GK and Tournaments

[Helycon]

The point was that it limits a specific unit, opening up the way for other units, since something needs to fill the gap. This would also be applying to other armies, so they can't spam their OP units. The units that are limited, such as named characters, are generally pretty good and therefore often picked. The limit makes sure you can't just spam them.

 

3 GMNDK makes no sense without backup. As Captain said, it's exactly what it should be at the head of a detachment. Just dropping 3 of them is daft in a narrative sense.

 

The formations in 7th weren't too bad, except for the insane bonuses they conveyed. They made narrative sense and locked you in specific choices and a playstyle. I feel they should bring something similar back, with constraints and without the silly bonuses, and just some small ones. They could add Shunt as an ability for an Outrider detachment and you can do it once per round for your Interceptors. No more CP cost. A GMNDK leading a Batallion could use Only in Death when he dies. Purgatory in a Spearhead can use psybolt ammo once per turn for a squad, no CP.

 

I used the current names for the detachments, but imposing limits on the amount of units could very well turn out different detachment types. These were just some quick things that popped up as ideas.

[Beams]

I wouldn't add any bonuses. Otherwise things will escalate.

[Gentlemanloser]

You open up the way for other units by making them attractive/wortwhile to take.

 

You don't do it by limiting the only good units and forcing players to fill thier roster with unappealing sub par wastes.

[Helycon]

You open up the way for other units by making them attractive/wortwhile to take.

 

You don't do it by limiting the only good units and forcing players to fill thier roster with unappealing sub par wastes.

 

You'd still have people spamming stuff that's better. People will always spam stuff that is better.

[Waking Dreamer]

I'm kinda annoyed that tournament armies will have just 3 GMNDKs (they probably aren't even real fans of GKs huh?), but are their armies considered GKs or do they have a different Warlord that benefits their other main units better?

 

If your army is majority GKs then you should have have access to say 3 GMNDK (as is the norm for a MONO-GKs army to be competitive), but if you're just outsourcing them for a different main army, then yeah I prefer you need a tax or restriction.

 

Imperial soup needs some very thought-out reductions/nerfing imo, as brought up in the last LVO tourney, models and armies that have the Keyword IMPERIUM have a major advantage at tournament-level. An Orc player...has an Orc army and cannot really ally themselves with other Xenos Armies to make them better. That's why I don't mind things like Tau Commander spam in a Tau army, because you're purely Tau, go nuts. Same for a mono/majority GKs army, multiple GMNDKs are to be expected. But if there is a tax for an Ultra Marines army or an IG army to outsource multiple GMNDKs, then yeah put it in to curb Imperial Soup or to to reinforce the logic that a GKs army should have better access to GMNDKs than any other Army period.

[Capt. Mytre]

I'm kinda annoyed that tournament armies will have just 3 GMNDKs (they probably aren't even real fans of GKs huh?), but are their armies considered GKs or do they have a different Warlord that benefits their other main units better?

 

If your army is majority GKs then you should have have access to say 3 GMNDK (as is the norm for a MONO-GKs army to be competitive), but if you're just outsourcing them for a different main army, then yeah I prefer you need a tax or restriction.

 

Imperial soup needs some very thought-out reductions/nerfing imo, as brought up in the last LVO tourney, models and armies that have the Keyword IMPERIUM have a major advantage at tournament-level. An Orc player...has an Orc army and cannot really ally themselves with other Xenos Armies to make them better. That's why I don't mind things like Tau Commander spam in a Tau army, because you're purely Tau, go nuts. Same for a mono/majority GKs army, multiple GMNDKs are to be expected. But if there is a tax for an Ultra Marines army or an IG army to outsource multiple GMNDKs, then yeah put it in to curb Imperial Soup or to to reinforce the logic that a GKs army should have better access to GMNDKs than any other Army period.

 

That's what the one per detachment limit does. Other armies aren't going to be taking GMNDK's if they also need to take other units - which eats into their main armies points. For a GK player, it's fine as you're probably going to be bringing 2 detachments anyway.

 

Also, Beta rules for Custards has a bunch of units limited to a single one per detachment. Stops non-custards from spamming their tanks/dreads. I think it's good and encourages solo army builds.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

The way you kill Soup is simple. 

 

Disallow Strategem use unless your army is only selected from a single codex. Like, if you take GK and AM, you can't use either of their strategems.

 

To allow 'mini armies' some leeway, allow specific factions like Inquisition the ability to still allow this. Or Brood Brothers IG with Tyranids. Things like that.

 

But as a general rule, if you can't use Strats in a Soup list, you'll see the archetype die overnight.

[Schlitzaf]

That be a dumb rule change. Nothing is wrong with soup’ing. Period. You can dislike it on a personal level but souping is just as valid way to play. If anything should be done it should be by giving a carrot to mono armies without having the carrot be implicitly a stick for soup players. Strategems and Tactics removal are as such not the solution because soup lists need seperate detachment to unlock them.

[Capt. Mytre]

That be a dumb rule change. Nothing is wrong with soup’ing. Period. You can dislike it on a personal level but souping is just as valid way to play. If anything should be done it should be by giving a carrot to mono armies without having the carrot be implicitly a stick for soup players. Strategems and Tactics removal are as such not the solution because soup lists need seperate detachment to unlock them.

 

Again, this is why the detachment limit works. You can still take the powerful options for souping with other armies have, but you have to invest more than just picking the top units.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

hat be a dumb rule change. Nothing is wrong with soup’ing. Period. You can dislike it on a personal level but souping is just as valid way to play. If anything should be done it should be by giving a carrot to mono armies without having the carrot be implicitly a stick for soup players. Strategems and Tactics removal are as such not the solution because soup lists need seperate detachment to unlock them. 

 

Currently there is no advantage to running a pure list, besides maybe unit efficiency. 

 

Soup armies are almost exclusively used for cheesing unintended interactions (ie Primarch surrounded by expendable chaff from a different Imperial army). Prior to 8th, Allying was a lot more structured and there were 'levels' to Allying. Now, there is basically no downside besides many Strats and abilities are keyword locked. I'd go a step further, and simply limit people to the three generic strategems. Either all your detachments come from the same book, or you give up strategem access. 

Again, this is why the detachment limit works. You can still take the powerful options for souping with other armies have, but you have to invest more than just picking the top units.

 

 

Yeah and my point is that separate detachments are not a problem. They just take a Battalion or a Patrol if they have to.

 

Honestly, whilst Strategems are powerful, I still think Soup would be popular and work, even if my idea was implemented.

[Gentlemanloser]

The detachment limit for the AC vehicles is rediculous. They are too extensive to be spammed, you can imbecile as many as you want anyway because you're using a supreme command with 3 sc on bike then other ac detachment.

 

And one of the effected vehicles is a transport.

 

This new arbitrary limitation has been part of the feedback, with the suggestion to simply remove it.

 

Yeah FW stated all this with the limit on relic units. Doesn't mean its a good rule.

[Helycon]

To be fair, the supreme command detachment is dumb as hell. Being an HQ means something to lead in the first place. Having 3 HQ's negates that whole purpose. And 3 HQ's leading one unit is just daft. 

[Capt. Mytre]

To be fair, the supreme command detachment is dumb as hell. Being an HQ means something to lead in the first place. Having 3 HQ's negates that whole purpose. And 3 HQ's leading one unit is just daft. 

 

Some armies it makes sense, ie armies that cannot ally. They will always bring other detachments. Tyranids in particular with their monstrous creates as HQ, but Orks/Tau/Necrons to a lesser extent. That and ally only armies like Inquisitors.

 

Overall though, it makes no sense that 3 HQ units would join another army with no backup of their own. If you want to bring a HQ only, it should be via the -1 CP detachment.

 

I guess removal of the 3x HQ or making it 3x HQ and 2x Troop would be a better solution than enforcing a limit to specific units.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

We ban Supreme Command from our 40k events because it's pure cheese otherwise. I don't know why it is in the game.

[Waking Dreamer]

For armies with the Imperium keyword, the Supreme Command Detachment can be cheese but for Xenos like Tau they would need it to make certain armies. My brother plays Farsight Enclave, and right now he needs two SCD to run Farsight's The Eight who are all heroes.

 

At least till his Tau Codex drops next month, where they might have a special formation for it or something.

[Reclusiarch Darius]

Just take Brigade instead? Or double Battalion I suppose.

 

The codex won't change their role, but being a HQ actually makes them attractive because you need 2-3 for the better detachment types/combos.