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.

Salt donkey wrote:


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.

1. Spamming Smite and similar spells seems an odd way to base an army around. It was good they denied it for most armies as its not an enjoyable way to play against.

2. I think beta rules stopped most of it, it wasnt supposed to stop ALL of it. Its better that some armies have access to units with a turn 1 assault, but its not an army wide thing, nor should it be.

3. Dont think rule of 3 is an issue, if certain armies need it, they can make changes to specific armies. People cry that IG can have access to 20 Leman Russ or 9 basilisks. Outside of one off lists that honestly aren't even that good, you rarely see them so i think its a non issue.

IMO what would go a long way to reducing the effectiveness of units is both increasing the proliferation of cover in games and changing cover rules to reflect the Kill Team rules which make a lot more sense. Half cover gives you a flat -1 to hit in Kill Team, which makes space marines nearly impossible for guardsmen to dig out embedded marines or for imperial knights to wipe out infantry squads in one shooting phase. Going from 2+ BS to 3+ is a pretty huge nerf, and once wounds are being stripped off the knight(s) by lascannons that will quickly become a crappy 4+. The real issue with this edition is that a lot of the new rules are fundamentally poor ideas, both in the method in which allies work and how things such as cover saves or CP were integrated.

As it stands right now the cover save improving your armor save is pretty much complete garbage, as 3+/4+ armor saves becoming 2+/3+ respectively doesn't mean much when the saturation of AP in all 40k editions will result in you just getting a 5+ armor save at best. And sure, 5+ is better than nothing but with infantry units typically only having 1 wound it's still going to result in a squad getting deleted by sheer volume of dice. Which is something that plagues both this edition and prior editions of 40k - outside of tarpit blobs that are effectively purely for their use as screening, infantry is complete garbage. It's just a tax, doesn't achieve much, and can barely hold a point without getting shot to pieces. The only way infantry are even relevant is if either you're Dark Eldar kiting around the map with high AP squads in transports, Guardsmen abusing orders, or Death Guard with the wonderful Disgustingly Resilient save. Against knights most infantry will just cease to exist. Meanwhile IRL and in other (far more competently designed) games, infantry is probably the greatest threat posed to armor because it can hide in cover that makes it a pain to hit and carries weapons that can easily pop vehicles. Which is how 40k should work (and works in lore). A pure Imperial Knight army simply shouldn't be viable in the first place because infantry should have the ability to pose a significant threat to the Knights and Armigers via AT weapons that swiftly strip off wounds, and require either air support, artillery, or infantry of your own to dislodge. The place of armor is never being effective in of itself, it's providing fire support to infantry. Whereas in the Tabletop for both 8e, 7e, 6e, and going back beyond then, infantry is just a tax taken to get the big guns which flatten everything. Infantry is part of that triangle (square, pentagon?) of various military units that all counter and support each other in combined arms warfare. If you remove any aspect of that relationship, or nerf it into the ground, the system falls apart and you get something like the current mess of 40k.

'Cause it's not just Knights. Knights are just the latest example in the cycle of OP vehicle bs in 40k since the days of yore. Prior to Knights it was Fellblades. Then it was Eldar Knights and Tau Riptides. Then it was Leman Russes. Etc. And if you "fix" knights all you will do is just cause another vehicle/creature to become OP as all hell that breaks the game again and shifts the meta.

They can't change cover that way as the already obnoxious - to hit armies would completely dominate.

 Eldarain wrote:
They can't change cover that way as the already obnoxious - to hit armies would completely dominate.

The other thing is that army traits should be binned on a whole too. -1 to hit as an army trait is downright stupid and incentives it over all other options, which is just poor game design. Even in 6th edition the various chapter traits could get pretty silly, but those were far superior to the current ones which go beyond some nice flavorful rules and right into complete cheese. Or for factions like Necrons that shouldn't even have differentiation between Dynasties due to being mostly standardized as a force.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
It's almost like the model was pointed to sell.

It's almost like a pattern that's been repeated over multiple codexes.

Crazy.

I think the word you were looking for there is decades.

Why the Castellan? We see this "pointed to sell" power creep conspiracy thrown out all the time but tons of releases are complete garbage in game.

Why tool all those Custodes molds if it's going to be codex banana bike? Other than the Ravenwing plasma bikes the entire 6th DA release was crap.

The giant revamp the core faction Primaris release sure seemed like a good time to "point to sell" but old marines outperform them and their highest price point kits might be their weakest choices.

There is no conspiracy of power creep. They just don't release carefully considered rules. It's nice that in 8th they've at least tried adjusting after the obvious problems are out in the wild.

They used to just leave them to fester.

 Eldarain wrote:
Why the Castellan? We see this "pointed to sell" power creep conspiracy thrown out all the time but tons of releases are complete garbage in game.

Why tool all those Custodes molds if it's going to be codex banana bike? Other than the Ravenwing plasma bikes the entire 6th DA release was crap.

The giant revamp the core faction Primaris release sure seemed like a good time to "point to sell" but old marines outperform them and their highest price point kits might be their weakest choices.

There is no conspiracy of power creep. They just don't release carefully considered rules. It's nice that in 8th they've at least tried adjusting after the obvious problems are out in the wild.

They used to just leave them to fester.

It doesn't mean anything unless they can get to the heart of the rot, which is the base mechanics of the game system being met for a skirmish game and not escalation/apocalypse nonsense. Until GW redesigns the entire tabletop after scrapping all old mechanics, the game will never be in a good state. It will just be what has been for the past editions, a constantly application of band-aids and duct tape while something else breaks and requires fixing with the response to these problems moving like molasses. Knight soup and CP farming will probably be fixed, but just as soon as it is another form of broken nonsense will raise its ugly head and ravage the meta once more.

I don't get this weepy grimdark attitude. Look at the meta before IKs raised their big invun heads. There was the biggest diversity in top lists we've seen in quite a while. IK-led lists just bleached all that away, as players rapidly adapted to the hard-counter list that they represented.

So no, I don't think you're justified in saying a nerf would be pointless. If it were only to get us back to that brief period of diversity, it would be a grand thing. I really don't get people's attitude to the IK meta – they are skew lists, plain and simple, wrapped up in under-pointed and over-invulned units that necessitate bringing a shed-load of AT, or a mountain of warm bodies to throw on the fire, or, most commonly, in copypasta. Looking at their profiles, how is that a non-obvious conclusion?

I disagree with you. You have just a different pattern of meta, in that you had several horde lists, 1 counter meta flyrant list, and nothing else.

IK come along, along with the rule of 3, and now your at a meta where I would describe it as, CP farm, with the best advantage takers you can field of the CP farm.

The simple fact is that CP spent on the biggest baddest unit, with the best most effective Stratagems, is going to be the game your going to see with the CP farm.

Right now the Imperium can run the Farm, and 2 main CP spenders to go in a big way. The Castallen and Smash captains. Both really benefit from big numbers of CP.

If the Castellan is nerfed, your just going to see the same thing with a swap to a Valient, or a Crusader. If the BA slamguinus is nefted your just going to see the same thing with a Space wolf, or Raven, or whatever makes the second best Smash Captain.

Hopefully we get the FAQ today and we can end the speculation.

I feel like the Castellan is really great, but as others have said it's the strategems that take it over the top. Seems to me like those strategems should be limited to Knight Lance detachments only.

It is really more of an issue of unlimited relics and warlord traits.

It's kind of a really cool feature for mono knight armies but allied knights loading up on a warlord trait and a relic for just 2 CP is more than a little absrud. ESP when it's cawls wrath or endless furry and a 4++ to shooting.

Overall I think this is another important issue that kind of gets glossed over even though everyone probably agree that it needs fixing. What should qualify you to have access to a book stratagems / army traits / ect? This could go a long way to fixing allies.

Which is why we need faction based CP. You can't spend 2 CP on a WL trait and relic, and then 3 CP for a 3++ save, and 2 CP on the Raven strat when you get 0 CP from an Aux detachment and 3 generic CP for being battleforged.

I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

Why?
I don't see why mono-dex should be the gimp choice and should bow down before the soup master race.

Because the non-fluff players are now screaming "it's fluffy!" when they take Guard CP batteries, etc. It just depends on the prevailing direction of the wind at the moment.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

And if all the “fluffy Inquisition players” had played the game for more than a couple editions they’d know that it’d be expected such forces would have exceptions in the rules...like in the 4th ed Daemonhunters book (allies before allies were allowed). Or maybe all the “fluffy Inquisition players” are really just trying to justify their BA/IG/IK farms.

I think it comes down to two things. First the army you bought and want to play. I doubt any soup player that bought a castellan wants to see him turned in to a paper weight. And second how many people actually play something. It is not worth to sacrifice the over all game balance to make those 10 pure inqusition players around the world happy.

Although the counter argument to this is, that because the only valid way to play the game is soup right now, mono players should understand that maybe their army exists as a single model or a 3 units and some HQ, and that they should get used to the game being like that.


Mostly it is outside of people hands. I can imagine that there could be a large group of people that want to play Imperial fists or Dark Templar, and not imperial soup set up with this or that unit. The important question is, IMO, are those people a large enough group for GW to care.

Tyel wrote:

Why?
I don't see why mono-dex should be the gimp choice and should bow down before the soup master race.

You can limit soup without completely gimping it. Having half of your units to be effectively unable to use stratagems is a massive disadvantage. My preferred solution id the soup losing the three battleforged CPs, though that obviously only works if the Guard's ability to infinitely regenerate CPs is removed.

But wouldn't it just mean that eldar soups who are immune to the whole CP nerf will just go back to how they were before the knights and custodes combo lists came?

Plus it would be horrible for all people who do not play the best of the best lists. An IG list can load up on shadow swords, but if some weak list loses the option to get the free CP to fuel a slamgiunius or castellan, how is it suppose to play at all?

 greyknight12 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

And if all the “fluffy Inquisition players” had played the game for more than a couple editions they’d know that it’d be expected such forces would have exceptions in the rules...like in the 4th ed Daemonhunters book (allies before allies were allowed). Or maybe all the “fluffy Inquisition players” are really just trying to justify their BA/IG/IK farms.

So why do only a few get exceptions? Such forces ARE justifiable, and it's the core units that need fixing, not the CP.

Allies were mostly fine throughout the various iterations. Everytime a unit is broken and autotake in it's own codex and mono-armies, of course it'll be broken and autotake in Soup armies.

So why are you hitting soup instead of the actual issue? Is it because you refuse to accept any change to the game since 3rd? Maybe.

Karol wrote:
But wouldn't it just mean that eldar soups who are immune to the whole CP nerf will just go back to how they were before the knights and custodes combo lists came?

Plus it would be horrible for all people who do not play the best of the best lists. An IG list can load up on shadow swords, but if some weak list loses the option to get the free CP to fuel a slamgiunius or castellan, how is it suppose to play at all?

Aeldai soups are far from immune to CPs going detachment only and CP farms in general. Between fire and fade, lightning reflexes, agents of vect, forewarning and stuff like that, they need a lot of CP. It is labirinthine cunning which makes the engine run.

That said, we are probably going to see some DE specific nerf. Either in the FAQ or in CA.

I'd personally just prefer if they took CP away from detachments entirely. As I've said before, just give each player 10 CP for being battle-forged. That's it. A generic warlord trait is added to the core rules for all factions that gives you 1 CP back on a 5+ every time you play a stratagem (Grand Strategist and its ilk are changed to be something else). Done. Now everyone gets enough CP they feel like they can do cool moves, everyone has some regen potential and we can go back to taking the units we actually want to take.

Audustum wrote:
I'd personally just prefer if they took CP away from detachments entirely. As I've said before, just give each player 10 CP for being battle-forged. That's it. A generic warlord trait is added to the core rules for all factions that gives you 1 CP back on a 5+ every time you play a stratagem (Grand Strategist and its ilk are changed to be something else). Done. Now everyone gets enough CP they feel like they can do cool moves, everyone has some regen potential and we can go back to taking the units we actually want to take.

They won't do it this edition but I think it would be a good change, with penalties to this number for taking additional attachments and expanding your FOC, or unit choice.

 Crimson wrote:

Reemule wrote:
I'd love to go even further and say an army can only use the Stratagem's available to the Warlord. Warlord is a Guard, only guard Stratagems. Its a BA? Only BA stratagems. Well and the ones in the rulebook of course.

Great news for fluffy Imperial soups lead by an Inquisitor!

It is a terrible idea in general, you should be able to create evenly split allied forces without massively gimping yourself.

Ultimately balance is about what's best for competitive play, and in that context it trumps catering for fluffy lists.

Certain factions would of course get exceptions, as you simply can't play them mono. But generally I would not have a problem with this.

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.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

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.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

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.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

2 3d3 st8 -3 d6 and 6+ rules dish out an extra mortal wound. so it can dish out 18 hits at D6 damage. Its refered to as a hunter as well so I don't think it will be a LOW, doesn't look that big either, so I fear it won't be that expensive.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

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.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.

 Stux wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

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.

Annoying considering how OP the new Necron model looks.

What are you basing this off?

The rules for its weapons, deadly:

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/24/24th-sept-this-week-kria-the-huntressfw-homepage-post-1/

Ok, sure... It's a powerful weapons. But without all the info, especially points, we can't say whether it's OP. It could easily be trash.

18 shots at D6 damage, plus a possible 18 mortal wounds on top of that, that's titan territory and it doesn't look that big, so I'm pretty sure its going to be OP.