View Full Version : Warmaster vs. Warmaster Ancients unit costs

12-10-2010, 11:11
I've noticed that Warmaster and WMA have different costs for units above the standard heavy infantry (3, 3, 5+, 60 pts). In Warmaster, you have dwarves with (3, 4, 4+, 110 pts) and even Chaos Warriors with (4, 4, 4+, 150 pts.)

In Warmaster Ancients (Medieval), a unit of dismounted templars (if you discount Slow) would be (4, 4, 4+, 100 pts).

What is the more correct cost? Or does it all depend on whether they're free to take as many as you want, or limited to 1 unit per 1000 pts (essentially being there to balance the army's flaws by being a too cheap elite unit)?

I suspect the right cost would be somewhere in between: 15 pts for an attack, 15 pts for a hit, and 20 for 4+ armour without slow.
Add +10 if taking 4+ armour with either an attack or hits, or possibly +15 if taking all three, for a total of 120 or 125 pts for a (4, 4, 4+) unit.

What do you think?

12-10-2010, 11:18
Points costs are (supposedly) balanced within the army list, as well as against the armies they'll be fighting.

Ancients and WM are 2 different games, so there will be different costs...

12-10-2010, 11:51
The value of elite units is higher in Warmaster Fantasy, as well, because they get to demolish everything they fight in their own activation if they can, and you can activate them an unlimited number of times until you fail - in WMA there are more severe limitations.

However, let's assume we use Warmaster Ancients rules, as I suspect many do....what then?

Warmaster Armies are not really designed to fight any specific armies - any army can fight any army, so the comment about balancing against "the armies they'll be fighting" I don't think applies - and if you meant "all WM armies", then that's far too big a scale of different armies, many of which have core troops similar to WMA armies.

12-10-2010, 11:57
What I meant was the armies are meant to be balanced as in WM armies fighting WM armies, and WMA vs WMA. To my mind they are 2 spearate games, hence the differences in points...

Cpt. Drill
12-10-2010, 12:25
Warmaster Fantasy lists would suffer some what if moved into WMA. They dont get skirmishers and some of their units are very over costed (Compared to WMA). In turn though their fast cavelry is better and they can ignore some special rules (such as slow).

There are a few lists out there where the Warmaster Fantasy armies have been converted into WMA. Despite this we have never tried a cross over of games although I am sure my Britons would happily fight some Orcs.

12-10-2010, 21:31
Ah, now I understand what you were saying. You thought I was trying to cross Warmaster Fantasy armies to fight WMA armies.

Not at all.

I merely meant to ask about the differences in unit costs, and was intending to use WMA rules all along - but for Warmaster Fantasy battles with Fantasy vs. Fantasy army lists - but I'd revise them to work for the WMA rules.

But you have given me my answer.

19-10-2010, 02:41
Another thing you need to take into account in WMF vs WMA (which technically is WM2.0 in most ways) is that in WMF you cna have combats that just go on and on until a pursuit move doesn't happen. In WMA, you have 2 rounds of combat then if there would be a pursuit for a 3rd round, the pursuit happens then the combat happens on the next turn.

20-10-2010, 13:51
Indeed - I am aware that having the combats go on and on until one side is dead greatly favours elite armies.

I've made some progress, and converted the six basic armies. I've also added in elite units for each race. Don't think I can post modified GW files, though?

27-10-2010, 22:19
I don't think it's fair to say that WMA is WMF 2.0. The rule differences were there intentionally to reflect the different types of games they are. Rick and others have repeatedly advised against trying to use WMA to update WMF rules, as they change the flow of battle considerably away from the cinematic feel WMF is supposed to have.

Another thing to consider is the command structure and magic available in WMF, and the synergies you get from using them. (Obviously dwarves aren't a good example of the latter.)

For example, HE and Dwarves have Leadership 10 generals. Not only are your units more likely to be applied in combat more often (because you're failing fewer leadership tests), but they also move faster across the battlefield (because you can afford to give multiple orders). You're ignoring the "slow" special rule, but if you add that, the effect is even stronger!

Magic (spells and items) plays a role, too. Silver Helms versus regular shock heavy cavalry (for example, and yeah I know they don't have the cost issue compared to equivalent WMA cav-- bear with me here). With the silver helms, on that Big Cavalry Charge, you have the knights themselves, a character, a magic item (sword of destruction, for example), a monstrous mount (e.g. dragon) and Light of Battle. With the cataphracts/knights: the unit itself and a character. Something similar happens with defensive magic or items like standards, or with shooting and magical ranged attacks.

So when the game designers give a unit some very good attribute like armor, defense or attacks in WMA, you pretty much know the unit will be used as-is. In WMF, the unit's powers have more potential to interact with other game elements.