New Knight Castellan Revealed!

[Stray]

Thanks for explaining everything so patiently Stray.

 

I realy expect a bigger FAQ within the next 2 or 3 weeks, this ruling on Detachments is something completely new in this edition and leaves quite a bit of confusion within the community.

 

'tis a pleasure, anything for my dysfunctional, but awesome Internet Family :)

 

In all honesty, again much of the credit should go to Lysere who had a handle on things way before I did, and who prompted me to look for clarification on much of this for my own benefit really.

 

But yes, you're not wrong. A lot of things need FAQ'ing swiftly, and I suspect there will be a fair few feeling the confusion on codex release this weekend.

[Heliomanes]

Thanks a lot for the help, Stray!

My dayjob revolves around educating prospective teachers. A bit silly that playing 40k apparently requires higher reading comprehension than the teaching profession.

[ImperialSquishiness]

The whole detachment thing sucks IMO. They sold Armigers to us as a way to fill up a SHD to get CP. Yet the Codex takes that away from us. Fair enough they don't want Armiger spam, so how about 5cp for a Knight Lance. Especially as most of the good stratagems are 2/3CP and you're likely to be spending at least 2 for an extra WL trait and relic before the game even begins.

 

I abhor taking soup armies, but that's the only way I'll be able to generate the CP needed for Knights to use more than 2 special abilities in a game

[Gryphonne]

The whole detachment thing sucks IMO. They sold Armigers to us as a way to fill up a SHD to get CP. Yet the Codex takes that away from us. Fair enough they don't want Armiger spam, so how about 5cp for a Knight Lance. Especially as most of the good stratagems are 2/3CP and you're likely to be spending at least 2 for an extra WL trait and relic before the game even begins.

 

I abhor taking soup armies, but that's the only way I'll be able to generate the CP needed for Knights to use more than 2 special abilities in a game

 

Apparently there was a discussion about this and they've received a lot of feedback about it, so with some luck it might get FAQed. I recommend to send GW some feedback about this, the more complaints they receive, the more likely they are to change this. Because let's be real, it's completely stupid that they advertise every codex as a stand alone only to encourage people to soup up because they don't even give you enough CP. 

 

Alternatively, you could just "spend" 180 points on 5 CP and never deploy your guard, It's what I would do, because I hate non pure lists. However, they really need to change this rule because this is arguably the dumbest artificial detachment restriction in the entire game.

[ImperialSquishiness]

I've already sent them some feedback. No response, but hopefully an FAQ clears things up.

[PiñaColada]

Yeah, I really hate that the idea that I had just before we got wind of the new detachment rules would net me 0 CP (apart from the 3CP that come from battleforged) 

1 Castellan

1 Preceptor w/ ironstorm rocket pod

2 Warglaives w/ meltas

2 Helverins w/ stubbers

 

At 1750 points this would be a fun list I think, but because of the detachment restrictions it'll never happen (I might try it once for fun, but it's going to suuuuuuuck)

Also, these are all new units, so GW should really be supporting builds such as these

 

I'll write and ask them politely / try and incept them into changing the Lance restriction to 1 big knight per detachment to unlock 3CP

[Marshal Reinhard]

So, auxillary super heavy detachments don't the do knight lance thing... but they can generate CP even if they're just armigers? 

[Stray]

So, auxillary super heavy detachments don't the do knight lance thing... but they can generate CP even if they're just armigers? 

 

Well, an Aux SHD never generates CP (Unless this was FAQ'd? (Edit: It wasn't, phew! :P)). The Aux is the single LoW version - are you thinking of the same one buddy? They don't get the lance rule either, but you can use Strats on them just fine.

 

Otherwise, normal SHD's all get the lance rules - regardless of Big Knights or Armigers, but ONLY get CP if you have 3x big Knights in the detachment. So no CP if you have even a single Armiger present in it.

[Marshal Reinhard]

 

So, auxillary super heavy detachments don't the do knight lance thing... but they can generate CP even if they're just armigers? 

 

Well, an Aux SHD never generates CP. 

 

Thanks, that was the piece of the puzzle I was missing. Weak understanding of the rules and all that :P

[Karhedron]

I've already sent them some feedback. No response, but hopefully an FAQ clears things up.

What email address did you use? The usual one I have bounced.

[Stray]

 

 

So, auxillary super heavy detachments don't the do knight lance thing... but they can generate CP even if they're just armigers? 

 

Well, an Aux SHD never generates CP. 

 

Thanks, that was the piece of the puzzle I was missing. Weak understanding of the rules and all that

 

 No problem, my understanding's no better, believe me - I've just been reading it all day so it's fresh in the mind :P

[Lysere]

I'm still hoping GW realizes they need to give people an incentive to not Soup. Reward people for sticking to single factions and maybe even single detachments so Elite armies can get their command points just fine while sticking with only their natural unit choices. I tried them out yesterday and with a small Scion force bumping me up to 11 CP I felt that was enough to have some fun but not so much that I could just spend them freely. If I could get that much with just knights I'd take them on their own. Heck I might even do it if I could get 9 CP. 6 CP is not enough at all though.

 

Next week I'll be trying out the valiant, didn't want to proxy it without having the full rules to hand to show my opponent. Possibly run a Helverin or two as well.

[PiñaColada]

 

I've already sent them some feedback. No response, but hopefully an FAQ clears things up.

What email address did you use? The usual one I have bounced.

 

It's this one you should use. Hopefully getting bounced doesn't mean they blocked you, merely wrong address :)

40kfaq@gwplc.com

[PiñaColada]

I mean if they just changed the lance to 1 big knight per detachment that would still cap us at 9CP, since it's not possible to squeeze in 3 gallants, 3 warglaives and 3 helverins in one list at 2000 points. That would be the best solution in my opinion. It makes their previous statement about armigers filling out SHD true again, but you still can't spam detachments for CP

[Marshal Reinhard]

Honestly, pure armies should be the ones that get the most CP, and instead when you soup you should start losing CP by comparison. Think of it as reflecting the fact that they're dffierent military organisations with their own histories, hierarchies and traditions. When you mix and match, wrinkles in the command structure should appear, while a force purely from one faction should function as a well oiled machine.

[PiñaColada]

I'd really like it if GW heavily restricted the bonuses from soup.

 

Your warlord has to be apart of a force that makes up 50% or more of your army. Everything other than the faction of your warlord counts as allies (even stuff within same codex, so ultramarines&salamanders or hawkshroud&mortan). Allies don't get their traits nor can they give or generate CP, they still get access to stratagems though. Thing is, a guard battalion would still be good, since you get 32 useful bodies for objective secured and possibly deny the witch, chaff clearing, board control etc. They just wouldn't be "auto-include"

 

I personally dislike soup but don't think it should be removed. Just shouldn't be a straight upgrade from mono factions

[Clingy]

I'd really like it if GW heavily restricted the bonuses from soup.

 

Your warlord has to be apart of a force that makes up 50% or more of your army. Everything other than the faction of your warlord counts as allies (even stuff within same codex, so ultramarines&salamanders or hawkshroud&mortan). Allies don't get their traits nor can they give or generate CP, they still get access to stratagems though. Thing is, a guard battalion would still be good, since you get 32 useful bodies for objective secured and possibly deny the witch, chaff clearing, board control etc. They just wouldn't be "auto-include"

 

I personally dislike soup but don't think it should be removed. Just shouldn't be a straight upgrade from mono factions

Congratulations PC. I’d put that blurb on a cv and hand it into the gw rules team job page.

 

Surely your a shoe in! I can’t like this comment enough :)

 

Ok ironically b and c won’t let me like your comment for some reason haha

[Tyriks]

Losing traits is too harsh, but I'm on board with the rest.

[Lysere]

I'd really like it if GW heavily restricted the bonuses from soup.

 

Your warlord has to be apart of a force that makes up 50% or more of your army. Everything other than the faction of your warlord counts as allies (even stuff within same codex, so ultramarines&salamanders or hawkshroud&mortan). Allies don't get their traits nor can they give or generate CP, they still get access to stratagems though. Thing is, a guard battalion would still be good, since you get 32 useful bodies for objective secured and possibly deny the witch, chaff clearing, board control etc. They just wouldn't be "auto-include"

 

I personally dislike soup but don't think it should be removed. Just shouldn't be a straight upgrade from mono factions

 

I feel this might be a big too heavy of a penalty. I'm fine with the no CP generation but the loss of traits seem like too much. Of course if you paired it with a flat CP boost to all lists like change the default 3 to 6-9 or something then I'd say it'd be fine even with the loss of traits. Of course some armies don't have traits so they'd still be just fine, like Custodes.

[PiñaColada]

I don't know if losing traits is too harsh, you'd still have stratagems. Although maybe you should lose those and keep traits instead? Some armies don't use soup for CPs and there needs to be drawbacks there too.. Basically soup should be good for shoring up deficiencies in regards to unit types more than adding a specific combo onto your existing army IMO.

I think the CP system is basically fine if soup wouldn't help giving out CP. Sure IG would still have a ton of them but honestly mono faction Guard are not that scary, no matter what some people seem to think (they're obviously good, but several armies are stronger IMO)

[Mushkilla]

But doesn't that just flip the problem I run guard as main and knights as allies to still get the CP from guard?

 

That's why you have to do something like block traits/relics.

 

Personally, just change it so you get 3CP base 1CP per detachment and can buy 1CP for 50pts. Then every army has access to the same pool.

[Lysere]

I don't know if losing traits is too harsh, you'd still have stratagems. Although maybe you should lose those and keep traits instead? Some armies don't use soup for CPs and there needs to be drawbacks there too.. Basically soup should be good for shoring up deficiencies in regards to unit types more than adding a specific combo onto your existing army IMO.

 

I think the CP system is basically fine if soup wouldn't help giving out CP. Sure IG would still have a ton of them but honestly mono faction Guard are not that scary, no matter what some people seem to think (they're obviously good, but several armies are stronger IMO)

 

The problem with taking traits away is you'll make some armies useless while other armies (like custodes) will be just as strong as before. Taking stratagems away makes even less sense especially since their are stratagems meant work with allies.

 

I do fully support the idea though of half your army has to be the same sub faction as your warlord and denying all other factions and sub factions in the list CP generation. That alone I think will solve most of the issues if paired with a slight baseline CP bump.

[Stray]

I think PC is definitely on the right track. Something does need to address 'soup' (it's a drink! Not a meal!) The devil as always, is in the details.

 

I've often wondered if perhaps it would work to go full Occams Razor, keep it real simple, and just have a flat number of CP's available to each side based on the point limit. You get no extra at all because you took a cheap detachment, give detachments another bonus entirely (don't ask me what, I'm a cat. Free mice'd do it for me :P)

 

If we then argue 'Stray, army X requires strats more than army Y though' (and this is a reasonable argument), we handle that through Strat costs in that armies codex.

 

It's not perfect (and we won't get it anyway, so I'm just spit balling really), but it's as close to 'balance' as I can imagine at this stage.

[banis]

Or make it so detachments had to be battleforged and the CP gained from those detachments could only be used to buff that faction.  

[Redtoof]

My suggestion is to link the maximum command points from a detachment to it’s total points cost. For example, say you can have one command point for each full 100 points you spend on a detachment, up to the current amount. That gives you 5 command points for a Battalion that costs 500 or more points, but only 1 for a minimum guard Battalion. You can still get a good chunk of command points for taking guard allies, but you need to invest in them more than just a token few squads.