Discussion: Possible BA Captain nerf(s)

[toaae]

So there is a sense among some that our humble Captain with a Thunderhammer is in need of a nerf, due to him and his twin (or even triplet) being present in many, many Imperium lists. I didn't want to hijack another thread, but I think this could be an interesting conversation. So, what do we think GW might possibly do, if they choose to affect our dear HQ choice at all?

In my opinion, the reason you see our captains present in so many lists is because he is an affordable tool that offers incredible flexibility when some command points are invested into them. It's less an issue with them being overpowered, and more that they complement the guard CP battery so much. But assuming GW doesn't want to redo how command points are earned and used (a different discussion entirely), I feel there aren't a lot of options for how to target the captain specifically. Really they are limited to two options: increase his points and find a way to limit how many captains you can take.

Points wise, I don't see much changing unless it gets drastic. Even a 20 point increase would probably not deter people from taking multiple captains. So that leaves restricting how many captains are available, and this I could see. Implementing a rule similar to the Tau Commanders, IE, 1 per detachment, would force people to either take multiple BA detachments (so, not affecting pure BA forces), or only getting one captain and then taking another HQ (which would probably be Mephiston).

Either way, I don't think you'd see people stop taking BA detachments. At best, you could reduce how many are on a table in a soup list.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

The captain is not the problem.

[Silverson]

Yea I’m with Don’t-Be-Haten, the captain is not the problem. As soon as gw “fix” cp farming in chapter approved things shouldn’t be so wonky.

[Indefragable]

To echo the other comments, it's not the Captain that's the problem, it's the soup factor.

 

There is nothing GW can do to the BA Captain on a datasheet/Codex/rules level that does not disproportionately hurt BA more than soup lists.

 

 

I mean, what is this special creature, the Captainicus Smashicus?

 

Shared:

Space Marine Captain datasheet

-stats

-wargear

-points cost

 

SM-shared Strategems

 

BA Specifics:

BA special rule: Red Thirst

BA Strategems

BA WLT

BA Relics

 

 

Any changes to the SM-shared ones would have to be applied to all, unless somehow they consider the BA Captain to be a separate and completely different thing (with no upside) to other SM Captains, which they seem reluctant to do, but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

That leaves nerfing BA specific things, such as Strategems, or Warlord Traits, which, again, disproportionately hurt pure BA lists more than soup. A pure BA lists needs that D:4 thunder hammer on a Captain smash that can ignore Overwatch far more than a soup list does. Why? Because the rest of our book is lacking. What does a soup list do? Not lack anywhere because they cherry pick the best from multiple sources.

 

As such, the issue is less "BA Captains" and more soup lists that effortlessly--and with 0 downside--combine the best parts of multiple sources.

 

So what should happen? A couple thoughts:

 

A. CP can only be used by the Faction/detachment that generates it. I.e. no bringing Guard to boost IK/BA/Custodes, etc ...

B. Pure Faction armies get an additional "Chapter Tactic" to encourage mono-faction armies, especially compared to soup lists

 

And note that this is not just about BA Captains, but about any unit that can easily be slotted into a soup list.

[Indefragable]

The bigger question is the "intent" of the state of the game. Kind of a macro-version of RAW vs RAI.

 

My cynical suspicion is that GW wants everyone to have soup lists since that would (theoretically) force convince force players into buying multiple Codexes and armies.

 

I don't see why everyone can't both have cake and eat it as well: making as many builds (mono faction AND soup) as viable as possible seems like a win win win for everyone.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

what's the most CP a BA codex can field and be competitive? 9-14 Legitimately? You spend 1 for death visions so 8-13? You spend 1 for the Veritas Vitae alongside the Angel's Wing so 7-12? That means you can do Smash Shenanigans MAYBE twice. 

Okay add in splashable guard. Free Aquila now you have 16-20 CPs plus you can net gain free CPs in your opponents turn, can go over your initial CPs, and have an almost 50% chance to return CPs for each stratagem you cast to abuse the BA stratagems.

It's really easy to see which is the real problem. If they change the rules to only allow relics and stratagems from the army of your war lord that fixes 90% of the problem.

[BluejayJunior]

One of the rules writers (I believe it was the main one) was on the NOVA stream for a while and said that allies are working exactly as intended. At least as far as what you're allowed to bring. He didn't comment on the CP farming specifically, so I think there still might be some change to CP regeneration shenanigans. 

My opinion is that nothing needs nerfed. But there needs to be a change to encourage/reward mono faction armies. 

CP only being used by the faction that generates it isn't actually that simple of a solution. It requires a lot of bookkeeping to keep everything straight. And then you also have to account for the 3 CP from being battleforged. Where do they go and when are they used? 

It would be simpler to just say that you can only use stratagems from your Warlord's codex. 

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I agree, There really needs to be a boost to mono armies. Like if your whole army from each of your detachments all have the same sub-faction keyword you gain the "Army of One" special rule: i.e. <Blood Angels> nets 3-5 additional CP It can't be  <Catachan> <Cadian> <insert guard army>

If you want to take it one step farther you could. The fact each detachment gets free Relics and aren't punished like mono-factions are for taking multiple relics is an issue I really don't like. They need to do something about all the soup; make it mean something to field one larger mono-army than multiple sub-factions. And CP regeneration, especially the Aquila is a broken piece of war gear. It is simply too powerful. 

Be allowed to take allies, but not free artifacts, stratagems, etc. for all three armies. Make it a challenge. If they simply make it to where you can only use relics and stratagems of the Warlord it balances all lists exponentially.
 

[Brother Crimson]

I think GW is still trying different versions of command abilities with kill team and AOS.

 

It is quite possible that CP per army will change drastically, after all they already errata’d the battalion, they might errata completely how detachement and CP works.

 

The CP battery brigade enables to fuel both the Castellan Knight (house Raven stratagem every turn and rotate ion shield every turn) and Smash Captains, that’s the problematic part balance wise.

[toaae]

I do not disagree that our captain is 1) fine and 2) not the problem. But I'm just curious what could possibly happen.

[brother_b]

Quite honestly BA isn't winning anything in the all important (eye roll) tournament scene. I think th captains are safe.

 

Another issue is the humble guardamn outshines the supposedly most elite fighting force in the imperium. By far.

 

Three guardsman for one for one Marine. Guardsman orders, Army traits, and ability to take squadron vehicles is insane. They're faster, with the move move move order, they can put out more shots, they can get re-rolls without supporting characters, they are quite honestly too effective.

 

Add in that the ever present guard battery for all the soups lists and that is where the real problem is right now.

[Brother Crimson]

@Brokejaw

I do hope you’ll be stunned, CP mining is the core of the issue with Catachan Castellan Smash list. If the respond with just point increases on 1-2 units players will find other ways to abuse CP miners.

[Glaucs]

I feel like the obvious solution is to just limit how many CPs can be generated; that would nerf the "CP battery" parts of the builds and bring them more into line with the effects of other relics and warlord traits. Maybe a new beta rule that reads something like: "A player may only generate one additional command point per player/game turn."

 

This would still leave the CP generation relics/ warlord traits as useful but not game breaking. It would also save some time in game because once you got your one CP in the turn you wouldn't need to keep rolling to generate additional CPs. A rule like this would not require changes to any individual strategium/datasheets. Furthermore, it would feel less punishing to not take CP generation mechanics as the opportunity cost would be lessened since there would be a limit on how impactful those mechanics could be.

[Indefragable]

The NOVA comp lists representing the Imperium had a very common theme. Take the time to look at the lists, you’ll be kind of dejected I promise.

 

Smash Captain

Smash Captain

3x scouts

 

Catachan Guard battalion or brigade with Aquila and Grand Strategist and emphasis on mortars

 

-EITHER-

3 Custodes Shield Captain bikers

Standard Bearer

 

-OR-

Knight Castellan

 

Clearly there’s an issue here somewhere, and it’s definitely a tournament problem that can bleed into less competitive environments. I’m not sure what the best fix is but this is a bold arrow towards whatever issues 8th has. Reading down the list there were more of these same lists than not, and the ones that weren’t were Haemonculus Y’narri.

 

 

OP - I would expect GW to “”””””””“fix””””””””” the shield captain with a point increase. I’d be surprised if they put a limit on him like the tau commander. I’d be stunned if they did something to address CP usage or detachment limits.

 

Without changes, I forsee this combo being around to stay.

 

It's the "perfect" army in 40k, when you break it down:

 

Hordes are really good. This list has the horde factor, and one that is arguably one of the better versions do to IG Orders.

 

High damage dealing units are really good. This one has three of them that are resliient by means of being characters.

 

High resiliency units that take a LOT of fire to take down are all the rage right now. A Castellan with all the cheese you can throw on top of one with Relics/Strategems et al is here to stay.

 

So you can see how the above typecast list perfectly combines the "best" elements of the game right now into a nifty package with few if any downsides. You can also see how those components (Guard, BA, Knights/Custodes) on their own, in a single faction build, have designed inherent drawbacks to balance them out. Put together in a soup list like this, those weaknesses are completely made for by the rest of the list. It's not the units or Factions that are necessarily flawed, it's the system that allows them to be combined so seamlessly.

 

 

What mono-faction build can hope to compete with that?

 

 

Of course it ultimately comes down to the player and there are always great players who manage to beat a "perfect" list with nothing but Sly Marbo, a Coke can, and a handful of vanilla dakka Terminators because they're just that good at the game. But the point is that on paper, the above type of combination is the "perfect" combo.

[The4thHorseman]

As many have mentioned I wouldn't expect to see any BA Captain Nerfs, or SM Captain nerfs either.

 

I would expect to see a change to CP. If you look at what they did with the two factions in the Rogue Trader Kill Team Box, I would likely see them move to that format.

 

Which if you didn't know restricts CP generated by that Detachment to ONLY be Spent on that Faction's Strats, but it also gives extra CP to that Faction if its Leader is also the Warlord.

[The Unseen]

Captain isn't the issue at all. Though GW deciding to nerf a unit that's fine on its own and really abusive in certain situations, rather than nerfing the specific synergy, which in this case is ally and CP regeneration abuse, wouldn't suprise me in the slightest.

But in all seriousness, I doubt this'll happen. It's a specific unit that gets magnified results from a combination of multiple things, most of which are limited to 1 per army, (the relics and warlord traits) or are once per turn and require lots of CP.

And that tourney base is kinda sickening to see repeated so much.

[tychobi]

The captain is too points efficient with jump pack and thunder hammer. This is not unique to blood angels. The salamander variant is brutal, even in blue the guy works. Cp farm is a separate issue. Points efficiency is the definition of op. Gretchen would be op at 1 point each. 1 per detachment means they won't need to change multiple books and the Capt can stay the badass (for his points) that he is. Also fluffy.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

The captain is too points efficient with jump pack and thunder hammer. This is not unique to blood angels. The salamander variant is brutal, even in blue the guy works. Cp farm is a separate issue. Points efficiency is the definition of op. Gretchen would be op at 1 point each. 1 per detachment means they won't need to change multiple books and the Capt can stay the badass (for his points) that he is. Also fluffy.

The Space Wolf version of the captain is cheaper in points. Yet we still only see captains from the Blood Angel's in the premier matches. Also, there are fluff reasons why multiple captains could be on the field together.

 

The captain isn't the problem. BA's just happen to have the best captain through RT & stratagems which are very strong with all the CP regens.

 

Again armies being able to get 3 relics from three separate detachments for free when mono builds have to pay CPs for them, and being able to abuse said relics is part of the problem. It costs me 1 CP to use the Angel's wing and Veritas Vitae and 3 if I want to take the SoS.

 

It costs me ZERO CPs to take Angel's wing, Aquila, and Paragon gauntlet. That isn't fair. Then you factor in how over powered the aquila is, combined with the veritas vitae or equivalent and grand strategist allows the abuse for captain Smash.

 

If you simply allow Allies but only allow Relics (and possibly stratagems) to be taken only by the keyword to your Warlord it again deals with 90% of the problem.

 

You could take it a step farther and do a rule of 3 for relics, where you have to spend CPs for each relic you take after the first, or limit the amount of relics you can take to a maximum of three per army.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

How are you getting the non warlord detachments relics for free?

You're right, I've been playing it wrong.

[brother_b]

Stratagems need to remain. If I want to play admech and BA (totally powerhouse guys itll sweep the tournament scene soon) I want to use their stratagems.

 

It's more the power of said IG relic (better than other command point relics) coupled with IG ultra cheap point cost. Bring that relic in line with others and that's a start. A chance to get a cp per strat used on a 6. It's funny that the army that has the potential to get the most CP by virtue of cheap troops also has the best CP regen relic.

[Silverson]

I think the easy fix for all relics/warlord traits that regain cps for you army is have the only count on stratagems for that army.

 

So have Veritas Vitae say, every time you use a blood angels stratagem, on a 5+ you gain a command point.

 

Same small change of wording on the guard equivalent will have big changes to soup armies without it effecting guard armies at all.

[Xenith]

GW should admit that the 'allies' was a step in the wrong direction, and that these small scale skirmishes we enact on the tabletop should be a snapshot of a single faction fighting.

 

Keep the soups for unbound, or that you have to nominate a main faction and allied faction, and the allied faction has to be a legal force org chart (excluding supreme command) and can be no more than 25% of your army total. 

 

I have no problem with a captain and 2 scout squads reinforcing some beleaguered guardsmen, but lone captains flying around soloing knights is off. 

[Panzer]

I'd be perfectly fine with excluding allies from Matched play and allowing it for Narrative play.

[Sea-People]

I wholly agree that allies needs to be fixed. However, I also would like there to be some ability to make fluffy pairings between factions. For example a knight supporting AdMech. Perhaps something like the following could work:

 

 

If your army is battle forged and is wholly made up of models with ONE <FACTION> keyword, you gain

 

- 5 CP for battle forged

- 6 CP for battalion

- 13 for Brigade

- 2 for all others except Super Heavy, fortification, etc. (they remain as they are now)

 

If your army is battle forged and is wholly made up of models with TWO SEPARATE <FACTION> keywords (Example: you took a knight with your guard, marines, whatever), you gain

 

- 3 CP for battle forged

- 4 for battalion

- 8 for brigade

- 1 for all others except Super Heavy, fortification, etc. (remain as they are)

 

If your army is battle forged and is wholly made up of models with THREE OR MORE SEPARATE <FACTION> keywords (Example: Imperial Soup Du Jour), you gain

 

- 1 CP for battle forged

- 2 CP for battalion

- 4 for brigade

- none for all others (including super heavy, etc.)

 

The idea is to reward mono-builds, allow pairings that might be fluffy, and, while still possible to make a soup list, greatly limit the CP pool of said list. Of course exceptions such as with Imperial Knight super heavy detachments would remain, but I think this would be a solid framework I would be quite happy with. Thoughts?

[brother_b]

I'd be perfectly fine with excluding allies from Matched play and allowing it for Narrative play.

Everybody plays match play though. Almost Every pick up game at the local store, every time our group plays each other is match play.

 

Let's not equate match play with tournament play.

 

If I want to play admech and bloodangels down at the local store with points and match missions then I should get to.

 

I know what you mean it's an easy fix but I think we focus too much on tournament results when it's a fraction of games played overall.

 

Just my opinion and not really aimed at sfpanzer but more on the Internets infatuation with tournament and "competitive" play. It's all competitive it's just not all beardy.