Topic: The Empire 7.5 supplement

[Count Stephano]

I made this supplement to the current 7th Empire armybook. Since I like the Empire for its infantry it's a real bummer the current empire book doesn't represent our fine soldiers the way they should be (at least for me they don't).

This supplement is focused on a strong infantry force. I think the supplement gives the Empire a more tactical feel. I tried to improve the inner balance between the units. The supplement hasn't been playtested yet. Don't expect it to be flawless without playtesting it will probably need some balance adjustments.

Work still to be done:

playtesting
text review
some better clarification of rules
introduction
improving balance

All help is welcome, feel free to try it out and give some constructive feedback.

I hope you like it.

link: http://www.2shared.com/file/6571651/1c9498ba/The_Empire_75_V102_s.html (in the lower right click on save to PC)

ps. since this is a supplement you still need the original armybook.

[stareso]

Hello Stephano,

I can see you put a lot of effort into this document so I took the time to read it carefully and comment on it extensively. I must say that I like your way of thinking and in general I think your draft looks very good and would make the Empire - especially its infantry - more competitive and more unique, rules-wise. However, I feel that if all the changes that you propose are implemented, our force would definitely be on the overpowered side of the spectrum. I am guessing that this list leaves too much room for powergaming, stranding it in the same area as the big three.

Now for my comments:
HALBERDS: I like the change
2 HANDERS: too much, I say keep as is.
CAV MACE: love it.
HVY LANCE: +3S is pushing it, it makes our troops too elite. We mustn't verge on the Bretonnian side of things
CAV GUN: possibly, but needs a downside. Personally I think it is redundant. Our outriders, pistoliers and state shooters fill the shooting role nicely.
PIKE: aye, love it - good rules.
PIKE FORMATION: that looks interesting, maybe killing blow is a bit too much though. Know what the reasoning is and understand it, but the game must be kept in balance.
ADV PLATE: no, I don't like this. Full plate is already a unique advantage we have, lets not make it overly complicated and let dwarfs stay the masters of armour.
EXP WEAPONRY: sounds ok.
ONLY STATES AS CORE: hm, sounds pretty good, but this does limit the player in his/her ideas a bit. Although you include core cav still.
VETERANS: ouch, this is over the top for sure I believe. Psychology in warhammer is huge. This way you are changing us into daemons, its still men we are talking about. I would definitely reconsider nerfing this upgrade into something like: 'ONE regiment may be upgraded to vets, they get the option for hvy armour, and may re-roll failed psych tests'. Possibly only allow this upgrade with a captain/general.
VETS OF COUNTLESS: well, similar to the above then.
COMBAT DRILLS: I like them! The +1WS drill shouldn't be allowed for any unit though, maybe only for cpt. lead or one only or similar. Getting too elite. Elves are WS4.
BALLISTIC DRILLS: like the arty one! Good idea man. Actually love the rest as well. Same for +1BS though..
CAV TRAINING: ace.
NULN FOUNDRY: yep, good move.
FAMOUS: A bit much maybe, but could be cool.
INF TACTIC: so, a main block could function as detachment? I like the idea and background, but it would make it a bit difficult in-game and hard for your opponent to keep track of the possibilities. Maybe simplify/change into: 'one unit within x inches may do a free manoeuvre'.
CAV TACTIC: well, talked about vets earlier. Would change this into: 'one unit of cavalry may be deployed in reserve and arrive later as  flankers'.
COUNTS MEN: integrated into VET comment.
DRILLED HIMSELF: like this one, unique and not overpowering I hope.
BSB: for sure
SARGE: see up.
LORDS: like what you propose, but would propose limits in that only ONE trait may be chosen/lord. Also might be fun to introduce further traits for priests/wizards.
ENGINEER: original and good fix, I support this.
PRIEST: don't like the armour, I like the guy as is, so no comment 
PIKES: too cheap was my first reaction.. Also no heavy armour for core infantry in my book (excepting maybe this VET rule..)
SWORDS & HALBS: I think your suggested halberd fix plus the halberd training option is good. Swords still fine. Earlier remarks I still stand by.
HANDGUNNERS: a whole unit with repeaters is weird in my eyes, they should be rarer.
X-BOWS: looking good.
LANCERS: like the idea of core cavalry that's not knights. However, I don't like them having full-plate and hvy lances. Still, good one!
KNIGHTS: I say, keep them as original book, but maybe add possible flavour upgrades according to order. Possibly move them to special, but that opens up more problems.
MILITIA: this is sweet! Making them cheaper but poorer troops is both in character and useful. This way they stand out more from the staters.
ARCHERS: longbow, yes please. Possibly make it an option instead of standard.
GREATSWORDS: I like the ones in the book better.. Them getting the VET OF MANY BATTLES upgrade as standard sounds good though. No killing blow.
IMP GUARDS: I can imagine you like having the option, but now its getting too cluttered and units overlap too much in role. My suggestion would be to remove these, and represent them by the one vet. unit allowed or something.
IMP KNIGHTS: profile is off the chart, T4 is for chaos or grail knights (in other words, touched by gods or something).  I say keep the Inner Circle option and be done with it.
CANNON + MORTAR: good.
PISTOLIERS: like the change to 2 attacks (am guessing because of the 2 pistols?). Don't like the heavy armour option.
OUTRIDERS: maybe this is ok, but a bit complicated, why not just leave them as is?
FLAGS/HBVG/ROCKETS: all look fine.
TANK: not enough experience to comment. A bit wacky, but maybe fun.

Ok, so a lot of comment/criticism. Just bear in mind, I really appreciate your efforts, it is great fun thinking about these things. Also, these are just my opinions, would be interesting to hear others'. I really like your accents on infantry tactics and drill-upgrades. I just think that you overcomplicated matters at times and beefed up the lads a bit too much.

Thanks for posting, hope you find my comment helpful/interesting.

[Count Stephano]

Hello Stephano,

I can see you put a lot of effort into this document so I took the time to read it carefully and comment on it extensively. I must say that I like your way of thinking and in general I think your draft looks very good and would make the Empire - especially its infantry - more competitive and more unique, rules-wise. However, I feel that if all the changes that you propose are implemented, our force would definitely be on the overpowered side of the spectrum. I am guessing that this list leaves too much room for powergaming, stranding it in the same area as the big three.

Thank you, I agree there's enough room for more balancing.

Now for my comments:
HALBERDS: I like the change
2 HANDERS: too much, I say keep as is. Agreed
CAV MACE: love it.
HVY LANCE: +3S is pushing it, it makes our troops too elite. We mustn't verge on the Bretonnian side of things  I don't think the heavy lance makes our troops elite it just gives the option between offensive and defensive, bare in mind you lose the shield when fielding the lance.CAV GUN: possibly, but needs a downside. Personally I think it is redundant. Our outriders, pistoliers and state shooters fill the shooting role nicely.
PIKE: aye, love it - good rules.
PIKE FORMATION: that looks interesting, maybe killing blow is a bit too much though. Know what the reasoning is and understand it, but the game must be kept in balance. The problem with cavalry it's hard to find something effective against it the +1 str in the dogs of war book clearly doesn't work. I think killing blow will keep even the heavy knights at bay. The drawback is that when in the pike formation you can hardly manouvre so it's easier to flank. Also in the pike formation you can't charge so it's always up to the opponent if he desires to take his chance.
ADV PLATE: no, I don't like this. Full plate is already a unique advantage we have, lets not make it overly complicated and let dwarfs stay the masters of armour. I kinda agree with you, but I find it anoying that there is no choice between mounted or on foot... This way you can still get a decent 2+ armor save on foot, perhaps only usable on foot.
EXP WEAPONRY: sounds ok.
ONLY STATES AS CORE: hm, sounds pretty good, but this does limit the player in his/her ideas a bit. Although you include core cav still.
VETERANS: ouch, this is over the top for sure I believe. Psychology in warhammer is huge. This way you are changing us into daemons, its still men we are talking about. I would definitely reconsider nerfing this upgrade into something like: 'ONE regiment may be upgraded to vets, they get the option for hvy armour, and may re-roll failed psych tests'. Possibly only allow this upgrade with a captain/general. Yes I completely agree with you that psychology is big, however GW clearly overused the term "fear" in some army's... I find it frustrating for example that zombies, skeletons and the likes cause fear. My intention is to give use the option to get some troops that can withstand this overuse of fear. Perhaps it needs limitation but I think it is fairly priced at 30 pt per unit. (bare in mind WoC can get the same for 10pts )
VETS OF COUNTLESS: well, similar to the above then.
COMBAT DRILLS: I like them! The +1WS drill shouldn't be allowed for any unit though, maybe only for cpt. lead or one only or similar. Getting too elite. Elves are WS4. WS is a bit vague in warhammer world. I like to think that WS3 is for trained soldiers and WS4 for heavily trained/experienced troops, above WS 4 is elite.  You still pay 30pts per unit, not certain if it's enough can be increased.
BALLISTIC DRILLS: like the arty one! Good idea man. Actually love the rest as well. Same for +1BS though..
CAV TRAINING: ace.
NULN FOUNDRY: yep, good move.
FAMOUS: A bit much maybe, but could be cool. I agree not certain about that one
INF TACTIC: so, a main block could function as detachment? I like the idea and background, but it would make it a bit difficult in-game and hard for your opponent to keep track of the possibilities. Maybe simplify/change into: 'one unit within x inches may do a free manoeuvre'. Ok! I will implement this, indeed needs to be simplified.
CAV TACTIC: well, talked about vets earlier. Would change this into: 'one unit of cavalry may be deployed in reserve and arrive later as  flankers'. Love the idea, will probably do something like that.
COUNTS MEN: integrated into VET comment.
DRILLED HIMSELF: like this one, unique and not overpowering I hope. Needs playtesting, hard to judge
BSB: for sure
SARGE: see up.
LORDS: like what you propose, but would propose limits in that only ONE trait may be chosen/lord. Also might be fun to introduce further traits for priests/wizards. Yes perhaps a combination of traits might be to powerfull, I find it hard to come up with traits for the priests/wizards, any idea's are welcome!
ENGINEER: original and good fix, I support this.
PRIEST: don't like the armour, I like the guy as is, so no comment 
PIKES: too cheap was my first reaction.. Also no heavy armour for core infantry in my book (excepting maybe this VET rule..)Needs serious playtesting  , about the heavy armor I replaced all the shields for heavy armor as I think it fits the Empire more. It's an option so take it if you like/ fits your theme
SWORDS & HALBS: I think your suggested halberd fix plus the halberd training option is good. Swords still fine. Earlier remarks I still stand by.
HANDGUNNERS: a whole unit with repeaters is weird in my eyes, they should be rarer. Since they gain the experimental weaponry rule they are definitly rare, you can only have one per 2000 pts or you need an Engineer.
X-BOWS: looking good.
LANCERS: like the idea of core cavalry that's not knights. However, I don't like them having full-plate and hvy lances. Still, good one! For now I will keep'em this way, perhaps I will change my view after playtesting.
KNIGHTS: I say, keep them as original book, but maybe add possible flavour upgrades according to order. Possibly move them to special, but that opens up more problems.
MILITIA: this is sweet! Making them cheaper but poorer troops is both in character and useful. This way they stand out more from the staters. That was indeed my intention 
ARCHERS: longbow, yes please. Possibly make it an option instead of standard. Yes would be a suitable option
GREATSWORDS: I like the ones in the book better.. Them getting the VET OF MANY BATTLES upgrade as standard sounds good though. No killing blow. I thought it would be characterfull to give em a special ability like killing blow. I will keep for now.
IMP GUARDS: I can imagine you like having the option, but now its getting too cluttered and units overlap too much in role. My suggestion would be to remove these, and represent them by the one vet. unit allowed or something. Fow now I 'll stick with them but they do indeed overlap the GS however these are defensive and GS are mroe offensive.
IMP KNIGHTS: profile is off the chart, T4 is for chaos or grail knights (in other words, touched by gods or something).  I say keep the Inner Circle option and be done with it. Yep, needs some adjustments.
CANNON + MORTAR: good.
PISTOLIERS: like the change to 2 attacks (am guessing because of the 2 pistols?). Don't like the heavy armour option.
OUTRIDERS: maybe this is ok, but a bit complicated, why not just leave them as is? I don't like the repeater handguns as they produce far too much fire power in my opinion and are experimental weapons. With the cavalrygun they have reduced firepower but more mobility but you can still take the repeaters at a cost of one experimantal weaponry slot. (they cost the same with repeater handguns as in the current armybook)
FLAGS/HBVG/ROCKETS: all look fine.
TANK: not enough experience to comment. A bit wacky, but maybe fun. You need an Engineer to use it in 2k, needs playtesting
Ok, so a lot of comment/criticism. Just bear in mind, I really appreciate your efforts, it is great fun thinking about these things. Also, these are just my opinions, would be interesting to hear others'. I really like your accents on infantry tactics and drill-upgrades. I just think that you overcomplicated matters at times and beefed up the lads a bit too much.

Thanks for posting, hope you find my comment helpful/interesting.

I really appreciate your comments  , I don't mind critisism as long as it is constructive  . It will only help to improve. I will definitly implement some of your suggestions.  Some rules need simplifications, I think you gave some great advise on how to accomplish this in a few points.

I hope there are some players around that can give it try and give me feedback on how it actually works in the real game.

[Bunkka-pop]

Whaat? why does militia/freecompany champion have initiative of 1??

[Shadoweyed]

I think that if the upgrades you provided were even just purchasable for the General/ Captian/ Unit/ etc. That would make a definate impovement. As for the Veterans rule, I think if instead of the ITP, just make them immune to breaking if they lose combat to an outnumbering fear causer, maybe immune to panic.

I'll have to look at it more in depth over the next few days to see anymore small tweaks, but overall it is a very good early draft. Just small tweaks to finish it.

-Shadoweyed