|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 2, 2018 19:07:45 GMT
Considering the discussions on Themes for Business and Non-Theme Events (and not wanting to clutter up either thread with this concept), what if PP set up a Force Organization for an army list much like GW did for 40K and for Fantasy Battles? Consider the ramifications, their limits, and if Themes just change them around instead of absolute limits if you wish.
I ask you to consider and present your thoughts on how your army(ies) would be organized with their current FA under these Unit Categories (Attachments should be considered part of the unit for all purposes), or even how those Categories should be represented: Battlegroup: Obviously the Warcasters, Warlocks, and their Warjacks or Warbeasts. Core: Units that can normally be found throughout your faction. Units like Steelhead Halberdiers, Protectorate Zealots, Cryx Mechanithralls, Trollblood Warriors, and Circle Wolves, as an example. Special: Units which are more specialized in tasks, either because they are just so much better than the Core or because they are not dedicated combat troops, and non-Character, FA2-3 solos. I'm thinking units like Skorne Cataphract Cetrati, Protectorate Choir, Cryx Banes, and Legion Striders (though, I may wrong with some of the placement). Rare: Units that are either FA 1, Character, Battle Engines, Lesser Warcasters and Warlocks, or (maybe) Cavalry, or just so plain exotic.
For example, I'd probably do normal Skorne as: Battlegroup: Skorne Warlocks Skorne Warbeasts Skorne Warlock Attachments Core: Praetorian Karax Praetorian Swordsmen Venator Reivers Special: Non-Character Solos Cataphract Cetrati Venator Slingers Immortals Nihilators Praetorian Keltarii Paingiver Beast Handlers Minion units that will work for Skorne Rare: Character Solos Character units Paingiver Bloodrunners Praetorian Ferox Cataphract Incindiarii Cataphract Arcuarii Tyrant Commander & Standard Bearer Venator Flayer Cannon Venator Catapult Crew Minion solos that will work for Skorne
While Skorne's Disciple of Agony Theme would restructure it to: Battlegroup: Ascetic Warlocks Paingiver Warlocks Skorne non-Character Warbeasts Minion non-Character Warbeasts Bonded Character Warbeasts Core: Paingiver Bloodrunners Nihilators Special: Paingiver Beast Handlers Paingiver solos Mortitheurge Willbreaker Minion Units that will work for Skorne Rare: non-Paingiver solos Praetorian Karax Praetorian Swordsmen Venator Reivers Cataphract Cetrati Venator Slingers Immortals Praetorian Keltarii Praetorian Ferox Cataphract Incindiarii Cataphract Arcuarii Tyrant Commander & Standard Bearer Venator Flayer Cannon Venator Catapult Crew
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Mar 2, 2018 19:52:20 GMT
No... let GW list build philosophy stay in GW games...
This essentially means that janky lists (i.e. BG heavy with no units and support solos only at most) are no longer a thing and removes a lot of the list build flexibility. I'm fine with WMH lists being what they are.
And given how factions vary in terms of what they want to bring, there's always going to be complaints about why certain stuff is Special in one faction but their equivalents are Rare in another or Core in yet another, also the impracticality of applying it uniformly to Mercs/Minions where there is a much higher proportion of character solos.
Besides, it'll be sooooo, so, so, so, so much work to have a different ForceOrg chart for every THEME, particularly when you get to themes which have such a narrow roster of models available to them, you essentially end up with a theme that only has a couple of tournament viable lists.
Colour me *meh*
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 2, 2018 20:11:18 GMT
No... let GW list build philosophy stay in GW games... This essentially means that janky lists (i.e. BG heavy with no units and support solos only at most) are no longer a thing and removes a lot of the list build flexibility. I'm fine with WMH lists being what they are. And given how factions vary in terms of what they want to bring, there's always going to be complaints about why certain stuff is Special in one faction but their equivalents are Rare in another or Core in yet another, also the impracticality of applying it uniformly to Mercs/Minions where there is a much higher proportion of character solos. Besides, it'll be sooooo, so, so, so, so much work to have a different ForceOrg chart for every THEME, particularly when you get to themes which have such a narrow roster of models available to them, you essentially end up with a theme that only has a couple of tournament viable lists. Colour me *meh* Well, I deliberately didn't go in to quantities for how such a Force Organization should be filled out, i.e. minimums and maximums, slots vs percentages, so it could be easily considered that Battlegroups just have the requirement of 1 Warcaster, and is otherwise unlimited, and one could have an unlimited number of Core units (up to their individual FA, of course), but it would be more specifically limiting on the Specials and Rares in relation to the Core units and/or Warcaster. The problem with Themes are that they are already have just a couple tournament viable lists as is, so that is hardly a valid complaint. With a Themed Battlegroup, one could have an army with options over the current army with only limited options. I was more interested in the HOW you would organize your army, really.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Mar 2, 2018 20:17:59 GMT
You just described the same thing twice and just changed the formatting.
If there were percentage ratios then themes would be even bigger garbage
|
|
germanicus
Junior Strategist
No jokes round ear...
Posts: 358
|
Post by germanicus on Mar 2, 2018 21:00:49 GMT
Well, I deliberately didn't go in to quantities for how such a Force Organization should be filled out, i.e. minimums and maximums, slots vs percentages, so it could be easily considered that Battlegroups just have the requirement of 1 Warcaster, and is otherwise unlimited, and one could have an unlimited number of Core units (up to their individual FA, of course), but it would be more specifically limiting on the Specials and Rares in relation to the Core units and/or Warcaster. The problem with Themes are that they are already have just a couple tournament viable lists as is, so that is hardly a valid complaint. With a Themed Battlegroup, one could have an army with options over the current army with only limited options. Depends on the theme and depends on the depth of model choice in said theme. I won't argue this point mainly because it's right for some and not for others (don't take this comment to be antagonistic, I'm merely making the statement). I'm OK with how lists can be formed now as they are. To me, the themes ARE the force organisation chart, albeit within the factions themselves, rather than something adhered to throughout the game-world as they dictate what can be taken together and for what. The problem with bringing the GW style FOC is that the way AoS/WHF units and models interact and synergise with each other is fundamentally different from the dynamic in WMH. Also, it's a balancing issue. As I mentioned, one player's Special, might be another's Core or Rare and with the necessary limits that come with such tags, it's an avoidable complication. Further, regarding balancing is the FA. The game is balanced around the possibility of fielding full FA for virtually every model, so the housekeeping required to tweak quantities available as per the FOC is too troublesome and, I think, annoy the player base more than anything else. And for what it's worth, for a large proportion of WMH players, the less it has in common with GW games, the better (this isn't a dig at you, just an observation of a lot of chatter regarding PPvGW). :/
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 2, 2018 21:27:07 GMT
You just described the same thing twice and just changed the formatting. If there were percentage ratios then themes would be even bigger garbage Could you be more descriptive as to what was said twice? The current Theme system is set up so that if one wanted to have a unit from outside the Theme, you lose the Theme.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Mar 2, 2018 21:34:47 GMT
You just described the same thing twice and just changed the formatting. If there were percentage ratios then themes would be even bigger garbage Could you be more descriptive as to what was said twice? The current Theme system is set up so that if one wanted to have a unit from outside the Theme, you lose the Theme. Force org charts and themes. Without percentages it kind of just looks like a different format of what you're allowed to take in a theme
|
|
Cyel
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Cyel on Mar 2, 2018 22:02:05 GMT
I am definitely in favour of FOC style limitations if they are done right as it creates more varied, balanced armies/less skews and less rock-paper-scissors games as a result.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Mar 2, 2018 22:10:40 GMT
I am definitely in favour of FOC style limitations if they are done right as it creates more varied, balanced armies/less skews and less rock-paper-scissors games as a result. You mean people will take the absolute best models in the absolute best theme and all the lists will remain cookie cutter in competitive play because thats how it will shake out always and forever?
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Mar 2, 2018 22:15:41 GMT
Could you be more descriptive as to what was said twice? The current Theme system is set up so that if one wanted to have a unit from outside the Theme, you lose the Theme. Force org charts and themes. Without percentages it kind of just looks like a different format of what you're allowed to take in a theme No and yes. Force org charts set limitations based on what where a unit's category lies, and possibly the number of that unit. Themes set limitations on what units may be taken, period. To use the Skorne examples I provided, with Disciples of Agony as currently constituted, I cannot take any Venators at all, but with the Force Org Disciples of Agony, I could toss in a unit of Venator Slingers for their Flare debuff. The Venator list in the FO DoA wouldn't be as broad as could have been if it was the normal Skorne FO. Do you see the difference between "cannot take at all" and "limited in number"?
|
|
Lanz
Junior Strategist
Posts: 685
|
Post by Lanz on Mar 2, 2018 22:36:04 GMT
Not even 40k uses this kind of force organization chart anymore. Detachments are everything now, and those let you take an army almost entirely comprised of one type of model if you choose.
If the game that coined the concept doesn't even really use it anymore, it's a safe bet it's not a good system.
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Mar 2, 2018 23:04:56 GMT
Force org charts and themes. Without percentages it kind of just looks like a different format of what you're allowed to take in a theme No and yes. Force org charts set limitations based on what where a unit's category lies, and possibly the number of that unit. Themes set limitations on what units may be taken, period. To use the Skorne examples I provided, with Disciples of Agony as currently constituted, I cannot take any Venators at all, but with the Force Org Disciples of Agony, I could toss in a unit of Venator Slingers for their Flare debuff. The Venator list in the FO DoA wouldn't be as broad as could have been if it was the normal Skorne FO. Do you see the difference between "cannot take at all" and "limited in number"? Yeah but your example seems to be a both cannot take at all and whatever you can take is limited in number except you didn't put the numbers for the general category limits. The whole limited in number thing already exists as FA. Shop you're just suggesting that the battlegroup have an FA and the units have an FA and then include a new FA for elite units.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Mar 2, 2018 23:15:12 GMT
"why isn't this game more like that other game most of its players stopped playing because it had shoddy rules"
|
|
|
Post by elshinare on Mar 2, 2018 23:19:14 GMT
I am of a mind where there should be one theme per faction...not the way themes are though, more along the lines of, if you take x models of y type, army bonus to all models...and not talking about y being models of the internal faction but, cavalry, light warbeast/jacks, light/medium/heavy infantry. call it force organization or what have you, but think about how there are themes that are just bad, and then themes that are the only ones played in a faction
|
|
|
Post by elshinare on Mar 2, 2018 23:22:56 GMT
Also remember...you do not have to play in theme...sure you lose free units and buffs, but is trading a buff from theme worth trading for a buff from a solo/unit
|
|