PDA

View Full Version : Realistic Army Makeup



wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 09:57
No, not lipstick and eye shadow, but thousands of troops armed with say spears and halberds with basic cavalry, and very few proper elites and heavy infantry and cavalry.

Would people prefer to see hordes of infantry or keep the blocks of single units all unique and elite in some way.

A rise in the minimum core choices could help here, or just make specials never more than core choices regardless of army points cost.

This may stop some themed armies I suppose, but then that is more down to individual army list alterations rather than a general alteration.

What I want to see is High Elf armies made up of Spearmen, Empire armies with spearmen and halberdiers, not handgunners, etc.

Does anybody else agree, or should it just be common sense to take a more fair army?

Poseidal
18-11-2009, 10:27
I don't mind the set up currently. The problem isn't that there's not enough of them minimum, but they aren't an attractive proposition.

It would be better to do something in the rules to make the 'standard infantry' more useful.

Another thing that isn't seen a lot is foot characters.

What I propose, is in an infantry unit, a character on foot may make a move to the fighting rank when charged if not already engaged providing a little perk for the (generally) less manoeuvrable infantry vs. Cavalry.

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 10:34
I guess it's just me then, as I field my Elven Lord on foot, and have three spearmen units. My Night Goblins have 7 Spearmen units and again Boss on foot.

A better alternative I believe and maybe more realistic is to make spears more effective against cavalry - holding them off, maybe like stand and shoot reaction?

Dai-Mongar
18-11-2009, 10:36
Personally, I like to take big units of infantry anyway. But I also like that there's an option for all-mounted armies etc.

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 10:45
I believe that all armies should have a cavalry choice in core that has a basic troop stat, so that is possible, but not having them as elites. Take any real battle between 500BC and 1600AD apart from Hastings, and a third of many forces were light cavalry, the rest were foot troops. This is what I would like to see. Not fun to paint or massively practical to some people with small budgets who want variety, but certainly more possible the larger the armies get - say two core choices per extra 1000pts instead of one extra, to allow the small specialised force, or as the army gets larger, it has more basic troops to keep the elite forces to a reasonable proportion overall?

Poseidal
18-11-2009, 11:01
Well, I often take 25 blocks of standard guys in my Empire army. With my Wood Elves, that's not really an option, and I might sometimes run it in Chaos Warriors, but only with Marauders due to points.

I think the problem is also with the durability of foot infantry. Heavy Cavalry gets +2 to their armour save, which is huge compared to the foot guy.

Note that foot units become 'broken' or at least complained about when their durability goes up a lot with good points efficiency sometimes combined with a different morale structure; either from ASF with strong offence (blackguard with natural hatred and ASF banner) or Regenerating Grave Guard who won't break but the caster can recover their wounds as easily as regular skeletons.

Dai-Mongar
18-11-2009, 11:08
Warmaster probably has a better "realistic" army composition. Every 1000 pts requires you to get 2-4 infantry units, about half of which would be basic combat troops.

TroyJPerez
18-11-2009, 11:19
I wouldn't mind seeing a minimum percentage that people must spend on core maybe 25 to 30 percent of your point must go to core or something like that.

Dai-Mongar
18-11-2009, 11:38
I wouldn't mind seeing a minimum percentage that people must spend on core maybe 25 to 30 percent of your point must go to core or something like that.

They used to work in percentages pre-6th edition, no more than 50% on characters, at least 25% on regiments etc. I guess they dropped it because the mathematics were to scary for the kids. Some combination of the two systems could work, though.

BeatTheBeat
18-11-2009, 11:42
Well, I often take 25 blocks of standard guys in my Empire army.

25? :eek: Either you run 25x15 naked halberdiers for something around 1875 pts, or you run absurdly high point battles. Either way, if it wasn't a typing error, you're my new Empire god.

Cheers,

BTB

snurl
18-11-2009, 11:43
How about 25% characters, special and rare and 75% core?

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 11:46
That would stop people taking the absolute minimum I suppose, but I think something more in line with not being able to outnumber your core choices would be easier for people to calculate. That way you wouldn't get say two ten strong units of skeletons aided by two twenty strong units of grave guard. I know magic can alter this but you get my idea...

Or just say keep the organisation chart as it is for maximums but also impose a limit on all special and rare slots together may not be more than core choices?

Eg, 2000pts, 2+ minimum core - keep this because unit sizes can still change how many you have. If you take three, then you may have 0-3 special, 0-2 rare and a special, or 1 special and 2 rare.

In case you are wondering, this is because I want to start a mini-campaign going and want to use smaller parts of a larger force for each battle - each battle representing part of the army along a wide battlefront. Round one will be multiple battles, then go to round 2 with survivors etc. Though I may take my spearmen units in every battle to account for the larger numbers making up the larger force, I intend limiting the special slots to realistic numbers and once dead they cannon be used.

Poseidal
18-11-2009, 11:48
25? :eek: Either you run 25x15 naked halberdiers for something around 1875 pts, or you run absurdly high point battles. Either way, if it wasn't a typing error, you're my new Empire god.

Cheers,

BTB

LOL, I totally constructed that sentence badly.

What I mean is, I run infantry blocks of 25 men each in my Empire army, each with a detachment or two.

I'm afraid it was a typing error on my part.:angel:

BeatTheBeat
18-11-2009, 11:53
Damn, I was impressed as hell! :D Would have looked cool though, 25 blocks of 15 halberdiers would make just about every army **** its pants through sheer numbers. That's 375 jolly empire soldiers in below 2000 pts, and at 2250 you can start adding a BSB and command to the front line of blocks... Oh, the thought of it! :)

Cheers,

BTB

Darnok
18-11-2009, 12:27
I think the OP is quite off the point of WFB. It is about fantasy battles. There is a whole bunch of historical games out there to play around with for those "realistic" battle formations.

Personally I'm quite comfortable with the current layout: I can take loads of cool stuff, play around with weird warmachines and what ever else fancies my taste. One of the good things about WFB is exactly that it is not realistic.

I see the OPs point, but I just can't agree. But then again: why not play in your favourite way? You can play with lots of basic grunts right now. You won't win tournaments with it, but you can play that way. So why not do it? Otherwise WFB is not the game for you, simple as that.

P.S.: Of course it might be me missing the point completely, and I'm in no way going to start a fight. Just discuss me into the ground if you like. :)

Dai-Mongar
18-11-2009, 12:29
Damn, I was impressed as hell! :D Would have looked cool though, 25 blocks of 15 halberdiers would make just about every army **** its pants through sheer numbers. That's 375 jolly empire soldiers in below 2000 pts, and at 2250 you can start adding a BSB and command to the front line of blocks... Oh, the thought of it! :)

Cheers,

BTB

It's also 37.5 State Trooper boxes. :eek:
Good luck buying all of them, let alone assembling and painting.

BeatTheBeat
18-11-2009, 13:20
Compared to an IG forge world army of comparable size, which I know several of here on warseer, it's really quite an affordable and manageable project. I wouldn't be up to it though, having a hard enough time finishing a "normal" 2000 pts army ;)

Cheers,

BTB

Enigmatik1
18-11-2009, 13:26
How about 25% characters, special and rare and 75% core?

I'm not entirely sure why they did away with these requirements anyway. Maybe the numbers should have changed slightly to add a bit more variety, but some sort of limit probably should've remained in place. The main issue is that most core units are boring and/or too vulnerable to everything else in the game to warrant taking lots of. The question becomes how to fix this without invalidating specials and rares?

The poses a problem, however, for armies like mine who are arguably too reliant on characters to get anything accomplished on the battlefield and who also happen to generally have abysmal core unit choices for their cost.

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 13:40
I think the OP is quite off the point of WFB. It is about fantasy battles. There is a whole bunch of historical games out there to play around with for those "realistic" battle formations.

Personally I'm quite comfortable with the current layout: I can take loads of cool stuff, play around with weird warmachines and what ever else fancies my taste. One of the good things about WFB is exactly that it is not realistic.

I see the OPs point, but I just can't agree. But then again: why not play in your favourite way? You can play with lots of basic grunts right now. You won't win tournaments with it, but you can play that way. So why not do it? Otherwise WFB is not the game for you, simple as that.

P.S.: Of course it might be me missing the point completely, and I'm in no way going to start a fight. Just discuss me into the ground if you like. :)

I accept your point, and agree that you should be allowed some choice, it's just that nobody ever uses the basic troops anymore and they're what's in the fluff as being the main troops of each army. I guess it's more to do with matching an army to what would be in it rather than what is fun or reasonable to collect. This is partly because I have 6000pts of High Elves and if I was to slice it into three I would have what I would call three balanced 2000pt armies, or I could go the tournament route and take all the elites and field a hard hitting 2000pt army. I can imagine my lord having taken this army with him in his ships to war, and yet when needed can still take the heavy units for a crucial part of the front.

Maybe the point, and the flexibility in lists, even if open to abuse, is to allow people to field the army they want, and to leave balance and realism to the player, whom should hopefully not abuse it too much...

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 13:44
I'm not entirely sure why they did away with these requirements anyway. Maybe the numbers should have changed slightly to add a bit more variety, but some sort of limit probably should've remained in place. The main issue is that most core units are boring and/or too vulnerable to everything else in the game to warrant taking lots of. The question becomes how to fix this without invalidating specials and rares?

The poses a problem, however, for armies like mine who are arguably too reliant on characters to get anything accomplished on the battlefield and who also happen to generally have abysmal core unit choices for their cost.

Part of my thinking behind my argument is that by making the core choices become half of the army or more, the effect the specials and rares have is reduced as there are less of them on the whole - but they will show their worth agsint normal infantry still.

As mentioned, I field Night Goblins as an alternative army, or vampire counts as a skeleton only force, which is mostly weak infantry but in numbers they do well.

Darnok
18-11-2009, 14:55
I accept your point, and agree that you should be allowed some choice, it's just that nobody ever uses the basic troops anymore and they're what's in the fluff as being the main troops of each army.

But are they? Really? I'm not so sure about that. And how do you define "main troops", and how "each army"? For example I can't field a VC cavalry army, even though there is quite a bit of background for it. I would like to, but in the current book I have to fill certain slots with stuff I don't want, as undead foot soldiers are definetely not what I consider "main troops" of this army.

This puts just a highlight on a problem GW has to solve in some way or another: different people have different views on what is important for them. Some people want to play an infantry heavy Imperium army, some people want to play a Lizardmen monster style force, some people prefer a Goblin horde... I could go on forever. And an army list should not force you to play only in one way. If you don't enable certain builds, you can't please enough people with the book.

This is indeed one of my main gripes with WFB: I have a certain idea of what I want, on different levels. I want a certain look of the models, I have a specific background in mind, and I want the army to allow me a certain playstyle. And with only these three variables I can forget nearly the complete range - usually a model range I like doesn't allow me to play the way I'd want (see the example about VC cavalry...).

In the end it is really something about perception. You can build the army you want. Wether it is good is another topic. And your view on how armies should look like is only one possibility. There are others, and they are all acceptable. In the end one has to live with the fact, that GW just can't please all the people all the time. And sometimes the options offered are simply not enough for somebody. At this point one should start looking for other possibilities. ;)

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 15:25
I suppose it really does depend a lot upon your perception of the army. For example, for vampire counts, I had always imagined a sea of zombies and skeletons as far as the eye could see with just the vampires and wights mounted, overseeing them...

Maybe I should just make different limits for my own campaigns for the feel I want to the battles to be played.

Darnok
18-11-2009, 15:43
I suppose it really does depend a lot upon your perception of the army.

Exactly. :)


Maybe I should just make different limits for my own campaigns for the feel I want to the battles to be played.

I think that one is a very good idea. I mean, it is your game, play it your way. There is really nothing wrong with that.

Tenken
18-11-2009, 15:55
Wouldn't it be better if instead of shoe horning more infantry in to all lists by saying "if you have x points you must spend y on infantry," you gave incentives to take infantry instead? I mean we already have the core/special/rare thing limiting troop selection, I think that's more than enough. How about just making regular infantry uh... better.

For instance spears and halberd, historically, are anti-cavalry weapons. I think they should both have ASF against cavalry as all you have to do is plant the but and point the business end at the charging horse that can't stop in time. Or making an action for certain troops they can take in the movement phase "ready for charge" where you can only walk the unit, but then when they get charged they get a free reform prior to combat.

Just thinking out loud here, but more restrictions isn't what we need. You catch more flys with honey than with vinegar.

wilsongrahams
18-11-2009, 16:49
I think that in this case, making the mount take an initiative test or take an attack would be worth it, but then after the chargers attack, the defenders front rank don't get to strike at all but the second rank can - the front rank have their spears pointing past the cavalry that broke through then.

I also think some kind of bonus needs to apply for cavalry attacking troops in line rather than in box, other than just the resolution bonus.

ASF for spears wouldn't work for an army that has asf anyway... but maybe spears and halberds could negate the save bonus for being mounted, and halberds also negate the bonus for barding, seeing as they were designed after the spear for taking on armoured knights on horseback. I know it's a fundamental change, but it's my thread and I can say what I want til someone closes it lol!

unwanted
18-11-2009, 18:00
I don't need more incentives to take more basic infantry, and I have no problem with those armies that specialize. I really don't think there's any reason to force people into playing 'your' way, except if you're in charge of a campaign. Otherwise, there's just no need to force the hand of your fellow gamers.

If you really *need* realism, I must echo what Darnok said, go play historicals.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind boosting Halberds and spears slightly against cavalry, as it'd make more sense and encourage some more tactics from certain armies, rather than just playing steamroller...

DarkAngelsG
18-11-2009, 18:38
I think it is fine how it is. We're not exactly commanding armies, mostly small bands of elite troops. At least until you get to the 2k+ points. So it makes sense... For my Lizzies, for example. It makes sense to have 12 Saurus, 15 Skinks, and then a hero and some Kroxigors or somesuch. That symbolizes a small band of elite troops, with some core troops due to the fact that there's just so MANY in circulation.

willowdark
18-11-2009, 18:44
We're getting more and more Knight units that can break infantry from the front through just pure kills. I'd definitely like to see some bonuses to spears and Halberds to make up for that.

How about some kind of reverse impact hits. Cavalry charging spears or Halberds to the front suffer D6 impact hits, possibly base strentgh +1 for spears and +2 for halberds. That would keep them honest and force them to attack the flank like they're supposed to.

Jiggy
18-11-2009, 18:49
Voted for more of them but that is not the real problem.
They should just make them better.

Cats Laughing
18-11-2009, 20:03
We're getting more and more Knight units that can break infantry from the front through just pure kills. I'd definitely like to see some bonuses to spears and Halberds to make up for that.

How about some kind of reverse impact hits. Cavalry charging spears or Halberds to the front suffer D6 impact hits, possibly base strentgh +1 for spears and +2 for halberds. That would keep them honest and force them to attack the flank like they're supposed to.

I like this idea, (see note 1 below) as I find it incredibly silly that a club (hand weapon) and shield is better in game than spears or halberds that cost more to equip.

I think a reverse impact rule for spears or halberds charged from the front would be an interesting rule that would help bring these weapons back to the field, and also add tactical considerations for both cavalry and infantry users.

Note 1: I don't think Halberds should have +2 str bonus to the reverse impact hits, unless the reverse impact hits would be ignoring the +1 str halberds already give. Another idea would be to give halberds bonus str on the reverse impact hits while spears would get extra hits for more fighting ranks (perhaps 2d6 hits if a units with 2+ full ranks is charged to the front) but with no str bonus.

As for the original topic, I voted for more unit types, but mostly for variety's sake. While I do like fielding infantry armies (I used to field over 100 state troops, not including my handgunner line/screen, before I sold off my Empire for space reasons), I wouldn't want GW to restrict others to play they way I like to. I just want players to actually have to think before they choose between uber cavalry unit of death, swords/clubs and shield infantry, or halberd/spear infantry.

That said, I think I actually understand both sides of the realistic army vs fantasy game debate. Taking a 'realistic' army (realistic here meaning that it fits the 'fluff.' ie: High Elf spear blocks, Empire State Troop blocks w/ high proportion of halberdiers, etc...) should be a fun option for players and I think it should also be competitive as points systems are supposed to strive for balance. On the other hand, I can see reason for allowing and playing a Cold One Knights army sent on a fast strike against the Shrine of Khaine, or the Ironbreakers of Karaz Dum as they make their last stand against a horde of skaven/gobbos.

Malorian
18-11-2009, 20:08
I wish people would use more troops.

Raising number of required core would be ok but would make things tough for some armies as well.

Personally I think the way to fix it is to just make core better against monsters.

Things like:
-ability to get more than 3 rank bonus (4? 5?)
-outnumbering counting for more (ratio?)
-flanking counting for more (2 for flank 3 for rear?)(raise required US to 10?)

Ozorik
18-11-2009, 20:13
Taking a 'realistic' army (realistic here meaning that it fits the 'fluff.' ie: High Elf spear blocks, Empire State Troop blocks w/ high proportion of halberdiers, etc...) should be a fun option for players and I think it should also be competitive as points systems are supposed to strive for balance

I always do this anyway, its a shame that I seem to be in the minority.

What I would like to see is a return of the mandatory minimum core %, this could be softend by broadening the range of core troop types, such as the inclusion of light cavalry. Armies with the bare minimum of troops have no place in warhammer as they have no place in the fluff, or at least very little place.

It could also be argued that the reduced core requirement is lessening the tactical requirement of the game by shifting the focus away from maneuver to sheer killing power.


On the other hand, I can see reason for allowing and playing a Cold One Knights army sent on a fast strike against the Shrine of Khaine, or the Ironbreakers of Karaz Dum as they make their last stand against a horde of skaven/gobbos.

Such battles would be better served via special scenarios rather than standard games.

Toshiro
18-11-2009, 20:19
I agree with you, I love seeing big blocks of infantry tear into each other and I feel that even if this is a fantasy game it is still based off medieval armies in a way and it feels like large blocks of infantry is the backbone of any army, even the respective fluff says this normaly in the books, yet lots of players take only minimum core and then max out everything else. I'm not saying that's wrong, but I personally prefer lots of core bashing each other :D

Malorian
18-11-2009, 20:20
It could also be argued that the reduced core requirement is lessening the tactical requirement of the game by shifting the focus away from maneuver to sheer killing power.

That's for sure...

Deathstar vs deathstar is the lame retarted step-son of fantasy compared to legions vs legions.

Trigger36
18-11-2009, 21:49
Seeing as Warhammer is (for the most part...) based in a Renaissance-era setting, mass infantry tactics should be the emphasis of armies. More counters to cavalry like giving pikemen, halberds, and spears a bonus or whatnot would just be fantastic. No matter how fantastic the setting, when cavalry charges it should either break the unit on the first turn of combat or be destroyed itself.

Ad-Rock
18-11-2009, 23:12
I think the OP is quite off the point of WFB. It is about fantasy battles. There is a whole bunch of historical games out there to play around with for those "realistic" battle formations.

Personally I'm quite comfortable with the current layout: I can take loads of cool stuff, play around with weird warmachines and what ever else fancies my taste. One of the good things about WFB is exactly that it is not realistic.

I see the OPs point, but I just can't agree. But then again: why not play in your favourite way? You can play with lots of basic grunts right now. You won't win tournaments with it, but you can play that way. So why not do it? Otherwise WFB is not the game for you, simple as that.

P.S.: Of course it might be me missing the point completely, and I'm in no way going to start a fight. Just discuss me into the ground if you like. :)

I agree with you. I like the flexibility of the current system where I can make armies which are balanced, entirely infantry, entirely mounted or some totally unbalanced ridiculous lists.

I would like to see core troops play a larger role in the game, a la 40k, but I don't think it should be an enforced choice - just a smart choice.

Ozorik
18-11-2009, 23:56
The problem with the current system is that it is far too easy to make unbalanced armies. Deathstars are the most obvious monstrosity but its far too common for people have only the bare minimum core choices.

If by taking a lot of basic infantry my army suddenly becomes 'uncompetative' does that not suggest that the game has lost its way? Irrespective of army composition the rules should be flexible enough to allow such armies, fluffy as they are, to have an even chance of the field. Unfortunately WHFB has serious balance issues and this is just one symptom of this.

Please sort out your game system GW.

The current poll results are quite interesting, it seems that I am not alone.

Red Metal
19-11-2009, 00:42
From a fluff standpoint, I'm having trouble justifying a Treeman in my 1,500pts WE army. It seems the Treeman itself is sort of a "last resort" option for the Wood Elves in the sense that they wouldn't call on such a creature for just any battle. The fact that I can also take him at even fewer points shows that there may be some balance issue between blocks of cheap Core infantry and uber-powerful Rare options.

Maybe WFB would be helped by having certain restrictions for specific Rare choices. Maybe it would also help if different options were available at different point totals. For example, maybe a rule where you can't take a Treeman till 2,000pts. Thus illustrating the importane of that battle to the WE fluff - they're calling on heavy forces for a large battle. I know this is sort of the same set-up involving Heroes/Lords (a Hero can't take a Dragon, for example); but I think the other unit types should be effected by this, as well.

Idle Scholar
19-11-2009, 00:55
OK so this is defending the OP rather than answering his question but here goes. For those who prefer their magic, monster, elite and character heavy armies I think there's a case to be made for the core rules being geared towards the maneuver and close combat of M4 WS3 S3 T3 A1 infantry. Simply look at the amount of rules dedicated to them, or the fact that they successfully transfer to a range of historical periods with little more than the removal of the fantasy elements.

The problem as I see it is most of those fantasy elements just don't have the gameplay to make them the focus of the game. Take elites; once you can cause 5 or more dynamic combat resolution you've invalidated static combat resolution and probably killed their front rank. Add in the fact that they can often ignore flank and rear charges as well (by dint of special rules or being just plain hard) and you've got units that not only eclipse regular infantry, but also remove the need for tactical maneuvering beyond making sure they're aimed at the enemy.

Or moving on to characters. There isn't a complex aerial combat system or in depth dueling mechanic. In fact pretty much the only character specific mechanic with any depth is the magic phase and that's a bit of a hack job at the minute.

OK so I'm tired and I'm rambling but the point is 1) The game is designed for massed infantry battles with support from shooting, characters and dynamic CR causing units (hammers basically). This can be seen by the majority of the gameplay (i.e. the bits where your decisions change the outcome of the game, as opposed to the bits where dice decide the outcome of the game) and rules being focused on core infantry. And 2) even though there's nothing wrong with wanting to play a wargame where the battles are decided by dragons, mighty wizards and warriors so hard they can win a man off with the Spartans when you try to play WH like that you simplify the gameplay and make for a (IMHO) less interesting game.

ChaosVC
19-11-2009, 02:43
Yes, I too love to see a battle where there are more core basic troopers than elites and monsters. To do a game as such, it best to find like minded people and discuss about how this can be done and brain storming for house rules together to make such games possible. This may be fantasy but even in warhammer fantasy novels, elites, monsters and dragons are powerful "RARES" in the battlefields, something WHFB's rule system failed to emulate or at least cannot do it without making the kids unhappy(therefore less income). So games that looks more like Table Top Monster Arcade battles AKA Godzilla vs King Kong Vs Robo Tank is actually possible. It almost makes you wish that Ultra-man will be there together with Mighty Morphine Power Rangers too, well you never know, it seems to be the trend nowadays and GW might just go that way with warhammer in the future. :angel:

Or you can always go play Historical like most of us who wants to see a "battles" and after geting told that we are sad pandas that can't beat monsters...awwww.:rolleyes:

Cypher, the Emperor
19-11-2009, 07:53
The sad part is, actual Deathstars were very effective in real armies, I mean, the romans didn't have a banner of Hag Graef, but the Roman legions and later things like Housecarls and Jannisaries fought in the Deathstar style.

ChaosVC
19-11-2009, 08:10
The sad part is, actual Deathstars were very effective in real armies, I mean, the romans didn't have a banner of Hag Graef, but the Roman legions and later things like Housecarls and Jannisaries fought in the Deathstar style.

No they don't, they just have proper support from other troops which gives their enemy the illusion that they are deathstars because they can do their job better thanks to the support they get. I think you have read too much into legends.

Deathstars are one trick ponies that prove mostly effective even alone and require less support untill the oponents have the right tools to deal with them usually thru fore knowledge(tailoring) or an unlucky match up.

Idle Scholar
19-11-2009, 11:51
To follow up on what I was rambling about last night there is another problem with monster/deathstars/powerful characters etc in that many of them push the game into RPS. If you haven't brought your paper when your opponent brings his rock you lose, and I just don't think that's a good game mechanic for a game that requires two hours or more to play. Not to mention it's pretty infuriating for the loser.

So as far as making ranked infantry a viable choice you basically have to make a SCR 5 unit (anvil) only reliably beaten when charged in the front by another anvil and a hammer, or by being charged in the side or rear. The other option is to force a player to field a certain number of ranked infantry units by force organisation.

Aenerion
19-11-2009, 12:50
To limit deathstar I think GW should give a max number of models for each unit in the army books. They could limit some special or rare choices to 5 (cavalry)/ 10 or 15 for hard hitting infantry. It would be more fluffy as well, elites should be more numerous than core only with an associated extra cost.

Col. Frost
19-11-2009, 13:30
A simple solution, rather than getting into X% must be core (which can be a nightmare to juggle sometimes) would be to have a system where a certain number of core 'unlock' other slots, something along the line of the army choice restraints we have at the moment.

i.e. 2000 points = 3+ core, 0-2 Special, 1 Rare and no more lords and heroes than core choices in the army (to maximum allowed). Then every for every extra core choice above minimum you can field +1 special and for every two extra core choices above minimum you can field +1 rare.

Johnnyfrej
19-11-2009, 13:55
While I like the limitations idea (no more Rare/Special than Core) I also think adding that Core are the only ones that can hold corners and whatever passes for objectives when Fantasy decides to have missions.

Right now Fantasy is suffering from what 40k had back in 4th ed, Elitehammer as I call it. That was when you say lists that had two absolute bare minimum Troop choices then the rest was all Terminators, Crisis Suits, Aspect Warriors etc. 5th Ed really solved this problem with making Troops the only units that can score.

StarFyreXXX
19-11-2009, 14:02
I think the 'realism' for army composition depends on the army itself.

For human armies, it makes sense to have more pikemen, basic archers, swordmen, etc...while something like a steam tank or super elite knights (grail) would be rarer.

For lizardmen, coming from a jungle, you would expect that having more dinosaurs, or crocs, etc in the army would be more common and that could be logical for them to use in battle, considering they have skinks purpose to get/raise dinosaurs for battle...i can easily see them having more of them on the field vs steam tanks for humans.

Vampires, tons of undead skeletons/zombies BUT a higher allotment of other types of undead; as almost anything COULD be raised technically speaking...enemy dragons, enemy giants, etc...

the point is, it wouldn't make sense to have each army with a different army composition chart...it's just simpler to have the same so i think the way people like to build their armies will always cause such issues as the choices they may want, may be set to rare with a limit of 2 instead of 3 or 4, etc so it appears that they are only taking what they want.

Sanjay

wilsongrahams
19-11-2009, 14:24
Thanks for the comments guys. 've been slated a little, but I still believe armies should include more core, whether this is by making core choices better or not is a different matter. I'm just fed up of seeing armies that represent the king's personal guard all the time. As mentioned previous page, these forces are better for scenarios or being unlocked by a special character such as khainite only forces. This way people can theme their armies if needed but then that should also restrict them in some way by removing other options, such as say no crossbows for the above khainite army. In fact I retract where I mentioned simply increasing core choices across the board, but I would prefer to see a better solution.

I don't want to play warhammer historical, because that wasn't what I was getting at - maybe I should have been clearer - I just want to see an army of elves using spearmen, and not just two blocks of ten with six blocks of twenty elites ranked behind them.

Even with the different options, maybe making any special choices unit strengths unable to be more than the core strengths (individually, not all added together) may help, thus two units of ten spearmen limits you to ten swordmasters, ten phoenix guard, 5 knights etc.

And I definately agree, that any unit of eqwual points value should stand a chance against another whether it is cavalry or dragons etc. That's what the points system is supposed to bring in - sure you will take more casualties but overall it should work out more closely. Maybe a revision of break tests and resolution bonuses - never break if outnumber enemy more than 2:1 for example rather than +1 resolution.

Johnnyfrej
19-11-2009, 15:07
Even with the different options, maybe making any special choices unit strengths unable to be more than the core strengths (individually, not all added together) may help, thus two units of ten spearmen limits you to ten swordmasters, ten phoenix guard, 5 knights etc.

I quite like this idea.

How about this:
-For every compulsary core choice (ex no warhounds, harpies, detachments etc) you can take an additional special or rare choice up to the maximum for that point limit (3 special, 1 rare for 1k points).

-For every core taken, the unit strength of the "unlocked" special or rare can be equal to or less than that of the core choice
--For example take an empire army that has one formation of 20 Swordsmen and two formations of 10 Handgunners. He may then take a formation of 20 Greatswords and either 2 Great Cannons/Mortors (both less US than 10) or two units of 5 Outriders/Pistoleers (both US 10 b/c of cavalry).

I don't think many people would have an issue with this, besides the WAAC people (and I wouldn't really count them as people, more annoyances)

Skyth
19-11-2009, 16:58
I hate having to play with all Core. First off, core is not balanced between itself. Second off, this is a Fantasy game. The Elite units are the centerpieces of the armies and what make the game fun.

People play for different reasons, and wanting to make people use almost all core smacks of having the 'One right way to play' the game. Just like I am annoyed with the local store's comp system, written by people who perfer Warhammer Ancients.

Johnnyfrej
19-11-2009, 17:35
I hate having to play with all Core. First off, core is not balanced between itself. Second off, this is a Fantasy game. The Elite units are the centerpieces of the armies and what make the game fun.

People play for different reasons, and wanting to make people use almost all core smacks of having the 'One right way to play' the game. Just like I am annoyed with the local store's comp system, written by people who perfer Warhammer Ancients.
Who said you had to play an "all Core" army?

Ozorik
19-11-2009, 18:40
Who says that the core choices are not 'fantasy'? Care to name me a historical army consisting of skeletons, Orcs, Skaven?

Elite units are the centerpiece of armies, that wouldn't change. What happens if elite units make up nearly the entire army? Does this make core units the centrepiece?

dlantoub
19-11-2009, 19:03
I can't really comment in this argument, since a version of it appears every month it seems. Would I like to see more (efficient) Core? Yes. Do I like Special/Elite choices Yes. If I don't take any Elite choices will my army get hosed? Probably.

There is also a world of difference between (extremes) a Chaos Warrior and an Empire Swordsman.

Skyth I agree with you, the Elite choices are the army centrepieces and it is on them that determines whether the battle will be won or lost. Which actually means the label Core is actual a mislabel, though perhaps preferred over a different one due to the aforementioned extremes. Basic is probably a better description.

Charistoph
19-11-2009, 21:48
Sounds like what you really want are best described in the game as Mainstay Units, but even more expansive than that. This type of unit determines how many of an other unit you can field.

The previous Skaven book revolved around this idea, but Beastmen, Ogres, and Bretonnians have a little bit of it as well.

To include your own concepts into it, the Mainstay Units (always Core) have a high minimum and unlimited maximum size. All "Elite" units from there require x Mainstays to be fielded.

Toss in that certain characters determine your Mainstay Unit and/or change the requirement for specific Elite, and there you go.

march10k
20-11-2009, 00:46
Didn't vote. My TK have a total of 30 core and 20 special infantry in 2000 points. My empire force of the same size boasts 160 state troops, more than three times the number. To each army, its own.

Cypher, the Emperor
20-11-2009, 01:06
No they don't, they just have proper support from other troops which gives their enemy the illusion that they are deathstars because they can do their job better thanks to the support they get. I think you have read too much into legends.

Deathstars are one trick ponies that prove mostly effective even alone and require less support untill the oponents have the right tools to deal with them usually thru fore knowledge(tailoring) or an unlucky match up.

The Dark Elf deathstar doesn't win games on its own, it wins because its an incredibly solid combat block backed by very efficient support.

No Deathstar in fantasy can actually win games without support, just like actual deathstars in real life.

The DE deathstar list is the Warhammer equivalent of the Testudo, an almost impenetrable unit that slowly advances under cover fire, and when it gets into HtH is almost unkillable.

burad
20-11-2009, 03:57
If you want to see more core, have tournaments in a campaign format. Named characters that are killed do not get replaced for following battles. Magic items that are lost on dead leaders do not get replaced and cannot be used for the rest of the tournament. Rare units get no replacements to make up losses from one battle to the next. Specials only get 20% replacements. Core get enough casualties replaced, and additional core units added as necessary to make the points for the next game.
Then you'll see who is able to conserve valuable troops, 'cause if they use them up, they won't have them in the next battle. That's what real commanders - and even fantasy commanders - had to do, in wars that lasted more than one battle. You don't "use up" your best troops unless by doing so you win not just one battle, but the war.

wilsongrahams
20-11-2009, 10:37
Well said.

What I want is for my army to appear to be part of a larger force where the majority of the force is the core, and there may be a unit or two of specials in it - imagine all the others are elsewhere. A 6ft wide table does not represent a very wide frontage for a war, and it's hard to imagine all the specials being on one table, whilst all the other imaginary tables around you have only core.

If five high elf players got together to fight one battle, you'd see maybe ten spearman units, and then five swordmasters, five white lions, five phoenix guard etc... which seems wrong.

Quite a few people don't seem to agree because they like their specials - I do too, in fact they are my favourite units, but I like to rotate them in my army so that every game feels like part of a larger war in different parts of the front. I also rotate my heroes and other more unique items rather than using them every game.

abcz417
20-11-2009, 14:30
I can't help thinking that GW's rules don't really matter. The nice thing about warhammer is that the restrictions on core etc are only guidelines. There is nothing to stop you agreeing with your opponent to take extra core, taking only 1 of each special choice etc. There are also comped tournaments that give an added incentive to take lots of core/'fluffy' options.

Personally, I don't mind the rules as they currently are. The idea of painting 100s of those crappy state troops would fill me with dread. That's probably why GW allows the variety that it does.

MTUCache
20-11-2009, 19:23
I really don't have a preference either way, but I would like to see some sort of rules put in place that would let you run the game in either direction but stayed balanced.

Warmachine/Hordes are elite-skirmish games. Powerful characters, powerful monsters, and minimal cannon-fodder. Likewise, in the other direction, you've got your battalion level games that let you put out those huge mass units of meat-shields and your toys don't have nearly as big of an effect on the game.

WHFB seems like it's stuck somewhere inbetween. They'd like everyone to own a horde army, even if it was just so that they'd sell that many more models. But the rules system they have written greatly favor the "toys" in each list (the mounts, the magic items, the large monsters, etc), because those are the things that initially draw people into the hobby and inspire that "fantasy" setting. A balance between those two aspects is very hard to keep steady.

Fundamentally, I think going towards a low-fantasy setting would be impossible, and playing with the points-costs still allows people to field small, all-elite armies full of toys (even if they're just more expensive toys). Playing around with the core/special/rare slots seems like the only real way of getting a more evenly distributed unit selection. This would definitely involve evening out what counts as core (core heavy-cav should never exist, for example, or probably any cav for that matter). I don't think this should be included in the overall rulebook though, but should be decided by individual gamers, tournament organizers, or campaign GMs.

If one weekend my buddies and I decide to run a few games chock-full of big monsters I wouldn't have anything against running a Pitched Battle scenario with no core-requirement. The following weekend if a TO set up a tournament that said at 2250 you've only got 3 special slots and anything on a 50x50 or bigger base took up a hero-slot and two rare-slots, that's fine too. The same time there could be a campaign running that said any units with a base cost over 12 points/model only have a 50% chance of returning after casualties, I could live with that too. Every scenario presents new ways to construct an army and play differently, all within the core rulebook. More importantly, it gives different armies advantages in certain environments that they don't have in the standard 2k - pitched battle - limited terrain environment.

Gamers need to take a lot more of the rule writing into their own hands. Yes, it's tougher to balance the power level of all the armies and can create unfair situations. But if you're expecting GW to do it you might as well just find another game, they've obviously demonstrated that they're not going to be able to (or even want to). Like I said, if they had it their way everyone would be playing 4000 point battles with horde armies stretched across 10' boards.