PDA

View Full Version : Maximum Unit Sizes?



Epicene
22-06-2014, 19:38
Self explanatory thread title, but I wanted to hear peoples opinions about it.

Yes? No? Why?

Mozzamanx
22-06-2014, 19:45
I don't think it is needed.

It's not a rule that can be included in the core rulebook because Warriors of Chaos can ignore restrictions that would shatter Goblin armies. Similarly I don't think it's something that should be a function of points because I don't see a reason that people should not be allowed to make units as large as they like. As a unit gets bigger, of course it gets more power from Steadfast and Hordes. However it also becomes much harder to move, much more vulnerable to magic and can still be one-shot by Leadership debuffs or simple bad luck with break tests.

Even the worst offenders, like Banner-Lions or Slave-Buses, can be controlled through the use of chaff, 'big 6' spells and good old fashioned Leadership bombs. The meta is not dominated by giant horde units and so this cannot be something that will improve balance. All it will do it restrict player choice in army construction and risk breaking units that need 50+ models to be workable.

Urgat
22-06-2014, 20:00
No. Why? Because it always benefits elite units that don't need the extra help. It's funny how the proposed caps are always 30 or 40, guess which units are screwed by that, and which don't care?
That aside, it makes for terrible scalability for bigger games.

Shadeseraph
22-06-2014, 20:06
On a unit by unit basis (like the old books did)? Sure, why not. I'd increase the cap based on the size of the army, though. Mostly to avoid point denial tactics based on deathstars, though.

As a general cap? No way.

theunwantedbeing
22-06-2014, 20:20
Single(or especially small) model count units obviously should keep their cap.
eg.
Single monsters, War machines, Chariots and Chariot units

Small dispersed units also make sense to keep a cap as there is a limit to how well a loose group of individuals can work together, in the case of scouts there's an obvious hard limit on how many men can actually scout at a single time before they stop being able to scout.
eg.
Scouts, flying units, skirmishers

Everything else doesn't need a hard cap as they're ranked blocks of troops so a hard limit doesn't make a lot of sense.
Especially when it's not going to stop you piling 3+ extra characters into the unit during the game.
That and unit caps are invariably a knee jerk solution to deathstars and don't treat the problem (which is the abusable item/ability combinations that cause people to deathstar).

dooms33ker
22-06-2014, 21:00
If it works for ETC styled tourneys then it could work as a core rule. It isn't very exciting to see your opponent fielding three blocks of 60+ troops and then proceeding to push them straight ahead. However, I do realize night goblins have it rough in very small unit sizes, but 50 models in a unit is more than enough to keep steadfast and allows for more dynamic tactics on the table. And don't even get me started on blocks of 60+ skaven slaves.

So yes, unit caps should be a mainstay rule. But really, I'm not going to complain about the way it is now, because I can just play ETC lists.

Malagor
22-06-2014, 21:09
No. Why? Because it always benefits elite units that don't need the extra help. It's funny how the proposed caps are always 30 or 40, guess which units are screwed by that, and which don't care?
That aside, it makes for terrible scalability for bigger games.
I agree.
Maybe some elite units need a limit like Chaos warriors but other then that, no limit.

Urgat
22-06-2014, 21:26
I agree.
Maybe some elite units need a limit like Chaos warriors but other then that, no limit.

You don't understand, unit caps are suggestsed so units like chaos warriors can still be fielded in the 20s and remove steadfast in two rounds (1 turn) flat. This is just another "let's nerf steadfast" topic, merely disguised.
I suggest we cap attacks at 10 per units coz it's not fun, all these attacks are not very exciting after all, to see your opponent fielding three units with 20 attacks minimum and then proceeding to push them straight ahead.
Whatever, I'll let other argue, that's one too many anti-steadfast topic for me this week.

Epicene
22-06-2014, 21:33
You don't understand, unit caps are suggestsed so units like chaos warriors can still be fielded in the 20s and remove steadfast in two rounds (1 turn) flat. This is just another "let's nerf steadfast" topic, merely disguised.
I suggest we cap attacks at 10 per units coz it's not fun, all these attacks are not very exciting after all, to see your opponent fielding three units with 20 attacks minimum and then proceeding to push them straight ahead.
Whatever, I'll let other argue, that's one too many anti-steadfast topic for me this week.

Actually, if unit caps are tied to the actual unit entry, it would be pro-steadfast for the units that did need them (as they would have a much, much larger unit cap) and would prevent mass-hoards of units that didn't need it.

Urgat
22-06-2014, 21:42
Let's hear what you suggest then, because I've had lengthy arguments with, for example, Icedcrow, about his "fair" caps of 30 for elites and 40 to 50 for chaff, which in effect had, well, no effect on elites, obviously. I'm sorry but I'm a bit sore over that topic, it's been going on for ages with a few very zealous people, and ultimately the goal is always the same. Nothing against you, but it always ends up boilling down to "my elites can't kill steadfast units in less than two turns on their own, so it sucks". See dooms33ker's post? 50 is more than enough? Against what, other chaff? One minimum-sized elite unit? Nah, seriously, I got nothing against you, I remember a few of your posts this week and you seem to be a reasonable chap, so sorry, I don't want to turn this into another argument so I'll shut up now.

Mozzamanx
22-06-2014, 21:54
I've seen limits that typically end up ~50 models for the supercheap stuff like Zombies, Goblins and Slaves. This then corresponds to units less than 200pts and so in the name of equality we should be limiting Elves, Warriors and Daemons to ~12 models a unit? 5 Ogres? Sound like a reasonable level to shackle units to?
People don't take units in sizes of 100 because they are overpowered cheesefests, they do it because the models are so dirt cheap that the investment remains affordable and when you are taking cheap scum, you take lots. Because they are murdered in droves and the only reason to take them is because they will remove an enemy unit from the game until they are broken, losing scores of models and taking break checks every turn in the process.

Malagor
22-06-2014, 21:57
You don't understand, unit caps are suggestsed so units like chaos warriors can still be fielded in the 20s and remove steadfast in two rounds (1 turn) flat. This is just another "let's nerf steadfast" topic, merely disguised.
I suggest we cap attacks at 10 per units coz it's not fun, all these attacks are not very exciting after all, to see your opponent fielding three units with 20 attacks minimum and then proceeding to push them straight ahead.
Whatever, I'll let other argue, that's one too many anti-steadfast topic for me this week.
Dude, I do understand.
I play VC, Skaven and beastmen and a unit limit on them would just kill the army but in a msu army thread, people were complaining that people in their group were taking 30-40 chaos warrior units.
I have never seen that myself since people in my group aren't a-holes but what if that is the case then put limits on specific units like Chaos warriors if this is such a huge problem(I doubt it) but other then that have no limits.

passwordman
22-06-2014, 22:18
What if the limit was no unit in the army can exceed 15/20% of the total points for the army, you could also limit the number of characters per unit to two with exceptions for races like Goblins.


Passwordman

Lord Dan
22-06-2014, 22:26
I'm honestly confused regarding how to answer the question "Agree - disagree?" with a yes or no answer. Do you mean agree is yes and disagree is no?

Ramius4
22-06-2014, 22:29
I'm honestly confused regarding how to answer the question "Agree - disagree?" with a yes or no answer. Do you mean agree is yes and disagree is no?

Oh damn. I honestly didn't catch that and voted "no" because I thought it meant "no unit caps".

Mozzamanx
22-06-2014, 22:32
What if the limit was no unit in the army can exceed 15/20% of the total points for the army, you could also limit the number of characters per unit to two with exceptions for races like Goblins.
Passwordman

This would certainly be an option but I think it would be extremely unlikely to actually fix anything. For example, this still corresponds to units of 180 Slaves, arguably the most-complained about offender for this. On the other hand it would curb White Lions to something like 20 models if they want to use the Banner, or 10 Ogres at a time.
The problem is that there is no catch-all fix to this; some units are irritating because there are too many models, others are irritating because those models are extremely good and make a deathstar.

theunwantedbeing
22-06-2014, 22:33
What if the limit was no unit in the army can exceed 15/20% of the total points for the army, you could also limit the number of characters per unit to two with exceptions for races like Goblins.

I think a better solution would be to give half victory points for units not at full strength at the end of the game.

Epicene
22-06-2014, 22:35
Let's hear what you suggest then, because I've had lengthy arguments with, for example, Icedcrow, about his "fair" caps of 30 for elites and 40 to 50 for chaff, which in effect had, well, no effect on elites, obviously. I'm sorry but I'm a bit sore over that topic, it's been going on for ages with a few very zealous people, and ultimately the goal is always the same. Nothing against you, but it always ends up boilling down to "my elites can't kill steadfast units in less than two turns on their own, so it sucks". See dooms33ker's post? 50 is more than enough? Against what, other chaff? One minimum-sized elite unit? Nah, seriously, I got nothing against you, I remember a few of your posts this week and you seem to be a reasonable chap, so sorry, I don't want to turn this into another argument so I'll shut up now.

Actually, the goal in my case would be to protect the Steadfast units - cheap, crap units haven't got much going for them except the Steadfast rule and allow those units that needed it a much, much larger cap. Some armies have core choices that are very cost effective and they'll still benefit from the Steadfast rule.

Caps should reflect fluff and be worked out per unit, not just divided into cavalry\chaff\tarpit\blah\blah. Right now I'm re-reading the Bretonnia book and given its extreme age - it still has unit entry limits. I don't agree with all of them (10 Pegasus Knight max? Crazy large) I can see their benefit both as a way of choosing an army and preventing a cheesefest.

Pros

- "I can't take my massive unit of Swordmasters anymore, so I have to think about how to support them instead of building my list around huge blocks of elites"
- "My Steadfast units are more reliable - its unlikely I'll get munched by turn 2 now"
- "I don't need big spells to deal with cheesfests anymore"

Cons

- "My army has limitations I don't like"
- "My elites aren't 'elite' enough anymore"
- "My elites are more easily swallowed by big spells"

ECT.

Please note. I'm half asleep and my point might be lost here. Or badly explained. :P

Ramius4
22-06-2014, 23:29
Caps should reflect fluff and be worked out per unit,

The biggest issue with that is that it doesn't scale at all. Not upward, nor downward. Much like the Magic phase, where it's 2D6 for Winds of Magic, no matter if you're playing a 500 or 5,000 point game.

And while I'm not 100% opposed to a percentage based cap where you can't spend more than a certain percentage of points on any given unit... I'd rather see some of the internal and external balance issues worked out first.

Epicene
22-06-2014, 23:38
The biggest issue with that is that it doesn't scale at all. Not upward, nor downward. Much like the Magic phase, where it's 2D6 for Winds of Magic, no matter if you're playing a 500 or 5,000 point game.

And while I'm not 100% opposed to a percentage based cap where you can't spend more than a certain percentage of points on any given unit... I'd rather see some of the internal and external balance issues worked out first.

:) I don't disagree at all. (I also think the way magic works right now is BS, so... :P)

But yes, I'd probably go with a percentage based thing. I was just noting the very old Bret book as an example of how it stopped you just picking the best units and maxing your points limit out before putting down a minimum level of core.

:edit: I'd like to add that I don't come up with a half-baked idea (like mine always are) and narrow-mindedly defend it like an ****** P:

Ramius4
23-06-2014, 00:04
I was just noting the very old Bret book as an example of how it stopped you just picking the best units and maxing your points limit out before putting down a minimum level of core.

All 6th-7th ed books did that though.

But you also need to remember that in 95% of cases, buying more than 20 models for a unit in previous editions was wasting points (once you had your 3 ranks and outnumber bonus, more models were redundant). For that reason alone, most of the unit caps were pointless. There were very few exceptions where people wanted more (DE Shadestar, a few Undead units, Stubborn or Unbreakable units, and one or two other instances). So using the Bretonnian book as an example is a bit short-sighted. In the edition for which it was written, there was little point in using more than 9 to 12 Knights per unit.

But with 8th they introduced tangible benefits to having more than 20 models. Now you have several things encouraging more models. Steadfast. Horde formations. And the casualty removal rules (what most refer to as 'step up'), mean that you don't have to worry about not fighting back if you're charged a lose a bunch of models, so having more isn't throwing points away.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 07:57
No. Why? Because it always benefits elite units that don't need the extra help. It's funny how the proposed caps are always 30 or 40, guess which units are screwed by that, and which don't care?
That aside, it makes for terrible scalability for bigger games.

Why focus on the least flexible way for imputting caps though? I thik its perfectly reasonable to have unit point cost being maximum 20% of the total points, so 400 pts at 2k, 500 at 2.5. Among other things, it will prevent you from dumping all core points into a single unit.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 08:34
I focus on that way because 95% of the time that is what is suggested. The topic evolved in a much more pleasing way though, so I'll apologize for the original grumpyness.
I agree that % would be ok-ish, if we ignore the under/overpriced cases. Kindda complicated for the math-illiterates though. While I suck at math, you give me a calculator and I can find 15% of 1720 pts (I play a lot of games with weird sizes, because usually my opponents, having much less minis than me, write a list with whatever they want, tell me how much they got - rounded up to the next 0 or 5, and I write mine based on that), but I'm not sure everybody can.

N1AK
23-06-2014, 08:44
Why focus on the least flexible way for imputting caps though? I thik its perfectly reasonable to have unit point cost being maximum 20% of the total points, so 400 pts at 2k, 500 at 2.5. Among other things, it will prevent you from dumping all core points into a single unit.

You could easily add a 20% unit cap, but I'm not sure it would have any meaningful impact and it just adds another rule. At 2400pts you'd still be allowed to have a 480pt Irongut unit with 3+ characters in it? Would one more Irongut turn this from fine to broken? Is a unit of 50 Ghouls so much worse than 48?

I can't think of any expensive (more than 20% of points) units that are an issue because of the unit itself and not because of the characters they invariably contain. Yes it's harder to get the points from them but generally it comes with downsides, not least of which is that they are just as easy to redirect, block up etc as a unit that costs half as much.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 08:46
For weird list sizes + math illiterates, you need a calculator to find your 25% boundaries anyway, doesn't hurt to find out what the 20% unit cap is :)

The only unit that would end up requiring additional comp if the cap was 20% I feel would be Skaven Slaves - they are the standard exception to every discussion be it about steadfast, leadership bubbles, unit sizes, or whatever. I think everything else is reasonable at 20%. Units like goblins can still go to over 100 models in 2k, as pointless as that is, but you get to avoid seeing Throgg running with 40 trolls as a WoC list at the same point size.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 09:04
For weird list sizes + math illiterates, you need a calculator to find your 25% boundaries anyway, doesn't hurt to find out what the 20% unit cap is :)
Good point :p


The only unit that would end up requiring additional comp if the cap was 20% I feel would be Skaven Slaves - they are the standard exception to every discussion be it about steadfast, leadership bubbles, unit sizes, or whatever. I think everything else is reasonable at 20%. Units like goblins can still go to over 100 models in 2k, as pointless as that is, but you get to avoid seeing Throgg running with 40 trolls as a WoC list at the same point size.
Let's just ignore slaves, they're completely fubbared cost-wise, I think we can safely expect them to take the nerf bat so hard they become useless comes the next book. They don't even have a boxed set, GW really gains nothing from that state of affair. I don't think they expected them to become so good in the 8th ed meta, and, honestly, I'm not blaming them. They weren't good at all in the 7th ed one.
As for the 20% being useless, well, it just needs to be dropped to 15% or something?
But to be honest, I still just can't see the point. As it is, I find my chaff fine. Steadfast and stepup have fixed everything that made big blocks useless in the previous editions, I'm clearly opposed to toning them down (nerfing steadfast or whatever), but I'm certainly not an advocate of making them better than they are now. Most of my games are an exemple of the most extreme opposite: goblins versus chaos warriors. We're sensible players, with sensible lists. No dual chimera, no armadas of pump wagons (WoC don't like those, namely the kind that ignore saves) or warrior chariots, no doom diver gunline, etc etc. Just normal, fun lists.
My friend never complains about steadfast because hi gets to kill loads of stuff, and I don't complain about his warriors killing 20 gobs a turn and autobreaking them in all impunity anymore.
We've never, ever had such balanced results, I'm sure it's firmly stuck around the 50/50 mark this edition. Note that we use a houserule for VP, that obviously helps a lot, no killing 49 gobs and getting no VP for them because the last one is still standing and being insanely courageous, that helps fairer results a lot.

There's no need for any change on either side in that regard. What needs to be done is to make the powerbuilds (dual chimeras etc) be on the same powerlevel as any other list. So it's down to AB tinkering, not core rules rewriting imho.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 09:23
I think if you run yours and your friend's lists through your head, I'm convinced you will find no unit is over 20% of the point total anyway - or if they are, its only marginal.

A 20% max unit size cap won't affect the interaction between elite and massed units in a "normal" context; and won't affect mass units at all realistically (as I am not proposing a model cap) - they tend to hit their desired massive size much earlier than they would hit costing 1/5th of the army.

What this rule would affect is elite unit deathstars, which, whilst they can be diverted and kept busy with chaff etc, tend to win games (if playing by WDL from rulebook, 100 VPs to win) as they lose near to no points (they lose the cheap extra 2 units they add in, usually under 100 VPs), the deathstar and character within give no VPs (few people play with half VPs for under 25% - ad even then, killing 3/4s of a deathstar is hard work) and collect a bunch of points with spells and whatever you are forced to feed them.

If your friend ran the very bad and unoptimized deathstar list of 2x5 warhounds, Full lords and heroes (all tanky, MR maxed) in a 960pt unit of warriors (which is over 50 of them), you'd have realistically no chance of winning, unless you list tailored in a vyer specific way - and thats NOT a good deathsr build.

N1AK
23-06-2014, 09:33
If your friend ran the very bad and unoptimized deathstar list of 2x5 warhounds, Full lords and heroes (all tanky, MR maxed) in a 960pt unit of warriors (which is over 50 of them), you'd have realistically no chance of winning, unless you list tailored in a vyer specific way - and thats NOT a good deathsr build.

There's plenty of uncomped tournaments around. Have any of them been won, or even nearly won by lists like this? Sure it's not a lit I want to see being used often, but then neither are 100% gunlines or flying circus builds. There are plenty of armies that would much rather face a Warriors deathstar than a Warriors flying circus. I know my Dwarves would (mainly because the circus makes a mess of it).

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 09:39
Dunno. A lot of tournaments run a 20-0 scoring system rather than WDL, even if they are uncomped; and obviously a list designed to win by marginal values won't score too highly even if it wins 5 or 6 games, when its all 11-9s and 12-8s :D The warrior flying circus at least has a chance to go down, what exactly are dwarfs going to do vs the list I just described?

CrystalSphere
23-06-2014, 09:52
I agree with adding a cap to unit size, of like x6 the minimun unit size. So orc boyz could go up to 60, goblins up to 120, boar boyz up to 30 (horde), ogre bulls up to 18 (horde), etc.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 10:14
I think if you run yours and your friend's lists through your head, I'm convinced you will find no unit is over 20% of the point total anyway - or if they are, its only marginal.
Mmh, I ran a 100 strong unit of gobs a couple times in games under 2000 pts, I'm pretty sure it blew the 20% cap away (more like 40 or 50%) :p. That being said, I won't do it again, it was totally ineffective, the bow shots were murderous, but once stuck against 20 warriors, they were out of the game, the rest of the army got slaughtered and the final onslaught on said horde all but eradicated it :p That was fun, but stupid xD


A 20% max unit size cap won't affect the interaction between elite and massed units in a "normal" context; and won't affect mass units at all realistically (as I am not proposing a model cap) - they tend to hit their desired massive size much earlier than they would hit costing 1/5th of the army.

What this rule would affect is elite unit deathstars, which, whilst they can be diverted and kept busy with chaff etc, tend to win games (if playing by WDL from rulebook, 100 VPs to win) as they lose near to no points (they lose the cheap extra 2 units they add in, usually under 100 VPs), the deathstar and character within give no VPs (few people play with half VPs for under 25% - ad even then, killing 3/4s of a deathstar is hard work) and collect a bunch of points with spells and whatever you are forced to feed them.
I guess so, I honestly care little for deathstars as I never face any, but these should be adressed for the unfortunate people who do and don't like them.


If your friend ran the very bad and unoptimized deathstar list of 2x5 warhounds, Full lords and heroes (all tanky, MR maxed) in a 960pt unit of warriors (which is over 50 of them), you'd have realistically no chance of winning, unless you list tailored in a vyer specific way - and thats NOT a good deathsr build.

Well yeah, w/o tailoring, I wouldn't win against that, so I would tailor: if my friend fielded that horrible thing you're describing, I'd fill my rares with pumpwagons with spores, my core with wolves (so he can't catch them, and to get the hounds out of the way), and he would not do it again I think. With our VP system, I'd be pretty much garanteed a win since he can't go for point denial, and my pump wagons would kill way more points in warriors than they would get back by killing them after the impact hits). If with BRB VP system, I'd take 100% wolves, kill the two hound units and stay out of the way for the rest of the game with the mounted shamans casting nothing and only dispelling, and he wouldn't do it again, albeit for a different reason.

Or alternatively I'd tell him "huh, no. New list, thanks".

Bladelord
23-06-2014, 10:15
I believe restrictions like unit size cap is only bad for the game. However, the core rules should be constructed so humongous units are just as unwieldy as an undead dwarf so ''bigger is better'' won't become the norm.

Poseidal
23-06-2014, 10:17
Caps would really help.

Max 25 for normal units, 30 for 'horde' type units, 15 to 20 for 'elite' and 10 for super elite for infantry.

Cavalry and Ogre-base need different numbers obviously.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 10:20
Caps would really help.

Max 25 for normal units, 30 for 'horde' type units, 15 to 20 for 'elite' and 10 for super elite for infantry.

Cavalry and Ogre-base need different numbers obviously.

That's what I'm talking about when I mention absurd caps and the origin of my grumpyness regarding that subject. 10 or 15 elite, whichever one you want, will remove steadfast in one round of combat, two grand max. How can you expect a chaff unit to work at all when it can't even field half the points of your elite units? Heck, not even talking about steadfast anymore, some MC will just obliterate the unit to the last man with just a bit of luck.
And just how many units do we have to field to play a game over 2000 points? That's no units anymore, that's MSU yearly fair anyway.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 10:24
@Urgat

100 goblins with upgrades will be abooout 450 points, so not too far about the proposed cap ;) you'd have to drop down to 80, the tragedy :D.

I don't know if even tailoring against that warrior list would be sufficient tbh. I'd run a tzeetntch unit with tzeentch magic in there, which means I can pop at leat half the threatening stuff before it gets to me. As take 2, 100% wolves will bleed more points than 10 hounds

But yeah, extreme deathstars, annoying. Not unbeatable, just really irritating and meta-warping in a bad way.

@Bladelord

How much more unwieldy can they get? They are already easy to chaff up. The problem with them is more to do with point retention - its not so much what they collect, more so that they give nothing away.

@Poseidal

Way, way too extreme dude, you are hurting the case.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 10:34
@Urgat

100 goblins with upgrades will be abooout 450 points, so not too far about the proposed cap ;) you'd have to drop down to 80, the tragedy :D.
Just calculated, it's 448 points for the 97 goblins with full command, bows, shields and sneaky skewer. The three empty slots were taken by the general, the BSB and a shaman. I assume we don't count characters, what with them being able to leave the unit and whatnot? Otherwise, you can add... mmmh... about 150pts for the BSB, 200 for the shaman and 150 for the warboss, something like that.


I don't know if even tailoring against that warrior list would be sufficient tbh. I'd run a tzeetntch unit with tzeentch magic in there, which means I can pop at leat half the threatening stuff before it gets to me. As take 2, 100% wolves will bleed more points than 10 hounds
They'd bleed zero points, I'll never have them in combat, that'd be stupid. It's just point denial by avoidance. It's boring as hell, but heh :p Honestly, it's a non issue for me, I just wouldn't play it, really.

Poseidal
23-06-2014, 10:37
That's what I'm talking about when I mention absurd caps and the origin of my grumpyness regarding that subject. 10 or 15 elite, whichever one you want, will remove steadfast in one round of combat, two grand max. How can you expect a chaff unit to work at all when it can't even field half the points of your elite units? Heck, not even talking about steadfast anymore, some MC will just obliterate the unit to the last man with just a bit of luck.
And just how many units do we have to field to play a game over 2000 points? That's no units anymore, that's MSU yearly fair anyway.

Get rid of 2nd rank attacks in general, except when attacking monsters (maybe extend it to MI and MCav too). Who has more to lose, elites with WS5+, possibly re-rolled, S5+ attacks or 5 S3 attacks are WS2-4?

While people seem to like them, the larger units 8th introduced has really damaged the game. Even if it's a better/more balanced game now, it won't matter if no one is playing it anymore. 25 was considered around 'normal' for units like Empire state troops years ago; why did it balloon?

Urgat
23-06-2014, 10:47
If you start removing other rules, it completely changes your original post. Doesn't make it better though. The good old chaos warrior example: my friend fields a unit of 21 chaos warriors, 3*7 (character in there), additionnal weapons. So you bring him down to 15, remove support attacks. He fields them 7*2, first rank still dishes out 22 attacks (not counting character) hitting and wounding on 3+. Most likely, steadfast gone in one round, no doubt in two. Note that the gobs weren't allowed even half the points the chaos warriors could put in their unit.

25 strong was "normal" years ago because fielding more was stupid, there was no point excepted giving more VP to the unit that would charge them. People playing the so-called "horde" armies have always wanted to be able to field bigger units, now it's possible.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 10:53
@Urgat

They won't get in combat, but they'll gateway/bluefire 160 points across 6 turns to win the game :P and you just know with so many 5 man units that at least 1 is going to fail animousity and charge in at some point :D

And no, we don't count characters in units. Deathstar herohammer is part of the issue, but there is no easy mechanical way to restrict that really, hence better to just slap a (very reasonable) point cap on the units to avoid silliness.

@Poseidal

It ballooned because killy things, like monsterous cavalry. You either have minimal units which you expect to die on the charge, or a big unit which you expect to be steadfast. 20-25 Empire troops both get taken out on the charge pretty reliably, and cost too much for something that gets taken out like that.

Your changes don't amend any of that, they just reinforce the MSU & herohammer meta. Which is what is already happening in competitive warhammer, regardless of how many club gamers want to post on here about how steadfast is the most broken rule ever and infantry blocks rule the world.

MOMUS
23-06-2014, 10:57
I regularly play in comped events where the unit cap is 400 points, that applies to all units/characters.

Poseidal
23-06-2014, 11:03
I agree in the current implementation that smaller unit caps wouldn't work, but the fact that my numbers were seen as 'absurdly small' is completely damning indictment of the 8th edition game.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 11:11
I don't agree with that either. The model costs have not changed, I field as many gobs as I used to, they're merely regrouped in fewer, more useful units. We also have access to lots of new expensive units that didn't exist before and, when fielded, should actually lower the number of minis used compared to before. I have honestly never understood that argument against 8th ed. Does anybody really field more minis than they used to? Maybe in some cases like skavens, but otherwise, I really doubt it.


@Urgat

They won't get in combat, but they'll gateway/bluefire 160 points across 6 turns to win the game :P and you just know with so many 5 man units that at least 1 is going to fail animousity and charge in at some point :D

Don't these spells need LoS though? Wolves are quite good at speeding out of LoS. Animosity is no problem, my wolves run 18", I'd never have them face the enemy unit, trust, that's a matter I've been facing for 20 years :p
Anyway, I'm just playing the "my noodle is bigger than yours" game there, there's no way I'd field that, and no way I'd play against that either, so the validity of the tactic will remain forever theoritical ;)

Bladelord
23-06-2014, 11:12
@Bladelord

How much more unwieldy can they get? They are already easy to chaff up. The problem with them is more to do with point retention - its not so much what they collect, more so that they give nothing away.


Change the VP system so you gain VPs from 50% unit size or every model killed(half the wounds on multiple wound models=half VP) I think would help prevent deathstars to some degree. With that said I almost never meet a deathstar so take my words with a grain of salt.

Poseidal
23-06-2014, 11:24
It has made average game size has go up too.

However the grouping up of infantry units has left armies feeling smaller, not larger, due to fewer units which may be contributing to the game 'size' increasing.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 11:27
It has made average game size has go up too.
How so? Tourneys? I don't care about tourneys. Casual players keep playing with the models they had, and probably add to their collection at a rate that they'd have followed would 7th ed have been still on (if we ignore the prefer 7th/8th or the randomness of life which can't be quantified). I've see nothing in the rules compelling my group to play bigger than we used to, actually, we often play smaller now since life is more busy, and it works just fine, probably better even, as nasty units in smaller games are now less likely to just charge and break through everything in one or two charges.


However the grouping up of infantry units has left armies feeling smaller, not larger, due to fewer units which may be contributing to the game 'size' increasing.
I don't agree, I'm personally glad that my gobs can finally be fielded like they are in the fluff or on the drawings without shooting myself in the foot, but that's a matter of opinion, so I won't argue with you about that, to each his own.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 12:07
Tournament size has been 2-2.5k since forever. Not sure on the fewer units either, armies are 8-10ish drops average, not counting characters and warmachines.

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 12:50
25% points max in one unit or 60 models is how games go here. Prevents games from being two or three mega bricks rolling around going lolololololol and slapping bellies with the other two or three mega bricks.

dalezzz
23-06-2014, 12:57
So you can have 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 of empire spears in 1 unit?

edit - in a 2k list :)

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 13:12
not understanding the question. 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 points of empire spears in one unit?

Ramius4
23-06-2014, 13:12
25% points max in one unit or 60 models is how games go here. Prevents games from being two or three mega bricks rolling around going lolololololol and slapping bellies with the other two or three mega bricks.


So you can have 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 of empire spears in 1 unit?

edit - in a 2k list :)

And this is exactly why arbitrary model per unit caps should not exist.


not understanding the question. 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 points of empire spears in one unit?

Becuase capping the models in the unit to 60 means that you could get a maximum of 300 points worth of Empire Spearmen. Wheras the Chaos Warriors could spend the entire 500 points since they don't reach 60 models by then. It's a silly restriction.

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 13:13
Mayhaps but it works for us. It certainly beats having to endure games where the opposing army is nothing more than a couple of mega shapes rolling around to us so sticking to that.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 13:14
not understanding the question. 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 points of empire spears in one unit?

300 pts of spearmen because they can't go over 60 strong. 500pts of chaos because they'll reach the 25% before reaching 60 strong. I'm sorry nekoboy, but he's right, those caps only nerf chaff, as usual. The Chaos Warriors don't give a damn about these limits.

dalezzz
23-06-2014, 13:15
not understanding the question. 500 points of chaos warriors but only 300 points of empire spears in one unit?
Using your limitations Chaos can have a 500 point unit with maybe 40 warriors in it , empire can have a 300 point unit with 60 spearmen , not sure what is good about this situation

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 13:16
We haven't found chaff to be nerfed at all with this. We've had more people quit due to the propensity for people to field a couple of massive units so this has saved our group and brought in newer players more so than just playing with a pair of massive units has. *shrug* not saying to make it the global standard.

Between the ogre unit that is 75% of the army or the high elves putting 75% of their army into a white lion unit with the Banner of The World Dragon - these things were causing a rift in our group because not much fun was had having to face off against this stuff. It was like past editions where the armies were several dozen tiny cavalry units. That wasn't much fun either.

Urgat
23-06-2014, 13:17
I'll grant you 60 is way more reasonable than the usual caps, it wouldn't bother me until I play over 2500 points.
How come there's some "we" in those posts?

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 13:19
I'll grant you 60 is way more reasonable than the usual caps, it wouldn't bother me until I play over 2500 points.
How come there's some "we" in those posts?

Some of warseer's more sensitive posters thought that the use of other pronouns was considered "trolling" so they convinced the moderation staff that somehow they were being emotionally abused and that this is a bannable offense.

dalezzz
23-06-2014, 13:22
Some of warseer's more sensitive posters thought that the use of other pronouns was considered "trolling" so they convinced the moderation staff that somehow they were being emotionally abused and that this is a bannable offense.
Seriously? Some people are pathetic
equal rights for cartoon cats I say!

Urgat
23-06-2014, 13:25
Some of warseer's more sensitive posters thought that the use of other pronouns was considered "trolling" so they convinced the moderation staff that somehow they were being emotionally abused and that this is a bannable offense.

Lol, Warseer at its finest :p

HelloKitty
23-06-2014, 13:27
Well this site does carry a reputation for righteous admin fury, so to make moderators happy tries to avoid using the wrong pronouns so that others aren't "trolled" and that those that cannot speak english well are not confused and also "trolled" as not wishing to troll people and wish to make admins happy. Hence "we" and "I" may sometimes be used though not something normally done. Even the facebook page does not use these words and no one has been trolled there but different strokes for different creatures.

T10
23-06-2014, 19:27
What if the limit was no unit in the army can exceed 15/20% of the total points for the army, you could also limit the number of characters per unit to two with exceptions for races like Goblins.


Passwordman

I think this is a great idea for organized games, though for the sake of diversity I would also suggest for players to be allowed to take a single unit worth any number of points, within the category restrictions. E.g.: a really large unit of Chaos Warriors, or a Lord on a dragon, and so on. It allows the players to bring a center-piece unit, but just the one.

Ramius4
23-06-2014, 19:30
I think this is a great idea for organized games, though for the sake of diversity I would also suggest for players to be allowed to take a single unit worth any number of points, within the category restrictions. E.g.: a really large unit of Chaos Warriors, or a Lord on a dragon, and so on. It allows the players to bring a center-piece unit, but just the one.

It also allows people to create a deathstar unit. Which, I think is sort of the point of this thread.

Deathstars aren't created by individual units in a vaccuum.

MOMUS
23-06-2014, 20:31
Still think a point cap on units is a good solution and addition, 400 points (the average cap across the UK) is the majority of your core points but stops units becoming super silly. Caps on units don't stop deathstars, as individual characters can still be added to said unit.
deathstars do have their own weaknesses, being vulnerable to chaff, miscasts and super spells.

Josfer
23-06-2014, 20:50
15% in a 1000 pts game would result: Ogres can't (besides 3-5 core ogres and 3-4 maneaters and X gnobblars) chose any unit size besides minimum. DoC nearly the same. Cold one riders only minimum and vanilla (otherwise lizards are fine as they got really lucky), chaos warriors have 1 pt per model for equip left IF they don't want a champion...or a musician...or a standard bearer. Lots of other things have no choice to take a champion or more than min size. No skeleton chariots, minotaurs, chaos knights or blood knights at all. Monsters are nearly out completely as well as MCav, MBeasts (anything 3+ unit size) and monster like things like the STank.

Not even speaking about lower points values.

20% includes allows only half the MCav, not even half of the monsters.

...maybe go to 25? This way you could pour all your rare points in one monster if you want to, have a "center piece" without it being a death star. Well 25% of 4000 pts in warriors of tzeentch might be hard to come by...but at least he has to field two ^^ and you can field LOTS of warmachines. Or stop the decline at 250 pts, so in bigger games you can field max 15% but in 1500 games you can still field 250 pts (instead of 15%=225).

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 21:09
20% is fine though. I dont believe we were discussing 15% at any point. 20 should work for everyone all the way down to 500 pt games

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Ramius4
23-06-2014, 21:40
20 should work for everyone all the way down to 500 pt games

Except that... It doesn't. Bretonnians, Dwarfs, and some other armies could not field units to make a legal army without a bunch of exceptions.

Snake1311
23-06-2014, 22:04
Dwarfs can, warriors are under 100 points for a unit ;)
You're right on brets though, due to the +1 KotR. Soon to be fixed I imagine though.

Ramius4
23-06-2014, 22:07
Dwarfs can, warriors are under 100 points for a unit ;)
You're right on brets though, due to the +1 KotR. Soon to be fixed I imagine though.

Still, it's a pretty arbitrary number, and I do not find unit caps to be strictly necessary.

Alltaken
24-06-2014, 13:49
Caps dont deal with death stars at any standard rate basically. So the point is solving death stars some other way.

From my servoskull

Katastrophe
24-06-2014, 14:13
Caps dont deal with death stars at any standard rate basically. So the point is solving death stars some other way.

From my servoskull

Simply limit characters in a unit to be 1 caster and 1 fighter and 1 BSB. For Goblins, skaven, and skinks use the 2 for 1 rule (from the old slots and limits system). Deathstars practically gone. There's a few exceptions of course that can be slipped in but I can't think of any at the moment.

HelloKitty
24-06-2014, 14:34
or simply 2 characters per unit.

dalezzz
24-06-2014, 15:13
or simply 2 characters per unit.
Advantage chaos again, especially seeing as their champions are better than the heros of the types katastrophe mentioned , also empire

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 15:24
Limiting characters in units doesn't really deal with the root of the deathstar issue, and limiting them in an arbitrary manner (1, 2, 3) only serves to make 'elite' characters better.

90% of deathstars could be fixed by simply allowing models to always direct their Attacks at rank & file models in the unit they're in combat with (even if they're only in actual base contact with characters).

dalezzz
24-06-2014, 15:31
Limiting characters in units doesn't really deal with the root of the deathstar issue, and only serves to make 'elite' characters better.

90% of deathstars could be fixed by simply allowing models to always direct their Attacks at rank & file models in the unit they're in combat with (even if they're only in actual base contact with characters).

Id agree with this , be tempted to add support attacks can only be directed against rank and file( I play empire beasts and skaven just so you know why :) ) dunno if that might cause other issues though

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 15:34
Id agree with this , be tempted to add support attacks can only be directed against rank and file( I play empire beasts and skaven just so you know why :) ) dunno if that might cause other issues though

My group has been playing with this as a house rule since 6th edition :p It works perfectly.

The original intent of it had nothing to do with deathstars though. It had to do with 'clipping' during 6th and 7th, where only a character in the unit would be in base contact with your unit.

PS. We make no distinction or special exceptions for supporting attacks. All of your Attacks can do it. Basically it boils down to "if you can Attack, you can Attack rank & file".

You want an easy deathstar fix, there it is.

It also gets rid of conga line shenanigans, they're pointless.

HelloKitty
24-06-2014, 15:58
Advantage chaos again, especially seeing as their champions are better than the heros of the types katastrophe mentioned , also empire

That's ok. When having to choose between silly death star meta gaming or units that are spread out with characters spread out into units, this player will always prefer the latter. There is no real solution that would make everyone happy though as pointed out earlier [we] just cap to 60 models or 25% points cost total for base unit, 50% with characters added. This lets the player-creatures put as many characters as they want so long as they stay in the bounds of the points limit, it creates an atmosphere where there isn't giant blob units rolling around, and the player-creatures in [our] group are content.

Katastrophe
24-06-2014, 16:24
Advantage chaos again, especially seeing as their champions are better than the heros of the types katastrophe mentioned , also empire

Chaos is advantaged in every situation but it's more a matter of limiting the advantage, rather than totally eliminating it. I'm not sure that by just saying "hey chaos characters are better than everyone's lets just let them and everyone else have as many characters as they like in units" remains a sensible or viable answer.

Katastrophe
24-06-2014, 16:30
My group has been playing with this as a house rule since 6th edition :p It works perfectly.

The original intent of it had nothing to do with deathstars though. It had to do with 'clipping' during 6th and 7th, where only a character in the unit would be in base contact with your unit.

PS. We make no distinction or special exceptions for supporting attacks. All of your Attacks can do it. Basically it boils down to "if you can Attack, you can Attack rank & file".

You want an easy deathstar fix, there it is.

It also gets rid of conga line shenanigans, they're pointless.

Though i understand how this might begin a minor fix, I don't think that it will fix the problem at all. Most armies that have great powerful characters, also have great infantry they will be in the unit with. You're not going to get some great advantage from directing the attacks.

Where the advantage comes in is that characters will be forced to be either on their own (which I liked the old rules which limited targeting them outside units if they were close to a unit), or spread out into several units.

Some revision to the hiding in or near units along with bringing back large target and other modifiers would go a long way to getting people to not do the silly things they get away with now. Deathstars and character busses were not the norm back in earlier editions, it is really a recent thing. Most people never wanted all their eggs to get run down if the unit broke.

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 16:44
You're not going to get some great advantage from directing the attacks.

Yes, you actually do. Most deathstars in 8th work on the principle that you cannot direct Attacks at the unit. The characters absorb all the damage, and in return, deal more damage.

Black Knightstar, Gutstar, Bretonnian bus... All of those work like that. Dwarf and Undead conga lines operate on the same principal as well, just on a much smaller scale, and not so dangerous.

Being able to bypass the characters means (generally speaking) that you'll hit easier, wound easier, and have less of your wounding hits be saved.


Deathstars and character busses were not the norm back in earlier editions, it is really a recent thing. Most people never wanted all their eggs to get run down if the unit broke.

Sure they were deathstars, they just worked differently. You didn't need an entire front rank of characters, just one or two combat characters could provide you with a deathstar in previous editions since all you had to do is wipe out the enemy front rank (which just doesn't work in 8th, so the requirements for being a deathstar are different now). Or have you forgotten already about things like Shadestars and Zombie buses loaded with a couple Vampire Lords?

HelloKitty
24-06-2014, 17:04
Remembers 6th edition and the vampire bus... four vampires in a black knight unit running down all in its path due to auto break and fear.

Urgat
24-06-2014, 17:05
Limiting characters in units doesn't really deal with the root of the deathstar issue, and limiting them in an arbitrary manner (1, 2, 3) only serves to make 'elite' characters better.

90% of deathstars could be fixed by simply allowing models to always direct their Attacks at rank & file models in the unit they're in combat with (even if they're only in actual base contact with characters).

But that'd make my sneaky skewers mostly useless as the only thing they really achieve is soaking up attacks on the first round of combat :(

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 17:10
Remembers 6th edition and the vampire bus... four vampires in a black knight unit running down all in its path due to auto break and fear.

Yeah, Vampire Counts were more guilty than probably any other army besides Hordes of Chaos during 6th. The things you could do with the Hordes of Chaos book were simply foul.


But that'd make my sneaky skewers mostly useless as the only thing they really achieve is soaking up attacks on the first round of combat :(

How do they soak up Attacks? Unless you're deploying Goblins 3-wide, which I doubt... :eyebrows:

dalezzz
24-06-2014, 17:47
Be a couple of bosses in there too I suspect

Alltaken
24-06-2014, 17:57
My group has been playing with this as a house rule since 6th edition :p It works perfectly.

The original intent of it had nothing to do with deathstars though. It had to do with 'clipping' during 6th and 7th, where only a character in the unit would be in base contact with your unit.

PS. We make no distinction or special exceptions for supporting attacks. All of your Attacks can do it. Basically it boils down to "if you can Attack, you can Attack rank & file".

You want an easy deathstar fix, there it is.

It also gets rid of conga line shenanigans, they're pointless.
We had allways understood that to be the norm, I discovered here that it wasnt so. I allways was bewildered how characters survided so little, then when I found out proper wound alocation I wondered how some survided so long. We still just hit troops till the last

From my servoskull

Hudson Gameover
24-06-2014, 18:08
I voted yes because I prefer more units on the table and I hate facing three big blocks, not a fun game. I thint core units maxed at 50 wounds, special at 25-30 wounds and rare at 10 would work well.

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 18:10
Be a couple of bosses in there too I suspect

I suppose that could be.


I voted yes because I prefer more units on the table and I hate facing three big blocks, not a fun game. I thint core units maxed at 50 wounds, special at 25-30 wounds and rare at 10 would work well.

Ok, you play Goblins, I'll play Chaos Warriors. Then tell me how you like having your 50 Wound unit fight mine ;)

As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread. Caps using arbitrary numbers, or things like Wounds are a bad idea.

Points percentages are the best way of going about putting unit caps in place. If you're going to use them at all. it's the only way to do it with equity.

It also scales to the size of the game (not so well at very low point values though, but still better than arbitrary numbers, which aren't caps at low point levels.)

Urgat
24-06-2014, 18:24
Yeah, Vampire Counts were more guilty than probably any other army besides Hordes of Chaos during 6th. The things you could do with the Hordes of Chaos book were simply foul.



How do they soak up Attacks? Unless you're deploying Goblins 3-wide, which I doubt... :eyebrows:
3 sneaky skewers, a warboss and the champion. That basically grants a whole additionnal turn being steadfast, since only 4 rank and file max can get to my own rnf. OK, when it's chaos warriors, it's still 8 attacks, but that's way less than otherwise.

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 18:31
3 sneaky skewers, a warboss and the champion. That basically grants a whole additionnal turn being steadfast.

Ah, that makes more sense now. For some strange reason (I blame it on momentary stupid-brain) I had a vision of 3 Sneaky Skewerers with files of Gobbos behind them :p

I'm guessing you don't have deathstar issues anyways Urgat? I don't, that's for sure, but I only play with a tight knit group of friends these days, and nobody brings ridiculous stuff.

I love playing Goblins too, and my suggestion certainly isn't aimed at them. Besides, if you were playing Goblins and ran into an Ogre Gutstar, wouldn't you like to be able to beat the crap out of (well, at least damage) the rather soft Irongut unit sitting safely behind the characters, rather than being forced to attack the characters doing nothing at all?

Katastrophe
24-06-2014, 20:51
In earlier editions there were plenty of things that mitigated busses and stars of various types. Charging units attacked first. Getting broken means your unit ran and you could lose all your characters. Or worse you fail a psychology test and boom characters gone.

The current iteration of the rules makes psych a lot less prevalent and failed combat resolution has been made irrelevant as well.

There's no disincentive to taking a star or bus.

Ramius4
24-06-2014, 23:47
There's no disincentive to taking a star or bus.

Except for not being a douche, which is all the disincentive I need :p

Katastrophe
25-06-2014, 01:27
Except for not being a douche, which is all the disincentive I need :p

Page quote for that in the rule book please.

Ramius4
25-06-2014, 04:32
Page quote for that in the rule book please.

Lol! Words for the word god.

Shadeseraph
25-06-2014, 04:57
There's no disincentive to taking a star or bus.

You mean, like Dwellers Bellow, Purple Sun, Pit of Shadows, Curse of Anraheir and Final Transmutation? Or like Step-Up, which actually allows rank'n'file to hit back against ASF or charging characters (unlike in previous edition, where a row of vampires or HE characters could make a very threatening Deathstar)? What about list building percentages, rather than being able to pick 2 minimum core units, and spend the rest on characters? Or the cutting back on magic items for specific armies?

Lord Solar Plexus
25-06-2014, 05:10
You mean, like Dwellers Bellow, Purple Sun, Pit of Shadows, Curse of Anraheir and Final Transmutation?

These rather exotic spells are no particular counter against DS. They work against any kind of unit, even though the risk/reward ratio certainly goes up when you cast it on 5 archers. Speaking of which, these archers, tigers, eagles and bats for a few points are the counter to deathstars. Take enough chaff, win the chaff war, and keep that DS from going anywhere.

There's no disincentive to taking a DS but that's not really problematic.

On topic: Unit caps work to some extent in the COMBAT 8 comp system. Here, you have both a cap on the number of models and on the point size, whichever is reached first. I still voted No in this poll, since while it's okayish, it does give elites an advantage and doesn't scale.

Urgat
25-06-2014, 05:39
Ah, that makes more sense now. For some strange reason (I blame it on momentary stupid-brain) I had a vision of 3 Sneaky Skewerers with files of Gobbos behind them :p

I'm guessing you don't have deathstar issues anyways Urgat? I don't, that's for sure, but I only play with a tight knit group of friends these days, and nobody brings ridiculous stuff.
Nope, same as you. I haven't seen anything smelling like cheese in years :)


I love playing Goblins too, and my suggestion certainly isn't aimed at them. Besides, if you were playing Goblins and ran into an Ogre Gutstar, wouldn't you like to be able to beat the crap out of (well, at least damage) the rather soft Irongut unit sitting safely behind the characters, rather than being forced to attack the characters doing nothing at all?
Of course I would, I was joking about the sneaky skewers, though I honestly don't see what they would be good for. Yeah, yeah, 6 ASF killing blow sounds awesome on paper, but at WS2, S3... I think I've killed a couple chaos warriors with them ever since I've started fielding them.


Except for not being a douche, which is all the disincentive I need :p
Not being a kid anymore and therefore not having time for that kind of nonsense, my solution would be to pack up and congratulate the player for his great win. I'm not playing in tourneys, I don't want to face this kind of **** if I decide to play a pug.

Josfer
25-06-2014, 10:46
These rather exotic spells are no particular counter against DS.

There's no disincentive to taking a DS but that's not really problematic.
So losing ~25 of 30 trolls in one magic phase is no disincentive to taking them for you? Is there ANY disincentive to anything for you? And if something is exotic or not depends on your local meta.

Katastrophe
25-06-2014, 21:56
You mean, like Dwellers Bellow, Purple Sun, Pit of Shadows, Curse of Anraheir and Final Transmutation? Or like Step-Up, which actually allows rank'n'file to hit back against ASF or charging characters (unlike in previous edition, where a row of vampires or HE characters could make a very threatening Deathstar)? What about list building percentages, rather than being able to pick 2 minimum core units, and spend the rest on characters? Or the cutting back on magic items for specific armies?

Lots of questions but the answer simply is there are very limited disincentives to putting all your characters in a single unit. If there was a rule against it, it would not even be an issue to come up in future games.

Part of the problem with WHFB and the way that is is play tested (though I continue to say that is not really done in an efficient manner), is that it fails to eliminate some things that common sense should just disallow. by making the answer to stopping abuse the rule of "thats not very sporting when you do that" or the I have to take broken spells (which are effective against busses as well as non-busses) which can sway the game on a single die roll (6 dicing should be eliminated as well).

Proper sensible rule sets would identify these possible abuses and just eliminate them from the game so that they are not even an issue. Can you catch every one? Unlikely, but generally, I would say GW doesn't even try.

I personally believe there should be unit maximums just like there are minimums and characters should be disallowed from all grouping up in a single unit. That would definitely change some dynamics. I also believe sniping with magic and shooting should be limited for standard sized characters when near similar or larger units (like to old rules). Characters on monsters should be vulnerable just like the monster is because they are riding a large monster. Also. I'd be in favor of combined profiles for monster mounted units/characters.

Korinov
25-06-2014, 22:50
Yes.

Each unit, however, should have its own distinctive maximun size. Example: your typical elven elite unit (sword masters, executioners, etc.), unit size 10-20. Meanwhile the average goblin-like rabble should be something like 20-40 or so.

passwordman
26-06-2014, 00:39
Page quote for that in the rule book please.

Page 3 The Spirit of the Game.

Katastrophe
26-06-2014, 01:28
Page 3 The Spirit of the Game.

Oh, that undefined ambiguous term that's open to interpretation.

I'd rather have clear, unambiguous rules. What you find ok, I may not. However, if the rule says "2 characters per unit", we never have to get into what's sporting.

boli
26-06-2014, 07:46
I've kept out of this for long enough, but maximum unit sizes force power creep.

Why bring 40 goblins when 20 savage orc big uns are so much better?

The bigger units allow the lesser units to a: strike back and b: survive multiple round and maybe even win by sheer weight of numbers.

This is a GOOD change with 8th edition and gives an extra edge of thought to the game. It isn't just charge elite unit/hero/monster at block of infantry and autowin, you have to think about being bogged down or overwhelmed.

Big units are self regulating asit is "all your eggs in one basket" so one bad dice roll and splat there goes army.

You wanna bring 400 night goblins with all your characters in a single unit? Well sucks to be you when I kill 200 in turn 1 magic phase and you spend the next two movement phases being attacked by your own fanatics as you can't move out of the way.

Lord Solar Plexus
26-06-2014, 07:50
So losing ~25 of 30 trolls in one magic phase is no disincentive to taking them for you? Is there ANY disincentive to anything for you? And if something is exotic or not depends on your local meta.

These exotic spells kill small units just as much. 40 Halberdiers for example is not a DS by any stretch of the imagination, however losing half of them makes the unit pretty much combat ineffective. Of course losing a huge chunk of a huge unit hurts, a lot, but losing a huge chunk of a small unit usually turns it into a useless unit and points waiting to be reaped.

I don't see all that many DS since games here usually fall under some sort of comp, and I'm personally a big fan of MSU but yes, 30 White Lions are still a strong unit, often seen and there's little to no disencentive not to take them over 2*15.

Odin
26-06-2014, 11:23
What if the limit was no unit in the army can exceed 15/20% of the total points for the army, you could also limit the number of characters per unit to two with exceptions for races like Goblins.


Passwordman
I'd make it 25% probably, but yes.

HelloKitty
26-06-2014, 12:47
I'd make it 25% probably, but yes.

Ours is 25% of the entire army (not counting characters) and 50% counting characters.

Josfer
26-06-2014, 13:07
Ours is 25% of the entire army (not counting characters) and 50% counting characters.
How many points do you usually play and what armies?

HelloKitty
26-06-2014, 13:11
We typically play 2000-2500 points. Every army other than chaos dwarves are played, to include skaven and goblin armies.

Josfer
26-06-2014, 13:17
So 500 pts in a unit and 500 pts characters in that ...did anyone field something like that ever?

HelloKitty
26-06-2014, 13:23
All the time. Without comp and straight by the rules, in our area you often see things like ogre armies where there is one giant bull unit with all of the characters, or white lion units with all the characters and banner of the world dragon. With the cap there is often a unit that has all of the points put into it to the cap.

Josfer
26-06-2014, 18:31
And with the caps are those now manageable? I ask for genuine interest.

HelloKitty
26-06-2014, 18:38
The end result are games with multiple units as opposed to one giant unit and a couple of tiny units next to it which was common. For horde armies, 60 models is still a fairly large unit and takes a couple of rounds to grind down which allows those players to set up counter charges etc. It makes the game for this particular group more fun since the design was to move away from the huge unit and more towards medium sized units and more of them.

Captain Collius
29-06-2014, 00:47
I know a lot of people want unit caps sp that you don't see thing like 40 Warriors of nurgle in a horde with Festus. Fun it is not.

But most large units are not a problem.

it is possible to run a unit of 30 slaves wide by ten slaves deep with shields for your core requirement at 3000 pts are the slave by themselves the problem. No. Its the fact you can't kill them all fast enough. To get rid of them unit.

Most hordes or large buses are ways to take advantage of rules abuse. we know this honestly Conga lines (in units of more than ten) have no business existing. Conversely Large Effective core units are not without their weaknesses.

For example i used to run a 55 saurus warrior unit (this got me to core minimums ) Yes it was a pain to kill but it generally didn;t do all that much. In fact when i broke into two smaller units i got a lot more use out of them even with the lost attacks.

ALso i face an Ogre list last week with a horde of bulls and a hord of leadbelchers. I wiped him out. If your list has been built right it will have answers for most situations. (to be fair I was running 4 stegadons with sharpened horns but only one of those every hit a horde.

Poseidal
29-06-2014, 07:37
captain, your description literally sounds like Slaves and large units are the problem there. I agree Sanrio's mascot that more medium units is more of a game, and should be a goal in of itself; caps may be the way to achieve this.

Epicene
29-06-2014, 17:32
captain, your description literally sounds like Slaves and large units are the problem there. I agree Sanrio's mascot that more medium units is more of a game, and should be a goal in of itself; caps may be the way to achieve this.

I disagree with this, actually. Yes - "more" units would be nice, but the overall goal (for me at least) would be to provide a cap that made cheese-fest lists less effective whilst protecting the units that need steadfast and hoard rules to actually function effectively.

leopard
29-06-2014, 20:13
Voted no, I do feel there should be a limit, but not a hard cap, more the rules reflecting that larger units become harder to control.

Stick enough terrain on the table and massive units become harder to move about, would suggest that when a unit gets above a set size it should start getting Ld penalties, which are applied after taking into account the generals IP or that of any characters etc - sort of a "What did he say?" rule reflecting models at the back getting confused.

Best way to deal with armies than win by killing a few bits then stalling for time with tarpits is to remove the six turn cap and play until one side or the other is actually broken or dead (as in all units fleeing or models dead, perhaps ignoring units like war machines and monsters, count only ranked units).

All fixed size unit caps seem to do is make the cheaper models like goblins utterly pointless, and point value caps while better are also not ideal, to me the solution is to permit massive units but put an actual honest to gork tactical consequence of taking them into the game, a basic Ld penalty seems simple to do, perhaps at 51+ models Ld-1, 61+ Ld-2 and so on. Those massive bricks are still steadfast but getting a bit shaky as the guys at the back play chinese whispers about whats happening too far from the unit leaders ability to control them.

Captain Collius
30-06-2014, 01:46
captain, your description literally sounds like Slaves and large units are the problem there. I agree Sanrio's mascot that more medium units is more of a game, and should be a goal in of itself; caps may be the way to achieve this.

Thats exactly the problem forced limits will never make the game better it only limits your options which takes away from the game. Hordes in general have gone by the wayside because movement control and charge blocking limits them horrifically.

TheRipper
30-06-2014, 04:03
Not only do I miss max units sizes, I'd like to see a return to the old 0-1 or 0-2 mechanic as well.

But GW removed these restrictions for a reason and they won't go back now.

tezdal
03-07-2014, 00:08
Im all for max unit sizes, giant block stars are unwieldy and kind of obnoxious.