in 8th edition.
It's a lot better than a choas double gatling. Endless fury averages 12 hits to 16 hits for the choas double gat - 4 less hits. But it has 2-3 average hits with a str 9 melta (which costs almost 30 points less than an additional gatling) hit twice as hard and better vs more targets. It overwatches better too. It can stand up after it dies - fight at full power for 1 CP. 1 of those choas double gatlings was the centerpeice of a big tourmanet win for a DG mec spam army. It is certainly in the top units in the game. With the Castellan going up to 700+ points - the crusader will most likely be preferable to the castellan.
There are 2 stand out redonk OP units in the game right now.
Castellans and captain slamquin
Then there are about 20 really OP units
Crusaders and Gallants are both on there.
Now your just not making any sence a imperial knight with a relic is somehow compaired to a choas knight with no relic.
You then randomly bring up strategums?
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
If your balancing around playing kill the most games then yeah maybe knights don't work in that format, but personally I never thought those game styles ever worked.
Bring in objectives and other victory conditions and multiple armies can best mono Knights, Aldari can absolutely destroy them if they want to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 08:10:40
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 08:39:10
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
I strongly disagree with your definition of balance. You shouldn't be able to slap any hanky anti-synergistic list together and compete. The only way to balance that way would be to make everything basically the same.
There is no other definition of balance. If List A is better than List B, it's not balanced. Period. As long as it's mathematically possible to put together a list that has a 1% mathematical disadvantage against at least one other list in the game, there's still an imbalance.
Of course, realistically, true balance will never be achieved in 40K, but to just concede and not even attempt to balance armies and thus truly make the game a test of skill, rather than finding the latest game-designer-snafu would a) be a sad thing and b) not what the word "balance" means as per the definition of the word.
If there is some type of "synergy" it needs to be "balanced" against a list without synergy, either by paying more points, getting a penalty elsewhere, perhaps introducing a handicap system awarding negative tournament points based on how frequently a given unit appears in a tournament, etc.. or there's no balance. Simple as that.
If that's not the definition of balance, it just becomes arbitrary.
Guy 1 : "Oh... balance means things need to be balanced against armies A, B, C, D and E, but we can ignore armies F, G, H, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO)"
Guy 2 : "No, I disagree, balance means it needs to be balanced against armies A, B, F, G, we can ignore armies C, D and E, etc.. because they don't matter (IMO) "
Etc.. ad infinitum.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 09:09:23
Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
While I do think the Castellan needs a slight point increase, I also think the Valiant should have a slight point decrease. There should be a 50 to 80 points difference between the two at least.
But I also think that a cost over 700pt would be to much.
Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
If you genuinely believe a crusader is OP then by extension so are russ's, hell hounds, dawneagles most of the drukari codex and half of the harlequins codex.
At this point balancing anything vrs marines isn't possible as it would be too weak against 70% of the game.
On the first line, of course these are OP in the grand scheme of things
On the second line, that's the definition of OP. If it's too good against a popular army, sold in the starter set no less, it's by definition not balanced. If it were balanced, it'd come out at a roughly 50-50 win ration, given roughly equal player skill, against any other list in the game: double-starter box Primaris, pure Kroot, Footdar Eldar Aspect Warriors with Avatar, mono-Terminator Grey Knight, whatever.
Of course the weakest possible armies are the benchmark you need to measure against. If you're not aiming to balance against everything, the word balance just has no relevant meaning.
If a Castellan or Crusader outshoots and/or outlasts and/or has access to better stratagems than the equivalent shooty-role unit like Marine Predators or Eldar Falcons or the Harlequin Heavy Support Skimmers or whatever, it's by definition not balanced well.
And if it has access to better Stratagems and/or access to Household Traditions than, say, Space Marine Predators, it be definition would need less damage output/survivability per point to compensate for better Stratagems, etc.., or it's by definition not balanced as it would have an edge.
Wow
You clearly arn't playing 8th edition matched play as Kroot don't have a codex and can't make a battleforged army for crying out load.
You have also overlooked massively the fact that mission scoring makes a huge difference to the perception of balance.
As to the other nonsence, you don't balance to the bottom, you find the mid point and balance to that, some armies go up some go down but balance is achieved, you certainly don't drag everyone down to the lowest of of the low with no synergies no damage output.
What your talking about is creating Slow hammer, flood the objectives with as many obsec bodies as possible and wait the remaining 6 hours for a 2k game to finish.
Stux wrote: Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
Fair enough.
But the range is by definition very large. There're ... random, safe and underestimating guess .... 15 Codexes times, let's say, lowballing 25 data sheets in each codex which can be used in any combination of, again lowballing, 10 different units per army list. Ignoring allies, equipment options, etc.., that's about 131,128,140 lists per codex, or close to 2,000 Million lists from 15 Codexes, completely ignoring allies. If we assume just the top 10% are OP, the bottom 10% underpowered and the middle 80% fine (probably should be more top and bottom 25%), that alone would be nearly 200 Million 40K lists one would need to classify as OP and nerf to inch a tiny bit closer to balance.
Pretty sure the Crusader would be in there. In fact, there're barely 1000 ITC events per year, with, lets say, highballing 1000 participants each and every single one, including tiniest RTT, and let's assume there are no doublicate lists ever. That's just a 1,000,000 different lists in ITC in the entire 2018 season.
By the nature of people bringing the best/most/efficient stuff to tournaments, every single list played at any ITC event in the 2018 season, including all the most bottom tables, would just be about the top most 0.5% of just the top OP 10% of lists in 40K that would need a fix. It's extremely improbable that there's a single unit fielded at an ITC event this year that DOESN'T need to be nerfed. If you include allies, etc.. the numbers just get exponentially more extreme.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 09:26:19
No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
If a list is "garbage", it's clearly not balanced.
If you personally have no issue with it, fine, but that's just not what balance means.
At this point, "balance" would just be completely arbitrary and subjective, completely dependent on what any given person thinks is in the "garbage pile" that doesn't need to be considered, and what is in the "not-garbage-pile" that does need to be considered by rules writers. Who should make that call? Where do you draw the line?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 09:40:45
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 09:59:41
Stux wrote: No, list building is different. I disagree with your premise there.
You could apply a percentage just to units, though even that is very arbitrary. Should tray be case by case.
But list building is far more nuanced. Half of all possible lists could be garbage and I wouldn't have a problem with that, because they would obviously be garbage.
If a list is "garbage", it's clearly not balanced.
If you personally have no issue with it, fine, but that's just not what balance means.
At this point, "balance" would just be completely arbitrary and subjective, completely dependent on what any given person thinks is in the "garbage pile" that doesn't need to be considered, and what is in the "not-garbage-pile" that does need to be considered by rules writers. Who should make that call? Where do you draw the line?
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 10:21:08
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
Well, "list-building" is neither "fun" or "part of the game" if there's no choices between balanced. Quite the opposite. If things are not balanced and the list choices are "obvious", it becomes mute and a pointless aspect of the game.
If I have to agonise over whether I take a Knight Crusader or the equivalent points in White Scar Predators, because its a "tough choice", with both choices having pros and cons, yes, it is part of the game. If the Crusader is just better in every aspect: more toughness, fall-back-and-shoot, better melee, an invul, better Stratagems AND more firepower to boot, and the other option is just "garbage" relatively speaking, there's really no list building to begin with.
To actually have list building be meaningful, things need to be balanced to begin with. Example: ff there're 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits, but 90% of Imperial Guard Warlords have Grand Strategist, you've effectively removed any list-building aspect from the game. Conversely, if you see all 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits appear roughly equally across all tournament lists, depending on what kind of list they are included with and what they benefit in their specific list, things are balanced and list-building choices are actually meaningful.
Stux wrote: Yes, I'm firmly an exponent of the idea that a game like 40k can never be truly balanced. We shouldn't be looking to make everything equal power, that simply is not possible.
Balance should be a range for 40k and not a convergence point. Poorly optimised lists SHOULD lose to well optimised lists. Some units should rely more than others on synergy, which means one Vs one some units should be stronger than other units.
The problem is with outliers. Options that are either so weak they never have a place or so strong they always have a place, regardless of other list choices.
What I think would be terrible for the depth of the game would be if every possible list was equally viable, which is what you seemed to be suggesting. If I misinterpreted that point then apologies though!
Any game that uses point systems can never be truly balanced. Points by their nature is instant path to unbalanced game.
To me saying every list should be equally balanced is like saying every opening move in chess should be equally balanced. Building your list is part of the game. While every unit should have a place in a in a list in some context (which is something the game is failing at now I fully admit), it is necessary for the game that it is possible to make a bad list, or it removes a huge part of what people find enjoyable about the game.
Well, "list-building" is neither "fun" or "part of the game" if there's no choices between balanced. Quite the opposite. If things are not balanced and the list choices are "obvious", it becomes mute and a pointless aspect of the game.
If I have to agonise over whether I take a Knight Crusader or the equivalent points in White Scar Predators, because its a "tough choice", with both choices having pros and cons, yes, it is part of the game. If the Crusader is just better in every aspect: more toughness, fall-back-and-shoot, better melee, an invul, better Stratagems AND more firepower to boot, and the other option is just "garbage" relatively speaking, there's really no list building to begin with.
To actually have list building be meaningful, things need to be balanced to begin with. Example: ff there're 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits, but 90% of Imperial Guard Warlords have Grand Strategist, you've effectively removed any list-building aspect from the game. Conversely, if you see all 10 Imperial Guard Warlord Traits appear roughly equally across all tournament lists, depending on what kind of list they are included with and what they benefit in their specific list, things are balanced and list-building choices are actually meaningful.
Balanced doesn't mean the same though. Context is important, that's basically all I'm saying.
Yes, there should be meaningful decisions between different units in your army. But those decisions should be informed by what else makes your force.
There should be lists where the Crusader is the better choice and lists where Predators are the better choice. But for an otherwise fixed given list, it's totally fine for one choice to be better than the other.
I 100% agree that the balance in most traits/relics for most armies is horrible though. Usually one choice is so much better than the others, REGARDLESS of the list, that the others almost never see play for most people.
Good balance for me would be that every army can build a range of decent lists for each major strategy (unless that army has an intended inherent weakness there such as Tau melee) and each supported faction, and that each unit has a role to play within a viable strategy somewhere. But there needs to be lots of room for optimisation within that still.
But that's where you get the information from the aggregate of lists, for example in the ITC.
If the White Scars Predators and the Crusader are equally good in their respective lists, you would still see them (and all other options) appear roughly equally often, relatively speaking, in the lists people play.
But if you see a good chunk more Crusaders than Predators, it's a good indicator that the choice isn't hard for most players because it is not balanced to begin with an one unit is plain better either in more types of lists or even in virtually any list, relative to ALL available alternatives or even only because the types of lists it enables are better than the types of lists that would favour and get more milage out of the White Scar Predators.
Thus it needs to be rebalanced against all potential options. Not just against Ynnari and Maguns-&-Morty and a handful other performing tournament lists, but against ALL things out there until list building choices are meaningful again.
But that's where you get the information from the aggregate of lists, for example in the ITC.
If the White Scars Predators and the Crusader are equally good in their respective lists, you would still see them (and all other options) appear roughly equally often, relatively speaking, in the lists people play.
But if you see a good chunk more Crusaders than Predators, it's a good indicator that the choice isn't hard for most players because it is not balanced to begin with an one unit is plain better either in more types of lists or even in virtually any list, relative to ALL available alternatives or even only because the types of lists it enables are better than the types of lists that would favour and get more milage out of the White Scar Predators.
Thus it needs to be rebalanced against all potential options. Not just against Ynnari and Maguns-&-Morty and a handful other performing tournament lists, but against ALL things out there until list building choices are meaningful again.
I think we're more in agreement here than it first seemed.
When I say it's ok that something like half of all possible army lists are terrible, that's because statistically most of those lists would be things no one would ever want to take. As an extreme example, say a Space Marine army that is basically entirely apothecaries. It would not be appropriate to buff apothecaries to the point that that list is viable, as long as apothecaries appear in some quantity in some viable lists then all is good.
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
People should still consider it as a great option and without the extra commandpoints of soup in general and with a slight points increase it should become much more manageable to beat. Not saying it should not get a point nerf, just saying that they should take it slowly without bashing it instantly into the ground as they have done with several other meta carriers.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 12:16:26
Arlen wrote: the Castellan needs a slight point increase... Cut away the guard battery, add a 50pt increase and then it should be still very good, but not as fantastic as before.
Why would a 50pt increase make anyone stop using a Castallan in its current form?
It's a steal at 654pts. It can 1-turn a Baneblade.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (e.g. Slam batallion, AM batallion, gallant, warden and castallan all neatly fit in 1950pts.)
That's a problem with Baneblades, not the Castellan.
It's almost like a pattern that's been repeated over multiple codexes.
Crazy.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
It's almost like a pattern that's been repeated over multiple codexes.
Crazy.
Ok, but would that not also be true of the Valiant then?
Obviously they need a new kit to sell, and they won't know for certain what the correct point value will be just from internal testing. So they're going to err on the side of above average. I think that's inevitable and understandable.
On something like the Castellan they missed the mark for sure. But I don't for a second believe that anyone at GW intentionally made it as over powered as it is. They just wanted it to be good, and went too far in this case.
