Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm working on some design stuff and I'm trying to think of various types of leaders that have been in wargames over time. I'm thinking in generalities here, so differentiating between the various level of "Space Marine captain" isn't really needed. This also refers more to a model/unit that affects or is the center of an entire army (a warcaster, or a 40K IC), rather than a unit upgrade (like an Exarch or Unit Attachment).

The ones that I'm experienced with are pretty much these general categories; I'd love to hear from people that have played other games with what those games included.

-The warrior: basically, just the best fighter in the army. Generally do very little to make other units better, but rather are practically units in and of themselves. While they might have an odd buffing ability here and there, their focus is to lead from the front. Examples include Chaos Lords, Ork Warbosses, Khador's Butcher. This can also include leaders who do the same thing but from range (many mages in WHFB, the shootier Warcasters)

-The buffer: a leader whose primary role is to improve the fighting abilities of other units in the army. These leaders allow rerolls, grant saves/cover, increase movement speeds. Often limited in range, they generally will either move along with the army or will sit near a rear-line unit that benefits from its abilities most. Eldar Farseers are the obvious ones here, along with several Warmachine Warcasters.

-The tactician: this leader type grants mobility bonuses, adjusts deployment options, creates obstacles for the enemy, or helps make the battlefield more advantageous for his forces. This one can be quite dependent upon the game system: tacticians in Clan War often allowed for extra card draws, while in 40k tacticians often allow a player to adjust reserve rolls.

Are there any other general types of leader that you've experienced in games? Others that I'm missing, or have miscategorized? Please provide your own examples or discuss what's been presented.

Thanks!

Looking at Malifaux, I guess these 'categories' could also fit:

- The Summoner: Sometimes you need quantity. Sometimes you need quantity. Oftentimes, you need the right tool for the right job. You're not a tactician, you're an enabler. Usually rather weak in a fight. Argubly only the 40k Tervigon fits here. Think Necromancer-types in fantasy settings.

- The Exploiter: Your minions are only there to be used an abused. They're targets for sacrifice. So long as the ends justify the means. You don't support your followers, you actively exploit them for your own means. No real 40k analogue.

- The Nuker: Long range fire support. Make things explode. Glass cannon to the extreme. Support your army by not being the best "warrior", but simply making things explode. Your minions and army exist only to make sure not too much attention is direction towards you. Runepriests or Ahriman would be an okay 40k analogue if they were squishier.

- The Debuffer: Similar to the buffer, but makes your opponent's stuff worse. Analogue in 40k would be the Eldar Farseer's Doom or the Hive Tyrant's Paroxysm.

- Army changer: A leader who changes the composition of your army. Examples would be Belial for the Deathwing, Wazdakka Gutsmek for Ork bikers, and so on.

I would separate casters from the categories you have. The Warrior and The Warrior with magic often serve different roles, with The Warrior being a wrecking ball and a caster type often being more fragile.

Brother SRM wrote:I would separate casters from the categories you have. The Warrior and The Warrior with magic often serve different roles, with The Warrior being a wrecking ball and a caster type often being more fragile.

I put them together in my initial thoughts because their role is primarily to directly kill enemies, versus other types of leaders which perform different roles. Their methods of use are different, but their reason for being on the battlefield is the same: pure, direct destruction.

Perhaps so, but they do it differently.

Abaddon is a front-line Warrior. He sits there with his retinue and wrecks face really hard. He is tremendously resilient and difficult to kill. His retinue is usually just a couple of chaps meant to give him extra wounds.

The Swarmlord is also a front-line warrior, but in a different way. It may have some guards for protection, but in the end it's a monstrosity that attracts attention, attracts fire, and is actually rather difficult to kill, especially in close-combat.

Both front-line warriors attract attention away from the rest of your army by being both bullet-sponges and face-wreckers.

Warhammer 40k doesn't really have a "warrior with magic" stereotype because Space Marines are so prevailent, but Shadowsun, Doom of Malantai, and especially Kairos fit here. They lend their support from the back lines. Their main defense are their abilities that exist to make the enemy go away. If they're ever caught with a dedicated assault-unit, they're basically gone.



In a nutshell, the front-line warrior is deadly up-close and is a bullet-sponge; their purpose on the battlefield is to be scary, but your opponent will have to think twice about going after them because it takes a dedicated effort to get past all that defense.
The back-line warrior is a pushover up-close and more of a glass cannon. Your opponent will see it as a priority target, but the danger will be actually getting a unit that can survive long enough to engage the target. You may even get lucky with a stray lascannon shot.

You've captured it pretty well. I would make two suggestions.

First, the super warrior type arguably is not a leader. He is just a powerful unit that happens to have the name of leader. He doesn't perform a leadership function in terms of game rules.

Second, many historical games involve leaders whose presence is required for the army to operate at all. If killed, there is a serious morale penalty and probably a loss of ability to issue orders. Some leaders of this type have negative impacts on their own side, for example by reducing the initiative points available. They still have to be maintained though.

Kilkrazy wrote:First, the super warrior type arguably is not a leader. He is just a powerful unit that happens to have the name of leader. He doesn't perform a leadership function in terms of game rules.

I definitely agree with this; I mainly included it for completeness.

Second, many historical games involve leaders whose presence is required for the army to operate at all. If killed, there is a serious morale penalty and probably a loss of ability to issue orders. Some leaders of this type have negative impacts on their own side, for example by reducing the initiative points available. They still have to be maintained though.

Definitely a good mention, too. Thanks for reminding me of that category.


My reason for this thread is that I'm working on redesigning the army design system in my game, and the old leader mechanic from the first edition just isn't going to fit anymore. I think I'm going to create a more streamlined system for creating and using leaders, so I'm working out what sorts I need to account for.