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.

Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?

Ohh right it didn't.

You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?

Ohh right it didn't.

You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.

It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.

Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.

Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.

 Crimson Devil wrote:



If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

No it’s not that it’s a perception of laziness. Top players have every dex and spend hours working through game play scenarios. They do their homework and build lists carefully crafted to keep them in the game under all circumstances they can envision and then play the list as much as possible against everyone possible to learn how to adapt.

And then you have Greenhorn Jimbo who read all 4 Blood angel novels and played 6 games with Cousin Darryl in the basement who shows to the event and doesn’t advance and claims its broken.

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.

Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.

So it shouldn't be TREATED that way, so can't you see that it can be argued that it shouldn't NEED to happen in the first place?

"You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking."
1. He has yet to say it's ok.
2. You have yet to show that it's *not* ok.
3. What nontrivial full-knowledge game *does* have balanced rules? It's a matter of degrees.

Reemule wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:



If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

No it’s not that it’s a perception of laziness. Top players have every dex and spend hours working through game play scenarios. They do their homework and build lists carefully crafted to keep them in the game under all circumstances they can envision and then play the list as much as possible against everyone possible to learn how to adapt.

And then you have Greenhorn Jimbo who read all 4 Blood angel novels and played 6 games with Cousin Darryl in the basement who shows to the event and doesn’t advance and claims its broken.

It's almost like, if Top Player had spoken with Jimbo about the difference between casual and competitive play, Jimbo might have had a better experience and be more likely to keep playing, to keep purchasing, and to "git gud." Huh.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.

Never claimed broken rules were okay. Claimed that talking to your opponent about the rules that exist, broken or otherwise, should not be treated the same way as sticking your face in a LaGuardia toilet for five minutes.

So it shouldn't be TREATED that way, so can't you see that it can be argued that it shouldn't NEED to happen in the first place?

Nope. I don't give a flying feth how balanced or broken the rules are for any game in the world - if you can't communicate with your co-players, whether they're competitive or cooperative, you'll have or give a bad experience, and that's bad.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?

Ohh right it didn't.

You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.

It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.

Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.

You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army. If it was broken Every Pure Knight force would have it. If it was broken, Every formations that can take it would take it.

So why don't they Slayer? Why are all those stupid Chaos players not taking it? All them Dumb Pure Knight Players? Are they just that sad and don't want to win? How do you explain this?

Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.

The "git gud" crap is toxic. Fortunately, Dakka (and the rest of the hobby) doesn't seem innundated with it. It rears it's ugly head from time to time, but almost always as a symptom of other toxicity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army."
I get the point. But recall that Farseers never go far in tournies in Corsair lists. Are Farseers not OP?

(Yes, it's reducto ad absurdim. But I'm trying to demonstrate where that argument is limited. Not dismiss the argument entirely.)

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.

I can't possibly respond to this properly without violating rule number one. So I will just say LOL.

Bharring wrote:
Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.

The "git gud" crap is toxic. Fortunately, Dakka (and the rest of the hobby) doesn't seem innundated with it. It rears it's ugly head from time to time, but almost always as a symptom of other toxicity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army."
I get the point. But recall that Farseers never go far in tournies in Corsair lists. Are Farseers not OP?

(Yes, it's reducto ad absurdim. But I'm trying to demonstrate where that argument is limited. Not dismiss the argument entirely.)

Might be a missed point. Honestly, I never see corsair lists, but I expect if you did, I'd see farseers in them. The problem isn't that Chaos didn't get to top tables with the Castellan, its that they didn't take them period.

This makes the idea that they are overpowered on their own is void. Adjusting them isn't going to fix the issue. The progression was already put out but people in this thread on what would happen. The castellan gets retired and the Crusader subbed in, and then the Porphy, and then whatever the next thing that is flavor of the day. This will continue to happen till the Order of the Ravens is nerfed out of existence, or they fix CP.

Bharring wrote:
Most of the "git gud" crap I've seen in this hobby only comes out when people start asserting their Mathhammer/theroyhammer superiority, while complaining about how they always lose.

Why do I hear a call for Theroy Jenkins in that statement?

It's not uncommon. Proper table setup and good rolling can make any less effective unit amazing in the right hands. Heck, half the reason net lists pop up is because someone used something effectively. Of course, part of that "get gud" is minimizing one's reliance on bad statistic by pursuing one level of quality or another and seeking an efficient level in that quality.

On the other hand, not every game has to be treated as a tournament, either, so those "get gud" players should start to "get gud" at socializing like a proper human.

@Reemule,
My point is that it's possible that the Castellan is OP, and would be as Chaos - but since it's even more OP as IoM, you see it in IoM more often. The theory being, if you're bringing a Castellan list, you bring it with it's best pairing - IoM.

Note the word *possible*.

On your subsitution theory - it happens all the time. Spectres -> Reapers -> Spears for Ynnair/CWE. BananaBikes/SmashFethers for IoM beatsticks.

@Charistoph:
I think proper human interaction is a component of 'git gud' in this game. As I consider the more enjoyed-opponent to be the better 40ker over the higher-tourny-rated one.

Coming from my own hubris, it's amazing how we can delude ourselves into thinking we're amazing at everything, and can do anything better than anyone else, and know everything. And be real donkey caves about it.

Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too.

Bharring wrote:
"You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking."
1. He has yet to say it's ok.
2. You have yet to show that it's *not* ok.
3. What nontrivial full-knowledge game *does* have balanced rules? It's a matter of degrees.

I have to prove imbalanced rules are bad? You're not serious are you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

You have yet to explain why it's okay for the game to have broken rules though because talking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Ohh Really? Its Broken. So when it is winning? And what is it winning? Did the 3+ keep the Castellan on the top table at LVO after turn 3? Did it win at the last GT? That was between Tau and Eldar?

Ohh right it didn't.

You and your army skills don't know how to deal with it, and unable to understand your failures at game play, you decide its better to label it broken rather than to Git gud.

It IS broken. It showed up in a great number for a reason.

Your argument is like saying 7th Scatterbikes weren't broken because Eldar didn't win a couple of tournaments in 7th. That's literally the equivalent to what you're saying.

You have a unit that is available in several factions, and army configurations. If it was Broken, Chaos would have it in Every army. If it was broken Every Pure Knight force would have it. If it was broken, Every formations that can take it would take it.

So why don't they Slayer? Why are all those stupid Chaos players not taking it? All them Dumb Pure Knight Players? Are they just that sad and don't want to win? How do you explain this?

Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?

Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.

I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.

Bharring wrote:
@Reemule,
My point is that it's possible that the Castellan is OP, and would be as Chaos - but since it's even more OP as IoM, you see it in IoM more often. The theory being, if you're bringing a Castellan list, you bring it with it's best pairing - IoM.

Note the word *possible*.

On your subsitution theory - it happens all the time. Spectres -> Reapers -> Spears for Ynnair/CWE. BananaBikes/SmashFethers for IoM beatsticks.

I already said that pretty much Bharring and it's been discussed at length in other threads...Actual tournament players would laugh at the suggestion at bringing a chaos castellan over an IOM one...In a choas army a Castellan is just an undercosted shooting unit. In an IOM army the Castellan is even more powerful and even harder to kill as well as having better CP support. If the two lists would meet the IOM list would win more often than not. So you just bring the IOM man because it is clearly better. It is a diversionary fallacy. It is possible for 2 units to be OP and for one to still be better than the other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.

Ehh if you really break it down. Get Gud means all other those things.

"Get Gud" can mean any of those things, but rarely ever means all of those things.

Each time it's used, it's meaning is a little different.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?

Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.

And again, this is why people say players are bad at balance. Like in this case, understands that its not the problem with the model, still advocates to nerf the model. Unbelievable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My Git Gud in this case means that the 3++ against Range is very playable. That means anyone who cares to learn and try can play around it and win, or play through it and win. It is a game changer, but not a game winner.

If it was such a big deal, you would see all all those knight lists who have it doing a lot better than they are.

The castellan still requires a nerf even in a chaos army. It's base cost is unquestionably low.

 Xenomancers wrote:
The castellan still requires a nerf even in a chaos army. It's base cost is unquestionably low.

Not convinced a naked Castellan is problematic by any means. You're gonna need something to back that up.

Reemule wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



Because the Chaos ones lack a bunch of Warlord traits, Relics, and Household rules? Then there is already a model count issue with pure Knights and some lists still run them anyway?

Did I seriously need to explain that at all? Especially why the Chaos ones don't show up? That's playing ignorant on purpose.

And again, this is why people say players are bad at balance. Like in this case, understands that its not the problem with the model, still advocates to nerf the model. Unbelievable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
My Git Gud in this case means that the 3++ against Range is very playable. That means anyone who cares to learn and try can play around it and win, or play through it and win. It is a game changer, but not a game winner.

If it was such a big deal, you would see all all those knight lists who have it doing a lot better than they are.

All those things are tied to the model, so don't pretend they aren't.

Also the lists are still doing well, so I haven't a single clue what you're talking about as if they weren't doing fantastic already.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Reemule is the one saying "get gud" and that castellans are balanced. He probably thinks the game is in a good place too."
I see a lot more of "Get gud at Mathhammer"/"Acknowledge the superiority my thoughts"/"I'm right the universe is wrong" than I see "Get gut at 40k", though.

There are several cheaper ways to socialize. I could go to a bar and get a couple of drinks and network that way.
Healthy state for the game =/= healthy state for the community, which is what you're more implying in that post.

I think the Castelan shouldn't be able to get a 3++ or should cost more points.

Really its a luck thing. The issue is that if the Knight player is rolling even vaguely hot, the Castelan can kill 400~ points of stuff, more if you can start assaulting, and with slightly above average 3++ rolls it won't die.

Now to be fair I've had games where the Castelan player can't seem to roll anything but 2s, and it does jack before dying rather ignominiously. I have however had far more where the Castelan's killed about half an opponents army in two or three turns while shrugging off 1000s of points of shooting attacks. It renders a huge number of vehicles and monsters not valid choices, because they are just food for Cawls Wrath and the volcano cannon (plus the other guns to make sure).

It might be alright if there were strict hard counters - but for many factions there are not. You just have to brute force it and hope the dice are with you.

 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?

Just a minor point, but thanks for not going to the hyperbolic "none" over the more reasonable "not many" - we see too much of the former when making claims, when the latter is more likely to be close to reality.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

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!"

If Dakka has taught me anything. It's 40k is not about playing a game, but forcing your will on another person until you break them.

Have an exalt

 Talizvar wrote:

 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.

Yup she just activated my trap card

 Talizvar wrote:
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).

Who's to say that isn't reflective of the overall community? Most people, whether casual or hardcore, talk about unit stats etc when discussing competitive play.

I usually wouldn't ask that kind of evidence for such stuff, but you know, since she insists on sourcing such stuff I just thought I'd point out when she made the exact same error she was harping on about being pretentious in here.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Citation needed.

K.

To my memory, polls consistently show around 60% of dakka posters who respond view themselves as primarily competitive players. A quick search shows a few polls to that effect, the most relevant and well-put-together of which is here:

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764141.page

Thus my assertion, "Dakka tends towards competitiveness".

I respond to your trap card with a quick-play spell that negates it. My assertion is supported by available data.

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.

It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.

 Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The castellan still requires a nerf even in a chaos army. It's base cost is unquestionably low.

Not convinced a naked Castellan is problematic by any means. You're gonna need something to back that up.

Comparisons to other super heavies is sufficient I think. Compare it to a relic falchion. Even if they are the same cost - why would you ever bring the falchion?

 Peregrine wrote:

Bharring wrote:
I could have been clearer on that point. It's possible for a game to be in a good place, if being a social game that people talk about and/or follow a social construct is a healthy state for said game.

You haven't shown that such a state is inherently unhealthy for 40k.

It's unhealthy for ANY game because that discussion/social contract/whatever you want to call it is 100% the result of a failure in game design. The only time it is required is when the rules alone are inadequate to provide an enjoyable game and you need to negotiate how to modify the rules, how much exploiting of balance mistakes is "too competitive", etc. Mentioning pre-game negotiation is inherently a concession that the game is not in a healthy state and the players are putting in effort to compensate for it and try to salvage the game they like.

I agree.

The game design is simple broken at current state. My incentive behind gaming was allways having a great competetion, learning, becoming better. The game does not promote anything like that. What you are learing is: "Damn, i play the wrong facting." "My composition was weeker than my oponents", or "Had simply bad luck from dices or losing the first turn today". This is what makes people mad, because winning or losing has nothing to do with players skill, because i can simply cheat the skill by playing power creep. I don't want to dominate the game, because i have the greatest skill. I realy do not have! But building an army around brokeness is how the game works. This is how people becoming toxic, because they do nothing wrong, but get smashed in their face simply by game design. You can follow the path the game works, or you get stomped to the ground.

Consequence is, you buy, buy and buy all the creep, and this in a fast manner, we never have seen before. Thousands of sources for rules, books, faqs following one after another. And the worst thing is... i HAVE to buy, because i must. It's not anything more than pure pay to win, microtransaction mechanism included.

That is not the meaning of a tabletop game. Gaming means, playing together, having a good time, learning and laugh.

Powergamers just ruin this game, like they ruin any computer game multiplayer today. And its okay for them, having a broken game, because this is what they benefit from. And also does the manufacturer.