Astra Militarum win LVO 2019

[MrZakalwe]

But are people spending more points on the Guard or on Knights in the really powerful lists? If they spend more points on Knights they become the "Primary" and then Guard detachments only generate half CP's.

 

If Guard are winning easily because of one allied Knight, then maybe Guard really are a bit OP (shhhh!). Why can't Marines win by just adding a Knight?

 

Honestly I'd be delighted if CP's and Stratagems never existed at all, by far my least favourite part of this addition.

 

Because Marines aren't good with or without a Knight outside of Gman lists that require all of your points and already do much, much better than mono-guard does. Guard are good anyway (although not good enough to place well in tournaments. Guard havce trouble with anti-tank which is a weakness the Castellan sorts out nicely.

 

The Castellan is less than 700 points so the majority of the list is often Guard or at least the largest detachment is. Guard are powerrful in competitive because they provide cheap CP and require few command points to perform well- the fact that they don't get as much benefit from further command point expenditure doesn't matter when you are spending them all on a Raven Castellan. 

 

At tournament level mono-Marines outperform mono-guard. 

 

 

On that note, why wasn't Chaos winning by including a knight ally, the renegade knights are just as good.

 

 

Because Chaos Knights can't be House Raven and use the enormously powerful 'Order of Companions' Strategem or the Cawl's Wrath relic (which between them nearly double the damage output of the house Raven Castellan against it's ideal targets). They also can't take the essential 'Ion Bulwark' Warlord trait. 

 

So the Chaos version takes 50% more damage from high power weaponry (4+ invuln fails 50% more than a 3+) and deal around 50% of the damage (though 'Trail of destruction' can probably get that close to 65% at pretty much the same cost.

 

The difference is massive. 

[librisrouge]

 

But are people spending more points on the Guard or on Knights in the really powerful lists? If they spend more points on Knights they become the "Primary" and then Guard detachments only generate half CP's.

 

If Guard are winning easily because of one allied Knight, then maybe Guard really are a bit OP (shhhh!). Why can't Marines win by just adding a Knight?

 

Honestly I'd be delighted if CP's and Stratagems never existed at all, by far my least favourite part of this addition.

 

On that note, why wasn't Chaos winning by including a knight ally, the renegade knights are just as good.

 

Because they're not. Knights, to be competitive, need a few things: castellans, Rotate Ion Shields strategem, Ion Bullwark warlord trait, Cawl's Wrath, Order of Companions strategem, and machine spirit resurgent strategem.

 

Traitors only have 2/6 of those things. Perhaps the 2 most important, sure, but only 2. It's the whole package that makes the super Castellan genuinely super. Knights aren't good. Not on a genuinely competitive level. They're too few models that don't do enough and have too many counters. That is why all of the top 8 LVO lists that were "knight" lists had a castellan with access to 6/6 of the things listed above. The knight codex has just 1 truly competitive unit and that is it. It is AMAZINGLY good. Worth more than literally any other Lord of War, other knights included.

[NatBrannigan]

Interesting stuff thanks, never looked at Knights too seriously myself. Does seem like they shine because of certain Strategems, just like everything else. Yay...

 

Scrap Strategems completely and add some proper cover rules, it'll improve the game lots in my opinion.

[patchestheclown]

 

 

 

So the Chaos version takes 50% more damage from high power weaponry (4+ invuln fails 50% more than a 3+) and deal around 50% of the damage (though 'Trail of destruction' can probably get that close to 65% at pretty much the same cost.

 

The difference is massive.

 

I agree with everything you said except one thing...

How on Earth does a 4+ fail 50% more than a 3+??? That math really doesn't make any sense. Your success rate at 4+ is 50% as is your failure rate. At 3+ your success goes up to 66% and your failure down to 33%. So it fails exactly 1/6 more than a 4+ (which makes sense as there is one more number on the die that constitutes a fail)

 

I don't understand at all where you're getting the idea of a 50% increase in failure rate. And I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out where it's coming from.

[Wassa]

I’d be happy if Knights never existed.

 

I chose guard because I liked having the biggest scariest guns with the huge pie plates of destruction. Our superheavies were meant to be feared by all. Now everyones picking Knights for their big shooting ability and even guard players are choosing them over our own super heavies.

[HallofStovokor]

I’d be happy if Knights never existed.

 

I chose guard because I liked having the biggest scariest guns with the huge pie plates of destruction. Our superheavies were meant to be feared by all. Now everyones picking Knights for their big shooting ability and even guard players are choosing them over our own super heavies.

Completely agree. I play mono-guard out of principle. How often in the fluff does the guard need to stand alone and pray that the Emperor protects? Most of the time. Imperial Knights are annoying. I'd bet anything that the shadowsword would be the king of the table if our vehicles had access to invulnerable saves. As it stands a Crusader costs as much as a shadowsword and has a better BS, WS and an invulnerable save. Essentially it is a more points efficient model. Given Iron Bulwark, it won't fail half of its saves.

[Kallas]

I agree with everything you said except one thing...

How on Earth does a 4+ fail 50% more than a 3+??? That math really doesn't make any sense. Your success rate at 4+ is 50% as is your failure rate. At 3+ your success goes up to 66% and your failure down to 33%. So it fails exactly 1/6 more than a 4+ (which makes sense as there is one more number on the die that constitutes a fail)

 

I don't understand at all where you're getting the idea of a 50% increase in failure rate. And I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out where it's coming from.

3++ fails on 1s and 2s.

4++ fails on 1s, 2s, and 3s.

 

There are 50% more 'failure' results with a 4++ than a 3++. That said, looking at it from the other angle, a 4++->3++ is 'only' a 33% increase in saves made.

 

It's odd, because the d6 system is so flat.

[MrZakalwe]

I agree with everything you said except one thing...

How on Earth does a 4+ fail 50% more than a 3+??? That math really doesn't make any sense. Your success rate at 4+ is 50% as is your failure rate. At 3+ your success goes up to 66% and your failure down to 33%. So it fails exactly 1/6 more than a 4+ (which makes sense as there is one more number on the die that constitutes a fail)

 

I don't understand at all where you're getting the idea of a 50% increase in failure rate. And I've been wracking my brain trying to figure out where it's coming from.

A 3+ fails 2 times in 6 while a 4+ fails 3 times in 6. 3 is 50% more than 2.

 

A knight with a 3+ invulnerable save requires (on average) 50% more damage inflicted to kill it than a knight with a 4+ invulnerable save.

[Captain_Krash]

I miss the days of competitive play prior to stratagems, super heavies and allies...

 

So much simpler and much more tactical having to use your mono codex to do it's own job and play to it's own strengths.

 

Not...Oh my army is weak in this area so I'm going to supplement with this other army. Blah

 

Krash

[MrZakalwe]

On the flip side game balance was a whole lot worse back then and updates were much slower.

 

It's more complex now but it's much closer to being balanced.

[NatBrannigan]

I really like the game at the moment, but then I've never played in a tournament either. Whenever I play with a friend the game tends to be close or if it's not it can be traced back to bad luck or truly moronic decisions (usually made by me). That's all I really want from a game so happy camper here.

 

Agree with Krash though, not every list should have a Knight in. I remember when a Land Raider was a fearsome thing to see on the table! And get off the lawn you damn kids! Maybe I'm just prematurely old and grumpy...

[Feral_80]

As always, the problem is the allies system.

 

Knights alone do not win any serious game. They are pts efficient (*a few* of them) because otherwise they would not even stand a chance in easy matches either.

 

Revise the allies system and you will solve this kind of issues in the game.

 

I, for one, think that the easiest fix would be to create a new 0-1 Allies detachment, and that should be the only way to include stuff outside your codex.

[MrZakalwe]

As always, the problem is the allies system.

 

Knights alone do not win any serious game. They are pts efficient (*a few* of them) because otherwise they would not even stand a chance in easy matches either.

 

Revise the allies system and you will solve this kind of issues in the game.

 

I, for one, think that the easiest fix would be to create a new 0-1 Allies detachment, and that should be the only way to include stuff outside your codex.

Or one like Age of Sigmar where 20% of your total force can be allies drawn from a faction specific list.

[Feral_80]

That system was in use in the 2nd ed. of 40k. It had some merits, but the game otherwise was basically unplayable

[Shamansky]

As always, the problem is the allies system.

 

Knights alone do not win any serious game. They are pts efficient (*a few* of them) because otherwise they would not even stand a chance in easy matches either.

 

Revise the allies system and you will solve this kind of issues in the game.

 

I, for one, think that the easiest fix would be to create a new 0-1 Allies detachment, and that should be the only way to include stuff outside your codex.

The howl of 'unplayable' armies will be heard at the edge of the galaxy

[Feral_80]

 

 

As always, the problem is the allies system.

 

Knights alone do not win any serious game. They are pts efficient (*a few* of them) because otherwise they would not even stand a chance in easy matches either.

 

Revise the allies system and you will solve this kind of issues in the game.

 

I, for one, think that the easiest fix would be to create a new 0-1 Allies detachment, and that should be the only way to include stuff outside your codex.

The howl of 'unplayable' armies will be heard at the edge of the galaxy

Yea, like Imperial Guard has been for the vast majority of past editions.

 

And yet, we are still here.

[duz_]

Lets not fall down the slope of fixing the game in this thread

[FallenSoldiers]

If you listen to any interviews with Brandon Grant (and I suggest you do) he continually says how the backbone of his army is infantry and a solid ground game!

[Captain_Krash]

And he's not wrong. But the threat of the Knight is it's own metagame just for including it.

 

Krash

[duz_]

Backbone might be infantry

But if they're that strong why was there no pure guard lists?

 

As Krash said having the IK there changes the dynamic significantly

[librisrouge]

If you listen to any interviews with Brandon Grant (and I suggest you do) he continually says how the backbone of his army is infantry and a solid ground game!

I've heard those interviews and, not to sound like I know more than someone who is clearly an amazing player, part of what allows his infantry to do what they do is that so much attention has to be paid to his knight, both because of how tough it is (+3 invul) and how much it can wreck things (Cawl's Wrath and Order of Companions.) If he replaced that knight with an equivalent amount of IG firepower, he would be allowing his opponents to pay much more attention to his infantry and cripple his ground game.

 

His list, intelligently, forces his opponents to make tough choices. Do they kill the thing that can kill them but allow him to start racking in objective points or do they go after the scoring units and risk being blasted off the table early?

[duz_]

His list, intelligently, forces his opponents to make tough choices. Do they kill the thing that can kill them but allow him to start racking in objective points or do they go after the scoring units and risk being blasted off the table early?

 

Exactly

 

The AdMechs player used the same principle just with a different faction

[HallofStovokor]

That is an interesting problem, but not exclusively 8th edition. I like to think that everyone is upset because the guard are actually good for once. ITC rules tend to make infantry a bigger problem than in other settings. 1st floor ruins are LoS blocking terrain. This means that you can often have your weak infantry move from building to building immune to shooting. The guard having so much indirect fire weapons makes this a headache. We have so many different options to kill things we can't se that everyone else hates us. In normal games without ITC rules, the guard aren't as invincible, but ITC eschews this. Remember the SOCAL open? Grant won the finals after his castellan was killed turn 1. His infantry used the terrain as was untouched until he decided an engagement favored him. You could claim that the knight bought him a turn free from firing, but I would argue that a shadowsword would have done the same task.

[FallenSoldiers]

No ones saying a Castellan isn’t strong, that wasn’t the point of my post. Anyone who’s arguing that the Castellan isn’t a powerhouse must be playing a different game.

 

What I am saying is that infantry still win games. He won BAO (or maybe SoCal open, I forget) after losing his Castellan T1 in the final game. Infantry squads and the infantry key word are still extremely powerful. Playing to their strengths (hiding in ruins, utilizing orders, counter charging with the right units..) is the way you win games even against a Castellan. Focus on the aspects of the game you can control. You can’t control what your opponent brings, you can control how you handle it. I liked the term/idea of acceptable casualties. A Castellan is going to punch a LeMan Russ right in the face and not bat an eye. 90+ Guardsmen, played right, Will outscore and win the game 9/10 times.

[HallofStovokor]

No ones saying a Castellan isn’t strong, that wasn’t the point of my post. Anyone who’s arguing that the Castellan isn’t a powerhouse must be playing a different game.

 

What I am saying is that infantry still win games. He won BAO (or maybe SoCal open, I forget) after losing his Castellan T1 in the final game. Infantry squads and the infantry key word are still extremely powerful. Playing to their strengths (hiding in ruins, utilizing orders, counter charging with the right units..) is the way you win games even against a Castellan. Focus on the aspects of the game you can control. You can’t control what your opponent brings, you can control how you handle it. I liked the term/idea of acceptable casualties. A Castellan is going to punch a LeMan Russ right in the face and not bat an eye. 90+ Guardsmen, played right, Will outscore and win the game 9/10 times.

I agree completely, but it isn't crazy to say that the infantry has options, due to how well the rest of the army can create disruptions. Knights are merely the most efficient way of distracting opponents. A baneblade variant would have accomplished the same thing, but with less resilience. Our artillery and infantry work extremely well together, but ITC rules makes the opponents forced to take risks. Taking risks against the guard, gives the slow moving guard control of the flow of the game. If you're dictating the game's pace, you now have the ability to pick the fights you think you can win.