Anyone else feeling a bit unsettled by the necessity of so many HQ units if you want to use a bunch of Troops and/or gain a decent amount of command points? The least restricted army for this seems to be Space Marines, and they only get 3 different guys before they start having to double up. It's even worse for armies like admech, who not only have just a single non-named-character choice, but only have one model that can represent it. Seems to me like we're going to see a lot of armies with multiples of the same model, which is kinda goofy both from a modelling and fluff perspective. What self-respecting Ork Warboss is going to share leadership of a Warband with another Warboss, instead of kicking his head in to prove who's REALLY in charge, before leading the boyz into battle?
I wonder if it might have been a better idea to have made a lot of the now-Elites models that were previously part of units move into some sort of sub-HQ role, which you can fill additional HQ slots with once you've already got your warlord?
I've only looked at AM, so YMMV, but there's enough want to take HQ units there to make up for the need to take many of them. Since platoons kind of went away, the org structure got a little flatter, and so I feel like company commanders are going to supplant platoon commanders, particularly since we have plenty of other good stuff in the elite slot choice to take rather than the PC.
You will have to look through your 8e codex. I cannot imagine an Ork player not taking a Weirdboy for the deep strike. Unless i'm totally mistaken and these guys aren't HQs in 8e. The leaks were taken down.
daedalus wrote: I've only looked at AM, so YMMV, but there's enough want to take HQ units there to make up for the need to take many of them. Since platoons kind of went away, the org structure got a little flatter, and so I feel like company commanders are going to supplant platoon commanders, particularly since we have plenty of other good stuff in the elite slot choice to take rather than the PC.
Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
My Nids are happy. Between the broodlord being a HQ choice, Tervigons no longer becoming troops and Walking Hive Tyrants becoming more useful, there's no shortage of potential HQ choices.
Can always throw in some non upgraded chaplains, or such to add up the Hq requirement with the traditional captain blingous in about 6 relics and upgrades.
Emp champ, helbeot and chaplains could make a nasty Templets list in CC.
Nightlord1987 wrote: Imperials have a lot of options though. While not particularly synergistic you could always add cheap Inquisitors.
They have a lot of options and not many things have downsides to taking a general imperial list (for now). I'm not really bothered that sisters have only 3 HQ choices with 2 being unique characters. We still have yet to see what individual codices will do to the game in terms of relics, abilities, new FoCs, etc etc.
I literally threw 2 hqs into a 1500 points and netted me a 3 command points like it was nothing.
im also finding that +3 command points is more than enough at those points.
also to note that it seems every HQ also hands out a fairly significant bonus to units near by universally meaning they are not really a waste of points ether.
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
Well there is a wide range of ranks that can fill the two options. Platoon commanders can be Lieutenants or 2nd Lieutenants. For the Company Command, you could have Captains, Majors, Colonels or even Generals if you want. There is even the freedom to use any ranks from history or make up your own. You could have a Shield-Centurion leading your 100 man platoons. Glancing at the 5th Edition codex, they give some examples of different company commander titles: Major, Byzarr, Hetman, Spear-Chief, Prime-Warden or High Preator. The cultural variance across the Imperium is extreme, far greater than the amount of cultures currently found on Earth. Just because Cadian equipment is common in games, doesn't mean that the meat wielding it is the same at all.
I think that if I ever field multiple commanders, I will probably give one a piece of wargear the elevates him above the rest. That model would be the Colonel, with any other models being Majors or Captains.
It annoys me that Skitarii only have the Techpriest Dominus available as an HQ (Cawl, technically as well) when they used to not require any HQ. I guess I could take something from one of the other sections from a different army, but if I want pure Ad Mech, it is a single choice.
Nazrak wrote: Anyone else feeling a bit unsettled by the necessity of so many HQ units if you want to use a bunch of Troops and/or gain a decent amount of command points? The least restricted army for this seems to be Space Marines, and they only get 3 different guys before they start having to double up. It's even worse for armies like admech, who not only have just a single non-named-character choice, but only have one model that can represent it. Seems to me like we're going to see a lot of armies with multiples of the same model, which is kinda goofy both from a modelling and fluff perspective. What self-respecting Ork Warboss is going to share leadership of a Warband with another Warboss, instead of kicking his head in to prove who's REALLY in charge, before leading the boyz into battle?
I wonder if it might have been a better idea to have made a lot of the now-Elites models that were previously part of units move into some sort of sub-HQ role, which you can fill additional HQ slots with once you've already got your warlord?
You want multiple HQs. Most give an aura buff limited to 6" (highest i have seen is 9"). So bringing 2 of the same HQ just means buffing more guys. Try to look at your HQ to Troop relationship as Ethereals to Fire Warriors.
Automatically Appended Next Post: What I hope they do is add a couple of HQs to thr more needy factions. And spread the abilities out a bit some to incease toughness other to increase offences, and still other to increase movement. Could make for some intresting builds
Tau have gotten a HARD push towards Fire Warriors: the humble Shas'la is cheaper, and the cheap foot commanders are necessary to get command points, while suits have all nearly doubled in point cost.
And my Kroot, who I only managed to use once in 7e, have exchanged Stealth and Infiltrate for a rule called "Stealthy Infiltrators" which does neither of these things. Oh well, good thing I love my Kroot models
I have a excuse now to use all those Wargameexclusive models that I have bought for my Tau but that I just didn't used because Cadre Fireblade sucked in 7th
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
Well there is a wide range of ranks that can fill the two options. Platoon commanders can be Lieutenants or 2nd Lieutenants. For the Company Command, you could have Captains, Majors, Colonels or even Generals if you want. There is even the freedom to use any ranks from history or make up your own. You could have a Shield-Centurion leading your 100 man platoons. Glancing at the 5th Edition codex, they give some examples of different company commander titles: Major, Byzarr, Hetman, Spear-Chief, Prime-Warden or High Preator. The cultural variance across the Imperium is extreme, far greater than the amount of cultures currently found on Earth. Just because Cadian equipment is common in games, doesn't mean that the meat wielding it is the same at all.
I think that if I ever field multiple commanders, I will probably give one a piece of wargear the elevates him above the rest. That model would be the Colonel, with any other models being Majors or Captains.
100 Guard Conscripts..... no. Also that isn't even their complaint.
Well, the force org charts seem to be built backwards from a conclusion of upgrading Apothecaries, Ancients and Techmarines into solid ICs, with a Company being spread over three or four Force orgs and bringing along their Captiain and Chaplain and a bunch of Librarians and Techmarines. It's like taking a Company formation and a couple of the Power Rangers type ones.
I totally get why people with less diverse armies might be feeling hard done by Herohammer 40,000, though. Especially if their one HQ option, aside from mixing subfactions, offers little practical versatility.
Me? I'm maining Chaos and intend to fully exploit having loads of Lords giving re-rolls on supercharged Plasma Chosen & Havocs. Going to start Novamarines with my boxed game Primarines as well, who come with four characters. Might well dust off my Behemoth and Genesteela Kult as well. I have little to complain about, and hope that other factions get the variety in leaders they need to build interesting lists.
As a Chaos player currently being forced to run my Legion as 2 different Legions (the Death Guard forgot what Chosen, Havocs and Terminators were) I'm just fine and dandy with the extra HQ slots - that way I can apply bubble effects to things that need them.
Also, I always like having HQ slots spare for Fabius Bile. Though he lacks an invuln save...Fabius is bloody hilarious now. Cheap and cheerful and buffs Heretic Astartes Infantry units every turn - this includes Poxwalkers and cult troops
pigasuspig wrote: Tau have gotten a HARD push towards Fire Warriors: the humble Shas'la is cheaper, and the cheap foot commanders are necessary to get command points, while suits have all nearly doubled in point cost.
And my Kroot, who I only managed to use once in 7e, have exchanged Stealth and Infiltrate for a rule called "Stealthy Infiltrators" which does neither of these things. Oh well, good thing I love my Kroot models
prefacing with the fact that I haven't had a chance to read the rulebook (or leaks yet), (though I did get access to the Tau Index) I was smitten with the idea that I could take Longstrike as a HQ. (Even if my stormsurges may ultimately be cheaper to field than riptides). And if I may just say. . . wtf happened to seeker and destroyer missiles?!? one shots that only hit on a six (regardless of buffs)?
I find it kinda of annoying since my 7e Talons of the Emperor army of Custodes and Sisters of Silence doesn't really work without taking HQs from outside those factions - cheap Inquisitors, Primaris Psykers or maybe something choppy on their own like a Gravis Captain or Celestine.
I might "count-as" my Tribune as a Space Marine Captain to meet the HQ tax, even if it doesn't synergize with the rest of the army.
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
Well there is a wide range of ranks that can fill the two options. Platoon commanders can be Lieutenants or 2nd Lieutenants. For the Company Command, you could have Captains, Majors, Colonels or even Generals if you want. There is even the freedom to use any ranks from history or make up your own. You could have a Shield-Centurion leading your 100 man platoons. Glancing at the 5th Edition codex, they give some examples of different company commander titles: Major, Byzarr, Hetman, Spear-Chief, Prime-Warden or High Preator. The cultural variance across the Imperium is extreme, far greater than the amount of cultures currently found on Earth. Just because Cadian equipment is common in games, doesn't mean that the meat wielding it is the same at all.
I think that if I ever field multiple commanders, I will probably give one a piece of wargear the elevates him above the rest. That model would be the Colonel, with any other models being Majors or Captains.
I get that. And I do have additional Colonel models that I could use. But for every of those senior officers there's going to be ten times as many officers junior to them. When those junior officers share slots with their command squads, their senior officer's command squads, the (very necessary) commissars, plus any advisors or support, you're obviously not going to see many of them. So you get situations where the officer ranks that should be closest to the fight are nowhere to be found, while their superiors are risking their lives. That's what I have a problem with.
Dakka Wolf wrote: Three army players talking inside my head on this topic.
The Space Mutts player - Fine by me, my army already uses that many HQs.
The Deathwatch player - 75 point Libby tax to take more specialised units? Last edition I had to take nearly 300 points to pull a stunt like that.
The Nids player - My troops don't suck anymore!!!!!
Guard Player- Marines can have larger squads than I can?
This actually works out as a benefit; more detachments - more command points. Plus, weapons that shoot 10+ shots are wasted if they shoot at a squad of only 10 models.also, you can more easily rank and screen for your other units, minimizing losses depending on placement. Keep a commander nearby, and even if you get consolidated into with cc, you can Fix Bayonets order, or fall back and Get Back In There.
Platoons have been exchanged with detachments as a whole. Sure, it feels weird, and will cause you to go second most of the time - but you can field far larger total troop counts, at higher command point values to boot. Plus, small, cheap infantry squads means more elites/heavies/etc along side all these detachments.
This actually works out as a benefit; more detachments - more command points. Plus, weapons that shoot 10+ shots are wasted if they shoot at a squad of only 10 models.also, you can more easily rank and screen for your other units, minimizing losses depending on placement. Keep a commander nearby, and even if you get consolidated into with cc, you can Fix Bayonets order, or fall back and Get Back In There.
Platoons have been exchanged with detachments as a whole. Sure, it feels weird, and will cause you to go second most of the time - but you can field far larger total troop counts, at higher command point values to boot. Plus, small, cheap infantry squads means more elites/heavies/etc along side all these detachments.
I think IG came out massively ahead this edition.
The downside is that they are always going 2nd, unless they can seize
Nazrak wrote: Anyone else feeling a bit unsettled by the necessity of so many HQ units if you want to use a bunch of Troops and/or gain a decent amount of command points? The least restricted army for this seems to be Space Marines, and they only get 3 different guys before they start having to double up. It's even worse for armies like admech, who not only have just a single non-named-character choice, but only have one model that can represent it. Seems to me like we're going to see a lot of armies with multiples of the same model, which is kinda goofy both from a modelling and fluff perspective. What self-respecting Ork Warboss is going to share leadership of a Warband with another Warboss, instead of kicking his head in to prove who's REALLY in charge, before leading the boyz into battle?
I wonder if it might have been a better idea to have made a lot of the now-Elites models that were previously part of units move into some sort of sub-HQ role, which you can fill additional HQ slots with once you've already got your warlord?
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
It wouldn't matter. They'd still cost 2/3 of what a Company Commander costs, whilst being half as good.
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
It wouldn't matter. They'd still cost 2/3 of what a Company Commander costs, whilst being half as good.
But being in 2 bodies rather than one thus being harder to remove.
Generally if you have 2 guys that are equal to 1 in ability when combined 2 needs to be more expensive.
Formerly Wu wrote: Which just leads to armies where multiple captains are running the show while their lieutenants are nowhere to be found. Or, for patrol detachments, captains leading a single squad of Guard around.
Platoon Commanders should absolutely have been HQs.
It wouldn't matter. They'd still cost 2/3 of what a Company Commander costs, whilst being half as good.
But being in 2 bodies rather than one thus being harder to remove.
Generally if you have 2 guys that are equal to 1 in ability when combined 2 needs to be more expensive.
Also, sometimes you don't need two orders. For instance, if you just need someone to order a conscript squad or jump out of a Valkyrie with some veterans, then you don't need the extra order. I'm not saying that Company Commanders are not a better choice most of the time, but there are times when they are a waste of points.
Nazrak wrote: Anyone else feeling a bit unsettled by the necessity of so many HQ units if you want to use a bunch of Troops and/or gain a decent amount of command points? The least restricted army for this seems to be Space Marines, and they only get 3 different guys before they start having to double up. It's even worse for armies like admech, who not only have just a single non-named-character choice, but only have one model that can represent it. Seems to me like we're going to see a lot of armies with multiples of the same model, which is kinda goofy both from a modelling and fluff perspective. What self-respecting Ork Warboss is going to share leadership of a Warband with another Warboss, instead of kicking his head in to prove who's REALLY in charge, before leading the boyz into battle?
I wonder if it might have been a better idea to have made a lot of the now-Elites models that were previously part of units move into some sort of sub-HQ role, which you can fill additional HQ slots with once you've already got your warlord?
Since the Imperium and Chaos factions have so much overlap between their respective forces, and can now be mixed and matched freely (Guardsmen with Space Marines and a little Admech sprinkled in, in a single legal detachment), I don't see this as a problem in most cases.
For the more solo factions like Tau and Necrons, I can see things getting a little tight, but for the rest of the armies? Does it really hurt to take a second Captain, or a barebones Chaos Lord who just sits behind your gunners and glares at them when they roll 1's? If it REALLY is a dealbreaker, just bring an Inquisitor, a Herald, or whatever.
Try something silly or fun. Bring a force of Guardsmen lead by a space marine chapter master, or put a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut at the helm of a bunch of bloodletters. Things are a bit more freeform now with how allies work, so borrow HQ's from anything you share Faction Keywords with.
The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Since the Imperium and Chaos factions have so much overlap between their respective forces, and can now be mixed and matched freely (Guardsmen with Space Marines and a little Admech sprinkled in, in a single legal detachment), I don't see this as a problem in most cases.
For the more solo factions like Tau and Necrons, I can see things getting a little tight, but for the rest of the armies? Does it really hurt to take a second Captain, or a barebones Chaos Lord who just sits behind your gunners and glares at them when they roll 1's? If it REALLY is a dealbreaker, just bring an Inquisitor, a Herald, or whatever.
Try something silly or fun. Bring a force of Guardsmen lead by a space marine chapter master, or put a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut at the helm of a bunch of bloodletters. Things are a bit more freeform now with how allies work, so borrow HQ's from anything you share Faction Keywords with.
This is kind of what I was taking issue with though; it seems we're being encouraged to take a lot of HQs, and it does any seem like there are many ways to do this without flying in the face of the fluff. "Does it really hurt to take another captain?" Well not necessarily, but it's kind of goofy from a narrative perspective in most circumstances unless you're fielding well over 100 marines.
If you are concerned about fluff and narrative, you should play narrative, where those restrictions doesn't matter...
And I'm saying this in no aggresive way. People should assume that matched is where the fluff goes to die and to be grinded into the hamburgers of "balance"
Galas wrote: If you are concerned about fluff and narrative, you should play narrative, where those restrictions doesn't matter...
And I'm saying this in no aggresive way. People should assume that matched is where the fluff goes to die and to be grinded into the hamburgers of "balance"
Battle-forged armies, Command Points, and Stratagems still exist in Narrative.
Asmodai wrote: I find it kinda of annoying since my 7e Talons of the Emperor army of Custodes and Sisters of Silence doesn't really work without taking HQs from outside those factions - cheap Inquisitors, Primaris Psykers or maybe something choppy on their own like a Gravis Captain or Celestine.
I might "count-as" my Tribune as a Space Marine Captain to meet the HQ tax, even if it doesn't synergize with the rest of the army.
Go with a deathwatch captain as they still get the spear, or a inquisitor with the anti psyker boltgun for a sister of silence HQ stand in.
Galas wrote: And I'm saying this in no aggresive way. People should assume that matched is where the fluff goes to die and to be grinded into the hamburgers of "balance"
As if those were mutually exclusive. Except by GW designers.
I don't mind that my ad mech has only a single HQ choice (and Cawl)... I mind that it only has one model. Ideas how to kitbash more different tech priests welcome! I think I'll start by getting the plastic Enginseer for one. He fits into the army flawlessly.
SilverAlien wrote: The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Be warned, even a single non-AdMech unit in a detachment and every AdMech unit in that detachment loses Canticles.
SilverAlien wrote: The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Be warned, even a single non-AdMech unit in a detachment and every AdMech unit in that detachment loses Canticles.
And people are wondering why some of us Death Guard players are flipping tables about the random exclusion of Terminators, Chosen, Havocs and Daemon Engines apart from the Defiler.
This. This is why. This is almost a preview of how the Codex benefits will work - detachment must be 'All X' or you lose it.
That aside, at least it specifies Detachment - which means AdMech armies will probably end up with less CP having to take a variety of detachments.
SilverAlien wrote: The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Be warned, even a single non-AdMech unit in a detachment and every AdMech unit in that detachment loses Canticles.
And people are wondering why some of us Death Guard players are flipping tables about the random exclusion of Terminators, Chosen, Havocs and Daemon Engines apart from the Defiler.
This. This is why. This is almost a preview of how the Codex benefits will work - detachment must be 'All X' or you lose it.
That aside, at least it specifies Detachment - which means AdMech armies will probably end up with less CP having to take a variety of detachments.
We still don't see it because as you state it mentions detachment. So you take a death guard detachment, and a non-death guard detachment, problem solved. If at some point there are benefits for your entire army being from one faction, then you have a valid complaint. I don't think AD Mech will be particularly poor considering most armies will likely be in the 5-8 range for command points at 2k.
We still don't see it because as you state it mentions detachment. So you take a death guard detachment, and a non-death guard detachment, problem solved. If at some point there are benefits for your entire army being from one faction, then you have a valid complaint.
The AoS benefits for specific armies rely on the entire army being that one Faction - so there is a precedent. But awfully nice of you to consider what is and isn't a valid complaint.
And should your determination of what is and is not a valid complaint be confirmed as 'valid' then you will have a valid opinion.
carldooley wrote: with the necessity of so many HQs, is this a herohammer edition?
That would necessitate one hero. It's that you have to take an HQ tax with every detachment, and you want a couple of detachments to get some command points if nothing else. Furthermore, HQs buffing infantry is big this edition, so those HQ taxes aren't horrible. They're gonna run around with units, making them better. But that doesn't make it herohammer.
SilverAlien wrote: The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Be warned, even a single non-AdMech unit in a detachment and every AdMech unit in that detachment loses Canticles.
And people are wondering why some of us Death Guard players are flipping tables about the random exclusion of Terminators, Chosen, Havocs and Daemon Engines apart from the Defiler.
This. This is why. This is almost a preview of how the Codex benefits will work - detachment must be 'All X' or you lose it.
That aside, at least it specifies Detachment - which means AdMech armies will probably end up with less CP having to take a variety of detachments.
Maybe those admech players should be taking one of these detachments? As has been stated a MILLION times DG can take a second detachment. Sorry that you don't have T5 havocs, but you're just going to have to wait - until then you have cheaper havocs.
pigasuspig wrote: Tau have gotten a HARD push towards Fire Warriors: the humble Shas'la is cheaper, and the cheap foot commanders are necessary to get command points, while suits have all nearly doubled in point cost.
And my Kroot, who I only managed to use once in 7e, have exchanged Stealth and Infiltrate for a rule called "Stealthy Infiltrators" which does neither of these things. Oh well, good thing I love my Kroot models
prefacing with the fact that I haven't had a chance to read the rulebook (or leaks yet), (though I did get access to the Tau Index) I was smitten with the idea that I could take Longstrike as a HQ. (Even if my stormsurges may ultimately be cheaper to field than riptides). And if I may just say. . . wtf happened to seeker and destroyer missiles?!? one shots that only hit on a six (regardless of buffs)?
Markerlights are the secret. If you have 2 or more marker tokens on a target, you can fire seeker/destroyer missiles at full BS. This is quite nice on a Hammerhead or Skyray, say, especially if you can get 5 tokens. (BS 3+, +1 to hit, re-roll 1s = 2+ rerolling, mortal wounds if you hit. Very reliable damage indeed.)
Brutus_Apex wrote: Actually, I'm happy that I can now take more HQ's freely.
I thought 2 HQ's was very restrictive.
Wait, was 2 all that was allowed in a battle forged list?
My friend said it was 3.
Well I might just have been passively cheating for a while.
You mean last edition? The old FoCs needs 1 HQ, 2 Troop min, and you can have a max of 2 HQ. There's a bit more variety now. Sadly, the traditional FOC doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Brutus_Apex wrote: Actually, I'm happy that I can now take more HQ's freely.
I thought 2 HQ's was very restrictive.
Wait, was 2 all that was allowed in a battle forged list?
My friend said it was 3.
Well I might just have been passively cheating for a while.
You mean last edition? The old FoCs needs 1 HQ, 2 Troop min, and you can have a max of 2 HQ.
There's a bit more variety now.
Sadly, the traditional FOC doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Although some armies could take several HQs as one spot.
SilverAlien wrote: The Admech are a little bit hurt, the dominus is good, but he costs a fair amount and you don't relaly need more than 1-2. Thankfully, Inquisitors are nice and cheap, give some solid buffs, and can be psykers. Considering our army otherwise lacks any psychic abilities, including denial, this is a good idea. Primaris psykers are also dirt cheap psychic HQ choices, albeit less useful imo.
Be warned, even a single non-AdMech unit in a detachment and every AdMech unit in that detachment loses Canticles.
And people are wondering why some of us Death Guard players are flipping tables about the random exclusion of Terminators, Chosen, Havocs and Daemon Engines apart from the Defiler.
This. This is why. This is almost a preview of how the Codex benefits will work - detachment must be 'All X' or you lose it.
That aside, at least it specifies Detachment - which means AdMech armies will probably end up with less CP having to take a variety of detachments.
Maybe those admech players should be taking one of these detachments? As has been stated a MILLION times DG can take a second detachment. Sorry that you don't have T5 havocs, but you're just going to have to wait - until then you have cheaper havocs.
Spoiler:
God I love how ya'll are just being obtuse.
I mentioned the reason it was a concern - the AdMech thing specifying detachments must be 100% AdMech to benefit from Canticles...but also conceded that it specifically mentions 'detachment' which might be the positive (Remember, in AoS the faction books require the entire army to be Faction X to benefit - there is a precedence and that is a concern.)
I stated that AdMech armies will probably end up having less CP due to having a variety of detachments. You then come in...link the image and ignore the point made. Well fething done.
You'll find that someone able to cram things into a single detachment may well be able to fully utilise the Brigade Detachment or stack a few Battalions. AdMech, not being able to take vehicle squadrons as they could are looking at taking...a variety of detachments.
Now consider this.
Someone who can take a Brigade detachment starts off with 12 CP. 2 Battalions starts with 9 CP.
An AdMech army that say, has to take a Battalion and a Spearhead for their Crawlers... starts with 7 CP.
IS that 'ending up with less CP overall'? Why yes, yes it is. You will find that 7 is less than 9 or 12.
And as for your shot with Death Guard - cute. Nice to see you went straight for T5 Havocs and disregarded Chosen and Terminators. Someone obviously things Death Guard players are more concerned about Havocs than anything else.
Me? My concern is the fact that the list was non-sensical in what it chopped out and the fact it literally is going against every Death Guard list permitted since Index Astartes Death Guard all the way back in 3rd ed. But you find your target and take shots at it. Miss all the points for a quick jab
Brutus_Apex wrote: Actually, I'm happy that I can now take more HQ's freely.
I thought 2 HQ's was very restrictive.
Wait, was 2 all that was allowed in a battle forged list?
My friend said it was 3.
Well I might just have been passively cheating for a while.
You mean last edition? The old FoCs needs 1 HQ, 2 Troop min, and you can have a max of 2 HQ.
There's a bit more variety now.
Sadly, the traditional FOC doesn't seem to exist anymore.
Although some armies could take several HQs as one spot.
Hmm.
I know some took several HQs in one slot - Daemons with Heralds stand out as they were a 4 for 1 deal there. I know that AM had non-slot taking HQ options as well. I think Sisters did as well.
Perhaps confusion with Lords of War? When they changed half the characters to be LoW they were effectively a 3rd HQ for some armies as well.
This is kind of what I was taking issue with though; it seems we're being encouraged to take a lot of HQs, and it does any seem like there are many ways to do this without flying in the face of the fluff. "Does it really hurt to take another captain?" Well not necessarily, but it's kind of goofy from a narrative perspective in most circumstances unless you're fielding well over 100 marines.
Or still further, that captain could be, in fluff, not a captain at all, but a sub or vice captain that is one of several candidates the captain sees as a potential replacement for him, or a member of his command staff, or a particularly tactically minded veteran assisting in managing the fighting force on the ground.
Just because they're the same unit type in the index doesn't mean they absolutely need to be fluffed as peers that one inexplicably capitulates to.
This is kind of what I was taking issue with though; it seems we're being encouraged to take a lot of HQs, and it does any seem like there are many ways to do this without flying in the face of the fluff. "Does it really hurt to take another captain?" Well not necessarily, but it's kind of goofy from a narrative perspective in most circumstances unless you're fielding well over 100 marines.
Or still further, that captain could be, in fluff, not a captain at all, but a sub or vice captain that is one of several candidates the captain sees as a potential replacement for him, or a member of his command staff, or a particularly tactically minded veteran assisting in managing the fighting force on the ground.
Just because they're the same unit type in the index doesn't mean they absolutely need to be fluffed as peers that one inexplicably capitulates to.
Oh! Or maybe your Chapter has a melee hero like a Champion for the Black Templars, and the Captain profile is the best way to represent that on the tabletop?
Or the Chapter has a "Captain apprenticeship program" that one of the Captains is not at the full rank yet, and is working with the current Captain to gain insight, perspective, and experience?
This is kind of what I was taking issue with though; it seems we're being encouraged to take a lot of HQs, and it does any seem like there are many ways to do this without flying in the face of the fluff. "Does it really hurt to take another captain?" Well not necessarily, but it's kind of goofy from a narrative perspective in most circumstances unless you're fielding well over 100 marines.
Or still further, that captain could be, in fluff, not a captain at all, but a sub or vice captain that is one of several candidates the captain sees as a potential replacement for him, or a member of his command staff, or a particularly tactically minded veteran assisting in managing the fighting force on the ground.
Just because they're the same unit type in the index doesn't mean they absolutely need to be fluffed as peers that one inexplicably capitulates to.
Oh! Or maybe your Chapter has a melee hero like a Champion for the Black Templars, and the Captain profile is the best way to represent that on the tabletop?
Or the Chapter has a "Captain apprenticeship program" that one of the Captains is not at the full rank yet, and is working with the current Captain to gain insight, perspective, and experience?
Plenty of other ways too, I'm sure
I don't really have much insight into the structure of the Space Marines, but in a normal army a captain doesn't necessarily have to have any soldiers assigned to him. He might be in charge of logistics or training, and could very well be coming along with the captain that is handling the operation for example as his second in command, even though they technically have the same rank.
Or...that "Captain, is a Liutenant that has not been promoted yet. He might be waiting for a slot to come open. SM might wait Centuries for a slot to open up.
pinecone77 wrote: Or...that "Captain, is a Liutenant that has not been promoted yet. He might be waiting for a slot to come open. SM might wait Centuries for a slot to open up.
Yeah I saw someone dkuff for having two company masters by stats as such for dark angels, that one was a apprentice, still a tough fighter but been chosen and undergoing extra training and working under a veteran officer as a kinda advanced.
The senior was command of the mission, or acting in a watchful eye over the junior officer, moulding and grooming them for success and command when ready and a slot opens up.
I honestly use 2 Hq in every list i've written so far. The bonus they give are not easy to overlook.
So, it's not an excessive requirement, to me. It's a good slot that helps your army. I can't compare it to the 7th ed. troop tax that some datachments had.
Karoline Dianne wrote: Since the Imperium and Chaos factions have so much overlap between their respective forces, and can now be mixed and matched freely (Guardsmen with Space Marines and a little Admech sprinkled in, in a single legal detachment), I don't see this as a problem in most cases.
For the more solo factions like Tau and Necrons, I can see things getting a little tight, but for the rest of the armies? Does it really hurt to take a second Captain, or a barebones Chaos Lord who just sits behind your gunners and glares at them when they roll 1's? If it REALLY is a dealbreaker, just bring an Inquisitor, a Herald, or whatever.
Try something silly or fun. Bring a force of Guardsmen lead by a space marine chapter master, or put a Chaos Lord on a Juggernaut at the helm of a bunch of bloodletters. Things are a bit more freeform now with how allies work, so borrow HQ's from anything you share Faction Keywords with.
This is kind of what I was taking issue with though; it seems we're being encouraged to take a lot of HQs, and it does any seem like there are many ways to do this without flying in the face of the fluff. "Does it really hurt to take another captain?" Well not necessarily, but it's kind of goofy from a narrative perspective in most circumstances unless you're fielding well over 100 marines.
luckly the sheer varity of HQs space Marines have means it's not really a problem. in 8th edition our HQs, not including characters are: Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and Leuitenants.
even within a single company I could see quite easily a force where you have a captain, with a chaplain over seeing the spiritual needs of the company, while the newly arrived Primaris Leuitenant serves under the captain, learning about the chapter from him
luckly the sheer varity of HQs space Marines have means it's not really a problem. in 8th edition our HQs, not including characters are: Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and Leuitenants.
Yeah, an Ad Mech has one... it's not a bad one, but still... I wish they had given the Enginseer something more, upped his price and made him HQ. As it is, he's an elite single character unit that isn't really good at anything except standing around as a repairman for vehicles, assuming they don't move too much.
luckly the sheer varity of HQs space Marines have means it's not really a problem. in 8th edition our HQs, not including characters are: Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and Leuitenants.
Yeah, an Ad Mech has one... it's not a bad one, but still... I wish they had given the Enginseer something more, upped his price and made him HQ. As it is, he's an elite single character unit that isn't really good at anything except standing around as a repairman for vehicles, assuming they don't move too much.
well I was replying specificly to someone who was commenting on the narraitive akwardness of running multiple captains (something I agree with) by noting Marines at least have a few options there.
Admech is definatly problematic in that forge world doesn't offer much and I suspect there aren't many admech focused third party bits.
for orks we have some neat HQ choices. your warboss might employ a big mek, he also might have hired a captain badrukk who seems worth the points. or snickrot might be around. boss zag even seems like a good pick too 6 attacks, 6 wounds, 12" move can advance and charge with ere we go. 2 of those 6 attacks are pk at str 12 that do not have a -1 hit , hits on a 2+ and the remaining 4 attacks are really 5 because of choppa. at str 6.
And as for your shot with Death Guard - cute. Nice to see you went straight for T5 Havocs and disregarded Chosen and Terminators. Someone obviously things Death Guard players are more concerned about Havocs than anything else.
Me? My concern is the fact that the list was non-sensical in what it chopped out and the fact it literally is going against every Death Guard list permitted since Index Astartes Death Guard all the way back in 3rd ed. But you find your target and take shots at it. Miss all the points for a quick jab
Well my thinking for the Death guard exclusions, is that we all know they are getting more new models.. and are likely to get one of the first new codexes....
So I can see them having replacement units within that, and maybe putting in the exclusions for now means that people on the new DG hype train don't go and spend monies on units that wont 'really' or just different when they actually get to releasing them.
I've ordered a Chaplain to make a second Dark Apostle, going to try out some Infantry blobs. Maybe each one hang out with a Chaos Lord and between them buff a bunch of units into fearless pro fighters. Throw down a Prescience every other turn, boom.
buddha wrote: For imperials a primaris psyker is only 40pts. There's no army that can't use a cheap smite user that fills an HQ slot.
Until they Peril and blow up everyone next to them...
Its a 1/18 chance of happening. You have a greater chance of getting nuked by plasma.
Slightly less, really. A 1/18 chance of perils absolutely, but the Primaris Psyker has 4 wounds and you take d3 from a perils so it's pretty safe to smite as long as you have at least 3 wounds. Even with 2 wounds remaining you're looking at a 1/27 chance of blowing up. For 40 points? Hell yeah. Sign me up.
luckly the sheer varity of HQs space Marines have means it's not really a problem. in 8th edition our HQs, not including characters are: Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and Leuitenants.
Yeah, an Ad Mech has one... it's not a bad one, but still... I wish they had given the Enginseer something more, upped his price and made him HQ. As it is, he's an elite single character unit that isn't really good at anything except standing around as a repairman for vehicles, assuming they don't move too much.
During the 'First Blood' game they had on Warhammer TV today, they showed datasheets for the Enginseer and Datasmith. Both showed an HQ skull instead of the Elite cross, so you might be in luck. From what I've picked up, it sounds like they're actually taking questions and comments from people that have seen the leaks and are using them to prepare a FAQ and errata. They're just not really... directly acknowledging the leaks, which seems fair.
buddha wrote: For imperials a primaris psyker is only 40pts. There's no army that can't use a cheap smite user that fills an HQ slot.
Until they Peril and blow up everyone next to them...
Its a 1/18 chance of happening. You have a greater chance of getting nuked by plasma.
Slightly less, really. A 1/18 chance of perils absolutely, but the Primaris Psyker has 4 wounds and you take d3 from a perils so it's pretty safe to smite as long as you have at least 3 wounds. Even with 2 wounds remaining you're looking at a 1/27 chance of blowing up. For 40 points? Hell yeah. Sign me up.
luckly the sheer varity of HQs space Marines have means it's not really a problem. in 8th edition our HQs, not including characters are: Captains, Librarians, Chaplains, Tech Marines, and Leuitenants.
Yeah, an Ad Mech has one... it's not a bad one, but still... I wish they had given the Enginseer something more, upped his price and made him HQ. As it is, he's an elite single character unit that isn't really good at anything except standing around as a repairman for vehicles, assuming they don't move too much.
During the 'First Blood' game they had on Warhammer TV today, they showed datasheets for the Enginseer and Datasmith. Both showed an HQ skull instead of the Elite cross, so you might be in luck. From what I've picked up, it sounds like they're actually taking questions and comments from people that have seen the leaks and are using them to prepare a FAQ and errata. They're just not really... directly acknowledging the leaks, which seems fair.
Where do you leave feedback like that? Because they done goofed for a couple of the necron melee weapons.
Where do you leave feedback like that? Because they done goofed for a couple of the necron melee weapons.
You could try the Warhammer TV Facebook page maybe? They didn't say anything explicit and I may honestly have misinterpreted what they were saying, but that could work. Or you could go to the Warhammer 40,000 Facebook page. I thought maybe the Warhammer Community (god I'm starting to feel like a shill) web page would have an email address on it, but I don't see one.
CadianGateTroll wrote: If my army is Chaos marines, can i use daemon heralds for hq instead of marines?
Yes, and it is a good way to get a few extra psychic abilities. Note that there are demonic and marked units in CSM, so heralds work best with possessed, obliterators, mutilators, warp talons, and all the daemon engines. A nurgle herald can babysit nurgle daemon engines, healing them with fleshy abundance. You basically get a slightly cheaper warpsmith who also gives a strength buff. A herald of slaanesh can use hysterical frenzy to boost a unit of slaanesh possessed, plus gives them the basic strength increase.
Even without the synergy of the psychic/aura buffs, they still work if you want to add a little bit more psychic firepower to your arsenal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lansirill wrote: During the 'First Blood' game they had on Warhammer TV today, they showed datasheets for the Enginseer and Datasmith. Both showed an HQ skull instead of the Elite cross, so you might be in luck. From what I've picked up, it sounds like they're actually taking questions and comments from people that have seen the leaks and are using them to prepare a FAQ and errata. They're just not really... directly acknowledging the leaks, which seems fair.
Huh, that's rather odd but interesting. I mean, it makes sense, why not get a little bit of extra testing and have a day one FAQ ready.
Yeah some armies doesn't feel it at all like my Genestealer cult or am but my admech really feels the pain on this one. I don't want more than one Dominus but if you want command point you more or less need a minimum of 2 of them. ( in a non-small game). I like the idea of the system but I now feel how some armies are really hampered with it while others couldn't care less.
For IG/AM, you could look at excessive "Company Commanders" as the product of high quality junior officer training. They are technically platoon commanders, but are equivalent front-line leaders to the company commander. They may not habe the planning and larger organization skills of a true company commander, but those skills aren't represented at the level of the game, anyway.
I'd have preferred more than one non-character HQ choice myself, but I'll just toss palatine around as a sub-rank for the extra cannoness or four I've got. If they'd have tossed in a jump pack on that listing I'd have three sitting around ready to build a brigade around.
1) Whilst I can understand wanting armies to field more HQs, it seems rather silly to enforce it when you've just stripped most HQs of virtually all their options.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I like being able to differentiate between characters - and one of the main ways to bring that across is by giving them different gear. However, virtually all the non-weapon gear has been removed in 8th. So all you can really do now is give your HQs different swords, which I find lacklustre.
Maybe the codices will improve this, but we've no idea how long each army will have to wait for theirs, nor even how much more gear each codex will actually bring.
2) It seems really weird that there's no equivalent of the old CAD.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Elite units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Fast Attack units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Heavy Support units without taking more than 1 HQ.
However, there is no detachment that allows you to field 3-6 Troop units without taking more than 1 HQ. You have to either use a Patrol detachment (which only allows 3 troops per HQ) or else you use a Battalion (which allows 3-6 Troops, but requires a minimum of 2 HQs).
This just seems completely backwards to me. Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.
3) As others have said, having to field multiple HQs seems far harsher on some armies than on others. Let me just take the armies I play as examples - Necrons, IG and DE.
With my Necrons and IG, multiple HQs are fine. My Necron HQs bring different skills to the table (D. Lords buff Destroyers, Overlords give Infantry an offensive buff, Crypteks give units a defensive buff etc.) and I'll often want at least 2-3 in every army. Likewise, IGHQs bring excellent buff to the table - whether in the form of Orders (Company Commanders) or Ld (Commissars). They're also incredibly cheap, so I'm happy to bring them en masse.
However, we now get to DE. To begin with, they have far fewer HQs than the other two. Indeed, Necrons have more Special Characters than DE have HQ characters and special characters combined. What's more, their buffs are far more specialised than the others and don't allow any overlap at all (a Succubus can only buff other Wych units, a Haemonculus can only buff Coven units etc.). What's more, many of the buffs they bring just aren't that useful - like the Archon's Ld aura (which is useless when he's in a transport, and he will be in a transport because he has no other options).
Put simply, with Necrons and IG, I'm taking extra HQs because I want to anyway. The fact that the detachment requires them is simply a formality. With DE, I'm taking extra HQs because I have to - not because I want to or because they bring anything more to the army.
(To be clear, I'm not saying DE are the worst affected by this - just that they're by far the worst of the armies I actually play.)
As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6
Anpu42 wrote: As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6
Karoline Dianne wrote: For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight
Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.
Anpu42 wrote: As far as HQs are concerned I have been looking over my list, especially my Guard and the # of HQs are not my concern, it is the number of Elite Slots that is.
My old Kell/Creed Company Command Squad is now taking up.
HQ: 1
Elite: 6
Out of interest, what Elites are you using?
All of them: Kell, MoO (Maybe more than one), Command Squad, OotF (Maybe more than one), Astropath, Nork.
They always work for me (I love Pie) and Nork can tank wounds like no ones business.
2) It seems really weird that there's no equivalent of the old CAD.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Elite units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Fast Attack units without taking more than 1 HQ.
- We have a detachment that lets you field 3-6 Heavy Support units without taking more than 1 HQ.
However, there is no detachment that allows you to field 3-6 Troop units without taking more than 1 HQ. You have to either use a Patrol detachment (which only allows 3 troops per HQ) or else you use a Battalion (which allows 3-6 Troops, but requires a minimum of 2 HQs).
This just seems completely backwards to me. Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.
Totally this. 1 HQ + 3 FA/El/HS nets you +1 CP, whereas 1 HQ + 3 Troops nets you 0 CP. No problem with opening things up to more varied lists, but come on, give people some incentive to take Troops.
Yes, I am finding Elites are the issue with Guard Units. I just did up my old Guard List using the Brigade Detachment and two things stopped me from rebuilding it.
1] I ran out of Power Levels
2] I had a Commissar for every Squad, if they were 1-3 per Elite Slot like back in the RT Days it would not be to bad. I am going to have to go to a paired Detachment set up. One Battalion Detachment for the core of the units and one (Possibly 2) Vanguard Detachment just to get the Commissars and other Officers
Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.
Because you need more command infrastructure to manage them.
The elites need less management on the battelfield.
standard = need more direction. All the other units - think of them as the more independent or less 'overhead' units.
I can say that in most of indexes I have read (a lot, not all, but a lot) the HQ slot is brimming with quality units.
I don't find the new requirements burdensome ...at all.
Why on earth is it harder to mass troops than it is to mass Elites, FA or HS units? Surely it should be the other way round - since the whole point of troops is that they're the standard men for each army. They're the core around which most armies are built.
Because you need more command infrastructure to manage them.
The elites need less management on the battelfield.
standard = need more direction. All the other units - think of them as the more independent or less 'overhead' units.
Sorry but that is provably wrong.
- Kabalite Warriors do not need more direction than Sslyth
- Wracks do not need more direction than Ur-Ghuls
- Wyches do not need more direction than Clawed Fiends, Khymerae or Razorwing Flocks
- Scions do not need more direction than Ogryns or Bullgryns
etc.
It's not especially harder to mass Troops. You can take Patrol Detachments and bring three cannon-fodder units for one HQ tax. But you'll get fewer Command Points than if you brought along a few more HQ to provide leadership to the troops.
It is a bit odd that a Commissar babysitting a Vanguard of six mobs of Ogryns has more free time to plan a gambit than if he were accompanying a Patrol of lasgunners, but there we go.
Happy enough here personally, they brought out the old FoC, then spent many words in many books providing get outs, exceptions, units that were HQ, but didn't take a slot etc.
No issues running say multiple chaos lords, one or two get bling, the rest basic kit, 'lesser lords'.
My marines can have Captains, plus a whole range of other officers, again by varying the equipment, ditto IG if I ever blow the dust off them.
This sort of force structure system is what the FOC should have been in the first place then there would have been no need for the formations to get around the restrictions.
Bit like how they got rid of the Move stat, then over time threw in a stack of special movement rules to put it back bit by bit.
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.
In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.
In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.
They do fit tho. GW said "All armies will be playable" not "All armies will perfectly match old to new"
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.
In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.
What was your list? It seems like very few would not be able to fit into some combination of new detachments.
The biggest offender would be a list with 6 troops and 3 of every other slot.
leopard wrote: Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Why do we even have more than one unit in the game? Just one unit profile is all we need. Just change the name and race of the unit, same stats but they are now yours! /s
Problem for some armies with one or two HQ units/models? adapt the model, make a new name, same stats but they are now yours
Please tell me you can understand how that feels like a lame cop-out.
In the last 5 editions I have rarely taken multiple HQ units. I wanted to take my old lists and try them in the new edition but they don't fit into the detachments properly.
They do fit tho. GW said "All armies will be playable" not "All armies will perfectly match old to new"
Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.
If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.
Breng77 wrote: Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.
If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.
There's no such restriction on negative CP's nor on detachment limits for matched play. The 3 detachment limit of 3 is a suggestion for tournies, not matched play in general.
Breng77 wrote: Not entirely true, they said all models will be usable, all armies will be playable in open play. But in matched play not all lists are possible without change. If you assume command points cannot be negative, then having only 1 HQ limits you on having 3 of each slot and 6 troops.
If you use the 3 detachment limit even more so, the max troops you can take with 1 HQ would be 5.
There's no such restriction on negative CP's nor on detachment limits for matched play. The 3 detachment limit of 3 is a suggestion for tournies, not matched play in general.
There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.
Biophysical wrote: For IG/AM, you could look at excessive "Company Commanders" as the product of high quality junior officer training. They are technically platoon commanders, but are equivalent front-line leaders to the company commander. They may not habe the planning and larger organization skills of a true company commander, but those skills aren't represented at the level of the game, anyway.
The responses and those similar seem odd to me. That tells you why there is extra Company Commanders or equivalent - but it doesn't tell you what happened to all the missing junior officers. Military organizations, worldwide and throughout history are pyramids in structure. For very obvious reasons. The one top tier, with a few below handling further divisions, then a few below each of those handling further divisions all the way down.
Making all the junior officer equivalents into Elites was a baffling choice to me. It would also be nice if they reintroduced some junior HQ choices in different factions. mini Haemonculi like DE had when they started for example, Enginseers for AdMech. For that matter, things like Cannoness with Seraphim wings for Sisters.
It just seems like there is a really wide disparity between factions which can easily and effectively grab up loads of command points with cheap and effective HQs and Troops, and a bunch of other factions that can't. I don't know if it will be a big enough factor to actually make more of a difference than other balance issues between factions but it is absolutely a factor worth looking at.
Breng77 wrote: There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.
Obviously this would be a house rule, but you could say that for each negative command point you have, your opponent gets an extra command point at the start of the game.
Breng77 wrote: There are no rules that allow you to have less than 0 command points, so it is a safe assumption that you cannot have negative command points. Now it is not spelled out, but I think it is an assumption most people will make as there are no mechanics for what negative command points would mean. I also think that the 3 detachment limit will be common practice by tournies and thus for many play groups.
Obviously this would be a house rule, but you could say that for each negative command point you have, your opponent gets an extra command point at the start of the game.
Right you could do that, but it isn't in the rules. I would not favor that rule simply because I think command points )at the moment, have diminishing return after a certain point (if I have say 12 CP, you giving me another 12 does very little for me, compared to you essentially playing unbound).
Biophysical wrote: For IG/AM, you could look at excessive "Company Commanders" as the product of high quality junior officer training. They are technically platoon commanders, but are equivalent front-line leaders to the company commander. They may not habe the planning and larger organization skills of a true company commander, but those skills aren't represented at the level of the game, anyway.
The responses and those similar seem odd to me. That tells you why there is extra Company Commanders or equivalent - but it doesn't tell you what happened to all the missing junior officers. Military organizations, worldwide and throughout history are pyramids in structure. For very obvious reasons. The one top tier, with a few below handling further divisions, then a few below each of those handling further divisions all the way down.
Making all the junior officer equivalents into Elites was a baffling choice to me. It would also be nice if they reintroduced some junior HQ choices in different factions. mini Haemonculi like DE had when they started for example, Enginseers for AdMech. For that matter, things like Cannoness with Seraphim wings for Sisters.
It just seems like there is a really wide disparity between factions which can easily and effectively grab up loads of command points with cheap and effective HQs and Troops, and a bunch of other factions that can't. I don't know if it will be a big enough factor to actually make more of a difference than other balance issues between factions but it is absolutely a factor worth looking at.
Cheap troops are actually more useful in spamming CP than Cheap HQ because of the required units in each detachment. Also some factions with expensive HQ have some of those HQ giving you more CP just by existing. I think making the Junior HQ elites is meant to force people to take the more expensive options rather than just cheaply filling a slot.
Karoline Dianne wrote: For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight
Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.
It seems they want to bring 10-15 HQs per game.
I think 10-15 HQs is a bit of an exaggeration here, but yes, the actual utility of a Tau commander in comparison to regular crisis suits and their relative points costs makes the commander a very, very tempting option, but I think as time goes on the regular suits will find their niche.
Karoline Dianne wrote: For the more solo factions like Tau I can see things getting a little tight
Altho it seems like all the Tau players in the Tau thread are talking about spamming Battalion with 2 Supreme Command Detachments, so that they can have the maximum possible number of HQs allowed.
It seems they want to bring 10-15 HQs per game.
I think 10-15 HQs is a bit of an exaggeration here, but yes, the actual utility of a Tau commander in comparison to regular crisis suits and their relative points costs makes the commander a very, very tempting option, but I think as time goes on the regular suits will find their niche.
