Topic: Empire is the best army?

[Siberius]

I think the main depressing thing about wood elves is that while they can still do some nasty things, it is using particular options; whilst building an army that actually seems wood elfy does not go well...

[Greg17]

Ok, let clear up my thoughts on the pigeon bombs.

I am assumeing in a 2500 point army, a player has 2 cannons and 2 mortars.  I am also assumeing that the 4 warmachines get placed 1 cannon and 1 mortar on the 2 board edges on each of your flanks, with an engineer standing in-between the cannon and mortar.  I have placed 2 warmachines in the middle of my line, and created a fireing lane from there, but for the most part, I think most players are going to use the 2 mirriored flanks set-up.  With this being said, 1 engineer is in charge of 2 warmachines. 

Now, when you look at a perfect placement of your warmachines, I think it is as follows... The cannon gets fired first, and is placed 10 inches exactly from the back of the model you are trying to hit.  A Large base might have the ball placed 5 or 6 inches infront of it, but at worst, it is exactly 10 inches from the back of the model you are trying to hit.  This means that you have to roll quite literally terribly to miss your target.  You can almost always hit where you want.  Mortars are pretty simple also, just try for most casualties, hope for the best. 

With proper placement, and no misfires, you are greatly increaseing your chances to not need a reroll on either of the 2 warmachines.  If you manage to pull this off, the pigeon bombs are basically a bonus for your hard work of proper placement.  If you land your other warmachiens where you want, the pigeon bomb can be absolutely devistateing as a "throw in" template.  Do you get to use it always?  No.  But, if you use it even ONCE a game, you have 15 or so potential hits on a unit and right there you will easily get your points out of it.  For 25 points on top of your engineer that you will absolutely have, it is a no-brainer. 

Oh, and yes you can look out sir.  S4 vs T7 I am not worried about.

Trust me guys, try it out a few times... yell Huzzah when it works... laugh when you misfire... You will definitly see that it is well worth the 25 points.



-- Greg

[Alleton]

It's starting to sound more and more to me that the issue isn't so much the Empire itself, it's you. You just seem to be a very capable general. I know much of what you say makes sense, but I have rarely ever seen it work as well as what you describe. It certainly never has for me. (I'm convinced my Opponents curse my dice or pray to Tzeench for luck on rolls or something)

It's true that the Empire can be very powerful when everything works together, it is a combined arms force after all. But take one component away and others suffer. Maybe not much, maybe not for a while, but  If things were really so overbalanced, as stated above, why isn't Empire dominating the tournaments? I've even had my butt handed to me by wood elves, and they haven't had an update in what, three editions?

I find that my curiosity is piqued more and more to the point I would actually like to be able to see your battles and see for myself what's going on. At the very least I might learn why I'm not getting the same rate of success with my Empire.

Hope I haven't stepped on any toes with this post, was just idle musings.

[Greg17]

Simply put, I guess I am just good at "feinting" my true battle plans.  This starts from the moment we start placeing scenery, to the magic phase, to my charges. 

For example...

Next time you place scenery before a game, feint your opponent into what table side you want.  Place all the scenery on one side that would make "perfect sense" for a warmachine heavy army to dig in on.  Then, watch the feinting magic happen... if your opponent wins the roll he will definitly take that side, but you don't want that side! (lol)  You see, he THINKS you want that side because of the defended positions, but in all reality, you are takeing the WIDE OPEN side that allows you for easy movement and excelent fireing arcs as he moves toward you.  I have seen games where literally one side is a bunch of hills and defence structures... and the opponets jaw drops when I take the other side.  Then, he gets chewed to bits as he walks into the open ground. 

I also use pit of shades to feint my magic phase.  It is a total no-bainer.  Everyone tries to dispell it.  But... thats not the hammer of the lore of shadow.  The hammer spell is the toughness debuff.  People spend so much time and energy trying to stop pit of shades they totally forget that walking a unit axcross a feild agaisnt the empire while toughness debuffed is absolutely DEVISTATEING. 

Anyways, the point is... I try to not be predictable, and I try to always get the biggest mathmatical advantage in any action I take.  Fudgeing the math with the lore of shadow helps a ton also, trust me.   

Give Lore of Shadow a whirl, in the meantime, perhaps I will post up a 2500 point army for you try try out sometime when I get more time.



-- Greg

[TheBelgianGuy]

Simply put, I guess I am just good at "feinting" my true battle plans.  This starts from the moment we start placeing scenery, to the magic phase, to my charges. 

For example...

Next time you place scenery before a game, feint your opponent into what table side you want.  Place all the scenery on one side that would make "perfect sense" for a warmachine heavy army to dig in on.  Then, watch the feinting magic happen... if your opponent wins the roll he will definitly take that side, but you don't want that side! (lol)  You see, he THINKS you want that side because of the defended positions, but in all reality, you are takeing the WIDE OPEN side that allows you for easy movement and excelent fireing arcs as he moves toward you.  I have seen games where literally one side is a bunch of hills and defence structures... and the opponets jaw drops when I take the other side.  Then, he gets chewed to bits as he walks into the open ground. 

I also use pit of shades to feint my magic phase.  It is a total no-bainer.  Everyone tries to dispell it.  But... thats not the hammer of the lore of shadow.  The hammer spell is the toughness debuff.  People spend so much time and energy trying to stop pit of shades they totally forget that walking a unit axcross a feild agaisnt the empire while toughness debuffed is absolutely DEVISTATEING. 

Anyways, the point is... I try to not be predictable, and I try to always get the biggest mathmatical advantage in any action I take.  Fudgeing the math with the lore of shadow helps a ton also, trust me.   

Give Lore of Shadow a whirl, in the meantime, perhaps I will post up a 2500 point army for you try try out sometime when I get more time.



-- Greg

You sound very unpleasant to play against, that is all. Don't think Empire is too blame.

[commandant]

The magic thing is okay but the terrain thing *shakes his head*

[Fandir Nightshade]

?

He just plays mindgames with his opponents....Greg sounds much like I play and except on tournaments people have not complained yet gaming against me.


Greg....

Pick up another army as soon you have stomped your friends enough with Empire. Also offer them to switch armies and show them how they can defeat your army. Empire has its weaknesses they just need to be exploited.

[commandant]

?

He just plays mindgames with his opponents....Greg sounds much like I play and except on tournaments people have not complained yet gaming against me.

I have no problem with his magical mindgames ( ::heretic::or people that refuse challenges when playing Ulrician knights ) but the terrain thing is a little weird.   

Setting up the terrain so that your foe is at a disadvantage regardless of which side he chooses can not be much fun for him.   I perfer the terrain to be fair to both sides.

If it represents a battlefield all the better

[Fandir Nightshade]

This is true if you let the terrain be placed by a neutral guy, if you place terrain in turn of course you should put some mind to create a favourable battlefield, I for my part for example like to have a building in my employment zone and therefore go with my first two picks for a building in each deployment zone.

[Alleton]

Keep in mind, he set up the terrain but the other guy picked. If he picked the side that was a disadvantage that's not Greg's fault. Also, in his own way, the other side is also a disadvantage, so both opponents have their own disadvantages. I like this idea because it makes you work with your terrain more than the same 'fair' terrain placement every time. I'm not saying I'd want to play it that way every time, but once in a while would be a nice mix I think. And to my mind, neither has the advantage, just a different set of disadvantages.

[Siberius]

I assume that Greg is not placing all the terrain but simply using his turns to place the ones he has to make it look like a good set up for him. I don't think that is even mildly mean. Afterall, the opponent could use his own placements to balance it some if he so wishes. And choosing where you fight a battle from tactically has been a vital part of warfare through the ages. I get the impression that Greg is just making use of the fact that everyone is still hung up on "empire will try and get the hills for their artillery"...

[Delthos]

A person isn't a very competent player if they pick the built up side when playing against Empire, or the side that gives their opponent an advanatage. If they are letting those mind games get to them and not objectively looking at the table and thinking about their opponent when picking sides, they start the game on the wrong foot. Of course I don't really know anyone who sets up terrain that way. We usually have someone else set up the terrain if we are at the store or we roll for the number of pieces and alternate placing them. That way just leads to far too much abuse.

I'd take the open side almost anyday to deploy in as an Empire player. Having nothing to impeed my deployment and interfere with my manuevering is something I dream of in my battles. It seems like it almost never fails that I have two pieces of terrain in my deployment area, terrain which makes deployment and manuevering my army a pain in the butt.

I beginning to understand how you can do so well.

[StealthKnightSteg]

A person isn't a very competent player if they pick the built up side when playing against Empire, or the side that gives their opponent an advanatage. If they are letting those mind games get to them and not objectively looking at the table and thinking about their opponent when picking sides, they start the game on the wrong foot. Of course I don't really know anyone who sets up terrain that way. We usually have someone else set up the terrain if we are at the store or we roll for the number of pieces and alternate placing them. That way just leads to far too much abuse.

I'd take the open side almost anyday to deploy in as an Empire player. Having nothing to impeed my deployment and interfere with my manuevering is something I dream of in my battles. It seems like it almost never fails that I have two pieces of terrain in my deployment area, terrain which makes deployment and manuevering my army a pain in the butt.

I beginning to understand how you can do so well.

I actually think he does the alternate thingy of setting up terrain in his example, though his opponent isn't paying good enough attention to the trap that is being layed out... his opponent is still convinced he will take the hill side that is now cramped with other scenery aswell. And trying to deny that side to the empire by chosing it himself. Thus only giving himself the "bad" side of the table.

[Alleton]

A person isn't a very competent player if they pick the built up side when playing against Empire, or the side that gives their opponent an advanatage. If they are letting those mind games get to them and not objectively looking at the table and thinking about their opponent when picking sides, they start the game on the wrong foot. Of course I don't really know anyone who sets up terrain that way. We usually have someone else set up the terrain if we are at the store or we roll for the number of pieces and alternate placing them. That way just leads to far too much abuse.

I'd take the open side almost anyday to deploy in as an Empire player. Having nothing to impeed my deployment and interfere with my manuevering is something I dream of in my battles. It seems like it almost never fails that I have two pieces of terrain in my deployment area, terrain which makes deployment and manuevering my army a pain in the butt.

I beginning to understand how you can do so well.

I actually think he does the alternate thingy of setting up terrain in his example, though his opponent isn't paying good enough attention to the trap that is being layed out... his opponent is still convinced he will take the hill side that is now cramped with other scenery aswell. And trying to deny that side to the empire by chosing it himself. Thus only giving himself the "bad" side of the table.

And because of it, it just adds to the 'Empire is broken' line of thought, even though the actual army has nothing to do with this particular tactic. Even if it does benefit the Empire, it would benefit other armies as well. (Dwarves maybe?)

[Fandir Nightshade]

While dwarves are also a strong army they lack the Shadow magic Empire has access to.

Also DemiGriffon Cavalry 

[Cursain]

A person isn't a very competent player if they pick the built up side when playing against Empire, or the side that gives their opponent an advanatage. If they are letting those mind games get to them and not objectively looking at the table and thinking about their opponent when picking sides, they start the game on the wrong foot. Of course I don't really know anyone who sets up terrain that way. We usually have someone else set up the terrain if we are at the store or we roll for the number of pieces and alternate placing them. That way just leads to far too much abuse.

I'd take the open side almost anyday to deploy in as an Empire player. Having nothing to impeed my deployment and interfere with my manuevering is something I dream of in my battles. It seems like it almost never fails that I have two pieces of terrain in my deployment area, terrain which makes deployment and manuevering my army a pain in the butt.

I beginning to understand how you can do so well.

I actually think he does the alternate thingy of setting up terrain in his example, though his opponent isn't paying good enough attention to the trap that is being layed out... his opponent is still convinced he will take the hill side that is now cramped with other scenery aswell. And trying to deny that side to the empire by chosing it himself. Thus only giving himself the "bad" side of the table.

And because of it, it just adds to the 'Empire is broken' line of thought, even though the actual army has nothing to do with this particular tactic. Even if it does benefit the Empire, it would benefit other armies as well. (Dwarves maybe?)

This is exactly why neutral parties should setup all terrain.  Players taking turns is ridiculous. 
If I was doing that, I'd start placing buildings, or terrain that blocks line of sight, in front of every hill on the field.  Then no matter what side my Empire opponent get's, he won't have much use of the hills.

[Fandir Nightshade]

And why is that any more insane than placing your units?

It is a part of the games of strategy and yes if a hill has blocked line of sight you might not be able to use it properly.

I really like the deployment of the game terrain, sides and units most important phase if you ask me.

[Sajek]

Empire is a strong army no doubt but it must not be my army of choice because for the life of me I cannot beat orcs and goblins!

[mr chumley warner]

certain Orc and Goblin builds can be very nasty to beat!

They get so much for 8 or 10 pt Orcs, and also Night Goblins and Trolls are amazing

[commandant]

And why is that any more insane than placing your units?

Because you end up on battlefields taht are completely unrealistic

[strollinthewoods]

Personally Ive grown a little tired of hearing all the talk about the armies, and so little of the people using them. 

After a few battles into 8ed I predicted that the horde formation was something that would soon be a rare sight to see when people started to realize the drawbacks they had, and how easily they can be dealt with.

But lately I have been thinking that maybe there is something I have overlooked.-- First and foremost possibly that most people that use aforementioned horde formations dont see them failing all to often, because most people they meet use them also.  And neither player actually exploit how brutally hordes CAN be dealt with.  And none of the players have actually the tools to do so either, because they are tied up in the aforementioned horde units. (im simplifying a tad bit to try and make my thinking easier to "read")

I learn a lot of how to improve my skills in warhammer by watching sean plott, and his day 9 show, were he talks about all things related to starcraft 2. And something I have come to realize is that maybe the nature of warhammer itself is part of the reason - the slow rate games actually can be played.... and that it takes years and years to actually accumulate the necessary clear view of how the came actually is hinged together.
Whereas you can easily play 10-20 games of starcraft/warcraft in a day.

Something he talks about in some recent casts are about "its not all about whats a good counter to a certain unit, or unit composition in terms of units". You can counter anything with just enough of the stuff you choose as long as you get enough of it and pressure at the right time and place.

I have been playing combined arms msu , "Melee & Agility".  type lists in all 8ed. And I fear nothing.  I used to fear a whole lot of things. But 8ed core rules have solved all my issues, and all that remains are eternal bliss and joy until people start to over-complicate stuff and go nerf heavy in the comp department.

Your opponents need to adapt is my guess. And that might just mean that they need to adapt in-game with what they have. Or they actually need to change their play-style.

Would not say Empire is OP. They are good in 8ed, but so are most armies I think.
It would not surprise me if you find 8ed refreshingly easy and straight forward in terms of figuring out what does what. While your opponents does not.

I know instinctively that I would not fear the things you have mentioned as OP- because they are not by far as OP as things used to be in 7ed.

Your strongest point of OP- is the good synergy with magic and shooting. Your opponent MUST figure out what is the important stuff to dispell

They could take away your shooting- meaning they will need to  bring the units to do so to the table.

They can realize your mage are a problem, and make it a high priority goal to shut her down.

The synergy between mortars and magic mostly make it possible to "kill" a unit no matter the size , so my suggestion would for them to bring less in each, and more units.

If they field mostly large units of infantry, and fail to stop the synnergy between your shooitng and magic, and dont even have the tools to do so, then sure you are most likely going to feel that your empire army is very much suited to remove enormous amounts of infantry from the table.

So to recap:

Lore of Shadow = Gamebreaking. - I would say its merly a good deck. And that people should especially be vary of the T spell.

Extra dispell dice from our Warrior Priests = Gamebreaking.   nah.. just means you can stop more spells.- it breaks nothing, the game stands =)

No guess range for warmachines couppled with engineers = Gamebreaking. -- nah, in 8ed warmachines kill the stuff they are made to kill, more or less every time- its the way it works. So personally I don`t see the need for restricting double rares in the monsters category. I actually feel it hurts the game to restrict it.)   Warmachings counters infantry, and monsters- support units counters warmachines, "oh" so easily in 8ed. But you need to bring them to feel it.

Hatred for cheap decent infantry = Gamebreaking.  - again, its good, but not gamebreaking stuff.

Rod of Power -- Gamebreaking.  The ammount you can control either magic phase with this item is absurd.  ESPECIALLY when you factor in extra dispell dice for the warrior priests.  -- Your opponent need to find out what 1 spell they need to stop, and stop that 1 spell. Nothing else matters.
Thats how I play in 8ed, and Rod changes nothing in regards to that.

Warrior Priests / Arch Lectors -- Gamebreaking. -- they are fluffy, and nice, and way to polite to break the game. As I type this I start to think maby you are grinning and not meaning the things you say when you say gamebreaking, or do you maby have another word for things that actually is?

Or is it the sum of all the things that you togheter find over the top, I dont know


Greg, im not with you on this one  

Darn I really like 8ed. Remember the ocean of ws 10 ghouls, with "eternal" raising on 1 dice, and fear autobreak. That is the stuff you need the word gamebreaking for.

[Greg17]

Guys,  the way we set terrain up is as follows...

On the map, each tile is represented by a specific terrain feature.  They are as follows...

Plains -- 2 sets of obstacles (Three 6'' sections) plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.
Farm -- 4 small buildings, 1 set of obstacles (Three 6" sections) plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.
Mountain -- 4 Hills, plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.
River -- A Mysterious River at least 4 sections long (at least 1 ford) plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.
Swamp -- 4 Marshes plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.
Forest -- 4 Mysterious forests plus 1d6 worth of extra terrain.

Tiles with a village grant a settlement of order / destro / neutral (depending on who owns it) plus the normal tile bonuses.
Keeps are well, a keep (blood in the badlands seige rules) and the normal tile bonuses.

Villages are usually full of terrain... and grant a bonus 200 points of core to the defender... they can be huge battles! 

We roll for the scenario first, then start placeing terrain as described in the core rule book following theese map guidelines.  Players alternate back and forth.  I try and place terrain in a way that the opponet thinks I am going for one side, but then I take the other.  I guess I look at it as a game within the game.

I hope that all makes sense.



-- Greg

[Delthos]

I try and place terrain in a way that the opponet thinks I am going for one side, but then I take the other.  I guess I look at it as a game within the game.

I hope that all makes sense.

It all makes sense. My problem is that your opponents are foolish to pick the sides bases on what they think you want and you are trying to telegraph. If they don't look at the armies fighting each other and the terrain layout, then pick the side that gives them the most advantage, or at least gives you the least advantage, they are only hurting themselves. If they pick the sides based on what side it looks like you want, and then take that side they are only doing it out of some need to spite you rather than what is best for them. From what you tell me you've played enough that people should have an idea of what you like to field and what you are going to do in terrain setup. By now I'd think people would get wise to what you are doing and not fall for it. If they continue to do so, that is your opponent's screwing up, not your army being overpowered. I know those shenanigans wouldn't work with the people I play with. They would pick the side that is best for them.

[Greg17]

I know you might think I am talking out my behind here but... I am telling you... try it.  You will be shocked how well it works. 

I am telling you... don't knock it untill you try it.



-- Greg

[Von Ulrich]

I would like to see you run this campaign again with a different army I have a feeling your results would be the same. 

You seem to find a way to win.

That means you (the general)  are the game breaker, not the particular tool (the army) you use.