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.

Commanders across the board should be BS 3+ not 2+.

Also, they need their special order Montka ad Kouyon to be more useful with a larger range.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Carnikang wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

Funnily enough, Tyranids have one, the Tyranid Prime. It's woefully unused, as it doesn't really fit some lists, is slightly overcosted, and has a limited amount of options for it (for nids).

Personally, I could see a 0-1 for Flyrants, but I think restricting it to Flyrants, and not walking Tyrants, might be a solution. I don't think anyone would have issue with that.

It's the wrong fix.

Tyrants should give wings a melee profile (similar to scytal) and have wings replace a weapon. Then, give MRC a cost that is reasonable instead of free. If you have to choose between weapon options and mobility it becomes a much more difficult choice.

I like that solution too. Much better, and makes the unit more compelling to build and equip.

Well another case of GW changing style midway. But still it's bad change anyway if you do it for sake of balance.

a) if commander isn't broken there's no harm in spamming
b) if he is brokenly good for his points all this means is everybody takes 3 detachments and 3 commanders and makes game less scalable.

Hive Tyrants and Bikestodes Captains are the two that are most egregious about this. Malefic Lords could get their points unscrewed if they added this fix to them, too.

Make Primarchs limited to one per army, too, for when the Imperium gets Leman Russ at the end of the year.

GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Because the two ways to stop HQ spam for HQs worth spamming is either to limit them or nerf them and GW chose the former in this case.

The character targetting rules are a big part of it though.
Shooty HQs are a particular problem as they can stand back behind a wall of chaff and function at full effectiveness. By comparison support HQs are only as good as the units they support (who can be targetted freely) and close combat HQs need to make themselves targets to fight.

And while GW may have considered making it a universal rule they've neglected a couple of factions to the point where they would have to release new units first.

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

GW has been running this business strategy from years. I dont know if it is the right one, but this is what they are doing.

Why can some armies HQ spam and others can't?

Because different armies are different. HQs of one army don't equal HQs of another army. Having tons of HQs in one army may be broken while being fine in another army. You can't make sweeping generalizations like this in a game where the armies are so different.

My vehicle heavy guard army couldn't give two s**ts about HQs because I focus on artillery and not on ordering guardsmen around. Spamming tank commanders wouldn't be good because they're targettable without an invuln save so get knocked down easy.

 Crazyterran wrote:

Make Primarchs limited to one per army, too, for when the Imperium gets Leman Russ at the end of the year.

No chance! They'll want to sell Russ to as many people as possible

Russ, Guilliman, an Armiger, and you can still get 1000 points or so in a 2000 list, lol.

Im sure somoene can find a better and similiar costed LoW too,

Thats assuming Russ isnt some giant mutant that bounds across the battlefield to rip things apart, and closer in stature and abilities to Guilliman

You can't restrict Tyrants in the same way as T'au commanders because tyranids can just take Outrider detachments full of spores on the cheap. Y.ou'd need to change the tyrants rules. I don't think you can increase its points though because they already die pretty easily and then you're punishing the people who DON'T spam them.

I like the wings or MRC idea though.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
If they do put a limit on big boss HQs then I do hope we see them come out with a Lieutenant equivalent for every faction.

This is something I’d really like to see from a fluff perspective too. Would make it easier to run viable lists without having to resort to daft gak like multiple Warbosses, etc.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Because Commander Spam has already been killed. Perhaps that was missed?

Essentially GW want to kill off things that just abuse the rules too hard.

Tyranids are strong on multiple fronts, not just Flyrant spam. Essentially any Tyranid list is a reaction to other lists - in this case? Flyrants are a reaction to the current CSM/Eldar/SM lists floating about. If they changed the Tyranids would change.

I really doubt that being able to take 7 flyrents and deapstike them on whatever you want to shoot, charge etc is going to not be a game winning choice against most opponents.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

No... the real problem is Detachments, Cover/LoS, and Alpha strike.

There will ALWAYS be spam unless you change how detachments work
There will ALWAYS be alpha strike with shooting unless you make it harder to kill turn 1. This can lead to more melee armies being stronger so you need to balance it

Genestealers are strong, why dont we see mass amounts of them? B.c Alpha strike via Shooting and they cant be protected well from it, or you waste 100's of points getting them into melee and protecting them, rendering them over costed.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them -- that's probably why so many units end up so poorly balanced in the first place! It's very, very hard to get a good sense for how good something is per point by seeing what you think of it in real games where it only takes up ~10-20% of a list. Like, suppose that your one flyrant should actually be 25% more expensive. That'd mean that he's stupidly overpowered -- very little in the game could take a 25% point increase and remain playable -- but if you're only bringing one you probably wouldn't even notice the difference since we're only talking about a 50 point advantage in a 2000 point list.

Flyrants are actually extremely durable. A Leviathan flyrant with MRCs and twin devourers is almost as durable as a Rhino vs plasma, and Rhinos are paying just a bit more than 7 points per wound. They're sturdier than just about any tank out there, with great offense including psychic powers, huge mobility, and they even deep strike.

Commander Spam has been a thing for... 9 months now? Leaving aside whether it was overpowered/winning tournaments, its not unreasonable for GW to go "look, this wasn't intentional, we don't want players building lists this way, we are going to try and stop it."

Flyrant spam will probably get resolved the same way.

To fix spam period you need to fundamentally change the FOC. Currently it is too loose. You can take pretty much whatever you like, barring maybe a little tax here and there, and that is arguably done only to mop up some command points.

Right now taking multiples of the best unit is far better than taking a balanced list and potentially getting some more command points (but probably not).

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

And anecdotal evidence is math since when?

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Are you taking 7 flyrants? One Flyrant isnt Op. Its when spammed does it become obnoxious af.

 vaklor4 wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Are you taking 7 flyrants? One Flyrant isnt Op. Its when spammed does it become obnoxious af.

This most tac lists can handle one or two must kill units, it's when you face a wall of them you have no chance.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

I mean, yes, this is what I'm saying. What you're doing is a very unreliable way to form judgments about units. You're just throwing them in a list and then seeing how you feel about them, but your gut is really bad at this sort of thing. And of course you don't need to get very unlucky or lucky in order to form a totally wrong conclusion even if you're doing a great job of estimating how many points' worth of stuff they're distracting/killing/whatever.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

Yes, A hive tyrant is nothing special. Neither is A stormraven or A squad of conscripts or A manticore.

Most lists have no problem killing one hive tyrant so they just die. Taking 6+ is completely different.

The Deer Hunter wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

The Deer Hunter wrote:
GW has the problem of rules balance and sales.

Rules must not limiting sales, so the designers cannot make what is needed for game balance.

If matched play was limited to only one detachment instead of three, a lot of spam issues would be resolved.
But this cannot be done because of sales target.

Thats a flawed and short sighted argument. A good well balanced game sells more. Minor cash grabs don't work as well in the big picture.

GW has been running this business strategy from years. I dont know if it is the right one, but this is what they are doing.

Yeah and sales got worse and worse and worse until 8th came with a much better game with the indexes where things were significantly more balanced. 8th has been making them way more money then 6th or 7th and while it has balane issues it's nowhere near the issues 6th and 7th have had.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So with the Flyrant List bending Adepticon over a barrel and making it cry Uncle, I was thinking, why does GW think it's ok for some armies to HQ spam but not others?

Why is Commander spam verboten in matched play but Daemon Prince, Flyrant and Tank Commander acceptable? Why did they semi-ban Tempestus Command Squads but not other examples of horrific spamability?

Flyrants is as strong if not stronger than Commander spam.

Flyrants don't have Character protection.
Flyrants didn't have access to a bodyguard unit as effective as Drones were.
Flyrant weaponry tends to be very middle-ground.
Flyrants don't really have much access to invulnerable saves or 2+ saves.

Commander Spam literally abused bodyguard drones and character rules to chain immunity to targetting. They could also be kitted up for multiple targets with rather good weapons.

And yet in spite all of this, winning list takes 7 Flyrants, and Tau are never seen near the top tables....

Because Commander Spam has already been killed. Perhaps that was missed?

Essentially GW want to kill off things that just abuse the rules too hard.

Tyranids are strong on multiple fronts, not just Flyrant spam. Essentially any Tyranid list is a reaction to other lists - in this case? Flyrants are a reaction to the current CSM/Eldar/SM lists floating about. If they changed the Tyranids would change.

Adepticon was pre-Tau codex, the Tau players could have taken 11 Commanders if they really wanted to.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Melee flyrants aren't even that good. You can only do so much with 4 attacks (and a 5th psuedoattack). I think its more a problem with people prepping for dudespam and not being able to handle a bunch of big monsters. In my group my flyrant drops quickly to plasma and such after their initial charge.

This is not really true. In general you should probably rely on math for working out how durable and kill-y things are rather than your gut feeling about them --

Its funny that you say I shold use math instead of my gut feeling when I'm basing my opinion on my actual gameplay experience. Every time I've taken a hive tyrant it under-preforms.

I mean, yes, this is what I'm saying. What you're doing is a very unreliable way to form judgments about units. You're just throwing them in a list and then seeing how you feel about them, but your gut is really bad at this sort of thing. And of course you don't need to get very unlucky or lucky in order to form a totally wrong conclusion even if you're doing a great job of estimating how many points' worth of stuff they're distracting/killing/whatever.

Except I'm not just "throwing them in my lists". My lists are very considered and varied. I've tried different tyrants in different lists with different strategies and if they weren't one of my favorite unit I'd probably ditch them because Broodlords always accomplish more in my experience.

Here's the thing about tournaments, I would be absolutely willing to bet that the next big tournament people will tech to deal with flyrant spam. Probably with some other kind of spam. And after that, people will spam a counter spam to that, then a counter to that and on and on it goes. Spamming units is always going to be an issue for some lists and not for others and tournaments will devolve into who got lucky by avoiding bad match ups for their particular brand of spam. The sad thing is I don't think the tournament community is grown up enough to ever stop chasing spam and take all-comers lists to avoid a spam-roulette situation from happening.