PDA

View Full Version : Battle Standard Bearer - Warhammer wide generalizations



knightime98
04-03-2012, 18:49
Battle Standard Bearer's in general..

This topic irk's me more than anyone can know. I find more inconsistencies here than with other most common rules.

Here are the issues that are not constant.
Some armies, have BSB's that can carry shields, while other armies can not (because the shield is all the sudden too heavy???).
A black orc big boss has the armed to the teeth rule - which by proxy means he has a great weapon. See where I'm going.
Only 2 armies have BsB's that have more than 2 wounds, VC and Daemons (why???). Furthermore, the T of those characters is 5 (I believe).

GW, had a prime opportunity to fix BSB for all of Warhammer with 8th edition by adding a BSB section.
It is my belief that ALL BSB's should be exactly the same profile with regards to equipment options, wounds, and toughness.
Thereby, leveling the entire playing field for ALL.

The idea that I have a BSB that can't carry a shield while another can makes one BSB inferior without any way of correcting it. In most cases, armies only have one choice of a hero slot to be a BSB. In some extreme circumstances, a BSB such as that with the Dark Elves can take a Cauldron ???...

The disparity among all BSB's is a bit much. Now, some players will say that this is fine (for which, I may infer that they may be the ones that are benefiting from the current rule set, i.e. VC with the Wight King). I find that to be a conflict of interest and not necessarily subjective.

I would like to hear from all players about this topic. Both in general and otherwise. I have lost many games whereby, the only difference in the game was the ability of the BSB proper. This is the issue for which the player has little control as the options are dictated by GW.

Your thoughts ???

BaSe
04-03-2012, 18:56
I disagree. Every army is different and has different strengths and weaknesses. Imagine an Ogre bsb with 2 wounds. The whole idea of ogres is limited amount of multiwound creatures. Without a bsb too the army could fail (due to poor leadership).
Imagine a woc bsb with poor weapon skill. They are powerful warriors but limited in numbers.
They should fit with the army which always has their own way of defending them.

yabbadabba
04-03-2012, 18:59
Equipment access should have some equality across the board, but not identical. Stats wise, no. The BSB is a hero, making him stronger or weaker than a normal hero of the army makes no sense.

Every army is different and the BSB should reflect this.

Lantern
04-03-2012, 19:01
I have to disagree with the "levelling off" you seem to b indicating. Quite simply, some armies find a BSB more useful than others, with low leadership armies possibly benefitting the most and those high leadership armies getting less oppertunities to benefit from it ( and I do understand that on those rare occasions that a cold blooded lizardman fails a test, the BSB re-roll is invaluable there - it just wont get used as much in a high leadership or cold blooded or such army). That said, those other armies that you mentioned which have bigger, stronger, faster or otherwise suprerior to your own troop standard bearers do pay the points to be able to use those characters, though I very much doubt that a 3 wound vampire or similar is as cheap as my Bretonnian BSB ( a non shield using BSB at that). Everything is relative in terms of the army they are contained within.

Gloryseeker
04-03-2012, 19:06
My vampire BSB is T5 because he's a VAMPIRE! They should reflect the army they are in. Just because a tree hugging elf BSB has T3 doesn't mean a daemon should, remember you pay for it.

Stop being jealous a black Orc big boss is a black Orc and so has the rules for such.

Maybe you want them all to be undead because wight kings are.

Urgat
04-03-2012, 19:12
So a goblin BSB should have the same profile etc as an ogre BSB? Needless to say, I don't share your opinion. And I play goblins. Dare argue I benefit in any way.
I play goblins, my BSB is more fragile than any other BSB. Well, I play goblins. So I live with it, that's the way it is. Wanting every other BSB to be brought down to my goblin BSB level is as wrong as wanting my BSB to basically get goblin lord stats to be in line with other, tougher BSB.

Lord Dan
04-03-2012, 19:15
It is my belief that ALL BSB's should be exactly the same profile with regards to equipment options, wounds, and toughness.
Thereby, leveling the entire playing field for ALL.
The game you're describing is chess. I highly recommend it.

knightime98
04-03-2012, 19:16
First of all this post is not inferring hatred towards any one army.

Second of all, I play 7 armies and from my playing experience - I have noticed these differences across many armies.

With that in mind, my intention is to find out what other players thoughts are on this matter.

It is not my intention to say that because x,y,z army has more stuff they are better or worse. It is the fact that x,y,z can take the stuff or has the ability to take the stuff that is in question. The very option to be able to take a shield is a prime example. The traits of the BSB is also in question, the stat lines which will make some armies stronger by default.

I find it disheartening that one army can be a severe disadvantage because of these issues. That is the reason for this post - to discuss those differences. Not to discuss, why I hate x,y,z army because that army may be one of those that you play. So, please - don't take the post that I have presented to be in that manner.

Overall, the book so far released in 8th edition have been balanced. I have not looked at the BSB options with those books specifically, primarily because I don't play any of those armies. I await the new Empire book and then I can see if they make that change for the shield option (as Empire is one of the seven armies, I play).

So, please be courteous and civil. Many thanks.

jack da greenskin
04-03-2012, 19:26
First of all this post is not inferring hatred towards any one army.

Second of all, I play 7 armies and from my playing experience - I have noticed these differences across many armies.

With that in mind, my intention is to find out what other players thoughts are on this matter.

It is not my intention to say that because x,y,z army has more stuff they are better or worse. It is the fact that x,y,z can take the stuff or has the ability to take the stuff that is in question. The very option to be able to take a shield is a prime example. The traits of the BSB is also in question, the stat lines which will make some armies stronger by default.

I find it disheartening that one army can be a severe disadvantage because of these issues. That is the reason for this post - to discuss those differences. Not to discuss, why I hate x,y,z army because that army may be one of those that you play. So, please - don't take the post that I have presented to be in that manner.


Assuming ALL WHFB books are balanced. (I know right, but assume that anyway)

The whole point of different armies is having different units. Hell, someone at games design seems to want every army to have some kind of monstrous infantry, monster and monstrous cavalry. Probably because the kits sell. But the whole point is some armies have certain weaknesses and strengths. Take vamps. Don't know what it's like in the new book, but in the old one, you could make your bsb ethereal. Should a goblin big boss be allowed to do that? What about an ogre. BSBs are pretty valuable to most armies IMO, but some more than others. Imagine playing skaven, ogres or orcs without a BSB. An ethereal bsb might be a pain to take down, but it doesnt really do much for the army as a whole IMO, because of crumbling, so its not that bad.

I see where you're coming from, but its not a practical, necessary, or fluffy rule.

The bearded one
04-03-2012, 19:32
I can't agree on the generalising the stats, but I can agree on giving them at least decently equal equipment options. Why can't a dwarf BSB hold a shield, while the elf BSB can hold a great weapon, for example. At least allow all of them acces to the same equipment a non-BSB version of the charcter has. Eventually this will get sorted with new books though, but they could have fixed it sooner.

Urgat
04-03-2012, 19:57
Well, imho, all BSB should have only access to hand weapons and that's it. I already have difficulties picturing one waving a sword around, so anything else... No shield, no halberd, no bow, no great weapon, nothing (well, armors aside, of course). I actually have to justify my blorc BSB being able to have a great weapon by having him actually bash people with the banner itself :p

DaemonReign
04-03-2012, 20:05
Only 2 armies have BsB's that have more than 2 wounds, VC and Daemons (why???).

Incorrect. And soo typical of this place that nobody's even reflected on it.
VC has the Wight King.
Lizardmen can have a Slann BSB (I assume the fat sob has more than 2 wounds?)
Daemons have Heralds. They are all 2 wound models.

I agree to some extent that some restrictions are silly when you compare on a book by book basis:
Either all characters should get to choose mundane equipment while carrying the flag, or none of them should.
Dwarf-bsb carrying shields is something we actually houserule in my group.

But that's as far as I agree with you I'm afraid. It's as Lord Dan says; Chess is what you're asking for really.
Or maybe ETC comp or some other shennanigans like that.

You pay the price for putting your BSB on a Slaan, or buying Gifts for you Daemonic Herald, and the Wight King certainly costs enough to 'earn' that third wound as well. Whenever you see a comp, for example, that prevents Heralds for picking Icon and Gift that right there is a flagrant sign you're reading the product of people who just have no idea.

So yeah, don't stoop to petty jealousy dude, but I certainly agree that if the elf can carry a flagpole and wield a great weapon (?!) then the dwarf should most certainly be able to do the same stunt with a sheild. :)

Lord Dan
04-03-2012, 20:11
The traits of the BSB is also in question, the stat lines which will make some armies stronger by default.
This is what I take issue with. Different armies have BSBs with different statlines both to better reflect the abilities of the race and to add variety to the game. Remember too that different armies also pay different point costs for their BSBs- a goblin with a battle standard is far cheaper than an Ogre with a battle standard, and so they shouldn't be equal in ability. Furthermore the argument that BSBs should be equal in strength should be avoided because of the absurdity of the grander implication: if BSBs are equal in points/ability, shouldn't the rest of the army choices also be equal?

At this point, as my sarcastic post above implies, we may as well play an entirely different game.

Tay051173096
04-03-2012, 20:21
Points cost and wounds aside, basic choice of weapons, armours and shields should be the same (maybe be even mounts...)

abdulaapocolyps
04-03-2012, 20:31
What a strange subject...
Of course all bsbs should have similar applicable choices,so shields etc if the hero would normally have one but even the op must feel a little sheepish about suggesting they all have the same stats at this point.
Also,bsbs offer rerolls on ld tests,you don't just win when you kill one?if my bsb dies before,say,turn 4 and the rolls are pivotal to my plans,then its my fault. Bsb is a good guy to have around but if they die you don't necessarily lose or anything?!

quietus1986
04-03-2012, 20:37
I think shiel and hand weapon is oke. Use the banner as a hand weapen arm him with a shield.

Lord Dan
04-03-2012, 20:39
Also,bsbs offer rerolls on ld tests,you don't just win when you kill one
An excellent point. I could understand this argument for a game of Warmachine (understand, not agree) where killing the caster wins you the game, but certainly not for a support character in Warhammer.

ashc
04-03-2012, 20:47
Some people forget older books have the proviso that the BSB can carry no extra equipment, whilst the newer ones can carry everything and the kitchen sink. Patience my friends, the time when your BSB remembers he can carry a shield is at hand.

RugbySkin
04-03-2012, 21:17
It's a flag on a pole. You plant it in the ground, kill the thing attacking you, sheathe your weapon and get back to your damned job. Giving me D3 Powerdice, or in the case of my vampires, wondering what the hell you do since I don't take a leadership check before crumbling due to combat res.

snyggejygge
04-03-2012, 21:18
Imo the bsb should have stats to reflect his race, would be weird if it didn't, however, they should've stayed with the old books idea that the bsb carries a banner & therefore cannot use Greatweapons, halberds etc, just an armour (magical or not) & a steed.

T10
04-03-2012, 21:48
... Crazy talk...

That's crazy talk.

I see no justification for an Goblin, Elf or Ogre character to have the same stat-line.

gdsora
04-03-2012, 21:50
My only complaint is the use of BSB for undead versus everyone else.


BSB's give a huge array of benefits to most armies but undead get a measly -1 to crumble.


I am particularly sour as TK are the only army who have a unique character who is the only one who can take be the BSB

spikedog
04-03-2012, 21:55
Just thought I would add my voice to many others saying this is a terrible idea.

The fun of Warhammer is that every race is different, what you are suggesting would be to make the game boring and where does it stop? Waaa waaa your mage is better than mine all mages should be the same, waaa your general has different abilities I call cheese!

Also just so you can discount my opinions because they don't match your own I play Skaven and VC.

theunwantedbeing
04-03-2012, 22:23
New books grant the BsB to have all the options of a regular hero of that type, what's the problem?
Old books have't been updated to fit?
Blame GW and it's inability to write proper Errata's or FAQ's with even the slightest regularity

If anything, there aren't enough variable options.
Wizards should be allowed to be the battle standard bearer as well as have lots of mundane weapon options like a normal hero has.
Why can a wizard not use a crossbow? or a bow? or a sling? or a second sword?

Different races have different statlines.
So Elves have different stats to humans and ogres and so on, having the BsB igore this makes no sense.

Lord Dan
04-03-2012, 22:28
Wizards should be allowed to be the battle standard bearer as well as have lots of mundane weapon options like a normal hero has.
Why can a wizard not use a crossbow? or a bow? or a sling? or a second sword?
To reinforce your point I believe wood elf spellsingers actually come with bows, unless I'm thinking of an old edition.

I'm not sure I agree about a wizard being the BSB, though that's mostly out of my own preconceived notion about how a wizard should look on the field. I imagine them being too busy twirling wands/sticks/staffs and chanting nonsense in some foreign language to lead charges with an oversized flag.

The bearded one
04-03-2012, 23:05
And it would confine essential roles to only a few characters. Who needs to have a fighty lord or hero anymore when you can ahve a lvl4 with the standard of discipline in his unit, and a lvl1/2 as the BSB?

Andy p
04-03-2012, 23:23
Incorrect. And soo typical of this place that nobody's even reflected on it.
VC has the Wight King.
Lizardmen can have a Slann BSB (I assume the fat sob has more than 2 wounds?)
Daemons have Heralds. They are all 2 wound models.


Dont forget the fatties, ogres get 4 wound BSB's.

Duke Ramulots
05-03-2012, 03:46
While we're leveling out all the stats I want to have chaos armour on my Prophetess and also give her a magic longbow. Sounds stupid doesn't it?

DaemonReign
05-03-2012, 05:14
Dont forget the fatties, ogres get 4 wound BSB's.
Gosh darn it you're right. I guess the Ogres just slipped my mind 'cause the mere notion of a 2-wound Ogre is just.. what?).. Hm.. A Hero-Level Gnoblar as the Army's Designated BSB?

Agreeing with what others are saying:
BSB's ought to just be HeroLevel Characters, period.
Not letting them pick Mundane Equipment doesn't make sense, especially not since it indeed seems to be a mechanic GW dropped quite a few years ago
I see no actual reason why they wouldn't be able to get Magic Items, or indeed Magic Levels too, as well. Not that it makes them 'better' necessarily (something I know from my Daemons) but variety of choice is never wrong as far as I am concerned.

Duke Ramulots
05-03-2012, 05:27
If the game is large enough and you already have a lord level general, why not be able to make a lord level bsb?

DaemonReign
05-03-2012, 06:23
If the game is large enough and you already have a lord level general, why not be able to make a lord level bsb?

Not sure it's something I'd want/recomend for Daemons... *lol*
But with lots of other races I personally wouldn't mind such a set-up at all honestly.
It's a bit 'out there' though.. Allowing them Dwarves to pick a Shield would come a long way. ;)

T10
05-03-2012, 06:43
Back in 4th and 5th edition (I was never involved with 3rd and previous editions), the BSB model was a Champion-level character. I'm not about to startcomplaining about being allowed to use a Hero-level character to carry the banner.

-T10

yabbadabba
05-03-2012, 06:55
I think the idea that Wizards or Lords should be able to be the BSB is one of the areas GW would rather leave up to us to house rule. GW does tend to think in points brackets so this might not have been an option for them.

Artinam
05-03-2012, 07:10
Personally, only the equipment restrictions for the BSB (on the oldest armies) needs to be brought in line, the rest doesn't matter.

Urgat
05-03-2012, 07:23
If anything, there aren't enough variable options.
Wizards should be allowed to be the battle standard bearer as well as have lots of mundane weapon options like a normal hero has.
Why can a wizard not use a crossbow? or a bow? or a sling? or a second sword?

Because it's a game, and the wizard fits the wizard slot. The day wizards can be BSB is the day you'll see armies with only wizards as characters. And that's why we should be glad VC BSB aren't that great, and wights offer a very interesting alternative to them to boot. Be happy they can be generals...
http://casualstrolltomordor.com/files/2011/08/mordor_thumb.gif

Arctaeus
05-03-2012, 08:19
I agree with a selection of mundane equipment for all BSBs. Nothing stopping a BSB using his standard as a Great Weapon, especially if its one of those heavy Dwarf Runic ones ;)

Harwammer
05-03-2012, 08:21
I can't agree on the generalising the stats, but I can agree on giving them at least decently equal equipment options. Why can't a dwarf BSB hold a shield, while the elf BSB can hold a great weapon, for example. At least allow all of them acces to the same equipment a non-BSB version of the charcter has. Eventually this will get sorted with new books though, but they could have fixed it sooner.

I consider the no additional equipment thing in the 6th ed and empire books a relic of the past and just house rule it away. Frankly I'm really suprised that most people don't do this.

@gdsora: My TKs have found the Ld rerolls from the BSB really useful as they are an army that can really make do with swift reforms. I haven't found them as important in my VCs but 25 points for +1CR isn't that bad a deal anyway (before considering the -1 crumble and reroll Ld).

OP: fluffwise BSBs are just mighty champions carrying the army/general's personal banner. It would be silly if all armies used the same massed production droid.

gdsora
05-03-2012, 08:25
I consider the no additional equipment thing in the 6th ed and empire books a relic of the past and just house rule it away. Frankly I'm really suprised that most people don't do this.

@gdsora: My TKs have found the Ld rerolls from the BSB really useful as they are an army that can really make do with swift reforms. I haven't found them as important in my VCs but 25 points for +1CR isn't that bad a deal anyway (before considering the -1 crumble and reroll Ld).

OP: fluffwise BSBs are just mighty champions carrying the army/general's personal banner. It would be silly if all armies used the same massed production droid.


My only problem is that i pay X amount of points for a herald and then make it a BSB

When i would rather pay X amount for a prince to become a BSB.

Like every other book (that I am aware of) does.

enyoss
05-03-2012, 09:27
I disagree in the strongest terms!

I have always loved the variation in characters across armies, including the BSB. When the 4th edition Chaos book arrived with a hero level BSB, compared to the champion level everyone else got, I thought it was a delicious quirk. The whole 'some armies have better stats than others' argument can be summed up in a phrase really: points costing. If that isn't enough, throw in considerations of army specific magic items, armour, unit protections etc..

I can see it might be irritating to not be able to take a shield on your BSB, but this is more a problem with older Army Books. A much better solution would just be an errata which removes the restriction.

For the record, I collect High Elves, Wood Elves, and Daemons, so it's not just the newer Army Book or wight lord crowd who disagree!

Gazak Blacktoof
05-03-2012, 09:37
Well, imho, all BSB should have only access to hand weapons and that's it. I already have difficulties picturing one waving a sword around, so anything else... No shield, no halberd, no bow, no great weapon, nothing (well, armors aside, of course). I actually have to justify my blorc BSB being able to have a great weapon by having him actually bash people with the banner itself :p

I take the opposite view. I disliked the BSB option in 6th edition and early 7th edition because it enforced a strict no optional weapons and no shield requirement. It made the battle standard bearer feel weak, when he should be the general's champion. I see no reason that a single exceptional hero can't simultaneously be able to carry the army's banner and not have it impede his fighting ability. Now you can model that any way you see fit, but in order to keep the battle standard viable I think a change was needed and that's what we've seen GW move toward.

Obviously under the current rules the battle standard is a crucial component of almost any army and you could hardly do without one. But I wouldn't want to see them all hidden away behind the fighting ranks because they're defensively weak and can't kick out a reasonable amount of quality attacks. Heroes of all stripes should be where the fighting is at its most cut-throat leading the army from the front.

As to Knightime98's idea that all battle standards should be created equal, I couldn't disagree more. As Urgat pointed out, it seems ridiculous for a goblin to have the same characteristics as an ogre. DaemonReign just brought up the Slann too. What do we do about them? Make them like a goblin? Where do we end the homogenisation? Should all battle standard bearers have 4 levels of magic, shield of the old ones, daemonic instability and unstable? Frankly there's no end to the silliness. Warhammer armies are too varied to give them all an identical BSB.

EDIT: Incidentally, we play with the following house rule:



The mundane equipment options for Battle Standard Bearers are identical to those of their equivalent hero type.

kyussinchains
05-03-2012, 10:36
completely disagree with the OP..... it just makes no sense at all.... the BSB upgrade costs the same and has the same effect for everyone.....

while GW's sloth-like pace of releasing armybooks means there are a variety of books with different rules spanning 3 editions of the game, I don't see how you can justify a unit standard bearer using a shield/great weapon/halberd/flail etc, but the BSB (probably chosen for his skill as a warrior) is incapable?

AlphariusOmegon20
05-03-2012, 11:13
Battle Standard Bearer's in general..

This topic irk's me more than anyone can know. I find more inconsistencies here than with other most common rules.

Here are the issues that are not constant.
Some armies, have BSB's that can carry shields, while other armies can not (because the shield is all the sudden too heavy???).
A black orc big boss has the armed to the teeth rule - which by proxy means he has a great weapon. See where I'm going.
Only 2 armies have BsB's that have more than 2 wounds, VC and Daemons (why???). Furthermore, the T of those characters is 5 (I believe).

GW, had a prime opportunity to fix BSB for all of Warhammer with 8th edition by adding a BSB section.
It is my belief that ALL BSB's should be exactly the same profile with regards to equipment options, wounds, and toughness.
Thereby, leveling the entire playing field for ALL.

The idea that I have a BSB that can't carry a shield while another can makes one BSB inferior without any way of correcting it. In most cases, armies only have one choice of a hero slot to be a BSB. In some extreme circumstances, a BSB such as that with the Dark Elves can take a Cauldron ???...

The disparity among all BSB's is a bit much. Now, some players will say that this is fine (for which, I may infer that they may be the ones that are benefiting from the current rule set, i.e. VC with the Wight King). I find that to be a conflict of interest and not necessarily subjective.

I would like to hear from all players about this topic. Both in general and otherwise. I have lost many games whereby, the only difference in the game was the ability of the BSB proper. This is the issue for which the player has little control as the options are dictated by GW.

Your thoughts ???

I disagree that they should have the same wounds and toughness. That should be based on the race specifics of the army the BSB is in.

That being said, I do see your point about shields. That should have been a no-brainer for GW to fix the ones that aren't allowed them by placing one simple sentence on the offender's FAQ. GW can not claim they can't do this as there is precedent for it ( GW upgraded the DA and BT rules in 40k to bring their equipment in line with every other Marine.)

I can not for the life of me understand why they have NOT done this already.

boli
05-03-2012, 12:09
Strongly disagree to making them all the same

Statline should represent your army staline. e.g. an Ogre BSB would be different to a Goblin BSB... as one is an ogre and the other is a Goblin!
Equipment should represent your armies equipment list; e.g. Empire can get Full Plate; High Elves Dragon Armour.

I will admit there are a few cases such as shields where it seems unusual for one army to have access and others do not; but the BSB should have access to all the equipment your normal characters have access to. If none of your character can have shields why shoudl your your BSB? Likewise there are different mount options for BSB, such as Chariots and Boars which will not be valid across armies.

As for things like two-handed swords, shields and a BSB and things like that.... I think it depends entirely on the model. There is a Skaven model for instance which i use as my BSB which holds the banner with his tail and swings a twohanded weapon.

Corvus Corone
05-03-2012, 13:50
Stats should reflect race, but I think that the BSB effect itself ought to be equally effective for each army. E.g. as a VC player, I'm find the BSB to a lot less useful than, say, my Skaven friend.

This would probably mean re-doing the effect for each force, so that it reflects the nature of that force. And yes, you might argue that vc already have an altered use BSB (reduces crumbling), but this is hardly as good as a BSB is to most other forces.

Askari
05-03-2012, 15:25
Indeed, having one of the toughest BSBs is of no consequence for a Vampire player, as we're very unlikely to gain much benefit from one anyway.

*mourns the loss of the Drakenhof*

:)

yabbadabba
05-03-2012, 15:29
Hmmmmm I think we need a response from Knighttime as the same issue keeps coming up. It might be a misconception.

knightime98
05-03-2012, 17:41
Drum roll ...... Entering on Que...

I wanted to give some time for others to discuss things. I am content with the arguments and ideas presented thus far.

In all honesty when I posted the thread, I did not think of of these army bsb's - Goblin, Ogre, Slann.. (other's may apply in other sorts, such as a skink or perhaps a gnoblar - if that is possible). In short, points cost are worked in which is another issue for which, I did not consider at the time of posting. I'd like to see some basic guidelines that will bring all BSB's back to a uniform standard - that is the point of this post.

All of these are very distinguishable from one another with very different stat lines. I will concede my preconceived notion of the same stat line across the board.
The idea behind it was sound in that all armies should not have any extra benefit over others for this part of the game. However, some armies are much more reliant on the BSB role than others. Primary example, Empire is Ld 7 base (rerolls are huge for them) as compared to VC (who doesn't care about Ld tests). What I find ironic is that the BSB for the VC is tougher, stronger, and has more wounds in an army who doesn't need him as much. This is where the issue has come to the front for me.

Also, as pointed out the Slann who can be the all in wonder needs to be redressed (imo). Giving the Standard of Discipline to your General who is then Ld 10 that can allow re-rolls on cold blooded means that army is staying put. This to me is an egregious oversight and becomes abusive in nature. I for one, have used this combo as Lizardmen are one of my armies. This to me points out the discrepancies that I'm trying to relay to community to discuss.

So, my viewpoint has changed as others have weighed in on this thread.

Askari
05-03-2012, 18:31
However, some armies are much more reliant on the BSB role than others. Primary example, Empire is Ld 7 base (rerolls are huge for them) as compared to VC (who doesn't care about Ld tests). What I find ironic is that the BSB for the VC is tougher, stronger, and has more wounds in an army who doesn't need him as much. This is where the issue has come to the front for me.

I think that's what GW are aiming for though. Morale is supposed to be a weak link in Empire, O&G and Skaven forces, which is why they need the BSB, and which is why the loss of said BSB is more devastating, having a tougher BSB would be covering this weakness, allowing them to more or less negate it. Vampires, who care not one jot for morale, have a tougher BSB, as there isn't much point in having one anyway, it means nothing whether he lives or dies. I.e. the staying power of the Battle Standard Bearer reflects the need for his benefit in the army. The stronger the Standard Bearer, the lesser the need for him in the first place.

T10
05-03-2012, 18:36
Sure. Some armies have inherent weaknesses in Leadership that means the difference between having a BSB and not having a BSB is quite significant. But surely those weaknesses are key to the character of that army, and allowing them to opt-out of it by taking a kick-ass unkillable BSB must surely be detrimental to the game.

-T10

knightime98
05-03-2012, 18:39
Point taken Askari.

Nonetheless, the BSB in 7th edition for VC with the Drakenhoff banner essentially extended a 3 wound model to 6 wounds by inference. The Drakenhoff banner (aside from a flaming attack) would in theory double his wounds. Also wounding said character at T5 is no easy task.

I'll digress from this as now the Drakenhoff banner has been removed.

Which actually brings me to another issue with the BSB. Essentially, the survivability of a BSB is more important than being able to field a magic banner.
This really ties in with some armies. Because, Empire, Skaven, HE, DE and so on have very poor T and armor - you really can not take a magic banner. Your bsb can die to 2 S3 attacks from regular core troopers. So, this is really another issue. Magic banners which are being denied because of having to take a ward save or such to live....

Lord Dan
05-03-2012, 18:47
Which actually brings me to another issue with the BSB. Essentially, the survivability of a BSB is more important than being able to field a magic banner.
This really ties in with some armies. Because, Empire, Skaven, HE, DE and so on have very poor T and armor - you really can not take a magic banner. Your bsb can die to 2 S3 attacks from regular core troopers. So, this is really another issue. Magic banners which are being denied because of having to take a ward save or such to live....
You can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately. You need to decide what is more important to your army:

1) The re-rolling of leadership tests afforded by the BSB itself, allowing you to take protection for him and sacrificing additional bonuses from a magic banner.
2) The additional bonuses afforded by a magic banner, making it impossible to take additional protection for your BSB and potentially risking both the re-rolling of Leadership tests and additional bonuses from the magic banner.

Personally I tend to keep my characters cheap, so I avoid magic banners anyway simply due to the cost.

Again, though, we start going down a dangerous road when we attempt to "balance" the game by simply making everything better. Admittedly it's not as bad as leveling statlines, but it's a step in the direction of uniformity that I think would be detrimental to the game. Think of it this way- if we gave a special points allowance for BSBs to take additional magic protection, why not do the same for your general? Or your mages? Why not give everyone a 4+ ward save?

It's a slippery slope.

yabbadabba
05-03-2012, 18:57
I think there is some over analysing going on here, any 2W BSB can die to 2 S3 attacks, the points you pay for that BSB reflects that.

Here is another view that could be considered "unfair". If my Empire BSB breaks I will automatically loose 125pts - (75pts BSB + AOMI and Dawn stone). How much do the Lizardmen lose for a similarly equipped Slann Mage Priest? Or WoC for a Warrior BSB?

ashc
05-03-2012, 19:03
This kind of feels like its turning in to 'Wight Kings are too good as BSBs'... :shifty:

stainawarjar
05-03-2012, 19:38
My only complaint is the use of BSB for undead versus everyone else.


BSB's give a huge array of benefits to most armies but undead get a measly -1 to crumble.


I am particularly sour as TK are the only army who have a unique character who is the only one who can take be the BSB

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying Tomb Kings are the only army that has a Unique/Special Character who is a BSB? In that case Orcs & Goblins has two, Gorbad and Grom.

knightime98
05-03-2012, 19:48
@Lord Dan - I agree that you have argument 1 and argument 2 listed. However, for me this is not a choice. It is not even close to being a choice. The BSB for specific to Empire must live. The re-rolls are just that important. Furthermore, the only unit in the entire Empire book that can take a magic standard is a unit of Knights. Otherwise, you have to have a BSB or you must take a general of the empire to afford one magic banner to a state troop choice.

Currently, I do not use a general of the Empire as the Arch Lector is a no-brainer with the 2 dispel dice and War Altar combo with leadership extending 18" due to the Large Target rule. In essence the Empire have been very cookie - cutter listed. I was listening to other podcaster's and their Empire list. It was nearly exactly the same right down the line. I was like, I'm not the only one playing this kind of list. Halberds, Helstrom, AL w/ War Altar, Cannon(s), etc... It was nearly the exact same type list. It becomes the inability for the BSB to actually take a magic standard because his survivability is in question.

Let's not forget since, I run mostly infantry blocks - that if you mount said BSB, he loses his look out sir roll - thus making him a target for a different reason. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition specific to Empire. I'd like to see a BSB for the Empire have the actual option to take a magic banner and the ability to perhaps survive for a 2 or 3 rounds of combat. Instead, even with protection, he is in doubt of surviving the first round of combat.

Of course, this thread isn't about Empire BSB's but all BSB's who face similar challenges with equipment and magic kit outs.

Lord Inquisitor
05-03-2012, 19:49
That being said, I do see your point about shields. That should have been a no-brainer for GW to fix the ones that aren't allowed them by placing one simple sentence on the offender's FAQ. GW can not claim they can't do this as there is precedent for it ( GW upgraded the DA and BT rules in 40k to bring their equipment in line with every other Marine.)

I can not for the life of me understand why they have NOT done this already.

The worst of this was that they DID fix some of the 6th/7th ed BSBs by removing the restrictions - but not all of the BSBs. I know Ogres (before the new book) had the restriction removed. I'm sure at least one other army had the restriction removed but I can't remember who.

Duke Ramulots
05-03-2012, 20:00
The worst of this was that they DID fix some of the 6th/7th ed BSBs by removing the restrictions - but not all of the BSBs. I know Ogres (before the new book) had the restriction removed. I'm sure at least one other army had the restriction removed but I can't remember who.

What I think is funny is that a standard in a unit of knights of the realm stil has a lance and shield, but the hero version of him that is the battle standard bearer has lost his abillity to do the same.

Lord Dan
05-03-2012, 20:04
@Lord Dan - I agree that you have argument 1 and argument 2 listed. However, for me this is not a choice. It is not even close to being a choice. The BSB for specific to Empire must live. The re-rolls are just that important. Furthermore, the only unit in the entire Empire book that can take a magic standard is a unit of Knights. Otherwise, you have to have a BSB or you must take a general of the empire to afford one magic banner to a state troop choice.

Currently, I do not use a general of the Empire as the Arch Lector is a no-brainer with the 2 dispel dice and War Altar combo with leadership extending 18" due to the Large Target rule. In essence the Empire have been very cookie - cutter listed. I was listening to other podcaster's and their Empire list. It was nearly exactly the same right down the line. I was like, I'm not the only one playing this kind of list. Halberds, Helstrom, AL w/ War Altar, Cannon(s), etc... It was nearly the exact same type list. It becomes the inability for the BSB to actually take a magic standard because his survivability is in question.

Let's not forget since, I run mostly infantry blocks - that if you mount said BSB, he loses his look out sir roll - thus making him a target for a different reason. It's a lose-lose-lose proposition specific to Empire. I'd like to see a BSB for the Empire have the actual option to take a magic banner and the ability to perhaps survive for a 2 or 3 rounds of combat. Instead, even with protection, he is in doubt of surviving the first round of combat.

Of course, this thread isn't about Empire BSB's but all BSB's who face similar challenges with equipment and magic kit outs.

To get off of the BSB argument for a second I'd like to address the point you mentioned about "no brainer" choices in army lists.

I disagree with the implication that there do not need to be units that are better than others. Not every unit can be as good as black guard, and so to balance variety, background lore, and points costs GW has provided us with army books that contain options that aren't the greatest. If you have a unit that is the best, there is by definition going to be a unit that is the worst. To further emphasize my point take an army like Warriors of Chaos. Imagine if there were only a single unit entry in the entire book, and the only variety you could get was through different weapon options on the unit. Balanced? Sure. Fun? Not remotely. On top of this you'd find cookie cutter lists emerge based around the strongest weapon option available to that unit, and the same problem would reemerge.

In short the issue isn't due to the army book options, it's because we're making the choice to only go with the strongest units. If this bores or frustrates you I'd recommend spicing it up by taking units that aren't top tier and see how your games go (I highly recommend a horde of free company if you're looking for some entertainment).

yabbadabba
05-03-2012, 20:48
In short the issue isn't due to the army book options, it's because we're making the choice to only go with the strongest units. If this bores or frustrates you I'd recommend spicing it up by taking units that aren't top tier and see how your games go (I highly recommend a horde of free company if you're looking for some entertainment). I do it backside about face - I take the strongest units then spice it up by being utterly incompetant at dice rolling :shifty:

Sheena Easton
05-03-2012, 20:57
I like restrictions on BSBs and characters in general - it means some thought has to go into them. I think they should be able to carry shields if allowed mundane armour but not much extra equipment as they are supposed to be supporting characters, not another combat monster.


Back in 4th and 5th edition (I was never involved with 3rd and previous editions), the BSB model was a Champion-level character. I'm not about to startcomplaining about being allowed to use a Hero-level character to carry the banner.

-T10

Ye Goode Olden Dayes.....

And some people (me) tended to have the Goblin BSB wondering round alone with light armour and shield waving a Banner Of Wrath that ensured they were targeted by every missile weapon, war machine, nasty killy spell and / or high flying creature by Turn 2 - after killing a couple of Knights or that Wraith Champion into a bunch of atoms in Turn 1... either that or its only Magic Item was Magic Armour (Meteoric Iron or the one with the 5+ / 4+ - Golden Crown / Black Amulet were better taken on a Wizard or Flying Monster mounted Lord)... though quite an amusing trick was to give it the +3T sword (not cheap at 150 pts) and leave it guarding the flank of my main block.

Basically if I gave my BSB a defensive magic item, its supporting role was reduced and if I gave it a Magic Banner or Weapon, it was vulnerable and had to be protected by other units / characters - which is as it should be.

Enigmatik1
05-03-2012, 21:14
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying Tomb Kings are the only army that has a Unique/Special Character who is a BSB? In that case Orcs & Goblins has two, Gorbad and Grom.

No. What he's saying is that Tomb Kings are the only army with a specific (not special...since I don't even think Nekaph can be a BSB) character who is the only option for a BSB in the Tomb Herald. I believe Bretonnia is the only other army in the game where a specific character (Paladin) is the only BSB option. The difference here is that Paladins most assuredly do not suck within the context of the Bretonnia army afaik. Tomb Heralds, however, suck horribly by comparison (they're glorified Tomb Guard champions), provide marginal benefits to the Tomb King army and don't even have access to a single worthwhile banner outside of Undying Legion, which if you've taken it is probably in your Tomb Guard unit anyway.

Oh yes...I just gotta field the Banner of the Hidden Dead. Where's my Herald BSB? :rolleyes:

H33D
05-03-2012, 22:42
BSB's should just not have any limitations in the army book. If your combat hero wants to bring a battle standard, pay the points. You can have a magic banner if you want, but no other magic items. The end.

Charistoph
06-03-2012, 01:53
Howabout a Monstrous Infantry BSB that not only has Frenzy, and gives it to any unit it's with, and it's Frenzy actually gets stronger the more it wins? Yeah, that sounds like a skittish, overgrown lizard or rat.

An interesting point about Bretons, they don't have to pay extra to make a Paladin a BSB. Probably it's because they are required to take one... and aren't Hero Dryads also not allowed to take a BSB, making the Wood Elf fighting Hero another candidate to that club that the Paladin and Herald belong?

Reviewing in my mind, I can't think of a single BSB candidate that doesn't make sense. I can think of a few candidates that should, though. With only rare exception, I can't of a single Wizard who would qualify to be eligible for BSB duty, and that's mainly due to their iconic status within the fluff, Slann being one example.

Being forbidden basic equipment, though... that's a hard one to explain a reason for. I'm glad they've changed their mind about that, even if it's stange to be carrying a huge flag, a shield, and a claymore in combat.

Oh, before I forget, the Empire has a SC that's a BSB, and so do the Lizards.

yabbadabba
06-03-2012, 07:08
And some people (me) tended to have the Goblin BSB wondering round alone with light armour and shield waving a Banner Of Wrath that ensured they were targeted by every missile weapon, war machine, nasty killy spell and / or high flying creature by Turn 2 - after killing a couple of Knights or that Wraith Champion into a bunch of atoms in Turn 1... either that or its only Magic Item was Magic Armour (Meteoric Iron or the one with the 5+ / 4+ - Golden Crown / Black Amulet were better taken on a Wizard or Flying Monster mounted Lord)... though quite an amusing trick was to give it the +3T sword (not cheap at 150 pts) and leave it guarding the flank of my main block Combined with giving a champion the Black Gem of Gnar, an opponent could spend all game running away from Goblin characters!

T10
06-03-2012, 08:01
No. What he's saying is that Tomb Kings are the only army with a specific (not special...since I don't even think Nekaph can be a BSB) character who is the only option for a BSB in the Tomb Herald. I believe Bretonnia is the only other army in the game where a specific character (Paladin) is the only BSB option. The difference here is that Paladins most assuredly do not suck within the context of the Bretonnia army afaik. Tomb Heralds, however, suck horribly by comparison (they're glorified Tomb Guard champions), provide marginal benefits to the Tomb King army and don't even have access to a single worthwhile banner outside of Undying Legion, which if you've taken it is probably in your Tomb Guard unit anyway.

Oh yes...I just gotta field the Banner of the Hidden Dead. Where's my Herald BSB? :rolleyes:

The 6th edition Tomb Kings book included an Icon Bearer character whose sole purpose was to act as the army's BSB. You couldn't take him as a non-BSB character.

The (still) 6th edition Bretonnia book requires the player to include a BSB in the army, and that BSB must be a Paladin. However, you can take other non-BSB Paladin characters in the army.

Barring Special Characters, most armies only have a single character type (a hero-level fighter jock) that can be upgraded to act as the BSB: The exceptions would be Orcs & Goblins, Lizardmen, Daemons and Vampire Counts - can't think of anyone else.

-T10

Gazak Blacktoof
06-03-2012, 08:51
The exceptions would be Orcs & Goblins, Lizardmen, Daemons and Vampire Counts - can't think of anyone else.

-T10

You forgot Dark Elves.

Corvus Corone
06-03-2012, 10:16
I reckon the undead BSB ought to upgrade the fear for the unit it's in to how it was in 7th; if you win combat and outnumber as a fear causer, they auto-break. This would give the BSB a really useful and defined role in the army, as well being a neat negative of the living BSB; the living use theirs to pass morale tests, the dead use theirs to break morale. Fluffwise, do what you want; maybe it infuses the dead with energy so they're extra horrifying, or maybe it saps the spirit of the living with evil magics, as two examples.

I'd say that's about as important/ powerful an ability as the BSB is to skaven, lizards, empire and so on.

Harwammer
06-03-2012, 10:21
I wouldn't approve of a return to autobreak mechanics.

Corvus Corone
06-03-2012, 10:29
I wouldn't approve of a return to autobreak mechanics.

Well ok then, how about enemy units within 6" of an undead BSB have to re-roll sucessful ld tests? That too seems fair.

Meh, all I'm doing is trying to make the BSB useful to the dead. It doesn't really matter, I'm into the realm of rules creation/ wishlisting, so I'll be quiet on it.

Harwammer
06-03-2012, 11:35
Well ok then, how about enemy units within 6" of an undead BSB have to re-roll sucessful ld tests? That too seems fair.

Meh, all I'm doing is trying to make the BSB useful to the dead. It doesn't really matter, I'm into the realm of rules creation/ wishlisting, so I'll be quiet on it.

That's quite an interesting suggestion; there already is a vampire power that is somewhat similar. It will make fear much better, but not make it the "win button" it was in previous editions.

Ghremdal
06-03-2012, 13:47
Sure that would make sense; make all enemies reroll passed leadership tests. If stand your ground is in effect then the two cancel each other out.

Makes sense from a fluff perspective also; the undead banner is detrimental to morale of opposing troops.

Alathir
06-03-2012, 13:59
...

:shifty:

Wait, you're telling me that there are still people who haven't just house ruled the fix to BSB's? It's obvious that its going to happen, playing otherwise seems absurd. As for the OP's other point, I hate to indulge in hyperbole but suggesting BSB hero's all have universal stats is one of the strangest things I've seen on Warseer.

Corvus Corone
06-03-2012, 14:51
...

:shifty:

Wait, you're telling me that there are still people who haven't just house ruled the fix to BSB's? It's obvious that its going to happen, playing otherwise seems absurd. As for the OP's other point, I hate to indulge in hyperbole but suggesting BSB hero's all have universal stats is one of the strangest things I've seen on Warseer.

Care to share your houserulings?

knightime98
06-03-2012, 15:12
...

:shifty:

Wait, you're telling me that there are still people who haven't just house ruled the fix to BSB's? It's obvious that its going to happen, playing otherwise seems absurd. As for the OP's other point, I hate to indulge in hyperbole but suggesting BSB hero's all have universal stats is one of the strangest things I've seen on Warseer.

I amended my line of thought as described in post #47 of this thread. Please read it.

As far as tournaments are concerned, there are no "house rulings". So, it becomes a nonentity to discuss in that scenario.

Harwammer
06-03-2012, 15:20
To be honest I think BSB equipment should be the first thing that tournaments comp. I find it a little distressing that they often don't..

gdsora
06-03-2012, 15:25
The 6th edition Tomb Kings book included an Icon Bearer character whose sole purpose was to act as the army's BSB. You couldn't take him as a non-BSB character.

The (still) 6th edition Bretonnia book requires the player to include a BSB in the army, and that BSB must be a Paladin. However, you can take other non-BSB Paladin characters in the army.

Barring Special Characters, most armies only have a single character type (a hero-level fighter jock) that can be upgraded to act as the BSB: The exceptions would be Orcs & Goblins, Lizardmen, Daemons and Vampire Counts - can't think of anyone else.

-T10


That is the thing, instead of TK being like other armies who can just upgrade whatever "(a hero-level fighter jock) " into a BSB. They have a extra character to be the BSB. If banners for undead were worth the points I probably wouldn't mind taking a Herald. But I personally would have liked to just scrap the herald OR keep the herald and allow princes to be BSB's also.


Trying to stay more on topic about BSB's discrepancy. Undead armies get way less of a benefit, of course this was something that started with 8th edition and they have had both undead armies redone without any BSB changes so I dont imagine it changing any time soon.

yabbadabba
06-03-2012, 16:01
As far as tournaments are concerned, there are no "house rulings". So, it becomes a nonentity to discuss in that scenario. Any tournament with comp are using houserules, so its still a valied point.

I would be happy for improving Undead BSBs if they too were automatically destroyed when broken. Oh, hang on .......

Lord Inquisitor
06-03-2012, 16:07
I like the idea for the undead BSB. I think it might be worth more than 25 (although I think even regular BSBs are worth more than 25!) because it's an offensive rather than defensive ability (regular BSBs are amazing but they're chiefly useful when you're getting beaten up). A putative undead BSB that affected enemy troops would be a vicious offensive ability.

I do think particularly the VC book this edition really missed the opportunity to make some interesting changes to the undead.

Enigmatik1
06-03-2012, 17:09
That is the thing, instead of TK being like other armies who can just upgrade whatever "(a hero-level fighter jock) " into a BSB. They have a extra character to be the BSB. If banners for undead were worth the points I probably wouldn't mind taking a Herald. But I personally would have liked to just scrap the herald OR keep the herald and allow princes to be BSB's also.


Trying to stay more on topic about BSB's discrepancy. Undead armies get way less of a benefit, of course this was something that started with 8th edition and they have had both undead armies redone without any BSB changes so I dont imagine it changing any time soon.

Surprisingly, I don't have much of a problem with Tomb Heralds as Sworn Bodyguard can and does have it's uses (ex. you're running a Bloodshed or Destroyer King). The kicker here is that you probably don't want your Bodyguard Herald as your BSB. -1 to Unstable losses and re-rolling LD tests just usually isn't worth it and we all know that outside of extremely specific situations (like Undying Legion with Chariots or Ushabti...there are no worthwhile banners for our BSB to take). There are several feasible ways that I can see to correct this (but hell no to bringing back fear/autobreak), and I like the idea proposed regarding forcing re-rolls of successful LD tests although that would be redundant or possibly even overkill in conjunction with the Golden Death Mask of Kharnut for TK.

As for destroying Undead BSBs when broken, Unstable will probably do the job for you soon enough. ;)