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.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot - super.
Nobody has claimed they are "irrelevant". Pretending that the three Company and/or three Platoon Commanders in Detachments(rule of 3) are always going to be in range or alive is fudging the numbers when you're not doing a similar methodology for the other factions.
But hey, keep pretending that it's the Guard players that are the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: I find it interesting that the number 3 list had 30 conscripts. So much for them being "unplayable".
How about posting the list then?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 22:16:50
flaming tadpole wrote: Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?
NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!
Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.
They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.
Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.
EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.
Again...can either of you tell me at what price point a Castellan needs to be at to be balanced in both a mono knight and guard soup list? You can't because it's impossible. Everyone here agrees that the Castellan needs to go up in points. We get it. The only solution you guys are providing right now though is to nerf units based off their highest strength potential and basically saying F**K OFF to the people who want to play the mono faction. That's not helpful, and not fair to the non try hards just trying to play semi-competitive games with their mono factions.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
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.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid. There's a reason you don't see pure knight lists but you see plenty of Castellans. Without the CP generated by their allies Castellans lose a lot of their power. Are they still too good? Probably, yes (though that's debateable). What we can say is that with sharing of CPs and stratagems they are far, far better than without.
If you think the Castellan can be fixed purely by adjusting its points you need to show how you can possibly balance a unit that gets huge benefits from stratagems when it can appear in an army that generates around 6-9 CPs and can't regenerate aany or in an army that has 15+ CPs with regeneration. How can you possibly come up with a fair points value that takes into account both situations?
"I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue."
Fortuneteller manipulating fate such that you'll die soon translates into Kabs reroll to-wounds against a single target.... So OP and unfluffy that MUST CHANGE NAO!
A lance of Knights can only rotate the Ion Shields of one of them once or twice a game. But throw 60 troopers in with one Knight, and that single Knight can rotate it's Ion Shields practically every round all game. NOBIGDEAL. Not an issue!
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
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.
Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 23:17:06
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.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
I think the Castellan is probably broken in a mono-knight army as well as soup. It doesn't have to be one or the other, both things can be a factor. I also believe it's substantially more broken in a soup army because of how soup removes pretty much every weakness the knight has. In a mono-knight army the Castellan I could see how one could argue that it isn't broken because all the things that really break it in soup aren't available in a mono army - board control and virtually limitless access to CPs. It's not hard to see how access to those things makes the Castellan more broken in soup, therefore making balancing it purely though points virtually impossible.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
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.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
For 2 turns and then?
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.
Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.
None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.
I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.
And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.
Which of those rules did I lay out were complained about, though? None.
I'm also more talking about how CP sharing and Strats aren't mostly an issue.
Putting aside the obvious fact that comparing units and rules across editions is pretty pointless, I'm genuinely curious how you conclude that CP sharing isn't an issue when it's basically the thing that pushes the Castellan from broken to completely pants-on-head stupid.
I'm letting you know that I read everything, but this is a crux point that needs to be talked about.
When we already know that a unit is broken, why is it fine for it's pure army but NOT as allies? That makes no sense.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
So with 3 gallants and 1 helerin and a warglaive exactlly how does that lost even with a Castellan which eats, 6CP rotating and companioning turn 1 and can do iy for turn 2 if no other CP is spent. Is comparable to a list with 15CP +1 per turn?
Also you are ignoring the value of being able to prevent anything being able to attack the castellen in CC it's main weakness, no invulnerable save and hitting on 4+ at best. Yeah you can maybe keep a castellen alive but loose on objectives or play objectives and loose the castellen to CC threats or something else turn 3+.
Of you take a Castellan plus 60 roid muchers for 240 points 3 HQ for another 90 add in some nlos shooting, some supporting charictors and have a castellen you can't ever get to and a 1400 point hoard killing guard list which allows the castellen to run turned up to 11 for 3 turns.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Not Online!!! wrote: Because Slayer-Fan in the case of knights the mono knight player will maybee once push his save down.
The soup + knight player can do it multiple times and gets some chaff at the same time, increasing the durability of the knights from decent to broken.
The mono knight would need the durability equally but will not get it. The soup one will have it + more.
Same with guardsmen, the mono guard players will have meh to bad stratagem, the soup player will fuel the cp into the knight stratagem / slamguinius and get a waaaaaaay higher use out of the cp.
Blood Angel's can already get the CP to fuel Slamguinus before he dies. You're deluding yourself to say otherwise. Meanwhile Knights can already get 9-12 Cp in a Battleforged list. That's honestly enough to fuel most of the shenanigans they might wanna do.
For 2 turns and then?
Then Slamguinus typically dies? Like, if he goes for 3+ turns I would be more impressed than anything.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Bingo. The disparity shouldn't be as great as it is.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 01:07:25
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.
If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
People have been trying to create tournaments banning SH units since 6th. It doesn't get traction.
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.
There. Will. Always. Be. A. Castellan. You could nerf that thing into oblivion and make guardsmen 20 ppm. Guess what soup players are going to do? Trash them and move onto the next most op soup combo, the cycle starts all over again and 3 months from now you guys will all be complaining in another thread about how X soup list is winning all the tournaments and if they just nerfed x and y units the game will be balanced. Nothings going to change until you fix the root cause.
But the next thing in line isn't as far ahead of other units as the Castellan. Something will always be the most powerful, but the distance it is from the next most powerful, and from the average, matters a lot. If that distance is small, then things will be good enough for tactics or luck to even the distance.
Ok, but at what point do you decide that the most op soup combo is balanced enough to everything else and how many units would you of likely had to nerf in the process to get to that point? That's not even the central argument that I'm trying to make which is you can't nerf a unit based off it's highest soup potential without completely invalidating it in a mono faction list. It seems like a lot easier solution would be to just implement a couple ways to bring soup more in line so that we can better judge what an appropriate point cost would be for it instead of just telling the majority of the player base that their units are unplayable now because competitive players are abusing it soupy potential.
Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings.
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
Sadly the above has never really caught on, even if it would be healthier for the game and encourage more unit diversity. Short of GW pulling SH back out of normal 40k (something they wont due since they make a lot of money selling knights) the game for IOM players will largely revolve around battle mechs wrecking things while some cheap as chips infantry play cheerleader/space occupier at a competitive level.
- Bump mortars to 7 points like GSC - Make any out of LOS shooting -1 to hit unless the unit is visible to a friendly unit within 6" or a friendly unit with vox caster within 18"
- Increase the cost of stratagems the Castellan uses by 1
- Limit free Ynnnari actions to 1 per round
- Yvraine increases that to two
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
Dakka doesn’t consider itc to be “real” warhammer but tournaments taking it upon themselves to ban specific units that are perceived to be op is ok?
Smirrors wrote: If the Castellan really is a problem, why not run a tournament specifically banning it and seeing what becomes of the meta. It would be interesting to see the data.
Any TO game enough to try this?
People have been trying to create tournaments banning SH units since 6th. It doesn't get traction.
So I don't see the problem then. If tournaments that prohibit superheavies are unpopular, then that means that - at least among tournament players - superheavies are popular. So why would Games-Workshop ever feel the impetus to try to curb the use of models in matched play that most tournament players want to keep using?
combatcotton wrote: Tournament players like the best units whatever that happens to be.
Right, so why then did tournaments that prohibit superheavies not "catch on" or "get traction" as Slayer-Fan & HoundsofDemos pointed out? Also, did Frontling Gaming in particular ever try it? They seem to be the biggest deal in terms of tournaments and certainly the one which is the subject of this heated debate.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 05:07:36
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll. It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning: 1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it. 2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1. Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%. Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to: +69% damage from Cawl's wrath +36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles +85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons +79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems. A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out. I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version? Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%. The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/13 06:31:18
Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.
Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.
I really feel a bit dumb having to do that, when everyone in this thread already told why it is like that, but here i go.
First assumption: A castellan in a soup will use more stratagems than one in a mono knight list. Reasoning:
1) A mono knight list is extremely short on CPs, and will hardly have more than 8-9. An imperium soup grants no less than 6 more CPs over that figure and adds CP regeneration to it.
2) In a mono knight list there are other knights who could be in need of using the same stratagems of the Castellan. Since a stratagem can be used only once per phase, this means that the castellan could have to compete with other knights for them.
Second assumption: In both cases, the knight detachment is of the House Raven.
Thid assumption: In a mono knight list the Castellan is the warlord and has the Ion Bulward warlord trait and is given the Cawl's Wrath relic. In a soup list this is not true, and 2 CPs are spent to make it happen.
I will limit the model to 3 stratagems only, Rotate Ion Shields, Machine spirit resurgent, Order of Companions.
The effects of those are as follows:
Rotate ion shields: Increases the save of the castellan to 3++ for one shooting phase. This means that the durability is increased by (1/2)/(1/3)-1= 50% against ranged weapons with an AP value of at least 1.
Machine spirit resurgent: The castellan can use the top bracket of the wound chart. This in mathemathical terms means that he goes from 22,16 full power equivalent wounds to 28, an increase of 26%.
Order of companions: Allows the castellan to reroll all results of 1. After a bit of math you can see that this translates to:
+69% damage from Cawl's wrath
+36% damage from Shieldbreaker missiles
+85% damage from Siegrebreaker cannons
+79% damage from Volcano Lance
From this you can see that having more stratagems translates to it being mathematically superior to a version which has no access to it
After 1 use of each, the Castellan in a mono knight list will become a knight without stratagems.
A knight in a soup list will get to use each of those stratagems twice before running short on CPs.
Now, i'm not going to delve in the fact that the souped one has screens, objective grabbers and stuff like that. Too hard to math out, so i will leave it out.
I'm also going to say that the rest of the list is equivalent in effectiveness in both cases. The only difference is that one generates more CP.
Direct question. Given equal point cost of the model, and after seeing the numbers generated by those stratagems, would you pick the model which can use the stratagems only once, or the one who can use those twice?
Mathematically speaking, there is only one possible answer.
Now, after wasting a lot of time on this, let's contribute something useful to the thread.
Look at these number and ask yourself. Why Chaos doesn't play the renegade version?
Oh and don't forget that Cawl's wrath increases the damage of the plasma decimator by 50-100%, depending on target.
The castellan model stat wise is fine. What you are fighting on the field is something buffed by over 150%.
The fix here is not on the point cost of the model. Restrict CP, nerf Cawls wrath and Ion bulwark. Leave it a the current point cost.
You haven't wasted time on this at all.
This to me shows that stratagems are the issue. Not soup.
How are you not seeing this? Your entire reasoning for Castellans having more worth in a soup army comes down to stratagem usage.
A simple fix then - your force can only use specific faction stratagems once per game unless the entire force is battleforged and has the same faction keyword.
I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.
Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.
It accounts for cover.
Please forgive me for being late to the comparison party here! But could I make a request, if you still have the numbers available?
What do the numbers look like when using Intercessors over normal marines? Would work out at 22 Intercessors and a Captain + Lieutenant with Master Crafted boltguns for 514 points. (512 if you use Storm Bolters instead)
The numbers for the Guardsmen vs MEQ are easy enough to work out, as you just half the results (to indicate how many models are removed), but I’m curious as to how close the results get using Primaris.
