Warhammer Armies

[darebear]

I am curious as to how many people use the Warhammer Armies book vs. the main rule book for army builds. The Armies book reduces the cost of elite troops to +1 point per elite level. A Dark Elf Warrior with light armor/shield and spear is normally 12 points, in the Armies book a +1 elite value brings him to 13 whereas in the Rulebook he would instead add another 8 points becomes 20 points. A big difference.

A shock 4 human knight in heavy armor, lance, shield, warhorse and barding goes from 41 points in the armies book to 73 points (5 points + 20 for being elite + 10 for equipement, doubled then +3 for the warhorse) per the main rulebook.

If I did this calculation wrong please correct me.

While I like the Armies book it actually feels a bit contrained. I like being able to mix and match and make my own troops up with whatever equipment the models have.

Also, in the main book is there any minimum as to unit sizes? For example, is there anything preventing someone from playing Chaos Warriors as single models vs. grouping them into units? What determines unit sizes?

 

[theottovonbismark]

I am curious as to how many people use the Warhammer Armies book vs. the main rule book for army builds. The Armies book reduces the cost of elite troops to +1 point per elite level. A Dark Elf Warrior with light armor/shield and spear is normally 12 points, in the Armies book a +1 elite value brings him to 13 whereas in the Rulebook he would instead add another 8 points becomes 20 points. A big difference.

A shock 4 human knight in heavy armor, lance, shield, warhorse and barding goes from 41 points in the armies book to 73 points (5 points + 20 for being elite + 10 for equipement, doubled then +3 for the warhorse) per the main rulebook.

If I did this calculation wrong please correct me.

While I like the Armies book it actually feels a bit contrained. I like being able to mix and match and make my own troops up with whatever equipment the models have.

Also, in the main book is there any minimum as to unit sizes? For example, is there anything preventing someone from playing Chaos Warriors as single models vs. grouping them into units? What determines unit sizes?

Looking at the entry in Warhammer Armies it seems like the points values don't make sense for the human cavalry. I can't figure out how they get 16 points for a Bretonian on a horse with light armour and a spear. 5 (man) + 3 (horse) + 4 (light) + 2 (spear) = 14 for example, not the 16 points in the book. There is 2 points I cannot account for in that and it seems that this theme carries into the other cavalry. If anyone can explain this please let us know!


Well I will answer with a question, what seems to be the fairest way to do it in your mind?

The rulebook is wrong and the army book is wrong. The advantage of the army book is that is at least creates a common framework we can come so a consensus with which the rulebook lacks. The reality is that some of the armies are unbalanced (army of units of 1 Monotaur anybody?) but so what if you are not trying to use it in some competitive setting.

If you want to come up with your own troop type, fine, I will be happy to play you so long as I feel that there is balance there. Relationships are about compromise. Use the formulas from the Armies Book though as that is what most 3rd ed people will do. I cannot speak for earlier editions as I am only a 3rd ed noob.

Minimum unit sizes tend to be about 5 models - personally I think the 1 model units in Warhammer Armies were a mistake. Use your common sense is the best guideline I think.

If you want some validation there are plenty of people on this forum who will give you good feedback on the points balance of any particular unit. The formulas can lead to odd point values sometimes!

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Yeah, Warhammer Armies is too restrictive for my tastes too, The PVs are fudged, in favour of restricting the number of Elite troops available (it says as much in the introduction). It also doesn't allow for mixed army composition.

Personally I'd stick to 2nd Edition (pre Ravening Hordes, again, too restrictive for my tastes) and let the points system balance itself, and allow for free selection of troops.

If you don't have 2nd, I re-wrote most of the thinking behind the system on me blog (and I think arms & armour are the same across 2 and 3) the only thing to watch out for is that they over-costed Skeletons in the 3rd rulebook, for spurious reasons:

http://realmofzhu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/oldhammer-universal-points-system.html

Units are a minimum of 5 (p 43), unless a monster or a hero, which can be 1.

 

[darebear]

Sadly I do not have 2nd edition. Never seen it for sale anywhere.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Sadly I do not have 2nd edition. Never seen it for sale anywhere.

Turns up for sale on eBay UK quite regularly, maybe 1 or 2 a month, goes for £10-£30 depending on completeness and the weather.

If you want to stick to 3rd, then ignoring Armies except for any extra troop types and war machines you might want to use will give you the widest choices.

 

[darebear]

The main problem I have with the army book is the elite upgrade. Lets say you want to play a unit of Dark Elf Blackguard (say shock elite 4+) with heavy armor and halberd. Such a unit is not in the armies book. That will run you 17 points per model with WS5, S4, I7, A2. Compare that model to a Chaos Marauder (with heavy armor, shield, halberd) where at 41 points he has WS5, S3, A2, I5. The Dark Elf will probably be getting the charge, be striking first and wounding on 2s. A clearly superior model for 24 points cheaper. If you only use what is in the armies book and never deviate from the options well I guess it all balances out. However what I find appealing about 3rd is the ability to make up your own units based on what the models are actually armed with and making some better (or worse) with upgrades. With the basic rule book the dark elf model above would cost 45 points; that is a big difference between the two books. Does the point breakdown on your web site work with Chaos Warriors?

 

[Chico]

What you seem to be forgetting is it doesn't matter so much what troopers are superior and what is a ''meta'' choice, this is 3rd ed its all about story/theme. Just put your force on that table and play out the narrative and have fun doing so.

 

[bug16]

Basically, 3rd edition and earlier aren't WAAC type of games. Both the rulebook and Warhammer Armies are good starting points to build armies from. There's no right way to do it, just do what you want.

You'll also discover that your army build won't win or lose you the game, tactics on the otherhand will.

 

[darebear]

Well it has been a long time since I played and I am trying to convince newer players to give it a try. So, I was curious as to what people use since having a big variation between books is likely to put off some newer players (due to the WAAC mentality).

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Ah it's perfectly possible to have a narrative game that is balanced by points. Narrative and balance aren't mutually exclusive concepts, nor is a balanced point system indicative of a WAAC mentality, most of the much lauded narrative campaigns in 2nd (McDeath. Lichemaster) have scenarios that are balanced by points.

Darebare - I think we have to look at the situation with the troops in question in a bit more detail to get a better picture. Points calculated as per 2nd Edition.

	M	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Int	Cl	WP	PV
Dark Elf +4 Shock Elite	5	5	5	3	3	2	7	2	8	9	9	8	36

2nd: 36
3rd: 17pts
WHA: N/A

	M	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Int	Cl	WP	PV
Chaos Marauder	4	5	5	3	3	2	5	2	8	8	8	8	32

2nd: 32
3rd: 35
WHA: 35

Then looking at the Chaos Warrior seeing as you mentioned him:

	M	WS	BS	S	T	W	I	A	Ld	Int	Cl	WP	PV
Chaos Warrior	4	6	6	4	3	2	6	2	9	9	9	9	38

2E: 38
3E: 74
WHA: 74

We still need to adjust for the equipment, but as they're exactly the same, it doesn't matter for discussion purposes. The 3rd Edition "+ units PV for each advance for a maximum of +10" is broken, they're basically making very powerful troops too cheap, and slightly better troops far too expensive through the Elite advancement scheme. The rulebook explains it as Elites being "rare, costly to maintain and very valuable" wheras in fact it is overall cheapening them!

If they wanted to add an economics system, where gold pieces were paid for troops, then that is what they should have done, but that's not what the points system in Warhammer was designed to represent - which is a value of "in the field effectiveness", not a notion of cost in a fantasy economic system.

Is the Chaos Warrior really worth twice as much as the Marauder? I think not, especially if you compare him with an Ogre (38pts). Also... can you get a +4 Elite Chaos Warrior?

If you only use what is in the armies book and never deviate from the options well I guess it all balances out.

I'm sure it's possible to spend 1500pts on an under/over-powered army that doesn't balance, because the points values have been fudged so they no longer represent relative effectiveness on the table, but GWs ideas about what a fantasy race should play like (or what models they want to sell more of). Besides if you want +4 Shock Elite Dark Elves, because it fits your idea of Dark Elves, then why not?

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Looking at the entry in Warhammer Armies it seems like the points values don't make sense for the human cavalry. I can't figure out how they get 16 points for a Bretonian on a horse with light armour and a spear. 5 (man) + 3 (horse) + 4 (light) + 2 (spear) = 14 for example, not the 16 points in the book. There is 2 points I cannot account for in that and it seems that this theme carries into the other cavalry. If anyone can explain this please let us know!

IIRC you pay some extra points to use an animal as a mount (5 in 2nd), so maybe it's 2 in WHA.

 

[darebear]

So in your opinion 2nd edition is more balanced than 3rd in regards to troop and point cost? I have never played 2nd edition so I have no idea what the differences are between the two.

 

[Zhu Bajie]

Short answer is yes. Given the relative strengths and weaknesses of all the other troops, would you say the statlines and PVs in our examples look more, or less, balanced?

I'm not 100% convinced by the 2E system, I don't really see why Ballistic Skill should be cheaper than Weapon Skill, and I'm not sure that creating a exponential growth in costs beyond 2x human baseline cost is a good thing, but at least it's a rational system, which no other edition of warhammer has managed.

 

[Grumdril]

Sorry, late to the thread here (I tend to miss this board as I often don't log in to browse).

Personally I use the WA versions of costs (i.e. cheaper elites and heroes) but use the lists for flavour rather than composition. So I'll happily have an orc army with no goblins, or units taken from the rulebook that seem to fit but aren't "allowed" by the list. But I'll avoid anything that looks like gamesmanship rather than flavour, so excessive elites would be bad, but some +4 instead of +3 elites (or whatever) would be fine. Equally if an army had 2 minotaurs then that could be two units of one, but for 20 minotaurs you'd expect some grouping up (the only reason I can think of to not group them is for the psychology effect of the additional charges, i.e. a metagame reason rather than an in-game reason, so that would be out).

So as long as you're aware that WA costs elites cheaply, and you're playing with people who won't take advantage of it, then you're fine either way imo.

Re. chaos warriors, technically they're hero profiles. The non-heros are thugs, so you could have elite thugs. For marauders and warriors you need to decide up front whether they're being deployed as individual heroes or a unit. If a unit you can't later split them up (this is covered in their Bestiary entry). As Zhu said, the minimum size for a normal unit is 5 models (before casualties), but monsters or heroes can be individuals.

Re. Otto's question, the 3rd ed formula for your Brettonian is 5 (human) + 2 (light) + 1 (spear) x 2 (horse used as mount, has no attacks so no cost for the mount itself but the rider cost is doubled). It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the points values in Warhammer Armies were wrong (there's an errata in a White Dwarf somewhere the corrects most of them, plus other stuff like cavalry having their extra attack for the mount added directly to the rider and hence the wrong WS and S), however the points for the Brettonian and Empire cavalry do seem to follow the correct formula as far as I can see.

I don't think there's anything inheriently more balanced about 2nd ed than 3rd as far as points costs go. They seem to have decided that cavalry were too cheap in 2nd (or at least I assume that's the reason for the changes) but the system is so complex I can't see any way that it could be truely balanced. Therefore as long as everyone's following the same system and aren't trying to game it then you're probably fine.

Paul / Grumdril

 

[theottovonbismark]

Re. Otto's question, the 3rd ed formula for your Brettonian is 5 (human) + 2 (light) + 1 (spear) x 2 (horse used as mount, has no attacks so no cost for the mount itself but the rider cost is doubled). It's worth bearing in mind that a lot of the points values in Warhammer Armies were wrong (there's an errata in a White Dwarf somewhere the corrects most of them, plus other stuff like cavalry having their extra attack for the mount added directly to the rider and hence the wrong WS and S), however the points for the Brettonian and Empire cavalry do seem to follow the correct formula as far as I can see.

Paul / Grumdril

Thanks Paul. That makes sense.