Ideas on changing Command Groups?

Hi everyone,

For those that have been around for a while, it used to be that instead of units being able to upgrade with Command Groups that give Fear, they could upgrade with Musicians, Battle Standards and Sergeants.

We originally switched from the old system to the new one to keep things simple, however with time we’ve found that the new system a couple of problems, the biggest ones being that it leads to confusion when combining units, and that there’s no clear rule on what happens if a Sniper kills single elements of the Command Group.

Now, there’s a couple of things that we’re thinking of doing, and here we’d like your feedback:

  • Go back to the old system where Musicians and Standard Bearers give +1 to melee results each, and Sergeants get +1 to hit when shooting or in melee.
  • Streamline it so that all three give +1 to melee results, which would make things easier to remember. Only download of this is that a guaranteed +3 to melee results is quite a lot.
  • Make it a bit more complex, where Musicians give +1"/+2" movement, Standard Bearers give +1 to melee results, and Sergeants get +1 to hit when shooting or in melee.

We’re also open to doing something completely new, so if you have any ideas please let us know!

2 Likes

I vote option three. It’s not super complex and (imo) not that hard to remember. Plus it adds some extra tactical depth when it comes to picking sniper targets.

Would sergeants get +1 to hit in both melee and ranged or would it be one or the other?

It would be one or the other. :slight_smile:

1 Like

i also vote option three. but the standard should give fearless.
and maybe limit the number of options by “upgrade one model with one” so if you merge 2 units you only have two buffs max.
imo thats close to reality:

  • sergeant gives orders and makes the unit fight effectiv
  • musician give them a beat to march to and sometimes boosts moral
  • a banner/standard is a rally point and boosts moral by making the soldiers proud of it

cheers

I vote option three.

I’m OK with option 3.

For option 2, it is a lot. But you would have paid for each one. If making that balanced would make them too expensive to take, it wouldn’t be worth it. But if a reasonable cost for each gives appropriate benefit, that would be OK, too.

andy