PDA

View Full Version : What are special/rare choices for?



Conotor
23-10-2008, 18:04
As it is, the only reason I can find for these restrictions being around is that GW doesn't want to spend too much time ballenceing all the units, so they restrict some so that even if they are stacked, they cannot be abused too much.

It would be usefully if they only put restrictions on shooting/artillery, so that gun lines could not be made. However, this never seams to happen.

So, does anyone see a good reason these restrictions are implemented as they are,other then laziness?

ZiggyQubert
23-10-2008, 18:14
As it is, the only reason I can find for these restrictions being around is that GW doesn't want to spend too much time ballenceing all the units, so they restrict some so that even if they are stacked, they cannot be abused too much.

It would be usefully if they only put restrictions on shooting/artillery, so that gun lines could not be made. However, this never seams to happen.

So, does anyone see a good reason these restrictions are implemented as they are,other then laziness?

you have it correct, it's another means of balancing things within a list, not mid you due to laziness however, think of it more as part of there points cost

Thommy H
23-10-2008, 18:19
If you could take nothing but the best units, everyone would. The basic units that define the character of the armies would never show up and White Dwarf articles would have to talk about how great basic troops are to encourage people to use them.

In other words, "5th Edition".

FigureFour
23-10-2008, 18:24
Or they exist to show the relative rarity of certain units.

For example, Treemen are a Rare unit because there aren't that many of them (Rare units are rare. Supprise supprise) and therefore you can't take that many in an army. The same goes for special units.

BigbyWolf
23-10-2008, 18:29
Usually the Special/Rare choices are in there to represent the "elite" choices and army can take, such as Greatswords, Black Orcs or Tomb Guard. Eg, powerful units that would be less seen on a battlefield. Also as far as I know all artillery choices are either special or rare choices, and yet you still see gunlines.

Thommy H
23-10-2008, 19:17
Gunlines are only comparative though. If every army could only take two war machines, then an army with two cannon would be a "gunline". As it is, most armies (of average size) can only take half a dozen maximum which is enough to make the army a one trick pony but it's not like every single unit is a cannon.

The Core/Special/Rare system is used to preserve the character of armies. If an army is supposed to be made up of elite troops (such as Warriors of Chaos) then elite troops will be Core. But if elite troops like that are comparatively rare, then the Core units will be more basic. In the past, the army list was just divided into Characters/Units/War Machines/Monsters which was very abusable since Halberdiers and Greatswords are both "units" - you could have whole armies of elite troops, and most people did just that.

The Red Scourge
23-10-2008, 19:26
Empire has artillery as hero choices even i.e. engineer with pigeon bombs :)

Otherwise the choices are there too make restrictions on army composition and make for diverse armies. Cynical people would say this is to force you to buy models of every kind instead of just 5 steam tanks and a war alter ;)

McMullet
23-10-2008, 21:03
It allows for variety without being unbalanced. An army consisting of some infantry and some war machines is balanced. An army consisting of all infantry is balanced. An army of all war machines is not. This is not because artillery is overpowered; it's because taking nothing but artillery (or cavalry, skirmishers, flyers, monsters, etc.) is not balanced.

It allows us to have a variety of units whilst denying unscrupulous people the opportunity to make an entire army of whatever they happen to think is the "leetest" unit. Not to mention the fact that it reflects the background of the army.

Conotor
24-10-2008, 00:13
But if they just made core troops cost effective, and RBTs, heavy cav, exe a little less powerful, they wouldn't need the restrictions. That would give the game a lot more variety.

enyoss
24-10-2008, 01:23
But if they did that then many players would take nothing but hordes of the most effective core troops, not bothering with any of the comparitively underpowered special and rare units. It certainly wouldn't act in the interests of variety.

I think the 6th edition era of army composition does a pretty good job of ensuring armies stay relatively balanced while encouraging players to adhere to the established WHFB background.

Cheers,

enyoss

CommissarKlink
24-10-2008, 02:17
But if they just made core troops cost effective, and RBTs, heavy cav, exe a little less powerful, they wouldn't need the restrictions. That would give the game a lot more variety.

But if RBTs and Heavy Cavalry were less powerful, they wouldn't affect the battlefield in the way that an extremely sophisticated war machine, or a regiment of exceptionally well-trained and well-equipped nobility, rightfully should. Also this goes back to the rarity of certain things in the in-game world, and the army's character.

For example, if the game were balanced like you want, then a 2000 pt army consisting entirely of Giants would be legal, but its power level would be equivalent to, or somewhat less than, a balanced mostly-infantry 2000 pt army. But in the Warhammer World I know, an army of nine Giants would be a terrifying force capable destroying any opposition a local commander might muster. However, this never comes up because, fortunately for local commanders, the Old World is not that densely populated with Giants.

Conotor
24-10-2008, 14:02
But if RBTs and Heavy Cavalry were less powerful, they wouldn't affect the battlefield in the way that an extremely sophisticated war machine, or a regiment of exceptionally well-trained and well-equipped nobility, rightfully should. Also this goes back to the rarity of certain things in the in-game world, and the army's character.


They would be just as effective, they would just have a point cost to go with it.

As for the previouse poster, what used to be special and rare would not be worse then the current core, they would just be put on the same level as it.

Harwammer
24-10-2008, 14:04
why do the military deploy squaddies when they could be using just SAS/SBS?

Ward.
24-10-2008, 14:10
the Old World is not that densely populated with Giants.

Anymore....
Incidentally that's the first thing GW should bring out for 8th edition, a PDF sky titan list.

Why does the special/ rare restriction = laziness?

Embalmed
24-10-2008, 14:36
IMO these restrictions are there for 2 reasons:
1. if a unit is considered rare by fluff (Giant, stank) then there should not be 12 of them because 12 of them would almost never be in the same place at the same time.

2. Some units are balanced at a certain points cost if you don't have too many of them. One Giant is fine, but 10 would be too much for most opponents, likewise with organ guns, hydras etc. These units have certain weaknesses but with so many of them an all comers list would not have enough of the units that can defeat them to have a decent chance. It would be too much rock-paper-scissors. Increasing the cost of these units would on the other hand make them too crummy unless you spammed them, having just one or two would be stupid.

FurryMiguell
24-10-2008, 15:01
"Greatswords are the elite of imperial soldiers..." elite... ELITE! elite means they are the best of imperial soldiers. If all soldiers were swordmasters, they would be equally good, and no longer elite, would they now?

I belive the system is heavily based in the fluff of warhammer. to me (and i strongly belive to many other players as well) fluff is a great part of the game. Dragons are rare cratures in the warhammer world. therfore they are rare choises in the armylists that can field them!

removing all restrictions would cause most players to look for the most powerfull unit considering the cost, and purely fielding that unit. I dont know how you feel about fighting a massive army of graveguard, but thats not something I would enjoy!

And if you want elite armies so much, all you need to do is field a few cheap core units and then use up all your special and rare slots on big units of elite warriors.

To me it seems you dont care too much about the fluff of warhammer. I dont jodge you for that, there are many who dont, but you are kinda stepping into fluff land here.

You could play without restrictions with friends if they agree with it, but to change the rules like that is a no-no for me.

Cheers:D

Fraggzy
24-10-2008, 15:49
Yay, then i can finally field an army consisting only of giants!

....

Tokamak
24-10-2008, 16:05
Rare units are not neccisarily the best units. They're simply the most specialised units, and having too many of them would only degrade the game.

Helveticus
24-10-2008, 16:14
But if they just made core troops cost effective, and RBTs, heavy cav, exe a little less powerful, they wouldn't need the restrictions. That would give the game a lot more variety.

Wow. Thanks for that. Make the entire core of my army less powerful.

I think they should make skirmishing poisoned things less powerful. And they should include a weather status effect on cold-blooded things making them move slower and have a much lower Initiative during cold weather.

I would have picked on Beastmen, but they already have enough issues.

Just because you don't like RBT's, and heavy cav, etc. doesn't mean they're over powered. Or that a blanket nerf of something you don't like wouldn't eviscerate an army type you don't play.

A blanket nerf of heavy cav would absolutely ruin Bretonians- who have a required Core choice of Heavy Cav, and alternate and optional Core Choice of Heavy Cav, an alternate and optional Special Heavy Cav, a special and optional choice of flying (heavy) Air Cav, and a rare and optional choice of Heavy Cav.

So 2 of my four Core choices, 2 of my four Special choices, 1 of my 2 rare choices, one required character, and 2 to 4 of my character choices could be impacted by an across the board nerf to Heavy Cav.

slasher
24-10-2008, 20:27
actualy that would be the 2 required characters (and at 2k) the 2-3 optional ones

Helveticus
24-10-2008, 20:29
I could theoretically use a Damsel sub 2K for a general, and she might not be on a barded warhorse to be heavy cav, so its just the 1 required... But yeah, it would screw Bret players.

Thommy H
24-10-2008, 20:38
Increasing the cost of these units would on the other hand make them too crummy unless you spammed them, having just one or two would be stupid.

This is a very good point. Taking the ten giants example: if the cost of a giant were increased to take into account the possibility of an army of ten of them (and it would have to be...) then the cost of each giant would be too high for all the sensible players who just wanted one. The cost would have to scale up: 1 for 200, 2 for 500, 3 for 800, to use an example plucked from the air. It would be unnecessarily complicated to balance an army list, so why bother?

This coupled with the background issue makes the Core/Special/Rare system a no-brainer, really.

march10k
25-10-2008, 12:48
Rare units are not neccisarily the best units. They're simply the most specialised units, and having too many of them would only degrade the game.

...but in the aggregate, rare units are better than special units, which in turn are better than core units. Would anyone field a tomb king instead of a high priest if the tomb king didn't let you fill your core choices with special units?

By a show of hands, how many TK players would field more tomb scorpions if they weren't restricted to the number of special slots? How many would ever consider fielding basic skeletons with swords and shields if tomb guard didn't take up one of those scarce specials slots?

Rare and special slots do a good job of forcing players who only want all the leetz good stuff to field common units. I'm guilty of this with my deathwing army. Nothing but terminators, dreadnaughts, and land raiders. It's fun, it's killy, and if it didn't suffer from abysmal model count (uh, 20 models for 1750 points???), it'd probably count as a WAAC army. But win or lose, the design of the army ensures that both sides will suffer 70-100% casualties, and who doesn't love carnage? the "core, special, rare" system prevents players from building such armies in WFB. The connection to the fluff (I agree that an army consisting of nothing but a dozen giants is improbable!) is incidental. It's about forcing more balanced lists.

Conotor
26-10-2008, 04:23
This is a very good point. Taking the ten giants example: if the cost of a giant were increased to take into account the possibility of an army of ten of them (and it would have to be...) then the cost of each giant would be too high for all the sensible players who just wanted one. The cost would have to scale up: 1 for 200, 2 for 500, 3 for 800, to use an example plucked from the air. It would be unnecessarily complicated to balance an army list, so why bother?

This coupled with the background issue makes the Core/Special/Rare system a no-brainer, really.

Why would this have to happen? As long as your opponent has a CC counter to giants, takeing more would just reduce your ability to beat thet unit.

Look at core choice. No one builds an army with 10 x 15 HE spear men, because it would suck. 10 Giants would be similar if they were around 250 points each and core.

Fraggzy
26-10-2008, 09:41
Why would this have to happen? As long as your opponent has a CC counter to giants, takeing more would just reduce your ability to beat thet unit.

so, if you are in a tournament how the heck will you be able to counter 10 giants with a normal balanced army except if you have a massive gunnline?
you cant allways specialise your army against your opponents armylist (not that i do it)

or an army consisting only of hydra's or grail knights or pegasus knights... there are so many armies that then would be impossible to beat with a normal balanced army that is overall good against most normal armies.

R Man
26-10-2008, 09:43
I'd say that the Special/Rare thing is mostly about realism. Armies were rarely made up of elite/specialist troops so it makes sense realistically. An army composed of all cannons would be very strange after all.

Also many troops, (Especially cavalry) become much more powerful the more you take and the restrictions help prevent this.


Why would this have to happen? As long as your opponent has a CC counter to giants, takeing more would just reduce your ability to beat thet unit.

You are assuming the Giants don't use their superior movement to focus their strength on one unit at a time.


Look at core choice. No one builds an army with 10 x 15 HE spear men, because it would suck. 10 Giants would be similar if they were around 250 points each and core.

HE Spearmen are a very different unit than Giants. They have vastly different combat abilites and defenses and vulnerabilities and such.

Axis
26-10-2008, 14:07
But if RBTs and Heavy Cavalry were less powerful, they wouldn't affect the battlefield in the way that an extremely sophisticated war machine, or a regiment of exceptionally well-trained and well-equipped nobility, rightfully should. Also this goes back to the rarity of certain things in the in-game world, and the army's character.

For example, if the game were balanced like you want, then a 2000 pt army consisting entirely of Giants would be legal, but its power level would be equivalent to, or somewhat less than, a balanced mostly-infantry 2000 pt army. But in the Warhammer World I know, an army of nine Giants would be a terrifying force capable destroying any opposition a local commander might muster. However, this never comes up because, fortunately for local commanders, the Old World is not that densely populated with Giants.

But can you imagine the sheer joy of gaming with 9 giants :D. It would be totally fun.

Helveticus
26-10-2008, 15:42
Nah to me it would be boring. You don't have all the different flavors melding on the board creating a treat.

FurryMiguell
26-10-2008, 17:15
agree'd with Helveticus. A battle needs variation. thats why i hate gunlines:p