Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SO this has been bugging me recently. I recently read a post about someone who was happy that they could make a themed army in AoS without having to worry about "core tax", and I can understand their excitement, but the gamer in me cringes at the thought of everyone just showing up with all their biggest toys and getting stuck in. Yes, bringing out that big monster or giant mecha (in 40k say) is visually very impressive and is fun once in a while but I feel that the "all the best things" approach just dilutes the impact that they have. When everyone's a super etc.

It also takes away from the immersion, if you will. Seeing a Space Marine army chocked full of shiny toys and 2 combat squads of tacticals cowering in the back lines just seems wrong; unrealistic (if you can apply the term about armies of 8' tall superhumans in inch power armour).

In fact, I'd love to see army building go completely the other way- instead of a force organisation chart allowing 3 fast attacks, 3 elites and 3 heavy support, with the "tax" of 2 troops choices I'd rather see an allowance of 3 fast attacks, 3 elites OR 3 heavy support, or any combination of the 3 (or even restrict it to 2!).
A re-balancing of 40k towards armies mainly being troops armed with small arms for killing other troops with only a few tanks/giant mecha/elite battlesuited badasses would make such elements that much more exciting for the effect the have on the battlefield.

This is one of my main gripes with AoS in fact. It's all got a bit too... overdramatic, bringing the focus too far away from the little guy. After all, the poor footslogger is the one we can identify with, the one we could almost image ourselves being.

Anyway, that's my rant. What're your views on using basic troops? Do you prefer being able to just take whatever you want or do you prefer to work within restraints (in relation to wargaming. Anything you're into in the bedroom is your own business!).

Az

Merging the forge org choices would ruin most armies to the point they are unplayable.

And due to detachments, formations etc, the stronger armies would simply be unaffected.


However, I mainly play 30k now so my army is generally built around large units backed up by a few small elite units and armour.

I also like seeing more core due to looking more realistic(as you can get with fantasy/scifi)
But i think if we wanted to encourage people to use more they'd need to be made more viable to play rather than limiting the fancy things.

Well you have to remember that they would be mainly up against other troops. What is currently nonviable in the current meta could work a lot better when they're not up against lots of, say heavily armoured MCs.

Also, this is all just hypothetical - you'd probably have to some tweaking to work with current editions. Or possibly wholesale revisions in the case of fantasy.

 Jackal wrote:
Merging the forge org choices would ruin most armies to the point they are unplayable.

Except they'd all be 'ruined' to the same degree. So I think 'unplayable' is a bit overstating it, don't you?

Not really no.
Some armies have a very small tax on adding in another detachment where as others pay a premium.

Alot of armies also thrive on using alot of those slots to actually function as a coherent and useful army.
By restricting them heavily you simply lead armies to take further detachments to remain useful.


Edit: besides, some armies can simply run dual CAD and formations to get around this.

Farseer
3 scatter bikes
3 scatter bikes
Wraithknight

Farseer
3 scatter bikes
3 scatter bikes
Wraithknight

Aspect host of spiders



Breaks no rules and takes plenty of big monsters plus specialised units.





With limitations I think imposing them more towards detachments and formations would prevent alot more of the issues.

Ignoring the detail, and concentrating on the abstract question – 'would you prefer a game with more focus on infantry?'

The answer is yes; yes I would.

Big stuff is cool, but I agree that a lot of the drama and interest of wargaming is lost when it comes down to 'big guy duels'.

Not every thing that falls outside of the "core tax" is big huge monsters.

Waywatchers were Rare choices in 8th edition. Prior to the Order book altering Waywatchers for the Wanderers, I would run a Wood Elf army for AoS that consisted of anywhere from 11(2 units of 5 and a single Waystalker) to 14(2 units of 6 and two Waystalkers) Waywatchers.

It was a very high damage dealing force, but outside of a single scenario(The Trap from the big AoS book) it was something that never really garnered complaints.

So I should have had to bring a 'core tax' of Eternal Guard or Glade Guard(who are FAR more powerful than Waywatchers were, if used in large enough numbers) to run my fluffy force?

 Kanluwen wrote:
So I should have had to bring a 'core tax' of Eternal Guard or Glade Guard(who are FAR more powerful than Waywatchers were, if used in large enough numbers) to run my fluffy force?

A fluffy force should be buildable from the rules. If it is fluffy for X army for field many units of Y then the rules should allow for that. If Y is something rare and not fielded en mass in the fluff then there should be some sort of restriction.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So I should have had to bring a 'core tax' of Eternal Guard or Glade Guard(who are FAR more powerful than Waywatchers were, if used in large enough numbers) to run my fluffy force?

A fluffy force should be buildable from the rules. If it is fluffy for X army for field many units of Y then the rules should allow for that. If Y is something rare and not fielded en mass in the fluff then there should be some sort of restriction.

Fluffwise, Waywatchers are the unit that most invaders would have encountered. Not the Glade Guard, not the Eternal Guard, not the Wildwood Rangers, etc.

Sort of discussing that specifically here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694698.page

But I think GW has made a mess of making "Core" units something worthy of taking over other choices - with the exception of a handful of units (at least in 40K). If core units were "good enough" on their own, then we would not need rules to take minimum percentages and such - they'd be worthy taking on their own merit.

Then I would expect them to be core, wouldn't you? If they actually were the most common troop type, they would be the core of the army.

Of course, most intruders might be discovered by other troops DAYS earlier, and not be engaged until the waywatchers can be called in to wipe them out... Just because the intruders never saw the patrolling glade guard doesn't mean they weren't there watching, and supporting the waywatchers in the resulting massacre.

After all, one arrow fired from the underbrush looks very much like any other. And any survivors are going to claim they were ambushed by the very best the enemy had to offer to make themselves look not-so-bad. Getting wiped out by chump core troops leads to much mocking...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So I should have had to bring a 'core tax' of Eternal Guard or Glade Guard(who are FAR more powerful than Waywatchers were, if used in large enough numbers) to run my fluffy force?

A fluffy force should be buildable from the rules. If it is fluffy for X army for field many units of Y then the rules should allow for that. If Y is something rare and not fielded en mass in the fluff then there should be some sort of restriction.

Fluffwise, Waywatchers are the unit that most invaders would have encountered. Not the Glade Guard, not the Eternal Guard, not the Wildwood Rangers, etc.

Then the answer is to allow them to be the core of an army, not to remove the core tax.
A lot of army books/codexes seemed to do that well by saying if you take the appropriate HQ they become core/troops. Does GW still do books like that?

Artificial rules that require taking certain units will always rub a lot of gamers the wrong way. No matter the justification from fluff or background or even history (for historicals), there is always a lot of resentment to any tax units.

The best games are those that figure out ways to make the core choices appealing on their own. One of the things that killed WFB was that the complex balance of ranked units, damage dealing units, monsters, artillery, and magic got shunted hard by the nerf to cavalry, and the ease artillery had in sniping monsters. It became about hordes of infantry versus meganuke spells.

For 40k, the question becomes a really tough one: what do tactical squads do that nothing else can? And the answer is: nothing! Sternguard do what they're supposed to do better (shoot things with bolters) and do what they're generally used for better (special weapon delivery). 40k has flirted with rules that made only troops "Scoring units" or allowed troops deployment advantages, but the game has simply struggled to make the basic tactical squad an appealing choice.

I think it's a holdover from the "warhammer in space" mentality that 40k initially had. In ranked combat games, you can have units that are better in every way than another unit, even in the same army, because bringing a cheap unit can be incredibly useful. But 40k needs to better carve out a role for each unit. For a counterexample, see Space Marine scouts, which bring all kinds of interesting tools to the SM player.

Right now, 40k has too many "core" units that have analogues that are simply upgrades: DE Kabalite warriors, Eldar Guardians, Necron Warriors, and even CSMs. More core units should be distinctive, and bring strengths of their own.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Fluffwise, Waywatchers are the unit that most invaders would have encountered. Not the Glade Guard, not the Eternal Guard, not the Wildwood Rangers, etc.

For small groups of invaders perhaps, as it was their duty to guard Athel Loren's borders. But they were always too few in number to take on entire invading armies. I'd say if you were playing a fluffy game in which, say, a small party of Empire mercenaries had invaded the forest looking for loot but were lured into an ambush then an all Waywatcher army would be fluffy- but against an entire army? Their rare status is pretty justified.

I'm not saying there's no place in gaming for interesting forces based around certain themes but they should be the exception rather than the rule.

But again, apples and oranges here.

Waywatchers, as a niche unit in a niche army, are an interesting example of a unit that was made rare, but probably didn't need to be. The way to limit units like Waywatchers would be to simple charge full price for all of their abilities, even when there's a limit to how many can be used at once. It's what the Privateer Press folks call Skornergy: the joy of paying for mutually exclusive options. Overdone, and you get units that nobody takes because they're too pricey. Done right, and you have a unit that is worth taking in smaller quantities for the specific combination of abilities, but too many would become diminishing returns.

 Aben Zin wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Fluffwise, Waywatchers are the unit that most invaders would have encountered. Not the Glade Guard, not the Eternal Guard, not the Wildwood Rangers, etc.

For small groups of invaders perhaps, as it was their duty to guard Athel Loren's borders. But they were always too few in number to take on entire invading armies. I'd say if you were playing a fluffy game in which, say, a small party of Empire mercenaries had invaded the forest looking for loot but were lured into an ambush then an all Waywatcher army would be fluffy- but against an entire army? Their rare status is pretty justified.

That's why, way back in the day, there was a Warhammer Skirmish(the little pamphlet sized booklet) scenario that actually had Waywatchers take on an entire army.
The balancing factor?
The Waywatchers had trapped up the place.

I'm not saying there's no place in gaming for interesting forces based around certain themes but they should be the exception rather than the rule.

But again, apples and oranges here.

Your argument is that a core tax is a necessity to balance out "monster units" and to make the little guys relevant.

I can tell you right now that with AoS? It's not necessary. I have yet to find a basic infantry unit that cannot do well in AoS, when properly supported in a synergistic list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
Waywatchers, as a niche unit in a niche army, are an interesting example of a unit that was made rare, but probably didn't need to be. The way to limit units like Waywatchers would be to simple charge full price for all of their abilities, even when there's a limit to how many can be used at once.

Which is why Waywatchers were something I rarely fielded in 8th. They couldn't take any of the magic arrows, they had no defenses, they had nothing that made them worth their points.

In AoS? People have learned that is not the case. They are NOT something that can be ignored anymore.

 Polonius wrote:
Artificial rules that require taking certain units will always rub a lot of gamers the wrong way. No matter the justification from fluff or background or even history (for historicals), there is always a lot of resentment to any tax units.

The best games are those that figure out ways to make the core choices appealing on their own. One of the things that killed WFB was that the complex balance of ranked units, damage dealing units, monsters, artillery, and magic got shunted hard by the nerf to cavalry, and the ease artillery had in sniping monsters. It became about hordes of infantry versus meganuke spells.

For 40k, the question becomes a really tough one: what do tactical squads do that nothing else can? And the answer is: nothing! Sternguard do what they're supposed to do better (shoot things with bolters) and do what they're generally used for better (special weapon delivery). 40k has flirted with rules that made only troops "Scoring units" or allowed troops deployment advantages, but the game has simply struggled to make the basic tactical squad an appealing choice.

I think it's a holdover from the "warhammer in space" mentality that 40k initially had. In ranked combat games, you can have units that are better in every way than another unit, even in the same army, because bringing a cheap unit can be incredibly useful. But 40k needs to better carve out a role for each unit. For a counterexample, see Space Marine scouts, which bring all kinds of interesting tools to the SM player.

Right now, 40k has too many "core" units that have analogues that are simply upgrades: DE Kabalite warriors, Eldar Guardians, Necron Warriors, and even CSMs. More core units should be distinctive, and bring strengths of their own.

I think you are saying the same thing I'mabout to say, but think of it as the TL;DR version:

If its preferable to take the elite/upgrade unit, GW has failed to make the core unit viable by either getting the points and/or unit rules wrong. While there is no reason you can't have units at different power levels, the points difference should even that out or the one unit should provide some benefit that the other unit does not.

GW has just fialed in this regard with "awesome model" and "pay to win" syndrome with its releases.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which is why Waywatchers were something I rarely fielded in 8th. They couldn't take any of the magic arrows, they had no defences, they had nothing that made them worth their points.

*Coughchokewheezesplutter*
NOTHING THAT MADE THEM WORTH THE POINTS?!
They had arrows that flat out ignored armour! They could shoot twice instead against unarmoured troops! All at BS5! And, as they could scout, they could pretty much guarantee they'd be at short range. All this at only 3-5PPM more than glade guard! Admittedly they would die in a swift breeze but they're Wood Elves, that's part of their whole stick (terrible pun intended).
And as for not taking magic arrows, given that White Lions sporting the irksome Banner of the World Dragon (making them pretty much immune to fire from the glade guard) that could even be counted as a bonus!
And this was why it makes sense that they should be Rare.

In fact they're actually a good example of clever design in the WE army book.
Throughout out the book, from the fluff, to the magic arrows to the special Waystalking heroes, excellent archery and reliance on missile weaponry is a common theme. Waywatchers, and indeed Deepwood scouts, are a natural (more terrible puns) extension of this design principle.
Basically take the regular troop type (the glade guard) then make them better with skirmish and scout and boom, you've got the Deepwood Scouts. But as these are straight up better (for 1PPM more) you restrict them to a special choice so you can't fill your list with them. Level those guys up again and you get the Waywatchers. Again, more for your money. It makes perfect sense from both a design and a fluff point of view to restrict them to rare. They're the elite of the elite in a wood elf army. After all, the British Army isn't made up solely of SAS squadrons, for instance.

Bear in mind that Warhammer was a game that was supposed to show average armies, not elite strike teams.
As for using basic infantry in AoS, well, I can't speak from experience here. My gaming group just carried on playing 8th. But can you tell me there is a single instance that you'd take a regiment of 20 goblins (with hand weapons) over 20 black orcs?

 Aben Zin wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which is why Waywatchers were something I rarely fielded in 8th. They couldn't take any of the magic arrows, they had no defences, they had nothing that made them worth their points.

*Coughchokewheezesplutter*
NOTHING THAT MADE THEM WORTH THE POINTS?!
They had arrows that flat out ignored armour! They could shoot twice instead against unarmoured troops! All at BS5! And, as they could scout, they could pretty much guarantee they'd be at short range. All this at only 3-5PPM more than glade guard! Admittedly they would die in a swift breeze but they're Wood Elves, that's part of their whole stick (terrible pun intended).
And as for not taking magic arrows, given that White Lions sporting the irksome Banner of the World Dragon (making them pretty much immune to fire from the glade guard) that could even be counted as a bonus!
And this was why it makes sense that they should be Rare.

Yes, they were BS5(6 for the Sentinel and Waystalkers).
For 20 points per model with no armor and no survival traits. They literally kept the same named rule that Waywatchers had from the previous book("Forest Stalker" used to be WAYWATCHER ONLY that made it so they had -1 to be hit, even in the open, and allowed for them to deploy as Scouts), turned it into a garbage version of Martial Prowess and Murderous Prowess that only activated while within a forest, and slapped it on every unit in the army.
The book before, Waywatchers were 24 points per model, with Killing Blow on their shots at Short range(which yes did include when they fired as a charge reaction), with a -2 at all times to be hit by missile weapons (-1 for Forest Stalkers and -1 for Skirmishers) before any Range or Cover modifiers came into play.

So they went down 4 points but also lost a HUGE chunk of their offensive potential and basically ALL of their survival traits and were given two "shots" that require the whole unit to fire the same shots(including any Waystalkers you might attach to the unit, if you so chose to do it) and firing the double shot gave the bows the "Multiple Shots" special rule, which meant you were at -1 to hit if you chose to double tap--and that is before any range or cover modifiers are taken into play.

So please tell me how it was that they were "good" again, when compared to the other options that other armies could throw out there in their Special slot versus me putting Waywatchers out in a Rare slot?

In fact they're actually a good example of clever design in the WE army book.

Actually, they're a good example of the halfassed design in the WE army book and why they should have just canned releasing a new edition of the book rather than pushing one out the door.

Throughout out the book, from the fluff, to the magic arrows to the special Waystalking heroes, excellent archery and reliance on missile weaponry is a common theme. Waywatchers, and indeed Deepwood scouts, are a natural (more terrible puns) extension of this design principle.

Waystalkers were literally just Waywatcher Sentinels(the unit Champion) taken as Heroes, and bumped up from 30 points(20 points for a Waywatcher and 10 points to upgrade to a Sentinel) to 90 points with an allotment of 25 points of magic items, and having "Sniper" tacked into their special rules.

Basically take the regular troop type (the glade guard) then make them better with skirmish and scout and boom, you've got the Deepwood Scouts. But as these are straight up better (for 1PPM more) you restrict them to a special choice so you can't fill your list with them. Level those guys up again and you get the Waywatchers. Again, more for your money. It makes perfect sense from both a design and a fluff point of view to restrict them to rare. They're the elite of the elite in a wood elf army. After all, the British Army isn't made up solely of SAS squadrons, for instance.

Deepwood Scouts had no business being Specials. That is another example of the halfassed nature of the book compared to the book prior.
The book prior had Glade Guard being able to purchase Scouts at +5 points per model, which had the effect of capping out the unit size at 10 models and removing their Glade Guard Longbows but gaining Skirmishers and Scouts.

You could not have more units of Scouts than you had Glade Guard.

Bear in mind that Warhammer was a game that was supposed to show average armies, not elite strike teams.

Waywatchers aren't "elite strike teams". They're the freaking Elf Border Patrol.

As for using basic infantry in AoS, well, I can't speak from experience here. My gaming group just carried on playing 8th. But can you tell me there is a single instance that you'd take a regiment of 20 goblins (with hand weapons) over 20 black orcs?

If I'm running an all goblin army and don't want to include 20 Black Orcs?

I don't play goblins so I can't really say in that context. But given that there is no longer a WS/BS or "to Wound" chart? I can comfortably say that yes, Goblins can be just as effective as Black Orcs can be in AoS with the player knowing what their army does.

You can consider that weasel-wording if you want, but learning what your army does and how each component interacts is what makes AoS different to 8th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

For 20 points per model with no armor and no survival traits. They literally kept the same named rule that Waywatchers had from the previous book("Forest Stalker" used to be WAYWATCHER ONLY that made it so they had -1 to be hit, even in the open, and allowed for them to deploy as Scouts), turned it into a garbage version of Martial Prowess and Murderous Prowess that only activated while within a forest, and slapped it on every unit in the army.
The book before, Waywatchers were 24 points per model, with Killing Blow on their shots at Short range(which yes did include when they fired as a charge reaction), with a -2 at all times to be hit by missile weapons (-1 for Forest Stalkers and -1 for Skirmishers) before any Range or Cover modifiers came into play.

So they went down 4 points but also lost a HUGE chunk of their offensive potential and basically ALL of their survival traits and were given two "shots" that require the whole unit to fire the same shots(including any Waystalkers you might attach to the unit, if you so chose to do it) and firing the double shot gave the bows the "Multiple Shots" special rule, which meant you were at -1 to hit if you chose to double tap--and that is before any range or cover modifiers are taken into play.

So please tell me how it was that they were "good" again, when compared to the other options that other armies could throw out there in their Special slot versus me putting Waywatchers out in a Rare slot?

Maybe you missed the ignoring armour thing? This is a much bigger deal than killing blow, especially at short range. Say you hit a unit of dragon princes with 12 shots. Old edition you could hope for 2 KBs, with maybe one or 2 fluffing their armour save. 8th ed you'd kill 6. For less points! At any range! And against rank and file they added precisely nothing to your shooting. Yes they were easier to kill with shooting, but again, wood elves. And cheaper.

Waystalkers were literally just Waywatcher Sentinels(the unit Champion) taken as Heroes, and bumped up from 30 points(20 points for a Waywatcher and 10 points to upgrade to a Sentinel) to 90 points with an allotment of 25 points of magic items, and having "Sniper" tacked into their special rules.

Well yes. That's continuation of the theme. Sniper was good!

Deepwood Scouts had no business being Specials. That is another example of the halfassed nature of the book compared to the book prior.
The book prior had Glade Guard being able to purchase Scouts at +5 points per model, which had the effect of capping out the unit size at 10 models and removing their Glade Guard Longbows but gaining Skirmishers and Scouts.

You could not have more units of Scouts than you had Glade Guard.

As opposed to allowing them to keep their longbows and arrows for only an additional 1 point per model? That they had a lot of exciting things to compete with, but were still a solid choice put them right where they belonged. Skirmish and scout increased their flexibility and survivability. Sounds special to me.

Waywatchers aren't "elite strike teams". They're the freaking Elf Border Patrol.

That are better at shooting in every way to their normal kin. That's pretty darn elite.

You can consider that weasel-wording if you want, but learning what your army does and how each component interacts is what makes AoS different to 8th.

Well what I'm seeing is that you didn't know what your army does and how each component interacts, so maybe not so different after all?
:p

 Aben Zin wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

For 20 points per model with no armor and no survival traits. They literally kept the same named rule that Waywatchers had from the previous book("Forest Stalker" used to be WAYWATCHER ONLY that made it so they had -1 to be hit, even in the open, and allowed for them to deploy as Scouts), turned it into a garbage version of Martial Prowess and Murderous Prowess that only activated while within a forest, and slapped it on every unit in the army.
The book before, Waywatchers were 24 points per model, with Killing Blow on their shots at Short range(which yes did include when they fired as a charge reaction), with a -2 at all times to be hit by missile weapons (-1 for Forest Stalkers and -1 for Skirmishers) before any Range or Cover modifiers came into play.

So they went down 4 points but also lost a HUGE chunk of their offensive potential and basically ALL of their survival traits and were given two "shots" that require the whole unit to fire the same shots(including any Waystalkers you might attach to the unit, if you so chose to do it) and firing the double shot gave the bows the "Multiple Shots" special rule, which meant you were at -1 to hit if you chose to double tap--and that is before any range or cover modifiers are taken into play.

So please tell me how it was that they were "good" again, when compared to the other options that other armies could throw out there in their Special slot versus me putting Waywatchers out in a Rare slot?

Maybe you missed the ignoring armour thing? This is a much bigger deal than killing blow, especially at short range. Say you hit a unit of dragon princes with 12 shots. Old edition you could hope for 2 KBs, with maybe one or 2 fluffing their armour save. 8th ed you'd kill 6. For less points! At any range! And against rank and file they added precisely nothing to your shooting. Yes they were easier to kill with shooting, but again, wood elves. And cheaper.

8th edition you MIGHT kill 6, because you're still needing to wound with Strength 3 bows.

The "at any range" thing doesn't matter, because what happened in WHFB when you were outside of half range?

Waystalkers were literally just Waywatcher Sentinels(the unit Champion) taken as Heroes, and bumped up from 30 points(20 points for a Waywatcher and 10 points to upgrade to a Sentinel) to 90 points with an allotment of 25 points of magic items, and having "Sniper" tacked into their special rules.

Well yes. That's continuation of the theme. Sniper was good!

Sniper was terrible. A-freaking-trocious.

Sniper was a special shooting attacking(which, I might add, never was FAQ'd to make it so that you could use your special shots from "Hawk-Eyed Archer" in conjunction with the Sniper shot; it relied upon house-ruling it) that suffered an additional -1 To Hit penalty and allowed you to allocate a specific model rather than wounds being allocated as normal. There was no "Look Out, Sir!" allowed against it--but Ward saves, Armor saves, etc all came into play.

Deepwood Scouts had no business being Specials. That is another example of the halfassed nature of the book compared to the book prior.
The book prior had Glade Guard being able to purchase Scouts at +5 points per model, which had the effect of capping out the unit size at 10 models and removing their Glade Guard Longbows but gaining Skirmishers and Scouts.

You could not have more units of Scouts than you had Glade Guard.

As opposed to allowing them to keep their longbows and arrows for only an additional 1 point per model? That they had a lot of exciting things to compete with, but were still a solid choice put them right where they belonged. Skirmish and scout increased their flexibility and survivability. Sounds special to me.

You do know that in the previous Wood Elf book(before the Ward book), Glade Guard Longbows(which Scouts gave up) were S4 at short range, right?
And that Deepwood Scouts were exactly where they belonged:
As a unit upgrade to the Glade Guard units, instead of being their own separate unit.

Waywatchers aren't "elite strike teams". They're the freaking Elf Border Patrol.

That are better at shooting in every way to their normal kin. That's pretty darn elite.

Given that Ballistic Skill was mitigated by range and cover?

Yeah, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

You can consider that weasel-wording if you want, but learning what your army does and how each component interacts is what makes AoS different to 8th.

Well what I'm seeing is that you didn't know what your army does and how each component interacts, so maybe not so different after all?

:p

What I'm seeing is a theoryhammer player who had no practical experience with my army trying to tell me how my army played in an edition which catered to big blocks of infantry and AOE spells.

Were Waywatchers something that could be played effectively? Certainly. But it required the other person to be playing a list that was absolutely atrocious and to not be aware of what the unit does.

And that's just discussing Waywatchers, not getting into the various things which threw up red flags as to this book being rushed out rather than being intended to last. Araloth was a 260 point Lord choice with an Asrai Spear, Hand Weapon, and a shield.

No, what you're seeing is someone who has played since Wood Elves got their very first armybook.

8th edition you MIGHT kill 6, because you're still needing to wound with Strength 3 bows.

The "at any range" thing doesn't matter, because what happened in WHFB when you were outside of half range?

As opposed to having to roll a 6 to wound for KB to trigger?
At 15" only?
Seriously, Waywatchers in the previous book were a novelty and that's about it.

Given that Ballistic Skill was mitigated by range and cover?

Yeah, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Given that BS5 will still always hit more than BS4? Trueshot arrows aside, of course. What was your argument?

Sniper was terrible. A-freaking-trocious.

OK, I'll concede that Sniper was pretty situational (but where were you getting the not using Hawk-eyed archer from?) but it still had it's uses. Taking a mage (who thought he was safe hiding in a unit) down to a single wound makes your opponent seriously reconsider 6 dicing a spell, for instance.
Yeah, "good" was probably going a bit far.

You do know that in the previous Wood Elf book(before the Ward book), Glade Guard Longbows(which Scouts gave up) were S4 at short range, right?
And that Deepwood Scouts were exactly where they belonged:
As a unit upgrade to the Glade Guard units, instead of being their own separate unit.

Well aware of that thank you. But having them as an (over expensive) that actually reduces their effectiveness was a messy bit of design, especially when you then have to restrict how many of them you take.
If you could merely upgrade Glade Guard to scouts for 1 point per model then no one would play GG at all!

Were Waywatchers something that could be played effectively? Certainly. But it required the other person to be playing a list that was absolutely atrocious and to not be
aware of what the unit does.

So to use a unit well you had to not be aware of what it does?
That's crazy troll logic.

The 8th edition book fixed a whole bunch of things that took wood elves from a bottom tier army to pretty close to the top. Actually having magic that did something was quite an advance for one, finally catching up to the ASF bus was another. And Wild Riders. Just freaking Wild Riders.

Was it perfect? No. The nerf bat being taken hard to forest spirits (Losing a point of strength on dryads especially stung) and the whole Araloth thing do demonstrate that. But it was more cohesive and a heck of a lot more competitive than the previous book.

And that's enough topic derailment.

Stormonu wrote:
If its preferable to take the elite/upgrade unit, GW has failed to make the core unit viable by either getting the points and/or unit rules wrong. While there is no reason you can't have units at different power levels, the points difference should even that out or the one unit should provide some benefit that the other unit does not.

This is good design philosophy. Some times, of course, that difference could be simply "more bodies". It could be a difficult balancing act to pull off, points wise though.

Whether an army is OP or under powered or should have nothing to do with this topic. Either the game will be competently designed and balanced, or it wont be, the relevant argument should be if an army can or should be built without including the units that are considered the 'core' of an army.

There are two major problems with the idea of a "core tax":

1) Your idea of "core" and mine are not necessarily the same. For example, the core of your army might be hordes of generic infantry, while the core of my army might be squadrons of tanks. If you have a strict "core tax" it ends up being incredibly restrictive on the fluff of your army and most armies from each faction will look the same. And people will get really frustrated at how their fluff ideas can't be represented on the table because of the "core tax" units they have to buy.

2) Taking units just to pay a tax sucks for the customer. When you talk about a "core tax" it implies that "core" units are either weak rules-wise, boring fluff-wise, or just not fun to play with, and the only way to get people to take them is to make them mandatory. And gaming is supposed to be something you do for fun! This is the reason I never got into WHFB, I had zero interest in spending huge amounts of time and money on hordes of generic infantry that were little more than wound counters and space fillers to support the fun stuff. And I would have zero interest in your proposed game.

 Peregrine wrote:
There are two major problems with the idea of a "core tax":

1) Your idea of "core" and mine are not necessarily the same. For example, the core of your army might be hordes of generic infantry, while the core of my army might be squadrons of tanks. If you have a strict "core tax" it ends up being incredibly restrictive on the fluff of your army and most armies from each faction will look the same. And people will get really frustrated at how their fluff ideas can't be represented on the table because of the "core tax" units they have to buy.

2) Taking units just to pay a tax sucks for the customer. When you talk about a "core tax" it implies that "core" units are either weak rules-wise, boring fluff-wise, or just not fun to play with, and the only way to get people to take them is to make them mandatory. And gaming is supposed to be something you do for fun! This is the reason I never got into WHFB, I had zero interest in spending huge amounts of time and money on hordes of generic infantry that were little more than wound counters and space fillers to support the fun stuff. And I would have zero interest in your proposed game.

1) That would, of course, vary from army to army, and some redesigning of the army lists would probably be necessary to include some variety. Maybe some light tanks in core and heavier ones as the rare slots for instance?

2) Well I do take issue with the term first off! As Polonius an others have said, you'd have to make core units actually worth having. The thing about WFB was that any unit could be useful, if you use it correctly. A battle with lots of basic troops becomes more than just a test of "who has the best stuff" so much as "who can use their basic stuff the best". It used be said that Warhammer was won or lost in the movement phase, which is how I think strategic game should be. I want to know that I beat my foe because I out manoeuvred, not because I had the shinier toys.
That said, I see your point. Not wanting to spend all your money on the basic stuff is totally justifiable, especially if you're lacking in time or money particularly. Personally I enjoy trying to inject personality in the basic troops. In fact that's what drew me to Imperial Guard in the first place - this imagery of the regular guy surviving in a galaxy of horrors!
As for Warhammer - I think you kind of have to pull your focus back a bit. Not so much focusing on the look of a single trooper but at the regiment as a whole, an indeed at the battleline itself. It's a different sort of spectacle to the more tightly "zoomed in" view of 40k.

Something else that's worth a mention - just because you could only theoretically take 2 or three exciting things, doesn't mean you only have to buy that many. Collect more to have a bigger pool of options to choose from.

 Aben Zin wrote:
1) That would, of course, vary from army to army, and some redesigning of the army lists would probably be necessary to include some variety.

You can redesign stuff for variety, but then you start to lose the concept of "core" vs. "special". If I can build all of the various fluff concepts I should be able to represent on the table then the "core" category ends up being so broad that there's no reason to separate units into those classes.

Maybe some light tanks in core and heavier ones as the rare slots for instance?

But that doesn't make much sense. From a fluff point of view an IG armored company's core units are the LRBTs and the support units are the light tanks. Putting the light tanks as core units and the heavier ones as rare units is pretty obviously a balance thing to prevent tank-heavy armies, and that completely negates any claim that "core" vs. "rare" is about keeping things fluffy.

2) Well I do take issue with the term first off! As Polonius an others have said, you'd have to make core units actually worth having. The thing about WFB was that any unit could be useful, if you use it correctly. A battle with lots of basic troops becomes more than just a test of "who has the best stuff" so much as "who can use their basic stuff the best". It used be said that Warhammer was won or lost in the movement phase, which is how I think strategic game should be. I want to know that I beat my foe because I out manoeuvred, not because I had the shinier toys.

If basic troops were all useful if you used them correctly then why did it need a minimum percentage of points spent on basic troops?

Personally I enjoy trying to inject personality in the basic troops. In fact that's what drew me to Imperial Guard in the first place - this imagery of the regular guy surviving in a galaxy of horrors!

And that's fine. But you need to understand that the things you find appealing are not necessarily the same ones that other people find appealing.

As for Warhammer - I think you kind of have to pull your focus back a bit. Not so much focusing on the look of a single trooper but at the regiment as a whole, an indeed at the battleline itself. It's a different sort of spectacle to the more tightly "zoomed in" view of 40k.

That doesn't change the fact that you still have to buy, build, and paint all of those "wound counter" models. And that's the direction your proposed system drives 40k in, where you have tons of models that are just generic cannon fodder that you only take because the rules force you to.

Something else that's worth a mention - just because you could only theoretically take 2 or three exciting things, doesn't mean you only have to buy that many. Collect more to have a bigger pool of options to choose from.

Sorry, but that is not appealing at all. If I spend countless hours painting a model I expect to be able to use it, not to have it spend most of its time on my display shelf because most of my army has to be composed of cannon fodder garbage that I didn't want and I can only bring a small number of models that I really care about. Maybe the "collect lots and alternate" idea works if you're playing tons of games, but for a lot of us it just isn't fun.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sorry, but that is not appealing at all. If I spend countless hours painting a model I expect to be able to use it, not to have it spend most of its time on my display shelf because most of my army has to be composed of cannon fodder garbage that I didn't want and I can only bring a small number of models that I really care about. Maybe the "collect lots and alternate" idea works if you're playing tons of games, but for a lot of us it just isn't fun.

Hmm. This is clearly a difference of opinion here and I wonder if it's the difference between playing for the "game" and playing for the "hobby".

I play very much for the game- for the overall battle plans and for the split second (in game terms!) decisions made to try to defeat the opponent. I'll be the first to admit that I don't paint my models (I'm dyspraxic. I'm never going to find painting easy or in any way enjoyable) though I still enjoy posing them and occasionally converting them too, so maybe it's because for me it's not so much about showing off all my hard work. I can certainly understand the desire to do so though.

If you look at other war games with more tactical depth.
All units types have various functions in the game , so a combined arms approach is a core design principal.

It is possible to have armies that are more focused on one aspect of the combat spectrum, but they are more difficult to play well, and win with.

Now we have the overly restrictive and tactically simple 40k. Units are only measured on direct physical damage scale.(How much damage they can take and how much damage they can dish out.)

GW do not look at in game function and relevance to the army structure when developing their factions/forces.
Some one sculpts a cool looking model, and the game devs give it some special rules to help sell it.

So consequently in 40k, ordinary troops are seen as inferior to other units because the lack of tactical depth means they are all competing for the limited function the game play focuses on.And the non troop choices are all buffed with special rules/equipment .

The only way to solve this is to re write trhe rules to allow more tactical depth in the game play while streamlining the rules .To allow all units to shine in the tactical roles they should have, but the limited 40k rules do not allow.

While you could argue about the tactical depth of AoS, I think it has something that 40k could benefit from, and thats the synergistic nature of units with command abilities and special rules. If more armies had stuff like the Imperial Fists bolter drill, which rewards you for taking basic guns, then troops might be more desirable.

You should never tax, you should reward.