Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
rcrosby

Balancing quality and quantity

Recommended Posts

That second army is everything I find boring in Warlord: cheapest sgt, as many cheap models as possible, swarm. Undeniably effective, but I'm quite tired of seeing it.

I agree with a lot of the sentiment in this comment. I don't find swarm games boring, but it would be nice if points spent on quality could match points spent on quantity so that more army builds would be effective.

 

The fix might be as simple as not stacking support bonuses for close combat (+1 support max).

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to rewrite the support rules, you would also have to rewrite the Reven book as well, since the goblin subfaction revolves around that rule (essentially). I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't have a photographic memory, so... :rolleyes:

 

Are swarm armies something that you see a lot of in your neck of the woods? Are those the only armies that win outside of the grand state of Oklahoma? Because, to be honest with you, I don't see that many swarm armies. Most the players here like to take heros and tank solos and stuff. Sure, we'll play games where it's "how many models can I field", but they are usually pick up games. Half the time it seems like it's "how few models can I field". :lol:

 

One way to combat an influx of swarm armies would be to change up the requirements. Everyone has to have a battle totem and 2-3 really expensive models (you determine the cost). Whatever. Be creative in your requirements. Make the players think outside the box a little. It keeps the game fresh that way too. ::):

 

Wild Bill :blues:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be nice if someone can include why Storminator is making such a statement. I am also very surprised to his comment. Warlord is a standard tablet top miniature game, not Mechwarrior. All models need painting. Consequently, there is a tendency for people to field as few models as possible rather than making a swarm. I hardly see a fully painted swarm army these days. The only other game I played and fielded where a swarm army is necessary is Orks in 40K. Honestly speaking, I never heard people complaining the Orks as being boring. They were fun to play. Yes, it is not entirely fair to compare 40K to WL. However, the popularity between the two are so great that I simply love to see just another person interested in WL, nevermind of him playing it or not, or even fielding a swarm army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the rules do tend to go towards swarms having the advantage with the melee bonus. I find that the armies that do best are the ones that (win or lose) the player has fun fielding. Those are the ones you see again and again. Those are the ones that get drug out to play pick up games. I know some guys that always have an army in their car but only choose to play other players who are into having a fun game. As to the army needs to be painted I have to disagree. Not everyone has time or skill to paint but still likes to get in a game when they can. Some are that pewter camo color scheme, some are black primer night squads, some are white primer winter troops, and some are painted up fully. When all is said and done we are here to have fun playing a game. Some people won't field troops that aren't painted, some will. Its about doing what you can and like to do. Everyone has their own preferences and that's what makes us individuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All models need painting.

 

Weeeellll.... you don't see too much painting going on around here :P Most of our armies are painted by now since we played a tournament requiring it... but the tournament prior to that only 2 armies were fully painted, out of.. maybe like 8ish... and it seems like that was the trend. Players up in New England are more interested in the "feel" of the game than the "look" of the game I guess.

 

I don't think support should be touched. Swarm is good but it's not the be-all and end-all. A balanced force does well.. I guess a balanced force would have some range, some magic, a good number of infantry, a few tank types, and a few fast models. If you use your range and magic to whittle them down on the way in, support your tankers, and use your fast movers to swing around to pick off weaklings and stragglers, then a swarm isn't too bad. Gotta work at it, but that's the point of the game.

 

Then again if you're fielding a specialized army, your eggs are in one basket as they say. You'll probably rip apart an enemy if they have the build you're designed to crush. But a different style of army may rip you apart.

 

I think the special units in this game work well. You just get into trouble if you try to put all the neat things into one army... then you don't have the critical mass necessary to hold out when bodies start dropping (because this IS warlord after all and death happens quite a lot!). But don't mistake "critical mass" for "swarm."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules favor swarms because of the melee bonus... but only if the battlefield is open enough to allow the swarm player to surround his opponent's models. If you play on a table with lots of terrain and plenty of opportunities to create choke points with some careful positioning, the favor swings to players with smaller armies composed of more expensive models. A line of Justicars with hospitaliers providing healing support or Templar Knights backed by Ironspines and some bandage spells will have a field day against a swarm army if they can force their enemies to come at them in a tight area where the enemy will be unable to surround them.

 

More and more, I get the feeling that Warlord is geared towards playing on a table that's tightly packed with lots of terrain. Several reasons for this:

 

1. Powerful models vs. grunts Many times, in order to build a competetive list, it's better to forego elite and solo models in favor of taking a few extra soldiers (even though elites and solos would probably be more fun to play with than another group of soldiers). However, going back to the points about terrain above, elites and solos (particularly the melee-oriented ones) become more useful when there are fewer opportunities for them to get mobbed.

 

2. Reach support models Why would an Overlords player choose to take a spearman (DV 9, MAV 2, no Tough, 20 points) when he can have an Overlord warrior (DV 11, MAV 2, Tough/1) for only one point more? Reach is nice, but why bother using it when you compare: +1 support to 1 or 2 models, Reach model gives up its attack -or- +1 support to EVERY other friendly model in base-to-base with the enemy, plus one extra attack from the Reach model? In situations where the battlefield is less open and more restricted, having Reach support models becomes more valuable and makes them more worth their points.

 

3. Stunts Many of the stunts are geared for environments with a lot of terrain or actually require terrain in order to be used. Furthermore, many of the stunts would only be particularly useful or have a worthwhile chance of success if being attempted by elite, solo, or leader models. (Again, going back to #1.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree Arbiter. Point 1... usually true, I suppose, but if you take care when you place elites or powerful models in your force, and then use them appropriately, they're excellent! But I get the gist of what you're saying and I agree with that.

 

I especially agree with your point on terrain. Page 128 of the 2nd printing rulebook is focused on terrain. While it says it's not a rule, it provides a guideline - 6-10 pieces of terrain per player! On a 4x4, that's gonna clutter very fast. Unless you're using 1x1 inch pylons or something... but even then, 20 of them in the middle of a field, all 4 inches apart, is gonna clutter things up mighty fast.

 

Furthermore, this page lists various types of terrain. I won't list them, but there are 13 types (and some of those listings are actually 2 things, i.e. "River or Wet Moat")! In most competitive play a table has.. maybe 2 types of terrain. 3 or 4 at the most. And the map will have 3 or 4 main features.

 

Also reference page 54 where there is a picture of a playing field. Granted they had the money to furnish it up all nice, but anybody with scissors and access to felt or other cloth can make a representation of this map, and it's full, if not quite "cluttered."

 

So I think Arbiter's right that this game's made for a more full environment and a less open environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is posable to win with a small army. I came 1st (2nd actully but i was beaten but our BL running it but he was in it only to make the numbers even) in a 1000pt torny with an army list containing (if memory serves) a krung beast, Kong-To, T'kay, some archers and snakes and clutchlings. That was over half the points in 3 models and used the two most expensive adepts i could feild.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the problem is with support but rather with the unit structure. There is really no negative to being out of formation or out of the leader's range. There should be some *bad* effect when your leader dies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the problem is with support but rather with the unit structure. There is really no negative to being out of formation or out of the leader's range. There should be some *bad* effect when your leader dies.

 

Now don't get all Warhammery on me, Ranz!! :lol: I think having a sgt killed should require nothing bad to happen. The same goes for a captain. A warlord? Ok, maybe I can see having your king bite the dust right in front could cause some issues. :devil:

 

Wild Bill :blues:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. Reach support models Why would an Overlords player choose to take a spearman (DV 9, MAV 2, no Tough, 20 points) when he can have an Overlord warrior (DV 11, MAV 2, Tough/1) for only one point more? Reach is nice, but why bother using it when you compare: +1 support to 1 or 2 models, Reach model gives up its attack -or- +1 support to EVERY other friendly model in base-to-base with the enemy, plus one extra attack from the Reach model? In situations where the battlefield is less open and more restricted, having Reach support models becomes more valuable and makes them more worth their points.

 

Because Overlord Warriors are now Adepts, so you;re limited to how many troops you can field.

 

2 Bondslaves and a Spearmen is a brutal combination, no matter how you position them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Furthermore, this page lists various types of terrain. I won't list them, but there are 13 types (and some of those listings are actually 2 things, i.e. "River or Wet Moat")! In most competitive play a table has.. maybe 2 types of terrain. 3 or 4 at the most. And the map will have 3 or 4 main features.

I played 2 out of 3 games at the last tourney on a 4'x3' table with 11 hill features and 1 light woods feature which fits the bill of 12-20 terrain features on an undersized table. (Remember that each 1" elevation of a hill counts as 1 terrain feature, up to 12" wide.) I count 30-40 terrain features on the table pictured on page 54, so I don't know how useful that picture is as an example. The sand table example at the back of the Necropolis book has very sparse terrain. I don't think that this indicates that Warlord is supposed to be played on a cluttered table. I think it would be more appropriate to say that Warlord intends for games to be played with a variety of table set ups.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the problem is with support but rather with the unit structure. There is really no negative to being out of formation or out of the leader's range. There should be some *bad* effect when your leader dies.

Just start adding some more negatives for being out of cohesion. Ideas:

 

1. Charging an enemy in the rear is considered a Shock SA attack. (Only has an effect if the enemy is out of cohesion.)

 

I think Ronin should be changed to also read that the Model is always considered to be in cohesion.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In order to rewrite the support rules, you would also have to rewrite the Reven book as well, since the goblin subfaction revolves around that rule (essentially). I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't have a photographic memory, so... :rolleyes:

I don't see goblins as one of the major "swarm" armies, even if that is supposed to be their claim to fame. A 1000 pt Bull Orc army of Dantral, 3xKharg, Urga, 35xFighters is a much better "swarm" than 66 goblins. The prototypical "swarm" army before the Grunt to Adept change was the Reptus army featuring mostly Warriors.

One way to combat an influx of swarm armies would be to change up the requirements. Everyone has to have a battle totem and 2-3 really expensive models (you determine the cost). Whatever. Be creative in your requirements. Make the players think outside the box a little. It keeps the game fresh that way too. ::):

That is one way around the problem. However, I would rather see the rules fixed rather than artificially limiting player's choices. The "easy" fix of changing Grunts to Adepts has already been taken for Archers and high DV Warriors. I would like to see the Warlord rules work without highly constrained army lists.

 

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So I think Arbiter's right that this game's made for a more full environment and a less open environment.
What? Someone agrees with me?!? Well, I guess there's a first time for everything. ::D:::D:::D:

 

While it says it's not a rule, it provides a guideline - 6-10 pieces of terrain per player!

That's so funny -- I totally forgot about that part of the book when I wrote my post! So my feeling that the game is designed around more terrain actually has some basis other than just my playing experiences.

 

Because Overlord Warriors are now Adepts, so you;re limited to how many troops you can field.

True, Warriors are now adepts. So, you'd be forced to take spearmen if you wanted a cheap melee model to fill out other troops. However, since you can now have only one troop of Overlord warriors, wouldn't that make it even more likely that you'd want to take as many of them in that one troop as possible and not "waste" any slots with spearmen?

 

I was actually just using the Overlords as a specific example for the question I am raising, which is: are Reach support models worth their points in an open battlefield? Going back to Crusaders, Ivy Crown Skirmishers are grunts and have the same basic stats as Ironspines (MAV 2, DV 9) but they also have Tough/1 (compared to no Tough for the Ironspines) and are one point cheaper. Unless the battlefield makes it very difficult to manuver and surround your opponent, why bother taking Ironspines? Yes, you can use them with Knights and get the Reach/Trencher combo working, but the same point about simply surrounding enemy models rather than trying to use Reach support still applies -- that is, load up on knights, surround your enemy and get the close combat support bonuses AND additional attacks, all with higher DV models that also have Tough to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...