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.

give the "problematic" models two profiles, a "senior" one that can be one per detachment, then "junior" versions that can be multiple as deputies, or the leader in smaller games.


Think the old fantasy system with orcs, a Warboss and a slightly lesser "big boss"

ideally split the "HQ" slot to be a senior and a junior role, always able to take a junior in a senior slot but not the other way around.

Patrols get 1 junior, Battalions and Brigades allow a Senior and multiple junior, the "Supreme command" is a senior and multiple junior, the "supporting" detachments become junior only

Then make sure each codex has both senior and junior HQs, ideally twice as many juniors with different focusses, and perhaps unique named characters at both levels.

Take a notch out of 30ks book, “masters of the legion” are 1 per 1k points, so just adding the “leader” keyword to certain units to limit them, take into account spamability and power of the unit itself to apply this limit.

 meleti wrote:
Harlequins have 2 HQs. 2!

. Which is why I said 0-1 per detachment unless you use all your options within you faction not including special characters.

 Formosa wrote:
Take a notch out of 30ks book, “masters of the legion” are 1 per 1k points, so just adding the “leader” keyword to certain units to limit them, take into account spamability and power of the unit itself to apply this limit.

That would work very nicely and is also very simple

Which is actually advantageous to factions with few options for HQ as long as they are good.

 DaBraken wrote:
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?

This is accurate.

For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.

Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.

I find it odd that the discussion is so HQ-centric when OP units can exist in any slot. I'm not sure why 0-1'ing commanders and tyrants makes more sense than 0-1'ing, for instance, my dark reapers.

Fluff seems like a shaky justification. Surely there can be multiple warlocks or tech priests or commissars on the same general patch of ground. Surely there have been times when marine captains have had their companies wiped out and ended up fighting back to back alongside the surviving forces of another company.

What am I missing? Why is the focus on HQs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 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.

-

I strongly suspect that sales for the non-existent dracon and dracite models were, in fact, quite unimpressive. Technically, we currently still have access to dracons. They're just a new name for the sergeant of a trueborn squad. Although the new 'dex may have wiped them out entirely...

Well, obviously this is just a SALES TACTIC to promote purchases of OTHER models.

Get woke guys.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I find it odd that the discussion is so HQ-centric when OP units can exist in any slot. I'm not sure why 0-1'ing commanders and tyrants makes more sense than 0-1'ing, for instance, my dark reapers.

Fluff seems like a shaky justification. Surely there can be multiple warlocks or tech priests or commissars on the same general patch of ground. Surely there have been times when marine captains have had their companies wiped out and ended up fighting back to back alongside the surviving forces of another company.

What am I missing? Why is the focus on HQs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

 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.

-

I strongly suspect that sales for the non-existent dracon and dracite models were, in fact, quite unimpressive. Technically, we currently still have access to dracons. They're just a new name for the sergeant of a trueborn squad. Although the new 'dex may have wiped them out entirely...

I think some of the HQ focus is fluff based, however if we are talking about limiting units by slot (0-1 of any HQ/troop elite) HQ is really the only slot I can see being 0-1 across the board. but if we are talking individual units there is no reason any particular unit could not be restricted to a certain number. That is actually a balance mechanic that I think could be useful and it in fact exists in other games like malifaux where some units are unique, some are limited to 2 model. Some to 3 models, etc and some are unrestricted.. It won't happen because it hurts sales. If I can only ever run a single squad of dark reapers there is no reason to buy more than that.

 Marmatag wrote:

 DaBraken wrote:
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?

This is accurate.

For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.

Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.

They probably dislike both null deploy lists and alpha strike both. Seems reasonable enough to do so.

Breng77 wrote:

 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.

I did provide a negative. Custodes shield captains are all <Shield Captain> models. If you restrict them as 0-1, Custodes cannot ever run a Battalion without Trajann. They cannot, ever, run a Brigade (Not that you would.)

You are making a decision to ignore negative impacts, like this one and the Archon example you were given, because you feel the change is justified, at the expense of others. That's fine if it's your opinion, but it should be given honestly.

Why are we still pushing this terrible idea?

Get hemmed up by Spritseer, Flyrants, and ... ... ... Cannot think of many other HQs that get spammed enough to even make this thought valid. And heck, if you get hemmed up by Spiritseers...

Flyrants aren't really bad, they just create saturation, which skews any list and invalidates a lot of weapon choices, making them all suboptimal. Literally, this has been going on since weapon profiles started deviating. If you bring a balanced assortment of guns, and I bring an unbalanced assortment of models, then I can create a skew that can hurt you. You can never rule this out of the game unless everything is hit on 4s, wounded on 4s, and saves on 4s.

Apparently critical thought has abandoned all hope here. Why don't we restrict IG Infantry units to 1/detachment as well, I hear they skew lists really poorly, especially when mixed into allied armies.

GSC - 4 HQs, one of which is defintly designed to be in a full army multiple times
Halequins - Just dump them and their two HQs in the dumpster right now. No Bridgade for you!
Tyranids - A pretty good number of HQs, but only two (Hive tyrant and Neurothrope) can really be considered general purpose. The rest are all specialized and require multiple additional models to get your points back
Sisters of Battle - Go ahead, push this rule on that vocal community group, I dare you. On the eve of them getting plastic models no less
Space Marines - Tell them they can only have one captain (especially since a chapter master is now a captain model as well), one ancient, one lieutenant, etc.)
Blood Angels - They probably have enough HQ choices to survive, but you'll be insta-nerfing most of their lists, which relying on multiple of the same HQ
Astra Militarum - One company commander per list. I'm assuming you aren't a AM player or this would have already occured to you. Presumably you are already in favor of them only ever getting one psyker per AM list unless they soup.
Orks - The SM problem all over again. What few HQs they have are generally meant to be spammed for the army type.
Ad Mech - 3 HQs, one a 200 point special character.
Tau - Outside of commanders they have about 4 HQs, two of which are named characters. You'll finally put the last nail in the coffin of Tau troop based lists. Canon Farsight lists will have 2 HQs.
Necrons - again, meant to use mutliple copies of their HQs. Their named ones are specialized as hell

Armies you are buffing
Dark Angels - They'll be forced to take named characters, but probably wont be an issue
Eldar - They needed buffing, right?
Ynari - It was the plan to buff soup, right?
Imperial Soup - nerf all their opponents?, yes please!
Chaos Soup - see above

Armies that won't care
Space Wolves - You'll nerf their current lists, but they won't be hurt/benefit enough to be affected
Dark Eldar - in the new mode they wouldn't even need to change their lists
Imperial Knights

No GK analysis in your list? Are they that non-competitive that they aren't even considered worth mentioning in an otherwise all inclusive list?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No GK analysis in your list? Are they that non-competitive that they aren't even considered worth mentioning in an otherwise all inclusive list?

Essentially yes. Just being honest. If GK were actually seen on tables they'd be in people's minds.

The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?

Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.

 Cephalobeard wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 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.

I did provide a negative. Custodes shield captains are all <Shield Captain> models. If you restrict them as 0-1, Custodes cannot ever run a Battalion without Trajann. They cannot, ever, run a Brigade (Not that you would.)

You are making a decision to ignore negative impacts, like this one and the Archon example you were given, because you feel the change is justified, at the expense of others. That's fine if it's your opinion, but it should be given honestly.

Already addressed the Archon as a non-issue, and the shield captain is only a thing if working of key word and not data slate. If it is each data slate, you only get 1 bike guy but can take a non-bike guy. Where did I say do it by keyword. I understand that is how the commander nerf works, but not necessarily how any other restriction would work. So again you have provided no actual negatives, just ones you derived from things I never said, or did not read closely enough. The only expense of others I'm seeing is people who want to spam things like bike captains, or flyrants. If you mean those people then sure, I feel change is justified at their expense.

 ChargerIIC wrote:

Spoiler:

Breng77 wrote:

 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.

GSC - 4 HQs, one of which is defintly designed to be in a full army multiple times
Halequins - Just dump them and their two HQs in the dumpster right now. No Bridgade for you!
Tyranids - A pretty good number of HQs, but only two (Hive tyrant and Neurothrope) can really be considered general purpose. The rest are all specialized and require multiple additional models to get your points back
Sisters of Battle - Go ahead, push this rule on that vocal community group, I dare you. On the eve of them getting plastic models no less
Space Marines - Tell them they can only have one captain (especially since a chapter master is now a captain model as well), one ancient, one lieutenant, etc.)
Blood Angels - They probably have enough HQ choices to survive, but you'll be insta-nerfing most of their lists, which relying on multiple of the same HQ
Astra Militarum - One company commander per list. I'm assuming you aren't a AM player or this would have already occured to you. Presumably you are already in favor of them only ever getting one psyker per AM list unless they soup.
Orks - The SM problem all over again. What few HQs they have are generally meant to be spammed for the army type.
Ad Mech - 3 HQs, one a 200 point special character.
Tau - Outside of commanders they have about 4 HQs, two of which are named characters. You'll finally put the last nail in the coffin of Tau troop based lists. Canon Farsight lists will have 2 HQs.
Necrons - again, meant to use mutliple copies of their HQs. Their named ones are specialized as hell

Armies you are buffing
Dark Angels - They'll be forced to take named characters, but probably wont be an issue
Eldar - They needed buffing, right?
Ynari - It was the plan to buff soup, right?
Imperial Soup - nerf all their opponents?, yes please!
Chaos Soup - see above

Armies that won't care
Space Wolves - You'll nerf their current lists, but they won't be hurt/benefit enough to be affected
Dark Eldar - in the new mode they wouldn't even need to change their lists
Imperial Knights

So wrong across the board got it. You miss the part where if you have no other options you can repeat. So sisters not effected at all. Space Marines could take 3 captains in different detachment oh the horror....ancients are an elite choice so you could take 2-3 in each detachment etc. SO basically you did not ever read my idea. Decided I said every HQ 0-1 in an entire list and based your negatives off that.

Sorry try again.

Breng:

The best you'll ever do here is get TOs to implement a house rule for their events.

You'll never get GW in on that idea, especially at the expense of their narrative players, casual players, and non-tournament bound players.

The fact is, people who are not in tournaments and read some fluff see things like a farseer and two warlocks as perfectly reasonable to be working together. Possibly leading a BN or a BDE. But you want to make that a non-starter.

Also, going back to CWE, I've looked at their force orgs, and they typically have Autarchs who report to Autarchs who report to Autarchs. Again, what would be the problem reflecting that structure in a BDE where you have an Autarch as your Warlord with an Autarch in charge of the Aspect Host and a Farseer support reporting directly to him? Reasonable within the fluff, but illegal in your ramblings.

You're advocating for more ponderous and clumsy rules that have far reaching effects all the way into non-tournament play because 1 or 2 specific models create an unbalanced environment at the tippy-top of the spectrum.

This isn't even in keep with the spirit of the rules in 8th edition where they tried to clean out a lot of the garbage rules from impeding the game. You're adding a rule to everyone for the sake of having a rule. Most of the time it is frivolous and unnecessary, and when it becomes necessary, you can just house rule it in.

 Galas wrote:
The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?

Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.

I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?

Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.

I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.

Based on the tone of the last few pages of, "No. That's not an issue, because I say so. Your opinion on balance, in a thread about balance, is wrong compared to mine." I would say that's exactly correct.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Breng:

The best you'll ever do here is get TOs to implement a house rule for their events.

You'll never get GW in on that idea, especially at the expense of their narrative players, casual players, and non-tournament bound players.

The fact is, people who are not in tournaments and read some fluff see things like a farseer and two warlocks as perfectly reasonable to be working together. Possibly leading a BN or a BDE. But you want to make that a non-starter.

Also, going back to CWE, I've looked at their force orgs, and they typically have Autarchs who report to Autarchs who report to Autarchs. Again, what would be the problem reflecting that structure in a BDE where you have an Autarch as your Warlord with an Autarch in charge of the Aspect Host and a Farseer support reporting directly to him? Reasonable within the fluff, but illegal in your ramblings.

You're advocating for more ponderous and clumsy rules that have far reaching effects all the way into non-tournament play because 1 or 2 specific models create an unbalanced environment at the tippy-top of the spectrum.

This isn't even in keep with the spirit of the rules in 8th edition where they tried to clean out a lot of the garbage rules from impeding the game. You're adding a rule to everyone for the sake of having a rule. Most of the time it is frivolous and unnecessary, and when it becomes necessary, you can just house rule it in.

I don't expect GW to put many if any restrictions on list building in reality. I just think it would help with balance and eliminating spam. GW tried to address non-tournament players by creating the 3 ways to play. The issue is that everyone defaults to matched play. I honestly have a hard time seeing it be an issue in a truly casual level. Where the issue comes up is the super casual level where people want both ends of the spectrum. No restrictions on what they can build and balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cephalobeard wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The 1 of every HQ is just stupid. I can understand the 1 per detachment for uber-HQ's that are pseudo named characters like Tau Commanders, Daemon Princes, Hyve Tyrants, etc... but to do that to everyone, even space marine captains, lieutenants, and other things?

Is people crazy or what? if you want highlander go play highlander.
Is like people can't take balanced and reasonable measures. Is always ALL or NOTHING.

I think it's just people's attempts to sabotage any effort GW makes to balance so that they can feel superior.

Based on the tone of the last few pages of, "No. That's not an issue, because I say so. Your opinion on balance, in a thread about balance, is wrong compared to mine." I would say that's exactly correct.

If you are referring to me in any way I am open to opinion, unless that opinion is "you're wrong and it's dumb because reasons!" and when I say ok give me reasons I get either nothing, or reasons that don't address what I said in the first place. For balance I don't think that all HQs present a problem, but I do think 1 per detachment hurts soup armies who do things like bring 3 Custodes bike captains in a supreme command, or the same with Blood Angels captains. I also don't think GW will go the way of limiting things beyond the obvious offenders. I just think they would save a lot of work by doing so because limiting one thing and only one thing opens the door for another.
I also don't think my suggestion would be near perfect, and may have some real flaws as far as list originality because every list might become I take the max allowed of each broken thing. P.s. Lieutenants are something like 0-3 for one choice so even if limited to 0-1 choices you could run 3 per detachment.

This rule already exists for matched play...

Breng:

I've given you plenty of reasons against the implementation of these rules, but I'll itemize them here so you can scrutinize them directly:

1) This "problem" exists at the high end of the matched play spectrum, where spam has always existed, and will continue to persist due to not everything being 100% balanced (and that imbalance is actually a good thing). But even a few % points more effective on certain units will mean that people will spam them to amplify that small % in hopes of winning a big event.

2) This "problem" is with a very few specific models, and most of the HQs are seen as not being efficient, and even a downright tax in some armies.

3) It doesn't promote diversity of HQs, it only promotes bringing the second and/or third best ones as a tax.

4) It increases rules for the sake of creating more rules and restrictions in an edition where the intention was to remove a lot of these silly barriers to entry and play.

5) It actually does not address the fact that the Hive Tyrant may be very strong and possibly too well supported by rules or just plain under-costed.

6) This restriction actually murders some fluff and narrative. There are "3 Ways to Play", but the last I checked, the data slates were still used in Open, and that restriction would carry to those games as well. If you want to take the focus off of the competitive scene, you cannot do so by neutering it with restrictions like this that make armies more generic and less custom. I really want to bring a Farseer Enclave to a game, but I cannot do that because my Farseers and Warlocks are limited to 1/detachment.

7) If implemented, to avoid many of the above pitfalls, you'll have to give a deployment range (0-3) for many, if not ALL HQ options across every codex. Given that they are not rewriting the codices right now... do you really think they would want to do that? Who is going to rebalance EVERY HQ in the game to see if this is a "1-of" guy or a "3-of"?

1.) Which is why limitations on that level of play are better at addressing spam than points changes.

2.)Some Hqs are a Tax, that being the case would make armies less efficient (and thus less powerful) as a result of requiring extra taxes if they want to spam certain units.

3.) How is bringing different HQs not diverse. As I said lists may not end up being different from one another but how is a Hive tyrant and a Neurothrope in an army not a more diverse selection than 2 Hive Tyrants. But yes people will always take the best options possible. Unless your thought here is that spamming some lesser HQs makes them a better option than the other better HQs in certain builds. Then you could have a point (i.e. spamming Big Meks is better in a Kan Wall Army then taking a big mek and warboss, and still might not be hyper competitive)

4.) It is a slight increase of rules, but not really in a way that makes things terribly more complicated, but yes if someone bought a whole bunch of models without knowing the rules then it might be tough to play all those models.

5.) Somewhat true but 3 tyrants max in a army is significantly less powerful and more manageable for most people than 7. Restricting duplicates does actually produce a different level of balance for that model. Take say magnus, right now many don't consider him good because he dies to fast. But what if you ran 3 or 4 magnuses? Would 1 dying be a huge issue? They same is true with tyrants. Having more means they always get to be more effective because more live long enough to do what they do best.

6.) Which is why you would put said restrictions in the matched play rules not the individual data slates, similar to how they limit stratagems. Thus they would not carry onto narrative and open play. Heck I would be fine with it like the 3 detachment "rule" put it in as a recommendation for balance. Or heck put it in a GW approved tournament packet. You want to bring a Farseer Enclave, given that warlock conclave exists exist it seems like you could bring quite a few warlocks in each detachment. You could bring over 3 detachments 3 farseers (more if we do by datasheet as the skyrunner is a seperate data sheet), and 33 Warlocks. Which is more than you are likely to have points to take. My point is not to take the focus off competitive games but instead to create more seperation between the narative/open play and matched play rules.

7.)I don't see why or how that needs to be a thing per say, it doesn't really seem to address anything except your desire to take a farseer enclave. Making HQs 0-3 per detachment means they might as well not be limited at all (which may be your desire).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
All that said, none of that will happen so it is irrelevant. I do expect a limit on hive tyrants (at least flying ones) in the FAQ simply because I assume points will not be changed in the FAQ (that assumption may be wrong) and that any balance changes will be made through rules errata rather than points changes which I am assuming will only happen in CA.

Problem with such restrictions as blanket ones is the same issue that WHFB had with "of course we ban special characters", yes you stopped a few troublesome ones, but you also kicked ou the named goblins who you would hardly find to be a problem.

If there are two or three offenders, deal with them (ideally just make multiples cost more) and leave the rest alone

Breng77 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
All that said, none of that will happen so it is irrelevant. I do expect a limit on hive tyrants (at least flying ones) in the FAQ simply because I assume points will not be changed in the FAQ (that assumption may be wrong) and that any balance changes will be made through rules errata rather than points changes which I am assuming will only happen in CA.

I'm not disregarding anything you said above, as it was beneficial to the discussion, but your statement here at the end kind of nullifies the whole conversation because it is probably accurate that they will forego anything other than a direct change to the actual model.

I can't say what I expect GW to do, because the Hive Tyrant has arguments both ways. I'd like it to be a strong model, giving it the 1/army/detachment treatment of a unique model or Tau Commander. They're actually balanced a little more generously due to the tag of there can only be one. But now you end up with models that are almost auto-includes because of that treatment. Like taking generic HQs are actually a hamstring for your army when there is a named guy that you can get more mileage out of (Ahriman vs Exalted Sorcerer, for example).

Fixing the points would mean that you don't have to restrict it to X per whatever, but you leave the door open for lists of 5 instead of 7, again, as an example. Again, the core of the problem was fixed, but now the efficiency for those points probably drastically changes and you won't see X Hive Tyrant lists anymore because it falls out of flavor at that level.

There's pros and cons on both side of the argument, so I guess the question is: do you truly want a limit on a powerful model because it is a powerful model... is it iconic enough that seeing it in almost every list is okay? If not, is there a points cost for the model that makes it 1) playable and 2) balanced enough that spam or sprinkle in the list are relative in power to each other, thus the choice is more cosmetic than competitive.

Difficult place for GW, yes?

 Marmatag wrote:

 DaBraken wrote:
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?

This is accurate.

For all the complaining about alpha strike, this is one list that denies alpha.. and people lose their minds.

Looks like people screaming for nerfs really actually do want a brutal alpha. i guess.

But doesn't this list also bring a fairly brutal alpha?

Is the hive tyrant even that brutal without that very specific combination of wings and weapons?

If you want to curb flyrant spam, turn the wing mutation into a relic.

This just doesn't work with many factions as they don't have that big selection to pick from to begin with which means you can't make this a generic rule. Generic rules where more than half of the factions have to state they ignore the rule does not make a very good generic rule.

I am now just giggling and imagining the rulebook saying: All units in the game have the Space Marine Bolter, and then 95% of the units having datasheets stating "Instead of a Space Marine Bolter this unit has a Avenger Shuriken Catapult. Instead of a Space Marine Bolter this unit has a Gauss Flayer."

In regards to "well, this is only a limit per detachment" it would mean many armies would have very limited choices detachment-wise as they could not fill Brigade or Battalion if they so desired. In other words it would reward large factions but punish the smaller, less supported, ones.