Switch Theme:

What if WarmaHordes used Force Organization for army builds?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

Considering a discussion on Themes for Business and Non-Theme Events on Lormahordes General, 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 they don't fit in the above.

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

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 19:31:44


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





That's essentially why Warjack points exist. Theme forces essentially finish the job and do a better job of creating design space for a variety of units than the FOC does. The current design of the game is "must take ~30 points of battlegroup and must take ~40 points of generally units of the listed theme" with about 30 points of flex. Solos are generally overcosted, which limits you to to the 2-3 you get for free. I don't really get what an FOC would be looking to accomplish that the current rules don't already do better.
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 LunarSol wrote:
That's essentially why Warjack points exist. Theme forces essentially finish the job and do a better job of creating design space for a variety of units than the FOC does. The current design of the game is "must take ~30 points of battlegroup and must take ~40 points of generally units of the listed theme" with about 30 points of flex. Solos are generally overcosted, which limits you to to the 2-3 you get for free. I don't really get what an FOC would be looking to accomplish that the current rules don't already do better.

Honestly, I hadn't made the consideration of removing Warjack/Warbeast points at all, nor was I proposing it.

Most Themes are too focused and disallow any options for adjustment beyond what is in their list. This disallows even the possibility for some freedom of list creation that people had been complaining about Formations (and the Choice Detachments that came after) in 40K. Utilizing a Force Org chart will still set a focus for the army, but there is at least some possibility of wiggle room that someone might want to take advantage of.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 23:01:12


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

Call it 'Order of Battle' rather than Force org, that way GW has no reason to sue for IP infringement, even if the function is fundamentally the same.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/02 23:12:45


'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 carldooley wrote:
Call it 'Order of Battle' rather than Force org, that way GW has no reason to sue for IP infringement, even if the function is fundamentally the same.

Sure, no problem. I just used the term because it was so recognizable that I could use it as a short hand.

So, how would you organize the units in your army?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

 Charistoph wrote:
 carldooley wrote:
Call it 'Order of Battle' rather than Force org, that way GW has no reason to sue for IP infringement, even if the function is fundamentally the same.

Sure, no problem. I just used the term because it was so recognizable that I could use it as a short hand.

So, how would you organize the units in your army?


Beats me, the current system works well enough in my opinion. If I want to go back to mass warfare, I can just go back to 40k; my tau haven't had table time since 8th dropped.

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Witch Hunter Undercover in a Cult







I'm not sure what the point would be. If you want to hard-restrict units (mandatory core/limited rare) the way 40k does it you're adding nothing and neutering/banning arbitrary army builds, if you don't I don't know why you're categorizing units.

40k is designed around using the org chart to control the ratio of expensive units to cheap units (and that's been slowly getting stripped down to the point that in 8th the org charts don't really limit you much unless you're in a really expensive army). Warmachine is designed such that there usually isn't a strong incentive to spam one thing however you're building your army, so an artificial structure imposed on the game to control spam doesn't really help.

Why do you want to make an org chart?

Victoria est autem vita.

Stories at https://knightofthegrey.wordpress.com/
Game-related musings at https://thescenicdetour.wordpress.com/
Both updated irregularly 
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 AnomanderRake wrote:
I'm not sure what the point would be. If you want to hard-restrict units (mandatory core/limited rare) the way 40k does it you're adding nothing and neutering/banning arbitrary army builds, if you don't I don't know why you're categorizing units.

40k is designed around using the org chart to control the ratio of expensive units to cheap units (and that's been slowly getting stripped down to the point that in 8th the org charts don't really limit you much unless you're in a really expensive army). Warmachine is designed such that there usually isn't a strong incentive to spam one thing however you're building your army, so an artificial structure imposed on the game to control spam doesn't really help

Why do you want to make an org chart?.

Actually, 40K WAS designed around using the org chart to do that. That much has been lost since the advent of Formations. Formations may be gone, but the Role Detachments are so numerous and open that it ignores what the FOC used to do. The Theme process of WarmaHordes is following the same concept of 40K's Formations. The other current alternative is the equivalent of 40K's Unbound. This is partly a project to bring that happy medium between Formation and Unbound called the Role Detachment in to the larger games of WarmaHordes (say, 75+ pts, the scale where Themes really come in to play).

I wanted it to be a fun thread that looked at how the armies would be organized more than the actual limitations, which is why I only asked one real question: "How would you organize the units in your army?"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/03 17:58:47


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User





One of the charms of Warmachine is the ability to build radically different lists ('jack heavy vs. infantry heavy, spammy vs MSU etc. etc.); enforcing a force org requirement kind of defeats that unfortunately. :(
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 Trevy wrote:
One of the charms of Warmachine is the ability to build radically different lists ('jack heavy vs. infantry heavy, spammy vs MSU etc. etc.); enforcing a force org requirement kind of defeats that unfortunately. :(

Not as much as Themes do... Themes are the Core Choice Formations of WarmaHordes with no real option for Auxiliary Choices.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Auxiliary choices are quite literally the definition of your second list.
   
Made in gb
Screaming Shining Spear





 LunarSol wrote:
Auxiliary choices are quite literally the definition of your second list.


you dun beat me to it, double/triple list formats pretty much cover it

I agree Themes are kind of samey in the take X to get free Solo's of type Y, but that's an issue with Solo's, part of me thinks some of them are overcosted on the assumption they'll be free in Theme (which then leads to units without support Solo's not seeing table time)

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 LunarSol wrote:
Auxiliary choices are quite literally the definition of your second list.

Not even close. The closest one has to having Auxiliary Choices in a Theme is the single Mercenary/Minion option. Auxiliary Choices in 40K were still part of the army's list and had to be deployed in the same game. A second list in WarmaHordes cannot be fielded at the same time.

Most Auxiliary Choices were tiny when compared to their Core Choices. A second list is the same point size as the first list with the same level of build requirements as the first.

So, no, Auxiliary Choices have no relationship with the second list.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/07 20:43:53


Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The other thing to realize is that when 40k's factions got large enough that there was any sort of model diversity to mix; they decided to keep declaring them new factions over and over. Themes are more or less Warmachine's answer to Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, etc.

Ultimately, the standard 75 point game has enough variety in its sub army themes to support armies of that size. For the game to really need Auxiliary choices in the vein of what we're seeing out of 40k's detachment system it would probably be better to play larger games. You can actually get something very similar to the 8th edition detachment system if you play the multi-caster unbound rules and allow each caster something akin to 50 point armies where each casters army can be a separate theme.
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 LunarSol wrote:
The other thing to realize is that when 40k's factions got large enough that there was any sort of model diversity to mix; they decided to keep declaring them new factions over and over. Themes are more or less Warmachine's answer to Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, etc.

Ultimately, the standard 75 point game has enough variety in its sub army themes to support armies of that size. For the game to really need Auxiliary choices in the vein of what we're seeing out of 40k's detachment system it would probably be better to play larger games. You can actually get something very similar to the 8th edition detachment system if you play the multi-caster unbound rules and allow each caster something akin to 50 point armies where each casters army can be a separate theme.

Pretty much. To make it closer, you'd have one 75 pt "Primary" list and Theme with other lists being either 25 pt Warcaster lists, 0 pt Battlegroup lists, 15-25 pt Platoons (unit and solo combos from Company of Iron), or some such.

While that would make for an interesting event, WM/H starts getting unwieldy at 100 points. A 175-200 point game would be a very large game, ala Apocalypse.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Charistoph wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
The other thing to realize is that when 40k's factions got large enough that there was any sort of model diversity to mix; they decided to keep declaring them new factions over and over. Themes are more or less Warmachine's answer to Blood Angels, Dark Angels, Imperial Guard, Grey Knights, etc.

Ultimately, the standard 75 point game has enough variety in its sub army themes to support armies of that size. For the game to really need Auxiliary choices in the vein of what we're seeing out of 40k's detachment system it would probably be better to play larger games. You can actually get something very similar to the 8th edition detachment system if you play the multi-caster unbound rules and allow each caster something akin to 50 point armies where each casters army can be a separate theme.

Pretty much. To make it closer, you'd have one 75 pt "Primary" list and Theme with other lists being either 25 pt Warcaster lists, 0 pt Battlegroup lists, 15-25 pt Platoons (unit and solo combos from Company of Iron), or some such.

While that would make for an interesting event, WM/H starts getting unwieldy at 100 points. A 175-200 point game would be a very large game, ala Apocalypse.


Yes it does, which is why the unbound rules exist. I'm not saying people should play unbound, but by essentially acting as a multiplayer format it helps break very large games down into something resembling fair.
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut







There are theme forces that are essentially auxiliary forces, if I
understand how the term is being used. Secret Masters, for example,
is an auxiliary force of Druidic forces in Circle. Druids aren't line
troops anywhere else except in Secret Masters.


DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++
Get your own Dakka Code!

"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude 
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 malfred wrote:
There are theme forces that are essentially auxiliary forces, if I
understand how the term is being used. Secret Masters, for example,
is an auxiliary force of Druidic forces in Circle. Druids aren't line
troops anywhere else except in Secret Masters.

You are not understanding the term as it is being used, but that's because it is coming from Warhammer 40K 7th Edition Detachment system.

From Edition 3rd through 6th, 40K employed a Force Organization Chart which was based on limiting what units could be taken based on the Role the unit had. Starting in 6th Edition, they introduced Formations which are a detachment that was separate from the classic Force Organization Chart, but could allow someone to field something extra, such as being able to field a Space Marine Commander and Librarion (or Emperor's Champion for Templars) in the classic Force Organization Chart (renamed Combined Arms Detachment in 6th) and a Chaplain with Command Squad in their own Formation.

About 6-8 months after 7th Edition launched, Formations were becoming a running standard in 40K, then GW released the Necron codex for 7th Edition. This included a very different style of Detachment called Decurion. The Decurion required 1 Core Choice (which was rather large Formation) and 1 Auxiliary Choice (from a selection of numerous small Formations or even just a single unit selection), and could take up to 9 additional Axuiliary choices (from the same list) and a single Command Choice (a Formation full of HQ-Role models). As the Edition progressed, almost every army received a version of this type of detachment, with one of the most egregious being the Gladius Detachment which allowed certain Transports for the Core Choice to be taken free of charge. GW eventually dropped this detachment system in 8th Edition. Having two separate lists does not fit the "Core/Auxiliary Choice" concept.

With Themes, the entire army has to fit in that mold, so it's not entirely within the capacity to do so without blatantly disregarding army creation. It would be interesting to see if people would be up to making their army lists with the partial Theme format that I listed above. In a way, it would be the same as taking a Theme and inserting the old Mk 2 Company of Iron Platoon in to it.

For example, your main army would be Secret Masters theme, but you also included the Scars of Caen Platoon which includes a unit of Bloodweavers, a unit of Woldstalkers with their Stoneward, a Wayfarer, and two War Wolves, but all fitting within the game's point limit. Part of the problem is that by doing so you are limiting Theme benefits that are provided based on the number of Blackclad models in your army.

It would be a lot of fun to set those things up so that you could take a portion of Secret Masters and insert it in to a Devourer's Host army, but in most cases you're going to be looking at larger games to the point of unwieldy to be able to take advantage of those setups.

Honestly, I think it would be awesome if PP provided more Platoons and allowed them to be taken in Theme without damaging their cohesiveness. It would open up a lot of design space and provide options for list creation.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
[MOD]
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Ah. Yeah, that doesn't work at the current scale of the game. I
feel like you need bigger armies to make that work.

DR:70+S+G-MB-I+Pwmhd05#+D++A+++/aWD100R++T(S)DM+++
Get your own Dakka Code!

"...he could never understand the sense of a contest in which the two adversaries agreed upon the rules." Gabriel Garcia Marquez, One Hundred Years of Solitude 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

In a sense, we already use one, where the warnoun is our HQ and our beasts or jacks are our troops. The only bridging point are warnouns that could share a battlegroup; and I'm not sure about whether the game is balanced for that.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/03/12 11:20:20


'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 carldooley wrote:
In a sense, we already use one, where the warnoun is our HQ and our beasts or jacks are our troops. The only bridging point are warnouns that could share a battlegroup; and I'm not sure about whether the game is balanced for that.


The game isn't really balanced for multiple casters period. It was a dream the devs had once, but hasn't been seriously pursued in years.
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 LunarSol wrote:
 carldooley wrote:
In a sense, we already use one, where the warnoun is our HQ and our beasts or jacks are our troops. The only bridging point are warnouns that could share a battlegroup; and I'm not sure about whether the game is balanced for that.


The game isn't really balanced for multiple casters period. It was a dream the devs had once, but hasn't been seriously pursued in years.

The rules still support it, though. You can find it in every Prime and Primal.

I don't think that the game is not balanced for it, I just think the system is just too dang clunky for it.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

 Charistoph wrote:
 LunarSol wrote:
 carldooley wrote:
In a sense, we already use one, where the warnoun is our HQ and our beasts or jacks are our troops. The only bridging point are warnouns that could share a battlegroup; and I'm not sure about whether the game is balanced for that.


The game isn't really balanced for multiple casters period. It was a dream the devs had once, but hasn't been seriously pursued in years.

The rules still support it, though. You can find it in every Prime and Primal.

I don't think that the game is not balanced for it, I just think the system is just too dang clunky for it.


Actually the rules found in prime and primal are for separate battlegroups, essentially 2 FOCs in the parlance. What is the most ridiculous combo that you folks can think of 'going off' in a dual warnoun battlegroup? Keeping in mind that the force limits in WMH are 'per warnoun'...

Personally, how about Iron Mother Directix and Syntherion popping feats in the same turn on a battlegroup consisting of 3-4 Prime Axioms and 2 Corollaries?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/03/12 18:00:26


'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





One of the funniest I've seen is Shae and Bart and an army of Vanguards in MK2. Generally the easiest way to break the game is to pair two Ret casters though. They tend to have feats that super buff one aspect of their army but do nothing for the rest. Sorscha2's feat has always comboed hilariously. I assume stacking it with Butcher1 would do bad bad things.
   
Made in us
Dominar




Astonished of Heck

 carldooley wrote:
Actually the rules found in prime and primal are for separate battlegroups, essentially 2 FOCs in the parlance. What is the most ridiculous combo that you folks can think of 'going off' in a dual warnoun battlegroup? Keeping in mind that the force limits in WMH are 'per warnoun'...

Personally, how about Iron Mother Directix and Syntherion popping feats in the same turn on a battlegroup consisting of 3-4 Prime Axioms and 2 Corollaries?

It's still per Warcaster/Warlock. I say that because as a Mercenary player, I can easily fit in 6 Battlegroups in a single force (it may not be a good force, but I can). Part of that is because each Lesser Warlock and Jr Warcaster take their own Battlegroups. It's even crazier in Cygnar because they can take all of those smaller Battlegroup commanders and add on Jakes and their own Journeyman Warcaster to the pile.

But yeah, the rules do support doing all that, even adding on another Warcaster/Warlock if you want. You can run 1 Warcaster/Warlock at 100 points, but people don't. Why? Because it gets bogged down, and it's not unlike running a 'small' Apocalypse game, with 2 'Cast/locks being even worse.

-----------------------------------------------------

But that still doesn't answer the question of who you would put where, does it?

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Traitor





This is one of those cases where an attempt to streamline will actually further complicate matters. As it stands, themes can be fine tuned within themselves without necessarily being too impactful on the rest of the faction (except meta theme preference seems to be an issue). They create armies that ostensibly reflect the narrative behind the theme as well.

The option to not take a theme is also entirely acceptable. That being said, I am speaking from a position of Mercenary privilege where we have a one-size-fits-all in the form of Irregulars, if our army concept doesn't fit within the confines of the other themes.

In Fantasy Battles, GW struggled with FOC because they went from percentages in 4th/5th to rigid FOC in 6th/7th and back to percentages in 8th. No one was ever happy with how these guidelines were implemented. Thematic subfactions seems to be a decent way of circumventing this issue.

Given the scale which Warmachine is played, a heavily skewed 75 point army isn't going to look out of place. Is it all special forces? That's 30 models on the table. Hardly unrealistic.

Basically, I'm not sure what the FOC in WMH will accomplish. It won't enhance an army's thematic narrative, nor will it do much to balance the game.
   
Made in ca
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





London, Ontario

I have no problem with themes as they are.

I don't want to see an FOC structure brought to Warmachine, I don't think it would add anything.

I'd prefer for everyone to have a "mostly Warjack / Warbeast" build theme, and a mostly "Not-Warjack/Beast" theme. Something simple like "For every 25 points spent on Warnouns, take a free solo" and "For every 20 points spent on Not-Warnouns, take a free solo".

That would bridge the gap between Theme and Non-Theme, while still having "proper themes" give additional rules to the theme, while the "General Themes" just give you a couple free solos to balance out the points a bit better.

Just my thoughts on things.
   
 
Forum Index » Warmachine & Hordes by Privateer Press
Go to: