pretre Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 This is also interesting. I feel like could be the case for Harlequins, Inquisition, Militarum Tempestus and Officio Assassinorum. Harlequins want to be your warlord and assassins can't though. For the others I don't know that it does anything to add that requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s6nculve Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Harlequins want to be your warlord and assassins can't though. For the others I don't know that it does anything to add that requirement. I'm not sure what you're getting at. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I'm not sure what you're getting at. lolIt's not an effective addition/restriction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Yeah, that was why I only suggested it for Inquisitors. They are squishy enough that it is a real trade off, but if they don't count you could actually do an inquisition type army. Inquisitor, military arm of your choice and a fill the missing piece force. The others can just go straight to a weakness filler as the second source. Shrugs you won't really see Inquisitors unless they don't count or you're allowed enough sources but if you allow everybody three or more sources you get allot of cheap hard counters floating around. By forcing the inquisitor to be the warlord you are taking a squishy warlord point for the benefits they bring and it is fluffy for him to be the binding force of the army and hence the key figure of leadership ie warlord. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Thinking about it more. I think the swedish-type comp system could. You'd have to keep it very general, and it might not be perfect, but I think 40k could pull it off. I think doing it by codex/army book would probably fail. Keeping it general, like psykers, special characters, number of units, and so forth could work. For those that haven't seen the swedish comp system, players start with a certain number of points for their list score (not related to model point costs), then the more problematic units/rules subtract points. Armies can't get below 0 for list score, which basically bans excessively overpowered armies. The points determine starting opponents and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 True, but I think DA would really shine. Their codex is one of the more restrictive ones in the normal detachment system. Lots of lacking troops options, lots of overpriced characters required to take even more overpriced troops. Out of curiousity, what do you think DA get in an Unbound army that would push them ahead of other armies? Unlike Eldar/Tau/etc they don't really have very many "power" choices that you could abuse by minimizing troops or other taxes- in fact, I struggle to think of anything they could take in sufficient multiples to warrant an unbound army that they can't already get in a Battleforged one pretty easily. I like 4, no duplicates. I think once you get past three, it really stops being a limitation at all. Very few armies will have reason (or points) to take more than three detachments in 1850 or so points. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 After the discussion and concerns here I'm now a fan of the two sources limit and enforcing the wording of allies. The ally with yourself was an early nod to nids that no longer needs to exist. As more armies get their own special. Detachments (remember formations are special detachments per the rules) allowing extra stuff with objective secured from the exact same list is not necessary. I feel the limit needs to be there so at the higher levels of competition there are no gimme options. With out the limit you will see Inquisitors with servo skulls, and that anti psyker assassin in almost every list what 200 points of ruin a few specific builds. That isn't what we want. That said I'd like to see inquisition be playable which with two sources it isn't really. So yes I'm for tight limits at the competitive level with some dispensation for specific "primary" armies. Remember primary refers to where your Warlord comes from not the type of detachment used for it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Pax: generalized comp isn't going to accomplish what you want. For example, highlander makes wave serpents and centurion star better. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 General comp is generally more harm than help. Certain armies benefit far more and it doesn't always shift away from the good stuff, in 40k the good stuff is good cuz it can engage multiple target types well while requiring specific counters. Those specific counters are either difficult to obtain in number, or don't have widespread use outside of being a counter to something you might face. The counters could also be heavy costed in points, and limit your access to the remaining tools you need. Allot of times problem units become more of a problem as you limit the counters more than the problem. This is why if comp is done it must be specific. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Pax: generalized comp isn't going to accomplish what you want. For example, highlander makes wave serpents and centurion star better.How does it makes them better? (Serious question) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Centurionstar because it doesn't require spamming to make it powerful and therefore one can bring a top flight army within the confines of highlander which should have other armies lowered in power. Wave Serpents can be taken out of all the slots of an eldar army, so, one could have the effect of wave serpent spam quite easily, again, within the confines of a highlander event which should be lowering the power of other armies (like biker marines). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 How does it makes them better? (Serious question) Fluger covered it. It doesn't really make them better so much as they stay the same and everyone gets nerfed. Comp only shifts who is the top. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Out of curiousity, what do you think DA get in an Unbound army that would push them ahead of other armies? Unlike Eldar/Tau/etc they don't really have very many "power" choices that you could abuse by minimizing troops or other taxes- in fact, I struggle to think of anything they could take in sufficient multiples to warrant an unbound army that they can't already get in a Battleforged one pretty easily. DA suffer in two main areas. First is the largely overpriced and, frankly, underpowered, special characters that are required in every army. And second, All their troops choices are overpriced. For an unbound DA army, I'd ditch troops slots altogether. The only DA terms worth taking are the DW Knights, the only DA bikes worth taking are the RW knights. Those two units are amazing and can bring down almost any opponent. I'd add a few combi-melta TDA libs, and that would be the entire army. Maybe 2-4 units of 5 DW knights, and 10+ units of 3 RW command squads (command squad is RW knights at 6pts less for no clear reason). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I don't think you can take multiple units of dedicated transports even if they come out of different slots. But yes centurionstar is much better. With any comp you will see different power curves exist. The comp system that limits the most is what should be strived for. Hi think highlander does that plus it brings an enjoyment of see a diversity of choices on the table. With that said the learning curve skyrockets because now you need to know all entries in every codex as you are likely to see more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 I don't think you can take multiple units of dedicated transports even if they come out of different slots. In an unbound army, you should be able to field dedicated transports without their counterpart units. Unbound rules describe it as, "simply use whichever units from your collection you want." Dedicated transports are units, so it should be legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Sorry I was talking about highlander format Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Sorry I was talking about highlander formatDepends on which highlander. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Depends on which highlander. There can be only one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted March 1, 2015 Report Share Posted March 1, 2015 Comp only shifts who is the top. This. It doesn't matter what you do to "make a more balanced game." It only changes how people get to the top. Personally, I'm a fan of the rules. But the rules also state both players have to agree to the rules. Clearly, people cannot agree to the rules. lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestRider Posted March 2, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 With any comp you will see different power curves exist. The comp system that limits the most is what should be strived for. Hi think highlander does that plus it brings an enjoyment of see a diversity of choices on the table. With that said the learning curve skyrockets because now you need to know all entries in every codex as you are likely to see more. It's not just CentStar. Highlander makes almost any DeathStar list better. And it kills off a huge range of fun, fluffy lists as collateral damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainA Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 It's not just CentStar. Highlander makes almost any DeathStar list better. And it kills off a huge range of fun, fluffy lists as collateral damage. Yeah, I realized that I could have taken my LVO list to the Highlander tournament with only some minor tweaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Yeah, I tend to like repetition both for redundancy and fluff/aesthetics. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbusePuppy Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Wave Serpents can be taken out of all the slots of an eldar army, so, one could have the effect of wave serpent spam quite easily, again, within the confines of a highlander event which should be lowering the power of other armies (like biker marines). Most Highlander formats class dedicated transports the same as everything else, so you can still only have one. For an unbound DA army, I'd ditch troops slots altogether. The only DA terms worth taking are the DW Knights, the only DA bikes worth taking are the RW knights. Those two units are amazing and can bring down almost any opponent. I'd add a few combi-melta TDA libs, and that would be the entire army. Maybe 2-4 units of 5 DW knights, and 10+ units of 3 RW command squads (command squad is RW knights at 6pts less for no clear reason). Mmmm. DWK and BK are both fairly decent units, but not amazing- an army like that would be significantly lacking in anti-tank (and especially ranged anti-tank). Both of them can hit pretty hard, but they don't have a lot of survivability and the DWK have very little mobility. Spending 40+pts per model would leave you with a pretty small army. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2015 Report Share Posted March 2, 2015 Mmmm. DWK and BK are both fairly decent units, but not amazing- an army like that would be significantly lacking in anti-tank (and especially ranged anti-tank). Both of them can hit pretty hard, but they don't have a lot of survivability and the DWK have very little mobility. Spending 40+pts per model would leave you with a pretty small army. Ranged AT might be an issue. As mentioned, combi-melta ICs. Every BK has a TP homer and scouts, while every DW terminator has turn 1 DS and TL weapons on the drop. You can typically deal with most AV14 threats with a single TL combi-melta via an attached TDA IC. The TL plasma does just fine at killing just about everything at range, while the BKs have S5 rending paired melee weapons with hit and run. Those DWK are pretty solid too. Still, would be pretty much all or nothing. Dunno, list was the best I could think up with 5min of thought...I think it would do alright, but you'd want to fine tune it and make a less spammy/more TACT list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.