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.

Hi Guys,

Looking at the rumours it seems hive tyrants are getting the Tau commander treatment, which, as a fluffy player i kind of like- there should be only 1 monster leader gribbly per swarm of gribblies.

Anyway, with an eye on the fluff and the game mechanics; what units from other codexes should be limited by either quantity per detachment or points level?

Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.

Fluffwise...chapter masters would be 0-1 per faction of marines on board, captains would be 0-1 per detachment easily, ig captain(problem here is this would be huge nerf for IG which already isn't top dog even nor is captain spam even all that powerful). Warboss for orks. Plenty of stuff.

Of course that would also balance wise break the game badly.

Shield captain on bike seems likely

Greater Daemons should be restricted to one.

Ruleswize I could see it happening to Daemon Princes, too, fluffwize there have been occasions were several daemon princes fought together.

tneva82 wrote:
Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.

Exactly. GW basically says "This unit is imbalanced, but instead of fixing it we're just going to prevent people from spamming it too much, so it won't be such a big deal anymore".

tneva82 wrote:
Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.

How so? Surely your big "unique" special characters/monstrous HQ creatures should be limited- its only with the creation of multiple detachments and the supreme command detachment that this has become a massive issue.

Chapter masters are already limited to one are they not?
Not really unfluffy or in game OP to have multiple captains in either a SM or IG army, id say the same for daemon princes- however to have many within a small amount of points maybe could be an issue?

IMO they could fix a fair amount in a competitive setting by simple making anything 0-X in anything other than a patrol or battalion X e.g. you take a spearhead you have to have 2 elites, 3 troops 2 fast and 2 flyers.

Eldar.

Maybe then we can go one edition without them being the best army in the game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Latro_ wrote:
IMO they could fix a fair amount in a competitive setting by simple making anything 0-X in anything other than a patrol or battalion X e.g. you take a spearhead you have to have 2 elites, 3 troops 2 fast and 2 flyers.

k, so how do sisters or harlequins do that? And if you say 'allies' it's the same as admitting it's a bad idea.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Ruleswize I could see it happening to Daemon Princes, too, fluffwize there have been occasions were several daemon princes fought together.

These restrictions only apply to matched play, so you can still go nuts with what HQ units you want in Narrative play if that fits the story you want to tell.

Process wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Well on game mechanic terms it's bad bandaid for all and doesn't remove the actual issue.

How so? Surely your big "unique" special characters/monstrous HQ creatures should be limited- its only with the creation of multiple detachments and the supreme command detachment that this has become a massive issue.

Chapter masters are already limited to one are they not?
Not really unfluffy or in game OP to have multiple captains in either a SM or IG army, id say the same for daemon princes- however to have many within a small amount of points maybe could be an issue?

That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.

As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.

But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.

Personally I’d like to see the one-per-detachment restriction on any general-level HQ (e.g. SM Captains, Warbosses, etc), and also the introduction of “minor hero”-level HQs (cf the return of Lieutenants to the latest SM Codex or the Enginseer for AdMech). In conjunction, this would mean you see fewer daft, unfluffy lists where you have a half a Chapter’s worth of Captains all running around the same minor engagement, and the lesser characters would avoid the restriction hamstringing the factions with fewer HQ options.

I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following

All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)

All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment

All troops 0-3 per detachment

Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)

So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.

That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Greater Daemons should be restricted to one.

Ruleswize I could see it happening to Daemon Princes, too, fluffwize there have been occasions were several daemon princes fought together.

They still could they would each just need to be in seperate detachments, so with the 3 detachment cap you could still run 3 Daemon Princes, just not 8.

Breng77 wrote:
I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following

All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)

All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment

All troops 0-3 per detachment

Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)

So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.

That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.

Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?

Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.

Any 150+ pts. HQ unit should be limited to 1 per detachment.

The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.

Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following

All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)

All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment

All troops 0-3 per detachment

Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)

So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.

That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.

Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?

Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.

Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.

For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.

Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case

No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.

tneva82 wrote:


That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.

As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.

But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.

Then why have a force organisation chart at all? why have min unit requirements or squad sizes?

The game structure and FOC is based on fluff is it not? we accept unit type restrictions as part of the game but not specific unit restrictions because it changes a game mechanic to be too fluffy?

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following

All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)

All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment

All troops 0-3 per detachment

Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)

So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.

That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.

Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?

Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.

Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.

For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.

Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case

No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.

Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.

The 1-per-detachment change just seems like a bad band-aid fix, as others have said.

Should be applied universally or not at all - e.g., a total re-review of what HQ options should be selection-restricted in a detachment for every faction, rather than selectively ‘nerfing’ options that rear up as ‘OP’.

Really the problem is character rules + specific ‘commanders’ being more points efficient than ‘ordinary’ FOC selections, e.g. the Tau Commander vs a normal Crisis suit team.

GhostRecon wrote:
The 1-per-detachment change just seems like a bad band-aid fix, as others have said.

Should be applied universally or not at all - e.g., a total re-review of what HQ options should be selection-restricted in a detachment for every faction, rather than selectively ‘nerfing’ options that rear up as ‘OP’.

Really the problem is character rules + specific ‘commanders’ being more points efficient than ‘ordinary’ FOC selections, e.g. the Tau Commander vs a normal Crisis suit team.

Hmm, yes and no.

There a certain number of issues that come from reaching a critical mass due to spam of a good unit, but that if limited to a reasonable number of elements it is no longer so good of a choice.

Other times the model is so good that spamming it is the best choice (remember that in 90% of cases, spamming is bad for a list, every repeated choice has a diminished return due to lack of good targets).

With the flyrant you have both problems. The model is clearly undercosted (hence the rumored +20 points) and if spammed it creates a null deploy list (combined with mucolids), making you immune to alpha strikes. If 70% of your army is on the field, then the opponent has a target during first turn. This is a typical problem solved by hardcapping the model.

Process wrote:

tneva82 wrote:


That's fluff reasoning. I said GAME MECHANIC. As in either unit is not brokenly good so there's no game balance reason to limit or it's too good at which point it will STILL be too good. Sure scale is limited but generally this leads to tau maxing on 3 detachment to get that 3 undercosted commanders and makes it scale worse.

As for captain yeah if you have multiple companies on field but that's bloody lot guys. For IG even brigade detachment is not enough for real company. Some seriously understrength company maybe yes but not normal. And battallion detachment is like platoon. Thus 3 captains(which would be in reality be commanding like hundreds of guys) in detachment that fits 60? Yeah right. Fluff wise makes no sense at all.

But then again if you had fluffy ratio of commanders and platoon leaders most of infantry squads wouldn't get orders which would be big nerf to IG.

Then why have a force organisation chart at all? why have min unit requirements or squad sizes?

The game structure and FOC is based on fluff is it not? we accept unit type restrictions as part of the game but not specific unit restrictions because it changes a game mechanic to be too fluffy?

Again: You are talking about fluff. I said MECHANICALLY. The tau 0-1 commander limit doesn't actually fix balance issue. It only hides but THE COMMANDER IS STILL TOO GOOD FOR POINTS(that or it isn't even worth spamming).

And mechanically there's actually huge issues when you start slapping restrictions like these as a knee jerk reaction to people spamming because you didn't make them balanced in the first place. It's lazy option that easily leads into game breaking down as even balanced or weak options suddenly gets nerfed. What GW SHOULD have done is fix the problem instead. Commander too good for it's points so people spam? Howabout make commander balanced rather than adding limit on # you can field...That's no balance fix.

Next they claim you can reduce point cost of unit because it's 0-1...which is about silliest most ridiculous stupid arqument you can possibly make.

There is the saying "One is Bad, Two is Good, Three is Better" when it comes to putting some units in your army. GW needs to find a way to keep it from becoming "One is Bad, Two is Good, Seven make your opponent want to quit W40K".

The 1 per detachment rule allows the former while preventing the later. Doesn't mean GW shouldn't fix the obvious points problems (Tau Commander vs Battle Suit), but some units cost are actually fine if the player doesn't spam the unit.

Restrictions are the only simple and effective way to reduce spam without simultaneously dicking over those who weren't spamming. Therefore, the limit should be used sparingly where ridiculous spam occurs.

 Imateria wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
I've said it elsewhere I would like to see the following

All HQ choices 0-1 per detachment (some slots let you select multiples as a single choice and that would count as 1 selection)

All elite/fast/heavy/flyer/superheavy 0-2 (or 3) per detachment

All troops 0-3 per detachment

Then add a rule that says "you may repeat any of these choices if you have maxed out selections of every other available choice in the slot in that detachment excluding special characters (so you are not forced to take special characters)

So for sisters if you wanted to run a battalion and not run celestine you could take 2 cannonesses because they are the only HQ choice available.

That said I'm not sure if this makes the game actually better, I'd just like to see what armies come out of it.

Oh gee can't have game without crippling entire armies?

Highlander style rules don't fix balance. Actually more like reverse as the ones LEAST affected by those are generally the most broken ones. Other armies gets screwed. Also screws fluff.

Really? what fluff army gets screwed here? I'm hard pressed to think of one, and it is really not all that restrictive. You say highlander, the only "highlander" is HQs which are 1 per detachment, which still means 3 per army, everything else is 6-9 per army. You just need to use up detachments to do it. So what gets hurt? Spam + soup, super points efficient lists that don't take a ton of HQs, Brigades where someone spams the same cheap troop 6 times. You would have a point if everything were 0-1, but 0-2 or 0-3 is really not restrictive when it is per detachment, it just means you need to take more "tax" units to unlock them, you cannot spam out top flight options and have soup and that some types of armies will have to work with less CP to do what they want . But honestly what armies that are fluff get hurt by this? IG tank company because you cannot take 2 tank commanders in a detachment? You can run all spear heads have 3 tank commanders and all your tanks.

For armies I can think of right now that are hurt by this PBC spam(if you went 0-2, at 0-3 you still get 9), hive tyrant spam, if we made Dedicated transports 0-3 per detachment (probably should) maybe Razorback spam gets hurt. Honeslty point to to a fluffy army that gets overly hurt by this because I don't see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
The 1 per detachment rule is only a semblance of balance: instead of fixing the things that encourage people to pick that unit (in the case of Hive Tyrant the absurd points costs of other HQs compared to their efficiency) they just let people pick only 3 of that HQs (3 Detachments comprising of such unit plus whatever) instead of 6+.

Stupid stupid stupid, give people a real choice and I bet you won't see a spam of such unit in that case

No it is just a different method of balance, one that GW has used a ton in the past (and still does with special characters). Balancing all the points perfectly isn't going to happen, and stopping spam by doing it often hurts people who want to use those units in non-spam armies. As for points Hive tyrant spam has little to do with what other units cost, it has everything to do with what hivetyrants cost and their abilities. You could make primes 25 points and you'd still get tyrant spam over other things.

Your suggestion completely bones Dark Eldar, if I can't run 2 Archons in a single battalion then I'll never be able to get the Obsession traits for that battalion.

Are archeons the only cabal HQ? That said I would stipulate not forcing people to take out of faction models (which cabal is a faction keyword).

Once again we're looking at the same old issue.

Yes, we should have far more restricted force organization rules...but...this reduces GW's sale of models (or so they think/calculate). I mean, left the fluff-zone a long time ago. It's a huge deal when a single squad of Grey Knights is deployed to a planet, but we're mustering 3-4 Grandmasters for every skirmish?

I think it's a shame too, because with vastly different force organization we could have seen some really cool army options. I'd have much preferred to see certain Chapters/Craftworlds/Septs, etc. get their own special detachment options. Could have been pretty cool.

 Elbows wrote:
Once again we're looking at the same old issue.

Yes, we should have far more restricted force organization rules...but...this reduces GW's sale of models (or so they think/calculate). I mean, left the fluff-zone a long time ago. It's a huge deal when a single squad of Grey Knights is deployed to a planet, but we're mustering 3-4 Grandmasters for every skirmish?

I think it's a shame too, because with vastly different force organization we could have seen some really cool army options. I'd have much preferred to see certain Chapters/Craftworlds/Septs, etc. get their own special detachment options. Could have been pretty cool.

I'm sure that this was the original idea, else why would you have the restriction section for every detachment when it is practically not used?
Detachments were meant to be handed much more freely, but for some reason they discarded it.

I actually like the 1 per detachment rule for certain HQ choices. Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Chapter Masters, Greater Daemons, etc.
These should be center piece models anyway. Restricting them to 1 per detachment (along with the standard only 3 detachments) allows these models to remain powerful, as they should be, without allowing too much abuse (i.e. 7 of them).

The main reason I can see GW enforcing this rule (as opposed to just "rebalancing the unit itself") is because GW WANTS those units to be powerful and doesn't expect players to run a whole army of just them.
Because doing that is unfluffy and the game is designed to be thematic. If everyone took a balanced list, the game BECOMES balanced.
The problem is that many players want to win and take unbalanced lists.
GW could fix it by making an ultra strict rule set, but that is NOT the product they want to provide. They want players to be able play thematic games and have freedom to play how they want. It's the players that try to break the game.

-

And the wheel keeps on turning!

So what rules from "terrible" systems are they going to reimplement next?

%'s?

Minimum troops?

Real terrain mechanics?

Oh the humanity!!!!

 Galef wrote:
I actually like the 1 per detachment rule for certain HQ choices. Tau Commanders, Hive Tyrants, Chapter Masters, Greater Daemons, etc.
These should be center piece models anyway. Restricting them to 1 per detachment (along with the standard only 3 detachments) allows these models to remain powerful, as they should be, without allowing too much abuse (i.e. 7 of them).

The main reason I can see GW enforcing this rule (as opposed to just "rebalancing the unit itself") is because GW WANTS those units to be powerful and doesn't expect players to run a whole army of just them.
Because doing that is unfluffy and the game is designed to be thematic. If everyone took a balanced list, the game BECOMES balanced.
The problem is that many players want to win and take unbalanced lists.
GW could fix it by making an ultra strict rule set, but that is NOT the product they want to provide. They want players to be able play thematic games and have freedom to play how they want. It's the players that try to break the game.

-

This is my opinion also- i dont mind flyrants, commanders, greater daemons being awesome for the points- they should be, thats why they lead armies. The same as i dont really have a problem with multiple detachments (apart from the supreme command, i just dont get why its a thing), I dont even have a problem with spamming in general if its things that thematically are spammed

It's a poor bandaid. GW knew that commanders were the best unit in the faction, but rather than bring them in line, they through the rule out there hoping noone exploits it.