Specialist Arms Forum
Warmaster => [WM] Warmaster Fantasy Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: calmacil on September 17, 2014, 10:48:38 PM
-
I have an Empire army that i use occasionally. I have two steam tanks, but i never take them, they just seem weak.
Do you think Steam Tanks should have more than 3 hits? ........I was looking at the Stegadon with 4+ armour and 10 hits.
-
This is an ethernal topic :-) But for a reason... The fact is, that there is no real use for the steam tank in the game.. The superb defense has no real use. With so few attack and the rule that losing combat by just one point means destruction, it cannot charge on it's own - otherwise it would be very likely a suicide especially against supported infantry. And when you charge with ST to support other charging units, the enemy can almost always avoid attacking the ST and attack neighbouring stands instead. Furthermore you even cannot brigade it, so you need more orders to get it moved... so ST are really expensive and unefficient 3 combat attacs....
The less painful sollutions imo are to give it terror and/or monster/chariot charge bonus.
-
I've found it OK.
As it is such a narrow frontage, only 1 enemy stand (of infantry) can fight back. This gives you a fair chance to win due to your really good armour. It can be good to hold up a part of the front.
-
if you fight against cavalry, all stands fight back. If against single infantry unit, you are loosing one or two points even before the combat started due to support. If there are another friendly unit engaged, most often the stand touching the ST would have chance to direct its attack elsewhere... regarding the fact you cannot afford to loose even by single point.... still cant see any advantage...
-
As currently listed the Steam Tank has only 1 use, it is excellent for drawing missile fire while you advance your infantry. It's a mobile defended position with an awesome save which can really frustrate archers :) Of course if your opponent fields heavy artillery (No Save) or worse Cannon (No Save,Ignores Defended Status) then all bets are off and you almost certainly should have left it at home :(
A real shame as it's such a lovely model and probably the Empires most 'Iconic' unit and really deserves some love.
-
I admit this is theoretical only- I have never used one- but I see their use as something that can absorb a cavalry or other heavy charge with little problem, giving other units a chance to counter attack.
A normal cavalry unit would get 9 attacks (charge+terror), of which only 3 hit and 2 would bounce off the save. The steam tank has few attacks, but does have the stand and shoot to help out- getting 1 hit back isn't too unlikely. Cavalry have no support, so I think there's a reasonable chance of the cavalry unit bouncing.
It can either do that, or absorb light missile fire as Honestmistake says.
I think infantry would be its weak point- it can't possibly cause enough casualties to counter the support combat bonuses.
-
ST doesn't cause terror. However the charging bonuses are negated by it's defended status. Well this might be a way how to use it, but it's still pretty limited, especially when dice rolls favoring just slightetly the opponent mean atumatic destruction. Too risky for 130 pts imo.
-
I think the Steam Tanks roll should be that of an almost unstoppable unit. Not the hardest hitting or fastest unit, but sturdy and strong. Meaning your opponent has to commit a considerable force to bring it down.
With this in mind I would give the steam tank around 10 hits (this is from a DE & Orc player) and keep it's 3+ save
Points cost, I have no idea. The stegadon has 10 hits and a 4+ save, but more attacks.
-
The hits and save of the steam tank aren't really its problem- the fact that any lost combat destroys it is where the problem lies. 10 hits wouldn't improve that.
-
The hits and save of the steam tank aren't really its problem- the fact that any lost combat destroys it is where the problem lies. 10 hits wouldn't improve that.
I've seen lots of people saying this, but i can't find that rule anywhere.
I've looked in the Steam Tank rules, and also there's a section on page 67 that talks about artillery in combat. It says ........... "artillery is vulnerable in combat....if it retreats it is automatically destroyed....Machines are more complex than artillery, and some have their own rules for fighting in combat..."
The Steam Tank is classed as a Machine, not artillery. So why is it destroyed if it retreats?
I've probably missed something really obvious, or a rule update ;D ::)
-
The bit about destroyed if loosing a combat is in the Empire army list of the Living Rule Book - not the printed rule book.
It doesn't really help that there is a section of Steam Tank rules in the Artillery & Machines sections and the Empire Army list - and these aren't the same.
-
Well bless my barnacles!!! you're right! I was looking at the Empire army in the rule book.
So is that list a fan-made list???
-
From what I understand, after WM was released fans/playtesters communicated with Rick Priestley- aka the maker of the game (I think it's him- don't have my book to check)- and the edits are basically official 'Warmaster 1.1', Warmaster 1.2', etc. changes. There's just no chance GW was going to release a new book.
Same for all of the armies in the separate armies document (not the trial/fan armies document)- all of the lists there are as official as they come (in fact that document may now be part of the LRB? It's been a while since I've looked).
-
I'm still not sure what the LRB is :) Has anybody seen it? :D AFAIK the only really official book are those PDFs that were on GW web site before they cut the SG off - so that means Rulebook part 1, part 2 and Armies - the same that are accesible on WM Army selector
-
I'm still not sure what the LRB is :) Has anybody seen it? :D AFAIK the only really official book are those PDFs that were on GW web site before they cut the SG off - so that means Rulebook part 1, part 2 and Armies - the same that are accesible on WM Army selector
PM sent.
-
From what I understand, after WM was released fans/playtesters communicated with Rick Priestley- aka the maker of the game (I think it's him- don't have my book to check)- and the edits are basically official 'Warmaster 1.1', Warmaster 1.2', etc. changes. There's just no chance GW was going to release a new book.
Well I assume LRB means Living Rulebook?? So they can be changed? I guess the difficulty is getting people to agree
I think it's a shame with some rules/points cost. For example I have dark elves, I have a hydra, love the model, but in the game he costs too much. So it's rare I take him, and whenever I do include him he usually doesn't do very well.
Me and my friends adjusted the points costs and a few stats with our armies .... Eg. Chaos Hounds were adjusted, they are unpriced, we changed to 2att to keep them fairly cheap (can't remember points cost)
Rick works at my place, I'm tempted to ask him how much input he had in those rules
-
As far as I recall the initial intent of the living rule book was to gather the various FAQS and Erata from the Warmaster magazines. I think these were official rules.
But I don't know now what the provenance of the rules are. There have been community attempts to update the rules, but most have stalled. The French use of WMA has probably been the most successful community attempt to consolidate and update WM.
The differences between the various rules have on occasion caused confusion in games I have played.
Coming back to the point of this thread the Steam Tank rules seem to be particularly problematic. The always defend vs cannons ignore defended, and the change to being destroyed when it loses a combat, does anyone know where this came from?
-
No idea why the changes happened (I'm almost certain it caused Terror at some point as well? Or maybe I've finally gone mad?), but that 'dead if pushed back' change is a real deal-killer for the ST.
LRB's can be very successful- just look at Bloodbowl and Epic. The problem is you often get fractured rulesets- look again at Bloodbowl and Epic. A very strong and consistent community is needed to make these work, and although I'm sure Warmaster has the numbers there seems to be a lack of drive and organising centre. The French community may have what it takes, but everything they write is unsurprisingly French, so the spread of their ideas is a bit limited (not that I blame them- translating is a thankless job). I know some French members have posted rather awesome-looking stuff here, like Storm of Magic rules, but although I've downloaded it all my French is still lacking.
On the topic of the Chaos Hounds, one thing I like about Warmaster is the consistency between lists. Marauders have the same stats as High Elf Spearmen and many others, and are all 60pts. Similarly the basic archer profile and points are the same across armies. The only things to receive a break from these values are few and far between (Skaven Clanrats and Stormvermin are 5pts cheaper, but Skaven lack cavalry, High Elf generals are more expensive than usual, but they have excellent leadership and strong cavalry*). I think this is important in keeping the game balanced. What are the specific changes you've made to hounds and why exactly? (Curious, not trying to be negative)
*This change (it's different from the printed book) came not long after a published battle report where a 2000pt High Elf army defeated 2 allied 2000pt armies (ie. 4000pts) without breaking a sweat, using a gunline and strong cavalry hammer that swung back and forth across the front lines, often covering the entire board width in one turn.
-
What are the specific changes you've made to hounds and why exactly? (Curious, not trying to be negative)
I also like consistency in points costs, and i also like most armies having a 3/3/5+, cost 60 unit.
We all felt that Warmaster Ancients reflected this more accurately. Basically we took similar costing units and compared them.
The Chaos Hounds are difficult to work out. The closest cavalry unit i could find in Warmaster Ancients is 3 Att, 3 Hits, 6+ Armour, and NOT shock (40mm base to the front) This unit costs 70 points. So if the Chaos Hounds were 3/3/6+ and shock they should cost around 80-90 points. With zero armour (same as they are in the rulebook) they'd be 70-75 points. I thought this was too much for what is basically a screening unit.
As they are now Chaos Hounds are charging with the same attack as Marauder Horsemen, i think Marauder Horsemen should be better than Chaos Hounds. WMA gave me an idea, their light cavalry usually has 2 attacks.
So we changed Chaos Hounds to 2 Attacks, 3 Hits, 0 Armour, cost = 45 to 50
It requires some new tactics for the hounds
We also prefer archers having one less attack as well. With a base stat of 3 attacks, and a stand & fire archers usually get the equivalent of 4 attacks per round. Again referring to WMA archers are not equipped for melee combat, hence the 2 attacks.
-
Yes, the archer change is pretty popular I think. It appears in both WMA and BoFA.
Having such a weak unit in a Chaos army would be interesting- break point is low so you don't want them dying but their screening role is clear. Would it break the list if you took too many of them to inflate the break point?
-
Yes, I think if you change max of hounds and this is exploited will break the list.
-
From what I understand, after WM was released fans/playtesters communicated with Rick Priestley- aka the maker of the game (I think it's him- don't have my book to check)- and the edits are basically official 'Warmaster 1.1', Warmaster 1.2', etc. changes. There's just no chance GW was going to release a new book.
Well I assume LRB means Living Rulebook?? So they can be changed? I guess the difficulty is getting people to agree
........
Rick works at my place, I'm tempted to ask him how much input he had in those rules
As one having been involved with original rules, the LRD and the Fan-based stuff
1) it is (almost) impossible to get people to agree on "Fair" changes of costing, which is why I have pretty much stopped trying to do that as a community effort. Without an "official" stamp by GW the community at large will not accept any change. (And GW is not going to stamp on anything)
2) Rick was (for several reasons) prohibited from participating the the process, other the the occasional, silent nod or shake.
3) the Fan-based armies book is just that, no official participation, no involvement from Rick or anyone else other then a group of dedicated players. And even we could not agree on a lot of stuff, hence the differentiation between armies in the book.
I have come to accept that, as there is almost no existing national of international tournament scenes, Warmaster has branched into around 40.000 different versions. Which are all maxed for fun for the people playing them. Just remember to talk through "your" rules perception with an opponent from an other gaming group to make sure you WILL be playing the same game, or play vanilla!
-
Yes, the archer change is pretty popular I think. It appears in both WMA and BoFA.
Having such a weak unit in a Chaos army would be interesting- break point is low so you don't want them dying but their screening role is clear. Would it break the list if you took too many of them to inflate the break point?
I think the Chaos army actually had a higher break point with our rules change. We had chaos warriors at 135 points, chaos knights at 175 points.
We did +25 points per stat increase......so from a basic stat line of 3/3/5+ costing 60 pnts.... therefore 3/3/4+ should be 85pnts....and a dwarf warrior 3/4/4+ costing 110 .. to a chaos warrior 4/4/4+ we just added 25 points for each increase. Obviously this only works with troops without special rules (special rules like frenzy, all skaven, units with a missile attack, etc)
I'm not sure if this is an accurate way to do it
Backwards it seems to be -15 pnts per stat ..... 3/3/5+ =60 ........ 3/3/6+ = 45 ........
-
I can't be sure as I obviously wasn't a designer or playtester, but it appears to me that most Warmaster stats are worked out with a logarithmic point scale- which makes sense really. High attacks is nice, but no so good unless you also have hits. But then having a crazy amount of attacks and no defence is also good. Hits are nice, but they only really shine when you also have armour. Add all three elements and things are pretty damn awesome.
It's easiest to see this in things like Empire Halberdiers- 3/3/6+, 45 pts. Add 1 to any stat and you get the Orc or High Elf type profile 4/3/6+ or 3/3/5+ for 60pts (ie. +15pts). Add a second boost and get a Saurus- 4/3/5+, for 75pts but with a negative rule (so ~20-25 pts, taking the negative into account). Temple Guard (4/4/5+) or Dwarf Warriors (3/4/4+) are then 110 pts (+35). From there we go to Chaos Warriors at 4/4/4+ for 150pts (+40).
So for each stat boost points rise by 15/20-25/35/40
A standard shooting attack seems to vary a little, but isn't so related to other stats. So Halberdiers become crossbowmen by losing armour and gaining 10pts, but Dwarf Warriors become rangers by losing their armour, gaining a special rule and staying the same points. So maybe 15/20 pts in cost for Crossbowmen and 20/25 for the Rangers? (it depends how many points the Ranger's special rule is)
-
Interesting analysis Geep.
-
So for each stat boost points rise by 15/20-25/35/40
I like that system Geep, very good!!
It kinda reminds me of 3rd edition warhammer. They had basic trooper, then +1 shock elite, +2 shock elite, etc.
With the halberdiers as the basic starter point........
Basic Starting Point 45 points
3 / 3 / 6+
+1 Shock Elites 60 points ....... (+15)
4 / 3 / 6+
3 / 3 / 5+
3 / 4 / 6+
+2 Shock Elites 80 points .......... (+20)
3 / 3 / 4+
3 / 4 / 5+
4 / 3 / 5+
+3 Shock Elites 110 points .......... (+30)
4 / 4 / 5+
3 / 4 / 4+
+4 Shock Elites 150 points ........... (+40)
4 / 4 / 4+
There aren't any good examples of +2 Shock Elites, but i included them to complete the list.
The points are for basic troops with no extra rules attached to them. So for skaven you'd have to adjust the points
-
Yes, the +2 Elites in the game are very unusual right now. The only ones I know of (without shooting) are Saurus and Daemons both at 4/3/5+, and 75 points each, but those 2 armies are full of special rules. Dwarf Rangers are 110pts (!) for only 3/4/5+, but they have a regular shooting attack and the very valuable ability to pursue anything (very important for Dwarfs).
Skeletons are a bit of an interesting step down as well- 2/3/6+ for 30pts, but they have all of the undead rules and magic support. They can also be compared slightly to Goblins which drop the save for a 15cm shooting attack- 2.1/3/- also for 30pts (and they lose the undead rules).
Comparing skeletons to zombies -2/4/- for 35pts- shows not all stat bumps are considered equal- I guess there'll always be some playtesting needed to refine things.
Things would get quite odd when you get to bigger beasts with the 'wounding' rule. In that case the stats become quite different in value, with extra attacks is probably worth the least, extra hits being quite valuable and save also being important (since unlike the first two the save isn't compromised if the creature is wounded). Every odd point of attack or hit is also worth more than the even points due to the rounding when it becomes wounded. Probably best to rely on playtesting for these guys than any simple formula.
-
My impression about big thing is that they are slightly overpiced so they don't become a "must have" option and the battles are fought mainly with cavalry/infantry. Which is really good idea imo.
-
That makes sense in a big massed armies concept game as WM
My impression about big thing is that they are slightly overpiced so they don't become a "must have" option and the battles are fought mainly with cavalry/infantry. Which is really good idea imo.
-
Except Warmaster is a game and not a real life army. Monsters make the game a more interesting fantasy wargame.
-
Of course! But the backbone of the game is inf and cav, as Aldhick said.
-
I think Aldhick is right that monsters are overpriced. I remember it was specifically stated that High Elf Dragon Riders were, to discourage players taking too many (which would be brutal). Eventually they decided they'd been overcosted too much, and they've since dropped by 50pts. Whether they're still overcosted at all I don't know.
Even if they are more expensive than an infantry or cavalry equivalent would be, they'll always have a place. People will take them for the awesome models, and no one can concentrate the number of attacks into the small frontage that most monsters can- so a combat has to be pretty cramped before you can't get a monster in to help out.
-
I agree, I think monsters are overpriced. I do like them in the game, I like the contrast between the sizes of figures.
If the points are lowered and you're worried there will be too many monsters, just use the very simple max/min rule of .... -/0.5
1 monster per 2,000 points
-
For Chaos......
+5 Shock Elite infantry
Chosen (warriors of chaos) ... 4 / 4 / 3+
200 points
Max of 1 per army
Using the same system as before
-
Seems about right to me. You can get a similar, but obviously not identical effect using Chaos Warriors with the +1 armour banner (banners and other magic items are purposefully overpriced).