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.

As a CP starved Necron player I'd be absolutely thrilled for a 31pt HQ to fill that expensive FOC slot. And one that comes with a +1 Ld buff? and reroll morale? Awesome!

(not sure if any other metal heads have laid their eerie green gaze at this thread yet, gave up reading it all on page 5)

torblind wrote:
As a CP starved Necron player I'd be absolutely thrilled for a 31pt HQ to fill that expensive FOC slot. And one that comes with a +1 Ld buff? and reroll morale? Awesome!

(not sure if any other metal heads have laid their eerie green gaze at this thread yet, gave up reading it all on page 5)

Commissars are Elite.
I've been following this thread too. I play Guard and Necrons.

Oh, then I should have read all those other pages, my bad!

That said, Lord Commissars are only a little bit more expensive at 55 points, which I'm sure the Necrons would gladly take as well (especially since the Lord version is leadership 9).

We'd have flat Ld10 on the ones that need it, but the +1 Ld and reroll are always welcome, and at some 50 points, greatly so! Low T and bad save don't matter, our HQs die first thing caught in the open.

Being where Necrons are right now, means we can always provide perspective to anyone moaning over their nerfs, but I'll not derail this thread any further.

If Necrons had ~30pt HQs, Trazyn might actually be semi-function.

 vipoid wrote:
If Necrons had ~30pt HQs, Trazyn might actually be semi-function.

He would! That'd be an interesting play. (He needs characters, not HQs, so dirt cheap commissars would be just fine!)

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?

I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.

At that point it's probably no longer be soup, but SOUPer Friends.

Dohohoho

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?

I do.

I miss those days.

No, don't take Celestine away from my mixed imperium/inquisition/custodes/sos/wathever army!

At least not without giving me Sisters of Battle in plastic.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?

I do.

Yeah, or just 'required opponents permission'.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

At that point it's probably no longer be soup, but SOUPer Friends.

Dohohoho

Of SOUPer soldiers!

I am all for taking access to IC's away if you're not fielding them in a detachment of their own forces.

Allied detachments are great, since they allow you to field an army while still building it up to strength to field on its own, however, I don't think they've been particularly well implemented.



I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?

I do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Funny, I keep getting told Magnus sucks.

I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.

I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.

At that point it's probably no longer be soup, but SOUPer Friends.

Dohohoho

Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so

Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.

Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.

Yes, because using the units in your own codex is a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly.

 vipoid wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.

Yes, because using the units in your own codex is a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly.

I assume the same exceptions would apply for ogryns, Fabius Bile, etc as they do currently.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so

Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.

Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.

And yet when he was back in C: Daemonhunters(where, FYI, he was available for IG to take), we didn't see him being super crazy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I am all for taking access to IC's away if you're not fielding them in a detachment of their own forces.

Allied detachments are great, since they allow you to field an army while still building it up to strength to field on its own, however, I don't think they've been particularly well implemented.



I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.

No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.

What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.

What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.

Except nobody is really doing soup armies of Imperials and Necrons or Chaos.
Guard, Marines, etc are considered "factions".

In any regards, that's the whole reason keyword "Regiment", "Craftworld", etc exist. It's a penalty for not sticking within a grouping.

GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.

What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.

Except nobody is really doing soup armies of Imperials and Necrons or Chaos.
Guard, Marines, etc are considered "factions".

In any regards, that's the whole reason keyword "Regiment", "Craftworld", etc exist. It's a penalty for not sticking within a grouping.

Except they didn't really make the system cost. If the system limited bonuses to the top level keyword, ie get cadian bonus only if all detachments share cadian that would work. Ultimately they probably should have done that and then special ruled things like inquisitors.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).

Agreed. And what is the point have having keyword "Imperium?" Why not just keyword "Keywordless?"

When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?

When I talk about soup, it's typically chicken noodle, though I'm partial to gazpacho too.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so

Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.

Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.

As an excellent purchase but not necessarily auto-take (though with that fluff you'll take the badass every time).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you're clearly talking Grey Knights not Daemon Hunters. Which could still ally with Guard so...

Esmer wrote:
When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?

I would consider that soup, yes. Unfortunately GW underestimated how free-for-all the detachment system is, you can take basically whatever you want as long as you have cheap enough HQ's.

Esmer wrote:
When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?

I would count that as soup yes.
Soup imo is any army (not detachment) that uses multiple codexes

A detachment is pretty cheap to use if you want to for most armies. Its not hard to write a list with a Sisters detachment, a Marine detachment and a Guard detachment, letting you cherry pick the strongest units while maintaining strong codex traits.

Have units that aren't the same faction as your warlord cost 10% more matched play points.

Exceptions where appropriate (eg, Ogryns, Phoenix Lords).

Call it Logistical Demands or something.