PDA

View Full Version : New Army Books and how they should be done



Strictly Commercial
29-10-2005, 07:59
With the approach of 7th Edition, I am a bit skeptical that all changes will be to my liking, but there are some things I do hope I see, and they mostly have to do with the army books.

6th edition did have some inspiring moments, as there are a few army books that have things I hope to see in the future as I feel they were a step forward for the game.

First, Orcs and Goblins I like simply because there will probably never be two armies that are even nearly alike. Whether your army consists of regular 'ard boyz type generic orcs, all night goblins, a rampaging savage orc tribe, or a mish mash of them all, the O&G list lets you do so much. Plus the insanity of the list makes for much fun. I do wish some of the randomness tended to help the Orc player a little more often, but it still is probably their best work. Although there was nothing particularly different about the way it was put together, I'm including it just because with O&G it seems GW really designed it for loads of fun, which is and ought to be the main factor of any rulebook they release.

Second, the Hordes of Chaos army book wins for its organization. The general determines what is core. Simple but effective. This way the army can be put together in several ways but still doesn't completely eliminate the presence of other units altogether. There are some imperfections as far as the way mortals seem to have power lavished upon them while the other aspects are restricted but that isn't why I like it. I like it because it is specific on how an army is organized but allows for numerous variety based solely on the leadership of the force. The follow up BoC book simply required a Beast Unit section to complement it and it fits in quite well.

My last army book that wins an award is the VC book simply because the bloodline abilities were the first of their kind in 6th ed (I think). I would like to see more of this in 7th ed, even for humans (heck, especially for humans). Alternatives to magic items are sorely needed for variety, and the bloodlines work quite well. Taking the same ability more than once in an army is nowhere near unbalancing, and this kind of thing makes them more interesting to me anyway.

That's all I can think of for now, are there other army books that had elements that ought to be kept?

blurred
29-10-2005, 10:09
Hmm...I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but have you heard that GW won't be making new army books for 7th edition?

Griefbringer
29-10-2005, 10:33
Hmm...I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but have you heard that GW won't be making new army books for 7th edition?

Well, they will be revising/updating/re-vamping a number of army books (not necessarily all of them) during the 7th edition.

Atrahasis
29-10-2005, 12:34
Also, calling it 7th edition was met with a frosty reception at a recent seminar - apparently it is "Edition 6.4" or some other such nonsense.

gondarion
29-10-2005, 15:55
I think the wood elf book is by far the best army book in WHF. I'd like to see all the army books be this interesting and balanced, especially my high elves.

Lord Anathir
29-10-2005, 17:35
id love the high elves to get honours or something without taking away from their magic point allowance.

gondarion
29-10-2005, 20:46
As would I. Maxwell, myself and a few others are working on a comprehensive re-write of the high elf book, with the honours based directly on the kindreds.

static grass
29-10-2005, 21:11
@Strictly Commercial. Nice post except i see too many blood dragon armies for my liking. The orcs and gobbos army list is a good one too, it balances the entries well and gives alot of scope to the player. Again the HOC and BOC does this very well I prefer the chaos army books simply because of the very strong theme you can give your army and whole look and feel. My other fav book is the bretonnian one. it is a great read and the army list and the honours system is good but not upto the standard of the chaos one. I also think the simply fantastic cult of slaanesh army list was great addition to the storm of chaos. I play neither chaos nor DE but I had to struggle to stop myself from playing these.

As for the HE book I want the option to base my amy on one of the kingdoms like caledor or saphery army list.

Arnizipal
29-10-2005, 21:16
id love the high elves to get honours or something without taking away from their magic point allowance.
Don't you think that would unbalance things a bit? Having the benefits from honours and full points left over to spend on magic items could bring about a new edition of hero-hammer. :eek:

Eldacar
29-10-2005, 23:50
Don't you think that would unbalance things a bit? Having the benefits from honours and full points left over to spend on magic items could bring about a new edition of hero-hammer.
The Bretonnians, Lizardmen, and Wood Elves didn't do so badly with it (those being Vows/Virtues, Sacred Spawnings, and Kindreds respectively).

Ivan Stupidor
29-10-2005, 23:52
I don't know about the others, but Bretonnian Virtues come from the magic item allowance. (Vows - Knight's, Questing, Grail - don't).

Lord Anathir
30-10-2005, 01:44
bretts, vc, lizzies, woodies all have something unique about them....In addition to kindreds woodies also have spites. I think they need to spice up the high elf characters alittle. Their combat characters arent really that great. Itsfunny how a woodelf can go toe to toe with a vampire, but a high elf with all his special magical gadgets, cant. Mind you.....i hate unbalanced characters, and iwouldnt want to see them go to a herohammer level, but sometimes id love to take a character that would hold his own ground against other fighty characters.

Tiberius Frost
30-10-2005, 04:20
As for the HE book I want the option to base my amy on one of the kingdoms like caledor or saphery army list.

You already can.

Caledor: Field spearmen, archers, silver helms, and Dragon Princes.
Saphery: Field Spearmen, arhcers, silver helms, and Dragon Princes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you've bothered to read the High Elf background you'll see that they don't fight that way. The High Elf army is drafted in from the citizen militia (spearmen, archers) and led by the nobles of each realm (characters, silver helms). Units like Ellyrian Reavers and Shadow Warriors are found all over Ulthuan, so could be included in any army.

This idea that an army of saphery would feature swordmasters as a core choice is unfounded. Eltharion leads the army of Hoeth (ie, specifically, the white tower) which is why his army can field more than one unit of swordmasters. There aren't, however, enough swordmasters to form an entire army on their own, and besides, they don't really fight en masse.

If anything, there should be more restriction in the High Elf army about how much citizen levy you have to field.

But that's for another thread. :)

Wintersdark
30-10-2005, 04:36
bretts, vc, lizzies, woodies all have something unique about them....In addition to kindreds woodies also have spites. I think they need to spice up the high elf characters alittle. Their combat characters arent really that great. Itsfunny how a woodelf can go toe to toe with a vampire, but a high elf with all his special magical gadgets, cant. Mind you.....i hate unbalanced characters, and iwouldnt want to see them go to a herohammer level, but sometimes id love to take a character that would hold his own ground against other fighty characters.

I've got to say, my buddy - a HE player - has a swordmaster lord who's accounted for a number of Blood Dragon vampires, Tomb Kings, etc. He certainly has no trouble making a very dangerous HE lord.

Complaining that WE can make a more dangerous combat lord than HE is silly. Come on, buck up. HE have their problems, it's true - largely in somewhat overcosted infantry. But they're not that bad. Because another army can do something better than you - at a higher point cost, I may add - is flatly rediculous.

Wickerman71
30-10-2005, 05:18
Complaining that WE can make a more dangerous combat lord than HE is silly. Come on, buck up. HE have their problems, it's true - largely in somewhat overcosted infantry. But they're not that bad. Because another army can do something better than you - at a higher point cost, I may add - is flatly rediculous.

I agree; with the HE Magic item discounts they a cable of building combat lords that can go toe to toe with with a WE lord & cost less to boot. IMHO the HE have way better options for Magic Armour & Talismans which can be very critical when they are both T3.

Wintersdark
30-10-2005, 09:12
I agree; with the HE Magic item discounts they a cable of building combat lords that can go toe to toe with with a WE lord & cost less to boot. IMHO the HE have way better options for Magic Armour & Talismans which can be very critical when they are both T3.

*nods* WE characters are inherently flawed. They are very dangerous offensively, but suffer obvious flaws too.

Unlike HE, WE do not have a good, inexpensive, all around ward save. They cannot get anything even close to a decent armour save without a massive expendature of points. They have no really good magic weapons(*). All WE characters have going for them is a decent offense, good situational ward saves (Which may or may not be useful at all, depending on what your opponent is armed with) and Annoyance of Netlings (opponents hit on 6's in challenge).

It's basically with Annoyance that allows WE fighter lords any chance at all of surviving a combat.

To make a fighter lord with any noteworthy offensive power, you need to go either Alter Kindred or Wardancer Kindred (+50 pts). Alter prevents him from joining units and being your army general; Wardancer restricts you to one magic weapon and no armour at all.

So, the best "killer" WE char I've found so far is a Highborn(145 pts)+Wardancer(50 pts)+Annoyance(25 pts)+Blades of Loec(35)+Amaranthyne Brooch(35) = 290 pts. He's got a 3+ ward vs. non-magical attacks only, no armour save at all, but opponents require 6's to hit. He gets 5 S5 attacks on the charge with KB, or 6 without. After the charge, he's down to 4kb/5normal attacks; depending on dance. He's pretty damn frail for nearly 300 points.

On the other hand, HE lords can sport a ward save, rerollable 2+ (or 1+?) armour save, killing blow every turn, etc.

static grass
30-10-2005, 10:02
You already can.

Caledor: Field spearmen, archers, silver helms, and Dragon Princes.
Saphery: Field Spearmen, arhcers, silver helms, and Dragon Princes.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if you've bothered to read the High Elf background you'll see that they don't fight that way. The High Elf army is drafted in from the citizen militia (spearmen, archers) and led by the nobles of each realm (characters, silver helms). Units like Ellyrian Reavers and Shadow Warriors are found all over Ulthuan, so could be included in any army.


This is a poor arguement. You insult me and then tell me what I can take in a HE army. I know that many unit types are scattered across Ulthuan and that by en large the HE fight as a united group as represented by the current army list.

What I would like is the option to take an army based on one of the kingdoms. This would represent a situation when these wide options are not available. For example what would a Averlorn kingdom look like fighting by itself? Would there be treemen or dryads? Or Hoeth army questing to find some magic artificat? I am shocked by the number of people who play a game based on imaginary armies and yet have no imagination of their own.

I think you are very narrow minded in your assessment of how the HE should play. Saying the HE only fight following the army book is clearly wrong. What about the storm of chaos with the Lothern Sea Guard army? Do you pretend it doesnt exist? Clearly this is an example of how the HE fight using different structure. Saying it is impossible to subdivide the HE is not a reasonable argument either look at the new WE army book. It is now possible to make an army without a single elf. That was never possible before and represents a new direction in both the army and fluff. So clearly GW are able to be flexible and create themed lists.



This idea that an army of saphery would feature swordmasters as a core choice is unfounded. Eltharion leads the army of Hoeth (ie, specifically, the white tower) which is why his army can field more than one unit of swordmasters. There aren't, however, enough swordmasters to form an entire army on their own, and besides, they don't really fight en masse.



I dont know who's idea this is but seing that we are now here... You seem to accept the fact that the army of hoeth will have more swordmasters than other armies which kind of makes your earlier arguments void, but hey this is a forum. No one is talking about making swordmasters core. Personally I would just like to see the 0-1 restriction on swordmasters lifted if one of the heroes has the swordmaster honour as an example.

Mkwong
30-10-2005, 13:08
Hmm...I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but have you heard that GW won't be making new army books for 7th edition?


Where can i get more information about "7th edition"? Will new models be made for every armY? Are my recent purchases obsolete :(

chivalrous
30-10-2005, 19:32
backing away from the Elven civil war we have simmering nicely,
I'd like a return to the style of the 5th edition books, with half a page of fluff devoted to each unit type.
A good 2-4 page section on the geography of their homeland, a page about their religion(s), a bulk of short stories and a tactics section.

There's minimal fluff in the current books compared to the last edition.

I'd also like to see all the current official and unofficial army lists go into the back of the book and more special character with a larger written background for them. Seriously, if you haven't read Darkblade, the Dark Elf army book has little more that 2 lines to show you who he is or how he came by his curse.

Hideous Loon
30-10-2005, 19:36
We can always trust on hope, Mkwong. And cross our fingers on that ole Gee-Dub will make new and improved [insert random crappy miniature here].

Wintersdark
30-10-2005, 21:39
Where can i get more information about "7th edition"? Will new models be made for every armY? Are my recent purchases obsolete :(Errr, there will ALWAYS be new models. Every couple years, each army will get a new model line.

It doesn't make your old models obsolete - hell, I know people who still have armies made of models from 5th edition and earlier.

GW *needs* to keep making new models - it encourages existing players to invest in new models, maybe make a new army. From a financial viewpoint, GW wants to create a situation where players will continue to spend money indefinately, not to just buy an army and stay with those models. They have to balance that with not alienating people, and forcing them away by *requiring* them to use new models, as that's counterproductive, but instead just making new, better models that people will want to buy, because they look good.

So, in short, there will ALWAYS be new models.

Anyways, the general concensus with 7th edition (or 6.439a4 or whatever else they want to call it) is this:

There will be rule changes, but limited in scope. Existing army books will still be useable, so there is no "ravening hordes" situation that existed in 6th edition. They will continue to re-release armies - this will likely continue pretty much indefinately - updating model lines and tweaking army books as they go along.

amagi
30-10-2005, 22:30
One word:
back-of-the-book-lists.

OFFICIAL ones.
Warhammer needs more variety in playing styles and troop choices.

But GW has evidently decided that us gamers are too slow to handle any more information. According to Mr. Thorpe--and as evidenced by the recent trend in army books and restricted unofficial special-character-requiring novelty White Dwarf lists.

The key point is that as long as any new official lists are based on the well-established core lists and are mostly included in the core army books or in official supplement books (e.g. something like Lustria), more variety is not a problem. Quite the contrary--it is a vitally needed aspect of the game.

Wickerman71
31-10-2005, 03:22
But GW has evidently decided that us gamers are too slow to handle any more information. According to Mr. Thorpe--and as evidenced by the recent trend in army books and restricted unofficial special-character-requiring novelty White Dwarf lists.

I think that's just Gav's way of saying that the Game Designers could not balance that many lists out. While I think we would all love unlimited choice in our armies, the game it self needs to retain a sense of balance & fairness to it. I think we are all thankful that lists such as the BloodDragon & Skyre lists do not show up in a tournament settings.

I my self have no problems playing with those that use White Dwarf, Storm of Chaos or Lustria lists with or without the mandatory special character. So long as the person has gone to some reasonable effort on it & does not proxy every unit. My feeling is, if some one has made the effort to go with this type of army they should not be alienated for taking the hobby one step above the norm. Where as the back of the book lists tend to favour the Min/Max power gamers too much for my liking. They also do not add any new ground it's all about being able to take more of a particular unit than the main list allows.

If your just looking for more smaller variation with in the main list. Then I believe Wintersdark's idea of having your army general effect your troop selection has allot of merit to it. I know that I would of rather had the pages for the Skaven appendix armies devoted towards clan upgrades for my warlord.

Elannion
31-10-2005, 03:28
Forgive me if i am incorrect but i think i heard that new models wont be compulsary for each update but i think they are trying to make more plastic boxes so some minitures will be converted into plastic, but i don't think every model will be resculpted i mean the designers and forgers? spent ages working on the new range they aren't going to just brush that aside after a year or so i mean it costs alot to make a whole new range the time taken to work out the what the thigns will look like then to sculpt them and to make new casts and get that into production, so i think its safe to say alot of models will stay. but as i say i'm not 100%sure but thats what i heard.

As for additions, personally very controversially i would like to see the magic system tweaked abit, i enjoyed 5th edition. Now i am not saying going back to the cards, but i would like to see abit more unpredictability and random events happening stuff that could foil or heighten your plans (i know you are going to say miscast and irrisistable force but its not quite the same). but i doubt this will happen.

I would love to see more units added to the armys so that one the themes of the armys can be reinforced more, which i personally feel have been somewhat deminished by 6th editions attempt to balance by having the same framework and basically all armys having some kind of flyer warmachine ect (ok sorry more reminising of times before the trebuchet in bretonnia). Plus armys like O&C have many troop types and varients where as something like high elves lacks greatly in choice.

As people have said Variant list are indeed interesting, someone said earlier their reasons for liking O&G and chaos was that you could create lists with so many different themes which you might never meet exact same. This i feel is what the game lacks, so many people trying to make balanced lists or tourny list just end up making clones of each other and thats not fun to fight. Plus variants can make some unpopular units more useful depending on the other units in the lists. But i feel these need to be official lists as many people like to have everything so that they could play it with anyone without worry.

0-1 rule
personally i don't like it its annoying and really holds you back in some senses. If you are making a themed army some units you would like to have lots of are 0-1, so you can't then official play with your army. Also in large games not that you see too many of these having only 1 unit of certain units seems silly i mean some armys i think if i remember correctly high elves is one is littered with units of 0-1 thusly in big battles you have to take many many duplicates of certain units but only one of another. I know the background has to be observed but maybe if there were rules such as certain characters remove it or certain items/honours or prehaps maybe if it were something like 0-1 per 2000 points or something i dunno i just never liked this rule and im probably waffling sorry.

Outnumbering
I have always thought this should be more than plus 1 depending on the outnumbering i mean many a battle i have come across a situation where there has been something like 7 men to 40 gobbos now i feel that deserves more than +1

anyway im ranting i will leave it at that for now

amagi
31-10-2005, 03:31
@Wickerman
An appeal to designer ineptitude is not exactly a convincing argument against having new official lists. They've had many years to work on these things, and almost a decade of experience with the way 6th ed. works in general. You're telling me they can't come up with a few reasonably balanced lists that are just slight variations on the main lists?

Did you know that these individuals are payed to make army lists?
Perhaps they should actually be able to do it.

And indeed, I think they would be able to do a more than sufficient job at coming up with 1 or 2 official variant lists per army book.

Pointing out that the existing non-official back-of-the-book lists are sometimes unbalanced is not exactly relevant to your argument either. If they were to include new official lists in the 7th ed. army books it's not like they'd just take the old ones and reprint them.... The idea is they'd make new lists. Lists that actually are balanced. This is not exactly rocket surgery here. They're clever guys. They already made a very surprising amount of very balanced material for 6th ed.
Sure you can point out a few isolated things here and there that need tweaking but 6th ed. is actually a great achievement in terms of balance.

At any rate, having the general affect the troop selection amounts to the same thing, just as the Chaos system amounts to 3 different variant army lists. So either way, that's what I'm for. As long as the changes from character selection are significant enough to add a good amount of variety to the game.
Merely, say, making a single unit go from Special to Core doesn't cut it.
Something more like the Chaos system does.

But I still think that having an official back-of-the-book list is preferable, because you can more easily add a distinct character and theme to the army, as with the Southlands, for instance.

Also, more units in each army would be wonderful. The lists are getting too small. Just one new unit or even (gasp) two in each book would be a much needed improvement.

Wickerman71
31-10-2005, 03:58
@Wickerman
An appeal to designer ineptitude is not exactly a convincing argument against having new official lists. They've had many years to work on these things, and almost a decade of experience with the way 6th ed. works in general. You're telling me they can't come up with a few reasonably balanced lists that are just slight variations on the main lists?

That was hardly what I was getting at, having the existing 14 main army lists balanced to the extent they have is a great accomplishment. Play testing is what achieves this balance. Splitting that testing across 2 or 3 more lists is IMHO a step backwards.


Also, more units in each army would be wonderful. The lists are getting too small. Just one new unit or even (gasp) two in each book would be a much needed improvement.

I would love to see more units with in all the armies; more so than I would like to see appendix lists.

The Army Book IMHO should be just that a book focused on back ground & rules for that ONE Army. A far better home for variant lists is in the Realm Books or White Dwarfs.

amagi
31-10-2005, 04:24
That was hardly what I was getting at, having the existing 14 main army lists balanced to the extent they have is a great accomplishment. Play testing is what achieves this balance. Splitting that testing across 2 or 3 more lists is IMHO a step backwards.Well, that's exactly what you're getting at then. You're saying that we shouldn't expect them to be able to make even one extra back-of-the-book list that's just a slight variation on the 7th ed. core list that is itself just a slight variation on the 6th ed. core list, which they've all had years and years of experience with?
That would overload their fragile psyches?
We can't expect that of the people who capably balanced the 20+ official lists of 6th ed.?
Whose full time job is designing these lists?

I completely reject that idea.
We can and should expect them to add some more variety to the game.
Ideally this would be in the form of some new units here and there and official back-of-the-book lists for most or all army books.

Wickerman71
31-10-2005, 04:38
Your Splitting hairs amagi, I'm not arguing that no more variety should be added to the armies. I just feel there is a time & place for it. I would rather see the army book cover 1 very good army list with allot of depth & variation with in it, than a number of pretty good lists. Then later on seeing variant lists pop up in the latest Realm book.

amagi
31-10-2005, 04:47
I'd support having official variant lists in supplements like the Realms books provided they were committed to releasing enough of them, and most especially, provided the lists were not special character-requiring, marginalized, opponent's permission, special-context, historical novelty lists. They should be general-use, official lists, full stop. They can include new special characters as options.

The key point is that the lists should be official, not because I'm obsessed with the official/unofficial issue or because I play tournaments, etc. (I just play casual games in a basement somewhere). But because pointlessly restricting new lists to special-context obscurity hurts gamers, by making these lists less widely-used and therefore less supported and less relevant to the game--and less rewarding or interesting to play or collect (e.g. all the current unofficial back-of-the-book lists, which are all but totally neglected by most people). And it hurts GW, because these lists will inevitably sell fewer models than if they were general-use and official. And nothing whatever is gained by restricting them to marginalized novelty status.

Of course, there's still a place in White Dwarf for those unofficial, less playtested fluff lists. As long as they're releasing enough of the official stuff in the proper places. And they're NOT doing enough of that right now. Moreover, Gav has declared that they won't be in the future, and he likes it that way.

Strictly Commercial
31-10-2005, 05:25
Hmm...I'm not sure if I understood you correctly, but have you heard that GW won't be making new army books for 7th edition?

The way I heard it put is that the new edition will be written so the old army books can still be used, but that new ones will eventually replace the old ones. Similar to what was done with 40K.

Wickerman71
31-10-2005, 06:12
amagi
Agreed; I don't like the current trend of the special character only lead lists any more than you do. It takes one of the funnest parts of army building (making your general) & flushes it down the toilet. Gav's stance on the matter is not a very popular one. No one wants to play a list that some ass is going to to say "nope you can't play;it's not official".

I'm not a big fan of Appendix lists to me they always seem like an after thought. When ever I see them; I just wish they added an extra unit to the list or more fluff. The only one I thought was any good was the Lizard's Southland list.

Lustria was by no means a perfect book; but I do believe it showed allot of promise. The Realm books are not tied down to a massive Model release such as the Army Books are so there is no reason why they could not come out faster. They provide a second look at armies we already know & is a great opportunity to further flesh them out. Whether the Realm books continue or not is up to us players because GW will not continue to make a product that does not sell well.

amagi
31-10-2005, 06:22
Wickerman, it seems I do agree with you on the principle here.
As long as they incorporate a good amount of variety into the core lists, with characters affecting army composition for most or all armies to some extent--not necessarily as drastically as with Chaos, but a lot more than we have now--and add a few new units here and there, then I'm not that concerned about whether they have more than one list in the army book itself. Provided they continue to release new official general-use variant lists somewhere. Supplement books would be good for this.

The problem that I'm upset about is Gav's declaration that GW is moving in completely the opposite direction--that they'll be severely restricting the content of any new lists they come out with beyond the basic core lists--as a deliberate means of limiting the use of most or all new variant lists.

Thus we've seen the recent proliferation of special-character requiring, historical campaign-specific, opponent's permission novelty lists that can only be used at certain pts. values, and only if your opponent knows the secret handshake, only if the moon rises at the 34th parallel on the 2nd Tuesday of the month, and only if Gavin Thorpe waves his hands over your models and says the magic word.

Instead, in addition to the new army books, a Supplement book published every year or two with another couple of official variant lists and some nice campaign/scenario rules would be great. Despite some interesting content, Lustria did not live up to this potential, simply because of the arbitrary, pointless restrictions on the army lists.

scatterlaser
31-10-2005, 09:09
Personally, I'm pretty happy with the amount of variety available in Fantasy at the moment. There are something like 25-ish 'official' lists counting the Storm of Chaos ones, and the fact that some of those are rather one-dimensional (ie Slayers) is pretty much balanced out by the way that some of the others are almost multiple lists in one book (HoC, Lizardmen). I wouldn't object to more variant lists, but I don't really feel a burning need for them, either.

amagi
31-10-2005, 09:56
Do we think that the SoC lists will remain "official" in 7th Ed.?
My impression was that that is up in the air, what with the new policy of
rule book + army books = official
everything else = unofficial

For the record, I support the above policy, with the exception that I think a limited number of designated supplement books, like the Realms books, could contain official material. But I'm all for everything in White Dwarf being unofficial.
Just as long as they continue to publish enough varied official material in the army books and/or supplement books.
Which, I'm afraid, they apparently aren't planning on doing.

Gorbad Ironclaw
31-10-2005, 10:17
Do we think that the SoC lists will remain "official" in 7th Ed.?


Yes. But frankly, who cares?

'Official' isn't some sort of wonder stamp. Any given tournament organiser or player is free to refuse to allow/play against any one list, no matter if it's official or not. Just as they can choice to allow/play against unofficial lists.

Some of the current official armies are utterly rubbish, being official doesn't change that. Where as some of the unofficial ones looks very intersting.

On the other hand I have seen several tournaments allowing some of the new White Dwarf lists and adding in the option to use it without the special characters if people so choice.

It's more about what people want to make of it than anything else really.

kd7svh
31-10-2005, 16:53
'Official' isn't some sort of wonder stamp. Any given tournament organiser or player is free to refuse to allow/play against any one list, no matter if it's official or not. Just as they can choice to allow/play against unofficial lists.

Exactly. People need to stop looking to GW for validation of every single little thing in our hobby. It is against the very spirit of what started Warhammer to begin with.

Personally I blame the tourny scene for this problem. People got into the "win" mode instead of the "fun" mode. Sure, there are times when playing a pick-up game against a stranger has the same effect, but as you get to know that person and if he turns out to be a good guy that you want to continue to play him, then "official" stops being important.

amagi
31-10-2005, 17:54
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before this idea reared its head.
Those who think that the official status of an army actually matters are just shallow, vulgar, immature, unsophisticated brutes whose shrivelled imaginations are incapable of comprehending the enlightened level of "fun" that true gamers acheive when they renounce their carnal and savage notions of "competitiveness" and "winning." These crass barbarians are ruining the purity of "the hobby" for all those high-minded anti-tournament elitists, who likely prefer to award "self-esteem points" instead of victory points. If only we could meditate deeply enough on the essential brotherhood of all gamers, perhaps we could attain that higher state of consciousness wherein concepts of "official" and "playtested" and "subject to opponent's arbitrary whim" all meld together in a euphoric blur of total fluff emersion and transcendent subjugation of the primal combative urge.

Alas, the puny, beast-like intellects of those who insist on spending their precious money and time on armies that are actually regarded as relevant to the game rather than as marginal flash-in-the-pan novelty lists deemed too unbalanced or undeserving to warrant official status--these lesser gaming minds can't be expected to grasp the secret mysteries of those who are so cool that they play for "fun" instead of the mutually exclusive goal of "winning."

Please.
There are numerous legitimate and quite significant reasons that "official" status does and should in fact matter.
You can argue that you think people attach too much importance to this, but you're utterly missing the fact that most of us do in fact comprehend that playing quirky unofficial games in casual contexts and trying unusual gaming situations can indeed be fun at times. And most people, with the exception of some younger gamers (chronologically or mentally), are quite capable of enjoying the game whether or not they lose. That doesn't mean that it's not fun to win, or that the competitive aspect of this strategy game is somehow vulgar and only appealing to mental midgets. And it doesn't mean that no one should care at all about what is official or not.

The all-too-common attitude on these forums is that claiming to be utterly indifferent to winning or losing, and declaring that you play instead on some higher gaming plane composed of "special scenarios" and "playing an army for theme," somehow makes you an enlightened and superior gamer. Quite the opposite is true.
That small minority of people genuinely too-wrapped up in tournaments are far less objectionable to me than those who posture as some kind of philosopher-geek-aristocrats and lord their superior gaming habits over anyone who tries to point out the real facts of reality that make the status of "official" actually important.
Which is why I reject about %95 of the claims that "TOURNAMENTS ARE RUINING WARHAMMER!!!" as populist agitating by a vocal minority of forum-dwelling anti-competitive activists.

Some reasons why a person would legitimately care about the "official" label:
---------He doesn't want to spend vast amounts of money and time on lists that he can expect will be disallowed in many contexts, especially if he primarily plays pick-up games. Even Gav Thorpe admitted that this was a perfectly reasonable and very significant concern.
---------He quite rationally expects that official lists tend to be more playtested and better-balanced than other lists. This is how it should be, and there are many reasons to care about this. It's more fair to the opponent and you won't be disadvantaged. It's more rewarding to win when you can say that it's a straight up contest of skill and not a function of what army you picked.
---------He wants to invest his attention and his finances in an army he has reason to believe GW might actually support in the future, with models, fluff, and/or expansions or scenarios in White Dwarf.
---------He wants to make a political statement about why Gav's mandatory-special character strategy is criminally insane.

So perhaps there's more to the picture than just "you care about official therefore you are a brainwashed lackey of the corporate man." It's highly ironic that it's the unofficial-elitists who accuse everyone else of being simple-minded by caring about "official" status, when they themselves are the ones who fail to comprehend most of the relevent context to this issue.

P.S. I never play in tournaments. Or pick up games. It's all casual games in a friend's basement for me. Where we not-uncommonly play unofficial White Dwarf lists, or campaign games, or special scenarios. These are somewhat in the minority of games we play though, as we usually prefer straight-up 2000 pt. games between official lists.
But I will very likely never pay money to collect an unofficial list. If I already had several armies I'd consider it. But it's more rewarding to me for now to collect lists that are truely part of the well-established Warhammer canon. I'd like to get some Forge World models though and posibly use their unofficial rules sometimes.

kd7svh
31-10-2005, 18:50
Yeah, it was only a matter of time before this idea reared its head.
Those who think that the official status of an army actually matters are just shallow, vulgar, immature, unsophisticated brutes whose shrivelled imaginations are incapable of comprehending the enlightened level of "fun" that true gamers acheive when they renounce their carnal and savage notions of "competitiveness" and "winning." These crass barbarians are ruining the purity of "the hobby" for all those high-minded anti-tournament elitists, who likely prefer to award "self-esteem points" instead of victory points. If only we could meditate deeply enough on the essential brotherhood of all gamers, perhaps we could attain that higher state of consciousness wherein concepts of "official" and "playtested" and "subject to opponent's arbitrary whim" all meld together in a euphoric blur of total fluff emersion and transcendent subjugation of the primal combative urge.

Alas, the puny, beast-like intellects of those who insist on spending their precious money and time on armies that are actually regarded as relevant to the game rather than as marginal flash-in-the-pan novelty lists deemed too unbalanced or undeserving to warrant official status--these lesser gaming minds can't be expected to grasp the secret mysteries of those who are so cool that they play for "fun" instead of the mutually exclusive goal of "winning."


[Edited post initial shock and anger ;)]
You have got to be kidding me. My post was not meant to rile you or anybody up.


The all-too-common attitude on these forums is that claiming to be utterly indifferent to winning or losing, and declaring that you play instead on some higher gaming plane composed of "special scenarios" and "playing an army for theme," somehow makes you an enlightened and superior gamer.

Never did I claim I am a superior player. I wasn't even trying to imply it.


Which is why I reject about %95 of the claims that "TOURNAMENTS ARE RUINING WARHAMMER!!!" as populist agitating by a vocal minority of forum-dwelling anti-competitive activists.

I didn't say that tournaments are ruining Warhammer. I was simply pointing out that tournaments require "officialness" and that with the growth of tournaments we have seen a growth in the "official" requirement. Back in the days of 3rd ed, "official" wasn't a much used word.


Some reasons why a person would legitimately care about the "official" label:
---------He doesn't want to spend vast amounts of money and time on lists that he can expect will be disallowed in many contexts, especially if he primarily plays pick-up games. Even Gav Thorpe admitted that this was a perfectly reasonable and very significant concern.
---------He quite rationally expects that official lists tend to be more playtested and better-balanced than other lists. This is how it should be, and there are many reasons to care about this. It's more fair to the opponent and you won't be disadvantaged. It's more rewarding to win when you can say that it's a straight up contest of skill and not a function of what army you picked.
---------He wants to invest his attention and his finances in an army that he GW might actually support in the future, with models, fluff, and/or expansions or scenarios in White Dwarf.
---------He wants to make a political statement about why Gav's mandatory-special character strategy is criminally insane.

All of these are perfectly acceptable needs for "official". My post wasn't requesting the abolition of "official", rather that people seem to think that if it isn't "official", you can't play with it. Nothing could be further from the truth.


So perhaps there's more to the picture than just "you care about official therefore you are a brainwashed lackey of the corporate man." It's highly ironic that it's the unofficial-elitists who accuse everyone else of being simple-minded by caring about "official" status, when they themselves are the ones who fail to comprehend most of the relevent context to this issue.

OK, now this is total ********! I never NEVER said anything like this. Rather, YOU inferred it.


P.S. I never play in tournaments. Or pick up games. It's all casual games in a friend's basement for me. Where we not-uncommonly play unofficial White Dwarf lists, or campaign games, or special scenarios. These are somewhat in the minority of games we play though, as we usually prefer straight-up 2000 pt. games between official lists.
But I will very likely never pay money to collect an unofficial list. If I already had several armies I'd consider it. But it's more rewarding to me for now to collect lists that are truely part of the well-established Warhammer canon. I'd like to get some Forge World models though and posibly use their unofficial rules sometimes.

Which is exactly how the group I play in does things also. That doesn't make it law for you, us or anyone else. I don't disagree with a certain level of need for "official", I disagree that is is a mandatory requirement in all cases.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

foehammer888
31-10-2005, 19:23
Wickerman, it seems I do agree with you on the principle here.
As long as they incorporate a good amount of variety into the core lists, with characters affecting army composition for most or all armies to some extent--not necessarily as drastically as with Chaos, but a lot more than we have now--and add a few new units here and there, then I'm not that concerned about whether they have more than one list in the army book itself. Provided they continue to release new official general-use variant lists somewhere. Supplement books would be good for this.

The only problem I have with the above statement is that it assumes that the 6th edition army lists are perfect, which most of them are far from. I don't want additional units added to army lists unless

1) they are consistant with army fluff and background
2) they actually are useful and have a place in the army list

Most army lists right already possess several units which violate one of the above two criteria. For instance, how many high elf lists have you seen with white lions or pheonix guard? With current rules and army list, they are simply outclassed by other units. Other underrepresented units include dwarf rangers, Organ Gun, and Longbeards.

With the current rumors on the new dwarf book, these are the issues that GW appears to be addressing in the new eddition. They are making sure that each unit is useful, worth taking, and has appropriate points costs for what it does. If they suceed in acheiving that goal, I will be more than happy with GW's game development team.

Most armies right now have at least 2 dozen unit types plus characters. If each of these units if made effective and worth while, we will start seeing more variety in army lists without variant lists.

Foehammer

Wintersdark
31-10-2005, 20:39
Ah, the tournament is bad thing. There's nothing so rediculous as the notion that playing to win is somehow not playing for fun. There's a difference between playing and wanting to win and playing and pressing to win at all costs, with no regard whatsoever to sportsmanship. So, dispencing entirely with the idea that playing to win and playing for fun are mutually exclusive....

The biggest draw to tournaments for me is NOT to establish myself as some supreme warhammer player. I play my best, and of course I want to win the tournament - or place as highly as possible anyways - but the primary reason is because it allows me to play against a large variety of new people, often from other countries entirely, people I normally would never get a chance to play with.

"Official" rules are REQUIRED for this to work. Without official rules, there is no common ground. We cannot sit down and play a game if both of us are trying to make up our own rules for the game. Sure, mature people can establish a common set of rules, agreeing on what to and not to use of non-official rules for a game, but this takes time. In a tournament setting, you don't have half an hour to discuss which alternate rules you will or will not use in your game - particularly when both players want a fair, balanced game. Official rules eliminate these problems. They allow people to meet and play a game right there, knowing the rules, and having everything behave as they expect it to. It's far better than getting part way through a game, and discovering rules you took for granted suddenly don't apply, making your whole strategy worthless.

I love unofficial lists and whatnot, but I won't collect armies based on them (as much as I would like to) because I will be unable to play those armies with anyone other than my local group. Now, my local group is great, and I love playing with them, but I am not prepared to make the financial and time investment required to build a whole army I'll not be able to use whenever I like.

So... While I appreciate the ideas presented in unofficial lists, the inability to use them in all the environments I play in renders them useless to me. Normally I'd understand that, but when it goes so far as to exclude me from playing in GW's own tournaments - typically the biggest draw of players from Far Away - that just goes to far.

Ultimately there is no reason not to make such things Official, aside from the additional time it will take to playtest them. I'd prefer fewer lists that I can use everywhere to lots that I cannot.

amagi
31-10-2005, 21:55
ksdvx42q, My post was not an analysis of your views specifically, so stating that you did or did not say such and such is besides the point. What you and others did was voice an opinion that reflects some aspects of a general conceptual attitude among certain members of this forum.
I don't know to what extent you do or do not accept that concept, and I wasn't attempting to argue with you.
My post described the general features of the concept which are most commonly and most irritatingly encountered here.

You mentioned something about not thinking that everything should be official. Neither do I. That would be ridiculous.

The ideal situation would be
army books + a limited number of official supplements like Lustria (but with general-use official variant lists) = the only source of official lists.
Then everything else would be unofficial. White Dwarf would be a place to publish unofficial (but for christ's sake not special character-requiring) lists, a limited number of which might even conceivably make it to official status eventually by being published in a supplement book or future army book. So it would be a place for both novelty special interest lists and a testing ground for new experimental lists to see what's deserving of officialness.

But the key point is that they would still publish a sufficient amount of official variant lists in the proper locations, as, perhaps, back-of-the-book lists or supplement lists in a Realms book. However they do it, it would be tremendously positive to have 1 or 2 official variant lists for every core list.

Alternatively, if they managed to work enough variety into the core lists themselves, through one or two new units or by having character selection significantly affect army composition, then 1 further variant list per core list might be a good goal to aim for.

amagi
31-10-2005, 22:10
@foehammer, I agree with what you said.
Variety would be increased in some armies just by better balancing the existing units. Certainly they should try to do that.
But I'm sure they can reasonably handle adding 1 or even 2 units to a lot of the smaller armies.
Chaos has about a bazillion troops to choose from, and I think it works out surprisingly well. Really, with the 5000 or so different kinds of "Chaos" armies out there, about the only one that really gets any consistent complaints is the Tzeentch magic heavy lists. That's pretty impressive. And I don't even think those are all they're cracked up to be.

There is so much variety and depth added to the game just from Chaos and its derivatives. They don't have to go so extreme with every army of course, but they should definitely move more in that direction. Instead of trimming down every list to fit some narrow formula like--not more than 4 special and 3 rare under any circumstance!!

kd7svh
31-10-2005, 22:28
ksdvx42q, My post was not an analysis of your views specifically, so stating that you did or did not say such and such is besides the point. What you and others did was voice an opinion that reflects some aspects of a general conceptual attitude among certain members of this forum.
I don't know to what extent you do or do not accept that concept, and I wasn't attempting to argue with you.
My post described the general features of the concept which are most commonly and most irritatingly encountered here.

OK, first off, I apologize, it just seemed that you were responding to my post in particular. Second, I can understand your frustration towards people who bag on the tournament/competitive side of the hobby (and yes that does, to a certain extent, include myself I admit) so sorry for opening old wounds or what have you. ;) Oh and BTW; who is ksdvx42q??? :wtf: :D


The ideal situation would be
army books + a limited number of official supplements like Lustria (but with general-use official variant lists) = the only source of official lists.
Then everything else would be unofficial. White Dwarf would be a place to publish unofficial (but for christ's sake not special character-requiring) lists, a limited number of which might even conceivably make it to official status eventually by being published in a supplement book or future army book. So it would be a place for both novelty special interest lists and a testing ground for new experimental lists to see what's deserving of officialness.

But the key point is that they would still publish a sufficient amount of official variant lists in the proper locations, as, perhaps, back-of-the-book lists or supplement lists in a Realms book. However they do it, it would be tremendously positive to have 1 or 2 official variant lists for every core list.

Alternatively, if they managed to work enough variety into the core lists themselves, through one or two new units or by having character selection significantly affect army composition, then 1 further variant list per core list might be a good goal to aim for.

I think this is a good analysis. I certainly agree with you regarding the special character driven lists which are getting a bit out of hand. Clearly we agree about the particulars even if our respective posts don't make that obvious.

Wintersdark
01-11-2005, 00:41
I can definately understand GW's hesitation towards adding more lists...

I do think that the idea of adding more units to existing lists is a very good idea.

As an example, fully adding the Kislevite units to the Empire army list, and releasing an unofficial and unnecessary Kislevite list to go with that, basically showing how to construct a "Kislevite" list out of the kislevite units and basic empire units - maybe with other new "counts as" units too. This list would not rearrange any units, or add anything - it would simply restrict what is available. Any army made through the list would still be a legal Empire army (because it could be made with the basic empire list). What's the point of the list, then? It's basically a suggestion of the units you should have in a Kislevite list. Thus, official/unofficial status is irrelevant.

This also serves to extend basic armies, allowing players more variety, and it presents a whole host of new conversion options.

Forest Goblins could be added to Orcs and Goblins, etc, etc.

Mad Makz
01-11-2005, 03:09
The biggest consideration is probably not playtesting GW only really wants to release official rules for armies it has official models for, and as a consideration of this fact has to take into mind the cost of generating splash releases versus on-going supported product.

Official status these days BASICALLY means that an army is supported by a model range, and as such is properly playtested so people who have brought those models aren't wasting their money and those miniatures aren't going to disappear from the background any time soon.

No one wants to see any more units disappear from the game altogether, like Reiksguard Knights, Doomwheels or Outriders did, but shelf space is limited, so only fully developed, well resourced, long term armies are going to get that status.

Models that sit on shelves and don't sell, because they are only good in the alternate lists which see far less play than the regular lists aren't going to get made, they aren't financially viable.

Making the core lists more balanced so all the units are worth taking is the primary concern, but to appease gamers they are releasing new lists, just limiting them to the die hard hobbyist rather than the casual gamer, so it doesn't come back and bite them in the **** when they effectively deny their existence/ignore them when the next edition comes out (check 40K all Kroot armies or even the White Dwarf Presents Chaos Dwarf army from fourth edition fantasy as examples of where this can happen.).

You'll notice that with the Lustria book they only released models that were required/could be used by the primary list. Those armies could not be official simply because they couldn't afford to make all the extra models to continue to support them. By designating them to a time, place campaign and character they created a way to make them semi-official, which I don't think is the best answer, but I think it is a realistic one.

Wickerman71
01-11-2005, 04:55
Mad Makz;
Rules do not equal models even with in the main 14 lists there are still Models to be made. The absence of models has not prevented their rules nor should it. Many of the armies lend them selves very well to addtional troop choices. My brother would love to have a new dinosaur or 2 for his Lizard army; I would have loved to have an Uber Rat Ogre for my skaven who cares if no models exist.

Dark Elves have no Noble or Highborn models
No Elfs riding Great Eagle, Stags or Unicorn
No Slave Giant
Many the Monstrous with certain riders

I see no reason that within a controlled format of release why hobbyist armies could not be "official". From my stand point GW would be better off going that way. After all if you can't use your army at a GW event why buy over priced Citidel Minis to be the basis of the conversions. GW sells a Rat Ogre what diffrence is it to them if it is used as an armoured Rat Ogre they still sold a model.

Lord Anathir
01-11-2005, 15:27
What warhammer really needs is properly tested armies. Test the high elves, test the slayers, test the dwarfs, test the skaven, bretts and vc. Only after the armies are balanced without having to kill the fluff to do so is when i am comfortable with back of the book armies.

Personally, (opposite from amagi), i am a tourney/pick up game player. I have a competitive list, but by no means a ridiculously broken one either. I would like to see more official rules, more restrictions on army lists that really wreck the game. As it is, if there is someone showing horrible sportsmanship, i give them a 0 for comp + honour, no qs asked. There are many lists that are broken. SADs, Brett and Tzeentch Flying Circus, Slann army, 8 zombie block + 4 wizard vc list, all cav + seer council high elves, the monster dark elf army (i must admit the last one is cool). Out of all the armies, i only truely think empire, OK, TK, beasts, chaos and maybe welvsies are balanced. The others need some work, after that, id love some back of book armylists.

amagi
01-11-2005, 17:58
The thing about shelf space and not being able to publish new official stuff because of model restrictions is partially true, but doesn't matter for what I've proposed.

What I and many others have suggested since Gav anounced his/GW's policy of severely limiting and restricting most or all new army lists--is that they instead continue to publish official variant lists that use most or all of the same models as the main list. Like the current back-of-the-book lists.
It'd be nice if they could include a new unit or two in the variant lists as well, but this wouldn't be a problem because they'd usually be things that you could convert from the existing range (like Horned Ones and ranked skinks, or daemonic chariots). Occasionally they might actually make a new model for some variant list troop, but this would be the exception so it wouldn't have any impact on shelf space or production demands.

So the great thing about this situation would be that any given model range for a core army suddenly acquires much more value and more attraction to customers because you could make 2 or more armies out of the same pieces.
Someone who didn't want to make a normal Chaos army, for instance, might very well buy a bunch of daemons to make a Daemonic Legion army, or might buy a Cult of Slaanesh army and now both Chaos and Dark Elf product lines get a boost in sales.
So it helps GW because there will be more demand for what's on the shelves without having to put any new models out, and it helps gamers because the pieces we buy will have more utility--you could use the same pieces in more than one army list.
And it's just far more interesting when you have a wide variety of lists to choose from.

Tastyfish
01-11-2005, 21:26
I think other than the ally list (CoP) there isn't going to be much of a boost in sales really, the people who say 'perhaps I will get another bunch of rat ogres so I can have a Hell pit force' are balanced by the...well I was going to get Dwarves but instead I will focus on a skaven varient seeing as I have half the army already.

I still think its an impossible goal to have all the new varients tournament legal (I think some people are little hung up over the word 'official', seeing as if you want a game in a store or a club whilst they are running the campaigns they are based around its not going to be hard to find a game and the shop is probably encouraging it), each list gets harder and harder to balance as it has to be balanced against all the others.

Flypaper
02-11-2005, 05:33
[random comments]


Out of all the armies, i only truely think empire, OK, TK, beasts, chaos and maybe welvsies are balanced.

Wouldn't that mean everyone else is balanced, and they're just a bit underpowered? ;)

Incidentally, I've yet to see a top five without a beasts army featured somewhere - I think they're actually a good example of the army's core being powerful enough that it doesn't need to derive power from wacky special rules.

I would like another Lizzie core option. Two good choices, an 0-1 choice you're unlikely to sink more than two models into, and an 0-1 per specific Lord choice means I'm hella jealous of the Greenskin range. Seriously, why not make Saurus Cavalry core? It's not like it's broken...

[/random comments]

Tastyfish
02-11-2005, 11:43
Core heavy cavalry is one of the big problems with the game far as I see it, Brettonians I can live with having it but other than that fully armoured knights should be fairly uncommon (though probably not 'rare'), its this aspect of the metagame I think is partly the cause of infantry being underrated.

Zeb
02-11-2005, 11:57
Looking at the Dutch GT this year there are some things from that rule pack that I would consider including;
- All characters cant be spellcasters
- Not the same special choice more than twice
- And only one of each rare choice.

This might set stop to certain armies that are WAAC, unfortenatly it will also set stop for the armies that have a cool theme, a Druchii Witches army as an example.

Tastyfish
02-11-2005, 12:07
Depends on the points, after a cauldron of blood, 2 witch elf units and an assasin or two you are are probably not going to want to take much else other than some basic infantry and a general even in a 2000pts battle.

Perhaps a shift of 'theming' armies more towards background, conversions and painting style would be a good thing over the 'saphery = core swordmasters' mentality.

Wintersdark
02-11-2005, 22:14
It's too bad that "theme" for some people often ends up being used backwards.

For example:

I like ratling guns and skaven magic, so I want an army with a lot of that... Oh! I'll make a Skyre army!

It's a thin line, I realise, and you can never really prove in some cases which way the army was made.

However, the people I *LIKE* are the ones who make themed armies, even though the theming in their case is entirely negative. They don't gain *anything* from it, simply restrict their choices - and don't use that excuse to take a whole lot of a really good unit.

I like themed armies that people have built around a cool idea - one that will look good, not one that will allow them to make a really powerful army and try to duck "It's cheesy" comments simply because they can say "It's themed!"

Scactha
03-11-2005, 06:35
Many a theme could be described as a 'winning' one. Just as the same people equals fun with 'them winning'. I usually attribute it to small egos and the result of overprotective parenting. :rolleyes:

True themes like Zebs Temple of Khaine or the Stir river patrol are fun and promotes the hobby.

Lord Anathir
03-11-2005, 21:39
@ flypaper...

Lmao....the armies i mentioned are in the middle (ish)...everything else is either above (ie bretts, skaven) or slightly below (ie dwarfs, high elves)

DeathMasterSnikch
03-11-2005, 22:04
It's too bad that "theme" for some people often ends up being used backwards.

For example:

I like ratling guns and skaven magic, so I want an army with a lot of that... Oh! I'll make a Skyre army!

It's a thin line, I realise, and you can never really prove in some cases which way the army was made.

However, the people I *LIKE* are the ones who make themed armies, even though the theming in their case is entirely negative. They don't gain *anything* from it, simply restrict their choices - and don't use that excuse to take a whole lot of a really good unit.

I like themed armies that people have built around a cool idea - one that will look good, not one that will allow them to make a really powerful army and try to duck "It's cheesy" comments simply because they can say "It's themed!"


I agree but...

Don't people like clan skyre because of the units? Therfore it's pretty much inevitable that your building a themed army because of the troops. You could say people could like the theme because of the background fluff but tey will most likely have a unit that represents a large part of the background.

@ Zeb.

I don't realy agree with that. Mass troop armies would not be able to take multiple units of troops. Being limited to say 2 units of gutter runners, 2 plague monk units, 2 rat ogre units, and only 3 rare slots available. Then in high point games you could have a dramaticly weakend army. Skaven and goblin core troops don't stand much chance on their own and neither do specialist armies such as HE.

I feel the unit alocation system works fine. Possibly reducing the max models in a unit could achive a similar effect to what you were getting at. By having a limit of 25 for some special units or say 5-10 for units such as jezzails, if a player wanted to field them en mass they woujld be forced to use more special slots etc.

Wintersdark
03-11-2005, 23:16
Oh, I do agree. I understand that there are people who build a skyre army because they legitimately like the theme, and would continue to make such an army even if it were quite a bit weaker than a normal skaven army.

It's why I was saying you could never prove what someone's motivations for making an army are.


Don't people like clan skyre because of the units? Therfore it's pretty much inevitable that your building a themed army because of the troops. You could say people could like the theme because of the background fluff but tey will most likely have a unit that represents a large part of the background.Still two different things here. Are you building a themed army because of the look/background of the troops, or because of the effectiveness of the troops? Often, it's both. In my experience, you can tell.

The reality is that while some peoples intentions are good, very many are simply looking to make the most powerful army they can, with the best units they can, and then come up with some idea of "theme" to write it off as a "fluffy, themed army" when in fact it's just a WAAC type army.

The lines are gray and fuzzy, I admit. Like I said, you could never prove someone's intentions except where people make an army to a theme that obviously includes units not because they are good - often, when they are a poor choice overall - simply because they really *fit* with the imagery of the army.

Most of the time, you can tell.

Zeb
04-11-2005, 05:24
@ DeathMasterSnikch

Since I said tournament rules I sort of assumed it was clear that it sould be like that for 2000pts, or (<2999pts), just let you buy you army in such blocks.

Note to myself: never assume anything, you willmake an ass out of yourself (according to my professor).

Lets face it, how many more troops do we get/see in a 3000 pts game, most people go for the extra lord and hero choices on the spot, leaving you with maybe 500pts on troops.

Have a Choice template for <2000 points and another for 2000-2999 ppints, and if you are to play large just take multiple templates. (I hope you got the meaning of that...;))

WLBjork
04-11-2005, 06:01
Note to myself: never assume anything, you willmake an ass out of yourself (according to my professor).

The actual quote is "Never assume, as it makes an ass out of u and me".

I think that the best idea is as stated to build a good basic army list for all armies, and release those as the army books.

Then, later, varient lists can be added - whether official or not - with very little difficulty.

For example, the Zombie Pirates list will be great for me as I'm putting an Vampire Counts list together. Whilst the ZP list has a larger quantity of unusual models, which will require conversion, I'll have fun with it. I don't need to worry about "officialness" - I could almost get away with an army of creatures with statline 10 across the board with a -2+ AS and a 2+ Ward in my group, simply because I can roll so many 1s :D

Wintersdark
04-11-2005, 13:53
Lets face it, how many more troops do we get/see in a 3000 pts game, most people go for the extra lord and hero choices on the spot, leaving you with maybe 500pts on troops.


*rofl* I remember someone saying that when I was playing Greenskins... I'd use the extra pts to buy 2 Goblin Big Bosses (combined value of, what, 82 pts IIRC)... then the other 918 pts to buy block after block after block of goblins :)

The fools!

Flypaper
04-11-2005, 23:51
The reason for that, though, is that most people don't work all that hard at getting 3000 points' worth of models. Adding an expensive Lord and a spare unit of cavalry is just the fastest and most financially effective way of pumping up the points' value...

Wintersdark
05-11-2005, 03:15
*nods* In most cases, going from 2000-3000 pts is more just allowing players to use all the neat units/monsters that they'd never normally use, because they'd take up too much of the army.

Like Dragons. Almost everyone likes dragons, but not in 2000 pts. They simply take up too many points, too many character slots, they end up BEING your army. However, you can get one easily into a 3000 pt game.

I think that simply swelling your army is better from a strategic sense, but it's more FUN a lot of the time just to use all the stuff you'd like to use but can't really justify in 2000pts.

Wickerman71
05-11-2005, 03:57
Never mind the fact, that painting a dragon is more fun than painting blocks & blocks of Gobbos.:D

amagi
05-11-2005, 05:18
In regard to variant lists boosting sales:
I think other than the ally list (CoP) there isn't going to be much of a boost in sales really, the people who say 'perhaps I will get another bunch of rat ogres so I can have a Hell pit force' are balanced by the...well I was going to get Dwarves but instead I will focus on a skaven varient seeing as I have half the army already.This is extraordinarily unlikely, to the point that I would say it's an impossibility.
You're saying:

Yes, some people will be interested in the new variant lists and will buy models when they otherwise wouldn't [an incontestable fact]
BUT, somehow,
other people who were going to buy a whole different core army will now spend less money in total since they can get the variant army for less than the core--and this balances and negates any profit from the new lists.

Some problems with this theory:

A) A great many people will, directly or indirectly, use the money they saved by getting the variant list to buy even more GW stuff. If, for example, all models were suddenly half price, some people would just buy twice as much. I would. Similarly, if they can more cheaply collect more army lists, I'd guess that most people will do exactly that--collect more lists--not just get the same number of lists for less. Especially players that play the game for any significant length of time.

B) The variety added to Warhammer in general by including new and interesting army lists makes the whole game better. When Warhammer is better, for whatever reason, more people will be more interested in Warhammer, more people will continue to play the game longer, and more new players will take up the game. This means more money in the long run. Looking at what one hypothetical, anecdotal player might do for a single purchasing decision misses the long-term improvement of the game brought about by having more thematic and strategic variety for players.

C) Being able to collect a variant list in addition to your main army list is great, but it's still based on the core list. Many of the incentives for players to collect that new and interesting, totally different core list are still there.

D) If your theory were true, then there would be little or no point in ever producing something like Lustria. (Unless you think a book of pure "special terrain" rules is worth it....) But despite all of it's glaring flaws (mandatory special characters, marginalized historical opponent's permission novelty lists, etc.) Lustria was still a good idea and they should continue making Realms books with new variant lists.

And of course, making those lists official and general-use would greatly improve their appeal and profitability.

Incidentally, what exactly is the "CoP" ally list???????????????????????????????

Nazguire
05-11-2005, 06:52
Never mind the fact, that painting a dragon is more fun than painting blocks & blocks of Gobbos.:D


Hence why you should collect a Karond Kar themed monster Dark Elf army. All those monsters to paint :D

Wintersdark
05-11-2005, 12:50
Never mind the fact, that painting a dragon is more fun than painting blocks & blocks of Gobbos.:Dheh no kidding, it's why I'll never play Greenskins again. I loved em, but after you've painted around 700 of the little bastards, you never, ever want to do that again.

Commissar von Toussaint
06-11-2005, 01:08
Is this the wrong place to suggest a musician for Empire pistoliers? :confused:

Strictly Commercial
06-11-2005, 21:17
I suppose it is, but what I really meant with the original post was how the structure of the books should be. I am of the opinion that it takes away nothing from other armies if everything is done from a more basic structure, similar to the HoC book where the basic core is not going to be the same for all armies of that type. To me, this would provide the variety everyone seems to crave but still not saturate the game with new lists. So, I guess I'd like to see the following in the new edition for every single army:

1. A list of abilities similar to bloodlines in VC.
2. Unique lore of magic (except of course for Dwarves, but they should get something else).
3. A list of units by type that could potentially be core or special depending on either the general or background.
4. Generally wide variety of unit types, to the degree of having to convert them if necessary.

If you feel that every regiment ought to have access to musician and standard bearer, or something like that, then by all means this is the place. It's just that I never meant to talk about specific lists.