Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If the one per detachment method is actually what they're going with to "address commander spam", then I'm honestly not going to bother buying the book. I'll finish painting my backlog of GW and that'll be that.

They couldn't knock them back to two weapons and two support systems, making way for a... I don't know, commander that actually commands things? Instead it's literally the laziest, most half assed fix imaginable. And this is from someone who plays a whopping two of them on average. So it's not like it effects me all that much. They're not looking at why Commanders are being spammed, they're just going, "nope, no more of that."

Is there a single other non-character model that is restricted to one per detachment? I mean, that's not a fix, that's literally giving up.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

Is there a single other non-character model that is restricted to one per detachment? I mean, that's not a fix, that's literally giving up.

The Adeptus Custodes beta rule units are only one per detachment.

fe40k wrote:
IG aren't the faction to balance compare against - they're clear winners in every category - and need readjustments across the board.

Sigh... stop.. just stop. This is embarrassing.

B-BUT MUH SOUP

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

So a single Markerlight Counter plus a roll of 5 or 6 equals you hitting 5 Markerlight Counters in one shot. But the Stratagem isn't something you play right off the bat. You use it as a filler in case you get 2 or 3 solid hits but nothing else lands.

More than that, who is to say how the 1 ML Counter ability will interact with Sept traits? Cadians get the same thing as the "Take Aim!" Order by simply staying still for a game turn, with the Order instead granting rerolls to all failed Hit rolls if you're Cadians. I can't imagine that something similar won't be present as a Sept rule or possibly just as a rule for some of the ballistic suits or possibly Fire Warriors.

I do believe you trade in that first hit for D3+1 so your adding D3 for a CP. It's not bad but I assume you'd want a character to set up the chain, spend the CP which probably puts you at ~3 hits and then follow up with a 5man Pathfinder team on roughly average rolls to secure that bonus. Not terrible mind you, but good or bad rolls can really swing it either way. Really need to keep those pathfinders away from harm though. The idea of stratagems or traits playing into this is appealing. I'd love to get a little more excited about markerlight abilities again.

It just, as far as I can tell, says "a" Markerlight hit.

While I don't have the chapter approved, the wording I heard was "replace the hit with 1+D3 hits" more or less, so the max is 4 markers from 1 shot.

Disagree. The whole point of the 'safe' plasma statline is that it's still a volatile weapon--the only thing that makes it 'unsafe' is disregarding the safety protocols and firing it as a charged blast.

I see your point. It just felt like every other factions plasma was buffed when S7 became a safe firing mode and an S8 D2 option was included. Obviously no one likes their factions to have strictly worse weaponry, but there's no reason to complain as long as points reflect the disadvantages of S6 and no overcharge option.

I honestly figured the "buff" for Tau plasma is that it is a Rapid Fire weapon rather than Assault or Heavy.

I'm pretty sure plasma rifles have always been rapid fire. Even so, plasma guns are also rapid fire so there really isn't a relative buff between them as far as that goes. Though plasma rifles are more expensive than guard plasma (except for BS 3+) which is just silly since they are strictly worse. The codex should fix that though.

 Earth127 wrote:
I doubt it. That would go against the base idea of 8th's detachments.

Certainly would be weird. IG company commanders can be spammed despite average game size generally including maybe BARELY enough infantry for ONE to appear let alone multiple? When you think about it battalion detachment has enough infantry to field logically PLATOON commander. For company commander you would thus need at least 2, maybe 3 battalion detachment with troops filled with infantry squads...

So spamming company commanders is silly fluffiwise but essential for gaming reason. Stupid.

If GW had gone the way of limiting models per detachment that's something that should have been done at the start.

But then again GW is well known for changing style of codexes midway so not that suprising. Wouldn't be big surprise for every codex from now on follow that pattern either. As it is wouldn't be impossible for new codexes abandong whole strategem idea and come up with something new and even more powerful either! GW is bad at coming up with style and sticking to it consistently for round of codexes.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm fine with Tau receiving buffs, but commanders can't stay as strong as they are if you want a balanced army. I know people are going to rage at me for that but it's true. Part of having a balanced force means you don't have one glaringly OP "all situations" unit. And I agree with the above poster. Don't expect to be balanced to IG levels.

Confirmed Orks are the most Balanced force.

I don't play Fish.. erm T'au but it would be interesting to see some synergy between Firewarriors, Pathfinders and Breachers. More than just slapping markerlights on models.

Something along the lines of Firewarriors laying down supressing fire so Breachers can get in close with a minus one to hit in the targets shooting phase and overwatch. Something along those lines.

If Commanders do get limited to 1 per detachment that'll hardly help things since Tau are one are one of the easiest factions (besides Guard) to spam detachments with. I would still be able to take 4 Commanders in a 2000 point game and not have to change my list at all.

MalfunctBot wrote:
If Commanders do get limited to 1 per detachment that'll hardly help things since Tau are one are one of the easiest factions (besides Guard) to spam detachments with. I would still be able to take 4 Commanders in a 2000 point game and not have to change my list at all.

Would help significantly if Drones can't count towards the "mandatory" slots that need to get filled in.

MalfunctBot wrote:
If Commanders do get limited to 1 per detachment that'll hardly help things since Tau are one are one of the easiest factions (besides Guard) to spam detachments with. I would still be able to take 4 Commanders in a 2000 point game and not have to change my list at all.

Umm 2k standard is 3 detachment max so if it's 1 per detachment that's 3 commanders max. Your gaming group has house ruled to 4 detachments or don't play with detachment limitations?

The easiest fix to Commander spam is to require them to have a bodyguard.

The best fix to Commander spam is to make Crisis Suits worth taking, rather than just getting a Commander to do the job of Crisis Suits.

Make the Commander buff Crisis Suits, to echo the way Fireblades buff Fire Warriors. Then people will drop a Commander and several Crisis Suit Teams, rather than just dropping 4+ Commanders.

Kanluwen wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
If Commanders do get limited to 1 per detachment that'll hardly help things since Tau are one are one of the easiest factions (besides Guard) to spam detachments with. I would still be able to take 4 Commanders in a 2000 point game and not have to change my list at all.

Would help significantly if Drones can't count towards the "mandatory" slots that need to get filled in.

My list doesn't use standalone units of Drones, so even that wouldn't help.

tneva82 wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
If Commanders do get limited to 1 per detachment that'll hardly help things since Tau are one are one of the easiest factions (besides Guard) to spam detachments with. I would still be able to take 4 Commanders in a 2000 point game and not have to change my list at all.

Umm 2k standard is 3 detachment max so if it's 1 per detachment that's 3 commanders max. Your gaming group has house ruled to 4 detachments or don't play with detachment limitations?

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

MalfunctBot wrote:

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

FWIW, the NA tournament scene very heavily adopts that 3 detachment rule.

meleti wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

FWIW, the NA tournament scene very heavily adopts that 3 detachment rule.

Those are tournaments though, tournaments edit the rules all the time, just look at the ITC with their differing missions and scoring methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is that this new and supposed detachment limit isn't going to solve anything. Casual gamers won't care because more often than not those suggested detachment limits arn't enforced, while tournament scenes won't care because as it is Commander spam isn't competitive enough to place highly in tournaments.

MalfunctBot wrote:

meleti wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

FWIW, the NA tournament scene very heavily adopts that 3 detachment rule.

Those are tournaments though, tournaments edit the rules all the time, just look at the ITC with their differing missions and scoring methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is that this new and supposed detachment limit isn't going to solve anything. Casual gamers won't care because more often than not those suggested detachment limits arn't enforced, while tournament scenes won't care because as it is Commander spam isn't competitive enough to place highly in tournaments.

In casual play I'd be pretty irked if I found out someone brought 4 detachments for the express purpose of making an end run around the commander limit. Everyone expects Tau players to be TFG anyway, and in my part of the meta you'd have a hard time getting opponents with that list.

 Grimgold wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

meleti wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

FWIW, the NA tournament scene very heavily adopts that 3 detachment rule.

Those are tournaments though, tournaments edit the rules all the time, just look at the ITC with their differing missions and scoring methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is that this new and supposed detachment limit isn't going to solve anything. Casual gamers won't care because more often than not those suggested detachment limits arn't enforced, while tournament scenes won't care because as it is Commander spam isn't competitive enough to place highly in tournaments.

In casual play I'd be pretty irked if I found out someone brought 4 detachments for the express purpose of making an end run around the commander limit. Everyone expects Tau players to be TFG anyway, and in my part of the meta you'd have a hard time getting opponents with that list.

And in my meta no one would care. You're still following the rules, and probably sacrificing either CP or armour composition to be able to field the detachments. It's a hamfisted and lazy bain aid solution to apply the detachment limit instead of actually fixing the Commander and Crisis Suit point costs/datasheets. If GW actually takes the time to fix those issues instead of being lazy I wouldn't give a crap about the detachment limit, since that'd mean I wouldn't HAVE to spam Commanders to actually be viable.

 Grimgold wrote:

Everyone expects Tau players to be TFG anyway

Not my fault your army suck *ss! LOL

MalfunctBot wrote:


And in my meta no one would care. You're still following the rules, and probably sacrificing either CP or armour composition to be able to field the detachments. It's a hamfisted and lazy bain aid solution to apply the detachment limit instead of actually fixing the Commander and Crisis Suit point costs/datasheets. If GW actually takes the time to fix those issues instead of being lazy I wouldn't give a crap about the detachment limit, since that'd mean I wouldn't HAVE to spam Commanders to actually be viable.

Your argument would be better if GW hadn't already put such a restriction in place and it ended up working fine. I don't know if you remember scion command squads, but they were spammed in a similar manner. Your meta sure has a lot of tolerance for questionable rules calls made purely to get an advantage on the table top.

 Grimgold wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:


And in my meta no one would care. You're still following the rules, and probably sacrificing either CP or armour composition to be able to field the detachments. It's a hamfisted and lazy bain aid solution to apply the detachment limit instead of actually fixing the Commander and Crisis Suit point costs/datasheets. If GW actually takes the time to fix those issues instead of being lazy I wouldn't give a crap about the detachment limit, since that'd mean I wouldn't HAVE to spam Commanders to actually be viable.

Your argument would be better if GW hadn't already put such a restriction in place and it ended up working fine. I don't know if you remember scion command squads, but they were spammed in a similar manner. Your meta sure has a lot of tolerance for questionable rules calls made purely to get an advantage on the table top.

1 command squad per Tempestor and 1 Commander per detachment aren't identical restrictions, though. The only direct analogy are the Custodes 30k units in beta rules atm.

 Grimgold wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:


And in my meta no one would care. You're still following the rules, and probably sacrificing either CP or armour composition to be able to field the detachments. It's a hamfisted and lazy bain aid solution to apply the detachment limit instead of actually fixing the Commander and Crisis Suit point costs/datasheets. If GW actually takes the time to fix those issues instead of being lazy I wouldn't give a crap about the detachment limit, since that'd mean I wouldn't HAVE to spam Commanders to actually be viable.

Your argument would be better if GW hadn't already put such a restriction in place and it ended up working fine. I don't know if you remember scion command squads, but they were spammed in a similar manner. Your meta sure has a lot of tolerance for questionable rules calls made purely to get an advantage on the table top.

1. As Meleti said, that restriction is vastly different to the one proposed for Commanders. A max of 1 per detachment is vastly different to a 1 per a 30-40 point tax you were probably taking anyway.

2. Those restrictions are actually necessary because the guard units are so similar. When you have Crappy Guardsmen, Normal Guardsmen, Better Guardsmen and Better Guardsmen w/ More Weapons you need something to distinguish them other than points values. For GamesWorkshop to resort to the same manner of distinction when all you have are Surgical Elite Battlesuits and The Leader Of Your Army is just plain lazy.

3. How is it a questionable rules call when the Rulebook ITSELF says that the detachment limit is merely a suggestion? By your logic it's a questionable rules call to continue a 2k game after 3 hours.

What T'au need is a severe decrease in the cost of weapons and equipments. Right now they are not costed for BS4 platforms.

Look at the fusion blaster, it's 21 points, which is line with melta gun being 17 since it's a melta gun with extra range. Too bad that the melta gun is 17 points for BS3 models, because if we look at the same melta gun from guard, it costs 12 points.

Right now commanders are spammed because they are the only one that are not gimped by this since they have BS2.

IMHO, the fix is easy, lower the commander to BS3 and lower the cost of weapons to reflect a BS4 faction.

Model's points can have some small adjustments, but i don't see big problems there, it's just the weapons that are silly costed.

MalfunctBot wrote:

meleti wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:

That's a suggestion in the Rulebook, not a concrete ruling in the vein of "all units must share a keyword to be battleforged."

FWIW, the NA tournament scene very heavily adopts that 3 detachment rule.

Those are tournaments though, tournaments edit the rules all the time, just look at the ITC with their differing missions and scoring methods.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The point is that this new and supposed detachment limit isn't going to solve anything. Casual gamers won't care because more often than not those suggested detachment limits arn't enforced, while tournament scenes won't care because as it is Commander spam isn't competitive enough to place highly in tournaments.

Well locally I don't know anywhere where I could play with more than 3 detachments. Often even stricter with 2 or even just 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
What T'au need is a severe decrease in the cost of weapons and equipments. Right now they are not costed for BS4 platforms.

Look at the fusion blaster, it's 21 points, which is line with melta gun being 17 since it's a melta gun with extra range. Too bad that the melta gun is 17 points for BS3 models, because if we look at the same melta gun from guard, it costs 12 points.

Right now commanders are spammed because they are the only one that are not gimped by this since they have BS2.

IMHO, the fix is easy, lower the commander to BS3 and lower the cost of weapons to reflect a BS4 faction.

Model's points can have some small adjustments, but i don't see big problems there, it's just the weapons that are silly costed.

Or even better have weapons be priced for BS period. No more same price whether you are BS3+ or BS4+ or BS2+. It's obviously silly system only GW would be stupid enough to implement.

But why shoulf a weapon br cheaper if the extra cost of the stat is built into the unit cost? Or is it maybe tau weapons got over costed based upon 7th edition and they just don't work aswell with the 8th edition wounding charts and saves?

Coming from someone who works at a Warhammer Store: Commanders will indeed be limited to 1 per detachment, but so will Daemon Princes, Assassins and maybe more units similar. He claims to have seen a picture of such a rule.

We're closer everyday to a game where armies are made of logical and rational compositions, yeah !

Ice_can wrote:
But why shoulf a weapon br cheaper if the extra cost of the stat is built into the unit cost? Or is it maybe tau weapons got over costed based upon 7th edition and they just don't work aswell with the 8th edition wounding charts and saves?

This just isn't possible. The value of a point of BS is dependent on what weapons are rolling to hit against that BS -- obviously BS2+ Hormagaunts shouldn't be any more expensive than they are now, right?

You can build the value of BS into the units themselves when all of their weapon loadouts are comparably powerful, but if you can bring a very shooty vs a not-very-shooty version of a unit, it can be hard to get both of those to come to reasonable point costs unless you're pricing the weapon options while keeping in mind the platform they're going on. A big problem with GW's approach to point costs in 8th is that it's hard for them to do this, and for cases where the necessary imbalance produced by this is too large they've just had to have multiple weapon entries (like for Guard plasma).

Crisis Suits and Commanders, at least in the Index, are another clear example of this causing problems. Weapons cost the same for each, and they want you to be able to load one up with burst cannons and a multi-tracker or all missile pods. You're just not going to be able to set prices for the bodies and weapons separately that make all 4 combinations valid. GW decided to price the weapons so that they weren't stupidly overpowered on Commanders, which get more out of each weapon because of their better BS, and therefore made it so that the only weapons you'd ever take on Crisis Suits are the cheapest ones (especially the flamers, which don't roll to hit at all). If the rumors are true, it sounds like they've decided to try to lower weapon prices to make Crisis Suits competitive while preventing Commander spam with this artificial limit.

Ice_can wrote:
But why shoulf a weapon br cheaper if the extra cost of the stat is built into the unit cost? Or is it maybe tau weapons got over costed based upon 7th edition and they just don't work aswell with the 8th edition wounding charts and saves?

Because 2+ hitting laspistol is obviously as good as 2+ hitting lascannon eh? Or howabout BS2+ on guy with heavy flamer. That BS2+ upgrade sure was worth it eh?

Next you claim power fist on S3 is worth as many points as powerfist on S4 guys.

 Aaranis wrote:
Coming from someone who works at a Warhammer Store: Commanders will indeed be limited to 1 per detachment, but so will Daemon Princes, Assassins and maybe more units similar. He claims to have seen a picture of such a rule.

We're closer everyday to a game where armies are made of logical and rational compositions, yeah !

Wow, if they extend this to everything that makes sense fluff wise i can count:

- Company commanders
- Hyve Tyrants
- Neurothropes
- Big bozz
- GK Grand Masters
-...

Spoletta wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Coming from someone who works at a Warhammer Store: Commanders will indeed be limited to 1 per detachment, but so will Daemon Princes, Assassins and maybe more units similar. He claims to have seen a picture of such a rule.

We're closer everyday to a game where armies are made of logical and rational compositions, yeah !

Wow, if they extend this to everything that makes sense fluff wise i can count:

- Company commanders
- Hyve Tyrants
- Neurothropes
- Big bozz
- GK Grand Masters
-...

Yeah it would make sense. But doesn't mean GW would change retroactively. GW is known for changing codex style after few codexes

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Aaranis wrote:
Coming from someone who works at a Warhammer Store: Commanders will indeed be limited to 1 per detachment, but so will Daemon Princes, Assassins and maybe more units similar. He claims to have seen a picture of such a rule.

We're closer everyday to a game where armies are made of logical and rational compositions, yeah !

Wow, if they extend this to everything that makes sense fluff wise i can count:

- Company commanders
- Hyve Tyrants
- Neurothropes
- Big bozz
- GK Grand Masters
-...

Yeah it would make sense. But doesn't mean GW would change retroactively. GW is known for changing codex style after few codexes

All codices that contain Demon Princes have now been printed, so if that rumor is true, this will indeed be retroactive.

tneva82 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
But why shoulf a weapon br cheaper if the extra cost of the stat is built into the unit cost? Or is it maybe tau weapons got over costed based upon 7th edition and they just don't work aswell with the 8th edition wounding charts and saves?

Because 2+ hitting laspistol is obviously as good as 2+ hitting lascannon eh? Or howabout BS2+ on guy with heavy flamer. That BS2+ upgrade sure was worth it eh?

Next you claim power fist on S3 is worth as many points as powerfist on S4 guys.

If your paying for the stat line on a model you pay for the BS in the models cost. The weapons should be points costed relative to each other, at no point did I say a lascannon should cost the same as a laspistol. If your putting a flamer on a BS2 model thats your choice you shouldn't get a cheaper model/flamer just because you happen to be not using the BS. But by the same token a burst cannon is a burst cannon shouldn't matter who its issued to if they have ballanced out the models cost properly. This making a weapons cost vary with BS shows that apparently ws and bs aren't costed for in the models base cost. At which point GW should just make it a simple matrix with weapon vrs BS and you look up the pointa cost from their. Would also stop certain armies being under or overcharged for a given weapon.