Re: Warhammer Armies - Tilea

>pbow...@xxxxxxx wrote:
>> John Hwang wrote:
>>>And I don't think it's worth a full slot or 65 pts as an upgrade /
>>>adjutant to the General. Basically, he's a walking piece of Wargear,
>>>like an Inquisitor's Servitor or a Mage's Familiar.
>>
>> Or a Battle Standard, or a Casket of Souls, or an Anvil of Doom... All
>> of which take up slots;
>
>
>
>The Standard itself doesn't.

If you want to be pedantic, nor does the Paymaster's key. Only the Hero
it's attached to fills a slot.

>> Tying characters to one another in 'character units' is something that
>> no army in WFB does,
>
>So?

So unless there's a good reason why DoW need a rules restriction
(however minor) that other armies don't, why introduce it? I oppose
unnecessary clutter - special rules should only be used where special
rules are needed, army-specific rules still moreso.

>> The point I'm making is that the ingame effect doresn't need to be
>> significant because of this post-game effect - yet you seem to want the
>> in-game drawback to be on a par with the bonus, when it seems more
>> reasonable simply to treat the Paymaster like any other unit/character
>> - give him beneficial abilities and cost him according to those
>> abilities, rather than reducing him in cost. This isn't Magic, in which
>> everything useable has to fall within a tight cost bracket even if that
>> requires giving them disadvantages to make them suitably efficient.
>
>
>Which is part of the problem. GW and Warhammer could learn a *lot* from
>WotC and Magic.

I can live without a new edition every two years, but I'd say GW has
learned a lot from them - it succeeds in alienating a large portion of
its player base on a regular basis, constantly recycles minor
variations on the same old ideas and produces lists in which a large
proportion of the units are deliberately made worthless (though less so
than was once the case). Fortunately it hasn't yet got to the stage of
throwing any overpowered rules it can think of into the mix, confident
that if it's over the top they can just ban it in a couple of months
after all the cheesemongers have bought the maximum allowance of each.
Oh, and GW doesn't normally arbitrarily remove an army from the game
only to bring it back intermittently in over-the-top form some years
later.

>>>But recall that I'm talking about generic HUMAN units above, and generic
>>>Heavy / Light Cav isn't otherwise available.
>>
>> Yes it is; Kislevites have the bow option, Marauders the hand weapons
>> and shields, Pistoliers pistols, and in my list Stradiots spears and
>> throwing spears. The full variety allowed by the DoW entry exists in
>> other lists, just not as a single clumsy aggregate unit.
>
>Pistoliers are an Empire exception.

While Horse Archers and Marauder Horsemen are...?

> And you're still selling multiple
>books where one should be enough.

Since you'd effectively put the major portion of half a dozen armies in
one book, you'd end up with a far more expensive product than the
typical GW army book in any case - probably not far short of the cost
of those half-dozen books. In any case the Dogs of War units could
easily have their rules placed on the internet as Regiments of Renown
do now.

>>>I'd rather not buy 3+ Army Books (Chaos Hordes, Empire Kislev, and
>>>Tilean Mercenaries) when the rules could be concisely listed for the
>>>generic unit in the army list. What you describe above is GW run amok.
>>
>> So I take it your mercenary idea would include the entirety of the Core
>> selections for Empire, Orcs, Dwarfs, HE and WE in the same book?
>
>Did you NOT read what I wrote previously? Was my rule not clear enough?

It's clear that unless you stick all those Core selections in one book,
you'll end up in exactly the same situation - only more so since
players will be more dependent on units from 'auxiliary' lists, while
in my formulation they are optional add-ons to a Tilean (or indeed any
other) list.

>> you don't need Ogre Kingdoms to play Dogs of
>> War as they are now, though you'll have more options if you do buy
>> additional books.
>
>If I ever want to field Ogres, I do.

If you do, but why force players who won't want to field Ogres to pay a
premium for reproducing half of the rules in that book in a Dogs of War
book? Ogre Kingdoms is fine in the way it works with DoW, so why the
complaints about my suggestions for expanding on the idea?

>> Right, but ifhe's carrying with him magic items and abilities the list
>> hiring him wants he could still be worth the sacrifice in a different
>> list - that, after all, is the whole point of taking Dogs of War.
>
>I'm trying to imagine what would be worth more than a Hero slot. I can
>see an extra hire fee, but I can't see burning the extra slot.

Do you always use every Special and Rare slot available to you? I
rarely use Rares at all, and often have a spare Special slot or two.
It's not a particularly big deal unless you max out on elite regiments.

>>>"Dogs of War" and "Hired Sword" rules would be sufficient
>> The point of revising the Dogs of War list is to turn the
>> 'placeholders' into meaningful unit entries - you may take a unit/model
>> with the Dogs of War rule in the army list. It's the clutter of the
>> current DoW rules and entries I object to.
>
>I don't see any problem.

You don't seem to have a problem with inelegant rules generally; I'd
much rather cut down on the clutter as much as possible, and
standardise and universalise as much as possible.

>>>Because they're inherently Characters, not Units?
>>
>> And the practical difference is what, exactly?
>
>1 flexible model vs multiple defined models.

Dark Elf Warriors are flexible; Dark Elf Assassins are not. This
distinction is artificial. Units can consist of anything from 1 (e.g.
Wood Elf Great Eagle) to 40+ models, so again there's no clearcut
distinction there. I don't see any reason why a mercenary character has
less business taking up a Rare slot than a Great Eagle.

>> They both perform the same functions, use similar statlines,
>> fight with similar weapons, use the same basic rules.
>
>Right, tho I seem to recall that Characters and Units have some
>important special rules of their own.

Mostly centred around whether or not they are individual models, and in
characters' case their interaction with units they join. Neither is
dependent on whether you call them Heroes or Rares, and the prevalence
of characters that can also take Special/Rare slots (like
Dragon-riders) and units that can take character slots (such as the
Shaggoth) suggest there's no important organisational distinction based
on their rules.

>> Moreover a mercenary character shouldn't be able
>> to join or lead units in the parent list in the same way as a normal
>> character selection -
>
>Why not?

Mainly for simplicity - otherwise you have to add in all the rules
about High Elves not mixing with Dwarfs and all the rest of it to
govern how they interact with each others' units. But also simply for
fluff reasons - the sorts of characters who wander around on their own
making a living by hiring themselves out are very rarely leaders and
won't usually have much experience commanding units. Suddenly having an
Ld10 Dwarf Slayer or Ld9 Elf Ranger boosting your Ld7 Empire infantry
unit simply makes no sense. The troops themselves might be less
inclined to follow a mercenary's orders as well.

>>>How so? Importing 16 Empire Handgunners = +10 for the unit, +16 for the
>>>US16 = +26 pts. Easy.
>>
>> Messy does not equal difficult. It's easy enough to calculate, but
>> quite aside from playtesting issues to make sure that the premium is
>> fair for all units at all cost scales (which is unlikely) simply
>> introducing points differentials between armies is untidy mechanically
>> and conceptually.
>
>
>Since when has GW been this precise on costing?

Since when has GW costing worked well? I think they're more precise
than you give them credit for if you believe they'd happily throw half
a dozen armies' core units together, fiddle the costs and hope that
somehow the points work out. You'll note that Dogs of War units
currently cost exactly the same regardless of who's hiring them.

> In theory, an Empire
>Crossbowman is worth a certain number of points. Charging a bit more
>covers for the non-standard application, so it should be fine.

But how much is the appropriate bit? For which units? And how do you
calculate it beyond a rough guess that in theory it should work out?

>>>40k2 was percentages, not slots, so it's apples and oranges.
>>
>> Just a different way of looking at the same thing
>
>I disagree.

Why? I pointed out the similarity in the way the two systems
compartmentalise mercenaries/allies separately from the rest of the
army list.

>>>>>"DoW Mercs can take 1 Unit of Core from Empire / Tilean / Dwarves / HE
>>>>>as Special for 10 pts +1 pt/US -OR- Ogres / WE / Orcs for 20 pts +2 pts/US."
>>>>
>>>>Ugh, that looks to be a horrible mess while achieving nothing
>>>>substantial my ideas wouldn't (unless you're really attached to the
>>>>idea of using mercenary Dryads).
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, I like the idea very much, and would field Kroot conversions
>>>in a heartbeat. The problem is that I don't have a suitable "treat as"
>>>within Empire or Dogs of War.
>>
>>
>> *sigh* I used that particular example because the idea of mercenary
>> Dryads goes completely against the fluff - Dryads are reluctant enough
>> to work with the Wood Elves, let alone anybody else, and they're hardly
>> going to be amenable to bribes.
>
>
>Who said my "treat as" Dryads would inherit the WE Dryad background?

If you intend your list simply for yourself, carry on, but if you want
to actually propose something that you think should make it into the
general rules it has to allow for people using Dryads etc. as Dryads
etc. If you're saying "Yes, you can take WE Core as mercenaries" you're
saying "Dryads, Glade Guard, Scouts and Glade Riders hire themselves
out as mercenaries", not "troops equivalent to these may be used as
mercenaries".

>> You just seem to want WFB Lost and the
>> Damned - a modeller's army with provision to throw together anything
>> you can convert or have in your collection - with a complete disregard
>> for fluff considerations or how this would fit into WFB background
>> generally.
>
>Did I NOT say that very thing to Estarriol?

I don't think you specifically mentioned wanting to bin the background
to make things fit, but it's another reason to keep your idea of the
army on your workbench rather than treating it as a serious proposition
for the direction the army should take if and when it ever gets
revisited.

>> they won't be a random bunch of
>> sellswords drawn from all over the Warhammer World.
>
>Why not? Warhammer World isn't historical Europe.

It's doing its best to be a close analogue and its armies are pretty
much all based on national archetypes from various periods of European
history, especially the predominantly human ones.

>>>And an employer can generally hire as he chooses.
>>>>From the pool available to him. So if he wants to
>>> pay a bit more for Empire Handguns, he can do so.
>>
>> Only if they're on offer.
>
>Which I make to be the case.

Leaving you with a circular argument - handgunners should be
mercenaries because employers will hire handgunners if they're
available as mercenaries, which they should be.

Philip Bowles

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Warhammer Armies - Tilea
    ... greater magic item allowances for their characters, ... no army in WFB does, and the exception is needless - he loses little ... > Tilean Mercenaries) when the rules could be concisely listed for the ... > without polluting the other army lists with a lot of placeholders. ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: Warhammer Armies - Tilea
    ... If basic infantry DoW Mercs were promoted +1 slot level instead of +2 slot levels, they'd probably see a bit more play. ... Other armies are less comprehensive than Empire, so they could use Mercenaries to a greater extent. ... Tilean Mercenaries) when the rules could be concisely listed for the generic unit in the army list. ... "Dogs of War" and "Hired Sword" rules would be sufficient on their own, without polluting the other army lists with a lot of placeholders. ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)
  • Re: Constructing a random permutation on the fly
    ... great big lists of numbers if at all possible. ... Construct the Cartesian product of the Galois fields; ... The idea is simple in a set of 0 to n-1 characters, ... Before going into the next steps of permutation building, ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: NEWSWEEK article on Gail Simone
    ... mostly mistreated just like male characters, ... For instance, the list lists ... child too; unless the mother is Queen Hippolyta, ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: [40k] A modest proposal - 1k point armies.
    ... Do you already have more than one army? ... Because that's exactly how you do it in historical games and that is what ... I tend to try different lists just to see what works (that ... It's the sort of thing 'newbies' like to be able to ...
    (rec.games.miniatures.warhammer)