@@mamneo2 actually stopped using him. The latest points adjustment killed him in competitive play. For casual games he is really strong for the stratagem ability and extra OC, the oath ability lost value with the new codex.
@@codyfournellcsrf5164 I guess Lion is more of a melee threat than Guilliman. But I think Guilliman has more useful abilities. I can be proven wrong, didn't run any proper math. In theory Lion is more tanky with the 3++, but if Guilliman ressurrects it will even out (not guaranteed though).
My only thoughts on using him is his points cost. For 1k games, he’s a 3rd of the army in points and may prevent a player from taking advantage of units that can provide damage against tougher enemies.
The one aspect that you left out is the key part of the equation! Yes, he's powerful, yes, he gives you lots of Things, but, at 355 pts, is he worth it? What else could you get for those points and would they be more impactful over the length of the game? Two Lancers and a Scout Squad would be about the same, the two Lancers have their own built-in Oath effect and can each take more damage that him, and the Scouts have Lone Operative and can take a point with more OC than he can, but also snipe out enemy characters. Would teh versitility and multiple-presences that this gives you outweigh Roubute's raw melee power? What about replacing one Lancer with Bladeguard? Can a Terminator Squad do the point-punishing as well as the boss for 150 less? My heart says the big man's great, but my gut says that you can spend the points better, so my head's the deciding factor ... and you didn't lean into THAT part of the discussion at all. Ack/
It kind of seems like you're trying to weigh G-man's cost in a vacuum. YES. You could take a lot of stuff instead of taking the big guy. BUT. You miss out on a LOT of synergies that he has with a number of units. Lancers don't get Lone Operative. Plenty of lists work in anti-tank firepower with Guilliman. You get Lancers, but you also give you're opponent two choices for BOTH Oath of Moment targets if desired. Lancers may not necessarily take more DAMAGE than Guilliman. On paper they clearly do. BUT. G-man has a 2+ save, Lancers are at a 3+. G-man has a 4+ invul. Lancers don't get one. G-man can get back up on a 3+ after the first time he's downed. Lancers don't get that either. While the Lancers can take more damage on paper, G-man could potentially require a much higher number of shots statistically to bring him down for good. Scout Snipers are pretty good. BUT. You are talking about an S4 AP-2 D2 weapon with A1. A lot of characters have decent toughness levels this edition, and a number still have access to extra defenses when it comes to precision attacks. Also working against that is the fact that you have to see the character in order to target it and contend with cover. Lastly I'll add, Guilliman is part a DETACHMENT. Part of an army. Guilliman's abilities are also effects that multiple units can use and take advantage of. HE IS A FORCE MULTIPLIER. If the army is built with this in mind, you're getting far more bang for your buck than 2 Lancers and a Scout Squad. The hard hitting profile is just icing on the cake.
Good video. Love to see Guilliman getting some love, I really like using him. Both for the rules and cinematic when he face a Daemon prince or similar.
Important note - per the designer commentary, if he uses OC aura, even if unit is battleshocked it will have OC 1 (its near the end, in part about multiple modifiers)
The comment at 1:56 about monsters not being able to enter ruins is not correct (to my knowledge). Monsters and vehicles can enter ruins in 10th but if they cannot clear the entrance point without moving over the walls and the entrance point wall is greater than 2", they will have to pay the movement penalty (up and down). If you check the rules commentary document pg 12 & 13 you'll clearly see a vehicle entering a ruin. Infantry and Beasts get to ignore walls pg 48 core rules.
Correct; that's how it's always worked - but with most ruins being taller than 2" the amount of movement that needs to be paid to move over them makes them functionally impassable.
Great analysis! I'm glad to see you doing these again for 10th. I'd love to see your breakdown of the Astartes Redemptor Dreadnought. It's price tag seems steep, especially compared to other dreads, but does its retention of the damage limitation rule and Devastating Wounds output of its Onslaught weapons make it a good unit?
Hey Trevy do you have any thoughts on abilities like Trajann's 'ignore characteristic modifiers' Vs abilities like Magnus' -1 damage. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there
I mean that one is pretty clear cut. Trajan gives the unit the ability to ignore modifiers to their characteristics. However Magnus' ability specifically modifies the attacks damage characteristic, not the weapons damage of the unit Trajan is attached to
@@MrCMaccc Sadly, it is anything *but* clear cut, and I would really hope that we at least get an offical ruling (if there is one, please point it out to me, I would be really glad to finally put this stuff to rest). I myself changed my mind about it several times. Allow me to explain. Trajann's ability: "While this model is leading a unit, you can ignore any or all modifiers to the characteristics of models in that unit and/or to any roll or test made for models in that unit (excluding modifiers to saving throws)." Note that for our purposeses, this means any and all characteritics (regardless of kind) which may belong to models within the unit. Does not specify what kind of characteristic. And it definetly does not say model's model characteristic (yeah, thats a thing as per the rules commentary...fun). Attack’s Characteristics: "When making an attack, that attack is considered to have the same characteristics and abilities as the weapon making that attack. If any modifiers apply to the characteristics or abilities of an attack, those changes do not apply to the weapon it is made with, nor do they apply to any other attacks made with that weapon." Now, at first glance this might solve the situation, because well, it does not apply to the weapon, right? Trouble is, that sadly does not matter in itself. The reason it does not, is this specifically only talks about how it does not modify the weapon itself and that it does not apply in perpetuity. Both are sensible, but help us little. What it *does not say* is that the attacks do not belong to the models. In fact, the big issue is, that there isn't *either* a clear cut statement that attacks are considered to be a separate entity from the model, borrowing only abilities and characteristics (if you want, double check the above, it does tell you what makes up an attack, it does not however say that the attack is in any way separate from the model) or that they belong to the model. The only thing which does allow a weak inference for the latter, is that rules reference a "model's attacks" and similar, but that is quite weak in my books. But as they have to belong somewhere, and weapon characteristics already do seem to belong to models as well, I at the point begrudingly have to conclude that the ability works, because even though I don't see a clear cut answer either way. While this might seem overly pedantic, there isn't much else to go on, because intention on GW's side is incredibly hard to guess (for example, the new Overwatch ruling is directly contrary to RAW, allowing a phase limit break to also overwrite a turn limit as long as it is the same phase, even though normally a different restriction isn't overwritten by just lifting the other one specifically). Similary, the existence of some rules inconsistency does not help figuring out the intent either (-1 damage is capped at 1, but there *are* abilities which mention the cap, and there are ones which do not, which would infere that there *isn't* a cap which made people go mad, until we got the commentary saying there is). The last paragraph is a bit of a ramble, but this question has been a source of fustration for me, because without a clear ruling, I wasn't yet able to find a 100% waterproof argument pro or contra.
This is a rough one. While there aren't any banana boys players in my area this is really something to think about. I'm leaning towards Magnus's power working if only from the "Roleplay/cinematic" perspective. The name of the ability "Impossible Form" implies Magnus is altering himself not so much that he casting a spell on his attackers. He is making so that he is less substantial and whatever is trying to hit him has less to hit, if that makes sense... All that to realize I could just say, the rule is trying to explain Magnus has a a forcefield like effect around him. The Custodes and their weapons haven't been changed but Magnus is in a bubble that changes how he is effected. I'm not great with rules wording but I'm sure someone will be able to chime in with a better wording that conveys Magnus is effecting himself to reduce the damage he receives.
It is not. And the reason is that it is 355 points model , with survivability of Demon Prince = super easy to kill. It has 4++ inv, and 10 wounds. Almost everything can jump into 12" inches and nuke him. And you have like 33% that he will not get up (it WILL occur very often) % of staying dead is too high to make your entire army around it. It is too pricy to send him to nuke everything cause he will die, and also too pricy to stand back and only give rerolls to second units (which is also hard cause you have to nuke first target first)...
@@jasonbagley6948 don’t expose Guilliman needlessly and use him as the supremely efficient force multiplier he is. Bait the opponent with him if needed (if to kill him your opponent needs to sacrifice half of his army that’s a worthwhile trade). Also, coming back to life two thirds of the time is far from having a bad chance of succeeding.
*i played gman as often as i could in 9th* You never played him as a nuke. You played him as a force multiplier that could take on threats that came to him, or could be finished off by him.
Mine has been in all my 10th Edition games so far. I was skeptical in the beginning, but my doubts faded and I never leave without him.
*skeptical
How is it doing right now?
I was thinking of getting him to get closer to playing a 2000 points game 😅
@@mamneo2 actually stopped using him. The latest points adjustment killed him in competitive play. For casual games he is really strong for the stratagem ability and extra OC, the oath ability lost value with the new codex.
How is he compaired to lion ?
@@codyfournellcsrf5164 I guess Lion is more of a melee threat than Guilliman. But I think Guilliman has more useful abilities. I can be proven wrong, didn't run any proper math. In theory Lion is more tanky with the 3++, but if Guilliman ressurrects it will even out (not guaranteed though).
Hot dang, just finished painting my Guiliman! I'll be fielding him this coming weekend.
I didnt think the camera being broken was a problem until i just now realized we cant see inky anymore
Man. As an iron hands player I can’t wait till we get a returned ferrus manus. Can you imagine how strong and powerful he would be?
I dont want to scare you but keep your head cold
You aren’t getting him back until fulgrim is killed off
My only thoughts on using him is his points cost. For 1k games, he’s a 3rd of the army in points and may prevent a player from taking advantage of units that can provide damage against tougher enemies.
Incroyable.
The one aspect that you left out is the key part of the equation! Yes, he's powerful, yes, he gives you lots of Things, but, at 355 pts, is he worth it? What else could you get for those points and would they be more impactful over the length of the game? Two Lancers and a Scout Squad would be about the same, the two Lancers have their own built-in Oath effect and can each take more damage that him, and the Scouts have Lone Operative and can take a point with more OC than he can, but also snipe out enemy characters. Would teh versitility and multiple-presences that this gives you outweigh Roubute's raw melee power? What about replacing one Lancer with Bladeguard? Can a Terminator Squad do the point-punishing as well as the boss for 150 less?
My heart says the big man's great, but my gut says that you can spend the points better, so my head's the deciding factor ... and you didn't lean into THAT part of the discussion at all. Ack/
It kind of seems like you're trying to weigh G-man's cost in a vacuum. YES. You could take a lot of stuff instead of taking the big guy. BUT. You miss out on a LOT of synergies that he has with a number of units. Lancers don't get Lone Operative. Plenty of lists work in anti-tank firepower with Guilliman. You get Lancers, but you also give you're opponent two choices for BOTH Oath of Moment targets if desired. Lancers may not necessarily take more DAMAGE than Guilliman. On paper they clearly do. BUT. G-man has a 2+ save, Lancers are at a 3+. G-man has a 4+ invul. Lancers don't get one. G-man can get back up on a 3+ after the first time he's downed. Lancers don't get that either. While the Lancers can take more damage on paper, G-man could potentially require a much higher number of shots statistically to bring him down for good. Scout Snipers are pretty good. BUT. You are talking about an S4 AP-2 D2 weapon with A1. A lot of characters have decent toughness levels this edition, and a number still have access to extra defenses when it comes to precision attacks. Also working against that is the fact that you have to see the character in order to target it and contend with cover. Lastly I'll add, Guilliman is part a DETACHMENT. Part of an army. Guilliman's abilities are also effects that multiple units can use and take advantage of. HE IS A FORCE MULTIPLIER. If the army is built with this in mind, you're getting far more bang for your buck than 2 Lancers and a Scout Squad. The hard hitting profile is just icing on the cake.
Good video. Love to see Guilliman getting some love, I really like using him. Both for the rules and cinematic when he face a Daemon prince or similar.
The second oath is amazing. Makes a lot of units greatly efficient.
Well a lot of ppl forget that the first unit has to die to get the second oath so ...
@@azir64 might be true, not sure how ppl can forget that.
auto included for Ultramarines
Important note - per the designer commentary, if he uses OC aura, even if unit is battleshocked it will have OC 1 (its near the end, in part about multiple modifiers)
The comment at 1:56 about monsters not being able to enter ruins is not correct (to my knowledge). Monsters and vehicles can enter ruins in 10th but if they cannot clear the entrance point without moving over the walls and the entrance point wall is greater than 2", they will have to pay the movement penalty (up and down). If you check the rules commentary document pg 12 & 13 you'll clearly see a vehicle entering a ruin. Infantry and Beasts get to ignore walls pg 48 core rules.
Correct; that's how it's always worked - but with most ruins being taller than 2" the amount of movement that needs to be paid to move over them makes them functionally impassable.
Only downside about G Man is that it doesn’t make sense to take Calgar with him so he always gets the boot 😢
care to explain why? I still have to play 10th and I have an UM army with both Calgar and Guilliman.
@@mattmark94Incroyable.
Great analysis! I'm glad to see you doing these again for 10th. I'd love to see your breakdown of the Astartes Redemptor Dreadnought. It's price tag seems steep, especially compared to other dreads, but does its retention of the damage limitation rule and Devastating Wounds output of its Onslaught weapons make it a good unit?
I always wondered what would happen if a Smurf got a Mario 🍄
Hey Trevy do you have any thoughts on abilities like Trajann's 'ignore characteristic modifiers' Vs abilities like Magnus' -1 damage. There seems to be a lot of conflicting information out there
I mean that one is pretty clear cut. Trajan gives the unit the ability to ignore modifiers to their characteristics. However Magnus' ability specifically modifies the attacks damage characteristic, not the weapons damage of the unit Trajan is attached to
@@MrCMaccc Sadly, it is anything *but* clear cut, and I would really hope that we at least get an offical ruling (if there is one, please point it out to me, I would be really glad to finally put this stuff to rest). I myself changed my mind about it several times. Allow me to explain.
Trajann's ability:
"While this model is leading a unit, you can ignore any or all modifiers to the characteristics of models in that unit and/or to any roll or test made for models in that unit (excluding modifiers to saving throws)." Note that for our purposeses, this means any and all characteritics (regardless of kind) which may belong to models within the unit. Does not specify what kind of characteristic. And it definetly does not say model's model characteristic (yeah, thats a thing as per the rules commentary...fun).
Attack’s Characteristics:
"When making an attack, that attack is considered to have the same characteristics and abilities as the weapon making that attack. If any modifiers apply to the characteristics or abilities of an attack, those changes do not apply to the weapon it is made with, nor do they apply to any other attacks made with that weapon."
Now, at first glance this might solve the situation, because well, it does not apply to the weapon, right? Trouble is, that sadly does not matter in itself. The reason it does not, is this specifically only talks about how it does not modify the weapon itself and that it does not apply in perpetuity. Both are sensible, but help us little.
What it *does not say* is that the attacks do not belong to the models. In fact, the big issue is, that there isn't *either* a clear cut statement that attacks are considered to be a separate entity from the model, borrowing only abilities and characteristics (if you want, double check the above, it does tell you what makes up an attack, it does not however say that the attack is in any way separate from the model) or that they belong to the model. The only thing which does allow a weak inference for the latter, is that rules reference a "model's attacks" and similar, but that is quite weak in my books.
But as they have to belong somewhere, and weapon characteristics already do seem to belong to models as well, I at the point begrudingly have to conclude that the ability works, because even though I don't see a clear cut answer either way.
While this might seem overly pedantic, there isn't much else to go on, because intention on GW's side is incredibly hard to guess (for example, the new Overwatch ruling is directly contrary to RAW, allowing a phase limit break to also overwrite a turn limit as long as it is the same phase, even though normally a different restriction isn't overwritten by just lifting the other one specifically). Similary, the existence of some rules inconsistency does not help figuring out the intent either (-1 damage is capped at 1, but there *are* abilities which mention the cap, and there are ones which do not, which would infere that there *isn't* a cap which made people go mad, until we got the commentary saying there is).
The last paragraph is a bit of a ramble, but this question has been a source of fustration for me, because without a clear ruling, I wasn't yet able to find a 100% waterproof argument pro or contra.
I ruled for my events that a weapon characteristic =/= a model characteristic, but it could go either way.
This is a rough one. While there aren't any banana boys players in my area this is really something to think about. I'm leaning towards Magnus's power working if only from the "Roleplay/cinematic" perspective. The name of the ability "Impossible Form" implies Magnus is altering himself not so much that he casting a spell on his attackers. He is making so that he is less substantial and whatever is trying to hit him has less to hit, if that makes sense... All that to realize I could just say, the rule is trying to explain Magnus has a a forcefield like effect around him. The Custodes and their weapons haven't been changed but Magnus is in a bubble that changes how he is effected. I'm not great with rules wording but I'm sure someone will be able to chime in with a better wording that conveys Magnus is effecting himself to reduce the damage he receives.
Very helpful breakdown. Thanks.
id like to see the silent king see what you think of him
Still tryna figure out what a battle shock chest is lol
Rogal Dorn for the imperial fists!
how about the lion??
I guess rather than Roboute Guilliman we should call him Roboute Killiman
i love this series !
Well since you asked definently Lemun Russ
Do TSK!
He's got to show off for his BT Eldar GF
It is not. And the reason is that it is 355 points model , with survivability of Demon Prince = super easy to kill. It has 4++ inv, and 10 wounds. Almost everything can jump into 12" inches and nuke him. And you have like 33% that he will not get up (it WILL occur very often) % of staying dead is too high to make your entire army around it. It is too pricy to send him to nuke everything cause he will die, and also too pricy to stand back and only give rerolls to second units (which is also hard cause you have to nuke first target first)...
Guilliman BAD! You heard it hewre first, folks!
Do you have a better suggestion?
@@jasonbagley6948 don’t expose Guilliman needlessly and use him as the supremely efficient force multiplier he is. Bait the opponent with him if needed (if to kill him your opponent needs to sacrifice half of his army that’s a worthwhile trade). Also, coming back to life two thirds of the time is far from having a bad chance of succeeding.
*i played gman as often as i could in 9th*
You never played him as a nuke. You played him as a force multiplier that could take on threats that came to him, or could be finished off by him.
@@Tulkash01 thank you for the advice! I was just wondering if the OP had any better ideas. His logic wasn’t sound.
Add a comment...1