Looking at the rumours it seems hive tyrants are getting the Tau commander treatment, which, as a fluffy player i kind of like- there should be only 1 monster leader gribbly per swarm of gribblies.
Anyway, with an eye on the fluff and the game mechanics; what units from other codexes should be limited by either quantity per detachment or points level?
Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.
Fluffwise...chapter masters would be 0-1 per faction of marines on board, captains would be 0-1 per detachment easily, ig captain(problem here is this would be huge nerf for IG which already isn't top dog even nor is captain spam even all that powerful). Warboss for orks. Plenty of stuff.
Of course that would also balance wise break the game badly.
tneva82 wrote: Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.
Exactly. GW basically says "This unit is imbalanced, but instead of fixing it we're just going to prevent people from spamming it too much, so it won't be such a big deal anymore".
tneva82 wrote: Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.
How so? Surely your big "unique" special characters/monstrous HQ creatures should be limited- its only with the creation of multiple detachments and the supreme command detachment that this has become a massive issue.
Chapter masters are already limited to one are they not?
Not really unfluffy or in game OP to have multiple captains in either a SM or IG army, id say the same for daemon princes- however to have many within a small amount of points maybe could be an issue?
IMO they could fix a fair amount in a competitive setting by simple making anything 0-X in anything other than a patrol or battalion X e.g. you take a spearhead you have to have 2 elites, 3 troops 2 fast and 2 flyers.
Maybe then we can go one edition without them being the best army in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Latro_ wrote: IMO they could fix a fair amount in a competitive setting by simple making anything 0-X in anything other than a patrol or battalion X e.g. you take a spearhead you have to have 2 elites, 3 troops 2 fast and 2 flyers.
k, so how do sisters or harlequins do that? And if you say 'allies' it's the same as admitting it's a bad idea.
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Ruleswize I could see it happening to Daemon Princes, too, fluffwize there have been occasions were several daemon princes fought together.
These restrictions only apply to matched play, so you can still go nuts with what HQ units you want in Narrative play if that fits the story you want to tell.
tneva82 wrote: Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.
How so? Surely your big "unique" special characters/monstrous HQ creatures should be limited- its only with the creation of multiple detachments and the supreme command detachment that this has become a massive issue.
Chapter masters are already limited to one are they not?
Not really unfluffy or in game OP to have multiple captains in either a SM or IG army, id say the same for daemon princes- however to have many within a small amount of points maybe could be an issue?
That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.
As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.
But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.
Personally I’d like to see the one-per-detachment restriction on any general-level HQ (e.g. SM Captains, Warbosses, etc), and also the introduction of “minor hero”-level HQs (cf the return of Lieutenants to the latest SM Codex or the Enginseer for AdMech). In conjunction, this would mean you see fewer daft, unfluffy lists where you have a half a Chapter’s worth of Captains all running around the same minor engagement, and the lesser characters would avoid the restriction hamstringing the factions with fewer HQ options.
I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Ruleswize I could see it happening to Daemon Princes, too, fluffwize there have been occasions were several daemon princes fought together.
They still could they would each just need to be in seperate detachments, so with the 3 detachment cap you could still run 3 Daemon Princes, just not 8.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.
As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.
But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.
Then why have a force organisation chart at all? why have min unit requirements or squad sizes?
The game structure and FOC is based on fluff is it not? we accept unit type restrictions as part of the game but not specific unit restrictions because it changes a game mechanic to be too fluffy?
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
The 1-per-detachment change just seems like a bad band-aid fix, as others have said.
Should be applied universally or not at all - e.g., a total re-review of what HQ options should be selection-restricted in a detachment for every faction, rather than selectively ‘nerfing’ options that rear up as ‘OP’.
Really the problem is character rules + specific ‘commanders’ being more points efficient than ‘ordinary’ FOC selections, e.g. the Tau Commander vs a normal Crisis suit team.
GhostRecon wrote: The 1-per-detachment change just seems like a bad band-aid fix, as others have said.
Should be applied universally or not at all - e.g., a total re-review of what HQ options should be selection-restricted in a detachment for every faction, rather than selectively ‘nerfing’ options that rear up as ‘OP’.
Really the problem is character rules + specific ‘commanders’ being more points efficient than ‘ordinary’ FOC selections, e.g. the Tau Commander vs a normal Crisis suit team.
Hmm, yes and no.
There a certain number of issues that come from reaching a critical mass due to spam of a good unit, but that if limited to a reasonable number of elements it is no longer so good of a choice.
Other times the model is so good that spamming it is the best choice (remember that in 90% of cases, spamming is bad for a list, every repeated choice has a diminished return due to lack of good targets).
With the flyrant you have both problems. The model is clearly undercosted (hence the rumored +20 points) and if spammed it creates a null deploy list (combined with mucolids), making you immune to alpha strikes. If 70% of your army is on the field, then the opponent has a target during first turn. This is a typical problem solved by hardcapping the model.
That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.
As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.
But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.
Then why have a force organisation chart at all? why have min unit requirements or squad sizes?
The game structure and FOC is based on fluff is it not? we accept unit type restrictions as part of the game but not specific unit restrictions because it changes a game mechanic to be too fluffy?
Again: You are talking about fluff. I said MECHANICALLY. The tau 0-1 commander limit doesn't actually fix balance issue. It only hides but THE COMMANDER IS STILL TOO GOOD FOR POINTS(that or it isn't even worth spamming).
And mechanically there's actually huge issues when you start slapping restrictions like these as a knee jerk reaction to people spamming because you didn't make them balanced in the first place. It's lazy option that easily leads into game breaking down as even balanced or weak options suddenly gets nerfed. What GW SHOULD have done is fix the problem instead. Commander too good for it's points so people spam? Howabout make commander balanced rather than adding limit on # you can field...That's no balance fix.
Next they claim you can reduce point cost of unit because it's 0-1...which is about silliest most ridiculous stupid arqument you can possibly make.
There is the saying "One is Bad, Two is Good, Three is Better" when it comes to putting some units in your army. GW needs to find a way to keep it from becoming "One is Bad, Two is Good, Seven make your opponent want to quit W40K".
The 1 per detachment rule allows the former while preventing the later. Doesn't mean GW shouldn't fix the obvious points problems (Tau Commander vs Battle Suit), but some units cost are actually fine if the player doesn't spam the unit.
Restrictions are the only simple and effective way to reduce spam without simultaneously dicking over those who weren't spamming. Therefore, the limit should be used sparingly where ridiculous spam occurs.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, we should have far more restricted force organization rules...but...this reduces GW's sale of models (or so they think/calculate). I mean, left the fluff-zone a long time ago. It's a huge deal when a single squad of Grey Knights is deployed to a planet, but we're mustering 3-4 Grandmasters for every skirmish?
I think it's a shame too, because with vastly different force organization we could have seen some really cool army options. I'd have much preferred to see certain Chapters/Craftworlds/Septs, etc. get their own special detachment options. Could have been pretty cool.
Elbows wrote: Once again we're looking at the same old issue.
Yes, we should have far more restricted force organization rules...but...this reduces GW's sale of models (or so they think/calculate). I mean, left the fluff-zone a long time ago. It's a huge deal when a single squad of Grey Knights is deployed to a planet, but we're mustering 3-4 Grandmasters for every skirmish?
I think it's a shame too, because with vastly different force organization we could have seen some really cool army options. I'd have much preferred to see certain Chapters/Craftworlds/Septs, etc. get their own special detachment options. Could have been pretty cool.
I'm sure that this was the original idea, else why would you have the restriction section for every detachment when it is practically not used?
Detachments were meant to be handed much more freely, but for some reason they discarded it.
I actually like the 1 per detachment rule for certain HQ choices. Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Chapter Masters, Greater Daemons, etc. These should be center piece models anyway. Restricting them to 1 per detachment (along with the standard only 3 detachments) allows these models to remain powerful, as they should be, without allowing too much abuse (i.e. 7 of them).
The main reason I can see GW enforcing this rule (as opposed to just "rebalancing the unit itself") is because GW WANTS those units to be powerful and doesn't expect players to run a whole army of just them. Because doing that is unfluffy and the game is designed to be thematic. If everyone took a balanced list, the game BECOMES balanced. The problem is that many players want to win and take unbalanced lists. GW could fix it by making an ultra strict rule set, but that is NOT the product they want to provide. They want players to be able play thematic games and have freedom to play how they want. It's the players that try to break the game.
Galef wrote: I actually like the 1 per detachment rule for certain HQ choices. Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Chapter Masters, Greater Daemons, etc.
These should be center piece models anyway. Restricting them to 1 per detachment (along with the standard only 3 detachments) allows these models to remain powerful, as they should be, without allowing too much abuse (i.e. 7 of them).
The main reason I can see GW enforcing this rule (as opposed to just "rebalancing the unit itself") is because GW WANTS those units to be powerful and doesn't expect players to run a whole army of just them.
Because doing that is unfluffy and the game is designed to be thematic. If everyone took a balanced list, the game BECOMES balanced.
The problem is that many players want to win and take unbalanced lists.
GW could fix it by making an ultra strict rule set, but that is NOT the product they want to provide. They want players to be able play thematic games and have freedom to play how they want. It's the players that try to break the game.
-
This is my opinion also- i dont mind flyrants, commanders, greater daemons being awesome for the points- they should be, thats why they lead armies. The same as i dont really have a problem with multiple detachments (apart from the supreme command, i just dont get why its a thing), I dont even have a problem with spamming in general if its things that thematically are spammed
It's a poor bandaid. GW knew that commanders were the best unit in the faction, but rather than bring them in line, they through the rule out there hoping noone exploits it.
GhostRecon wrote: Should be applied universally or not at all - e.g., a total re-review of what HQ options should be selection-restricted in a detachment for every faction
It's in the realm of proposed stuff, but I was thinking about that.
Say 2 Roles (unit types): Heroes & Lieutenants.
Heroes are 100+ pts models balanced around synergies but also effective at returning their point cost as well. Psyker heroes are the only ones which can manifest Smite.
Lieutenants are 35-50 pts models which can be spammed and it won't harm game as much, are not as effective at returning their points, but are nicely synergetic with particular unit types. They might also get Look Out Sir! stuff for Heroes.
Examples of detachments: Patrol: minimum 1 lieutenant; Battalion : 1 hero, 1-2 lieutenants, Supreme command: 1 hero, 2-5 lieutenants. etc.
Really the only models that would need a rule like this are things that (1) it is desirable to spam and (2) GW doesn't want to just nerf outright. There's not a whole lot like that.
What is it desirable to spam? Well, anything that gets much better the more you have of them, rather than working best alongside lots of other units. Anything that's paying a lot for an aura isn't very spammable. There are really just two classes of unit that you want to spam: plain overpowered stuff that just gets more for its points than anything else, and very kill-y characters that are easy to protect with the Character rule. Hive Tyrants would be an example of the first and Tau Commanders are mostly an example of the second. There are a couple of other characters that are maybe problems -- Daemon Princes and Shield Captains sometimes get spammed -- but usually these aren't as bad since they're primarily CC-oriented and so can't abuse the Character rule quite as easily.
What units does GW not want to nerf? The case for leaving an intentionally overpowered unit in the game is that it promotes faction identity. Every Tau list is going to have some Commanders, and a fast, ultra-shooty battlesuit is pretty iconic for the Tau. Likewise big psychic monsters are the most distinguishing feature of Tyranids. So there's a game design argument for not nerfing these in the usual way and instead strongly encouraging players to use them (by making sure they're good). Daemon Princes are probably in a similar spot, though I don't think you can make this case for Shield Captains on jetbikes.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
Well, the lieutenant type Hq idea would give Dark Eldar their Dracons (as they were in the 3rd edition codex) back Plus with the Dark Eldar codex rules isn't it more preferable to use a bunch of patrols than a single batallion?
tneva82 wrote: Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.
Fluffwise...chapter masters would be 0-1 per faction of marines on board, captains would be 0-1 per detachment easily, ig captain(problem here is this would be huge nerf for IG which already isn't top dog even nor is captain spam even all that powerful). Warboss for orks. Plenty of stuff.
Of course that would also balance wise break the game badly.
BULL, giant BULL.
Holy crap, it's like other units in the codices don't exist at all!
I think the only reason they made a limit on the Tau Commander was that they really didn't want to touch points as they want to reserve it for the annual Chapter Approved.
I also think that at this point they are realizing that having annual point changes are perhaps not so viable when people are so diligent at finding how to maximize their army. They need to basically adjust them every three-four months at this point if they truly want to seek balance.
On a personal note I have nothing against limiting certain HQ, but it should be a rule that is reserved for very specific units and not a generic rule. There is no need to limit warlocks or Spiritseers, but I can understand having only one farseer per detachment.
Dark Eldar would not really work in this as they have the least amount of HQ units to pick from. They will not add Dracons due to the rule everybody should know by now: If it doesn't have a model it doesn't have rules. Also, the Dracon would only solve the Kabal issue and not the Cult or Coven problem(they also have only 1 HQ).
Eldarsif wrote: On a personal note I have nothing against limiting certain HQ, but it should be a rule that is reserved for very specific units and not a generic rule. There is no need to limit warlocks or Spiritseers, but I can understand having only one farseer per detachment.
I certainly agree with this. Tau Commanders, Nid Tyrants, Greater Daemons and Chapter Masters can certainly be restricted to 1 per detachment. If fits the fluff and prevents spam Archons/Succubi, Spiritseers, Crypteks, Broodlords, etc should not be limited.
Mr Morden wrote: Most factions used to have a lower level commander like Lieutenants - Dracon, Palatine, etc.
GW got rid of them.
There's a real possibility that GW got rid of them because no one was buying them.
Custodes have 3 non-named HQ Options. They're all <Shield Captains>. What would you recommend they do, then? If you limit them, they cannot ever run a Battalion without Trajann. Also, with how drastically over priced the other Captains area (8-12pts less than the one on a Bike for the Terminator one, for example), what would you find to be a sufficient change for Custodes after the fact?
Here's a better solution: remove the idiotic character rules and go back to the old version of independent characters. There is no more need to limit copies of a character because there is no more immunity to being attacked.
I don't love it as a fix to this particular problem (flyrant spam). But I do think it fixes a different problem.
I just want them to be careful in how they apply this to secondary / supporting HQ's.
0-1 Captain is fine. Lieutenants should be 0-2. Libby's, techmarines, apothecaries, and Chaplins should probably be unlimited.
For Orks:
Warbosses 0-1 is fine. Big Meks, Painboyz, Wierdboyz should probably be unlimited
For Nids:
Hive Tyrants 0-1. Broodlord, Neurothrope, Tervigon, and Tyranid Prime unlimited.
For GSC:
Patriarch 0-1, Primus 0-2, Magus, and Iconward unlimited.
For IG:
??? It's unclear to me that there wouldn't be multiple company commanders in a detachment, and that seems like the most likely target. I know I love running Scions, and I tend to run them in a Batallion which includes 2 Tempestor Primes (similar to Company Commander). I'd be bummed if I couldn't do that any more. Maybe 0-1 tank commander would make sense.
Codexes with limited model support like Inquisition, Sob, Ad Mech, Custodes, and Thousand Sons get either screwed or exempted.
And then you've got the issue of named characters. The Swarmlord is a Tyrant, and Ghaz is a Warboss. Both of them take a pretty decent nerf if they can't take other warbosses / tyrants with them. Likewise Grand Master Voldus, and I'm sure many other named chars.
I don't mind this very much, because I don't like going to events and seeing 2 dozen Celestines. I think primarily named chars should be for narrative play. But, in some cases like Swarmlord army mechanics that are needed for variety in lists have been limited to those named characters.
Peregrine wrote: Here's a better solution: remove the idiotic character rules and go back to the old version of independent characters. There is no more need to limit copies of a character because there is no more immunity to being attacked.
Actually flyrants, as they have more than 9 wounds, don't follow those rules.
so, your solution to people using characters (that some deem to be overpowered) is to remove them entirely from the game?
Because, I assure you, with how they've made characters and with how much things die in 8th, people will simply take the cheapest HQ possible for every detachment and you will simply never see things like Mephiston, for example, ever again.
I will note that I don't really take what narrative players will be fielding into account, ever, because I firmly believe they should just take whatever they want, always, because they absolutely have that right and should enjoy the game how they choose to do so.
Peregrine wrote: Here's a better solution: remove the idiotic character rules and go back to the old version of independent characters. There is no more need to limit copies of a character because there is no more immunity to being attacked.
Except a Tau commander who could hide in a unit, sooo.......
At some level, 8th edition's rule building just reward spam and it isn't possibly to wholly excise that without getting a 9th edition.
People have suggested eliminating the Supreme Command Detachment, and that might help a bit. But that's hardly going to stop people from taking a something like a Blood Angels Battalion with 2 Captains, Mephiston, and 3 units of Scouts.
Peregrine wrote: Here's a better solution: remove the idiotic character rules and go back to the old version of independent characters. There is no more need to limit copies of a character because there is no more immunity to being attacked.
Except to Tau commander who could hide in a unit, sooo.......
You could hide it in a unit, but which unit is so scary? It's not like commanders forming a unit with a squad of crisis suits were a huge problem in previous editions. Take away the ability to have every other unit on the table act as their meatshield, without hindering them in any way, and there's no problem.
Peregrine wrote: Here's a better solution: remove the idiotic character rules and go back to the old version of independent characters. There is no more need to limit copies of a character because there is no more immunity to being attacked.
Except to Tau commander who could hide in a unit, sooo.......
You could hide it in a unit, but which unit is so scary? It's not like commanders forming a unit with a squad of crisis suits were a huge problem in previous editions. Take away the ability to have every other unit on the table act as their meatshield, without hindering them in any way, and there's no problem.
The unit doesn't need to be anything special, you can just surround it with shield drones or (my favorite) have a Ghostkeel/Stealth suit closer to your opponent's shooters, or whatever. Commanders' best defensive ability is definitely their Character rule.
If this happened to grand master dreadknights... welp, grey Knights already got brought out back and shot, doing this would be taking a leak on the grave.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Eldarsif wrote: On a personal note I have nothing against limiting certain HQ, but it should be a rule that is reserved for very specific units and not a generic rule. There is no need to limit warlocks or Spiritseers, but I can understand having only one farseer per detachment.
I certainly agree with this.
Tau Commanders, Nid Tyrants, Greater Daemons and Chapter Masters can certainly be restricted to 1 per detachment. If fits the fluff and prevents spam
Archons/Succubi, Spiritseers, Crypteks, Broodlords, etc should not be limited.
Mr Morden wrote: Most factions used to have a lower level commander like Lieutenants - Dracon, Palatine, etc.
GW got rid of them.
There's a real possibility that GW got rid of them because no one was buying them.
-
Archons and Dracons, Canoness and Palatine used the same model IIRC
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
I think the point is that they want Commanders and Hive Tyrants to be really powerful and would rather limit how many of them you can take than make them weaker.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
I think the point is that they want Commanders and Hive Tyrants to be really powerful and would rather limit how many of them you can take than make them weaker.
This.
If you balance a unit with the expectation that someone is going to bring 7 of them, that means they will suck for people who don't spam them.
Would Tau players have been happy if you took 10 commanders to get the damage output of 3? I highly doubt it.
One of the first things to do is REMOVE THE SUPREME COMMAND DETATCHMENT FROM THE GAME.
It literally rewards players for spamming these units. There is no downside. The rest boils down to a few gimmicks. Taking 2 battalions and taking 4 of the same HQ choice in them. You are paying another price in the form of troops.
I think we should have the old force org back, detachments were just a bad idea. 1-2 hq, 0-3 elites, fast attack (put flyers back here), and heavy. 0-1 lord of war and 2-6 troops. in those slots disallow any duplicates outside of troops or dedicated transports. allow multiple force orgs and give a set amount of command points per game turn so you can choose to use them offensively or defensively, something like 4 per player turn each.
Like some people already have mentioned is it a bad idea to simply restrict hq to 0-1.
(Genestealer Cults for example only have 3 HQs in whole... others have a wide range to choose from)
The problem i see is, some armys suffer more than other, simply because the concerned HQs have sometimes less and sometimes more than 9 wounds. The character targeting rules are actually questionable, at best.
Hive Tyrants for example are inefficient cannon fodder without wings... you would try to not even take one, regardless of any restrictions.
And yeah, Flyrant spam can be annoying, but at least you can always target them when they reach the battlefield. I dont understand the hate people bring against that list.
It is antimeta and strong against alpha. So what? Some players got caught on the wrong foot, but hey, that happens with 'new' stuff noone expects. The meta will shift again.
You could get the impression that everyone had got his teeth kicked in by this list. Always. Ever.
A bit hyperbolic, isnt it?
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
You haven’t come up with an example of such a negative impact so I’m apparently not the only one who doesn’t see it.
give the "problematic" models two profiles, a "senior" one that can be one per detachment, then "junior" versions that can be multiple as deputies, or the leader in smaller games.
Think the old fantasy system with orcs, a Warboss and a slightly lesser "big boss"
ideally split the "HQ" slot to be a senior and a junior role, always able to take a junior in a senior slot but not the other way around.
Patrols get 1 junior, Battalions and Brigades allow a Senior and multiple junior, the "Supreme command" is a senior and multiple junior, the "supporting" detachments become junior only
Then make sure each codex has both senior and junior HQs, ideally twice as many juniors with different focusses, and perhaps unique named characters at both levels.
Take a notch out of 30ks book, “masters of the legion” are 1 per 1k points, so just adding the “leader” keyword to certain units to limit them, take into account spamability and power of the unit itself to apply this limit.
Formosa wrote: Take a notch out of 30ks book, “masters of the legion” are 1 per 1k points, so just adding the “leader” keyword to certain units to limit them, take into account spamability and power of the unit itself to apply this limit.
That would work very nicely and is also very simple
DaBraken wrote: Like some people already have mentioned is it a bad idea to simply restrict hq to 0-1.
(Genestealer Cults for example only have 3 HQs in whole... others have a wide range to choose from)
The problem i see is, some armys suffer more than other, simply because the concerned HQs have sometimes less and sometimes more than 9 wounds. The character targeting rules are actually questionable, at best.
Hive Tyrants for example are inefficient cannon fodder without wings... you would try to not even take one, regardless of any restrictions.
And yeah, Flyrant spam can be annoying, but at least you can always target them when they reach the battlefield. I dont understand the hate people bring against that list.
It is antimeta and strong against alpha. So what? Some players got caught on the wrong foot, but hey, that happens with 'new' stuff noone expects. The meta will shift again.
You could get the impression that everyone had got his teeth kicked in by this list. Always. Ever.
A bit hyperbolic, isnt it?
This is accurate.
For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.
Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.
I find it odd that the discussion is so HQ-centric when OP units can exist in any slot. I'm not sure why 0-1'ing commanders and tyrants makes more sense than 0-1'ing, for instance, my dark reapers.
Fluff seems like a shaky justification. Surely there can be multiple warlocks or tech priests or commissars on the same general patch of ground. Surely there have been times when marine captains have had their companies wiped out and ended up fighting back to back alongside the surviving forces of another company.
Mr Morden wrote: Most factions used to have a lower level commander like Lieutenants - Dracon, Palatine, etc.
GW got rid of them.
There's a real possibility that GW got rid of them because no one was buying them.
-
I strongly suspect that sales for the non-existent dracon and dracite models were, in fact, quite unimpressive. Technically, we currently still have access to dracons. They're just a new name for the sergeant of a trueborn squad. Although the new 'dex may have wiped them out entirely...
Wyldhunt wrote: I find it odd that the discussion is so HQ-centric when OP units can exist in any slot. I'm not sure why 0-1'ing commanders and tyrants makes more sense than 0-1'ing, for instance, my dark reapers.
Fluff seems like a shaky justification. Surely there can be multiple warlocks or tech priests or commissars on the same general patch of ground. Surely there have been times when marine captains have had their companies wiped out and ended up fighting back to back alongside the surviving forces of another company.
Mr Morden wrote: Most factions used to have a lower level commander like Lieutenants - Dracon, Palatine, etc.
GW got rid of them.
There's a real possibility that GW got rid of them because no one was buying them.
-
I strongly suspect that sales for the non-existent dracon and dracite models were, in fact, quite unimpressive. Technically, we currently still have access to dracons. They're just a new name for the sergeant of a trueborn squad. Although the new 'dex may have wiped them out entirely...
I think some of the HQ focus is fluff based, however if we are talking about limiting units by slot (0-1 of any HQ/troop elite) HQ is really the only slot I can see being 0-1 across the board. but if we are talking individual units there is no reason any particular unit could not be restricted to a certain number. That is actually a balance mechanic that I think could be useful and it in fact exists in other games like malifaux where some units are unique, some are limited to 2 model. Some to 3 models, etc and some are unrestricted.. It won't happen because it hurts sales. If I can only ever run a single squad of dark reapers there is no reason to buy more than that.
DaBraken wrote: Like some people already have mentioned is it a bad idea to simply restrict hq to 0-1.
(Genestealer Cults for example only have 3 HQs in whole... others have a wide range to choose from)
The problem i see is, some armys suffer more than other, simply because the concerned HQs have sometimes less and sometimes more than 9 wounds. The character targeting rules are actually questionable, at best.
Hive Tyrants for example are inefficient cannon fodder without wings... you would try to not even take one, regardless of any restrictions.
And yeah, Flyrant spam can be annoying, but at least you can always target them when they reach the battlefield. I dont understand the hate people bring against that list.
It is antimeta and strong against alpha. So what? Some players got caught on the wrong foot, but hey, that happens with 'new' stuff noone expects. The meta will shift again.
You could get the impression that everyone had got his teeth kicked in by this list. Always. Ever.
A bit hyperbolic, isnt it?
This is accurate.
For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.
Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.
They probably dislike both null deploy lists and alpha strike both. Seems reasonable enough to do so.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
You haven’t come up with an example of such a negative impact so I’m apparently not the only one who doesn’t see it.
I did provide a negative. Custodes shield captains are all <Shield Captain> models. If you restrict them as 0-1, Custodes cannot ever run a Battalion without Trajann. They cannot, ever, run a Brigade (Not that you would.)
You are making a decision to ignore negative impacts, like this one and the Archon example you were given, because you feel the change is justified, at the expense of others. That's fine if it's your opinion, but it should be given honestly.
Get hemmed up by Spritseer, Flyrants, and ... ... ... Cannot think of many other HQs that get spammed enough to even make this thought valid. And heck, if you get hemmed up by Spiritseers...
Flyrants aren't really bad, they just create saturation, which skews any list and invalidates a lot of weapon choices, making them all suboptimal. Literally, this has been going on since weapon profiles started deviating. If you bring a balanced assortment of guns, and I bring an unbalanced assortment of models, then I can create a skew that can hurt you. You can never rule this out of the game unless everything is hit on 4s, wounded on 4s, and saves on 4s.
Apparently critical thought has abandoned all hope here. Why don't we restrict IG Infantry units to 1/detachment as well, I hear they skew lists really poorly, especially when mixed into allied armies.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
You haven’t come up with an example of such a negative impact so I’m apparently not the only one who doesn’t see it.
GSC - 4 HQs, one of which is defintly designed to be in a full army multiple times
Halequins - Just dump them and their two HQs in the dumpster right now. No Bridgade for you!
Tyranids - A pretty good number of HQs, but only two (Hive tyrant and Neurothrope) can really be considered general purpose. The rest are all specialized and require multiple additional models to get your points back
Sisters of Battle - Go ahead, push this rule on that vocal community group, I dare you. On the eve of them getting plastic models no less
Space Marines - Tell them they can only have one captain (especially since a chapter master is now a captain model as well), one ancient, one lieutenant, etc.)
Blood Angels - They probably have enough HQ choices to survive, but you'll be insta-nerfing most of their lists, which relying on multiple of the same HQ Astra Militarum - One company commander per list. I'm assuming you aren't a AM player or this would have already occured to you. Presumably you are already in favor of them only ever getting one psyker per AM list unless they soup.
Orks - The SM problem all over again. What few HQs they have are generally meant to be spammed for the army type.
Ad Mech - 3 HQs, one a 200 point special character.
Tau - Outside of commanders they have about 4 HQs, two of which are named characters. You'll finally put the last nail in the coffin of Tau troop based lists. Canon Farsight lists will have 2 HQs.
Necrons - again, meant to use mutliple copies of their HQs. Their named ones are specialized as hell
Armies you are buffing
Dark Angels - They'll be forced to take named characters, but probably wont be an issue
Eldar - They needed buffing, right?
Ynari - It was the plan to buff soup, right?
Imperial Soup - nerf all their opponents?, yes please!
Chaos Soup - see above
Armies that won't care
Space Wolves - You'll nerf their current lists, but they won't be hurt/benefit enough to be affected
Dark Eldar - in the new mode they wouldn't even need to change their lists
Imperial Knights
Leo_the_Rat wrote: No GK analysis in your list? Are they that non-competitive that they aren't even considered worth mentioning in an otherwise all inclusive list?
Essentially yes. Just being honest. If GK were actually seen on tables they'd be in people's minds.
The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?
Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
You haven’t come up with an example of such a negative impact so I’m apparently not the only one who doesn’t see it.
I did provide a negative. Custodes shield captains are all <Shield Captain> models. If you restrict them as 0-1, Custodes cannot ever run a Battalion without Trajann. They cannot, ever, run a Brigade (Not that you would.)
You are making a decision to ignore negative impacts, like this one and the Archon example you were given, because you feel the change is justified, at the expense of others. That's fine if it's your opinion, but it should be given honestly.
Already addressed the Archon as a non-issue, and the shield captain is only a thing if working of key word and not data slate. If it is each data slate, you only get 1 bike guy but can take a non-bike guy. Where did I say do it by keyword. I understand that is how the commander nerf works, but not necessarily how any other restriction would work. So again you have provided no actual negatives, just ones you derived from things I never said, or did not read closely enough. The only expense of others I'm seeing is people who want to spam things like bike captains, or flyrants. If you mean those people then sure, I feel change is justified at their expense.
Breng77 wrote: I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following
All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)
All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment
All troops 0-3 per detachment
Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)
So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.
That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.
Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?
Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.
Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.
For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote: The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.
Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case
No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.
Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.
Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).
Yes, Archons are the only Kabal HQ, just as the Succubus is the only generic Wych HQ and the Haemonculus is the only generic Coven HQ. I don't think exception helps either, it's just a bad idea all round.
It doesn’t help why? Because it allows you to take your battalion? Super confused by how it doesn’t help. Sounds more like you want no restriction and just cannot see beyond it.
Alternatively, it seems like you want a restriction and cannot see how it would negatively impact some armies. It is a poor blanket ruling.
You haven’t come up with an example of such a negative impact so I’m apparently not the only one who doesn’t see it.
GSC - 4 HQs, one of which is defintly designed to be in a full army multiple times
Halequins - Just dump them and their two HQs in the dumpster right now. No Bridgade for you!
Tyranids - A pretty good number of HQs, but only two (Hive tyrant and Neurothrope) can really be considered general purpose. The rest are all specialized and require multiple additional models to get your points back
Sisters of Battle - Go ahead, push this rule on that vocal community group, I dare you. On the eve of them getting plastic models no less
Space Marines - Tell them they can only have one captain (especially since a chapter master is now a captain model as well), one ancient, one lieutenant, etc.)
Blood Angels - They probably have enough HQ choices to survive, but you'll be insta-nerfing most of their lists, which relying on multiple of the same HQ Astra Militarum - One company commander per list. I'm assuming you aren't a AM player or this would have already occured to you. Presumably you are already in favor of them only ever getting one psyker per AM list unless they soup.
Orks - The SM problem all over again. What few HQs they have are generally meant to be spammed for the army type.
Ad Mech - 3 HQs, one a 200 point special character.
Tau - Outside of commanders they have about 4 HQs, two of which are named characters. You'll finally put the last nail in the coffin of Tau troop based lists. Canon Farsight lists will have 2 HQs.
Necrons - again, meant to use mutliple copies of their HQs. Their named ones are specialized as hell
Armies you are buffing
Dark Angels - They'll be forced to take named characters, but probably wont be an issue
Eldar - They needed buffing, right?
Ynari - It was the plan to buff soup, right?
Imperial Soup - nerf all their opponents?, yes please!
Chaos Soup - see above
Armies that won't care
Space Wolves - You'll nerf their current lists, but they won't be hurt/benefit enough to be affected
Dark Eldar - in the new mode they wouldn't even need to change their lists
Imperial Knights
So wrong across the board got it. You miss the part where if you have no other options you can repeat. So sisters not effected at all. Space Marines could take 3 captains in different detachment oh the horror....ancients are an elite choice so you could take 2-3 in each detachment etc. SO basically you did not ever read my idea. Decided I said every HQ 0-1 in an entire list and based your negatives off that.
The best you'll ever do here is get TOs to implement a house rule for their events.
You'll never get GW in on that idea, especially at the expense of their narrative players, casual players, and non-tournament bound players.
The fact is, people who are not in tournaments and read some fluff see things like a farseer and two warlocks as perfectly reasonable to be working together. Possibly leading a BN or a BDE. But you want to make that a non-starter.
Also, going back to CWE, I've looked at their force orgs, and they typically have Autarchs who report to Autarchs who report to Autarchs. Again, what would be the problem reflecting that structure in a BDE where you have an Autarch as your Warlord with an Autarch in charge of the Aspect Host and a Farseer support reporting directly to him? Reasonable within the fluff, but illegal in your ramblings.
You're advocating for more ponderous and clumsy rules that have far reaching effects all the way into non-tournament play because 1 or 2 specific models create an unbalanced environment at the tippy-top of the spectrum.
This isn't even in keep with the spirit of the rules in 8th edition where they tried to clean out a lot of the garbage rules from impeding the game. You're adding a rule to everyone for the sake of having a rule. Most of the time it is frivolous and unnecessary, and when it becomes necessary, you can just house rule it in.
Galas wrote: The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?
Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.
I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.
Galas wrote: The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?
Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.
I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.
Based on the tone of the last few pages of, "No. That's not an issue, because I say so. Your opinion on balance, in a thread about balance, is wrong compared to mine." I would say that's exactly correct.
The best you'll ever do here is get TOs to implement a house rule for their events.
You'll never get GW in on that idea, especially at the expense of their narrative players, casual players, and non-tournament bound players.
The fact is, people who are not in tournaments and read some fluff see things like a farseer and two warlocks as perfectly reasonable to be working together. Possibly leading a BN or a BDE. But you want to make that a non-starter.
Also, going back to CWE, I've looked at their force orgs, and they typically have Autarchs who report to Autarchs who report to Autarchs. Again, what would be the problem reflecting that structure in a BDE where you have an Autarch as your Warlord with an Autarch in charge of the Aspect Host and a Farseer support reporting directly to him? Reasonable within the fluff, but illegal in your ramblings.
You're advocating for more ponderous and clumsy rules that have far reaching effects all the way into non-tournament play because 1 or 2 specific models create an unbalanced environment at the tippy-top of the spectrum.
This isn't even in keep with the spirit of the rules in 8th edition where they tried to clean out a lot of the garbage rules from impeding the game. You're adding a rule to everyone for the sake of having a rule. Most of the time it is frivolous and unnecessary, and when it becomes necessary, you can just house rule it in.
I don't expect GW to put many if any restrictions on list building in reality. I just think it would help with balance and eliminating spam. GW tried to address non-tournament players by creating the 3 ways to play. The issue is that everyone defaults to matched play. I honestly have a hard time seeing it be an issue in a truly casual level. Where the issue comes up is the super casual level where people want both ends of the spectrum. No restrictions on what they can build and balance.
Galas wrote: The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?
Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.
I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.
Based on the tone of the last few pages of, "No. That's not an issue, because I say so. Your opinion on balance, in a thread about balance, is wrong compared to mine." I would say that's exactly correct.
If you are referring to me in any way I am open to opinion, unless that opinion is "you're wrong and it's dumb because reasons!" and when I say ok give me reasons I get either nothing, or reasons that don't address what I said in the first place. For balance I don't think that all HQs present a problem, but I do think 1 per detachment hurts soup armies who do things like bring 3 Custodes bike captains in a supreme command, or the same with Blood Angels captains. I also don't think GW will go the way of limiting things beyond the obvious offenders. I just think they would save a lot of work by doing so because limiting one thing and only one thing opens the door for another.
I also don't think my suggestion would be near perfect, and may have some real flaws as far as list originality because every list might become I take the max allowed of each broken thing. P.s. Lieutenants are something like 0-3 for one choice so even if limited to 0-1 choices you could run 3 per detachment.
I've given you plenty of reasons against the implementation of these rules, but I'll itemize them here so you can scrutinize them directly:
1) This "problem" exists at the high end of the matched play spectrum, where spam has always existed, and will continue to persist due to not everything being 100% balanced (and that imbalance is actually a good thing). But even a few % points more effective on certain units will mean that people will spam them to amplify that small % in hopes of winning a big event.
2) This "problem" is with a very few specific models, and most of the HQs are seen as not being efficient, and even a downright tax in some armies.
3) It doesn't promote diversity of HQs, it only promotes bringing the second and/or third best ones as a tax.
4) It increases rules for the sake of creating more rules and restrictions in an edition where the intention was to remove a lot of these silly barriers to entry and play.
5) It actually does not address the fact that the Hive Tyrant may be very strong and possibly too well supported by rules or just plain under-costed.
6) This restriction actually murders some fluff and narrative. There are "3 Ways to Play", but the last I checked, the data slates were still used in Open, and that restriction would carry to those games as well. If you want to take the focus off of the competitive scene, you cannot do so by neutering it with restrictions like this that make armies more generic and less custom. I really want to bring a Farseer Enclave to a game, but I cannot do that because my Farseers and Warlocks are limited to 1/detachment.
7) If implemented, to avoid many of the above pitfalls, you'll have to give a deployment range (0-3) for many, if not ALL HQ options across every codex. Given that they are not rewriting the codices right now... do you really think they would want to do that? Who is going to rebalance EVERY HQ in the game to see if this is a "1-of" guy or a "3-of"?
1.) Which is why limitations on that level of play are better at addressing spam than points changes.
2.)Some Hqs are a Tax, that being the case would make armies less efficient (and thus less powerful) as a result of requiring extra taxes if they want to spam certain units.
3.) How is bringing different HQs not diverse. As I said lists may not end up being different from one another but how is a Hive tyrant and a Neurothrope in an army not a more diverse selection than 2 Hive Tyrants. But yes people will always take the best options possible. Unless your thought here is that spamming some lesser HQs makes them a better option than the other better HQs in certain builds. Then you could have a point (i.e. spamming Big Meks is better in a Kan Wall Army then taking a big mek and warboss, and still might not be hyper competitive)
4.) It is a slight increase of rules, but not really in a way that makes things terribly more complicated, but yes if someone bought a whole bunch of models without knowing the rules then it might be tough to play all those models.
5.) Somewhat true but 3 tyrants max in a army is significantly less powerful and more manageable for most people than 7. Restricting duplicates does actually produce a different level of balance for that model. Take say magnus, right now many don't consider him good because he dies to fast. But what if you ran 3 or 4 magnuses? Would 1 dying be a huge issue? They same is true with tyrants. Having more means they always get to be more effective because more live long enough to do what they do best.
6.) Which is why you would put said restrictions in the matched play rules not the individual data slates, similar to how they limit stratagems. Thus they would not carry onto narrative and open play. Heck I would be fine with it like the 3 detachment "rule" put it in as a recommendation for balance. Or heck put it in a GW approved tournament packet. You want to bring a Farseer Enclave, given that warlock conclave exists exist it seems like you could bring quite a few warlocks in each detachment. You could bring over 3 detachments 3 farseers (more if we do by datasheet as the skyrunner is a seperate data sheet), and 33 Warlocks. Which is more than you are likely to have points to take. My point is not to take the focus off competitive games but instead to create more seperation between the narative/open play and matched play rules.
7.)I don't see why or how that needs to be a thing per say, it doesn't really seem to address anything except your desire to take a farseer enclave. Making HQs 0-3 per detachment means they might as well not be limited at all (which may be your desire).
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, none of that will happen so it is irrelevant. I do expect a limit on hive tyrants (at least flying ones) in the FAQ simply because I assume points will not be changed in the FAQ (that assumption may be wrong) and that any balance changes will be made through rules errata rather than points changes which I am assuming will only happen in CA.
Problem with such restrictions as blanket ones is the same issue that WHFB had with "of course we ban special characters", yes you stopped a few troublesome ones, but you also kicked ou the named goblins who you would hardly find to be a problem.
If there are two or three offenders, deal with them (ideally just make multiples cost more) and leave the rest alone
Automatically Appended Next Post: All that said, none of that will happen so it is irrelevant. I do expect a limit on hive tyrants (at least flying ones) in the FAQ simply because I assume points will not be changed in the FAQ (that assumption may be wrong) and that any balance changes will be made through rules errata rather than points changes which I am assuming will only happen in CA.
I'm not disregarding anything you said above, as it was beneficial to the discussion, but your statement here at the end kind of nullifies the whole conversation because it is probably accurate that they will forego anything other than a direct change to the actual model.
I can't say what I expect GW to do, because the Hive Tyrant has arguments both ways. I'd like it to be a strong model, giving it the 1/army/detachment treatment of a unique model or Tau Commander. They're actually balanced a little more generously due to the tag of there can only be one. But now you end up with models that are almost auto-includes because of that treatment. Like taking generic HQs are actually a hamstring for your army when there is a named guy that you can get more mileage out of (Ahriman vs Exalted Sorcerer, for example).
Fixing the points would mean that you don't have to restrict it to X per whatever, but you leave the door open for lists of 5 instead of 7, again, as an example. Again, the core of the problem was fixed, but now the efficiency for those points probably drastically changes and you won't see X Hive Tyrant lists anymore because it falls out of flavor at that level.
There's pros and cons on both side of the argument, so I guess the question is: do you truly want a limit on a powerful model because it is a powerful model... is it iconic enough that seeing it in almost every list is okay? If not, is there a points cost for the model that makes it 1) playable and 2) balanced enough that spam or sprinkle in the list are relative in power to each other, thus the choice is more cosmetic than competitive.
DaBraken wrote: Like some people already have mentioned is it a bad idea to simply restrict hq to 0-1.
(Genestealer Cults for example only have 3 HQs in whole... others have a wide range to choose from)
The problem i see is, some armys suffer more than other, simply because the concerned HQs have sometimes less and sometimes more than 9 wounds. The character targeting rules are actually questionable, at best.
Hive Tyrants for example are inefficient cannon fodder without wings... you would try to not even take one, regardless of any restrictions.
And yeah, Flyrant spam can be annoying, but at least you can always target them when they reach the battlefield. I dont understand the hate people bring against that list.
It is antimeta and strong against alpha. So what? Some players got caught on the wrong foot, but hey, that happens with 'new' stuff noone expects. The meta will shift again.
You could get the impression that everyone had got his teeth kicked in by this list. Always. Ever.
A bit hyperbolic, isnt it?
This is accurate.
For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.
Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.
But doesn't this list also bring a fairly brutal alpha?
This just doesn't work with many factions as they don't have that big selection to pick from to begin with which means you can't make this a generic rule. Generic rules where more than half of the factions have to state they ignore the rule does not make a very good generic rule.
I am now just giggling and imagining the rulebook saying: All units in the game have the Space Marine Bolter, and then 95% of the units having datasheets stating "Instead of a Space Marine Bolter this unit has a Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Instead of a Space Marine Bolter this unit has a Gauss Flayer."
In regards to "well, this is only a limit per detachment" it would mean many armies would have very limited choices detachment-wise as they could not fill Brigade or Battalion if they so desired. In other words it would reward large factions but punish the smaller, less supported, ones.
The problem from what I see is that you still want to have those 150 + points model FEEL powerfull. They are (usually) unique godly fighter or sorceror that can overturn a planet to their cause if they put their mind to it.
For a player, it feels great when those pricey model have a lot of impact on the game. And of course the extreme killyness of the game make it so that if you just increase the point cost, you'll have fewer model on the table to actually protect and help your big model, and it'll just die without accomplishing much.
That's why the 0-1 limit make sense, it lets player play with a powerfull model and always get bangs for their bucks, but without going overboard and bringing 6+ too efficient units.
Warmachine has the same kind of deal going on with warcaster, that really help define how an army is going to play and lets you synergise with every part of your army.
All in all, not saying I necessarly agree with the 0 -1 limit, but I can understand why their doing it.
DaBraken wrote: Like some people already have mentioned is it a bad idea to simply restrict hq to 0-1.
(Genestealer Cults for example only have 3 HQs in whole... others have a wide range to choose from)
The problem i see is, some armys suffer more than other, simply because the concerned HQs have sometimes less and sometimes more than 9 wounds. The character targeting rules are actually questionable, at best.
Hive Tyrants for example are inefficient cannon fodder without wings... you would try to not even take one, regardless of any restrictions.
And yeah, Flyrant spam can be annoying, but at least you can always target them when they reach the battlefield. I dont understand the hate people bring against that list.
It is antimeta and strong against alpha. So what? Some players got caught on the wrong foot, but hey, that happens with 'new' stuff noone expects. The meta will shift again.
You could get the impression that everyone had got his teeth kicked in by this list. Always. Ever.
A bit hyperbolic, isnt it?
This is accurate.
For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.
Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.
But doesn't this list also bring a fairly brutal alpha?
It's not really an alpha list. Compared to something like Nurgle daemons or Poxwalkers it's got more killing power., but compared to Blood Angels it's got less killing power and much more survivability. The key really is how tough Hive Tyrants are in addition to having lots of power in all four stages of the game.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem from what I see is that you still want to have those 150 + points model FEEL powerfull. They are (usually) unique godly fighter or sorceror that can overturn a planet to their cause if they put their mind to it.
For a player, it feels great when those pricey model have a lot of impact on the game. And of course the extreme killyness of the game make it so that if you just increase the point cost, you'll have fewer model on the table to actually protect and help your big model, and it'll just die without accomplishing much.
That's why the 0-1 limit make sense, it lets player play with a powerfull model and always get bangs for their bucks, but without going overboard and bringing 6+ too efficient units.
So have an expensive model, and have it worth it's points. Back to the tau commander, a major complaint is that it's still too good for its cost (compared to similar models in the book). All the 0-1 restriction does is encourage every army to be made of 3 detatchments to maximise commanders. This doesn't encourage variety. If commanders were more expensive (or less of a gun boat) there would be more of a choice between fielding more commanders or fielding crisis suits instead.
As for the "can only take one of each hq data sheet until you run out of options" how does this interact with special characters? Do tau armies only need to take a commander, fireblade & ethereal before they can cycle, unless they're tau Sept where they need to also take longstrike, darkstrider, etc? Do I need to take an autarch, autarch on bike, and autarch with wings before potentially taking another of the same? If I want to run a force of Tyranid warriors do I have to take neurothropes / tyrants to fill batallions instead of primes? Or if I want a batallion focused on small things with neurothropes as commanders, I have to run broodlords or primes instead of just a pair of neurothropes because....and this encourages variety? From what I can see, you're making any given list take a larger variety of datacards at the cost of lists in general being more homogenous.
VoidSempai wrote: The problem from what I see is that you still want to have those 150 + points model FEEL powerfull. They are (usually) unique godly fighter or sorceror that can overturn a planet to their cause if they put their mind to it.
For a player, it feels great when those pricey model have a lot of impact on the game. And of course the extreme killyness of the game make it so that if you just increase the point cost, you'll have fewer model on the table to actually protect and help your big model, and it'll just die without accomplishing much.
That's why the 0-1 limit make sense, it lets player play with a powerfull model and always get bangs for their bucks, but without going overboard and bringing 6+ too efficient units.
That is the problem though. A 150 point model should be as efficient as any other 150-point model. Now granted different units may have different levels of speed, durability and killing power but if a particular 150-point unit is consistently more efficient than most other 150 point units, that is a problem. It should be addressed with points/rules changes. Making it 0-1 per detachment is treating a symptom rather than the underlying problem.
Also, the Warmahorde HQ are for the most part(at least when I was playing) unique named characters, and the game revolves around a very specific HQ-centric gameplay that is different from Warhammer.
Basically, if GW would make all HQ more powerful the game would become even more of a Herohammer than before.
Basically, if GW would make all HQ more powerful the game would become even more of a Herohammer than before.
Herohammer is the last thing I want...
Speaking of which, why should any HQs be the best at anything? They presumably have buffs to hand out, so if anything, they should be the least point efficient at killing things. It really bothers me how many people think it's OK for Tau commanders to be broken because they are commanders.
HQs need to actually bring the army together, not run suicide drops to kill a tank. That's what Elites are for.
0-1 Warbosses for orks doesn't bother me overly much except when Ghazzy enters the picture. He's got Warbosses under his thumb as nobs. Essentially another rung on the hierarchy. Some of his Warboss underlings are highly renowned unique heroes in their own right with a their own empire and list of accomplishments.
For Hive tyrants as a Tyranid player I would have no problem with limiting the wings biomorph to 1 per detachment and +10 more points, +10 pts for Monstrous rending claws. This gives regular walking tyrants/Swarmlord no issues and limits flyrants to 3 in most games/tournaments and also makes most of them +20 pts(+10 at least).
There are Iconic/Powerful spammable units in every army that should be limited in some way just be creative.
OR
Just use 25% max each HQ/Elite/Heavy/Fast/Flyer/Super heavy. This makes only Troop/Transports/Fortifications really spamable and I don't think many people are complaining about any of these (Maby Razorbacks but not as much).
With the current detachments this becomes an interesting and fun list building exercise.
Edit +10 pts for Monsterous rending claws would mean we would need to reduce the cost of the Broodlord by at least 10pts(preferably 20-40) I'd also like to see a 20-40 pts decrease in Tyranid primes and Tervigons as at the current profile they are extremely lackluster adding to the "need" to take Flyrants. Our only basic HQ that I think is properly costed is the Nerunthrope.
Timeshadow wrote: For Hive tyrants as a Tyranid player I would have no problem with limiting the wings biomorph to 1 per detachment and +10 more points, +10 pts for Monstrous rending claws. This gives regular walking tyrants/Swarmlord no issues and limits flyrants to 3 in most games/tournaments and also makes most of them +20 pts(+10 at least).
There are Iconic/Powerful spammable units in every army that should be limited in some way just be creative.
OR
Just use 25% max each HQ/Elite/Heavy/Fast/Flyer/Super heavy. This makes only Troop/Transports/Fortifications really spamable and I don't think many people are complaining about any of these (Maby Razorbacks but not as much).
With the current detachments this becomes an interesting and fun list building exercise.
Edit +10 pts for Monsterous rending claws would mean we would need to reduce the cost of the Broodlord by at least 10pts(preferably 20-40) I'd also like to see a 20-40 pts decrease in Tyranid primes and Tervigons as at the current profile they are extremely lackluster adding to the "need" to take Flyrants. Our only basic HQ that I think is properly costed is the Nerunthrope.
Unfortunately, primes and blords are quite close to being fairly costed once you sum up everything they bring on the table. You can drop them by 10 points, but that's it.
10 Points for MRC is too low, it should be at least 18, and for walkrants to be a choice the wings should be at least +15. Yes, this would mean a +33 on MRC flyrants, but that is what they are worth.
Really? You want to use that phrase when talking about daemons? I'm sure the Slaaneshi daemons are having a wonderful time where ever they are.
Eh... I'd imagine Keepers of Secrets are never satisfied. They want-no, they NEED-more, more, MORE!
Great Unclean Ones, though, they're a jolly bunch. They're pretty happy, except Ku'Gath. He's busy trying to make it up to Grandpa Nurgle, and takes himself a little too seriously.
I like the IDEA of Greater Daemons being 1 per detachment. And honestly most lists I've seen don't have more that this anyway. 2 GUOs, for example are quite expensive. and I've never seen a list with 3. 1 per detachment + the typical 3 total detahcments, therefore doesn't really hurt GDs. There are also 4 separate datasheets for GDs, so you could easily have a GUO, a LOC and a BloodThirster in the same detachment if you wanted.
It might hurt Daemon Princes, however. In 7th, the Tetrad existed after all, so multiple Princes is clear supported by fluff. But many of the reasons Flying Tyrants should be restricted exist for DPs too, just not to the same extreme.
