What now?

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.

**ccs**

Dolnikan wrote:

The Ares debate also shows something important about the current game. I don't know how good they are, having never seen one, but if many players think that even those are bad that tells us that vehicles in general are completely worthless in the current game.

No, it tells us that those people are either delusional or just making noise to hear themselves make noise.
And vehicles are not worthless in this edition.

**Gadzilla666**

Breton wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

The current terrain rules just don't work well enough, and gw knows that, otherwise they wouldn't be spamming big Obscurring area terrain pieces on their own boards. They need to make other types of terrain actually useful, so we don't need boards like that. Go back to 4th edition terrain rules, drop the overly complicated stuff. If the only terrain that matters is big Obscurring pieces, then the terrain system isn't working.

And don't forget, anything with more than 18 wounds gets nothing from terrain unless it's literally big enough to hide the entire model.

Well that and it's OK to have SOME firing lanes that go across the whole board. One across the middle of the board the long ways, and two going up the short side at 1/3 and 2/3 to represent streets/valleys etc isn't a bad thing. The important part is to not have ALL firing lanes do that, and make a calculated risk to go into those alleys.

Aye. Gw's preferred terrain setups seem to be heavily skewed towards anything with the INFANTRY keyword. Notice that literally everything in their suggested board layouts has the BREACHABLE terrain trait. That means infantry can just Kool-aid Man right through it, while vehicles movement is heavily restricted. And vehicles can only benefit from DENSE or OBSCURRING, even if they have less than 18 wounds. The deck is stacked against vehicles and in favor of infantry on gw boards.

**Tyel**

I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.
But that's quite a bit bigger than a Baneblade - and way bigger than a regular vehicle. A Rhino for instance is 4.5" long and 3" wide? I don't think it struggles to get around the table.

**ccs**

Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.

**JNAProductions**

ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.

3” in either direction, so it is 12”.

**SemperMortis**

Eihnlazer wrote:

As i said, every codex has some stinkers that need help. Morka's gorka's and stompa's are all pretty bad in their own way. The morka and gorkanaughts should be exactly the same profile as knights (only hit on 5's in shooting with most of the guns) at their current price point. So cheaper than knights but be just as durable and killy in melee. Stompa should actually be a bit beefier than the Castellan only obviously not as good in shooting.

No, what you actually said was

Eihnlazer wrote:
The ares is easily overcosted comparing it to any other large centerpiece model in the 400+ range.

The Morkanaut is 20pts cheaper, the Gork is cheaper still, while the Stompa is several hundred points more expensive. None of those 3 ever see competitive play and haven't in a long time. The Orkanauts should NOT be knights profiles. A knight has access to buffs, auras, traits, relics, stratagems etc. An Orkanaut has...none of that. Its a super heavy with no real purpose other than collecting dust.

I'm not saying the Ares is OP, I'm just pointing out that you said compared to any similar centerpiece model its over priced, and that just is not the case.

**Bosskelot**

Salt donkey wrote:
Tyel wrote:
For Custodes just stick 30 points on Trajann and 10 points on the bikes and see what happens. You could (and probably should) nerf Emperor's Chosen, and take a scalpel to lots of other units - but that's fiddly and the above could be issued in a one page PDF tomorrow.

I think Tau are much harder to fix because basically the whole Codex is undercosted in the context of available synergy, army rules, sept bonuses, stratagems etc. Crisis Suits up 5, Broadsides both losing Core and going up 10 and Stormsurges up 25 would probably be a start.

Finally, we need to wait for data but I’m pretty sure harlequins are just plain OP as well. People being relieved that craftworld aren’t OP has completely eclipsed the fact that harlequins are. No armor save and T 3 doesn’t matter when every weapon in the game is at least -1 to -2 AP and when they have numerous other defensive buffs. Oh and just like custodes all their stuff got cheaper while getting free extra rules and better stats. It is my believe this army will be disgusting and make our currently balance grievance look like minor whining.

Harlequins are looking mightily strong and able to compete with Tau and Custodes but the major caveat here is you're unlikely to come across them in an event and even more unlikely to come across them in the wild either.

They're just not a prevalent or popular army.

Not that any balance concerns regarding them should be dismissed, but when close to half of all event attendees are Taustodes and with Custodes being incredibly easy to collect and paint allowing more people to jump on the bandwagon, it sort of amplifies the issues. It's why Marines being dominant for 18 months was so problematic; you just couldn't get away from them.

**EightFoldPath**

Salt donkey wrote:
Finally, we need to wait for data but I’m pretty sure harlequins are just plain OP as well. People being relieved that craftworld aren’t OP has completely eclipsed the fact that harlequins are. No armor save and T 3 doesn’t matter when every weapon in the game is at least -1 to -2 AP and when they have numerous other defensive buffs. Oh and just like custodes all their stuff got cheaper while getting free extra rules and better stats. It is my believe this army will be disgusting and make our currently balance grievance look like minor whining.

Preach! Completely agree on believing they will be better (or wose depending on how you look at it) than current Custodes.

**Flipsiders**

JNAProductions wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.
3” in either direction, so it is 12”.

This right here may have been the most polite and quickest-resolved discussion in Dakka history.

**Breton**

Dolnikan wrote:
Breton wrote:
Gadzilla666 wrote:

The current terrain rules just don't work well enough, and gw knows that, otherwise they wouldn't be spamming big Obscurring area terrain pieces on their own boards. They need to make other types of terrain actually useful, so we don't need boards like that. Go back to 4th edition terrain rules, drop the overly complicated stuff. If the only terrain that matters is big Obscurring pieces, then the terrain system isn't working.

And don't forget, anything with more than 18 wounds gets nothing from terrain unless it's literally big enough to hide the entire model.

Well that and it's OK to have SOME firing lanes that go across the whole board. One across the middle of the board the long ways, and two going up the short side at 1/3 and 2/3 to represent streets/valleys etc isn't a bad thing. The important part is to not have ALL firing lanes do that, and make a calculated risk to go into those alleys.

Yes, but that would also work better if firepower was a little less extreme and not everything would just die the moment someone targets it.

That's the part that makes going in the alley a calculated risk. This is of course based on the assumption we make vehicles not suck even before the problems with terrain. 3ATVs have far more than 2/3 of the wounds - and the multiple model excess wounds speedbump to offset the lower T- and almsot all of the shots - if not more - of the Repulsor Executioner for about 2/3 the price.

**ZergSmasher**

Eihnlazer wrote:
Thats probably my issue atm. Im running Emissaries imperatus shield host and playing a shooty custodes list.

Apparently the reason im having such trouble against tau is strictly because of my build. I have no issue against some other things, but I litterally have no chance against tau with my current list.

So yes, some custodes play fine into tau, and some do not. The frustration I felt was mostly just due to my list choice.

Are you sure? Maybe the Tau player was using loaded dice...

Seriously, reading this thread has been making me laugh a lot, so thanks for all the comedy gold!

Ahem, anyways I can agree with most posters in here that something should be done about Custodes and Tau. With Custodes, GW needs to take a fairly delicate touch due to the low model counts involved. It would be real easy to go too far and end up doing to them what they recently did to my poor Sisters of Battle (RIP

). Trajann obviously needs to cost more, ditto with Salvo Praetors, but I'm not sure anything else needs to take a whack yet. Increasing Salvos by 10 and Trajann by 20 would mean many Custodes players would have to cut 120 points out of their lists (basically 2 Alarus models or a unit of 3 Wardens and change). That might be too much, and yet it might not; likely you wouldn't see anyone running 9 bikes anymore (or just taking one unit with HBs instead). There are other things in the codex that are good, so you might see players just pivot to other stuff (maybe Telemons would start to become more popular again).

**Breton**

JNAProductions wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.
3” in either direction, so it is 12”.

You just added the 3" buffer a second time. 6" square + 3-3.5 (to be sure) = 9-9.5 (to be sure) inches + 3 inches a second time to get to the square foot.

And if you look placing the 6 inches doesn't include MOVING the 6" block.

That six inch green block can almost assuredly move "down" the board towards "your" own deployment zone- the two orange buffer ballons are assumedly each 3" wide and do not touch meaning more than 6" of space there.. It may or may not be able to move across the back of your zone. It does not look like there are two orange spaces of width at the bottom, but maybe. The two orange spaces overlap between the two big grey blocks, so I doubt you can move 6" up that way either. Now a Repulsor is only roughly 5" wide (assuming the Hammerfall is 6x6, and my eyeballing a Repulsor against a Hammerfall - I have both but not a tape measure on my project table) so maybe it gets around better, but not by much. A Knight Castellan base is 170 x109 - 170mm = 6.69291339" According to another post on here a Baneblade is:
Length: 22cm (8.66141732") from the rear tracks to the front tracks. 20cm from the engine to the front of the tank.
Width: 14cm Not including Sponsons. 18cm (7.08661417") including sponsons
Height: 6 cm from the bottom of the tracks to the top of the main body. Add a further 1.5cm for the main gun mount.

Inches in Red are converted/added by me. That 8.5" by 7" Baneblade aint goin nowhere - and we should also rememeber this is assuming an oldschool 12 inches across the long axis zone the newer triangle etc zones may not even allow this much.

In other words for Terrain Layout 1 should you bring a Hammerfall Bunker and randomly roll for a mission you have a 50% chance of it being destroyed before you even roll a die. It’s worth noting that in the GW events this layout is only used for the Surround & Destroy, Retrieval Mission, and Scorched Earth missions.

Terrain Layout 2 is a bit more forgiving, with nice corners that have a clear place for a fortification to be deployed. 32% of the surface area of the board is blue, but as with the first layout most of the area is shaped in such a way to prohibit the use of larger fortifications. The rectangles plotted here are roughly 10″ by 16″ so unfortunately a Skyshield Landing Pad won’t fit but you can definitely get a Hammerfall Bunker or an Imperial Bastion in there.

The good news is that this layout has space for a fortification in the three missions that didn’t work at all for Layout 1. The bad news is that the other three missions still have a 50% chance of the deployment zone not having any space.

**Ordana**

Breton wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.
3” in either direction, so it is 12”.

You just added the 3" buffer a second time. 6" square + 3-3.5 (to be sure) = 9-9.5 (to be sure) inches + 3 inches a second time to get to the square foot.

yes?.... a 6" block with a 3" buffer is 3" left and 3" right (and top and bottom) so 3 (buffer left) + 6 (actual model) + 3 (buffer right) = 12" square.

**Canadian 5th**

Ordana wrote:
Breton wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
ccs wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I may have missed the point - but I feel the Hammerfall Bunker is a bit of an exception because its a 6"x6" square - and you need a further 3" from it to any terrain piece. So you basically need a free square foot on the table to put it down. Unsurprisingly that is quite uncommon.

9" - 9.5"(to be sure) =/= square foot.
3” in either direction, so it is 12”.

You just added the 3" buffer a second time. 6" square + 3-3.5 (to be sure) = 9-9.5 (to be sure) inches + 3 inches a second time to get to the square foot.
yes?.... a 6" block with a 3" buffer is 3" left and 3" right (and top and bottom) so 3 (buffer left) + 6 (actual model) + 3 (buffer right) = 12" square.

Only if you don't ignore one edge by placing it near a table edge, which is the only place you could ever expect to fit a fortification in the first place. So yes, technically you're correct, but practically you're entirely wrong.

**SemperMortis**

ZergSmasher wrote:

Ahem, anyways I can agree with most posters in here that something should be done about Custodes and Tau. With Custodes, GW needs to take a fairly delicate touch due to the low model counts involved. It would be real easy to go too far and end up doing to them what they recently did to my poor Sisters of Battle (RIP ). Trajann obviously needs to cost more, ditto with Salvo Praetors, but I'm not sure anything else needs to take a whack yet. Increasing Salvos by 10 and Trajann by 20 would mean many Custodes players would have to cut 120 points out of their lists (basically 2 Alarus models or a unit of 3 Wardens and change). That might be too much, and yet it might not; likely you wouldn't see anyone running 9 bikes anymore (or just taking one unit with HBs instead). There are other things in the codex that are good, so you might see players just pivot to other stuff (maybe Telemons would start to become more popular again).

Agreed they need to play it light when adjusting points on such a low model count army.

But lets take a look at Trajann compared to the Ork Beastboss on Squigosaur which was considered so overwhelmingly OP that it took a 30pt Price hike to the face. Going from 145pts to 175pts.

For starters, The Beastboss is 175pts Trajann is 160pts. So he is about 10% cheaper.

Abilities:
Beastboss - "Beast Snagga" Add 1 to hit against Vehicles/Monsters and 6+ invuln.
- "Beastboss Aura" +1 to hit for Beast snagga Core/Characters within 6' of him in melee.
- "Dead tough" 5+ Invuln save.
- "Thick Hide" -1dmg when suffering dmg.

Trajann - "Adamantine Mantle" 5+ FNP
- "Captain General" 2 warlord traits and +1 CP.
- "Champion of the Imperium" Double Heroic intervention rules basically and Re-roll all hits for himself.
- "Legendary Commander Aura" Re-roll Hit and wound rolls of 1. Custards hit on 2s so this is effectively re-roll hits to everyone. Since they are Base S5 and/or have spears they usually wound almost everything on 3s so the wound re-roll is a 50% re-roll, not bad.
- "Master of Martial Strategy" 5+ refund on CP, and free change of your "Ka'tah"
- "Moment Shackle" Once per Battle; Attack Again, Change incoming dmg to 0 or free interrupt in CC.

Statline
Beastboss is M10, WS2 BS5 S6 T7 W9 A5 LD8 Sv4+
Trajann is M6 WS2 BS2 S5 T5 W8 A6 LD11 Sv2+

Weapons
Beastboss - Beastchoppa. S user, AP-2 D2 +1 attack
Slugga - Pistol 1, S4 AP0 D1.
Squigosaur's Jaws - S7 AP-3 3dmg, Extra 3 attacks with this weapon and only 3. On a wound roll of 6 it inflicts 3 mortals and attack ends.

Trajann - Misericordia S User, AP-2 1dmg +1 attack.
Watcher's Axe S x2 -3AP 3dmg
Watcher's Axe (shooting) Rapid Fire 1, S5 -1AP 2dmg.

Rule selection:
Beastboss - Ere We Go. Re-roll charges.

Trajann - Aegis of the Emperor 4+ invuln save.
Martial Ka'tah: yeah....
Objective Secured: Because Reasons.

I'll be blunt here, Beastboss is better in CC, but barely 6 S6 AP-2 dmg attacks and 3 S7 AP-3 3dmg attacks is slightly better than 6 S10 AP-3 3dmg attacks or 7 S5 AP-2 1dmg attacks.

Shooting wise its not even a contest, Trajann is head and shoulders better.

Buffing: Trajann wins hands down. Giving everyone effectively re-roll hits and 50% of wounds is pretty damn good. Beastboss giving +1 to hit is ok, but its only good on beast snagga units which there aren't many of.

Durability: Trajann wins again. Beastboss has 9 wounds at T7 4+ save and 5+ invuln with -1dmg. Trajann has 8 wounds at T5 with 2+ save, 4+ invuln and 5+ FNP

Against bolters it takes 54 bolter hits to kill the Beastboss.(54 hits, 18 wounds, 9dmg) Against super charging Plasma guns it takes 20.25 hits to kill (20.25 hits, 13.5 wounds, 9dmg)
Against bolters it takes 216 bolter hits to kill Trajann. (216 hits, 72 wounds, 12 failed armor saves, 8 failed FNP. 8 dmg) Against Super charging plasma guns it takes 19(ish) hits (more if using once per game ability) (19 hits, 12.6 wounds, 6.3 failed Invulns, 8.4ish failed FNP)

Against D3+3 weapons or worse it goes in favor of Trajann thanks to his better invuln and 5+FNP.

So Beastboss got hit with a 20% price hike because of how OP he was (LOL) but Trajann who is significantly better in almost all categories is somehow cheaper and by a significant margin. So yeah, I call BS.

**EviscerationPlague**

SemperMortis wrote:
ZergSmasher wrote:

Ahem, anyways I can agree with most posters in here that something should be done about Custodes and Tau. With Custodes, GW needs to take a fairly delicate touch due to the low model counts involved. It would be real easy to go too far and end up doing to them what they recently did to my poor Sisters of Battle (RIP ). Trajann obviously needs to cost more, ditto with Salvo Praetors, but I'm not sure anything else needs to take a whack yet. Increasing Salvos by 10 and Trajann by 20 would mean many Custodes players would have to cut 120 points out of their lists (basically 2 Alarus models or a unit of 3 Wardens and change). That might be too much, and yet it might not; likely you wouldn't see anyone running 9 bikes anymore (or just taking one unit with HBs instead). There are other things in the codex that are good, so you might see players just pivot to other stuff (maybe Telemons would start to become more popular again).

Agreed they need to play it light when adjusting points on such a low model count army.

But lets take a look at Trajann compared to the Ork Beastboss on Squigosaur which was considered so overwhelmingly OP that it took a 30pt Price hike to the face. Going from 145pts to 175pts.

For starters, The Beastboss is 175pts Trajann is 160pts. So he is about 10% cheaper.

Abilities:
Beastboss - "Beast Snagga" Add 1 to hit against Vehicles/Monsters and 6+ invuln.
- "Beastboss Aura" +1 to hit for Beast snagga Core/Characters within 6' of him in melee.
- "Dead tough" 5+ Invuln save.
- "Thick Hide" -1dmg when suffering dmg.

Trajann - "Adamantine Mantle" 5+ FNP
- "Captain General" 2 warlord traits and +1 CP.
- "Champion of the Imperium" Double Heroic intervention rules basically and Re-roll all hits for himself.
- "Legendary Commander Aura" Re-roll Hit and wound rolls of 1. Custards hit on 2s so this is effectively re-roll hits to everyone. Since they are Base S5 and/or have spears they usually wound almost everything on 3s so the wound re-roll is a 50% re-roll, not bad.
- "Master of Martial Strategy" 5+ refund on CP, and free change of your "Ka'tah"
- "Moment Shackle" Once per Battle; Attack Again, Change incoming dmg to 0 or free interrupt in CC.

Statline
Beastboss is M10, WS2 BS5 S6 T7 W9 A5 LD8 Sv4+
Trajann is M6 WS2 BS2 S5 T5 W8 A6 LD11 Sv2+

Weapons
Beastboss - Beastchoppa. S user, AP-2 D2 +1 attack
Slugga - Pistol 1, S4 AP0 D1.
Squigosaur's Jaws - S7 AP-3 3dmg, Extra 3 attacks with this weapon and only 3. On a wound roll of 6 it inflicts 3 mortals and attack ends.

Trajann - Misericordia S User, AP-2 1dmg +1 attack.
Watcher's Axe S x2 -3AP 3dmg
Watcher's Axe (shooting) Rapid Fire 1, S5 -1AP 2dmg.

Rule selection:
Beastboss - Ere We Go. Re-roll charges.

Trajann - Aegis of the Emperor 4+ invuln save.
Martial Ka'tah: yeah....
Objective Secured: Because Reasons.

I'll be blunt here, Beastboss is better in CC, but barely 6 S6 AP-2 dmg attacks and 3 S7 AP-3 3dmg attacks is slightly better than 6 S10 AP-3 3dmg attacks or 7 S5 AP-2 1dmg attacks.

Shooting wise its not even a contest, Trajann is head and shoulders better.

Buffing: Trajann wins hands down. Giving everyone effectively re-roll hits and 50% of wounds is pretty damn good. Beastboss giving +1 to hit is ok, but its only good on beast snagga units which there aren't many of.

Durability: Trajann wins again. Beastboss has 9 wounds at T7 4+ save and 5+ invuln with -1dmg. Trajann has 8 wounds at T5 with 2+ save, 4+ invuln and 5+ FNP

Against bolters it takes 54 bolter hits to kill the Beastboss.(54 hits, 18 wounds, 9dmg) Against super charging Plasma guns it takes 20.25 hits to kill (20.25 hits, 13.5 wounds, 9dmg)
Against bolters it takes 216 bolter hits to kill Trajann. (216 hits, 72 wounds, 12 failed armor saves, 8 failed FNP. 8 dmg) Against Super charging plasma guns it takes 19(ish) hits (more if using once per game ability) (19 hits, 12.6 wounds, 6.3 failed Invulns, 8.4ish failed FNP)

Against D3+3 weapons or worse it goes in favor of Trajann thanks to his better invuln and 5+FNP.

So Beastboss got hit with a 20% price hike because of how OP he was (LOL) but Trajann who is significantly better in almost all categories is somehow cheaper and by a significant margin. So yeah, I call BS.

To be fair you forgot to incorporate relic and warlord Trait for the Beastboss. Not saying he DESERVED the 30 point hike entirely but you forgot that part of the analysis.

**Eihnlazer**

its more fair to compare the beastboss on squigasaur to the Shield captain on Dawneagle bike.

Both are calvary type bruisers.

Trajann being an infantry footslogger is alot less mobile than the beastboss and is intended to be moreof a force multiplier and scalpel.

You cannot compare trajann to anyone currently (other than mabey guilliman who is a bit overpriced).

**JNAProductions**

Eihnlazer wrote:
its more fair to compare the beastboss on squigasaur to the Shield captain on Dawneagle bike.

Both are calvary type bruisers.

Trajann being an infantry footslogger is alot less mobile than the beastboss and is intended to be moreof a force multiplier and scalpel.

You cannot compare trajann to anyone currently (other than mabey guilliman who is a bit overpriced).

Yes you can. You can compare them.

If they’re not 1-to-1 equivalent, that’s okay-different codecs have different needs.
But you can’t honestly say Trajann is correctly priced-not without being oblivious or willfully ignoring things.

**ClockworkZion**

JNAProductions wrote:
Eihnlazer wrote:
its more fair to compare the beastboss on squigasaur to the Shield captain on Dawneagle bike.

Both are calvary type bruisers.

Trajann being an infantry footslogger is alot less mobile than the beastboss and is intended to be moreof a force multiplier and scalpel.

You cannot compare trajann to anyone currently (other than mabey guilliman who is a bit overpriced).
Yes you can. You can compare them.

If they’re not 1-to-1 equivalent, that’s okay-different codecs have different needs.
But you can’t honestly say Trajann is correctly priced-not without being oblivious or willfully ignoring things.

Not going to disagree about Trajann's points but comparing apples to apples makes the point stick better.

**Dysartes**

Eihnlazer wrote:
its more fair to compare the beastboss on squigasaur to the Shield captain on Dawneagle bike.

Both are calvary type bruisers.

I wouldn't have had either of those units down as being from Golgotha, to be honest with you.

On the other hand, with Golgotha being "the place of a skull", that's kinda fitting for 40k, really.

**Aenar**

Comparing units from different books is a pointless exercise.

You could drop intercessors to 10 ppm and raise the points of something else (like all characters) to perfectly counteract that and the lists would be identical.
What matters is the external balance between books as a whole, not the balance 1:1 for every single unit inside them.

Trajann looks cheap when compared to other characters in other books, but he could still cost 160 pts and be balanced.
That is if the point costs for all other custodes units were somehow high enough for the resulting lists to be externally balanced.

**EightFoldPath**

There aren't many good apples to apples options for Trajann, as you have to compare against an infantry named character without psychic and of course it is pointless using an 8th edition codex because I think we have almost all accepted that GW have abandoned those books.

Marneus Calgar though. 210 points.

T5 8W 2+/4++ halves damage vs T5 8W 2+/4++/5+++.
Not obsec vs obsec.
+2CP vs +1CP + extra warlord trait. (T gets the same trait as M but better then another really good one).
Chap Master and rr1s vs rr1s to both hit and wound.
7 S8 AP3 Dd3 vs. 6 S10 AP3 D3.
Ultramarines vs. any choice.
Super doctrines vs.Katahs.
Nothing vs Moment Shackle.

Even if Trajann was 210 points he would still be better than Marneus because although Marneus can use transhuman and fight on death he doesn't have access to things like Auspice, interrupt for 1CP, +1 to wound vs tough stuff, tanglefoot.

And remember, they reduced Trajann's cost in a book where they could have changed Marneus' cost too...

**SemperMortis**

Eihnlazer wrote:
its more fair to compare the beastboss on squigasaur to the Shield captain on Dawneagle bike.
Both are calvary type bruisers.
Trajann being an infantry footslogger is alot less mobile than the beastboss and is intended to be moreof a force multiplier and scalpel.
You cannot compare trajann to anyone currently (other than mabey guilliman who is a bit overpriced).

Both are HQs, have similar price, have similar weapon profiles, have similar durability profiles. Nope, not good enough. Why? Because one has Movement 10 and one has movement 6. Therefore 4" of difference means we can't compare the two units! Do you see how asinine that is? Lets turn that argument on its head, "Its more fair to compare Beastboss on Squigosaur to Trajann because Shield Captain on Dawneagle Bike is a jetbike!"

Trajann is 4" slower than Beastboss, Beastboss is 4" slower than Dawneagle.

I do agree that Trajann is more of a force multiplier, but that is kind of the point, his entire shtick is Force multiplying, yet he is almost as good as the beastboss on squigosaur in CC. So hes better in every single way except hes slower and is ever so slightly weaker in CC.

ClockworkZion wrote:

Not going to disagree about Trajann's points but comparing apples to apples makes the point stick better.

As I noted above, the biggest difference between Trajann and Beastboss on Squig is 4" of movement. So there is no apples to apples comparison regardless.

An easy way to tell if a unit is good enough in the context of the game in general is whether or not its taken on a regular basis in top performing tournament lists. I think there were like 5 Custard players in the top 8 at Cherokee and I think (not sure) they all took Trajann.

A good way to tell if a unit is good enough in the context of its own codex (internal balance) is whether or not its taken regularly in tournaments. Top list for orkz was Buggy spam, when that got nerfed they went with the Army of Renown, neither of which took Beastboss on Squigosaur. The 3rd option for Orkz is my Goff Alphork strike list, and I don't even take him because hes too expensive and does nothing to help my army because unless i'm going heavy on Beast Snagga boyz and Squighog boyz there is no point to using his aura buffs.

So even though he wasn't seen on a regular basis, GW decided to slap him in the face with a 30pt price hike, along with the named version which was seen even less because its character locked to snakebites...who suck.

Going back to the original point, Trajann definitely needs a nerf, based on his aura's and how much of a beatstick he is along with his durabiltiy, hes literally better than Calgar but significantly cheaper. You could more fairly compare Trajann to Girlyman than any other character. And he is what? 380pts?

**ClockworkZion**

Honestly comparing Guilliman and Trajann is a better split because Guilliman is a lot pricier for a worse rules which illustrates better how far out of bounds Trajann us right now.

**EviscerationPlague**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Honestly comparing Guilliman and Trajann is a better split because Guilliman is a lot pricier for a worse rules which illustrates better how far out of bounds Trajann us right now.

Or it shows that both Trajaan needs a point increase AND Roboute needs to be fixed.

**Gadzilla666**

Trajan isn't the only unit in the newer codexes that's "out of bounds" compared to similar units in older codexes. If gw has shown us anything in the recent codexes and "balance updates", it's that: 1; They're willing to price the units within them very "competitively", and 2; They have very little interest in updating the points/rules for similar units in older books to bring them more closely in line with the newer ones.

**Tyel**

Aenar wrote:
Comparing units from different books is a pointless exercise.

You could drop intercessors to 10 ppm and raise the points of something else (like all characters) to perfectly counteract that and the lists would be identical.
What matters is the external balance between books as a whole, not the balance 1:1 for every single unit inside them.

Trajann looks cheap when compared to other characters in other books, but he could still cost 160 pts and be balanced.
That is if the point costs for all other custodes units were somehow high enough for the resulting lists to be externally balanced.

Not convinced this is right.

If Trajann is undercosted by a lot, it means all Custodes competitive lists should include him. That's not great. (I mean - he is, and they do.)
In the same way your argument about Intercessors is a bit weird - because Marine Players would just minimise characters and spam intercessors and therefore get a more effective list than now. (You could say Marine players tend to minimise characters anyway - but that is in turn a reflection of their points efficiency.)

Its right that "if the best 2000 points of Custodes existed and was kind of mediocre, the fact Trajann was massively undercosted wouldn't be an issue". But first... that's not the case. And secondly, if it were, that would presumably mean almost everything else in the Custodes book was way overcosted. Which isn't great - and should hopefully be looked at.

Instead Custodes is massively overperforming. You could try and nuke the internal efficiency. Hike the cost of stratagems (or change them fundamentally). Attack the various special rules. But its a lot easier to go "in any other codex Trajann would be about 200 points, lets make him 200 points and see what happens".

**Hecaton**

Tyel wrote:
If Trajann is undercosted by a lot, it means all Custodes competitive lists should include him.

Exactly. And that only makes sense if you assume players are going to take balanced lists instead of min/maxing their competitive options - which is a mistake GW has made many times in the past, seemingly out of laziness or incompetence.

**SemperMortis**

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Trajan isn't the only unit in the newer codexes that's "out of bounds" compared to similar units in older codexes. If gw has shown us anything in the recent codexes and "balance updates", it's that: 1; They're willing to price the units within them very "competitively", and 2; They have very little interest in updating the points/rules for similar units in older books to bring them more closely in line with the newer ones.

See this rings more true than anything else. GW either wittingly or unwittingly makes certain units OP. But here is the problem, they are about as competent at this as 95% of Dakka posters talking about other armies that they themselves don't have as a primary.

I'll give yet another ork example because....I R ORK!

When the Ork codex leaks were happening I flat out stated Ork boyz were going to be trash, I likewise stated that the pissing and moaning about Snakebites was a waste of time because they weren't in fact OP, they were actually garbage. We also had people freaking out for a bit about the new "Dakka" weapons and many competent ork players rightly pointed out that it was a de-facto nerf, or at best a side grade for a weapons system drastically under powered in todays meta.

Fast forward 6 months and here we are. Every contradiction I made to the GW playtesters and the Dakka Meta crowd was proven right across the board. I'm not smarter than anyone else, its just I literally only collect and play orkz and have done so for decades. I understand at a fundamental level the power imbalances and internal levels of ork units because I've used them exclusively against a host of other armies. GW does not employ someone like myself to playtest orkz, GW in fact doesn't even own an Ork Studio Army (Something they admitted to publicly)

So here we sit in 9th edition, GW thought they had made certain units broken/OP those would be the Killrig, kommandos and Beastboss on Squigosaur. Go back and look at the tournament meta data that came in from the release of the Ork codex until CA 2022 came out, now find me a rationale reason for nerfing the Beastboss by 30pts, likewise, find me a reason in that meta for why Kommandos who were being taken MSU in groups of 5 but still needed a 20% nerf. I'll give you a hint, it doesn't exist. Don't get me wrong, I think Kommandos are still good for what they bring to the table, but I play them very differently to how the tournament meta players do. So again, why did those ork units get beaten to death with the nerf bat while at the same time units like Chickenwalkers were receiving token nerfs that did little to adjust there actual value. I mean, think about that, The Beastboss on Squigosaur which was barely taken was nerfed by 20.6%, Kommandos who were used MSU for objective camping were nerfed by 20% but the chickenwalker which was spammed in basically every single Ad-Mech winning list was nerfed to lose core and then nerfed a 2nd time and received a world shattering, mind altering 15% points increase, or 10pts.

The point I'm making here is that GW really just doesn't understand their own armies that well and the ones they do play/like seem to receive more love in terms of rules adjustments. This is mostly just speculation, but i really don't think GW understand enough about the things they are doing and they should branch out and interact with community members who are Subject Matter Experts in a faction. And preferably ones who want competitive games rather than fluffy campaigns. A balanced army can always be used in fluffy campaigns while a fluffy army can't be used in competitive games often.

anyway, have a good night.

**Voss**

Aenar wrote:
Comparing units from different books is a pointless exercise.

This is a weird argument, and it always has been. The game is designed around the idea that a fair game is two armies at the same point value. If you can't compare units, that's a failure of the basic, fundamental principle that underlies the entire game.

You could drop intercessors to 10 ppm and raise the points of something else (like all characters) to perfectly counteract that and the lists would be identical.

No...? That's not a conclusion that's supported by anything. If you raise something and drop the cost of something else, the lists very much migrate to the new advantage.

What matters is the external balance between books as a whole, not the balance 1:1 for every single unit inside them.

Trajann looks cheap when compared to other characters in other books, but he could still cost 160 pts and be balanced.
That is if the point costs for all other custodes units were somehow high enough for the resulting lists to be externally balanced.

But, even assuming that's true... that isn't the situation. Trajann isn't magically balanced by too-expensive custodes units. Internal balance obviously matters, and it has a very telling and notable affect on external balance (which is why we see the meta shift so often when there is a points shakeup).