Empire Steam Tank

[calmacil]

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

[forbes]

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?

[Geep]

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.

[calmacil]

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.

[Geep]

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?

[jchaos79]

Yes, I think if you change max of hounds and this is exploited will break the list.

[Lex]

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!

[calmacil]

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 ........

[Geep]

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)

[jchaos79]

Interesting analysis Geep.

[calmacil]

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

[Geep]

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.

[Aldhick]

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.

[Edmund2011]

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.

[ruiza97]

Except Warmaster is a game and not a real life army.  Monsters make the game a more interesting fantasy wargame.