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.

Bharring wrote:
"WarmaHordes was very balanced!"
-Mk2 EHaley player

I played Skorne, and Skorne were a bottom tier army for all of Mk1 and most of Mk2. And Haley2 wasn't an unwinnable match, she was an unfun match.

The game is overall very fun if both players know what type of game they are trying to play. Not everyone brings fluffy lists, and not everyone brings tournament lists. Just discuss what you wanna bring and have a good game.

Tyel wrote:
I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."

It's not too surprising. People can love the fluff/models and hate the rules, and many people are in a situation where 40k is effectively the only available miniatures game. Yeah, I'm sure WM/H or whatever is a great game but that doesn't help much when the models are ugly and there are two people in the area who play it (better hope none of them quit).

Tyel wrote:
I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."

I find it tragic. I can't imagine being in a situation where the thing I spend most of my free time doing, is a thing of which it's mechanics I loath, because I love how it looks, and I feel like I have to conform to what everybody else does. That must feel pretty terrible. I'm sure I'd just find something else to do.

 Peregrine wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."

It's not too surprising. People can love the fluff/models and hate the rules, and many people are in a situation where 40k is effectively the only available miniatures game. Yeah, I'm sure WM/H or whatever is a great game but that doesn't help much when the models are ugly and there are two people in the area who play it (better hope none of them quit).

This is also true. My tenure in Warmahordes was only a year because nobody played it and nobody discussed it as a whole.

40k is a great game if you are looking for list building, and deck building mechanics taking the fore over it being a miniature wargame.

It is not a tactical wargame and never will be, because balanced game design will never incentivize players to go out and get the newest stuff, or sell off entire armies to chase the meta.

I've honestly been driven away from 40k and now am primarily interested in Warlords of Erehwon and Middle Earth Strategy Battle game for their depth, simplicity, and balance. All of this can be done without sacrificing too much flavor as well.

 Melissia wrote:
and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with.

Citation needed.


This sounds like a bit of a sweeping assertion. Please prove that Dakka has a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

In my experience, comments that assume a competitive stance seem to greatly outnumber the alternative. I can't prove it; it's just my feeling, which I should also disclose is potentially massively prejudiced by my own stance as a casual - one tends to assume their side is the embattled minority after all. That said, I wouldn't say this is out of keeping with my experience in the real world. Within my local community, competitive is king, and is always assumed, unless their is a discussion beforehand. So I would say that yes, Dakka does tend towards the competitive and this is entirely reflective of reality rather than in opposition to it.

Yeah, I'd agree. In my gaming group dakka is also seen as the board of die-hard tournament players. Just look at all the complaining about the new CSM releases. Many of them boil down to "b-but this is not as strong as A Castellan, so it's utterly useless, as you see nothing but Knights, IG and Ynnari in the game." Needless to say I never encountered any of these factions. If you want to have a more relaxed, fluff oriented forum you could go to Bolter and Chainsword. That's my personal observation, I couldn't prove it admittedly.

It is in a good place. Could be better, for sure, but its still in a pretty good place.
They brought me back with FAQ's. The one of thing I have always been asking for. It changes up the meta keeping the game interesting, and nerfs some of the worst offenders (still living in the hopes of proper nerfs for Soulburst and castellan).

My wishes for GW going forward is to make a official GW product equal to Battlescribe, and for matched play to remove all "VS specific" enemy rules/abilities/stratagems etc. That belongs in narrative play, not matched play!

 Ginjitzu wrote:
In my experience, comments that assume a competitive stance seem to greatly outnumber the alternative. I can't prove it; it's just my feeling, which I should also disclose is potentially massively prejudiced by my own stance as a casual - one tends to assume their side is the embattled minority after all. That said, I wouldn't say this is out of keeping with my experience in the real world. Within my local community, competitive is king, and is always assumed, unless their is a discussion beforehand. So I would say that yes, Dakka does tend towards the competitive and this is entirely reflective of reality rather than in opposition to it.

It's also down to the fact that discussing balance, army lists and the like is only really possible in the context of competitive, or at least Matched Play, settings. Casual or narrative play is much more of an individual thing, which makes discussion about it a lot more difficult and generally less interesting for a lot of people.

Drager wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

Drager wrote:
I'm just putting this here so I remember to come back to it. I'm going to play this out with a firend of mine later. I'll take the Marines list (1 patrol, Lieutenant, 2 squads of Marines built as on the box (Missile Launcher and Plasma Gun) and an assault squad to get to 500) he'll take the knights (Crusader with Sainted Ion and Ion Bulwark). I'm not a marine player, but I am a tournament player, whilst may mate does play Knights, but only casual so it should be interesting. We'll be playing a random CA 2018 mission so I'll report back later.

I'm curious about the results.

I'll wager a sock without a match that it's over in turn 3.

We played it out now and I'll write it up and post a proper report later, but it was a close game with the marines ahead through most of it, if the game had ended on turn 5 they would have won, but the Knight took it by a point on T6. We're going to do another scenraio with the same armies later in the week and see how that plays as it was really fun.

I actually added things up wrong in my haste to report. Going back through my notes it turns out it was a draw!

Knights vs Ultramarines 500 Points as promised.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
7th and 6th were worse than warmahordes, i agree, and indeed i played warmahordes during that time (MK2). But now i vastly prefer the balance of 8th.

Having done the same I feel it gives you a different perspective.

I do find it interesting how people go "40k sucks, its balance is horrible, but I've played it and only it since around 2010."

I find this a lot, and it's a big reason why 40k has so much traction. It's so ingrained in most communities that often it's the only choice, so people stick with it because nobody else plays other games, so you have communities that are essentially GW strongholds where it's only GW products, through good and bad, because almost everyone here has or had a Warhammer army that they used to play, see that Warhammer is still played and gets back into it despite there being way better games out there.

It doesn't matter how much better a game is if no game store stocks the product, none of the regulars have heard of/are interested in it, and any attempt to introduce it as an alternative game to play gets dismissed or met with outright hostility because it's not the game everyone else plays and people think you're trying to muscle in on someone else's turf. I have legit seen this attitude of being yelled at for "trying to push your pet game" into a group that exclusively plays Warhammer and has no desire to do anything that isn't Warhammer.

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.

RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.

RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?

Order of Companions and Cawl's Wrath are the only two things that really break it. It's pretty fairly costed IMO if you don't have those. The default Plasma Decimator is the same strength / number of shots as a Leman Russ Executioner w/ Grinding Advance, with a slightly longer range. No problem there. The Volcano Cannon is pretty strong as well, but without the ability to re-roll 1's on number of shots/wounds/damage, it's nowhere near as scary either. They need to make Cawl's Wrath more reasonable (maybe allow it to re-roll number of shots instead of having a flat str/dmg/ap boost), and make Order of Companions more reasonable (maybe make it just re-roll 1's to hit, and make it 1 CP) and I think the Castellan will be a much more fair choice.

Order of companions is way overcosted on anything but a castellan. Castellan is just silly with so many freaking guns with randomness on them. It's just buffing way too many guns. Castellan needs a point increase is all.

Just compare it to other superheavies and that is readily apparent.

If you compare it to a crusader it's only like 70 more points than it's most expensive build.

For those points you get
+4 wounds
2x upraded arm weapons +3 melta guns + close to the firepower of an armiger on it's shoulders. A little bit worse missile launcher.

Yeah I'm gonna say that is worth more than 70 points.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
and that's for Dakka, which has a tendency towards competitiveness to begin with.

Citation needed.
This sounds like a bit of a sweeping assertion. Please prove that Dakka has a higher ratio of competitive players to casual ones, than the 40k community as a whole.

Ah, the good old "request citation" from me, I request same from you play.
I think the pot / kettle black thing was talked about earlier by Melissia.
BUT YES! I do tend to see more the competitive comments.
I would say we are in a better place for the fluff as well, most anything you want to field can be done and if you dislike fussy addition power points make the army build pretty quick (less granular "balance" but quick).

IMO, this game is too lethal for an IGOUGO system. It has devolved mostly into an alpha strike game, and even trying to play fluffy home games, if someone really likes the look and feel of some highly lethal units and wipes everyone else, it's not overly fair to tell them not to bring them.

I feel that if GW want to stick with the IGOUGO system, they should rein in the dmg and/or AP of a lot of weapons and let people enjoy using their units that thryve put hours into building and painting. It sucks watching them get obliterated in the first turn and then having only a few units left to respond with.
Otherwise it should be changed to alternate activation if they want to keep the lethality.

Again though, this is all just my opinion and I'm sure different people have different tastes. Overall it's a fun game currently and a lot more factions can have fun.

P.S. apologies if this has been a topic already discussed.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Order of companions is way overcosted on anything but a castellan. Castellan is just silly with so many freaking guns with randomness on them. It's just buffing way too many guns. Castellan needs a point increase is all.

Just compare it to other superheavies and that is readily apparent.

If you compare it to a crusader it's only like 70 more points than it's most expensive build.

For those points you get
+4 wounds
2x upraded arm weapons +3 melta guns + close to the firepower of an armiger on it's shoulders. A little bit worse missile launcher.

Yeah I'm gonna say that is worth more than 70 points.

Well, the Battle Cannon is actually pretty on par with Plasma Devastator (without Cawl's). It's the Leman Russ Battle Cannon vs Leman Russ Executioner... basically the same stats. Without the ability to re-roll 1's, the Battle Cannon is IMO better actually. The Avenger Gattling Cannon vs the Volcano Cannon is almost incomparable, they have vastly different primary target profiles. The Avenger is better vs elite infantry, the Volcano is better against tanks. The Crusader is also better in melee (WS3 vs WS4). Most Crusaders are loaded with the Battlecannon + Avenger Cannon + Ironstorm Launcher, so they clock in at just under 500 points, so the Castellan is 100 pts more. I think 100 pts is a fair cost for the shoulder cannons and 3x melta guns honestly.

So it's not THAT bad, unless you add on the Order of Companions and Cawl's. Until then, I think the price is pretty in line with what I'd expect to pay.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.

RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?

/sigh

If its so good on it own why isn't Chaos taking it? They have access to it and RIS. So are they all just dumb bad players?

Reemule wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Reemule wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Reemule wrote:
Yawn. Only dumb players continue to try to shoot the knight with the 3++.

Doom, Jinx, and i'm off to the races. Go ahead and rotate. If you're not Taranis i'll just Vect it anyway.

Additionally, Chaos players will just Death Hex that 3++ away, and solo a Castellan with Morty.

A 3++ Knight isn't the problem. It's a 3++ knight with 0 consequences because the list has like 18 cp. And the fact that you can build an entire list around the castellan that is good enough to compete with some armies 2k.

To be clear, its Not RIS, or the Castellan, or House Raven. It is when you have massive amount of CP to pour through a few Specific knights types, with certain stratagems.

RIS is fine on it's own. The 3 CP to rotate on the castellan is actually pretty dang steep. The castellan is certainly a problem on it's own though. Heck - I'd take it over a Relic falchion which costs 1050 points - I'd take it over literally any titan/superheavy that costs under 1000 points. Granted - most of those units are overcosted - the Castellan is grossly undercosted. It is easily a 750 point model and that is even before nerfing it's OP relic options....2d6 flat 3 damage ap-4 str 9 shots at 48"? ARE YOU FETHING KIDDING ME? +1 invo warlord trait on a 28 wounds t8 model?

/sigh

If its so good on it own why isn't Chaos taking it? They have access to it and RIS. So are they all just dumb bad players?

First off - many do take chaos knights with double avenger cannons rerolling all hits with a stratagem...that is pretty brutal. How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?

 Xenomancers wrote:
. How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?

I don't know about you, but I thought Crusaders were quite popular. Especially with House Krast, the Crusader can be deadly. One guy took a 3 Crusader list to the LVO, did quite well with it. Crusaders are good. Not broken good, just solid.

 Horst wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
. How many Imperial players play crusaders? Not many...because the castellan is a better option for Imperials. Is it really surprising that people bring the best possible option for something at tournaments? Why play a Chaos Castellan when you can bring an imperial one with better allies AKA imperial guard?

I don't know about you, but I thought Crusaders were quite popular. Especially with House Krast, the Crusader can be deadly. One guy took a 3 Crusader list to the LVO, did quite well with it. Crusaders are good. Not broken good, just solid.

I bet you there were 50 times more Castellans compared to crusaders at LVO. I didn't say the crusader was bad. I run a list that has never been defeated in my local ITC tournaments that is a castellan crusader and gallant house tyrannis around GMan with a gaurd battalion. Castellan is god tier. Crusader is just good. Plus - without endless fury it really not that great. Unlike Cawls Wrath - it is still pretty great even without the cawl upgrade - Some games the bonus damage doesn't matter so I don't even take it. Endless furry is always about as good as 1.5 gatling cannons.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Castellan is god tier. Crusader is just good.

If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Castellan is god tier. Crusader is just good.

If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.

-

It's just a simple cost to potential ratio really. The units with the best ones are the best units no matter how you slice it. It only exist because of units being improperly balanced price wise. That is all I mean when I say the game is unbalanced. Only talking about points to potential ratio. OFC this is even hard to discuss without a deep understanding of what potential really is. It's not a simple math equation. It requires you actually experience list building and playing the game and see the situations that come about. This disparagement between good and bad units would all go away mostly with proper pointing of every unit in the game. At least that is the way I see it. I don't think competitive is the problem - bad pointing is the problem.

It irritates me too because I play with all kinds of players. The ones that really want to build unique lists will come up with ideas and try to make battle plans with subpar effeicenty units and ask me what I think and what can I tell them? Well...that list looks fun to play but it's gonna get rocked against efficient units. It's like sending Shermans vs Tigers....

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Castellan is god tier. Crusader is just good.

If I really hated anything about 40K (which I don't) this would be it. "Good" units, which 40k has A LOT of, are just not "good" enough for hard core competitively play.
Which, to that point, just shows why "hard core" competitively play should not be the default mode for 40K at all.

-

If anything, it shows that nobody should have a unit that is THAT overpowered to begin with. I don't even know how you can read that statement and decide "we don't hit the problem units, just don't bring them" rather than attempt balance.

People like Xenomancer are why everyone is right when they say Players suck at balance.

Its not, and never has been about the Castellan.

Its about the unlimited CP poured through the Castellan. This is easy to see, as you only see Castellan when they are in a position to get lots of CP poured through them, never is positions where they are not.

A big part of balance is having the ability to identify the problem.

Blastaar wrote:
It is unacceptable that there is a need to have these discussions before playing.

"How DARE I have to interact with my opponent like a human being?! I should just be able to walk into any store, throw down my models, and play a completely silent game with any Tom, Dick, or Stanley that happens by! Forcing me to be a human, and worse, to recognize my opponent as a human who might have different goals than I do, is unacceptable!"

Reemule wrote:
People like Xenomancer are why everyone is right when they say Players suck at balance.

Its not, and never has been about the Castellan.

Its about the unlimited CP poured through the Castellan. This is easy to see, as you only see Castellan when they are in a position to get lots of CP poured through them, never is positions where they are not.

A big part of balance is having the ability to identify the problem.

The Castellan getting off a 3++ even once is broken. That has nothing to do with unlimited CP. It's broken at concept that it cam even be done with pure Knights.