Topic: Dusting off Army...which rules to use?

[The Peacemaker]

@ ThePeacemaker - did you play 6th edition? I would say it was 50% about deleting units, 50% about static CR. i really liked the static CR component of the game, because stacking as much as you can was the stratgic elements of the game. Combined charges and flanking where so very inportant.

My problem is, i like bits of all 3, but not enough of any 1 to commit.

I played the one with empire and orcs in starter box.
Combat rez stacking I liked as well, but fixed charges and the ease of deleting units was too much for the long run.

[Warlord]

Deleting units is very chess like.
I didn't mind it too much, but there are better ways. I prefer prolonged combat. 8th ed is deleting units too, mainly by sheer amount of attacks and mega spells.
Herohammer was bigger in 8th than it was in 6th.

Like i said. I like bits from all, and i dislike bits from all.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

In 6th, I never took any special characters. Most special characters were too expensive, but the main drawback for me was that they also took several character slots.

[ZeroTwentythree]

I think deleting units was part of the ongoing attempt at speeding up the game. 3rd ed. saw quite a few individual combats lasting twice as many turns as an entire 6-8th ed. game. (Unless the game involved small units.) The old game was more about attrition, panic, push-backs, etc. than quick, decisive combats.

[Warlord]

Ah. This is good to know, considering my curiosity about 3rd ed.

[jtrowell]

Well, From what I remember, the old editions still had a problem with hero hammer, I remember a 3rd edition game where I faced a dark elf hero on dragon tooled with arteffacts, and nothing in my army could face it except for maybe my own general (itself a nice hero, but far from the dark elf one). Sure, my own units had a large advantage against the rest of his army due to how many points had gone to the dragon lord, but this still didn't make the game feel more fun.

But I was very young at the time, so maybe they were some army creation rules that we ignored or misunderstood making the extreme match up illegal, and I suppose that wth some self restrictions in what we allowed each other it might have worked better.

[Zygmund]

I'd say your experience of 3rd edition is true. The game really allows for tremendously powerful and neigh unbeatable character builds. The more powerful magical items are really powerful. There are also some randomly generated monsters, where if a high statline is generated, they become ridiculously effective for their points. Strong flier units are also very boring.

Part of the gentleman agreement in playing 3rd ed is either to avoid such builds, or to have similar characters in both armies, and do the classic 1 vs. 1 combat between the leaders.

3rd is a game meant to be played with a gamemaster, with friends who want to create a story on tabletop. Drop either of these, and the game might wreck. Holds true for many interesting and worthy games out there. You need the right people for the game to flourish.

-Z

[Clymer]

I intend to clean them up, restore lost limbs, touch up paint and throw them on a gaming table against my brother's greenskins before the end of the year.

Empire and Greenskins were really well balanced against each other in both 7th and 8th editions.

If you want to relive ranked units maneuvering for the perfect position for a flank charge, go 7th edition. If you want to put more focus on characters, monsters, and special units, then 8th.

However, let me put in one plug for Age of Sigmar: they really fixed the problem with a pair of cannons being able to reliably kill your brother's giant(s) and/or trolls in turn one. Here's a crazy idea that I have no idea if it would work: play 7th or 8th edition with Age of Sigmar unit stat lines?

[Warlord]

Thing is, how is that a fix? Empire don't have giants, so cannons are what we need to neutralise.

[Clymer]

Thing is, how is that a fix? Empire don't have giants, so cannons are what we need to neutralise.

I was more referring to his brother's giant. Giants were pretty pointless to take in 7th and 8th edition, and to a certain extent, so were trolls, largely because of cannons and mass shooting, both of which Empire is really good at. Many an OnG player has one or more giants sitting on the shelf that they only bring out for "fun" games. In Age of Sigmar, both Giants and Trolls are really good and can withstand a certain amount of cannons and shooting, making them worth taking. So, more about helping this guy have fun with his brother than giving advice for a competitive, tuned up list.

[Warlord]

Sure. But like you said, taking them for fun is a good thing. I guess instead, the brother has to only take his cannons for fun then. Thats what i see as a problem. Both should be viable, but its sounds like the fix for either is to make one not.

[Laerniss]

It took over four months but I finally got that match in over the weekend. Simple 1000 point battle under 7th edition rules and armybooks.

I fielded infantry heavy Empire force lead by a captain. My center was blocks of 30 halberds and 30 spears supported by free company detachments. To flank I had two units of 5 knights and a unit of outriders. A unit of 12 handgunners with an archer detachment was positioned to hold the flank opposite my cavalry.

To my suprise my opponent fielded not Orcs or Wood Elves but Brettonians. He had Questing knights lead by his general and Knights of Realm lead by his battlestandard bearer.  There was one block of men at arms to hold his center and three units of bowmen.

I started as the aggressor, since his longbows out-numbered and out-ranged my shooters. I was defeated by his knights of the realm on the left flank, loosing both of my knight units. However, my outriders did use the opportunity to get into his backfield and turn their guns on the longbowmen and questing knights. My handgunners and their detachments were lost to longbow fire and did very little damage in return.  My center performed well, as my infantry was able to advance and push back both the weakened questing knights and the men-at-arms groups. By turn 6 I had lost more units, but held the questing knights dropped standard.

We did not bother to calculate points, I would say it was probably a minor defeat for my Empire force due to heavy casualties.

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Having myself played 6th edition, 7th edition and 9th Age, I would recommend 9th Age. It's by far the best balanced version of Warhammer, heck, I'd say *the* best. Also, with update 2.0, the classical 6th/7th edition Empire playstyle of parent-unit/detachment combined arms is making a comeback in viability.

They say 6th/7th ed was the golden age of static CR, but then, once the enemy brought enough killing power to go over a threshold where he could negate the CR provided by your three ranks and your flanking, you broke. 8th edition at least brought Steadfast to give blocks some staying power against non-blocks, buying you time.

T9A 2.0 will make detachments in support range fight (and shoot) in an extra rank, which should make offensive units particularly useful as flanking detachments. Parent-detachment combined charges add together their rank bonuses too, and each standard gives +1 CR, and bonus VPs for captured standards is no more. So while T9A 2.0 may not bring back detachment goodness to the same relative prominence of static CR as was had in 6th/7th, it also creates a force multiplier to the killing power of the units involved. I think that T9A 2.0 will actually be the first edition of Warhammer where halberdiers are clearly the preferred unit type for flanker detachments, and there's just something very right about that