1 per detachment / per amount of points- Who should get this rule?

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.

**Shadenuat**

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.

**Dionysodorus**

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.

**Imateria**

Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
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.

**Jbz`**

Spoiler:

Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
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?

**sfshilo**

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!

**Eldarsif**

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).

**Mr Morden**

Most factions used to have a lower level commander like Lieutenants - Dracon, Palatine, etc.

GW got rid of them.

**Galef**

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.

-

**Cephalobeard**

Dudeface wrote:
Shield captain on bike seems likely

I ask this because I'm curious.

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?

**Leo_the_Rat**

How would you handle named characters? Would you limit them by their position in the faction or some other way?

This is in regards to building a detachment. I know that you can only have 1 of them per army.

**Peregrine**

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.

**tag8833**

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.

**Galas**

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.

**Cephalobeard**

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.

**Galef**

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.......

-

**meleti**

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**

Galef wrote:
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.

**meleti**

Peregrine wrote:
Galef wrote:
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.

**techsoldaten**

More than happy with any HQ restrictions. I only use named characters and typically stick to the minimum required by the detachment.

This just benefits my Cultists.

**Jaxler**

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**

Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
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.

**Mr Morden**

Galef wrote:
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

**Arachnofiend**

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.

**Cephalobeard**

Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
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.

**Marmatag**

Arachnofiend wrote:
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.

**iGuy91**

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.

**G00fySmiley**

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.

**DaBraken**

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**

Cephalobeard wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Imateria wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
tneva82 wrote:
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.

**meleti**

Harlequins have 2 HQs. 2!