how many warscrolls in an army?

[Kramer 5,443]

A couple of recent topics already touched on this but were never about this. And because I was curious, I would love to hear your opinion and why?

I feel there is a lot to say for all options but in the end its down to personal preferences. So share them if you would. 

(ill post mine in the first comment to the thread)

[Kramer 5,443]

Personally I think 10-15 is a good number. I have a couple of reasons why I like them, but also some strong opinions on why more is a bad for the game. 

The positive of 10-15 is that you have enough options to play around without it getting boring imo. 
The current smaller factions feel much more cohesive to me than the bigger ones. 
It makes it less of chore to 'collect' the whole army. 
Kinda ties in to the collecting, I rather collect and paint 2 distinct armies than one massive one. 

What I consider the major negative about bigger factions is that GW already struggles to give everything a role in smaller factions.Which is even more noticable in the big armies. Lumineth will be an interesting one regarding this. As now they have a quite tight roster, which could double with the addition of Tyrion. I think it's likely that some units will rarely see play as two units will compete for the same role and one wins. 
 

As a side thoughts:
The current bigger factions feel more like two or more looks combined. Which is not really fair because most of those are old world armies brought into AoS. But if I had the choice I would have kept Ogors split, but have done a Barak Thrying style subfaction in both books. Where both halves mingle but still keep the flavour of either Beastclaw raiders or Gutbusters. 
same for cities, gits, etc. 
 

Edited January 18 by Kramer

[SorryLizard 61]

I know I'm probably atypical here but I like having small focused factions in the 10-15 range. At least at this point in the game. Fyreslayers, Flesheaters, Ironjawz, etc. all appeal to me a lot with their limited number of scrolls.

This comes from a hobby perspective mostly as I don't play a lot of AoS, probably ~5 games in a normal year (too many other great games out there to fill my time. Warmaster, Malifaux, Mortem et Gloriam, etc.)

What these smaller lists allow me to do is buy only a small collection 1-1.5k in size and then as kits slowly get added over time and you get new releases it's only ever a small outlay to add th enew model or new unit to the army rather than big 2k chunks at a time.

It also helps to keep things thematically tight.

Personally I'd prefer many more small factions and rules allowing some more allying in.

Or set ups like Cities of Sigmar which have those small factions within than cross ally well. Dwarfs could be your core but you could then bring in a contingent of Elves and the elves buff each other and dwarfs buff each other.

Slaves to Darkness is also not too bad if you break down along the thematic lines. Warriors/Knights/Varanguard, Marauders/Cultists and then some heroes. It has the flex to bring in god-marked units from other books freely but it retains that thematic separation between the different groups.

[Beastmaster 630]

As many as possible!

There is no army where I like every model. Redundancy gives me the option to circumvent battleline, hero or elite models I don’t like.

Also, more room for creative combinations to develop new tactics. For example, in the Ogor thread someone combined an Avalgr Ancient Thundertusk with Ironguts in a Winterbite tribe. Who would have thought of that? But it works.

And, thirdly, armies don’t look so samey if they have a wider range of creatures, and if they fit together, they still look like a coherent enough force.

 

Edited January 18 by Beastmaster

[SorryLizard 61]

10 minutes ago, Kramer said:

As a side thoughts:

The current bigger factions feel more like two or more looks combined. Which is not really fair because most of those are old world armies brought into AoS. But if I had the choice I would have kept Ogors split, but have done a Barak Thrying style subfaction in both books. Where both halves mingle but still keep the flavour of either Beastclaw raiders or Gutbusters. 
 

I'd be a fan of seeing either battalions or subfactions allow the 1/4 or 1/3 allying rules too and even see them going outside Grand Alliances. Perhaps as part of narrative focused books like Broken Realms.

We've seen a few like this already in places. DoK has a mixed Stormcast/DoK battalion for example so it would just be using already existing 'tech'.

[SunStorm 211]

The smaller unit list for Ironjawz is both a gift and curse.

As others pointed out, having less to collect to "complete" an army is good

The flip side of that is that if you want a larger army, you're repeating lots of units. If you're prepared to kitbash, then you can make them look different, but not everybody wants to convert to not have an army of clones. 

I voted for around 10-15. Current Ironjawz is 7 or 9 I think, if you include the Underworlds kits. 

Edited January 18 by SunStorm

[Neil Arthur Hotep 654]

I voted 11-15, but I had to think about it for a while.

Currently, I think only Lumineth is in the 5-10 space. I think they have better variety than some armies in the 11-15 space, though, like Fyreslayers and Sylvaneth.

As far as armies go, which ones I find appealing from a gameplay perspective does not really have that much to do with the number of warscrolls they have. While both armies I collect (Legions of Nagash and Cities of Sigmar) have deep benches, I did not get into those armies because of their deep benches. In fact, I often found list building for them pretty overwhelming before (mostly) restricting myself to one of their subfactions. And then there are factions like Khorne where their huge amount of near-identical warscrolls are actually a turn off for me.

On the other hand, an army like OBR seems interesting to me from a list building perspective. I feel that army delivers several interesting playstyles with a limited amount of warscrolls (16 in total, but more like 12 if you ignore the duds). In that case, it's not just that I don't mind the small amount of warscrolls, it's actually a positive for me.

[SorryLizard 61]

13 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I voted 11-15, but I had to think about it for a while.

Currently, I think only Lumineth is in the 5-10 space. I think they have better variety than some armies in the 11-15 space, though, like Fyreslayers and Sylvaneth.

I think that's because the variety is in units rather than heroes.

Lumineth have wardens, sentinels, riders, hammers and cowntains to make up their armies, then 5 heroes 3 of which are named individuals.

Fyreslayers have 3 units and then a cloud of heroes so there are very few different builds that change the core army, it's just fiddling around with which single figure hero you use.

[Neil Arthur Hotep 654]

1 minute ago, SorryLizard said:

I think that's because the variety is in units rather than heroes.

Lumineth have wardens, sentinels, riders, hammers and cowntains to make up their armies, then 5 heroes 3 of which are named individuals.

Fyreslayers have 3 units and then a cloud of heroes so there are very few different builds that change the core army, it's just fiddling around with which single figure hero you use.

Yeah, I think so too. All their basic units are single kits, as well, so that increases the variety of roles these units serve.

But overall I think just the number of warscrolls does not actually tell us that much about how many different play styles an army can actually support. Some armies certainly seem to be doing a lot with only a few units. If that can be achieved consistently, I'm in favour of small rosters. I'm a fan of not having to read 30+ warscrolls to start building lists.

[Neverchosen 1,256]

I think I fall somewhere outside of this poll. 

I personally feel that the more the merrier; the less, the better fare!  I generally believe that the size of the army in terms of warscroll should reflect the culture being represented. For example Chaos factions are typically a diverse groupings of dark worshipers banded together across the realms and cultures, Cities of Sigmar represent a metropolitan area with interconnected peoples and cultures, whereas Daughters of Khaine represent a fairly homogenized and organized cult and Idoneth Deepkin are an extremely rigid caste system. So while I want more Fyreslayers or IDK and a big expansion to their lines, I also think that they do not need to have as varied and large a list of Warscrolls as say Skaven or Slaves to Darkness. 

Edited January 18 by Neverchosen

[TheCovenLord 137]

11-15 seems about right to maintain variety without too many of the models feeling redundant or being MADE redundant by competing warscrolls within the faction. Looking at you stormcast.

[Kadeton 403]

I'm definitely in the very small minority on this one.

I really like small, highly-focused battletomes, in the 5-10 warscroll range (or even the 1-5 range, if those choices are expensive enough that you'll only have a few of each in your army, like Beastclaws and Sons of Behemat). I wouldn't mind at all if every battletome offered more or less a mono-build choice with only slight variation for personal preference.

My reasoning is mostly design-focused. The larger the number of choices available to an army, the harder (I would imagine exponentially harder) it becomes to make them all solid, relevant choices that contribute meaningfully to that faction's thematic approach to warfare. That makes it increasingly more likely that armies will end up with "dud" units that look cool but play badly, which is disappointingly common. It's also much easier to balance a small, coherent set of choices against other small sets of choices, while minimising unintended interactions that end up having to be patched out.

It's also pretty true to say that no matter how many choices you offer, the competitive scene is going to boil them down to the optimal choices, which is usually one or two netlists using the same handful of units for each faction. Then even non-competitive players are going to notice and feel compelled to make similar choices, since it doesn't feel good to lose the game before you even start. If people are going to ignore most of the warscrolls, you're wasting development time on them that could be spent on making a focused army really well balanced, or creating a whole new army to add to the range with warscrolls people will actually use.

From a collecting perspective, limited choices makes it much easier to "complete" a faction, as it's more or less the same as completing a single army. Then you can move on to a new one to get what you need in terms of variety.

There are some big caveats to the above: I don't think it needs to come about by reducing the number of warscrolls in the game, just increasing the number of (mostly separate) armies. So you don't run an Idoneth Deepkin army, for instance - you might run an Akhelian army or a Namarti army, or ally them with each other using specific battalions that give thematic bonuses for the combination. Instead of 24 armies to choose from with an average of two worthwhile builds each (and a lot of garbage), you could have 50+ armies to choose from, each with a single basic approach to building a list and winning a game, in keeping with their theme. That seems like plenty of variety to me.

Anyway, I know that approach doesn't appeal to most people. Put down the pitchforks.

[Kramer 5,443]

3 hours ago, SorryLizard said:

I'd be a fan of seeing either battalions or subfactions allow the 1/4 or 1/3 allying rules too and even see them going outside Grand Alliances. Perhaps as part of narrative focused books like Broken Realms.

We've seen a few like this already in places. DoK has a mixed Stormcast/DoK battalion for example so it would just be using already existing 'tech'.

Yeah absolutely. If that’s the way allies work (through battalions and sub factions) there is no need for grand alliances. except for GA armies. Which I would miss it they would go away. 

[Kramer 5,443]

36 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

ut down the pitchforks

Does this mean I also have to put down the cake? 
because I’m with you. Personally 1-5 is too small for my taste. But I agree with the reasoning. 

[MitGas 483]

I like armies with lots of variety. I even like if units look vastly different from one another as in mixed Chaos lists (hence I'm not a huge fan of keyword list building as a mechanic). IMO armies like Fyreslayers, Flesh-Eater C and Ironjawz (not counting Bonesplitters among them as their merge felt a bit unfitting according to the fluff I know) are not diverse enough and could use more kits. Other armies like SCE could IMO do with fewer but more unique kits. I don't play them but I hear they got a lot of units that see no play as there are way better options in the same army.

I think the proper balance should be that you can build a 2k army without it being a "clone army" so to speak. The 3 examples above certainly are clone armies at 2k.

Edited January 18 by MitGas

[Nacnudllah 439]

I picked 6-10, but it's possible I should have picked 11-15.  My favorite army composition wise is Flesh-Eater Courts, and I wish more armies were built like them.  I like that I can "collect" the whole army relatively easily, and don't end up buying units that then turn out to be useless to me.  Every unit in the book is good for what it does, and there isn't any meaningful duplication.  On the flip-side, I also play Nurgle, and I feel like I have too many units to choose from (including roughly all the Slaves to Darkness).  Many I'll never play, and many more I'll never even buy.

[Kramer 5,443]

2 hours ago, Nacnudllah said:

don't end up buying units that then turn out to be useless to

Hadn’t thought about that. But that does happen a lot. Personally I don’t think on purpose. Just GW overshooting trying to balance things. But it does happen.

Probably a lot examples but thundertusks went tabletop extinct in a single update 😅

truly the mammoths of the mortal realms. 

 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer 193]

I’m with @Nacnudllah with Flesh-Eater Courts as while it has a narrow list of WS it is the faction that I have gotten by far the smoothest variety of play styles out of.  In the mood for a MONSTER mash than I roll out Gristelgore with my multiple Terrorgheists (of the mounted and solo variety).  In the mood for some fast action and magic?  Blisterskin with Crypt Flayers has come the closest to running a true cavalry army I’ve experienced.  Heck, wanting to get my zombie apocalypse Horde thing going?  Let’s go Morghaunt with the Chalice and drop some Crypt Ghoul mobs on the table as an anvil with a couple of courtiers and them maybe summon a few Crypt Horrors in behind my enemy to hammer them into it.

I’ve seen the same thing with Nurgle which another player in our group runs but truly experienced it with Tzeentch and Khorne where I have a ton more options but find it much more difficult to move away from the faction’s default play style as so many of the WS are simply variations on the same theme as opposed to offering a truly different dynamic.  Fortunately I enjoy both factions but my base case is I’ll settle into a couple lists for each that give me what I want and WS that don’t make it on those will be neglected in a way none of my FEC are.

As regards @Kramer comment regarding combining the Ogors in Mawtribes, or for that matter Orruk in Warclans, after a lot of play I’ve actually come round to seeing the books as a fully functional ally system, in contrast to how the GA stuff ended up working or the 1 in 4 max 400 pts of 2K actually plays on the table.  As a result almost all the WS (sorry Gorgers...) have made it on to our table.  Dozens of games with each on the table in our little Zoom League and I really don’t feel like either BCR or Gutbusters have lost their distinctness as lists tend to be biased one way or another with a unit or two of the other side coming in to fulfill a specific role (e.g. a Frostlord Hammer for the Gutbuster Ironguts Anvil or a Butcher to buff the BCR Stonehorns and trigger the Mawpot when needed while providing a dispel here or there).  So I’ve gone from mild disappointment at Mawtribes time to a much greater appreciation.

In contrast my recent dip into Stormcast Eternals highlighted that more war scrolls doesn’t make for a better experience.

[Kramer 5,443]

9 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

As regards @Kramer comment regarding combining the Ogors in Mawtribes, or for that matter Orruk in Warclans, after a lot of play I’ve actually come round to seeing the books as a fully functional ally system, in contrast to how the GA stuff ended up working or the 1 in 4 max 400 pts of 2K actually plays on the table.  As a result almost all the WS (sorry Gorgers...) have made it on to our table.  Dozens of games with each on the table in our little Zoom League and I really don’t feel like either BCR or Gutbusters have lost their distinctness as lists tend to be biased one way or another with a unit or two of the other side coming in to fulfill a specific role (e.g. a Frostlord Hammer for the Gutbuster Ironguts Anvil or a Butcher to buff the BCR Stonehorns and trigger the Mawpot when needed while providing a dispel here or there).  So I’ve gone from mild disappointment at Mawtribes time to a much greater appreciation

Good to hear. 
I’ve now played all warscrolls as well. except yhetees and gorgers but the model quality plays a role as well. 

the big exception was the thundertusk. I love the model. But there was never any place for it. Now I finally made a list I’m excited about with them in it, that I’ll only ever play on TTS I expect 😂

In general I think mawtribes might be the best book they made. Lots of play styles, only 3 warscrolls that have no role. And two that are too expensive to compete. And all five can be taken without hamstringing yourself too much. 

I think that book will age pretty well. 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer 193]

53 minutes ago, Kramer said:

the big exception was the thundertusk. I love the model. But there was never any place for it

Yeah, the Huskard is the closest we’ve come to making Thudertusks work because the prayers have a role and in games with multiple objectives he can sometimes sit on one and shoot snowballs and hail.  But for the points... ugh.  Which is a shame because I loved Thundertusks in previous tome and have two non-Huskards now collecting dust.  There’s just lose out to Frost Sabres ambushing with Icebrow as the faction that would let you use them better leans into those Thundertusks.

But it’s a good example of how more doesn’t mean better if the extra WS aren’t going to be playable.  The one to that end I’m most interested in at moment is KO, which just doesn’t work on Zoom (opponent really needs to be able to measure their own screens basically every turn with Fly High...).  But a faction with a limited number of WS and initial impression is most work.

[Kramer 5,443]

40 minutes ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Thudertusks work because the prayers have a role and in games with multiple objectives he can sometimes sit on one and shoot snowballs and hail.  But for the points... ugh.  Which is a shame because I loved Thundertusks in previous tome and have two non-Huskards now collecting dust.  There’s just lose out to Frost Sabres ambushing with Icebrow as the faction that would let you use them better leans into those Thundertusks.

Yeah that’s so weird. A 300 pts support character that only supports on a 4+.... unless you spend another 300pts. 

a MW shooting attack that gets better against hordes? 
if they made the tusks better vs hordes as well. Then suddenly you have a horde killer. That would give it a purpose in my mind. Especially with the -1 to hit. It could fight a horde for two turns, better than a stonehorn could if done right. 
and suddenly you have role for it. 

But I’ve taken this stand too many times 😂

[yukishiro1 288]

I voted 11-15, but thinking about it again, I'd probably pick 15-20. I think 11-15 *can* work fine, but for it to work, they need to be really well designed, without any fat or redundancy at all. 15-20 is probably more realistic to create a balanced army, and you need many more if GW insists on doing its current awful favorite thing of breaking up factions into sub-factions that don't integrate with one another at all (i.e. Gitz). If there are distinct sub-factions (Gitz are an example of this, whereas Namarti vs Akhelians in IDK for example are not, because they still mostly interact with one another even if there are little keyword-based exclusions), each needs a minimum of 10 well-designed, well-balanced scrolls to not feel half-baked. 

There also needs to be some balance in how the scrolls are doled out. Fyreslayers for example do not feel like a real, complete army - I don't know off the top of my head how many scrolls they have, but most of them are essentially repeats of very similar heroes. They only have like what, 3-4 actual units? And some of those feel similar to one another too. 

 

 

[Orsino 188]

I like options, I like unique idiosyncratic armies, and I feel no compulsion to collect every model so I'm quite happy with factions of 30+ warscrolls. 

[Maddpainting 372]

15-20 is perfect IMO b.c you want some good variety for different styles, this also means you want at least 4-5 Heroes if not more, a Centerpiece model, a couple battleline, etc...

Edited January 20 by Maddpainting

[yukishiro1 288]

I'd say at a minimum:

4 Heroes

3 Battleline choices

3 non-battleline multi-model unit choices

2 large single entity unit choices, 1 of which can overlap in the hero category, as long as it isn't just the other one with a hero stuck on top (i.e. hero on griffon and steam tank counts, but magmadroth and magamadroth with hero on top does not). 

But the key is for that to feel complete, every single one needs to feel distinct and different from every other, while also feeling useful. So that's 11  if you count the overlapping large choice, I guess reinforcing what I said about about how it is possible, but difficult. 15-20 is probably more realistic.