LVO is in the bag & soup is still on the menu

[shanewatts]

If the Castellan in a super heavy aux don't unlock those stratagems, how does it have access those relics/stratagems?

 

It makes IK the same as every other codex in that regard. Aux and Super Heavy Aux don't get detachment benefits or unlock stratagems.

[Focslain]

If the Castellan in a super heavy aux don't unlock those stratagems, how does it have access those relics/stratagems?

 

It makes IK the same as every other codex in that regard. Aux and Super Heavy Aux don't get detachment benefits or unlock stratagems.

 

If we are using the Brood Brother rule you are correct, however if using the the guard SHA then it still gets access to basic strats, just not the regimental strats and traits. For Knights that is Heirloom, Relic, and Rotate shield. Actually I think Resurgence (the strat that gives them full power regardless of wounds) is also a basic strat.

 

For traits, Ion Bulwark is a basic warlord trait for knights, Sanctuary being a basic relic for them.

 

Best way to see is in AB make a knight a freeblade and it will give you the basic traits and relics. The strats for giving it relics and traits are basic as well.

[shanewatts]

I am not sure where you get the impression that AM SHA detachments get access to stratagems, I could be wrong (I'll check my codex when I get home) but every current codex minus IK gets zero benefits from their codex in an SHA.

 

example : You take Mortarion in a DG SHA. He doesn't unlock DG stratagems, but if you took a second DG detachment (say a battalion) then you could use DG stratagems as you saw fit.

 

As far as heirloom relic etc, the Castellan isn't a character in a SHA, and if the SHA didn't unlock their stratagems you couldn't use the stratagems to give it a warlord trait/relic or resurgence. I am not sure what you are referring to as basic stratagems (non house related maybe?), but if you don't unlock them, you can't use them. So I am confused as to why you think you could still do otherwise.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I am pretty sure Shane is correct.

[Focslain]

I am not sure where you get the impression that AM SHA detachments get access to stratagems, I could be wrong (I'll check my codex when I get home) but every current codex minus IK gets zero benefits from their codex in an SHA.

 

example : You take Mortarion in a DG SHA. He doesn't unlock DG stratagems, but if you took a second DG detachment (say a battalion) then you could use DG stratagems as you saw fit.

 

As far as heirloom relic etc, the Castellan isn't a character in a SHA, and if the SHA didn't unlock their stratagems you couldn't use the stratagems to give it a warlord trait/relic or resurgence. I am not sure what you are referring to as basic stratagems (non house related maybe?), but if you don't unlock them, you can't use them. So I am confused as to why you think you could still do otherwise.

 

By basic strats and relics I do mean non-house strats. These are items that all knights (even freeblades which are non-aligned) get access to. 

 

As for the AM bit, to clarify does that mean that a SHA baneblade doesn't get to use Defensive Fire or the Crush 'em strat? 

 

This is why there has to be a diffence between what the AM get already and the GSC rule. Brood Brothers removes the AM detachments access to the relics, orders and strat of their parent codex. So applying that rule to all allied detachments with remove a large amount of buffs fro the castellan and even the Ynnari.

[Panzer]

 

I am not sure where you get the impression that AM SHA detachments get access to stratagems, I could be wrong (I'll check my codex when I get home) but every current codex minus IK gets zero benefits from their codex in an SHA.

 

example : You take Mortarion in a DG SHA. He doesn't unlock DG stratagems, but if you took a second DG detachment (say a battalion) then you could use DG stratagems as you saw fit.

 

As far as heirloom relic etc, the Castellan isn't a character in a SHA, and if the SHA didn't unlock their stratagems you couldn't use the stratagems to give it a warlord trait/relic or resurgence. I am not sure what you are referring to as basic stratagems (non house related maybe?), but if you don't unlock them, you can't use them. So I am confused as to why you think you could still do otherwise.

 

By basic strats and relics I do mean non-house strats. These are items that all knights (even freeblades which are non-aligned) get access to. 

 

As for the AM bit, to clarify does that mean that a SHA baneblade doesn't get to use Defensive Fire or the Crush 'em strat? 

 

 

They only get access to if you field a Knight detachment ... like the Super Heavy Auxiliary one. Shanewatts was talking about not allowing those Stratagems when taking the Super Heavy Auxiliary detachment so you would NOT have access to them unless you take the big Knight detachment.

[shanewatts]

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

[PiñaColada]

 

I dig the % breakdown idea. My only hesitance is im an old WFB player where that was the norm and dont have a lot of faith the general populace would enjoy the "ermagerd maths".

 

Yeah people are surprisingly incapable of doing basic percentage calculations. Though I guess GW could include the numbers for 500p, 750p, 1000p, 1500p, 1750p and 2000p somewhere. ^^

 

 

What am I, a scientist? You better include that 1250 point level as well! But in all seriousness, percentage in an already scaling point level system might get at bit too complex for GW to want to implement it. It's not really, but they have shown an unwillingness to do it in general. Although I do think AoS has like a 25% of the forces can be allies thing going on? I'd be on board with such a solution (meaning percentages) in any case.

-Snip-

 

I think soup itself can be fluffy, and I agree there is problems with it, but I think the results from LVO and NOVA are more because of what the allies do beyond the CP.

I like the idea of soup, when moderated. But I disagree about your assessment regarding CP. The Castellan is good without strats and warlord traits & cawls wrath. It's god-tier with them. But even with all the CPs a guard brigade brings you're only realling powering it up 2 turns, it's just in most cases that's enough to obliterate your opponent. Remove the imbalance regarding CP and it's still a great idea to combo a Castellan with IG, but nowhere near the same effectiveness.

 

Just as an example, if we use the model I wrote down in the first post you'd get 11CP. Then -1CP for bringing in an allied detachment. Then -1CP for giving the Castellan a warlord trait. Then -1CP for giving him Cawl's wrath. You're now down to 8CP. Rotate Ion shields is 3CP, as is Order of companions. Machine spirit resurgence is 1CP. At this point you're most likely getting 1 turn with this bad boy, buffed up. The Castellan still needs separate fixes but the argument that CP isn't a big cornerstone to the succesrate of allies I do not buy into at all.

 

Also, as a general aside. We can't make the Battalion detachment require more slots since then someone playing mono Custodes won't ever be able to fill it. Again, if we had some sort of a percentage system where you only unlock the benefits of that detachment if it made up 50% of your total points it might work. I'm still not sure if that's better than simply giving out CP for the amount of points you're allowed to bring though. You could tie the battleforged CP to a requirement of having either a battalion or a brigade when playing games at 1001+ points I guess.

[Panzer]

 

 

I dig the % breakdown idea. My only hesitance is im an old WFB player where that was the norm and dont have a lot of faith the general populace would enjoy the "ermagerd maths".

 

Yeah people are surprisingly incapable of doing basic percentage calculations. Though I guess GW could include the numbers for 500p, 750p, 1000p, 1500p, 1750p and 2000p somewhere. ^^

 

 

What am I, a scientist? You better include that 1250 point level as well! But in all seriousness, percentage in an already scaling point level system might get at bit too complex for GW to want to implement it. It's not really, but they have shown an unwillingness to do it in general. Although I do think AoS has like a 25% of the forces can be allies thing going on? I'd be on board with such a solution (meaning percentages) in any case.

 

WHFB had it since basically forever and AoS has it as well, yeah. Not sure about 40k as I only really started with 7th.

[Focslain]

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

 

So if I take a baneblade in a marine army the only strat I can use on the baneblade is Command Re-roll? Seems a bit off personally. 

[H311fi5h]

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

 

Then people will just add two Helverins and nothing will change.

 

I like how easy it is to ally knights with an Imperium army. It is part of their design and fluff. The issue with the Castellan is more than just how many buffs you can stack.

A Castellan without any strategems and relics is not that scary for 600 points. Only once you stack Ion Bulwark, Rotate Ion Shield, Order of Companions and Cawl's Wrath it becomes the terror it is. I think a good way to balance the Castellan would be to focus on the fully buffed Castellan without hurting the "tame" basic version or all other knights too much in the process.

First I think one has to look at Cawl's Wrath. Do we really need +1 S, AP and D? The Hammer of Sunderance is a quite comparable (and really good) relic but adds only +1 D. I say take away D3. -1 S and AP is good enough, and it also makes different Castellan builds more interesting (like Krast with First Knight and Headman's Mark).

Second, 3++ is too much. Rotate Ion shield should receive a simple addition: "This strategem can never be used to improve an invulnerable save to be better than 4+."

Third, a slight points increase is still needed. At 650 in combination with both things above it's no longer an auto take, but an option.

 

But I would like GW to also look at other Super Heavies in the game. The Baneblade and it's variants for example are glass cannons. Really good firepower, really easy to kill for how much the cost (twice the durability of a Leman Russ, but three times the price tag). The need lower firepower in change for T9 and a 2+ armor save. 

[Panzer]

 

If you take a SHA with a baneblade, and no other AM detachments, you are correct that you cannot use defensive fire or Crush em.

 

 

Which is why if you made IK SHA work the same way, even a freeblade Castellan is much less deadly and survivable.

 

So if I take a baneblade in a marine army the only strat I can use on the baneblade is Command Re-roll? Seems a bit off personally. 

 

 

That's how it is, yeah.

[shanewatts]

Pinacolada - Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

The reason why I stand by my opinion is because with 2 Crusaders + Castellan + 2 AM Battalions, you get 19CP.

 

"The List" has AM Brigade + AM Battalion + Castellan for a total of 20CP.

 

For one less CP you get 2 extra knights and a lot less bodies, and a list that is not winning the bigger tournaments. I guess we could just agree to disagree.

 

H311fi5h - You are totally right that 2 helverins could be added to the Castellans detachment in this case, but that is still more points needed to be invested in IK to make it work versus the current state of being.

 

 

 

I've tried to offer some reasonable insight based on my experiences, I guess I can't make everyone happy. So take this how you will.

[PeteySödes]

 

WHFB had it since basically forever and AoS has it as well, yeah. Not sure about 40k as I only really started with 7th.

 

 

 

40k hasn't used percentages since I started in 3rd with the exception of some tournament comps (when that was a thing) that had an unofficial rubric. That was ancient history though.

 

Im unfamiliar with AoS though so thats actually encouraging that they have that.

[PiñaColada]

Pinacolada - Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

 

The reason why I stand by my opinion is because with 2 Crusaders + Castellan + 2 AM Battalions, you get 19CP.

 

"The List" has AM Brigade + AM Battalion + Castellan for a total of 20CP.

 

For one less CP you get 2 extra knights and a lot less bodies, and a list that is not winning the bigger tournaments. I guess we could just agree to disagree.

 

H311fi5h - You are totally right that 2 helverins could be added to the Castellans detachment in this case, but that is still more points needed to be invested in IK to make it work versus the current state of being.

 

 

 

I've tried to offer some reasonable insight based on my experiences, I guess I can't make everyone happy. So take this how you will.

I'm sorry, I hope you didn't take my statement as something meant to be hostile in any way. That wasn't my intention. In regards to CP I do think that after a while it doesn't matter all that much anymore, basically if you get to buff up your Castellan both offensively and defensively for 2 battlerounds then anything after that makes very little difference IMO and the remainder of your available points be focused on other things, not generating CP. Besides, multiple Knights right now probably isn't the best idea since they are best when you can hand buffs out to them, something you can only really do to one at a time. In a meta where people try to bring enough firepower to bring down 28 wounds with a 3++, 24 wounds with a 5++ is going to be a breeze.

 

But going from 13CP down to 8CP when you have the proverbial cookie monster chewing through those CPs like snacks is going to hurt. That's my point, at a certain level CP doesn't matter as much anymore but there's absolutely a lower limit to where you can comfortably bring that Castellan in. 

[shanewatts]

PinaColada - All good. Sorry if I misconstrued your part of the conversation.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

I would like to see the basic guardsman go up to 5ppm. I know some AM players will complain but truly they are way undercosted right now.

[Focslain]

I would like to see the basic guardsman go up to 5ppm. I know some AM players will complain but truly they are way undercosted right now.

 

When they start winning tournaments on their own, maybe, but raising them now just hurts pure guard lists way more then the soup lists.

 

Also any thoughts on the Ynnari lists that topped the charts? While going after Imperial soup is all in good, we do need to look at all soup options.

[Panzer]

Yeah 4ppm seems a bit too cheap for Guardsmen but overall AM isn't exactly a top tier army on their own so I don't see the need to nerf them directly just to punish soups. Especially since it would only add 30p to soup lists anyway.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Guard players will cry about it but they are criminally under pointed even for a pure army. That is my focus here.

[PiñaColada]

Well, considering there's basically no reason to play mono-guard there's not a very good way of finding out how good they are. I haven't seen any top tier players try it out, which might mean that they aren't good enough. It might also just mean that there's no reason they should even bother, since soup will be stronger.

 

I absolutely think guardsmen should be 5ppm, there aren't that many arguments as to why they aren't deserving of a price hike IMO. But obviously the other big offender is the Castellan, so both of those need to be sorted out regardless of soup fixes.

 

Ynnari have the whole, they're getting craftworld stratagems  in addition to soulbursting when played as them. So a whole lotta upside. The the whole Doom + Jinx works for everything not just Asuryani. Also the list that came in at 2nd had 7 supersonic flyers, which just seems a bit much. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing some restrictions on how many you're allowed to bring.

But the bigger issue is still, even if you fix all of the above, what arguments are there for not bringing in allies? None. Because you still have all the options and zero reprecussions. So the above things should be looked over and fixed but there has to be some sort of incentive for playing not onl mono-dex but even moreso for playing a single chapter/craftworld/klan whatever. Whether that incentive should be a carrot or a stick is still up for debate.

[H311fi5h]

 

I absolutely think guardsmen should be 5ppm, there aren't that many arguments as to why they aren't deserving of a price hike IMO. 

 

Let me give you some then:

- Guardmen are capped to 10 men units. Which is a massive disadvantage compared to cultists. Quite a number of well performing lists at the lvo already had some much worse conscripts at the same price per model for that very reason. At 5 ppm regular guardsmen may disappear in favor of Valhallan conscript spam. At that point there will be even more crying. (By the way I'm not saying the Cultist nerf was correct. I would have preferred taking away VotlW and reducing the maximum unit size down to 20 or 30 like they did with conscripts.)

- Guardsmen don't do much without orders. Orders are often given as the reason for why guardsmen should cost 5 points. Well in fact they already do - 5.5 to be exact because 15 points is the (minimum) price for one order. If you really think orders are too strong, the right move would be increasing cost for officers, not guardsmen.

- Comparable infantry units are so much more capable than guardsmen: Kroot cost 5 ppm. They get -1 armor save, but +1 Strength, both in melee and shooting, +1 M, +1 WS and a scout move. Making guardsmen cost the same as a unit that much better is ridiculous. Or Kabalite Warriors: Better gun, +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 LD and +1 M. That is 5 points of improvement over a Guardsmen. Are you trying to tell me that is worth only a single point?

- By nerfing guarsmen you rip out the core of pure guard armies. Which is something you almost never see on tournaments, and when you do it isn't a problem. So don't punish what is isn't at fault.

- By making guardsmen 5 ppm you would see MORE loyal 32 detachments. Why? All the people who currently play larger guard armies with lots of guardsmen (which is what Guard armies should look like btw) will start to reduce their number of guarsmen to the bare minimum they need for the detachment. Therefore 5 point guardsmen don't solve anything. Castellans are just going to have different friends. 

- Veterans cost 5 points and are better than guardsmen. Yet no one is calling them overpowered, and almost no one is playing them. The reason is quite obvious of course, they aren't troops anymore. So are we now pricing units higher for being troops? If so lets make tactical marines more expensive too please.

 

Or to sum everything up: Don't punish the guard just because they happen to have the best synergy with some OTHER codex. The real issue is how factions with different strengths and weaknesses can be combined at exactly NO cost.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

A lot of what you just said isn’t really true like the fact you can blob your squads.... and you must take some of their cheap HQ.

[chapter master 454]

 

 

I absolutely think guardsmen should be 5ppm, there aren't that many arguments as to why they aren't deserving of a price hike IMO. 

 

Let me give you some then:

- Guardmen are capped to 10 men units. Which is a massive disadvantage compared to cultists. Quite a number of well performing lists at the lvo already had some much worse conscripts at the same price per model for that very reason. At 5 ppm regular guardsmen may disappear in favor of Valhallan conscript spam. At that point there will be even more crying. (By the way I'm not saying the Cultist nerf was correct. I would have preferred taking away VotlW and reducing the maximum unit size down to 20 or 30 like they did with conscripts.)

- Guardsmen don't do much without orders. Orders are often given as the reason for why guardsmen should cost 5 points. Well in fact they already do - 5.5 to be exact because 15 points is the (minimum) price for one order. If you really think orders are too strong, the right move would be increasing cost for officers, not guardsmen.

- Comparable infantry units are so much more capable than guardsmen: Kroot cost 5 ppm. They get -1 armor save, but +1 Strength, both in melee and shooting, +1 M, +1 WS and a scout move. Making guardsmen cost the same as a unit that much better is ridiculous. Or Kabalite Warriors: Better gun, +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 LD and +1 M. That is 5 points of improvement over a Guardsmen. Are you trying to tell me that is worth only a single point?

- By nerfing guarsmen you rip out the core of pure guard armies. Which is something you almost never see on tournaments, and when you do it isn't a problem. So don't punish what is isn't at fault.

- By making guardsmen 5 ppm you would see MORE loyal 32 detachments. Why? All the people who currently play larger guard armies with lots of guardsmen (which is what Guard armies should look like btw) will start to reduce their number of guarsmen to the bare minimum they need for the detachment. Therefore 5 point guardsmen don't solve anything. Castellans are just going to have different friends. 

- Veterans cost 5 points and are better than guardsmen. Yet no one is calling them overpowered, and almost no one is playing them. The reason is quite obvious of course, they aren't troops anymore. So are we now pricing units higher for being troops? If so lets make tactical marines more expensive too please.

 

Or to sum everything up: Don't punish the guard just because they happen to have the best synergy with some OTHER codex. The real issue is how factions with different strengths and weaknesses can be combined at exactly NO cost.

 

 

Well ain't someone using the noodle.

 

Nailed it exactly right on all accords as people seem to not be listening. Yea, I'm fed up of this topic but by all the emperor it is a GREAT discussion of balance and what not to do. One of them is witch hunting (and I ain't talking the duck hunt kind for psykers. Those are much more fun).

Each time someone de-bunks a unit for the chopping block someone steps up to the plate with a new victim and by all that is terra's lack of oceans for an actual atmosphere to exist it doesn't help anyone. We keep cycling round and round and round and it is getting dizzying. Next up will be the smash masters, watch this spot!

 

Really the question is to be asked: Why are allies a bad thing? Honestly. Give me a straight, good long thought out post where you list the NEGATIVES of allies because I can tell ya, if anything we are seeing positives over negatives my dear power armoured brothers of various beliefs and scientific pursuit. To be honest, the more and more we go round I have advocated some changes but only in a way to spur discussion really or make someone think about it and see if it sticks.

I DO agree, let me make that double clear, I DO agree, that there needs to be a price for allies or a benefit for mono-dexing. It would certainly be nice to have something to build around on top of the new layers that specialist detachments will give us. Oh and don't tell me special detachments will end the game, Eldar will do that WITHOUT them anyway. Don't believe me? Take yonder gaze at prior formats and look who is always kicking top tier with votes in their favour. Space elfs.

 

Going to plug I would like to see a small amendment to chapter tactics for marines to apply to tanks but hey, quick plug over.

 

However the question then becomes one of the ball in whose court and whose court we are playing in and are we playing tennis, rugby or golf. Because there is a million dollar question for you all: What aspect of the game did GW undertune and/or overtune in 8th edition and sorry for all those anti-CP stratagem haters but those are good to stay 100%. They add a nice valve to certain abilities and keep things in check because I certainly would comment that we would never see sternguard as good as they are now without that stratagem and if they had it as a raw ability then HO boy would that make them god-tier. The act of stratagems let us not only control abilities but push the boat too because now we have a new gate on them we control how many times you can do it and thus can control how easy to use it is via CP cost. "Oh but CP is so easy to get, throw in some loyal 32 and boom. 5 CP". Yea, good point but then again I would say something...isn't that an inherent strength of those imperial guardsmen? Expendable, Cheap, plentiful and by the emperor they sure do make a GREAT sandbag. So they can naturally give us access to things we couldn't in the first place. After all, don't they fuel the smash captain? He sure does it all huh, smashing, smashing, smashing oh and he does make a great conversationalist! Not to mention that castellan sure is an amazing centre piece with some serious kick, that lance certain gets the job done and the decimator doesn't hurt either at handling some pesky armoured targets or those harder to hurt sorts.

 

Hmmm...I wonder what do they all share? Oh right weaknesses! Smash Captain rarely can bring his hammer to bare on enough targets and certainly doesn't have the time to get those game winning objectives. The castellan is big and intimidating so not only does it struggle to move around tighter spaces but like the captain can't really get those objectives so easily and on top of that can't hide with character keyword so thus is the numero uno important to die target for those who has a lascannon and batteries to burn! Talking of batteries there is the ever famous Battery Battalion; the loyal 32! These 180 point wonders are the pride of the imperial guard...pfft, who we kicking these gets get made target practice by their own side more than the enemy. Only real question is who has a higher kill count of their own men: Inquistion or Commissars! Thus they have little to no bite.

 

However, any army is a sum of their parts and not the single cogs. Put these three together and what do you get? I'll let yous figure the rest. After all, the problem isn't really a problem but it is a fun discussion!

[Panzer]

Another thing is when people say it’s not fair for a pure AM list that is obvious they are just being selfish really.

 

Ehm no. I don't even play AM and as I said in my previous post it would really just add 30p to the usual soup list so it really just affects AM players, not soup players.