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.

I keep finding myself frustrated by my space elves' limited unit-joining options. Archons can't hang out with incubi. Autarchs can't hang out with aspect warriors. It's kind of unintuitive.

I definitely see the benefits of having a reduced list units characters can join. Among other things, it helps the designers predict/understand possible character + unit combinations to avoid unintentionally strong combinations, plus it spares them from having to write rules spelling out how having a foot character and a bike character joining a beast unit works, etc. But that said, how many abusive combos would 10th really have if we let characters join any unit of the same general type? (Ex: infantry with infantry, bikes with bikes, etc.)

Letting autarchs or farseers join aspect warriors again doesn't seem like it would be too absurd. Letting an archon join some mandrakes seems, if anything, like a nerf for the mandrakes. But I suppose having Yvraine reanimating wraithguard might be a bit much. (Even though bonesingers can already pull off similar levels of wraith rez'ing.) I'd sure like to put my phobos librarian in a unit without having to go buy infiltrators.

What do you think? Is the current set of limitations on what units a character can lead too harsh? Or do the pros outweigh the cons?

The fact that termintors HQs can not join power armoured units, is very much felt by armies when almost all characters are in terminator armour or a version of it, but half the units are in power armour. GK purgators for example, would or could benefit from a character joining them, same way hellblasters work better with an apothecary. Sadly there is no such option. The other thing is the +1characters. Other armies have their Lt, apothecaries etc which allows them to combo two characters to an attached unit. Sadly at GW someone forgot that a GK cpt is not the company leader like the space marine cpt, but rather something more kin to a marine Lt. The inability to run 2 characters per squads, when the squads and characters already cost a lot of points, means that running some characters (chaplains for example) is almost impossible. Same with brotherhood champions being only a power armoured model. If one could attach to termintors, then maybe it would be a unit option used. But he is only limited to practicaly strikes, but because he doesn't have scout, joing him to them is losing majority of the entice to take GK strikes in the first place.

all in all, for GK and maybe other elite factions like custodes, the change was not fully thought through or implemented bad.

If only Ghazkull could join units of Grots

At least until they get their supplement...Space Wolves can still have Terminator Wolf Guard Pack Leaders attached to Powered Armored Squads. It's a nice, fluffy hold-over from 2nd edition when you would take a Wolf Guard Terminator Squad and then detach models from it to lead other squads.

Example: 6 Long Fangs (Sgt w/Plasma Gun & 5 Lascannons) + Terminator WGPL (Storm Bolter, Power Fist & Cyclone ML).

Example: 15 Blood Claws (Sgt w/PF) & Terminator WGPL (Twin LC or TH/SS).

And you can still attach one or more normal eligible "Leader(s)" to either of those squads, if you desire.

To answer the OP's post: Yes, I believe the "Leader" rules are way too restrictive and don't make sense fluff-wise. I do believe they actually make the game easier for GW to "balance" the rules though.

I like that characters have a list of units they can join; in some cases I wish the lists were bigger. The abilities conferred by the characters should be strong to justify them; but not enough that leaderless units are without a proper role.

I don't think it would break the game as much as the designer paradigm is to treat us like we're barely capable of reading a ruler. Most of the blockers are Firstborn/Primaris and Movement rates. Standard (Non-Named) Gravis (Primaris) is MV 5, Terminators (First Born) are MV 5 - Power Armor First Born are Mv 6, Power Armor Primaris are move 6. Tack on a little too rigidly enforced fluff, and you have the template used for all the Who Can Join What lists. LTs only with Captains, Not with Chaplains, or Libbies, and definitely not with other sub-captain characters like Techmarines, Apothecaries or Judiciars. This kind of lockdown isn't to prevent wombo combos - not even the wombo combos they didn't think of and nudge us towards like Gravis Cap, Apothecari Biologis and Aggressors - this is "They don't trust us to do it right".

Yeah. I love it. <sarcasm>
Looked at Ezekiel yesterday and wondered who he could join….
Vanguard Veterans (on foot) …Legends
Command Squad…..Legends
Assault Squad (on foot)….. Legends
Tactical Squad….. yay

So, basically not taking Ezekiel I guess

I honestly want a game somewhere between 9th and 10th,

Breton wrote:
I don't think it would break the game as much as the designer paradigm is to treat us like we're barely capable of reading a ruler. Most of the blockers are Firstborn/Primaris and Movement rates. Standard (Non-Named) Gravis (Primaris) is MV 5, Terminators (First Born) are MV 5 - Power Armor First Born are Mv 6, Power Armor Primaris are move 6. Tack on a little too rigidly enforced fluff, and you have the template used for all the Who Can Join What lists. LTs only with Captains, Not with Chaplains, or Libbies, and definitely not with other sub-captain characters like Techmarines, Apothecaries or Judiciars. This kind of lockdown isn't to prevent wombo combos - not even the wombo combos they didn't think of and nudge us towards like Gravis Cap, Apothecari Biologis and Aggressors - this is "They don't trust us to do it right".

I think this has at least some truth to it. The game is meant to be accessible to anyone. This is why the core rules have been stripped right back, they don't seem to have realised that this just creates bloat outside of the core because otherwise it would be dull as dish water. This ultimately makes it all the more unaccessible with insufficient USR's as well as making the game shallower.

I agree they should trust and respect the player base more.

Edit - I realise that the game is not that bloated outside of the core currently other than the bespoke rules on each unit (though I see why some might like that) but c'mon is anyone here thinking that in 2 years time this will not be a bloated mess?

Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

That aside I would have preferred more freedom on character joining rules and abilities using keywords to avoid unintended combos.

But I do like the limitation on the number of characters that can join an unit.

Dai wrote:

Breton wrote:
I don't think it would break the game as much as the designer paradigm is to treat us like we're barely capable of reading a ruler. Most of the blockers are Firstborn/Primaris and Movement rates. Standard (Non-Named) Gravis (Primaris) is MV 5, Terminators (First Born) are MV 5 - Power Armor First Born are Mv 6, Power Armor Primaris are move 6. Tack on a little too rigidly enforced fluff, and you have the template used for all the Who Can Join What lists. LTs only with Captains, Not with Chaplains, or Libbies, and definitely not with other sub-captain characters like Techmarines, Apothecaries or Judiciars. This kind of lockdown isn't to prevent wombo combos - not even the wombo combos they didn't think of and nudge us towards like Gravis Cap, Apothecari Biologis and Aggressors - this is "They don't trust us to do it right".

I think this has at least some truth to it. The game is meant to be accessible to anyone. This is why the core rules have been stripped right back, they don't seem to have realised that this just creates bloat outside of the core because otherwise it would be dull as dish water. This ultimately makes it all the more unaccessible with insufficient USR's as well as making the game shallower.

I agree they should trust and respect the player base more.

Edit - I realise that the game is not that bloated outside of the core currently other than the bespoke rules on each unit (though I see why some might like that) but c'mon is anyone here thinking that in 2 years time this will not be a bloated mess?

I think that the current framework is actually among the simplest rules systems on the market (compared to Warmachine, 9th, etc). Games Workshop have a simple pathway to follow, and all try need to do is not add uneeded rule books to squeeze out short term profits.

So yes, I agreed with you.

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

I'd argue the issue is that players actually do read the rules.

Meanwhile, the people who write them appear to go with a 'we know what we mean and that's what matters' approach.

Hence why the Assault rule literally didn't work in 8th edition if you tried to play the rules as written.

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

I'd argue the issue is that players actually do read the rules.

Meanwhile, the people who write them appear to go with a 'we know what we mean and that's what matters' approach.

Hence why the Assault rule literally didn't work in 8th edition if you tried to play the rules as written.

On the other hand you had people arguing that Judiciars had a super Fight Last that overruled standard Fight First/Fight Last interactions because... to be honest I don't recall the actual wording argument but it was so stupid.

I mean, sure GW needs to write better rules but the community has proven that they need rules written by lawyers (now it is up to GW to hire some actual lawyers because their writers definitely didn't go to law school).

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

I'd argue the issue is that players actually do read the rules.

Meanwhile, the people who write them appear to go with a 'we know what we mean and that's what matters' approach.

Hence why the Assault rule literally didn't work in 8th edition if you tried to play the rules as written.

On the other hand you had people arguing that Judiciars had a super Fight Last that overruled standard Fight First/Fight Last interactions because... to be honest I don't recall the actual wording argument but it was so stupid.

I mean, sure GW needs to write better rules but the community has proven that they need rules written by lawyers (now it is up to GW to hire some actual lawyers because their writers definitely didn't go to law school).

Don't get me wrong - there are definitely players who will try and rules-lawyer the most asinine things.

My point, though, is that this wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem if GW hadn't hired a school of pilchards as its writing team.

I mentioned before the Assault weapon rule not functioning in 8th, but at least with that rule the intent was clear. An awful lot of issues (and rule-lawyering) have been caused because the intent of many ambiguous and/or clumsily-worded rules is anything but clear.

To use an example from older editions, back when Instant Death and Eternal Warrior existed, there were a few weapons that said the target was "removed from play". This was different to the language of Instant Death (which 'killed' the model). However, it was never clear whether this was supposed to overrule even Eternal Warrior or whether it was just a clumsily-worded form of Instant Death. Something that was never clarified by GW.

Though sometimes even their "clarifications" only serve to muddy the waters. For example, some here might remember the infamous FAQ for WHFB:

Q: If I fire my Empire Cannon at a unit, is that unit removed from play?
A: Yes.

If it's not clear, this answer effectively turned Empire Cannons into anti-matter cannons that could vaporise an entire unit without allowing it any saves and without even needing to make an attack roll.

One might presume that this wasn't actually the intent but then what the hell was the intent? I cannot for the life of me work out what question GW were even trying to answer with that one.

Anyway, my point is GW could cut out a hell of a lot of rule lawyering by simply using consistent language and defined terms. Otherwise, people will forever be asking if a given rule is worded differently because it's meant to function differently or just because the writer couldn't be bothered checking to see how it had been written on other units.

I still think the larger issue surrounding characters isn't who they can/cannot join, but rather how characters don't do much of anything when they're not joined.

In fact, most characters aren't worth taking if you can't attach them to a unit because their rules and abilities simply don't function when they're alone (even when they clearly should).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still think the larger issue surrounding characters isn't who they can/cannot join, but rather how characters don't do much of anything when they're not joined.

In fact, most characters aren't worth taking if you can't attach them to a unit because their rules and abilities simply don't function when they're alone (even when they clearly should).

That's an easy thing to fix, no real reason not to either. Finding a list of broken character + unit combos is harder.

There really aren't any "broken" combos of such sort.
While stuff like Librarian having FnP vs psychic attacks, but only if he joins a unit does.

I wouldn't necessarily want any character to join any unit, but would want a bit more freedom in doing so. When the Marine index was released I found it weird that my Captain couldn't join a Devastator Squad. Not sure how that would be particularly breaking.

Do you think it would make more sense if characters could join any unit they wanted, but their Leadership bonus(es) only applied to specific units?

 vipoid wrote:
Do you think it would make more sense if characters could join any unit they wanted, but their Leadership bonus(es) only applied to specific units?

Yes and no. I think there should have been more "command squad" styled units added, with Leader abilities being tied to those characters being in those squads, and then selecting a target unit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Do you think it would make more sense if characters could join any unit they wanted, but their Leadership bonus(es) only applied to specific units?

Yes and no. I think there should have been more "command squad" styled units added, with Leader abilities being tied to those characters being in those squads, and then selecting a target unit.

Yes and no. Letting archons join incubi, for instance, would make both archons and incubi more useful. I really don't want to have to run a squad of kabalites into melee just because they're the only ablative wounds my archon can hang out with.

But for something like an autarch, where a large part of the value is the special ability rather than the beat-stickery, it wouldn't be as good a solution. Sure, an autarch being allowed to hang out in a squad of reapers (because their guns match) would be nice. However, I actually like that at least some characters seem to be leaning more towards support roles and less towards beatstick duty. It feels awkward having to field guardians to keep my autarch safe if I want to field a sword-wind-style list. Especially given that most of the autarch's wargear options lend themselves to up-close fighting, which guardian defenders want to shy away from.

If there aren't really any combos that would be a huge problem, I'd probably be inclined to just let characters join units of the same general type and add some guidelines for clearing up deployment/movement complications that might arise. Alternatively, and this is probably too complicated, you could give characters alternate rules depending on what unit they join. So instead of straight up removing my autarch's special abilities when he's joined to a squad of fire dragons or banshees, you give him an alternative rule that focuses more on leading this specialized squad rather than leading the army as a whole. Or whatever. Probably a bad example as I don't think the Autarch's special rules would suddenly be problematic if he joined an aspect squad.

I'm not up to date on modern Eldar lore but why would an Autarch be hanging out with guardians rather than aspects anyway? Seems gamey.

Dai wrote:
I'm not up to date on modern Eldar lore but why would an Autarch be hanging out with guardians rather than aspects anyway? Seems gamey.

Aspects are led by commanders that lost themselves to the path. Autarchs managed to walk multiple warrior paths without losing themselves. I'd imagine the command styles conflict very badly.
As an overall strategic commander that's largely fine, but at the squad level the commander ordering one thing and the exarch demanding ingrained aspect doctrine is a potential problem.

Dai wrote:
I'm not up to date on modern Eldar lore but why would an Autarch be hanging out with guardians rather than aspects anyway? Seems gamey.

It's not really unfluffy to have them hanging out with guardians. Guardians make up a big portion of your average craftworld's fighting force, after all. It's just weird that they can only hang out with guardians. It's canon that autarchs at least sometimes join squads of aspect warriors, and it makes sense that an autarch with certain wargear would want to hang out with aspects. An autarch with a power sword might reasonably want to be in the squad full of power swords that are running around doing power sword things.

Fair enough, they didn't exist when I played Eldar and I assumed that they were just Exarchs +1, cheers for the info.

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

Well certainly vast majority of rule questions I see are ones you could see just by reading the actual rule...

Like "when do you pick be'lakor's ability to ignore shooting?". Hmm. Well let's see. Ability says "at the start of the battle round". Howabout that?

I have stopped answering like 99% rule questions at FB groups because it's just never ending stream of questions to which answer could just as well be "what does the ability say?".

Or then we have guys who thought you could literally shoot infinite amount of times in 40k 10th...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Part of the issue is that the player base has pretty much proven they cannot be trusted to actually read the rules.

I'd argue the issue is that players actually do read the rules.

Meanwhile, the people who write them appear to go with a 'we know what we mean and that's what matters' approach.

Hence why the Assault rule literally didn't work in 8th edition if you tried to play the rules as written.

So why players ask "how many dice do 6 bloodcrushers roll to generate mortals on charge?"

Seen that. And that's even one of the more sensible questions...

Or howabout "In addition after each such move, you can pick one enemy unit it passed across and roll a dice for each model in this unit. For each 3+ that enemy unit suffers d6 mortal wounds".

And we have guys claiming 3 model unit doing this vs 20 model unit you roll 20 dice.

Somehow people think "this" and "that" are literally same meaning words...Can SOMEBODY actually point english dictionary that has those have identical meaning?

It's not like GW even uses those words randomly. It's completely constant how they use it and even follows english language rules in it...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I still think the larger issue surrounding characters isn't who they can/cannot join, but rather how characters don't do much of anything when they're not joined.

In fact, most characters aren't worth taking if you can't attach them to a unit because their rules and abilities simply don't function when they're alone (even when they clearly should).

Thing is that stops the kamikaze characters you just took to send in and kill something bigger than them. Forget about buffs they provide. Just send in and kill it.

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is that stops the kamikaze characters you just took to send in and kill something bigger than them. Forget about buffs they provide. Just send in and kill it.

I don't think it stops that at all. You can still take solo characters and send them in (to die, or otherwise).

It's a matter of incongruity. Why does a Librarian's Psychic Hood only function when he's leading a squad? Why does Feinting Withdrawl only function when the character has a squad with them?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is that stops the kamikaze characters you just took to send in and kill something bigger than them. Forget about buffs they provide. Just send in and kill it.

I don't think it stops that at all. You can still take solo characters and send them in (to die, or otherwise).

It's a matter of incongruity. Why does a Librarian's Psychic Hood only function when he's leading a squad? Why does Feinting Withdrawl only function when the character has a squad with them?

Examples like that are exceptionally stupid rules. So easily fixed too, they should have the ability and confer it to a unit they lead. It’s obvious but here we are.

Andykp wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is that stops the kamikaze characters you just took to send in and kill something bigger than them. Forget about buffs they provide. Just send in and kill it.

I don't think it stops that at all. You can still take solo characters and send them in (to die, or otherwise).

It's a matter of incongruity. Why does a Librarian's Psychic Hood only function when he's leading a squad? Why does Feinting Withdrawl only function when the character has a squad with them?

Examples like that are exceptionally stupid rules. So easily fixed too, they should have the ability and confer it to a unit they lead. It’s obvious but here we are.

I'll give GW the benefit of the doubt - I don't think that was what they intended, I think they just got too cute writing the rule and they're willing to go with it now rather than issue a correction telling everyone they weren't very bright here.

Breton wrote:

Andykp wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Thing is that stops the kamikaze characters you just took to send in and kill something bigger than them. Forget about buffs they provide. Just send in and kill it.

I don't think it stops that at all. You can still take solo characters and send them in (to die, or otherwise).

It's a matter of incongruity. Why does a Librarian's Psychic Hood only function when he's leading a squad? Why does Feinting Withdrawl only function when the character has a squad with them?

Examples like that are exceptionally stupid rules. So easily fixed too, they should have the ability and confer it to a unit they lead. It’s obvious but here we are.

I'll give GW the benefit of the doubt - I don't think that was what they intended, I think they just got too cute writing the rule and they're willing to go with it now rather than issue a correction telling everyone they weren't very bright here.

Yeah the codexs coming out with the same rules shows we are stuck with this now. They had a chance to correct it if it was unintended and haven’t.

 Tyran wrote:


On the other hand you had people arguing that Judiciars had a super Fight Last that overruled standard Fight First/Fight Last interactions because... to be honest I don't recall the actual wording argument but it was so stupid.

I mean, sure GW needs to write better rules but the community has proven that they need rules written by lawyers (now it is up to GW to hire some actual lawyers because their writers definitely didn't go to law school).

I mean, GW has done that before. High Elves in Fantasy had super Always Strikes First that overruled the normal interaction with Always Strikes Last (they would normally cancel out), so High Elves with great weapons still struck first.