Empire 1700pt list help...

[pw]

a good Empire general

 
That, I think, may well be my problem! A mixed forces list is certainly my preference, party because it'll look nice and partly because I like my armies to have a few ways to play. What's really excited me in this thread is that there seem to be a number of positions on what makes for an effective Empire army and that strikes me as being a really good indication that WM is a reasonably balanced and varied game. I'm looking forward to playing some more and seeing what sort of list suits my playstyle. I might revamp my list to contain a little more variety so that I can get a better feel for the way each unit plays. Heck, maybe the steamtank will come out - perhaps I'll be able to figure out how to use it! (that and it was painted last night).

From a purely theory-master perspective, much of the debate about knights is going to be answered by the terrain used. When I come to make my own set up I'll have to give it a lot of thought because the strength to points value ratios of the various units seems to alter quite radically if you do/don't throw down a bunch of linear obstacles/woods etc.

Cheers - pw.

[Lex]

From a purely theory-master perspective, much of the debate about knights is going to be answered by the terrain used. When I come to make my own set up I'll have to give it a lot of thought because the strength to points value ratios of the various units seems to alter quite radically if you do/don't throw down a bunch of linear obstacles/woods etc.

Open any background documentation on "The Empire" and figure where your troops would be fighting  , in general I would say Empire troops defend the Empire, so especialy where you create a themed Empire table I would expect to see some habitation on the table, scattered farms, with fields lined with walls/hedges/fences. Villages with walls, orchards, (small) streams, rivers with rivercrossings (and toll-houses). Plenty of scope for lineair terrain !

Also, consider the fluff on the empire on the numbers it brings to war, ANY empire army would be fielding WAY more infantry then knights, other then in certain circumstances where the knights are gathered in force for a special mission.

Bottom line, I would not send in my Panzers without infantry support................     oh ... srry ... different game .....

[Stomm]

Winter Warmer army composition details ARE available 1700 pts @ 2k min/max and no MI other then dispell scroll, IIRC, but by all means check them to provide correct comments 

I double checked them after posting, and since I find the card system rather fussy (as basically you need to spend at least ten minutes prior to starting play playing the card game first...), I am petitioning to have it removed in favour of just straight 2k points-match games.

I've always considered that if you really want to add flavour to a WM event, then having competitors seperate their army into a roughly 1500pt and a roughly 500pt force, and then having a paper-scissors-stone approach to the scenario played is the simplest approach. The scenarios basically just being about who deploys first, where, which of their forces and how long it takes for the rest to show up, and which table edge they do so from...

But since I don't have the time these days to even do more than two hours painting a week, I'll just settle for straight 2k games. It's not as if WM is so hideously unbalanced a game that you need extra intervention from tournie rules to make the games 'fair'...

[Stomm]

Also, consider the fluff on the empire on the numbers it brings to war, ANY empire army would be fielding WAY more infantry then knights, other then in certain circumstances where the knights are gathered in force for a special mission.

True, but 45pt 6+ save infantry just isn't worth 45pts in WM. Maybe 35, or at most 40, but certainly not 45pts. You can also very easily argue the other way, and that 3/3/4+ cavalry is far too cheap at 110pts, and I also agree with that assesment. Perhaps 125pt, maybe even 130pts would be a more accurate reflection of 3/3/4+ WM cavalry on the battlefield.


But if you're going to muck about with the points costs in pretty much every army, then you shouldn't do so until the core game is also revised. And whilst our chances of getting a printed book are nigh on non-existant (unless all WM fans club together to buy a load of GW shares and force the directors to change their policy on the SG range...), revising, changing and updating and publishing an online 2nd ed. rulebook is just as likely to be devisive amongs the WM community as doing nothing about the problem. Put quite simply a rulebook that you download is just not as good or useful as a printed paper rulebook.

Now if it were presented in a format that you could get it printed and bound, well that might be a different story. I'm planning on doing this with some photo albums of our girls for my parents, aunts and uncles through iPhoto simply because its easier than mucking around with individual photo uploads, etc... So I know that getting individual copies of books printed professionally isn't actually all that expensive, but I wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to do this for an actual short of everyone having to copy and paste text and pictures onto websites that allow you to create photo albums, etc...



Anyway getting somewhat sidetracked there. Basically my point is that since the army selector determintes the army you can use effectively, the Empire amry selector does not do the job of promoting a combined arms approach to fighting a battle. The infantry element of the army is a liability with the exception of Flagellants. The Halberdiers are there simply because you have to take them, and it provides the enemy with something to kill that aren't your knights...

[jchaos79]

Hey Stomm, your empire selection is in the mood of the French kings in the 100 years wars  .
May Agincourt can happen in warmaster fantasy? I mean, is going to max cavalry the ever winning choice? 

[Pugwash]

Also, consider the fluff on the empire on the numbers it brings to war, ANY empire army would be fielding WAY more infantry then knights, other then in certain circumstances where the knights are gathered in force for a special mission.

Will other Warmer armies be mindful of their respective fluff in the troops they take?

[Stomm]

Hey Stomm, your empire selection is in the mood of the French kings in the 100 years wars  .
May Agincourt can happen in warmaster fantasy? I mean, is going to max cavalry the ever winning choice? 

Well I tend to win more when I take 7-8 units of knights in a 2k army than when I only bring along 5-6... If you're confronted with a Chaos, Dwarf or Lizardman army that insists on sitting in forests, then push them in with your cannons, surround with knights and bring the flagellants up the rear. An opponent that hides in terrain is an opponent who has limited their tactical options and is therefore easy to envelop and take apart...

[Stomm]

Also, consider the fluff on the empire on the numbers it brings to war, ANY empire army would be fielding WAY more infantry then knights, other then in certain circumstances where the knights are gathered in force for a special mission.

Will other Warmer armies be mindful of their respective fluff in the troops they take?

Well I'm in two minds about whether to max out on my infantry or not actually. As I have already said the route to victory, especially a quick one with Empire is to max out with knights and support with artillery and a small helping of infantry. However for a challenge at the one-day tournie at the Civil Service Club in London in August I decided to field 10 units of Halberdiers, and only 4 units of knights with rather mixed results. One thing was certain, only taking two heroes with this many units wasn't really good enough. I ended up with at least one or two brigades each game doing pretty much nothing. The Empire army is very command inefficient, as you cannot even contemplate commanding with your wizards beyond the 1st turn, and really their job is to be about 30cm away from your line trying to cast fireballs...

[wmchaos2000]

I would say that it all comes down to what your prefered playstyle is.

In the early years of WM a buddy of mine played Empire. He used all kinds of tactics and all kind of different army lists, but only came out with a Draw against my Chaos horde once. All other battles were losses.

The main "wrong" he did was that he had a lot of characters and that they made those command rolls, so he eagerly could move alot of his army around my flanks and such. Naturally the Chaos horde were always able the counter charge and that made him in return unable to counter charge due to that his first orders made his first wave brigades move so far away from the armys main body.

Conclusion, he had to change style or change army.
He started a Dwarf list and, with some change in tactics of course, he has only lost once or twice since then.

About brigade vs character, I usually calculate that 2 characters should be able to command 3 brigades. This partly depending on what kind of brigade/task and which characters that are combined.

[Stomm]

About brigade vs character, I usually calculate that 2 characters should be able to command 3 brigades. This partly depending on what kind of brigade/task and which characters that are combined.

That just about does it, assuming that you are talking about cmd8 characters. O&G's when used effectively have smaller brigades and almost a 1:1 character:brigade ratio, but then they're commanding with loads of cmd7 boggo heroes, sorcerers and the like.


The main problem that I have with Empire, and for that matter other human armies command structure is that compared to almost every other army it is very expensive, but is less effective for the points you pay. Taking the example of a 'standard' 2k army, you'd be mad not to max out on wizards, and if you want to do anything more than just sit in your deployment zone you're going to need at least two heroes, or more if you go infantry-heavy as I found out in August. So characters alone at 2k you are talking about 375pts, obviously without magic items or other upgrades. Compare this to a Chaos army, and thanks to their sorcerers having cmd8, then you're only looking at spending 305pts for pretty much the same level of command flexibility, just make sure that you order your cavalry with your general, and many chaos spells have a long range and do not require LoS IIRC so to use their magic effectively they don't need to hover around the enemy army as much as Empire wizards do.

Consider Dwarfs, and more importantly High Elves, and well it gets even worse... Although the increase in the HE general's cost does bring the minimum cost into line with the Empire, thanks to the HE general's command of 10, and of course the HE Mage's prodigious magical abilities and you can see that you are still getting an awful lot more 'bang for your buck' than with the Empire, and for that matter Brettonian or Kislev command structures...


As to how to address this imbalance? Well removing cmd8 wizards from the game altogether would be a good start...

[Guthwine]

I have to say I never saw that as a problem. With my bretonnians I always take 1 general, 2 heroes and 2 enchantresses in a 2k game and I am pretty happy with that.

The wizards with cmd8 suffer from the 20cm command restriction and also they come for twice the cost. 2 wizards in an highelf army are 180 points for that amount I get 2 enchantresses and a hero and have even 10p left.

[Stomm]

The wizards with cmd8 suffer from the 20cm command restriction and also they come for twice the cost. 2 wizards in an highelf army are 180 points for that amount I get 2 enchantresses and a hero and have even 10p left.

Yes, but two wizards in a HE army have more or less the same command and magical capacity, in fact more magical capacity and two wizards and two heroes in an Empire or Bret army, and for 70pts less...

[wmchaos2000]

A small example of Empire-costs and what you get for it:
For 45p you get access to VoiceOfCommand.
For 15p more you make that "command" on 4+. Once. (WarAltar)
For 30p more you make it automatically. Once. (RingOfMagic)
(all above are from the old rule-book)
So, in my opinion, the other wizards are not underprized or "over-the-top".

The "effective range" of the Command is up to 60cm.
Let the wizard move to a spot that is within 30cm of your armys main body and within 30cm of the Knight unit you moved around the enemys flank during the Command phase. Sim-sala-bim!
At least this is the way I have lost Chaos Knights and the like before learning the right manoeuvres.

And now I hope no one disagrees when I say that "the Command" is a game winner. The game winner.

Note: the Command is not a "line-of-sight" spell.

My 50 öre.

[Schindbua]

your right, command is the winner, but not magic.
You can do nothing against given orders by chars, but you can use a dispell against spells.
I prefer better command values on my chars, then spells.

[Stomm]

Don't forget that a single unit of knights, whilst deadly, is nothing compared to four units of knights, etc...