Skip to toolbar

The issue of the "elite" army (and finding opponents)….

Home Forums Historical Tabletop Game Discussions The issue of the "elite" army (and finding opponents)….

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 18 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  mecha82 9 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
  • Author
  • #1349784


    Interestingly, GW do this and people really give them stick for it.  You can buy a box of 10 Cadians (basic troops) for £18 but it’s £21 for a box of 5 Tempestus Scions (Elite Troops).  Personally I don’t have too much of an issue with it, I would rather see a nice variety of opponents than pay the same amount of money per gram of plastic.  In order to ensure all armies have a similar buy in cost, you have to charge more for “elite” troop types but in so doing it means that you remove low cost as an incentive to buy the small, elite armies.

    Obviously there is still the hobby commitment required for larger armies, regardless of genre and so to some extent you will always see a leaning towards the smaller armies.

    But I personally do think that it’s better to charge less for horde units to try and encourage people to collect those armies.  Just my view of course and I can see why some people wouldn’t like that.



    I don’t doubt that the pricing wouldn’t work, but perhaps we need to look at the “why” gamers go to these armies as a preference?

    Is it the time/price constraints, the rules advantages, or simply the smart uniforms?

    I’ve been a wargamer for more years than I’d like to mention, and when I started “refights” were the order of the day. There was a tourney scene but it was all down South (with nothing really North of Birmingham). We got our “scenarios” from the historical Orbats and just went at it.

    So my focus is perhaps a little stricter than most in that I’m only happy seeing armies that fought each other historically on the table (rather than games of US Marines vs Canadians…I’m sure someone is going to make a joke about that in a minute).

    Plus my gaming group has been together for decades, and we tend to launch into a new period together.

    So over the years we have “learned” to avoid these armies (as it forces a burden on the opponents), For example in WW2 no-one need to buy a “horde” army if no-one buys an elite army. Games don’t need IS-2s if no-one buys Tiger IIs (there were many more Stugs, PZer IVs and T85s around in 1944, but you wouldn’t guess it looking at most wargaming tables). There’s plenty of options for interesting and varied army lists, but gamers still gravitate towards these elite armies and units.

    When the wargaming plastics first arrived I thought “at last a chance to see cheaper minis for “horde” armies”, But certainly for the ancients period the first army usually produced by a manufacturer is Romans (because that’s where the market demand is).

    I think we saw an attempt made by GW to curb these elite tourney lists by using warscrolls (and the 40K version) to tempt gamers to bring a “balanced” force to the table with the addition of a special rule or two. Perhaps the historical aspect of the hobby might benefit from rules systems that do similar?

    All in all it’s about those armies left on the display shelf never getting a game in (unless you’re going to play IDF vs IDF in a fictional civil war for example), and why gamers seem to have moved towards “press every advantage” rather than the “getting a good game in” ethos of old.

    I think refights, scenarios and campaigns are probably the way forwards for historicals (rather than endless tourney “support kits”). These might tempt gamers back towards more “historical” battles again, with gamers buying what was actually there in the field (rather than what could have been there). It’s strange how Warlord probably have more books on theatre specific conflicts, but these are usually the least played, as players prefer to play tweaked tourney army list against each other ( least the younger ones do, but then I’m off an age where nearly everyone is younger 😀 ).






    I think you misunderstand.  I think it does work because it’s something that’s already being done by GW.  Sure you get people moaning about it but to be honest it doesn’t matter what you do, someone is going to moan about it.



    @phaidknott I can see benefit in historicals focusing on refights, scenarios and campaigns over tournaments that fit much better sci-fi, fantasy and other fiction based genres. That said I can also see benefit in making entry level for horde armies by offering boxed sets that offer value. Both are valid options and together those two might be not if solution then at least something that helps situation. But there is no simple solution for this because it also depends on players and what they prefer.

Viewing 4 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)