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.

Obviously, before 6th, all HQs were effectively equal.

But, now, one has to be the leader of your army - gaining a bonuses whilst alive and rewarding your opponent if dead.

So, I'm curious as to whether this has changed how you view/use your HQs?

- Do you use different HQs in 6th/7th than you did in 5th because of the Warlord rules?

- Do you use your Warlord HQ differently than in 5th - e.g. do you give him any extra survivability gear, are you more cautious with him, or somesuch?

- Has it changed how you use multiple HQs (since one is now above the others)?


I'm fond of weird questions, aren't I?

No, not at all.

The reasoning is that I traditionally protected my warlord anyway, and the Warlord traits are entirely too random to factor into my list building at all. At best the new traits are a minor advantage, however typicaly they are absolutely useless and are discarded as never going to factor into a gmae (I'm looking at you IA13: Lets give a guardsmen CC traits).

My HQ's are designed at list building to serve a function, being the warlord makes them no more benefitial and typically if I'm running two battlesuit commanders it'll be a coinflip as to which gets the warlord.

As a DA player it depends on who I bring as my warlord.
While I agree that warlord traits can be random, if I bring Sam with a unit of black knights I know they could move between 25-27 inches at full speed. That can make a hell of a difference. If he is by himself that gets pushed up to 31-33 inches!

With Azreal I get the choice of DA warlord traits which can easily be built into my list and tactics.
With Belial I will always be using him to get Termies on the ground without scattering so can't hold him back from the fight.
With Zeke, well its hard not to bring him without his enclave nowadays (having more warp dice than my often Eldar foe is something to behold!) but I do tend to make sure he has bodyguards to let him last longer.

If not playing a named warlord then they tend to run with a bodyguard unit, normally with FNP.

Play wise you are looking at giving up 2 vps at the most when your warlord croaks it. That might swing the victory but is not so devastating that you can't recover.
Fluff wise (and for me the narrative is the most important thing) I can't see a Dark Angel hiding at the back of the battle.

Did I give away 2 vps when Belial went toe to toe with a wraithknight? Yes
Was it worth it to imagine him running up its sword, carving bits off the damn thing and nearly bringing it down (one wound left!) before it reached up and crushed the life from him? Oh hell yes!

I suppose with named HQ's its different, especiallly DA where they are vital to running certain lists (Deathwing, Ravenwing). I dont use Special Characters out of personal preference but I suppose knowing EXACTLY what warlord trait you're getting would impact how you'd build your list.

True about the need for certain named HQs for certain lists, but even when not using named HQ as a warlord (either not running one at all in smaller games or, for example, if Sam is in his speeder I tend to give it to an int-chap) I still like to get them in the thick of it. Don't see the point in paying points for a great warrior who isn't going to war.

My lists haven't changed but I do make an effort to hunt my opponents warlord now, I'm still just as reckless with mine though.

I have HQs that can fill support roles now, I'm happy that I can do things other than throw my HQ at something and beat them to death.

The Warlord traits being random means that you can't effectively factor them into anything. I might roll something useful... or I might roll something completely pointless. Or something he already has.

So no, the addition of Warlord traits hasn't changed my lists at all. It should have been a colourful way to personalise your army. Instead... it's something that at least half the time has absolutely zero impact on the game, other than having an extra VP up for grabs.

before 6th edition losing my hq choice was a pain but just another unit/plan gone.
back when the points cost you lost was your opponents victory points i would have my hq with no wargear bar what they needed for the task i had in mind for them so if they did get merc'ed it kept the victory points low.

the change in victory points since then combined with 'slay the warlord' giving a victory point, i see that more as painting a target on your/one of your HQ in return for a slight buff, so now i build my warlord for survival.
It's worth the points outlay to stop my opponent getting that lone victory point which tips the game.

we've all been there - equal objectives, both with linebreaker, one of you has to have first blood; so then 'slay the warlord' becomes 'game critical' in my eye.
probably why they added (re-added?) mid game objective cards in 7th.

 insaniak wrote:
The Warlord traits being random means that you can't effectively factor them into anything. I might roll something useful... or I might roll something completely pointless. Or something he already has.

So no, the addition of Warlord traits hasn't changed my lists at all. It should have been a colourful way to personalise your army. Instead... it's something that at least half the time has absolutely zero impact on the game, other than having an extra VP up for grabs.

Yeah, I wish you just got to pick your Warlord trait when you made your list.

Warlords are one of those things I was hoping for during 6th (along with less invincible vehicles, I got those, and a whole bunch of other things I didn't want, but hey, GeeDubs is GeeDubs), but like so many other good ideas, the execution is pants-on-head stupid.

Forge a Narrative? How, my general, who may be lovingly converted, fits into the army perfectly, he could even be a named character, doesn't know what he's good at half the time. They've got so may cases of things like Ursakar E Creed, Tactical Genius, roll two traits, re-roll them if bound, and hope for the best? Marneus Calgar, God of War, roll two seperate traits, re-rollable. Huh?

Why not just let me pick a trait that suits my army and playstyle.

Oh, right, that would require the traits to be roughly even in value, rather than one giving your whole army move through cover and stealth in ruins, which are only the most common type of terrain in the game, and another gives the warlord Fear.

I generally go for HQs with the most reliable warlord traits possible if, for no other reason, I can actually try and make my often extremely sub-par "fluffy" armies that GW loves punishing a little more effective. The Death Korps Assault Brigade has a fixed warlord trait which is "meh" but at least has a use, and the guy it comes on is pretty solid. Asterion Moloc, the Minotaur Chapter Master has the gain 1 VP for every character slain in a challenge, which suits him and the army just fine (I usually get slaughtered, but can eek out a VP win with some reliability, especially against Chaos).

Having to randomly roll for what the commander of your army, the effective representation of yourself on the table, is good at seems remarkably stupid. There's an arguement for Psykers being randomized, the warp being fickle and all, but you general? Give me a break.

IG HQs work the same way they did, before Warlord Traits existed.

For me, it largely depends on the warlord.

If use a named character (they are usually just so much better and/or necessary) I tend to get them to fill a specific role.

In the case of Tau - Farsight always has a bomb of some size to best utilise his no scatter rule.
But equally I will (where possible) go as cheap as I can because they are a liability.

I don't know if i specifically use them differently. I think i use more specials now because i hate randomness.

Thus the reason i avoid psykers in general.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
There's an arguement for Psykers being randomized, ....

Not a good one.

It's also one of those things, like supplements, that GW has tried previously and changed because it annoyed the crap out of people, that they have for some inexplicable reason decided to revisit.

Nobody liked having random powers in 2nd edition. I can't speak for everyone else, obviously, but I don't like it any more now than I did back then.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
Warlords are one of those things I was hoping for during 6th (along with less invincible vehicles, I got those, and a whole bunch of other things I didn't want, but hey, GeeDubs is GeeDubs), but like so many other good ideas, the execution is pants-on-head stupid.

Forge a Narrative? How, my general, who may be lovingly converted, fits into the army perfectly, he could even be a named character, doesn't know what he's good at half the time. They've got so may cases of things like Ursakar E Creed, Tactical Genius, roll two traits, re-roll them if bound, and hope for the best? Marneus Calgar, God of War, roll two seperate traits, re-rollable. Huh?

Why not just let me pick a trait that suits my army and playstyle.

Oh, right, that would require the traits to be roughly even in value, rather than one giving your whole army move through cover and stealth in ruins, which are only the most common type of terrain in the game, and another gives the warlord Fear.

I generally go for HQs with the most reliable warlord traits possible if, for no other reason, I can actually try and make my often extremely sub-par "fluffy" armies that GW loves punishing a little more effective. The Death Korps Assault Brigade has a fixed warlord trait which is "meh" but at least has a use, and the guy it comes on is pretty solid. Asterion Moloc, the Minotaur Chapter Master has the gain 1 VP for every character slain in a challenge, which suits him and the army just fine (I usually get slaughtered, but can eek out a VP win with some reliability, especially against Chaos).

Having to randomly roll for what the commander of your army, the effective representation of yourself on the table, is good at seems remarkably stupid. There's an arguement for Psykers being randomized, the warp being fickle and all, but you general? Give me a break.

I agree entirely.

 insaniak wrote:

Not a good one.

It's also one of those things, like supplements, that GW has tried previously and changed because it annoyed the crap out of people, that they have for some inexplicable reason decided to revisit.

Nobody liked having random powers in 2nd edition. I can't speak for everyone else, obviously, but I don't like it any more now than I did back then.

The other aspect is that it seems to promote even worse balance with psychic powers. So that we now have stuff like Invisibility.

 insaniak wrote:

 MajorStoffer wrote:
There's an arguement for Psykers being randomized, ....

Not a good one.

It's also one of those things, like supplements, that GW has tried previously and changed because it annoyed the crap out of people, that they have for some inexplicable reason decided to revisit.

Nobody liked having random powers in 2nd edition. I can't speak for everyone else, obviously, but I don't like it any more now than I did back then.

I actually like not being able to build an army around a guaranteed psychic power, can you imagine invisibility if it were guaranteed for anyone that wanted it.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:


I actually like not being able to build an army around a guaranteed psychic power, can you imagine invisibility if it were guaranteed for anyone that wanted it.

Can you imagine it if Invisibility was balanced?

If powers could be picked, the assumption is that powers would be balanced.

It hasn't really changed the way I use HQs, simply as losing them was typically a big blow to a battle plan even before they cost a VP, so I already tried not to take them.

What it has done, though, is made me focus on the enemy Warlord more. Whether it's a Commissar or a Destroyer Lord with all the toys, he could be the difference between a draw and a loss, or turn a draw into a win. Especially if the objectives are looking even towards the endgame, that HQ is going to die if I have anything to say about it.

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I actually like not being able to build an army around a guaranteed psychic power, ...

How does it make any sense? And why specifically psychic powers? Why not have weapon upgrades also chosen randomly? Let's all roll armour randomly for our squads while we're at it!

Heck, if being able to build an army around specific options is a problem, let's just choose our entire army off a series of randomised tables!

Forging like a Boss!

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
[... can you imagine invisibility if it were guaranteed for anyone that wanted it.

So long as it had an appropriate points cost, I don't see a problem.

All psychic powers are not equal. So they shouldn't be treated as if they are.

I field my librarian a lot less, for a number of reasons.

One, he’s squishy, and I don’t want to give up the VP that easily. Two, I hate random powers. If I take a HQ, or any unit for that mater, he’s got a job, and I tool him up to do it. Randomness doesn’t play well with that.

But I’ll still charge forward recklessly with my HQs, or drop them into the thick of the fight. That’s what they are there for. I trust in the Emperor that they will bring victory, even if they give up the warlord VP. But hiding in the back for fear of death is not how marine leaders should act.

 insaniak wrote:

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
I actually like not being able to build an army around a guaranteed psychic power, ...

How does it make any sense? And why specifically psychic powers? Why not have weapon upgrades also chosen randomly? Let's all roll armour randomly for our squads while we're at it!

Heck, if being able to build an army around specific options is a problem, let's just choose our entire army off a series of randomised tables!

Forging like a Boss!

 TheAvengingKnee wrote:
[... can you imagine invisibility if it were guaranteed for anyone that wanted it.

So long as it had an appropriate points cost, I don't see a problem.

All psychic powers are not equal. So they shouldn't be treated as if they are.

As long as it where costed appropriately(or upped it to warp charge 4 or if they just removed it as a whole from the game) I would be ok with it, I don't mind rolling random powers but I also wouldn't mind if they went back to the old system from 5th for it guaranteed fnp for all my psychers would be great.

If I am not running a SC with a fixed trait I will make some random character my warlord. Usually a scout sgt.

That way my beatstick Hq does not give up extra vp.

 insaniak wrote:
The Warlord traits being random means that you can't effectively factor them into anything. I might roll something useful... or I might roll something completely pointless. Or something he already has.

So no, the addition of Warlord traits hasn't changed my lists at all. It should have been a colourful way to personalise your army. Instead... it's something that at least half the time has absolutely zero impact on the game, other than having an extra VP up for grabs.

This. It's just one more thing to roll for on the random tables of randomness for the sake of being random. They rarely add anything to the game, they're often forgotten by turn 2 because I end up getting something that's useless. It's GW's admission that they have no clue how to balance something other than making you have a 1/6 chance of getting an awesome warlord trait/psychic power and a 5/6 of getting a crappy one. That's fantastic game design right there.

I put more characters in a squad so they can die instead of my warlord.

Red Inquisition wrote:
If I am not running a SC with a fixed trait I will make some random character my warlord. Usually a scout sgt.

That way my beatstick Hq does not give up extra vp.

Your scout sergeant does, though.

 vipoid wrote:

Red Inquisition wrote:
If I am not running a SC with a fixed trait I will make some random character my warlord. Usually a scout sgt.

That way my beatstick Hq does not give up extra vp.

Your scout sergeant does, though.

He is chilling in reserves for as long as possible. Then comes on to snag an objective if possible. I find he dies less often than my HQ characters. Does he always live? Nope. But his squad is such a non threat that he tends to get targeted less.

If someone wants to kill your warlord they will. Why make the choice an easy one for my opponent? I also play very aggressive lists so not having my warlord as part of that aggressive push gives me a little piece of mind.

I used to run a SE chapter master on a bike as my warlord and he was kinda survivable but I never found any reason to make him my warlord once I really thought about it. He is not better because of it. He just has an even bigger target on him.

The only thing that affects how I choose my warlord is warlord traits. Do I pick one that has a "set trait" or do I pick one I roll for. Depends on my mood.

Most of the big space marine characters are ment to get stuck in the fight to earn there points. There rather expensive.

Your warlord needs to be leading from the front.

 jhe90 wrote:
Most of the big space marine characters are ment to get stuck in the fight to earn there points. There rather expensive.

Your warlord needs to be leading from the front.

But why does that SM character need to be your warlord? Unless he has a set trait you want you are just increasing your opponents chances of getting warlord vp.

HQ =/= warlord anymore.

SM HQs might spend their time in the fire, but at least they have multiple wounds, and often a 2+ a/o 4++ save, possibly 3++. No mater how hard you trick out anything else in the list, they are just 1 wound away from death.

I’ll take my chances with a HQ over a random sarge.