PDA

View Full Version : Themed Armies



w3rm
23-12-2010, 03:03
While reading the Ogre Tactica thread I was reminded that if you take the Greyback Pelt then you cant take yhettees.

Then I got to thinking. I wish there was a way to get more themed armies without take special chars. Nothing huge really maybe something like...

Orcs and Goblins Items/ Upgrades

Trollskin Banner- 60 points
This banner exudes a foul odor that attracts trolls all around for miles.

All Trolls in your army now count as special units.



If your army includes a Black Orc warboss on a boar than one unit of black orcs may ride boars for 8 Points permodel



Rich Gitz
One core unit may take Heavy Armour, Or Great Weapons or Crossbows for 3 points per model

The General must start in this unit and he must have the same upgrade(Crossbows are 6 points)



Snottling Friend- 40 Points
This greenskin loves his snotlings.

This must be taken by your genral. He may take a snotling base as a character mount. Snotlings count as core and Pumpwagons are specail


Slaughter- 70 Points
This warboss loves killing and smashing and looting. But he hates those weak stinking gobbos!!

The Warboss and one unit gains devastating charge. The General has to start in this unit.


Hit and Run- 60 Points

One unit of Goblins(Infantry or Cavalry) can leave combat at the start of any close combat phase. To do this they simply move backwards d6".

So what would you do to make your armies easier to theme and such?

Pacorko
23-12-2010, 03:19
So, basically what you aim for is brokiness or thinly-veiled unfair advantages, all disguised as the "kewl factor" of a "themed" army?

:eyebrows:

I guess anyone can dream.

Themed armies in WHFB have always been made around a concept, not special rules; once you have the concept, that's when you model your armies according to it. You choose the looks based on the fluff you made up for your army and off you go.

My Steppe gobbos are basically gobbos riding [old style] boars instead of wolves. I use the same rules as those for wolf riders, no need to come up with silly advantages to make the units stronger beyond the army book's limits.

Now, my wolves are reserved for the Eiskaltheim dwarfs... another themed army that will play as dwarfs--as per the Kings of War rules by Mantic Games, that is.

So, that's what I do: I choose a theme, make a mental picture of how I want it all to look like, plan all the conversions based on that, and start buying/building.

Demon-cookie
23-12-2010, 22:12
I like the idea and think it could work really well but it would probaably take a lot of effort to stop it just becoming broken rules

w3rm
24-12-2010, 00:12
So, basically what you aim for is brokiness or thinly-veiled unfair advantages, all disguised as the "kewl factor" of a "themed" army?

:eyebrows:



Erm thats not even close to what I was going for...

Honestly what I was going for is something more like what some specail chars can do but I despise specail characters so idk it was kinda a random brainstorm.

tezdal
24-12-2010, 00:24
GW used to include themed armies in the back of the books, but they decided upon a blander route

w3rm
24-12-2010, 00:29
Yeah I remeber the armies in the 6th ed skaven book.

grumbaki
24-12-2010, 01:56
I think he is looking for more things like Throgg the troll king (trolls=core), Bugman (1 extra ranger unit) or the Rune of Brotherhood (heroes can be rangers/miners). Personally, I like it, within reason.

What I really want to see is something for Bretonnians that allows for WS 3 men-at-arms, at the cost of knights.

Inquisitor Kallus
24-12-2010, 02:27
So, basically what you aim for is brokiness or thinly-veiled unfair advantages, all disguised as the "kewl factor" of a "themed" army?

:eyebrows:

I guess anyone can dream.

Themed armies in WHFB have always been made around a concept, not special rules; once you have the concept, that's when you model your armies according to it. You choose the looks based on the fluff you made up for your army and off you go.

My Steppe gobbos are basically gobbos riding [old style] boars instead of wolves. I use the same rules as those for wolf riders, no need to come up with silly advantages to make the units stronger beyond the army book's limits.

Now, my wolves are reserved for the Eiskaltheim dwarfs... another themed army that will play as dwarfs--as per the Kings of War rules by Mantic Games, that is.

So, that's what I do: I choose a theme, make a mental picture of how I want it all to look like, plan all the conversions based on that, and start buying/building.

Condescending much...........:eyebrows:
Anyway I think this is a good topic and something a lot of background enthusiasts im sure will like. Alternative lists used to be in the back of WFB Army books and though as they stated 'were not fully playtested', were in keeping with the 'real world' feel of their respective parent army. Sometimes they were powerful, sometimes not so, it could vary greatly depending on which army you were facing also. If you and your friends are up for it, do it. Leave the naysayers behind and enjoy yourselves. Its a shame that they stopped variant lists in White Dwarf and other books. Get yourself a copy of the Generals compendium,.....awesome.

rodmillard
24-12-2010, 02:53
Personally, I like the idea, although I think you would have to be careful in its execution. The Beastmen army already has this (Doombull General moves minotaurs to core), and Empire armies have the funky Core Flaggellants with a Priest rule. IMO it's how they should have approached "clan" armies for the Skaven, giving more generic (customisable)Lord choices instead of tying every clan into its special character (even more so since SCs are the only way Skaven can get a level 3 caster).

Since two of these books were written while they were developing 8th ed, we can hope that there will be more of this to come, but I guess we will have to wait for the O&G book to know for sure.

Maybe a good way to go would be to design a generic magic item to do the job. Off the top of my head:

Standard of the Great Lord's Guard (Magic Banner, 50 Points, Army Standard Bearer only)

Many Great Lords employ highly trained specialist regiments to be their personal guard, who proudly carry their master's heraldry into battle. Although these penants have no true "magical" powers, they bring great prestige to the regiment carrying them, and recruits flock to join up. As a result, elite troops of this type are much more common than in armies from neighboiring areas.

Choose one special or rare unit from your army book. If this unit would normally be a special choice, any units of this type will now count as core. If the unit would normally be a rare choice, they will count as special.

Obviously, you would have to get your gaming group to agree to use it, and you would need to playtest it to see if the points are right (I went for 50 since IMO it doesn't need to be too expensive - it is after all taking away your option to have any other magic items on your BSB)

Vaz
24-12-2010, 02:59
I love the idea of this - personally, I think that having more customization is perfect - and games workshop would benefit more from making models more widely accessible.

For example, Throgg allowing Trolls as Core etc.

I'd like Kholek to be able to make Dragon Ogres Core, Mounted Heroes make Knights Core, etc.

HElf Prince on Dragon makes Dragon Princes core, Caradryan makes Phoenix Guard core, Korhil for White Lions, Archmage for Swordmasters, Alith Anar for Shadow Warriors.

Ironbreakers become Core with an Ironbreakers Hero/Lord, Hammerers with a Lord become Core, Miners with a Miner Hero etc,

Yhetees become Core with an actual Yhetee hero

Daemons become God Specific and lose the nicey nicey ring a roses they wrote up (i.e Khorne units are entirely Core in a Khornate Generals army, Nurgle and Tzeentch become Special, Rare are Slaanesh etc).

Blah Blah etc =).

Lord Inquisitor
24-12-2010, 03:16
Yeeeeah, well, there are two sides to this.

On the plus side, themed armies are cool, and having army books versetile enough to do this would be neat. An all-troll army, for example, could be fun. Giving dwarfs the ability to take nothing but slayers would accomodate those who have slayer armies, so on and soforth.

However.

GW have a bad track record with this sort of thing, and these sorts of options tend to be poorly or entirely untested and these sorts of "fun" ideas become the backbone of broken lists. 40K has many examples of this, from Nob Bikers that are the scourge of tabletops because for no apparent reason they can be Troops with the appropriate HQ (that one has always puzzled me, because surely regular bikers should be the Troops in a Speed Freaks army?) or Space Wolves - apparently there are actual Troops choices in a Space Wolf codex, which is weird because I always see Logan Grimnar and hordes of elite Wolf Guard as Troops. There have been Fantasy equivalents in the past, while "themed" the aforementioned Slayer army list was so imbalanced the game degenerated into rock-paper-scissors. The Slayers didn't stand for a second against a gunline but auto-won against undead.

So, more options are indeed "fun" but these need to be properly playtested and sometimes a simple change can result in a whole new army build that needs to be tested. Generally, while they may be entertaining in principle, I find that most "army build" altering rules cause balance problems and reduce my enjoyment of the game, so personally I'd rather there were less rather than more.

CrystalSphere
24-12-2010, 12:25
The problem with this is that GW is not known for limiting anything, when they offer alternative armies, they never limit what you can take or try to balance it anyhow. Usually it end up in people picking the most overpowered army variant. For this to work GW would have to start including severe restrictions (like those old skaven rules of mainstay unit, or in the ogre kingdoms book the 1:1 ratio between bulls and gnoblars) and test all the variant army list a lot. In short it would be a lot of work and i doubt GW is going to bother with it, even more as these days they seem to care less abou thematic armies than what they used to do in the past.

bluemage
24-12-2010, 19:17
The other thing is that all the themed army lists GW releases for people to buy, have all been dropped later down the line.

Oh, hey an all slayers army, that's cool, let me spend lots of money on metal models. What do you mean the army isn't allowed any more? Its only been a couple of years.

Or Kislev. My general is riding a bear. This is awesome. What do you mean its not allowed anymore?

If its not from an army book, don't bother with it. GW will drop it completely within a few years. Also the special themed lists inside army books at the back only ever last a single army book. The next book always drops the idea.

The alternative which your talking about though is a fandex (fan made codex). These are rarely accepted anywhere.

theunwantedbeing
24-12-2010, 21:07
So...
Your idea of themed is some bonus for taking a certain thing?
Potentially a quite broken bonus?

Examples being:
Black orcs on boars with 3+ saves for 21pts, 22pts with sheilds to get 2+ saves.
Heavy cav basically, for 22pts a model...that's pretty damned cheap for them.

Big Night goblin unit's with crossbows. 6pt bs3 crossbowmen? Hell yes!

Similarly, the above 2+ save black orcs getting devastating charge, in a hoarde.

All too often "themed" things are really quite easy to just plain abuse, and somebody will abuse those rules given the chance. Better to make them not abusable.

tezdal
24-12-2010, 23:28
I'd rather have themed un-competitive rules then the bland nonsense we got now, like Comparing the modern 40k chaos dex to the one before, far more interesting

Col. Dash
24-12-2010, 23:40
@Theunwantedbeing- I think the OP was giving examples of the kind of thing that he would like to see rather than writing complete army lists for use.

I completely agree though with the idea and miss the cool stuff we could have. The old DE book had the border guard lists and the Black Ark army lists which while the idea was cool, was very limited on what you could take. I think the Black Ark list if I remember right only had 3 total units outside the characters. I think you could have dark riders, corsairs and the bolt throwers and I think that was it.

Now yes in some respects we can make somewhat themed lists now, better than we could last edition anyway but still. I dont have the book on me but I think Beastmen still cannot have an all minotaur army even with a doombull general which is one of the biggest complaints I have heard. I hate the reliance of the current books, both 40k and fantasy on special characters to have oddball themed armies. Never liked special characters, they should only show up for special occasions, but they are shoved down our throats if we want to field say an all troll army or something out of the ordinary. How about a generic character upgrade that unlocks things, thats much better than a stupid special character that shouldnt even be there.

Old Gobbo
25-12-2010, 05:36
You can theme your Armies within the constraints of the standard Army Book in most cases, whether it be hordes of Marauders, Goblin Wolfboys, Savage Orcs, High Elf Marines (Sea Guard, Bolt Throwers) or whatever, you don't really need special rules or alternative lists to do it.

I'm in the process of doing a Chracian list, Spearmen and Archers are straight forward enough Chracian Hunters with Bows and Spears just follow Sea Guard Rules, White Lions & Lion Chariots already exist within the Army list and I've converted some White Lion Knights riding War Lions and wielding Axes using various different kits (can use either Silverhelm rules or Dragon Prince Rules). The Army looks themed (or will do if I ever get it finished) and still conforms to all the standard rules.

The limits then are your own imagination:D

Rajhald
25-12-2010, 16:53
I'm all about themed armies, after all this game is about models and having fun playing. Yes I would like to see them balanced, but that shouldn't be incredibly hard.

Currently I think Chaos Warriors or Daemons is the easiest way to gain fun abilities and have a themed army. Right now I'm considering a Nurgle themed Chaos warrior army simply because of some cool conversion ideas I have.

Vampiric16
25-12-2010, 16:58
I think there should be bonuses for themed armies. For example, an all Khorne daemon army should recieve benefits. And same for all Night Gobbo forces; perhaps a bonus based on how many Night Gobbo units you're fielding. Would be hard to implement, and would need decent playtesting to avoid exploitation.

Tae
25-12-2010, 18:10
GW have a bad track record with this sort of thing, and these sorts of options tend to be poorly or entirely untested and these sorts of "fun" ideas become the backbone of broken lists. 40K has many examples of this, from Nob Bikers that are the scourge of tabletops because for no apparent reason they can be Troops with the appropriate HQ (that one has always puzzled me, because surely regular bikers should be the Troops in a Speed Freaks army?) or Space Wolves - apparently there are actual Troops choices in a Space Wolf codex, which is weird because I always see Logan Grimnar and hordes of elite Wolf Guard as Troops. There have been Fantasy equivalents in the past, while "themed" the aforementioned Slayer army list was so imbalanced the game degenerated into rock-paper-scissors. The Slayers didn't stand for a second against a gunline but auto-won against undead.

So, more options are indeed "fun" but these need to be properly playtested and sometimes a simple change can result in a whole new army build that needs to be tested. Generally, while they may be entertaining in principle, I find that most "army build" altering rules cause balance problems and reduce my enjoyment of the game, so personally I'd rather there were less rather than more.

Whilst I agree with 40k 'list changing' characters being horrendous and previous WFB example lists being similarly so, the current edition of WFB 'army changing characters' (e.g. Hellbrone, Throgg) are, in my opinion, not overbalanced at all. In fact the army list they allow to be created are somewhat 'sub-optimal' compared to the other possibilities in those army books.

w3rm
26-12-2010, 03:21
Really guys I was just throwing ideas out there to make more fun armies. Sorry my 2 second ideas were overpowered...

I wasnt saying "I WANT THESE!!" like some of you guys seem to think I was.

I was just wanting some better ways to make some out of the ordinary armies not make something powerful or broken.

envy
26-12-2010, 04:04
Yeeeeah, well, there are two sides to this.

On the plus side, themed armies are cool, and having army books versetile enough to do this would be neat. An all-troll army, for example, could be fun. Giving dwarfs the ability to take nothing but slayers would accomodate those who have slayer armies, so on and soforth.

However.

GW have a bad track record with this sort of thing, and these sorts of options tend to be poorly or entirely untested and these sorts of "fun" ideas become the backbone of broken lists. 40K has many examples of this, from Nob Bikers that are the scourge of tabletops because for no apparent reason they can be Troops with the appropriate HQ (that one has always puzzled me, because surely regular bikers should be the Troops in a Speed Freaks army?) or Space Wolves - apparently there are actual Troops choices in a Space Wolf codex, which is weird because I always see Logan Grimnar and hordes of elite Wolf Guard as Troops. There have been Fantasy equivalents in the past, while "themed" the aforementioned Slayer army list was so imbalanced the game degenerated into rock-paper-scissors. The Slayers didn't stand for a second against a gunline but auto-won against undead.

So, more options are indeed "fun" but these need to be properly playtested and sometimes a simple change can result in a whole new army build that needs to be tested. Generally, while they may be entertaining in principle, I find that most "army build" altering rules cause balance problems and reduce my enjoyment of the game, so personally I'd rather there were less rather than more.

You should be thankful. Grey Hunters are the best troops choice in 40k.

Lord Inquisitor
26-12-2010, 04:07
I'd rather have themed un-competitive rules then the bland nonsense we got now, like Comparing the modern 40k chaos dex to the one before, far more interesting
I disagree, personally. The cult troops got a lot more "interesting" as they diverged in terms of statline and you can build all the old themed lists (more or less) with the new basic list.


Whilst I agree with 40k 'list changing' characters being horrendous and previous WFB example lists being similarly so, the current edition of WFB 'army changing characters' (e.g. Hellbrone, Throgg) are, in my opinion, not overbalanced at all. In fact the army list they allow to be created are somewhat 'sub-optimal' compared to the other possibilities in those army books.
Well, the cynic in me would think that these are more by-products of the fact that their unit they allow you to spam just isn't all that. You just don't see Chaos Troll unless along with Throgg. But yeah, I think that with some clever application and some actual playtesting, these things can be very cool - and indeed, I was torn between starting a Throgg troll army and Ogre Kingdoms for a "big 'uns" army - but my opinion remains that most of the time it leads to so many balance issues that the "coolness" becomes degraded. A Space Wolf army themed around Logan's personal guard could be really cool, but if I see that on the table now it's "meh, usual wolf guard spam."

Incidentally, Throgg got quite a bit nastier with 8th. He can now inflict 3D6 automatic S5 hits with no armour save in combat once per game. That's pretty mean.

Tae
26-12-2010, 11:45
Personally I would like to see WFB operate army changing characters along the lines of C:SM and Orks.

i.e. take a generic HQ (ignoring the named ones for the moment) with equipment X allows for unit Y to be used as troops.

The reason being that a lot of tournaments ban SCs whole sale. And honestly why should someone not be allowed to take potentially a beautifully converted/painted/etc. troll army for WoC just because every gimp and his friend likes to spam a certain Elf. So if you make it possible without SCs then these armies would become, I believe, more common. Which increases variety, which is always good.

w3rm
26-12-2010, 16:40
Which is Kinda what I was going with, with the trollbanner, Snotlings and Black Orc Boar Boyz.

And How ridiculous is a knight with a 2+ save with sheild and Hw for 22 points? He gets 1 str 4 attack and 1 str 5 on the charge.

Last time I check the empire knights had a 1+ save and either a ws 4 str 5 attack on the charge or a 2+ save and str 5 all the time for 23 points. I really dont see why a black orc on a boar for 22 points is that ridiclous....

vcassano
26-12-2010, 16:52
I love the idea of this - personally, I think that having more customization is perfect - and games workshop would benefit more from making models more widely accessible.
/snip
Daemons become God Specific and lose the nicey nicey ring a roses they wrote up (i.e Khorne units are entirely Core in a Khornate Generals army, Nurgle and Tzeentch become Special, Rare are Slaanesh etc).

I agree with you entirely, perhaps not quite to the extent by which you want it, but I love the idea of nicely themed armies of this sort. It creates more characterful armies and I love that - highly mixed Chaos mark armies are a particular pain for me to see*, unless there is a nicely modelled theme.

*And yes I have read Liber Chaotica so I know most tend to worship the pantheon and a mix is more suited, I just hate seeing a really nice Khonate army with a single Tzeentch sorceror or something.


Personally I would like to see WFB operate army changing characters along the lines of C:SM and Orks.

i.e. take a generic HQ (ignoring the named ones for the moment) with equipment X allows for unit Y to be used as troops.

The reason being that a lot of tournaments ban SCs whole sale. And honestly why should someone not be allowed to take potentially a beautifully converted/painted/etc. troll army for WoC just because every gimp and his friend likes to spam a certain Elf. So if you make it possible without SCs then these armies would become, I believe, more common. Which increases variety, which is always good.

Again, I agree with this entirely. I loathe special characters, so when I see the armies themed around their personal armies it makes me sad because that could have been a generic character/army.

Beastmen represents the biggest waste in this regard - simply making Minotaurs core in a Doombull-led army would have been great. Plus it wouldn't have been that unbalanced because I think the Beastmen book is a really well-written and internally balanced army book.

Caitsidhe
26-12-2010, 17:13
I think rather than creating items, it would be better to create perks for maintaining the theme, i.e. this army follows all the thematic construction limits of Theme-A and thus gets this Perk.

Pacorko
26-12-2010, 18:34
Whta mentioned above could be a bit more reasonable.

But if that means getting extra saves, harder to hit, more damage, all combined with "never loose Frenzy" and ASF... then, we'd be back to square one.

Although a table with attributes to customize forces with clear and well-tought out points cost could be a nice addition. Of course, as a result of going this route all customized armies would be noticeably more expensive than their regular counterparts... as a failsafe against blatant unbalance, me thinks.

Charistoph
27-12-2010, 05:07
Personally I would like to see WFB operate army changing characters along the lines of C:SM and Orks.

i.e. take a generic HQ (ignoring the named ones for the moment) with equipment X allows for unit Y to be used as troops.

The reason being that a lot of tournaments ban SCs whole sale. And honestly why should someone not be allowed to take potentially a beautifully converted/painted/etc. troll army for WoC just because every gimp and his friend likes to spam a certain Elf. So if you make it possible without SCs then these armies would become, I believe, more common. Which increases variety, which is always good.

Again, I agree with this entirely. I loathe special characters, so when I see the armies themed around their personal armies it makes me sad because that could have been a generic character/army.

Beastmen represents the biggest waste in this regard - simply making Minotaurs core in a Doombull-led army would have been great. Plus it wouldn't have been that unbalanced because I think the Beastmen book is a really well-written and internally balanced army book.

Agreed. I was VERY disappointed when the Minotaur/Doombull option was dropped. Instead, a Unique Character Sergeant is the one that does it, and for a completely, almost never taken, metal model, unit! Easiest and best would have been to make it the Gift of a Thousand Sons, and have Centigor Heroes and Lords to boot. Wargors with this Gift would have made Bestigors Core. Since it is a Chaos Gift, it's only one per army, so no danger of mixed Core moving.

A lot of other armies really need to get this concept as well, though some aren't really as needed (aforementioned Empire army's set up is pretty good, but maybe having a BSB-only, very expensive banner that allows them to take Greatswords as core...).

The whole point should be K.I.S.S., but some of these designers seem to be trying to hard to play football (either one), when trying to get to first base, if you know what I mean.