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.

Just make it regen on a 6+ only, or remove the ability entirely.

Or hey, go back to the days where relics had a points cost.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of take only XYZ

-

Rule of 3 does nothing to stop me from bringing endless russes or carnifex to a game. Nothing to prevent me from spamming DP. Nothing to prevent me from picking the best unit in 3 different codex and bringing 3 of each. Like IMO - the rule doesn't need to exist. If something is OP with more than 3 it's OP with 1. Obviously there is a cost issue there. And if we are talking about a skew situation you are going to be hard countered by a skew list that counters you.

True - I miss the FOC - it was often to restrictive though. With the best units being HS options. With the reason being - the HS options are better than the elite and FA ones. It wouldn't have been an issue if units were attractive in each slot.

You've never heard of critical mass, yeah? Let me give you an example from another game: StarCraft 2. 1 Marine has a very different power level than 200 Marines. 2 Zerglings (same cost) can easily dispatch 1 Marine. 400 Zerglings don't have a prayer against 200 Marines. When certain units reach a certain volume, their synergy allows them to outperform what they could do in smaller groups.

40k has that as well. We just tend to call lists that aim for critical mass 'skew lists'. 1 Knight Valiant is something many lists are learning to handle. Even a Custodes Jetbike Captain can probably survive the Overwatch of that flamer and get him into melee. If you had 3 Hawkshroud Valiants, however, they would liquidate any equivalent-point assault force or less. 600 points of Slamguinuses could easily kill 1 Valiant. 1800 points of Salmguinuses probably can't even touch 3.

So yes, things can absolutely be OP when you take more than 3 of them but not when you only take 1. That said, the Rule of 3 doesn't do much at all. I agree with that.

That's really not true. 400 lings can kill 200 marines - they just need to surround them and attack them in a wide open area or use burrow to attack them when they are chaining through a choke point and can't ball up - or realistically - have a few defiler and queens and the zerglings will murder the marines with almost no chance. Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless.

If you BA example - relics are limit 1 per army of a type - because they would be OP on every model. If you could have 3 BA captains that ignore overwatch and possibly kill all 3 in a sigle turn that would be OP. Bad example there.

Plus really - this affect happens with all range vs CC in that game - it's not unique to the zergling/marine. A big ball of ranged units does not lose to even the most elite CC units.

I just tested a perfect 8 point surround with 400 lings vs 200 marines. All lings dead without losing 30 marines, and thats without using stim. I tried making the 400 lings burrow and catch the marines walking over them in the middle of a the map, this was better but the marines still won handily, with 60 bodies left, and once again without using stim. The choke doesn't help the Zergs at all, the backrows can still fire and the zerglings can't get a surround, it takes longer but the results are much the same as the first test. So you're wrong about that, and his example of critical mass was a good one. Also, late game bio 100% still makes lots of marines lol. I also think you're wrong about rule of 3. There are measured exceptions to the rule, and that's fine. It's like saying DS beta rules are no good because Genestealers get to ignore them and DS turn 1. That's not how we measure it, it's okay to change general game design and have a few units that are the exception to any rule.

Martel732 wrote:
"Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "

That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.

I'm talking SC1 when defilers make them deal 0 damage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "

That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.

I'm talking SC1 when defilers make them deal 0 damage.

The post you responded to when you said that though had specified SC2

 Marmatag wrote:
Just make it regen on a 6+ only, or remove the ability entirely.

Or hey, go back to the days where relics had a points cost.

THANK you. Free relics was easily the worst decision GW made since Scatterbikes. There IS a price point where you do become interested in a relic, and relic weapons will have an easier time being bought now thanks to the AP system working differently. As of now, the Spartean is like a million times better than the dinky one from 6th-7th, BUT I can't take it simply because The Shield Eternal/Teeth Of Terra/Crusaders Helm have the same cost: FREE!!!

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "

That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.

I'm talking SC1 when defilers make them deal 0 damage.

Never mind.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Late game TvZ in SC you don't even build marines because they are 100% useless. "

That's not remotely true. But largely irrelevant.

I'm talking SC1 when defilers make them deal 0 damage.

The post you responded to when you said that though had specified SC2

That's my mistake - I mentioned defilers in one part of my response that should have been a dead give away. I was kind of combining the two games at once in that response. You are correct that marines will murder zerglings in bonzi charges. If you do the test with 400 burrowed lings under 200 marines. I bet you the Zerglings win.

Update.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMHXjYWZvh8
So the burrow scenario leaves 42 marines left. If this fight was on creep - It would be much closer - If the marines were moving in a line and on creep - I don't see them winning in that situation. I don't have the game installed so I can't test it for myself.

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

Interesting as it is, this debate whether the zerglings could beat the marines while burrowed is kind of dodging the point isn't it?

The original post on this topic was about critical mass.
The claim was that you rush 2 zerglings at a marine, and the zerglings win. You rush 400 zerglings at 200 marines and the marines win.
If you start saying 'but what if the zerg burrowed', or 'what if they were on creep' or whatever, then it's no longer an extension of the same scenario.

I believe the point was that effectiveness doesn't always scale linearly with model count.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

You can't treat 3 squads of 10 dark reapers as the same as 6 squads of 5. Even ignoring movement the 6 squads are less vulnerable to morale and you have more information to choose your targets when you're choosing targets in blocks of 5 than in blocks of 10.

cmspano wrote:
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.

It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.

When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.

Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.

Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.

A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.

*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well

Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.

Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.

 Galef wrote:

If GW is guilty of anything regarding poor rules balance, it's underestimating the "TFG-ness" of the community as a whole. It is pretty clear that GW never intends for certain armies to proliferate as they do or for a "meta" to form. That doesn't make them a bad company, just a naïve one

-

Eh, to be fair, after being at this for over 30 years now as the dominant market entity, and *especially* after the dumpster fires of 6E and 7E, being naieve about the nature of gamers and their market is being negligent

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

 Smirrors wrote:

cmspano wrote:
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.

It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.

When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.

Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.

Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.

A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.

*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well

Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.

Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.

Actually taking away all regen doesn't balance out CP in Imperium soup.
I posted the points cost per CP for a lowest points battalion and guard are so far out of touch it no wonder soup doesn't work.
Knights pay a minimum of 177 points per CP more realistically thats over 200 points per CP.

 Smirrors wrote:

cmspano wrote:
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.

It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.

When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.

Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.

Yup this hits to the core of the issue. Same with Smashcaptain to an extent.

A smashcaptain uses around 7CP to do its thing. While he is 130pts base, the 7CP he uses is worth about 250pts (180/5 = 36pts per cp*) not including regen. Take away the regen alone and you have a fairer cost to use him already.

*I am simplifying CP value as you do get 32 warm bodies as well

Same would go for castellan. 604pts base. 2CP base for cawls and 4++. Then he can easily chew through 5cp (ion and reroll 1s) per turn so 7CP by the first turn.

Taking away CP regen will drastically affect the way these units work.

Faction specific CP also would make a massive difference.

A lone Raven Castellan has a max of 3 CP from your general battleforged points.
A Ravellan with 2 cheaper armigers would get you 6 CP between the 3 generic and 3 from SHD
A Ravellan with 2 questoris class knights gets you 6 from the detachment and 3 generics. An army with 1600 points tied up in knights should get to use a lot of CP to make their knights really strong.
Slam Captains have more from a BA battalion but that's still limited. You'd get a solid round of slam captain doing his thing but you couldn't buy another round of it for 180 points of guard.

CP batteries are the core of the issue. It might not be bad to nerf all CP regen to a 6, but that's not the primary issue.

I really hope that GW doesn't miss the mark with the balance attempt they're going to make, like how they ruined conscripts. Guard's ability to generate lots of CP shouldn't be nerfed. That's part of guard's thing in 8th. They have a bureaucratic command structure with officers on the field and all that translates into cheap battalions and brigades for lots of CP.

The issue lies where you can use Guard's shtick of getting lots of CP to make your slam captains and knights super powerful with stratagems. Unit special rules and auras very rarely buff models from a different army(there are a couple like celestine), CP farming shouldn't either.

And it absolutely has to be addressed at the CP level. You can't nerf Castellans and SlamCaptains just on the merit of strats making them super powerful. Slam Captains should probably cost a bit more, but you have to consider their points more in a vacuum. If you nerf Castellans and Captains but not CP farming then the next set of GTs people will a new super powerful thing to use guard CP on.

Totally agree with most people here, the CPs are what make it ridiculous.

1. CPs should be limited to the detachment that generated them (plus the base 3 for battleforged obviously)
2. You should only be able to use one type of CP regeneration per army, period.
3. Regenerated CPs can only be used in the detachment that was able to regenerate it (so if your Guard commander regenerated a CP, even if it was one used from Battleforged points, then only Guard units can utilize that CP)

This would tone the soup down significantly, and is so easy to execute. Yes, soup will have to track CPs better, but so what? It's not like players are not capable of tracking VPs in ITC missions that rely on many factors anyway.

small notepad

Guard == 5
BA == 5
Knights == 3
General == 3

Would be very simple to handle in a game.

 Marmatag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.

I strongly disagree about every single beta rule. No army has been hit harder by the beta rules than the nids ether (GKs too but they almost don't count). They are fundamentally a different army now. So it's strange you like the rules.

Literally every beta rule was a reaction to another issue that has done nothing but hurt the game.
Smite spam was a reaction to 30 point renegade psykers with full smite. Yeah...Raising them in cost by over 100% was sufficient. Smite is strong but totally workable with 60+ point psykers.
Beta DS was a reaction to Nids deepstrikeing 1800 points because they have 200 points on the board but equal drops. This was more than fixed by giving tyrants a point increase and the 50% power level rule. Not every army needed to be nerfed as a result of those busted mechanics. (I guess I don't mind the nerfs to double moves after deep strike - that just makes sense)
Rules of 3 is the same deal - I mind this the least - it should have been a core rule probably BUT it doesn't really do anything to balance the game.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.

Explain to me how you can fit 15-18 commanders in a list, at 160 points per commander. I'll wait. Thanks.

Further, this is the perfect reason to have a rule of 3. Commanders should be strong. They're commanders. But you shouldn't be able to spam them.

The game should have strong, but limited, models. You already have the rule of 1 for named characters. Should we adjust Magnus the Red's points / rules so you can bring 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10 (if reduced?) of him? Or let him be one strong model, and priced based on bringing only one?

This thread is bonkers.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

Commanders being flat out better than crisis suits is the issue. Their point cost is the issue. 12 str 8 ap-1 d3 damage shots hitting on 2's from an untargetable character? For like 160 points? Are you high? This is a 200 point model at a MINIMUM.

Explain to me how you can fit 15-18 commanders in a list, at 160 points per commander. I'll wait. Thanks.

Further, this is the perfect reason to have a rule of 3. Commanders should be strong. They're commanders. But you shouldn't be able to spam them.

The game should have strong, but limited, models. You already have the rule of 1 for named characters. Should we adjust Magnus the Red's points / rules so you can bring 3, 4, 5, 6 or 10 (if reduced?) of him? Or let him be one strong model, and priced based on bringing only one?

This thread is bonkers.

You are literally sitting here telling us that it's okay if models are OP if you are limited to 3 of them. Where have I stated that it's okay to have OP rule of 1 characters ether? The right price for associated power level should be applicable to every model.

I am really not sure how we can agree on anything balance related if you have this opinion. I find it very flawed logically.

 Xenomancers wrote:

cmspano wrote:
The castellan's problem isn't the castellan itself.

Now My theory is that is the CP farm and CP usage that the Imperial Soup Castellan enjoys, over the less supported Chaos Castellan.

It's Cawl's wrath
and the house raven strat
and the 3++ invul save
and not being able to degrade it
all fueled by super cheap CP from guard/BA detachments.

When someone is running a regular castellan and not stacking all that it's good but not OP for its points.

Chaos can bring some cheap brimstone based CP farms if they want to. It's all the crap that the imperium gets to do with that CP and the Cawl's Wrath relic that takes it over the top.

So...all the IK army rules are OP but the weapon of choice they use to feild them - is not OP.

I got someone above arguing with me that the Crusader is not OP with all those things. What would you say to that person?

Because most of those rules are limited by the amount of CP you have. Knights spend a huge amount of points to get CP. All that stacking is only enabled past turn 1 by being able to fuel it with guard CP. That's where the issue lies.

They're not as powerful with the crusader because the crusader isn't nearly as strong. These are force multiplying abilities. Force multiplying abilities that work on a single model will always be more powerful when used on a more powerful model.

When it comes to the abilities I do think the abilities need to be toned down, but not the base castellan itself. I don't think any super heavy should be able to have a 3++ save, and the Raven stratagem is too powerful on any Knight. Anecdotal but I've played against a non Raven castellan that isn't stacking all that and they're not that OP. They're solid, but for 650 points they're not OP when they have a 4 or 5++ save and aren't killing 4 units a turn.



Also, crusaders are not OP in any way. They're pretty good, but not OP. I almost always lose my turn 1 or it gets ignored because it doesn't do as much damage as 500 points worth of other stuff in my army can do. The thermal cannon is for the most part just a d6 shot lascannon with the melta rule. I always put lascannons on the front of my Russes and those always do more damage for less points than a crusader. Nothing sucks more than rolling a 2 for the number of shots on 1 of the 2 guns on your 500 point knight. At least the avenger is consistent.

Castellan's are not OP. If they were Chaos Castellens would be top tables also.

When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly

Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.

Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.

Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?

 Xenomancers wrote:

morgoth wrote:
Yup Xeno, everything has been bad, terrible even.

That's why zero list has been able to keep the head of the meta for a single year, let alone six months.

So far, 8th has seen more meta changes than any of the prior editions in the same timespan, and likely more than many other wargames.

I'm happy with that, even though I have zero time to play toy soldiers these days .

That is to be expected with a codex release like they have been doing. Every "beta rule" change has affect the meta adversely.

Beta DS nerfed half the competitive armies out of the game.
Beta Smite unnecessarily nerfed heavy psychic armies. For some reason you need diminished returns on smite - but not shooting weapons?
Rule of 3 made already not so great armies worse.

Plus you are wrong. The Meta has not changed one bit other than the obvious deep strike nerf. Still it's the same armies dominating - with some new comers from the power creep codex.
Eldar soup / Imperial soup / DG/TS and friends. It's been like this all edition.

Actually, I'm fairly sure 8th started with Guard and more Guard.

Then something else.

Then slamguinius and Guard CP batteries.

And I even heard Drukhari got some kills in.

I may be following this from very far, but I'm 100% sure the early days of 8th were a very bad time for Imperial Knights, which according to this post, are #1 right now, as best combo with Slamguinius's and IG CP battery.


Honestly, I don't think there are many games where the meta shifts as fast, and a fast shifting meta is in my opinion much better than the same skewed meta shifting much slower, like 6th ed being all croissants, and then 100% seerstar for 6+ months.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
In truth GW should apply machine learning to game balance. With the volumes of data collected by BCP and the ITC, they could easily see the effects percentage wise play out across the body of lists as a whole. The idea that you need some duder in charge of a book, pulling numbers out of his ass based on "that dern thang looka too stronk" (case in point: flyrant nerf, on top of rule of 3) is kind of outmoded.

Therein lies the problem, I don't think ITC ever was "standard 40K', and many times, top armies in ITC were not top armies in non-ITC.

If GW were to balance based on ITC data, the balance would be utterly fethed except for ITC.

cmspano wrote:

When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly

Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.

Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.

Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?

The first 2 aren't fine. They distroyed nids and greyknights and did nothing to change the balance of power between armies - the same armies are still the best. This is how you know it's crap. If your change nerfs one of the weaker armies - pretty fair to say it's a horrible change - wouldn't you agree?

 Marmatag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

XV-8 Commander (normal), XV-85 Commander (with the extra wound), XV-86 Coldstar Commander (the flying one), XV-81 Commander (with the smart missile system), and XV-84 Commander (with the networked markerlight) are all separate datasheets. That's 15 with three of each, plus four different named Commanders if you want.

The Smite change was a band-aid patch that fails to address the fact that psykers are in general terribly designed; both internal and external balance of the powers is terrible, move-again powers are one of the worst things in 8e, and the people writing the rulebook have a completely different idea about how many psykers should be in an army than the people writing the Codexes. If psykers were written intelligently (i.e. if the powers weren't so massive and broken that the only possible way to balance them is to prohibit players from trying to cast the same power twice in a phase, or if the cast/deny mechanics weren't set up to punish the person with fewer psykers, or if psyker units weren't so overvalued they're all unplayably bad) the Smite patch wouldn't have been necessary.

Reemule wrote:
Castellan's are not OP. If they were Chaos Castellens would be top tables also.

What are you saying?

cmspano wrote:

When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Beta smite = fine
Smite is still super strong. You don't have nid armies doing 50 wounds a turn with smite anymore or something silly

Beta Deep strike = fine
Allowing most armies to deep strike almost any unit turn 1 in your face was an awful decision. We went 7 editions where only specialized units could deep strike turn 1 and it was fine. GW will eventually rebalance units like drop pods and GKs to let them deep strike turn 1, it's just going to take some time.

Conscript/commisar nerf = terrible.
All they needed to do was have conscripts never be allowed to receive orders and have the commisar's old ability never work on conscripts. Fluff it as them being too poorly trained, or not trained at all, so the commisar's presence isn't enough. That would work fine. Conscripts would still be the weak horde to sit on objectives and charge stuff. Commissars would still be able to keep all your other infantry in line.

Rule of 3: pointless
They should have given Hive Tyrants the same 1/detachment rule as Tau commanders. They could give a lot of units a 1/detachment rule and it would be fine. Like marine captains. Why have 2 marine captains leading 3 TAC squads?

This kind of post and thread highlights the growing gap between competive 40k and standerd game store 40k. I’d say some of your statements are correct for a local game store setting, but wrong when it comes to competive 40k.

1) agreed that the beta smite rule is good, but I do think Tsons ignoring the rule outright makes them a tad too strong.

2) here is the first instance of you being correct for a local setting, but incorrect for a competitive one. It is true that before the FAQ came out a you could be run over by turn 1 deepstrike armies, but only if you weren’t adequately prepared. By the time the FAQ came out, most competitive players always had at least some sort of an infiltrate unit (rangers, nurglings, scouts, etc) and/or screens to protect their valuable stuff. Even today stuff like electro priests, gene-stealer cult units, and smash captains can very easily get turn 1 charges, it’s not like this rule stopped the what it intended to anyway. Therefore I disagree with this part of the FAQ I think we all agree that limiting the amount of stuff people could deepstrike was a good move.

3) It was an overnerf yes, but I don’t mind over-nerfs too much, as a unit being too strong affects the entire game, while it being too weak only affects itself and the faction it’s in.

4) the second point that I see as coming from a more standard gamer prospective. Simply put I think you underrating Super-Spam lists rule-of-3 prevents for 2 reasons. At a local shop or tournament you are unlikely to face many people who are willing to buy 10+ plague burst crawlers just to win, but a large GT with more incentives you will. Therefore by default the problem this addresses doesn’t have too much of impact on more casual players. Additionally, we can’t know exactly what lists rule-of-3 prevents. It’s very possible that we could be complaing about Castellan soup AND 18 talos list right now if this change hadn’t been put into place. But because we can’t feel the effect (i.e super spam lists) this chang is preventing, super spam lists seem weaker.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
When it comes to fixing problems. GW has done a terrible job with 8th eddition. Literally every major change has been bad.
Beta smite = bad.
Beta Deep strike = bad
Conscript/ commisar nerf = dreadfully bad
Rule of 3 = an aboslute joke.

Well, I'll have to disagree with you on the Rule of 3. As someone who started 40K when the FOC was how you built an army, only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit is just how it should have always been. It mitigates abuse of just spamming the current best unit. Even in casual play, it makes armies seem more like armies instead of "take only X & Y" and call it a day

-

...And the way the Rule of 3 works you can still take nine each of Russes/Manticores, thirty Dark Reapers, three Knights-Castellan, 33 Custodian jetbikes, 15-18 Tau Commanders...

The only thing the Rule of 3 has actually affected is Flyrant-spam, it doesn't really change anything.

(Back in the days of "only having access to 3 of a non-Troop unit" there were no tank squadrons, superheavies, or flyers, you were hard-locked to one detachment, you needed actual anti-tank weapons to threaten tanks instead of just spamming plasma...)

So far all of the beta rules have been fantastic. The smite change was absolutely necessary, the deep strike rule is all-in-all positive, and the rule of 3 is great.

The examples you list are awful and flatly incorrect. Example, 15 Tau Commanders? Are you high?

XV-8 Commander (normal), XV-85 Commander (with the extra wound), XV-86 Coldstar Commander (the flying one), XV-81 Commander (with the smart missile system), and XV-84 Commander (with the networked markerlight) are all separate datasheets. That's 15 with three of each, plus four different named Commanders if you want.

The Smite change was a band-aid patch that fails to address the fact that psykers are in general terribly designed; both internal and external balance of the powers is terrible, move-again powers are one of the worst things in 8e, and the people writing the rulebook have a completely different idea about how many psykers should be in an army than the people writing the Codexes. If psykers were written intelligently (i.e. if the powers weren't so massive and broken that the only possible way to balance them is to prohibit players from trying to cast the same power twice in a phase, or if the cast/deny mechanics weren't set up to punish the person with fewer psykers, or if psyker units weren't so overvalued they're all unplayably bad) the Smite patch wouldn't have been necessary.

Ok who are you playing thats letting you use 15 detachments or more in a game?

I’d like to point out to anomander that he is very wrong, becuase the “special” version of the rule of three for commanders allows only 3 models with the commander keyword, and only one per Detachment.