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.

To cut down on some things that GW saw that they didn't like, they introduced the "One Tau Commander per detatchment" rule.

From looks at the new Space Marine codex, it looks as though Space Marine Captains will also be pulled back to a 1 per detachment situation.

Assuming this become the norm, with Chaos having either a Lord or Demon Prince but not both, Demons getting a single Greater Demon, Tyrannid getting a single Hive Tyrant, and so on, how will this effect your army going forward?

Are people in support of this restriction or against? What are the pros and cons?

I'm curious what people might think and where it could go. Some forces (like the Sisters of Battle) will obviously need a new HQ choice to step in as a secondary option, aka "The Lieutenant Slot", and we know that some of those are on the way, but I wanted to see what people thought, have a little civil conversation, and see if there are any forces that would be utterly crippled by this or if everyone will just sort of go, "Yeah, I can work with that as long as it hits everyone" and move on.

Your thoughts?

So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?

I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.

The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.

Karol wrote:
So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?

grey knights effectively have one grandmaster and one brother captain per brotherhood. I imagine they'll only be able to take one of each.

It probably wound't affect orks at all, as you only bring one warboss for the killa klaw anyways. Biggest Boss and Mekboss already are limited to one per army.
Limiting big meks or weird boyz would make no sense fluffwise, as most clans have multiples.

As for DG, it wouldn't change much since LoC can also have the same aura that DP and lords have and the most important aura is the arch-contaminator warlord trait which can go on whatever character you want.
Fluff-wise it doesn't make much sense to make Lords and DP mutually exclusive, since there are examples where a single plague vector has both.

As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.

Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.

For my guard, I don't really see a character where it could apply, except perhaps for the Company Commander, although it would work better for a higher-ranked officer so there at least is an option for multiple officers.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I really hate this kind of arbitrary design restriction.

The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.

That is really the route of the problem requiring 1 model from a unit to touch a 6 or 9 inch aura around a (60mm I think some of the primaris charictors are upto now) base allows you to cover just far to much of the table and units.

Auras either need to be limited activation type abilities or targeting units this blanket everything's boosted won't be effected by this change, how many lists were you seeing running multiple captains and LT's?

Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.

 Nazrak wrote:
Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.

I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?

If they want to go down this road they should just bring back a cap on all units and stick it in the top corner of datasheets. Don't want people spamming a certain unit? Put a 0-2 up there. Job done. Don't mind people spamming? 0-*. Also it makes it easy to FAQ on an individual basis rather than adding a global "rule of 3" sledgehammer to what should really be a scalpel.

In general terms its annoying to have to take two HQ for the standard force size, but be limited to one commander.

In Balance terms, if they were balanced you wouldn't need to limit them to one per army.

In Fluffy terms, It makes sense to have one commander unit.

But you can still get one Primarch, one Chapter Master and one Captain on the field supporting 15 men.

The issue isn't taking multiple captains, the issues are Auras are too good. Remove all auras and replace them with Order/MWBD type effects, imho.

I thought the original issue was Tau Commander suits were too killy?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.

I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?

obviously dark eldar would need to be given new HQs to do this with them

Wakshaani wrote:
To cut down on some things that GW saw that they didn't like, they introduced the "One Tau Commander per detatchment" rule.

From looks at the new Space Marine codex, it looks as though Space Marine Captains will also be pulled back to a 1 per detachment situation.

Assuming this become the norm, with Chaos having either a Lord or Demon Prince but not both, Demons getting a single Greater Demon, Tyrannid getting a single Hive Tyrant, and so on, how will this effect your army going forward?

Are people in support of this restriction or against? What are the pros and cons?

I'm curious what people might think and where it could go. Some forces (like the Sisters of Battle) will obviously need a new HQ choice to step in as a secondary option, aka "The Lieutenant Slot", and we know that some of those are on the way, but I wanted to see what people thought, have a little civil conversation, and see if there are any forces that would be utterly crippled by this or if everyone will just sort of go, "Yeah, I can work with that as long as it hits everyone" and move on.

Your thoughts?

My two armies won't be affected at all. I never play with 2 Warbosses or 2 Wolf Lords anyway. Not even in 8th when I fielded 6 ork and 3-4 space wolves HQs tipycally.

 Esmer wrote:
As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.

Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.

I suspect that this might also be part of GW's thinking. When it comes to game balance its not just a case of numbers but the visual impression that armies create on the tabletop. Sometimes the rules can wind up creating a situation where people end up taking "armies" that are really odd - all commanders and almost no troops or such. Suddenly you've a very powerful army, by the rules, but one which visually creates a very odd impression. Something that "shouldn't be".

The old Force Organisation chart was one way that GW used to control this - it limited your HQ choices; it restricted your elites etc..

BrianDavion wrote:

Karol wrote:
So how does that work for chapters, where Grandmaster is not a per chapter number and captin is not per company rank, and who don't have Lts ?

grey knights effectively have one grandmaster and one brother captain per brotherhood. I imagine they'll only be able to take one of each.

They have more brotherhoods then they have companies. All the sub sects like the purfires have their masters too, they just don't have a separate rule sets for them right now. Same with paladins, and the specialists that train in the use of nemezis dread knights suits. And that isn't even all, I have pdfs of older codex, and in those a captin is just a leader of a squad of GK termintors.

And then there is also Draigo, the head of the librarius and the head of chaplain, which GK can't take because they can't have a master of sancticity, who have the title of master too.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.

I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?

If they can get 1 type of HQs per detachment they won't have a problem as they're basically going multiple patrols with just a generic HQ per detachment anyway. It's a 1 type of HQ per army limitation that could affect them somehow.

Generally speaking I don't like this kind of limitations either.

Theory is fine, execution would require rejigging many HQs in the game, and potentially adding new ones to certain factions.

Arguably making lots of HQs 0-1 options would allow them to have very strong rules/points ratios, without breaking the game (because otherwise you'd promptly throw down 3 of them.) This is potentially desirable/interesting.

But I feel its going to do little to nothing about auras.

 Overread wrote:


I suspect that this might also be part of GW's thinking. When it comes to game balance its not just a case of numbers but the visual impression that armies create on the tabletop. Sometimes the rules can wind up creating a situation where people end up taking "armies" that are really odd - all commanders and almost no troops or such. Suddenly you've a very powerful army, by the rules, but one which visually creates a very odd impression. Something that "shouldn't be".
.

How is an army of paladins led by multiple terminator armoured characters "visually odd". That is in all practical sense what a GK army is. Plus GW decided that all the improvements that make the GK codex work, are mostly brought through psychic powers and extra rules, which only characters can take. If this means I can use PA powers through squads, I could probably live with it, if GW also rewrites the rules for GK GM. If they are GM just like a termintor armored GM, then they should have access to the same number of psychic powers and traits. Just like marine ones that can take what ever they want, on foot, bike , jet pack etc

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Tbh I wouldn't mind if this applied to every HQ in the game.

I guess Dark Eldar don't get to be an army anymore then?

Dark Eldar should just get enough HQs to function despite such a rule being in place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:
How is an army of paladins led by multiple terminator armoured characters "visually odd". That is in all practical sense what a GK army is. Plus GW decided that all the improvements that make the GK codex work, are mostly brought through psychic powers and extra rules, which only characters can take. If this means I can use PA powers through squads, I could probably live with it, if GW also rewrites the rules for GK GM. If they are GM just like a termintor armored GM, then they should have access to the same number of psychic powers and traits. Just like marine ones that can take what ever they want, on foot, bike , jet pack etc

Grey Knights have Grand Masters, Brother-Captains, Brotherhood Champions, Librarians, Tech Marines and Chaplains and all of them can cast powers. I don't see an issue with limiting them just like Marines.

It hard feths over any faction that relied on said hq choice but wasn't as efficient as a smash captain.

 Esmer wrote:
As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.

Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.

No, it will not.

As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.

And just so we're clear:
There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits.
There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.

Well, GSC always had that rule.

Similarly, GW has previously introduced a 0-1 limitation simply by calling a given data sheet a "named character", i.e. if you call something "Mortarion" instead of "Super-Nurgle-Daemon-Prince"; it's automatically limited to 1, instead of 3 (or whatever).

So it's not really new and no different a tool to balance things than points or detachments or slots or whatever. The more levers of limitations you have to balance things, the better you can balance the game after all.

It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.

Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.

Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]

Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Well, GSC always had that rule.

Similarly, GW has previously introduced a 0-1 limitation simply by calling a given data sheet a "named character", i.e. if you call something "Mortarion" instead of "Super-Nurgle-Daemon-Prince"; it's automatically limited to 1, instead of 3 (or whatever).

So it's not really new and no different a tool to balance things than points or detachments or slots or whatever. The more levers of limitations you have to balance things, the better you can balance the game after all.

Yeah, and GW still seems to have forgotten they did that gak to us and gives us dumbfuck rules that don't seem to realize they put those caps into place.

Oh thanks GW, a custom Cult Trait that only affects PSYKER keyword models? That'll be great on the TWO CASTS MAXIMUM PER TURN IN THE ENTIRE DETACHMENT I CAN EVER GET

Wow GW you shouldn't have, a stratagem that gives a +1 to cast for each friendly GSC psyker within 6" of one of my psykers? So +1 then? Like +1. this is just capped at +1 because there's only ever 2 psykers.

Cool a new alternate Magus model, I'm so happy, now there's two sculpts for one HQ choice good thing it's on the army where you can only ever have friggin 1 of those models!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.

Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.

No, it will not.

As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.

And just so we're clear:
There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits.
There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.

Yeah, tank commanders are inherently designed to not bring Leman Russ tanks along. They get ONE order, and that's best used on themself as they're a better version of regular LRs. All they need to do is properly price regular LRs and give TCs like 3 orders, possibly barring them from receiving orders themself if necessary.

Same with the infantry, if PCs had two orders we'd use them. But one CC plus 3 PC right now isn't enough to even cover your infantry squads.

Real quicklike, let me add this:
I say "there is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders" because they are what everyone uses as a benchmark of what they think a buffbot should be.

People continually ignore or gloss over the fact that a Guard Commander(generic) brings basically nothing to the table other than their Orders. Even fully kitted out, a Guard Commander isn't really exciting or crazy. You don't see Punchmanders running around. Even the Scion Officer option isn't really considered for doing such a thing, being deep striked alongside Scions just for throwing Orders.

I don't know how you make Guard Commanders contribute a bit more, but removing some Orders and making them into flat auras would be a potential thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Esmer wrote:
As an Astra Player, I welcome this for fluff reasons. I've always found lists featuring 3 Tank Commanders and no additional LR a bit off.

Also, this will probably increase the usefulness of Platoon Commanders.

No, it will not.

As a Guard player, I do not welcome this change at all unless accompanied by an additional Officer level is added and we return to the "Heroic Senior", "Senior", and "Junior" officer ranks of old.

And just so we're clear:
There's a reason why Tank Commanders sometimes show up with no Leman Russes. It's the 'best' version, same as Commanders are the 'best' version of Crisis Suits.
There is no way to increase the usefulness of any of the Guard Commanders. They are there to be buffbots. The only ones worthwhile as 'standalones' are the Tank Commanders.

Um, I know the rules reason. From a gameplay perspective, 3 Tank Commanders are obviously better than one TC and 2 normal LR. From a fluff perspective however, one TC should command a column of non-TC. From that perspective, I wouldn't mind TC getting becoming 0-1 and getting two orders.

Likewise, I'd like to see PC getting 2 orders if CC become 1-1.

Ha HA ha hA!

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Spoiler:

It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.

Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.

Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]

Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.

'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?

 carldooley wrote:
Ha HA ha hA!

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Spoiler:

It would probably require the adjustment of the Battalion down to a single HQ, rather than two.

Otherwise every guard Batallion would have to feature a Lord Commissar & a Company or Tank commander, and that's a bit much. They should really only have a single company commander, per, you know, company.

Also above poster we _have_ junior officers, they're just in the elites slot, which is odd because they should be part of the platoon and taken as troops, but they do exist. [They make perfect sense as a HQ choice - A patrol should be lead by a junior officer, but I don't think the guard codex commanders understand much about how armies work.]

Other factions also get wonky when trying to make Batallions with two HQ choices anyway. With the disincentive to make as many as you can Detachment choices now they cost CP, cutting Batallions down to 1 HQ choice would fix a lot of problems.

'GW needs to adjust battalions to 1 HQ.'
ever consider running PATROL detachments?

You mean those detachments with only three troops slots? The ones where it's impossible to get even the slightest base of infantry for any sort of light infantry army?