Discussion: Possible BA Captain nerf(s)

[SM1981]

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.

"A" is the clean and sensible solution.

[Panzer]

 

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.

 

 

I actually meant Matched play, not just tournaments tho. Also I said I'd be fine with it, not that it's how it should be. Imo if one wants to combine more than one Codex for his army it throws balance over board and has mostly just fluff justifications ... and since Matched play is all about balance and Narrative play is all about fluff there's the cut I'd be fine with.

[Kallas]

I actually meant Matched play, not just tournaments tho. Also I said I'd be fine with it, not that it's how it should be. Imo if one wants to combine more than one Codex for his army it throws balance over board and has mostly just fluff justifications ... and since Matched play is all about balance and Narrative play is all about fluff there's the cut I'd be fine with.

I definitely agree that Matched Play is about balance/Narrative Play about fluff/story.

 

That said, I'd like to see a less decisive change. Something along the lines of what Sea-People suggested: increasing the benefits for mono-Codex with diminishing returns for more and more soup-ing.

 

The main reason for that preference is that not everyone who plays Matched Play, even at tournaments, is playing purely for competitive reasons. I, for instance, like attending tournaments with a solid, relatively fluffy list; I fully expect to not do great, as I think I'm at best a mid-table player, but I greatly enjoyed a balanced game but very much appreciate the background of the game and like to see enjoyable, fluffy armies (and armies such as the du jour Guard/Custodes or BA/Knight lists are somewhat jarring, and in particular because of the Supreme Commands of the absolutely most efficient units being slapped in for no real reason).

 

With some kind of diminishing mechanic, like Sea-People suggested, we could see a reduction in the prevalence of soups while not totally eliminating them: there'd still be a decent reason for going that route even for purely competitive gains, such as taking units like Dawneagle Shield-Captains with Guard for a resilient, hard-hitting counter-melee unit, but it'd mean that's not necessarily the ultimately best way to go.

[Helias_Tancred]

I personally prefer how GW does "command points" in their new AoS rules.

[Majkhel]

I personally prefer how GW does "command points" in their new AoS rules.

And that is the most probable approach GW will take.

[Karhedron]

Given that both AoS and Kill Team generate command points on a turn-by-turn basis, I tend to agree. I actually hope that this change does get implemented as current, burning a big chunk of CPs on Turn 1 makes the alpha-strike problem even worse.

 

Kill Team also has an interesting quirk. You get a 2nd CP at the start of each turn your Warlord is alive. That would tend to make Captain Smash a risky pick as he often dies quickly.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

If they do end up nerfing the captain I will feel a bit cheated.

 

But If anything I will switch to the Relic Blade and MC boltgun.