Command Abilities

[Lucio]

As the game matures, we're seeing more and more inventive Command Abilities being added to various warscrolls.

However, this often means people will pick their general model not based on who might make sense from a fluff perspective, but rather based upon the Command Ability available.

My thought is that the game could tolerate us having access to all the Command abilities, but only able to use a single one per Hero phase.

[Kyriakin]

Darkling Covens already has this.

In order to not have to change any warscrolls, the new Command Abilities were instead added to the Allegiance Ability page of GHB2017.

Obviously, the assumption is that the Sorceress on Black Dragon will be the general, but there is nothing stopping a player from using them for a regular foot Sorceress general.

[Gaz Taylor]

1 hour ago, Lucio said:

As the game matures, we're seeing more and more inventive Command Abilities being added to various warscrolls.

However, this often means people will pick their general model not based on who might make sense from a fluff perspective, but rather based upon the Command Ability available.

My thought is that the game could tolerate us having access to all the Command abilities, but only able to use a single one per Hero phase.

Not a fan of that idea as if you mean that you have access to all the ability's for your faction, then players would just take a cheap general, or if you mean just for Characters in your army, again you would see cheap generals and some of the combos would be silly.

Also I'm just going to wave the flag for three ways of playing - Open, Matched, Narrative. So it you like playing to the background, just try one of the different ways of playing in your gaming group. Just don't expect it in an tournament  

[Lucio]

Idea is meant to be to be able to access the command abilities from the characters in  your army.

 

More importantly, only able to activate one per Hero phase, so no stacking possible (as they almost all expire by the start of your next Hero phase)

[Gaz Taylor]

Okay I'm still not a fan as that is better than what you can do now and I'm not sure it would actually fix the issue as players would choose characters based upon command ability rather than background. Again if you want to use a general based upon the background or for your gaming group to do that, three ways of play  

[RuneBrush]

Just re-read the original post and can see what you mean.  Basically you can activate one command ability per turn, but it doesn't have to be the General's.

I think @Gaz Taylor is right in saying that it would be pretty good for some fun Open/Narrative play but could be really gamey if it made it's way into Matched Play as it would mean you could more easily safeguard your armies Command Trait - you simply pick your most resilient character as the general rather than the one that's a bit softer but has a better command ability.

[Double Misfire]

3 hours ago, Lucio said:

As the game matures, we're seeing more and more inventive Command Abilities being added to various warscrolls.

However, this often means people will pick their general model not based on who might make sense from a fluff perspective, but rather based upon the Command Ability available.

If anything the fluffier general choices (Lord-Celestant, Megaboss, Warden King) tend to be the ones with unique command abilities on their warscrolls, with the rules supporting and rewarding people who make the most thematic pick for generalship.

I can understand things getting a bit silly when an Aspiring Deathbringer has a more optimal command ability than a Mightly Lord of Khorne for a certain style of play, but generally your point's a bit moot! 

[Ollie Grimwood]

Narratively speaking it sort of nullifies the significance of your General and I rather like the way it really gives relevance to who your general is currently. 

[stato]

What about houserule for another category in the GHB. Your general must be from the leader category. They could add another which would give us heros who cannot lead, or something like 'commander' with a rule that if a 'leader' cannot be your general if your army includes a 'commander'. I think you'd only have a few of these per GA with more than a few factions not getting one. Brings in a little more rigidity to army lists though which I don't think I like but I also don't like army's lead by a minor hero while a big hero rampaged across the board.

[PJetski]

I like command abilities. It feels like you want to build an army around a specific commander, based on their personal style. Some generals command gunlines while others demand you rush forward. 

1 hour ago, stato said:

What about houserule for another category in the GHB. Your general must be from the leader category.

This is already a rule in GHB17.

[stato]

47 minutes ago, PJetski said:

This is already a rule in GHB17.

Well yes the bit you quoted, I was suggesting the whole paragraph as the rule ?

[Twitch of Izalith]

I like it how it is at the moment - particularly since the most powerful models do not always have the most powerful command abilities. I like the choice that creates.

I'm all for changing up the way you play the game amongst your mates though - we do it quite a lot - always using points but often dropping matched play restrictions or giving extra options to weaker armies that don't have fully developed rules.

 

[TheMuphinMan]

My biggest problem with the state of generals is that you sometimes have to choose the least impressive hero as you general because he'd be strictly better. 

Let's say your list was

Allegiance: Nurgle
Horticulous Slimux (220)
Rotigus (340)
Sloppity Bilepiper Herald of Nurgle(100)
10 x Plaguebearers (120)
10 x Plaguebearers (120)
1 x Beasts Of Nurgle (100)

Total: 1000 / 1000

Thematically rotigus or horticulous should be your general as they are 2 of nurgles most famous daemons, however they are functionally the same whether or not they have the title of general other than being able to inspire the plaguebearers, who are at 11 (10+1 from herald) bravery in a 10 model unit. The best choice for general from an optimization standpoint would be the Herald because you could give him a command trait as he isn't a named character.
 

[hellalugosi]

id like to see more alliance specific command abilities like darkling covens does. it gives players more room to pick a general they like with out feeling they are only going to be using inspiring presence. kinda like skirmish. this could even replace inspiring presence altogether based on the grand alliance, id be much more inclined to take someone like rotigus as the general because thematically it makes sense, but id be losing out on quite a bit. 

 

really i like how 40k 8th ed handles named characters in faction. you can take traits and artefacts but it chooses which artefacts and traits they would take thematically.

[Envyus]

20 minutes ago, hellalugosi said:

really i like how 40k 8th ed handles named characters in faction. you can take traits and artefacts but it chooses which artefacts and traits they would take thematically.

Agreed they should do it this way. 

[Malfunct Bot]

3 hours ago, hellalugosi said:

id like to see more alliance specific command abilities like darkling covens does. it gives players more room to pick a general they like with out feeling they are only going to be using inspiring presence. kinda like skirmish. this could even replace inspiring presence altogether based on the grand alliance, id be much more inclined to take someone like rotigus as the general because thematically it makes sense, but id be losing out on quite a bit. 

 

really i like how 40k 8th ed handles named characters in faction. you can take traits and artefacts but it chooses which artefacts and traits they would take thematically.

Characters in 40k still can't take artefacts, though their trait is chosen for them yes, but even the traits are most often sub-optimal, leading you to choosing a generic character anyway.

[Soldier of decay]

I am against having the option to use any command ability in your army. Even if it’s only one per turn. The reason is simple.

In matched play allowing your general to die should have a consequence. Losing access to the command ability is that consequence reguardless of the scenario you play. As soon as you are allowed to use any ability in your army you lose the consequence of a dead general.

i do however agree I would like a system where named characters could take command traits and artifacts. Maybe having a point cost for that could work. 100 points and your Named character can take both?? It would need play testing though.

[sal4m4nd3r]

There are some characters who have command abilities that simply should just be "abilities." Some of them arent even unique or creative.