Warmaster Trial Armies Discussion

[honestmistake]

We play weekly and have used a lot of the armies from the trial lists. The Tournament ones all seem fine and Dogs of War has become something of a staple replacement for Empire while no one will even consider not using the revised High Elf list. The experimental & 'Fan'armies are outright banned from my table though as none of them seem at all balanced (Dwarven Engineers in particular is ridiculous!)

[frogbear]

The experimental & 'Fan'armies are outright banned from my table though as none of them seem at all balanced

What is your issue with the chaos dwarf list? Please be specific.

[Lex]

The experimental & 'Fan'armies are outright banned from my table though as none of them seem at all balanced.

I can see your point with the Fan armies, although specifically the oriental armies received a lot of play-test attention when they where created, but most of the experimental armies faced off against other regular or experimental armies on my table(s) before they ever saw publication and I all the obvious imbalance was taken af far as we spotted it.

The way you put it "as none of them seem at all balanced.." could be taken to imply that you writ ethem off on face value. If you DID actually play(test) them I would love to receive your points of critique, as their was a reason why they are called "experimental", and that was to get people to play(test) them and provide feedback   

[honestmistake]

Just to take a few examples of the things i found unbalanced/needless or just didn't like:

   Wood Elf Army.
Wardancers ignore armour on 6's and have an attack of 5
Waywatchers are cheaper and better than regular elven archers and ignore armour on 6's

   Young Dwarf.
A personal bugbear i think but i really think flame cannon are OPand allowing 3 per 1000 poins is madness 
Losing access to 3 of 4 troll slayer units in a typical (for us) game in return for access to dirt cheap militia and  some ninja tanks... i mean miners is a no brainer. Giving those remaining slayers some free movement is of very dubious merit IMO.
Also... why exactly do they need the addition of a terror causing maniac for so few points?
 I already consider the dwarves to be one of the most powerful army's and just don't see justification for these buffs?

   Nippon/Cathay.
One of our regulars really wants to play one of these which is reason enough to raise suspicion

   Slayer Dwarf.
We trialed these and they were bonkers... not so much OP as WTF?

   Dwarf Engineer.
Do i really need to explain what is wrong with an army that can have 6 flame cannons and 4 normal cannons?
Do I really need to explain why allowing the player to spend 130 points to give all that artillery a +1 to hit is a really bad idea?
Really, i have nothing good to say about this army... I have never played a less enjoyable game than playing against this (3 times!!!) Everything else in the book gets tainted for being close to it 

   The rest.
There isn't anything terrible about the others (that i can see) it's just debatable how much they add to the game. Grimgor's seems a typical example of adding flavour that adds nothing much to the game. A new and  awkward mechanic that just seems to be a heavy handed solution to orcs low command. I don't really think this needs solving in the 1st place? Others just seem a bit too niche so we put a motitorium on using them and rather than just pick and choose it was felt (mostly by me) that it was easier to just limit army selection to the main lists and the tournament options. I am sure we will re-appraise that at some point but not for a while.

Oh, and just to answer Frogbear... Nothing particularly wrong with the Chaos Dwarf at a glance. I am pretty sure we did play that one once or twice and i can't remember having any substantial issue with it. Not keen on giving it access to so much cheap orc and hobgoblin cannon fodder but thats more a niggle than a complaint.

[Lex]

Thanks ... helpfull!!

[Bel]

The experimental & 'Fan'armies are outright banned from my table though as none of them seem at all balanced

I would agree with some of your statements that are quite reasonable, others are extremely controversial.
Nevertheless this is a thread for Trial armies discussion and we are very glad to get a feedback.
How about some statistic data (size of your gaming group, number of warmaster games per week/month, size of armies, perhaps some photo, the results of games/points difference)?

[vincent]

Wood Elf army has too many special rules (against WM spirit IMHO), the 'place-your-own-forests'-rule is very powerful with the best shooting units in the game able to get defended in them in the middle of the table without CdT penalty.

This list allow for building extremely efficient shooting army with very good command and good flyer/cavalry. If properly played it would break most armies very easily, expect maybe HE, Chaos and Dwarf.

I've played it once and found it way too much OP. Once only, because too powerful
It requires a lot more skills to play than the High-Elf army, but it is even more powerful I believe.

Regarding magic:
Tree Singing is a nightmare regarding ease or play point of view: moving terrain without moving units is not easy at all, and moving units by error is very often a problem. Plus it looks ridiculous to move a whole forest at this scale...

Call of Hunt is simply not needed when you have such good command chain. This extra chance is not needed.

[vincent]

About other lists I've tested:

HE tournament army: much better than the official one, still both too strong and easy to play for my liking, but better nonetheless.

Bret tournament army: more balanced, more fun, this is a very good one.

[empireaddict]

Witch Hunters … embrace the lunacy.

I’ve had this army for several years now and have played somewhere between 10 and 20 games, including at tournaments, but I didn’t really keep track.  I have rarely won but the losing has been fun and the occasional victory a pleasant surprise.  Here are my impressions ...

Superficially, lots of Flagellants should be a good thing especially as you can give them warhounds as an upgrade.  However, although they give the army a good cutting edge, they get themselves killed very quickly and that costs lots of points and pushes you very quickly towards your break point.

I’ve commented on Zealots on the Rules Questions board.  They’re good for increasing your break point but – unlike other armies’ low quality infantry – they can’t be relied upon to sit at the back on defensive terrain because they charge out of it on initiative.  Also, compared to say Bretonnian peasants, they’re perhaps a bit expensive at 35 points.

The biggest problem for the army is the lack of cavalry.  Whether other WM army lists should have access to such huge volumes of heavy cavalry is a perennial problem which I won’t address here.  In a standard army (2,000 points), you only get 2 knights and 2 pistoliers.  That’s a real handicap and – perversely for a bunch of supposed fanatics – can create the necessity for the army to act defensively.

Most opponent criticisms have revolved around the Sanctuary spell.  The list does not specify a time limit on the defensive upgrade for that patch of ground or the necessity for the warrior priest to remain with the unit and so I have had opponents call ‘foul’ .  Given that they often had ridiculous amounts of heavy cavalry, it seemed a bit rich for them to complain that my poor-quality infantry might be given a fighting chance of surviving in the open!  My reading of the rule is that the warrior priest joins the unit and then that unit’s footprint is consecrated; he can then move on and do the same to other units.

The other problem with Sanctuary is that you’re usually using in on low-quality infantry that are at the front of your army and 2 times out of 3 it doesn’t work.  This means the warrior priest is stuck with that unit and in my experience the unit then gets hit by flyers and is wiped out along with the priest thus giving easy points to your opponent and halving your 'magic' capability.

In summary, I wouldn’t recommend any substantive change to the list.  It’s an Empire infantry army and, if you’re playing with it, you’re probably not doing so to win tournaments.  I’ll post up some photos of the lunacy being embraced at some point.

[jchaos79]

That is very interesting, I only play once against them and I am agree with your statements. For sanctuary spell I could not have a reliable opinion.

I am really interested in a feedback about how it works against chaos and undead. As you have played a lot could you give us your point of view against those armies?

[empireaddict]

Played a few times against Vampire Counts and same against Chaos.  The Zealots' +1 attack in first round was not a big factor.  This was because - for reasons explained above - they are not a very significant contribution to the army's overall effect.  But more importantly, it only lasts for one round!  I therefore think the rule is a fair one.  It would be a bit cheesy if it applied to the whole army but it only applies to the poorest infantry units in a mainly infantry army.

[Lex]

The Sanctuary spell currently is worded pretty ambivalent and could do with a make-over.

Also. the effect should (IMHO) be based as a radius spell centered on the priests location.
As with all spells in WM the effect dissipates after a turn. So the Priest would have to renew is in his next turn.

[empireaddict]

I agree that it may need clarifying, but I think the unlimited duration is clearly implied by the phrase ‘unless the affected unit moves, it counts as being defended’.  I don’t see a problem with that.  Araby Mirage lasts more than one turn.  However, an alternative could be a single turn radius spell of, say, 15cm?  Whatever the solution, the army needs something to give it a fighting chance!

[honestmistake]

I would agree with some of your statements that are quite reasonable, others are extremely controversial.
Nevertheless this is a thread for Trial armies discussion and we are very glad to get a feedback.
How about some statistic data (size of your gaming group, number of warmaster games per week/month, size of armies, perhaps some photo, the results of games/points difference)?

We play weekly with armies of 2000 points a side. As there are between 4 & 7 players we usually have 2 commanders in overall charge with others acting as sub commanders  for sections of the army... If we have an odd number then usually someone acts as referee for the inevitable rules discusions 
 Table used to be 2m long by 1.5m wide but i had too cut it down a little so it would fit behind the furniture when not in use. We are about to start a mini campaign/league so i will probably be able to post some detailed data at some point.

PS. I know some of my comments might be a bit contoversial and are certainly pretty harsh but i don't mean to offend anyone and do appreciate that a lot of hard work went into producing these lists. All the tournament armies we have tried have been great and i think some other lists could use a little of this treatment (Dark Elf)
At the end of the day though I do feel that harsh criticism is often more useful than damning with faint praise and hope that some constructive use can be gotten from such
.

[frogbear]

Oh, and just to answer Frogbear... Nothing particularly wrong with the Chaos Dwarf at a glance. I am pretty sure we did play that one once or twice and i can't remember having any substantial issue with it. Not keen on giving it access to so much cheap orc and hobgoblin cannon fodder but thats more a niggle than a complaint.

I never found this an issue as I find it very hard to take many of those units in favour of the other items in the list. With both those units not having a save, and the slaves having a -1 command penalty if not brigaded in a mixed brigade, I cannot really see this being abused.

I guess it really comes down to the meta game of the group that you play.