40K: The Problems With HQs

How much HQ is too much HQ?

8th edition is having some issues with characters. We’ve talked recently about  how character spam is causing some issues with the game and we’ve shown off tournament winning lists that feature character spam. One of the issues behind character spam is how readily available they are. In particular I want to take a look at just how HQ choices went from super limited to easily spamable. So let’s dig in.

The Big Change

Tzeentch/Fateweaver 2020

In most previous editions of 40k HQ’s were very rare. For most of the game you were limited to a mighty two choices, with the occasional army (Space Wolves) getting more. Some few HQ choices allowed you to take multiple units as one choice, but in general HQ was the most limited slot in the game. In 8th edition it is one of the most common slots. Not only do all the main detachment choices, give you HQ slots, but the Supreme Command detachment allows you to take up to 5 additional HQs. In fact it is entirely possible to make a battle forged army out of just HQ choices. The ability to take up to 15 HQ choices, without really limiting your ability to take other choices, gives you next to unlimited options.

Is This Too Many Choices?

Sooooooo many choices! 

The question that really comes up is “Is this too many HQs?” It’s a hard questions to really answer, but I am leaning toward yes. Without any real restrictions on how many HQ you can take they are very easy to abuse. In particular we see two big problems:

  1. Problem one is that you don’t have to make any hard choices. With plenty of slots open to you, you don’t have to choose between awesome HQ X and awesome HQ Y you can take both. In particular Imperial Armies can really cherry pick from a host of awesome HQ characters, leading to some ridiculous lists.
  2. The second problem is the ability to easily spam cheap but powerful HQ choices. There are some real bargain HQ’s out there right now, and the ability to spam large numbers of them take them from a good buy to a broken unit. This is especially a problem with cheap Pyskers. Units like the renegade Malefic Lord or the Imperium’s Primaris Psyker are cheap and powerful.

A Lack of Limitations Causes Problems

 Libertarian 40K? 

In the case of these last two you can really see how having so many HQ slots causes a problem. Both of these are good and cheap characters. If you were limited to a couple of HQ slots they wouldn’t be a big issue in the game. Sure getting cheap smites is good, but being able to do it two or three times a game isn’t game breaking. Being able to it 10-12 times is.

 

Guys, you are not supposed to smite yourselves! 

In addition taking these cheap choices would have been a trade off. Sure you get a cheap smite machine, but now you lose the ability to take a powerful combat HQ. Or an HQ with a much needed support aura. You would have to make some hard choices there. However with the amount of slots you get you don’t have to make choices. You can take a powerful block of 13 cheap Malefic Lords and still have slots left over to take some combat monsters or support HQs. You can just take it all rather than making choices. In the cases of a lot of these HQ choices its not the unit itself that causes the problem, its how many you can take.

HQ VS Elites

I’m guessing the hobbits are only elite choices at best. 

One of the other oddities the HQ slot is what gets counted as an HQ choice. The Heretic Astartes Codex has 8 non-unique HQ options. In comparison the Space Marine Codex has 15 non-unique HQ options. In addition it has 7 other characters that fill Elite slots rather than HQ slots. Now I’m not sure entirely what criteria GW uses to figure out if a character is an HQ or an Elite,  why is a Chapter Champion an Elite, but an Exalted Champion a HQ? Why is an Astra Militarum Company Commander an HQ, but a Platoon Commander an elite (shouldnt he be able to lead a patrol?).  But this distinction and the limited choices open to some armies complicate attempts to regulate characters. For instance limited HQ choices would limit Chaos Forces far more than Imperium forces.

So Should HQ’s be More Limited?

Maybe try chains as a limiter? 

Again this is a hard questions to answer and open to a lot of debate. When it comes down to it there really aren’t a lot of limits on what slots you can take. The great number of detachment types to chose from means your only real limit is points. If you want to take 15 Heavy Support choices, and have the points you’ll be able too. So the lack of limits on HQ slots seems to fit with the list building ideas that GW was going with in 8th. Still… it does seem a little off that HQ’s are so easy to take. I mean, yes you can take 15 heavy support, but you will have to take a couple of HQ to command them around. The same is not true of HQs.

Wrong HQ choice! 

Maybe HQ’s shouldn’t be as limited as they were before, but maybe they also shouldn’t be one of the least restricted slots you can take. Maybe limiting them a little more would tone down some of the crazy spam we are seeing. Maybe it would force players to make some interesting choices. Perhaps it would fix some potentially broken units without having to use clumsy rules to FAQ them. Or maybe it would completely ruin the game. What do you think?

What do you think? Are HQ slots OK as is or should they be more limited? Let us know, down in the comments! 

 

 

  • LankTank

    I feel they need to remove the supreme command detachment at least. Without that players would at least be reauired to take other units. Admittedly you could just spam 3x cheapest troop unit available to get the HQ in battalion but at least its something

    • ZeeLobby

      Even the original CAD’s troop tax did something. I think it’s honestly important to have some required restrictions in any game system. Maybe GW will return back to those roots.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Ideally we would just have the three – Patrol, Battalion and Brigade and then the Axillary detachment to give everyone a little flexibility. Then make a rule for Imperial Knights that makes Knights Troops and HQ choices but specifically disallows them from gaining Objective Secured.

      • Richard Mitchell

        Ya list building in the open can be a game killer. Deadzone has limits, Warmachine has limits in regards to needing warcasters and warjacks to win and journeymen can no longer be taken without a warjack attached, and FA limits, and other games have this as well, an either direct or indirect method of restricting lists. But take something that has no restrictions, whose IP I love like Battltech, and I can’t play the tabletop. Too many Mechs on the table takes away the motivation to field a whole list of infantry and other vehicles.

    • Zingbaby

      Well there are some armies that operate entirely on HQ buffs, and they would be drastically hurt by general limitations, but that said, the Supreme Commander detachment is perhaps too much.

      • Xodis

        Race/Army limitations. Make it available for the armies you are specifically mentioning (hopefully that come with their own Codex) but not a “general” detachment for all.

        • Fergie0044

          Yeah – like the old demon codex allowing multiple heralds per slot.

        • Zingbaby

          Well I’d be ok with that, but I hate the character buff mechanic anyway, I’d prefer they just did away with it mostly… except for the Warlord.

          • Xodis

            What would characters in 8e be good for then? Other than buffs most are insignificant in everything else, outside of the psyker and a couple beatstick like characters.

      • Muninwing

        maybe that’s a flaw in design…?

        or maybe that’s something that gives them too much of a boost?

        this is a design issue. rather, the consequences of changes that are not well thought out.

    • BigGrim

      Came here to say exactly this. The Supreme Command detachment is bloody ridiculous and is just generating those good, ol’ Net Lists. Zero fun.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      We don’t even need the Supreme Command Detachment. Taking a normal detachment with 2 or 3 allowed HQs plus another one at -1CP is more than enough.

    • Guillaume Potvin

      isnt the fact that you are limited to the number of detachement you can can have depending on the point of the game already a limit to abusing supreme command detachement?

      • Tiernoc

        Considering that ITC (as one example) allows for 3 formations, you could *EASILY* fit a Supreme Command Detachment, along with a Super Heavy Detachment in a 2k point game.

        Hell, the list I’ve been toying around with for awhile now (if I ever got around to picking my Chaos up again) would be a Supreme Command Detachment, a Spearhead Detachment, and either an Auxilary Lord of War, or a second Supreme Command Detachment. It would be a fairly low model count list, which makes for easy transport, but would still pack a hefty punch.

    • Tiernoc

      I’d be OK with the Supreme Command Detachment if they treated it like the Auxiliary Detachment and made it *COST* 1cp to field. Would make there be an actual trade-off for taking them, without hurting too much potency on the table.

      Magnus is *SEVERELY* under-costed though IMO, for what he brings to the table. He hits harder and more reliably in melee than a Knight, has a better Invuln save (stacked with the FnP warlord trait), has better movement, the ability to deal D3-D6 + up to 3 more Mortal Wounds (Smite + Infernal Gaze) per turn, *AND* costs less than a Knight!

      • LankTank

        The cost of 1CP is actually a great solution =)
        Hell I know, Magnus is a nightmare however it is actually surpising how much damage simple berserkers can do to him =) I managed 11 wounds with one squad and VotLW stratagem in combat one game. That was after both their attacks and they then got smoked but I felt goooooood.

  • YetAnotherFacelessMan

    I’m not really sweating HQ choices. I’ve felt they were impactful, but even if you’re spamming librarians, I’m not that worried. A librarian’s smite does 1.95 mortal wounds each turn on average. For that, you’re spending over 40 conscripts or 20 ork boyz worth of points. A guard player could fit two Wyverns in a single librarian’s worth of points. Heck, a guard player could fit in two squads of rough-riders, each of which with 3 plasmaguns and hunting lances.

    Don’t get me wrong. HQ choices are great, but they really shine as force multipliers, not as the force itself. Characters (with the exception of that assassin list) tend to turn to paste if they don’t have a squad of buddies to protect them from shooting, and the more characters you get, the more concentrated your points become. If you get a mission where you need to cover like 4 different places on the battlefield, you might find you don’t have enough moving parts.

    • Mike

      True, but nobody is spamming librarians. The problem is things like primaris psykers at 40pts and malefic lords at 30.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Well, in that case, I’d say stop playing with that person… or, if you’re worried about it in tournament play, then buy a bunch of those things because tournaments are where people do whatever it takes to win.

        This isn’t a thing reasonable people do in regular games, and I don’t care about tournament play.

        • Mr.Gold

          or take sisters of silence/culexus assassins…

          • LankTank

            Hard to do unless your Imperium.

        • Drpx

          Stop making sense. This is a knee-jerk thread.

  • Simon Chatterley

    Character spam is a product of the character rules. As soon as it was made that a character had the protection from other units irrespective of numbers involved it created a problem.

    I understand the reasoning behind the rule but as usual the fluff has become lost in the application.

    I get a character is hard to pick out from the “hundreds of bodies” except by snipers. That’s been a thing in many wars after all but that loses all function when they are being hidden by another character, a tank or a flyer.

    Possible fix is a character cannot be targeted if the closest unit numbers 10 or more. That would fix a lot and feel thematic again.

    • Jeremy Larson

      That would hurt smaller, elite armies. Just have the rule that characters don’t count when determining who the closest unit is. That way you can ignore characters to shoot at another character if all of them are the closest.

      • Valeli

        Even 5+ would go a decent ways…. and that’s a fair model count for elite armies. (although it would still penalize them, slightly, vs orks etc).

      • Jason Fry

        Yeah it’s a simple change and would go a long way to fixing the issue, a lot of these cheap HQ that are powerful in numbers like the Primaris psyker aren’t hard to kill once you can target them.

    • BigGrim

      Frankly, I don’t think things like Flyers ought to impede your ability to target characters. That’d fix a few issues.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      The simple fix to to just not allow characters to screen other characters.

      • Charles Keeling

        Yep, that’s the most straightforward and correct way to go about it. I was looking through here to say the same thing

    • Tiernoc

      Making snipers more effective wouldn’t hurt either. Making Sniper weapons wound *CHARACTERS* on a 3+ would go a **LOOOONNNNGGG** way towards reigning them in, without making them auto-includes or terribly OP.

  • Drpx

    I’ve heard of herohammer but this is ridiculous.

  • Michał BLN

    As a necron player, I can’t relate to the problem.

    • J Mad

      Same as a DE play.. Oh you have an Archon? well he is S3 T3 and his “Aura” LD…. “but Archon we are all in vehicles” Nope you get LD Aura… ok?

      Drazhar “Hey guys i literally am Dbl the cost that i should be but… Incubi you get a +1 to hit.. Oh BTW you already get a +1 from PFP chart”

      Succubus “Hey girls you get re-rolls of 1” Wcyhes “Sweet.. but we arnt that useful and we dont really kill things, just kinda of tie them up” PS, I cost more than a troupe master and do less.

      Honestly the only good one is the Haemonculus…

    • Tiernoc

      Yeah, both my Necrons and my AdMech are scratching their heads at this.

      Even though the ‘Crons have a plethora of HQ choices, none of them are terribly *GOOD* for their points cost or what they can actually do when they’re on the table.

      Sure as hell nothing like a “Hits-on-2s-reroll-1s-wound-on-2s” Daemon Prince 😛

  • Brian Griffith

    Take some snipers.

    See if your opponent really thinks his points were wisely spent after that.

    • Ramón Herrera González

      What if your army has no snipers?

      • Nyyppä

        CSM could solve this with spammable psychics but then other factions would break.

      • Brian Griffith

        Enough factions have access to some sort of snipers that if HQ spam really distorts the meta enough, there’s a hard counter that people are going to start taking advantage of.

        It’s certainly true that a single sniper doesn’t quite stack up to an HQ unit (though Vindicare come pretty dang close) but for the cost of a typical HQ load-out you can pen your opponent in with several snipers, which collectively have a decent chance of thinning out his HQs significantly.

        At present we’ve got multiple Imperial snipers, Tau snipers, Eldar snipers, Necron snipers, and even Chaos snipers (Renegade Marauders can take that loadout).

        They’re pretty dang common.

        • BaronVonYoloing

          What about Tyranids? Last time I checked I get 0 sniper weapons…

          • el_tigre

            It’s called a Mawlock.

          • ZeeLobby

            It’s alright, 50 people will get on here and tell you that you just don’t know how to play your own faction :D. In reality GW has never made sure armies have tools to deal with their imbalances. That said, a Tyranid sniper unit would be pretty cool.

          • stinkoman

            i always thought that the lictor should play that role of targeting threats a la eversor assassin style.

          • ZeeLobby

            would be cool to give them bonuses against characters. Or I’d love for there to be ranged variant. I mean no reason after digesting a bunch of ratling snipers they couldn’t evolve a sniperfex, lol

          • David

            I would truly love for Lictors to get enough buffs to be usable. They are one of the coolest style of units in the game to me, and they are just not remotely playable.

            First, there are tons of ways that they can’t even reliably get through Overwatch unscathed (Combi-Flamers, The Greater Good, etc)

            Second, when they finally do manage to assault a Character, that Characters absurd level of saves (2-3+ / 2-4++) absolutely blunts any effect they would have.

            So, they become relegated to maybe killing off Minor / Lesser Characters, and even then not reliably, as anything that hits them back, kills them.

            And it’s also not viable to take them as only 1 per Elites Slot, the buffs and extra damage from other Elites in the army are far to good to leave out. They need to be 1-3, or possibly even 1-6 per slot.

            They are meant to be a Vanguard Surgical Strike, but they just can’t ever accomplish anything worthwhile.

            I would love to see buffs along the lines of 6+ to shoot all the time (a la Imperial Assassins), -1 to Hit in CQC, Invul Save (a la Genestealers), Immune to Overwatch (a la Kayvaan Shrike), extra attacks (a la Old One Eye), and/or extra Mortal Wounds (a la Snipers) but in CQC.

            They need something anyways, they are one of my favorite units and I really haven’t been able to enjoy them since 4th Edition at all.

          • BaronVonYoloing

            As mentioned below I kind of wish the Lictor had more of a Predator vibe in jumping ouit of terrain to eat your face. Something it did well in 4th ed but has never really done since.

            It was a half serious question. I don’t get everything right all the time.

          • ReveredChaplainDrake

            On the plus side, Genestealer Cults open up IG, which open up snipers, among many other things. It’s a sad, sad day when Tyranids have to outsource their disposable horde needs to somebody else (*cough*Conscripts).

        • Drew_Da_Destroya

          I play 4 armies, and only one of them has access to anything like a Sniper. And that’s the Dark Eldar, who can grab 1 per unit of Wracks… not exactly fear-inspiring.

          Orks, Harlequins, and Deathwatch are all left out in the cold here… although I guess Deathwatch could ally in some Imperial snipers, and the two Aeldar factions could grab some Craftworld snipers… but I’m not about that life.

        • Mr.Gold

          A unit of 5x Skitarii Rangers with 2x Transuranic Arquebus’s & Omnispex.
          Power level = 4 (approx 100pts)

          each turn puts out 2x S7, AP -2 Dd3 with additional mortal wounds on a 6+ to wound.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        If you play orkz, then just bring 20 boyz or 40 grotz for every hero your opponent brings.

        • Koen Diepen Van

          I like the sugestions but they are both not verry tournament viable. Hopeing other armies are bringing enough snipers to counter characters is not great. And brining 300+ boys is going to prevent you from haveing enough time to play.

          • euansmith

            I’m kind of expecting to see people start to bring multi-bases for hordes as templates are no longer and issue. Basing mobs in groups of 5, with some spares to make change, could speed things up a fair bit.

          • ZeeLobby

            Maybe they will put them in ranks on movement trays :O

          • euansmith

            Yeah, I’m sure there must be loads of cheap square bases out there.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            I’m fine with them not being tournament viable. I do not care for tournaments. I think that 40k is not a good game for tournament play. When you play chess, you have identical armies with no randomized effects. When you play a fighting game, you have a conflict of skill with varied characters and (usually) no random effects. When you play poker, you all play from the same deck, so that you have some way of gauging your opponent’s hand based on your cards.

            40k tournament play seems DESIGNED to build an army of one thing and hope that your opponent just can’t fight that many of the thing. Conscripts, assassins, flyrants…

            I just. can’t. care. Let them rot. Let one of them win the championship of being the worst.

          • Koen Diepen Van

            Didn´t use to be like that Gw broke the game

    • Valeli

      That’s a cool idea /if/ you know what you’re going up against, /if/ premade tailored lists aren’t frowned upon in your meta, and /if/ you have snipers in your list.

      Edit: Actually, that’s not true. The underlying issue is that many people simply don’t want to fight an “army” of 20 awesome-guys. Whether they successfully can or not isn’t even the point.

    • Marco Marantz

      Yes but with the crappy you go-I go mechanic…if i take a couple of snipers (presuming my faction has them), and I go second, you can deepstrike or focus-fire before I can even use them. Back to square 1.

    • Lebowski1111111111

      i play guard with access to ratlings and vindicare assassins, i find them not worth the points. Sniping is not an answer unless your sniping guard characters with 3 wounds.

  • Valeli

    “The question that really comes up is “Is this too many HQs?” It’s a hard questions to really answer”
    —–

    I don’t think it’s /that/ hard to answer. I want to play 40k to have my army go at another army. I’ve never met one person that had a different goal in mind (if one doesno’ counting painting/converting as a goal).

    Having an “army” of 10+ HQ’s hammer it out is silly, and rules/game playing at it’s best. Nothing wrong with it if the rules let you…. but there’s not a single person out there that actually feels it’s a legit “army”.

    Personally, I find it hard to believe that anyone would actually want this over competition with armies. I get that some people use it because they’re competitive/creative/winning, but I really doubt most of them would complain a ton if the new competitive/creative/winning list ended up resembling something that made more sense.

  • J Mad

    Play DE, with the lack of killing power, survivability against shooting and the lack of abilities that actually do anything, you dont want to play HQ’s b.c they waste space and points 🙂 Problem solved.

    • ZeeLobby

      Sigh… I have yet to break out my DE this edition, lol.

      • J Mad

        They are not bad, just one of their weakness is HQ’s

  • Vayle

    yay, let’s place Cawl on the field with 14 techpriest dominus (dominii, dominae, dominusses?)
    all hail the omnissiah

  • X078

    I’d rather have an army of diverse HQs and characters then forced to spam boring regiment style troops, elites, heavies etc

    • Mira Bella

      It’s not really an Army then is it?

  • Majere613

    I think part of the problem here is that GW were determined to avoid invalidating anyone’s army build from 7th, no matter how daft it was. The Supreme Command detachment is probably there primarily so people can still field their Triumvirates if they want to, for example- it wasn’t supposed to create covens of Psykers, but of course it inevitably did.
    One possibility might be to either remove Supreme Command, or make it limited to one per other Detachment, so you’d have to take something approaching an army to go with the leaders. I’d also support being able to ignore Characters for the purpose of targeting other Characters, and also ignoring models in close combat. You good go further and ignore models that are out of LOS, which makes sense, but brings back the spectre of the Rhino Snipe, sadly.

  • JFereday

    After discussing this with a friend yesterday, I think part of the problem is the whole 10 wounds part. Why can’t I shoot the Ycarne but instead have to shoot these Kabalites instead? Same goes with Celestine and Gulliman

  • Kraken

    A simple fix would be something similar to transport, you can only take 1 HQ per non-HQ unit.
    So yes, you can still take 15 HQs, but you need to also have at least 15 non-HQ units to go with it.

    • Lebowski1111111111

      frankly this would ONLY stop the one build that is basically all assassins (culuxis specifically), i play guard, it would be trivial for me to have 1 non HQ choicefor each primaris psyker i bring. Im not sure what the answer is, maybe ITC rules need to limit it to just rule 6 characters per army max or something like that.

  • Robert Thornton-Kaye

    How about up to 1 HQ per 500pts/25powpts?

  • Karru

    My view on HQs is that there is too many of them through mandatory choices. Even the basic Battalion requires you to take at least 2, which is rather annoying in my mind with many armies. Necrons for example, you are forced to take rather expensive Crypteks and Lords in order to meet your mandatory HQ slots if you want more than one Detachment.

    Personally, the first part would be to fix the Character rule. Once that is done, then check if HQs are still “too much”. I would like to see them reduce the amount of mandatory slots for HQs to 1 in the Battalion, as I do feel that it makes for rather unbalanced game for many “Elite” armies that have limited and expensive HQ choices, especially since GW has made it clear that Stratagems are the way to go.

  • HurricaneGirl

    As a veteran of 2nd edition, I’m not that worried.

    • Marco Marantz

      those were the days….. 3++ displacer field with 3+ on 2D6 termy armor or 4++ dodge save. 2++ power field if you didnt care about the melee penalty. LOL

  • I’m not a fan of a ton of characters running amuk. This isn’t Infinity. The character rules just make the issue more gamey.

    Trying to limit them however incites rage because people feel that they have to have them (as they dont’ want to paint a lot of models, and they are easier to use since typically characters are fairly powerful, and they give buffs to what troops DO exist on the table)

    I think Pandora’s Box is already open now.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    There is far simpler fix that I reckon GW may go for in the interim*, and similar the one used for the units with keyword “flyers”. I’d hazard GW may go down the route of stipulating that units with the keyword “characters” can’t hold or contest objectives unless they have ‘x’ amount of starting wounds (I was thinking 6/7+?) or are your Warlord.

    *If they follow their attitude to AoS they won’t be using FAQ’s or the upcoming Chapter Approved book to make changes to the core rules (this was talked about on the WH-Tv twitch stream in regards to the Generals Handbook 2.0); fundamental changes will be reserved for new editions.

  • Marco Marantz

    The biggest problems with 8th comes from the detachments….its that simple. Characters are not a problem….the game has been streamlined so much its hard (if not impossible) to trick out a single character to be game-breaking given the lack of options. That said, this is a teething problem. Im not super confident of GW removing numerous detachments though….they simply introduced a rule for flyers, not remove or change the detachment.

    • Vachones

      Agreed. They go out of their way not to limit anyone’s models that they can play, but the side effect is there really are no restrictions on what you can take. Command points are supposed to be the incentive to get us to play more varied detachments so perhaps when every army has a codex with stratagems worth taking you will see changes.

  • I was going to plan out a hero hammer army from my Space Wolves collection. (Less models to paint.) The more I think about it the less I feel like bothering with it.

    As far as the assassin list though. Burna Boys in trukks, I’d give that a go against it. Unless they have a knight in there I don’t expect too much trouble. We cook everything so far.

  • Sure

    The problem isn’t the game, but the insistence that you can just take it as-is and have a tournament that doesn’t result in a clown-shoe festival. If you want a balanced tournament, try restricting list parameters. Try limiting the # of detachments, lowering the total points, etc. Yes, certain formats will favor certain factions and builds but why have a universal tournament format?

    • ZeeLobby

      Well GW should get out of developing “matched play” rules then. Cause that is part of their game currently, and they do a pretty poor job of restricting anything.

      • Sure

        Matched play is just a more precise way of measuring power levels. It doesn’t take meta and synergies into account. It’s up to tournament organizers to figure out how to balance those aspects

        • ZeeLobby

          Well, except many other games that have organized play do these things. Only GW doesn’t take these things into consideration.

          • Sure

            …nor should they consider this. I’d rather see the gamers figure it out from there.

  • AEZ

    Do it AoS style.

    • Lebowski1111111111

      care to expand on this, most people dont play AOS

      • AEZ

        For a certain amount it requires a number of battleline units (some units have this denominator and it’s generally basic rank n file stuff). THen it gives limits to hero’s/behemoths (big stuff)/ war machines for that number of points.
        So for 1K points it’s 4 heroes, for 2K it’s 6 and for 2500 it’s 8.

        • DoctorBored

          That’d be a pretty elegant solution, but I think it goes against what GW is trying to do: Get us to buy lots of expensive character models.

  • Chris Koster

    I would just make a change to smite. I.e. You take a -1 to cast for each subsequent time it’s cast so it becomes a risk to spam it. Or even change the rules on these lowbie characters to cast smite on 1 dice. I think reducing the characters you can take is not really the option as an infantry based Am army relies on a strong number of hqs.

  • stinkoman

    Too many Chiefs, not enough Indians.

  • Muninwing

    1. Supreme Command should not be available until 2500 points

    2. different HQs should be compulsory or limited from certain detachments. a SM commander should be required to run a Supreme Command, for instance, instead of loading up on Librarians.

    3. the issue is often not HQs but SCs. and this is a pervasive and long-standing problem GW has perpetuated.

    4. as much as it complicates things — and 8th was supposed to be all about reduction and streamlining (which i have other issues with, but i’m playing along) — it would not have been too hard to place limitations on datasheets. like, bringing eight librarians is probably going to be a problem.

    5. also, as much as it is also an addition (but one in their method of loading up datasheets and claiming things are simpler instead of just arranged differently), i’d have loved to see the different detachments come with costs and limitations as well as advantages. I like that a fluffy setup can theoretically grant you CPs. but maybe even just an offset somewhere might have been great too. this one can get ObSec (for x role) for +100 points . this one gets Scout for +50 points on all non-2+save troops. this one gets +1 to seize for +20 points. things like that. one upgrade per detachment.

  • Martin B

    What about using something along the lines of 1 character per 1000 points? It’s not ideal ( I’m at work so can’t spend too long thinking about it) but might be a start.

    • Muninwing

      i think the old SW codex required one per… was it 500 points?

      then again, it was written in 3rd. and it wasn’t common then to view HQs as liabilities rather than amplifiers.

  • JoBane

    Change the rules instead of adapting. A few people have hard time dealing with some built so they suggest changing the rules to make it more easier for them. *sigh*

    The 8th edition is 2 months old and most of the editorial is about nerf this, remove that, bla bla bla…

    • Drpx

      Welcome to “balancing.”

  • Ronin

    On the bright side, people can buy less models and run 40k as a skirmish game. 😉

  • Chad Underdonk

    With the changes to the detachment charts I literally need most of those HQ slots to functionally run my Valhallan Infantry Assault army. So many things have been shoved into the Elite slot, and only one troop choice???. Before I ran 4 Lieutenants and two Captains. Now that HQ squads (of which I had 6) are a separate elite choice, and Special Weapons squads are an elite choice (of which I had 8) I no longer have room for Lieutenants as an elite. So I field 6 Captains. Its only a few more points, and an easy bargain.

    Some may claim that is excessive, but it was a completely legal force under 7th (barring the conversion of Lieutenants to Captains).

  • DoctorBored

    I honestly don’t think that the number of HQ’s is the problem, it’s the rules around the Characters that’s the issue with these lists. HQ’s on their own can be focused down by masses of bolter or lasgun fire, and often times don’t have enough shooting to really retaliate. They’ll take heavy hits to get up to the gunline, and then they’ll be at quarter strength by the time they get into combat.

    The real issue is the shenanigans when it comes to characters blocking other characters from being shot. Take away that rule, and character-spam will fade away because those gunlines will be able to target whoever they want if the only thing blocking a character is another character. Towering Guilliman will not be able to hide behind a tiny little assassin who is also hiding in the shadows.

    If people want to make lists entirely out of characters, I think that’s fine. It’s not fluffy, it’s not really accurate, not really the spirit of the game in my opinion, but hey, it works… for now.

  • Bran D

    Hqs are a problem? I must be the only one going for the cheapest hqs and troops so I can bring a whole bunch of everything else?

    • Drpx

      If something wins a major tournament, it’s a “problem” and GW needs to change a whole ruleset lest the evil WAAC players go out and massacre all the fluff bunnies/casuals with it.

  • Sara

    Honestly it sounds like the problem would be better addressed by increasing the point costs of the offending HQs.

  • Painjunky

    Not a problem for my pure DE army.
    DE HQs are hot garbage.

  • Spacefrisian

    Sisters of silence if smite spam is a problem, just proxy them if needed. No need to thank me, i be glad to think for you all.

  • UnpluggedBeta

    Feels 2nd edition in here.

  • J Mad

    Play DE, you wont have these problems… you actually dont even want to waste points on them !