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 dont get why super-heavy attachments don't get your battle-forged bonuses? can someone explain this to me

Super Heavy detachments impart Chapter Tactics and equivalent abilities.

Super Heavy Auxiliary detachments do not. The reason they don't is because the detachment rules for 9th edition explicitly say they don't. It's as simple as that.

I think the question he's asking is what's the rationale behind that.

Why? Because GW said so.

Speculative rationale: GW doesn't want people cherry-picking the best detachment bonus for a single model via an Auxiliary Support or Super Heavy Auxiliary Support detachment.

Example 1: You have a IG Army with a Brigade and an SHA detachment. They don't want you to pick one Regiment for the Brigade and a different Regiment for the SHAS because my Baneblade is better that way.

Example 2: They don't want you to add an Imperial Knight to your army via a SHAD and gain the Knightly Household detachment bonus for the single Knight.

Ask GW why. We dont know.

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Because GW said so.

Speculative rationale: GW doesn't want people cherry-picking the best detachment bonus for a single model via an Auxiliary Support or Super Heavy Auxiliary Support detachment.

Example 1: You have a IG Army with a Brigade and an SHA detachment. They don't want you to pick one Regiment for the Brigade and a different Regiment for the SHAS because my Baneblade is better that way.

Example 2: They don't want you to add an Imperial Knight to your army via a SHAD and gain the Knightly Household detachment bonus for the single Knight.

Wouldnt adding a knight to a space-marine army make them lose their combact doctrines?

bat702 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

Example 2: They don't want you to add an Imperial Knight to your army via a SHAD and gain the Knightly Household detachment bonus for the single Knight.

Wouldnt adding a knight to a space-marine army make them lose their combact doctrines?

Space Marines specifically are hurt by sticking in a unit from another Imperium faction, but the majority of other armies have no such restriction.

It kind of works backwards too, like if you wanted to run Guard tanks with space marine infantry they wouldnt get their combat doctrines

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Because GW said so.

Speculative rationale: GW doesn't want people cherry-picking the best detachment bonus for a single model via an Auxiliary Support or Super Heavy Auxiliary Support detachment.

Example 1: You have a IG Army with a Brigade and an SHA detachment. They don't want you to pick one Regiment for the Brigade and a different Regiment for the SHAS because my Baneblade is better that way.

Example 2: They don't want you to add an Imperial Knight to your army via a SHAD and gain the Knightly Household detachment bonus for the single Knight.

This is probably why gw doesn't allow a LoW in a SHAD to have a faction trait, but it's overkill for both purposes. Want to allow LoWs to have faction traits but avoid both of these problems? Easy: Just allow LoWs to have faction traits IF THEY'RE FROM THE SAME FACTION AS YOUR WARLORD, and require that that faction trait BE THE SAME AS YOUR WARLORD'S. There, no more cherry picking, or Knights getting faction traits in anything but pure Knights armies. Gee, that was hard.

You make a good point Gadzilla, would like to see titananic units make a come back as center-piece lists, without looking like a piece of gakk compared to units like Mortarion or Guillieman, if they could have a faction trait as long as it was alligned with the warlord's detachment that would solve alot of problems imo

tho making marines lost their combat doctrines in imperial soup lists is imo more than fair, tho spacemarines could use some balance changes (nerfs) they should be able to take an imperial knight without losing combat doctrines, if for no other reason than they look cool as an army center-piece.

bat702 wrote:
You make a good point Gadzilla, would like to see titananic units make a come back as center-piece lists, without looking like a piece of gakk compared to units like Mortarion or Guillieman, if they could have a faction trait as long as it was alligned with the warlord's detachment that would solve alot of problems imo

tho making marines lost their combat doctrines in imperial soup lists is imo more than fair, tho spacemarines could use some balance changes (nerfs) they should be able to take an imperial knight without losing combat doctrines, if for no other reason than they look cool as an army center-piece.

How is it fair that they lose Doctrines, do you think Marines would soup regularly despite the CP costs?

bat702 wrote:
You make a good point Gadzilla, would like to see titananic units make a come back as center-piece lists, without looking like a piece of gakk compared to units like Mortarion or Guillieman, if they could have a faction trait as long as it was alligned with the warlord's detachment that would solve alot of problems imo

tho making marines lost their combat doctrines in imperial soup lists is imo more than fair, tho spacemarines could use some balance changes (nerfs) they should be able to take an imperial knight without losing combat doctrines, if for no other reason than they look cool as an army center-piece.

Loyalists have NINE LoWs of their own they can use without breaking doctrines. They don't need Knights added on to that.

bleh

 Daedalus81 wrote:
bleh

Two edits and just "bleh"? "Bleh" what? My suggested change to the SHAD?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Why? Because GW said so.

Speculative rationale: GW doesn't want people cherry-picking the best detachment bonus for a single model via an Auxiliary Support or Super Heavy Auxiliary Support detachment.

Example 1: You have a IG Army with a Brigade and an SHA detachment. They don't want you to pick one Regiment for the Brigade and a different Regiment for the SHAS because my Baneblade is better that way.

Example 2: They don't want you to add an Imperial Knight to your army via a SHAD and gain the Knightly Household detachment bonus for the single Knight.

This is probably why gw doesn't allow a LoW in a SHAD to have a faction trait, but it's overkill for both purposes. Want to allow LoWs to have faction traits but avoid both of these problems? Easy: Just allow LoWs to have faction traits IF THEY'RE FROM THE SAME FACTION AS YOUR WARLORD, and require that that faction trait BE THE SAME AS YOUR WARLORD'S. There, no more cherry picking, or Knights getting faction traits in anything but pure Knights armies. Gee, that was hard.

EXACTLY!

Or just drop all that doctrine baloney and get back to simple force org charts, allowing superheavies either by casual agreement or if games are over the force org prescribed point limit, e.g. a stompa might be used in games over 2800pts if 25% of points can go to heavy support.

Making the FOC actually mean something would be a good step. The CP costs were a nice step in the right direction, but you can still basically bring whatever you want, making the 'limitations' of any one FOC essentially pointless.

As far as the super-heavy thing goes, well, thank the Emperor they made Hierodule's Heavy Support choices is all I'll say there...

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
You make a good point Gadzilla, would like to see titananic units make a come back as center-piece lists, without looking like a piece of gakk compared to units like Mortarion or Guillieman, if they could have a faction trait as long as it was alligned with the warlord's detachment that would solve alot of problems imo

tho making marines lost their combat doctrines in imperial soup lists is imo more than fair, tho spacemarines could use some balance changes (nerfs) they should be able to take an imperial knight without losing combat doctrines, if for no other reason than they look cool as an army center-piece.

Loyalists have NINE LoWs of their own they can use without breaking doctrines. They don't need Knights added on to that.

The Knight would not be the same faction as the warlord, thus wouldn't receive any faction traits, and would still cost 3cp, tho I have seen chaos lists doing well with war-dogs/Armigers mixed in, and/or also a chaos knight mixed in

Seems to me that allowing a single LoW per army wouldn't break the game, provided that LoW had the same faction as your Warlord. If you want more than one, take the super heavy detachment. Use the Auxilliary detachment if you want to use one outside of your Warlord's faction.

bat702 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
You make a good point Gadzilla, would like to see titananic units make a come back as center-piece lists, without looking like a piece of gakk compared to units like Mortarion or Guillieman, if they could have a faction trait as long as it was alligned with the warlord's detachment that would solve alot of problems imo

tho making marines lost their combat doctrines in imperial soup lists is imo more than fair, tho spacemarines could use some balance changes (nerfs) they should be able to take an imperial knight without losing combat doctrines, if for no other reason than they look cool as an army center-piece.

Loyalists have NINE LoWs of their own they can use without breaking doctrines. They don't need Knights added on to that.

The Knight would not be the same faction as the warlord, thus wouldn't receive any faction traits, and would still cost 3cp, tho I have seen chaos lists doing well with war-dogs/Armigers mixed in, and/or also a chaos knight mixed in

That's because CSM (other than Death Guard) currently lack a "purity bonus". Once that changes those knights will probably be replaced by one of our 12 available LoWs (the second highest number of LoWs available to a non-knight faction behind the 18 available to the Imperial Guard), or none at all. That's the price of a mono-faction bonus. If Death Guard lose Contagions when including a Nurgle Daemon detachment then everyone else, including marines spikey or not, should lose their mono-faction bonus for including anything outside of their own faction.

I honestly feel as tho Knights should be viable in imperial soup lists/chaos soup lists, and not just in knight only armies

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
bleh

Two edits and just "bleh"? "Bleh" what? My suggested change to the SHAD?

Nah, just realized I didn't have anything useful to say. Your suggestion should probably get pushed in front of GW more often. Obviously there's some nuance to some of it, but the idea is worth hammering on.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
bleh

Two edits and just "bleh"? "Bleh" what? My suggested change to the SHAD?

Nah, just realized I didn't have anything useful to say. Your suggestion should probably get pushed in front of GW more often. Obviously there's some nuance to some of it, but the idea is worth hammering on.

Ah, glad to hear you agree. I have seen the idea popping up on some YouTube videos and the like, as well as adding a LoW slot to Battalions and Brigades. Maybe gw will eventually take notice of the problem. They do want to sell those big kits, after all.

bat702 wrote:I honestly feel as tho Knights should be viable in imperial soup lists/chaos soup lists, and not just in knight only armies

And they can be. It's possible for a unit to offer enough of a advantage to offset losing mono-faction bonuses, the number of SoB lists currently running Outrider detachments of DKoK Death Riders is proof of that. But if a knight is so much better than a faction's own LoWs that breaking mono-faction bonuses to bring one, instead of say a Baneblade or Astraeus that wouldn't break those bonuses, then I'd say that those units are severely out of balance with each other.

The Astraeus is an expensive FW kit, Knights were sold in double-packs for extremely cheap for a while.

 jeff white wrote:
Or just drop all that doctrine baloney and get back to simple force org charts, allowing superheavies either by casual agreement or if games are over the force org prescribed point limit, e.g. a stompa might be used in games over 2800pts if 25% of points can go to heavy support.

I agree on doctrines, terrible for newer players, I guess GW thinks they can coast on all the players that (re)joined in 8th for 10 years. The new CP cost format is way better, although good game design principles would say that rewording the rule to reward players for bringing fewer detachments instead of punishing those that bring more would be better for psychology reasons. Why should you have to bring Troops? Is it really so bad if someone wants to pay a few CP to not bring a Troops tax?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Making the FOC actually mean something would be a good step. The CP costs were a nice step in the right direction, but you can still basically bring whatever you want, making the 'limitations' of any one FOC essentially pointless.

When bringing whatever you want comes at a cost then it's not pointless, it's CP-pointsful.

bat702 wrote:
I honestly feel as tho Knights should be viable in imperial soup lists/chaos soup lists, and not just in knight only armies

I agree, it's not really fair of GW to keep SM in the gutter for more than a year forcing people to soup in a Knight to have a better chance and then make Knights totally useless in SM armies by layering a soup nerf with doctrines and a super doctrine. But no, it was specialist detachments that needed to get removed from the game. The rule that did not come for free automatically and created far lesser problems in terms of power creep, yeah, that one needed to get removed. The Necron Doctrines are so insignificant that they're not a problem if players really want to play multiple dynasties, but they still create problems for new players.

 vict0988 wrote:
When bringing whatever you want comes at a cost then it's not pointless, it's CP-pointsful.

The CP cost is a minor inconvenience, at worst.

The point is, if you have a limit of 3 Heavy Support choices, but can just pay a few CP to get 6 more... why have the limit in the first place? What you give up to get that is exceptionally minor. And again, like I said, making the extra FOCs cost CP was a step in the right direction compared to 8th, but it's still only a step. They need to keep walking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
When bringing whatever you want comes at a cost then it's not pointless, it's CP-pointsful.

The CP cost is a minor inconvenience, at worst.

The point is, if you have a limit of 3 Heavy Support choices, but can just pay a few CP to get 6 more... why have the limit in the first place? What you give up to get that is exceptionally minor. And again, like I said, making the extra FOCs cost CP was a step in the right direction compared to 8th, but it's still only a step. They need to keep walking.

The cost is an incentive to not do it, it's minor because otherwise it effectively stops being an option. We don't see triple detachment almost at all anymore and if you can build your list around a Battalion or Patrol then you will. So why should I not be able to bring a fourth HS choice?

I'd love for a way to make a ynnari wraithknight.

Take a SHA and a Shadowsword/Macharius Vanquisher and then give it Tank Ace: Steadfast Leviathan and presto! Your SHA now has Regimental Doctrine traits!

It's be nice if my Monoliths could do that.
If I want to play them, I'm almost better off scrounging for a third, then eat the 6 (not 3) CP for a Super Heavy Detachment.

 Slayer6 wrote:
Take a SHA and a Shadowsword/Macharius Vanquisher and then give it Tank Ace: Steadfast Leviathan and presto! Your SHA now has Regimental Doctrine traits!

And now you're out 4CP instead of "just" 3CP. And that only works for the Guard.