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.

The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

That's what I assume as well, the problem becomes where you'd draw the arbritrary line for "restriction worthy" though

Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Why would you move Platoon Commanders to HQ?

Tau had sub-commanders, in 4th.

And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

That's incorrect, there are detachments that only require 1 HQ slot - in theory you never have to take more than Commanders at current. In practice it means 3 suits and 1 other HQ.

Meant to type battalion detachment and skipped the battalion....

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

My all suits list already pretty much conformed to the restrictions because I wanted to eschew troops. Anyone who is bitchy at this point just wants to have his cake and get to spend it on CP rerolls too

gendoikari87 wrote:
Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

I think part of the problem my be that GW in their wisdom want all instances of a certain weapon to have the same points value, and because HQs often have 2+ WS/BS and a boatload of attacks they can get a lot more out of the weapon than a regular grunt. Do you cost the HQ assuming they will max out on weaponry though, as that makes them overcosted if they take less weapons?

Mark.

Ironically, Hive Tyrants have unique point costs for all their weapons except Monstrous Rending Claws.

Everyone agrees that Monstrous Rending Claws should be nerfed by a point cost (currently free).

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
The problem with these restrictions really is that there are too few HQ options. We need more lieutenant-like HQs.
- Tau get sub-commander
- IG platoon commanders move to HQ
- Admech get skitarii HQ
etc...

Otherwise it's just wonky.

Why would you move Platoon Commanders to HQ?

Mostly because I dislike running 2+ company commanders for a single "platoon".
They're also in the way for things like veterans, special weapons teams and command squads. A platoon commander and his command squad take up 2 elite slots for 5 infantry models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

I don't understand why people are expecting full HQ restrictions. Ethereals are not restricted and they won't restrict weaker infantry type models. It's the monsters and such that would get hit.

I would rather have a fair limitation applied to all factions as part of the core of army building. So marine captains are limited to 1, same with IG company commanders, techpriest dominus etc... Because if anything were to be limited it should be HQs. However, many factions can't handle that limit too well due to the lack of HQ options, and the multiple HQs required for detachments. To solve this, every faction would need weaker spammable HQs to make up for it.

Until then, any restriction is a bad idea.

Give Tau a sub-commander though and I'll stop caring about the commander limit.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Personally if the hq is point balanced restrictions shouldn’t be necessary


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just jack the hive tyrant up 50 points

This is true but also very very hard to do with units that so wildly more efficient than others. For a Tau Coldstar as it exists in the current codex, I personally would want to see it at between 275-350 points but I know for a FACT that the first tau player who reads this would disagree by a factor of at least 100pts.

How did you come up with that value?
They are 180 points for 4 fusion anyway which is compairable to in points coat to a fuad las predator. Ok its 20 inch move but weapon range is 18 so 38 inch 58 is advancing thats 10 inch more than a predator, t5 vrs t7 6w vrs 11w not seeing the justification for adding 100 to 150 points over a predator.

point stuff on a sliding scale

across the board, a bit like how HH handles some units, so a unit costs "X" per model, but expanding it costs "Y"

could do the same with HQ, one costs "X" additional ones start to get more expensive

Ice_can wrote:
How did you come up with that value?
They are 180 points for 4 fusion anyway which is compairable to in points coat to a fuad las predator. Ok its 20 inch move but weapon range is 18 so 38 inch 58 is advancing thats 10 inch more than a predator, t5 vrs t7 6w vrs 11w not seeing the justification for adding 100 to 150 points over a predator.

I can see a trend of coldstars becoming character/priority target assassin's.

That's what I immediately thought of once I saw the changes.

Declare Mont'ka and that 40" move ideally would get you close enough or in a position where the character rule won't affect you.

Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

 davou wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
And tau desperately need them back, or to remove the commander limit, otherwise you liturally can't make a FSE detachment without a fireblade (who is a really bad fit), and anyone other than T'au are forced to take either fireblade or ethereal so tau are basically forcesd to be infantry gunlines. (t'au has longstrike, so they have SOME way around it)

My all suits list already pretty much conformed to the restrictions because I wanted to eschew troops. Anyone who is bitchy at this point just wants to have his cake and get to spend it on CP rerolls too

Or, yaknow, have kroot or breachers as troops-who actually fit FSE playstyle and flavor far more than static gunlines?


How can anyone stand behind a decision to FORCE gunline on tau players as a good decision is beyond me.

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

The Salamanders trait is overall a joke. The HQ units you're running are basically gonna give you the same benefit. I'd rather have seen them get something akin to the Lucius (which really would show them as Artisans instead of getting an overall redundant rule).

LoyalGuardsman69 wrote:
Hopefully Space Marines will see a points increase for using some of the more spammed chapter tactics. They complain about not having enough CP but when you're basically using 10 CP every shooting phase (salamanders) its hard to take seriously.

...well...and there is the problem that they are cheating if they are spending 10 CP in a single shooting phase (I assume you mean they are spending it on their flamer stratagem since you referenced a "points increase for spammed chapter tactics"). They can only spend it 1x per shooting phase.

The only SM Stratagem that really needs fixing (as in, a nerf) is RG Strike from the Shadows. That's the only one that can be "spammed". And if they nerf that, then they need to buff at least 7 other Space Marine stratagems that never get used because they are so unit-model specific and/or crappy;

Linebreaker
Killshot
Orbital Bombardment
Empyric Channeling
Datalink Telemetry
Tactical Flexibility
Armor of Contempt

He meant that Salamander units can re-roll either a hit or wound roll each round without expending a CP. So 10 Salamander units each taking advantage of a re-roll is equivalent to spending 10CP.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
He meant that Salamander units can re-roll either a hit or wound roll each round without expending a CP. So 10 Salamander units each taking advantage of a re-roll is equivalent to spending 10CP.

Ok I understand now, thank you. In fairness, I don't think he really expressed that idea supremely well.

Still...not sure I'm tracking...They basically kinda get 1/5 of a Captain or 1/5 of a Lieutenant in every unit? This is broken/needs a nerf?

I've literally not heard a single person say that Salamanders need or might need nerfing. Nor have I heard anyone think it, dream it or feel it, in a 500 mile radius either. There's really only 2 competitive Space Marine options; Guilliman bubbles and Raven Guard SftS alphas with Vanguard/Aggressors/Assault Centurions. That's about it. And even the those aren't what I would call dominating.

It seems like all you need is a thread calling for x to get nerfed, and there are immediately supporters chiming in. Kind of amusing, really.

so it's march 30.... no faq..... come on GW you promised the faq in march and september and you're going to miss the first deadline? C'mon.

They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Personally, I found it hilarious that people started complaining about the FAQ deadline being missed at around noon on March 1st.

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

They've only missed the deadline of March - there was no deadline before that.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 Farseer_V2 wrote:
They specifically said they were taking time to consider Adepticon feedback and were pushing the FAQ back as a result.

Irrelevant. They knew when adepticon was. they knew the deadline they set. AND THEY MISSED THE FIRST ONE. C'Mon people.that does NOT engender faith in the new system

And as has been previously mentioned, had they released the FAQ this week without having a chance to consider Adepticon, there would have been an uproar about how "issue x, which Adepticon clearly showed, was in no way addressed by this FAQ!" There would have been questions about why they didn't delay and complaints about how we now have to wait until September to see the fix.