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.
ERJAK wrote: 2 things, 1 why are you getting CP for patrol detachments? Is that a dark eldar thing? I haven't looked too much at their book but patrol detachments for other armies don't get give any CP. Seems like an odd army benefit.
Second, I would like to say that I have only seen the 3 detachment limit bypassed in matched play events for 2 reasons 1. Because going all out with whatever you can fit was the point of the tournament. 2. WAAC people taking advantage of TOs that didn't know any better to run their theorycraft turbo cheese.
Yes, it's a drukhari thing. They get bonus command points for running either 3+ or 6+ patrol detachments because kabals, wych cults, and haemonculus covens each have their own choices for subfactions, which means you can't combine kabal and wych cult, or wych cult and haemonculus covens, etc., in the same detachment and still get the benefit of their subfaction special rules.
And, I'm still pretty sure nobody is talking about tournaments bypassing the limit of three detachments. That was just the person you quoted misunderstanding the topic at-hand. The discussion is about some tournaments placing a limit of 1 on each type of detachment, making it illegal for instance to run two spearheads or two supreme commands, which is relevant because of the aforementioned bonus for drukhari taking three patrols.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/12 03:27:26
I'd rather have 6 hive tyrants be mandatory for every army regardless of faction than be forced down to 3 of the same unit choice max, and no that isn't hyperbole. 318$ seems like a fair trade.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/12 05:18:26
Ice_can wrote: How is a CCHQ with a 2+ invuln a weak unit?
No innate delivery system, the save goes away at your first failed one (and you can't even spend command points for a reroll), and decent damage output relies heavily on relics and warlord traits. An archon with a Djinn Blade and solid warlord trait is a force to be reckoned with (assuming you take the resources to get him in there), but every Archon after that is a tax.
As an HQ, he's also lacking since his buff aura does nothing to support the units that you'd want to take him with anyway. The court all get their own buff for being in range that supersedes his own, Incubi are not affected at all, there are no <Kabal> units that want to see combat where he clearly wants to be, and his delivery system requires him to be in a transport where he can't buff his own units, and those units themselves also are usually in transport where they can't receive those buffs anyway.
In the context of fluff, a debuff aura or targetted ability would make much more sense, and in terms of gameplay, it would work much better with the army he's meant to support. But as things stand, you're either paying for a beatstick that requires more investment than you can duplicate across the multiple ones you'll need to run more than a patrol, or a ravager buff slave that invests in moderate close-combat potency that he'll never really get to use. Either way, it really does not make sense on a conceptual level.
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
Barnyard Brawl, a GT on the weekend of the 28th, has done that.
Most of the big events did plan around the FAQ releases – the guy running then London GT for example told me that the event was set with prior knowledge of the probably schedule taken into account.
They also usually have list deadlines, which also mark a “cut off” point for things like new codices and faqs etc.
What most events however cannot account for, is the sudden, massive delay on GWs side.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
If you don't care about balance as "anything goes" shouldn't you be proposing open play for tournaments then? Bring whatever you can! Balanced match of skills isn't goal of tournament games after all.
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
Matched Play doesn't have a Detachment limit.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 09:36:09
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I expect TO's will relax that for Patrol Detachments. Sure you can 'soup' with them, but you also lose a bunch of CPs. Dark Eldar should still be able to take advantage of them though, simply because their entire book is more or less a take on 'soup'.
Nah I doubt they will relax it, simply because I don’t think it’ll see much use (if any) in tournament play.
3 Patrols will get you 7CP, but, 1 Battalion and 2 mini detachments gets you 8CP. If you want to take Reavers you’ll prob take an outrider to have more than 2 units. If you want Talos, a spearhead is accessible. This can easily be rounded out by a kabalite battalion for example. You can still include a patrol if you want, and you’ll end up with the same 7CP.
I think the current belief is by going for all 3 you are causing more harm than you are getting in benefits, and the better way to go is to stop at 2.
That honestly seems to be a bad way to run that rule. "It won't see use, so we'll ban it" seems...counter-intuitive. Maybe it would see use, but not be as effective. Should be allowed either way. The real rule we should relax is ignoring detachments that do not provide CP when applying the Highlander and max detachments rules. I think we'd see a bit more use of fortifications if they only ever cost points.
Not all tournaments are doing this – only a few currently, so it’s not really going to have that much of an impact overall.
That said, not being able to run 3 patrol detachments also isn’t going to have that much of an impact either imo. Sure, it’s a neat interaction and opportunity, but, in reality – and top table games at events, I doubt you’ll see this being used.
As for the HQ tax – it’s essentially up to ~80 points, but of course completely depends on your list. 80 points for, not only +1CP, but also the option to further shape my army seems like a no brainer to me. Patrols are handy if needed, but, with only 2 slots for non-troops it’s very restrictive and you’ll often be looking at getting that 3rd fast attack or heavy support option – but doing so will often risk loosing detachment bonuses. Sure, you could run a 3 cabal patrol list, but, at that point, for 1 extra HQ you could prob just run 2 battalions instead and get +2CP.
Also, if you want to restrict detachments that give CP, you can’t then ignore it when 3 of 1 detachment provide extra CP, it is, somewhat backwards in itself.
I haven't actually seen a tournament that doesn't apply a 3 detachment limit, but I'll accept that you've seen one or two and that they exist. However, as GW is the one who established that suggested limit in the first place, I'd say it's probably more common than not. Keep in mind that without it, an effective army could run 3 patrol detachments and another more focused detachment to fit in the units you want rather than being forced to pay HQ and troop taxes in order to maintain the obsessions. The funny part about this is that we'll never know how effective that flexibility could be because it's outright disallowed, and as you pointed out, it's not because it's strong - it is seemingly disallowed because somebody decided it isn't strong enough, which is super weird.
This, this, this!! The only reason its disallowed is because people have decided they dont want to change anything, and in their view it isnt important enough to DE to need a change.
I think people who dont play DE really struggle to understand the army. Or at least they dont think things through properly. DE have very few units, especially now the book is split in 3.
People who say that taking a brigade is better? Please. Go try to make a brigade. You cut out 2/3 of the book as you aren't taking anything else after that. We aren't that cheap. Also it cuts down your options as you find you only have 1, maybe 2 choices per slot.
We can make good lists without patrols, but there is no reason not to make an exception. It doesn't have to effect any other army.
There also are many potential problems with what could come in the FAQ.
0-1 HQ limit? Cripples DE.
Highlander? Very tough.
3 max limit on non troops including transports? Are you kidding?!?
Also think about Harlequins. How are they supposed to deal with any of this with 8 units in their book?
Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
Tournaments are a match of skill. Its just that we often conflict what skill it is a match of.
40k tournaments are a match of skill. The skill being how good you are at discrete mathematics and probability calculations (both listbuilding and target priorities)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Ok, let’s look at DE logically.
Kabals – 2 HQs, 1 troop, 3 elites, 1 fast, 3 heavy, 2 flyer, 2 transport (not 7 elite, 4 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman)
Wytch – 3 HQs, 1 troop, 4 elite, 3 fast, 2 heavy, 2 flyer, 2 transport (not 6 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman)
Coven – 3 HQs, 1 troop, 3 elite, 1 fast, 4 heavy, 0 Flyer, 2 transport (not 4 fast. Oops. Ty Scotsman )
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Colonel Cabbage wrote: [spoiler]
This, this, this!! The only reason its disallowed is because people have decided they dont want to change anything, and in their view it isnt important enough to DE to need a change.
I think people who dont play DE really struggle to understand the army. Or at least they dont think things through properly. DE have very few units, especially now the book is split in 3.
People who say that taking a brigade is better? Please. Go try to make a brigade. You cut out 2/3 of the book as you aren't taking anything else after that. We aren't that cheap. Also it cuts down your options as you find you only have 1, maybe 2 choices per slot.
We can make good lists without patrols, but there is no reason not to make an exception. It doesn't have to effect any other army.
There also are many potential problems with what could come in the FAQ.
0-1 HQ limit? Cripples DE.
Highlander? Very tough.
3 max limit on non troops including transports? Are you kidding?!?
Also think about Harlequins. How are they supposed to deal with any of this with 8 units in their book?
Not sure where the “0-1 HQ” limit has come from. I’ve not seen that anywhere myself. Everything has been rumoured to be set to 0-3 bar troops.
Highlander is also different from what I believe – something like, “you can only take a 2nd of each unit until you have 1 of everything” or something like that. This is 0-3 of each datasheet.
Every army can take 3 units of everything and still be massively above 2000 points. The only one that doesn’t is Harlequinns – and even then a min everything (and only 3 troops) comes to a total of 1985 points. Bulk up the jetbikes, hand out some standard upgrades, and you are suddenly way past the 2000 points. Can you make a “competitive” list though without spamming transports? Maybe, maybe not. BUT, their codex is round the corner and it potentially changes things in that regard.
Guard break 3000 points before they even start adding in upgrades or heavy support units lol.
However, I do agree on the transport front in a way – but, even then it only really affects Harlequinns, Eldar, T’au and Nids. All the other armies have 2+ forms of transport/units that can transport models. Does it suck that you won’t be able to run 6-10 Venoms? Yeah I guess, but, wouldn’t it also be good to see 3 Raiders added into a list for once? 3 10 man Kabalites in 3 Raiders is 435 points before upgrades, so it’s not like you won’t be able to fill out 2k lists.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 13:26:03
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Lets look at DE through the lens of someone who might actually know what they're talking about.
Kabal: 1 unique HQ (Drazar, who is both terrible, and limited to 0-1 in your army, and you've counted him as an HQ for each subfaction), 1 standard HQ. 1 standard troop. 2 elites that actually fill elite slots (Courts of the archon, which you've counted as 4 elites, don't function as such because they never fill slots). 1 fast attack, I have zero idea where you're getting 4 from here, they get Scourges. 1 Codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld Heavies. 2 flyers.
Wyches: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 troop. 3 elites, no idea where you're getting 4 from, they get Incubi beastmasters and Mandrakes. I suppose you could be counting Bloodbrides from the index, which you could take if you...liked spending more points for no reason to make one of your troops not obsec? Bloodbrides are literally the definition of a non-option at this point, their stats, abilities, weaponry and options are IDENTICAL to current wyches except theyre not troops and cost like 5ppm more. Reavers Hellions and Scourges make 3 fast attacks, not sure what the 4th is unless you're counting...all the beasts as a fast attack slot for some reason? Beasts don't take up slots either. 2 Forgeworld heavy, no codex heavy. 2 flyers.
Covens: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 Troop. 3 Elites. 1 fast, it is impossible for you to have misconstrued something for the additional 3 coven fast here, this is just a lie, they get Scourges and that's it. 2 codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld heavy. 0 flyer.
your example of "1 battalion, 1 vanguard, 1 spearhead" of Kabal gives you the following:
4 mandatory, predetermined HQs - you MUST take the terrible Drazar and 3 terrible Archons.
3 mandatory, predetermined Troops - you MUST take 3 squads of Kabalites
3 of your choice between good Mandrakes and Terrible Incubi - we're assuming you're going to a tournament, so I suppose we'll say 3 mandatory mandrakes.
3 of either your 1 choice out of the codex, or 2 forgeworld units. Keep in mind at this point that one of those forgeworld units is essentially a Ravager that costs more points and has a heavy gun instead of an assault gun with an identical damage profile and defensive profile.
The choices you get to make with your army list are:
-What are my 3 kabalite squads riding in?
-What relic and warlord trait do I want?
-What do I equip my 3 ravagers and 3 kabalites with?
-Do I buy a 200$ tantalus instead of 1 ravager?
and that's it. Realistically, that's 1400 points bare minimum of completely locked in mandatory choices.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
Ehm.. And what point are you trying to proof? If I build a cabal only army I will obviously be locked into cabal only units. The onld "bad" thing I see in your example is 4 HQs instead of 3.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
Lets look at DE through the lens of someone who might actually know what they're talking about.
Kabal: 1 unique HQ (Drazar, who is both terrible, and limited to 0-1 in your army, and you've counted him as an HQ for each subfaction), 1 standard HQ. 1 standard troop. 2 elites that actually fill elite slots (Courts of the archon, which you've counted as 4 elites, don't function as such because they never fill slots). 1 fast attack, I have zero idea where you're getting 4 from here, they get Scourges. 1 Codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld Heavies. 2 flyers.
Wyches: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 troop. 3 elites, no idea where you're getting 4 from, they get Incubi beastmasters and Mandrakes. I suppose you could be counting Bloodbrides from the index, which you could take if you...liked spending more points for no reason to make one of your troops not obsec? Bloodbrides are literally the definition of a non-option at this point, their stats, abilities, weaponry and options are IDENTICAL to current wyches except theyre not troops and cost like 5ppm more. Reavers Hellions and Scourges make 3 fast attacks, not sure what the 4th is unless you're counting...all the beasts as a fast attack slot for some reason? Beasts don't take up slots either. 2 Forgeworld heavy, no codex heavy. 2 flyers.
Covens: 2 unique HQs (Including aforementioned Drazar) one of which is limited to one subfaction. 1 standard HQ. 1 Troop. 3 Elites. 1 fast, it is impossible for you to have misconstrued something for the additional 3 coven fast here, this is just a lie, they get Scourges and that's it. 2 codex Heavy, 2 Forgeworld heavy. 0 flyer.
My bad on the court of the Archon – didn’t realise they didn’t take slots. As for the fast attack, mistake again as the 3 beasts are listed as available for each of the 3 factions – when in fact they can only be Cults due to the Beastmaster requirement… Downfall of quick checks at work, a bad memory and battlescribe!
As for Drazhar being terrible, it isn’t an excuse as to make something “impossible”. Rather it is an excuse to address his imbalance, which would be highlighted to a bigger degree if these restrictions were put in place?
He also has to be counted as a possible for each faction, because, he can be taken in each faction. Can’t argue there isn’t options, just because some of them are “bad”.
Again, in regards to Wytch Cults – Sure, Lelith is limited to 1 sub-faction, but, is still an option. Same as Bloodbrides. Just because they might be deemed “not up to scratch” doesn’t disgard them from being there as an option should you need extra units. Yeah, mistake on beasts and slots :/
Covens, same as Wytch Cults really.
(I’ve now updated my original post to reflect the corrections you’re highlighted)
In terms of forgeworld, they can’t be discounted from the “options” list, just because they are FW.
the_scotsman wrote: your example of "1 battalion, 1 vanguard, 1 spearhead" of Kabal gives you the following:
4 mandatory, predetermined HQs - you MUST take the terrible Drazar and 3 terrible Archons.
3 mandatory, predetermined Troops - you MUST take 3 squads of Kabalites
3 of your choice between good Mandrakes and Terrible Incubi - we're assuming you're going to a tournament, so I suppose we'll say 3 mandatory mandrakes.
3 of either your 1 choice out of the codex, or 2 forgeworld units. Keep in mind at this point that one of those forgeworld units is essentially a Ravager that costs more points and has a heavy gun instead of an assault gun with an identical damage profile and defensive profile.
The choices you get to make with your army list are:
-What are my 3 kabalite squads riding in?
-What relic and warlord trait do I want?
-What do I equip my 3 ravagers and 3 kabalites with?
-Do I buy a 200$ tantalus instead of 1 ravager?
and that's it. Realistically, that's 1400 points bare minimum of completely locked in mandatory choices.
So, for 3 Archons, Drazhar, 3 min Kabalite squads, 1 Incubi and 2 Mandrakes, 3 Ravagers, 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms a list comes in at 1548 points. Is that any good? Highly likely, no, but, it is an example of what you can do. Most DE lists now will prob be running an Airwing/flyers competitively anyway, which, at min cost, costs 405 points.
We both know that the likelihood of you running a competitive, Kabal only, list at events is a very small.
If you could build a competitive dark eldar army right now, what would you take? I’m personally thinking a Kabal or Coven Battalion, a Wytch Outriders and a Kabal Air Wing. Which, for me clocks in around 2000 points and wouldn’t be impacted by these potential restrictions at all.
Now, if you did want to run full Kabal, and weren’t going to a competitive event, then, as I’ve said before, there will probably be no issue between you and your mates/club if you relaxed the restriction every so often.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 13:28:05
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. That being said it is doable. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports. 2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored. 3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators. 4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/04/12 13:52:41
There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty. - Lord Inquisitor Fyodor Karamazov
In an Imperium of a million worlds, what is the death of one world in the cause of purity?~Inquisition credo
He who allows the alien to live, shares its crime of existence. ~Inquisitor Apollyon
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
It would be fine if everyone had good options but not all armies do. And I play a solo Inquistion army. No soup. Or I play Inquisition souped with sisters of silence.
It does hurt my GK because I run 6 units of interceptors for more deepstrike. I only run one GMDK though. Also that 1 cp from the extra 3 Interceptors is huge. I have the perfect number of cp allowing me to use all my big stratagems once and one left for an important re-roll.
Again I'd be okay with this if everyone had plenty of balanced options.
You mentioned FW, my local tournaments disallow FW so you can take all of those out of what's available to me.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 14:35:36
There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty. - Lord Inquisitor Fyodor Karamazov
In an Imperium of a million worlds, what is the death of one world in the cause of purity?~Inquisition credo
He who allows the alien to live, shares its crime of existence. ~Inquisitor Apollyon
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
While I sort of agree with your point, that seems an overly harsh way of phrasing it - how were these events meant to know GW wouldn't stick to their publicly advertised schedule when it came to issuing the "March" FAQ?
And by sort of agree, I think all tournaments should have a section in the rules pack clearly stating that any army books, FAQs, etc, released within 30 days of the event are considered not to be valid...
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
macluvin wrote: As for how FAQs affect Tournaments, why don’t TO’s holding tournaments around FAQ season simply set a deadline for when the last rules errata and possibly FAQ answers to be applied to their tournament? Or, just organize tournaments not around FAQ season...
While I sort of agree with your point, that seems an overly harsh way of phrasing it - how were these events meant to know GW wouldn't stick to their publicly advertised schedule when it came to issuing the "March" FAQ?
And by sort of agree, I think all tournaments should have a section in the rules pack clearly stating that any army books, FAQs, etc, released within 30 days of the event are considered not to be valid...
Kind of funny if a tournament douesn't do that. 8th ed is such a big and overt WIP that you just can't plan for what GW cooks up next.
Nehekhara lives! Sort of!
Why is the rum always gone?
So, DE will be the only ones to potentially struggle with limits if they want more than 2 detachments and can’t take 3 patrols, due to them only getting access to 3 Archons and Drazhar. Technically all 3 have access to 3 transports (Tantalus can transport but is classed as a heavy) in addition to having deep strike options. Wytches only have the Tantalus and Ravager for heavy, so, they aren’t likely to run multiple spearheads.
If you are looking to build a “fluffly” multi-sourced army of a Kabal, Cult and Coven detachment each, you will have no problem what so ever finding enough unique units to run 3 different detachments – you won’t have the space in a 2k point list to really add in what you want, but, it is very very possible to do.
If you want to run just 2 detachments, then you’re getting the same amount of CP (very likely) as you would if you ran 3 patrol detachments… So, no real benefit from running 3 patrols. You also still have enough individual units to not be bothered by the 3 unit limit.
Taking Kabals as an example – 1 battalion, 1 spearhead and 1 vanguard as an example – you’d easily make it waaaaaaaaaaaaaay past 2000 points before you even start to get close to maxing out on each of the units.
You need to remember, that if this rule comes in, it will likely ONLY affect tournaments. Playing at home/at a club etc you can happily just ignore the ruling and run 3 patrol detachments. This is something that really needs to be highlighted more. You also have to realise, that if said rule does come in for matched play, it will probably scale by points. Max of 3 at 2k points, max of 4 at 3k points etc, so you won’t be limited there either.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Dark Eldar need to be the exception to the rule. Simple as that, because their Codex has been designed with lots of Patrol Detachments in mind.
I myself remain sceptical as to how effective tournament based limits actually are. And that's because reading a great many comments on line, it seems that to date they've not prevented Really Hard Lists, so much as simply changed what constitutes Really Hard Lists.
dingdingdingding.
Blanket restrictions that are applied to everybody and are intended to hurt Really Strong Thing generally hurt Really Weak Thing much more.
If you take the approach "Ok, seems like everybody's spamming Custodes Shield Captains and Tau Commanders and Tyranid Hive Tyrants! If we make it so every HQ is 0-1 per detachment in matched, that problem is 100% SOLVED!" Suddenly every Tau list is going to be bringing detachments with 1 super strong commander and 1 other less optimal choice, every Nid army is doing the same with hive tyrants, etc. And every faction with only one HQ choice is suddenly disallowed from ever taking a Battalion detachment.
Which is why the limit seems to be a max of 3, rather than 1?
The issue isn't maxing units with DE it's that you have an hq tax that really hurts DE, and no other army has to worry as much about taking the units that aren't great. You also have the issue of transports. Only being able to take 3 of each transport will really hurt DE. I play a little DE, (I used to run Ynnari. Not Ynnari/craftsworld reaper spam but straight Ynnari) so I have some of all of the Aeldari sitting around. Looking through this codex I can say making 3 patrols with lots of transports would definitely be preferable for me. The armies that really get hurt by this 1-3 non troops are;
1. Harlequins, but they cold still manage if it wasn't for only 3 transports.
2. Inquisition, I don't see how they could survive with this change. Especially when you factor in the no souping that's been rumored.
3. Sisters of Battle, I've seen very few sisters armies that used 3 or less dominions, seraphims, and especially immolators.
4. Sisters of Silence, I was already wondering how they'd do these but this kills them even more.
It also hurts my Grey Knights but I'll live. If the no souping comes into play it'll hurt my GK, inquisition, sisters, army I've wanted to run but I guess that's just a personal problem
That’s the thing though. The HQ tax is either set at 3 HQs or 4 HQs – so, you’re essentially paying up to 89 points (if your taking Drazhar, 120) for +1CP. Sure, it’s a little bit of a tax, but, it isn’t completely without benefit.
I agree on the transports being a bit of a pain, but at a cost of 480 points for 3 Raiders and 3 Venoms it can be worked around in competitive play.
Harlequinns, I mentioned before, currently clock in at just under 2k points in a list with this kind of restriction and when taking NO upgrades. Sure, it means you have 3 Death Jests, 3 Shadowseers and 1 Solitare footslogging, but they also have the webway stratagem, meaning you can max out a squad of troops and then use the 3rd transport for the characters. Their codex is also coming soon, so things might change.
Inquision and Sisters of Silence I’m not counting as an army right now. You only ever see these as part of soup armies right now, and in soup armies they won’t be affected by the restrictions anyway as you’re not usually spamming their units.
SoB have 3 transport options. As for the fact that you don’t usually see an army of them that isn’t spamming certain units, isn’t an excuse to no restrict said spam. Besides, if they need more Dominions, they can still run 30 of them.
Does it affect Grey Knights that much? You can still spam Interceptors, due to 3, 10-man squads and being able to combat squad them. Can still take 3 Grand Master Dreadknights etc.
To be honest, all the discussions I’ve seen on here in relation to this potential restriction, makes me a little concerned for the state of the game overall. Because tournaments are won usually by spam, people seem to think that half the units in the codices don’t exist. People are too scared to try things and hang onto pre-conceived conceptions. I’ve had the benefit of being out of the hobby for a few years, so I can come back and evaluate a lot of things without bias or “this is bad even though I’ve never tried it” opinions. I genuinely think this kind of restriction would be good for players, events and the game overall – once we get past the initial complaints and get down to playing the game.
It would be fine if everyone had good options but not all armies do. And I play a solo Inquistion army. No soup. Or I play Inquisition souped with sisters of silence.
It does hurt my GK because I run 6 units of interceptors for more deepstrike. I only run one GMDK though. Also that 1 cp from the extra 3 Interceptors is huge. I have the perfect number of cp allowing me to use all my big stratagems once and one left for an important re-roll.
Again I'd be okay with this if everyone had plenty of balanced options.
You mentioned FW, my local tournaments disallow FW so you can take all of those out of what's available to me.
I’d love to see your Inquision army! It’s not something I have the pleasure of seeing very often, so it’s always a treat!
I agree, that the loss of the 1CP hurts Grey Knights more than it should, but I feel that that is something that needs to be addressed with GKs as a whole, as opposed to a reason not to do something like this. I accept that that isn’t exactly the best way to go about it for the Grey Knights, but GKs need a bigger fix overall.
I agree, if there were way more balanced options, then this discussion would be a hell of a lot easier, and a change that could get supported by more of the community, but, I also see this as a potential means to that end. By reducing the ability to just spam the top 2-3 units, you introduce a situation where some of the lesser units are introduced into game play. You can then start to use that to start to address more of the units at once, as opposed to waiting for the next spam list to appear, nerf it, then the next etc etc. It’ll take time to get through it, but, it’ll certainly be quicker this way then doing it one at a time every 2 or 3 months.
Eh, restricting FW, to me, is an outdated and frustrating stance – but I accept that it is outside of many people’s hands. The unfortunate fact is, that FW units are part of each army, and have to be considered when we have discussions like this due to it being based around the competitive stand point and the majority of the mainstream events allowing it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/04/12 14:41:05
Idoneth stream yesterday had this question constantly being asked, Ceri commented that "they don't know when it will be ready, they're actively working on it and to keep an eye out. It'll be ready when it's ready."
I didn't misunderstand anything. I specifically stated few pages back that I'd love to see both the limit of detachments removed alongside the Highlander rule never coming into widespread usage. That was what we were talking about when I replied, so if anybody misunderstood it was you
Matched play and tournaments are supposed to be balanced match of skill. Having no limit to detachments break the game balance badly thus goes against that goal.
If you don't care about balance as "anything goes" shouldn't you be proposing open play for tournaments then? Bring whatever you can! Balanced match of skills isn't goal of tournament games after all.
Well, the original post I had said I would like detachments with 0 CP to be excluded. The 3 detachment limit is not so unimpeachable that we should invalidate army specific rules and fortifications.
TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
JohnnyHell wrote: TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
JohnnyHell wrote: TBh whatever the outcome it’s no big deal. You don’t have to slavishly follow the Matched Play Rules if that generates a game that isn’t to your liking. Go Open and incorporate as many or as few of those rules as you and your opponent like. Tournament play isn’t the be all and end all of 40K.
For many of us tournaments is the only moment we play, because is more easy to go to 2-3 tournaments at weekends a month and have 3 games per tournament than trying to fit games mid-week, when everyone is working, with his family, etc...
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Danarc wrote: Back in topic, someone on B&C wrote that he saw a rumor on 4chan about a change on GK purifiers and banner. They two being changed to 6” damage 2.
Nerf. Again.
It popped up in the comments for War of Sigmar.
Supposedly it's this:
)
