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.
And this here is the issue. The FAQ did nothing to address soup so guard will once again be used to supply x army with command points yet will take the blame for being overpowered. The internal balance of guard having tons of CP but meh stratigems is actually great except for the fact that there is 0 penalty for having them work as a batteries for another army with amazing strats
So why does Space Marines have meh strategies too then? They don't get a ton of CP. Guard definitely have better strats than them.
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
Sm codex is just overall bad now.
Csm atleast have some stratagems which keep them in the comp meta, somewhat i fear though that the alpha legion nerf was a hard hit.
Frankly the GK codex aswell as the Sm codex need another look at their units /prices, etc.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
You won't hear an argument from me that standard SM need some love. That doesn't change that fact that IG have subpar strats and the main issue of them funneling CP into armies with amazing strats has not been addressed at all
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
The first book of an edition is either going to be very restrained (to avoid breaking the game), or completely OTT (as the game is already broken) - the latter occurring more with evolutionary edition change than revolutionary edition change.
Codex Blue Man Group was the first 'dex of the edition, so it was a learning exercise for what they could get away with when it came to Strats and other special rules. This hits some of the other early books too.
Once all the extant factions have had a release, I'd expect some of the early books to get an 8.5 version that tunes up some of the lower-powered stuff - admittedly, tweaking a couple of the SM strats (like the ones that need multiple vehicles) in this Autumn "FAQ" would've been a nice gesture, but it was never one I was going to bank on.
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
You won't hear an argument from me that standard SM need some love. That doesn't change that fact that IG have subpar strats and the main issue of them funneling CP into armies with amazing strats has not been addressed at all
Yes it has. The regen got nerfed hard. If you just want cheap battalions, now you can take Ad Mech too, it is about as good. And of course this is less tempring, as you don't get neraly as many CPs as before.
And this here is the issue. The FAQ did nothing to address soup so guard will once again be used to supply x army with command points yet will take the blame for being overpowered. The internal balance of guard having tons of CP but meh stratigems is actually great except for the fact that there is 0 penalty for having them work as a batteries for another army with amazing strats
So why does Space Marines have meh strategies too then? They don't get a ton of CP. Guard definitely have better strats than them.
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
Exactly. The next best option you get is Rangers, which are 35 for only 5 bodies. People forget how much the new AP system makes Infantry so much more durable.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
You won't hear an argument from me that standard SM need some love. That doesn't change that fact that IG have subpar strats and the main issue of them funneling CP into armies with amazing strats has not been addressed at all
Yes it has. The regen got nerfed hard. If you just want cheap battalions, now you can take Ad Mech too, it is about as good. And of course this is less tempring, as you don't get neraly as many CPs as before.
A. guard is still cheaper
B. grand strategist will give you 6 command points throughout the game
Is it good that they did something about CP regen yes... The issue is still that soup is always better than mono 100% of the time. There is still no reason to not take the best option from several books and toss it together
Asmodios wrote: The issue is still that soup is always better than mono 100% of the time. There is still no reason to not take the best option from several books and toss it together
No, the issue is that some books have way better options than others. If other factions would have troops worth their points, they would be taking them instead of allying guard.
You won't hear an argument from me that standard SM need some love. That doesn't change that fact that IG have subpar strats and the main issue of them funneling CP into armies with amazing strats has not been addressed at all
Yes it has. The regen got nerfed hard. If you just want cheap battalions, now you can take Ad Mech too, it is about as good. And of course this is less tempring, as you don't get neraly as many CPs as before.
A. guard is still cheaper
B. grand strategist will give you 6 command points throughout the game
Is it good that they did something about CP regen yes... The issue is still that soup is always better than mono 100% of the time. There is still no reason to not take the best option from several books and toss it together
Soup is going to be more of an issue as BA, Knights etc now need those cheap Guard CP as they got their strategums recosted based on soup
GW once again shooting blindly something which doesn't change the issue most people found infuriating.
Asmodios wrote: The issue is still that soup is always better than mono 100% of the time. There is still no reason to not take the best option from several books and toss it together
No, the issue is that some books have way better options than others. If other factions would have troops worth their points, they would be taking them instead of allying guard.
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
This problem will never be fixed until army A and army B have their CP pools separated. When CPs are a massive part of the game and you need as many of them to funnel into your army even if we assume exact same effectiveness of units the cheaper unit will always be picked for soup 100% of the time.
You won't hear an argument from me that standard SM need some love. That doesn't change that fact that IG have subpar strats and the main issue of them funneling CP into armies with amazing strats has not been addressed at all
Yes it has. The regen got nerfed hard. If you just want cheap battalions, now you can take Ad Mech too, it is about as good. And of course this is less tempring, as you don't get neraly as many CPs as before.
A. guard is still cheaper
B. grand strategist will give you 6 command points throughout the game
Is it good that they did something about CP regen yes... The issue is still that soup is always better than mono 100% of the time. There is still no reason to not take the best option from several books and toss it together
Soup is going to be more of an issue as BA, Knights etc now need those cheap Guard CP as they got their strategums recosted based on soup
GW once again shooting blindly something which doesn't change the issue most people found infuriating.
exactly this change hurt mono build knight and BA players and increased their reliance on soup even more.... The should have at least left the old CP cost if your army was mono
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/03 21:13:03
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
No. The unit that is worse at generating at CP must be so much better otherwise that it is worth taking despite its poor CP generating ability.
Ok, but IG are more efficient better point per point then marines, generate more CP and cost less.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
No. The unit that is worse at generating at CP must be so much better otherwise that it is worth taking despite its poor CP generating ability.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here
Edit: gave this another look and I think your saying that units from books that cannot generate as many CP must be statistically improved the exact ratio of effectiveness per lack of CP generation..... if this is what you're trying to argue then it would require an entire repointing of ever unit in 40k and add another layer for GW to attempt to balance. This would be impossible to do and even if done perfectly would still not stop the issues that soup would always be 100% better not to mention you could now still have your statistically underwhelming units with cheap CP super charging now buffed units that don't gain CP as well
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: Ok, but IG are more efficient better point per point then marines, generate more CP and cost less.
Everyone knows SM need help..... nobody is saying that they don't. It also does nothing to change my point above. With the current system, even a perfectly balanced marine will be passed over for by literally any cheaper option. CP needs to be limited to detachment to fix this
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/10/03 23:29:02
Edit: gave this another look and I think your saying that units from books that cannot generate as many CP must be statistically improved the exact ratio of effectiveness per lack of CP generation..... if this is what you're trying to argue then it would require an entire repointing of ever unit in 40k and add another layer for GW to attempt to balance.
Yes, that's what I meant. Balance is never perfect, doesn't mean it could not be improved.
This would be impossible to do and even if done perfectly would still not stop the issues that soup would always be 100% better not to mention you could now still have your statistically underwhelming units with cheap CP super charging now buffed units that don't gain CP as well
But then you would have spent part of your point for those crap troops, thus weakening your army this way. The situation now is as Karol says, the Guard is just cheaper, better and generates more CP. Limiting soup will not fix that, it just hurts armies that are not guard, as they cannot even compensate their lameness by allying some guard.
I really do not agree that soup is inherently a problem and always better. Yes, there is some extreme soup builds that are better than most (or even all) monobuilds, but I'd argue that most soup combinations are actually weaker than mono guard. If you punish soup in general while leaving guard as it is, then it just widens that gap.
On the topic of getting Hellblasters into rapid fire range, couldn't you just use the stratagem twice on them? It's technically not happening in a phase, right, so it doesn't have the once per phase limitation?
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
Or do the simple thing and base CP on game size. Say; 3 CP per 500 points, -1 per detachment that isn't at least a battalion and -1 for each faction after the first. Solves all the issues with CP batteries, gives mono-builds an advantage to compensate for not covering their faction's weaknesses out of an allied book, and doesn't penalize either elite or horde armies.
I just don't see a better answer to the problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 04:30:08
Asmodios wrote: For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B.
Minor point, but this sort of thing bugs me - the phrase is "For all intents and purposes", not "For all intensive purposes"...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Nope, not really lets say for example you have two units... unit A cost 1 point unit B cost 2 points. For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B. Unit A will still be taken over unit B 100% of the time when souped because unit A fills out the cost of a detachment for 1/2 the points of unit B. The only army that will take unit B will be the codex that contains unit B and even in that codex a detachment simple designed to supply CP will still be taken as unit A.
If one unit is better at generating CP, then they're not of equal power for their points! Granted, this is due the decision to tie CPs to troop slots being filled, which was probably a bad idea to begin with.
Yes, but we are not going to get a fundamental rewrite of a core rule of 8th edition. Also, it would be a daunting task to balance CP generation across armies. So for this example, my point still holds firm that no matter how perfect balance becomes with the current system the cheaper unit will always be picked do to CP generation. So even if SM became perfectly balanced with guardsmen the guardsmen is always going to be taken. The only solution is to make it so that IG can only spend CP on IG. This change would still give soup the benefit of unit flexibility but have the downside on worse army cohesion (multiple small pools of CP).
Or do the simple thing and base CP on game size. Say; 3 CP per 500 points, -1 per detachment that isn't at least a battalion and -1 for each faction after the first. Solves all the issues with CP batteries, gives mono-builds an advantage to compensate for not covering their faction's weaknesses out of an allied book, and doesn't penalize either elite or horde armies.
I just don't see a better answer to the problem.
Except that this solution is truly terrible.
So if i make a list out of a single outrider i get just one CP less compared to someone that organized his force in a brigade? Right now that difference is 11CP. It would defeat the concept of CPs, which are a way to reward organic forces.
The best solutions are 2:
1) Tie the CPs to the detachments
2) Detachments do not give a set amount of CPs, but it depends on the type of detachment and on the points you spent in it. So a brigade of SM gives the same CP per point as a brigade of IG.
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
Can't their chapter master still let units re-roll missed hits?
Asmodios wrote: For all intensive purposes, these units are identical in power per points so that there is mathematically no difference in taking unit A or unit B.
Minor point, but this sort of thing bugs me - the phrase is "For all intents and purposes", not "For all intensive purposes"...
Ordana wrote: 36 command points and nothing worthwhile to spend them on.
I'm sure you broke the format here....
I stated at the top that it's not a good list haha
Just that it is possible.
That said, it is a TON of models to deal with. 237 to be precise.
And even dropping 1 Brigade to fit in better options might make it a scary list with 24+ Command points and potentially some good units to use them on.
-
Other question, can you bring that even on the table.
Yes. I have had 100 model bigger ork list that fit the board but which then got shot off the board in 4 turns(well okay I had like 50 models left. 250+ models shot to death already though).
That was pretty much maximum though without movement trays(the models aren't b2b) I could cram bit more but then...no movement trays...like nearly 400 models...pass!
You can see the trays I use:
Spoiler:
So there's some "wasted" space to make hordes look more like hordes(and ease up ranking guys up).
Spoiler:
That's how it looked like. Pretty much crammed up the board. And then shot off the board. 200 infantry models is nothing to write home about in this gunline edition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 05:38:11
If the Guard would not have the flat out best troops available, then people would not always be souping them. If one unit is constantly souped in, that unit is OP, end of story.
SM have much better strats.... BA, SW, DA all have amazing strats.... much better than IG (this is why we saw IG super charging BA for the last couple of months). Unfortunately, the FAQ just made it so that you need to bring even more guard to power your toys, especially the BA strats costing more (which hurts mono BA players the most and was another bad change).
I was talking about vanilla marines. Their strats are crap, the only good one got nerfed hard.
Can't their chapter master still let units re-roll missed hits?
And with named Chapter Masters being available out the wazoo, the Stratagem is bad. Literally the only use is with a Templar Captain and then giving him the Helm relic for a 9" reroll bubble. You won't take advantage of their Chapter Tactic (Marine melee LOL) but it makes it easier to manage the gunline.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
By the way, i did some math and the top CP you can have while sporting a Castellan now is 20 CP, by using a Brigade and a battalion from Astra Militarum.
2 IG brigades simply do not fit together with a Castellan at 2000 points, let's not even talk about 1750 games.
Here, this is an example list trying to fit 2 IG brigades with a Castellan. This list is 2275 points, and you can see that even like this i had to take a lot of bad units. You can probably do it with 2000 by using a lot of FW models, but then the full extent of your firepower is literally only the castellan.
20 CP isn't that many when you need to fuel a Castellan. Also, this list has a lot of counters, so i'm actually starting to think that the era of the CP fueled castellans is gone from top tables.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/04 08:02:26
Spoletta wrote: By the way, i did some math and the top CP you can have while sporting a Castellan now is 20 CP, by using a Brigade and a battalion from Astra Militarum.
2 IG brigades simply do not fit together with a Castellan at 2000 points, let's not even talk about 1750 games.
Here, this is an example list trying to fit 2 IG brigades with a Castellan. This list is 2275 points, and you can see that even like this i had to take a lot of bad units. You can probably do it with 2000 by using a lot of FW models, but then the full extent of your firepower is literally only the castellan.
20 CP isn't that many when you need to fuel a Castellan. Also, this list has a lot of counters, so i'm actually starting to think that the era of the CP fueled castellans is gone from top tables.
You can get 33cp and a Castellan. You just have to use Battalions instead!
Spoletta wrote: By the way, i did some math and the top CP you can have while sporting a Castellan now is 20 CP, by using a Brigade and a battalion from Astra Militarum.
2 IG brigades simply do not fit together with a Castellan at 2000 points, let's not even talk about 1750 games.
Here, this is an example list trying to fit 2 IG brigades with a Castellan. This list is 2275 points, and you can see that even like this i had to take a lot of bad units. You can probably do it with 2000 by using a lot of FW models, but then the full extent of your firepower is literally only the castellan.
20 CP isn't that many when you need to fuel a Castellan. Also, this list has a lot of counters, so i'm actually starting to think that the era of the CP fueled castellans is gone from top tables.
You can get 33cp and a Castellan. You just have to use Battalions instead!
