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.

Bharring wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.

If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.

No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.

But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.

Hence where the word "Balance" comes from in the phase "Balance".

Making sure choices - whether they're different units, or different upgrade configurations of the same unit - are worth the same value for their points is what balance is all about.

Strat upgrades don't fully avoid this problem. Why would I take the unupgraded unit for the same points, if I can't use the stratagem? The base unit is still replaced by the upgraded version if you only take one. You'd only be taking the base unit without the stratagem if you've already taken the upgraded version. But then, in that case, if the weaker option is worth it's points to you, the stronger option is certainly worth *more* than it's points to you.

The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units. With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit. Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally). Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.

It doesn't avoid the problem, it moves the same problem into a less granular system, making balancing even harder.

I really do not understand how so many people seem to have a problem grasping the basic concept of points, a system this game has used for decades: units with more powerful rules cost more points.

Don’t strats already give buffs disproportionate to a units points? A knight with a 4++ is better than one with a 5++, but costs the same points.

Dandelion wrote:

The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units. With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit. Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally). Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?

Costing more points also prevents you from doing something else, as you have less points do spend elsewhere. That is literally the whole bloody purpose of points!

One off tricks are different, that's what CP should be for. It is inelegant to have two different unit costing systems used at the same time. It is also counter-intuitive that forces comprised of more elite warriors and commanders are less tactically capable than similar but less experienced forces.

Dandelion wrote:

Bharring wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Unit upgrade stratagems are stupid. This is what points are for.

If it were points and the change was actually useful then the base unit would never be used.

No. That only happens if the upgrade is too cheap.

But, if the upgrade is too expensive then it won’t be used. The point upgrade system only really works if the new unit is worth exactly what the base unit is worth, which is difficult to pull off and just leads to redundant units. Imo strat upgrades are a neat way to avoid this problem.

Hence where the word "Balance" comes from in the phase "Balance".

Making sure choices - whether they're different units, or different upgrade configurations of the same unit - are worth the same value for their points is what balance is all about.

Strat upgrades don't fully avoid this problem. Why would I take the unupgraded unit for the same points, if I can't use the stratagem? The base unit is still replaced by the upgraded version if you only take one. You'd only be taking the base unit without the stratagem if you've already taken the upgraded version. But then, in that case, if the weaker option is worth it's points to you, the stronger option is certainly worth *more* than it's points to you.

The idea is that you don’t have to waste time and effort balancing 2 redundant units.

You can certainly trade away complexity for cost, so you have a simpler set of options with the same balance. It's a seperate balancing act. Reduce too many "redundant" options, and you're down to rock-paper-scissors. Include too many, and there's no real chance at balance.

With strat upgrades, every cp spent prevents you from doing something else

Just like points...

, so while the upgraded unit is better than the base unit, it still costs you more and prevents you from spamming the upgraded unit.

Just like Points. Only not points. So you need to balance the army around an even *more* complex equation, based on both Points and CP for resources. So you need to "streamline" (cut) options out of the game *much further* to make it viable to balance it the same way you'd need to by costing power by Points alone.

You're basically arguing we need two currencies for power, and ones that can't be directly traded. That makes balancing insanely difficult, and does a much worse job of ensuring you pay for what you're getting.

Taking a vet unit would be rare but worth it (ideally).

Just like making Vets cost more points?

Plus, strats already boost a unit to more than its points are worth: fight twice, relics etc. so how is this different?

First, it's not a good idea there either, imo. But that's an entirely different issue. Second, and more on topic, this is picking which units you're taking by paying a currently altogether different from points, in a game predicated on paying points for the units you're taking.

And third, more scary to me, there seems to be this idea that you should be able to pay points to get things that make you better *than the points are worth*. How does that work? That equation is tautological nonsense.

How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.

Edit, the whole idea that I’m proposing and defending is that strat upgrades don’t result in units with redundant roles, thus requiring no inter unit balance, which is practically impossible to achieve btw. Instead, players have access to buffs via a non point currency already, so why can’t those just be done before the game starts? The upgraded unit being better is fine, imo, because it’s an opportunity cost from other strats and is therefore self limiting. On the other hand, a vet datasheet risks just completely replacing the base version. Or, both options are equally worth their points and so choosing one over the other has no in game value, which begs the question of why we even have the vet unit.

Dandelion wrote:
How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.

One is situational trick you may or may not choose to use with any eligible unit during the game, the other is a permanent chance fixed to one unit done before the battle begins. The latter is what points are for.

 Crimson wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
How is a one off trick fundamentally different from a buff that lasts the whole game? Both affect the in game value of the unit, but for some reason you feel the one is better than the other.

One is situational trick you may or may not choose to use with any eligible unit during the game, the other is a permanent chance fixed to one unit done before the battle begins. The latter is what points are for.

I don’t see why that has to be the case though. I personally dislike the mid game buffs that strats offer, they interrupt my plays and I would much prefer to just label which unit has what and then forget strats exist for the rest of the game.

Btw, I edited my above comment before your comment posted, just FYI.

Dandelion wrote:

I don’t see why that has to be the case though. I personally dislike the mid game buffs that strats offer, they interrupt my plays and I would much prefer to just label which unit has what and then forget strats exist for the rest of the game.

Then you don't need strats at all! Just build army with one currency, the points, upgrades and everything. Having two different currencies for the same thing is just confusing and unnecessary.

Edit, the whole idea that I’m proposing and defending is that strat upgrades don’t result in units with redundant roles, thus requiring no inter unit balance,

If upgrade makes the base unit redundant, it will happen with CP as well.

which is practically impossible to achieve btw

Then certainly it is even more impossible to achieve in a less granular system!

Instead, players have access to buffs via a non point currency already, so why can’t those just be done before the game starts?

Because that's what points are for!

The upgraded unit being better is fine, imo, because it’s an opportunity cost from other strats and is therefore self limiting.

Just like with the points!

On the other hand, a vet datasheet risks just completely replacing the base version.

If the cost is wrong. Just like with the CP except CP is harder to balance.

Or, both options are equally worth their points and so choosing one over the other has no in game value, which begs the question of why we even have the vet unit.

By that logic we might as well remove most units in the game. Ignoring points, Space Marines do everything the Guardsmen do, except better. So why have Guardsmen?

Furthermore, upgrades affect certain capabilities of units, while they do not affect others. For example Veteran Intercessors are better at melee, but do not shoot better. Thus as long as I pay a non-negligible cost (in any currency) to upgrade them, I don't always want to upgrade all my Intercessors; the upgrade has little benefit for backfield campers that are unlikely to end up in a close combat.

Strat upgrades don’t make the base unit redundant because it is the base unit, it’s also much more limited. With just points, it’s possible to spam the vet unit until all your infantry are vets. By tying the upgrade to cp, you create a hard cap that is lower than the total points of the game, thus preventing vet spam.

Also strat cost can be balanced solely against the cost of other strats which seems far easier than balancing individual units.

As for your last point, the same can be done with cp. I wouldn’t spend all my cp on vets if I only need one or two squads to have it. They’re both point systems, obviously, but for some reason you feel that using cp pregame is worse than using them in game. I feel that either scenario has the same overall effect on game balance (where some units are worth more than their points) except the pregame ones require commitment to the unit but in game strats don’t.

Your second to last point misses the mark. Space marines and guardsmen are not in the same codex/faction and they don’t perform the same roles, they have different bases stats, different special rules and different gear. Guardsmen and guard vets, though, are fairly redundant and guard vets can be switched to being a stratagem instead of being overshadowed by their cheaper brethren as they are now.

Pray tell how I'm spamming Vet units in my Marines and Chaos Marines, please.

Dandelion wrote:
Strat upgrades don’t make the base unit redundant because it is the base unit, it’s also much more limited. With just points, it’s possible to spam the vet unit until all your infantry are vets. By tying the upgrade to cp, you create a hard cap that is lower than the total points of the game, thus preventing vet spam.

Or if you want "Limitne" on a unit, you could, you know, put "Limitne" on a unit. So you could be sure there's only one Avatar, for example.

This way you're not adding an entirely seperate currency for buying units, like you are with CP.

It's also more similar to what was already in the game. Becuase, you know, it is.

If you want to limit choices by having those choices cost a resource, we already have points (and to a lesser degree, slots). If you want to limit how many times a unit can be taken, we already have those limits. And those points and limits are already a really hard formula. Why add a whole new dimension to the equation in CP? You make balancing a lot harder, and gain nothing new.

Also strat cost can be balanced solely against the cost of other strats which seems far easier than balancing individual units.
As for your last point, the same can be done with cp. I wouldn’t spend all my cp on vets if I only need one or two squads to have it. They’re both point systems, obviously, but for some reason you feel that using cp pregame is worse than using them in game. I feel that either scenario has the same overall effect on game balance (where some units are worth more than their points) except the pregame ones require commitment to the unit but in game strats don’t.

What makes Strat points easier to balance? I can name a couple factors that make them harder:
-You're paying with a currency you produce via wonky fashion, instead of standard payment models for units (points)
-You have a much higher minimum variance - 1CP vs 2CP is a much bigger swing than 1pt vs 2pt. In this way, opting to balance units around CP costs is like saying Power Levels were too granular!
-You're using your reactive ability pool for proactive army construction - so you have reactive capabilities feeding proactive choices, which kinda defeats the purpose of having CP seperate from Points
-You're constraints are a lot more artificial - if you want to cost out what one unit is worth over another, points are a much better understood and much more relateable medium for value, and the "Limitne" facet is a lot less direct than actually saying "Limitne" (in addition to being a lot less flexible to "Limit:two" or "Limitne per detatchment/CM/whatever" concepts).

Using CP does not have the same overall effect on game balance. You cannot directly trade out that 1CP for a couple Flamers, but you can indirectly. So now you've introduced some arcane bartering that used to be a direct points tradeoff. Now you need to ask how many points and CP unit $X is worth, not just how many points. And because we now have two factors in that equation, there are now virtually infinite "correct" answers instead of one. How the hell do you balance that? Short answer, you don't. Long answer, nonnormal-space set theory isn't freshman level math.

Your second to last point misses the mark. Space marines and guardsmen are not in the same codex/faction and they don’t perform the same roles, they have different bases stats, different special rules and different gear. Guardsmen and guard vets, though, are fairly redundant and guard vets can be switched to being a stratagem instead of being overshadowed by their cheaper brethren as they are now.

Are Dire Avengers and Guardians redundant? Mostly the same rules. Sometimes I want militiamen (Guardians). Othertimes I want super specialist soldiers at Marine levels of ability (Dire Avengers). I can have both, and they can be balanced, at different points levels.

This adds more depth to the universe and the game. It takes more work to balance, but I'd argue it's worth it. Now, make those Dire Avengers "Buy Guardians, then pay CP", and we go from "A reasonable comparision to balance" to "How the holy hell do we balance two units with two currencies?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pray tell how I'm spamming Vet units in my Marines and Chaos Marines, please.

Deathwatch for Marines. Cult Troops for Chaos Marines.

For various definition of "vet", of course - ever Marine is a vet.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Pray tell how I'm spamming Vet units in my Marines and Chaos Marines, please.

Because they suffer the opposite problem of paying points for upgrades, namely that it isn’t worth it. In your case you’re spamming the better version of the two units. (If either is any good that is) Make it a strat and it’s potentially worth it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ bharring

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

Also, you can balance strats by adjusting their affects and their cost. You can also make them affect multiple units at once. In addition, the standards for balancing strats are less than those of units. A strat only has to be worth using. A unit has to be better than another unit, which by its comparative nature, is more difficult. If it is used to the exclusion of other strats then you nerf it. If it is never used then you buff it. It’s more forgiving than unit points.

That said, I also believe CP should be based on the game size and not the detachments. But that should happen regardless of my above idea.

And again, I’m not adding a currency, it’s no different to what we have now, I’m just employing it differently. If I have 2 berserker units and only one gets to fight twice due to a strat, is that not an imbalance? What if I upgrade one of those berserker units before the game to have an additional attack? What’s the difference? In both cases you’re affecting the worth of a unit for CP instead of points. So unless you’re against strats entirely, then your concerns about imbalance are moot.

The fundamental difference is that you must commit to the buff before the game. Which imo makes the game more interesting and allows counterplay from the opponent. None of this “gotcha” nonsense. You can disagree with this, but you can’t say it’s less balanced since all the variables are otherwise the same.

Guardians and dire avengers are similar, but they still have different guns, a weapon platform, and a different save. They also operate differently, now with exarch buffs and the fact that avengers are intended for assault rather than camping. So, no, they are not eligible for the strat treatment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, we should wrap this up quick since we are wildly off topic, i think.

Just to be somewhat on topic: reducing vets to strats would reduce datasheet bloat and allow for consolidating marines. So there’s that too.

Dandelion wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ bharring

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

Eldar have had "Limit:One" in their book since at least 6E. And it's never generated hate.

Points upgrades have the same "Scale usage with the value you get per usage" advantage. Higher points means the stronger one gets used less. But, since it's based on the same currency you get the base unit for, it's a lot easier to compare and balance than CP-plus-points.

Also, you can balance strats by adjusting their affects and their cost. You can also make them affect multiple units at once.

But can you reasonably have 1CP upgrade 2/5ths of a unit? The smaller quantum makes it really, really hard to finetune. Either it's worth 1CP or 2CP, it can't be worth 1.5CP.

In addition, the standards for balancing strats are less than those of units. A strat only has to be worth using.

In what way is this an upside? The lower standard is because we know we can't balance it nearly as fairly. So it seems to work because you lower your standards for balance. That's a negative if you think it through.

A unit has to be better than another unit, which by its comparative nature, is more difficult.

CP doesn't change this. If it takes 1CP to upgrade $thing to $superThing, and $thing costs 50pts, then $superThing has to be worth 50pts + 1CP. While $thing has to be worth 50pts. So you still have the same differential value of {$superThing - $thing}. But now you have to express it in CP, not points. Which are far less granular, and really hard to consistently "point" compared to points.

If it is used to the exclusion of other strats then you nerf it. If it is never used then you buff it.

Same thing for points

It’s more forgiving than unit points.

As above, only because you lower your standards. Likewise, Power Level is "easier" to balance, because you expect worse balance from it. CP lack the clarity or granularity of points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: I see the appended part of your post - wasn't there when I posted.

I agree. We're off topic. Lets move on.

But first, let me say thank you for discussing our differing opinion in a civilized, intelligent, honest, and mature manner. It's always more productive that way.

Yeah it’s cool. It’s not like our opinions will change anything anyway. But you’re still wrong jk

Dandelion wrote:

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.

It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.

It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.

Considering gw also knew the cure (differing points for weapons according to accuracy) makes it even more hillarious.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.

It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.

Considering gw also knew the cure (differing points for weapons according to accuracy) makes it even more hillarious.

Exactly. Paying the same cost for a weapon for very different statlines is ridiculous. Even between the commander units it is questionable that they should pay the same cost. A Coldstar has much better ability to make use of short range weaponry like Fusion Blasters and CIBs than the other suit types yet pays the same points for them.

Really, Crisis suits should be BS3+ I think.

Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.

You're not using them for anything else, come on.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.

You're not using them for anything else, come on.

Which is totally good design, am I right? Who wants Commanders to COMMAND, that's just silly! /s

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

The problem is that the weapons are overcosted for Crisis teams and undercosted for commanders.

Commanders are also limited in their ability to function well as anything but dakkamanders as they have no passive aura and their only non-drone controller, non-signature issue wargear buff can be used once per game, not even once per game per commander but once per game period unless you are running farsight or shadowsun. The signature wargear buffs they can give to other units often come at the expense of their own shooting and since they are pretty much always better at shooting than units around them it doesn't make sense to give up their shooting for a marginal buff to less effective shooting and so those buffing-relics go on ethereals and fireblades.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Tau players already have a limited unit and they hate it. Cp upgrades aren’t as hard and fast as “only one per army”. There’s room for personal interpretation and investment into units.

The reason we hate the limit on commanders is because it didn't serve to actually fix the reason that commanders were being spammed.

It was a treatment for the symptom, not a cure for the disease.

That was my point.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

Which makes the Commander overpointed when not toted out as a gunboat.

You're not using them for anything else, come on.

Which is totally good design, am I right? Who wants Commanders to COMMAND, that's just silly! /s

Well even if Suits were better you wouldn't be using the Commander to buff them further.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well even if Suits were better you wouldn't be using the Commander to buff them further.

Which is exactly why people don't take Captains or Lieutenants-the units are already good, there's absolutely no need or desire to buff them further.

The Commander unit, as it is now, is not well designed. It could use a significant revamp.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Instead of making their weapons more expensive you COULD just bump the base Commander. Doesn't that make more sense than having two sets of points for a weapon?

The problem is that the weapons are overcosted for Crisis teams and undercosted for commanders.

Commanders are also limited in their ability to function well as anything but dakkamanders as they have no passive aura and their only non-drone controller, non-signature issue wargear buff can be used once per game, not even once per game per commander but once per game period unless you are running farsight or shadowsun. The signature wargear buffs they can give to other units often come at the expense of their own shooting and since they are pretty much always better at shooting than units around them it doesn't make sense to give up their shooting for a marginal buff to less effective shooting and so those buffing-relics go on ethereals and fireblades.

I mean I've been saying that Crisis Suits should be BS3+ standard. That would certainly help a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Well even if Suits were better you wouldn't be using the Commander to buff them further.

Which is exactly why people don't take Captains or Lieutenants-the units are already good, there's absolutely no need or desire to buff them further.

The Commander unit, as it is now, is not well designed. It could use a significant revamp.

Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.

That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.

While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.

I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.

That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.

While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.

I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?

In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.

That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.

While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.

I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?

In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.

And that's my point. They should be designed better.

A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Revamp =/= Bump their particular weapons. That's a whole different conversation.

That's true. But the issue I see is that a Commander is not actually commanding jack diddly-they're just a gunboat when used at their most effective.

While Captains and Lieutenants for Marines are smashy, they're also good at buffing. The Commander should be similar, if replacing the smashy with shooty though.

I know it's kinda off topic of the main thread, but do you think Commanders are well-designed? Independent of points cost, do they fulfill their stated role in an army?

In that instance, no I don't think they're well designed at all. However even if you doubled or even tripled the cost of their weapons, you don't have an incentive to use them for anything BUT gunboat.

And that's my point. They should be designed better.

A stopgap would be adjust the points of their weapons, so they're more in-line with other options, but the best way forward is to revamp the Commander entirely.

At that point it's easier to make Crisis Suits better, and it wouldn't be hard either. Then maybe you would have incentive to tag the two along together.

Easier=/=better.

We aren't GW-we can do better than the lazy man's route.