May 01, 2025, 01:41:26 PM

Author Topic: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.  (Read 8255 times)

Offline azrael71

  • Warmasterplaytest team
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 896
Re: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.
« Reply #15 on: June 12, 2009, 01:46:05 PM »
I prefer the raise dead spell when appropriate.
It is a lot more effective than doom and despair.

Offline captPiett

  • Active Member
  • *
  • Posts: 169
Re: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.
« Reply #16 on: June 12, 2009, 03:15:05 PM »
If you've been "very successful" with your undead, why do you need new rules?  :P
Sure, the undead don't have initiative, but neither are they penalized for being within 20cm of the enemy, while their opponents suffer from the same proximity. Undead armies can get very large and command can be a problem, but why would you want to move up that spare brigade of skeletons close to the enemy? What good can it do besides getting ridden over by cavalry? As long as you can move them 1-2 times into some safe terrain, that should be sufficient. Then you save most of the command rolls for moving the important units into place (cavalry, chariots, the odd monster). The standard troops more there to keep the breakpoint up so the important units can get the job done. If the undead are relying on skeleton combat power to win, they're in BIG trouble. My point is, the undead have enough command to get the units that matter into action.

No one ever said that shooting is decisive; it gives you the ability to disrupt brigades and makes the opponent's command phase much more complicated. Same with doom and dispair: sure, you might only get 2 successful rolls, but if you affect the right units, it can disrupt/render less effective a decisive charge. Nothing is (or should be) 100% effective.

Sphinx is pricey, yes. I would hesitate to take it, unless I was playing orks - its a nice foil for a giant, IMO. I once played a game where a giant/spinx combat lasted 4 rounds. The cat died eventually, but the giant ended up hurt. Bone giants are less pricey and still cause terror. I wouldn't underestimate the chukka's: 6 armor-ignoring and confusion-inducing attacks are nothing to sneeze at. Aimed at a heavily armored unit (like knights) that can be decisive.

Offline azrael71

  • Warmasterplaytest team
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 896
Re: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.
« Reply #17 on: June 12, 2009, 03:31:47 PM »
Got to say, I do not think undead of either type need any amendments.
They play great once you get them figured out.
I struggle to lose with either vamps or TK.

Continual 'improvement' is what drove me away from WH and the lack of it attracted me to WM.
We are in danger of driving a way the few players that still play this game.
I know my play group isn't that impressed with some of the proposed revisions to existing armies.

Offline jchaos79

  • Moderator
  • Veteran member
  • *
  • Posts: 2530
    • Loc: Vigo, Galicia, Spain
    • Fortunes of war
Re: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.
« Reply #18 on: June 12, 2009, 03:37:15 PM »
I am not too experience in WM to suggest a change or not in the undead rules.

But in my me humble opinion, as Azrael says, the lack of changes in the rules makes me like more the game. (that is how I see the matter).


Offline Claus

  • Warmasterplaytest team
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 204
Re: Not going below 1 minimum attack .... whatever situation.
« Reply #19 on: June 13, 2009, 12:23:58 PM »
@Bel

The header of this discussion had not been selected well by me.

The "never go below 1 basic attack" was meant for any other army that can be targeted by confusion, terror.

@Undead army.
I don´t mean the Undead need go be powered up but it´s simply needs to be able to get at least 1 additional heror per 1K points.(my opinion)

This should be only a discussion point and of course ....playtesting will be neccessary. Also it should be an optional and playtesting rule first and maybe in some years it can become official one.

I´m also not impressed by some of the improvements proposed for several armies. Some are good, some are not good not bad and some I don´t like and will not accept in any game. I guess I have some experience in playing and I very fast can see the potential of an army.
(I´m still the one meaning that at V2.2 rules Daemons beat Lizzardmen Army ast they are tougher)

@Skull Chukkas.
If your opponent has magic with spells that can do damage then this Skull Chukkas are gone very fast. Also if you face flyers in your opponents armies it will be very hard to protect Skull Chukkas.

My usual set up for UNDEAD is Spearmen and Bowmen (more Spearmen then Bowmen) 6 Chariots, 2 Carrions The maxium of heroes + 1 Dragon. Sometimes I also take a Sphinx (not that I´m convinced about their ability...just like the model) or a Bone Giant.

Back to my Basic intention:
Why the additional hero.

Below 2000 Pts you get crazy with 3 heroes. Above 2.000 and below 3.000 pts as well as you desperately misss characters at this Mass army.

I´m still in favour of a solution to get a standard heroe without magic ability with command value 7.

@SpiritusX
The 1 Heroe per 1.000 pt for Araby Army is and official type off. Araby is allowed to take 2 per 1.000 pts. (Unfortunately it did not get changed so far)   ::)