ravenflight wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:Thanks for that Don
And I concur wholeheartedly.
We already do reatrictions in the sense that you MUST buy the minimums.
The list minima are so low as to be fairly ineffective in this - the situation has arisen with these minima after all. Recall that the troop minima are only of the order of 200 points in most list.
Wouldn't a lot of the problems simply disappear/be limited by stating all of 'these' armies must have 18/24/30/36 bases of foot etc?
I mean, if you've bought 4 BGs of foot, aren't you already limited on how much mounted you can field?
As I have previously mentioned I suspect that if you simply doubled the list minima (excluding artillery and probably Light Troops), making them effectively about 400 points, you would indeed address many of the concerns raised. However, you would almost certainly need to do a trawl through all the lists to sort out some exceptions and what to do with *ed minima. It could easily end up being quite messy. Additionally the artillery:foot bases ration suggestion is quite nicely nuanced as it does not remove the (historical) possibilities for largely mounted armies, although some like the Later Louis XIV are probably still breaking historical credibility.
Also, lets not forget that a lot of players like a lot of choice when designing lists - the alchemy involved is all part of the fun.
Also, I'd move cautiously, as I feel that any change will have unexpected results. For example, perhaps an army that isn't particularly used now could become a real tourney tiger and in six months time Martin or someone else will be suggesting sweeping changes.
In this respect the artillery:infantry suggestion is I think quite safe as it is not making actually list changes, just an influence on the choices within the lists.