# An Issue with Army Composition



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

Ever since I started playing Warhammer (many many moons ago) I've had a problem with the way the rules allow armies to be built, the current 8th edition rules being no exception.

Does it bother anyone else that most armies have more Special and Rare troops than they do Core? Or that most armies spend more points on the 3 or 4 character models leading them? It really bugs me, to give an example, when I see people talking about skaven armies that have 2 Grey Seers, one on a Screaming Bell, a Plague Priest on a Furnace (with accompanying Plague Monks of course), an HPA, 2 Warplightning Cannons, Rat Ogres and Gutter Runners with a few Clanrats or Slaves just to make up the Core _requirement_, as if they're some kind of penance or tax on the "real" elements of the army.

I realise that Warhammer is a game and that the rules as published are those that are used, but doesn't it bug people that their armies are made up of a collection of the rarest elements of their respective races? To use the example given above, having _one _Grey Seer, let alone two, in an army should be a rare enough occurence due to their number and importance in Skaven society, yet I rarely see a Skaven army used without one. The Screaming Bell, whilst not a unique artefact, is still a mobile altar to the Horned Rat, deity of the Skaven race and yet they appear to crop up in the smallest of skirmish armies instead of being protected by a great horde of ratmen. Hell Pit Abominations, Clan Moulders finest achievement in bestial engineering to date, appear in armies that have no other Clan Moulder presence; an oddity, to my mind, given their unpredictablity.

Am I alone in my frustration at completely non-sensical armies? Am I wrong to think that Rare things should be rare, Special ones special and Core troops common and numerous in any given army?


----------



## Ratvan (Jun 20, 2011)

I do agree with you as a Skaven and Empire player it does greive me that Grey Seers for example in the fluff there are only 169 Seers and yet every army list that I have seen includes the given grey seer in some capacity.

As for the HPA again i think should have a limit to how many can be taken like the old 0-1 requirements that used to exist. Which is why my Krizzor (Moulder rivals) has none but is largely based around clan rats 120 (3 x 40) giant rats and rat ogres.

With empire every army list I have seen played in competitions has a steam tank...again there is only 8 and in one tournament I saw 6 of them....those elector counts really should learn to get along


----------



## Majere613 (Oct 14, 2008)

I'm inclined to agree, too. As primarily a WoC player, I've always held that a fairly large lump of points should go on the characters, since WoC armies are (were) very much about the various Champions leading their warbands. The old system of so many Lords, so many Heroes etc meant that the list was naturally skewed that way.

With the percentage-based system, that stops happening. Those powerful characters cease being an advantage, and start being a problem, especially Chaos Sorcerers, because most other armies can get a lot more Wizards. It doesn't exactly bother me, I've had a lot of success by really trimming down how many characters in general I use, but it 'feels' wrong. And when you have weapons like Bolt Throwers and Cannnons that are relatively cheap and can make their points back in a single shot, the number that can be squeezed into even a low-point army starts to look a bit daft, especially armies like Dwarfs and Empire who have access to a lot of different variants on pull-string-go-bang.


----------



## Ratvan (Jun 20, 2011)

I got to say I do like the bang! thats why I am aka mortard!


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

As some armies have cheap units in certain categories or expensive models in others, both a percentage and point based split will allow certain armies to maximise "best" units.

It could be approached with restrictions on what you must take before you can have something else, such as you must have at least 1 Moulder unit before you can take a HPA; however, this removes the possibility for people who have a good fluff reason to take certain lists without their opponent's prior agreement, and penalises people who want to try something by making them proxy/buy many new units instead of one.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I suppose it depends on your gaming group really and if your armies are geared towards tourny play.
My Empire, Ogre, O&G and my Dwarf lists all have a lot of points invested into core, My Empire has only 1 rare choice (rocket battery) and 3 or 4 specials (a cannon a mortar and 1 or 2 units of outriders but still is competative within my gaming group.
My ogres have a couple of gorgers and some leadbelchers but are a bit character heavy as it's hard enough to win with them without handicaping them further.
The problem really stems from uber competative tournament lists becoming the norm mainly due to internet forums and tournies are all about min maxing and squeezing the most out of a list.


----------



## HiveMinder (Feb 8, 2010)

I don't have a problem with the 8e army composition rules. It offers great flexibility to field varied armies. however, I think it's silly not to like them because it allows other players to field armies contrary to your notions of army construction. 

I myself am not a tourney player and prefer fluffy armies, but I'm not going to begrudge a tourney army. It's a nice challenge.

And on a side note, a HPA or two as the sole moulder presence in a skaven army is perfectly fluffy. Most are bought or bargained for, like most of the skaven units.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

It's a little silly to criticise a system based on what it allows you to do, rather than what it restricts you from doing, and there's not much it restricts you from doing except ludicrous spam lists. There's a few army composition issues with older books, but on the whole percentages plays it right.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

I agree here. But you have to admit that GW does absolutely nothing to help the issue. The army lists they tend to post are of the same kind of composition, for the simple reason, they want to make money... and its the characters and specials that cost more then then basic core troops.


I think there is a very simple fix however. Impose a point tier system. 

For example. A 500 point army can only have 1 character and 1 special choice, the rest must be core.
1000 points can only have one character, 1 special and 1 rare, the rest core.
2000 points 2 character, 2 special, 1 rare. 

And so on... for an example. This in my mind would make the armies more real in how they'd actually be composed. So in the given example, you'd only have your duel seer, mega wargear game at 3000 points... where you'd have the tons of core anyway as it should be.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

GrizBe said:


> I agree here. But you have to admit that GW does absolutely nothing to help the issue. The army lists they tend to post are of the same kind of composition, for the simple reason, they want to make money... and its the characters and specials that cost more then then basic core troops.
> 
> 
> I think there is a very simple fix however. Impose a point tier system.
> ...


That's how it used to be, and the system was very abusable. Just ask any Dark Elf player who ran a Dual Hydra list with a Black Dragon, or any number of other combos.


----------



## Alexious (Apr 13, 2009)

I don't think it is about army composition as a general idea but more to do with Human Nature...

Let's look at 3 armies that are the prime offenders of a skewered mix. Empire, Skaven, Goblins... Now consider the fact your a regular GW player perhaps play twice per month and that you can devout 20 or 30 hours per month to your hobby. 

The immediate idea of the game is to build your force, then play... painting and modeling form part of that. The big issue for the above 3 armies composition wise is 100 foot sloggers might be less than 500 points.. Skaven slaves? Skeletons? Zombies? Empire Militia, Empire detachments that don't count toward core, Empire state troops are all in the 2 to 8 point per model region. Even 40 Empire Halbediers are 200 points. 

So what does that lead players to do... ever tried painting 40 to 80 of the same damn thing? no matter how great a painter you are... or dedicated hobbyist... its time consuming and can take years to do. So the easiest way over this is hmmm i want to play with 2400 points.... lets do characters as they are expensive points wise and mean I get to play quicker and its cheaper and less time consuming, same with some rare choices and special choices.

The fact is... the issue is not composition, its the player and the cost of the units in typical forces for some armies. I say the player as well... as you will find that guy who plays TK... or VC.... and manages to do the old bone wash routine on his skelies to have a quick and playable force too. 

Perhaps what it should be is more to do with either up the cost of basic troops and other things in general instead of a system that encourages the gamer to go heavy on special and rare choices and charactes.

lexi.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

Alexious said:


> The fact is... the issue is not composition, its the player and the cost of the units in typical forces for some armies.


Excellent point.

WoC have high-point-per-model core troops which look similar to one of the better special choices and are often core-heavy.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Dave T Hobbit said:


> Excellent point.
> 
> WoC have high-point-per-model core troops which look similar to one of the better special choices and are often core-heavy.


That might also have something to do with the fact that the book is named on and centered around said core choice, and that said core choice looks better than a good number of things in the range.


----------



## olderplayer (Dec 11, 2009)

I prefer the percentage allocation to the number of units/characters allocations in 7th edition. It seems to have helped balance the game quite a bit, yet added more flexibility to army construction, along with some of the other rules changes in 8th edition. 25% core at least makes you really take core now where before one could really skimp on the investment in core by taking a few small units. 

I don't mind seeing special units having a larger number of points devoted to them. 

Unless running dark elves and a few other armies, maxing out heroes and lords under the new rules doesn't really work. You need numbers for steadfast blocks now. 

I know a dwarf player that has won two larger tourneys in the last six months with mostly warriors with great weapons (including one unit upgraded to rangers), one unit of hammerers, one thane BSB, and one runelord, but he does have two cannons, a grudge, a bolt, and an organ cannon, all with the right runes. He's way over the min core percentages. Also, his army would have not done very well in 7th edition but plays well and is challenging to play against in 8th edition but is not an autowin type of list (He's got to play it well to win.)


----------



## Tanarri (Jun 23, 2011)

I do prefer 7th edition army selection over 8th that being said I think 8th made playing Skaven a bit cheap.( I am a Skaven player)

Also I feel that my clan Wartek(my personal Clan Skyre offshoot) Is more than capable of paying for various troops and services from the other clans without having the other clans higher ups around to sabotage me in the middle of a fight. I don't want those clan moulder guys to turn their abomination on me and then take credit for all my hard work. Also if we are talking big points battles yes there may only be 169 grey seers however in a 3000 point game where I have over 250 models on the table I assume that is a big enough offensive for a grey seer to want to ensure that this assault on the surface is successful. If I had other options for a level 4 wizard that wasn't a demon that was even more rare to see I would probably take them. I view it as the prince or the king or really even a noble going out to fight with their force. How many nobles or high born or whatever do each nation really have? Yet every army I have ever seen has them. 

As was also pointed out that many models is a pain to pain I have been playing skaven for around ten years though probably only really trying to paint them since I met my wife 4 years ago(sorta a long story) I am a very slow painter and I probably only have maybe a third of my over 300 total models painted and a good portion of those my wife painted. Also since I feel it needs to be said Clan wartek does not current own or rent a HPA though they do plan on acquiring one within the next year.


----------



## Wingman (Jun 27, 2011)

I actually like it the way it is right now based on percentages. Also core may be cheaper point wise so you see less points spents on core units but I still normally have more core models than the rest of my army (dark elves and skaven). 

So in my perspective this is seen as the great heroes and lords are spending most of the gold on themselves and the great creatures which only number a lesser percentage of models and then the block infantry are paid less and recieve less gear but there are a lot of them to make up for it. Looking at points it would seem like you should have a lot more heoes, lords, rares and speciel models but they cost more per model to the point where I'm normally fielding more core models but less overall units.

Hope that makes sense but probably not:biggrin:


----------

