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.

So taking Guard as the example, I do feel the HQs need a bit of restricting for fluff and game balance reasons. Currently there is a hard cap of 3, but this still means sillyness like a supreme commander formation of 3 Leman Russ commanders.

Edit - better suggestions below from Galef and Kriswall. In brief:-

Simple fix (partially addressing soup as well) Galef.

Max of 1 of each HQ datasheet in each detachment. So to take 3 of the same HQs you would need to take 3 detachments.

More complex fix (in some ways a more specific version of above) Kriswall.

Have some HQs marked as detachment unique and limited to one per detachment (as above). Other HQs remain as is and can be taken multiple times in one detachment as normal.

Because arbitrary limits is the same as balance.

Instead they just need to up the cost of the HQs so they are an actual tax, not something worth spamming. Dark Eldar do this right.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Because arbitrary limits is the same as balance.

Instead they just need to up the cost of the HQs so they are an actual tax, not something worth spamming. Dark Eldar do this right.

Agreed. CW Eldar do this well to, albeit to a lesser extent. Farseers are still a bargain, but Spiritseers, Warlocks and Autarchs are far from cheap.

Pointing HQs correctly is certainly more important.

However, I'd like to see the standard detatchment go back to only 1 required HQ. Sometimes, it's just one Farseer leading a warhost. Sometimes, it's just an SM Captain with no libby/chap/etc (and certainly no second captain in the same Company).

That's why you'd think the Patrol Detachment would offer at least a single command point, except that it doesn't.

Haven't thought this through at all, but Star Wars Legion popped into my head. They've recently introduced a new "Support HQ" type of role where the model fills an "HQ" slot, but can't be your army commander, so you'd still have to take a "real HQ".

Rework the Detachments to allow only 1 HQ each and the rest as Support HQs. Just off the top of my head, Space Marine HQs would be all the named and unnamed Captains/Chapter Masters. Support HQs would be everyone else. This isn't well thought out, so I'm sure it would need to be tweaked.

This sort of thing could potentially solve a few issues. Make Battalions 1HQ, 1-2 Support HQs. Make Patrols, Spearheads, &c. 1-2 Support HQs. Make the Supreme Command Detachment 1 HQ, 1-2 Support HQs. You want a "real", HQ... you're at least taking a Battalion OR you can get ONE in a SCD. I think it would be more thematic and allow stronger HQs while limiting the risk for spam.

There's someone using 6 BA capts in my meta. I'd be fine with this.

I think a better solution would be that HQ datasheets cannot be repeated within any detachment.
That would essentially achieve the goal here, but wouldn't gimp lists that already use a good variety of HQs.

It would also increase the potential tax on spamming.
For example, If you want to take 3 Leman Russ commanders, you'd have to take each in a separate detachment. Since Battalions require 2 HQs, you'd have to add 3 more alongside the LR commanders, or take a Patrol or something.
It would also take up all 3 allowed detachments in Match play, meaning you couldn't Soup if you want 3 of the same HQ

-

 Galef wrote:
I think a better solution would be that HQ datasheets cannot be repeated within any detachment.
That would essentially achieve the goal here, but wouldn't gimp lists that already use a good variety of HQs.

It would also increase the potential tax on spamming.
For example, If you want to take 3 Leman Russ commanders, you'd have to take each in a separate detachment. Since Battalions require 2 HQs, you'd have to add 3 more alongside the LR commanders, or take a Patrol or something.
It would also take up all 3 allowed detachments in Match play, meaning you couldn't Soup if you want 3 of the same HQ

-

That's... actually pretty reasonable.

I like the idea of support HQs, though. Strats like Empyric channeling shouldn't require 3 detachments to use.

 Galef wrote:
I think a better solution would be that HQ datasheets cannot be repeated within any detachment.
That would essentially achieve the goal here, but wouldn't gimp lists that already use a good variety of HQs.

It would also increase the potential tax on spamming.
For example, If you want to take 3 Leman Russ commanders, you'd have to take each in a separate detachment. Since Battalions require 2 HQs, you'd have to add 3 more alongside the LR commanders, or take a Patrol or something.
It would also take up all 3 allowed detachments in Match play, meaning you couldn't Soup if you want 3 of the same HQ

-

This really bones Dark Eldar.

And Sisters

Martel732 wrote:
I like the idea of support HQs, though. Strats like Empyric channeling shouldn't require 3 detachments to use.

Yeah. I think a blanket 0-1 detachment limit on individual HQs is excessive. Works great for the spam issues, but hurts factions who field multiples of the same without issue. The forums aren't blowing up because someone is taking two Necron Crypteks in a Battalion. The issue is that people are using Supreme Command Detachments to effectively take 5 force multiplying HQs in one Battalion.

I really just like the concept of a unit that falls within the command structure, but without actually being the overall leader of a force. We have units like that now, but they tend to be split among HQ and Elites roles.

General rule of thumb would be that if you easily provide an army or detachment wide force multiplier, you're an HQ. If you buff 1-2 units or have a relatively small aura (3-6"), you're a Support HQ. If you're not a force multiplier at all, you're probably not a command type and should probably be an Elite,Fast Attack or Heavy Support. This would potentially open up additional units without having to actually make new models. Example... change the 5-10 man Necron Triarch Praetorians unit to 4-10 and add a Triarch Praetor Support HQ choice. Same wargear options, but gives a minor buff, and more importantly, can act as a fluffy HQ for something like a Vanguard Detachment, while not being a "real HQ" and not being able to lead a Battalion.

Sterling191 wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I think a better solution would be that HQ datasheets cannot be repeated within any detachment.
That would essentially achieve the goal here, but wouldn't gimp lists that already use a good variety of HQs.

It would also increase the potential tax on spamming.
For example, If you want to take 3 Leman Russ commanders, you'd have to take each in a separate detachment. Since Battalions require 2 HQs, you'd have to add 3 more alongside the LR commanders, or take a Patrol or something.
It would also take up all 3 allowed detachments in Match play, meaning you couldn't Soup if you want 3 of the same HQ

-

This really bones Dark Eldar.

It bones a lot of armies or setups that don't have a lot of options.

Good example is the Leman Russ Commanders that are being complained about:
There are zero options outside of the Tank Commander and Pask(a named character meaning can't be repeated) for issuing Orders to Leman Russes. The Spearhead Detachment of a Tank Commander and 3x LRBTs actually is a book buffed Detachment as well, granting Objective Secured to the LRBTs.

You want to argue for restrictions? Coolcoolcool--but people really need to understand that restrictions are going to hurt builds that aren't really needing to be hurt.

I think the only thing that needs to be done is the supreme command detachment needs to be addressed.

Some HQs - like Chapter Masters - should only ever very rarely be in the same Detatchment as another.

Others - Warlocks, for example - should be seen in multiples just as readily as being seen solo.

Not all HQs are the same.

I'd love to see some rules changes to effect what you're looking for, but they get too complex. You'd want:
-Captains
-Chapter Masters
-Autarchs
-Farseers
-Tau Commanders
-Necron Overlords
-Archons (fluffwise, obviously this would hose them ruleswise)

To not have another of the same in the detatchment, but a rule that prevents that while:
-Not hosing DE
-Not killing Sisters/Harlies/etc
-Not nerfing Warlocs
... etc...

will be too convoluted for the game.

Sterling191 wrote:

This really bones Dark Eldar.

How so? They get a special detachment that allows that to take multiple Patrols can get CPs

But in any case, it might FORCE armies to take crap HQs, making the HQ requirement actually feel like a tax like it's supposed to.
The fact that some armies only have 1 viable HQ is the problem here, not my suggestion.

-

When you can only take 3 detatchments, 3 Patrols don't give you a lot of space to work with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, each such patrol would then be limited to 1 HQ.

Fair enough. Still, my statement is true. Restricting duplicate HQs per detachment is far better than only allowing 1 per detachment period.

-

 Galef wrote:

Sterling191 wrote:

This really bones Dark Eldar.

How so? They get a special detachment that allows that to take multiple Patrols can get CPs

But in any case, it might FORCE armies to take crap HQs, making the HQ requirement actually feel like a tax like it's supposed to.
The fact that some armies only have 1 viable HQ is the problem here, not my suggestion.

-

Sisters have a grand total of TWO HQs - one of them Unique. Unless your suggestion includes new units for them its just screwing them over given we are not even getting an update until CA 2018 which may or may not have any mroe HQs

Well, Sisters aren't mean to be a true army anyway. If they were, they'd have more than 2 HQs and plastic models.
Sorry, did I go too far?

But on a serious note, it is really hard to come up with decent suggestions that affect everyone equally, especially when not every army is even close to the same league s others

 Galef wrote:
Well, Sisters aren't mean to be a true army anyway. If they were, they'd have more than 2 HQs and plastic models.
Sorry, did I go too far?

But on a serious note, it is really hard to come up with decent suggestions that affect everyone equally, especially when not every army is even close to the same league s others

Or you need to include additonal elements such as the addiitonal HQs I suggested and add furtehr options / chnages for those Qs in factions that are sub par - otherwise its just half (or less) of a job.

Not every faction can be constantly flooded with models like marines.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Well, Sisters aren't mean to be a true army anyway. If they were, they'd have more than 2 HQs and plastic models.
Sorry, did I go too far?

But on a serious note, it is really hard to come up with decent suggestions that affect everyone equally, especially when not every army is even close to the same league s others

Or you need to include additonal elements such as the addiitonal HQs I suggested and add furtehr options / chnages for those Qs in factions that are sub par - otherwise its just half (or less) of a job.

Not every faction can be constantly flooded with models like marines.

I mean, they can be.

Orks are huge. Eldar are huge. Tau have mercenary races. Chaos is huge. Necrons are huge.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Well, Sisters aren't mean to be a true army anyway. If they were, they'd have more than 2 HQs and plastic models.
Sorry, did I go too far?

But on a serious note, it is really hard to come up with decent suggestions that affect everyone equally, especially when not every army is even close to the same league s others

Or you need to include additonal elements such as the addiitonal HQs I suggested and add furtehr options / chnages for those Qs in factions that are sub par - otherwise its just half (or less) of a job.

Not every faction can be constantly flooded with models like marines.

No, I agree. I was poking fun at the fact that Sisters really should have better support, but don't.

Sometimes I get the feeling that GW can't progress with decent rules because they'd adversely affect a handful of armies that they can't be bothered to update

-

Bharring wrote:
Some HQs - like Chapter Masters - should only ever very rarely be in the same Detatchment as another.

Just wanting to point out that if you have anyone taking multiple Chapter Masters from the same Faction(Ultramarines, Raven Guard, whatever)? Unless there's been a change via the FAQ, they're cheating or don't read their own rules.

Chapter Master is a 3CP Stratagem used before the game on an Adeptus Astartes Captain and it specifically calls them out preventing two Chapter Masters from the same Chapter Master and the Stratagem can only be used once.

-Tau Commanders

The issue with Tau Commanders, simply put, is that Crisis Suits aren't great. The Commanders were superior in every single way and realistically we should have seen a lesser 'Hero' option in the HQ slot as well.

I really like the idea of a new slot that sits somewhere between HQ and Elites – there are quite a few units out there that kind of fall between two chairs and whether they're assigned to HQ or Elites seems to be somewhat arbitrary.

For example, the Waaagh Banner Nob for Orks and the Iconward for GsC serve a very similar function, both in-game and fluff-wise, yet the former's Elites and the latter's HQ.

The obvious way to split it would seem to be leaving Elites as high-end units, and the new slot to essentially cover support Characters who you wouldn't get leading an army. Whether these characters would be drawn from Elites or HQ is going to rather depend on the army.

Updated the top post with the better suggestions that have been generated...

Simple fix (partially addressing soup as well) Galef.

Max of 1 of each HQ datasheet in each detachment. So to take 3 of the same HQs you would need to take 3 detachments.

More complex fix (in some ways a more specific version of above) Kriswall.

Have some HQs marked as detachment unique and limited to one per detachment (as above). Other HQs remain as is and can be taken multiple times in one detachment as normal.

No-duplicate-selections would need to come with only 1 mandatory HQ for a Battalion.

But I'd still hate to say you can only have 1 Warlock or Tyranid Prime or similar in a detatchement.

The Tau Commander's real problem is BS2+ vs Crisis at BS4+. The platforms themselves are made cheap with the weapons being the bulk of the cost - to try to encourage different loadouts. However, that paired with Commanders and Crisis Suits paying the same points for the same weapons, and you get a Crisis Suit with nearly twice the firepower by using the Commander option. Further hurt by the drive to MSU coupled with Crisis Suits can't be taken in units of 1 for whatever stupid reason.

Until they fix at least a couple of those, Crisis Suits and Commanders can't both be fairly priced. Currently, the price is too high for the Suits and too low for the Commanders.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Have some HQs marked as detachment unique and limited to one per detachment (as above). Other HQs remain as is and can be taken multiple times in one detachment as normal.

Actually, I like this idea as a "meet in the middle" approach to having HQs + support HQs, limiting HQs to 1 or even no-duplicate HQ per detachment.
Chapter Approved could have a list of HQ entries that add the following rule:
"Solitary Leader:This unit may only be taken once per detachment"

The list could be units like:
Nid Tyrants
Necron Overlords
Marine Captians & Librarians
Chaos Lords & Daemon Princes
Eldar Autarchs & Farseers
Tau Commanders & Ethereals
Guard tank Commanders

And so on. But you do not give this rule to Sisters or DE HQs due to the limits of their factions

-

I concur it is a nice solution - I just fear the whole list bit is more FAQ than GW fancy making the default 1 per an easier fix to implement.