Irbis wrote:Wyldhunt wrote:This. Tau commanders becoming 0-1 seems like it was a sort of prototype for the rule of 3 that just never got repealed. They should probably be 0-3 now, and they would definitely warrant being 0-3 in the proposed reverse detachment rules.
Tau having wonky limitations on their
HQs doesn't make the proposed rules a bad idea.
Warrant how? You ever saw a platoon commanded by 4 generals?
Have I seen a platoon of alien goat men commanded by 4 generals piloting mecha? I guess I've seen about as many of those as I've seen alien torture elf hunting parties lead by Hellraiser villains or roving warbands of fungus trolls. I guess I should say it's
as warranted as having multiples of most high-ranking
HQs. If you want to start a thread about whether or not multiples of such
HQs should be allowed in general, that could be a topic worth exploring, but I don't see a reason to single out tau.
Not only the rule is completely fine, I am still puzzled people complain they were allowed to keep at least
some of their
OP units (when the alternative was doubling the point cost, it was way too good) and instead of being grateful they want cheese that was universally hated back. You guys are avare most of the armies in the game would love to have even
one unit as good as the commander?
If a generic
HQ is undercosted, then adjusting its cost and/or abilities is probably a better solution than the 0-1 restriction. The 0-1 restriction is clunky and does weird things to list building. As far as I"m aware, no one particularly supports the idea that it's okay for any other unit in the game to be undercosted so long as it's limited to one per detachment. Why should the commander be the exception.
You describe tau players as cheesemongers whose only possible interest in commanders is their effectiveness, yet being able to take multiples of a generic
HQ is something that every other generic
HQ in the game can do.
My main point in discussing them in this thread, however, is to point out that the commander's unique circumstances are just that, unique, and that a highly specific case like theirs shouldn't invalidate an otherwise good rules suggestion.