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.

I’m baffled I need to explain this.

Talonmasters aren’t spammed because there are EVEN MORE competitive builds available to Imperial/DA players. They are however a competitively pointed highly shooty entirely spammable and completely untargetable HQ choice. The poster’s entire premise was that Tau Commanders as shooty untargetable HQs are somehow unique in this game and that this uniqueness forced GW into restricting army composition.

Tau Commanders and Drones were spammed because everything else in the index is hysterically weak garbage.

Here’s a thought: How about approach the Commander issue with not making them so cost effective on the Dakka department, while simultaneously making more interesting army builds the more competitive and flexible choice. That way you don’t have to resort to pathetic solutions like ”Oh well you can keep this nobrainer-always-taken unit but you can’t get as many as before.” GW actually limited choice from Tau players with this change, because if you aren’t running 3 Commanders now, you’re a dork.

 Therion wrote:
I’m baffled I need to explain this.

Talonmasters aren’t spammed because there are EVEN MORE competitive builds available to Imperial/DA players. They are however a competitively pointed highly shooty entirely spammable and completely untargetable HQ choice. The poster’s entire premise was that Tau Commanders as shooty untargetable HQs are somehow unique in this game.

Here’s a though: How about approach the Commander issue with not making them so cost effective on the Dakka department, while simultaneously making more interesting army builds the more competitive and flexible choice. That way you don’t have to resort to pathetic solutions like ”Oh well you can keep this nobrainer-always-taken unit but you can’t get as many as before. GW actually limited choice from Tau players with this change, because if you aren’t running 3 Commanders now, you’re a dork.

This is perhaps the first time that anyone has ever suggested that Dark Angels Talonmaster spam is at least as competitive as Tau Commander spam. I don't think you really believe this. I mean, simply looking at the unit and asking what a Talonmaster spam list would look like should probably immediately raise questions like: what will you do for anti-tank? Talonmasters are decent at killing MEQs from 24" when they don't move, yeah. But they're hardly very efficient shooting. The Nephilim Jetfighter in the same codex is cheaper, shoots better, and is far more durable aside from character protection. And spamming either one of these will not get you anywhere near what a Guilliman list puts out -- and I think most people would agree that that's about the same tier as Commander spam (certainly this is much closer to right than a Talonmaster spam list!). And, again, we can just look at the facts. Nobody is out there complaining about cheesy Dark Angels lists, no matter that you say they have much better things available to them. They don't seem to have something that's giving people the same trouble as Tau Commander spam.

Meanwhile Commanders are incredibly efficient shooting -- a quad-fusion Commander costs only a little more than what a Tempestor Prime and a command squad with melta guns do. I think the only significantly more efficient way to deliver melta fire to a target is Fire Dragons, with a limited-use stratagem, and the Commanders are much more likely to survive to do it again next turn and have longer range to shoot past screens. Various builds involving burst cannons and CIBs and ATSs put out firepower competitive with the best assault cannon platforms available at BS2+, deep-striking into range immediately and then moving and shooting without penalty.

But sure, there are alternative ways to fix the problem. I already said in this thread that they could have instead made the Commanders relatively inefficient shooters while giving them more buffing ability -- this is more like what the Talonmasters do. But, again like I said earlier, GW seems to want to keep the Commanders as a sort of "hero" unit, which is very powerful and cool in its own right. And given that I'm not sure what they're supposed to do other than put a limit on them.

It does seem very lazy. Commander Spam was an issue (and I blame the powergamers who spammed them), but this fix like most fixes GW does are hamfisted and really not addressing any underlying issue, it's literally smashing a mallet over whatever a boogeyman is.

Dionysodorus wrote:

This is perhaps the first time that anyone has ever suggested that Dark Angels Talonmaster spam is at least as competitive as Tau Commander spam.

You completely missed his point. The other poster mentioned "shooty" and "untargettable" as reasons to limit commanders. Of course this would apply to several units that aren't restricted right now, which makes this whole nerf distasteful. Just because commanders were the most shooty doesn't change this fact. Shield-Captains on bikes have similar damage output but rely on melee, and can take melta missiles. Why aren't they limited?

Keep in mind that Tau have been running fusion commanders because all our anti-tank sucked. Here, take a 200 pt broadside with 2 S8 lascannons... Or a hammerhead with 1 S10 lascannon, How about a 300 pt fusion crisis team that only hits 4-5 times? As you can see, there were plenty of ways to limit commander spam, namely by buffing other units, especially crisis suits. For a faction with the best guns, I have trouble fitting anti-tank in at all.

Just to give some perspective: a crisis suit is currently more expensive than a custode. A missile pod is more expensive than a lascannon right now, as is a fusion blaster. tau plasma is worse than imperial plasma but more expensive. To top it off, all of these were available to two categories: a unit with BS 4+ and a unit with BS 2+. It was inevitable that commander spam would occur.

Now, I personally am for this limitation provided tau get more HQ options and other factions get the same treatment (shield captains and hive tyrants come to mind). A farsight player will need to run 2+ fireblades just to get some CP. If the rumored XV8 commander comes out, I hope he's not also limited.

To top it off, people will still run 3 commanders because the things that made them OP are still there.

Nothing GW would have done to fix what they persevered was an issue would have pleased this place. They want HQs to be super powerful, which you can see across codex releases, and Tau Commander spam was a byproduct of this in the Index. They could have made them so expensive you would be stupid to take more than one, OR they could keep them as very powerful units but limit them to one. GW understands that shooting is the meta. Tau are 100% shooting (lets not get into Farsight right now), no melee or psykers, so of course their super powerful HQs are going to dominate the shooting phase. I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change. It is literally the only change that makes sense with the current meta and army compositions. You can't increase the points or the unit gets replaced with lower costed ones, and you can't nerf it or again it gets replaced. You can only keep it strong while limiting how many you can take.

It isn't lazy; it's the only thing that made sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:
To top it off, people will still run 3 commanders because the things that made them OP are still there.

Of course they will for the same reasons Chaos players jam as many Daemon Princes as they can stomach into their lists: they're amazing for what they cost.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

It's not a game. This change just feels bad. Only 1 per detachment, and only for Tau Commanders. No other non-unique HQ is similarly restricted. I don't know that on a balance basis it ends up being a huge deal, because Tau do have some strengths in the new codex, but restricting Tau and not any other HQ in the game just feels very strange.

Dandelion wrote:

You completely missed his point. The other poster mentioned "shooty" and "untargettable" as reasons to limit commanders. Of course this would apply to several units that aren't restricted right now, which makes this whole nerf distasteful. Just because commanders were the most shooty doesn't change this fact. Shield-Captains on bikes have similar damage output but rely on melee, and can take melta missiles. Why aren't they limited?

No, I got this, it's just that this is a very silly point, and it relies on an aggressively uncharitable reading of the other side's argument. It is generally good practice to stop before replying and ask if you're actually engaging with what the other side means to be saying, vs whatever you can interpret them to be saying such that you have the easiest time knocking it down. I don't think it's much of a leap to read concerns about Tau Commanders being "shooty" and "untargetable" with being specifically concerned with just how shooty they are. Like, surely you already know exactly what someone might say in reply to your objection about Shield-Captains on bikes. The reply is really obvious, right? They're not actually nearly as capable of handling all of your shooting needs while hiding behind screens. They just do it much less efficiently -- 175 points gets you one missile. CC characters are much harder to hide behind screens because they need to be much closer to do damage, and CC is in general less scary than shooting because you can screen against it much more easily and it's harder to get into CC than it is to get into range to shoot. So, in short: they're not limited because they're not abusable enough to justify limiting. Or maybe you want to argue that Shield-Captains, specifically, are so good and that spamming them is proving to be so effective that they're showing up way too much. For all I know that's true! I haven't been keeping up that much with the meta since the Custodes codex came out. I could easily be convinced that Shield-Captains and Daemon Princes are problematic -- though probably not nearly as problematic as Commanders -- since they're pretty efficient CC units that you can hide in a sea of chaff, such that you're rewarded for spamming them in really annoying ways. But of course, that's just an argument for limiting all of these things, not for not limiting Commanders. The analogy just doesn't work to defend Commanders unless you can simultaneously convince someone that Shield-Captains are both more of a problem and that they still shouldn't be limited. I'll add that, as I understand the state of things currently, the only other HQ which has nearly the same sort of spammability concerns as the Commander is the Hive Tyrant, but here the fix seems a lot easier -- you just raise its cost. It's not getting spammed because the more of them you have the better each one is -- they have 12 wounds and so all you're getting out of that is all that any skew lists gets out of presenting only GEQs or only tanks or whatever. It's getting spammed because it's just really, really good for its cost, and you want lots of them even though that means you're not getting that much out of all their psychic or synapse ability.

It's just very tiresome when people insist on advancing arguments against straw men based on an uncharitable reading of an argument when everyone knows what the reply is going to be, and what the reply to the reply is going to be, etc. It reads like an attempt to filibuster the argument -- rather than talk about the actual reason people have for disagreeing, it's just about wasting time forcing people to get their words exactly right so that various silly and trivial objections no longer apply to the argument as stated. I mean, come on. Nobody actually thinks that Ravenwing Talonmaster spam is a problem. If you're interpreting someone's argument as implying that Talonmaster spam is just as bad as Commander spam, then you're probably not understanding what their actual problem is with Commander spam, and you should go back and try to understand better. Maybe the person actually hasn't figured out how to articulate their position. Maybe you can even improve the quality of discussion by helping them get precise about what it is they're objecting to! But then actually do this. Suggest the reasonable thing that you think they're aiming at instead of going round for 4 or 5 posts and replies arguing about something adjacent to the actual issue which no one really cares about or disagrees on.

Give me Ghostkheel and Stealth Suits Commander and you can make 1 commander for every type of armour per Detachment as much as you like.

Dionysodorus wrote:

No, I got this, it's just that this is a very silly point, and it relies on an aggressively uncharitable reading of the other side's argument. It is generally good practice to stop before replying and ask if you're actually engaging with what the other side means to be saying, vs whatever you can interpret them to be saying such that you have the easiest time knocking it down.

You say that, but that's not what I got from your previous post. Therion simply listed some units that were good and could be spammed to a similar degree as Tau commanders. His point there was that other options were just as good if not better (within those armies). It seemed that you were focusing too much on comparing Commanders with other armies, when the real point was the internal balance of tau. Fix that and there is no need for a limitation.

No one is saying the limitation is undeserved, just that it is unfair. Either give all primary HQs the same limitation or none. This should just be a game wide design decision. That way it's fair.
If Tau Commanders are a problem either adjusts points or fundamentally change how they work. That's all.


Now, as an aside, I am all for a commander limit so long as it affects everyone equally AND everyone gets a spammable secondary HQ for detachments. That way the captain/warboss/farseer etc... feels unique within their own army, especially if they are to be the warlord.

 meleti wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

It's not a game.

Yes it is.

The way I would have fixed it, was to return Commanders to how they were in previous editions. Give them two weapon points and two upgrade points. Problem solved as they are no longer better shooting than a unit of Crisis Suits.

However, they should also be given unique support system choices not available to other suits with a more supportive roll. Since GW is really on aura buffs, they could be things like one system let's you reroll hit rolls of one, another could be wound rolls of one, or ignore a single negative modifier, for units within six inches. It would require some work to figure out appropriate points, but it would give commanders flexibility and a reason to be taken aside from committing suicide to take out a tank.

However... That would have taken actual effort and creativity on GW's part, and restricting them to 1 per detachment is quick and easy.

Dandelion wrote:

The other poster mentioned "shooty" and "untargettable" as reasons to limit commanders.

No that was meleti who twisted my words. Purposefully misinterpreting what someone says and then argument against that seems to be common practice on dakka these days. Back in my days we called that a "strawman".
My exact words where "extremely shooty" to the extent that they "delete units on their own", not just "shooty".

Tau Commanders are clearly in a league of their own in that regard.
The fact that someone brought up Hurricane Bolter Shield-Captains and other 0-1 units (like named characters) as some sort of "nuh-uh" kinda just cemented my point.

With that said, I'm all for restricting problematic units in order to prevent spam.
Go ahead and make Daemon Princes 0-1 and Dark Reapers 0-2, etc. It won't affect me in the slightest because I'm not the kind of players who get affected by these kinds of restrictions. On the flipside, I'd welcome them.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

The other poster mentioned "shooty" and "untargettable" as reasons to limit commanders.

No that was meleti who twisted my words. Purposefully misinterpreting what someone says and then argument against that seems to be common practice on dakka these days. Back in my days we called that a "strawman".
My exact words where "extremely shooty", not just "shooty". Keyword: <Extremely>

Tau Commanders are clearly in a league of their own in that regard.
The fact that somone brought up Hurricane Bolter Shield-Captains and other 0-1 units (like named characters) as some sort of "nuh-uh" kinda just cemented my point.

With that said, I'm all for restricting problematic units in order to prevent spam.
Go ahead and make Daemon Princes 0-1 and Dark Reapers 0-2, etc. It won't affect me in the slightest because I'm not the kind of players who get affected by these kinds of restrictions. On the flipside, I'd welcome them.

"Purposefully" misinterpreting is a bit strong I think. The distinction between "shooty" and "extremely shooty" is not defined, therefore many interpretations can exist for it. Where is the threshold? If the bar is only Tau commanders then you've just set a very high and specific bar that doesn't lend itself to discussion at all, because by definition you would be correct. My own definition of "extremely shooty" tends to be closer to "more than average shooty" as such many more units fall into that category despite how far ahead tau are.

Also, Shield captains aren't 0-1. In fact the only 0-1 units are named characters and tau commanders. Unless you meant something else.

The issue I have with limiting "problem" units is that the issue still exists. An OP unit will be OP no matter how many you can take. Fix the problem with points/abilites. Though a commander limit for the sake of fluff is reasonable so long as it is applied fairly across all armies.

Sigh, I'm just about done with this thread.

 MinscS2 wrote:
[...]extremely shooty, non-targetable HQ in the game.[...]

[...]You can hide a shooty Autarch or a shooty SM Captain behind units, but they're not gonna delete units on their own with their ranged weapons.[...]

I defined my take on "extremely shooty": they remove units on their own.

And I never stated that Shield Captains are 0-1. I'm well aware that they're not.
I said "Shield Captains and other (as in other than Tau Commanders) 0-1 units (like named characters)".

Saying "this named character is also extremely shooty" is not an argument for removing the hardcap on Tau Commanders.
You're essentially trying to justify removing the 0-1 hardcap on Comanders by comparing the Commander to a unit with a 0-1 hardcap...

The 1 Commander per Detachment limit isn't the most eloquent solution, and certainly not my preferred one. Most of its necessity (the only viable option) has hopefully been somewhat addressed with the new codex (are the drops enough? We'll see, but I'm hopeful) by making other options actually viable.

It would be infinitely more manageable if there was a Shas'el Sub-Commander (i.e. Not a COMMANDER) that played the role of the Space Marine Captain. Limit the number of weapons to 3, or reduce the BS to 3+, drop to 4 wounds, and allow Battlesuit-only Brigades.

Gunline/Infantry-based lists should be viable. They shouldn't be required for those who dedicated so much of their modeling to Crisis suits.

The fact of the matter is, though, that the Shas'o Commander, if they're sticking with 1 per detachment to represent the overarching stature as equal to a Space Marine Chapter Master, needs to be more of a leader and less of a beatstick. They don't need to be bad at it, per se, but focus on the Commanders role as commander and get him to command. Better aura would be huge, either choosing Mont'ka or Kauyon each turn, or giving 1 unit within 6" the benefit of one of the commander's Support Systems, or something similar.

Make Commanders commanders, don't make them beatsticks. My commander should be commanding, damnit.

 MinscS2 wrote:
Sigh, I'm just about done with this thread.

Sorry for being blunt but it's better you're done than keep not so eloquently moving the goal posts for the other people in this thread.

I'll quote you:

The main reason for why Tau Commanders get this hardcap while other HQ's don't is probably because they are, afaik (correct me if I'm wrong) the only extremely shooty, non-targetable HQ in the game.

I corrected you. You were wrong. You even asked to be corrected. Talonmasters are an extremely shooty non-targetable HQ in the game.

You then tried to say that 12 shots at S6 and 6 shots at S5, hitting on 3+, fully re-rolling hits, re-rolling 1's to wound, ignoring cover, on a mobile platform, doesn't in your bizarro world count as 'extremely shooty' only 'normal shooty' because apparently the check for this is a scientific 'if it can erase units on its own'. I'm not sure what units we're talking about here but it has to be Repulsors, Warlord Titans etc.

Dakka-Tyrants can delete units on their own with their ranged weapons, but can't hide behind the rest of their army, so you can actually shoot back at it.

So Dakka-Tyrants have sufficient firepower to satisfy your check for 'extremely shooty'. Do you want me to mathhammer you point by point a Dakka Tyrant vs the Talonmaster in the Sammael bubble? I can tell you there isn't much of a difference, but you might want to check which way it swings vs units like MEQ in cover.

And this was your entire premise for why Tau Commanders are unique and deserve army composition restrictions. You didn't say that they are overpowered or that the army needs to be more interesting compositionally. You implied they need to be restricted to 1 per detachment because they are unique in this game and therefore a unique nerf is in order. They aren't. So you're wrong, but you're trying to shift the goal posts or call out the people who called you out.

Daemon Princes don't need a hardcap because they don't really shoot, and in order to be effective they need to be in close combat, where they can be targeted, and after said combat they will probably be much closer to your army, so being able to target it shouldn't be hard.

Another, let's say, 'interesting' way to look at balancing 40K. We can easily make the argument that Nurgle DPs and AC Shield Captains are even more powerful overall than Tau Commanders. Somehow still these units don't need restrictions because 'they aren't untargetable when they assault'. You keep coming back to this issue of being untargetable. Yet, you don't actually need to be untargetable for the entire game to dominate. You just need to be alpha strike protected. Like the Shield-Captains. Yet, in your world, abusively powerful units don't need restrictions if they're not untargetable for the whole game when they pew pew from the back line, like Talonmasters and Sammael. But Talonmasters and Sammael don't count.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
The problem with comparing commander-spam to HQ units in other armies is that a Tau Commander is just about the only HQ in the game that's a more efficient replacement for a unit in your army. Space Marine characters tend to get the most mileage out of being support elements rather than running around stabbing things on their own, I can get an Autarch with a Reaper Launcher but he's not better than just getting Dark Reapers, Guard tank commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants are strong but they don't make good straight-up replacements for other tanks/MCs because of the cost...

The problem with the Tau commander is that he's BS2+ when the rest of your Crisis suits are BS4+ because GW doesn't want to give you BS3+ and Markerlights at the same time. Which ends up meaning that the Commander is the battlesuit I can't cripple without touching it by torching your Markerlights, which makes him better than just taking XV-8s.

To my mind there were three solutions: lose BS2+, lose four guns, or the 0-1 rule. I'd rather have seen Commanders restricted to two guns and given more interesting support for other units on the logic that they're supposed to be Commanders and the Tau are supposed to be the more sensible army where that means they command other forces rather than run around bonking things over the head with great big swords themselves, but I don't think the 0-1 rule is unwarranted.

I think one of the reasons for Commander Spam was that GW introduced a minimum squad size for Crisis suits of 3+. So if you only wanted to drop in one suit to hit a target and that would be its entire role (say, dropping in and hitting a tank with fusion blasters), you either sent a commander or had to fork out the points for 3 crisis suits who might then be in a completely useless position for the rest of the battle and who costed more than the commander.

Also, 4 guns wouldn't have been an issue if GW gave us support systems worth a damn. The amount of overlap between support systems and markerlights was incredibly bad game design as it meant if you were taking anough markerlights to get the +1 to hit, there was no point in packing many of the support systems as they were redundant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Deadawake1347 wrote:
The way I would have fixed it, was to return Commanders to how they were in previous editions. Give them two weapon points and two upgrade points. Problem solved as they are no longer better shooting than a unit of Crisis Suits.

However, they should also be given unique support system choices not available to other suits with a more supportive roll. Since GW is really on aura buffs, they could be things like one system let's you reroll hit rolls of one, another could be wound rolls of one, or ignore a single negative modifier, for units within six inches. It would require some work to figure out appropriate points, but it would give commanders flexibility and a reason to be taken aside from committing suicide to take out a tank.

However... That would have taken actual effort and creativity on GW's part, and restricting them to 1 per detachment is quick and easy.

I don't think commanders and crisis suits have ever actually been limited in how many guns they could take on their hardpoints. They were just limited in how many they could fire each turn, making taking more than two wasteful over a support system.

I just kinda feel you are complaining. You have a pretty epic looking codex and I look on in jealousy!

 frightnight wrote:
What I'm curious about is how/if they're going to limit Farsight Enclaves from using Ethereals. Previously there's been no limits on Legion/Chapter/Craftworld/etc. traits and all units in the codex can be used by everything, and the solution to divergent lists is to split DA/BA/TS/DG off into their own books.

There's a first time for everything, of course, but this will break the trend. Or suddenly Farsight's cool with some Ethereals but not all...

Same rule as Black Templars have regarding Psykers. "ETHEREALS cannot be from from the FARSIGHT ENCLAVES Sept."

Of course unless they change the Ethereals Rule keywords it's not going to do much.

 Galas wrote:
Give me Ghostkheel and Stealth Suits Commander and you can make 1 commander for every type of armour per Detachment as much as you like.

we will find out very soon. stealth suite prev is today.

 meleti wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

It's not a game. This change just feels bad. Only 1 per detachment, and only for Tau Commanders. No other non-unique HQ is similarly restricted. I don't know that on a balance basis it ends up being a huge deal, because Tau do have some strengths in the new codex, but restricting Tau and not any other HQ in the game just feels very strange.

´

Yeah. That's my problem with the change. While the restriction isn't that bad idea BALANCE wise issue is it's tau-only. Where's restricted marine HQ's? Imperial guard company commanders? More than 1 per 2 battallion detachments would be generous fluff wise so idea of having battallion with 3 company commanders is just silly.

This kind of restrictions should have been done from the get-go rather than hamfisting it midway. Or maybe with just one codex(tau). Will dark eldars have similar? Necrons? Etc.

Im a bit disappointed with the Tau codex, played tau through a few editions and with 7th making everyone hate due to the formations they have been really toned down in 8th. Commanders didnt need the restriction, just up the points/make bs2+ weapons more points and limit the hard points so its more of a support role. I dont like how your forced to take infantry hqs in a battalion, makes a battlesuit list less effective unless you take vanguards.

Crisis suits getting no point decrease either just adds to commanders been way better and promotes spam with outriders.

-1 to hit armies/abilities hurt tau really bad too due to us needing markerlights to hit to make our units hit better which is frustrating mechanic without stratagems to increase to hit (except FSE one for crisis).

Alot of our abilities cross over too like 4 markerlights for move and fire heavy weapons but target lock is autotake on big suits as markerlights are unreliable.

I could go on but im just basing it on the leaks so far, i dont want a shoot twice stratagem or -1 to hit trait but some synergy would be nice to make us unique.

tneva82 wrote:

 meleti wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

It's not a game. This change just feels bad. Only 1 per detachment, and only for Tau Commanders. No other non-unique HQ is similarly restricted. I don't know that on a balance basis it ends up being a huge deal, because Tau do have some strengths in the new codex, but restricting Tau and not any other HQ in the game just feels very strange.

´

Yeah. That's my problem with the change. While the restriction isn't that bad idea BALANCE wise issue is it's tau-only. Where's restricted marine HQ's? Imperial guard company commanders? More than 1 per 2 battallion detachments would be generous fluff wise so idea of having battallion with 3 company commanders is just silly.

This kind of restrictions should have been done from the get-go rather than hamfisting it midway. Or maybe with just one codex(tau). Will dark eldars have similar? Necrons? Etc.

Well if the rumours/speculation are right then the March FaQ might do something similar for the already released codexes to some degree.

More than 1 per 2 battallion detachments would be generous fluff wise so idea of having battallion with 3 company commanders is just silly.

Fluff wise I thought 3 companies normally make up a battalion?

 lolman1c wrote:
I just kinda feel you are complaining. You have a pretty epic looking codex and I look on in jealousy!

The problem is, this limit is so absurd that the rest of the codex doesn't even matter to many players the moment you introduce it.

I have over 5k points worth of models. and I now can't run even a simple battalion because despite having 4 different HQ models (R'alai, shadowsun, enforcer, coldstar), only one of the four can be used in a detachment.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:
I just kinda feel you are complaining. You have a pretty epic looking codex and I look on in jealousy!

The problem is, this limit is so absurd that the rest of the codex doesn't even matter to many players the moment you introduce it.

I have over 5k points worth of models. and I now can't run even a simple battalion because despite having 4 different HQ models (R'alai, shadowsun, enforcer, coldstar), only one of the four can be used in a detachment.

And Eldar-players complained when Wraithknights where turned into LoW's in 7th.

Adapt. Get an Ethereal or a Fireblade, or get both, and some Firewarriors. Now you'll have two cheap battalions and two commanders in your list.
(Honestly. my main issue with this 'restriction' is how easy it is to circumvent due to multiple detatchment and cheap troops. Makes me wonder why GW even bother with it in the first place.)

I doubt that Tau Commanders will be the first HQ-unit with restrictions however.

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

Kids want to have their cake and eat it too. It's that simple.

GW is clearly buffing a bunch of Tau units to make commanders less optimal and wanted to correct what they perceived as aberrant behavior within the game.

So GW is in the position of wanting to reduce commander spam, but they're not making any new Tau models.

So they put in this admittedly clumsy rule because the model range for Tau doesn't really support a new HQ unit that brings something different to the table.

It's basically this, Primaris and Nurgle got new models last year. This year, it appears we're going to get a new knight and probably some new models in the Necron range.

Everyone else will get rules enough to give their codex a gimmick or two and be relatively competitive, beyond that, you're SOL.

 MinscS2 wrote:

You're essentially trying to justify removing the 0-1 hardcap on Comanders by comparing the Commander to a unit with a 0-1 hardcap...

You can't accuse someone of making a strawman and then proceed to make your own, mate. Maybe, just maybe, it's difficult to properly convey ideas over the internet when there is a few hours of delay between replies.

Your entire premise was that Tau commanders were the only case of extremely shooty and untargettable. This premise was disputed. Your conclusion was that Tau commanders were the only units deserving of a limit. Because your premise is not proven, your conclusion is called into question.

Regardless, I would be ok with the nerf, so long as it affected everyone equally. So, shield-captains, hive tyrants... AND we got a secondary (and less shooty) HQ to help make detachments.

 Mr Morden wrote:

More than 1 per 2 battallion detachments would be generous fluff wise so idea of having battallion with 3 company commanders is just silly.

Fluff wise I thought 3 companies normally make up a battalion?

Platoon 5 squads, company 2-5 platoons, battalion 2-3 companies. Detachment can't fit that many squads. Battallion detachment is reinforced platoon


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 andysonic1 wrote:
I don't understand the game people are playing when they say this is a bad change.

Kids want to have their cake and eat it too. It's that simple.

GW is clearly buffing a bunch of Tau units to make commanders less optimal and wanted to correct what they perceived as aberrant behavior within the game.

So GW is in the position of wanting to reduce commander spam, but they're not making any new Tau models.

So they put in this admittedly clumsy rule because the model range for Tau doesn't really support a new HQ unit that brings something different to the table.

It's basically this, Primaris and Nurgle got new models last year. This year, it appears we're going to get a new knight and probably some new models in the Necron range.

Everyone else will get rules enough to give their codex a gimmick or two and be relatively competitive, beyond that, you're SOL.

Of course they could have made commander not broken thus no need for limit. If he needs limit 1 per det is autotake. If not it's silly tau only limitation

Dandelion wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:

You're essentially trying to justify removing the 0-1 hardcap on Comanders by comparing the Commander to a unit with a 0-1 hardcap...

Your entire premise was that Tau commanders were the only case of extremely shooty and untargettable.

No. His premise was that they're the only HQ unit thats is shooty enough to be considered by WAAC players to be worth spamming.

The people arguing against that are being needlessly obtuse.

Then they accused him of "moving the goal posts" when what he was doing was clarifying his opinion because of nitpicking replies.