Goatboy’s 40K: Unit Limits Return to Matched Play

Goatboy here again to look at the biggest “rule” coming from Codex Tau and how it could effect other armies.

The Return of 0-1 Units?

GW let out a nice little matched play leak in that Commanders – instead of getting a nerf or point change – got the limitation of only being able to take one per detachment.  This is pretty huge as it is a very big difference from the other codexes out there.  The only real limitation on other books is that you can’t repeat a special character.  There hasn’t been a choice limitation that wasn’t governed by the detachment itself in a forever.  The only limits I can remember are those placed by events.  If you somehow could fit X units into a detachment it was fair game. This limitation is pretty interesting and something I wonder will end up showing up in other “codex” updates for matched play.

The one side of this is that at least the Tau Commander didn’t get nerfed.  In fact they just got better which is a good thing.  The Coldstone Creamery Commander got a big boost with more options, better abilities, and a plethora of stratagems to use and abuse.  I am happy we didn’t get nerf bat to them.  I won’t go over specifics as I will leave that for next week when I get a chance to dive into it, read it a ton, and probably listen to the Tau players I am buddies with and weep at the amount of random Tau I am getting to paint in the next few weeks.  I feel while the match play changes are probably warranted in that they will force players to build “better” lists – I think I would have rather seen a broader change to the overall detachment landscape instead of just a single codex nerf bat.

40K May Have an HQ Issue

I have always been of the thought that the Supreme Command detachment should just not be a part of the game right now.  I know I have used and abused it a ton – whether getting access to a ton of Daemon Princes or finding ways to fit in 5 Dawn Eagle bikers into an army – it just probably shouldn’t be in the matched play game right now.  It just lends itself to too much “abuse” and is something that just causes a bit of stagnation in the game with copy and pasted units to serve a bully like purpose.  We saw this specifically in the Index version of Tau – where the other suits and options were just not nearly as good as a souped up Commander who hit better and was cheaper.  But if we are not removing the Supreme Command Detachment could be see a “character limit” coming to codexes?

I know there was a lot of chatter in how some of the HQ options in books might be too good?  How many times do we see a crap ton of Hive Tyrants flying in, shooting a bunch, and being a pain to the current “good” army of Eldar?  We all know I love me some Daemon Princes so how annoying is it to see a 4 pack of them throwing spells, hitting a unit with 7+ reroll to hit attacks, and abusing the character rule?  The newest Imperial monster is the 5 Custodes Dawn Eagle biker Captains making an appearance in a ton of Imperial armies and limiting them might be a good thing.

Of course the issue with this is that it really hurts armies without a lot of “ally” help and options in the HQ section of their codex.  We mentioned how the Tyranids – while a decent book – really seem somewhat lacking in highly effective HQ choices.  They do have a decent smite thrower – but when that is about the best it can do the ability to be a combat threat, shooting threat, and fast as heck option like the Flying Hive Tyrant is just a better choice in most games.  I really think this type of “matched” play change is really a game breaker for most of the Xenos armies as they really rely on their HQ’s to do a ton of the heavy lifting.

The Chaos armies have a lot of decent HQ choices amongst all their options.  From Daemon Heralds and Greater Daemons to Chaos Lords and Sorcerers – the Chaos armies are ready to go if this change comes down the pipeline.  The Imperium is also well suited to this as while the HQ’s are alright – they really only need a few to pump out their Auras, do some assault shenanigans, and maybe throw a spell or two.  Heck even the Eldar – with upcoming “friends” in the Dark Eldar, Ynarri, and Harlequin codexes all rumored to come out soon.  It just seems to really be an issue with the Tau, Tyranids, and most likely the upcoming Necron book depending on how they label Lords, Overlords, and whatever else they decide to get.

What’s the Solution to HQ Spam?

On one side of this matched play coin – I think I would rather have my HQ’s just be good.  Sure I don’t want this whole game to devolve into Hero hammer – but I want my leaders to be bad a$$es.  I want spells to be awesome, monsters to kick butt, and super technological super suits to zip around and throw out a ton of fire power.  I don’t want this options nerfed.  But I do want to feel like we have a balanced game where new and different armies can emerge out of the Metagame.  I don’t want to see the same things on each table top and the uniqueness of your own personal army shines as you throw it on the table top.

What do you think about this?  Is this matched play change going to come to some of the other armies as a way to balance the game a bit without a rules changes/point changes to the units?  A lot of the time the rules work out alright – it is just their efficiency for the point investment that becomes an issue.  Which of course makes you think things should cost more but then when do you get to the point when the option isn’t worth it?  Do you think we should just remove some detachments to better build taxes in army choices?  What if we lowered the points, increased the need of X amount of command Points to make an actual Matched play army?  Or do we want to force things like Min/Max 1 Battalion Detachment etc?

I wonder how many “Tau Commanders” will pop up on Ebay with the Pro Painted label in the next week or so as people get used to a hard limit of 3 in any Tau based army.  Next week lets look at some Tau lists and other fun thoughts.  Hopefully I got a test game in with a Chaos Army.  I still want to build this janky Imperial list but with this whole Matched play update for Tau I wonder if it will be worth it going full hog into my Dawn Eagle biker army.


~Should more 0=1 limitations return to 40K? Which units?

  • defensive

    It’s not just a problem with HQ units, but unit spam in general.

    In my experience, the most fun games have been ones that limit you to a single patrol detachment.
    And sure it hurts some armies more than others, but limitation makes you get creative with what you take, instead of just building up some instant combo turn 1 win or bust list made from the one unit taken 5-6 times.

    Dropping the force org chart from previous editions was a bad move imo.

    • Kabal1te

      The current detachments are fine… for narrative play. For matched play it should be a battalion detachment with no more than one allied patrol detachment or a single lord of war detachment and that should be all you allow. (Or really I think the batallion should just have a lord of war slot, and the brigade should too, but that’s another matter)

      • David

        Which doesn’t really work when guard can fill out a batalion for under 1000 pts

        Although the brigade certainly should and both a fortification slot

        • Dennis J. Pechavar

          As a long term IG player I am always tickled that a mid tier army finally came into it’s own and is now the boogieman that used to be held by Eldar, Necrons, Marines…

          • Karru

            You must have missed 5th edition then. Imperial Guard was amongst the most feared of the edition back then. After Vehicle nerfs of 6th and 7th, Guard returned to mediocrity.

          • stinkoman

            4th edition had the leaf blower didn’t it?

          • Karru

            No, it was 5th edition. Best Guard could do in 4th was 3 Basilisk or 3 Leman Russes. It was when 5th dropped when they could take 9 Colossus Siege Mortars and 9 Vendettas with Veterans as their Troops in a standard list.

          • stinkoman

            ah, that’s right.

          • Billy Billstoner

            On problem there … please move along … as a 5th edition guard player I saw it as a major problem ..

          • Muninwing

            4th edition was terrible for vehicles. look at them too hard and they were shook, and any penetrating hits required the transports to eject their crew and blow up.

            that was of course when i had a ton of fun playing an Armored Company. because vehicles were so scarce, few people ever brought enough anti-tank to stop me.

          • stinkoman

            But Fish O’Fury! Guess that’s why my FWs jumped out as fast as they could.

          • Billy Billstoner

            Yup your absolutely right 5th was the apex of the IG….. I still grind them out though (without conscripts).

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I didn’t miss it but that was when I played my Ravenwing and Deathwing as I was tired of being the IG guy who took a balanced army but everyone assumed it was netlist because that is what everyone does…ugh. Once things got nerfed it was okay for me to play my IG but sadly once D weapons and Grav weapons came my tanks went. So I’ve used blob squads for years and now the circle is complete I’m that guy again for using 200+ infantry.

          • Karru

            Welcome to my life since 5th. Started out with Ultramarines because I liked the colour scheme, 6th launched and they were one of the more broken SM Chapters out there. Decided to start Eldar before their codex came out, wanted to go with Guardians, Rangers and Wraithconstructs as my main guys, then 6th edition codex dropped.

            During 7th, started an Imperial Guard Infantry army, because everyone knew that Guard Infantry was basically death for the player and I loved the concept. Then 8th happened.

            Towards the end of 7th, I started Orks Speed Freeks army, literally their strongest build in 8th.

            I know how it feels to try to explain yourself that you’ve been doing what you are currently doing way before anyone knew it was powerful in this edition. Nope, you are a netlisting powergamer with the power to see the future.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I’m actually selling my Eldar as I’m tired of them being either over powered or perceived as such and people hating me.

      • Muninwing

        i’m seeing more and more need for CP to take an active role in listbuilding mechanisms.

        instead of being a goal for the list, it should be a restriction. standard games should auto-start with one detachment and a set number of CP… which are not gained back by stratagems nor augmented by HQs.

        then, CP are spent on upgrades for the army, much like adding relics. another detachment? unlocking a LoW? using a different list that doesn’t come from the same codex? more than a set amount of a certain unit? each costs CP. so if you only start with a finite amount, you end up starting the game with none.

        all that would be needed from there would be a way of gaining them during the game… which is what objectives are for.

        • Karru

          My group already does this. You only get 3CP to start the game with, rest are gained via objectives and you only gain then at the end of your OPPONENT’S turn, thus making going second an actual viable strategy as the player that goes second starts out with 3CP + Objectives while the player that goes first has the Alpha Strike advantage.

    • piglette

      I never understood what was wrong with army construction in 5th edition. It was simple, made sense, and allowed for occasional manipulation (eg Big Meks allowing a Deff Dread to be in a troop slot).

      • Karru

        It was less profitable for GW. You see, when you limit options so that people can’t take 9 of the same unit or aren’t forced into buying certain units in order to use better ones, people tend to buy less.

      • LankTank

        Yup. I still loved my 2-big meks, 2-deff dreads and 9 kans in 1,000 pts, and force org legal

        • piglette

          Roger that!

    • NNextremNN

      Limiting it to Patrol is very limiting for some armies at 2000 points and almost forces them to spam their most expensive stuff to fill the point limit.

      • defensive

        Eh, we only play it with 1,250pt games.
        Works reasonably well there, and it’s not all that unbalanced from what I can tell.

        • NNextremNN

          1250 and only Patrol limits choices for Custodes quite heavily and forces Tau to drop a lot of their points into markerlights which are removed early on.

          This Restriction would not improve the tournament meta it would make it worse with less factions and more spam.

          • defensive

            Custodes actually won the last tournament like this.
            They don’t feel all that limited with Trajann, 3 terminators, 3 jetbikes, 6 custodes, and a vexilla.

            Tau have only been in one tournament, but the guy was screwed over by the special event rules and so I can hardly count that.

            Not saying that every game should be moved to patrol only, because that obviously won’t work, but the FOC from past editions was much better that what we have now.

          • NNextremNN

            Well that custodes player was forced to take 6 Custodes the Vexilla is an auto include, transports are too expensive. So he is left too chose 1 HQ and 2 sets of Termanitor/bike or 1 of each. That’s not much of a choice.

            Fusion Coldstar would become the only choice for Tau no other HQ makes sense with these restriction. No fireblade also limits fire warriors severely so they become a tax and nothing more. Fast attack is taken by Pathfinders. After this spamming Riptides (maybe Ghostkeel) and Ion Hammerheads is the way to go. Well at least it’s possible for Tau to do this with the Codex with their Index this would have been even worse.

            I’d say battalion and 2000 points is the way to go for tournaments (maybe a bit less but I doubt this would save much time without limiting options too much). Like others suggested I would let people start with a battalion and a fixed amount of CP any extras (LoW, Fortification, ally patrol detachment) cost CP. Also only one Commander, Captain or whatever is supposed to lead an army in the fluff per detachment + their advisors or whatever you want to call them.

  • Sniddy

    Could we see similar to other ‘problem’ units

    With the March rules FAQ almost on us, this could be a taste of things to come, true TBH it won’t actually fix much else

    And Tau so far, meh, I just don’t think GW have a good plan for them similar to Admech

  • benn grimm

    Yes, limitations are good. Applied to just one faction, not so much. Would it really be so hard to faq the main rule book with some meaningful universal limitations? No. Will they do it? Highly doubt it.

    • ZeeLobby

      They’ve definitely had a no-sales-restriction policy for a while. And now if they did it would invalidate people’s purchases. So yeah, it probably won’t happen sadly.

    • Steven Hyche

      They already nerfed hq spam. The main reason why commanders needed an additional nerf is that drones circumvented those rules for hq targeting.

    • marxlives

      That seems the hope of this article but I don’t know if its going to happen.

  • Tournament play should IMO feature a lot of restriction and limitations.

    Full bore tournament 40k is today, will be tomorrow, and has been for over two decades of world championship 40k, busted.

    • euansmith

      Busted? It’s totally McFly!


      I’d love to see GW take the bull by the horns and bring out a set of 40k that are specifically designed for tournament play with a totally overhauled turn sequence and list building metric. They could make things balanced, bring in tactical complexity (like flanking) and remove spam and cheese.

      • stinkoman

        they should go the MTG route and have restricted/banned cards (datacards) and no more than four, etc.

    • Warrior24_7

      Why buy all of those models and then “purposely” prevent yourself from using them?!!! Why should the “competitive scene have a lot of restrictions when the armies are perfectly legal? This is supposed to be the “dumbed down” Ed and it’s getting dumber with every release.

      • stinkoman

        I guess that’s matched vs open play. i have yet to see anyone play opened or even narrative yet.

        • Narrative is the only way I play these days and has been since the end of 5th ed and will be until GW moves away from the listbuilding phase being so heavy-handed.

          • stinkoman

            Well that great if you have the group to play that way.

            As far as im concerned, GW leaves it up to the players to decide how they want to play. if you want to be into list building and the competitiveness that goes hand and hand with it, play matched play. if you are cool and just want to throw some dice with you beautifully painted army on a nice table top, play how you want (open, narrative).

            The unfortunate thing is that all the matched play players are going to be the vocal ones. i havent heard any issues from folks that play narrative of open play.

          • Well that and matched play is how the iinternet presents to the community as the only way to play so it becomes the default.

            Building a narrative community also takes work because of this so people shy away from that.

          • briandavion

            and yes if you have a compeitive local group then you’ll play compeitive.

          • Muninwing

            my GW Wishlist:

            5. a GHB style book for narrative and campaign support, with different types of play, different balancing structures, and different rules to simulate various scenarios

            4. plastic sisters, because why not

            3. GW to remember that they were top dog long before PP showed up, and that if they took a responsible position of leadership in the market, they could dictate the direction, instead of following what WM/H does

            2. a style of listbuilding that allows trading advantage for range (like CP for more detachments, etc)

            1. actual points balance

          • Their big problem with narrative play is simply no one knows what the **** that means.

          • Muninwing


            see, Cities of Death and Planetstrike are the two kinds of books that we have gotten in the past — new extra rules, and altered games.

            that’s not narrative.

            i want to see GW publish a narrative campaign. an actual narrative series of missions that can be played by any group, that has a scoring system (for those who feel they need it), and that has a breakdown of how and why and suggestions afterward as to how to adapt it for clubs.

            there is so much focus on tournaments right now.

            tournaments are the normal kind of organized play that people are likely to see. and i don’t dislike them — i think they are fun, but i don’t take them terribly seriously. there isn’t anything else to occupy the limelight.

            if GW took the lead and focused on clubs instead of just tournaments — supplied resources, guidelines, and the like — then they could really magnify this kind of change, and bring a ton more people into the game.

          • That’s the first step but not the last.

            The next step is in a club environment overcoming the tournament-only mentality that is so very dominant. A narrative campaign published is great, but useless if no one will use it because no one else will play it with you because its not “real 40k” (ie – tournament 40k)

          • Muninwing

            i think GW needs to use the idea of “official” 40k to their advantage, instead of giving vague handwaving and then appeasing the tournament players.

            three-tiered membership, lowest/smallest level being free. registration on a GW-run site that offered some extras (like competitive score, army idea journals that port directly to a wishlist on the store, and league/tournament/event tools). larger groups get playtesting rights. tiers 2 and 3 have to run tournaments or events periodically, with a return of prize support.

            into that kind of environment, they could introduce narrative campaigns as structured and defined things (with plenty of room for adaptation), and they would be much more widely accepted.

          • Thats certainly an idea worth seeing how it comes out.

      • Because tournaments are supposed to be about player skill, but are instead a test of how good one is at copying netlists from the internet and how to use an excel spreadsheet to maximum effect.


        • Muninwing

          tournaments have become much like playing other kinds of games, like M:tG — instead of being about skill, they are about composition.

          and while there is just no way for certain matchups to go well for one player, there should at least be a chance for someone to win if their list isn’t utterly terrible.

          • Thats definitely modern game design yes.

  • Apocryphus

    I know I wouldn’t mind if 0-1 limits came back. I’d even throw it on a lot of the boogeyman HQs like Flyrants, which used to be 0-1 in 4th ed, Daemon Princes, Overlords, Greater Daemons, and that’s just the armies I play. We might see more diverse lists stem from that and GW would sell more models, as armies would require more units to fill in the void left by the 5 Daemon Princes that had to go.

    • euansmith

      “… and that’s just the armies I play.”

      😀 😀 😀

  • Warrior24_7

    Yeah, time to dump this turd army, I have better things to spend my money on.

    • Walter Vining

      ill give you 50 bucks for all of your tau

      • Warrior24_7

        Send me the 50 bucks.

        • Walter Vining

          What ya got

          • Warrior24_7

            A huge box of bits because I’ve broken them all. Heads, arms, etc.

          • Walter Vining

            then its only worth about 2 dollars

  • gdim415

    The other issue Tau have is the limit of non sept specific HQ units. We’ve got Commanders, Etherals and Cadre Fireblades. Tau Sept has the majority of the good named HQ units.

    Commander spam was just the result of almost every other unit being lackluster in the Tau Index. Though that didn’t change much with the codex.

    • This. When there’s only a handful of good units in an army of course they are going to be used a lot.

      • euansmith

        GW might as well dump list building and limit armies to the contents of “Getting Started” boxes.

        • Warrior24_7

          That’s actually a good idea! You can’t spam anything and EVERYONE will have the same rules and armies! it’ll be 40k simplified. From a business standpoint that’s actually sound.

          • stinkoman

            kind of what i liked about shadespire

      • Muninwing

        while this is true, it seems like there’s a ton of armies that fall into this same category yet don’t complain as hard nor spam quite as much…

    • Warrior24_7

      Yep, forced into the same predictable units and tactics, because the rest of the army is so uninspiring or useful.

      • gdim415

        I play with a variety of units. I didn’t go with commander spam but I’m not on the competitive scene. I get why people did it. I don’t blame them. But it is an obvious sign there is something wrong with the units and how they synergize together.

        But why bother to fix that. Make some of our guns better, drop a few point values and limit the limited characters you can bring.

        • Warrior24_7

          There are a variety of things that GW could’ve done, but they obviously want this army played a certain way and at a certain level, from mid to low, and they write the rules for it to that end, that’s just the way it is, with the other options out there why fight with this?

          • gdim415

            Not every unit will be viable but the majority should be. I wish they’d share the way they want my army to be played then.

          • Warrior24_7

            They did the same thing with Custodes. The units are super expensive so you have to pick carefully to field a viable army. This is why you mainly see jet bike spam or allied units in Custodes armies. It just doesn’t really work otherwise.

            The Tau are the same way, you have to cherry pick the best units and try to fight with that. You are forced into a certain build or strategy to be competitive.

          • Karru

            It also makes Tau quite dull army to face. It is either a massive spamfest of those best units over and over again, or you face a “varied list” that you completely crush. It is quite sad what happened with them. I was planning on doing a Tau army at some point but that idea got scratched by this codex.

          • gdim415

            I’m planning on playing some casual games at my FLGS and hobbying the models I’ve got. Maybe things will changed with time and the Chapter Approved.

          • Karru

            Yeah, it is going to be up to the playerbase unfortunately though. If people still keep buying lots of various Tau products, nothing major will probably happen, just point changes again.

          • Robert Baker

            T’au did have a decent number of second-tier units which were playable as part of a commander spam list, but in theory you could make a list using mostly those and it wasn’t too bad. It’s sorta what I did and it was definitely fun and viable against more casual lists without getting stomped (after I learned that some units were non-starters, at least).

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I haven’t seen Kroot in years. Or FIre Warriors for that matter. That is a bad design if basic troops aren’t taken.

          • NNextremNN

            Don’t worry you will see more Firewarriors. Tau need the CP form battalion or brigade now.

          • Karru

            I’ve seen a lot of Fire Warriors, though in a similar manner as I see most troops, minimal size so that you can get more detachments.

          • euansmith

            Indeed, design Notes in Codices would be top notch. The ability to see what the designers’ were thinking, even if you think they totally failed, is always informative.

      • Muninwing

        i think the issue is between tactics and strategy.

        it used to be that 40k was more about tactics, and WHF was more about strategy. but AoS is MORE about tactics than 40k, leaving a huge hole for those fans who appreciate strategy more.

        the tournament scene, with all its concern about meta, and powerbuilds, and spam, and exploits, is heavily focused on tactics, leaving even more of a hole.

        when tactics is the sole focus, it all comes down to who can pull off tricks to gain an advantage enough times to win, not the overall playstyle or battle plan or experience of playing.

        someone good at strategy but not armed with enough tricks can’t win. you don’t need to be good at the overall game, but instead need to possess the correct units that can implement the correct moves (and know how to time and utilize those moves).

  • Snord

    1. The irony of Goatboy advocating limits on HQ choices is obvious but worth pointing out.

    2. I don’t know what “Coldstone Creamery” is in the context of a Tau Commander (or anything else), and suggest that these articles are edited so they’re intelligible to a wider audience.

    • ZeeLobby

      Coldstone Creamery is just an ice cream place where you can customize a bunch of stuff into your ice cream. Guess he just means it’s highly customizable.

    • rhoadesd20

      I believe he is referring to the coldstar commander (who between standard movement and advance goes 40″), they got a buff because they aren’t limited to specific weapons, but can now take anything other commanders could.

      • briandavion

        He should really say that instead of using a nickname

    • NZPikey

      Coldstar Commander + 4 Fusion Blasters, zips 40″ across the board, nukes a vehicle (or 2) hitting on 3+ due to te “advance”

      • NNextremNN

        Depending on his Sept this becomes even more scary when he hit’s on 2+ or gets +1 to wound and charges after that with fusion blades or jumps 6″ away after shooting.

  • Drpx

    “Stop me from abusing HQ, I can’t stop myself!”

    This really is plastic crack isn’t it?

    • UnLachy

      My group self regulates spam with gentle bullying

  • Simon Chatterley

    It’s hard to read someone critise a part of the game that they wontedly abuse themselves.

    Is the problem the players or the game? Is it a fault of both?

    • Karru

      The game is the number 1 reason, plain and simple. If the game didn’t have it as a rule, players wouldn’t be using it.

      I always find it amusing when people say “player A is abusing a rule”. Abusing would indicate it is somehow wrong or it is a loophole of some sort, something that wasn’t intended to be its purpose, yet it is there to be used.

      Meanwhile, when people pull out the “Then if it is a problem, why not fix it by removing it? Maybe restrict the use so that it can’t be abused?” After which you get the best comments I have heard here during my time. “THEN IT WILL MAKE THE GAME BORING BECAUSE I CAN’T DO THE LIST I WANT TO DO AND I AM RESTRICTED TO A SINGLE BUILD!!”

      But yes, the game is always the number 1 reason to blame. Players use the tools they get, why make it harder for yourself if you can just use the best tools instead of the worst?

      • stinkoman

        IMO, i think this is an open vs matched play issue. Matched play is and should be played with that competitive mentality. When you are playing that way, you will and should always be looking to use the rules to your advantage or list build within the rules to your advantage, otherwise you are not playing competitively and should play open play. This requires that the game designer have that in mind when developing the rules for said version of the game.

        All of these points are from a competitive mind set since the rules only apply to the matched play version.

        let the open play players limit themselves or play however they want. Narrative should just as well be open play, not sure what else that adds.

        But then again, when was the last time i saw an open play game played since 8th dropped?

        • Karru

          The thing is, every change people want to be done to the game are purely focused on Matched Play. All restrictions are and should be on Matched Play as that is the main play people do. Why? Simplicity and speedy games. Just ask how many points and you are good to go, make your list and play the game, perfect for pick-up games which make up vast majority of games played.

          Open Play and Narrative doesn’t need any changes because those changes are done by the players, that’s why they have this nice name called Open and Narrative, not Matched.

          • ZeeLobby

            Agreed. The sad (or maybe not so sad) reality is that most people actually want to play matched play. They like structure and balance, and they can always destroy that if they want to write their own narrative. It’s definitely a lot harder for an individual to build those structures though, let alone TOs.

    • NNextremNN

      Well if you want to win at a tournament scene you kinda have to bring the strongest that the rules allow. This does not mean you can’t realise or think it’s bad design overall.

    • ellobouk

      Honestly, it’s a trap that’s easily fallen into when you’re active on the competitive scene. I honestly think the rules for measuring line of sight for vehicles are beyond ridiculous, but I’ll still happily spot your units shoulder pad with a baneblade track and open up with 5 twin heavy bolters on them, because in a competitive event I’m playing to win the best I can within the system the rules gives me.

  • Lazy fix. Band-aid to not a big problem with Tau though likely indicating more to come for all armies.

    • Karru

      Depends. GW clearly got similar scare as they did with Grey Knights for Tau. Instead of doing testing and listening to feedback, they did the same as they did with GK and Conscripts, overnerfed them to the ground and making sure that no one can complain about them being overpowered. I guess Tau players now get to feel how it was for Dark Eldar players since 6th edition dropped.

  • euansmith

    Come on, GW doesn’t bring out list limits until after they’ve sold out the kits in the warehouse. 😉

  • Muninwing

    the old Force Organization Chart was simple, but effective, in implementing its own for of balance.

    the start of the slow decline in balance was the “well, just take a double FOC at 2000 points!” — resulting in “1999+1” point games from the tournament and play scene. it was impulsively resisted.

    now we see the results.

    with GW pulling more and more out of the “counts-as” and creative end of the game, the justification for detachments in 6th, the “well, this way you can field whatever army you want to, it’s a creative thing!” excuse is getting thinner.

  • GiftoftheMagi

    At this rate I just need to wait another year before we have a decent edition to play

    • gdim415

      That’s assuming they don’t just add to 8th without changing the base rules. Chapter Approved will be tweaking things for ages to come.

  • Patriarch

    Ah, balls. That means the GSC codex is going to restrict detachments to 1 Patriarch and 1 Magus, because “fluffy”. Like they were in the short-lived 7th ed Codex. Just as I’m painting my second Patriarch.

    They aren’t going to restrict Hive Tyrants or Daemon Princes because there is no fluff justification (flufftication).

    • briandavion

      1 patriach and one Magus per detachment. that should be doable.

  • James Regan

    I actually think the sensible solution is to do what this rule does to the tau- it limits the one tau HQ unit that is open to overly large amounts of spam, without causing problems for ‘nids, with their limited HQ choices. It also allows the actually thematic idea of a supreme command detachment (an assembly of different commanders from different specialities), while making sure the theme isn’t ‘well, we got stuck in a weird warp powered time loop and now there’s six of the exact same guy here’

    • Robert Baker

      BS. If T’au get it then every other problem HQ from nids to custodes and on should get limited, too!

    • NNextremNN

      Tau with the exception of of named characters which are all bound to a Sept have basically 3 HQ units: Commanders (in 3 suites variants but limited by their Keyword), Fireblades and Etherals. If you try to build a fluffy Farsight Brigade you are kinda limited to 1 Commander and 2 Fireblades.

      I don’t have the Tyrannid Codex but looking at Battlescribe I can see Broodlords, Hive Tyrant, Malanthropes, Neurothrope, Tervigone and Tyranid Prime. I might have made some mistakes but I count 6 different ones form the keywords. So I wouldn’t say Tyrannid HQ choices are “limited”.

      • James Regan

        its more that multiple flyrants has been a core part of ‘nid lists for multiple editions, and actually a reasonable part of their competitive power without being either over the top or ‘nids as a whole being op. whilst i’m reasonably sure commander spam was a more recent thing, and more of a ‘these are replacing an elite unit’ thing. Flyrants don’t replace warriors (or fex’s or whatever), so are less of a problem, as you’ve still got incentive to field the other units. Commander spam was popular because it was better than fielding crisis suits.
        Slight correction on the named characters- the two FW named characters still go off index rules, so aren’t sept locked (seems only fair to include the XV9’s if we’ve got malanthropes in there).

        • NNextremNN

          OK haven’t checked FW but looking at battle scribe now tells me Shas’O R’myr is Dal’yth and Shas’o R’alai is Ke’lshan. So they are sept locked. Furthermore they have the commander Keyword and GW limited the commander keyword not the unit so it’s still just one commander per detachment.

          I’m not even sure Commander spam wasn’t eliminated by the other rule changes anyway. Sure Crisis are still bad and commanders still have the best accuracy. But other units got a lot more interesting again. Plus some stratagems which definitely encourage armies which generate more CP (yeah this does not exclude commander spam but still).

          I mostly think it’s unfair to just limit one faction, which already is limited in unnamed HQs. While all others like Custodes can still spam Biker Shield Captains.

  • Billy Billstoner

    I dont see a problem with this … or alpha strike, cover or ad infinitum …. when is GW just going to say “Wow we screwed up and didnt think this edition through” It should be clear to anyone who has ever played more than one edition that this one is the dumpster fire edition!

    • Koen Diepen Van

      A bit ……….. I think there are 2 mistakes. A) enable spam,to enable ppl to play whit every thing. Leading to the optimal strategy being spamming the unit that is best making amries boring. B) making the game to lethal because they think lots of action is fun. Leading to games being influenced to much by who starts. In Spite of their name it thik the current gw team lack knowledge in the field of game theory and totally misjudged how ppl would react within the boundaries set by the rules

    • Muninwing

      4th was actually really solid except for vehicle rules.

      the cheez in codexes in the latter half of 5th made it hard to play, but the core rules were solid.

      6th had some issues, but some decent ideas. they decided to “fix” it with 7th, but piled on the detachments and formations, and broke things in a different direction.

      8th also has a couple good ideas… but it really needs a recombination with past editions.

      i kinda wish that someone at GW-HQ would realize that they have everything they need to release a solid ruleset — they just need to take some of the core concepts of 8th and bring the game back to its roots.

  • Ryan Miller

    Removing the supreme command detachment would help solve hq spam.

    • HeadHunter

      Personally, I never use it. I’ve got a box of Dawneagles, but you won’t see me doing three shield-captains with it.

  • chris harrison

    Point cost should be the sole balancing factor, with a premium paid for units that would be appealing to spam. Problem solved.

    • Karru

      Ah, if it only was that simple.

      The thing is, the only way to make spam less appealing is to make it impossible or tone it down. The best way to do this is not in fact through points, but through limiting it via rules. If you start making some units cheaper and other more expensive, all you do is switch things around. Instead of spamming Unit X, they now spam Unit Y. Why? Because now the one is too expensive to spam and adds very little, while the other unit is very cheap so you can take it in large numbers.

      You don’t need to mix in 8th edition, you just need to spam. You need more Detachments in order to get more CP, you don’t start taking mixed units in there, you take the cheapest ones and then keep going with the most powerful ones again.

      • chris harrison

        That’s extremely depressing. So instead of playing the game, you’re just dumping out a list of shenanigans. Why even bother?

        • Karru

          Ah but you see, this is playing the game and not dumping a list of shenanigans on the table. This is 8th edition baby! Working as intended.

          You see, 8th edition is all about spamming because it encourages more sales for GW. If GW didn’t want this to be the case, do you think they would keep going with what they currently are? They want players to spam units in droves because they need to buy more models for that.

          If you bring an army in this edition that is “balanced” with a mix of different units with only 1-2 detachments with no duplicates outside Troops and Transports and you face an army that is build with the core of 8th edition in mind, you will get utterly steamrolled.

          This is not 5th edition any more where you can take whatever you like and compensate with skill to pull a victory in many cases. 8th edition is all about that list building and getting the first turn.

          • chris harrison

            Of you ‘re ok with that you’re no better than they are. Or you’re just being immature and facetious, in which case you’re just another useless person on the internet.

          • Karru

            Now that I have put out enough sarcasm on the table, back to the original topic.

            As I mentioned before, the points won’t change things enough, that is just not going to happen in 8th edition. 8th edition has too much freedom to spam and unfortunately only changing the core rules actually work.

            I despise the unmodified 8th edition and would never play it myself. My group is lucky since we can freely fix the game. One thing I said in my earlier comment is true though, 8th edition is build on spam, that is exactly what GW wanted.

            The way you fix the game is limiting spam via rules and make it less encouraged. This is done via making Command Points gained via Objectives, not Detachments. Limiting Detachments to 1 per 1000pts is also effective.

            There are multiple was of fixing the game and unfortunately points is the least effective method. As long as the rules are there that allow people to spam, there is no reason to do something else.

  • briandavion

    the problem is the commander was so much marked better then a standard crisis suit. the custdoes jet bike? better off taking those in units not as HQs

  • PullsyJr

    Given the Necron leaks over the last couple of days, it would appear that the limited HQ is a Tau-specific thing, otherwise there would be indications of a similar rule in the robots codex.

  • Jose Delgado

    I hope other codex get the same nerf. Flyrants or daemon prince per example are being spamed as comanders or or more and no change so far

  • NZPikey

    I agree with Ryan Miller, remove the Surpreme Command Detachment, it wont stop HQ spam but it will definitely lessen it. I will then force “tarrifs” to HQ spam, some will be low, some not so much