Are commanders undercosted?

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#19 » Sep 12 2017 01:32

Ricordis wrote:Rule:
First in command - You may only have one Commander per detachment.

Either as Commander rule or as T'au faction rule.

Heros of the T'au'va - T'au sept is free from this rule but has to pay 50% more for each additional Commander (not the weaponry/systems) and they can't be your warlord.

In narrative games you may still take as many as you want.

Now you may throw your stones.


Congratulations, with that nerf the only thing you've done is removed Tau's ability to compete with top tier armies. The answer isn't a flat nerf to commanders. Other choices need to effectively compete with not only internal units, but external ones as well. There's a reason people, myself included, are spamming commanders. It's because outside of two or three situations they are the absolute, hands down most point efficient platform in terms of damage output, and being characters this also affords them the protection that having that keyword entails. A better solution is to make everything else in the book competitive with external units, and the internal balance will come. As I said earlier Commanders do need a slight change. Remove one or two weapon hard points and buff the other suits to BS 3+ and you've not only fixed Commanders, you've fixed the majority of our army issues as well.

Leaving everything else the same just ensures that we'll see even more drone spam with next to zero battlesuits of any kind in sight; which would be weird because battlesuits are THE iconic unit type for Tau. All battlesuits barring the Commander and to a lesser extent stealth suits are in trouble. They are the ones that need a major fix, not Commanders.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2886

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#20 » Sep 12 2017 01:46

Ricordis wrote:Rule:
First in command - You may only have one Commander per detachment.

Either as Commander rule or as T'au faction rule.

Heros of the T'au'va - T'au sept is free from this rule but has to pay 50% more for each additional Commander (not the weaponry/systems) and they can't be your warlord.

In narrative games you may still take as many as you want.

Now you may throw your stones.

Sounds terrible to be honest. It's not that rare to see more than one Commander on the battlefield since there are sub-commander as well.

I'd much rather see a general limiation for every army. Like not more than two of the same character per detachment or something like that.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 308

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#21 » Sep 12 2017 01:54

Commander spam should not be a viable option.
If "spam" is the answer for a faction to be competitive in my eyes the faction is broken.

Shall I show you a puppet and you tell me where I touched you inproperly?

The question is if Commanders are undercosted.
Compared to our own units: Yes.
Compared to other factions: (Maybe) no.
Also I answered to a specific question and did not try to fix a whole index/codex with this one rule.

edit: Did use a wrong term? Aren't detachments the "formations". I did not mean "only one commander per army".

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#22 » Sep 12 2017 02:01

Panzer wrote:I'd much rather see a general limiation for every army. Like not more than two of the same character per detachment or something like that.


My game group has discussed things like that before and they really don't work out like you think they're going to. Take your suggestion. It literally doesn't change my list at all and I have 10 commanders in my list.

Banning the supreme command detachment means I drop one commander for some troops and now I have obsec too.

There is no easy answer to fixing character spamming because players will find a way to break it. It's what competitive players do. The only lasting solution is to actually balance the codexes both internally and externally.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2886

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#23 » Sep 12 2017 02:09

Tanniith wrote:
Panzer wrote:I'd much rather see a general limiation for every army. Like not more than two of the same character per detachment or something like that.


My game group has discussed things like that before and they really don't work out like you think they're going to. Take your suggestion. It literally doesn't change my list at all and I have 10 commanders in my list.

Banning the supreme command detachment means I drop one commander for some troops and now I have obsec too.

There is no easy answer to fixing character spamming because players will find a way to break it. It's what competitive players do. The only lasting solution is to actually balance the codexes both internally and externally.

I honestly don't know what your list is and in games in your local group you should talk with eachother but many tournaments use the detachment limit suggested in the advanced rules section of the rulebook so a 2k T'au list would be restricted to 6 Commander max and would have to either sacrifice CP for it or take a bunch of Firewarrior/Kroot they otherwise wouldn't have wanted to take.
I never claimed it's a perfect solution but it's a good start that of course needs adjustment. Still way better than Ricordis suggestion lol

Ushtarador
Shas
Posts: 5

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#24 » Sep 12 2017 02:11

I definitely feel Commanders are too good right now - however, I don't feel increasing the cost is the right way to go. A better option might be to restrict Commanders to 3 weapons and 1 support system instead of 4 weapons. This effectively reduces their damage output, and adds some incentive to actually use the support systems.

And of course, the points costs of our other battlesuits has to go down to compensate, most of them are way overpriced right now.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2886

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#25 » Sep 12 2017 02:12

Ricordis wrote:edit: Did use a wrong term? Aren't detachments the "formations". I did not mean "only one commander per army".

Just saw your edit and re-checked your post. Sorry I somehow read "only one Commander per army" instead of "one Commander per detachment".
One per detachment is okay though it's not just us who have a problem with HQ spamming so instead of introducing a rule specifically designed to reduce Commander spam, there should be a rule for every army designed to reduce HQ spam.

Also I don't really like your +50% cost for each after the first per detachment thing even after re-reading your post. :P

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#26 » Sep 12 2017 02:15

Ricordis wrote:Commander spam should not be a viable option.
If "spam" is the answer for a faction to be competitive in my eyes the faction is broken.

Shall I show you a puppet and you tell me where I touched you inproperly?

The question is if Commanders are undercosted.
Compared to our own units: Yes.
Compared to other factions: (Maybe) no.
Also I answered to a specific question and did not try to fix a whole index/codex with this one rule.

edit: Did use a wrong term? Aren't detachments the "formations". I did not mean "only one commander per army".


I disagree. It should be a viable option; it just shouldn't outperform our entire codex barring flamer equipped crisis teams.

However; removing the ability to take commanders or nerfing them into the ground is a worse solution to balancing the codex than doing nothing at all. As I mentioned earlier the only thing that accomplishes is removing our ability to effectively compete with other factions. A slight change to commanders loadouts and a near complete rebalancing is what is needed. Anything else is going to leave us with a broken mess of a codex when our turn rolls around.

Spam and min/maxing is always going to be a part of the most competitive lists. There are always going to be units that are simply better than the others. It's just a fact of the game.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2886

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#27 » Sep 12 2017 02:16

Ushtarador wrote:I definitely feel Commanders are too good right now - however, I don't feel increasing the cost is the right way to go. A better option might be to restrict Commanders to 3 weapons and 1 support system instead of 4 weapons. This effectively reduces their damage output, and adds some incentive to actually use the support systems.

And of course, the points costs of our other battlesuits has to go down to compensate, most of them are way overpriced right now.

Nah I don't like that. I like having the option of a 4 weapon commander (and 3 weapon on a Crisis suit looks terrible anyway imo).
If GW wanted to put in some efford they could introduce something like secondary weapons for Crisis and Commander. Like Flamer and maybe a bunch of new weapons. So they could make it more like Commanders having a max of 2 main weapons + 2 secondary weapons/support systems and Crisis having a max of 2 main weapons + 1 secondary weapon/support system.

though that's pretty unlikely at this point imo. Maybe after everyone got their first 8th edition Codex and GW starts a new wave of Codex releases with more innovative stuff overall and not just adjusted Index stuff + subfaction rules.

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#28 » Sep 12 2017 02:30

Panzer wrote:I never claimed it's a perfect solution but it's a good start that of course needs adjustment. Still way better than Ricordis suggestion lol


Lol true. My list is 5 coldstars 5 missile pod commanders, an ethereal and 50 ish shield drones. We play ITC rules and our team is actually ranked 2nd at the moment.

The problem with limiting detachments is it just makes other best-in-slot things super spammable like brims or conscripts.

GuidingOlive
Shas'Saal
Posts: 53

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#29 » Sep 12 2017 02:43

So here's my two cents.

First, it's actually not "unfluffy" to have a host of commanders in an army. Source: The Eight.

Second, the way 8th Ed. has been set up has been to encourage the use of multiple HQs. Only they forgot most of their xenos and some of the specialized Space Marine Chapters maybe have 2-3 HQs. Ad mech have 2. So we have 3 HQs outside of Named Characters. And ethereals and Cadre Fireblades are great for your standard infantry. But we have one battlesuit HQ. If you Playa battlesuit army, you have to use commanders. And you can hit 4 commanders pretty quick. My personal wish is for them to add commanders in different suits. Points proper of course.

Third, the bigger problem is how expensive our other suits are. Ghostkeels and Stealth Suits are our cheapest options for what they do while crisis suits are forced to 3 man squads at 200 points+. Briadsides are even more egregious at near the same points as a hammerhead for just a worse all around Statline. Their only saving grace is being able to stay alive by shunting wounds onto drones. And we don't need mention how much they ruined the Riptide. It can in proper load outs outstrip the Stormsurge in points and the Stormsurge is a Lord of War. Speaking of, the Stormsurge is one of the few models that I don't think is generally overcost. Expensive, but fair for its significant potential since it actually can make itself BS3+ with relative ease.

So what we have here is several problems that stack upon themselves to create this situation where the Commander is the best choice. And a fix isn't as simple as jacking up its points or making a special rule barring people from taking an HQ to fill that slot in the force org. Those are simple solutions for a complex problem and will only serve to cause more problems. A true solution must be thought out about fixing the underlying problems that give rise to this current issue. Which is why a bunch of people are suggesting externally balancing the codex. But I think that's a solution that has pitfalls. Namely it assumes GW is even on the right track of how to fix Tau. One of my chief concerns is that they'll make us even more markerlight dependent by making those buffs really strive for buffs. Even though competitively markers are the first things to go. And they'd be made even more a target forcing us to start spamming markerlights or characters with markers. Another is that they may consider making us have other hoops to jump through to get BS 3+. Like a strategem that costs 2 CP and if 3+ units fire at the same target they get +1 BS. In a fully MSU edition that would really harm our ability to deal with multiple threats. And spending CP would never be worth it.

In summary, our current issue of commander spam is brought on by multiple factors and there isn't an easy and effective solution that won't just make Tau non-competitive. But the hard solution that we have to hope GW gets to addresses everything and doesn't go the wrong way.

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 217

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#30 » Sep 12 2017 02:48

I think most of us can agree this:

Commanders don't need a nerf, but rather, our army needs targeted buffs

User avatar
Froglift
Shas'Saal
Posts: 64

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#31 » Sep 12 2017 03:22

Ricordis wrote:If "spam" is the answer for a faction to be competitive in my eyes the faction is broken.



If you mean broken as in not put together well than I agree. If you mean broken as in over powered than I disagree. It is just a singular unit being spammed which means that UNIT is over powered, not the faction.
We are men of action, lies do not become us.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 308

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#32 » Sep 12 2017 03:42

Broken = it does not work as intended or doesn't fulfill it's purpose.

It's like going into a restaurant, choosing something from the menu and the waiter tells you everything tastes really bad except for burger #3 and beverage #7.
It's no good restaurant, would not recommend. Except you like this one menu.

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#33 » Sep 12 2017 08:23

Ricordis wrote:Broken = it does not work as intended or doesn't fulfill it's purpose.


But that doesn't really describe Commanders. They're supposed to be in the most advanced battlesuits available which is shown on the table top as having an increased BS. There is fluff that supports running a ton of Commanders; Farsight's bodyguard are famously all or nearly all battlesuit equipped Shas'o or Shas'el, and in none of the background stories does a Shas'O or Shas'El never join in on the fighting. Usually you see them leading daring counterattacks or Mont'ka strikes. Heck, I can think of two examples off the top of my head where it was literally just Farsight's bodyguard and a few drones fighting off a Space Marine incursion and a Tyranid assault.

So the list is supported in the fluff as well as supported in the rules. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that's not how it was intended to be played.

That being said; it would be nice if that wasn't how we had to build out the core of every competitive list.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1279

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#34 » Sep 12 2017 08:44

Tanniith wrote:There is fluff that supports running a ton of Commanders; Farsight's bodyguard are famously all or nearly all battlesuit equipped Shas'o or Shas'el, and in none of the background stories does a Shas'O or Shas'El never join in on the fighting. Usually you see them leading daring counterattacks or Mont'ka strikes. Heck, I can think of two examples off the top of my head where it was literally just Farsight's bodyguard and a few drones fighting off a Space Marine incursion and a Tyranid assault.

So the list is supported in the fluff as well as supported in the rules. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that's not how it was intended to be played.


It's true that this one piece of fluff supports Commander spam, however, "the eight" are special because they're unique as a group. It's very uncommon that so many high-ranking Commanders fight together, which makes them an interesting unit. Farsight uses such a unit, but by comparison we should expect to see such Commander-heavy deployments to be relatively rare (or non-existent) in the Empire.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 308

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#35 » Sep 12 2017 09:31

Tanniith,
I never said the rule-idea would be a solution, especially not on its own.
And also I didn't say Commanders are broken but codices/indices without real options are.

Do you think the T'au index is supposed to tell you "Hey, only spam this one unit and ignore all the other fancy things I may offer."
It's not about what I like or not.
If I had a car which can only steer left I'd be angry too about missing alternatives. But you tell me it is okay, because of that one car that can steer left too?

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#36 » Sep 12 2017 09:48

Arka0415 wrote:It's true that this one piece of fluff supports Commander spam, however, "the eight" are special because they're unique as a group. It's very uncommon that so many high-ranking Commanders fight together, which makes them an interesting unit. Farsight uses such a unit, but by comparison we should expect to see such Commander-heavy deployments to be relatively rare (or non-existent) in the Empire.


Just because it's unusual doesn't make it unfluffy. Don't get me wrong; if someone tried to tell me they were running it because its a fluffy list anywhere outside of a narrative campaign I'd probably give them a strange look but I was trying to make a point that by his own definition of broken Commanders are not broken, because despite the Eight being the only instance of that many Commanders fighting together it's still enough to make a Commander list "fluffy". Who's to say that this guy's Shas'o doesn't have a bodyguard similar to the Eight? Just because it's not normal doesn't mean it doesn't happen ever.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests