Jump to content

Mixed armaments within units


Recommended Posts

I was mathhammering away earlier today when I had something of a realization about units that allow mixed weapon loadouts, such as Ardboyz and Tzaangors. While I initially thought it pretty cool the way these units were designed -- you can make some models more offensive and others defensive, allocating wounds to the defensive ones first -- it didn't initially sink in the tactical ramifications of this design.

WHFB veterans no doubt recall that game as one where positioning really mattered. It was called a "rank and flank" game for a reason. While I love the AoS system in many ways, I do wish that directionality mattered more.

It hit me today that this kind of unit design does exactly that. If a Tzaangor unit is bearing down on you, one way to get an edge is simply to attack from a direction where the defensive models are denser. That way the enemy will have to either allocate wounds to the offensive models or have fewer models to strike back with, and either way the models that strike back won't hit as hard. 

I'd be strongly in favor of expanding this design to more units and even update some old warscrolls to allow for this possibility. Freeguild guard are an excellent opportunity -- I'd love to see boxes of sword and board with spears in the middle. I know that Warhammer is not a historical game, but adding little flairs like this really enhances the experience for me. A little verisimilitude goes a long way.

What do you all think about this? Do you like this design direction? Do you feel like it adds enough to the game to justify the small increase in complexity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually dislike it with the current units. I think having units which can be taken in quite large numbers all with different weapons bogs down the game more than it actually adds to it.

Ardboyz you could have a unit of 30, 10 with shields, 10 with double choppas, 10 with big choppas. And now, you have to be aware of where your guys with shields are, and you have to roll 'extra' saves one by one because you may or may not want to remove all the guys with shields first.

Then there's the realism part. Usually you'd put your hittier models at the front, because when you engage the enemy that's where you expect to attack. But when you remove casualties, you're doing it from the guys with shields, the ones near the back, because they don't hit as hard, even though that storm of arrows is probably skewering the guys at the front first.

 

I firmly believe that this design decision hasn't come about from the rules being better for the game, but because the units are limited by sprue space. Additionally with the advent of 'special weapons' coming to Fantasy, there's even less space on those sprues. I mean, Gors have enough space for all 10 to be armed with 2 weapons or 1 weapon and shield, but there's no space on those sprue if they wanted to include say 2 'Man-Splitter Axes' and the appropriate arms necessary. 

 

I think mixed weapon options makes sense in games like Skirmish, where it's more a rag-tag bunch and every model is an individual. I don't think it makes much sense once you get to the scale of conflict that Age of Sigmar represents.

That being said, I am not necessarily against it where it makes sense, but the rules shouldn't bog down the game. This generally means the 'defensive' part of a unit should remain consistent no matter what weapon choices are taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Ardboyz you could have a unit of 30, 10 with shields, 10 with double choppas, 10 with big choppas. And now, you have to be aware of where your guys with shields are, and you have to roll 'extra' saves one by one because you may or may not want to remove all the guys with shields first.

 

Just a point. Attacks from a weapon type happen simultaneously, so saves would be rolled together then models removed. So you could have 10 saves to make from a lance charge, but only one shield guy and you'd still get the save (IMO). But a kick/bite from the mount is a separate attack from the same unit so would be done after the first lot of casualties removed. Of course you'd probably always keep one guy with a shield for his save.

This may seem a bit cheaty but it already applies with units with special weapons like stormcast, a model may have a double handed weapon but will get a shield save if one of his unit with a shield is still alive. 

So yeah I don't think it would be an issue to have it happen more with some weapons that serve as attack/defence, as we already have some level of positional play. Let's note forget about champions, banners and musicians either, they are just as important on position for defender and attacker.  I think it needs capped at 2 types of load outs per unit though if we are having more then 2 or 3 models that are different to the bulk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stato said:

Just a point. Attacks from a weapon type happen simultaneously, so saves would be rolled together then models removed. So you could have 10 saves to make from a lance charge, but only one shield guy and you'd still get the save (IMO). But a kick/bite from the mount is a separate attack from the same unit so would be done after the first lot of casualties removed. Of course you'd probably always keep one guy with a shield for his save.

This may seem a bit cheaty but it already applies with units with special weapons like stormcast, a model may have a double handed weapon but will get a shield save if one of his unit with a shield is still alive. 

So yeah I don't think it would be an issue to have it happen more with some weapons that , as we already have some level of positional play. Let's note forget about champions, banners and musicians either, they are just as important on position for defender and attacker.  I think it needs capped at 2 types of load outs per unit though if we are having more then 2 or 3 models that are different to the bulk. 

Actually you're incorrect. It's important to recognize that the case of Liberators and Orruk Ardboyz are two very distinct and separate cases and the rules are clearly written to separate these cases as well.

I won't use exact wording but:

Liberator Shield rules state that if any model in the unit has a shield, the unit may re-roll save rolls of 1.

Orruk-forged Shield states before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk forged shield, you roll a dice and ignore it on a 6.

The reason this works for Liberators, is that majority of the unit is armed the same, and it's only a few individuals that are armed differently. If you had no special weapons, the entire unit would either have shields or it wouldn't. So the rule is written to speed things up, by assuming that the guys with shields will be taking the hits (Although you're free to allocate how you choose of course).

Orruk Ardboyz on the other hand could be armed with anything. So you can't make an assumption about how the 'overall' unit will be armed. Which is why the rule is written on an 'as allocated' basis. Because you don't want the entire unit getting a shield bonus just because one mooks waving around a shield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, someone2040 said:

Actually you're incorrect. It's important to recognize that the case of Liberators and Orruk Ardboyz are two very distinct and separate cases and the rules are clearly written to separate these cases as well.

I won't use exact wording but:

Liberator Shield rules state that if any model in the unit has a shield, the unit may re-roll save rolls of 1.

Orruk-forged Shield states before allocating a wound to a model with an Orruk forged shield, you roll a dice and ignore it on a 6.

The reason this works for Liberators, is that majority of the unit is armed the same, and it's only a few individuals that are armed differently. If you had no special weapons, the entire unit would either have shields or it wouldn't. So the rule is written to speed things up, by assuming that the guys with shields will be taking the hits (Although you're free to allocate how you choose of course).

Orruk Ardboyz on the other hand could be armed with anything. So you can't make an assumption about how the 'overall' unit will be armed. Which is why the rule is written on an 'as allocated' basis. Because you don't want the entire unit getting a shield bonus just because one mooks waving around a shield.

Ok thanks for the clarification, i was not aware about that Ardboy specific rule.  That actually makes it a better basis for a shield rule as you have to actually choose if you want to lose a shield guy for the chance of a better save.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Off topic slightly but is there anything in the rules that actually prevents other units taking mixed arms e.g. a unit of 6 Kurnoth hunters, 2 with scythes, 2 with swords, 2 with bows?

I had considered running 3 swords and 3 scythes in the same unit to get the extra attacks in the front "rank" and the extra reach from the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, WAAAGHdogg15 said:

Off topic slightly but is there anything in the rules that actually prevents other units taking mixed arms e.g. a unit of 6 Kurnoth hunters, 2 with scythes, 2 with swords, 2 with bows?

I had considered running 3 swords and 3 scythes in the same unit to get the extra attacks in the front "rank" and the extra reach from the back.

It's never really explained by the rules, but GW normally used the termiology "some units are armed with x while other units wield y" when all models in that unit should have the same wargear. If the describtion said "some models are armed with x, while other models wield y" models could be mixed in a unit.

Its the same when the rules said "1 in every 5 models may instead be armed with z" so that one model could have another wargear than the rest of the unit.

To get an indicator for that, you can look at the description of 'Liberators'. After the rule of shields give an reroll on the save of the entire unit, if one model is equiped with shields (that wording is used because of grandblade and grandhammer), it looks and feels quite wrong, when you would be able to build a unit that contains 3 models with 2 Hammers, 1 with hammer and shield and one with grandhammer, als the models with 2 hammers would get both special rules, "to reroll hits of 1" and "to reroll saves of 1" because there would be no tactical choice why taking only hammers or hammer + shield (same of Swords).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WAAAGHdogg15 said:

Off topic slightly but is there anything in the rules that actually prevents other units taking mixed arms e.g. a unit of 6 Kurnoth hunters, 2 with scythes, 2 with swords, 2 with bows?

I had considered running 3 swords and 3 scythes in the same unit to get the extra attacks in the front "rank" and the extra reach from the back.

Yeah, I had the same thought when I first started playing the game.  But alas, it is not the case.  Carefully read the wording on the Warscrolls.  Typically, it will say that "some units may carry X, while others carry Y, and some yet carry Z".  There are very few exceptions to having a totally mixed unit of standardized weapons - Ironjawz Ardboys are one of them.  Really, it is a holdover from Warhammer Fantasy, where the "unit is equipped with" and "the entire unit may be ugraded to carry spears for N points", as it was a rank-and-file infantry game that focused on unit unity to create immersion (Ardboys were again one of the only units to carry a mix of weapons).

The current exception now is with some units that have "special weapons", such as Ironjawz Brutes and various Stormcast units such as Liberators and Prosecutors.  In these cases, it is specifically stated that "1 (or sometimes 2) in N models may take the Special Weapon".

Really, this is the only restriction on Open Play as well, in that it is a part of the Warscroll that contains this rules and not the core rules.  That said, I think it would be okay in Open Play, so long as every model is WYSIWYG and is not modeled to advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...