View Full Version : Expanded army lists

05-01-2013, 18:57
Q: would the game be better with more expanded army lists?

Thinking the way Flames of War handles army lists, you determine which faction you want - say Orcs & Goblins, then decide what sort of list you want to play - say Orc heavy and then look at the "Mostly Orcs" Army list for what units you can take, point values and what is in what slot. The actual rules are presented as now, just you have multiples of the list/options section.

E.g. the "Mostly Orcs" list could have all goblin units as Special/Rare - but may be permitted an extra unit of Big Uns, or could perhaps have access to Grimgore (who is noted as only being available to the "Mostly Orcs" and "Black Orcs" Lists

Point is to allow more "themed" lists alongside the generic one (not in place of it, the generic "main" list should be retained), This also makes it easier for GW to to have campaign specific lists in expansions ,also to incorporate "new" armies without rendering the old ones useless, add smaller lists designed to be used as "allies", add new small lists in White Dwarf (with just the list and maybe the one new unit they are pushing) noting only that units rules etc.

Thoughts? would the game be "better" with more lists? would this make it easier to have a "tournament" themed list for each army?

05-01-2013, 19:15
This has been tried before. The problem is some lists just won't balance in this way which means that tournament players and beginners will have a harder time of it, so you would need a "historical" viewpoint, like FoW, and then that requires an awful lot more work.

On the other hand I can totally back a set of restricted army lists for beginners and tournament players, balanced but with a large number of options missing, then Vets army lists which would include trial rules, expanded units etc, and even open army lists, where you can arm your models with what you want - for a price.

05-01-2013, 19:39
Ahh, didn't realise it had been done, my bad.

Thinking in part for tournaments to have special "tournament" lists (not created by GW), but once the concept of the same thing costing different points, and changing slots in different lists is established the tournament crowd can go wild with something.

I just find the flavour more focussed lists could offer to be more desirable, and much easier to remove broken combinations - put the parts in different lists.

ho hum.

05-01-2013, 19:47
I think as the game is not written for tournaments, its something the tournament circuit really need to decide on. It will cause problems, but there again tournaments are just someone's special front room with their own house rules anyway, so so might make it work.

05-01-2013, 20:12
It is bad enough that tournaments have some of the restrictions they have. I would hate to see pre made lists as a way to "balance" the scene. Although I completely agree with the fact that there are unit combinations that are broken. The game was never designed with tourneys in mind and so balance across the board seems to be less of a key point when designing army's and rules.

06-01-2013, 04:14
The issue that this idea creates in Flames of War is that as battlefront releases sourcebooks, the options broaden for whichever faction they wrote for, and do not broaden for every other faction. Thus, German players, with access to so many sourcebooks, can pretty much take exactly what options they want if they look the right place and other armies (Hungarians, Finns, Italians, etc) are pretty much stuck with a basic layout.

Although battlefront does not like to declare lists "obsolete" or "no longer supported", And that is usually nice, they end up with some armies just bein mug easier to collect. If flames of war had the kind of balance issues warhammer does?

Well, another way of saying that would be that if GW were releasing "knight of the winter wolf brigade" and "Slaaneshi raiders" instead of an entire faction all at once, I think it would be very easy for some armies to become wildly unbalanced. Please excuse if this post is poorly worded, I ought to go to sleep.

06-01-2013, 19:05
Not poorly worded, well I understood it.

All valid points, I sit corrected - perhaps a good idea but unlikely to be implemented in a way that would be good.