To cut down on some things that GW saw that they didn't like, they introduced the "One Tau Commander per detatchment" rule.
From looks at the new Space Marine codex, it looks as though Space Marine Captains will also be pulled back to a 1 per detachment situation.
Assuming this become the norm, with Chaos having either a Lord or Demon Prince but not both, Demons getting a single Greater Demon, Tyrannid getting a single Hive Tyrant, and so on, how will this effect your army going forward?
Are people in support of this restriction or against? What are the pros and cons?
I'm curious what people might think and where it could go. Some forces (like the Sisters of Battle) will obviously need a new HQ choice to step in as a secondary option, aka "The Lieutenant Slot", and we know that some of those are on the way, but I wanted to see what people thought, have a little civil conversation, and see if there are any forces that would be utterly crippled by this or if everyone will just sort of go, "Yeah, I can work with that as long as it hits everyone" and move on.
Karol wrote: So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?
grey knights effectively have one grandmaster and one brother captain per brotherhood. I imagine they'll only be able to take one of each.
It probably wound't affect orks at all, as you only bring one warboss for the killa klaw anyways. Biggest Boss and Mekboss already are limited to one per army. Limiting big meks or weird boyz would make no sense fluffwise, as most clans have multiples.
As for DG, it wouldn't change much since LoC can also have the same aura that DP and lords have and the most important aura is the arch-contaminator warlord trait which can go on whatever character you want. Fluff-wise it doesn't make much sense to make Lords and DP mutually exclusive, since there are examples where a single plague vector has both.
For my guard, I don't really see a character where it could apply, except perhaps for the Company Commander, although it would work better for a higher-ranked officer so there at least is an option for multiple officers.
BaconCatBug wrote: I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.
The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.
That is really the route of the problem requiring 1 model from a unit to touch a 6 or 9 inch aura around a (60mm I think some of the primaris charictors are upto now) base allows you to cover just far to much of the table and units.
Auras either need to be limited activation type abilities or targeting units this blanket everything's boosted won't be effected by this change, how many lists were you seeing running multiple captains and LT's?
If they want to go down this road they should just bring back a cap on all units and stick it in the top corner of datasheets. Don't want people spamming a certain unit? Put a 0-2 up there. Job done. Don't mind people spamming? 0-*. Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
Wakshaani wrote: To cut down on some things that GW saw that they didn't like, they introduced the "One Tau Commander per detatchment" rule.
From looks at the new Space Marine codex, it looks as though Space Marine Captains will also be pulled back to a 1 per detachment situation.
Assuming this become the norm, with Chaos having either a Lord or Demon Prince but not both, Demons getting a single Greater Demon, Tyrannid getting a single Hive Tyrant, and so on, how will this effect your army going forward?
Are people in support of this restriction or against? What are the pros and cons?
I'm curious what people might think and where it could go. Some forces (like the Sisters of Battle) will obviously need a new HQ choice to step in as a secondary option, aka "The Lieutenant Slot", and we know that some of those are on the way, but I wanted to see what people thought, have a little civil conversation, and see if there are any forces that would be utterly crippled by this or if everyone will just sort of go, "Yeah, I can work with that as long as it hits everyone" and move on.
Your thoughts?
My two armies won't be affected at all. I never play with 2 Warbosses or 2 Wolf Lords anyway. Not even in 8th when I fielded 6 ork and 3-4 space wolves HQs tipycally.
Esmer wrote: As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.
Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.
I suspect that this might also be part of GW's thinking. When it comes to game balance its not just a case of numbers but the visual impression that armies create on the tabletop. Sometimes the rules can wind up creating a situation where people end up taking "armies" that are really odd - all commanders and almost no troops or such. Suddenly you've a very powerful army, by the rules, but one which visually creates a very odd impression. Something that "shouldn't be".
The old Force Organisation chart was one way that GW used to control this - it limited your HQ choices; it restricted your elites etc..
Karol wrote: So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?
grey knights effectively have one grandmaster and one brother captain per brotherhood. I imagine they'll only be able to take one of each.
They have more brotherhoods then they have companies. All the sub sects like the purfires have their masters too, they just don't have a separate rule sets for them right now. Same with paladins, and the specialists that train in the use of nemezis dread knights suits. And that isn't even all, I have pdfs of older codex, and in those a captin is just a leader of a squad of GK termintors.
And then there is also Draigo, the head of the librarius and the head of chaplain, which GK can't take because they can't have a master of sancticity, who have the title of master too.
Nazrak wrote: Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.
I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?
If they can get 1 type of HQs per detachment they won't have a problem as they're basically going multiple patrols with just a generic HQ per detachment anyway. It's a 1 type of HQ per army limitation that could affect them somehow.
Generally speaking I don't like this kind of limitations either.
Theory is fine, execution would require rejigging many HQs in the game, and potentially adding new ones to certain factions.
Arguably making lots of HQs 0-1 options would allow them to have very strong rules/points ratios, without breaking the game (because otherwise you'd promptly throw down 3 of them.) This is potentially desirable/interesting.
But I feel its going to do little to nothing about auras.
I suspect that this might also be part of GW's thinking. When it comes to game balance its not just a case of numbers but the visual impression that armies create on the tabletop. Sometimes the rules can wind up creating a situation where people end up taking "armies" that are really odd - all commanders and almost no troops or such. Suddenly you've a very powerful army, by the rules, but one which visually creates a very odd impression. Something that "shouldn't be".
.
How is an army of paladins led by multiple terminator armoured characters "visually odd". That is in all practical sense what a GK army is. Plus GW decided that all the improvements that make the GK codex work, are mostly brought through psychic powers and extra rules, which only characters can take. If this means I can use PA powers through squads, I could probably live with it, if GW also rewrites the rules for GKGM. If they are GM just like a termintor armored GM, then they should have access to the same number of psychic powers and traits. Just like marine ones that can take what ever they want, on foot, bike , jet pack etc
Nazrak wrote: Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.
I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?
Dark Eldar should just get enough HQs to function despite such a rule being in place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote: How is an army of paladins led by multiple terminator armoured characters "visually odd". That is in all practical sense what a GK army is. Plus GW decided that all the improvements that make the GK codex work, are mostly brought through psychic powers and extra rules, which only characters can take. If this means I can use PA powers through squads, I could probably live with it, if GW also rewrites the rules for GKGM. If they are GM just like a termintor armored GM, then they should have access to the same number of psychic powers and traits. Just like marine ones that can take what ever they want, on foot, bike , jet pack etc
Grey Knights have Grand Masters, Brother-Captains, Brotherhood Champions, Librarians, Tech Marines and Chaplains and all of them can cast powers. I don't see an issue with limiting them just like Marines.
Esmer wrote: As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.
Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.
No, it will not.
As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.
And just so we're clear: There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits. There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.
Similarly, GW has previously introduced a 0-1 limitation simply by calling a given data sheet a "named character", i.e. if you call something "Mortarion" instead of "Super-Nurgle-Daemon-Prince"; it's automatically limited to 1, instead of 3 (or whatever).
So it's not really new and no different a tool to balance things than points or detachments or slots or whatever. The more levers of limitations you have to balance things, the better you can balance the game after all.
It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.
Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.
Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]
Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.
Similarly, GW has previously introduced a 0-1 limitation simply by calling a given data sheet a "named character", i.e. if you call something "Mortarion" instead of "Super-Nurgle-Daemon-Prince"; it's automatically limited to 1, instead of 3 (or whatever).
So it's not really new and no different a tool to balance things than points or detachments or slots or whatever. The more levers of limitations you have to balance things, the better you can balance the game after all.
Yeah, and GW still seems to have forgotten they did that gak to us and gives us dumbfuck rules that don't seem to realize they put those caps into place.
Oh thanks GW, a custom Cult Trait that only affects PSYKER keyword models? That'll be great on the TWO CASTS MAXIMUM PER TURN IN THE ENTIRE DETACHMENT I CAN EVER GET
Wow GW you shouldn't have, a stratagem that gives a +1 to cast for each friendly GSC psyker within 6" of one of my psykers? So +1 then? Like +1. this is just capped at +1 because there's only ever 2 psykers.
Cool a new alternate Magus model, I'm so happy, now there's two sculpts for one HQ choice good thing it's on the army where you can only ever have friggin 1 of those models!
Esmer wrote: As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.
Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.
No, it will not.
As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.
And just so we're clear:
There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits.
There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.
Yeah, tank commanders are inherently designed to not bring Leman Russ tanks along. They get ONE order, and that's best used on themself as they're a better version of regular LRs. All they need to do is properly price regular LRs and give TCs like 3 orders, possibly barring them from receiving orders themself if necessary.
Same with the infantry, if PCs had two orders we'd use them. But one CC plus 3 PC right now isn't enough to even cover your infantry squads.
Real quicklike, let me add this: I say "there is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders" because they are what everyone uses as a benchmark of what they think a buffbot should be.
People continually ignore or gloss over the fact that a Guard Commander(generic) brings basically nothing to the table other than their Orders. Even fully kitted out, a Guard Commander isn't really exciting or crazy. You don't see Punchmanders running around. Even the Scion Officer option isn't really considered for doing such a thing, being deep striked alongside Scions just for throwing Orders.
I don't know how you make Guard Commanders contribute a bit more, but removing some Orders and making them into flat auras would be a potential thing.
Esmer wrote: As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.
Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.
No, it will not.
As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.
And just so we're clear:
There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits.
There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.
Um, I know the rules reason. From a gameplay perspective, 3 Tank Commanders are obviously better than one TC and 2 normal LR. From a fluff perspective however, one TC should command a column of non-TC. From that perspective, I wouldn't mind TC getting becoming 0-1 and getting two orders.
Likewise, I'd like to see PC getting 2 orders if CC become 1-1.
It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.
Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.
Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]
Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.
'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?
It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.
Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.
Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]
Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.
'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?
You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
Kanluwen wrote: Real quicklike, let me add this:
I say "there is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders" because they are what everyone uses as a benchmark of what they think a buffbot should be.
People continually ignore or gloss over the fact that a Guard Commander(generic) brings basically nothing to the table other than their Orders. Even fully kitted out, a Guard Commander isn't really exciting or crazy. You don't see Punchmanders running around. Even the Scion Officer option isn't really considered for doing such a thing, being deep striked alongside Scions just for throwing Orders.
I don't know how you make Guard Commanders contribute a bit more, but removing some Orders and making them into flat auras would be a potential thing.
T'au have basically the same issue with all of their (non-commander) generic HQ (all 2 of them) - you bring them for their auras and to fill HQ slots in battalions, that's it.
Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
As Kan said, you really don't see Company Commanders rolling down the fields mulching foes, the very best they can get if you burn a bunch of points on them is baseline competent at ranged and close combat. And bluntly put, they really shouldn't be frontline beatsticks.
I think it's the same for pretty much every army. You have one HQ which does heavy lifting in form of a close combat monster, superior gun platform or uber-psyker depending on army identity and the rest of them are support characters.
Looking at guard, I'm surprised how few generic HQs they actually have - the Company Commander, Lord Commissar, Tank Commander, Primaris Psyker and Tempestor Prime(which seems to be scions only?). Then again, orks have that much more either, and three of those used to be one datasheet.
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
Jidmah wrote:I think it's the same for pretty much every army. You have one HQ which does heavy lifting in form of a close combat monster, superior gun platform or uber-psyker depending on army identity and the rest of them are support characters.
Looking at guard, I'm surprised how few generic HQs they actually have - the Company Commander, Lord Commissar, Tank Commander, Primaris Psyker and Tempestor Prime(which seems to be scions only?).
Then again, orks have that much more either, and three of those used to be one datasheet.
So, real quicklike:
Company Commanders can only Order <Regiment> infantry.
Tank Commanders can only Order Leman Russes.
Tempestor Primes can only Order Militarum Tempestus units.
This is one of the things that I get really riled up about. There's few generic HQs and of the three that natively can issue Orders(CC, TC, Primes)...but none of them can order the same units.
sanguine40k wrote:
T'au have basically the same issue with all of their (non-commander) generic HQ (all 2 of them) - you bring them for their auras and to fill HQ slots in battalions, that's it.
Oh, I'm aware. And I've addressed this in other threads. Tau really should get a 'Lieutenant' or a Darkstrider-esque generic added.
Dolnikan wrote: Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
Dolnikan wrote: Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
My sympathies.
Oh wait.
I love that violin! Sorry, I hadn't seen it before but it's just amazingly adorable.
And yes, other armies are in a worse place, that however doesn't put the guard in a good one.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
That's crazy, that would be over 1600 points of Fireawrriors, Guardians, Kabalites that's mental, though I'm sure matines can probably still table you.
Karol wrote: So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?
In GK, Grandmaster is equivalent of captain, Captain is sort of Codex lieutenant. I fail to see the problem, GK have 6 generic HQs so it's not like you can run out even if you take a single detachment.
Karol wrote: They have more brotherhoods then they have companies. All the sub sects like the purfires have their masters too, they just don't have a separate rule sets for them right now. Same with paladins, and the specialists that train in the use of nemezis dread knights suits. And that isn't even all, I have pdfs of older codex, and in those a captin is just a leader of a squad of GK termintors.
And then there is also Draigo, the head of the librarius and the head of chaplain, which GK can't take because they can't have a master of sancticity, who have the title of master too.
Uh, what? GK have 10 'companies', like every other chapter - 8 regular ones, 1 of paladins (equivalent of 1st company), 1 of purifiers. And I have no idea why you think Purifier leader doesn't have rules, Crowe exists for 4 editions now. So, nope.
As for the old Demon Hunters book, don't look at it, it was garbage that both broke their fluff and was so weak it nearly killed the army with multiple dumb decisions that never made any sense (and funnily enough was only playable if you never took any actual Grey Knights...).
Sim-Life wrote: Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
It always amuses me how quickly people forgot about seven editions where FOC did exactly that and treat something that was tiny outlier in the whole life of 40K as the norm now
BaconCatBug wrote: I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.
The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.
What? Wombo-combo lists took captains don't giving one gak about their auras. You think 3 captains in IG + Knight list affected what with their auras, exactly? And I like how you say "arbitrary", it's not like there is 40 years of fluff stating exactly this or anything
Also, if GW really wants to do that, sure, but only after they nerf the completely broken Tau commanders. Their excuse to not do that was the limitation, but seeing everyone is now limited, GW lost that excuse and needs to finally fix the problem. And it was weak excuse in the first place, multiple SM leaders were limited since the start of 8th yet it didn't stop GW from nerfing them even though they were nowhere near Tau level...
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
6 infantry squads is basically the minimum you'd take as guard unless you're trying something fancy. I usually also run command squads, special and heavy weapon squads, too. And that's maybe half the points in a 2k game, probably less.
Dolnikan wrote: You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?
How many platoons do you have in your 2k army?
Right now, there are none because platoons got squatted. But I run at least a 120 guardsmen, preferably a few more. Often at least 180 for my infantry.
That's crazy, that would be over 1600 points of Fireawrriors, Guardians, Kabalites that's mental, though I'm sure matines can probably still table you.
I might be weird in that regard, but I've always kept the idea that Troops should form the core of an army, so at least 25%, probably more than that. So then you very quickly end up with such numbers. And then there are armies that can easily get rid of most of them in a turn (like those oh so nice Aggressors). Currently, Guardians and Kabalites are overcosted and don't really have a purpose. I mean, what is their role in the game. Given the resilience and prevalence of 2W Space Marines, they definitely don't have any way of contributing through firepower. At the same time, these aren't factions that should be swimming in bodies to just throw at enemies by the dozen just to get chewed up. An archon doing that would be murdered before long, or just shredded by rivals who do conserve elfpower. And a Farseer would need some really good predictions for that. I don't really know Tau all that well, so can't speak for Fire Warriors.
The problem now is that even if infantry has twice the killing power of other infantry, it wouldn't make enough of a difference because they still kill a negligible number of marines who in turn will shred them. The thing is, if they are upped in lethality, the balance between them will just be crazy because of how terribly they all murder each other. Upping survivability could be a thing, but would have to be done in a fitting manner. I however fear that none of that will be done.
It hard feths over any faction that relied on said hq choice but wasn't as efficient as a smash captain.
That's what I was thinking. "SorryTsons - We've decided you don't get to participate in 9th ...."
I like the spirit of the rule, but I'm hoping it's not the typical GW over-reaction of "These two units in these two armies are causing problems so nerf EVERYONE".
Nazrak wrote: Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.
I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?
If they can get 1 type of HQs per detachment they won't have a problem as they're basically going multiple patrols with just a generic HQ per detachment anyway. It's a 1 type of HQ per army limitation that could affect them somehow.
Man, imagine those entitled DE players wanting to be able to use detachments other than Patrols.
Ice_can wrote: Being T3 4+ save they generally do die when looked at by anything with the marine keyword.
I thought guard only had a 5+
Thats a Firewarrior, unfortunately 4+ save doesn't make you meaningfully more resilient vrs marines. Definataly not when that's 9 point models.
I dunno, I'd say a 50–100% better chance of not dying to standard Bolt-weapon fire is pretty meaningful. Don't get me wrong, it think 9pts is probably quite a lot compared to a 5pt Guardsman, but suggesting they're essentially the same thing and stat differences are meaningless seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
Tyel wrote: Theory is fine, execution would require rejigging many HQs in the game, and potentially adding new ones to certain factions.
Arguably making lots of HQs 0-1 options would allow them to have very strong rules/points ratios, without breaking the game (because otherwise you'd promptly throw down 3 of them.) This is potentially desirable/interesting.
But I feel its going to do little to nothing about auras.
This very well may be the reason they teased all those models. They could all be HQs.
Sim-Life wrote: Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
It always amuses me how quickly people forgot about seven editions where FOC did exactly that and treat something that was tiny outlier in the whole life of 40K as the norm now
The FOC still let you take multiples of the same thing though, which is what the issue is. If a Hive Tyrant was the best HQ people would still fill their FOCHQ slot with them. What we're talking about is Hive Tyrants (and other faction equivelants) being a 0-1 choice. And what I specifically suggested is that all units should have a cap on an individual basis since GW seems to want us to play certain armies specific ways.
It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.
Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.
Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]
Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.
'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?
I think the HQ commitment andHQ allowance for Battalion and Brigade is too high too. It makes the game too character/hero heavy. There needs to be fewer characters and leaders and more units. Like, 2 or 3 Company Commanders shouldn't be leading a platoon and a half of troops.
The old force org was 1-2 HQ, 2+ Troops, and 3 ea. of Heavy Support, Fast Attack, and Elites. And I think a battalion should go back to being that way.
Actually, I think bringing down the allowance is more important than bringing down the requirement, because I've yet to see an army this edition that didn't max out their HQ slots, because heroes are just way too good whether you want buffbots like 3x CC's or smashy heroes like a TH/SS Wolf Lords
While I see the point for some armies and for specific HQs, I'd rather be able to actually use my marine HQs. Moving to 1-2HQs for batallions would effectively remove most marine HQs from the game. I'm struggling with the current limit already, and no, I'm not trying to bring 3 smash captains. But bringing 1 Captain and a Lt already locks me out of multiple choices, as I will only be able to bring a chaplain OR a techmarine OR a librarian, and I think that's already very limiting. Having Captains limited to 1 is fine, though.
I don't subscribe to the idea that having heroes on the table is a bad thing, though. I really love building Marine HQs (well firstborn), and I want to use them.
As for DG, it wouldn't change much since LoC can also have the same aura that DP and lords have and the most important aura is the arch-contaminator warlord trait which can go on whatever character you want.
Fluff-wise it doesn't make much sense to make Lords and DP mutually exclusive, since there are examples where a single plague vector has both.
Well according to this, if I have understood it well, it will be still possible. But you will need a second detachment. Which will make sense fluff wise.
Worst case scenario o guess that you can still pay for an auxiliary detachment and therefore you will just need to pay 2 CP, which can be justified fuff wise as the overhead to have to equal voices in command and therefore more difficulty in making decisions.
I feel a better solution to HQ caps would be to remove Primarchs and their ilk from regular 40k (these should be Apocalypse models), and tone down other HQs considerably.
It seems that a big problem is that so many HQs get to eat their cakes and still have them. That is, in previous editions an HQ might be expected to have to choose between speed and durability. Do you take a Jump Pack for extra movement, or Terminator Armour for a 2+/5++? But now virtually all HQs come with a 4++ save (I remind you that this used to have to be purchased, and for many armies it was the equivalent of a Relic), and getting a good armour save is rarely difficult either.
Similarly, it used to be that larger HQs would be stronger and tougher than infantry-sized HQs, but couldn't attach to units and were a lot harder to hide. For example, Daemon Princes could be seen as being stronger than a Lord and Sorcerer combined, yet they paid for it by being much more vulnerable to enemy fire as they couldn't hide in infantry squads. But now, daemon princes can hide just as well as the much-smaller Lords and Sorcerers, whilst still being vastly better statwise, so why bother with either of the other two?
And added to that, we've got the mess that is auras. So now HQs can power up their entire army just by standing in the middle of the battlefield and doing bugger-all. This costs them nothing, requires no investment of resources, and leads to 0 tactical choices. It's terrible design and should have been one of the first things 9th removed from the game. But no, 9th was too busy drooling over new Marine statlines to consider fixing the godawful core rules.
Actually, I think bringing down the allowance is more important than bringing down the requirement, because I've yet to see an army this edition that didn't max out their HQ slots
As usual, Dark Eldar come to mind as an obvious counterargument.
Actually, I think bringing down the allowance is more important than bringing down the requirement, because I've yet to see an army this edition that didn't max out their HQ slots
As usual, Dark Eldar come to mind as an obvious counterargument.
Dark Eldar are pretty my the "obvious counterargument" to anything detachment based, because GW decided that it was 3 factions each with basically nothing.
nekooni wrote: While I see the point for some armies and for specific HQs, I'd rather be able to actually use my marine HQs. Moving to 1-2HQs for batallions would effectively remove most marine HQs from the game. I'm struggling with the current limit already, and no, I'm not trying to bring 3 smash captains. But bringing 1 Captain and a Lt already locks me out of multiple choices, as I will only be able to bring a chaplain OR a techmarine OR a librarian, and I think that's already very limiting. Having Captains limited to 1 is fine, though.
I don't subscribe to the idea that having heroes on the table is a bad thing, though. I really love building Marine HQs (well firstborn), and I want to use them.
I think the proliferation of heroes isn't a good thing. The buff stacking is just ridiculous, and the power of smashy heroes is ridiculous. It was ridiculous before [see: death stars], and it's ridiculous now.
At the very least, cutting HQ allowance would force choosing between the buffs you want and smashy heroes, so that there's less stacking of everything.
Also, the variety of characters aren't what's seeing the board anyway right now, so like cutting the limit wouldn't really hurt that.
Sim-Life wrote: Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
It always amuses me how quickly people forgot about seven editions where FOC did exactly that and treat something that was tiny outlier in the whole life of 40K as the norm now
*cough*FIVE*cough*
2nd edition used % of your points to determine how many characters could be brought, and in many cases that allowance was up to 50%. I think the same was true in Rogue Trader, though that took a while before army lists were really a thing.
The Holy Force Organisation Chart only became a thing with the launch of 3rd edition, and meant many a player having to rethink existing armies.
Tyel wrote: If you take a single battalion you only get 3 slots, so I don't think its that surprising they get filled.
And in 8th, we were seeing lists with 6 HQ's. Cutting to 3 or 4 [I'm actually seeing 2x Patrol or Batt+Patrol as pretty common] is an improvement, but not enough of one
nekooni wrote: While I see the point for some armies and for specific HQs, I'd rather be able to actually use my marine HQs. Moving to 1-2HQs for batallions would effectively remove most marine HQs from the game. I'm struggling with the current limit already, and no, I'm not trying to bring 3 smash captains. But bringing 1 Captain and a Lt already locks me out of multiple choices, as I will only be able to bring a chaplain OR a techmarine OR a librarian, and I think that's already very limiting. Having Captains limited to 1 is fine, though.
I don't subscribe to the idea that having heroes on the table is a bad thing, though. I really love building Marine HQs (well firstborn), and I want to use them.
I think the proliferation of heroes isn't a good thing. The buff stacking is just ridiculous, and the power of smashy heroes is ridiculous. It was ridiculous before [see: death stars], and it's ridiculous now.
But this comes back to the point that the real issue isn't the number of HQs at all - it's that power creep and poor game design has made a lot of HQs too strong, and many with ridiculous buffs that can be applied to near enough an entire army every turn for free.
nekooni wrote: While I see the point for some armies and for specific HQs, I'd rather be able to actually use my marine HQs. Moving to 1-2HQs for batallions would effectively remove most marine HQs from the game. I'm struggling with the current limit already, and no, I'm not trying to bring 3 smash captains. But bringing 1 Captain and a Lt already locks me out of multiple choices, as I will only be able to bring a chaplain OR a techmarine OR a librarian, and I think that's already very limiting. Having Captains limited to 1 is fine, though.
I don't subscribe to the idea that having heroes on the table is a bad thing, though. I really love building Marine HQs (well firstborn), and I want to use them.
I think the proliferation of heroes isn't a good thing. The buff stacking is just ridiculous, and the power of smashy heroes is ridiculous. It was ridiculous before [see: death stars], and it's ridiculous now.
But this comes back to the point that the real issue isn't the number of HQs at all - it's that power creep and poor game design has made a lot of HQs too strong, and many with ridiculous buffs that can be applied to near enough an entire army every turn for free.
We were seeing this pre-8th too in 7th, and 6th.
Heroes have always been too strong, or at least been too strong for a long time, and I think the solution is to limit the number of heroes from "lots" to 1-2 tops.
Then you'd be both making trade offs in what buffs/smashy heroes you want, and you'd have less of them to spread around.
vipoid wrote: I feel a better solution to HQ caps would be to remove Primarchs and their ilk from regular 40k (these should be Apocalypse models), and tone down other HQs considerably.
You've read what Supreme Command Detachments have to consist of now, right?
Yesyesyes, it's not them being "banished to Apocalypse"(and really, that's never going to happen unless Apocalypse becomes '40k with more points' again) but it's a Big Deal.
Heroes have always been too strong, or at least been too strong for a long time, and I think the solution is to limit the number of heroes from "lots" to 1-2 tops.
Then you'd be both making trade offs in what buffs/smashy heroes you want, and you'd have less of them to spread around.
IIRC the strength of heores in 6th was more to do with janky wound-allocation (put a character with a 2+ save at the front of a unit and have them soak all non-AP2 fire, whilst diverting all other fire to the unit via LoS), and I don't remember many characters in 7th being an issue until very late in the edition (when you started to see stuff like Iron Hands Biker Captains).
Anyway, I guess I just see it as being the opposite way around.
If you make heroes more reasonable in terms of power level, then players can include numerous heroes without it causing balance issues. To me this seems like a better solution as it would reverse the power creep that's been happening for most armies in the last few editions, whilst also allowing armies (particularly ones with cheaper HQs like guard) to field numerous HQs without feeling cheesy for doing so.
But I welcome pretty much anything that devalues characters and puts the focus back on normal units.
I feel that particular ship sailed when they introduced primarchs into regular 40k.
Long before that. Even the ridiculously classic Orks vs Space Wolves battle report back in second edition involved Ragnar, Njal, Ghaz and Mad Doc. Problem was the spent so many years talking about how taking Special Characters were terrible, but would do it in mass quantities in WD battle reports and still making the silly things. Pivoting to actually trying to sell them made business sense, but it still feels weird.
Ice_can wrote: Being T3 4+ save they generally do die when looked at by anything with the marine keyword.
I thought guard only had a 5+
Thats a Firewarrior, unfortunately 4+ save doesn't make you meaningfully more resilient vrs marines. Definataly not when that's 9 point models.
I dunno, I'd say a 50–100% better chance of not dying to standard Bolt-weapon fire is pretty meaningful. Don't get me wrong, it think 9pts is probably quite a lot compared to a 5pt Guardsman, but suggesting they're essentially the same thing and stat differences are meaningless seems a bit hyperbolic to me.
Well when it's Intercessors in tactical doctrine yeah that might save on a 6 vrs no save makes a huge difference when you have 5 wounds vrs 9 for the same point's.
Though I suspect that's really the problem for 90%of light infantry currently they have no meaningful damage output, the durability of soggy loo roll to kitchen roll.
Sadly they just arn't really worth fielding in meaningful numbers as they do not have a positive impact on the game.
It seems that a big problem is that so many HQs get to eat their cakes and still have them. That is, in previous editions an HQ might be expected to have to choose between speed and durability. Do you take a Jump Pack for extra movement, or Terminator Armour for a 2+/5++?
Never happened because said HQs were pointless if they couldn't move around to actually kill anything. Even in 4th when I started nobody was using any Terminator HQs because of that exact problem. GW never points absurd speed correctly.
Heroes have always been too strong, or at least been too strong for a long time, and I think the solution is to limit the number of heroes from "lots" to 1-2 tops.
Then you'd be both making trade offs in what buffs/smashy heroes you want, and you'd have less of them to spread around.
IIRC the strength of heores in 6th was more to do with janky wound-allocation (put a character with a 2+ save at the front of a unit and have them soak all non-AP2 fire, whilst diverting all other fire to the unit via LoS), and I don't remember many characters in 7th being an issue until very late in the edition (when you started to see stuff like Iron Hands Biker Captains).
Anyway, I guess I just see it as being the opposite way around.
If you make heroes more reasonable in terms of power level, then players can include numerous heroes without it causing balance issues. To me this seems like a better solution as it would reverse the power creep that's been happening for most armies in the last few editions, whilst also allowing armies (particularly ones with cheaper HQs like guard) to field numerous HQs without feeling cheesy for doing so.
7th was really bad about the character buff stacking. That's what gave us death stars wherein you add a bunch of characters to a unit and wind up with something full of thunder hammers that's only hit on 6's with a 2++ and a 3+++ and moves like 12" + run + charge and so on and so on...
IG shouldn't really be fielding more than 1 CC and/or 1 TCC unless they're like in double brigade or something. And the widespread ability to field them is why IG armies had like 3x TCC and 3x CC and you didn't see Platoon Commanders like, at all, and didn't see regular Leman Russes until all three TCC's were taken. IG is something I would say is a perfect example of why the hero limits need to be made lower.
Sim-Life wrote: If they want to go down this road they should just bring back a cap on all units and stick it in the top corner of datasheets. Don't want people spamming a certain unit? Put a 0-2 up there. Job done. Don't mind people spamming? 0-*. Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.
Woo! I wake up to find the thread hopping. Good!
On this one, they have, to a degree. There's a limit of 3 in the tournament rulebook, for example, which becomes a rule of TWO for 1000 pt games, so, that's a step in that direction. We have the one-per rule for Commanders and, as noted, it looks like Marines are getting it as well in terms of Captains (and 0-2 Lts) so I think that they might have caught on to spamming being a problem.
Insert classic "Wait what?" match between GW members and tourney players dropping six flying hive tyrants into a game.
With the Supreme Command Detatchment having been changed significantly, and the number of HQ units in Battalions lowered, I think that we're seeing the advance work needed for that.
Of course, if they *really* wanted to go wild, they could shuffle a few other HQ units from forces into an elite role, akin to how Apothecaries are now, to split "Leadership" from "Does cool stuff". IE, moving the Librarian to an Elite slot but having a Grand Librarian as an HQ option. This part's quite unlikely tho as I've seen no evidence of such a thing.
You'd need to put more support in to several armies for that jr command role, however. The Orks getting a Big Boss that would be between a Warboss (waaagh) and a nob, for instance, like the Tau have a Commander but also room for Fireblades. Guard would need Sr Officer and Jr Officer, but that kind of nudges things a bit. I don't think this cripples any army, but, I'm not familiar with everyone's designs, either.
If anyone's army would fail to function with this, please raise yoru hand? I'd like to know more about why.
BaconCatBug wrote: I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.
The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.
I agree that it's arbitrary and I don't like it either BCB, It's treating a symptom instead of the cause, but I think the issue is some units being too pts-efficient because of damage output, not because of buff-output. If you were just looking for a buff you would still only take one, but you would see than 1-of in every list, but that's not what we've seen, we've seen Commanders, DPs and Smash Captains spammed for their damage output and relatively low cost. Changing auras into MWBD effects would only further incentivise spamming HQs to cover all the units you want to be covered with these abilities, it's still a good idea for other reasons, but if you don't also get rid of all the free re-rolls attached to Chapter Tactics then re-rolls will still be overabundant. The change to Necron Overlords I like, they've been given an aura to disincentivise spamming them. Lords need to go in the other direction, there should be a greater incentive to spam Lords because we should be seeing more Lords than Overlords on average on the tabletop. Tank Commanders are the perfect unit to show how targeted abilities can be a bad idea because they can target themselves and get more out of that than they ever could from buffing a regular LRBT, they should have an aura ability instead. AM Company Commanders are just too cheap compared to the Elites with Voice of Command. Despite being literally mandatory in 5th-7th they've been nowhere in my games of 8th.
I am pro-captain/HQ restrictions. My annoyance at the current Battalion organization is that I have to take 2 HQs. Plus, seeing multiple Cpatains in a SM army is kinda annoying anyways. I think this is a good rule, thematically.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Never happened because said HQs were pointless if they couldn't move around to actually kill anything. Even in 4th when I started nobody was using any Terminator HQs because of that exact problem. GW never points absurd speed correctly.
I would have to at least partially disagree. I can certainly tell you that I saw a lot of terminator HQs used in 3rd and 4th.
Honestly, I think the balance between terminator and jump pack HQs was usually about right. It seems like the issue is almost always with bikes - as they grant speed *and* durability. So basically they're the best of both worlds.
7th was really bad about the character buff stacking. That's what gave us death stars wherein you add a bunch of characters to a unit and wind up with something full of thunder hammers that's only hit on 6's with a 2++ and a 3+++ and moves like 12" + run + charge and so on and so on.
You're probably right. I think I may have repressed some of my memories of 7th.
Mr Morden wrote: As I understand it Dark Eldar, Sisters and some others are getting new HQs anyway?
for dark eldar we're getting a new model for lelith, a named character locked to a subfaction's subfaction that is already in the codex.
Exactly this.
Dark Eldar need some actual new HQs (or at least more options for existing ones - like jetbikes/wings/skyboards and their wargear back), not just yet another remake of an existing character sculpt.
Mr Morden wrote: As I understand it Dark Eldar, Sisters and some others are getting new HQs anyway?
for dark eldar we're getting a new model for lelith, a named character locked to a subfaction's subfaction that is already in the codex.
She might also get the Ynnari keyword....which would be 'great'
Forcing choices is always bad. I really hope that Ynnari gets fixed by letting us run any Aeldari in a single Ynnari detachment. All while still allowing Lelith/eldrad/the other ynnari-aligned named characters to be run in their own codexes.
Dark Eldar need some actual new HQs (or at least more options for existing ones - like jetbikes/wings/skyboards and their wargear back), not just yet another remake of an existing character sculpt.
the worst part is how easy these options are to convert, if only GW broke their own rules for us just like they do with their space marines captains on bike
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Never happened because said HQs were pointless if they couldn't move around to actually kill anything. Even in 4th when I started nobody was using any Terminator HQs because of that exact problem. GW never points absurd speed correctly.
I would have to at least partially disagree. I can certainly tell you that I saw a lot of terminator HQs used in 3rd and 4th.
Honestly, I think the balance between terminator and jump pack HQs was usually about right. It seems like the issue is almost always with bikes - as they grant speed *and* durability. So basically they're the best of both worlds.
The on a bike = tougher thing has always baffled me because IRL we know that a motorcycle greatly increases your chances of ending up dead or seriously injured.
Dark Eldar need some actual new HQs (or at least more options for existing ones - like jetbikes/wings/skyboards and their wargear back), not just yet another remake of an existing character sculpt.
Aside from named characters, what HQ are they missing? Legit question as I'm not terribly familiar with them. I know there's a Wych leader and a Kabal leader, and each would need a Jr option, but I'd rather listen to someone that's invested in the faction on this one as I'm largely ignorant here.
Dark Eldar need some actual new HQs (or at least more options for existing ones - like jetbikes/wings/skyboards and their wargear back), not just yet another remake of an existing character sculpt.
Aside from named characters, what HQ are they missing? Legit question as I'm not terribly familiar with them. I know there's a Wych leader and a Kabal leader, and each would need a Jr option, but I'd rather listen to someone that's invested in the faction on this one as I'm largely ignorant here.
Sure.
Well, for starters, DE are a faction based around mobility... with 0 access to mobility options for their HQs. They used to be able to take skyboards and jetbikes on Archons and Haemonculi, but those were all removed and currently don't even exist in Legends.
Second, as you already alluded to, they have no junior HQs. They used to have both Archons and Dracons, and Haemonculi and Haemonculi Ancient. However, the lesser versions were removed in both cases in the 7th edition book. So currently each subfaction has just a single generic character to its name. This means that a lot of detachments are basically forced to use two of the same HQ and is really annoying from a fluff/flavour perspective (as if I don't want to include special characters, I have to include 2 Archons in a Kabal Battalion - who absolutely do not jointly lead raids.)
Third, the 7th edition book also removed 5/8 of DE's special characters - including the supreme leader Vect (this would be the equivalent of removing Abaddon from CSM or Ghazghkull from Orks). These were never returned to the codex, nor were they ever replaced with other characters or even other generic HQs.
Finally, on a purely personal note, I've always wanted a Mandrake HQ. For me they're one of the most interesting DE units and have some of the nicest models, in spite of their age. However, with the loss of Kheradruakh the Decapitator (one of the casualties of the 7th edition book) they've been left without any HQ representation at all. This is something I find very sad, as I've always wanted a Mandrake-themed army. However, whilst I freely admit that this is a personal request, I do think it would serve multiple purposes on a mechanic front:
- Mandrakes currently can't benefit from the auras of any other HQs, so giving them their own HQ would provide a means to actually buff them a little.
- The current army-building rules are very restrictive, especially in terms of HQs, but a Mandrake HQ would give a generic option that could be taken in Kabal, Coven or Cult detachments (as opposed to, say, a remake of Lelith - who can only be taken by Cult detachments, and then only if they're Cult of Strife).
- Given that Mandrakes have repeatedly demonstrated pseudo-magic abilities in the fluff, a Mandrake character could be the DE equivalent of a psyker, giving the army some much-needed support abilities.
(I could also make an argument for a Scourge HQ, but honestly I think that would be served just fine by an Archon with wings and a better selection of wargear.)
Anyway, hopefully this has helped answer your question.
DE are a prime example of the NPC treatment the unfavored factions get. Not only do they only get new stuff once in a blue moon, they actually get as much or more stuff taken away than added.
Meanwhile they release 12 different Space Marine Lieutenant models and dozens of other new Space Marine units.
It's not really any surprise their facebook is flooded with "stop releasing space marines!"
Mr Morden wrote: As I understand it Dark Eldar, Sisters and some others are getting new HQs anyway?
for dark eldar we're getting a new model for lelith, a named character locked to a subfaction's subfaction that is already in the codex.
Just throwing something out there, but it's possibly a dual build kit.
We have a few in AoS and 40k where it's a generic or named based upon two different weapon options and a different head. Naeve Blacktalon/Knight Zephyros for Stormcast? It's just taking the helmeted or unhelmeted head that shows which is which! Nork Deddog? Different head and can take a gun with a knife and armor as an Ogryn rather than Bullgryn.
Mr Morden wrote: As I understand it Dark Eldar, Sisters and some others are getting new HQs anyway?
for dark eldar we're getting a new model for lelith, a named character locked to a subfaction's subfaction that is already in the codex.
Just throwing something out there, but it's possibly a dual build kit.
While not impossible, I'm struggling to think of any dual-kit that would fit Lelith while actually being useful for DE players. The most obvious dual-kit would be Lelith and a generic Succubus . . . so yet another model that DE already have.
The only other model it could possibly be would be Lady Malys, though I find that highly unlikely as she'd be such a random character to bring back on her own. And while it would be nice to at least get something new, a single 'new' character limited to a specific sub-subfaction doesn't really make up for the myriad of other characters and options DE have lost.
Honestly, the thing that comes to mind is Syrens becoming a 'Lieutenant' level HQ option for Wych Cults and Lelith being available as a 'Supreme Commander' level character for Wych Cults.
Kanluwen wrote: Just throwing something out there, but it's possibly a dual build kit.
We have a few in AoS and 40k where it's a generic or named based upon two different weapon options and a different head. Naeve Blacktalon/Knight Zephyros for Stormcast? It's just taking the helmeted or unhelmeted head that shows which is which!
Just like Sisters of Battle flying seat, a perfect model to make a dual kit with a simple head and rod swap using just a tiny bit of plastic, was one? Oh wait, it was not, because 40K for some dumb reason does zero dual kits. Even that DA master started just as a generic monobuild captain and if the sculptor didn't manage to cram in extra sword arm it would have stayed the same. The fact that the only thing even remotely "dual" build in 40K came by accident at last minute because they had a tiny hole in the sprue to fill, not by plan, speaks volumes. Hell, look at all the Necron characters, chances to do dual builds all around, yet unlike the AoS bony boys they got a grand total of zero duals out of it...
Kanluwen wrote: Just throwing something out there, but it's possibly a dual build kit.
We have a few in AoS and 40k where it's a generic or named based upon two different weapon options and a different head. Naeve Blacktalon/Knight Zephyros for Stormcast? It's just taking the helmeted or unhelmeted head that shows which is which!
Just like Sisters of Battle flying seat, a perfect model to make a dual kit with a simple head and rod swap using just a tiny bit of plastic, was one? Oh wait, it was not, because 40K for some dumb reason does zero dual kits. Even that DA master started just as a generic monobuild captain and if the sculptor didn't manage to cram in extra sword arm it would have stayed the same. The fact that the only thing even remotely "dual" build in 40K came by accident at last minute because they had a tiny hole in the sprue to fill, not by plan, speaks volumes. Hell, look at all the Necron characters, chances to do dual builds all around, yet unlike the AoS bony boys they got a grand total of zero duals out of it...
Hell, there are many cases where I have to wonder if you even need a dedicated kit for a character at all.
e.g. I'm pretty sure you could build a reasonable succubus out of the standard Wych kit. All you really need is few extra bits (most notably a Glaive).
Lelith might be a bit trickier, but only because of her hair and tendency to forego any sort of armour (or indeed clothing ). But even this would require, what, an extra torso and head for the Wych kit? Maybe an extra pair of legs if you want to emphasise her calm demeanour.
Rhino/anything built on the same chassis, Deathwing Command Squad/Terminator Squad/Knights, Ravenwing Command Squad/Bike Squad/Black Knights, Ravenwing plane, Ravenwing land speeder, Infiltrators/Incursors, Venerable Dreadnaught/normal Dreadnaught, Centurions, Knights, most Custodian kits (Vexilla, Shield-Captain, and squad), every AdMech kit...
Kanluwen wrote: Just throwing something out there, but it's possibly a dual build kit.
We have a few in AoS and 40k where it's a generic or named based upon two different weapon options and a different head. Naeve Blacktalon/Knight Zephyros for Stormcast? It's just taking the helmeted or unhelmeted head that shows which is which!
Just like Sisters of Battle flying seat, a perfect model to make a dual kit with a simple head and rod swap using just a tiny bit of plastic, was one? Oh wait, it was not, because 40K for some dumb reason does zero dual kits. Even that DA master started just as a generic monobuild captain and if the sculptor didn't manage to cram in extra sword arm it would have stayed the same. The fact that the only thing even remotely "dual" build in 40K came by accident at last minute because they had a tiny hole in the sprue to fill, not by plan, speaks volumes. Hell, look at all the Necron characters, chances to do dual builds all around, yet unlike the AoS bony boys they got a grand total of zero duals out of it...
Hell, there are many cases where I have to wonder if you even need a dedicated kit for a character at all.
e.g. I'm pretty sure you could build a reasonable succubus out of the standard Wych kit. All you really need is few extra bits (most notably a Glaive).
Lelith might be a bit trickier, but only because of her hair and tendency to forego any sort of armour (or indeed clothing ). But even this would require, what, an extra torso and head for the Wych kit? Maybe an extra pair of legs if you want to emphasise her calm demeanour.
I think there are two better options for characters than the single blisters: do character bits in the standard kit like for the Custodians (this works best when the character is the same size as the troopers and wearing the same armour), or do a "box of characters" kit like for the Thousand Sons Exalted Sorcerers. If they did an Exalted Sorcerers-style kit for Tech-Priests that would be the greatest thing ever invented.
Doesn't work as well for named characters, but it does get irritating having only one pose for a generic character you might want to take a bunch of.
GW released probably the best multi-character kit in a decade when they released the Adepta Sororitas Canoness kit. Two character sprues and you have a model that can be armed with:
* Right Hand: Chainsword, Power Sword, Blessed Blade, Brazier of Holy Fire, or a Null Rod
* Left Hand: Bolt Pistol, Condemner Boltgun, Plasma Pistol, Inferno Pistol
* Backpack: With or without Chainsword
There are enough leftover bits in this kit to convert up a second, possibly 3rd Canoness from other kits (the Repentia Superior screams convert me). And this doesn't even cover kit-bashing in more options for the Canoness from other kits.
Now GW needs to do this for more factions HQ models. Then we wouldn't have fixed options for SM Captains spread out over no longer in production models.
I don't think it's that old. Maybe 10? But it doesn't really matter, it's a good kit that's aged well. I mean like the Eldar vehicle chassis is 20 years old now, and still great.
yukishiro1 wrote: I don't think it's that old. Maybe 10? But it doesn't really matter, it's a good kit that's aged well. I mean like the Eldar vehicle chassis is 20 years old now, and still great.
I can't really agree with that. I think the old and new Chaos Terminators mix together well, but that Chaos Terminator Lord/Sorcerer looks pretty bad these days to me. I don't even like fielding my Terminator Sorcerer Lord anymore with the refreshed models. It just sticks out too much for my tastes, and I don't mind the old finecast Sorcerer Lord and Dark Apostle in my army. To each their own though.
Well, for starters, DE are a faction based around mobility... with 0 access to mobility options for their HQs. They used to be able to take skyboards and jetbikes on Archons and Haemonculi, but those were all removed and currently don't even exist in Legends.
Second, as you already alluded to, they have no junior HQs. They used to have both Archons and Dracons, and Haemonculi and Haemonculi Ancient. However, the lesser versions were removed in both cases in the 7th edition book. So currently each subfaction has just a single generic character to its name. This means that a lot of detachments are basically forced to use two of the same HQ and is really annoying from a fluff/flavour perspective (as if I don't want to include special characters, I have to include 2 Archons in a Kabal Battalion - who absolutely do not jointly lead raids.)
Third, the 7th edition book also removed 5/8 of DE's special characters - including the supreme leader Vect (this would be the equivalent of removing Abaddon from CSM or Ghazghkull from Orks). These were never returned to the codex, nor were they ever replaced with other characters or even other generic HQs.
Finally, on a purely personal note, I've always wanted a Mandrake HQ. For me they're one of the most interesting DE units and have some of the nicest models, in spite of their age. However, with the loss of Kheradruakh the Decapitator (one of the casualties of the 7th edition book) they've been left without any HQ representation at all. This is something I find very sad, as I've always wanted a Mandrake-themed army. However, whilst I freely admit that this is a personal request, I do think it would serve multiple purposes on a mechanic front:
- Mandrakes currently can't benefit from the auras of any other HQs, so giving them their own HQ would provide a means to actually buff them a little.
- The current army-building rules are very restrictive, especially in terms of HQs, but a Mandrake HQ would give a generic option that could be taken in Kabal, Coven or Cult detachments (as opposed to, say, a remake of Lelith - who can only be taken by Cult detachments, and then only if they're Cult of Strife).
- Given that Mandrakes have repeatedly demonstrated pseudo-magic abilities in the fluff, a Mandrake character could be the DE equivalent of a psyker, giving the army some much-needed support abilities.
(I could also make an argument for a Scourge HQ, but honestly I think that would be served just fine by an Archon with wings and a better selection of wargear.)
Anyway, hopefully this has helped answer your question.
Thank you, this was *very* helpful! I haven't seen DE on the table in years and years, so I didn't know it had gotten quite so dire.
Certainly sounds like there's some room for some VERY needed expansion in this regard. At the *very* least the return of the Dracon, but likely a few other add-ons as well.
alextroy wrote: Now GW needs to do this for more factions HQ models. Then we wouldn't have fixed options for SM Captains spread out over no longer in production models.
I think there should be a Primaris Captain kit that mirrors the previous First Born Captain kit. Yes, by today's standards that kit is pretty primitive and if remade today would take up a 1/3rd the space or have 3x the options, but it just allowed so much choice. Now we have Primaris Captains that only have access to power fists because GW released a Ltd. Ed. model and had to include the option for legacy reasons.
A full Primaris Captain kit (and a Libby one that at least allows for Sword/Axe/Staff), with various options from Relic Shields to Lightning Claws to Bolt Rifles to giant novelty foam hands - everything - would be a big boon to that range.
VladimirHerzog wrote: the worst part is how easy these options are to convert, if only GW broke their own rules for us just like they do with their space marines captains on bike
SM get to have one, because model does exist. If you want faction that can break your rule, look at IG. SM are actually one of the worst and dumbest examples of 'no model no rule', especially primaris melee weapons (when squatmarines get to completely ignore this and freely swap bits) and the whole Deathwatch (who, despite being faction of all the wargear in fluff, is plagued by idiotic 'yes bit, no rule' examples on their own frakking kits, never mind the gear other SM can freely take )
VladimirHerzog wrote: the worst part is how easy these options are to convert, if only GW broke their own rules for us just like they do with their space marines captains on bike
SM get to have one, because model does exist. If you want faction that can break your rule, look at IG. SM are actually one of the worst and dumbest examples of 'no model no rule', especially primaris melee weapons (when squatmarines get to completely ignore this and freely swap bits) and the whole Deathwatch (who, despite being faction of all the wargear in fluff, is plagued by idiotic 'yes bit, no rule' examples on their own frakking kits, never mind the gear other SM can freely take )
Nope, sorry, that kit is specifically named White Scars Commander On Bike (it's right there in your link). If you can convert that into a Ultramarine Captain On Bike there's no reason I can't convert a csm biker into a Chaos Lord on Bike or an Orks player can't use the fw Warboss On Bike model as a Warboss On Bike.
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Of course fluff wise it's 1 company commander per 18-30 squads with 3-5 platoon commanders among them. That's the extensive chain of command.
yukishiro1 wrote: The CSM Terminator Lord/Sorceror is also a very good kit with a massive amount of options for both arms.
It's a good kit in terms of options, but how old is that kit? 20 Years? More?
You'd best stop complaining that it's old. It's BECAUSE it's old that you get all those options. When you get your wish & a new one arrives? Then you'll be lamenting that you have a kit with only 1 option.
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Of course fluff wise it's 1 company commander per 18-30 squads with 3-5 platoon commanders among them. That's the extensive chain of command.
Hrm. Wonder what else should *be* an option for Guard HQ, I wonder?
Company Commander (Captain) for certain.
Should Platoon Commander (LT) become a 0-2 choice and move to HQ as well, you think?
Tank Commander would probably get flagged as "Counts as a Company Commander", so you could have one or the other but not both, or maybe one of each? IIRC, the olden days had a platoon as 30 men or 3 tanks, while a company was 90 men or 9 tanks, so the rank should be the same-ish between Company Command and Tank Command, but, it's been YEARS since I dug through the Guard unit schemes and, of course, they all vary wildly based on the planet that they're drawn from.
Should a Commissar be an HQ option or only the Lord Commissaar?
Now there's a bit of an open floor: What types of HQ options *should* there be for the Guard?
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Of course fluff wise it's 1 company commander per 18-30 squads with 3-5 platoon commanders among them. That's the extensive chain of command.
Hrm. Wonder what else should *be* an option for Guard HQ, I wonder?
Company Commander (Captain) for certain.
Should Platoon Commander (LT) become a 0-2 choice and move to HQ as well, you think?
Tank Commander would probably get flagged as "Counts as a Company Commander", so you could have one or the other but not both, or maybe one of each? IIRC, the olden days had a platoon as 30 men or 3 tanks, while a company was 90 men or 9 tanks, so the rank should be the same-ish between Company Command and Tank Command, but, it's been YEARS since I dug through the Guard unit schemes and, of course, they all vary wildly based on the planet that they're drawn from.
Should a Commissar be an HQ option or only the Lord Commissaar?
Now there's a bit of an open floor: What types of HQ options *should* there be for the Guard?
Split the Company Commander into Senior officer (0-1, 3 orders) and junior officer (1-3, 2 orders).
kurhanik wrote: Yeah, with Guard it would kind of suck unless they add a higher tier officer that becomes limit: 1. Or put in more units that can give orders, and ideally more than 1 order.
Yeah, if they want to limit anything, it should be Colonel grade HQ (slightly weaker generic Creed?). Limiting lieutenants and such would be dumb and unfluffy, the whole point of the guard is the fact they are just regular humans needing extensive chain of command to function well in battle.
Of course fluff wise it's 1 company commander per 18-30 squads with 3-5 platoon commanders among them. That's the extensive chain of command.
Hrm. Wonder what else should *be* an option for Guard HQ, I wonder?
Company Commander (Captain) for certain.
Should Platoon Commander (LT) become a 0-2 choice and move to HQ as well, you think?
Tank Commander would probably get flagged as "Counts as a Company Commander", so you could have one or the other but not both, or maybe one of each? IIRC, the olden days had a platoon as 30 men or 3 tanks, while a company was 90 men or 9 tanks, so the rank should be the same-ish between Company Command and Tank Command, but, it's been YEARS since I dug through the Guard unit schemes and, of course, they all vary wildly based on the planet that they're drawn from.
Should a Commissar be an HQ option or only the Lord Commissaar?
Now there's a bit of an open floor: What types of HQ options *should* there be for the Guard?
It really depends on the structure of the army. I personally am in favour of detachments tailored to certain armies. Almost like formations but without dumb bonuses. Or failing that, a return to platoons consisting of several infantry squads and a command squad. Perhaps with an option for heavy and special weapons squads. That however would require some way to keep the command and other specialist squads alive because right now, they're even easier to kill for more value.
But, assuming that the basic setup stays the same, I would move platoon commanders to HQ, probably at multiple per slot. Then I would have company and regiment commanders as well. With regiment commanders having a hard 0-1 limit. There's no real way to make them worth a stratagem compared to what marines get for their chapter masters.
I think I'd keep commissars in elite and also put a restriction on all other HQs to make them 0-1 per detachment. That really puts the focus on the officers.
VladimirHerzog wrote: the worst part is how easy these options are to convert, if only GW broke their own rules for us just like they do with their space marines captains on bike
SM get to have one, because model does exist. If you want faction that can break your rule, look at IG. SM are actually one of the worst and dumbest examples of 'no model no rule', especially primaris melee weapons (when squatmarines get to completely ignore this and freely swap bits) and the whole Deathwatch (who, despite being faction of all the wargear in fluff, is plagued by idiotic 'yes bit, no rule' examples on their own frakking kits, never mind the gear other SM can freely take )
Nope, sorry, that kit is specifically named White Scars Commander On Bike (it's right there in your link). If you can convert that into a Ultramarine Captain On Bike there's no reason I can't convert a csm biker into a Chaos Lord on Bike or an Orks player can't use the fw Warboss On Bike model as a Warboss On Bike.
agreed, it still requires conversion work to make it work.
Tell me how that kit allows you to take :
Combi weapons, chainsword, lightning claw, power weapons or a thunderhammer?
Also tell me how that face and these charms on the front of the bike aren't obviously white-scar-y?
Split the Company Commander into Senior officer (0-1, 3 orders) and junior officer (1-3, 2 orders).
That would be kinda goofy, seeing as when we actually had those ranks? Heroic Senior Officers were Captains or Colonels that were Super Cool/Heroic. Senior Officers were Captains or Colonels that weren't Super Cool/Heroic. Junior Officers(the ones that literally became Platoon Commanders) were Lieutenants.
The Doctrines book literally had it so you could not take Senior Officers in the Command Squad for a Platoon, it had to be a Junior. It wasn't until the goofy Cruddace book that stripped Lasguns from Officers that we started this Platoon/Company Commander nonsense.
3 orders would also make vox casters more useful.
Putting it kinda bluntly here... Vox-Casters won't ever be more useful until the Order system is overhauled and voxes are made more available across the army.
There's three actual units in the army that can take Vox-Casters: Veterans, Infantry Squads, and Scions. Command Squads(Veteran and Scion flavored) can both take Vox-Casters as well. There's some Stratagems for Chimeras to have Voxes. All in all, it's a limited piece of wargear that has no reason to be if it's going to be such a critical piece of the linkage for the army. Marines, annoyingly enough, got a better version with the Infiltrator Comms-Array granting auras from Phobos LTs and Captains anywhere on the board.
It really depends on the structure of the army. I personally am in favour of detachments tailored to certain armies. Almost like formations but without dumb bonuses. Or failing that, a return to platoons consisting of several infantry squads and a command squad. Perhaps with an option for heavy and special weapons squads. That however would require some way to keep the command and other specialist squads alive because right now, they're even easier to kill for more value.
Ehhh....platoons aren't coming back and hopefully never will.
Said it before, saying it again though for those in the back: Heavy and Special Weapon Squads need to be purchased like vehicle squadrons: you buy one bulk unit, then each specific setup gets deployed and acts as an individual unit. Does that make them easier to kill? Possibly. It also lets you swamp the board with them rather than just having one big blob.
But, assuming that the basic setup stays the same, I would move platoon commanders to HQ, probably at multiple per slot. Then I would have company and regiment commanders as well. With regiment commanders having a hard 0-1 limit. There's no real way to make them worth a stratagem compared to what marines get for their chapter masters.
I mean, there is. But the problem lies with the idea of a "regiment commander" being some step up for an officer--which here would likely just be "he brings throat lozenges so can shout one more time".
In an ideal world, a Regimental Commander would have special Stratagems keyed to him and him alone on his datasheet. Things like a once per game ability to coordinate a massed volley of fire from all of the infantry and tanks, an ability to call in a lance or deathstrike missile centered on a structure or map point, etc.
I think I'd keep commissars in elite and also put a restriction on all other HQs to make them 0-1 per detachment. That really puts the focus on the officers.
I'd remove Commissars from the army entirely...but that's because I think they're a terrible thing for us to continue having. If they have to remain in the army, they need to have a better role than "tHeY cAn ShOoT yOuR dUdEs".
It's a shame to see what happened because back in WD 308, we had the High Command Headquarters Group as a CA article. It gave you a 'General' equivalent character, whose bodyguards were Stormtroopers/Kasrkin grade rather than the standard Veterans. It's where we got the first "Regimental Advisors"(Master of the Fleet, Ordnance, etc) as concepts too.
Senior Command (0-1)
With a note that this is usually "Captain" but some branches use a different term, but it's the highest level officer normally found at the battlefield level, with an extra level of issuing orders.
Junior Command (0-3)
With a note that this is usually called "Lieutenant" but some branches use a different term, but it's the "standard" level officer for command of smaller units and used in support of a higher level officer for larger conflicts. You get 1-3 for a single HQ slot (similar to how marine LTs are two in one slot) and they have the basic level of issuing orders.
There could be an additional option:
Regimental Command (1)
Far beyond the ordinary ranks seen on the battlefield, (fluff) … this is a Supreme Command Detachment option that does really cool stuff on par with a Chapter Master/
Which sounds solid.
But there should be 1-3 more HQ options. Lord Commissar is one of those, then... Primaris Psycher? Or should the Psychers be moved fully to an Elite slot since they're never in command of a group?
Is just Sr Officer, Jr Officer, and Lord Commissar enough?
As a DE i'm happy other DE players are speaking up, also as someone that play nids too. Why would Nids be effected by this rule at all? Its literally against their fluff, one of the stories the Norn Queen sent out like 9 Hive Tyrants at once.
PSDE did have a Mandrake HQ at one point in time and i've always said give us a Scourge HQ so we can fit it in all factions for DE. But really just remove the faction limitations from DE like it used to be and we wouldn't have that problem.
Senior Command (0-1)
With a note that this is usually "Captain" but some branches use a different term, but it's the highest level officer normally found at the battlefield level, with an extra level of issuing orders.
Just gonna throw this out there:
Spoiler:
This is for a Mechanised Infantry Regiment. It's from the Taros Campaign book and the numbers are for the outset of a campaign where they operated more or less as one large detachment.
There are 21 Captains and 91 Lieutenants.
And you want to put "Senior Command"(which is Captains and Colonels, per GW's own fluff) as 0-1?
Junior Command (0-3)
With a note that this is usually called "Lieutenant" but some branches use a different term, but it's the "standard" level officer for command of smaller units and used in support of a higher level officer for larger conflicts. You get 1-3 for a single HQ slot (similar to how marine LTs are two in one slot) and they have the basic level of issuing orders.
At this point, no. Not if you're locking Seniors to 0-1.
There could be an additional option:
Regimental Command (1)
Far beyond the ordinary ranks seen on the battlefield, (fluff) … this is a Supreme Command Detachment option that does really cool stuff on par with a Chapter Master/
Which sounds solid.
Not really. Supreme Command is a Big Deal, and nothing the Guard can currently put out there would qualify anywhere near a Primarch. Not unless, as mentioned, Orders are turned into a wildly different beast.
But there should be 1-3 more HQ options. Lord Commissar is one of those, then... Primaris Psycher? Or should the Psychers be moved fully to an Elite slot since they're never in command of a group?
By that logic, Lord Commissars should be Elites too. Because it's rare for Commissars to be given command of anything larger than a squad.
Is just Sr Officer, Jr Officer, and Lord Commissar enough?
No.
The correct answer for HQs for Guard is for them to actually be Guard HQs.
Tempestor Primes are HQs--there needs to be a 'standard' Tempestor as well, if we're just cramming Junior Officers into HQs and Primes need to be buffed to match Seniors.
Tank Commanders are HQs, and appropriately so.
Master of Ordnance needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A Sentinel Commander needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A bit tricky to quote that, so I'm gonna use some snippets:
***
There are 21 Captains and 91 Lieutenants.
***
And approx. 4200 soldiers, yes. So one force on the table being 1 Captain, 3 Lts, and a hundred soldiers is fine for a force section.
This is akin to a marine Chapter having 10 Captains and 20 Lts. Take a slice of the overall force and that's a field army.
***
Not really. Supreme Command is a Big Deal, and nothing the Guard can currently put out there would qualify anywhere near a Primarch. Not unless, as mentioned, Orders are turned into a wildly different beast.
***
I think that the Supreme slot is going to be used more often and for things smaller than a Primarch, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to introduce it. Mostly it'll be named characters... Ghaz, sure, but I'd lay good odds that Yarrick will be there. Will there be a generic nameless slot? Maybe.. This would be "Space Marine Chapter Master" level, IE, top man of the entire faction. for Guard, probably a General type, someone from high Command in there to run the show in person.
***
The correct answer for HQs for Guard is for them to actually be Guard HQs.
Tempestor Primes are HQs--there needs to be a 'standard' Tempestor as well, if we're just cramming Junior Officers into HQs and Primes need to be buffed to match Seniors.
Tank Commanders are HQs, and appropriately so.
Master of Ordnance needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A Sentinel Commander needs to be made into an HQ choice.
***
I didn't have Tank Commanders up above? Ack! They should have been in there! They'd be on par with a Jr Officer, I think, rather than at the level of Sr Command, but it could go either way. Heck, you *could* have both, but that'd be tricky.
The assorted Masters might be a good look tho. I mean, they certainly *belong* on that level, I just don't know if they fit better as Elite than HQ. (Mind you, I'd scoot Librarians to Elite for marines, rather than HQ. You can't move one unles sthe other is as well, tho.)
But good points! Thank you for adding to the discussion!
I hope that some of the other factions will pop in like the DE and Guard have, bringing up good points, laying out how the fluff is and where missing units are.
This is really good stuff, and I thank everyone who's joining in on this one.
Applying to Space Marine captains is one thing, but to all armies would be fething ridiculous.
As the young man above me just said Custodes have only shield-captains as their generic HQ option.
Furthermore, I personally love taking multiple greater daemons in one detachment (and not just the Keepers of Secrets), and when Angron inevitably gets released I'd want to have him in a Supreme Command Detachment leading his goonsquad of three Bloodthirsters over a battalion, which is actually very fluffy considering that's actually what the first war for Armageddon entailed. Only with twelve Bloodthirsters accompanying Angron.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
Maybe they could move Vexilus Praetors to the HQ slot? Or just give Custodes a rule allowing them to have multiple Shield Captains? I doubt they'd have a very normal command structure anyway. Every Custode an army unto himself and all that.
I hope they boost Custodes so that Custodes feel to Marines, like The new Marines feel to Guardsmen. Give them lots of wounds and maybe special rules to shrug off AP 0, and -1 like rerolling failed saves, or something, and give them the relative damage boosts. If a unit of flame storm aggressors can take out 100 gaunts comfortably, then a unit of Custodes can do far better.
Make them movie marines.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
They're verymuch in the position of needing more HQ options. Sniffing those out is part of this whole thread, so thank you for bringing them up!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Void__Dragon wrote: Applying to Space Marine captains is one thing, but to all armies would be fething ridiculous.
As the young man above me just said Custodes have only shield-captains as their generic HQ option.
Furthermore, I personally love taking multiple greater daemons in one detachment (and not just the Keepers of Secrets), and when Angron inevitably gets released I'd want to have him in a Supreme Command Detachment leading his goonsquad of three Bloodthirsters over a battalion, which is actually very fluffy considering that's actually what the first war for Armageddon entailed. Only with twelve Bloodthirsters accompanying Angron.
What's the source btw?
The early look at the books that GW put up, where they fanned through a page or three. One still pic had a list of forces and limits, and "1 captain per detachment" was something that people picked out from the page, after blowing things up, cleaning them up, and so on.
It *could* be wrong, that people didn't read it wrong, but we know that they're down on triple Smash Captains and the restriction on Commanders shows how they're approaching this kind of thing. it *might* spread from there, we don't know.
Thus a discussion about if it's possible, and if it was enacted, where would things need to be shored up. Dark Eldar need more medium-weight leaders, for instance, as do Custodes. Figuring out who else is handy.
Blndmage wrote: I hope they boost Custodes so that Custodes feel to Marines, like The new Marines feel to Guardsmen. Give them lots of wounds and maybe special rules to shrug off AP 0, and -1 like rerolling failed saves, or something, and give them the relative damage boosts. If a unit of flame storm aggressors can take out 100 gaunts comfortably, then a unit of Custodes can do far better.
Make them movie marines.
They're not already? 2+ 4++ T5 3W, superbolter, super CC thingy, hitting on 2s often rerolling 1s, yadda yadda yadda.
Wakshaani wrote: It *could* be wrong, that people didn't read it wrong, but we know that they're down on triple Smash Captains and the restriction on Commanders shows how they're approaching this kind of thing. it *might* spread from there, we don't know.
Honestly, I think the Tau Commander thing is a red herring - that rule was in place for a really big chunk of 8th, and never had an impact on Codex design - including SM8.5.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
Maybe they could move Vexilus Praetors to the HQ slot? Or just give Custodes a rule allowing them to have multiple Shield Captains? I doubt they'd have a very normal command structure anyway. Every Custode an army unto himself and all that.
At this point almost every faction would need a custom structure for it. Its a lot of work for GW and i dont think it would turn out well at all.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
Maybe they could move Vexilus Praetors to the HQ slot? Or just give Custodes a rule allowing them to have multiple Shield Captains? I doubt they'd have a very normal command structure anyway. Every Custode an army unto himself and all that.
At this point almost every faction would need a custom structure for it. Its a lot of work for GW and i dont think it would turn out well at all.
I think the threat has shown quite clearly shown the opposite. Most armies could easily cope with such a rule, with the exceptions of drukhari, custodes and harlequins and maybe guard (though more for fluff reason, game-wise it would work)
Most complaints from other armies are linked to one's army becoming weaker because they can't spam their best HQ anymore, which would be the whole point of such a change.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
Maybe they could move Vexilus Praetors to the HQ slot? Or just give Custodes a rule allowing them to have multiple Shield Captains? I doubt they'd have a very normal command structure anyway. Every Custode an army unto himself and all that.
At this point almost every faction would need a custom structure for it. Its a lot of work for GW and i dont think it would turn out well at all.
I think the threat has shown quite clearly shown the opposite. Most armies could easily cope with such a rule, with the exceptions of drukhari, custodes and harlequins and maybe guard (though more for fluff reason, game-wise it would work)
Most complaints from other armies are linked to one's army becoming weaker because they can't spam their best HQ anymore, which would be the whole point of such a change.
The ones i most play would have no reason for it from Fluff, and that is where i would look at it. They would still need to put effort into making it work, which is where i think would be there issue
Jidmah wrote: So which ones do you play? You aren't exactly proving your point by talking in riddles
Well i mostly eldar and demons, but why i could see one commander as a thing. For fluff and feel to a lot of factions it would be a weird change without a fair bit of work. Even if a Faction can support it, does not mean it should at this point.
Special characters also already exist as well, So eh. I understand it from a game point somewhat, but as a 40k thing. I dont really think its a good thing as a whole.
i'd say, i would welcome it for CSM, especially in regards to dp's and lord discordants, IF gw steps away from the Stacking synergy cardhouse design forever.
Senior Command (0-1)
With a note that this is usually "Captain" but some branches use a different term, but it's the highest level officer normally found at the battlefield level, with an extra level of issuing orders.
Just gonna throw this out there:
Spoiler:
This is for a Mechanised Infantry Regiment. It's from the Taros Campaign book and the numbers are for the outset of a campaign where they operated more or less as one large detachment.
There are 21 Captains and 91 Lieutenants.
And you want to put "Senior Command"(which is Captains and Colonels, per GW's own fluff) as 0-1?
Junior Command (0-3)
With a note that this is usually called "Lieutenant" but some branches use a different term, but it's the "standard" level officer for command of smaller units and used in support of a higher level officer for larger conflicts. You get 1-3 for a single HQ slot (similar to how marine LTs are two in one slot) and they have the basic level of issuing orders.
At this point, no. Not if you're locking Seniors to 0-1.
There could be an additional option:
Regimental Command (1)
Far beyond the ordinary ranks seen on the battlefield, (fluff) … this is a Supreme Command Detachment option that does really cool stuff on par with a Chapter Master/
Which sounds solid.
Not really. Supreme Command is a Big Deal, and nothing the Guard can currently put out there would qualify anywhere near a Primarch. Not unless, as mentioned, Orders are turned into a wildly different beast.
But there should be 1-3 more HQ options. Lord Commissar is one of those, then... Primaris Psycher? Or should the Psychers be moved fully to an Elite slot since they're never in command of a group?
By that logic, Lord Commissars should be Elites too. Because it's rare for Commissars to be given command of anything larger than a squad.
Is just Sr Officer, Jr Officer, and Lord Commissar enough?
No.
The correct answer for HQs for Guard is for them to actually be Guard HQs.
Tempestor Primes are HQs--there needs to be a 'standard' Tempestor as well, if we're just cramming Junior Officers into HQs and Primes need to be buffed to match Seniors.
Tank Commanders are HQs, and appropriately so.
Master of Ordnance needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A Sentinel Commander needs to be made into an HQ choice.
When I wrote my Imperial Guard HQ back in the day, I think I had...
Regimental Command Squad, with a big exciting banner and rules. It also gave your opponent VP when you killed it.
Company Command Squad - This was a standard command squad. You suffered a leadership penality if it died.
Platoon Command Squad - This gave a small leadership buff to nearby units. Nobody cared if it died.
There was also a Lord Commissar type option. [Lord Commissars didn't exist back then.]
MoO is a stupid model/rank/concept. Heavy weapon platoons are lead by Platoon command squads just like normal infantry platoons. Artillary regiments are lead by officers typically in Salamanders [No, not _those_ Salamanders] or Chimera's and can also be represented by Platoon level commanders. The whole can fire one not quite a decent artillary shell badly a round is as ridicious as the Air Support officer having a strafing run effect roughly the same as a single heavy bolter.
More platoon commanders are the soultion however its designed. These should always be on the tabletop. Making them a 1+ would help and yes, they should be a HQ choice. They're uh, a... HQ.
You just need the option to upgrade a command squad to a tank commander for every 3 leman russ you have in your army, and you can upgrade a platoon junior tank commander to a Company tank commander if you have at least two other junior ones.
Amishprn86 wrote: Also how would Custodes even play? Arm't all of their HQ's a Captain? lol
Maybe they could move Vexilus Praetors to the HQ slot? Or just give Custodes a rule allowing them to have multiple Shield Captains? I doubt they'd have a very normal command structure anyway. Every Custode an army unto himself and all that.
At this point almost every faction would need a custom structure for it. Its a lot of work for GW and i dont think it would turn out well at all.
I think the threat has shown quite clearly shown the opposite. Most armies could easily cope with such a rule, with the exceptions of drukhari, custodes and harlequins and maybe guard (though more for fluff reason, game-wise it would work)
Most complaints from other armies are linked to one's army becoming weaker because they can't spam their best HQ anymore, which would be the whole point of such a change.
Agreed about weakening armies. The great thing about the old FOC was that it meant regardless of how powerful your characters were you were capped at 2 so the effect on the game was often heavily reduced, even for the most powerful ones. As far as Custodes, Harlequins and Drukhari struggling with such a change, that just adds more weight to the idea the first two should never have been a fully fledged army in their own right in the first place and further highlights the stupidity of the decision to split the Dark Eldar into 3 mutually exclusive subfactions.
Slipspace wrote: As far as Custodes, Harlequins and Drukhari struggling with such a change, that just adds more weight to the idea the first two should never have been a fully fledged army in their own right in the first place and further highlights the stupidity of the decision to split the Dark Eldar into 3 mutually exclusive subfactions.
Or, to phrase it in a more positive way: Custodes and Harlequins should be fully fledged armies
Can't be that hard to release two infantry boxes which can be build into a HQ and a vehicle for both of them.
Slipspace wrote: As far as Custodes, Harlequins and Drukhari struggling with such a change, that just adds more weight to the idea the first two should never have been a fully fledged army in their own right in the first place and further highlights the stupidity of the decision to split the Dark Eldar into 3 mutually exclusive subfactions.
Or, to phrase it in a more positive way: Custodes and Harlequins should be fully fledged armies
Can't be that hard to release two infantry boxes which can be build into a HQ and a vehicle for both of them.
Yeah, harlequins differ enough in their palystyle from the other eldar to be a standalone army. They just need some more polish to get new models that are playable by them instead of the imperium.
I continue to be kind of... hostile on this - even if I can't see it really mattering for most armies. It just feels like a fluff at all costs, which will restrict without adding anything.
Lets say Orks can only bring one Warboss. I'm not sure you'd want to bring three as it stands - but if you did, should you be restrained? What about Weird Boys and Big Meks? Should there only be one?
Dark Eldar's issues have been highlighted - but for boring Eldar, would bringing three Farseer's really break the game? I guess triple Skorpekh Lord is a build waiting to happen, but would a limit on Overlords matter, if for some reason you wanted to bring along three?
I guess my cynicism is that GSC have this rule - and as far as I can tell it adds nothing. It doesn't make the army feel more fluffy, or cool. Its just a further annoying wrench in list design. Its unclear how two Magus in a detachment impacts anyone. Maybe the fact people would be tempted to take 3 sniper characters - but what of it (and without the relic I'm not sure they are all that).
If you don't like the fact people can take two smash captains and think they should pay CP for the second one... why not just make that a rule?
Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Tyel 791390 10911207 wrote:
If you don't like the fact people can take two smash captains and think they should pay CP for the second one... why not just make that a rule?
Or just fix the problem instead of nerfing everything around it. Smash captin/chapter masters are a problem. Make them a 0-1 option, don't punish custodes or IG for an option another army has.
Marines are going to "cheat" the system anyway. They are going to take a jump smash capting , a jump or biker Lt and a khan, or what ever other special option their faction has.
Tyel 791390 10911207 wrote:
If you don't like the fact people can take two smash captains and think they should pay CP for the second one... why not just make that a rule?
Or just fix the problem instead of nerfing everything around it. Smash captin/chapter masters are a problem. Make them a 0-1 option, don't punish custodes or IG for an option another army has.
Marines are going to "cheat" the system anyway. They are going to take a jump smash capting , a jump or biker Lt and a khan, or what ever other special option their faction has.
The real question is should Smashcaptains even be a thing? Hell it was only one real offender to begin with.
Slipspace wrote: As far as Custodes, Harlequins and Drukhari struggling with such a change, that just adds more weight to the idea the first two should never have been a fully fledged army in their own right in the first place and further highlights the stupidity of the decision to split the Dark Eldar into 3 mutually exclusive subfactions.
Or, to phrase it in a more positive way: Custodes and Harlequins should be fully fledged armies
Can't be that hard to release two infantry boxes which can be build into a HQ and a vehicle for both of them.
Yeah, harlequins differ enough in their palystyle from the other eldar to be a standalone army. They just need some more polish to get new models that are playable by them instead of the imperium.
This is going to sound gakky, but IMO not only do they not differ significantly, in so far as they do they choke off design space from the Drukhari; quick, hit-and-run glass cannons with a piratey vibe.
This is going to sound gakky, but IMO not only do they not differ significantly, in so far as they do they choke off design space from the Drukhari; quick, hit-and-run glass cannons with a piratey vibe.
Thinking about it, I'm inclined to agree.
Especially with 8th/9th being drastically streamlined, such that there are far fewer ways to make unit meaningfully different without just piling on the unique rules.
For example, it used to be that all non-Coven Dark Eldar could run and Assault in the same turn. And it made sense; aside from the Haemonculi creations, they were supposed to be exceptionally fast and agile. But then in 8th that ability was given to Harlequins instead. Eldar got Battle Focus (meaning they were still fast but with a more shooty theme), and Dark Eldar got . . . nothing.
It might not be so bad, if Dark Eldar wasn't already in the position of begging for table-scraps.
As far as Custodes, Harlequins and Drukhari struggling with such a change, that just adds more weight to the idea the first two should never have been a fully fledged army in their own right in the first place
Custodes Harelquins have a much more diverse range than any mere marine subfaction, especially when you include the FW models and the still missing Harelquin units that were ignored when GW were more intersted in churning out all those slightly different Primaris Leiutenants.
Both are also much larger than any Chapter.
Hopefully we will get an actual Sisters of Silence HQ
Dukeofstuff wrote: Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Tyel wrote: I continue to be kind of... hostile on this - even if I can't see it really mattering for most armies. It just feels like a fluff at all costs, which will restrict without adding anything.
Lets say Orks can only bring one Warboss. I'm not sure you'd want to bring three as it stands - but if you did, should you be restrained? What about Weird Boys and Big Meks? Should there only be one?
Currently orks tend to bring only one warboss because it's useless without the killa klaw relic anyways. No one cares about his auras anymore. There also is a "chapter master" level above warboss which can either be Ghazghkull Thrakka or a using the biggest boss strategem. Mek bosses are also limited to one already (Buzzgob or stratagem).
Limiting big meks and weird boyz wouldn't make sense, fluff often talks about "the big meks of a clan/waaagh/mob" and in writing weird boyz appear in herds or conclaves more often than as singles.
Dark Eldar's issues have been highlighted - but for boring Eldar, would bringing three Farseer's really break the game? I guess triple Skorpekh Lord is a build waiting to happen, but would a limit on Overlords matter, if for some reason you wanted to bring along three?
It's less about breaking the game than about having more varied HQs in games without the star HQ into uselessness.
A bit tricky to quote that, so I'm gonna use some snippets:
***
There are 21 Captains and 91 Lieutenants.
***
And approx. 4200 soldiers, yes. So one force on the table being 1 Captain, 3 Lts, and a hundred soldiers is fine for a force section.
This is akin to a marine Chapter having 10 Captains and 20 Lts. Take a slice of the overall force and that's a field army.
***
Not really. Supreme Command is a Big Deal, and nothing the Guard can currently put out there would qualify anywhere near a Primarch. Not unless, as mentioned, Orders are turned into a wildly different beast.
***
I think that the Supreme slot is going to be used more often and for things smaller than a Primarch, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered to introduce it. Mostly it'll be named characters... Ghaz, sure, but I'd lay good odds that Yarrick will be there. Will there be a generic nameless slot? Maybe.. This would be "Space Marine Chapter Master" level, IE, top man of the entire faction. for Guard, probably a General type, someone from high Command in there to run the show in person.
***
The correct answer for HQs for Guard is for them to actually be Guard HQs.
Tempestor Primes are HQs--there needs to be a 'standard' Tempestor as well, if we're just cramming Junior Officers into HQs and Primes need to be buffed to match Seniors.
Tank Commanders are HQs, and appropriately so.
Master of Ordnance needs to be made into an HQ choice.
A Sentinel Commander needs to be made into an HQ choice.
***
I didn't have Tank Commanders up above? Ack! They should have been in there! They'd be on par with a Jr Officer, I think, rather than at the level of Sr Command, but it could go either way. Heck, you *could* have both, but that'd be tricky.
The assorted Masters might be a good look tho. I mean, they certainly *belong* on that level, I just don't know if they fit better as Elite than HQ. (Mind you, I'd scoot Librarians to Elite for marines, rather than HQ. You can't move one unles sthe other is as well, tho.)
But good points! Thank you for adding to the discussion!
I hope that some of the other factions will pop in like the DE and Guard have, bringing up good points, laying out how the fluff is and where missing units are.
This is really good stuff, and I thank everyone who's joining in on this one.
A Tank Commander is actually a Company Commander, so he'd be a Senior Officer.
A Tank Company [shown in the IG Codex] is formed of 3+ Platoons of 3 tanks each, lead by a Command Tank. [Coincidentally, this is congruent with the TO&E of a Soviet Tank Company, when the IG otherwise uses the British Regimental System]
Each Tank Platoon is actually an equivalent organizational level to an Infantry Platoon, so the "tank squadron leader" [not denoted by any special rules on the tabletop] would be equivalent to a Platoon Commander and the Tank Commander is the Tank Company Commander.
A Tempestor Prime is actually a Scions Platoon Leader, or so he was when he was introduced, so he'd be a Junior Officer.
There shouldn't be a Sentinel commander, because the recce troop is a regimental asset, so there wouldn't be a sentinel officer in between the Regimental Commander and the squadron/troop/platoon leader.
Dukeofstuff wrote: Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Why?
Tempestor Primes are the only model that can issue Orders to Militarum Tempestus units. Tempestor Primes can only issue one Order a turn. Tempestor Primes have to exchange their Hotshot Laspistol for a Rod of Command to get a second Order a turn.
You literally claimed that "this stuff is not hard to write", but don't get how Tempestus stuff works?
Anyways: Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
This, and many other aspects of 9th, are bringing the list building aspect of 40k (at least what is now considered a 'good' list) more in line with how armies actually work in the fluff- note I say 'more' and not fully in line, because the best builds will never be perfectly reflective of the fluff.
The limit of a single captain per marine detachment is a good change. It promotes diversity, and if brought to other factions (along with new HQs) would make the game far more interesting as it is steered away from spamming heros towards a more fluff equivalent version of the game.
And also- characters this edition work oh so much better than they did in 7th. Along with the new LoS, I think they work much better than they ever have previously (albeit still not well)
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
What? Hell no. That makes no sense [with the sergeant thing].
Also, I see no problem with "Company Command Squad" and "Platoon Command Squad". That's what it is.
Also, in the british army regimental system [which the IG uses], a Major leads a Company. So it's not a monstrosity.
Company Commanders are by and large the highest officer to be conventially leading from the front, so it makes sense that Colonels and higher who are appearing on the field because they're unusually heroic are a CCS unit with extra orders capability.
For the most part, and IG army won't exceed 1 company of infantry. 1 Brigade has 6-12 infantry slots, and a Company usually has 3 platoons of 3, so there isn't really a detachment for which more than one Company Command Squad makes sense to be included. If you have 2 Companies and thus need 2 CCS's, you also need 2 detachments, so you wouldn't have a problem.
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
That was when you wanted cheap HQs to fill battalions for cheap CPs. Now detachments costcpHQs are at a premium rather than a ‘tax’ it’s not a problem (though you’d probably have to make JOs 2 to a slot to make them worth taking).
Yeah...no.
I mean a patrol detachment is basically a platoon, why does it need to be led by a company commander rather than a platoon commander?
Why do marine forces get led by Captains?
"Company Commander" is, as mentioned, a Cruddace monstrosity. It combines Majors(2iC of a Regiment), Colonels(Regimental Commander), and Captains(Company Commanders and the most numerous of senior officers) into one bloated entry.
Serious question:
If Platoon Commanders went to "Junior Officers" and became a HQ, would people actually support Sergeants getting stripped out of Squads and used as Elite choices instead for Guard?
It would be a potential (finally!) solve to the whole "the squad doesn't get all the same base weapon" nonsense.
A marine Captain commands 100 pers, a Guard Platoon Commander commands up to 105 or 155 including conscripts (going by 5th Ed) or 55 (going by 3rd Ed - similar to a Marine Lt). Absolutely no reason a JO/Platoon Commander couldn’t lead a patrol (in 3.5 Ed one could lead a whole army with 6 other platoons!).
NB, this still assumes that Company Commander/Senior Officer remains an HQ choice but is just 1/detachment (same as Marine Captain is supposedly going), since Company Commander is the guard equivalent.
Regimental Commanders are more like CMs where they should be in the stratagem territory since they generally shouldn’t be on the battlefield in the first place (e.g. in the Cain books I don’t think Col Kasteen or Maj Broklaw ever intentionally went out to fight, they were usually in the command bunker unless ambushed or caught on the drop from orbit).
Also, frankly I don’t see any difference between the 5th/8th Company/Platoon Commanders and the 3.5 Ed Senior/Junior Officers - they both describe the same posts adequately and for much the same reason (different regiments will use different terminology rather than Capt/Lt). Indeed the new terminology is probably more accurate since Capts are in the real world considered JOs (and, in the UK at least, Maj is the first merit-based promotion).
NB in the 3.0 Codex they had Platoon Command Sections (led by Lts) and Command HQs (let by a Capt or Col) which were explicitly described in the description next to them as leading Companies. Frankly the only difference between that and the 5th Ed model is they’ve bumped everyone’s stats up a rank and Cols are no longer a separate choice you can take (which is the same as 3.5 which explicitly says ‘SO’ covered everything from Capt to Col).
Conscripts fall outside of a regiment/company's organizational structure, from the last bits I've seen. Which is a big part of why I've continually suggested removing them from the <Regiment> list.
Additionally if you cannot see the problem with making Company Commanders 'one per', while also refusing to acknowledge that they literally put in two grades of Senior Officers to give people more wiggle room back in the 3.5 book?
Kanluwen wrote: Conscripts fall outside of a regiment/company's organizational structure, from the last bits I've seen. Which is a big part of why I've continually suggested removing them from the <Regiment> list.
Additionally if you cannot see the problem with making Company Commanders 'one per', while also refusing to acknowledge that they literally put in two grades of Senior Officers to give people more wiggle room back in the 3.5 book?
That's on you.
Agree on the conscripts, that’s why I listed them separately.
Back in 3.5 Ed (and 3.0) you had exactly one Command Platoon ((Company) Command Squad plus support squads) per detachment (and that was when you could have 6 Infantry Platoons per detachment if you wanted). So there is absolutely no contradiction between supporting the 3.5 model and saying Company Commanders should be 1/ detachment now, when a battalion has only 1-3 platoons worth of infantry squads (you could literally have 5 times as many infantry squads in a 3rd Ed detachment as in a current battalion!). The frequently occurring detachment of two company commanders leading one mid-strength infantry platoon in 8th was a fluff abomination.
Yes there were different statlines for ‘Senior Officer’ and ‘Heroic Senior Officer’ but the entry explicitly said that ‘Senior Officer’ covered both Capt and Col and HSO represented heroism not rank (indeed you could give one Sgt per army the HSO statline).
NB 5th Ed bumped statlines and just used the HSO statline for all Company Commanders and gave Platoon Commanders a statline closer to the 3rd Ed Senior Officer one than the Junior Officer one.
According to 3.0 a Regiment consists of 5 Coys of 2-5 Platoons of 2-5 Infantry squads (plus support squads and each with their own command squad). Even a brigade only has a Company worth of Infantry squads in it (4 mid strength or 2 max strength and 1 min strength), so why on earth would it need more than one Company Commander?!
If Platoon Commanders were 1-2 per HQ you could actually make a nice fluffy Company out of a brigade detachment with a Company Commander and 3 Platoon Commanders taking up the mandatory HQs, then 3 platoons worth as Infantry as your troops.
alextroy wrote: Now GW needs to do this for more factions HQ models. Then we wouldn't have fixed options for SM Captains spread out over no longer in production models.
I think there should be a Primaris Captain kit that mirrors the previous First Born Captain kit. Yes, by today's standards that kit is pretty primitive and if remade today would take up a 1/3rd the space or have 3x the options, but it just allowed so much choice. Now we have Primaris Captains that only have access to power fists because GW released a Ltd. Ed. model and had to include the option for legacy reasons.
A full Primaris Captain kit (and a Libby one that at least allows for Sword/Axe/Staff), with various options from Relic Shields to Lightning Claws to Bolt Rifles to giant novelty foam hands - everything - would be a big boon to that range.
I can't believe how inefficient the Primaris Captain sprues are compared the Canoness sprue. They put one head swap option in the two sprues for the Captain while jamming in all those options in for the Canoness. I can just imagine what they can do if they produce new sprues today. Same thing for the Librarian and Lieutenant (so they can stop releasing more Primaris Lt models ).
yukishiro1 wrote: The CSM Terminator Lord/Sorceror is also a very good kit with a massive amount of options for both arms.
It's a good kit in terms of options, but how old is that kit? 20 Years? More?
You'd best stop complaining that it's old. It's BECAUSE it's old that you get all those options. When you get your wish & a new one arrives? Then you'll be lamenting that you have a kit with only 1 option.
Not complaining. As you said, it's age is why it has options. Still, they have shown they have the technology and skill to produce a beautiful new kit with options, if they only put their mind to it.
On the issue of Guard Officers, I do think it could survive an overhaul from the current structure. A one per detachment Company Commander and 1-2 Platoon Commander in the HQ slot could work out fine. And the Primaris Psycher should be pushed down into Elites. The AM would never have a Psycher leading anyone, and there should always be an officer (or Lord Commissar) leading any pack of AM bigger than a kill team.
Finally, the current AM Codex has a sample infantry regiment with the Regimental Commander as a Colonel, doesn't mention the Company Commander rank (Captain?), and list the Platoon Commanders are Lieutenants and 2nd Lieutenants. And it notes that Tank Commanders are Tank Company Commanders, so Captains?
I think the reason why they don't give specific ranks to "Company Commanders" and whatnot is for the Your Dudes™ aspect of it.
You can give whatever rank you want to your army's leader rather than being dictated to as far as what rank the IG commander should have.
For instance, my Guard army, the 444th Cadian Mechanised, has Major Lucius Sharpe as its commander. Wouldn't be much fun from a narrative perspective if GW turned around and say that all IG armies are lead by "Lord Colonels" or something like that.
Yes, the above is immaterial from an actual gameplay perspective, but I think that's why they kept things generic (unlike, say, Marine Companies, which always have a Captain).
Kanluwen wrote: Commissars aren't leaders and should never have been treated as such.
While they wouldn’t technically be ‘in command’ I think a senior commissar still makes sense as an HQ choice in game terms - e.g. Cain often takes to the field either leading the equivalent of a patrol detachment (with one or two squads led by a Sgt) or accompanying a platoon as effectively the 2nd HQ in a battalion detachment (and in the latter case it would make more sense for him to have the ‘warlord trait’ rather than the Lt who is actually in charge)
And that’s before you get into special cases like Gaunt (who runs a regiment) and Yarrick (who’s run whole warzones).
Commissars should not be Commanders, but they’re definitely Leaders. That said, regular commissars definitely sit much better as Elites than HQ (though I somewhat miss the old ‘Advisors’ system tbh), but there is still a place IMO for the occasional one in HQ.
harlokin wrote: This is going to sound gakky, but IMO not only do they not differ significantly, in so far as they do they choke off design space from the Drukhari; quick, hit-and-run glass cannons with a piratey vibe.
This is going to sound gakky, but you've got your thought process bass ackwards - if anything Dark Eldar took elements away from the Harlequins, and the Harlies are now merely redressing that imbalance.
If that doesn't leave Drew Carey with anywhere to go, well...
Lord Zarkov wrote: Regimental Commanders are more like CMs where they should be in the stratagem territory since they generally shouldn’t be on the battlefield in the first place (e.g. in the Cain books I don’t think Col Kasteen or Maj Broklaw ever intentionally went out to fight, they were usually in the command bunker unless ambushed or caught on the drop from orbit).
In the very first Cain book Broklaw leads the expedition to the Heights to deal with local dissent (while Cain skulks off to encounter =][= Vail for the first time).
Dukeofstuff wrote: Tempest primes, if they do this, would need to be able to issue their orders as an aura. "All troop choices in 6 inches get FRFSRF" instead of "this ONE unit."
Why?
Tempestor Primes are the only model that can issue Orders to Militarum Tempestus units.
Tempestor Primes can only issue one Order a turn.
Tempestor Primes have to exchange their Hotshot Laspistol for a Rod of Command to get a second Order a turn.
You literally claimed that "this stuff is not hard to write", but don't get how Tempestus stuff works?
Anyways:
Platoon Commanders should not be an HQ choice. They were literally placed in the Elite slot to prevent you just filling the HQ slots with a cheap 1 Order Officer.
I'm well aware of how this stuff works. I have an entire army of Scion drop troops. There's some pictures floating around somewhere.
You've not clarified why this would _need_ to be changed.
Yes, Tempestus troops would get less [Maximum of 2] orders.
That's okay.
I'm well aware that people have a fixation with fielding a number of officers so every single unit can be affected by an order, which is why we have an insane offers to troop ratio, however the system doesn't need to work that way. They're still perfectly valid [if correspondingly less effective] without an officer. A points reduction could be potentially considered, but there's no _need_ to give them an aura.
Thanks for the insulting post, by the way. Good job.
GSC cults have only one of the same character per detachments. I have not done the math, but GSC has rougly 10 million trillion character options. While the restriction is very very hampering, I really like that restriction.
I for one would not mind seeing that restriction in other armies. It makes the army building more challenging and makes for a more diverse suite of characters on the board, something I welcome.
It woud affect diffent armies differntly. Tyranids for instance would need to dip into another detachment to get that second Flying Hive Tyrant or Neuronthrope.
As far as I know, there is one army that would suffer very hard from this. Dark Eldars. Mostly because they have a very in build restrictions by having three factions in same army book. The DE would have needed a work around, either ignoring the rule in favour for their own restictions (a bad option IMHO) or they could introduce the old 'mini' version of the standar characters, like the Dracon.
Are there any other factions that would be very affected by this?
6 pages based on SM change that probably will not effect most of the armies ?
Tao commander are super good and that is the reason they were limited to 1 to detachment.
GW continua to buff SM captains with relics, stratagems and warlord traits and they refused to nerf them to reasonable level. Instead they try to limit their use and limit the builds SM can abuse, instead of thinking that its not normal one non-named character to be able to solo knight or primarch.
gak about their auras. You think 3 captains in 
and i've always said give us a Scourge 
