home

Author Topic: Army Book: Core State Troops  (Read 8928 times)

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Army Book: Core State Troops
« on: January 27, 2010, 06:42:46 AM »
After having wrestled with this idea for at least a week, I have finally come up with a solution I genuinely like to the state troops problem, in particular the Halberdier.

At first I approached it from the angle of: what needs fixing? Obviously the halberd does, but working in the parameters of making an army book, we can't change the weapon rules.
Do our state troops in general need fixing? Not really, but they could use a tweak.

There have been a host of good suggestions on the forum, not the least of which is giving halberdiers AP or heavy armour, or a 'step over the fallen' rule.  Another popular choice is amalgamating most of the core units.
-The first one is a fix for the weapon itself, not our troops in particular however, so in the spirit of designing our own book, I rejected it.
-The second, heavy armour, is my personal favourite, but then begs the question: all state troops come from the same sprue, so why don't Swordsmen and Spearmen have heavy armour? Certainly none of the models look like they are wearing heavy armour. What's more, there is no justification in the fluff for halberdiers (or any state troopers) wearing heavy armour. Introducing heavy armour is only a good idea in terms of mechanics and game balance then. I will go with heavy armour if no better choice presents itself: I know that there are many equipment and rules choices in Warhammer that don't make perfect sense, and/or don't match fluff and models, but that is not a good reason to select another such choice.
-The third, introducing a special rule like 'step over the fallen' doesn't appeal to me because state troops are supposed to be simple and core. Vanilla. Giving special rules to core human troopers is a precedent I don't want to set.
-Lastly, amalgamating our core infantry into 'militia' and 'state troops' options, with a starting point value of 5 or 4 and allowing players to customize their core choices is an excellent idea, and I also like it quite a bit. It doesn't change the initial problem, which is that halberdiers, unless we pay extra points for them (above and beyond what different units cost) remain sub-par.

It occured to me that it wasn't in fact the halberd that was unbalancing the choice between state troops, but rather the parry bonus mixed with the stat bonuses. What's more, we had two defensive choices, each slightly better than the Halberdier.

This leads me to think that if swordsmen were removed from the picture, inter-army balance would improve. "What?" you say "make the army worse, when we are already flagging behind, just so it is internally balanced? That is non-sense." Which is true: the objective is to tweak the Empire positively, not negatively, in order to keep up with (and slightly behind) the power creep.

So my brilliant idea, such as it is, is to remove swordsmen from the army book entirely, but give their stat bonuses to the other state troops, making them slightly better in their respective roles. -Spearmen, quintessentially defensive, receive the +1 initiative, so that they strike before many other core units of other armies, making them slightly better in subsequent rounds of combat, without dramatically changing them.
-Halberdiers, a generally offensive unit, and also supposed to be the trained, more experienced troops of the Empire get +1 Weapon skill.
-No equipment options change, so each is able to get the handweapon+shield parry bonus if the player wants, but now there is more incentive to use their respective weapons.

I realize that this at first doesn't seem to be a change at all: we can still get swordsmen with a 4+ save and WS4 for 6 points. BUT, they also come with halberds, and lose the I4, which goes to spearmen. With a couple of playtests, however, I think that WS4 S4 will carry the day.

Net result:
Quote
Spearmen
Spearman  M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I4 W1 Ld7
Seargeant M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I4 W1 Ld7
Equipment: Light Armour, Spear, Hand Weapon
Can purchase shields at +1 pt/model.
Can turn one model into a Musician for +4 points
Can turn one model into a Standard Bearer for +8 points
Can turn one model into a Seargeant for +8 points
State Troops

Halberdiers
Spearman  M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld7
Seargeant M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I3 W1 Ld7
Equipment: Light Armour, Halberd, Hand Weapon
Can purchase shields at +1 pt/model.
Can turn one model into a Musician for +4 points
Can turn one model into a Standard Bearer for +8 points
Can turn one model into a Seargeant for +8 points
State Troops

Feedback very welcome. Shoot me down!

If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #1 on: January 27, 2010, 08:12:09 AM »
Interesting approach.

But commonly, Stormvermin in the Skaven list also suffered in this way - simply always choosing the HW+S option while carrying a halberd on the back.
Sure people will pick halberdiers - but no one will actually use the weapon - which I thought was the point?

The reason Swordsmen are so popular, is because our state troops are all relatively the same - the swordsman just happens to be the most adept at surviving a barrage of enemy attacks, yielding us the greatest return on CR. Our state troops are afterall just about holding on to static CR, so inevitably everyone will take the halberdiers as swordsmen.


In so far as the 'fluff and model wise, the unit doesn't have heavy armour' IMO is not the best position to take, as model wise the marauder doesn't change if they have light armour or not, yet they have the option.

What do you think of the 'give halberdiers stubborn' idea?
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #2 on: January 27, 2010, 08:52:51 AM »
I thought about giving halberds stubborn briefly, but even stubborn Ld 7 seems too much to me. Stubborn should be special. And if you have a BSB near your halberdiers... it gets too sweet. Why take greatswords? Why take any other state troop? Will stubborn really increase how often Halberds are used as a weapon? I think the halberds would still see a lot of use on the backs of troops even if the troops are stubborn.

I realize that some people will carry the halberd around on their backs, sticking to HW+S. But right now people only take swordsmen over halberdiers with shields for the WS4 I4. By removing that, and putting the WS on the harder hitting unit, there are going to be times when it will be worth pulling out those halberds. As it is Halberds are only behind spearmen and swordsmen ever so slightly in the statistics. by putting their WS at 4, I think they will rise to the top. Furthermore it makes our state troops more versatile in the battle. Heck, people can still model their minis with swords, but I think that Halberds will see more use as a weapon this way. It is the best way I can see to encourage halberds as a weapon without adding unnecessary special rules that do little more than compensate for the weapon.

That said, if you don't think this is a good idea, other reasonable ones I considered were:
-State troops (or just halberds) re-roll one psychology check every battle. (Veterans) (I thought about giving this to units joined by Captains and GotE also).
-Stubborn on the first turn of every combat OR the unit can count as rolling 3 on its break test in the first round of every combat.
-Giving our halberdiers AP or somesuch. Introduction of the 'Imperial Halberd' as a weapon? Allowing it to be used with a shield, spear-style?

I perfectly agree that 'fluff and model-wise, the unit doesn't have heavy armour' is a weak position. I would rather find a workable solution that adheres to it, is all.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 08:56:35 AM by kk14 »
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #3 on: January 27, 2010, 10:24:13 AM »
You are right about the BSB in range though - true thinking.

Out of the options presented, stubborn on the first round of combat is my choice.

Perhaps not 'Imperial Halberd' as a weapon, but 'Drilled' as a state troop special rule where it allows any weapon to be used with a shield (and with only spears, halberds and swords as the choices, it gets the AS to 5+ without the use of heavy armour)

The problem isn't with the halberd as a weapon. Its about the survivability of the trooper - which when wearing only light armour is too weak, and giving the option of an extra +2 AS while sacrificing the +1S.

...

You know this is the hardest topic to get the right consensus on, so well done for making it first - I just hope it doesn't deter you the potentially conflicting opinions.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #4 on: January 27, 2010, 12:39:36 PM »
1st round stubborn, no shield option Ws 4 for 6 points a pop ....set!

 :happy:

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2010, 12:42:50 PM »
I really hope they redo stubborn and unbreakable in the new edition perhaps like in 40k adding extra wounds if the stubborn unit stays but looses in combat.

Example I loose with my black guard by 8 points and I manage to make my stubborn roll so I get additional 8 wounds, let them have armour saves if you want (I would drop the armour saves) and undead loose their strange rule and get the basic stubborn on all troops. BAM!

Right now stubborn grants a huge advantage with no disadvantages (except that only a few privileged units have it) but there is already quite a lot around. Especially if you count all the demons and undead into the pot.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #6 on: January 27, 2010, 04:22:47 PM »
interesting proposing the any weapon used as a shield rule.  I like it in that it gives us a special rule without unbalancing the other armies unduly nor ourselves, I might not call it drilled perhaps trained instead but in principle I like the proposition.  Combine this trained rule with the stubborn light rule and perhaps the I4 WS4 proposals rolled into the profile itself rather than attached to the trained suite.  I still think detatchments should be reciprocal though.
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #7 on: January 27, 2010, 09:08:30 PM »
The reason I didn't go for 'stubborn light' right away is it turns Halberdiers from an offensive troop choice to one that inevitably goes for a grind.  I don't think it fits their style of play, but will certainly reconsider it.

I like giving halberds a 'parry' rule, where they are adept at using their shields with a halberd. Is 'bucklers' a better name? Again, I will reconsider it.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #8 on: January 28, 2010, 12:23:22 AM »
well actually it would be using the haft of the weapon as a parrying tool in close quarters, absolutely this was done and done very effectively. shields would be used of course VS missile weapons. 

Stubborn light simply ignores the first break test of a given combat, making a unit more resilient but not impervious to losing like a hard stubborn or "I to P" rule.
 
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #9 on: January 28, 2010, 07:28:42 AM »
I don't like the stubborn, 'stubborn light', or similar rules, I've decided. They feel more like an Empire player's wishlist than what actually makes sense. If only given to one state troop, they would by far exceed the others, and if given to all, it makes the army way too powerful. Too many other armies rely on charges to break their opponents. It also takes our humans too far from their normal vanilla dime-a-dozen basic state. Chaos warriors get to re-roll psychology checks because they are infused with the power of chaos, and know no fear. Humans do know fear, and should run away when half of their comrades are slaughtered by frightening creatures. In other words, while nice, any version of stubborn light seems to me to unbalance the army, both internally and compared against other armies.

Parry, on the other hand, is a feasible, fair, fix.  It puts halberds on a level with the alternatives, and in no way changes the way our troops are played, tactically. While it is the addition of a special rule to our deliciously vanilla core infantry, it is probably the lesser of all the evils being considered.

State Troops
Quote
    Spearmen
    Spearman  M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I4 W1 Ld7
    Seargeant M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I4 W1 Ld7
    Equipment: Light Armour, Spear, Hand Weapon
    Can purchase shields at +1 pt/model.
    Can turn one model into a Musician for +4 points
    Can turn one model into a Standard Bearer for +8 points
    Can turn one model into a Seargeant for +8 points
    State Troops

    Halberdiers
    Spearman  M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A1 I3 W1 Ld7
    Seargeant M4 WS4 BS3 S3 T3 A2 I3 W1 Ld7
    Equipment: Light Armour, Halberd, Hand Weapon
    Can purchase shields at +1 pt/model.
    Can turn one model into a Musician for +4 points
    Can turn one model into a Standard Bearer for +8 points
    Can turn one model into a Seargeant for +8 points
    State Troops, Parry

Parry: While wielding halberds, halberdiers get a +1 parry bonus to their armour save, in the same way as a model using a hand weapon and a shield.

If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #10 on: January 28, 2010, 08:59:46 AM »
Cool.

I like where this went. Almost feels too easy. :biggriin:
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #11 on: January 28, 2010, 09:42:54 AM »
Well I disagree, I donīt see how they are "offensive" now with potential 6 attacks at ws 4 and a 5+ save the first rank still dies against an average roll against most monsters, heavy cav and even heavy/medium infantry, there are no attacks back in the first turn so most still would either use swords for the better save or spears for the potential attacks back. Stubborn light on Ld 7 doesnīt make them reliable it is about a 50 % chance to stick around a bsb and characters leading them improves this but this makes the unit expensive and without magic items still not immune to fear.

Perhaps it is just because I dislike all this first battle contact ok we break that is going on lately.

IF you want to stick your version at least grant them armour piercing as S4 is nothing really scary, not for armoured troops and not for monsters.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #12 on: January 28, 2010, 01:56:47 PM »
The are more offensive than spearmen. And they are practically the same as spearmen, as their higher WS will save them slightly more than spearmen, though spearmen will obviously ghet more attacks back.

I think we need something with a love of Maths hammer to tell us what the difference is between a WS4, 5+AS, Halberd trooper and a WS3, 5+AS, Spearman trooper. and the various enemies they will come up against. My thoughts are it will probably be quite close most of the time...
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline fauthsie

  • Posts: 599
  • Animosity Team GM
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #13 on: January 28, 2010, 04:24:00 PM »
WS4 5+AS Halberd and I4 5+ AS Spearmen vs a Clan Rat HW/S and Light Armour assuming both units are 6 models wide and full commands

For the purpose of starting with whole numbers i round the number of dead to the nearest whole number....

Quote
If Halberds Charge....
Halberds Attacks
7 Attacks= 4.666 Hits
4.666 hits= 3.11 wounds
3.11 wounds= 1.36 saves
1.75 die

Skaven Strike back
5 attacks =2.5 hits
2.5hits= 1.25 wounds
1.25wounds= 0.416 saves
0.834 die

Round 2
Skaven Strike first
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 wounds= 0.577 saves
die 1.173

Halberds
6 attacks= 4 hits
4 hits= 2.664 wounds
2.664 wounds= 0.887 saves
1.787

Current Halberds vs Clanrats assuming Halberds charge

Quote
Halberd attacks
7 attacks =3.5 hits
3.5 hits = 2.331 wounds
2.331 wounds = 0.776 saves
1.555 die

Skaven strike back
5 attacks= 2.5 hits
2.5 hits= 1.25 wounds
1.25 wounds= 0.20 saves
1.05 die

Round 2 Skaven attacks
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 wounds. 0.29 saves
1.46 saves

Halberds
6 attacks= 3 hits
3 hits = 2 wounds
2 woulds = 0.666 save
1.33 die

Round 2 a draw

Clanrats charge proposed halberds

Quote
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 wounds= 0.577 saves
die 1.173

Halberds
6 attacks= 4 hits
4 hits= 2.664 wounds
2.664 wounds= 0.887 saves
1.787

Halberds win

Second round would be the same mathematically as this...

Current Halberds getting charged

Quote
Clanrats
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 wounds. 0.29 saves
1.46 saves

Halberds
6 attacks= 3 hits
3 hits = 2 wounds
2 woulds = 0.666 save
1.33 die

Draw

Second round would be the same mathematically.

Proposed Spearmen vs Clan Rats
Spearmen Charged
Quote
Spears
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits = 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= 0.875 saves
0.875 die

Clanrats
6 attacks= 3 hits
3 hits =1.5 wounds
1.5 wounds = 0.5 saves
1 spearmen dies

Draw

Round 2
Combat was a draw and units have same I... Roll off to see who goes first

Assuming Spears win
13 attacks = 6.5 hits
6.5 hits = 3.25 wounds
3.25 wounds =1.625 saves
1.625 die

Clan rats
5 attacks= 2.5 hits
2.5 hits = 1.25 wounds
1.25 wounds = 0.416 saves
0.834 die

If clan rats win roll off
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits = 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= =0.58 saves
1.117 die

Spears
12 attacks= 6 hits
6 hits = 3 wounds
3 wounds = 1.5 saves
1.5 die

Current Spearmen Charging
Quote
Spears
7 attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits = 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= 0.875 saves
0.875 wounds

Clanrats
6 attacks=3 hits
3 hits= 1.5 woulds
1.5 wounds= 0.5 save
1 die

Round 2
Clanrats
7 Attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= =0.58 saves
1.117 die

Spears
12 attacks= 6 hits
6 hits = 3 wounds
3 woulds = 1.5 save
1.5 die

Proposed Spearmen getting charged
Quote
Clanrats
7 Attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= =0.58 saves
1.117 die

Spears
12 attacks= 6 hits
6 hits = 3 wounds
3 woulds = 1.5 save
1.5 die

Round 2
Assuming spearmen go first
13 attacks = 6.5 hits
6.5 hits = 3.25 wounds
3.25 wounds =1.625 saves
1.625 die

Clan Rats
5 attacks = 2.5 hits
2.5 hits= 1.25 wounds
1.25 wounds = .416 saves
0.834 die

Assuming Clan Rats go first
7 Attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= =0.58 saves
1.117 die

Spears
12 attacks= 6 hits
6 hits = 3 wounds
3 woulds = 1.5 save
1.5 die

Current Spearmen getting charged
Quote
Clan rats
7 Attacks= 3.5 hits
3.5 hits= 1.75 wounds
1.75 hits= =0.58 saves
1.117 die

Spears
12 attacks= 6 hits
6 hits = 3 wounds
3 woulds = 1.5 save
1.5 die
Round 2 would be the same


First this Mathhammer is fundamentally flawed because it is not taking into account CR. It would probably be a safe assumption that the Rats have at least +1 for overpower and possibly a rank. If you add spears to the clanrats the situation changes a lot and they win more despite the lower armour save.

The big differences for the Spears is that assuming CR is tied they have a chance of going first in the second round which would win them the combat as their I is tied with Clan rats. This bonus is marginal and situational since all Elves are still faster and Orcs, Dwarves, Lizards and undead are all still slower. You only have changed the dynamic vs Skaven, Chaos marauders, some daemons and possibly new beastmen (haven't read the book yet.)

What the numbers also show is that AP for the Halberd would not change a whole lot. If you round to the nearest whole number tp determine the number of dead, the change in the amount of Clanrats who die from changing a 5+ save to a 6+ would not move the averages enough to gain another kill if the numbers are rounded.

A new Campaigning home....

http://animositycampaigns.com/joomla

FAUTHSIE CAMPAIGN CONSULTING INC.... I MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN GO!!!

Offline fauthsie

  • Posts: 599
  • Animosity Team GM
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #14 on: January 28, 2010, 07:21:21 PM »
Double post but the last one was all mathammer so this is my actually comment/suggestions...

I my memory serves me correctly Halberdiers are supposed to be a mandatory unit for every count to maintain in their army. Since they are supposed to be this symbolic unit in the Empire army why not give them the option of a 25 point magic banner. Giving a unit such as Halberds the ability to take Warbanner or other banners (I assume you are going to come up with new magic items) would be a decent way to give them a bump in CR without getting into messy changes to weapon rules and the like.
A new Campaigning home....

http://animositycampaigns.com/joomla

FAUTHSIE CAMPAIGN CONSULTING INC.... I MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN GO!!!

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #15 on: January 29, 2010, 04:32:41 AM »
The numbers seem to boil down to this:
Old halberds
Get charged: 1.46 die, return with 1.33
Charge: Kill 1.55, lose 1.05
Proposed halberds
Get charged: 1.173 die, return with 1.787
Charge: Kill 1.75, lose 0.834

Spearmen: generally win protracted combats better.





But it looks pretty even to me...
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline fauthsie

  • Posts: 599
  • Animosity Team GM
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #16 on: January 29, 2010, 04:50:47 AM »
The numbers seem to boil down to this:
Old halberds
Get charged: 1.46 die, return with 1.33
Charge: Kill 1.55, lose 1.05
Proposed halberds
Get charged: 1.173 die, return with 1.787
Charge: Kill 1.75, lose 0.834

Spearmen: generally win protracted combats better.

But it looks pretty even to me...

More or less yes... the question becomes is difference of 0.2 killed and 0.34 killed when charging and receiving the charge respectively enough of a change to make Halberds better??? I would probably argue its not. So then the question is what still needs to be done???

Personally I would not put any stock in the spearmen numbers. As I mentioned above the bonus of +1I is so situational that in the vast majority of games it will make no difference.

That is why i would suggest that you give Halberdiers access to cheap magic banners and then write up 3 or 4 cheap banners 10-25 points in cost which Halberds could take. The choice of banners will keep opponents guessing at what is actually there and it does give you a route to give Halberd armour piercing without a special rule.
A new Campaigning home....

http://animositycampaigns.com/joomla

FAUTHSIE CAMPAIGN CONSULTING INC.... I MAKE YOUR CAMPAIGN GO!!!

Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #17 on: January 29, 2010, 05:04:02 AM »
I was also thinking of putting some state troop buffs into the captain and the GotE.
I think the General will have: magic banner of up to 50 or 2 each up to 25.
Also, I was thinking each captain can have a rule in which they allow the unit of state troops they join to re-roll one psychology or rally check each game. But that is for another thread.

I personally like them how they are: slightly better than the rats, but have detachments to compensate for the outnumber and additional points they cost. Add a hero and they are a reasonable choice. My intention isn't to up their power by more than a fraction. Our core troops should not be a suitable counter for other armies' elites, or more expensive cores.
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #18 on: January 29, 2010, 07:51:12 AM »
My intention isn't to up their power by more than a fraction. Our core troops should not be a suitable counter for other armies' elites, or more expensive cores.

Agree.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.

Offline Fandir Nightshade

  • Posts: 10157
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #19 on: January 29, 2010, 08:44:15 AM »
I personally like them how they are: slightly better than the rats, but have detachments to compensate for the outnumber and additional points they cost. Add a hero and they are a reasonable choice. My intention isn't to up their power by more than a fraction. Our core troops should not be a suitable counter for other armies' elites, or more expensive cores.

I donīt know in what kind of environment you play, they are decent enough if you go against the average fluffy player in tournament environment (that takes the best out of each list to its maximum and brings up the flaws best in my opinion) they donīt cut it against the stuff that hits the table and therefore are left at home.

There are two ways to fix this, either power them up or power all the other armies that are around lately down.

If my core soldiers donīt stand a chance against, Monsters like a Stegadon, the Hellpit abomination and all the new beastie toys and they donīt stand a chance against knights (even on a frontal charge), and they donīt stand a chance against heavy infantry and more expensive core choices, what is their use? To kill gobbos and clanrats? (That donīt hit the board so often lately too). As there is no real use for them nobody takes them, if they get some sort of use to bring down the actual stuff one expects to see people will use them.

Otherwise people will always take missle units and knights as they have a role on the battlefield.


Offline kk14

  • Posts: 554
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #20 on: January 29, 2010, 11:38:47 PM »
Well, Fandir, it is not my intention to enter into a debate here, and so I won't.

I will simply state my thinking and leave it at that. We as Empire have cheap core light infantry. It should not as such be on par with knights, monsters, and heavy infantry, except perhaps on a point by point basis. And, by and large, it will stand up to a similar amount of points of other peoples' core units, provided even tactical footing. With characters in a unit our light infantry can stand up to more, and the same goes for a well placed detachment.
Versatility inside the unit is key: this allows it to change its footing slightly, giving it the edge that allows it to hold against superior firepower, or to break the superior unit if it is caught off guard. The Empire has other things to combat the superior units you mention: cannons, mortars, rocket batteries, knights, monster and character hunting characters, magic, greatswords, steam tanks.
To finish: I do not feel that our core light infantry should be an answer to everything. If our core units could stand up to the units you mention, we wouldn't need the other things I mentioned, and our own army diversity would suffer. Instead they should be an answer to like things, which they are.

In the vein of 'powering up' the Empire core infantry, what if we increased the detachment range? To represent superior training or somesuch? Just for halberds? for everyone?
« Last Edit: January 30, 2010, 03:29:15 AM by kk14 »
If you can't convince the voters to accept your view, and you take to the gun, you are by definition anti-American.

Veni, Vidi, domum meum redire volo.

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #21 on: January 30, 2010, 08:20:08 AM »
It should still be balanced which Is why I like the build a unit format with point thresholds designating what units fall into which category, eg core special and rare.  A player would still bew forced to take minimum core and maximum special and rare troop types but all other options for build construction would be on the table so to speak.  Check out the thread by that name and quote here to your heart's content, also the detactment rule should be reciprocal.   
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Johedl

  • Posts: 278
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #22 on: April 06, 2010, 08:32:04 AM »
Im not sure of the extra AS bonus for halbers. I think that State troops are fine, meaning cheap, as they are. What could be batter is the removal of swordsmens higher I and WS. make all state infantery WS and I 3 and create the opption for elite state troop uppgrade. 1p per modell and WS4 I4. Elite state troops cant be detachments and dont take panic test due to militia, Greatswords are elite state troops.
Elite halberdiers performe allmost as well on the charge as if they had extra AS and elite swordsmen survive just as well as before for the same cost. It creates the option for players to have legendary units such as the scarlet guard of Stirland. any thoughts?

Offline der Hurenwiebel

  • Posts: 1078
  • Adversus Malum Pugnamus
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2010, 11:39:01 PM »
That would fit in the "build a unit" concept so sure and if kept below a point threshold can still be core with any of the weapons. 
"DEfighter wrote:
Hey, trolls stay the hell out, this is a serious thread. Empire are cheese. 2 steam tanks, a war altar and 4 cannons is so obviously overpowered. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly hasn't had their dragon shot down on turn 1 yet."

oh really now.  LOL ROFLMAO oh the irony.

Offline Warlord

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 10112
  • Sydney, Australia
Re: Army Book: Core State Troops
« Reply #24 on: April 07, 2010, 01:36:04 AM »
How often do Empire infantry get to charge?

I agree with your feelings about an 'elite' unit, however who would spend that upgrade on halberds? I would much prefer it on spearmen everytime.
Quote from: Gneisenau
I hate people who don't paint their armies, hate them with all my guts. Beats me how they value other things over painting, like eating or brushing teeth.