Topic: FCG on demigryphs - worth it?

[Ambrose]

I don't see removing FC as WAAC.  Personally I love the fluff and include command sections, but to say that an army would not be able to function if they had no command is a bit simplifying it.

Lets use the Demigryph Knights as an example.  Three templars, riding their demi's are making their way from one city in the Empire to another.  They are following along with a marching army who is to re-enforce a different town.  The army and demi's are ambushed by some nasty beastmen.  Do the Knights freeze because they have no commander?  Nope, they rely on their MANY hours of training (even if they have never seen a battle yet) and react to the situation the best they can.

For game purposes, the unit of demigryphs would lose the benifits that a commander gives a unit, so not having a commander in a unit is already delt with in the rules.

Ambrose

[Syn Ace]

I don't see removing FC as WAAC. In fact, IMO it can be detrimental. Removing a musician to make a points limit actually caused my DGs to turn a draw into a lost round of combat and they ran. 

[Ratarsed]

That you would have to take up with the designers.   However it is worth noting that in some units not all of the full command is needed.   For example in a huntsman unit a banner would be out of place.   However an officer is always needed.

But why does my officer have to be the best marksman or fighter. Can I not assume my officer has been appointed amongst one of my regular troops?

Dropping a command figure because it saves points in a decision that can only be made for the purpose of winning.   The question about the captain is interesting.   I would say that there is a good chance that if you have a captain then you don't need a unit champion, because the captain is doing the unit champion's job.   Then, however, the captain should not be able to leave the unit.

I make lots of decisions that are made with the purpose of winning. That in itself is not a bad thing. But what you are doing is trying to tarnish people who do not share your particualr outlook on how things should be with a derogatory (sp) label. ie WAAC. I will try and win my games of Warhammer and that might be at the cost of a couple of unit champions, but that is not the same as "all costs" If I drop 1 Greatsword or the counts champion in order to afford my crown of command on my captain what does it matter? How does taking another regular trooper over a champion mean my decision has been made because all I want to do is win the game? I don't get it? That lack of champion could be what costs me the game as my greatswords get wiped out by a beserk frenzied character with many attacks that could have been challenged out.....

[zifnab0]

I have yet to study a single battle in history (and I have studied a number) where there was general able to command large (or even small numbers of troops) without a support system.

I would also suspect that you have yet to study a single battle in history where fully armored knights mounted on demigryphs do battle against a rampaging horde of rat-men hauling a magical bell while the general, mounted on a half-chicken, half-tiger hurls bolts of magical energy into (even bigger) giant mutated rats who have been augmented by slivers of magically-infused stone.

But then you seem to be more well-read on historical battles than I am.  I could be wrong.

At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a game, not a real-life simulation.  Not only is it a game, it's a competitive game.  There is a winner and loser at the end of the match.  The rules are there to provide a framework for the game.  If you're not playing to win the game then you're not really playing the game, you're just acting out a scenario.  If that's all you want to do then you don't need the Warhammer rules, you just need a bunch of painted models and a friend.

If not taking command is WAAC, then taking greatswords over flagellants is WAAC.  Taking a General so you can have 100 points of magical items instead of 50 points with a Captain is WAAC.  Halberdiers instead of spearmen is WAAC.  These are all decisions made not on the realistic value of the army but on points effectiveness: to win the game.

I think you completely or willfully misunderstood my point about an army working.

I do get it.  You think the unit champions are necessary to lead their individual units and convey orders from the general.  But they're not, at least within the context of WHFB.  No more than captains are necessary to receive orders from the general and communicate them to the noncoms under their command.

[borgar]

If forgoing full command group is WAAC because you deem it unfluffy, i claim taking White cloak of Ulric in a non-Ulrical army WAAC.
the same for steel standard in an army without gold wizards..  heck!, its WAAC aslong as you don't field balthasar!

[Ambrose]

I would also suspect that you have yet to study a single battle in history where fully armored knights mounted on demigryphs do battle against a rampaging horde of rat-men hauling a magical bell while the general, mounted on a half-chicken, half-tiger hurls bolts of magical energy into (even bigger) giant mutated rats who have been augmented by slivers of magically-infused stone.

But then you seem to be more well-read on historical battles than I am.  I could be wrong.

At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a game, not a real-life simulation.  Not only is it a game, it's a competitive game.  There is a winner and loser at the end of the match.  The rules are there to provide a framework for the game.  If you're not playing to win the game then you're not really playing the game, you're just acting out a scenario.  If that's all you want to do then you don't need the Warhammer rules, you just need a bunch of painted models and a friend.

If not taking command is WAAC, then taking greatswords over flagellants is WAAC.  Taking a General so you can have 100 points of magical items instead of 50 points with a Captain is WAAC.  Halberdiers instead of spearmen is WAAC.  These are all decisions made not on the realistic value of the army but on points effectiveness: to win the game.

I think you completely or willfully misunderstood my point about an army working.

I do get it.  You think the unit champions are necessary to lead their individual units and convey orders from the general.  But they're not, at least within the context of WHFB.  No more than captains are necessary to receive orders from the general and communicate them to the noncoms under their command.

[commandant]

I have yet to study a single battle in history (and I have studied a number) where there was general able to command large (or even small numbers of troops) without a support system.

I would also suspect that you have yet to study a single battle in history where fully armored knights mounted on demigryphs do battle against a rampaging horde of rat-men hauling a magical bell while the general, mounted on a half-chicken, half-tiger hurls bolts of magical energy into (even bigger) giant mutated rats who have been augmented by slivers of magically-infused stone.

But then you seem to be more well-read on historical battles than I am.  I could be wrong.

At some point, you have to acknowledge that this is a game, not a real-life simulation.  Not only is it a game, it's a competitive game.  There is a winner and loser at the end of the match.  The rules are there to provide a framework for the game.  If you're not playing to win the game then you're not really playing the game, you're just acting out a scenario.  If that's all you want to do then you don't need the Warhammer rules, you just need a bunch of painted models and a friend.

If not taking command is WAAC, then taking greatswords over flagellants is WAAC.  Taking a General so you can have 100 points of magical items instead of 50 points with a Captain is WAAC.  Halberdiers instead of spearmen is WAAC.  These are all decisions made not on the realistic value of the army but on points effectiveness: to win the game.

I think you completely or willfully misunderstood my point about an army working.

I do get it.  You think the unit champions are necessary to lead their individual units and convey orders from the general.  But they're not, at least within the context of WHFB.  No more than captains are necessary to receive orders from the general and communicate them to the noncoms under their command.

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

[Stolzeuhu]

Commandant, maybe I won't totally agree with You (not taking FCG for me is like taking blackpowder in cult of ulric list rather than WAAC or even against spirit of the game), but one thing is sure - I'd like to play more often with people with that kind of attitude towards warhammer. It would make game much better, though I won't force anyone to play that way.
 I stopped to play fluffy way as I found out that it's not that much fun (especially that part of it when You lose for tenth time in a row and You play like once per two months )

[commandant]

I wouldn't force anybody to play my way.   I am just pointing out that it is what it is, good or bad

[Unuhexium]

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

And that means you're one of the "make a worse army than you have to and don't ever play to win" crowd?

Come on man. Now you're just trying to sling mud at people who like playing a competitive fantasy game. Emphasis on the words "fantasy" and "game". Claiming that something is WAAC is associated with a very negative mindset containing cheating, rule bending, excessive whining and downright unsportsmanlike behaviour. Is that really an epithet you want to apply to people who like playing to win _as well as_ having a great time with their pals?

[Cursain]

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

And that means you're one of the "make a worse army than you have to and don't ever play to win" crowd?

Come on man. Now you're just trying to sling mud at people who like playing a competitive fantasy game. Emphasis on the words "fantasy" and "game". Claiming that something is WAAC is associated with a very negative mindset containing cheating, rule bending, excessive whining and downright unsportsmanlike behaviour. Is that really an epithet you want to apply to people who like playing to win _as well as_ having a great time with their pals?

With all the GW price increases it's getting increasingly hard to get new blood into the game.  I would suggest biting our tounges regarding any persons playstyle.  Soon even the dedicated vets will be leaving if they continue raising prices.

Right now as it is, a 1000 pt Empire army will run you nearly $400 USD full retail, to get the army book, rule book and paints to color your army.
Then you get to play the same 1000pt army until you spend more.

GW's run by a bunch of greedy idiots.  I'm embarrassed to even mention I play the game simply because of the costs.

How do they intend to attract new players with these outrageous prices?

[zifnab0]

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

Well...yes, it is.  Rampaging demons, hordes of half-rats, elves riding giant eagles and slinging magic around like nobody's business tends to color the game.

It's not that "it's fantasy," rather "it's a game."  When there are a fixed set of rules you should expect people to play by the rules, not by some abstract gentleman's agreement about how the game should be played.  People are going to disagree about what the "gentleman's agreement" actually entails, it's much harder to argue about what the rules actually say.

That said: I do take full command on almost all of my units.  I even have command models for my artillery crew and detachments, even if they never make it to the field.

[Calisson]

Right now as it is, a 1000 pt Empire army will run you nearly $400 USD full retail, to get the army book, rule book and paints to color your army.
Then you get to play the same 1000pt army until you spend more.
How do they intend to attract new players with these outrageous prices?

Prices are high. Sure, it's more expensive than chess or basketball.
But are they so high when you compare to some other hobbies?
Horseback riding? Sailing? Golf? Stamp collecting? What about World of Warcraft?

[commandant]

There is a tread on prices in the Tavern somewhere.   I'll find it later.   What is WOW, $40 a month??

[Syn Ace]

Used to be $15. Not sure now.  But GW prices are getting more ridiculous by the month. Freaking 40K Landraider now $75!

I doubt there are few on here who would characterize not taking FC as WAAC. Personally, I'll ditch them if I need the points to complete my list. And if they don't see the value in running them, fair enough.

[The Peacemaker]

WYSIWYG ?

Seriously Ambrose? you didn't know what WYSIWYG? and you've been on here for like a year!!?!?! Lol.

...Hmm, I don't even know what WAAC is.

Consider a champion not as another fighter but as an officer to relay orders and you understand better my point of view

The rulebook does not describe a champion as an officer. The champion is the big dude in the squad - sometimes they are the leader, sometimes they are just the guy that fights - just like in Hockey, you have your team captain but theres also an Enforcer.

And if your arguing fluff or whatever rules wise it is not worth paying the points for most champions so why would you pay the points? All you need is to have a model in the squad who looks like a champion and your fluff is covered. He's the guy who 'relays' the orders but hes not tough enough to be singled out.
If the rules actually had some rules that reflected some kind of command ability for champions then this would be a different story.

[Ambrose]

WYSIWYG ?

Seriously Ambrose? you didn't know what WYSIWYG? and you've been on here for like a year!!?!?! Lol.

...Hmm, I don't even know what WAAC is.

I found the abreviation section.  I feel so ashamed....   

[MrAbyssal]

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

Wait... Warhammer Fantasy Battle... I'm pretty sure there is no way that can not be interpreted as "It's fantasy".

[Gorgash Redfang]

Hmmmm... My "two cents worth", I have always played "fluffy", my Ostermark army is themed and as such i do not have certain units etc to keep within the limits i set for it. I do not and never will play a game to WAAC, in fact the best games i have ever played(my first army was O&G army)were full of unexpected things happening, ie. wizards heads blowing up killing half their unit, gobbo fanatics turning round and taking out half my army, etc, etc. It was FUN. Having a WAAC army defeats those ideals of a game, sure its nice to win, but at what cost?
Where is the good sportsmanship in WAAC?
I run full command in most of my units, it looks good..lol, i do, at times remove a champion to save a few points, but only when i have gone over my limit..

[Warlord]

I see you are one of the "Its fantasy crowd".   Grand so.

And that means you're one of the "make a worse army than you have to and don't ever play to win" crowd?

He is also one of this crowd:

I have never been a fan of the one model = one man theory, mainly because I think the rules don't support it.   Even if the movement rules are less rigid in this edition then in other they are still too rigid for that theory to be true.

The rules and fluff fully support it. That the rules are badly written is a result of trying to make the models tell a story within a rules structure. EVERY battle report that GW has EVER written says that each model is 1 model. Because you believe otherwise does not make it so.
Because it makes the game feel more epic, and relays the fluff to your mind if 1 = many, does not mean that is actually the case.

It says on p. 45 that if a unit of models with more than 1 wound suffers wounds, you must remove as many whole models as possible and that you are not allowed to spread the wounds to avoid casualties.

But that is not true in relation to champions, because for them to be killed, a wound needs to be allocated to them, and dividing the wounds states that they can (and will) be allocated to the Champion. The rule you reference is so that you cannot have 6 ogres all with 1 wound off each. Rather you would have 4 Ogres and 2 dead ones.

[The Peacemaker]

I'd also like to add that with the old book i put FC all the time. But in the new book with the points increases if I put full command everywhere I'm cutting ALOT of models from my army. These are models I built and painted and want to play with, so if that means full command gets cut so I don't have to leave 6 models on the shelf then thats whats gonna happen.
I would trim the points elsewhere but the rules support trimming command upgrades.

[Maza]

It says on p. 45 that if a unit of models with more than 1 wound suffers wounds, you must remove as many whole models as possible and that you are not allowed to spread the wounds to avoid casualties.

But that is not true in relation to champions, because for them to be killed, a wound needs to be allocated to them, and dividing the wounds states that they can (and will) be allocated to the Champion. The rule you reference is so that you cannot have 6 ogres all with 1 wound off each. Rather you would have 4 Ogres and 2 dead ones.

I'm not sure I get it. I would remove as many whole models as possible, and start allocating unsaved wounds to the champion when the others were dead (if we wasn't the target of directed attacks). Can I please ask for a page reference?

[rufus sparkfire]

EVERY battle report that GW has EVER written says that each model is 1 model.

But if that's true, the whole thing is total nonsense.

Here comes the Emperor and the Imperial army of one hundred guys!


Plus he's right about the movement rules.

Prices are high. Sure, it's more expensive than chess or basketball.
But are they so high when you compare to some other hobbies?

One day, people will stop making this argument, and I will be very happy.

It makes no sense!

[Ratarsed]

I'd also like to add that with the old book i put FC all the time. But in the new book with the points increases if I put full command everywhere I'm cutting ALOT of models from my army. These are models I built and painted and want to play with, so if that means full command gets cut so I don't have to leave 6 models on the shelf then thats whats gonna happen.
I would trim the points elsewhere but the rules support trimming command upgrades.

Ever thought of increasing your game size? 2617 point battles are all the rage nowadays

[Talben21]

I am firmly of the belief that if you are not playing WAAC then FC is a must in every stand alone group.   Well maybe not a musician or a banner but a champion defo.

The lack of FC just to save points smacks of WAAC.

Not taken full command speaks of WAAC?! What sort of messed up world do you live in?

Maybe that explains your silly tactical advice on this forum. I mean if you are in such a tight assed group that everyone HAS to bring full command then you are just playing this game with a bunch of snobs that just don't plain know how to win. I suppose misery loves company.