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.

 Ordana wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Just remove Supreme Command. The model itself is not the problem.

Yep, Tournament I'm going to in a bit over a month has banned Supreme Commands.
Its only used for cheese anyway.

I use it to bring Psykers with my Custodes for protection. That tournament shafted a completely good purpose.

Let's also ban battalions because Imperium just uses them to take 180 point CP farms.

The London GT is highlander, so, not representative, but Supreme is 3rd from the bottom on usage, but that's not the whole picture...

https://insighthammer.com/index.php?/topic/10-supreme-command-detachments-should-they-stay-or-go/

 Xenomancers wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Just remove Supreme Command. The model itself is not the problem.

the model is the problem paying a measly 28 pts for 8inchs of movement, Fly, +1T, +1W and gaining the ability to reroll failed wounds on a turn they charge is silly underpriced.

And just to spell it out that +1T and +1W is from T5 toT6, and 6W to7W with a 2+, 4++

I will observe that while the Dawneagle Shield-Captain is quite a lot better than the foot Shield-Captains, he's also not better than getting more normal bikes in a pure Custodes army. He's 160pts, for 180pts you can get twice the bolter attacks, three extra melee attacks, an extra wound, and the ability to make use of character protection for the Shield-Captains you do take.

Biker Shield-Captain spam is a problem in the context of allied Supreme Command detachments, it isn't really a problem in the context of a Custodes army.

The big difference here is character protection which basically makes it immune to alpha strike - so when combined with it's speed - is almost guaranteed assault and destruction of multiple units. Also - access to relics.

A valid point in a soup list where you can park them behind Guardsmen and Russes, but if you're running a significant portion of your army as Custodes you don't have anything cost-effectively tough enough to hide behind. As to relics I will point out that you still take Dawneagle Shield-Captains in Custodes lists, you just take the one you want to put the relic on or the two so you can tag-team the other one into your Warlord when the first dies and then move on, you don't just keep taking more.

In a vacuum the advantages of being a Dawneagle Shield-Captain still exist in a non-soup list, but the soup list is positioned to make use of them in a way a Custodes army isn't.

Hence why I feel the 1 per detachment limit would sort the soup with minimal impacts on custodes player's

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Just remove Supreme Command. The model itself is not the problem.

the model is the problem paying a measly 28 pts for 8inchs of movement, Fly, +1T, +1W and gaining the ability to reroll failed wounds on a turn they charge is silly underpriced.

And just to spell it out that +1T and +1W is from T5 toT6, and 6W to7W with a 2+, 4++

I will observe that while the Dawneagle Shield-Captain is quite a lot better than the foot Shield-Captains, he's also not better than getting more normal bikes in a pure Custodes army. He's 160pts, for 180pts you can get twice the bolter attacks, three extra melee attacks, an extra wound, and the ability to make use of character protection for the Shield-Captains you do take.

Biker Shield-Captain spam is a problem in the context of allied Supreme Command detachments, it isn't really a problem in the context of a Custodes army.

The big difference here is character protection which basically makes it immune to alpha strike - so when combined with it's speed - is almost guaranteed assault and destruction of multiple units. Also - access to relics.

A valid point in a soup list where you can park them behind Guardsmen and Russes, but if you're running a significant portion of your army as Custodes you don't have anything cost-effectively tough enough to hide behind. As to relics I will point out that you still take Dawneagle Shield-Captains in Custodes lists, you just take the one you want to put the relic on or the two so you can tag-team the other one into your Warlord when the first dies and then move on, you don't just keep taking more.

In a vacuum the advantages of being a Dawneagle Shield-Captain still exist in a non-soup list, but the soup list is positioned to make use of them in a way a Custodes army isn't.

My oringinal plan was to take 4 bikers with 3 captains behind them - I feel like this could actually be better than a soup list scenerio but only if you go first

 Smotejob wrote:
Went to a tournament the other day to observe some games, since I could find time to commit an entire Saturday, and 6/7 of the imperium players had 3x custodes shield captains zooming around on jet bikes. I usually like to go to tournaments to see the diversity of lists and units, so this made me a little sad.

Did they make these guys too good?

I collect Custodes, having 3 shield captains floating about is just stupid; lore wise for such a small game. I sure as hell wouldn't do it. As always though you get people that want to win at all costs even if it drags down the game with them.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Just remove Supreme Command. The model itself is not the problem.

the model is the problem paying a measly 28 pts for 8inchs of movement, Fly, +1T, +1W and gaining the ability to reroll failed wounds on a turn they charge is silly underpriced.

And just to spell it out that +1T and +1W is from T5 toT6, and 6W to7W with a 2+, 4++

I will observe that while the Dawneagle Shield-Captain is quite a lot better than the foot Shield-Captains, he's also not better than getting more normal bikes in a pure Custodes army. He's 160pts, for 180pts you can get twice the bolter attacks, three extra melee attacks, an extra wound, and the ability to make use of character protection for the Shield-Captains you do take.

Biker Shield-Captain spam is a problem in the context of allied Supreme Command detachments, it isn't really a problem in the context of a Custodes army.

If you are playing soup with some picked sweet cherries you want to avoid any bloat... hence the supreme command detachment.

Personally would go with the concept of "maximum of one commander for that model type per unit" + 1

so one terminator captain per unit of terminators, plus one

one jet bike captain per unit of jet bikes + 1 etc

and then limit the "+1" to be once per army

purpose: officers lead troops, so to deploy an officer there should be appropriate troops to lead

 Xenomancers wrote:
...My oringinal plan was to take 4 bikers with 3 captains behind them - I feel like this could actually be better than a soup list scenerio but only if you go first

...but only if you go first...

My experience trying to play pure Custodes has suggested to me that if you a) go first, b) are playing without the FAQ's Deep Strike changes, c) make all your charge rolls out of Deep Strike, and d) don't have a significant negative dice spike in any roll over the first two turns, you win.

If any of those four conditions are missing, you lose.

leopard wrote:
Personally would go with the concept of "maximum of one commander for that model type per unit" + 1

so one terminator captain per unit of terminators, plus one

one jet bike captain per unit of jet bikes + 1 etc

and then limit the "+1" to be once per army

purpose: officers lead troops, so to deploy an officer there should be appropriate troops to lead

So only 1 marine is ever wearing terminator armour again. As you've just added a 200 point tax unit into doing soo more than once.
Also why should Custodes famed for fighting solo need a shield captain on a bike to lead a bike squad?

This type of suggestions is why GW won't listen to rules suggestions.

Having seen Daedalus' numbers I am shocked and appalled by the lack of GK supreme command detachments. I thought that there was some kind of rule that said everyone must take 3 GMDKs.

Not really, but I am suprised that no one took one. I guess the custodes took that slot.

Ice_can wrote:

leopard wrote:
Personally would go with the concept of "maximum of one commander for that model type per unit" + 1

so one terminator captain per unit of terminators, plus one

one jet bike captain per unit of jet bikes + 1 etc

and then limit the "+1" to be once per army

purpose: officers lead troops, so to deploy an officer there should be appropriate troops to lead

So only 1 marine is ever wearing terminator armour again. As you've just added a 200 point tax unit into doing soo more than once.
Also why should Custodes famed for fighting solo need a shield captain on a bike to lead a bike squad?

This type of suggestions is why GW won't listen to rules suggestions.

...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Having seen Daedalus' numbers I am shocked and appalled by the lack of GK supreme command detachments. I thought that there was some kind of rule that said everyone must take 3 GMDKs.

Not really, but I am suprised that no one took one. I guess the custodes took that slot.

I imagine GMDK's took a big turn for the worse when they lost T1 deepstrike. And Custodes bikes have almost double the movement to close the distance.

The jetbikes are not the fastest units out there.

These arbirtary limitations in order to 'balance' units are ridiculous. They only work on a very limited level and don't actually get to the root of the issue.

Lets compare a Jetbike Captain to a Jetbike Autarch. They both fill exactly the same role:

-Fast moving, hard hitting melee on the charge
-HQ with reroll 1's aura
-Splash of dakka
-Good candidate for WL Trait/Relics

Jetbike Autarchs are commonly used, I use one myself almost every game. But you never see Command Detachments full of them - because they are appropriately costed, and the Eldar codex has other viable options that compete for the HQ slot.

Therein lies the issue with the Bike Captain:

- It is not appropriately costed: too cheap = spam in soup
-There are no decent options within the AC Codex to compete with it = spam within AC lits

Applying a '1 per detachment' would fix the problem proposed in the OP, but its its a short-sighted band aid that doesn't actually get to the root of the issue. Custodes players who bring Bike Captains at 160ppm are still taking a powerful model to the field for a relatively small points cost, and have no reason to take any other HQ other than the fact that they might have to based on the detachment limitation.

The points NEED to be adjusted. People can still bring the 3x Bike captains if they want but it wont be overpowered because the price is right. Custodes players can still bring multiple Bike Captains if that fits their theme without feeling forced to because theres no other decent option.

 Primark G wrote:
The jetbikes are not the fastest units out there.

Good thing then that I was not claiming that. But that they have 'nearly double' the movement of GMDK's.
Which at 8" vs 14" inch is, imo, a correct statement.

But I know, you hate bikes and must always speak out against them.

Spartacus wrote:
These arbirtary limitations in order to 'balance' units are ridiculous. They only work on a very limited level and don't actually get to the root of the issue.

Lets compare a Jetbike Captain to a Jetbike Autarch. They both fill exactly the same role:

-Fast moving, hard hitting melee on the charge
-HQ with reroll 1's aura
-Splash of dakka
-Good candidate for WL Trait/Relics

Jetbike Autarchs are commonly used, I use one myself almost every game. But you never see Command Detachments full of them - because they are appropriately costed, and the Eldar codex has other viable options that compete for the HQ slot.

Therein lies the issue with the Bike Captain:

- It is not appropriately costed: too cheap = spam in soup
-There are no decent options within the AC Codex to compete with it = spam within AC lits

Applying a '1 per detachment' would fix the problem proposed in the OP, but its its a short-sighted band aid that doesn't actually get to the root of the issue. Custodes players who bring Bike Captains at 160ppm are still taking a powerful model to the field for a relatively small points cost, and have no reason to take any other HQ other than the fact that they might have to based on the detachment limitation.

The points NEED to be adjusted. People can still bring the 3x Bike captains if they want but it wont be overpowered because the price is right. Custodes players can still bring multiple Bike Captains if that fits their theme without feeling forced to because theres no other decent option.

The problem with the idea that ‘if points were correctly balanced, you wouldn’t need unit number caps since everything would be balanced’ is that it is predicated on the assumption that a unit’s value scales linearly with quantity. This assumption is false.

Take for example pre-Codex, pre-FAQ totally fearless Conscripts with Commissars. 20 Conscripts at 3 points each aren’t an issue, even if they’re fearless. However, 200 fearless Conscripts are a problem since they completely shut down a lot of armies. 20 Conscripts do 60 points’ worth of work (or maybe a bit less). 200 Conscripts do a hell of a lot more than 600 points’ worth of work. You’ve increased the quantity by a factor of 10, but you’ve increased their worth by a factor of say 15 or 20. So what do you do? Balance them around the 20-model mark, and make them horrendously powerful at 200 models, or balance them around the 200-model mark and make them useless unless you’re spamming them? Or do you create a table for each unit that scales its points value with quantity taken? I personally like the last idea but accept that it’s complex which works against the simplification of 8th Ed.

The answer is to hard-limit quantity you can take, and balance the points cost towards the upper limit. Or just nerf them to hell, as they’ve done with Conscripts.

yeah, thats one of the big problems with 8th edition and point costing, how do you approperately balance a force multiplier. Gulliman is proably the best example of that.

kombatwombat wrote:

Spartacus wrote:
These arbirtary limitations in order to 'balance' units are ridiculous. They only work on a very limited level and don't actually get to the root of the issue.

Lets compare a Jetbike Captain to a Jetbike Autarch. They both fill exactly the same role:

-Fast moving, hard hitting melee on the charge
-HQ with reroll 1's aura
-Splash of dakka
-Good candidate for WL Trait/Relics

Jetbike Autarchs are commonly used, I use one myself almost every game. But you never see Command Detachments full of them - because they are appropriately costed, and the Eldar codex has other viable options that compete for the HQ slot.

Therein lies the issue with the Bike Captain:

- It is not appropriately costed: too cheap = spam in soup
-There are no decent options within the AC Codex to compete with it = spam within AC lits

Applying a '1 per detachment' would fix the problem proposed in the OP, but its its a short-sighted band aid that doesn't actually get to the root of the issue. Custodes players who bring Bike Captains at 160ppm are still taking a powerful model to the field for a relatively small points cost, and have no reason to take any other HQ other than the fact that they might have to based on the detachment limitation.

The points NEED to be adjusted. People can still bring the 3x Bike captains if they want but it wont be overpowered because the price is right. Custodes players can still bring multiple Bike Captains if that fits their theme without feeling forced to because theres no other decent option.

The problem with the idea that ‘if points were correctly balanced, you wouldn’t need unit number caps since everything would be balanced’ is that it is predicated on the assumption that a unit’s value scales linearly with quantity. This assumption is false.

Take for example pre-Codex, pre-FAQ totally fearless Conscripts with Commissars. 20 Conscripts at 3 points each aren’t an issue, even if they’re fearless. However, 200 fearless Conscripts are a problem since they completely shut down a lot of armies. 20 Conscripts do 60 points’ worth of work (or maybe a bit less). 200 Conscripts do a hell of a lot more than 600 points’ worth of work. You’ve increased the quantity by a factor of 10, but you’ve increased their worth by a factor of say 15 or 20. So what do you do? Balance them around the 20-model mark, and make them horrendously powerful at 200 models, or balance them around the 200-model mark and make them useless unless you’re spamming them? Or do you create a table for each unit that scales its points value with quantity taken? I personally like the last idea but accept that it’s complex which works against the simplification of 8th Ed.

The answer is to hard-limit quantity you can take, and balance the points cost towards the upper limit. Or just nerf them to hell, as they’ve done with Conscripts.

Not sure If I agree there, the issue was with Commissars, not Conscripts. It is unfortunate that Conscripts were hit so heavy-handedly, they were an unnecessary casualty of an overpowered combo. It is the Commissar who should have been nerfed (and they were), as he is creating the scaling problem you are referencing. In fact, without him the Conscripts kind've get worse as their numbers increase, as there is greater potential for morale damage. Your logic checks out there, the Commissar should've been costed towards the upper limit of his effectiveness (i.e. making 200 Conscripts fearless)

Shield Captains are a different case however. Their effectiveness is linear. If anything their efficiency scales backwards with numbers as you are paying multiple times for a buff aura you can only use once (or not at all in a soup list). People will take them in spite of this. Why? Because they are too cheap.

 Xenomancers wrote:
For about the cost of a venerable dread - you get more durability - more speed - comparable damage and character protection. It's an auto include. Hilarious to me that GW made a limit on commanders but not these guys. Sure commanders have insane damage but they are more of a suicide unit - Jetbike Captains are an unstoppable wrecking force.

If tau commanders weren't limited, you'd now have armies of 3 coldstars, 3 xv88s and 3 xv8s, and maybe a forgeworld one. It would be awful. At best, you get three jetbike commanders. If tau commanders were limited to one datasheet, you could do away with the limit, but they are not

stratigo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
For about the cost of a venerable dread - you get more durability - more speed - comparable damage and character protection. It's an auto include. Hilarious to me that GW made a limit on commanders but not these guys. Sure commanders have insane damage but they are more of a suicide unit - Jetbike Captains are an unstoppable wrecking force.

If tau commanders weren't limited, you'd now have armies of 3 coldstars, 3 xv88s and 3 xv8s, and maybe a forgeworld one. It would be awful. At best, you get three jetbike commanders. If tau commanders were limited to one datasheet, you could do away with the limit, but they are not

Commanders are XV8 (standard), XV81 (with the networked markerlights), XV84 (with the smart missile system), XV85 (Enforcer), and XV85 (Coldstar). Plus four different special characters (R'myr, R'alai, Shadowsun, Farsight).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

stratigo wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
For about the cost of a venerable dread - you get more durability - more speed - comparable damage and character protection. It's an auto include. Hilarious to me that GW made a limit on commanders but not these guys. Sure commanders have insane damage but they are more of a suicide unit - Jetbike Captains are an unstoppable wrecking force.

If tau commanders weren't limited, you'd now have armies of 3 coldstars, 3 xv88s and 3 xv8s, and maybe a forgeworld one. It would be awful. At best, you get three jetbike commanders. If tau commanders were limited to one datasheet, you could do away with the limit, but they are not

Commanders are XV8 (standard), XV81 (with the networked markerlights), XV84 (with the smart missile system), XV85 (Enforcer), and XV85 (Coldstar). Plus four different special characters (R'myr, R'alai, Shadowsun, Farsight).

And you would see armies of nothing but them and drones. This is why the limit is in place.

 AnomanderRake wrote:


...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Make terminators not suck...hmmm.... Sure, go with that.

 Red Marine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Make terminators not suck...hmmm.... Sure, go with that.

My local keeps saying Terminators should go back to either 2D6 for save Or a 1+ save (1's always fail still), even something like +1 Toughness vs S4 and under could help, something to help stop small arms fire.

Almost ever Terminators atm are just not worth it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Make terminators not suck...hmmm.... Sure, go with that.

My local keeps saying Terminators should go back to either 2D6 for save Or a 1+ save (1's always fail still), even something like +1 Toughness vs S4 and under could help, something to help stop small arms fire.

Almost ever Terminators atm are just not worth it.

2D6 saves won't happen, adds too much rolling when you have to make 10-15 saves on your unit.

Easy fix I've seen floating around the internet:

All models in 40k with the TERMINATOR keyword get the rule that reduces all damage values by 1, to a minimum of 1.

I think that would sort it. Although I also like the extra save modifiers thing as well. Either way I think big anti-tank weapons should still have a shot at pasting a single Terminator, but you shouldn't be able to wipe a whole squad of them easily with one Leman Russ battlecannon.

Spartacus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Make terminators not suck...hmmm.... Sure, go with that.

My local keeps saying Terminators should go back to either 2D6 for save Or a 1+ save (1's always fail still), even something like +1 Toughness vs S4 and under could help, something to help stop small arms fire.

Almost ever Terminators atm are just not worth it.

2D6 saves won't happen, adds too much rolling when you have to make 10-15 saves on your unit.

Easy fix I've seen floating around the internet:

All models in 40k with the TERMINATOR keyword get the rule that reduces all damage values by 1, to a minimum of 1.

I think that would sort it. Although I also like the extra save modifiers thing as well. Either way I think big anti-tank weapons should still have a shot at pasting a single Terminator, but you shouldn't be able to wipe a whole squad of them easily with one Leman Russ battlecannon.

Na, it wouldn't. It fails to address plasma as a overperforming weapon type as a whole and fails to address actual durability issues.

The issue with Terminators is the second a single point of armor is gone, they become overcosted pieces of gak. They need to straight up ignore a combination of high rof weapons and weapons with poor ap.

The best rule to do that would be that reduce the Str and AP values of any weapons shooting a model in Terminator armor by 2. All of a sudden Terminators aren't pansies, plasma is still useful, multi damage weapon remain useful, and you aren't sweating bullets when massed weapon fire is hitting you. For the record, yes that would mean Str 2 weapons would not even be able to to wound.

 Ordana wrote:

 Primark G wrote:
The jetbikes are not the fastest units out there.

Good thing then that I was not claiming that. But that they have 'nearly double' the movement of GMDK's.
Which at 8" vs 14" inch is, imo, a correct statement.

But I know, you hate bikes and must always speak out against them.

This was totally ROFLMAO moment for me. I play a Captain on a Dawn Eagle. If it upsets you because you wish they were faster oh well oh.

Spartacus wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:


...Or...you could...I don't know...make the Terminators less crap?

Make terminators not suck...hmmm.... Sure, go with that.

My local keeps saying Terminators should go back to either 2D6 for save Or a 1+ save (1's always fail still), even something like +1 Toughness vs S4 and under could help, something to help stop small arms fire.

Almost ever Terminators atm are just not worth it.

2D6 saves won't happen, adds too much rolling when you have to make 10-15 saves on your unit.

Easy fix I've seen floating around the internet:

All models in 40k with the TERMINATOR keyword get the rule that reduces all damage values by 1, to a minimum of 1.

I think that would sort it. Although I also like the extra save modifiers thing as well. Either way I think big anti-tank weapons should still have a shot at pasting a single Terminator, but you shouldn't be able to wipe a whole squad of them easily with one Leman Russ battlecannon.

I'm catching up on my posts on my day off. My original response about terminators was snarkier than a wanted in retrospect, apologies. My statement was more a veiled request to keep from digressing into a "How do we fix Terminators" tangent. I guess we mostly stayed on point with "How do we fix Custodes jet bike captains? "

I don't think Custodes Captains NEED a fix. because the problem ISN'T custodes Captains on Jetbikes. they are a symptom not a problem. We also had issues of people spamming Tau Commanders, and Winged Hive Tyrants... the problem isn't any unit. It's that HQ units are designed as a limited supplement for armies, and that you'll have 1 space marine captain accompanying 3 squads of troops and some other things. And they're, realisticly speaking, designed with the assumption of a points tax. So the problem is the Supreme Command Detachment. remove that and the problems go away FAST. because suddenly if I want 3 shield captains on jet bikes I need to pay some some custodes guard as well

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't think Custodes Captains NEED a fix. because the problem ISN'T custodes Captains on Jetbikes. they are a symptom not a problem. We also had issues of people spamming Tau Commanders, and Winged Hive Tyrants... the problem isn't any unit. It's that HQ units are designed as a limited supplement for armies, and that you'll have 1 space marine captain accompanying 3 squads of troops and some other things. And they're, realisticly speaking, designed with the assumption of a points tax. So the problem is the Supreme Command Detachment. remove that and the problems go away FAST. because suddenly if I want 3 shield captains on jet bikes I need to pay some some custodes guard as well

No. No one is spamming other types of shield captains. This particular unit is undercosted.