PDA

View Full Version : Tourny idea: only Heros (25%) and Core allowed. Would you play?



Dorack
28-11-2014, 23:18
Greetings. There is talk in my area of doing a friendly type of tournament, allowing armies to field only Hero level characters (25% points max) plus only Core troops. The idea is to take a rest from uber elites, dreadfull monsters and over the top magic. We think this might give more room for more number of regular units and put more preasure on the player to get the most out of them both strategically and tactically.

Three questions arise:

- Do you guys think this would be a fun approach for most armies?
- Would it be (relatively) balanced?
- Would you play in such scenario?

Thanks for your input.

N00B
28-11-2014, 23:31
I imagine some armies would do better than others. Vampire counts would be in for a tough time but Brets and high elves with Heavy Cavalry in core would be laughing.


I could also imagine Throgg lists with a load of Chaos Trolls being used - and it isn't like Warriors of Chaos cant do chariot spam anyway.

Gutstar ogres would be tough, without powerful magic and warmachines as well.

It could be fun, but not balanced. I do think it favours elite armies as they do come with core that can actually almost do stuff by itself.

CountUlrich
28-11-2014, 23:57
Gutstar ogres, witch elf and/or dark rider heavy dark elves, bretonians, warriors of chaos are very overpowered in this scenario, vc, tomb kings, skaven are all crippled. No I wouldn't be interested in the least in such an event.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
29-11-2014, 00:17
Greetings. There is talk in my area of doing a friendly type of tournament, allowing armies to field only Hero level characters (25% points max) plus only Core troops. The idea is to take a rest from uber elites, dreadfull monsters and over the top magic. We think this might give more room for more number of regular units and put more preasure on the player to get the most out of them both strategically and tactically.

Three questions arise:

- Do you guys think this would be a fun approach for most armies?
- Would it be (relatively) balanced?
- Would you play in such scenario?

Thanks for your input.

Depending on the size of the game you were playing I doubt I'd be able to participate, assuming a 2000pt army I would struggle to put out 1500pts of core troops for any army I collect, even my O&G (currently my largest army) I only have around 1250 pts of core troops all in.

Also the character limit seems a little small since you're not allowing lords, most armies (particularly those with high cost heroes) will struggle to get a General, BSB and a single L2 wizard in a 25% allowance.

facepalm
29-11-2014, 00:28
Honestly it wouldn't change a single thing. Under normal rules armies A,B and C might be able to make really OP lists compared to some other armies. As soon as you start putting other limiting factors in you then get lists X,Y and Z now the most powerful. Sure X,Y and Z wouldnt stand a chance against A,B or C but they aren't there anymore.

If i take a friendly list against a competitive list im going to get crushed probably, but if i take a friendly list made out of 25% heroes and the rest core i am still going to get crushed by someone making a competitive list to the same rules.

Chaos army with Nurgle warriors and chariots with hounds for cheap fast cav chaff and lvl 2 wizards and 3++ combat heroes will be just as hard to deal with because while i can now no longer take an un killable deamon prince or any Uber scary monsters/cav, you can no longer take any war machines or lvl 4 mages to make up for the fact that you core is basically a tax.

Dark elves with Witch elves hordes with caldrons of blood, dark rider spam and nobles on Pegasus with 3++ against shooting? i think not.

So....


- Do you guys think this would be a fun approach for most armies?
- Would it be (relatively) balanced?
- Would you play in such scenario?


-No it would be somewhere between dire and awful depending on what race to take
-It would be IMO far far less balanced than normal.
-no.

3eland
29-11-2014, 00:31
Honestly it wouldn't change a single thing. Under normal rules armies A,B and C might be able to make really OP lists compared to some other armies. As soon as you start putting other limiting factors in you then get lists X,Y and Z now the most powerful. Sure X,Y and Z wouldnt stand a chance against A,B or C but they aren't there anymore.

If i take a friendly list against a competitive list im going to get crushed probably, but if i take a friendly list made out of 25% heroes and the rest core i am still going to get crushed by someone making a competitive list to the same rules.

Chaos army with Nurgle warriors and chariots with hounds for cheap fast cav chaff and lvl 2 wizards and 3++ combat heroes will be just as hard to deal with because while i can now no longer take an un killable deamon prince or any Uber scary monsters/cav, you can no longer take any war machines or lvl 4 mages to make up for the fact that you core is basically a tax.

Dark elves with Witch elves hordes with caldrons of blood, dark rider spam and nobles on Pegasus with 3++ against shooting? i think not.

So....


- Do you guys think this would be a fun approach for most armies?
- Would it be (relatively) balanced?
- Would you play in such scenario?


-No it would be somewhere between dire and awful depending on what race to take
-It would be IMO far far less balanced than normal.
-no.

Totally agree 100%

Spiney Norman
29-11-2014, 00:39
Honestly it wouldn't change a single thing. Under normal rules armies A,B and C might be able to make really OP lists compared to some other armies. As soon as you start putting other limiting factors in you then get lists X,Y and Z now the most powerful. Sure X,Y and Z wouldnt stand a chance against A,B or C but they aren't there anymore.

If i take a friendly list against a competitive list im going to get crushed probably, but if i take a friendly list made out of 25% heroes and the rest core i am still going to get crushed by someone making a competitive list to the same rules.

Chaos army with Nurgle warriors and chariots with hounds for cheap fast cav chaff and lvl 2 wizards and 3++ combat heroes will be just as hard to deal with because while i can now no longer take an un killable deamon prince or any Uber scary monsters/cav, you can no longer take any war machines or lvl 4 mages to make up for the fact that you core is basically a tax.

Dark elves with Witch elves hordes with caldrons of blood, dark rider spam and nobles on Pegasus with 3++ against shooting? i think not.

So....


- Do you guys think this would be a fun approach for most armies?
- Would it be (relatively) balanced?
- Would you play in such scenario?


-No it would be somewhere between dire and awful depending on what race to take
-It would be IMO far far less balanced than normal.
-no.

Probably an exaggeration, I wouldn't really see the imbalance with these kind of rules being any greater than normal warhammer, you would just have different armies coming to the fore.

Orcs and goblins would be incredibly strong because they can field savage bigguns in core, chaos would probably do ok thanks to chaos warriors and tomb kings mit be more popular being able to field units of core chariots that would have few contenders from the core pool.

Vampire counts would be dead in the water (pun intended) as all their core options are comically awful and high elf armies would become even more one-dimensional since they would probably consist entirely of Silverhelms units of they wanted to achieve anything.

At the end of the day some armies have really strong units in core, and for others core is nothing more than a tax to get to the units that can actually impact the game.

N00B
29-11-2014, 00:59
If you want to filter out a lot of the filth there is a lot that will be caught by stopping special and rare units and characters of more than 150 pts. This still lets you take some low level monsters and war machines but no steam tanks or frostheart phoenixes.

Spiney Norman
29-11-2014, 01:09
If you want to filter out a lot of the filth there is a lot that will be caught by stopping special and rare units and characters of more than 150 pts. This still lets you take some low level monsters and war machines but no steam tanks or frostheart phoenixes.

Or, you could just make a ban-list if that's what you are trying to do

Collector
29-11-2014, 01:29
Not if your skaven..... so many models :'(

Col. Tartleton
29-11-2014, 01:50
In order to give a core focused skaven army any hitting power you need to min max for weapon teams and warlock engineers.

*Looks at Silver Helms* "Flammenwerfers! Werf ze flammen!"

Groza
29-11-2014, 06:26
I agree with what people have said above.
If you want to mix it up a bit a 500pt tourney would be a better idea.
Restricting to core won't make the games any less unbalanced, and in fact they will be more boring than you'd care to predict.
I am sure there are wargames out there (I am guessing historicals) where you mostly move around blocks of footsloggers and the odd cavalry unit but you're not doing yourself a favor by restricting your warhammer games to that.

Scammel
29-11-2014, 08:57
I think people are being very optimistic when they say that this wouldn't be any less balanced than standard Warhammer. There's a colossal disparity in Core selection amongst books - VC and Ogres have been brought up for having limited and one-dimensional selections, compared to Empire with their broad range of combat troops, missile troops and, crucially, 1+ save cavalry. Those tussling at the top might not have dramatically different peggings, but there's a number of have-nots that might never see play.

thesoundofmusica
29-11-2014, 10:14
I think it would end up extremely boring for some armies with limited core.

If you dont want to do any of the heavier comp systems just ban the usual no-brainer units and see what people come up with. Less fuss. It's what I would do.

snyggejygge
29-11-2014, 13:27
Iīd rather keep the current armies as is, but up the minimum core to 50% & skip lords, it would still be unbalanced, but not as much.

Askari
29-11-2014, 14:28
Iīd rather keep the current armies as is, but up the minimum core to 50% & skip lords, it would still be unbalanced, but not as much.

Vampire Counts would love that...

SuperHappyTime
29-11-2014, 15:38
I agree with what people have said above.
If you want to mix it up a bit a 500pt tourney would be a better idea.
Restricting to core won't make the games any less unbalanced, and in fact they will be more boring than you'd care to predict.
I am sure there are wargames out there (I am guessing historicals) where you mostly move around blocks of footsloggers and the odd cavalry unit but you're not doing yourself a favor by restricting your warhammer games to that.

At 500 points, lists are pretty diverse without being too op. Since there is a minimum 3 units, you don't spend 250 points on beefing a hero.

Leogun_91
29-11-2014, 15:39
I think it could be fun to play around with a bit. I wouldn't replace the current system permanently with it but that was never the idea anyways, playing a few such games should make you re-evaluate and think about the core options available to you and how to use them and changing around the rules once in a while tends to be a good idea. I would even consider playing a small campaign with those rules.

snyggejygge
29-11-2014, 18:09
Vampire Counts would love that...

I am aware that some armies would suffer, but on the other hand, change VC & TK to the ET list & it wouldnīt be as bad.

infamousme
29-11-2014, 19:39
Man, i just got the new high elf book and have been tinkering with all core armies. I think they would definitely have an advantage over most other factions with those restrictions in place.

Nubl0
30-11-2014, 00:24
I reckon heroes and special 25% and rare 10% no lords at a lower points level like 1500 could work out pretty cool. But only core would suck as some armies just cannot compete, warriors and elves become grossly OP, Gladeguard and dark riders are gona have a field day.

Lord Dan
30-11-2014, 04:20
If you're aiming for a more balanced tournament, why not use Swedish comp and require lists of, say, 15 or higher?

Ramius4
30-11-2014, 05:16
why not use Swedish comp and require lists of, say, 15 or higher?

Maybe he can't read Swedish? :shifty:

I'll get my coat :cool:

Philhelm
30-11-2014, 23:54
What I've tried with my regular opponent is 500 - 1,000 points, no Lords no Hordes. Maybe reduce the winds of magic to 2d3 - 2d4.

Lord Dan
01-12-2014, 01:01
Maybe he can't read Swedish?
I'm mostly mad at myself for laughing at that.

biccat
01-12-2014, 16:35
VC and Ogres have been brought up for having limited and one-dimensional selections compared to Empire with their broad range of combat troops, missile troops and, crucially, 1+ save cavalry.

Empire really doesn't have a "broad range of combat troops." They have infantry with a variety of weapon options and cavalry.

infamousme
01-12-2014, 17:01
Empire really doesn't have a "broad range of combat troops." They have infantry with a variety of weapon options and cavalry.
I'm pretty sure that you just made his point stronger. Empire has a very diverse and broad selection of troops in core. Only thing they are missing is great weapon infantry in core.

They can field an awesome "all core" army..... IMHO :D

Askari
01-12-2014, 17:25
I'm pretty sure that you just made his point stronger. Empire has a very diverse and broad selection of troops in core. Only thing they are missing is great weapon infantry in core.

They can field an awesome "all core" army..... IMHO :D

They also don't lose out massively from not having Lords either, as their Lords, being basically +1 Wound Heroes, are really nothing special, unlike say WoC, Daemons and Vampire Counts.
Empire Rare is, besides the Steam Tank, nothing to write home about either.

boli
01-12-2014, 17:52
I would hate to play empire just with core.... Mmmmm average.

Other armies have boosts such as ASF, hatred, even weapon teams.. But empires great strength comes from combined arms.

So imagine playing them without buff wagons, warrior priests, mages and supporting artillery.

I'm surprised Bret's are not mentioned here, sure you'll loose the character bus but knights of the realm lance formations pretty tough

Daniel36
01-12-2014, 17:57
I think the term "friendly" is no longer understood by some, haha. I would definitely play, and I'd bring a fun to play list, and probably lose, but I would love to participate.

Askari
01-12-2014, 18:07
I would hate to play empire just with core.... Mmmmm average.

Other armies have boosts such as ASF, hatred, even weapon teams.. But empires great strength comes from combined arms.

So imagine playing them without buff wagons, warrior priests, mages and supporting artillery.

I'm surprised Bret's are not mentioned here, sure you'll loose the character bus but knights of the realm lance formations pretty tough

You get those two as Heroes, they're cheap as chips, take loads of them. The lack of Cannons doesn't matter when no-one else gets any Monsters anyway.
Empire Knights are awesome, Halberdiers are perfectly capable, Swordsmen make a decent bunker, detachments are cheap redirectors, missile troops to clear enemy chaff.

They may not be Chaos or Elvish core, but they're above the rest.

Leogun_91
01-12-2014, 18:58
You get those two as Heroes, they're cheap as chips, take loads of them. The lack of Cannons doesn't matter when no-one else gets any Monsters anyway.Some monsters are actually available as hero mounts, those will remain. Sundragons, Stegadons and Stonehorns are examples on monsters that can be fielded in that setup and in those cases lack of cannons will hurt and the empire might have some trouble dealing with them.

Urgat
01-12-2014, 19:04
Nah. Only core and hero gobs? I'd have zero punch, and even with steadfast my gobs would be likely to leg it after a couple rounds of combat. Taking a trouncing isn't really my idea of fun.

Horus38
01-12-2014, 19:13
Yea, that's a big no for me wanting to playing that kind of format...

Philhelm
01-12-2014, 19:32
You get those two as Heroes, they're cheap as chips, take loads of them. The lack of Cannons doesn't matter when no-one else gets any Monsters anyway.
Empire Knights are awesome, Halberdiers are perfectly capable, Swordsmen make a decent bunker, detachments are cheap redirectors, missile troops to clear enemy chaff.

They may not be Chaos or Elvish core, but they're above the rest.

The general consensus of Empire players at warhammer-empire.com is that Empire infantry are overcosted, and pay points upfront for possibly having buffs and detachments. Halberdiers are considered okay for their points, but really require a Warrior Priest (for Hatred and Prayers of Sigmar), Celestial Hurricanum (for +1 to hit), and magical buffs. Empire ranged infantry are way overcosted. For every two Crossbowman, I can field three Halberdiers; a horde of 30 Halberdiers will be much more effective than 20 Crossbowmen since BS shooting simply isn't that effective due to ranged to hit modifiers and the fact that most of the buffs only apply to melee. However, 5-man Bowman detachments can be useful as chaff due to low points cost and Skirmish.

Even the Greatswords are severely overcosted when compared to other elite units such as Dark Elf Blackguard/Executioners. For a very small points increase, the Elven elites get a lot more bite.

CountUlrich
01-12-2014, 19:32
They may not be Chaos or Elvish core, but they're above the rest.

Savage orc big uns with fast cav support and gobbos tarpits say hi. So do the much superior bretonian knights with the virtually equal bowman and halberd/men at arms. So, at the very least we are talking WoC, DoC, DE, HE, orcs and brets as superior. Ogre core army would crush an empire core army, but depending on meta may not do as well against certain other opponents. So, basically empire is somewhere right in the middle at best. Possibly lower. I think an argument could be made for beastmen core as superior, particularly with marks now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

theunwantedbeing
01-12-2014, 19:41
I think the only issue is going to be finding players who have enough core troops.

As for balance issues
Beastmen - Core chariots
Bretonnians - Knights
Daemons - Locus effects
Dark Elves - Witch elves
Dwarves - Warriors & Longbeards
Empire - Knights
High Elves - Silver Helms
Lizardmen - Saurus & Skinks with Kroxigor
Ogres - Ogres & Ironguts
Orcs&Goblins - Fanatics & Big'uns
Skaven - Weapon teams
Tomb Kings - Archers & Chariots
Vampire Counts - Ghouls
Warriors of Chaos - Chariot & Warriors
Wood Elves - Glade Guard & Dryads

Vamps are in a bit of trouble, but they can take Ethereal heroes so it's a fair trade.

Lastavenger
01-12-2014, 21:37
I would like to play tournament like that, but I wouldn't think of it as replacement for standard game.

biccat
01-12-2014, 21:43
I'm pretty sure that you just made his point stronger. Empire has a very diverse and broad selection of troops in core. Only thing they are missing is great weapon infantry in core.

Empire has 4 different melee core choices (spears, free company, halberds, sword & board). Six if you count shields as an option.

That's...exactly as many weapon options as Chaos Warriors: a single core choice.

Empire doesn't have a diverse selection of core troops. They are as diverse as Dwarfs or Tomb Kings.

Examples of armies with diverse core are Chaos and O&G.


They can field an awesome "all core" army..... IMHO :D

Not diverse is not the same as not awesome. I'd agree that an all core Empire army would be competitive with other all core armies.

Alltaken
01-12-2014, 21:51
Lizardmen have a tremendously boring list with that comp. Work that idea with reduced special /rare slots or stuff like that and you might get what you're looking for.

infamousme
01-12-2014, 22:40
Empire has 4 different melee core choices (spears, free company, halberds, sword & board). Six if you count shields as an option.

That's...exactly as many weapon options as Chaos Warriors: a single core choice.

Empire doesn't have a diverse selection of core troops. They are as diverse as Dwarfs or Tomb Kings.

Examples of armies with diverse core are Chaos and O&G.



Not diverse is not the same as not awesome. I'd agree that an all core Empire army would be competitive with other all core armies.
No, but I count cross bows, hand guns and bows as choices..... there are also knights and inner circle knights to take into consideration.

Mech87
02-12-2014, 11:28
In terms of astetics and such it could be fun. But i only got MAX of 650(Or there around) Core. Ofcourse it wouldn't be hard to use other models as standins.

Snake1311
02-12-2014, 13:23
Peasanthammer!

I've been advocating something like this for ages.

Its much more balanced than people give it credit for - its usually worth upping the hero allowance to 33% as they are needed to fill some gaps the armies might have in their core capacities.

Also make all units 2 max to avoid spam, and drop some unitcaps in. Considering its peasanthammer, 30 models/300 points is enough.

Oogie boogie boss
02-12-2014, 13:41
as has been said, I think this would make it too heavily swayed in favour of armies such as WoC and Ogres who have heavy hitters in core, and make VC, Skaven, TK, etc. massive underdogs, especially with a limit on the characters as well. However, I like the spirit of trying to make people focus on the mpre fundamental elements of their army. I would perhaps change it to 25% Heroes, 25% Special and up to 75% Core. That at least gives the armies which rely on the more esoteric elements to be competitive to at least have a chance against the more elite Core armies.

Kingrick
02-12-2014, 14:26
I would play in a tournament like this, why not? I think people are taking this a little too seriously, a tournament like this is to break monotony and just try to have a little fun with the game. Is it balanced? probably not, but is the regular game balanced? Does it make you change your strategy a bit and play something different? If it does, then I don't see why people couldn't try to have fun with it.

In Dark Trees
02-12-2014, 15:15
I think, by in large, the force organization requirements GW put in place at the start of 8th edition make a lot of sense. It's an admirable system--in theory. It has, however, been steadily eroded by poor army book writing. GW's designers have consistently failed to make Core units seem like meaningful, contributing parts of their armies. Vampire Counts armies suffer from having some of the most laughably terrible Core units in the game, meaning that VC players are penalized for every point they spend on skeletons, zombies, and ghouls: it's a classic opportunity cost dilemma. Why should I spend points on units that are functionally worthless, if evocative, and forgo units that can actually accomplish something? There are lots of other armies with similar problems.

The force organization chart is fine. It's the perennially-wonky internal balance in army books that's the problem. We should agitate for fewer force restrictions and better choices. If Core units made sense people would take them. That they rarely do explains why people splurge on Specials and characters.

Colonel Mayhem
02-12-2014, 16:01
How about max 25% of the army may be used on special and rare combined? This presumes battles with somewhat low point values(1000-1500). But even then you got potential problems the moment someone brings along a steamtank/frostphoenx, but it would give a little leeway to the armies that really need their special/rare choices while still vastly shift the focus on core units.

Another possibility is to rework all the planned scenarios for the tourney to a somewhat 40Kish mission structure, where only core matter in who wins. The Triumph and Treachery scenarios are a good starting-point for making objective-based scenarios in that regard, they only need a little tweaking.
The Bugman Brewery scenario in the BRB is also one that is worth to take a look at. We made it so a unit carrying the ale(one objective with random movement) confers its own points-value to you side(think of it like you got the points for killing it) the drawback is the units' potential for losing stats during the game and stupidity. The unit that can carry the ale could easily be classified as only core infantry, then you get to nudge players into not only bring Silver Helms/Empire Knights without direct restrictions.

The much loathed Watchtower scenario is another possibility, only core infantry in the tower and noone starts inside it in the beginning. Let it give victory points(huge amount ofcoarse) instead of outright victory, then you provide an alternative to those who otherwise would see themselves banging into a wall of Chaos Warriors for the entire game. The points it grants could even scale with the unit inside(double the units' points value to you side, like mentioned above) then you don't end up fighting those same chaos warriors while 5 marauders stand there safe in the knowledge they grant a huge amount of points.

Just a few ideas

Just Tony
02-12-2014, 16:29
My main army is High Elves, I'd totally play this comp. Through 6th and 7th, we used a comp guideline that was available on GW's website which scored your comp on Core taken, penalized for magic items and Herohammer, and most people in our clubs in both cities I frequented built their armies around this comp. I've been batting around my budget trying to find a good jumping on point for this and 40K's current rules, however the current metas and some of the rules directions have given me pause to execute. If they were running tourneys like this, I'd be more inclined to hop on. Add a caveat that you can't have more magic users than combat heroes and I'd be all in.

Svullom
02-12-2014, 19:07
As a Skaven player, it sounds horrible. All the punch in my army comes from Lords, Special and Rare. The core is there to act as anvils, chaff and character bunkers and cannot win a battle on their own.

Besides, I wouldn't be interested in lumbering 500+ models around for a tournament.

Lord Dan
02-12-2014, 19:27
All the punch in my army comes from Lords, Special and Rare.
I think you'd have decent success with an army of Stormvermin blocks and Slaves.

Colonel Mayhem
02-12-2014, 19:58
Besides, I wouldn't be interested in lumbering 500+ models around for a tournament.

Is that not the entire point of playing Skaven in the first place?

Leogun_91
02-12-2014, 20:00
As a Skaven player, it sounds horrible. All the punch in my army comes from Lords, Special and Rare. The core is there to act as anvils, chaff and character bunkers and cannot win a battle on their own.

Besides, I wouldn't be interested in lumbering 500+ models around for a tournament.On the other hand your opponent has only core units and you can have stone throwers as core in the form of poisoned wind mortars.
If you are too afraid of lacking punch there is however always death master snikch to turn the tide a bit, or just an assassin with the obsidian blade if it's high armor you find scary.
This list forces you to rethink your strategy and try things you might not use otherwise. That's a good thing and one should keep in mind that this is a suggested one-time tourney not a permanent rules-change.

Svullom
03-12-2014, 16:34
On the other hand your opponent has only core units and you can have stone throwers as core in the form of poisoned wind mortars.
If you are too afraid of lacking punch there is however always death master snikch to turn the tide a bit, or just an assassin with the obsidian blade if it's high armor you find scary.
This list forces you to rethink your strategy and try things you might not use otherwise. That's a good thing and one should keep in mind that this is a suggested one-time tourney not a permanent rules-change.

PWM might be useful against the core knights, but thatīs about it. WFT is the other somewhat competitive weapons team, but they are so fickle itīs not even fun. That misfire chart is the work of a madman.

Snikch? Yeah, 270 points for a T4, W2 model. Sure, heīll probably obliterate anything in front of him, but wont survive the first round of combat. Assassin with OB is 170pts for 3 attacks at S4. and then he'll die just as Snikch. WORTH.

I love my rats and their playstyle, but this setup is just dire for us.

Just Tony
03-12-2014, 17:23
I'd play it with Skaven, too. You'd have enough people on the board to have maneuverability, speed, and a heavy flanking force. I can't see how you think you'd be behind the 8 ball.

Oogie boogie boss
03-12-2014, 17:25
Throw a bit of Special into the mix though and suddenly Skaven, VC, TK, Goblins, etc become a bit more viable. I think prohibiting Lords and Rare would keep the OP competitive element to a minimum, still make people emphasise their army's backbone units but also, allowing for a reduced amount of Special in the army, give armies enough diversity to make the games fun and balance out the different forces available.

I have to say, across the board, I think Special options are actually the most balanced in most army lists. There are a few OP core units out there, and there are a few more OP rare units, but can anyone think of many seriously OP special units out there which aren't costed to meet their ability?

theunwantedbeing
03-12-2014, 18:29
Throw a bit of Special into the mix though and suddenly Skaven, VC, TK, Goblins, etc become a bit more viable.

I like this.
It completely disregards the idea of other armies also getting access to their really scary abusive special choices.
Also it ignores anything actually good for those armies (only VC are really struggling with all core armies).

Lord Dan
05-12-2014, 13:48
What I'd like to see would be a game played with only special choices...

Ramius4
05-12-2014, 14:14
What I'd like to see would be a game played with only special choices...

That could be really fun too. If I were doing such a game with someone, it seems appropriate to at least allow core choices as well, even if they're not required for the game.

Snake1311
05-12-2014, 15:48
I have to say, across the board, I think Special options are actually the most balanced in most army lists. There are a few OP core units out there, and there are a few more OP rare units, but can anyone think of many seriously OP special units out there which aren't costed to meet their ability?

Demigryphs, Mournfang, Beasts of Nurgle?

Vampires can compensate for their weaker core with awesome heroes. Plus in a peasanthammer context, their core isn't really that bad.

BlackPawl
05-12-2014, 16:17
I would play it with my Skaven.

It's the only army which can get a few template weapon. Some time ago I had a game with a friend against a normal empire army and fielded 11 weapon teams (2 ratling guns, 2 PWM and 7 WFT) - with some warlocks, nearly only core (I think there was one unit of globadiers) and Ikit Claw. Was massive fun and even that a few weapon teams exploded or get shooted down there were enough to blow complete units apart. :)

Ok, against an avoindance list it would be no fun, but even they could with some missile spells / doom rocket / skitter leap characters do some damage.

And with Plague Priests / Assassins we have some good hero level characters. They can't stay against lords, but an assassin with a potion of strenght / weeping blade can do some havoc, even against ogres.

Askari
05-12-2014, 17:34
Vampires can compensate for their weaker core with awesome heroes. Plus in a peasanthammer context, their core isn't really that bad.

We have awesome heroes? I'd say they're okay but too expensive. Don't think I've fielded a Vampire Counts hero choice in about 2 years :P

Mech87
05-12-2014, 18:04
As a Skaven player, it sounds horrible. All the punch in my army comes from Lords, Special and Rare. The core is there to act as anvils, chaff and character bunkers and cannot win a battle on their own.

Besides, I wouldn't be interested in lumbering 500+ models around for a tournament.

Well against most core units plague Priest's would rip them apart without much risk.

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath
06-12-2014, 00:00
Absolutely not. The only thing exciting about my army (VC) is special and lords. I wouldn't assemble another kajillion skeletons just for one tournament. To fill even 1,000 points I would need some 200 skeletons or 330 zombies. Not going to happen.