OK, so this is basically a repost of something I posted in the "Maybe There is a Way..." thread, but I figure this is something extremely important to get out there, since the army comp system (or lack thereof) is what is giving many 8th Ed players grief. So, without further delay.... There IS apparently a way to balance the game. GW has been sending pamphlets to various gamestores in my area with a tentative set of army building rules. While it's still a loose system, it seems far more sporting than just "put as much as you want on the table". I'm unsure whether this is something they plan to formalize of just something the GW guys are spitballing, but it seems pretty good. The problem with making points systems is that much of a model's advantage lies in its synergy with other models and intricacies in their unique rules, ie, things that are extremely difficult to formulate into a point value system. So it seems GW said screw it, and tried to make a structure system using the advantages of the AoS system. Basically, it all boils down to the "Keywords/Tags" at the bottom of every Warscroll. In short, the balance system restrains the total number of Warscrolls you can field, sets a hard limit on the number of wounds you can allocate to a single warscroll (so you won't have to worry about cheeselords fielding 90+ spearmen blobs), prevent unit duplication (Some exceptions apply), and restrict the number of Warscrolls you can field with the "Hero", " Cavalry" and/or "Monster" Keyword. Or, you can field one of the "army specific Battalion Formations", since those are basically all balanced out. Here's an example Warhost Format my store is currently running: 6-8 Warscrolls 1-3 Hero Keywords (unless required by Battallion) 0-2 Monster/Cavalry Keywords (unless required by Battallion) 30W Scroll Cap (number of wounds a single scroll can have) 80W Hard Cap (Max Wounds per Warhost) No unit Duplication (unless required by Battallion) So as an example, here's the list I field with these rules at my local gaming pub: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cohort of the Celestial Path Oldblood General on Foot (Suntooth Maul) <<hero keyword>> Skink Priest (Priestly Trappings) <<hero keyword>> 30 Saurus (Full Command) 10 Temple Guard (Full Command) 5 Saurus Cavalry (Full Command) <<cavalry keyword>> Bastiladon (Solar Engine) <<monster keyword>> 3 Salamanders 2 Skink Handlers -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's 2 Hero Keywords, 1 Monster Keyword, 1 Cavalry Keyword, 8 Warscrolls with No Duplicate units and 80 Wounds total. Not bad for a couple of minutes. Likewise, when I'm not playing this list, I tend to play the Saurus Host Battalion List straight out of the book. Ignoring Battleshock on 3 Units of Saurus and Temple Guard, all of whom have even more attacks than usual, is pretty sweet. Now, army comp aside, the advantage to this system is that it doesn't try to fairly quantify the value of a model in points, and simply encourages diversity by limiting the particularly brutal units, limiting Max unit size to prevent steamrolling based in pay to win, and forcing players to use multiple warscrolls in a warhost. The end result is pretty respectable, with players rewarded for seeking synergy and diversifying their force. So far, I've yet to see any warhost that is built the same with this system. I know there are other methods about, but this method is the best I've come across so far. And with that, I fade back into my leygate and await continued discussion.
Any chance of getting hold of the actual memo or pamphlet? and scanning it? If they did this: then all the more reason for the player base to devise their own system and impose it on GW.
I'll see if I can snag a copy to scan for you guys. I doubt it's "classified GW material" or anything. Whether it's anything solid of simply a list of suggestions?... That's what I don't know. Full disclosure, I'm working off the system my store is using, since they haven't released the memo for us or printed out copies. That said, I know one of the managers at the place, so unless the store owner is guarding the sheet with his life, I should get the chance soon. XD And I will reiterate, from what I've seen of this new system (again, unsure how much is house rule, how much is GW official) there is a system, is just not points based. If anything, it feels more like the force organization chart from the last edition got teeth, but instead of keeping track of core, special and rare choices, this new system is more about limiting certain keywords (monster, cavalry, heroes) as well as the max wound count of the army. I've played a match or two with the new system, and it feels really balanced. The biggest complaint I have is that anything outside of those keywords is only restricted by the "don't duplicate warscrolls" and wound count restrictions. Seeing "Elite Armies" isn't as uncommon now, though if I was honest, even that isn't as big a deal. Truth to power, by forcing players to use different, distinct units, the battles feel pretty organic, and while I loved 7th ed (not so huge a fan of 8th), I am glad to see that at my gaming store, at least in AoS, the days of power-spamming the most lethal units in huge blocks while fielding only min units of core (drowning in hordes of Stormvermin/Stormfiends was a common cause of army death at my store) seem to have passed. I've seen players taking risks with units they normally wouldn't give the time of day, if only because they can't take the identical units of "old reliable". I think this game could be used in tournaments with army comp rules like these, but AoS is a whole other animal from Warhammer Fantasy Battles, and I think we need to approach it as such. It feels less like the detail oriented, strategically cautious game I'm used to, and more a game of aggressive risk management and synergistic awareness, like Warmachine/Hordes. Considering the true value of warscrolls lie in his they chain effects and powers together, it seems a difficult proposition to assign arbitrary values to individual units. So, for the TL;DNR crowd, my point is, I think this system is on to something here: less focus on points and unit costs, more on a hardened force organization chart. Honestly, considering I'd usually start at force organization when selecting what I wanted in my lists and then crunched the numbers to make my choices work, why not remove the middleman and put the emphasis on Force Org instead of points?
UPDATE: My buddy pulled through. The document isn't official, but rather a memo that's been circulating around. Now, my buddy can't get us a direct copy (apparently, GW has been circulating it to GW stores and local partners but they're still in beta and theyre official line is that they want to keep these rules unofficial until they get more feedback "to encourage honest feedback and opinion as opposed to taking it like an official rules set". He thinks that's corporate hooplah, but it is what it is). Apparently, official, hardened army comp rules and lists will be coming in the first big expansion book. Until then, this is what they're passing around to fill the gap: Apparently that's a copy of it that some store leaked. Then my store modified it a few times as they played with it. What you saw in my first post is the result. Mind, this is apparently all still up in the air, and it may all turn out to be a great big hoax, but apparently it's good enough for a number of tourny organizers in our area who've started using variations as their new status quo. I'm short, it seems closer to what IXT was proposing.