home

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Action economy and detachments
« Last post by BeardGamer on Today at 04:07:47 PM »
Given the amount of variables in game, the action economy labelling seems a little reductive, but what you describe does somewhat pan out in reality.

Saying a lord on dragon and a detachment of 10 state troops have the same movement and combat economy doesn't feel that helpful in practical terms.

I'm about 40 games in including some non-GT events, mostly at 2k, and there definitely feels like a positive middle ground with our infantry.

State troops aren't fantastic, but they're far from unplayable. In most of my games I've been playing detachment in roughly this configuration:

24 halberds w/ 10 free company (oh btw I LOVE free company detachments, they've been doing great)

18 greatswords w/ 10 free company

The rest of my lists have been the usual smattering of general griffon, lvl 4, demigryphs, steam tank, helblasters and mixing in some other things to taste.

What detachments do have is great utility. As you describe Commandant, being able to answer opposing chaff threats without committing a big unit, protecting flanks, acting as distraction units and many more uses.

As Zygmund says, a more practical, qualitative approach to testing detachments in games and through battle reports would identify their strengths and weaknesses in a more useful way.

An thoughtful read nonetheless.
2
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Action economy and detachments
« Last post by commandant on Today at 04:04:27 PM »
Possibly but that would be 3 good sized infantry regiments with detachments which would take up 6 feet of board. 1500 points would only be 2 infantry regiments.
Other people should feel free to join
3
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Action economy and detachments
« Last post by Warlord on Today at 03:31:02 PM »
I think 2000 pt games would be helpful.
4
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Archers and other Chaff
« Last post by GamesPoet on Today at 02:58:25 PM »
Archers are amazing. I use 3 regiments of 5 man as a screen in front of my army. They are Vanguard so you always get them in front. They are great as "deployment delayers" So I see were the enemy wants to attack. How I use them depends on the enemy.

If I face an aggressive enemy I use them so I can get charges with my state troops or knights (they are great with State troops with Halberds and a General on Demigryph).

If the enemy if Defensive/shooty I use them as cannon fodder so my important regiments don't take as mutch damage.
I love positive and creative view points, congrats! :icon_biggrin: :eusa_clap:

And go get 'em! :icon_cool: :::cheers:::

 - - - - - -

Empire for the win! :-P  :ph34r: :smile2: :biggriin:
5
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: New faq released!
« Last post by Hoffa on Today at 12:59:32 PM »
It is very clear that you don't get to change weapons after FBIGO and that also makes the reading that a round fought after FBIGO count's as the first round for things like flails dubious. (There is a contradiction in the wording forcing us to guess intent.)

The intent seems fairly clear - the combat is ongoing, challenges persist.

It does feel like they decided to add GG and FBIGO late in the development and didn't have time to assess the rulebook for jankiness.

My thought as well. Rules are copy-paste or borrowed with small rewrites from Warhammer and therefore are written under the assumption that charges only happen when a unit moves into combat. The odd thing is that the rule creating the contradiction,the infamous fourth bulletpoint on p213, is not copy-paste from any previous game. I guess this is typically GW. With an unneeded "clarification" for the most common case they create confusion about a less common case. A confusion that could easily be resolved by deleting the unneeded clarification.

GW are like some teachers I had, they manage to get the entire class to understand something in 5 minutes but then just can't stop talking leading to everyone getting confused by the unneeded extra information and examples.
6
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Archers and other Chaff
« Last post by Sir Falo on Today at 06:39:29 AM »
Archers are amazing. I use 3 regiments of 5 man as a screen in front of my army. They are Vanguard so you always get them in front. They are great as "deployment delayers" So I see were the enemy wants to attack. How I use them depends on the enemy.

If I face an aggressive enemy I use them so I can get charges with my state troops or knights (they are great with State troops with Halberds and a General on Demigryph).

If the enemy if Defensive/shooty I use them as cannon fodder so my important regiments don't take as mutch damage.
7
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Archers and other Chaff
« Last post by Warlord on Today at 04:41:36 AM »
I disagree that Ďif you can buff a unití plays into its utilisation and cost.
Spells, character abilities, etc usually (USUALLY) are not a direct line to a unitís success, but rather costed into the unit providing the buff, not receiving it.
8
The Old World Cometh Again !!! / Re: Archers and other Chaff
« Last post by Dazgrim on Today at 04:16:06 AM »
Possibly but you also need to include things like how easy it is to buff the units, how the units impact the action economy, how the units localise force. These sorts of things.

For example there is a constant claim here that men-at-arms are better than state troops (point for point) and I am currently looking at men-at-arms in some detail but the claim always (or often) dismisses that state troops are far superior than men-at-arms at force localisation among other things due to the detachment system.
It also tends to leave out that the Empire state troops have a wider range of buffs available to them compared to men-at-arms (though people are also sleeping on the sergeant-at-arms I think)

You keep talking about action economies, but I don't think it's a concept that translates to an I go/you go system.

The sergeant-at-arms suffers as does the grail monk from being very squishy and any halfway competent opponent will target them and kill them in short order.

It's been demonstrated in a couple of places that men-at -arms and particularly the ones from the border princes are able to put fight an equal value of empire state troops.

Buffs are a factor, but they should be priced into the unit that provides the buff, not the recipient. Otherwise you are overpaying if you don't have the buff.
10
The Brush and Palette / Re: Solland Army
« Last post by Count James on Today at 12:04:43 AM »
They really are.
I love our 6th ed state troop plastic box so much.
If I could ask for anything of TOW, it would be to release these instead of the terrible 7th ed pajama state troops.

Thank you! :)

I agree too, there's one 7th ed model in that unit and I much prefer the style of the older 6th edition troopers. Even painting them was better because 7th marked the beginning of 'too many fiddly details' it seems!
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10