Topic: General of the Empire and Discipline

[smithbl]

Gentlemen:

The Empire's armies are made  up of professional, disciplined troops and the GotE should be able to take advantage of this ... Imperial armies should show a high degree of command and control. If you take the GotE his leadership should extend to an 18" range and he should come free with the Rod of Command as a special one use ability "Imperial Discipline." If he was kept at the same price, this would make him an excellent choice.

bls

[Shadoweyed]

He's an excellent choice already. It is an interesting idea, but one that would drastically raise his points cost. I mean think of what he is now, nothing Hero hammer-esque, but for roughly 100 points he has a 1+ armor save without taking magic items and leadership 9. Add in that one of your units may take a magic standard and a TVI army build, he is well worth what he is priced at.

-Shadoweyed

[Ganymede]

Interesting idea, but I think one of the simplest and most pressing changes for the general of the empire (other than a name change) is to base his stats on the standard template for lord level characters. You know, give him four attacks, a weapon skill of six, and an initiative of six.

[Freman Bloodglaive]

But you have that in the Templar Grand Master.

It's an interesting feature of the Empire list that there is a fighty commander, a religious commander, and a political commander. In games terms the Elector Count is on par with a Captain in combat terms, but offers the benefit of leadership 9 in a very cheap package.

The specific purpose of the Elector Count is to provide leadership. If you want something more pick another character.

[Ganymede]

But you have that in the Templar Grand Master.

The specific purpose of the Elector Count is to provide leadership. If you want something more pick another character.

This would be great advice if I needed some pointers in how to build an empire armylist, but we're not talking about tactica here. We're talking about how to change the Empire army for the better.

When designing a game like Warhammer, one solid approach is to determine a baseline level of effectiveness. Once such has been established, one can deviate from this baseline by adding in unique advantages balanced by weaknesses. In the situation of the imperial general, the baseline has been deviated by giving him weaker stats, but no matching advantage has been added to balance out this weakness. To me, that's bad game design.

His low price could hardly be considered an advantage. This character selection is virtually identical in price to the Mercenary General, a largely similar character choice. Likewise is he similar in price to the skaven warlord, another character that plays a very similar role to the imperial general. While their costs remain similar, the non imperial generals mentioned here all have baseline lord stats, while the imperial general's stats are diminished with seemingly no reason.

Not even his ability to bestow a magical banner upon a single unit could be considered an advantage. Almost every other army in the game already gets this power for free. Core and special units across many armybooks naturally have the ability to take a magic banner, and they don't have to take a specific character to do it. If anything, this ability could be considered as yet another army weakness or disadvantage that is without a matching advantage.

If we are going to do a critical review and revision of the empire armybook, I definitely feel that we should be working from an even baseline. We should not try remaking the imperial general based on where he currently is (a character with his stats lowered for little reason) but should instead revise him with an eye to where he should be. At his heart, he is your basic lord level character in an army that is the force in which other armies are contrasted.



That said, I also think the Grand Master is a largely redundant special choice that we don't need (being essentially a standard lord level character with a morale boosting ability), but I'll save that for a future thread.

[Fandir Nightshade]

I would love the 18 " command radius I would model him that he is standing in front of his campaign table in the back of the army ...perchance a small pavillion and his favorite camp follower on the same large base!

[wissenlander]

I like where you're going with this, but then it conflicts with special characters.  Karl Franz has an 18" command bubble.  So, there is precedent for this, but it would render a huge advantage for Karl Franz redundant. 

As you have mentioned, Ganymede, the Empire is hurt by not having the magic banner option for free.  The immediate change would be to allow one unit of greatswords to have this as a standard option.

Something that would bring the general (I personally think the name is fine) in line with other characters in the book is the upgrade of one unit of greatswords from special to core.

Also, an idea that I have seen elsewhere, is to upgrade the general into an Elector Count.  They could gain the Runefang 'for free', mainly the sword being attributed to the point increase, and then you could potentially boost the leadership bubble from 12" to 18".  I think that would be reasonable, and would allow a way for someone to actually use the Runefang.  That or actually lower the price of the thing.

[Ganymede]

(I personally think the name is fine)

But wouldn't it be silly to have a General of the Empire in your army who wasn't actually the general? I just think this guy would be better served called a Marshal or a Commander, or even Admiral.

[wissenlander]

I suppose that argument has merit, but the times in which a general wouldn't be a general would be quite slim, I would think.  It's more fitting than the old Elector Count title I find.  People are fussy about names, which can be seen in the current Arch Lector (there are only two you know...).  Make the names as generic as possible so people don't have any worries.  Well, as few as you can.

If it was changed to Marshal of the Empire it would be fine by me.

[smithbl]

Gentlemen:

Thank you for the replies. Wissenlander, I also like title "general of the Empire," because it emphasizes the professional character of the Empire's basic armies.

I think Ganymede (sp?) is on to something. Although I do think the changes I suggested to the GotE would help, the game needs to be fixed on a macro level. The two biggest problems are stat inflation and too many special abilities ... the power of the armies and the special abilities has gotten way out of hand. In addition to WFB I also play DBA, which is a model of strategic depth and simplicity of rules. There really needs to be a reduction in the number of special features and a standard baseline just like Ganymede recommended.

bls

[Inarticulate]

I don't think his Stats need to be changed, You have to get it into your head that the GoTE (I like this name too - Ganymede.. Admiral? wtf?) is not meant to be the uber lord fighty character in other armies, he is a General and a leader of men,a s the name suggests.

I think the upgrades Wissenlander proposed are excellent and his points cost does not need to be changed.

Inart.

[Ganymede]

I don't think his Stats need to be changed, You have to get it into your head that the GoTE (I like this name too - Ganymede.. Admiral? wtf?) is not meant to be the uber lord fighty character in other armies, he is a General and a leader of men,a s the name suggests.

I want to stress that neither skaven warlords nor mercenary generals are perceived as "uber lord fighty characters" either, but they at least have regular ole baseline stats for a lord. As I outlined before, the GotE has lowered stats for effectively no reason. His lowered stats are not balanced with extra advantages or a equitable price break.

I am genuinely confused by your point here. Do you honestly believe that a GotE with stats equivalent to a skaven warlord, a brettonian duke, a mercenary general, or even a goblin warboss is somehow equivalent to a "uber lord fighty character?"


That and I like Marshall or Commander; Admiral was just off the cuff.

[der Hurenwiebel]

Hell since it is the fantasy version of the Holy Roman Empire call him the FeldObrist, Hoch Adel, or Feldhauptmann.  One way to improve him would be to have a suite of sub category specialists for the GotE.  Like the Elector count, the dean of engineers, Witchfinder general, etc these suites would each come with their own set of magic items seperate from the GotE list as well as their own set of profile improvements and special rules.

This way in theory you could create with a toolkit such as this your own special characters 

 

[Inarticulate]

I don't think his Stats need to be changed, You have to get it into your head that the GoTE (I like this name too - Ganymede.. Admiral? wtf?) is not meant to be the uber lord fighty character in other armies, he is a General and a leader of men,a s the name suggests.

I want to stress that neither skaven warlords nor mercenary generals are perceived as "uber lord fighty characters" either, but they at least have regular ole baseline stats for a lord. As I outlined before, the GotE has lowered stats for effectively no reason. His lowered stats are not balanced with extra advantages or a equitable price break.

I am genuinely confused by your point here. Do you honestly believe that a GotE with stats equivalent to a skaven warlord, a brettonian duke, a mercenary general, or even a goblin warboss is somehow equivalent to a "uber lord fighty character?"


That and I like Marshall or Commander; Admiral was just off the cuff.

I'm not entirely sure where you've gotten the idea about Skaven Warlords, Bret Lords and mercenary generals... But, of course you will notice that both these lists are 6th ed. And Dogs obviously 5th.

You have absolutely no justification as to why he should have better stats, your only argument is that hes crap... Hrmm.

And I was amazed by your proposed 'Admiral' name because usually, General is depicted as the leader of Land armies, such as our Empire list (Though of course you could have a Nordland army, but thats by-the-by), and you'd rather have him with a rank that is exclusively used as a sea commander. I don't know, perhaps English isn't your native language and something might have gotten lost in the translation.

[Ganymede]

I'm not entirely sure where you've gotten the idea about Skaven Warlords, Bret Lords and mercenary generals... But, of course you will notice that both these lists are 6th ed. And Dogs obviously 5th.

I'm not entirely sure that you even have a point here. I've reread this exerpt a couple of times and I still can't figure out what you are alluding to.

You have absolutely no justification as to why he should have better stats, your only argument is that hes crap... Hrmm.

Are you sure that's my argument, because I never actually said that.

Secondly, and ignoring any sort of veracity (or lack of) in this exerpt, isn't this inherently contradictory? You claim I have no justification and yet list a justification right after. That's kooky.

And I was amazed by your proposed 'Admiral' name because usually, General is depicted as the leader of Land armies, such as our Empire list (Though of course you could have a Nordland army, but thats by-the-by), and you'd rather have him with a rank that is exclusively used as a sea commander. I don't know, perhaps English isn't your native language and something might have gotten lost in the translation.

In some ways, it is a pleasant surprise to be able to answer a post with a direct quote from a previous post. In other ways, I'm disappointed that the other posters didn't read the original quoted post in the first place.

Anyways, here is my response to the above.... pay attention this time.

That and I like Marshall or Commander; Admiral was just off the cuff.

Lastly, I was kind of hoping that you'd answer a question that I posed from my last post, a question you glossed over. I'll present it again for your convenience.

Do you honestly believe that a GotE with stats equivalent to a skaven warlord, a brettonian duke, a mercenary general, or even a goblin warboss is somehow equivalent to a "uber lord fighty character?"

[Shadoweyed]

I'm not entirely sure where you've gotten the idea about Skaven Warlords, Bret Lords and mercenary generals... But, of course you will notice that both these lists are 6th ed. And Dogs obviously 5th.

I'm not entirely sure that you even have a point here. I've reread this exerpt a couple of times and I still can't figure out what you are alluding to.

The point there is that the different additions hold different rules making stats scale differently. Playing in 5th addition, he may easily fall prey to the Mercenary General, but in 7th that may not be the case. The rules/ special rules dictate the scale and effect the stats have.

On the topic point, the General of the Empire is not a fighty lord. He is a survivor. You kit him so he survives and his men fight on.

-Shadoweyed

[Fandir Nightshade]

Another idea would be to make the General the only lord choice and give him titles that tweak him this way or another

Generl usual profile with rules right now

+80 points Elector count, same profile but a runefang and leader of men granting him 18 " command range

+95 points Arch Lector profile as AL right now and AL right now

+60 points Templar Grandmaster rules as right now

+40 points master engineer with funky rules from this great forums thread

+100 points Mage lord

etc...

[Spiney]

If we are going to do a critical review and revision of the empire armybook, I definitely feel that we should be working from an even baseline. We should not try remaking the imperial general based on where he currently is (a character with his stats lowered for little reason) but should instead revise him with an eye to where he should be. At his heart, he is your basic lord level character in an army that is the force in which other armies are contrasted.



That said, I also think the Grand Master is a largely redundant special choice that we don't need (being essentially a standard lord level character with a morale boosting ability), but I'll save that for a future thread.

I think the lowering of an Imperial general's stats is readily justifiable. Unlike most other races the Empire does not appoint its generals on the basis of their prowess in single combat. Whereas the leader of a skaven horde or an Orc Waaagh! will be the biggest strongest beast around a man is elevated to his position as commander of an imperial army for a combination of his parentage and his ability to command troops effectively, more as a tactician than a one on one fighter.

I think the profile is fairly costed as well, if you want a "proper" Lord profile then the Grandmaster profile is the one for you, with a correspondingly higher pts cost (some 65pts higher).

However it has left the General looking somewhat... nondescript. The extra banner is nice, but as you correctly pointed out Greatswords, at least should have access to one anyway to make the list comparable to other armies.

The 18" leadership extension is a good idea, how about something like an additional +1CR for any combat involving him, or an additional +1" movement for units within a certain distance representing their drilling and discipline.

[Inarticulate]

I'm not entirely sure where you've gotten the idea about Skaven Warlords, Bret Lords and mercenary generals... But, of course you will notice that both these lists are 6th ed. And Dogs obviously 5th.

I'm not entirely sure that you even have a point here. I've reread this exerpt a couple of times and I still can't figure out what you are alluding to.

The point there is that the different additions hold different rules making stats scale differently. Playing in 5th addition, he may easily fall prey to the Mercenary General, but in 7th that may not be the case. The rules/ special rules dictate the scale and effect the stats have.

On the topic point, the General of the Empire is not a fighty lord. He is a survivor. You kit him so he survives and his men fight on.

-Shadoweyed

Thats what i was getting at, Ganymede. I'm not sure I put it in a way you could understand.

[Ganymede]

I think the lowering of an Imperial general's stats is readily justifiable. Unlike most other races the Empire does not appoint its generals on the basis of their prowess in single combat. Whereas the leader of a skaven horde or an Orc Waaagh! will be the biggest strongest beast around a man is elevated to his position as commander of an imperial army for a combination of his parentage and his ability to command troops effectively, more as a tactician than a one on one fighter.

The problem here is that you aren't exactly justifying the lowered stats of an imperial general. You are merely rationalizing them. Both of us can rationalize these stats until we are blue in the face, but in the end it is utterly meaningless.

[/quote]I think the profile is fairly costed as well, if you want a "proper" Lord profile then the Grandmaster profile is the one for you, with a correspondingly higher pts cost (some 65pts higher).[/quote]

For one, I don't think this attitude is especially helpful in a forum dedicated to revision the empire rulebook. This type of thinking straightjackets us into the old armybook, when the entire point of revision is to make something new.

Secondly, when similarly equipped, the grandmaster is only 23 points more than the general. It is difficult to imagine that entire 23 points is gobbled up by the stat increase when the morale boosting ability is probably work many points in its own right.

The fact remains that the GotE is worse than similar characters such as the mercenary general, but still costs a similar amount. There is absolutely no reason for this to be the case. It is merely bad balancing on GW's part.

[Inarticulate]

The Merc. general is a slightly better fighter, but has no choice of magic equipment apart from the common ones and has worse choices for mundane equipment.

Tbh you shouldn't even compare the GoTE to the Merc, they're from very different editions and I'm not sure why you brought it up.

[Ganymede]

The Merc. general is a slightly better fighter, but has no choice of magic equipment apart from the common ones and has worse choices for mundane equipment.

This is just more rationalization.

Tbh you shouldn't even compare the GoTE to the Merc, they're from very different editions and I'm not sure why you brought it up.

No, they're not from very different editions. In fact, they are from remarkably similar editions. Hell, the editions are so similar that the elector count of 6th edition and the GotE of 7th edition are identical.

The bottom line here is that there are few arguments that even justify the current stat line for the GotE. Despite the common refrain in this thread of "They are leaders, not fighters," there is nothing in the Commanders of the Empire entry that would indicate a lack of fighting prowess. In fact, the entry goes as far to state that these leaders have undergone extensive martial training from an early age. There is no doubt that the Generals of the Empire are capable warriors.

Secondly, the canard that boosting the statline of the GotE to baseline levels would make them "uber killy" is completely false. Hell, no one has ever confused the Grand Master as being a super killy character on par with vampires, chaos lords, and ogres, and no one would do the same with a GotE with similar stats. This is a fear that is completely unfounded.

[wissenlander]

I suppose its all in how one perceives the objective of each character.  The fighting character is the GM.  To upgrade the General, in those terms, would then make the GM redundant.  And I think the stats as they are represent a lifetime of training.  They don't beat out captains by a lot, but are well above standard infantry.  Giving them another attack, I think, would be alright, but I wouldn't feel comfortable doing anything else on the stat line.

I really think the best way to enhance the general, and to make him a better option, is to help him in regards to leading the army.  He's unique in that respect because almost every other character in the game has some other niche to fill on top of leadership.

[Ganymede]

I think the grand master is already redundant in a certain extent. Bizarrely enough, it is the grand master who is better at leading troops than the GotE. It is the grand master who has a special ability that boosts his unit's morale.

I definitely agree that the GotE should be given an ability that allows him to more effectively lead his troops, but such upgrades to him would (almost out of necessity) render the grand master completely unneeded. I think the best way to handle the situation would be to give the GotE a standard statline for a lord, a morale boosting ability, and allow him to carry out his duties effectively either on foot or on horseback. That way, the player is free to use his GotE to represent a dashing mercenary commander, an imperial marshal, or a grand master.

[Spiney]

I think the grand master is already redundant in a certain extent. Bizarrely enough, it is the grand master who is better at leading troops than the GotE. It is the grand master who has a special ability that boosts his unit's morale.

That is only because you believe, for whatever reason that the GoTE should have the TGM's profile. Generals of the Empire are pampered elector counts and snotty nosed nobility, there is no possible grounds for them to have the same stats as the Grandmaster of a Knightly Order or a Bretonnian Lord.

And for goodness sake stop comparing the GotE to the ruddy mercenary general, DoW isn't even a legal choice in official tournements because GW has dumped the army list and withdrawn the model range so any comparison is totally meaningless. Perhaps you would like to compare the GotE to a Chaos dwarf Lord next?

And the point of your scathing criticism of "rationalisation" totally escapes me, rationalisation is better than being irrational in this case.