So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than commander spam.

The rumor was that the March FAQ might introduce other such restrictions on other armies...

I doubt GW really cares, and put little thought into it pre tournament watching. I’m sure you’ll see more reactive rulings limiting it in FAQs and future codexes, but you’re assigning far more intention to it than is the case from anyone at GW.

Because GW is GW. The march FAQ might change it, not sure. The end result will always be that the kind of stuff "competitive" players do will always be dealt with from GW, until they learn not to do it.

They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

I don't see any problem with restricting them. It's a good way to keep combat HQs powerful without outshining every other unit in the book. It also makes more sense fluffwise, they are supposed to COMMAND armies, not make up the bulk of them.

No it does need to be rolled out to hive tyrents, demon princes etc aswell.
Increasing the terrian wouldn't make flyrent spam less powerful. Even with lots of los blocking terrian they would still be OP, and limits how much of the enemy can shoot back at them.

GW probably restricted Tau Commanders because they had feedback from lots of players complaining about Tau spamming Commanders. If they end up with the same about Hive Tyrants, I could see them going for a similar rules change.

I don't think you're going to get that level of player hostility towards Daemon Princes or Tank Commanders.

I don't think they should restrict ALL HQ's, just the very powerfull and rare ones.

I called out flyrant spam as a problem build a while ago (actually the owner of my FLGS was crushing people with his 7 flyrant list).

GW doesn't understand what a balanced vs unbalanced unit is seems to be my guess. Either their playtesters aren't good enough or they are not listening to the feed back they are given.

Boards with lots of cover don't hurt flyrants because they just land/fly wherever they want and are big enough to see through/over/around whatever is on most tables (being able to shoot to/from a wingtip is a problem). The mission scoring is helpful to these types of list (end of game scoring, high emphasis on kill points so fragile units are bad while 4++ ones are good)

The fact that their profile doesn't degrade until the last wound level is also a problem (should have been FAQ'd but whatever). I'm not sure if adeptacon was using the beta rules but the smite nerf slightly reduces flyrant effectiveness (7 not so good but 3-4 still really strong).

I'm really starting to believe all the posters that say GW doesn't care about a balanced/competitive game and any attempts to make that a reality are just trying to fit a square peg in a round hole..

Pandabeer wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

I don't see any problem with restricting them. It's a good way to keep combat HQs powerful without outshining every other unit in the book. It also makes more sense fluffwise, they are supposed to COMMAND armies, not make up the bulk of them.

I see no reason why instances of, for example, space marine captains all working together during an engagement is so foreign if we're using lore as a justification.

They are commanding the army. They're just fighting with them, as well. As they do.

We will agree to disagree on the restrictions, but I am curious what GW will do.

Yeah tank commanders aren't competitive. Don't let them be caught up in all this.

Also, the opinion that "terrain wouldn't of mattered" may purely be a regional one. In the US, where ITC reigns supreme, ruins etc on the first floor block LoS, which very much would/could matter. This was not used at Adepticon, iirc.

Los only matters if they can't just blits what has a chance to shoot at them off the table, adding los blocking terain doesn't hurt flying models with a decent move stat more than gorund pounders who have to go around instead of just stait over.

Why do some armies get ObSec on all their troops and others don't? Because when that was true they hadn't released a big errata that was coming!

I'm not certain, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Tau Commander rule was coming to other factions in a big way. Maybe all HQs even.

Stux wrote:
Why do some armies get ObSec on all their troops and others don't?

All armies have 'Objective Secured' per page 88 of Chapter Approved.

 Ghaz wrote:

Stux wrote:
Why do some armies get ObSec on all their troops and others don't?

All armies have 'Objective Secured' per page 88 of Chapter Approved.

Yes. That's my point. A rule was released that addressed the balance.

I suspect the Tau Commander rule was made in an effort to kill Tau Commander spam without needing to rebalance the point value between Tau Commanders and Crisis Battlesuits.

The problem with the Tau Commander is that two Commanders can bring more dakka than three Crisis Suits (thanks to the better BS) and have the same number of wounds WHILE benefiting from being characters. These two options amazingly are worth about the same amount of points depending on the exact upgrades taken.

I think they should all be restricted. It makes no sense that we have different rules for different factions for no apparent reason and it also falls down from a fluff perspective.

Flyrants and other HQs should all be restricted.

If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

Funnily enough, Tyranids have one, the Tyranid Prime. It's woefully unused, as it doesn't really fit some lists, is slightly overcosted, and has a limited amount of options for it (for nids).

Personally, I could see a 0-1 for Flyrants, but I think restricting it to Flyrants, and not walking Tyrants, might be a solution. I don't think anyone would have issue with that.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than commander spam.

The rumor was that the March FAQ might introduce other such restrictions on other armies...

That is just community speculation. No rumor afaik.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than commander spam.

The rumor was that the March FAQ might introduce other such restrictions on other armies...

That is just community speculation. No rumor afaik.

One might even call it "fake news."

Eh, unfortunately this is just patching holes in a leeky ship instead of trying to deal with the Man'o'War pepering you with shots. First it was erm.. its 4 am brain no work the renegade and heretics psykers... then smite spam, then commander spam, now people want flyrant spam gone.

If spam is a problem you have to instutite a generic "can only take 1 of X for every other Y HQ's" or something like across all armies, or maybe tweek supreme command so you MUST take 1 elites and / or LoW. Or something similar. Restricting stuff on a case by case basis just makes people move to the next fresh OP. And how do you stop for example just generic Dark Reaper spam without simply nerfing the unit? (wich isn't fun, having a powerfull centerpiece force is nice, but nerfing / overcosting it into unusable is just hurting all the Timmy's paying your bills).

Not that i want to see spam / soup armies go anywhere mind you but i'm more of a "new guard" player. I love the lore but as far as the tabletop goes i see as more of a TCG than a hobby and love the "deck" building aspect of it.

These are silly questions. The answers are really pretty obvious.

In general, GW is bad at balancing things and so when they release rules you often have a couple units in each book that are just way too good. It was obvious upon the release of the indexes that Scions were one such unit. People quickly figured out that Tau Commanders were too, though they weren't really nearly as bad. Shortly afterwards, Scions got restricted, and then nerfed in the codex. Commanders got restricted with their codex, which otherwise would have made them stupidly overpowered given the new options for Coldstars.

Index Hive Tyrants were pretty poor. GW over-corrected and as a result codex Leviathan Tyrants are a whopping 92% more durable against lascannons and similar for the same price, and they're twice as shooty. That's pretty normal for GW. And it's only been a bit over 4 months since the codex release, and really only one or two since enough people cottoned on to how strong Tyrants are that people are starting to take notice, so it's just very weird to talk like this is at all surprising. This isn't different from Commanders and Scions at all -- it's exactly what we saw with Commanders and Scions. So I'd bet that GW will do something about them after the amount of time that it usually takes them to do something about this kind of thing. Possibly in the imminent March FAQ but failing that in the July (?) one, or perhaps as an emergency patch in between.

Meanwhile Daemon Prince and Tank Commander spam are more acceptable because they're not nearly as powerful. Duh, right?

I think with the Tau it was cause you could spam bs2+ guys with pretty strong loadouts and there was no reason for people to take the normal xv8s; unless they had the foresight to see that commander spam was too strong and too likely to be FAQed out.

Then with this update and coldstar being able to take whatever weapons it wants, the problem would have only got worse without intervention like this.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

That’s why I don’t play there any more - just not worth it IMO.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

Funnily enough, Tyranids have one, the Tyranid Prime. It's woefully unused, as it doesn't really fit some lists, is slightly overcosted, and has a limited amount of options for it (for nids).

Personally, I could see a 0-1 for Flyrants, but I think restricting it to Flyrants, and not walking Tyrants, might be a solution. I don't think anyone would have issue with that.

It's the wrong fix.

Tyrants should give wings a melee profile (similar to scytal) and have wings replace a weapon. Then, give MRC a cost that is reasonable instead of free. If you have to choose between weapon options and mobility it becomes a much more difficult choice.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

Funnily enough, Tyranids have one, the Tyranid Prime. It's woefully unused, as it doesn't really fit some lists, is slightly overcosted, and has a limited amount of options for it (for nids).

Personally, I could see a 0-1 for Flyrants, but I think restricting it to Flyrants, and not walking Tyrants, might be a solution. I don't think anyone would have issue with that.

It's the wrong fix.

Tyrants should give wings a melee profile (similar to scytal) and have wings replace a weapon. Then, give MRC a cost that is reasonable instead of free. If you have to choose between weapon options and mobility it becomes a much more difficult choice.

That's not bad actually. Maybe they should have done something like that with Coldstars too!

 n0t_u wrote:
I think with the Tau it was cause you could spam bs2+ guys with pretty strong loadouts and there was no reason for people to take the normal xv8s; unless they had the foresight to see that commander spam was too strong and too likely to be FAQed out.

Then with this update and coldstar being able to take whatever weapons it wants, the problem would have only got worse without intervention like this.

There's still no reason to take normal XV8s, so whatever's GW's reasoning it likely wasn't an effort to get more players to take Crisis suits; if they cared about that, they wouldn't have made the only semi-reasonable Crisis loadout 96 points a model.

Dandelion wrote:

That's not bad actually. Maybe they should have done something like that with Coldstars too!

Coldstars aren't that much better than the other Tau Commanders. If they got worse, Tau players would just take Enforcers or XV8s.

Commanders across the board should be BS 3+ not 2+.

Also, they need their special order Montka ad Kouyon to be more useful with a larger range.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

Funnily enough, Tyranids have one, the Tyranid Prime. It's woefully unused, as it doesn't really fit some lists, is slightly overcosted, and has a limited amount of options for it (for nids).

Personally, I could see a 0-1 for Flyrants, but I think restricting it to Flyrants, and not walking Tyrants, might be a solution. I don't think anyone would have issue with that.

It's the wrong fix.

Tyrants should give wings a melee profile (similar to scytal) and have wings replace a weapon. Then, give MRC a cost that is reasonable instead of free. If you have to choose between weapon options and mobility it becomes a much more difficult choice.

I like that solution too. Much better, and makes the unit more compelling to build and equip.

Well another case of GW changing style midway. But still it's bad change anyway if you do it for sake of balance.

a) if commander isn't broken there's no harm in spamming
b) if he is brokenly good for his points all this means is everybody takes 3 detachments and 3 commanders and makes game less scalable.

Hive Tyrants and Bikestodes Captains are the two that are most egregious about this. Malefic Lords could get their points unscrewed if they added this fix to them, too.

Make Primarchs limited to one per army, too, for when the Imperium gets Leman Russ at the end of the year.

GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Because the two ways to stop HQ spam for HQs worth spamming is either to limit them or nerf them and GW chose the former in this case.

The character targetting rules are a big part of it though.
Shooty HQs are a particular problem as they can stand back behind a wall of chaff and function at full effectiveness. By comparison support HQs are only as good as the units they support (who can be targetted freely) and close combat HQs need to make themselves targets to fight.

And while GW may have considered making it a universal rule they've neglected a couple of factions to the point where they would have to release new units first.

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

GW has been running this business strategy from years. I dont know if it is the right one, but this is what they are doing.

Why can some armies HQ spam and others can't?

Because different armies are different. HQs of one army don't equal HQs of another army. Having tons of HQs in one army may be broken while being fine in another army. You can't make sweeping generalizations like this in a game where the armies are so different.

My vehicle heavy guard army couldn't give two s**ts about HQs because I focus on artillery and not on ordering guardsmen around. Spamming tank commanders wouldn't be good because they're targettable without an invuln save so get knocked down easy.

 Crazyterran wrote:

Make Primarchs limited to one per army, too, for when the Imperium gets Leman Russ at the end of the year.

No chance! They'll want to sell Russ to as many people as possible

Russ, Guilliman, an Armiger, and you can still get 1000 points or so in a 2000 list, lol.

Im sure somoene can find a better and similiar costed LoW too,

Thats assuming Russ isnt some giant mutant that bounds across the battlefield to rip things apart, and closer in stature and abilities to Guilliman

You can't restrict Tyrants in the same way as T'au commanders because tyranids can just take Outrider detachments full of spores on the cheap. Y.ou'd need to change the tyrants rules. I don't think you can increase its points though because they already die pretty easily and then you're punishing the people who DON'T spam them.

I like the wings or MRC idea though.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

This is something I’d really like to see from a fluff perspective too. Would make it easier to run viable lists without having to resort to daft gak like multiple Warbosses, etc.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Because Commander Spam has already been killed. Perhaps that was missed?

Essentially GW want to kill off things that just abuse the rules too hard.

Tyranids are strong on multiple fronts, not just Flyrant spam. Essentially any Tyranid list is a reaction to other lists - in this case? Flyrants are a reaction to the current CSM/Eldar/SM lists floating about. If they changed the Tyranids would change.

I really doubt that being able to take 7 flyrents and deapstike them on whatever you want to shoot, charge etc is going to not be a game winning choice against most opponents.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

No... the real problem is Detachments, Cover/LoS, and Alpha strike.

There will ALWAYS be spam unless you change how detachments work
There will ALWAYS be alpha strike with shooting unless you make it harder to kill turn 1. This can lead to more melee armies being stronger so you need to balance it

Genestealers are strong, why dont we see mass amounts of them? B.c Alpha strike via Shooting and they cant be protected well from it, or you waste 100's of points getting them into melee and protecting them, rendering them over costed.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them -- that's probably why so many units end up so poorly balanced in the first place! It's very, very hard to get a good sense for how good something is per point by seeing what you think of it in real games where it only takes up ~10-20% of a list. Like, suppose that your one flyrant should actually be 25% more expensive. That'd mean that he's stupidly overpowered -- very little in the game could take a 25% point increase and remain playable -- but if you're only bringing one you probably wouldn't even notice the difference since we're only talking about a 50 point advantage in a 2000 point list.

Flyrants are actually extremely durable. A Leviathan flyrant with MRCs and twin devourers is almost as durable as a Rhino vs plasma, and Rhinos are paying just a bit more than 7 points per wound. They're sturdier than just about any tank out there, with great offense including psychic powers, huge mobility, and they even deep strike.

Commander Spam has been a thing for... 9 months now? Leaving aside whether it was overpowered/winning tournaments, its not unreasonable for GW to go "look, this wasn't intentional, we don't want players building lists this way, we are going to try and stop it."

Flyrant spam will probably get resolved the same way.

To fix spam period you need to fundamentally change the FOC. Currently it is too loose. You can take pretty much whatever you like, barring maybe a little tax here and there, and that is arguably done only to mop up some command points.

Right now taking multiples of the best unit is far better than taking a balanced list and potentially getting some more command points (but probably not).

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

And anecdotal evidence is math since when?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Are you taking 7 flyrants? One Flyrant isnt Op. Its when spammed does it become obnoxious af.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Are you taking 7 flyrants? One Flyrant isnt Op. Its when spammed does it become obnoxious af.

This most tac lists can handle one or two must kill units, it's when you face a wall of them you have no chance.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

I mean, yes, this is what I'm saying. What you're doing is a very unreliable way to form judgments about units. You're just throwing them in a list and then seeing how you feel about them, but your gut is really bad at this sort of thing. And of course you don't need to get very unlucky or lucky in order to form a totally wrong conclusion even if you're doing a great job of estimating how many points' worth of stuff they're distracting/killing/whatever.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Yes, A hive tyrant is nothing special. Neither is A stormraven or A squad of conscripts or A manticore.

Most lists have no problem killing one hive tyrant so they just die. Taking 6+ is completely different.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

GW has been running this business strategy from years. I dont know if it is the right one, but this is what they are doing.

Yeah and sales got worse and worse and worse until 8th came with a much better game with the indexes where things were significantly more balanced. 8th has been making them way more money then 6th or 7th and while it has balane issues it's nowhere near the issues 6th and 7th have had.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Because Commander Spam has already been killed. Perhaps that was missed?

Essentially GW want to kill off things that just abuse the rules too hard.

Tyranids are strong on multiple fronts, not just Flyrant spam. Essentially any Tyranid list is a reaction to other lists - in this case? Flyrants are a reaction to the current CSM/Eldar/SM lists floating about. If they changed the Tyranids would change.

Adepticon was pre-Tau codex, the Tau players could have taken 11 Commanders if they really wanted to.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

I mean, yes, this is what I'm saying. What you're doing is a very unreliable way to form judgments about units. You're just throwing them in a list and then seeing how you feel about them, but your gut is really bad at this sort of thing. And of course you don't need to get very unlucky or lucky in order to form a totally wrong conclusion even if you're doing a great job of estimating how many points' worth of stuff they're distracting/killing/whatever.

Except I'm not just "throwing them in my lists". My lists are very considered and varied. I've tried different tyrants in different lists with different strategies and if they weren't one of my favorite unit I'd probably ditch them because Broodlords always accomplish more in my experience.

Here's the thing about tournaments, I would be absolutely willing to bet that the next big tournament people will tech to deal with flyrant spam. Probably with some other kind of spam. And after that, people will spam a counter spam to that, then a counter to that and on and on it goes. Spamming units is always going to be an issue for some lists and not for others and tournaments will devolve into who got lucky by avoiding bad match ups for their particular brand of spam. The sad thing is I don't think the tournament community is grown up enough to ever stop chasing spam and take all-comers lists to avoid a spam-roulette situation from happening.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Here's the thing about tournaments, I would be absolutely willing to bet that the next big tournament people will tech to deal with flyrant spam. Probably with some other kind of spam. And after that, people will spam a counter spam to that, then a counter to that and on and on it goes. Spamming units is always going to be an issue for some lists and not for others and tournaments will devolve into who got lucky by avoiding bad match ups for their particular brand of spam. The sad thing is I don't think the tournament community is grown up enough to ever stop chasing spam and take all-comers lists to avoid a spam-roulette situation from happening.

This doesn't tend to happen in 40k. Perhaps because the game evolves at a relatively quick pace (i.e. rules change every few months, new armies/units etc) but counter-listing is relatively rare.
What tends to happen is good units are distilled out and then spammed. Usually there are 5-6 units/combos which stand out.
And this happens until something better comes along.

Flyrants are tough, fast and do good damage. I struggle to see why you wouldn't want at least two in a Tyranid list - and generally if something is good on its own it only becomes better if you have more.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Except I'm not just "throwing them in my lists". My lists are very considered and varied. I've tried different tyrants in different lists with different strategies and if they weren't one of my favorite unit I'd probably ditch them because Broodlords always accomplish more in my experience.

Here's the thing about tournaments, I would be absolutely willing to bet that the next big tournament people will tech to deal with flyrant spam. Probably with some other kind of spam. And after that, people will spam a counter spam to that, then a counter to that and on and on it goes. Spamming units is always going to be an issue for some lists and not for others and tournaments will devolve into who got lucky by avoiding bad match ups for their particular brand of spam. The sad thing is I don't think the tournament community is grown up enough to ever stop chasing spam and take all-comers lists to avoid a spam-roulette situation from happening.

You're not understanding what I'm saying. You keep focusing on irrelevant details -- it doesn't matter if you're randomly generating lists that happen to include a Tyrant or if you're carefully building synergistic lists that make use of a Tyrant. I'm saying that your whole sense of what's "accomplishing more", that you get from playing with the unit, is very unreliable. This is just a bad way to come to conclusions about how good units are. Humans would be very bad at this even if there weren't an awful lot of luck involved. E.g., you were talking earlier about how Tyrants "die pretty easily" when this is just nonsense and actually they're competitive with the most durable monsters and vehicles out there -- there's basically no multi-wound model in the Tyranid codex that you'd prefer your opponent shoot lascannons or plasma at (the main exception is Rippers, and it's actually close). If you want to actually understand what a unit is doing for you you need to be doing some very careful analysis (and a lot of math) about how things were likely to go in your games and what those points could have otherwise accomplished.

I just tried to make an army of Farside's Eight and I can't do it in matched play anymore without making one of the commanders a regular Crisis Suit, and even then I have to take two aux detachments, unless we for some reason play 2500 points. I get it's not going to be a competitive list, but me and my buddies prefer the matched play rules to narrative. :(

Spamming of HQs rarely makes any "in-world" sense - how many Grand Masters of the Grey Knights are there? Because here's five of them, all in Nemesis Dreadknights. Yeah, I bet that happens all the time in the fluff.

A big part of the issue is the Supreme Command detachment. If GW would prefer that players didn't just spam their best HQ choices, maybe don't give them a detachment designed to do that exact thing? Just remove it from the game, add an optional Lord of War slot to the Battalion and Brigade detachments, and most of these problems just go away.

The other half of the equation is to stop making characters into superheroes. There's no good reason why a T'au Commander should have BS 2+ when regular Crisis Suits have 4+. Characters already get enough advantages just from being characters, they don't also need to have inflated statlines. Give them the same stats as a non-Character of their type, and enhance their support abilities instead.

 kadeton wrote:
The other half of the equation is to stop making characters into superheroes. There's no good reason why a T'au Commander should have BS 2+ when regular Crisis Suits have 4+. Characters already get enough advantages just from being characters, they don't also need to have inflated statlines. Give them the same stats as a non-Character of their type, and enhance their support abilities instead.

I don't understand this reasoning. My non-Character Wolf Guard have WS 3+, 1 wound and 2 attacks. My Wolf Lord has WS 2+, 5 wounds and 4 attacks. Is that a problem too?

 meleti wrote:
I don't understand this reasoning. My non-Character Wolf Guard have WS 3+, 1 wound and 2 attacks. My Wolf Lord has WS 2+, 5 wounds and 4 attacks. Is that a problem too?

In my opinion, yes.

They're both Space Marines, and have roughly the same physical capabilities. After centuries of training and combat experience, they should both be at their skill plateau (additional experience won't make much difference at that point). If anything, the Wolf Lord's combat skills should be a little more rusty, because he has to devote a larger portion of his time to strategy and logistics. So why do the Wolf Lord's attacks fail half as often, and why does he get twice as many? Why can he withstand five times as much physical punishment before becoming a casualty? That doesn't make any sense.

Why would it be a problem if your Wolf Lord had WS 3+, 1 wound and 2 attacks?

 Primark G wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

That’s why I don’t play there any more - just not worth it IMO.

I don't think I've ever played at a tournament that had reasonable amounts of terrain - LOS blocking or otherwise. It's always been something like one piece of terrain in each quarter and something insignificant in the middle, if you're lucky.

If they were all pointed correctly, there would be no issue.
Characters should be pointed so that they are only efficient when using thier aura. That way you wouldn't need to take more than one.

Remember the Maelific Lord. 150% point increase solved that problem.
Ofc that was overkill And now it's useless, but the point stands.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I just tried to make an army of Farside's Eight and I can't do it in matched play anymore without making one of the commanders a regular Crisis Suit, and even then I have to take two aux detachments, unless we for some reason play 2500 points. I get it's not going to be a competitive list, but me and my buddies prefer the matched play rules to narrative. :(

Play open. Take the matched play rules you like and ditch the ones you dont. Easy peasy.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
If they were all pointed correctly, there would be no issue.
Characters should be pointed so that they are only efficient when using thier aura. That way you wouldn't need to take more than one.

Remember the Maelific Lord. 150% point increase solved that problem.
Ofc that was overkill And now it's useless, but the point stands.

...You mean the once-per-game aura Commanders get? If you balanced Commanders around their buffing ability they'd be even cheaper!

 kadeton wrote:


Why would it be a problem if your Wolf Lord had WS 3+, 1 wound and 2 attacks?

Because this way you have to price him appropriately, which means roughly the cost of a regular elite dude. 20ish ppm or something similar, so you can spam loads of them. That would be a problem.

Multiwounds HQs may not be superheroes, the wolf lord certainly isn't.

 Blackie wrote:
Because this way you have to price him appropriately, which means roughly the cost of a regular elite dude. 20ish ppm or something similar, so you can spam loads of them. That would be a problem.

You can't spam loads of them if the Supreme Command detachment doesn't exist, which was the first point I raised. We shouldn't be bringing commanders who have nobody to command.

(Additionally, shouldn't a Wolf Lord be unique per army anyway? Why would there be more than one Wolf Lord present at the same little skirmish? Just make them 0-1, along with all the other General-level HQs.)

IDK if anyone said anything yet, but Shield Captain (especially on bikes) can be spammed.

I think there are two parts to the problem:

1. Some things are too good in general

2. Spamming stuff is far too easy

The first part just needs proper testing and costing. The second part is more of an issue.

IMO a huge part of the problem is the detachment system that essentially removes army building restrictions entirely. GW would be better served addressing that issue rather than trying to Band-Aid a fix on certain HQs. It's pretty clear at this point their playtesting doesn't include trying to really break the game, which is why they consistently miss the power of spammable units in general. This was sometimes a problem in older editions but at least most armies maxed out at spamming 3 of a given unit. Now it's however many you can fit in the points limit, minus a small amount for the necessary characters/units to enable the relevant detachments.

I think the way the current detachment system works it makes it far too easy to make anything legal basically.

I hope they make a anti spam rule in general for HQ, Elite, Fast, Flying, and Heavy.

For example; plaguburstCrawler spamlists may not be as competitive as flyrant, but it's just as boring to face off against.
The most common tournament (and casual play) houserule in fantasy was a restriction against multiple similar units from special, and rare units. And it worked!

How do you differentiate between spam and squew lists?
Genuine question

 Wibe wrote:
I hope they make a anti spam rule in general for HQ, Elite, Fast, Flying, and Heavy.

Highlander tournament rules.

The main problem is that it penalises the less supported books by forcing them into their poor units, whereas the better supported factions have a large pool of alternates.

Ice_can wrote:
How do you differentiate between spam and squew lists?
Genuine question

Both are a similar issue.
But at least if someone has 5-6 different monsters (for Tyranids there is a reasonable variety) that is different to taking 5 of the same unit.
So a tank-focused mechanised Guard list with Russ, Chimeras with infantry, Hellhounds etc would be different to... "here are my 15 Manticores (ignore whether that would be effective/work), better hope I don't get the first turn".

Tyel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
How do you differentiate between spam and squew lists?
Genuine question

Both are a similar issue.
But at least if someone has 5-6 different monsters (for Tyranids there is a reasonable variety) that is different to taking 5 of the same unit.
So a tank-focused mechanised Guard list with Russ, Chimeras with infantry, Hellhounds etc would be different to... "here are my 15 Manticores (ignore whether that would be effective/work), better hope I don't get the first turn".

Just to make sure I understand you correctly:

An army with one Shadowsword, one Stormlord, and one Baneblade is less spammy than an army with three Stormswords?

A.T. wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
I hope they make a anti spam rule in general for HQ, Elite, Fast, Flying, and Heavy.

Highlander tournament rules.

The main problem is that it penalises the less supported books by forcing them into their poor units, whereas the better supported factions have a large pool of alternates.

A maximum of, say 5-6 similar heavies won't hurt anyone that much. Unless you plan to spam out one type of heavyunit as your entire army. And those armies are boring to face off against, and some of them are just broken.

A.T. wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
I hope they make a anti spam rule in general for HQ, Elite, Fast, Flying, and Heavy.

Highlander tournament rules.

The main problem is that it penalises the less supported books by forcing them into their poor units, whereas the better supported factions have a large pool of alternates.

I can agree with this. Also, how would you address this? Some armies are better spamming troops (i.e. Orcs), while others are better spamming other units (i.e. PBC's).

Would you set a limit 0-1 per HQ choice per detachment? So you can take 3 Chaos Sorcerers if you have 3 detachements. Or 0-3 of a Heavy choice per detachment? This wouldn't address spam though, I can still take 9 PBC's split over 3 detachments.

I don't mind the Detachment system, I think its nice with how open it makes list building. But it is easy to exploit, and arbitrary bans on just certain units makes it kind of... well, unfair. I get Tau Commanders are great, but why limit them and not Chaos Lords or Sorcerers or Demon Princes?

Limitless choices mean limitless ways to exploit the game. There needs to be a cap somewhere to stop the spam.

Genuine question for those of you who are FOR the restriction, game wide, of HQ's, etc.

What do you expect armies like Custodes, for example, to do?

With only 3 (Same exact name and keywords, just with different armor on) HQs and one named HQ, if restricted in the same was as Tau where they could only take one <Commander> per detachment, they quite literally could only ever take one Captain and then their named HQ as an option.

My concern is with impacting elite armies who, by nature, have a very limited range of options. Tau were restricted, but their Coldstar Commander is bonkers strong and they have access to some very strong, very cheap HQ options in the form of Fireblades to offset this change.

(Edit: Just let it be known, something as simple as "You can only have 3 of each HQ Choices, army wide, in a battleforged list" would accomplish the same result as Tau did, but allow for actual elite armies to still be viable in their construction without shoe horning them into using functionally useless HQ slots.)

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Genuine question for those of you who are FOR the restriction, game wide, of HQ's, etc.

What do you expect armies like Custodes, for example, to do?

With only 3 (Same exact name and keywords, just with different armor on) HQs and one named HQ, if restricted in the same was as Tau where they could only take one <Commander> per detachment, they quite literally could only ever take one Captain and then their named HQ as an option.

My concern is with impacting elite armies who, by nature, have a very limited range of options. Tau were restricted, but their Coldstar Commander is bonkers strong and they have access to some very strong, very cheap HQ options in the form of Fireblades to offset this change.

(Edit: Just let it be known, something as simple as "You can only have 3 of each HQ Choices, army wide, in a battleforged list" would accomplish the same result as Tau did, but allow for actual elite armies to still be viable in their construction without shoe horning them into using functionally useless HQ slots.)

This is a tough thing to answer. Unless these armies are built specifically to be detachments, or they have less restrictive rulesets. As it is, however, Custodes is just as spammy as any of the rest; many AM players spam the biker-captains ad-nauseum because of how strong they are.

You could, as a result, restrict them and release more options to pad this difference; for example, release a few more HQ options via a FAQ.

People are adding Custodes captains, but I firmly believe that is a FOTM idea currently. Bike Captains are more resilient than they are Killy, and are not dominating the game similar to Tyrants.

My edit suggestion I believe would cause the same restriction across armies while still allowing Elite armies to exist.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People are adding Custodes captains, but I firmly believe that is a FOTM idea currently. Bike Captains are more resilient than they are Killy, and are not dominating the game similar to Tyrants.

My edit suggestion I believe would cause the same restriction across armies while still allowing Elite armies to exist.

Ah I see the edit. This could work, but that only addresses spam of a certain choice. I guess you could say "0-3 HQ, 0-6 troops, 0-5 Elite/FA/Heavy, 0-3 flyer, 0-1 LoW". Then allow certain armies to take multiple choices in one slot, akin to the new Titans for AM. This would limit spamming some options, but not gimp any particular army. It would also slow some of the MSU; you can only take up to 6 smaller units of guardsmen if you want to MSU, for example, and the have to take other troop choices.

Aren't you both suggesting the old 3E version of army building ( or a slight variation thereof)?

Why not just label each unit as 0- X per detachment or even just per army with a max of 3 of any of the really spammable HQs since you're still likely to see 3 of them anyway?

This would be optimal. Specific army/codex restrictions/exceptions. Fantasy had this to some degree in the codexes. For example only one unit of chaos knights could be chosen armywide, bolt throwers could be taken two for one special/rare choice. It prevented spam of the best units, but also allowed for some more of the "lesser" units.

Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Aren't you both suggesting the old 3E version of army building ( or a slight variation thereof)?

Why not just label each unit as 0- X per detachment or even just per army with a max of 3 of any of the really spammable HQs since you're still likely to see 3 of them anyway?

I've only played since 7th so that comparison is foreign to me, sorry. I'll take your word for it.

And yeah, exactly. If the restriction is one per detachment, but we're limited to 3 detachments typically anyway, it might as well just be 3 per army, and that works easier.

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Pancakey wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Why do you think so? I'm not seeing these changes you speak of.
Look at Dark Eldar, they are designed to make an even more extreme use of the detachment system.

Spoletta wrote:

Pancakey wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Perhaps we could go back to the FOC and ditch the detachment system altogether?

No thanks, it was really dumb and much worse than the current system. Solves one problem but creates 10 more.

Like it or not, force org is making a comeback. GW moves the goal every few weeks and you chase. Put on your running shoes if you wanna keep up.

Why do you think so? I'm not seeing these changes you speak of.
Look at Dark Eldar, they are designed to make an even more extreme use of the detachment system.

I think GW is more about moving goalposts now than ever. They arent evolving the ruleset. GW are just moving the same rules around in a swirling motion.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Aren't you both suggesting the old 3E version of army building ( or a slight variation thereof)?

Why not just label each unit as 0- X per detachment or even just per army with a max of 3 of any of the really spammable HQs since you're still likely to see 3 of them anyway?

No, it would be X numbers of the same unit PER ARMY regardless of Detachments. So in our example, you could only use 3 Chaos Sorcerers, regardless of the type (jump, terminator, or normal). Or 6 of a type of troop, so 6 units of guardsmen in your entire army (whether they be 40 man or MSU's)

Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

Right, missions dictate power... at the same point, we saw the list with what was it... 9 PBC's or some crap which made it pretty far up there? Spam is spam. The idea isn't to nerf a particular unit, but to nerf spammability.

I mean, you can tie it to detachments if you wanted to, but then how do you address other spots? For example, if you did 0-3 of a Heavy Choice per detachment, people could still do PBC spam, or 0-6 of a troop choice then people could do the "Brigade of CP" from AM.

So I haven’t really dived into 8th edition 40k yet, largely because of the spam I see at every major tournament. It was flyrants at adepticon, but every major event has suffered from it. The first gt heat in the uk was won by razorback spam and that’s pretty much set the tone.
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.
It has been interesting watching the contrasting reactions of the two systems coming out of adepticon. The reaction of the AOS side has been overwhelming in positive with some amazing hobby on display.
With 40k you have players getting disqualified, major issues with spam and warhammer live not showing the top tables because the armies look rubbish.
This is gw’s Game and they obviously want it to be played a certain way but they seem reluctant to force the players into that mold.
Personally I think they should put up with some short term pain for long term benefit.

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

Maybe but the AOS adepticon tournament doubled in size this year and judging by the reaction afterwards next year may well be even bigger. 40k is obvioulsy much more popular but growing the playerbase with fun to watch videos on twitch and positive player reactions from tournaments is a much better way to sell more models.

Chikout wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Chikout wrote:
I am confused why they don’t just do a version of the AOS matched play restrictions. A minimum number of troops, and a max number of hq and elites.

Because that means less models sold.

Maybe but the AOS adepticon tournament doubled in size this year and judging by the reaction afterwards next year may well be even bigger. 40k is obvioulsy much more popular but growing the playerbase with fun to watch videos on twitch and positive player reactions from tournaments is a much better way to sell more models.

WHFB never sold enough for GW to really care, that's why they did AOS because losing their WHFB playerbase would mean literally less than zero.

Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. GW needs to turn over the rules creation to a company that knows what they are doing... Fantasy Flight, WizKids, Battlefront Miniatures, Warlord, etc. They are more than welcome to hire them to write the rules and slap the GW/Citadel name on the book. That's just fine. Just please, please let another company who has been far more successful in writing tabletop miniature game rules take over writing the rules for 40K and AoS. And, whatever happens, do not let WotC touch it. What they've done to MTG Standard recently makes me want to cry.

SG

 ServiceGames wrote:
I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. GW needs to turn over the rules creation to a company that knows what they are doing... Fantasy Flight, WizKids, Battlefront Miniatures, Warlord, etc. They are more than welcome to hire them to write the rules and slap the GW/Citadel name on the book. That's just fine. Just please, please let another company who has been far more successful in writing tabletop miniature game rules take over writing the rules for 40K and AoS. And, whatever happens, do not let WotC touch it. What they've done to MTG Standard recently makes me want to cry.

SG

As someone who plays tons of other games (including FFG games, Magic the Gathering (for a while), Flames of War, and Bolt Action), I find it funny that you believe other companies will do a better job. Those games I have played have their own horrible internal issues that require rectification and FAQ more often than not.

Magic is better than most, but also has a vastly different structure for how the game is played and a huge variety of formats.Cards like Demonic Tutor are outright banned, while older cards have to play in less common formats, or if you want to play in a Commander event you can only have one copy of a card, etc. etc.

They are starting to learn let's just hope they can actually help thier in house staff understand their players, why they do things and then design the 9th edition game based on that, and that the managment realise that keeping the good rules wrighters is important.

It weird in someways that a company as big in such a small market has been getting so much so wrong for so long, but has got away with it.
They seam to realise that they realy did screw up and are doing it differentky this time, but they are so out of touch they are basically starting from zero experience with everything they have done 8th onwards.
But they appear to be going roughly in the right direction, if maybe not in as smooth a transition as we as gamers would like.

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

Either involves a substantial set of house rules - known as the tournament pack - probably including missions and additional objectives not found in the core game.

GW shouldn't be making balance choices based on the feedback of events run on house rules.

Now, using the events to look for data on unclear or problematic interpretations of core rule elements? Sure, they're good for that.

But not for balance, until they actually play the game as set out in the CRB/CA.

I thought someone did the math and figured out that players who went 2nd had a slight advantage at LVO?

In ITC going 1st advantage is significantly reduced because points are scored after 2nd turn so player going 2nd has a chance to kill enemy units off objectives, grab his own, etc.

I'm not convinced that "alpha strike" is a big deal. But then again I wasn't there at Adepticon. Maybe I missed something.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

ThePorcupine wrote:
I thought someone did the math and figured out that players who went 2nd had a slight advantage at LVO?

In ITC going 1st advantage is significantly reduced because points are scored after 2nd turn so player going 2nd has a chance to kill enemy units off objectives, grab his own, etc.

I'm not convinced that "alpha strike" is a big deal. But then again I wasn't there at Adepticon. Maybe I missed something.

I'm not convinced that the results of 2 1/2 hour games that don't typically make it out of round 3 are even relevant sample games to determine army balance - the game is intended to end after the turns reach their limit - not half way through it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

We know - each tournament uses their own effective house rules. This screws the results between tournament to tournament. This is not effective balancing material. This multi million dollar company needs to hire a group of people to play their game the way they intend it to be played. Fix internal balance - fix external balance - write rules that can't be abused or interpreted different ways. Then - there you have it. There is your tournament rule set. No need for special missions/or objectives. No need for quarterly CA that gets put on hold because of the house rules of 1 big tournament.

You can say that but even GW's own CA missions vrs BRB mission dramatically effect balance. Play a turn scored game vrs and end of game scoring, objectives vrs just pure murdering the other guys army.

ITC were trying to balance out the alpha strike bonus.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

 Zid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

I played 12 Exalted Flamers until the Daemon Codex came out. I loved it and had tons of fun.

I did not hate that I had to do it. It was great to use those models after never having used them before.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Limit 1 Flyrant per detachment.

Done.

Adepticon was a joke. Balancing around Tyranids winning "one" big event with terrible missions and terrain is so stupid. But whatever, knee jerk city here. No one complained when these EXACT SAME Flyrant lists finished outside the top 50 in the same spot as Orks at LVO.

In terms of balancing the game, Adepticon is no different to LVO or other ITC events.

This isn't true, though. They have fundamentally different missions and ways to score, as well as different terrain. Terrain isn't tied to game rules, and missions aren't exactly rules, either. So saying the missions are house rules... i mean that's a bit of a stretch in my opinion. And you throw reason out of the window when you say "all custom missions are equivalent."

If all custom missions are equivalent, let's play a game where the mission is called "Marmatag automatically wins." Just as balanced as LVO, right?

Dude, did you read that first paragraph and skip the next two? The key point is that any of these big events are deviating from the core game - which means that making balance decisions based on people building armies designed for that set of house rules is a mistake.

Both Adepticon and ITC events are bad as a balance guide because they're not playing 40k - they're playing "Adepticon 40k" or "ITC 40k", neither of which are the 40k that GW produces as a product.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Zid wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

Its bad because it turns the game one dimensional; a game of 10 PBC's versus 7 Flyrants would be a very, very boring thing to play (and watch). People use spam because it wins, but even then, they themselves hate the fact they have to do it to win.

This is a game, not a "real army simulator"; most players will tell you they like seeing varied models and armies across the table, not the same model over and over and over and over.... Even though the FOC of earlier editions was flawed, at least it forced people to take somewhat different stuff.

I played 12 Exalted Flamers until the Daemon Codex came out. I loved it and had tons of fun.

I did not hate that I had to do it. It was great to use those models after never having used them before.

Suppose its different strokes for different folks then Anyone who uses the PBC list, hates it, lol. Even though it rolls through ITC missions

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is Spam bad?

Armies spam. Tank companies have tanks, artillery companies have artillery, logistics companies have.... well, lorries.

I'd be very surprised to see a Death Guard artillery detachment with one Artillery, one Close-Combat Squad, one lorry, one mid-range squad, some deepstrikers, and maybe a guy with a flag or two.

But artillery companies don't single-handedly delete enemy armies, armour companies don't roll into cities and hold them, and infantry companies generally don't punch through hardened positions without support from other types of assets.

Combined arms makes the whole stronger than the sum of its parts. The current situation in 40k is like having a fleet consisting of nothing but carriers running all over a carrier battlegroup with submarine support, or an armored division blitzing into a city centre and not getting completely murdered.

Everything's supposed to have a weakness; a list that's just the same repeated over and over that can compete at the highest levels clearly doesn't have enough of a weakness.

I'm with Marmatag that it's a bit kneejerky to go full ham on nerfing Hive Tyrants and that they're very dependent on missions, but they certainly warrant some thought as to how to make the rest of the army more viable vis-a-vis Hive Tyrants without nerfing the Hive Tyrants to the ground.

I'm personally in favour of nerfing tyrants invul saves a little, while simultaneously buffing tyrant guard with an extra defensive rule that only affects non-flying tyrants. To encourage a bit more of the classic walking tyrant with guard.

Nerf the tyrants regular invul save back down to a 5++.
Give the tyrant guard a 'Fortress of Chitin' rule that improves the armour and invul saves of the walking tyrant they are protecting by 1, while also allowing the tyrant guard to use the tyrants invul.
(fortress of chitin was an old formation that did something pretty similar)

This means there is actually something to weigh up between flying and walking tyrants, rather than just paying a few more points for improved abilities.
Either you get speed + deepstrike, or improved defenses.

It also fixes the issue where tyrant guards are just ablative wounds for a tyrant, while paying almost as much per (more easily removed) wound as a tyrant pays. Meaning that people just put those points towards more tyrants instead.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

 Primark G wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
They shouldnt restrict any of them.

Look at the tables Adepticon was using. Flat, open playing fields with essentially no terrain.

All of that very easily set these Flyrant armies, which can just stay in reserves until it's their turn to go, drop down and tear anyone who isn't armed to the teeth with huge screens to shreds.

That’s why I don’t play there any more - just not worth it IMO.

I don't think I've ever played at a tournament that had reasonable amounts of terrain - LOS blocking or otherwise. It's always been something like one piece of terrain in each quarter and something insignificant in the middle, if you're lucky.

Fly over for NOVA.

Arson Fire wrote:
I'm personally in favour of nerfing tyrants invul saves a little, while simultaneously buffing tyrant guard with an extra defensive rule that only affects non-flying tyrants. To encourage a bit more of the classic walking tyrant with guard.

Nerf the tyrants regular invul save back down to a 5++.
Give the tyrant guard a 'Fortress of Chitin' rule that improves the armour and invul saves of the walking tyrant they are protecting by 1, while also allowing the tyrant guard to use the tyrants invul.
(fortress of chitin was an old formation that did something pretty similar)

This means there is actually something to weigh up between flying and walking tyrants, rather than just paying a few more points for improved abilities.
Either you get speed + deepstrike, or improved defenses.

It also fixes the issue where tyrant guards are just ablative wounds for a tyrant, while paying almost as much per (more easily removed) wound as a tyrant pays. Meaning that people just put those points towards more tyrants instead.

This would work to stop or at least slow down the Flying Tyrant spam lists, but wouldn't save walking Tyrants. Walking Tyrants have issues that increased durability won't fix unless you increase their durability to an absurd extent. Walking Tyrants suffer from being expensive and not being able to impact the game for 3-4 turns. They don't give out buffs, their guns don't do enough damage to make up for the cost, and they don't hit hard enough in CC to be worth paying for a pod to deep strike them in. Without deep striking they are not making meaningful charges till turn 3. I could easily see taking a walking Tyrant with any build and having my opponent ignore it. They look scary, but just don't do enough for the cost.

Making Tyrant Guard better at protecting them isn't going to help fix them without changing the Tyrant as well. More killy AND more durable might work-but making them more killy encourages deep striking them, and the goal is to make people want to run them like you see in the fluff, not add another alpha strike to the game.

Instead, I would want to see them get a durability increase and hand out buffs. The most fun I ever had with Tyranids was in fifth edition, when you could combine Hive Tyrant and Tervigon auras to make super dangerous 5 point Termagants. Having Hive Tyrants hand out rerolls, or letting them give out an extra Hive Fleet trait, or giving them casting shenanigans. Have the wings upgrade make it so that whatever buff they give out only applies to units with wings, that way taking a Flyrant with Chrones/Harpies/Shrikes/Gargoyles is more viable.

I don’t know why anyone would try to play walking tyrants competitively... you can always keep winged ones on the ground.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Genuine question for those of you who are FOR the restriction, game wide, of HQ's, etc.

What do you expect armies like Custodes, for example, to do?

With only 3 (Same exact name and keywords, just with different armor on) HQs and one named HQ, if restricted in the same was as Tau where they could only take one <Commander> per detachment, they quite literally could only ever take one Captain and then their named HQ as an option.

My concern is with impacting elite armies who, by nature, have a very limited range of options. Tau were restricted, but their Coldstar Commander is bonkers strong and they have access to some very strong, very cheap HQ options in the form of Fireblades to offset this change.

(Edit: Just let it be known, something as simple as "You can only have 3 of each HQ Choices, army wide, in a battleforged list" would accomplish the same result as Tau did, but allow for actual elite armies to still be viable in their construction without shoe horning them into using functionally useless HQ slots.)

The Tau restriction is terrible and I do not think it will help the game in any way to spread it around. Tau lists are now shoehorned into taking multiple detachments or lose 1/3 of their good anti-tank. Making a maximum of 3 per army would have a similiar effect where you have to decide between multiple detachments or spamming HQs that are near useless in multiples. Limiting HQs also does nothing for spamming normal units. It's a bad fix that mostly has weight from the rampant hate for Tau. Commander spam wasn't even winning tournaments. Tyranids are in the same boat, they have 5 total tournament lists, not counting Adepticon, that made top 5 for all of 2017 and 2018.