Switch Theme:

Are squad leaders getting obsolete, and can they be fixed?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Ottawa

With all models in a squad now having the same Leadership value, squad leaders often don't have much going for them aside from a couple of extra options for melee weapons or pistols. And honestly, having a better sword than the other guys isn't really the purpose of a leader, unless you're an Ork. Should we just accept the near obsolescence of squad leaders as a relic of older editions, or is there a way to fix them?

The simplest fix (though it would require lots of errata entries) would be that a squad's datasheet ability only applies as long as its leader is alive. In addition to restoring the leader's purpose of squad coordination, this would make players think twice before treating the leader as an expendable ablative wound in small squads with big guns. E.g., with Drukhari Scourges: "Do I remove a dark lance, or do I lose my fire-and-move ability?"

Cadians, Sisters of Battle, Drukhari

Read my Drukhari short stories: Chronicles of Commorragh 
   
Made in us
Mysterious Techpriest







A better name might be unit champion, that defends the unit in melee combat, if necessary.

 BorderCountess wrote:
Just because you're doing something right doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing...
Warhammer 40k Poetry(Updated Frequently)メカ
SamusDrake wrote:
If unpainted models are good enough for Zeus, then they're good enough for me.
 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut





Interesting conceptually.

Would depend on what the rule is, as to whether it would seem appropriate to lose - ie is it a skill that the sergeant confers, or one that the unit would be expected to have?

GW are really only keeping the squad leaders that are really distinct from their squads it seems - nobs and exarchs are distinctly different. but a guard sergeant is really not any different from his troops.


It might actually be better to give the sergeant a higher OC - 3 instead of 1 for example, making them highly valuable for strategic outcomes which is in keeping with chain of command models.


   
Made in au
Fresh-Faced New User




I like the squad leader having the same leadership as the squad members. I think in most editions it results in leadership being too high.
Boosting the leadership is something a 'special' squad leader or character should do.

I do like the idea of the death of the default squad leader having a negative effect on the squad. It could be as simple as forcing a morale test and/or giving the remaining squad a -1LD penalty for the remainder of the game.
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

How about unuts without a squad lead cant be targeted by your owj strategems? No chain of command if the squaddie is dead.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

 Hellebore wrote:
...but a guard sergeant is really not any different from his troops.


I would actually prefer it if a guard sarge has a lasgun like his troops...
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






If you tie squad leaders to abilities/strategems, how does that interact with units which don't have leaders?

The problem is with the fundamentals of 10th edition, and can't easily be fixed with yet another layer of special rules and exceptions.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/10 12:56:46


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

 Lord Damocles wrote:
If you tie squad leaders to abilities/strategems, how does that interact with units which don't have leaders?

The problem is with the fundamentals of 10th edition, and can't easily be fixed with yet another layer of special rules and exceptions.


Currently? Itd probably be a mess unless you allow an attached character to fill in for a squad leader (even then theres still gaps), but in a clean sheet design it creates design space for strats that dont have to concern themselves with interactions that can occur with those units, as well as characters and units that can act as detached CoC links for units without characters (ie synapse creatures can allow strategems to be used on a carnifex within x", a unit with a vox caster can pass a strat to a unit of ratlings within x", etc)

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in ca
Storm Trooper with Maglight



Ottawa

Oktoglokk wrote:
I do like the idea of the death of the default squad leader having a negative effect on the squad. It could be as simple as forcing a morale test and/or giving the remaining squad a -1LD penalty for the remainder of the game.

Forcing a morale test if the squad leader dies would allow snipers and others with Precision weapons to reduce an objective-holding squad's OC to zero from afar or interrupt an action, which I like from a tactical perspective. Even a highly disciplined squad would be rattled if their sergeant's head exploded suddenly while they were just sitting tight.

Only problem is that, if this is the only change to squad leaders, it turns the leader into a vulnerability rather than an asset. Having him does not benefit you, but losing him hurts you.


 Lord Damocles wrote:
If you tie squad leaders to abilities/strategems, how does that interact with units which don't have leaders?

You could rephrase the datasheet ability accordingly for squads that have leaders, while squads without leaders don't need any rephrasing. The Kasrkin datasheet ability would read:

Warrior Elite: In your Command phase, if this unit contains a Kasrkin Sergeant, you can select one Order to affect this unit until the start of your next Command phase, in addition to any other Orders issued to this unit by an OFFICER model this turn.

I wouldn't involve stratagems, though, because this would require a universal special rule that somehow covers all squad leaders, whatever they may be called for various units and factions. (Unless, of course, a SQUAD LEADER keyword were created.)


The problem is with the fundamentals of 10th edition, and can't easily be fixed with yet another layer of special rules and exceptions.

Sadly, I think you're right. Lots of erratas would be required, unless you implement this update faction by faction as they get their respective codices.

.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2025/01/10 15:09:23


Cadians, Sisters of Battle, Drukhari

Read my Drukhari short stories: Chronicles of Commorragh 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Lots of interesting ideas in here, but honestly? I think squad leaders being a source of special weapons is fine. That was always the main reason I was taking something like an exarch or giving gear to a hekatrix in the past; certainly *not* because of 1 better leadership.

Right now, a sybarite is a source of a blast pistol and the grenades keyword. An exarch is frequently doing half the damage in an aspect squad. A shas'ui is "carrying" the squad's markerlight drone buffs. An aspiring sorcerer is generating cabal points and bringing a different arsenal to the table, while his terminator version is making the whole squad -1 to wound.

Basically, I think more units than not already have incentives for keeping their squad leaders around. And punishing those units who don't seems like it might be kind of a feelsbad change. Forcing me to lose my move-shoot-move ability on my scourges if the solarite dies wouldn't make the game more interesting. It just means that I'd have to sacrifice the "good guns" slightly sooner.

I do think that a lot of sergeants have had their options shrunken down either due to no model no rules or because GW couldn't figure out how to incentivize you to take the bad options. Something like this pitch could help with the latter: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/812887.page

But also, if a sergeant is genuinely so bad or uninteresting that he may as well be another face in the crowd... I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Like, what is the actual problem that needs to be solved there? I frequently let my sybarite die before my dark lance warrior does. That doesn't mean the sybarite wasn't contributing grenades and a pistol before he died. We don't need to stack on extra rules to make the sybarite more important just to prevent people from removing him as a casualty before one of the other special weapons. It would be nice if he regained enough wargear options that I might have more reason to keep him alive, but that's mostly just addressing how a lot of flavor and options have been removed. I'd still probably kill a drug dispenser + power sword + blast pistol sybarite before I'd kill a dark lance in a lot of situations.
 
@-Guarsman-: Note that snipers don't currently let you pick out sergeants from squads; only attached Leader characters.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






-Guardsman- wrote:
With all models in a squad now having the same Leadership value, squad leaders often don't have much going for them aside from a couple of extra options for melee weapons or pistols. And honestly, having a better sword than the other guys isn't really the purpose of a leader, unless you're an Ork. Should we just accept the near obsolescence of squad leaders as a relic of older editions, or is there a way to fix them?

The simplest fix (though it would require lots of errata entries) would be that a squad's datasheet ability only applies as long as its leader is alive. In addition to restoring the leader's purpose of squad coordination, this would make players think twice before treating the leader as an expendable ablative wound in small squads with big guns. E.g., with Drukhari Scourges: "Do I remove a dark lance, or do I lose my fire-and-move ability?"

Like the abilities of Aspect leaders, that's not a bad idea. I think I'd actually like these abilities more if they were tied to a model that could get sniped. But it would give armies without Sergeants an advantage that I feel would be unpopular if not unfair.

The current points paradigm means you're always taking a Sergeant, unlike in editions where a Sergeant was not mandatory or maybe even unpopular to take for certain units, so maybe we can just forget about Sergeants. I don't want to go back to Sergeants declaring and accepting challenges.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

I like the idea of giving them an extra few OC.
Small, but significant.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

-Guardsman- wrote:
With all models in a squad now having the same Leadership value, squad leaders often don't have much going for them aside from a couple of extra options for melee weapons or pistols. And honestly, having a better sword than the other guys isn't really the purpose of a leader, unless you're an Ork. Should we just accept the near obsolescence of squad leaders as a relic of older editions, or is there a way to fix them?
I think there is really a problem here that needs solving. At the scale of 40K, there is no need to focus in on one individual in a unit of models. You can easily argue that is the core problem with the 40K rules set. I a game that goes from a small a Grot to as large as an Imperial Knight, we shouldn't spend too much time focusing on any particular model in a unit of models.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 alextroy wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
With all models in a squad now having the same Leadership value, squad leaders often don't have much going for them aside from a couple of extra options for melee weapons or pistols. And honestly, having a better sword than the other guys isn't really the purpose of a leader, unless you're an Ork. Should we just accept the near obsolescence of squad leaders as a relic of older editions, or is there a way to fix them?
I think there is really a problem here that needs solving. At the scale of 40K, there is no need to focus in on one individual in a unit of models. You can easily argue that is the core problem with the 40K rules set. I a game that goes from a small a Grot to as large as an Imperial Knight, we shouldn't spend too much time focusing on any particular model in a unit of models.

We absolutely should Apocalypse already exists if you don't like the idea of 40k.
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle





In My Lab

Kill Team exists too. That has a focus on individual models. Which works well when there’s not more than a dozen a side.

When you can run over a hundred models… each individual infantry ain’t so important.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

And theyre not important. Were talking about maybe one model per unit being semi-important, ie 10 out of 100 models, not 100 out of 100.

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 vict0988 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
-Guardsman- wrote:
With all models in a squad now having the same Leadership value, squad leaders often don't have much going for them aside from a couple of extra options for melee weapons or pistols. And honestly, having a better sword than the other guys isn't really the purpose of a leader, unless you're an Ork. Should we just accept the near obsolescence of squad leaders as a relic of older editions, or is there a way to fix them?
I think there is really a problem here that needs solving. At the scale of 40K, there is no need to focus in on one individual in a unit of models. You can easily argue that is the core problem with the 40K rules set. I a game that goes from a small a Grot to as large as an Imperial Knight, we shouldn't spend too much time focusing on any particular model in a unit of models.

We absolutely should Apocalypse already exists if you don't like the idea of 40k.


Honestly, this is one of the reasons I feel like 2,000 point games are one of the worst ways to play 40k. If you want big battles, Apoc is the better choice. The level of abstraction and back and forth are less clunky and probably model the type of fight you're interested in better. If you want to zoom in on the action of a handful of squads with individual characters pulling off memorable stunts, 1k-1500 has been my sweet spot lately. Few enough units/models that getting through a turn isn't a chore and you can have a little drama over whether or not the special gun guy is still alive in the squad. And armies tend to either have weaknesses you can lean into (in a good way) or else are vanilla TAC lists without so much firepower that they blast you off the table turn 1 and snowball from there.

A cool sergeant/aspiring sorcerer/exarch feels good at 1k-1500 points.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: