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.

At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

I have played three games so far ( I know not a large sample) but I think that the new Oblit's are worth the 115 points, if you take three of them. The extra 6 shots make a huge difference in their damage out put. It is a situation of the sum of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. This is especially true of Slannesh/Black Leigion, using the strats to re-roll 1's to hit and shoot again

 Xenomancers wrote:
At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

It would never happen with the current relics. The Valiant risks melee with no invuln far more, which means either it takes the 2+ or 5++ relic, which is a huge loss over an upgrade like Cawl's.

Additionally, the relic for Conflag is more tame than Cawl's where the only bonus it gets is reroll to wound.

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

It would never happen with the current relics. The Valiant risks melee with no invuln far more, which means either it takes the 2+ or 5++ relic, which is a huge loss over an upgrade like Cawl's.

Additionally, the relic for Conflag is more tame than Cawl's where the only bonus it gets is reroll to wound.

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

So your saying if the castellan was 5000 points and the valiant was still 500 you would be taking the castelian?

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

It would never happen with the current relics. The Valiant risks melee with no invuln far more, which means either it takes the 2+ or 5++ relic, which is a huge loss over an upgrade like Cawl's.

Additionally, the relic for Conflag is more tame than Cawl's where the only bonus it gets is reroll to wound.

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

So your saying if the castellan was 5000 points and the valiant was still 500 you would be taking the castelian?

I repeat -

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

It would never happen with the current relics. The Valiant risks melee with no invuln far more, which means either it takes the 2+ or 5++ relic, which is a huge loss over an upgrade like Cawl's.

Additionally, the relic for Conflag is more tame than Cawl's where the only bonus it gets is reroll to wound.

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

So your saying if the castellan was 5000 points and the valiant was still 500 you would be taking the castelian?

I repeat -

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

Their is some middle ground eg 600 500 or if that is still not enough 700 500 carry on until it is a real choice. Sure it might loo a bit odd having one cost 50% more but at the end of the day it is a fixable problem.

They are more overpriced than before, but they are also more worth it.

They are more worth it now because despite their points increase being much higher than what their buff would suggest, the Chaos codex is still crap so there isnt much to spend your points on anyway

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
At what point level would you take the valliant over the castellan?

It would never happen with the current relics. The Valiant risks melee with no invuln far more, which means either it takes the 2+ or 5++ relic, which is a huge loss over an upgrade like Cawl's.

Additionally, the relic for Conflag is more tame than Cawl's where the only bonus it gets is reroll to wound.

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

So your saying if the castellan was 5000 points and the valiant was still 500 you would be taking the castelian?

I repeat -

There isn't a point level that can sanely address that.

Their is some middle ground eg 600 500 or if that is still not enough 700 500 carry on until it is a real choice. Sure it might loo a bit odd having one cost 50% more but at the end of the day it is a fixable problem.

Not necessarily - and especially if the value differential is based upon what combination of relics, House traits and Warlord traits are in play.

Which leads to the thought experiment - we have four Dominus-class Knights, two Castellans and two Valiants. One of each is allowed to be set up as a Warlord, one isn't, which whatever legal combination of relic/House/warlord trait. How do you price those four Knights so they are all sane choices to play them?

Frankly alot of warlord trait and relic interactions get ouzt of hand preety fast now, and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Smashcaptain is the same,
The new Chainsword CSM lords of BL with spitefull trait is the same.
Flawless host daemonprince spitefull trait.

Etc. these are all vastly overperforming contemporaries without traits.

And ona 600+ pts model this can get insane rather quickly.

Indeed - I think we can all accept that the Castellan without the traits and relics is worth fewer points than the one with. The same is true for the Valiants, though the gap is probably smaller.

Whether a Valiant with traits and relics is worth more than a naked Castellan is an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Then the question shifts to how do you price the model - do you price it based on what it could have access to, or do you price it based on the naked version.

And if you price it based on what is has access to, do you allow the same unit to have a different price in different books - such as IK vs. RK, or IK vs. AdMech?

 Dysartes wrote:
Indeed - I think we can all accept that the Castellan without the traits and relics is worth fewer points than the one with. The same is true for the Valiants, though the gap is probably smaller.

Whether a Valiant with traits and relics is worth more than a naked Castellan is an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Then the question shifts to how do you price the model - do you price it based on what it could have access to, or do you price it based on the naked version.

And if you price it based on what is has access to, do you allow the same unit to have a different price in different books - such as IK vs. RK, or IK vs. AdMech?

To me it seems gw can't make up it's mind on that.
F.e. Special and heavy weapons for Sm and csm seem to be priced around full rerolls all the time.
Oblits seem to always be Slaanesh, etc.

Other times units get away without such things ( pre tripple nerf cultists) and or get the nerfhammer double whammy ( conscripts and commisars)

The sad part is that units shared by multiple factions suffer exponentially ( normal eldar pay the price for ynnari).

Other times nothing happens.
The most eregious exemple though is the balance between the traits in themselves, you can't tell me f.e. That a WB CSM is the Same as an AL or RC one. Respectively should be the same price....

Rather than having alternate points across Chapter Tactics, I think the answer is fixing the rules to be equally as good. And I think thats what they try to do.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Indeed - I think we can all accept that the Castellan without the traits and relics is worth fewer points than the one with. The same is true for the Valiants, though the gap is probably smaller.

Whether a Valiant with traits and relics is worth more than a naked Castellan is an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Then the question shifts to how do you price the model - do you price it based on what it could have access to, or do you price it based on the naked version.

And if you price it based on what is has access to, do you allow the same unit to have a different price in different books - such as IK vs. RK, or IK vs. AdMech?

To me it seems gw can't make up it's mind on that.
F.e. Special and heavy weapons for Sm and csm seem to be priced around full rerolls all the time.
Oblits seem to always be Slaanesh, etc.

Other times units get away without such things ( pre tripple nerf cultists) and or get the nerfhammer double whammy ( conscripts and commisars)

The sad part is that units shared by multiple factions suffer exponentially ( normal eldar pay the price for ynnari).

Other times nothing happens.
The most eregious exemple though is the balance between the traits in themselves, you can't tell me f.e. That a WB CSM is the Same as an AL or RC one. Respectively should be the same price....

Just a thought about Obliterators and Slaneesh.

I've recently learned that it's not the only way to play them. Yes, double shooting out of DS is powerful, but if you run them with Mark of Nurgle, you can regenerate them. When the trick works, it is very harrowing for your opponent.

dead stuff doesnt regenerate. stuff that killed other stuff may not have to worry about being killed in the first place. Oblits nurgle or not are not tanky enough for w40k. If they were ++3inv with
re-rolls, then maybe giving them something else then MoS could be an option.

Karol wrote:
dead stuff doesnt regenerate. stuff that killed other stuff may not have to worry about being killed in the first place. Oblits nurgle or not are not tanky enough for w40k. If they were ++3inv with
re-rolls, then maybe giving them something else then MoS could be an option.

Actually Chaos can bring back dead models.

Can oblits come back when the units is dead? All I know is pox dudes recycle, which I think was 50% nerf with how one can no longer split a demon in to two smaller and get a poxy, out of one model.

I think of w40k like wrestling. Defence is all good and everyone has to know it, but if you break the other guys fingers then this is the event for him done. Even if you lose he will not be able to fight in next rounds against people from your school. It is better to have an opposing unit dead, and shoting twice is a good way to do it, then shoting one time and having a very small resiliance increase. Specially when the point costs for both types of oblits are identical. If slanesh ones were 115 and nurgle ones were 65, then we could take about the merits of 3 mos oblits double taping vs 5 mon oblits being more resilient.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Indeed - I think we can all accept that the Castellan without the traits and relics is worth fewer points than the one with. The same is true for the Valiants, though the gap is probably smaller.

Whether a Valiant with traits and relics is worth more than a naked Castellan is an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Then the question shifts to how do you price the model - do you price it based on what it could have access to, or do you price it based on the naked version.

And if you price it based on what is has access to, do you allow the same unit to have a different price in different books - such as IK vs. RK, or IK vs. AdMech?

To me it seems gw can't make up it's mind on that.
F.e. Special and heavy weapons for Sm and csm seem to be priced around full rerolls all the time.
Oblits seem to always be Slaanesh, etc.

Other times units get away without such things ( pre tripple nerf cultists) and or get the nerfhammer double whammy ( conscripts and commisars)

The sad part is that units shared by multiple factions suffer exponentially ( normal eldar pay the price for ynnari).

Other times nothing happens.
The most eregious exemple though is the balance between the traits in themselves, you can't tell me f.e. That a WB CSM is the Same as an AL or RC one. Respectively should be the same price....

Your right but not everyone has that mindset, I will happily say most choose their army based on looks, so that word bearers player uses the word bearers trait because that's the Amy they chose, it doesn't matter other traits are better because that person plays word bearers

What if being a legion or regiment or hive fleet cost points? WB trait would cost something like 50pts per army. While something like -1 to hit, could cost 100 or even 150pts.

 Formosa wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
Indeed - I think we can all accept that the Castellan without the traits and relics is worth fewer points than the one with. The same is true for the Valiants, though the gap is probably smaller.

Whether a Valiant with traits and relics is worth more than a naked Castellan is an interesting question, and one I don't know the answer to.

Then the question shifts to how do you price the model - do you price it based on what it could have access to, or do you price it based on the naked version.

And if you price it based on what is has access to, do you allow the same unit to have a different price in different books - such as IK vs. RK, or IK vs. AdMech?

To me it seems gw can't make up it's mind on that.
F.e. Special and heavy weapons for Sm and csm seem to be priced around full rerolls all the time.
Oblits seem to always be Slaanesh, etc.

Other times units get away without such things ( pre tripple nerf cultists) and or get the nerfhammer double whammy ( conscripts and commisars)

The sad part is that units shared by multiple factions suffer exponentially ( normal eldar pay the price for ynnari).

Other times nothing happens.
The most eregious exemple though is the balance between the traits in themselves, you can't tell me f.e. That a WB CSM is the Same as an AL or RC one. Respectively should be the same price....

Your right but not everyone has that mindset, I will happily say most choose their army based on looks, so that word bearers player uses the word bearers trait because that's the Amy they chose, it doesn't matter other traits are better because that person plays word bearers

I play R&H, mostly, altough the recent Chaos stuff has me brought back to my marines. That said, i play what looks cool above f.e. ruleswise the strongest, but i also realise that there SHOULDN'T be such a discrepancy in effect just because of traits. I find that unhealthy. Basically i rather see that they would fill the gap between good and bad traits.

Karol wrote:
Can oblits come back when the units is dead? All I know is pox dudes recycle, which I think was 50% nerf with how one can no longer split a demon in to two smaller and get a poxy, out of one model.

I think of w40k like wrestling. Defence is all good and everyone has to know it, but if you break the other guys fingers then this is the event for him done. Even if you lose he will not be able to fight in next rounds against people from your school. It is better to have an opposing unit dead, and shoting twice is a good way to do it, then shoting one time and having a very small resiliance increase. Specially when the point costs for both types of oblits are identical. If slanesh ones were 115 and nurgle ones were 65, then we could take about the merits of 3 mos oblits double taping vs 5 mon oblits being more resilient.

Absolutely amazing. Never stop.

wow that analogy. Smh.

Did I miss it or did they not address the oblit pts issue? I can't see any reference to it...

It's there, not in magenta for some reason though. Bottom right of the first page.

Jacksmiles wrote:
It's there, not in magenta for some reason though. Bottom right of the first page.

Likely it's because they considered the CSM book a "new book" rather than just an updated one.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
It's there, not in magenta for some reason though. Bottom right of the first page.

Likely it's because they considered the CSM book a "new book" rather than just an updated one.

Maybe. There's a ton of magenta in the rest of the same document though.

So it's confirmed 115ppm is the correct points, despite 65ppm being more "current", but we can finally say this was obviously a typo.
Or rather, anyone saying it WASN'T a typo can finally see the logic of those that were.

-

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
It's there, not in magenta for some reason though. Bottom right of the first page.

Likely it's because they considered the CSM book a "new book" rather than just an updated one.

Maybe. There's a ton of magenta in the rest of the same document though.

Probably because it was ready 2 weeks ago and they made edits in between.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jacksmiles wrote:
It's there, not in magenta for some reason though. Bottom right of the first page.

Likely it's because they considered the CSM book a "new book" rather than just an updated one.

Maybe. There's a ton of magenta in the rest of the same document though.

Probably because it was ready 2 weeks ago and they made edits in between.

Not unlikely. Not sure it matters though, it should still be magenta because it's part of the newest iteration. It's just a color mistake that'll make it harder for a lot of people to see because they're skimming for color. Why doesn't really matter.

 Galef wrote:
So it's confirmed 115ppm is the correct points, despite 65ppm being more "current", but we can finally say this was obviously a typo.
Or rather, anyone saying it WASN'T a typo can finally see the logic of those that were.

-

Indeed. It was pretty obvious what happened. Still wish they had put out a band-aid faq sooner just for the points.

 Galef wrote:
So it's confirmed 115ppm is the correct points, despite 65ppm being more "current", but we can finally say this was obviously a typo.
Or rather, anyone saying it WASN'T a typo can finally see the logic of those that were.

-

So much dakka wasted on that one, too.