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.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Shuppet is still claiming that oblits weren't used in top tournament lists when I know for a fact they where.

Though not techniqually a GT (it was 4 RTTs combined giving 12 games), the Louisiana state series of RTT's had the 2nd place winner using Abadon, cultists spam, and oblits for his army and he did quite well with them.

Granted things have changed a lot since then (that was first year of 8th edition afterall).


EDIT: math

My sides. 2nd place, at a RTT, back in 2017.


That's not a top tournament list. That's some RTT run that nobody has ever heard of and Google has literally no information on. That's just a "list". When people talk about what does well at tournaments, they mean what can perform at every tournament, including the stacked ones with a lot of players and a bunch of competition - not what can do well down in the slums, literally anything can. Without wanting to give out too much personal info about myself, I came first the other month with a list that literally had a Tervigon as my Warlord. My statements here literally qualified my claims as "GT's only" so this doesn't have any bearing on what I said.

Regardless, even if we did take this stat into account (which we still probably shouldn't), the Obliterators have been nerfed multiple ways since then and that was them at their prime, so if that's the sole placing you know of, it does more to support that Obliterators a month ago were indeed a pretty crappy unit.

Im glad you didn't read my post completely before responding.

It was a series of RTT, 12 games in total, that's equivalent to two GT's worth of play. Obviously the same list wouldn't work nowadays, since alpha legion cultists cant start 9" away from their opponents deploy zone anymore. It worked pretty good at the start of 8th though.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Im glad you didn't read my post completely before responding.

It was a series of RTT, 12 games in total, that's equivalent to two GT's worth of play. Obviously the same list wouldn't work nowadays, since alpha legion cultists cant start 9" away from their opponents deploy zone anymore. It worked pretty good at the start of 8th though.

I'm sorry, what part of my post gave you the impression that I didn't read this? Maybe it's you who should read post's in their entirety, I literally said it was a RUN of RTTs. It's still not a major GT and does not have the level of competition you would expect at an event.

And yes, as I said, Obliterators were a lot better back when you could deepstrike them turn 1 behind a screen of Alpha Legion cultists. The fact that the only placing you know for them even THEN, was 2nd at some event neither I nor Google have ever heard of before, just does more to support them not being a tournament performing unit in their more current state (aka significantly worse then that, in a much more powerful meta).

Well for one you typed in " 2nd place, at a RTT, back in 2017."

that usually signifies one.

Also, the competition was pretty stiff. Adam A won the overall and there were several other very good players involved.

To play consistently well againgst even 5 other good players is very hard over 12 games.

Anyway, I don't use chaos myself so I wont argue much further about the oblits. Since I don't have actual experience using them I cant be sure of how well they work. I just know that the few times ive had them againgst me they have always made their points back even if the rest of the chaos army hasn't done so well.

 Galas wrote:
The problem with NuOblits at 65ppm it that it makes so many units look absolutely stupid and terrible. I mean, they where terrible and bad before, but that just makes them look even worse. 26-32 (I don't remember) ppm terminators with combibolters and powerfist? 100+ point Dreadnoughts? If Oblits cost that with that firepower, statline, and combo potential, Dreadnoughts should cost something like 70-75ppm and Terminators something like 20 ppm.

I won't even mention Centurions because ... yeah.

And the problem is not about how those units probably deserve to be that point cost. Is about how are we reaching that point where those units that were supposed to be expensive but good, need to be so cheap, and have so powerfull statlines to compete.

But thats what will end up happening when you balance a game in a non-stop race to the top instead of a race to the middle. You keep making things better and better until you reach such extremes.

This guy deserves a medal.

As logical as this maybe, if we went with this way of thought, then GW forgot to added 100-150pts on the castellan point spread sheet, and probably did a miss print of stats of cawls weapon of doom.

I'm thinking the Nu Oblits are priced roughly as one man Autocannon Havoc units, which unfortunately leaves the 115 point price range as pretty close to accurate. I do agree that nearly doubling their points cost wasnt necessary, but i dont predict them to end up being that much cheaper than their Shadowspear price.

Karol wrote:
As logical as this maybe, if we went with this way of thought, then GW forgot to added 100-150pts on the castellan point spread sheet, and probably did a miss print of stats of cawls weapon of doom.

This is... less than likely, given Codex: IK has an FAQ, and no "misprint" was cleared up. There was also no boxed set with a Castellan in it released a couple of weeks before the IK 'dex showing the Knight as having a different points cost to that which appeared in the book.

*sets strawman on fire*

I'm pretty damn sure this'll get cleared up when the FAQ for Codex CSM 2: Electric Boogaloo is released, so why stress about it?

Because I've got an event next week at the FAQ isn't out yet XD

 BoomWolf wrote:
Because I've got an event next week at the FAQ isn't out yet XD

We're now 2 days past the nromal 2 week period, any reason for the delay?

 Togusa wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Because I've got an event next week at the FAQ isn't out yet XD

We're now 2 days past the nromal 2 week period, any reason for the delay?

Likely delayed to pop out with big faq, so possibly another week.

I see obliterators staying at 65 points

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I see obliterators staying at 65 points

Wishful thinking that won’t happen

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I see obliterators staying at 65 points

Alright I'll bite.. why?

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I see obliterators staying at 65 points

Alright I'll bite.. why?

Why did the castellan stay at the point costs it has? no body knows, GW decides, maybe by rolling dice or just by forgeting.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I see obliterators staying at 65 points

Alright I'll bite.. why?

Why did the castellan stay at the point costs it has? no body knows, GW decides, maybe by rolling dice or just by forgeting.

the castellian was broken due to stratigems and relics as I understand it, a unit broken like that is a pain to properly points because "what about people who don't abuse that?"

Ok, then I will give an example people dont like me to give. Do you think a GK strike real should cost 20pts or more, when the DW shield vet with a SB and special ammo costs 20pts?
Or how about the basic IG cost?

I know it is easy to say GW did an error, they may even retract the point cost later on, but there is enough examples of GW doing crazy good or bad point costs, and not changing them with multiple CA and FAQ passing.

Karol wrote:
Ok, then I will give an example people dont like me to give. Do you think a GK strike real should cost 20pts or more, when the DW shield vet with a SB and special ammo costs 20pts?
Or how about the basic IG cost?

Should the Strike be 20 points as is? Probably not, but I can see how GW got to that price point, given the cost of a basic Tactical marine. I can also see how the DW Vet ends up being 20 points, given the same starting point. The theory that their model may need adjustment is another matter entirely.

Karol wrote:
I know it is easy to say GW did an error, they may even retract the point cost later on, but there is enough examples of GW doing crazy good or bad point costs, and not changing them with multiple CA and FAQ passing.

There is a difference between the points costs you mention above - which may warrant adjustments for balance purposes - and the specific case of the Obliterators, where two different points costs (and unit sizes) for the same datasheet were released within, what, a fortnight of each other? I can't think of another example of this happening (this edition, at the very least) for units within the same book.

There is a difference between the points costs you mention above - which may warrant adjustments for balance purposes - and the specific case of the Obliterators, where two different points costs (and unit sizes) for the same datasheet were released within, what, a fortnight of each other? I can't think of another example of this happening (this edition, at the very least) for units within the same book.

they had the option of a day 1 errata then. They didn't do it. If they didn't do it, then we have rules kicking in, and rules say that most recent rule is the right one. 65pts is the cost in the last chaos book to come out, so for now it is the official point cost. I don't understand what problem people have with this, and how this is different from same people telling others to wait for a FAQ or CA for a change, and that for now they have to suck it in and bear it.
Also rules don't care or mention how much time has to pass between two set of rules for both of them to be legal. If spear would come after the csm codex, the problem would not exist.

Should the Strike be 20 points as is? Probably not, but I can see how GW got to that price point, given the cost of a basic Tactical marine. I can also see how the DW Vet ends up being 20 points, given the same starting point. The theory that their model may need adjustment is another matter entirely.

So if feelings can't be the base of rules in w40k. Then we are left with the rule of law. And the rules say, last legal book decides. Last legal book says 65pts. Ergo 65pts it is. If GW decides to change it to 200pts per dude, they can do so, just like they can make it 65 or 20. It is their game, and their rule set. But till they change it, forcing people to play with them costing 100+pts is like forcing someone to pay the cost of unit or upgrade from an eariler book.

Blits are going back up. Their sheet is one of many copy-pasta errors in the new codex. It's just wishful thinking to assume otherwise.

Karol wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
I see obliterators staying at 65 points

Alright I'll bite.. why?

Why did the castellan stay at the point costs it has? no body knows, GW decides, maybe by rolling dice or just by forgeting.

Because it came too late in the cycle like DE and missed the boat for a proper review.

If you're not ok with that indicate 6 month points review on your community survey.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because it came too late in the cycle like DE and missed the boat for a proper review.

To be fair it's probably not far wrong on points if not for all the shenanigans making it stronger.

As for the oblits, it's a misprint - but i'd not begrudge someone playing their book as printed even if i'd personally take the common sense approach. Much as with the 6e sisters and their toughness 11 penitent engines...

Or maybe it was printed correctly but the release window was bodged.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe it was printed correctly but the release window was bodged.

My understanding (not having the book to hand) is that the datasheet is for a unit of 1-3 while the points entry is for a fixed unit of 3.

Bharring wrote:
Or maybe it was printed correctly but the release window was bodged.

Yeah, the timing argument has absolutely no legs, but there's something to do with the printing on the same datasheet conflicting with itself, suggestion a poor copy paste? I don't know, or care really.


It could go either way, nobody knows what GW will do. This might be the intended cost. It may not be. It may stay this way because they don't want to acknowledge such a massive error in a book advertised as the one resource you would need for the army. Maybe it will be changed in a week. Maybe it will remain unchanged because GW prefer it this way. Who knows, they are not a predictable company when it comes to balance, and talking about the release timing is absolutely mistaken when we've had models get released with one ruleset and get a new one like a week later in the past. This thread at the moment is just a silly back and forth of "No it won't!" "Yes it will!" "It definitely wasn't!" "It definitely was!", from a bunch of people who actually have no definites concerning anything. Thread may as well be locked

A.T. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Because it came too late in the cycle like DE and missed the boat for a proper review.

To be fair it's probably not far wrong on points if not for all the shenanigans making it stronger.

As for the oblits, it's a misprint - but i'd not begrudge someone playing their book as printed even if i'd personally take the common sense approach. Much as with the 6e sisters and their toughness 11 penitent engines...

All that is needed to know castellan costs to little it to compare to comparable things. It is better than most units that cost up to 1000 points without stratagems and relics.

 Xenomancers wrote:
All that is needed to know castellan costs to little it to compare to comparable things. It is better than most units that cost up to 1000 points without stratagems and relics.

Would you really rather have a relic/stratagem/trait-less castellan, or 1000pts of other good units?
I specify 'good' units as there are an abundance of bad 1000pt units it could be compared to.

Somewhat off topic though.

Part of the power of large models is their ability to be buffed by strats and abilities. It's not a fair comparison.

This is a fair comparison.

Castellan vs Astreraus tank (about 150 points more)
Less wounds - less firepower - less close combat ability.
Castellan wins

I challenge you - find me a single unit under 1000 points you'd prefer over a non warlord trait non relic castellan? Probably the only thing that comes close is a Fellblade at nearly 1000 points - it only costs about 80% more.

Better yet - At what point level would you take a Vaillant over a Castellan? Serious questions.

Clearly part of the problem is lost of units over 600 points aren't worth it BUT the Castellan is certainly too cheap for what it does at a base level. Minimum 700 I'd say - but anywhere between 700-750 is right. Lots of stuff like an Astrearus need to come down too.

A large part of that is most models over 500 points are terrible for their points. Very few of them measure up to their points worth of half-decent units.

Phantom, Reaver, Emperor, Vampyr, Hierodule, Stompa - it's almost all just plain bad, balance wise - even with stacking powers/stratagems.

As for units, most units top out under 500. The few that do go over that tend to be extreme examples (and also bad).

 Xenomancers wrote:
I challenge you - find me a single unit under 1000 points you'd prefer over a non warlord trait non relic castellan?

A lot of things, though few single models (the Custodes flyer looks interesting...).

Base castellan ranged firepower is comparable to about a third of a volcano cannon, a rapid fire battlecannon, and a quad autocannon. For 100pts more than a dual-battlecannon questoris or 200 more than a shadowsword.


But it's a subject for a different thread.