home

Author Topic: Feedback on the special armylists/characters?  (Read 3413 times)

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33358
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« on: September 22, 2005, 11:49:34 AM »
Hi,

Now that the campaign is over, I'd be interested to hear what people thought about the special campaign army lists, and also the characters if anyone used them.

- Were they fun?

- Were they 'fluffy'?

- Were they balanced against each other?

- What things were overpowered/underpowered?

- How would you have changed them to make them better?


These were pretty much my first attempts at doing something like this, so I'd appreciate any feedback.

Cheers,

Rufus.
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline Demonslayer

  • Posts: 2280
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2005, 12:15:40 PM »
As for the lists: perhaps not make both a cavalry AND an infantry unit obligatory. That way the army is just too "set", meaning you can't make a more specific army theme within the faction theme.
For example, when first planning an army, I would have liked an entirely Sigmarite force, sent out by the Church to aid but act independantly from the rest of the Stirland army. That would have meant Knights and Flagellants, but no state troops. It would have been a true Stirland list (as true as a Kislevite army is to the Middenlanders, for example), but with a little twist.
However with the army list as it was presented, those plans had to be changed. Taking a unit of halberdiers (and with how great halberdiers are, I knew I needed lots, with large detachments, to not let them be a complete waste of points) would just not have been in style.
The same would be true for anybody wanting a White Wolf themed army, with little infantry, or an actual Stirland list, unaided by the Sigmarite church. The Middenlanders had more freedom in this, since they could also take Kislevite lists (though not the greatest lists around, it's something completely different).
My advise: less obligatory units. Perhaps make it obligatory to take at least one unit of cavalry OR one unit of infantry, but not both.

Further, I appreciate the creation of so many new units, and the addition of that many DoW units as cores, but I think Middenland has been a little left out.
Lastly, I find it strange that Dwarfs are allied with Middenlanders. Weren't they best allies with Sigmar? Why would they turn against His followers, then?

Further, I don't think there's anything over- or underpowered in the list, it's been quite equal.

I wouldn't know about the characters, never used them...
Wartales online campaigns, dedicated to bringing you the best in online warhammer campaigns!

Offline Rorrak

  • Posts: 1276
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2005, 12:40:51 PM »
I liked the lists.

When playing List vs List it was a fun troop style game where magic had little or no effect.

Even when I played against non complient hard lists I did ok, the scroll caddy being the only limitation (1 scroll only) in these games. I do understand that they were designed to be played against each other.

I thought the lists were fluffy.

I didnt really like the middenland special character. I suppose it almost felt intrigue of courtish and I think that rule is silly.

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33358
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2005, 04:29:34 PM »
Thanks for the comments. To address some points:

Quote
perhaps not make both a cavalry AND an infantry unit obligatory. That way the army is just too "set", meaning you can't make a more specific army theme within the faction theme.


The intent of the lists is that they represent the composition of a typical army from that faction. 2000 points represents a large army (far more than the actual number of models suggest). In an army of that size, it would be unrealistic if there were no infantry, or no knights. Even a 'crusade' army would have a lot of infantry along with those knights.

If you really didn't want to use infantry, ten halberdiers is 60 points. Likewise, five knights are 115. I don't think it limits your options too much, unless the theme you want is one that doesn't match the province (in which case you should use the base Empire list instead).


Quote
I appreciate the creation of so many new units, and the addition of that many DoW units as cores, but I think Middenland has been a little left out.


Middenland gets the best magic lore of the three (shadow is quite good, whereas light and beasts both suck horribly), and gets to use the cheaper version of the Teutogen Guard. It's a better list than the Stirland one.

Quote
I find it strange that Dwarfs are allied with Middenlanders. Weren't they best allies with Sigmar? Why would they turn against His followers, then?


Middenheim was built with Dwarfen aid, and has a large Dwarf population. That's why the Middenlanders get the core Dwarf unit - they aren't allies, they are actual citizens of Middenheim.

Quote
I didnt really like the middenland special character. I suppose it almost felt intrigue of courtish and I think that rule is silly.


I thought the Herzog was quite amusing really - his rules represented his total uselessness as a general. I don't think I'd have used him though - only Gernot and Makari were any actual good.


Any more comments?
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline Demonslayer

  • Posts: 2280
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2005, 05:08:36 PM »
Well, first point is taken, third one a matter of perspective... with the second one I wasn't saying that Middenland had a bad list, just that, aside from the dwarfs and marchwardens (of which the latter was an option to all three factions), it's pretty much standard.
Not saying you've done a bad job or anything, I mean the Middenland list was Middenlandish, I just missed all those special units (like Sylvanian levy, halflings, free foresters and such...).

There is one note about the characters, though: Middenland and Talabecland got fun characters, while we got stuck with Graf Martin  :? . I mean, c'mon, nobody likes the graf. Prior to the campaign we were already plotting some way of doing away with him...
Might have been fun to have some other sort of character... perhaps Kurt the 3rd :lol: . Or the Grafin...
Wartales online campaigns, dedicated to bringing you the best in online warhammer campaigns!

Offline Kernschatten

  • Posts: 1464
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2005, 05:19:20 PM »
Quote from: Demonslayer
I mean, c'mon, nobody likes the graf. Prior to the campaign we were already plotting some way of doing away with him...
Have you considered how that might have influenced the campaign team?  :wink:
"We finally really did it. You maniacs! You blew it up! Damn you. God damn you all to hell."

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33358
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2005, 05:54:08 PM »
Point taken. I never liked Martin (especially the name!), but since he was the only character taken from actual GW material (except for the aged Grand Theogonist), we were stuck with him.

I admit that I wanted to kill him off from the start. Stirland's performance in the campaign made that dream a reality. :lol:

Kurt might have been fun as a character actually. He could use Death magic...
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline cisse

  • Posts: 3903
  • let the wookie win!
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2005, 08:19:22 PM »
Hello!

I played all my games the last month using the "campaign" army list of Talabecland, and it was a fun list. Limiting the magic was especially nice, and felt very fluffy (splat! there goes the kitten). Also, the one unit of warriors of Ulric allowed in the army gave it a lot of character. I played the list against armies of Middenland, and I didn't get the feeling that any of the lists was overpowered/underpowered against each other.

I only used Gernot himself twice, both times in themed battles (using a campaign scenario). While he is not that powerfull in combat, he has good survivability and his ability to help friendly units within 12" to rally makes him worth his cost. He works essentially the same as many EC's in infantry-based armies: as a LD battery. I haven't seen any of the other characters used, so can't comment on those.
cisse

No matter how fast you run, your ass will always be in front of me...

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33358
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2005, 11:02:28 PM »
I'm glad you liked the Talabecland list. Of the three, that is the one I was happiest with.

Gernot is a very practical character, since he makes an extremely effective infantry general for only a few points extra. I'm not sure he's all that interesting though. :?


By the way, the worst mistake in any of the lists was the inclusion of the Stirland Free Foresters... 150 years before their formation.  :bonk:  Luckily, only one person noticed (and said anything).
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline reiksmarshall

  • Posts: 1143
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2005, 11:03:53 PM »
I used the stirland list once (out of two battles :? ), but gve up as it didnt feel like the stirland list to me. the compulsory choices (whilst fluffy) gave the list a slightly uncompetitive edge - who can claim to use a regiment of halberdiers in normal battles? Even if a place is famous for something, it doesnt mean they will turn up in every battle. You can tell if a list is broken, or a troop underpowered/overpriced if soemthing is compulsory, as it generally means it isnt worth taking in a standard list. In this case, improve the troop choice - make a 0-1 choice of crimson guard with immune to fear or stuuborn for a point more (ie make them good, but not too good, and give them a slight price break - then people will want to include them).

Plus i found the lists just negatives of each other, with just the names of certain things changed around. All in all, I found the lists too fluffy, with too much emphasis on what should be there instead of giving the player choice. having said that, some of the ideas for it were great (gotta love free foresters), and my criticism is in no way meant to be offensive - merely what i perceive is in fault with the list (only stirland though). Oh yes, and the magic sucks! :lol:
Supreme Commander of the Emperor's glorious armies, Grand Marshall of the Guardians of the Reik and Founder of the Anti-Helbalster Foundation!

Offline cisse

  • Posts: 3903
  • let the wookie win!
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2005, 11:53:21 PM »
Quote
the compulsory choices (whilst fluffy) gave the list a slightly uncompetitive edge

Well, I think that was the case for all three of the lists, as they are more restrictive than the standard list. Is that bad? In my opinion, no. The lists are still competitive enough, but require more thought. I used two warrior priests in my campaign army, which I'd never do otherwise. Maybe not the best choice, but at least, it was fun. :-D

Quote
In this case, improve the troop choice - make a 0-1 choice of crimson guard with immune to fear or stuuborn for a point more (ie make them good, but not too good, and give them a slight price break - then people will want to include them).

Maybe, but that's another way of working. I think that almost none of the lists used *new* units or new rules (free foresters aside :wink: ), the lists were special because of what you coul/had to take (for instance, the warriors in the Talabecland list).

Quote
All in all, I found the lists too fluffy, with too much emphasis on what should be there instead of giving the player choice.

Ah, but isn't that the essency of these lists? They try to capture the feel of a typical Talabecland/Middenland/Stirland army, and to do that, they steer you in the right direction.
cisse

No matter how fast you run, your ass will always be in front of me...

Offline Demonslayer

  • Posts: 2280
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2005, 07:20:12 AM »
Quote
I mean, c'mon, nobody likes the graf. Prior to the campaign we were already plotting some way of doing away with him...
Have you considered how that might have influenced the campaign team?


And still, the campaign team decided to do that themselves, beating us to the punch  :wink: .
Wartales online campaigns, dedicated to bringing you the best in online warhammer campaigns!

Offline rufus sparkfire

  • Global Moderator
  • Posts: 33358
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2005, 01:49:22 PM »
Quote from: reiksmarshall
it didnt feel like the stirland list to me.


That's interesting. Why not? Keep in mind that it is a Stirland army of the Ostermark Crusade, rather than a modern Stirland army.

Quote
the compulsory choices (whilst fluffy) gave the list a slightly uncompetitive edge


Against an unrestricted army, certainly. But against another campaign list with similar restrictions is should be fine, shouldn't it? Taking a unit of knights is hardly a handycap, and neither is the priest if the opposing army has to have one too. So that just leaves the halberds, which really aren't so bad that they will cost you a game. Are they? And like I said, a unit of ten is only 60 points.

Also note that the three factions are not supposed to be equal - Talabecland actually had the most powerful military, and thus gets a slightly better army list.

Quote
Even if a place is famous for something, it doesnt mean they will turn up in every battle.


Actually, I think halberdiers would show up in every Stirland Campaign army of any size (1500 points or more). Like Billmen in the Wars of the Roses.

Quote
Plus i found the lists just negatives of each other, with just the names of certain things changed around.


They are all still Empire armies, so there is no scope for massive differences.

Quote
All in all, I found the lists too fluffy, with too much emphasis on what should be there instead of giving the player choice.


The restrictions are there to ensure that any army made using the list will be reasonably fluffy. There's still lots of choice. The idea is that anyone who wants to get the bonus points for using a campaign army list will have to use a fluffy army.

Also, it's fun to do something different!

Thanks for commenting! :)
Hey, I could still beat up a woman!
If I wanted to.

Offline reiksmarshall

  • Posts: 1143
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2005, 10:56:50 PM »
True, the system did compensate for using the fluffy lists by giving extra points, thus compensating somewhat for the lack of options  (well actually more options, just with more compulsaory). i think where the list really stung is in smaller battles, as i often play 1000pts battles (can be done much quicker), and you would be insane to do such a thing, as it leaves little options after the compulsory choices. And the fact it is an 'olden days' stirland army also makes more sense (in teh context i should have realised that too :bonk: !) I must say my views come as an economist, and therefore i believe much more in improving alternatives than punishing superior troops/forcing them on you, thereby making my argument slightly biased.

And i love too experiment with army lists too, and became very good at it. Thinking of it, i should get back to the nippon army i playtested for a while, and see how to improve them. Now they are a threat to the empire... :lol: !
Supreme Commander of the Emperor's glorious armies, Grand Marshall of the Guardians of the Reik and Founder of the Anti-Helbalster Foundation!

Offline General Helstrom

  • The Old Ones
  • Posts: 5322
  • Chicks dig moustaches
Feedback on the special armylists/characters?
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2005, 06:49:27 PM »
bump
I don't know what Caesar thought when he got to the Ides of March
Don't know what Houdini bought when he went to the store
But I sure do miss the eighties