Librarium Online Forums banner

So You Want a House Army (or: Why GW Armies Fail)

WHFB 
3K views 10 replies 2 participants last post by  Calixtus 
#1 · (Edited)
Introduction:
I'm assuming that you're reading this because you have an interest in one of two things. You either want to write your own "FanDex" or you want to know why GW books are so 'hit and miss' with their balance (both among other armies and internally). Hopefully, I'll be able to answer those questions over the next few posts (that's right: this one's gonna be extra long. Borak - put the kettle on). We need to get some stuff out of the way though first, before we do:

1) This guide focuses mostly on Warhammer Fantasy
There's a few reasons for this. Firstly, Fantasy is the game that I play most often, and the only game that I've written a decent fanbook for. Secondly, Fantasy is actually the easier system to write and test for. 40k has become a very confusing landscape thanks to Allies, the additional slots on the Force Org charts, and the general sense of lunacy that comes along with that game. This is probably most of the reason that 40k is so unstable, and is definitely why I no longer play it. To write for 40k, I would first have to write an even longer thread about how to develop an entire ".5 system" from houserules. Not the subject here.
Therefore, whenever I can, I'll make a point/comment about 40k, but I'm aiming this guide at you Fantasy men (and women). Sorry 40k kids.

2) I'm no expert (or game designer), but I've done this before

Nothing that I say here is sacred. Just because I did things one way, doesn't mean that there aren't different (and possibly even better) ways out there. Obviously, you may not agree with my methods.
I have done this before however - I spent 2 years of my time producing and playtesting a Nippon armybook for Fantasy. This isn't a shameless plug, but the links to view this book are all in my sig. I'll probably reference it a few times over the course of the thread, just to provide examples of how my methods are divergent from the GW method. I've also helped a handful of other players develop regiments/characters and even a full armylist, as well as writing alternate lists for the High Elves between their editions (and wasn't terribly far off from the current edition, if I recall). Also, years of owning and playing several (about half) of the WHFB armies over multiple editions has helped me get a feel for how things work mechanically. My group collects the other half, with most of the collection focused on the efforts of my best friend. We... know some things. I'm also currently working on an Albion project.

3) My methods yield a different kind of army from both "Official" books, and most Fan Books
Most players who write a fan book go into the task with a goal: to write an army that others can put on the table against their friends. If you're only writing an army to use for yourself among your local group, this guide isn't really that useful for you. If your group is okay with playing against a "Movie Marines" or "Power of Wrathful Gods" type list, that's cool. But other players likely won't be able to convince their group to play against such an obviously overpowered book.
A lot of fan developers will preach caution and dial back the competitive side of their own lists, to make the book more friendly and give opponents an easier pill to swallow. I disagree with this practice. If you write a "soft" army, it's going to lose. Losing is no fun. I would rather write an army that can go toe-to-toe with a competitive list from any official book in the game, and still provide a challenging game for both players, and give you a chance to win. Losing isn't nearly as fun for me - I would get pretty tired of seeing my Samurai get their butts handed to them game after game with no hope of success.
However, I also don't want to have the same internal balance issues that the official books have. I don't want obviously worthless choices - I want to fix what GW has done wrong. I want to give players the opportunity to write a competitive list with as many different units as possible, rather than just spamming one in particular (White Lion spam with HElves, for instance). The result is that my books often look very powerful. There are no objectively bad choices - just good ones, and that can scare people. The actual result however, is that you have a book more akin to the current Chaos Warriors army: lots of choices for your lists, rather than "one list to rule them all". This take a lot of effort however. You're going to need to playtest every inch of this army, and that's a lot of time invested into games and development.

4) This is not a "reskinning" of another book
When I wrote Nippon I didn't make "Empire with Samurai Swords". A lot of suggestions were made that I should just use High Elves, or just use Dark Elves, or Empire, even Brettonia to create my Nippon book. The whole reason that I was creating the book however, was that while any of these books were good, none of them would create a perfect fit. My methods started with the basis that I wanted something unique. I wanted an army that had a different playstyle, different strengths and weaknesses, and different units than any other army in the game. Something that GW might have churned out if this were an "official" army.
If you can get by with a simple reskinning, then by all means: go that route. Empire->Cathay, Beastmen->Celts, Wood Elves -> Amazon, or High Elves -> Macedonian all work incredibly well. Since most armies go by a historical background, you can draw the parallels and usually go right there. It's easier, it's faster, and most importantly: it's still an "official" armybook.
Even if you don't reskin, it's still practical to have an idea of what a reskin might have been. I play my Nippon army as Empire if I don't have my opponent's permission to use house rules. Therefore, you'll see a lot of units which parallel the Empire (Handgunners = Handgunners, Samurai = Swordsmen, Ashigaru = Spears/Halberds/Archers, Kensai = Greatswordsmen, etc). However that doesn't mean that my Handgunners are anything like Empire handgunners, and I also have several units with no obvious Empire analog (Onii, Tengu, Dragons, Ninja, etc).

Well, that's just about everything. The obvious stuff that I could think of. If this is still something you're intersted in: the opportunity to create your very own army for Warhammer Fantasy, then by all means keep on reading!
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
Alright, so obviously, I've been thinking pretty hard about how I might spell all of this out on paper. The biggest problem is that I can't exactly make any of this conform to a "10 step" or even "100 step" process. There's so much constant back-tracking, and so much that changes as you work your way through the project, that you will constantly find yourself taking units, parts of the book, or the entire book together - back to the drawing board. What I've done below is explained which of those steps you should probably tackle first, and then how to build up from there. Obviously sometimes it will seem that the order of two or more items should be interlaced, or perhaps you would prefer to switch them: do it. I'm not here to make rules - not about how you make your rules, at least. I'm only helping you get it all out there on paper.

1 - determine what your army will look like on the table
This seems almost stupid. For those of you basing your army on a historical force, it seems as simple as saying "Duh - they're Macedonians! Lots of hoplites and some of Alexander's Cavalry, some slingers and go baby!"
But what did you just do there? You just listed off three different units, and you can infer quite a bit just from the descriptions. Hoplites will almost certainly be Core, if they're making up the majority of your army. Alexander's Cavalry units are probably special, maybe even rare. The Slingers could be Core, maybe Special, and probably only Rare if they're really outrageous. And then Alexander will probably be the basis for a special character - maybe one that allows for an upgrade to a unit of the Cavalry.
but
Remember that people tend to min/max everything. So perhaps it might be better to make Hoplites special, or provide some kind of elite Hoplite. If Hoplites are Core, and you have anything else in your book that does their job better, you can forget about seeing Hoplites on the table. Just a thought. Sure, GW wants us to use High Elf Spearmen, but then they went and handed us Silver Helms and White Lions, and it was all downhill from there.

Similarly, you should determine what the "cover unit" of your army will be. What is the poster-child of your army. For the Nippon book, it was obviously Samurai, but the real eye-catchers were the Hatamoto, who are Samurai riding on the back of Komainu "Lion-Dogs". For the Macedonian army above, the poster child might be either some kind of very elite Hoplite unit, or maybe Alexanders Cavalry. They will probably be the ultimate, most taken, unit in your book. I highly doubt for example, that White Lions - with their unusually rustic appearance by Elven standards, and their focus on the brute strength of their axes - were meant to be the poster boys for High Elves. But they became that, because their rules supported it. You want to make sure that your rules support your vision of the army. This is your chance to do that, after all.

You should also start to get the idea of what a 2500pt list might look like. This is important later, when determining things like playstyle, unit interaction, and weaknesses.

2. Define the "niche" that your army fills, tactically
This is something that seems to plague historical armies more often than thematic ones, but is still a blight for both. Historical armies are always based on humans, and that means that they are immediately slotted into a particular set of statlines and preconcieved ideas about how they should operate. My Nippon book is very much a "human" list.
If you go through each of the armies in the game, you can usually define something of a niche for them:

Beastmen: Chaos, "average/rounded," horde army
Bretonnia: heavy armor, mounted, humans
Daemons: Chaos, magical, elite
Dark Elves: Elves, very fragile, aggressive
Dwarfs: gunpowder, slow, defensive, elite, no magic
High Elves: Elves, fragile, defensive
Lizardmen: heavy armor, infantry, magical
Ogre Kingdoms: big, elite, agressive
Orcs and Goblins: agressive, horde
Skaven: gunpowder, fast, offensive, horde, "traitorous"
The Empire: human, gunpowder, "average/rounded"
Tomb Kings: undead, ranged, magical
Vampire Counts: undead, fast, magical, agressive
Warriors of Chaos: human, heavy armor, infantry, elite
Wood Elves: Elves, fragile, skirmish

And so on. Some armies are obviously balanced across opposite lines. Dwarfs and Skaven for example both have excellent warmachines, and where the Dwarfs are renowned for stubbornly holding a small shieldwall, Skaven are renowned for defeating it with a horde of cowardly cannon-fodder. Others are almost identical mirrors in many aspects; while the Chaos Warriors are the elite "heavies" or "storm troopers" of the Destruction forces, Lizardmen are the elite heavies/stormtroopers for Order. Obviously these are very narrow comparisons and descriptions - the game would be very boring if there weren't piles of nuances differentiating every phase of each army. But you understand where I'm headed right? Each army has a unique role, and while another army might fill it, there is still enough there to render them unique. Identify and solidify the same for your own army. Don't just make a Rennaisance Swiss army when they'll likely fill all the same roles as the Empire. Unless your rennaisance swiss army also pulls on the myths surrounding Templar involvement in Swiss affairs (and you can link the Templars to something unique) or you fill out the list with other bits of Swiss folklore and fantasy.

3. With an ideal list, and a niche to fill, give the army 1-2 "Army Special Rules" to define it
This is a bit of a pain to provide examples of. The two armies that I can look at most closely would be High Elves and Dark Elves. All Elves have "Always Strikes First" now, so of course that's a special rule. But look at the army special rules - the High Elves are much more defensive in nature, and favor ranks and Steadfast and Spears over raw number of attacks. They get a rule that makes them fight better while ranked up. The Dark Elves are much more aggressive, and players should always look to throw them into battle regardless of how many models are left in the unit - they get an offensive boost in terms of rolling to Wound. And so on and so forth. Empire gets a special rule to represent how orderly and drilled their troops are, and how they rely upon their courage and bonds as "mere humans" to prevail.
Give your army one or two special rules which also represent it's unique nature on the battlefield. You can also add a few blanket rules, like the Always Strikes First of the High Elves. You want to avoid having too many blanket rules, but it's better to have lots of Army Special Rules rather than Unit Special Rules. Interestingly, most new armies only grant special rules to around 50% of their units, but provide blanket rules to nearly all of them. For Nippon, I isolated a handful of rules that I wanted to give them:

Unique Special Rule 1:
Clans - gives them a set of Clan heraldry upgrades that they can buy, to represent the divided nature of feudal Japan during the Warring States Period that the book is based upon.
Unique Special Rule 2:
Kei - based on the fantasy element that I wanted to include in the book, regarding the samurai armor and the nature of magic in their realm, and the magical "power ups" that you see in Japanese fantasy settings in anime, manga, and film.
Basic Special Rule:
Bushido - provides Immune to Panic in certain situations, a simple, familiar rule.

In most cases, you should try to keep your special rules limited to 2 pages. More recently, books have limited themselves to just a single page, but this causes a trend that I've noticed in lots of the newer books: authors bury a special rule under one unit entry, and then reference it in another (Juggernauts in the Warriors of Chaos book, referenced for Character Mounts and explained in the Skullcrusher rules).
The Wood Elf book was the first that I've seen which actually included the majority of the special rules, particularly those for weapons and items, in with the army special rules. This was fine, it kept everything sleek, and is why I'm open to using 2 pages if you can fit more of the multi-unit rules there rather than burying them in the book. My second page of special rules in the Nippon book is in regards to their weapons; most of which are renamed or gain basic special rules beyond a particular weapon type (Naginata is just a Halberd, for example).

4. Start filling in Units
Well, now that you've got an idea of what the basic groundwork is, it's time to start filling in your units. You need 15-20 for a modern Armybook, plus a handful (about 7-10) special characters. You probably have an idea of what you're looking for just based on the work you've done already - for example, the extrapolations we made in point 1 about what your army will look like on the table.
Where it gets interesting however, is that 15-20 units is usually a lot more than people planned. It's natural to start going through and simply "ticking the boxes":
[ ] Core?
[ ] Fast Cavalry?
[ ] Heavy Cavalry?
[ ] Monstrous Cavalry?
[ ] Monstrous Infantry?
[ ] Warmachine?
[ ] Fliers
[ ] Combat Lord
[ ] Combat Hero
[ ] Magic Lord
[ ] Magic Hero
etc etc

The problem is that this gives you a very "jack of all trades" and very well rounded army. If you've noticed, this is in many ways, the Empire or Orcs and Goblins template - two of the most "rounded" armies in the game. What about armies like the Dwarfs, who have "slow" as part of their niche. They shouldn't get Cavalry, or fast things. "Mere Humans" like Empire shouldn't have fantastical beasts like Ogres or Dragons in ready supply.

You're likely to find yourself stalling out with probably 10-15 units if you're lucky. It's okay, most of us have a very clear and concise vision of what we want in our list, and once we've exhausted that, then it's all up to nothing. This is where you have to start really digging. I had just about everything that I wanted for Nippon when I started out, and I knew that I didn't want Ninjas. But here I was, with just 12 units in the book, and I couldn't come up with any other alternatives to fill in space. Well, send in the Ninjas.

With units like the Ninjas, who don't really fit the theme like you'd want them to, you may need to really bend your concepts. My Ninja aren't just silent assassins who couldn't be bothered to change out of their PJs. They're magical wraiths who exist on the edge of society and are hated and loathed by all. They are a rank below human - an atrocity.

The best places to get source material for new units is to look at myths and legends surrounding the culture that you are trying to emulate. Perhaps your army is a race of draconic beings who rose from the sea to claim their revenge from the transgressions of the Old Ones - great, are they Atlanteans? There aren't many new ideas out there anymore. If your army sounds like another society or fictional setting, then plumb that society or setting for details. The Roman Legion didn't include Gladiators, but you don't often think of Rome without thinking of Gladiators, so maybe some kind of elite unit of skirmishers could represent the "Gladius Brotherhoods" who are elite fighters trained to put on displays of swordsmanship and serve as bodyguards for the aristocracy. The Greeks spoke of the Minotaurs, but those are taken by Beastmen, pegasi by the Brets, and medusa and hydras by the Dark Elves. Fine then, give them Demi-Titans perhaps.

If you still can't fill out the book with units, let it go for a while. During playtesting, you'll likely come up with units that should either be split (for example, my Monks had a confusing rule that allowed them to take Sohei Bodyguards - eventually those bodyguard rules became the Sohei Rare unit), or which you should probably add to cover a particular role or niche in the army.
------

If this sounds easy, that's because it is. Anybody can sit down and come up with 20 different units, a couple of named characters, some special rules for the army and maybe even a few units. The real problem is going in and filling in all the numbers, and then having the time, and the patience to playtest and truly balance the army. The difference between "just another fan book" and something great is the amount of effort that you put in to it after the initial burst of creativity.

Stay tuned for more.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Unit Design Part 1: Understanding and Applying StatLines

Okay, so you have a list of about 15 or so units who all need rules, and statlines. Great - you have now arrived at the hardest part of this whole venture. A lot of this stuff isn't exactly "intuitive" for most players, until they've actually finished an army and did it successfully. Even then, there's no real hard-and-fast way to know that you've done something terribly wrong, until you're well down the line and someone is calling you names like "fanboy" or telling you that your book stinks. Shrug it off, and try to determine why they're being critical. Usually this will take you right back to the drawing board for one or more units.

The Stat-Line Formula
We're going to dispel the myth right now:
yes, there is a formula
BUT, it doesn't work perfectly
We'll get to the formula later, but right now what's important to know is that the best case of a "basic" statline in both Warhammer and the Formula is as following:
Human - 2pts
M = 4
WS, BS, S, T = 3
W = 1
I = 3
A = 1
Ld = 6

Know the Stats
While we'll cover the formula in more detail later, it's important that you understand that unit design was never meant to be formulaic. It's much more complex than "+1pt for +1 Movement". While that will get you moving, the chances of you coming out the other side with a unique, flavorful, and enjoyable army is very slim. The formula isn't perfect, so it's important to understand the value of each stat in a non-numeric sense. You aren't picking upgrades for a character, you're building that character from the ground up. While the formula can get you in the ballpark for a unit, it does nothing for Lords and Heroes, so you still need a raw understanding of how the theory behind a warhammer statline works - at the very least, so that you know what you can change.

Movement
The average movement value is 4. Only Dwarfs move slower than this, with M3. Elves are faster with M5. Monstrous Infantry are typically M6. M6 is the fastest that anything in the game moves without being mounted. This owes a great deal to the way that the game is balanced - Movement is powerful because Marching is a "flat double" and charging using it as a flat bonus to the rolls. Once you reach M7+ there are distinct disadvantages to your movement speed (namely, dangerous terrain tests, and the size of the base, etc). For this reason, a model with M7+ that is not also Cavalry, is going to require a great deal of additional testing, as well as a very good explanation as to how/why it can keep up with a horse.

Weapon Skill
The average WS is 3. The strange thing about WS is that it's interaction with the "To Hit" formula is non-linear. WS3 and WS4 will both be hit on a 4+, however, the WS4 hits the WS3 on a 3+. To get both an offensive and defensive boost from your WS, you need to have "Double+1" the opponent's skill. This means that odd-numbered WSs are the most powerful. Compare WS6 and WS7 against a WS3 foe:
WS6: Attacks on 3+, defends on 4+
WS7: Attacks on 3+, defends on 5+

Additionally, because the maximum limits for hitting and being hit are 3/5 (a narrow range) the advantages of higher WSs is lost. Compare WS9 and WS7 against WS3
WS9: Attacks on 3+, defends on 5+
WS7: Attacks on 3+, defends on 5+
but against WS4
WS9: Attacks on 3+, defends on 5+
WS7: Attacks on 3+, defends on 4+

For this reason I consider Weapon Skill 2 through 7 to be "functional" Weapon Skills. WS1, and WS8+ are what I consider "thematic" Weapon Skills, where you are simply driving home the fact that this character is the best (example: Chaos Lords are WS8, Tyrion the greatest warrior of Elves is WS9). The most expensive weaponskill upgrades are WS7 and WS9, because they are "Hit 5+" for the two most common WSs of the game (3 and 4). I would cap any non-special character at WS8, for practicality.
Weapon Skill is one of the most important stats in the game (even more than Strength), and accounts for one of the widest swings of points values.

Ballistic Skill
Covered later, because it's weird

Strength/Toughness
Strength and Toughness are not necessarily joined stats, but it makes sense to cover them both at the same time, because they have a very linear coordination with one another. Obviously, 3-4 is the average range for either. Assuming 4 for either, the range of "functional" values would range from 2-6, and the commonality of 3's means that the range from 2-5 is the most pressing. Anything beyond this is not so much "thematic" as it is "highly specialized". As you are likely aware, outside of very large monsters, most Toughness ranges fall within these "functional" limits of 3-6.

Strength is the real "problem child" of the pair because it is the only stat which can be modified by mundane equipment (made more complicated by items like Lances and Flails which change your stat mid-combat) and likewise the only stat which modifies the opponent's stats (armor save). Because of this, you should consider your "target strength" which is your Strength+Weapon, right from the outset. Keep in mind that a simple +1 or +2 can be garnered by a simple weapon upgrade, and that is the norm for Warhammer.

There are also established "racial" toughness/strengths, which is another problem with getting your book accepted. A T4 Elf is an eyebrow raiser indeed, and a T5 Elf is just heresy and is often punished by having your book burned at the stake. Some "racial stats" are:

Human/Dwarf/Undead - S/T3, maximum S/T 4
Elf - S/T3, maximum S4 (all Elves are T3 with just one exception in 3 books)
Orc - S4 T3, maximum S/T5
Chaos/Saurus Warriors - S4 T4, maxmum S/T5
Vampire - S5 T4, maximum S/T5

Similarly, once you have established your race (either a pre-written one, or a new race altogether) you are expect to have established a "normal" statline for them and not to deviate too much from it in terms of Strength and Toughness. This makes sense, as Strength and Toughness operate on a 1-10 range, and represent physical threshholds. A human who can lift 50lbs regularly is probably S3. A human who can lift 100lbs regularly is S4 or 5. No human can start hefting 200lbs on a regular basis though, so you're not going to see any S6 humans walking around. Yes, this is a fantasy setting (which only complicates things more) but Strength and Toughness are two stats which GW has deemed worth keeping inside of "realistic" bounds.

Wounds
Another really, really ironed-in one. Wounds are important because they are literally a multiplier for every other stat in the cluster. Wounds are therefore the biggest points swing that you'll see in any model. Furthermore, there are established norms for who gets which wound value:
Non Monster Infantry/Cavalry: 1W
Hero: 2W (Special Characters may rarely have 3W)
Lord: 3W (Special Characters may rarely have 4W)
Monstrous = +2W to the above

You should generally just stick to this array, with very few exceptions. Understand that when you do have an exception, it is going to have a large points increase along with it.

Initiative
Initiative is very similar to the even numbered Weaponskills. It's not a particularly useful stat anymore, and it is very thematic. It does however have a strange effect on points costs. Higher Initiatives will strike first more often, which in a single round can cover for a poor defense. This is important in the GW game as it lends a great deal of weight to the "tank" argument of most RPGs - Warhammer focuses on the "Big but Slow, Weak but Fast"
The problem is that at most you are only going to gain/lose one full round of attacks against the enemy (kill them before they hit you, or die before you strike back).
The functional range of Initiatives is between 2 and 5 for most. Characters can range up to I7 at their fastest, with 10 being the upper limit. WS10 is extremely, fast - literally supernaturally quick in Warhammer - but has very little practical use. Like WSs, the higher you go above the functional range, the fewer opponents you will find where your increased rank really matters. I10 strikes just as fast as I3, if you're fighting an I2 opponent.

Note: Initiative + ASF
ASF is a very valuable ability. For just the average 3-4 character attacks, it costs 25pts in most books. For a unit, you're assessed roughly 3pts per model.
Fortunately, the new rules only grant rerolls if your initiative is equal or higher, making ASF a fair "flat bonus" to give and allowing the points assessment for Initiative to still hold. Therefore, ASF only becomes problematic to balance when your initiative is very low, and you have ASF. Low initiatives are something of a points discount, but you can paste ASF over top and never notice (effectively I11 now). Therefore, I would limit "unit special rule: ASF" only to troops who would be entitled to strike first a majority of the time (I4+) and leave it at that. If for some reason you want a very low initiative, understand that you are creating a strange dichotomy where your troops are heavily reliant upon the source of the ASF, and if you lose your bonus (ASL applied) or you are targeted by Initiative spells, you are going to suffer more than a simple High-Initiative "fast" unit would. This can be very thematic, but will need to be accounted for when balancing your units to the existing game structure.
Attacks
Attacks is another odd-ball stat similar to Initiative. Because subsequent ranks don't get their additional attacks, and supporting ranks are limited to 1 or 3 depending upon if they are Monstrous or not, Attacks are largely a matter of the front ranks of your units. This has the strange effect that extra attacks are worth more, based upon how many points the model costs already. Example - 2A on a 5pt Goblin is fairly useless, because it is very easy to Horde a Goblin and get 3 ranks of attacks. However, 2A on a Chaos Warrior is worth a great deal, because Chaos Warriors rarely take large units, and often find themselves with just a single attacking rank earlier in the game.
Obviously, 1-2A is of little consequence aside from offsetting Spear, Frenzy, or Horde rules. 3A is where most people start taking notice, because you are encroaching upon Hero Character attack numbers and also because you are offsetting a combination of Spears, Frenzy and Horde.

Attacks is the last of the "offensive stats", so now it's good to have an idea of what the best stats are in terms of getting a higher number of wounds (and therefore affecting how much your models are worth). From the standpoint of a regiment, it is always better to have:
More attacks > More Weaponskill > More strength
This is the result of the weird, wonderful math that is Warhammer combat. While the averages might be the same, the potentials are not. Imagine Warhammer as if you have the potential for a "critical hit" similar to what you have in most RPGs. If you have 15 attacks, and all of them are guaranteed to hit, you have 15 hits. If you have 30 attacks, and half of them are expected to hit, you might get 15A. But you might also critical and get thirty hits. Sure you might also roll under, and this is why it's better to keep a "tighter average" where your stats don't deviate wildy (he's not accurate, but he takes lots and lots of swings and they hurt when they connect - thematic, but potentially devastating in the rules). It's better to know that you hit 50% of the time and plan for that, rather than saying that you hit 20% of the time and giving a ton of attacks to counteract that. Fun, characterful, but you should err on the side of caution when assigning points to those units.
There are exceptions of course - take High Elf White Lions versus High Elf Swordmasters against just about any target. The Lions will get more kills because the SMs lose their attacks in the subsequent ranks. There's a bit of an arguable "grey area" with the concept of +1A or +1S (always go Strength, for powergamers out there) and the value of Weaponskill. But generally it's better to roll as many dice at each step as possible, which is why loads of attacks, each likely to hit their target, is better rolling into wounds than a handful of attacks guaranteed to hit, or loads of attacks which might not hit at all, etc.
Just food for thought.

Attacks/Wounds Relationship
Attacks and Wounds go hand in hand. The common rule of Warhammer is 1A for 1W, which makes combat nice and simple: if I cause 3W, you lose 3A. Some units modify this by +/-1 in either direction, but the balance stays the same. Understand however that more attacks located on more wounds is worth more than more attacks on a single wound. If you have 3A1W and I inflict 2W, you lose 6A from your unit. If you have 3W and I inflict 2, you don't lose anything. This is a good reason why Monstrous Infantry/Cavalry is usually going to cost as much as three times their weight in additional models, or if they are cheaper, they are in some way inferior. Take the comparison between a 4 Chaos Marauders and a Chaos Ogre - the Ogre costs roughly the same, has roughly the same base size, has one less Attack (but gains Stomp and Impacts) and has 1 less Initiative. This is good example of Wounds/Attacks balance.

Leadership
First of all, the average leadership in the game is 7. Coincidentally, that is the average roll of 2D6. See a connection here? The maximum stat for Leadership is 10, so we're already pressed pretty tight against the "glass ceiling" in this case. The number of modifiers and crazy situational rules also makes leadership very hard to pin down in terms of value. I find that it's best to stick with an "array" for leadership, something like this:
Ld7 = regular soldier in a standing army, or well trained militia
Ld6 = conscript
Ld5 = notably cowardly (insert French jokes here)
Ld8 = veterans in a standing army, sergeants and the like
Ld9 = known to be fearless, or leaders
Ld10 = a fearless leader

Of course, character tend to have leadership values +1 or +2 above their troops. So leave room for your characters. The idea that Champions tend to have a higher leadership is, to some extent, falling by the wayside. If a unit is already Ld8, you usually won't see a Ld9 Champion for example. You might not even see a Ld8 champion in a Ld7 regiment. I think (maybe I'm giving GW too much credit) that this owes to the "one size fits all" value of Champions in the new books, and the way that players are encouraged to join their Character to the units for added bonuses.

Remember too that there are plenty of Leadership-based Psychology rules that you can add to your unit to identify them as being highly disciplined (or not so much, in the case of Frenzy and Stupidity) rather than just boosting or dropping the leadership. Ld7 and Immune to Panic is a fairly unique unit right there, and might be a better way to go than simply smacking Ld8 on the regiment. Of course, Ld8 and Stubborn is just asking to get punched in the jaw by your opponent, but there are times where it fits. Ld6 and Stubborn is notable for being surprisingly good. Most armies will lose their Ld7 as part of the combat modifiers, and be testing on less than Ld7 if they aren't Steadfast. But Stubborn and Ld6 is enough that you will still usually run, but when the going gets tough, your little guys dig their heels in and stick it out. This might be a good one for models who are trained to retreat from poor odds, but will not necessarily allow themselves to be overcome by fear.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Unit Design Part2: The Formula

Before we get into the formula, we need to cover some ground rules:

1) Don't be an idiot - don't get us sued
Don't even pretend that these will replace your official armybook. Just because you know an Empire Spearman's equipment and special rules doesn't mean that you can recreate him here and find his points cost. Firstly, there is no listed bonus for any of the army-specific rules. Additionally, the armies don't all pay the same rate for their weapons. The chart below lists Halberds as +1pt/model, but I know of units which pay 2pts each and upwards. This is not meant to be a replacement for official GW material. Therefore, I won't even tell you when the formula hits a price-point spot on (for example, if you make an Empire Spearman, is he under, over, or dead on?)
Likewise, please understand that I had no hand in making this formula. This is especially important to me, because one of the fine gentlemen who did assist in creating this, and myself, have a bit of a spotty history. I don't want to rile him. He gave this information to me for free via Isuu, and it remains there in the non-profit magazine "Doom Seeker" to this day. here's the link to the original:
ISSUU - The Doom Seeker Issue #3 by Bill Wilson

2) This formula is old
You'll notice some idiosyncracies with the formula. Namely, Fear and Terror appear to be overrated. I'm sorry. The article was issued in the spring of 2013, but the formula is geared towards 7th edition rules. Therefore, you're going to need to use your head a bit to work out more modern pricing. I really don't have the interest or the time to figure out if they are still charging 3pts for Fear. If you want to find out for yourself, my suggestion would be to "recreate" a Skeleton from Tomb Kings and/or Vampire Counts and see what the formula spits out, and if you are within +/- 1-2pts then you know you've got it. Otherwise, adjust so that you are on or 1pt over the book given price (for safeties sake).

3) This formula will NEVER replace playtesting
Keep in mind that army special rules (and your own unique special rules, by extension) will not be included in this formula. Therefore, you will need to sit down and work out your units to make sure that they fit. Understand that at the very least you'll need to play several games with each unit, against different opponents and in different situations, to determine what the units should cost. And again, use your brain - if you have a special rule which says that you gain +1S for every model you kill in combat, and the formula says the guy should only cost 5pts, you're probably way off.
---

Now that the warnings are out of the way, here's the formula in full.

The 'Master' Stat Line
M4, WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, Ld6 ---------- 2pts
The actual formula from the magazine gives a list of several different racial statlines. To avoid any sort of legal disputes and to follow the forum rules of not posting the stats for "official" units here, I have chosen to just provide the most basic.
Ability Ups
Starting from the statline, you can apply the following ability modifiers. Note that when a range of bonuses is given, this is not cumulative. For example, when modifying Leadership you can modify it by +1, +2, or +3, for +1/2/3pts respectively. However, you cannot give +4ld for +4pts. There's a reason that it's not an option. The more wildly you vary from the established "normals" in Fantasy, the more you will begin to see the cracks and tears in the formula. You can modify stats wildly, if needed, but understand that it should be done in a limited case with good reason, and that the formula will no longer work for that unit. The modifiers are:

Movement +1 = 1pt
Weapon Skill +1/+2 = +1/2pts
Ballistic Skill +1/+2 = +1/2pts
Strength +1/+2 = +2/3pts
Toughness +1/+2 = +2/3pts
Initiative +1/+2 = +.5/1pt
Attacks = +3pts each
Leadership +1/+2/+3 = +1/2/3pts
Equipment Costs
The following are guidelines for base equipment costs. Upgrades can sometimes be 1/2pts more expensive. Notice that the formula does not provide for Scaly Skin. I would assess Scaly Skin at the base cost of the armor save provided (5+ would be +2pts) with an additional +.5 for the save, simply because it stacks with armor.

Armor
Light = 1pt
Heavy = 2pts
Plate = 3pts
Shield = 1pt
SeaDragon/Lion Cloak* = 2pt
*this is the old Sea Dragon Cloak which simply provided +1 against Shooting

Weapons
AHW = 2pts/1pt
Flail = 1pt
Halberd = 1pt/2pts
Spear = 1pt
Greatweapon = 2pts
[the second array of numbers is my own personal suggestion, in light of 8th edition changes and based on more recent books]
Sling = 1pt
Short Bow = 1pt
Thrown Weapon = 1pt
Javelin = 1.5pts
Throwing Axes = 2pts
Bow = 2pts
Longbow = 3pts
Blowpipe (Lizardmen, non poisoned) = 4pts
Crossbow = 4pts
Repeater Crossbow = 5pts
Handgun = 5pts
Pistol = 5pts
Brace of Pistols = 6pts

Weapon Special Rules
Magical Weapons = 1pt (in addition to base weapon cost)
Armor Piercing = 1pt (in addition to base weapon cost - already included in Handguns and RXBs)
Poisoned Weapon = 2pts (in addition to base weapon cost)
Special Rules
"Blessed" 6+/5+ Wardsave = 1.5/3pts
Hatred = 1pt
Immune to Fear = 1pt
Immune to Panic = 1pt
Immune to Psych = 2pts
Re-roll Psych = 1pt
Killing Blow = 1pt
Stubborn = 2pts
Frenzied = 1pt
Do not cause Panic to friendlies = .5pts
Skirmish = 1pt*
Skirmish (with Missile Weapons) = 2pts*
Scouts = 1pt
-1 to Hit in Combat (ie Nurgle) = 1pt
Cause Fear = 1pt
Strider = 1pt
ASF = 2pt

*apply only one, not both
Command Upgrades
Unit Base Cost = Upgrade Cost
1-5pts = +5pts each
6-19pts = +10pts each
20pts+ = +20pts each
This formula generally only applies to Infantry Units and not to characters. Characters pay a great deal more, and while the rules for creating them can be found in Doomseeker Issue 4 or 5 (iirc) the formula itself is much more intense. For example, the price of missile weapons increase based upon your Ballistic Skill. My best suggestion with characters is to find the basic cost of your infantry and work from there. For Cavalry units, they tend to be ~10pts more than their infantry counterparts, to account for their mounts.
One of the easiest ways to apply this formula to characters is to modify all of the Stat modifiers by 10x.

Using Units as a Base
One of the best way to apply this formula to anything however, is not to build from the ground up. Find a unit with a statline similar to your own and begin to modify it from there. When removing or decreasing a stat or rule, just treat the + as a - (so +1 Move for +1pt would become -1 Move for -1pt). Obviously, the more you "play" with the original statline, the more you're going to destabilize the points value. Starting with an Empire Swordsman and making him a Chaos Warrior really isn't that hard, and the values come up pretty close. Obviously the special rules between the two will throw them off somewhat, as will any special rules which you apply to your own models. This is also why it is important to keep your Special Rules limited - most units in the game have one special rule of their own, and then 1-2 army special rules. If you pay attention to your own Special Rules, and keep your stats near the originals, you should have a good bit of groundwork to base your units on.

But you Said We Weren't Re-Speccing a Book!
And we're still not. When I said that in the first post, I meant that we were not going to take Empire and go through unit-by-unit respeccing each one. You have the option to pull in units from any of the books - you aren't limited to just one. If you're writing a Celtic flavored book, perhaps you want to pull some Elf statlines to represent the otherworldly Sidhe or Fairies. With my Nippon book, there are several human units - indeed, humans form the backbone of the army. However, they all come from several different locations. The Bushi (Samurai, Kensai, Hatamoto) are all blends from the Warriors of Chaos and Empire books, the Ashigaru are definitely Empire, but the Oni come from Ogre Kingdoms, the Tengu are Dark Elf Harpies, and so forth.

There are several reasons to do this. Firstly, Warhammer units are always very similar to one another. It's a limitation of the game mechanics. Unless you are doing something truly off the wall, you're always going to be able to find a unit out there that already does work. People have already commented on that unit: Skeletons are overpriced, Beastmen need some extra "oomph" etc. It's your job to translate that into useful design cues. If you're basing your unit off of Beastmen, perhaps leave yourself an extra 2-3pts for additional upgrades. Give yourself a free WeaponSkill bump or something, to give them back that edge. The second reason to use pre-specced units is that it allows you to communicate to other players what you are presenting in your book. I introduce my Nippon book as "Empire, but with Monsters instead of Warmachines, and elite CC instead of shooting" and people get that. When they flip through my book and see Oni, they make the connection with Ogres and it makes them comfortable - it gives them a frame of reference.

The next section is on fine-tuning your points costs through playtesting but also through "guiding" your players to pick certain units over others. It's where you get to make units intentionally a bit powerful, and nerf others. It's where we turn a blind eye to the formula and start to really explore the creation options. It's also where you can mess up your project badly enough to send yourself back to square one. But that's why these posts are so long - it's to prove your dedication to the cause, see?
 
#5 ·
Unit Design Part 3: Testing and Fine-Tuning

Well, it's been a little while and it's time for another installment. This time, we're looking at what you should be doing to finish off your army: testing it, and fine tuning those points costs. Most of us aware that this is where GW seems to stop. To their credit, I don't think it's so much that they simply stop however, as it is that they're simply satisfied with the army so long as it is mostly balanced - something which can be achieved by simple use of the formula. Where the problem really lies with GW is that they do tweak the costs. The eponymous "nerf bat" that they deal certain units, and the seemingly "too good not to buy" pricing of others, is a result of tweaking the units for all the wrong reasons: marketing.

We can't fault them for that, really. They're out to make money, and we need them to make money if we want to keep playing this awesome game. Unless you want your next project to be developing an entire game system from scratch, it's best that we just let GW ride this one out. Chances are pretty good that if you're building a house army, you're not terribly concerned with those "1%er" type powergamers anyways. But we aren't out to sell models. Sure, I could write you a list of sellers and provide links to literally every unit in my Nippon book, so that you could collect the army in one easy sweep. I would even go so far as to say that developers of house armies should keep a "stock" in mind, so that you aren't developing a unit that nobody can convincingly attain. But we're not selling those models ourselves. Our fan books aren't keeping that company in business, so we don't need to push the latest Finecast release or make sure that returning veterans buy new stuff. Obviously, that gives us a lot more 'artistic freedom' when it comes to fine-tuning our units.

1. Playtesting
There are a handful of different types of playtesting which should be employed by anyone designing an armybook. Playtesting is there because units which look good on paper, aren't always that great on the table. It pays to go through these methods in a "step by step" fashion, because they start off vague, and then work to hone in on more and more specific problems. Better to approach your friend with an army that you are pretty sure is balanced, and ask to game-test it, than to approach him with an army that is raw off the press. So here are the steps in order:

1) Unit vs. Unit Comparisons
These are the quickest, and often best, ways to balance off units. Pick two or three units to test each unit in your army against. Typically, I go with "naked" Chaos Warriors, and Empire Staties or Goblins of some stripe or other. Both are units which are pretty damn close to being the absolute base-line of their types; heavy elites, and light hordes. The third unit is often one which I not only compare against directly, but also use as a "control group" to test against the other two. So for my Hatamoto (monstrous cavalry riding on tigers) I might choose to test Demigryph Knights or SkullCrushers.
I've found that the best way to run the unit/unit comparisons is to create two regiments of equal points value, with no command options (except perhaps a champion in each) and to just mathhammer the units to death. I'm not going into detail on how to MathHammer, because this isn't a tutorial for that, and if you're reading this tutorial you should already know how mathhammer works.
Obviously, you want to have the units do a pretty good job at wiping each other out, with one prevailing by the skin of their teeth. It rarely happens that way. That's why the third unit is so important. Test the third unit against both of the others and see how it fares. It's obvious for example, that Fast Cavalry are going to have problems in close combat, so when I test my Samurai Horsemen fighting Chaos Warriors, and compare them to Ellyrian Reavers fighting Chaos Warriors, the results should be quite similar (they get massacred). Obviously, the points cost of your unit should be similar to that of the third unit as well, and the comparisons should come off almost identically. If they do not, begin adjusting points up or down until they do. Often, you'll find that you have two or three different "ideal values", depending on what type of unit you were facing. This is fine - you will normally want to take the average or split the difference.

In some extreme instances (for example, my Samurai army) you'll find that the units perform extremely well against one target, and very poorly against the other. This is fine. This is an example of a unit that is meant to be slotted into a particular role, or one which has a particular weakness (a weakness that could extend to your entire army if you don't have a countermeasure built into the list - and that's okay). My Samurai are markedly better at killing off enemy light troops than they are at taking down elites. They should cost 30pts each when facing Empire Staties, and about 10pts each when facing down Chaos Warriors. This is normal for elite units - they do poorly against one another but rip through lights. When compared to Chaos Warriors and Swordmaster's ability against the same, however, the results were similar, and I priced my Samurai very closely to a Chaos Warrior or Swordmaster as a result.

When testing, I always test off the charge, and with all appicable special rules (hatred, frenzy, etc). The only time that I do not use a rule is if it is an "activated" rule, or if a character must be present. In those cases, I make a separate test with the activated rule and split the difference. If the rule requires a character to be present, then you must go in to "fine tuning" - you must decide if the weight will be on the unit, or upon the character. It will determine which one players consider a necessity, and help to shape the way your book plays at the table.

2) Table-Testing
As you have likely already gathered, the testing method above does nothing to test for things like Leadership, Movement, Shooting, Deployment, or any special rules which modify those elements of your units. It also does not necessarily test for unit-unit interactions, unit-character interactions, or unit-magic interactions. The only way to test those things is to throw your army onto the table against a willing opponent, and duke it out.
Obviously, this can be difficult - you're approaching someone with an army that could really swing either way. If it's a walk-on-win for your opponent, or the opposite is true and you flatly table them, it's not much fun for anybody. You also want to strive to find an opponent who has a skill level equal to your own - perhaps a regular opponent who you have a fairly 50/50 record with.
Since you'll never get a clean, clinical result from this kind of game, it is very important that you play a handful of games (ten games at least, with varying lists against varying opponent armies) and that you both come together to assess the army's performance, where things went well, and where things went wrong. Both yourself and the opponent should be willing to admit any simple tactical blunders, which are not a flaw of your list so much as a flaw in gameplay. For example, in one outing my Nippon book absolutely crushed a regular opponent. I felt horrible and feared that the book was broken until he reminded me that he had rolled a very poor Leadership test early in the game and let his entire flank fold under pressure - had I been playing any army that would have resulted in a sound victory. It was a poor test for the Nippon book, but was not evidence that the book was necessarily OP.

It is important however that you view your own work realistically. While some players will complain of one element or another (Hatamoto - the Monstrous Cavalry - seem to be a big sticking point in my book) it is important that you understand the goal of the unit and it's playstyle, and that you know when your opponent is being earnest or is perhaps a bit sore. Likewise, if your book does win a game, you need to be able to look at your work and say "yes, perhaps this is just a touch powerful". Humility, and a solid dose of respect for your opponent, is important here. So too is a firm backbone, and the ability to defend your book against accusations - if you constantly bend to meet everyone's demands, you'll never get past the playtesting stage, and will likely have a very weak book at the end of it. You can't please everyone, but you should please the majority.

It's hard to explain how to modify points values when testing a list like this. Often you'll get a very broad picture like "everything seemed too expensive" or "everything was too cheap". You might get the notion that you brought 3000pts of troops to the table, when you meant to bring 2500pts. But how do you simply "skim" 500pts from the army? Well, that's into fine-tuning, but that's why you need to take notes. Units which performed well should receive almost no modifications. Units which performed notably badly should get a price decrease, while units which steamrolled should go up. I almost never modify points from "table testing" by more than 5pts at a time, and almost always give a unit 2 games before I decide on the adjustment. Small tweaks are best, because you already used the formula, tested the unit "in vacuum", and are getting very general and somewhat vague results from the table testing.

3) "Reverse-Listing" or Book Swapping
This is an extension of the table testing, but simply involves handing your book off to other players and asking them to "break it". You're encouraging them to write lists with the book, and play games if they'd like. Maybe even play games against you, but it's much better if they play games against other opponents who will approach the list without your expert knowledge. This is like having an essay proof-read; you can only stare at a piece of paper for so long before it all starts to mush together. Your friends might pick out some really insane combos that you had never even considered (a great example: my "Red Fury 9000" combo from the Nippon book). Rarely, they might all seem to create identical lists, indicating that you've either railroaded your book too much, or you have a dominating element that will need to be fine-tuned back down.

Almost all of the feedback from Book Swapping will be used for fine tuning your points costs so that the army more closely resembles your vision for the book.
-----

Fine Tuning the Costs
Now that your book seems well balanced and quite fair, it's time to start tuning it to make it the army that you want to see at the table. Remember when we started this project, and during brainstorming I told you two write "the ideal 2500pt army" that you wanted to see on the table? We're going back to that now.

A balanced book doesn't railroad player choices. It provides them with a blank canvas of units from which they can craft their own army. It might favor a certain playstyle through a collective strength or weakness of the book, but it doesn't necessarily nudge players towards any one choice or the other.
A book that has been Fine Tuned will nudge players. If you're writing a historical-themed army (like most of us do) then it will guide players towards army lists with a bit more historical accuracy. If we're writing a fantastical army, then it might steer players into making choices which better fit the fluff of your force (Drakoniads hate their Kobold allies, so Kobolds shouldn't feature too highly in their ranks, etc). This is obviously a bit controversial to some, because you're effectively creating "broken" choices and nerfing some of your own units right out of the gates. The point however, is to do it so subtlely that it all washes out in the end. Sure, Samurai are 2pts too cheap, but Archers are 2pts too expensive, etc. It's not so black-and-white as that, but there are ways to make your book characterful without making it bad.

1. "Opportunity Costs"
This is very, very important. I find that this often applies more obviously to magic items than to actual units, but there is rhyme and reason to applying it to your regiments and characters. Simply put, it is the result of one item being too many points to take in tandem with another item. For example - you cannot afford to have both the Giant Blade and the Talisman of Preservation within a 100pt Magic Item allowance. Opportunity costs are there to limit powerful combos, but can also be used to gain a "free discount" on certain units, or drastically increase the value of another. For instance:

--Core Tax, the great equalizer
Core is mandatory. It's the only thing in the entire army that has a fixed price. At least 25% of your army must be Core, often referred to as the "Core Tax". If you fill your Core selection with poor choices, players are still forced to take them, weakening their army overall. If for example, everything you fielded in Core were 2pts more expensive, it would mean that you are effectively "robbing" points from the rest of your army - 625pts might only be as valuable as 500pts, leaving you with 125pts to spread over the rest of the army. This is pretty extreme, but you get the idea.
Conversely, anything which can fill a similar role to one of your Specials or Rares, but do it as Core will be vastly more powerful than the Special version.
Thus, Core is almost always overpriced.
Some people claim that if you want a unit spammed for a certain look, then you need to have it be a good Core choice. When I was building my Nippon army, most people seemed to think that Samurai should be an exceptionally strong Core choice, but they weren't. Instead, I opted to have several different Samurai units, spread across Core and Special. I really wanted players to field lot's of Ashigaru and not just Samurai, so actually, Ashigaru are one of the few units without a mirror-role in Special or Rare. Players naturally gravitate towards Ashigaru, because basic Samurai aren't much better, can be taken as much better Special "Kensai", and the Ashigaru fill a role that no other units can. The look created was a bit more historically accurate, with a central block of Samurai (Kensai) surrounded by either large blocks of Ashigaru, or small units of mounted Samurai bowmen.

--Unit Cost versus Model Cost
Models are organized into units, obviously. Therefore, it's important to have a realistic expectation when raising and lowering points. Players usually "feel" anything around 50pts. Below that, and they can make room by simply dropping an item or command somewhere. This means that if you want a unit to seem expensive, it only needs to cost 25pts more than it "should". Increasing a SkavenSlave by 1pt is a huge jump in cost, easily taking up and additional 80pts/unit in a Skaven army. Boosting a Chaos Warriors by 1pt however is almost nothing - maybe +20pts/unit in the army. Thus, it's more important to change cost by unit, rather than model. Always be aware of your unit sizes. Elite models should be adjusted by more points (2+), because there are fewer of them present. Hordies on the other hand may need adjusted by only 1pt here or there.
If you're trying to make a unit more expensive, then divide 50pts by the number of models you would normally find in the unit. If you're expecting unit sizes of 24, then you want to crank prices by 2pts/model, so that your total shift is +48pts per unit. +3pts would be a touch excessive, putting you at +72pts per unit, 22pts higher than your target. If you were expecting 40 models in the unit, then 1pt would be sufficient, giving you a +40 shift. Always round fractions to the nearest whole number.

--Playstyle, and Your 'Crutch' Units
Each army will have a certain playstyle based upon your special rules and balance. If an army is simply "horde" because you built several extremely low-costed units, then they likely have a hard time facing down heavy armor or elites. So suppose you've built a "Gnomish" army, which features hordes and hordes of clockwork soldiers at their command. You have a problem with heavily armored units like Knights, and decide to include a regiment of "Gnomish Welders" who use a magical plasma torch that Ignores Armor Saves. That unit is a "crutch unit" - it fixes a hole in your playstyle. As such, that unit is extremely valuable, and if you want to your army to be defined by the fact that it has a hard time facing down armor, then you need to make this unit very expensive so that players don't simply "spam" it. That, or you need to kick it to Rare.

Moving a unit to Rare works better when it's a unit that already cannot be taken in great size. A unit of specialized Missile Weapons for example, has little reason to fielded with more than 20 models, since most units can only fire in 2-3 ranks (unless of course your rules allow otherwise, in which case you'll need to adjust). Therefore, increasing the price of the models is somewhat redundant, because players won't be fielding enough of them to feel the effect. Moving such units to Rare means that players will not have more than 2 such units. Typically, it's always better to move Crutch units to Rare, to avoid spamming. However, if you have reason to leave them in Special, then you'll want to vastly increase their points cost so that they feel more expensive (see "Unit Cost", above).

You can also use this to develop a playstyle. If you have all of your units nicely balanced, but just don't fancy your army as being very skilled magically, then you might increase the price of all Wizards by +30pts. They're no better than normal Wizards, but they won't be spammed now, and they hurt the player a bit whenever they are taken. Doing this is far better than saying "no Wizards at all" and making the style too obvious or "railroading" the player into your playstyle.

--Section Caps
This mostly pertains to the Rare and Lord/Hero sections more than the Special, because the 25% is filled more easily than the whopping 50% cap on Special. It does not apply at all to Core, as players will always be willing to go slightly over Core if need be. The idea is that you can't fit two of the same creature/unit into "Game Size X" without going over your cap. This is obvious with monsters, as they are a big, single-model unit. Having two Chaos Dwarf K'Daais in any game below 2700pts is impossible. Likewise, having more than 2 Dragons in a 2500pt High Elf army is also impossible. With Characters, it's a balance between the base costs of the character, and the cost with added items, gifts/powers, and magic items. For units, you're looking at a balance between the minimum unit sizes (example: sure, you can field up to 2 units of Crushers, but they can't both by 4-strong, and you can only have one unit if you go 6-strong).

--Synergy and Interactions
Sometimes two units have a great deal of synergy. Adding an Empire Priest to a unit of Empire Knights gives the whole unit Hatred. Who pays for the Hatred though? How do you price it out?
Well, at first glance, you want your units to pay for the added special rule - 30 Knights would benefit from Hatred more than 10 Knights, so it should cost more for the larger unit.
But then what happens when the player doesn't field a Priest? You are basically forcing players to always field a Priest for their Knights, because Hatred is built in to their cost, and they only have it with the Priest. This would be okay if you wanted to have lots of Priests in your army (maybe they're some kind of Crusading army?) but it's very imposing on your players.
Conversely, if you apply the entire cost to just the Priest, then you have two problems - players won't take the Priest without the Knights, and they'll potentially take huge units of Knights to get proportionally cheaper Hatred.

The correct answer should be to divide the value between the two. If you anticipate the average/logical size of a Knight unit to be 12 models, and the price for Hatred is +2pts/model, then the Priest should get a +12pt raise, and the Knights should get a +1pt raise. The difference is points is very slight, and most players won't notice it. However, the two units combined are spot-on. A player is still rewarded for taking more Knights, but the returns are not as great as if you had simply assessed all +24pts to the Priest. Likewise, it's still slightly overpriced to add a Priest to just 5 Knights (+15pts when the amount should be +10) but that's fine, it's a small variance and the Priest likewise would favor a larger retinue, right?

--Totals of Fine Tuning
At the end of the day, your army should be tuned so that every unit which gets a decrease in price is answered by either the Core Tax, or a unit which received an Increase, or has been moved to Special/Rare. Decreases should be uncommon or nonexistent, to avoid creating the potential for truly broken lists. Increases are the best option, used to flavor the army to taste and nudge players towards making certain choices over others. The combination of how you adjust your army - through Core Tax, a defined Weakness, Crutch Units, and Synergy is entirely up to you, and there's no set formula to achieve it.
After Fine Tuning, I suggest having another few rounds of playtesting and Book Swapping to make sure the army is still dialed in, and then unleash your book on the populace.
 
#9 ·
You have made a point in favour of the philosophy of my design concepts: it is Special Rules that truly differentiate armies and their units, providing colour, flavour and character to them, especially accounting for their differences and ultimately playing style. Trust me on this, my units average out 2-4 Special Rules, and a few that don't have any, and I realise the increase in tactical options makes the game even more fun to play.
 
#10 ·
Special Rules don't dictate playing style. It is primarily the availability of unit roles which decides playstyle. For example, an army which lacks any powerful or viable shooting options will be defined by whatever method it uses to get around that disadvantage - if that's mobility, heavy armor, combat efficiency, or some other trait, then that is what the army becomes known by.

Take Warriors of Chaos, for example. If you asked players (both using the army, or those playing against it) to describe the "style" of a Warriors army in as few words as possible, they would usually say things like;
Elite
Aggressive
Fast
Close-combat based

This is because within the book, the units available to a WoC players are best suited for those roles. They aren't given a viable "horde" or "blob" unit choice compared to their opponents, they have virtually no options for shooting attacks, and they have mediocre magic. While a Chaos army is not necessarily fast, the availability of M5 Core infantry with Swiftstride, and Core Fast Cavalry, or M6 Trolls "as Core", most players find that it is best to focus on speed so that you spend less time being out-shot by your opponent.

On the other hand, if you asked the same players to describe the Empire army, you would probably hear things like:
Hordes
Tactical
Shooting or Gunline

The Empire has tons of cheap "horde" or "blob" options - their most expensive Infantry unit caps out around 11pts per model, almost half the cost of the average Chaos Warrior in full kit. They have tons of shooting available, and are one of the very few units in the entire game with access to black powder weaponry, making them prime candidates for gunline style tactics. However, they lack any solid melee units, and have to rely on their army-special-rule "Detachments" to bail them out of tougher fights. This means that they're a slightly more tactical army, since deployment and positioning of your Parent+Detachment blocks is sometimes critical to success on the table.

And it is more than just saying, "you're a melee army, so you don't get any shooting units" or "you're a Horde army, so you don't get any strong elites". Nope, it is far more about providing players with an incentive to play to the style. Simply leading them by the nose and removing a certain unit type from the book/game altogether is going to create a very limited and one-dimensional army. It is much better to allow those units into the army, but assign them a slightly elevated points cost. If you are designing your own armybook, you have the advantage that you aren't trying to sell models. GW uses this same tactic to force us to spend more money on units. Designers can use it to help insure that players won't find a particular unit that "plays against type" and then spams it into oblivion. Having a few models in an army that are just a bit "too expensive" is fine, it will usually balance out, especially if the hole that they fill for that army is worth it (the very few shooting options available to Warriors of Chaos armies are "more expensive" than comparable units from other armies).

Unit Special Rules are just there to provide flavor. They aren't the crux of an army's playstyle. A single, defining special rule or two for the army might help to reinforce the theme. Elves are known to be very fast and martially skilled, so they get the 'Prowess' unique special rule, and the 'Always Strikes First' rule from the main rulebook. Their units actually don't have many extra special rules between them.
Giving each unit a slew of 2-4 special rules is going to quickly overwhelm players. It's too much to remember when you're on the table, so players will either be forced to keep flipping through their rulebook, or they'll forget the rules that you've so lovingly lavished them with. This has always been a bit of an issue with 40k, because it has fewer Universal Special Rules in the core book, and also has fewer rules in general. Therefore, to give units flair, designers have to come up with special rules that go above and beyond the normal game, and don't have as large a library of "commonly occurring" rules to fall back on.

I realize that this guide is actually lacking much information or advice on the application of special rules, so I think I might add that at some point in the near future.
 
#11 · (Edited)
I understand all you have said, but it is less applicable to 40k, which I am coming for. You are not going to make parallels, like Calvary for Jump Infantry. The thing is, in my notice, the universal way some rules work across the board are to the point of being generic, with the best example being how Combat Medics work universally in those armies that have them, by granting Feel No Pain. If they differentiated them slightly, like making the Apothecary's healing ability superior to the Maddoks or whatever they are called, it will be very reasonable, given they are a greentide of Orks, with inferior technology and expendable lives they are not afraid to lose. This is the impetus, partially, of what I want to change in the game if possible.

In other words, the way Special Rules work are very defining, and distinguishes otherwise similar play methods. And by 2-4 Special Rules, I meant inclusive of the Army Traits as well, which is very much the same as it stands now with most Codices. To be honest though, my rules inclusive of everything considered, can be substantial, but the thing is, those Army Traits and Special Rules serve to clarify the way the army works, and actually is designed and coded in such a way as to simplify and remain easy to grasp and use.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top