Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
User avatar
Yojimbob
Shas'Saal
Posts: 302

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#55 » Aug 16 2017 10:16

Panzer wrote:Yeah they certainly could do that though I'd love to see them managing proper balancing without such artificial limitations.


tThey could also do something like how relics get more CP heavy the more you have. They could say for every squad of the same type over 2, add additional costs to that new squad. Not sure how they'd balance it without imposing a separate rule.

User avatar
Maxwell
Shas'Saal
Posts: 74

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#56 » Aug 16 2017 10:34

Ricordis wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what this means. Something like "Not more than 25% of your total units in your list may consist of these units."?
(Would mean you can only take one of this unit per 3 different units in your list)


In Warmachine each unit card (which includes the stat line and abilities) says you can have X of this unit in your army. 40k has this for named characters w/ a limit of 1 but nothing else I’m aware of.

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas'Saal
Posts: 90

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#57 » Aug 16 2017 12:17

I wish they would do that as well but make it a limit per detachment instead of army-wide. It would add a tax to spamming things but not make it impossible since GW says they want you to be able to build your force however you want. For instance, if there was a rule saying "no more than 2 [X] per detachment [A]" then you'd have to pay a unit tax to take that detachment.

Example: No more than 2 Commanders per detachment. If you wanted to Spam Commanders, you'd have to take other HQ choices to fill the mandatory HQ slots in a Supreme Command detachment then take 1 or 2 more Supreme Command detachments to take more Commanders. If a commander spam player was forced to take Cadre Fireblades, Characters, or Ethereals in order to field an absurd amount of Commanders, it would negate the potency of the spam and maybe even stop it completely.

This could be done for any of the other spam out there right now. I'd say the only exception would be troops. Troops should be able to be spammed at will, and if a troop being spammed is too powerful then it is obviously OP or undercosted.

GW inadvertently built a system designed for spam but costed the models without them being spammed in mind...and now needs to figure out how to counter spam without having to come up with new unique rules for every spam situation like the Stormraven.

Perhaps you could even make it a CP thing so that it's not impossible to spam, but there are downsides.
2 Commanders and 2 other HQs: +1 CP
3 Commanders and 1 other HQ: 0 CP
4 Commanders: -1 CP

Obviously my example is only based on the Commander spam and the Supreme Command Detachment, but it can be easily translated to the other specialized detachment types.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1319

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#58 » Aug 19 2017 09:56

Hey all! I'm currently out of the country so I have limited ability to post on ATT until the end of August. I won't really be able to contribute to this thread, so I'll submit what we have with the changes others suggested.

User avatar
relasine
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 71

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#59 » Aug 19 2017 11:17

CDR_Farsight wrote:I wish they would do that as well but make it a limit per detachment instead of army-wide.

There are more elegant ways to approach this situation, like reducing Commander effectiveness as weapons platforms with standard weapon options.

If Commanders are supposed to be weapons platforms that aren't meant to be spammed, they should do so through relics/signature systems that are army-limited. This isn't that hard to achieve. Drop the fourth weapon hard point, and make it support/signature only. Increase platform cost by 20 points. Introduce some compelling relic weapons. Boom.

For example:

Servo Controller Targeting Array (Signature System) - when this model fires all of its weapons at a single target, increase the Strength value of these weapons by 1.


Something like this would make the Fusion Commander still a viable option when you can only take three Fusion Blasters by making the Fusion Blasters all more effective, but would limit such a build to one-per-army.

Alternatively, if Commanders are meant to be buffing/supporting units, this largely fixes itself, since multiple buffin/supporting models typically produce diminishing returns.

Example here:

Puretide Engram Chip (Signature System) - You can add 1 to hit rolls in the Shooting phase for other friendly T'AU SEPT INFANTRY or BATTLESUIT units within 6" when they are making attacks against units with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keywords.
Last edited by relasine on Aug 19 2017 03:16, edited 1 time in total.

Duckumentary
Shas
Posts: 7

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#60 » Aug 19 2017 01:20

I would like to see the Skyray Missle Defense system gain a vector tracker. The vehicle is specifically designed for anti-air so it would be nice if it could actually do that effectively. I don't think it will make people actually play this unit more often. But it would bring it in line with where it was intended to be.

User avatar
Bloodknife92
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 510

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#61 » Aug 19 2017 07:04

I personally think that part of the reason that we still have 'power' armies is because we're not limited to taking 1 HQ and 2 troop to get any other good units. Now we can just take elites with HQs, or heavy supports, or even a detachment full of HQs. This leads to crazy things like Commander spam or Terminator spam. I, personally, prefer the old system of the FoC from 5th. I know it still had its gimmicks, but everyone had to pay that troop and HQ tax to get their awesome elites and fast attacks, and the max number of HQs was 2, so no Librarian spam or Commander spam.

I know that system wouldn't work today what with the a lot of armies not being able meet minimum requirements on their own(Skitarii for example have no HQ units, Imp. Knights are purely LoW to my knowledge), but I still prefer it regardless, as I never played any of these smaller supplemental armies :P

On top of that, adding in extra gimmicks like Chapter Tactics and Strategems just keep adding to how much power a player can push out in a single turn to almost guarantee their own victory. We never used to have these, and we relied wholly on the units we chose to bring, but now each one matters less individually because we have things like the Doctrina Imperatives of the Skitarii, giving your entire army between 1 and 3 BS or WS with less of a sacrifice than the gain, and their units were already really effective without such bonuses(granted that was their 7th edition benefits, however they'll probably get them back with their own codex).

I guess what I'm really trying to say is that I'm feeling a bit hipster-ish/old school, and that all these little army wide gimmicks like Chapter Tactics and Doctrina Imperatives and whatever anyone else has, is just packing more and more power into the game, creating immense power creep, meaning that the first turn advantage is bigger than ever, and that I don't like any of it.

That, and I'm still super sour about the T'au in their current state; it really sucks when the best models you own(Riptide, Crisis suits) get ruined, meaning you have to either fork out more money to have a fair game anytime soon, or you just can't play at all.

But I suppose, GW is a business before a games developer, so their priorities are money before balance.
The days of goodly English is went

User avatar
Bloodknife92
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 510

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#62 » Aug 19 2017 07:14

relasine wrote:Something like this would make the Fusion Commander still a viable option when you can only take three Fusion Blasters by making the Fusion Blasters all more effective, but would limit such a build to one-per-army.

Alternatively, if Commanders are meant to be buffing/supporting units, this largely fixes itself, since multiple buffin/supporting models typically produce diminishing returns.


The problem for us isn't that Commanders are too powerful directly, it is that Commanders make majority of our other selections redundant. No one is bringing tank busting Crisis units because the Commander does it better. No one is bringing horde slaying Ghostkeels because the Commander does it better. No one is bringing regular Riptides because two Commanders can do what one Riptide can do, and much better for the same cost. I enjoyed when Commanders had uses other than just a gun platform. But now that they're just a mobile one-man-army, there's no need for anything else, because Commanders do it better. I say, bring them back to 2 weapons only, and force players to take sig. systems. Our army is 'supposed' to be all about synnergy what with our Markerlights(fail-lights more like it). There's nothing synnergistic about taking 7 Commanders with 3 or 4 weapons.
The days of goodly English is went

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 309

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#63 » Aug 19 2017 07:50

I read the Community Article about leaders, auras and how to use them more efficiently...and then i realized:
Our Commanders aren't leaders; they are just better crisis suits. And because crisis are already elites they have to be HQs.
But our commanders don't really fulfil GW's criterias of being "leader units" on the field.
If we start looking at commander spam as sending "the elite's elite" it does not feel that bad anymore...just more like playing primaris crisis :D

Are all commanders Shas'O or may they also be Shas'El?

User avatar
Bloodknife92
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 510

Re: Let's Contact GW! (Round 2)

Post#64 » Aug 19 2017 08:25

Ricordis wrote:Are all commanders Shas'O or may they also be Shas'El?

Fluff-wise, they can be either. Rules-wise, they're Shas'O because it would be pointless having Shas'el with the same or lower stats(like during 4th and 5th eds).
The days of goodly English is went

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests