[Mc Command Center Traits
Violetta Wagganer
The Command Trait bothers me though. It does essentially feel like you are throwing it away. The power level really varies from army-to-army, but I certainly don't want to drop my Death Army's Ruler-Of-The-Night command trait (The one that makes your 6+ death save into a 5+). Again the army makes these more/less interesting.
I don't really get it, but again, another death player here. Mannfred, Arkhan etc do not seem much more op than vampire lord on zombie dragon and I feel that lack of 5+ save every time. I am unsure what effect, for example, Arkhan has on the army overall which is a substitute for any of the command traits that the vlozd could take. Lord celestant on dracoth is another example of a non named character whose command ability has a huge effect on a massive chunk of the army.
Also, I was surprised to learn that spirit of durthu and great unclean one were not named characters. It seems like the choice as to whether something is a named character is based purely in the fluff, with little consideration to balance. Not necessarily a bad thing, but does feel very uneven in some cases
Losing out on free rules is a disincentive to field named heroes, and it has a massive impact on death and destruction alliances where they have battle traits worth using (and therefore buffing with comand abilities).
Mind you once we see a few more battletomes for Death they wont have to rely on the 5+ save crutch so much, so they might end up more like stormcasts for whom the command traits feel like theyre just some extra rules for the sake of it!
Named characters should get Command Traits. The idea of named characters being overpowered does not hold - with the points system, you get what you pay for. Assuming that the models are costed fairly, then if you decide to take Mannfred over the VLOZD you will end up paying more points, and will have less to invest for other units.
I'm on the fence regarding Artefacts. On one hand, the logic above remains valid. On the other hand, some artefacts might contradict some of the named hero's existing artefacts (for example, it would be OK a hero to have an artefact such as a Ring of Immortality or a luckstone; however, any type of "obsidian/magical blade" to power-up his already unique and magical sword would not make sense)
Special Characters already have an established power, personality, and story. Their role on the battlefield should reflect them accurately. If they have options then it should be something unique on their warscroll like Drycha. From a narrative perspective the player should not be able to customize special characters.
In terms of balance I think it's better that named characters can't get command traits because their command abilities should be impressive enough on their own. As an example, giving Settra Red Fury or Ruler of the Night would make him even more absurd and then his points value would have to increase to compensate for the new power level.
Considering that named characters are usually one of the basic characters with more power, if you could also give them command abilities you'd basically be saying "why would I never NOT take the named version"?
In matched though, allegiance abilities do allow for more strategic variety (some of which is lost by sticking to the same 6 scenarios all the time). Command traits are free rules for each army and taking a named hero means you miss out, unlike with artefacts which can go to other heroes.
@Auticus interesting, ive found the opposite to be the case just this week when i fielded a tooled up celestant on dracoth (powerful hero 220pts) who went around killing this and that while my shieldwall got decked - i would have done better with the 100pt foot celestant buffing my guys with +1 to hit!
Regardless, im sure the er, point of points is to provide a comparative value. If the more powerful guy is ALWAYS taken over the regular guy, then powerful guy needs a point increase (or regular guy a decrease) until you can objectively ask yourself "do i want this powerful guy or more units?"
An example for a unit where this is an issue is with Judicators. I think the bow ones are objectively better than the crossbow ones, yet theyre pointed the same. Result: crossbow ones arent gonna get used in matched.
Back to the main point, i think named heroes should get to pick a command trait if they are the general. Points dont even come into it as command traits are free, and ultimately all heroes are just a bunch of good stats and special rules, whether theyre named or not. Equality for generals!
For example, Settra gets more value from Red Fury than a Tomb King on foot because he does way more damage in the combat phase. He also gets more value from Ruler of the Night because he is a larger model and the area of effect would be larger.
But what if hes not the General? What if your other big guy eg VLoZD is not your general? I dont think you should pay extra points per hero on the chance theyll have a command trait (which as was just illustrated are not all of equal value either, even from model to model!)
Skarbrand is probably the only one of the named characters which is not overcosted in that list and that's with half an eye on Blades of Khorne which will help him indirectly. In some cases both columns are overcosted (Gordrakk and Cabbage, Kroak and Slaan).
Since then, you've always been able to build more powerful characters than the named ones, but that's ok. In theory (I know, I know) you are taking what is fun and creates a nice story, not just what's most powerful. From that perspective, why world you ever want to modify, say, Drycha? She's crazy-cool as is!
If it's down to preference, I would prefer to see more of these iconic, beautifully sculpted (and usually painted) models on the table more often, rather than not. Allowing these Command Traits would also add more diversity to the game, and I think that's a good thing.
Very good point... The game works well overall as it is, and with every change comes the risk that new imbalances are generated. Status quo is the safest option if we want to avoid creating another Sayl...
I'm not hostile to synergies (many of my own armies involve stacking synergies), my point was just that if you allowed all of the named characters to have traits, some of them would have to be recosted to make them a lot more expensive.
I'm certainly not saying don't change anything, more don't make a sweeping change that is all but guaranteed to lead to unexpected consequences. For the same reason - sweeping changes to shooting like cannot shoot if in combat or into combat looks like overkill, when only a handful of shooting units are undercosted (but those units are having an oversized impact on tournaments). Somewhere in between these extremes would be modest changes to things like Damned Terrain or tweaking the rules on cover.
I'm actually running into this planning a Verminus list for my groups upcoming Escalation Path to Glory campaign. It forces you to rethink how you construct your army, in my case Tretch is only really useful if he is my general, so now I've got to find ways of working around the potential loss of abilities from other generals I could be using.
Command and control center specialists tend to be predominantly investigative individuals, which means that they are quite inquisitive and curious people that often like to spend time alone with their thoughts. They also tend to be enterprising, which means that they are usually quite natural leaders who thrive at influencing and persuading others.
If you are one or both of these archetypes, you may be well suited to be a command and control center specialist. However, if you are realistic, this is probably not a good career for you. Unsure of where you fit in? Take the career test now.
Command and control center specialists score highly on conscientiousness, which means that they are methodical, reliable, and generally plan out things in advance. They also tend to be high on the measure of extraversion, meaning that they rely on external stimuli to be happy, such as people or exciting surroundings.
There are few topics that are simultaneously as ancient and as modern as the topic of leadership. In our Army, the elements of effective leadership are infused in much of our training, doctrine, tactics, techniques, procedures, and even daily conversations. Despite the extraordinary attention the Army--and many other institutions in our society--pays to the subject of leadership, the answer to the question, "What makes a good leader?" is neither simple nor universal.
Nonetheless, certain foundational leadership traits have proven themselves over time, particularly for those who have accepted the unique responsibility to lead Soldiers and Army civilians. We should take every opportunity to remind ourselves of these traits because they emerge from our commitment to a common set of Army values.
The 39th chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Mark A. Milley, aptly stated that the traits we seek in today's Army leaders include agility, adaptability, flexibility, mental and physical resilience, competence, and most importantly character.
Character is often demonstrated in how closely our actions, decisions, and relationships adhere to Army ethics and values. Competence is developed over time through rigorous practice, professional learning, and a commitment to excelling in every aspect of our duties. It is vital that Army leaders have both character and competence.
795a8134c1