Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This isn't exactly a full battle report, but a story about two games I played yesterday in a local WHFB league.

My opponent, to be fair, is a pretty nice guy most of the time. I'll let my readers make their own judgments about this particular game.

My list: Speculum Pope on War altar, the dawn armor, great weapon.

23 greatswords with walking pope, great weapon, 1+ rerollable armor save, other trickster's shard.

2x 30x Swordsmen, cmd

39x Halberdiers, full command, with a walking priest with hw+ shield

BSB on horse with charmed shield

2 mortars

a beasts level 2 with a scroll

5x pistoliers, outrider with repeater pistol, musician

So, we're looking at a lot of infantry, only two war machines (and not the best ones available) and in general what you could call a pretty soft list, outside the pope wagon.

He, however, took a level 4 tz caster with blood of tzeentch AND conjoined homunculus AND an infernal puppet. then there was a 40-man khorne marauder horde, 6 knights, 6 trolls and, in the first game (we played two) some dogs and marauder horsemen. In other words, he tailored his list expecting warmachine spam.

In the first game, it was pretty much tic-tac-toe. I squeaked out a 200-point win in which I pope-blocked his chaos warrior block by challenging the BSB and camping there until the halberd horde could get into their flank and generate enough CR to win. Elsewhere, though, his knights and trolls completely obliterated both swordsmen units and, though I broke his trolls in combat, I then overran into his sorceror.

Normally, that would be great, but the sorceror was within the range of a dwarf brewhouse, so my greatswords were stuck there, bouncing off that damnable 3+ ward, until the chaos knights came around behind them (fresh from breaking two steadfast units of swords in two turns) and destroyed them completely (my BSB and arch lector both managed to survive on the stubborn LD from the brewhouse). The whole game was basically played with pandaemonium in play, and in the final turn of the game it was neck and neck until he couldn't quite kill my BSB with his one remaining chaos knight and then rolled a 3 on his insane courage test for his marauder horde, which had been flanked by the exultant halberdiers after a rules check confirmed that his frenzy forced him to overrun into their arc (I think they had been fighting a mortar or something). To me, a close, fun game, in which this crazy BRB terrain had played a critical role in changing the tactics of both players. (I should note that there was also a tower of blood on the board. I ask my readers to envision chaos warriors with hatred and frenzy and 5+ parries).

Between games he re-tooled his list, dropping his dogs and marauder horsemen and picking up a hellcannon to combat my infantry blocks. I made no changes.

The broad outline of the second game was much like the first, by which I mean that the critical event was a very long charge by my arch lector to get into the front of his tz-flavored chaos warrior unit. Interestingly, my opponent very nearly chose to flee that bundle of ws5 death from my 2-attack puny lord choice, but in the end he decided to stick. So, that unit wasn't going to go anywhere and freed up my halberd horde to face-charge his marauder horde.

This was the crucial combat of the game, because whichever unit survived, the opposing player had no answer for. I charged him, got off Birona's Timewarp on them from the nearby war altar (+1A, asf that didn't matter) and had my BSB and a priest in the unit. I hit him first, and with priest hatred I killed a bunch of his dudes, cutting seriously into his number of attacks. However, his remaining 18 or so guys outkilled me by one (this with no hatred, and no characters), meaning that with my charge and my battle standard I managed to win the combat by 1.

At this point was where the complaining began. He complained about hatred being overpowered. Really, that is what he said. I ignored him. He also complained how, when I rolled doubles on my arch lector's Birona, how my arch lector's "miscast" didn't require him to roll on the table (innate ability).

In the meantime, the chaos knights were busy chewing their way through some swordsmen (who valiantly killed one) and the trolls, deployed poorly, ate popcorn and regenerated some mortar hits to give them MR3 on the eye of the gods table.

The rest of the game went the way you might expect, given this situation. I eventually got my spare swordsmen over to the orphan trolls, out-combat-resed them and ran them down (some had died from mortars to make this easier). the halberdiers, with the benefit of not having great weapons, managed to finish off the marauders in his turn and reform to face the chaos warriors, still locked in combat with the pope, from the flank. On my turn, the greatswords and the halberds (down to 20 or so, and reformed into a 5-wide formation) flanked the chaos warriors and the greatswords got in on the action from the front. His BSB had been speculumed to death by this time, so he failed his 4 check to stick and was run down by the angry pope.

The chaos knights finally killed all the swordsmen on my turn, and then on their turn, turned around and obliterated the pistoliers, who had been hovering behind them waiting for a chance to shoot something. The stand-and-shoot left two knights, who killed the entire unit. His hellcannon misfired, munched all the dwarfs, and eventually rampaged to where I could greatsword it to death.

Through all this, the complaints continued. As he killed 8-10 swordsmen per phase, he complained about steadfast and how it was OP. When I finished off the marauders, he complained that hatred was OP. And the whole time, he complained that the speculum was OP. He also disapproved of my not being able to miscast (other than on my wizard, who eventually did and exploded a large number of swordsmen, but they wouldn't panic).

Losing my patience, I pointed out his 5-point, 2-attack, ws4 s5 infantry, his hellcannon (not only a great buy at 205 points, but also modeled on a 30x30 base to make it harder to kill in close combat), his 3+ armor, 5+ parry t4 ws5 infantry, and his flying 3+ ward +5 to cast dice-re-rolling sorceror lord (who survived both games as I either couldn't catch him or couldn't kill him once I did) and asked him if he could really complain about empire being OP, especially given my soft list. He didn't see the thrust of my argument.

So, that is my triumph story. My opponent is not a bad guy in general, as I said, and we've had some good games in the past. However, when he can look at a cheese-filled dex like his and then complain about how overpowered my ancient armybook is, apparently I've done something right.

Hope you enjoyed the semirep.

War Alter is horribly undercosted, and the speculum vs chaos is just brutal. Chaos being forced to challenge makes it pretty brutal.

In general, I'd also say arch lectors are too good for the points.

Hate is really good, better than the frenzy that he buys (it doesn't go away, and re-rolls with 30 attacks is better than +10 attacks). And unlike frenzy, hate does not force you to over-run. BTW, frenzied troops can't parry, so no 5+ parry for the frenzy chaos warriors.


I would say from the look of his list, he didn't tailor to face empire. I would not take a hellcannon against anyone with normal cannons. You just lose the shoot out.


Blood of Tzeench and the puppet are both arcane items. Did he have them on different characters?

I also don't know why you're crying about the magic phase, he's got +5 to cast, you've got +2 to dispel, and 3 extra dispel dice.

Given the two lists, I'd bet on empire winning most engagements. Empire hordes are better than marauder hordes (smaller bases is actually a big advantage), and chaos doesn't have the advantage of dirt cheap mortars to level the opponents hordes.
Empire is cheap enough to cover all the bases and exploit where chaos is weak. Chaos does not have the same option.

^_^ Maybe I should change the title of this thread to "I made two..." etc.

I don't think the war altar is undercosted at a minimum of 225 points (that would be with the archlector totally naked), with items he comes out to 3xx in most lists. What makes the altar problematic is only the speculum, and then only when there's somebody to challenge. Nearly any other army can just refuse the challenge and swarm it under with lots of low-str attacks... it's only got a 5+/4++ save.

I like hatred, and I clearly try to get it in my list, but remember that it costs me, at a minimum, 90 points per unit where I want it. I agree it's better than frenzy in many situations, but then he pays less than 1/3 points for frenzy, and gets to use frenzy every turn until he loses, where hatred poofs after round one.

quibble: I didn't whine about his magic phase except in response to his complaints. I don't particularly consider chaos magic OP except for two things: the infernal gateway auto-kill effect and the pandaemonium spell. Secondary quibble: this list is actually +5 DD.

and thanks for the compliment on my list. As for which horde is better, it depends. Horde-vs-horde, marauders will win every time, even against the twice-as-expensive greatswords. However, what you say is probably true when empire hordes face other targets, such as conventional infantry blocks or heavy cav.

Th elist you run is pretty similar to mine (and most likely every other Empire list out there.... =P) but I've never even thought about two AL and one WP, I'm the reverse. It's definitely something I might have to look into.

As for Empire being OP, I doubt it. Yes they have their strengths but you can't just put anything on the table and expect to win. You still need to use some form of tactics when you play.
Sure WP and AL got a lot more useful with the changes in magic as well as the mortars being a really good anti-horde choice but the fact remains in terms of doing well in combat we rely on ranks, banners and flank charges to win, unless of course we've gone and got ourselves a handful of wizards so we can boost our stats and maybe kill some people.

Malleus wrote:
So, we're looking at a lot of infantry, only two war machines (and not the best ones available) and in general what you could call a pretty soft list, outside the pope wagon.

Mortars are arguably the *best* empire warmachines, what you get for those 75 points is crazy good. And I chuckled a little when you said a "soft list" You're running two arch lectors...one of which is on an altar. It is not "soft." It's just a semi decent list, not complete like some people feel like taking.

When I read the tittle, I have to admit, wasn't too shocked. Empire are pretty much the rock to WoCs scissors, for one reason: black powder.

When I opened the thread though and saw only two, then I was a little more surprised. Trying to beat WoC at *their* strength is a bit more impressive, so good one on ya.

That's the kind of empire list I'd love to see against my dark elves.

That's the kind of empire list I'd love to see against my dark elves.

I've played some dark elves in my time, and it's always a massive bloodbath with very few models left on the table at the end of the game. Dark elves have a really disgusting damage output (getting their hatred for free rather than having to pay extra) but also break if you blow on them too hard, meaning even my s3 swordsmen can usually manage to pick off a few. Also I usually outnumber them. The main problem for me is, dark elves with lore of death have this way of coming up with very large numbers of power dice, and can usually overwhelm even my sigmar-fueled magic defense to do some scary, scary damage.

If you're ever in the Minneapolis area (which, by the way, I counsel you to avoid for about the next 3-4 months) we can definitely find a table and throw down.

Malleus wrote:^_^ Maybe I should change the title of this thread to "I made two..." etc.

and thanks for the compliment on my list. As for which horde is better, it depends. Horde-vs-horde, marauders will win every time, even against the twice-as-expensive greatswords. However, what you say is probably true when empire hordes face other targets, such as conventional infantry blocks or heavy cav.

Run your infantry hordes 14 wide. You'll maximize contact with marauders, and typically win combats. Not to mention you're hordes get some pretty beefy detachments.
Gateway rarely kills a whole unit. I'm actually happy to face the lore of Tzeench, instead of shadow or death.
You're kidding yourself if you think you're paying 90 points for hate. You also get a decent hero, a dispel die, and a few spells. Soulfire works extremely well in killing off very hard targets. Using it to drop a chaos knight or two is incredible. Now that remains in play spells don't prevent you from continuing to cast, warrior priest magic is decent to back up normal wizards.

I'm not the type of guy who enjoys games where neither player has fun. YMMV.

-Matt

@HawaiiMatt, that's a great suggestion on the hordes, thanks! I think it's only viable when facing a 25mm horde, though. For that purpose, I'll keep it in mind.

The broader point there is that it's important to think about your formations and not get locked in to whatever your movement tray is. Take a look on deployment, or after winning a combat and consider what you might gain from expanding or contracting your frontage. I, for one, don't do this nearly as much as I should.

Red_Zeke wrote:The broader point there is that it's important to think about your formations and not get locked in to whatever your movement tray is. Take a look on deployment, or after winning a combat and consider what you might gain from expanding or contracting your frontage. I, for one, don't do this nearly as much as I should.

Yes. Just going 5,6 or 10 wide has limitations. People will Mathhammer a formation and compare it to "normal" opponents, and then be surprised when they lose, simply because somebody took the time to reform.

If you're going 20mm horde on 20mm horde, simply reforming to be 12 wide nets you at least another 6 attacks; often 8 to 10 more.

My favorite empire unit so far is 60 halberds with two 30 halberd detachments. Parent unit goes 14 wide; both detachments also go horde.
5 point S4 guys are pretty good, especially with detachments.

-Matt

In the three games I played today, I thought about that a couple times, expanding my fronts for combat, but every time I was going to do it, I decided I needed the ranks a lot more for denying steadfast/adding to my combat res.

greenbay924 wrote:In the three games I played today, I thought about that a couple times, expanding my fronts for combat, but every time I was going to do it, I decided I needed the ranks a lot more for denying steadfast/adding to my combat res.

Field larger units. If you're going to go big, don't half ass it.
I had a movement tray for 112 night goblins. ~400 points. 14 wide, 8 deep. With up to 56 attacks a round, it would put a dent in most things; especially with the re-rolls when the waaaagh went off.

I'd say watch out for dwellers below, or that nasty daemon-nurgle spell that forces toughness tests or makes nurgling...
But really, if you can sucker your opponent into targeting your crap hordes with their magic, you're far better off.

-Matt

Kind of hard to field larger blocks of Dark Elves...my unit of 30 corsairs is plenty big.

2 mortars. I sympathise with your opponent wholeheartedly. The new edition has made them incredibly OP.

kastellan wrote:2 mortars. I sympathise with your opponent wholeheartedly. The new edition has made them incredibly OP.

::laughter:: against a marauder horde, they're better than decent. Against t4, 3+ as chaos warriors? 4+ regen, t4 trolls? a T6 hellcannon?

Malleus wrote:

kastellan wrote:2 mortars. I sympathise with your opponent wholeheartedly. The new edition has made them incredibly OP.

::laughter:: against a marauder horde, they're better than decent. Against t4, 3+ as chaos warriors? 4+ regen, t4 trolls? a T6 hellcannon?

A mortar is better than a cannon at killing 3+ save chaos warriors, and better against the Regenerating trolls.

Cannons against chaos warriors: they are usually shallow and wide, as they are too expensive to go deep. If the unit is deep though, the mortar gets even better.
Compare 18 hits to 3, (6x3 formation), 24 hits to 4 (6x4), or really, any formation where warriors have ranks. The massive number of S3 armor piercing hits makes the mortar much better than the cannon.

When a troll is hit, you have to wound (2+), he has to fail his save (4+), and you have to roll 3 or more for wounds (3+). Any of these come up the wrong way, and that troll stops the cannon ball.
When a mortar hits a unit, they all take a S3 D3 wounding hit, with one taking a S6 D3 wounding hit. If you're shooting at 2 or more trolls, the mortar becomes the better choice.

You are right about the hellcannon, but as mentioned earlier, it is a marginal choice against empire, because of the cheapness of great cannons.


I haven't taken a serious look at hellblasters or missiles, shooting modifiers tend to cripple the hellblaster and the missiles are far to random.

-Matt

HelBlasters got much better with the engineer ability to re-roll one misfire a turn. Mathhammer says two helblasters misfire a total of once per turn, and so you park an engineer between them and hope the stats didn't lie.

That said, helblasters are a very situational tool, useful mainly against large units of t4 things (dwarfs, saurus, chaos, minotaurs, ogres, trolls, etc) which empire doesn't have any other particularly good answer for.

Helstorms, on the other hand, do gruesome damage if you can land that pie plate, but you mainly can't. I've never fielded one and the times I've faced them, they've performed very poorly.

Do mortars do d3 wounds to everything? I've been playing it the other way.

Malleus wrote:
Do mortars do d3 wounds to everything? I've been playing it the other way.

I was assuming only D3 wounds under the center hole as well, but a glance at the FAQ shows this (may not format right):

“The Mortar is a stone thrower, except that it uses the large
round template and has the following profile:

Name Range Strength Special Rules
Mortar 12-48" 3(6) Multiple Wounds (D3)
Armour Piercing


The special rules don't appear to be restricted to the central hit...

Well, it still uses the rules for stone throwers, and for them multiple wounds is in the center only...

Atleast that's my interpretation.

Yeah...if I were to play my empire, I'd only do d3 under the center...though I can see the argument being made for all of them, as the FAQ doesn't specify, could be part of what makes up for the center only being S6? (though I think the large blast + armor piercing makes up for that...)

Oscarius wrote:Well, it still uses the rules for stone throwers, and for them multiple wounds is in the center only...

Atleast that's my interpretation.

That's my take on it too, but my take has been over-turned by more than one judge. I hope GW clears it up.

-Matt

Red_Zeke wrote:“The Mortar is a stone thrower, except that it uses the large
round template and has the following profile:

Name Range Strength Special Rules
Mortar 12-48" 3(6) Multiple Wounds (D3)
Armour Piercing

I believe the fact that the (6) and (D3) are both in parantheses refer to the fact that it is only under the central hole. This is the way I have seen it played so far and (imho) is the only one that makes sense.

As to the OP... I think both you and your opponent needed to stop and smell the roses a bit . Neither WoC nor Empire are weak in 8th edition...

I'm going to carry on playing it as center hole only. This is for a bunch of reasons: mortars don't need a buff, a mortar is suboptimal when fired at monstrous infantry regardless of how many wounds it does, and it would cause arguments.

And, everybody seems to be thinking I'm deeply concerned with the relative power level of my army. This is not the case (although I still manage to lose an awful lot, this is probably because I'm new to the hobby.)

So, RiTides and others, I don't think empire is UNDERpowered, and there's not much that I'd really like to see buffed or decreased in cost. I'm content with it, but it does throw me for a loop when a chaos player complains about it. As you point out, chaos are not the ones who should be complaining about relative power levels as codexes go.