The Specialist Arms Forum

Warmaster => Warmaster Revolution => Topic started by: Aldhick on December 16, 2016, 01:21:22 PM

Title: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on December 16, 2016, 01:21:22 PM
We see WMR as an ideal opportunity to fix some long known issues in army lists, such as Steam Tank for example. We would like to encourage players to participate on this and to help us in finding general consensus (and I'm aware that achieving this might not be always possible). Any experience with the particular issues are welcome. However, it should  be clearly stated, that this is not ment to be a chance to everyone's wild dreams to come true. The point is just to fix what is not working well in existing armylists.



v0.1 https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html (https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html)
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: andys on December 18, 2016, 12:02:52 PM
The Chaos Dwarf list:

I'd question the limited number of slave units permitted. Most Chaos Dwarf background talks about them using large numbers of slaves in their armies. Increase the number of slave units permitted?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on December 19, 2016, 11:29:23 AM
The Chaos Dwarf list:

I'd question the limited number of slave units permitted. Most Chaos Dwarf background talks about them using large numbers of slaves in their armies. Increase the number of slave units permitted?
Any particular suggestions?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: andys on December 21, 2016, 08:00:57 AM
Without having play-tested it, I'd suggest:

1) More Orc slave units (4 max/1000) and/or
2) Goblin/Human slaves (6 or 8 max/1000) 2 attacks, 3 hits, 0 armour, 20 points

With a large number of slaves in the army perhaps, like Bretonnian peasants, they don't count towards the break point either, otherwise the break point would be huge! But they ALL have to die, like Dwarf Troll Slayers, otherwise the enemy gets the victory points?

Models for human slaves could be Bret peasants or Pendraken Peasants (code ELM14)?

Edit, maybe human slaves can be brigaded with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves, with the humans always at the front of the formation. If they get driven back with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves in formation behind them, they are destroyed (by the HGs/CDs!) instead of being driven back.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: greenskinchief on December 21, 2016, 11:07:02 AM
goblin changes,
heroes should be allowed to ride wyverns,
doom diver units should have 2 wounds per stand,
these bring the list into line with other lists and to my mind are amust have,
also the command structure is very weak, so a variant I have trialled is allowing a commander who starts a turn joined to a unit can move with the unit. This represents goblins desire to group together for strength of numbers, in game terms it makes commanders more vulnerable but does give a better chance of multiple commands, in practice it seems to work in the early stages of the game but to save commanders getting killed is rarely used later on.
hope these are of interest
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on December 22, 2016, 08:38:17 AM
Without having play-tested it, I'd suggest:

1) More Orc slave units (4 max/1000) and/or
2) Goblin/Human slaves (6 or 8 max/1000) 2 attacks, 3 hits, 0 armour, 20 points

With a large number of slaves in the army perhaps, like Bretonnian peasants, they don't count towards the break point either, otherwise the break point would be huge! But they ALL have to die, like Dwarf Troll Slayers, otherwise the enemy gets the victory points?

Models for human slaves could be Bret peasants or Pendraken Peasants (code ELM14)?

Edit, maybe human slaves can be brigaded with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves, with the humans always at the front of the formation. If they get driven back with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves in formation behind them, they are destroyed (by the HGs/CDs!) instead of being driven back.

Andys, thanx for your suggestion. We can discuss the min/max of orc slaves. As we don't have any Chaos dwarfs in our community, I'd need more opinions from CD players. Regarding the human slaves, as I have already stated, we don't want to go the "wish listing" way. There are too many units in Warhammer armybooks people would love to see in WM lists, that this might go out of control pretty sooon...

goblin changes,
heroes should be allowed to ride wyverns,
doom diver units should have 2 wounds per stand,
these bring the list into line with other lists and to my mind are amust have,
also the command structure is very weak, so a variant I have trialled is allowing a commander who starts a turn joined to a unit can move with the unit. This represents goblins desire to group together for strength of numbers, in game terms it makes commanders more vulnerable but does give a better chance of multiple commands, in practice it seems to work in the early stages of the game but to save commanders getting killed is rarely used later on.
hope these are of interest

Those armylist changes seem reasonable to me. There has been discussion on rock lobbers touching the doom diver issue as well. afaik there are no two-stand artillery units with 3 hits each. So this is totally ok with me.
I also don't see any particular reason why heroes should not be able to ride wyvern - but maybe someone will remind us of one. Hero on fighting monster is "basic tool" in generic WM armies with this option.

However not sure about the character movement. Too out of standard WM principles. Furthermore low command armies do better under WMR optional command rules.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Alexander on December 27, 2016, 11:18:39 AM
Without having play-tested it, I'd suggest:

1) More Orc slave units (4 max/1000) and/or
2) Goblin/Human slaves (6 or 8 max/1000) 2 attacks, 3 hits, 0 armour, 20 points

With a large number of slaves in the army perhaps, like Bretonnian peasants, they don't count towards the break point either, otherwise the break point would be huge! But they ALL have to die, like Dwarf Troll Slayers, otherwise the enemy gets the victory points?

Models for human slaves could be Bret peasants or Pendraken Peasants (code ELM14)?

Edit, maybe human slaves can be brigaded with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves, with the humans always at the front of the formation. If they get driven back with Hobgoblins or Chaos Dwarves in formation behind them, they are destroyed (by the HGs/CDs!) instead of being driven back.

What about blunderbus units? Does anyone take them? They seem overpriced what you get in comparison to say dwarf thunderers? One shot at 15cm Per stand inline formation (or 1 shot per unit in the fire corridoor with the special rule) just seems overpriced at 90pts compared to thunderers with 30cm and -1 save? Or does the shoot in collum rule realy offset this and make it worthwhile? (Ammount of shots per stand in collum per enemy unit in 4cm wide 15cm lenth area) It seems so limited for the 90points.

One rule of say 2 shots per stand at 15cm  seems more easy and in line with the fluff and keeping it simpel. (Hail of schrapnel at close range).
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: empireaddict on December 30, 2016, 06:22:40 PM
Had a spare moment between Xmas and New Year, so here are my thoughts:

Steam Tank.  Agree with suggested solution.  Brings it in line with Kislev War Wagons in that crew do not abandon it if they lose a round of combat.

Helblaster.  Agree with suggested solution.  Same points as Flame Cannon but not as good in point defence.

Bone Thrower. I have only played a few games with Undead and so will not offer an opinion.

Kislev War Wagon.  Agree that it ought to move forwards.  I suggest following phrase:  'Draw an imaginary line across the front of the horse stand and all moves that end forward of this line are at full-pace; if behind they are at half-pace.'  This rule also represents the difficulty of changing direction with heavy wagons!

Dwarf Gyrocopter. Disagree with all-round vision for this unit.  It is heavy and mechanical in comparison to other flyers which can shoot all-round.  Therefore has to be used and positioned carefully; I have no problem with that requirement.

Ogre Kingdoms.  I have made observations elsewhere on the forum on the basis of many games with or against Ogres.  I would support some tweaking of the list in order to give the Ogre player more realistic options to choose from.

Chaos Dwarf Orc Slaves.  I have played about a dozen games with CDs.  I have never used more that 3 Orc Slaves in a 2,000 point army.  They are OK for pushing up an otherwise low break, but they are very vulnerable because they lack armour.  But changing to, say, a max of 4 per 1,000 seems in keeping with the fluff.  I would not support goblin/human slaves as a fresh entry because the list already has plenty of choices and you would be duplicating a similar type to the Orc slaves.  I would also stay away from trying to change the CD break point rules for slaves.  There are lots of other non-Bretonnian armies that have low-quality, throwaway units and you would set a precedent for adjusting them as well.

Goblins. Having played greenskinchief's Orcs and/or Goblins many times, I trust his judgement on these matters!
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Alexander on December 31, 2016, 09:57:46 AM
@Empireaddict Did you use blunderbuss units in your CD army? What's your opinion on the blunderbuss rules?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: honestmistake on January 01, 2017, 03:50:32 AM
I've used Blunderbuss units a few times with mixed results. Get them in the right place against the right army and they are devastating. I've seen a block of 4 units in column march up in front of a densely packed Undead army and the end result is very messy (placed right a single unit can inflict 24 attacks!) Conversely, against smaller armies with tough/expensive troops who are not in dense formations they fare far less well.
Overall I found they work best paired up with the orc slaves... roll up to the front of a brigade send some orcs into the fray then let rip on everything (orcs included) and watch the support melt away (works especially well if you get a volcanic erruption off... Bull Centaurs to the brigades flank probably counts as excessive though  :o)
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on January 01, 2017, 07:53:16 AM
I personaly don't have any experience with blunderbusses, but I remember, that the concept of shooting in column hit my eye as kind of weird... However if it should be one of two core CD units and it's effective only against some types of armies, I'd say something is wrong. I'll open dedicated thread to discuss it further.
Title: Army lists amendments
Post by: mlkr on January 28, 2017, 08:03:02 PM
Putting this here. Have been reading and thinking about suggested changes, tweaks and such. I am very positive to WMR and do believe certain units and armies need tweaks and some work for added balance and fun. My question: Is there consensus on or at least a basic pointer to how we should go about fixing what is not working well in existing armylists and the main ruleset?

For me an important thing is to see a minimum amount of special rules added. I think one of the best parts about Warmaster is the streamlined rules. Its my hope we can keep it as simple and straightforward as possible.

Regarding balance - how do we want to go about that? Should we balance UNITS or ARMIES against each other? What I mean is - should every 3/3 6+ unit cost the same regardless of army its in or should some armies have cheaper/more expensive ones because of internal armybalance and how do we then achieve external balance between armies?


Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on January 28, 2017, 11:24:17 PM
The current direction is to make as few changes as possible and to decrease the amount of special rules rather than make new ones.

After many games I can say that the change in combat system didn't touch the internal balance within the lists. It only made infantry stronger and heavy cavalry sweeping charges less powerful - something that was sought for by many players.

Therefore we are mostly focusing on issues within armylists that were there even under "vanilla". If you are in touch with Aquahog, ask him about details - he is in the Committee.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aquahog on January 28, 2017, 11:54:33 PM
PM'd you mlkr on FB.
Title: Army lists amendments
Post by: mlkr on January 30, 2017, 08:40:22 PM
Talked a little with Aquahog and with Aldhick's input above on focus I feel even more positive ^_^
It's my hope to get some good games in WMR with start in feb so I may even be able to contribute a little. Thank you both for clarifications :)


Skickat från min iPad med Tapatalk
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: greenskinchief on April 21, 2017, 03:43:27 PM
Dwarves and elves,
a couple of obvious tweaks for these lists if you are reworking army lists:
giant eagle mounts 20- pts really surely at least 30pts
dwarf runesmith surely this is a wizard character only a 20cm command range please
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Lex on April 21, 2017, 03:59:09 PM
Dwarves and elves,
a couple of obvious tweaks for these lists if you are reworking army lists:
giant eagle mounts 20- pts really surely at least 30pts
dwarf runesmith surely this is a wizard character only a 20cm command range please

The Runesmith definitly is NOT a wizard character, what makes you think that ??
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: cjbennett22 on April 21, 2017, 05:09:41 PM
being all infantry, please don't take away the command range  :P
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Geep on April 21, 2017, 07:23:27 PM
In response to the first post, I find some of the 'solutions' strange.

I like the Steamtank change- that fits well with the Warhammer version (though I've always had the opinion that trying to run it unsupported was never intended to be a good idea).

For the Helblaster- Ignoring a single 1 rolled may be ok, but given the variable number of shots it becomes oddly reliable at its longer ranges. If it ignored two 1's then it'd be pretty damn reliable even at short range, and almost completely safe at longer ranges. These things are one of the most temperamental machines that's ever been in Warhammer- Please don't strip it of that.

With the Bone Thrower- it doesn't have any worse deal than any other Bolt Thrower in any other list (excluding the Repeater varieties). I don't remember the length of that list right now- I know Goblins can get them though. Do you intend to change the rules of all of them?

On the Grail Reliquae- I find the 'solution' to make little sense. It just means it's a must-take at 2000pts, which is pretty much the same as now. Keeping the command penalty is something, but surely a simple points adjustment would just be easier?

I've never had experience with a war wagon, but it seems pretty clear in the rules that it's a defensive unit. Moving it is supposed to be risky and slow, as you really want two successful orders (one to move, one to take up position). If one of the orders is failed and it's caught out of its defended formation then yes- it should be a relatively easy kill. That's an intended difficulty. Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue here?

Goblin Doom Divers being 'too good for their points' doesn't get addressed very well by reducing them to 2 hits per stand. I agree that that change should happen- as has been said, it brings them in line with similar two-stand artillery- but it does little to change how good they are (they're unlikely to be shot, and if engaged in combat it's likely to die regardless of number of hits, so it's kind of a moot point).

The other changes all seem fairly fine. I like Empireaddict's comment on the fixed arc of a Gyrocopter helping reinforce the 'heavy machine' idea, but overall I don't think it's a big deal either way.

On these later comments-
20pt Eagles seem fine to me. I've always found a 100cm move compared to a 60cm move to be fairly inconsequential, and easily countered by the fact that the character cannot then join with units in terrain (being a monster). After that it's simply like the +1A magic sword.

As Lex says, Runesmiths are not Wizards. That's all there is to say there.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Dark Omen on April 21, 2017, 07:38:23 PM
On these later comments-
20pt Eagles seem fine to me. I've always found a 100cm move compared to a 60cm move to be fairly inconsequential, and easily countered by the fact that the character cannot then join with units in terrain (being a monster). After that it's simply like the +1A magic sword.

Except that an Eagle mount gives you +2 attacks. So if each additional attacks is worth 10 pts (like Sword of Might), you get the flying ability for free.
By contrast a Magic Carpet mount for the Araby Army is +10 pts for flight and no extra attacks!

I would second the increase in cost of a Giant Eagle mount to +30 pts. (Flight and+2 attacks).

I would also suggest an increase for a Pegasus mount for Bretonnians to +20 pts. (Flight and +1 attack).
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Geep on April 22, 2017, 04:44:20 PM
My mistake then- I mis-remembered Eagles as being +1A. With +2A and flying I also agree with 30pts.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aquahog on May 08, 2017, 06:37:08 PM
The War wagon still needs two orders to move and setup the laager. The issue was that there was an advantage in advancing in backwards in column as opposed to with the horses to the front. This was deemed to look rather ridiculous.

The Helblaster and Bonethrowers were almost never taken due to being subpar choices. At the scale of Warmaster most misfires had already been streamlined out of the rules. Characterful as it may be, if removing the misfire means more helblasters on the table, I'm all for it. I can't recall if there are bolt throwers in the Goblin list, but in general there has been a push to unify similar units, stone throwers in particular, across the lists.
Title: Army lists amendments
Post by: frogbear on June 03, 2017, 06:35:16 AM
Is there an updated pdf with all the army list changes so far?

Listening to the podcast is awesome. Would like to have something in print with the changes if possible. :)

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on June 03, 2017, 07:41:43 AM
Is there an updated pdf with all the army list changes so far?

Listening to the podcast is awesome. Would like to have something in print with the changes if possible. :)

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Not yet. We are three armies from completion, but at least two of these armies (wood elf, beastmen) don't seem to be done any time soon so we will very likely release preliminary version without these armies and add them once they are done.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: frogbear on June 03, 2017, 08:31:46 AM
Is there an updated pdf with all the army list changes so far?

Listening to the podcast is awesome. Would like to have something in print with the changes if possible. :)

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Not yet. We are three armies from completion, but at least two of these armies (wood elf, beastmen) don't seem to be done any time soon so we will very likely release preliminary version without these armies and add them once they are done.
Awesome
Keep up the great work guys. :)

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: andys on June 03, 2017, 05:18:58 PM
Is there an updated pdf with all the army list changes so far?

Listening to the podcast is awesome. Would like to have something in print with the changes if possible. :)

Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Not yet. We are three armies from completion, but at least two of these armies (wood elf, beastmen) don't seem to be done any time soon so we will very likely release preliminary version without these armies and add them once they are done.
Which armies will be in the pdf please?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on June 05, 2017, 07:42:19 AM
All from WM Armies and all from Trial armies Compendium Tournamemt and Expermental lists minus Dwarf Younger Holds.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: andys on June 05, 2017, 11:46:31 AM
Thanks  :D
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on July 04, 2017, 09:27:48 AM
First versoin is now made public

https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html (https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html)
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: infinite_array on July 04, 2017, 04:04:44 PM
Fantastic work!
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: toadie on July 04, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
First versoin is now made public

https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html (https://warmaster-cz.blogspot.cz/2017/07/warmaster-revolution-armies-v01.html)

Nice one Aldhick (and crew).  I think this announcement is major and warrants a new topic in its own right to announce this and then can capture feedback...  My initial feedback after a quick glance is:
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: empireaddict on July 05, 2017, 10:10:15 PM
@Aldhick, very many thanks to you for all your hard work in making this happen.  And also to the other committee members.  I know it has been an arduous process, but I hope you are pleased with the outcome.  It's a huge improvement on where the game was a few years ago.  I also know, from talking to other players, that they are similarly grateful.  So well done to you for taking the initiative.  I think you're owed a few beers!
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Rowlybot on July 07, 2017, 02:17:48 PM
Given it a skim through - like what I see.

To clarify - Empire Handgunners, they're not solely upgrades to crossbowmen? You can take them as well as crossbowmen?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: andys on July 07, 2017, 03:10:08 PM
As I read that rule, per 1000 points you can have either:

1) 3 Handgunners and 2 Crossbowmen or

2) 3 Handgunners and 1 Crossbowmen.

I don't really see the point of that, unless it's to release an extra 110 points in a 2000 point army to give you extra Knights.

Why not just reduce the minimum number of crossbowmen to 1 per 1000? If the last sentence of the amendment was deleted it might make more sense, giving you a slightly harder hitting army?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Aldhick on July 07, 2017, 06:17:02 PM
Thanx guys for your comments.
- the content page will get there once all the armies are done.
- the order is the same as in original documents
- version number is right. Armies it that old WMR version were identical  with the original documents..  so this updated army document is it's first published version

- the point of the Handgunners rule it to allow to have 1 hangunners and 1 crossbowmen in an 1000pts army.
Title: Re: Army lists amendments
Post by: Rowlybot on July 07, 2017, 07:41:06 PM
Couldn't it just a be expressed as a +10 point upgrade -/1 min/max, crossbowmen gain armour piercing?
Title: Re: Army lists amendments - Stegadon Badly Hurt.
Post by: Dark Omen on October 07, 2017, 09:34:15 PM
Hi, I have an errata suggestion for Lizardmen. This issue was addressed in the previous army lists but seems to have come up again in the Revolution army lists.

Stegadons take too may hits to become Badly Hurt. The rule should be once the Stegadon has accumulated 5-9 hits at the end of the phase it is Badly Hurt. Otherwise it is not following the rules for other large monsters with Badly Hurt rule, all of whom require you to inflict half the number of total hits to inflict Badly Hurt status.

5 out of 10 is half, so it should be 5-9 to Badly hurt, not 6-9.

Thanks

Iain