Are commanders undercosted?

Use this area for all discussions of the "gaming" aspect of 40K/Tau.
Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 18

Are commanders undercosted?

Post#1 » Aug 30 2017 05:37

At least in terms of power level, commanders cost as much as 1 1/2 XV8s.
XV8s hit on a 4+, and have 3 wounds each. The commander has 6 wounds and hits on a 2+.
The commander also costs 1 more PL than a 10-man fire warrior team, which fires 20 shots at 4+, but they each have 1 wound, while the commander can have 4 burst cannons and fire 16 shots hitting on a 2+ with a larger range.

So aside from more specialized units such as drones, stealth suits, longstrike with hammerheads and the such, I don't see why pick anything other than commanders for the bulk of your army.

Knives
Shas'Saal
Posts: 162

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#2 » Aug 30 2017 06:40

Why you should not do this.

It's not fun.

It's expensive.(real money)

It's spam.

It's not lore friendly.

You will annoy people you play games against.

It's power gaming.

GW might nerf it like the rip tide.

Reasons to use cmdr spam.

You win.

You have an un healthy obsession with min maxing.

You like over priced crisis suits.(real money)

Duckumentary
Shas
Posts: 12

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#3 » Aug 30 2017 06:54

Commanders are definitely a cost-effect option. But given how expensive the other anti-tank options are I think it needs to be moderately costed such as it is. Why not take them? First - a Quad-Fusion Commander is 160 points. That's the cost of 20 firewarriors. That's 20 wounds, 20 shots at 30", 40 shots at 15". Even a Quad-BC would offer 15/30 respectively. There is some give take in delivery / range performance, which can be argued for or against. A longer range is better for creating a kill zone and offers a better set up against assault armies. The biggest difference is that a commander can take a single wound that deals up to D6 damage and die, where as the Fire Warriors would need to suffer a wound for every model in order to be removed from the table.

User avatar
MNGamer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 96

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#4 » Aug 30 2017 07:01

I refuse to use commander spam because my gaming group is allergic to cheese.
Image
In all seriousness they will be nerfed hard when the codex comes out and you would be stuck with a bunch of expensive models.
Even when broken, a sword may still cut~Aun'ko'vash

User avatar
TauMan
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 591
Contact:

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#5 » Aug 30 2017 07:10

First it was nine Riptides and now four Commanders...when will it ever end! :-?

"Wait, did somebody say cheese?"
Image


TauMan
Viro’los gu brath!
N.Y.A.B.X.T.T.

fraction64
Shas'Saal
Posts: 194

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#6 » Aug 30 2017 08:08

Yeah I wouldn't even be surprised if they nerfed them before the codex. They've been pretty quick to act when they see a unit spamed in an army.
Just look at guard command squads or flyers.

I mostly oppose it for fluff reasons but that hammer is coming.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#7 » Aug 30 2017 11:41

I honestly don't consider having 2-3 Commanders as spam considering that the Battalion Detachment comes with a 2+ HQ requirement and the Brigade Detachment with a 3+ HQ requirement.
3 Commanders is plenty to do all the jobs you'd want them to do without abusing it. I mean we don't exactly have many HQ options if we want a Battlesuit themed list anyway.

However taking more than 3 Commanders or taking the HQ Detachment and fill it with nothing but Commanders really looks like deliberatly abusing the Commanders efficiency (especially with the Character rule).
Do yourself a favor and fill your army with other units instead. Especially because point costs can change all the time (end of the year with the Chapter approved book for example) so Commanders are unlikely to keep their top position in our army that easily.

Temennigru
Shas'Saal
Posts: 18

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#8 » Aug 31 2017 04:52

It's not so much a matter as to how over-powered they are, as it is a matter of how underpewered all the other options are.
If GW doesn't want commander spam, they should buff all other suits. Otherwise, it's the only option we have to stay competitive.
As for the $$$, I had the eight before this *BAD WORD DELETED* edition came out. I guess I have a use for them after all.

User avatar
akaron79
Shas'Saal
Posts: 5

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#9 » Aug 31 2017 06:07

Hi there,

Please don't get me wrong, I think is clear enough that commanders are a very effective unit pointwise compared to other suits and Tau units.

My question is, there has been some tournaments in which pure commander spam could have brighted but I think this is not the case. The top tournament Tau lists I know had no more than 5 commanders (I would consider having <50% points in commander far from spam). So, are commander spams so so so powerfull indeed?

On the other hand, we also have for instance Daemon Princes being very effective point wise, they are also subject to be spammed (classical 8 or 9 DP lists), but even I do not know whether they are winning tournaments or not. I'd say they are not winning lists right now.

Spam could be bored, cheesy, frustrating and whatever you want, but does it means that DP spams or Commander spam is auto win or better than other cheasy spam or not spam lists out there? I would say not...

Raven and brimstone spams have been nerfed because they have been proved to be winning lists in tournaments. Assassines spam are winning lists also and probably will be nerfed somehow, but, are really Tau commander spam winning lists? From a strict competitive point of view, why should any Tau opponent complaint? would s/he complaint if you played breacher or pathfinder spam?

Again, I am assuming a very competitive aproach. Nobody plays tournaments to lose, I would say... So people complaining min-max should take into account that min-max is another tool for claiming victory, of course, cause it is a competition and not an exhibition nor a casual/funny/lore game. G. Workshop and tournaments organizers are the ones that should evaluate and tune rules to get a better competive experience. Players will try to win using the current set of rules (that includes point costs). RAW vs RAI (or GAW vs GAI :smile: ) is not an issue when one try to do the best s/he can to win. Furthermore, in a well designed game RAW should be 99% equal to RAI in order to minimize such kind of arguments.

Just my too cents.

Regards
Vicente
Last edited by akaron79 on Aug 31 2017 06:13, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#10 » Aug 31 2017 06:12

Just because T'au aren't winning tournaments doesn't mean Commander are too cheap or Crisis etc. too expensive.

It's rather like in 7th with Tyranids. Commander spam is one of the few things that we have left to still have a chance to even compete with other lists.

Also Daemon Princes are strong, yes, but CSM have enough other things they can take to have a strong list. Daemon Princes still have to get into melee after all.

User avatar
akaron79
Shas'Saal
Posts: 5

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#11 » Aug 31 2017 06:23

Panzer wrote:Just because T'au aren't winning tournaments doesn't mean Commander are too cheap or Crisis etc. too expensive.

It's rather like in 7th with Tyranids. Commander spam is one of the few things that we have left to still have a chance to even compete with other lists.

Also Daemon Princes are strong, yes, but CSM have enough other things they can take to have a strong list. Daemon Princes still have to get into melee after all.


I agree. But you should agree that considering undercosted a unit that even being spammed is not A+ in the meta means that probably it's not so undercosted overall. So probably undercosted compared to other Tau units or, from another point of view, probably they are in the OK range and many other units (specially suits/vehicles) are over costed compared to the state of the art in other armies... I think in the end we agree each other :P.

Regards

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'Saal
Posts: 3548

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#12 » Aug 31 2017 06:30

akaron79 wrote:But you should agree that considering undercosted a unit that even being spammed is not A+ in the meta means that probably it's not so undercosted overall.

That's not what I said. I basically said unless a unit is horribly broken it's not enough to win tournaments with just that unit alone.

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#13 » Sep 12 2017 08:22

Unfortunately it's not really that commanders are underpriced, it's that crisis suits and most battlesuits are overpriced. We're priced like we're an elite army but in reality we have an unreliable BS and are fragile for our points unless we take swarms of drones.

A better option is reducing the number of weapons commanders can take to 2 or 3, and allow them to then take 1 or 2 support systems while also either reducing the points cost of all battlesuits, or increasing their BS to 3+

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 265

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#14 » Sep 12 2017 09:11

Tanniith wrote:Unfortunately it's not really that commanders are underpriced, it's that crisis suits and most battlesuits are overpriced. We're priced like we're an elite army but in reality we have an unreliable BS and are fragile for our points unless we take swarms of drones.

A better option is reducing the number of weapons commanders can take to 2 or 3, and allow them to then take 1 or 2 support systems while also either reducing the points cost of all battlesuits, or increasing their BS to 3+


I have a feeling we will get something like this in the codex where you will now have to choose between strike commanders and buff commanders.

Tanniith
Shas
Posts: 21

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#15 » Sep 12 2017 09:18

Glarblar wrote:
I have a feeling we will get something like this in the codex where you will now have to choose between strike commanders and buff commanders.


The problem with leaving it as is but choosing between two types is people will take one buff commander then 9 strike commanders. That's kind of what I do now and it's super unfun to play against; 5 coldstars, 5 missile commanders, an ethereal to give reroll ones and roughly 50 shield drones.

Unfortunately when your meta is as hard as my local meta is you kind of have to or you get destroyed.

User avatar
Glarblar
Shas'Saal
Posts: 265

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#16 » Sep 12 2017 09:24

Tanniith wrote:The problem with leaving it as is but choosing between two types is people will take one buff commander then 9 strike commanders.


Hmm, good point. What if a signature system took up 2 slots and you could only have 1 per commander?

It doesn't feel right to me but it feels balance3d

User avatar
Draco023
Shas'Saal
Posts: 63

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#17 » Sep 12 2017 11:14

Glarblar wrote:
Tanniith wrote:The problem with leaving it as is but choosing between two types is people will take one buff commander then 9 strike commanders.


Hmm, good point. What if a signature system took up 2 slots and you could only have 1 per commander?

It doesn't feel right to me but it feels balance3d


I don't see how that would prevent spamming quad fusion/CIB/etc though, it would just make sure the buff commander is less point effective and therefore probably less common.

Edited for spelling.

Ricordis
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 334

Re: Are commanders undercosted?

Post#18 » Sep 12 2017 12:47

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.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests