February 24 2020 15:04:49
Navigation
Forum Threads
Newest Threads
· Destroy The Chaos He...
· Reclaim The Stones!!...
· Alternative GUO model
· Lost options from RH
· Pitched Battle - Dwa...
Hottest Threads
· Destroy The Chaos... [0]
· Reclaim The Stone... [0]
Latest Articles
· THE GODS OF CHAOS HA...
· Posting Content on t...
· A word on Attachments
· Final Testing and Bu...
Users Online
· Guests Online: 1

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 251
· Newest Member: Sherpa1016
Welcome
Welcome to Classic Hammer
View Thread
Classic Hammer » Warhammer Fantasy » 6th Edition
 Print Thread
0-1 anyone?
Just Tony
I was thinking about starting this in the rules thread, but I want to have discourse first.


When prepping for a game with my brother that didn't come to fruition, I was putting together my list and noted something I take for granted and really doesn't stand out in my mind.

0-1 restriction.

Now, if you played a bunch of 6th, which I did, you'll be very familiar with this little gem. I got to thinking about how 7th kinda killed the whole 0-1 thing, and have been thinking about whether that was a good thing or not.

On one hand, you could then have an army of Lizard Swarms, and you would officially never break them until you were flanked by another batch and run off the table. Certain very powerful units would also become a default to fill every slot in that Core/Special/Rare choice.

On the other hand, there was no Saphery appendix list, and one army I'd love to run is one that has quite a few Swordmasters, which has the unfortunate problem of being 0-1. Now, I guess that one's an easy fix with your opponent, but if you build your army around a house rule, ESPECIALLY if you purchase new models for said army, you'll be left holding the bag more often than not in casual pick up games.


What are your thoughts? Like 0-1? Dislike it? Would be okay with making things not in Rare slots 0-2 instead? I await responses...
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
Acutally the appendix lists would be a good topic of discussion as I have rarely played them.

My take on the 0-1 restriction is that it contributed to the breaking of the 7th edition to not have it so I would have to say that 0-1's should have been used given the structuring of the armies back in the 6th. Were you to allow for 0-1 restrictions to be removed, I would say that a percentage structure would be more appropriate like what you saw in the 4th, 5th or 8th.
Edited by TinyLegions on 01-11-2015 09:50
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
Just Tony
And I am most assuredly NOT pro-percentages. So like I said, I'm behind the 0-1 thing, but I like appendix lists that break that with the caveat that the list also restricts other things. If SM weren't 0-1 for instance, I'd take Repeater Bolt Throwers out of that appendix list.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
foggynight81
I personally like the 0-1restrictions that are on certain units. I enjoy the fact the you can only have 1 of certain units, gives them a more special feel to them.
I have also noticed that 0-1 choice is usually on unbreakable/ stubborn units. I feel that they were making sure that panic and combat resolution is something you have to deal with.
The undead armies, even though they ignore much of psychology, all there units have a max to them. The only army that seemed to break this norm is Khorne marked mortal armies.
 
TinyLegions
Just Tony wrote:

And I am most assuredly NOT pro-percentages. So like I said, I'm behind the 0-1 thing, but I like appendix lists that break that with the caveat that the list also restricts other things. If SM weren't 0-1 for instance, I'd take Repeater Bolt Throwers out of that appendix list.


Is how the High Elf Lionsguard honor put together a good idea to you? Correct me if I am wrong, but that allows for an additional White Lions unit for each honor used in the army. This would be more to my preference of how to handle breaking 0-1 restrictions in that you need to make a character that allows for an exception and allocate the points to that trait. Not something that would totally eliminate the 0-1 restriction but make it 0-2 instead. Again as I have no experience in gaming with an appendix list, I don't know whether an appendix list would be an improvement to my idea of characters unlocking 0-1 restrictions with adequate point allocations.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
TinyLegions
foggynight81 wrote:

I personally like the 0-1restrictions that are on certain units. I enjoy the fact the you can only have 1 of certain units, gives them a more special feel to them.
I have also noticed that 0-1 choice is usually on unbreakable/ stubborn units. I feel that they were making sure that panic and combat resolution is something you have to deal with.
The undead armies, even though they ignore much of psychology, all there units have a max to them. The only army that seemed to break this norm is Khorne marked mortal armies.


Honestly Marked Chaos armies are a subject in of itself.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
Just Tony
TinyLegions wrote:

Just Tony wrote:

And I am most assuredly NOT pro-percentages. So like I said, I'm behind the 0-1 thing, but I like appendix lists that break that with the caveat that the list also restricts other things. If SM weren't 0-1 for instance, I'd take Repeater Bolt Throwers out of that appendix list.


Is how the High Elf Lionsguard honor put together a good idea to you? Correct me if I am wrong, but that allows for an additional White Lions unit for each honor used in the army. This would be more to my preference of how to handle breaking 0-1 restrictions in that you need to make a character that allows for an exception and allocate the points to that trait. Not something that would totally eliminate the 0-1 restriction but make it 0-2 instead. Again as I have no experience in gaming with an appendix list, I don't know whether an appendix list would be an improvement to my idea of characters unlocking 0-1 restrictions with adequate point allocations.


Yeah, or like the Sylvanian Levy letting you take two units of Bat Swarms instead of one. THAT is the kind of way I'm up for breaking it. Mainly I miss appendix lists' way of handling it. It usually took away as well as unlocking 0-2 instead of 0-1
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
Just Tony wrote:

Yeah, or like the Sylvanian Levy letting you take two units of Bat Swarms instead of one. THAT is the kind of way I'm up for breaking it. Mainly I miss appendix lists' way of handling it. It usually took away as well as unlocking 0-2 instead of 0-1


That is my preference as well. I would rather have special abilities that one can allocate points towards in order to break 0-1 restrictions, yet still keep them present. Incrementally is what I would be looking for as well.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
tenpole
I would keep to the 0-1 limitations. Appendixes give a chance of possible higher number of units.
 
Just Tony
So it's been a while since I read blind Eltharion's rules since I lost the magazine and never picked up the Chronicles with it in there, but I found an article discussing it online. I totally forgot that this character unlocked Swordmasters from being 0-1, meaning you could run 4 units at 2,000 if you wanted to. My brother is apparently anti-appendix list AND pro 0-1 no matter what, so I imagine he'll be spinning at this thought. Doesn't mean I won't be running it. If I can get enough SMs from the Isle of Blood set to get 4 units.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
TinyLegions
I have not read Eltharion's rules in a long time, but I seem to recall something like that.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
Ganon217
I do thoroughly like the idea of being able to buy a fluffy option which allows breaking of the 0-1 rules. It would allow extremely powerful units to still be able to still kept at 0-1, but other options still remain. For example, I think it would have been a good design to generate an honor you could take that allowed you to take an extra unit of sword masters (maybe and altered Swordmaster honour with a higher point cost in exchange).
 
TinyLegions
Ganon217 wrote:

I do thoroughly like the idea of being able to buy a fluffy option which allows breaking of the 0-1 rules. It would allow extremely powerful units to still be able to still kept at 0-1, but other options still remain. For example, I think it would have been a good design to generate an honor you could take that allowed you to take an extra unit of sword masters (maybe and altered Swordmaster honour with a higher point cost in exchange).


My sentiments exactly. We have a Swordmaster's honor, having that unlock an extra SW unit at a minimum would be a start.
Your Benevolent dictator

My Miniatures Blog http://www.tinyle...gspot.com/
 
Just Tony
I'm also cool with special characters unlocking things. Like Grimgor Ironhide's rules which gave a second Black Orc unit. Now the Storm of Chaos list was a bit far, but not as unbeatable as my brother would claim. I still like those little things in the lists. However, I don't think we need to kill 0-1 entirely as certain things should be rarer or restricted.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
snyggejygge
I confess to being a fan of 0-1, they´ve been there ever since the first armybooks, it felt natural in 6:th edition, & I also liked that certain characters change this to spice things up, Throgg making trolls core, Minotaur moving minotaurs to lord, ltharion unlocking more swordmasters, Cro giving marauders marks etc etc, that made characters feel more special rather than just generic characters with worse gear....
 
blargly
Exactly this - I love the index lists/special character unlocks, as they give the sub factions within an army some life. At some point I swear I'll do a Sylvanian army which matches the lore - a force consisting of the living and the dead marching side by side!
 
Just Tony
That was my goal back when I had almost every army. I had two bat swarm units (only possible in the Sylvania list) and was planning on getting together Sylvanian Levy, but by the time I got ready to do so, 7th edition book killed that from happening.
Father, soldier, musician, Transformers fan, masochistic junior moderator type thing.
 
Jump to Forum:
Login
Username

Password



Not a member yet?
Click here to register.

Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.
Member Poll
There are no polls defined.
Shoutbox
You must login to post a message.

No messages have been posted.
1,292,611 unique visits
Table 'cmvogan_phpf1.phpf_new_users' doesn't exist