April FAQs released (PSA: Castellan points changes and Assassin changes not in the right FAQs)

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.

**Reemule**

Daedalus81 wrote:
ServiceGames wrote:
*sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*

It seems like they have all the tools currently. What exactly are they missing?

Well from some of my discussions about the Castellan how it shouldn't be nerfed cause Chaos doesn't do well with it, I was assured that was because Chaos has bad players.

**Daedalus81**

Reemule wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
ServiceGames wrote:
*sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*

It seems like they have all the tools currently. What exactly are they missing?

Well from some of my discussions about the Castellan how it shouldn't be nerfed cause Chaos doesn't do well with it, I was assured that was because Chaos has bad players.

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

**Tyel**

I think you might be able to do an interesting World Eaters chaos soup these days - but it probably wouldn't involve lots Khorne Berserkers jogging or rhino rushing up the table.

Which I think is what certain people want because thats how they imagine the army.

And frankly you'd probably just not make it World Eaters. But that is a problem with the "chapter system".

**AlmightyWalrus**

ServiceGames wrote:
*sits quietly, pouting, waiting for a World Eaters update that will make them a standout melee army on the table.*

Get in the line, bro.

More seiously, WE currently has the problem BT had in past editions: lack of psykers without proper compensation when the psychic powers (particularly Warptime) is the best thing the faction has to offer.

**ServiceGames**

Dysartes wrote:
I imagine their head honcho would be handy...

That would be an EXCELLENT place to start. Plus, they should hit as hard in melee as the Blood Angels and Tyranids... they just don't.

SG

**Daedalus81**

ServiceGames wrote:
Dysartes wrote:
I imagine their head honcho would be handy...
That would be an EXCELLENT place to start. Plus, they should hit as hard in melee as the Blood Angels and Tyranids... they just don't.

SG

What? I fail to see what Angron would add other than another source of reroll hits.

Bezerkers outclass Death Company -- and they're troops.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Berzerkers definitely outclass BA and Tyranids in hitting power; it's a matter of delivery since they're slow.

AL lets you deliver them better than WE, or you have to buy Rhinos.

One of my friends runs 2 squads, 1 of 10 and 1 of 8, as Red Corsairs in Rhinos [the 1 of 8 also has 2 characters sharing the tank]. Another one was running 3 using Alpha Legion to move up board for the longest time, but dropped that when infiltrate changed to vanguard, and several other guys I saw had one big unit they hit with warptime.

It definitely seems that Alpha Legions or Red Corsairs are the legion to be for 'zerkers, though, since the World Eaters don't offer anything to them. They're so killy as is, they don't need a single extra attack, but they do need delivery options.

**Reemule**

I think they just need to be cheaper. 10 point Zerkers?

**Eihnlazer**

Take a base marine (13 points), add +1 str, +1 attack, and the ability to fight twice. Then reduce the points to 10...………

Wait, that cant be right.

**Lemondish**

Martel732 wrote:
Lemondish wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
By 40stats, BA have a win rate of 34% as primary. SW and DA are each at 40%. They aren't adding anything to the game. That's where I'm coming from.

That's not a reason, I can't even...

Edit: Nevermind, not worth it.

That's a very valid reason. They are useless. Useless things are to be discarded.

The assumption you are making is that they can never not be useless. That's bold and ultimately unsupportable.

Let alone the fact that you're making a frankly silly display at using tournaments as a guide. How capable a unit or army is on top tables is irrelevant to 99% of the hobby.

**Ice_can**

It's also similarly silly how guard players use tournament results to pretend that they don't have a rediculous powerful codex and that other people just need to LTP as soup is broken while asking for 3ppm conscripts.

As much as it's sad in many ways it does feel it would be a lot fairer on new playera if GW wpuld just admit they broke marines and either replace them with primaris or give them something worthwhile to bring to soup.

**Karol**

Daedalus81 wrote:

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

**Octopoid**

Karol wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Porque no los dos?

**Karol**

Octopoid wrote:
Karol wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Porque no los dos?

Because GW does not seem to be able to do both without killing a model, rule or faction. And I assume, maybe wrong here considering people are telling me I should be paying for stuff that happened in 5th ed, that people do want other people play with the models they bought and enjoy it. And that the goal as unachivable as it maybe, is as few bad units per faction as possible.

**blackmage**

Eihnlazer wrote:
you guys need to stop. The FAQ saying no is still there and nowhere in his ability does it mention overwatch so no it doesn work.

Get over it.

after super nerf they'r try find another way to cheat and be competive again, no TO will ever let them shoot overwatch at 3+

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
Seabass wrote:
I think the old mob up Lootah bomb was 15 lootas and 10 lootas to get a total of 25 IIRC right?

I also think you had to get the 3 shots to go off, which a command reroll really helps with, but obviously doesn't guarantee it. ( i use the word "think" a lot because I'm, not an Ork player, I'm just attempting to recall what I have seen happen on more than one occasion, forgive the crudeness of this post and if it's inaccurate, please accept that I'm not an Ork player by any stretch)

25 hits out of 75 shots
3 hits out of the 9 or 10 ones you will roll in that mess for rerolling ones.
that's 28 hits.
that will net you another 9 hits based on the exploding 5+ of those 9 hits for exploding dice.
1 or 2 ones will show up in that reroll process, netting you a few more chances to hit. likely getting one more (I think the math is two more, but I'm not 100 on that) hit in that mess for a total of 38 hits
getting about 13 or 14 wounds through.
that will result in 4 or 5 unsaved wounds going through, causing between 8 and 10 damage.

now, do all of that again.

so if we just go strictly by the rough numbers (and this is all head math and I've dropped any fraction or anything that didn't divide evenly, so forgive the really elementary version of it) but I don't think you have to spike much to kill one, and I think if you can get just a few wounds in with a shock relic or another ork cannon I think you can pretty reliably do it on one turn. As an aside note, i have seen this sequence take down a castellan without any help, and did it all on their own. with the 4++ now instead of the 3++ the number of wounds that translate to damage go up (i did this assuming only 1/3 of the wounds would translate into damage)

I've seen it happen on tables next to me in ITC. frankly, as an Aeldari player, there is nothing I am more scared of than lootahs, even 15 of them is scary as hell for hemlocks.

But, the point is, the firepower is there, and the only real "dicey" variable is the number of shots. I think it's easier than you think. Its not guaranteed in one turn, and my post made it sound like that and I shouldn't have spoken in that level of an absolute, as its not, but I think the other side of this is that it is WAY easier to do than your post is letting on, with the key, of course, being bad moons (I think) rerolling ones, and generating more exploding shots from that and with the shoot again stratagem (which I think is a bad moons stratagem, but again, im not sure on that)

Most players only took 20 lootas because its such a points sink. But if you take 25 Lootas that is 425pts, plus the 90 grots to shield for another 270, you are looking at 695pts for a Loota bomb. Those 25 lootas average 50 shots a turn not 75, even with reroll you are more likely to get 2 then 3, especially since you only use it if you roll a 1 or a 2. So on aver that is 50 shots getting 16.66 hits, 8.33 1s get to be rerolled immediately which averages about 2.77 more hits you then reroll all the hits which is 19.4ish you get 6.47 more hits and 3.2 more 1 which reroll for 1 more hit which can't trigger dakkax3 so 7.47 extra hits for a grand total of about 27 hits. Against T8 that is 9 wounds, against the 4+ save that is 4.5 that go through which averages 9 damage a turn, use shoot again strat and its up to 18. And that is rolling on average. So to kill a knight Castellan which has 28 wounds you will need to roll more then 50% better then average.

And on the flipside it takes minimal effort for IG players with a Knight to kill the grot shields in 1 turn. Again, if you target the grots first they are 2+ to wound with S4 weapons, and if they are in a squad of 10 you need only kill 6 to reliably wipe them out with morale. 10 guardsmen at double tap range can do this relatively easily. If they are in mobz of 30 then simply killing 17 wipes them out from morale. Loota bombs were good, but they weren't insta win buttons and they required 7 CP on average turn 1 to function. Turn 2 they were down to 6 CP a turn but at that point you are basically out of CP.

less math and more play and a new world will open, last ork i met with 25 lootas shooted 75+50+75 (x2) in 3 turns, a total of 400 shots and i dont count the 5 or 6 rerolls..400 shots at 5+ to hit mean 132 hit and 132 hits trigger another 43 hits so he got 175 hits....math have to stay in forums. Not all armies have firepower enough to shoot out the table the lootas GSC tyr demons for example havent, mob up for lootas was a mistake they needed to fix it

**Reemule**

I think it is kind of clear that Inescapable Accuracy doesn't work in overwatch.

But I think it could have easily been written so that it wasn't a problem in the first place.

And right now, Inescapable death does work.

I think it is clear that GW is happy how the basic plan of soup works. Too much development into soup reliant things have happened (assassins example)

But the basic format of the game needs to be changed to allow there to be some kind of balance to Soup. Even something pretty limited to If your force shares a second Keyword in common, increase the Battle forge CP from 3 to 6 would be meaningful.

**blackmage**

the only real way to kill soup is play monocodex like edition b4 the 7th

**Drager**

Pré 7th want monocodex.

**Daedalus81**

Karol wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Because the Castellan is worth 700 before relics, which is what made it borked. With (seemingly) a new Renegade Knights codex on the way there is really no concern to be had about its viability.

**w1zard**

Karol wrote:
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Because the problem in an IG+Castellan list wasn't the IG.

Castellan was under-costed, and 3++ on that kind of model was a stupid design decision on top of that.

**Audustum**

The Castellan was never overcosted. People confuse the version with relics for the version without because the relics were so prevalent.

Take a Castellan without Cawl's Wrath and Ion Bulwark and even at 600 points it felt a little over priced. The point change just makes those relics even more mandatory.

**tneva82**

Karol wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

The Chaos Castellan was never bad, in fact, it was great, but not great-great like the Imperium. Chaos didn't even have rotate just this past December.

But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Why you talk about imperial castellan as justification to nerf chaos castellan? Chaos castellan was stuck with 4++ max from get go, no cawl's wrath, no companion, no krast relics etc. Totally different beast to imperial castellan.

**Drager**

Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft unless you have fly, flip belts, etc.?

Edit: Edited for clarity as it was being misunderstood

**Karol**

w1zard wrote:
Karol wrote:
But if it wasn't great-great, then did it need to be nerfed? The problem with castellans was that people could slam it in to a IG list and get a more efficient baneblade and fuel it with CP. Castellans, even the imperial ones, that were played in mono knight lists were breaking the meta. Maybe instead of nerfing the castellan, even for people that couldn't enjoy a IG+ravellan, they should have fixed stuff like soup and more specific IG being super efficient when anything that need CP to fuel it with them.

Because the problem in an IG+Castellan list wasn't the IG.

Castellan was under-costed, and 3++ on that kind of model was a stupid design decision on top of that.

It is exactly because of IG that castellan was the problem. List with castellans and other stuff, or mono knight lists were no where near as powerful as an IG list that replaced its shadow with a castellan. Same was true for BA smash captins and custodes etc. Played alone or with other factions those units were never as potent as when they were run along side a IG list.

Why you talk about imperial castellan as justification to nerf chaos castellan? Chaos castellan was stuck with 4++ max from get go, no cawl's wrath, no companion, no krast relics etc. Totally different beast to imperial castellan.

This. Also if people expect that the 100pts more on a castellan happens because of how potent some stratagems and relics are, then the new ones coming in for renegade knights have to be at least just as good. If they are worse then the renegade knights will not only have a worse knight, but will also lack the platform in form of the IG. And if someone is looking for a strickt monster mash list, then there is already a chaos lists with a ton of demons and other characters that is doing fine. And that list does not need a castellan.

Because the Castellan is worth 700 before relics, which is what made it borked. With (seemingly) a new Renegade Knights codex on the way there is really no concern to be had about its viability.

But this is a stupid design paradigma. It means a LR crusader for a GK army or BAs is going to have the high cost it has now, because Gulliman exists and can give re-rolls to the same kind of Land Raider, if you play it out of the regular marine codex. Soup should not be a thing, and costs should be adjusted to what a unit, rule or model can do in a given faction, and not get punished, because a faction they don't play has a bonus to the same type of thing.
It is on the level of making fertilazer illegal, because someone may have made a bomb out of it at some time in the past.

**tneva82**

Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

**Drager**

tneva82 wrote:
Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.

If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

**blackmage**

Drager wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

**Drager**

blackmage wrote:
Drager wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
Drager wrote:
Did anyone else notice that the new Aircraft rules don't allow you to move through your own Aircraft?

How?

‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Movement phase it can move across models as if they were not there, and when moving across terrain features, vertical distance is not counted against the total it can move (i.e. moving vertically is free for this model in the Movement phase). If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during the Charge phase it can move across models (other than Buildings) as if they were not there.’

This still applies.

Page 177 – Movement PhaseAdd the following text to the end of the Movement phase section: ‘AircraftIf a unit can Fly and it has a minimum Move characteristic (or if it has a damage table on its datasheet that includes any minimum Move characteristics), that unit gains the Aircraft keyword.Whenever a model makes any kind of move, it can be moved within 1" of enemy Aircraft, and it can be moved across such models (and their bases) as if they were not there, but it cannot end the move on top of another model (or its base), and it cannot end the move within 1" of any enemy units.If, when a unit is selected to move in the Movement phase, the only enemy units that are within 1" of it are Aircraft, then it can still make a move (i.e. it does not have to Fall Back in order to move).’

This speaks nothing against preventing moving across(infact it allows). Just that you can't END over one.
If you have an infantry model is in your army, let's say a Guardian and there is one of your own Hemlocks in front of it, where is the permission to allow the Guardian to walk across the Aircraft's base?

in last design commentary, go there and read, now everyone can move through aircraft bases like if they were not there

You can move through enemy aircraft bases, but I can't find the permission to move through friendly ones. The designer's commentary is quoted above by tnev82 and reading that is what led to me asking the question. If you can point out the permission I'm missing, I'd be grateful. Have another read yourself, I'm sure it's there and I'm just not seeing it.

**the_scotsman**

I mean, there is another easy way to fix Guilliman Syndrome for marines and it is...price Guilliman around the unique ability to triple the firepower of anything he's shaking his shiny metal ass for.

If they really REALLY want to give Guililman the ability to twerk in the middle of a space marine army and grant them ALL Guide+Doom with no cast roll against every target in the enemy army, just cost the fething dude like 700 points and fix the rest of the damn marine roster.

Don't price everything in the marine codex and every other unit shared by every other marine codex as if they might be in range to watch guilliman drop it down and make it clap.

**ingtaer**

Please stick to the topic and do so out without being rude.
Thanks,
ingtaer.