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.

With all the problems that arise with getting characters into transports when they have their own seperate roll for reserves, and the point-sink that retinues often become, I find myself wishing more and more that an HQ choice was not required on the Force Organizational Chart.  Leave the option open for taking up to two, certainly, just don't make it required anymore.

As I play more I find my HQ choices are getting cheaper and cheaper, points wise.  Often, I just wish I could drop the little bugger all together and just take another unit.

Every model in 40K has some kind of communication device, even if it is nothing more then a psychic link.  I see no need to force a HQ model onto the table if a player would rather just let him give orders from the safety and comfort of the regional HQ station in front of a holo-display.

What do you guys think?

Fluff-wise, this makes little sense.  The higher commanders are the ones sitting behind the lines, giving orders to the field commanders, as represented by your HQ.

From a game perspective, I can see where your coming from for a lot of armies.  Personally, as a Guard player, my HQ is absolutely necessary for my army.  Overall, IMO, the 1 HQ, 2 Troop mandatory force org is fine.

Not going to happen from GW.

1.  Which races have this 'problem'?

2. How did the command squad/retinue get so bloated?  'Builders' fault or 'army's ' fault?

A possible help would be to allow HQs to take a transport bought as a separate choice, as a dedicated tranport, with all that implies.  So Eldar could buy a HS Falcon and dedicate it to an HQ squad.

Not going to happen from GW.

Well, I don't think anything on a proposed rules forum online has any real chance of being adopted by GW, so I don't see how this is a useful or pertinent thing to post.

1.  Which races have this 'problem'?

Of my current armies, I'd rather not have to take any HQ choice at all in my Marines, Eldar, Imperial Guard, or Speed Freaks armies.  Basically, I'd enjoy it very much if all of my Armies except my Tyranids, would no longer have to take an HQ choice and free up those points for better things.

2. How did the command squad/retinue get so bloated?  'Builders' fault or 'army's ' fault?

I currently try to take my HQ as cheap as possible.  My Speed Freaks use a Big Mek instead of a Warboss, my Imperial Guard use a Junior Officer with only one point of upgrade to himself (Boltgun), for example, so I think you might be misjudging my intentions, here.  What I'm wishing for is a little more freedom to tailor my army the way I think it should be, without having to design around the dead-weight of an HQ model that I'd rather not include at all.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm very surprised that you're complaining about an HQ from the IG list...there are a bunch of things that these guys are useful for.

1) LD 9 Iron Discipline bubble
2) Dropping suicide unit (4 plasma guns falling from the sky)
3) late game scoring unit
4) buy a chimera
5) rapid response/counter assault unit

I can't speak to any of the other armies, but the IG command is highly useful. What points values are you playing at/what does your list look like?

cheers

I think that it's reasonable to relate proposed rules to what GW might or might not do. 

The original question suggested that there was something wrong with retinues. (The point sink that retinues become)  Why?  Is this a problem with all races or just a race specific problem?  Is this a problem with the way the army is configured?

I have used retinues/command squads in many of my armies and did not find the same problem that you describe.

What's wrong with HQs?  You say that you can spend the points on something better and that there is a problem with transports and reserve rolls and their transports.  Under what circumstances?   I'd like to see some examples.  By looking at examples we can consider other solutions.

It is rare to have any game system where there is no commander/leader for a substantial force.  I was just trying to rework an old list and wishing that I could have three HQ instead of two.  I don't recall a 40K list where I would have wanted not to have an HQ, the special or restricted equipment is usually too good for that.

I don't think we'll see to many SM armies dropping the boo libby just because HQ isn't mandatory. I'll always take my IG CHQ for the simple reason that they provide so much for so very little (LD bubble, LD boost, extra FA and HS slot....Sentinel/ HW Teams, Special Weapon Sqds, banner, + the DT Suicide if you want it). DE's/ CSM have great HQ's. I'm not familiar with Tau at all so I can't speak for them. HQ's bring alot to their respective armies and doubt many people would stop utilizing them if they weren't mandatory.

GW charges a premium for all of their minis, but even more so for their HQs. From both a game and $$ perspective, I doubt this is something they would ever consider. Personally, I'd like to see a change to the FOC and bring it more in line with Fantasy, OR bring back the percentages like RT/2nd.

I agree with a more Fantasy-like FOC.  I don't like 3HS at 500 points AND 5000 points.

Combat patrol.

I agree with AMA. I really, really want a Fantasy style FOC that scales up based on points value. It would really make the game a bit less abusable IMO.

I had hoped that GW would go to a Fantasy-style FOC with 4th ed.  It would be an easy fix for several compositon 'problems'.  Additonal flexibility could be introduced by having similar units as Core or Special in different armies.  It would be a simple change too.

I guess I'll have to wait for 5th edition.

It would be possible, but cumbersome, to layer a Fantasy-style FOC on top of the existing FOC.  Some Elite, Troops,Fast Attack, and HS would be Rare, some Special, and some Core.  Some Troops might not be Core.

IG HQs aren't dead weight IMHO - I'm surprised nobody mentioned the ultra-orthodox veteran with flag option at 51 points for a reroll.

On balancing the FOC - possibly just shrink it? Keep the mandatory two troops, option of one HQ - it would be pretty easy to fluff a PHQ as "acting Captain". Make it say 0-1 HQ, 0-1 Elites, 2-4 Troops, 0-1 Fast Attack, 0-1 Heavy Support for a "normal" FOC. Allow players to take only so many FOCs for each army, similar to points. For larger games make the rule that for every two "normal" FOCs beyond the first you are allowed one "special" FOC focussed either on Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support consisting of 0-1 HQ and 2-4 Elite OR Fast OR Heavy so long as they're all the same type. In a large points game, an IG player using 3 FOCs, for instance, might use 2x(1xCHQ, 1xVets, 2x(1 PHQ+2 lasplas squds), 1xHellhound, 1xDemolisher) + 1x(4xRuss). Or a Chaos player with five FOCs might take 4x(1x2 oblits, 2x5 lasplas CSMs, 1xPred) + 2x4 Traitor bombers. You'd count superheavies as taking up a certain number of specialist FOC charts - say one for two Baneblades, Warlhounds, or "ordinary"-sized Gargants or bio-titans; or for a single Warlord, Great Gargant or comparably-sized Eldar titan. REALLY big superheavies would take up even more - I'd say at least three FOCs for an Imperator.