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.

Take this following list of an army:

Patrol Detachment
Yarrick (Warlord)
Scion Squad

Vigilus Defiant Tempestus Drop Force Patrol
Tempestor Prime (Field Commander)
Scion Squad

Lambdan Lions Patrol Detachment
Tempestor Prime (Progeny of War)
Scion Squad

Inquisitor Vanguard Detachment
Inquisitor (Inquisitorial Mandate)
Henchmen
Henchmen
Henchmen

4 tiny detachments, yet they each can have a Warlord trait character.

Some armies don’t have this flexibility - especially non Imperium ones.

To this I propose a limit on ‘Auxiliary Warlords’ to being 1 Warlord, and 1 additional Warlord trait model, all other stratagems and effects are limited to choosing a single one. This means DECISIONS! Not just spamming throwaway Warlords just to provide overly aggressive buffs that most players ordinarily would not put a warlord into.

They give up extra slay the warlord points? (Question, not a statement.)

They do not.

yeah this is mainly a marine/imperium thing I think.

What are you fixing though? What exactly has been broken?

These options all cost command points, which they often are not worth. There are many things in greater need of "fixing" than this.

They cost a whole lot of CPs, you need to spend CPs to make extra warlords and you lose potential CPs by taking patrols rather than other detachments. Seems like a reasonable trade off to me.

I think the problem isn't that this option exists, but that it isn't equal among factions. Some factions need to pay 2cp, one for the detachment then another for "field commander" and are then only allowed a single choice of that particular detachment's wt. Others pay 1cp and choose from any wt available to them, usually limited to once per battle though I think the new tau one isn't limited (correct me if I'm wrong). Then loyalist marines have the "improved character" strategems on top of "hero of the chapter", "chapter master ", and a ridiculous amount of unique characters.

And tank commanders...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can actually have just 1 formation with...

A warlord
A Field Commander
A Scion prime extra warlord
A tank commander

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think the problem isn't that this option exists, but that it isn't equal among factions. Some factions need to pay 2cp, one for the detachment then another for "field commander" and are then only allowed a single choice of that particular detachment's wt. Others pay 1cp and choose from any wt available to them, usually limited to once per battle though I think the new tau one isn't limited (correct me if I'm wrong). Then loyalist marines have the "improved character" strategems on top of "hero of the chapter", "chapter master ", and a ridiculous amount of unique characters.

Maybe the limitation is the actual problem. Tank Ace for Guard shouldn't interfere with the regular Warlord.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think the problem isn't that this option exists, but that it isn't equal among factions. Some factions need to pay 2cp, one for the detachment then another for "field commander" and are then only allowed a single choice of that particular detachment's wt. Others pay 1cp and choose from any wt available to them, usually limited to once per battle though I think the new tau one isn't limited (correct me if I'm wrong). Then loyalist marines have the "improved character" strategems on top of "hero of the chapter", "chapter master ", and a ridiculous amount of unique characters.

Maybe the limitation is the actual problem. Tank Ace for Guard shouldn't interfere with the regular Warlord.

The problem is that the limitation isn't equal among factions. Why should loyalist marines have greater access to wt than csm? Or eldar? For ig it makes some sense, as some of their strength is in their command structure. But not so much for others.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
I think the problem isn't that this option exists, but that it isn't equal among factions. Some factions need to pay 2cp, one for the detachment then another for "field commander" and are then only allowed a single choice of that particular detachment's wt. Others pay 1cp and choose from any wt available to them, usually limited to once per battle though I think the new tau one isn't limited (correct me if I'm wrong). Then loyalist marines have the "improved character" strategems on top of "hero of the chapter", "chapter master ", and a ridiculous amount of unique characters.

Maybe the limitation is the actual problem. Tank Ace for Guard shouldn't interfere with the regular Warlord.

The problem is that the limitation isn't equal among factions. Why should loyalist marines have greater access to wt than csm? Or eldar? For ig it makes some sense, as some of their strength is in their command structure. But not so much for others.

And most would argue CSM and Eldar should have more. CSM are limited (We Are Alpharius, the stupid Black Legion council thing), and Dark Eldar have a decent fluffy one (though their HQ units being any good is a different story).

Yes, any eldar player will tell you they got shafted on wt in pa. And strong characters was one of the things that made csm 3.5 so good.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
And tank commanders...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can actually have just 1 formation with...

A warlord
A Field Commander
A Scion prime extra warlord
A tank commander

Incorrect. A tank commander can’t be taken in a Militarum Tempestus detachment, without not being a Militarum Tempestus detachment. Progeny of Conflict can only be used on Scion characters in Militarum Tempestus detachments, per the first page of the Militarum Tempestus Stratagem section, clarifying which units the new strats can be used on.

So the Tank Commander has to be in a separate detachment.

While you can have multiple warlord traits in any given army via stratagems, you can still only declare 1 to be your actual warlord, so this is really a non-issue.

 skchsan wrote:
While you can have multiple warlord traits in any given army via stratagems, you can still only declare 1 to be your actual warlord, so this is really a non-issue.

Excluding using the limited warlord traits given by specialist detachments that a few factions have how? It's pretty much an imperial thing. Especially loyalist marines.

And tau of course.

 skchsan wrote:
While you can have multiple warlord traits in any given army via stratagems, you can still only declare 1 to be your actual warlord, so this is really a non-issue.

Take the Vigilus Defiant Field Commander trait - units who drop with him get +1 to hit, then he has a Command Rod, and orders the 2 Plasma Command Squads (who will overcharge at rapid fire range - and Stormtrooper Doctrine range) to Take Aim and reroll 1's to hit. Any 6's rolled here result in additional shots which also hit on 2's and their 1's can be rerolled. So taking a recent battle into account, I dropped 2 plasma scion command squads with the Field Commander with the Laurels of Command next to a Shadowsword... He gave both squads Take Aim, then rolled 4+ on each bonus command (Laurels of Command) and was able to give them Elimination Protocols Sanctioned (reroll W against Monsters or Vehicles). Out of 16 rapid fire overcharged shots, I hit with 14, rerolled the 1's and they hit. I also got 4 6's which all also hit. Out of the resultant 20 shots, 9 initially wounded the Shadowsword, with a further 7 coming from the reroll. The Shadowsword managed to save 2 rolls, taking 24 wounds, and leaving it on 2 wounds remaining. It was basically invalidated on a Turn 2 drop...

A similar situation took place on the enemy Baneblade with a Lambdan Lions Progeny of Conflict Warlord, though this time it was done with a minimum size squad and single command squad with Meltaguns, and completely destroyed the tank. The other Prime was sitting between a couple of Taurox Primes with the regimental relic.

Aash wrote:
They cost a whole lot of CPs, you need to spend CPs to make extra warlords and you lose potential CPs by taking patrols rather than other detachments. Seems like a reasonable trade off to me.

Would you have preferred I write out a bunch of Company Detachments instead to illustrate the same point?

Company Detachment +5CP
Yarrick
Lord Commissar
Scion Squad
Scion Squad
Scion Squad

Vigilus Defiant Tempestus Drop Force Company Detachment +3CP (-2 from WL and Detachment)
Tempestor Prime
Lord Commissar
Scion Squad
Scion Squad
Scion Squad

Lambdan Lions Company Detachment +4CP (-1 from WL)
Tempestor Prime
Tempestor Prime
Scion Squad
Scion Squad
Scion Squad

Inquisitor Vanguard Detachment 0CP (-1 from WL)
Inquisitor
Acolytes
Acolytes
Acolytes

How about a Brigade Detachment list to again do the same?

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
While you can have multiple warlord traits in any given army via stratagems, you can still only declare 1 to be your actual warlord, so this is really a non-issue.

Excluding using the limited warlord traits given by specialist detachments that a few factions have how? It's pretty much an imperial thing. Especially loyalist marines.

And tau of course.

Essentially this is exactly the problem - as far as I know, Tyranids only get access to a single Warlord trait - and can sacrifice it to get Adaptive Physiology (with a bonus stratagem one) on a specific unit.

The trouble with this situation is that in the end, you can have a Warlord (hell, you could make it a Culexus Assassin and sit it WAAAAY at the back where it can only be hit on 6's if anything even gets in range in the first place) that can be shielded by the entirety of your army and not have to worry about ever losing it. The 'Throwaway' Warlords are literally just that: you can use them for suicide drops, as impromptu Commissars for Leadership support on the front lines, even adding additional clout to forces that regular characters just can't quite do on their own.

I think having a Warlord and up to 1 additional Warlord Trait in the army is completely fine. I wonder just how many 'Throwaway' Warlords can be selected in total?

Sounds like yet another case of IG codex written poorly (its not even imperium issue).

 skchsan wrote:
Sounds like yet another case of IG codex written poorly (its not even imperium issue).

Yeah, cause space marines totally aren't imperial. And all those "improved character" strategems totally aren't just warlord traits by another name.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Sounds like yet another case of IG codex written poorly (its not even imperium issue).

Yeah, cause space marines totally aren't imperial. And all those "improved character" strategems totally aren't just warlord traits by another name.

Also, for SM, you can have...

Warlord
+1 Generic Trait via a Strat
+1 Chapter-specific Trait via another Strat
And potentially three Field Commanders.

For six.

Personally, I like being able to give traits to three of my DE characters in a single game. It's a splash of extra customization and an excuse to use some of the second-stringer traits that I would normally have to pass over.

Giving extra traits to extra characters costs CP in all cases, right? So if having multiple traits running around is too good, it means either...

A.) There's a disparity in access to traits of a certain quality. Fixed by either buffing or nerfing the outlier traits and providing similar access to extra traits to all factions.

or...

B.) Certain traits being combo'd together are greater than the sum of their parts. If rules exist to allow these traits to be taken together, they either need to explicitly not work together or else need to be rewritten with the possibility of such combos in mind.

 Apple Peel wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
And tank commanders...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I can actually have just 1 formation with...

A warlord
A Field Commander
A Scion prime extra warlord
A tank commander

Incorrect. A tank commander can’t be taken in a Militarum Tempestus detachment, without not being a Militarum Tempestus detachment. Progeny of Conflict can only be used on Scion characters in Militarum Tempestus detachments, per the first page of the Militarum Tempestus Stratagem section, clarifying which units the new strats can be used on.

So the Tank Commander has to be in a separate detachment.

Drat. Ok an Inquisitor with INQUISITORIAL MANDATE then.

 skchsan wrote:
Sounds like yet another case of IG codex written poorly (its not even imperium issue).

What was described was actually the fault of IGOUGO

 JNAProductions wrote:

Yeah, cause space marines totally aren't imperial. And all those "improved character" strategems totally aren't just warlord traits by another name.

Also, for SM, you can have...

Warlord
+1 Generic Trait via a Strat
+1 Chapter-specific Trait via another Strat
And potentially three Field Commanders.

For six.

"Nerf everything that is a challenge for my army, and buff everything for my army".

Special Characters don't come with Warlord Traits by default. They have fixed traits, but don't get them automatically.

I still don't see the problem with spending CP's to unlock additional traits as being broken. If anything, what's broken is how easily certain armies can accrue +12 CP's with less than 1000 pt expenditure and then spend those CP's practically for 'free'.

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't see the problem with spending CP's to unlock additional traits as being broken. If anything, what's broken is how easily certain armies can accrue +12 CP's with less than 1000 pt expenditure and then spend those CP's practically for 'free'.

It's broken because it's limited to a select few factions. And yes, cp generation is a big fething problem as well.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't see the problem with spending CP's to unlock additional traits as being broken. If anything, what's broken is how easily certain armies can accrue +12 CP's with less than 1000 pt expenditure and then spend those CP's practically for 'free'.

It's broken because it's limited to a select few factions. And yes, cp generation is a big fething problem as well.

CP generation hasn't been a problem in a long time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
I still don't see the problem with spending CP's to unlock additional traits as being broken. If anything, what's broken is how easily certain armies can accrue +12 CP's with less than 1000 pt expenditure and then spend those CP's practically for 'free'.

It's broken because it's limited to a select few factions. And yes, cp generation is a big fething problem as well.

CP generation hasn't been a problem in a long time.

Blood Angels would like a word with you.