PDA

View Full Version : The Worst Underdog Warband



Etienne de Beaugard
31-05-2007, 18:20
While endless bandwidth has (and likely will continue to be) spent on the debate over the most powerful warband, I would like to address the opposite question:

Which warband is a most underpowered? Which is the ultimate underdog?

My vote, Middenheimer Mercenaries.

The sheer mediocrity of the wolf-lovers puts them at a disadvantage compared to most of their opponents. Their average speed means they are more oft than not recieving the charge. Their average weapon skill and number of attacks means they are at best on even terms in a fight.

The poor Middenheimer's only advantage, strength, only comes in to play if you actually hit. The best way to enhance strength, the great weapon, forces the Middenheimer to go last, further reducing the chance of actually getting a hit.

In a world full of zippy Skaven, crossbow wielding orcs, toughened beastmen, all other sorts, the Middenheimers are a hurting pack.

scarletsquig
01-06-2007, 00:24
I'd go for witch hunters or sisters.

There's only a few cheesy variant lists that are really effective with sisters, and witch hunters really suffer with that 12-model limit.

elvenmagi69
09-06-2007, 06:54
Definitly witch hunters!
altho they do have flagelants
hmmm time to ponder

Mad Doc Grotsnik
11-06-2007, 11:50
I think your right about Middenheim.

Reikland get superior shooting, so less of the enemy make it to give you a kicking, and Marienburg gets more ablative spods and better equipment to start with.

BLloyd607502
11-06-2007, 14:13
I think Mareiburg.
Once the inital boost of money is gone then they have no advantages and everyone can get the same equipment as them.

carik
11-06-2007, 20:38
I'd say either Middenheimers or Marienburgers... For Middenheim, only three of their heroes gain any advantage, and it's fairly minimal.

For Marienburg, BLloyd got it right... their money advantage helps in the first game, and that's pretty much it. (Though it could be argued, I suppose, that the extra money would let them start with more rare items, letting them do better for several games...)

Catferret
12-06-2007, 03:40
Remember that Marienburgers also get a +2 to finding rare items. Save some starting money and buy loadsa useful Rare stuff after the first game.

carik
12-06-2007, 14:48
This is true... I'm not convinced it makes enough of a difference, though: given their lack of other bonuses, saving money from the start might cost you a lot of your henchmen. The rare item bonus WILL help you end up with a nicely equipped warband, though...

Fastforward rlz
16-06-2007, 07:25
Although I havent played eigther warband I'd have to say you're probably right about Middenheimers and Marienburgers being the underdogs. I think Dwarfs have a hard time to but only because of user error. Most dwarf players splurge on expensive things where really the way to win with them is to have lots of hard to kill beardlings

anarchistica
26-06-2007, 00:29
Marienburgers or Witch Hunters. Marienburgers get a minor advantage that will be irrelevant after a handful of games. Witch Hunters can only take 12 members and their Priest is inferior to some others.

I don't get why people think Middenheimers are the weakest link. I completely dominated the last campaign i player with them. The combination of free +1S, the Wolf Companion and, best of all, the spell (Wolf's Hunger) that can make one member Frenzied every turn for the rest of the battle...

Seriously, a Champion with great weapon and strike to injure (Frenzied by the spell) cuts through everything, even Dwarves, like a knife through butter.

TKitch
26-06-2007, 19:55
Sisters are REALLY not the underdogs. Nor will they ever be under the current rules. They flippin rock.


Witch Hunters or Middies are the ones.


Middies are underpowered when you don't use the unofficial preist who freaking rocks.

Darktheos
23-07-2007, 22:17
Marienburgers aren't that bad you just spend the extra money on guys. My friend plays them most of the time and spend the money on guys and bows so he does good. Generally winning more games than losing. He generally tops our League.

carik
24-07-2007, 13:33
OK, having played a few games with the Marienburgers, I'm forced to agree... I went the quality-over-quantity route (12 member warband, lots of gear), and they did pretty well. Having that extra equipment from the beginning made a big difference...

Firebird4Life
06-10-2007, 06:21
I vote Witch Hunters. When you've got less guys to throw at the enemy, it makes it harder to win no matter what. Plus, you've got that Rout/Leadership test to pass when you lose 25% of your guys. And for Witch Hunters, that means 3, whereas with the other factions who cap at 15, it means killing that extra 4th guy. And with all the "Knockdowns" and "Stuns" I keep seeing rolled, that 4th guy could make all the difference...

Etienne de Beaugard
06-10-2007, 16:22
I don't get why people think Middenheimers are the weakest link. I completely dominated the last campaign i player with them. The combination of free +1S, the Wolf Companion and, best of all, the spell (Wolf's Hunger) that can make one member Frenzied every turn for the rest of the battle...

The Wolf Priest and his puppy definitely make Middenheimers a competitive warband, but the priest remains an 'unofficial' part of the warband. Depending on your playing group, you may or may not have access to the priest.

BigRob
06-10-2007, 16:47
Official Warband wise, its middenhiem and Witch Hunters, with Middenhiem probably edging in there.

Witch Hunters suffer badly from the 12 models only thing. They rely entirely on thier heroes for missile fire and while the flagellents are good they cost lots, as for the doggies, they are fantastic but dont gain XP and are easy to shoot down. Zealots....I dont see why you would ever ever take them.

Poor Poor Middenhiemers gain +1S for the leader and champions. Strength can be easily gained using other weapons, my marienburg gang heroes all had pistols anyway, so are S4 in combat. (The 1st rounds normally all you need). Rieklanders dominate the shooting and the LD thing is handy. Marienburg have the initial splash and the rare trade bonus is excellent in campaigns. My Marienburgs usualy start at full strength with plenty of kit and so can hold off the weaker warbands.

You do get the priest...but he is not offical and if you use him then be aware I will be starting with my unofficial tilean marksman and/or assassin, both of whom eat priests and doggies for breakfast. I have only faced him once in a campaign and considered him vastly over powered (although the guy using him is a notorious rule bender and remembers or forgots rules as required for him to win so maybe hes not that bad)

gorgon
09-10-2007, 19:11
Actually, I'm a firm believer that the rulebook warbands are more balanced than people give them credit. Witch Hunters are probably the weakest, but I've had some very good runs with them. You need to play smart (most don't), but they're quite capable. While Middenheimers might be the weakest of the Merc warbands, all Merc warbands are inherently solid. If WHs and Middenheimers are the worst of the bunch, then what we have is a pretty decently balanced game.

Ethlorien
09-10-2007, 22:58
Witch Hunters for my vote. That 12 model max is a big set-back for them, I think.

Ethlorien

Count Sinister
10-10-2007, 13:45
I agree that Witch-Hunters really suffer because of the 12 model maximum. You don't notice it so much in the first game or two, but after that, you start relying too heavily on your heroes, and - almost invariably - they start to die. I've lost track of how many witch-hunter captains of mine have died. Zealots, as somebody has mentioned, just don't seem worth it, which means that you've got two henchmen types to choose from. Flagellants are hard as nails, but pricey, while Warhounds are cheap, but can't gain experience. Again, Warhounds rock in the early parts of a campaign, but after that, they tend to be picked off by missile fire very early on in a game.
On the flip side, Sisters of Sigmar seem to me to be ridiculously overpowered, particularly since the rules for the steel whip changed.

StefDa
10-10-2007, 20:14
Again, Warhounds rock in the early parts of a campaign, but after that, they tend to be picked off by missile fire very early on in a game.

Well, perfect! That's what I buy Nurglings (Carnival) and Warhounds (Beastmen) for. Cheap screens. And if they die, then hey, they aren't valuable, since they don't get experience.

gorgon
11-10-2007, 17:59
I agree that Witch-Hunters really suffer because of the 12 model maximum. You don't notice it so much in the first game or two, but after that, you start relying too heavily on your heroes, and - almost invariably - they start to die.

That's why you have to go shooty with WH heroes and keep them out of the fray as much as possible. The number one mistake players make with WHs is trying to get the heroes stuck in CC. WH heroes are there to 1) shoot stuff, 2) search for wyrdstone, and 3) help out in CC only if absolutely necessary (routing is preferable).


Again, Warhounds rock in the early parts of a campaign, but after that, they tend to be picked off by missile fire very early on in a game.

Part of running WHs well is properly phasing in Flagellants to replace some of your Warhounds. Flagellants are really expensive, but if you get your GC machine running well (and with Academic skills you really can) it's not as much of an issue.

WHs are slow starters, but once they get rolling they can really surprise people. I agree that they are the hardest warband to play, though.


On the flip side, Sisters of Sigmar seem to me to be ridiculously overpowered, particularly since the rules for the steel whip changed.
Honestly, I thought the whips were worse before. What works best for me vs. Sisters is to outrange them with shooting.

Getz
13-10-2007, 11:53
I have to agree that WH are tough early in a campaign, but they can shape up pretty quickly. I think the critical point for me was rolling up two wounds for my Flagellants, which made them bloody hard to take down. I also lashed out on a Halfling Cookbook and hired a Halfling scout to push the warband size up a bit, not to mention getting good use out of an Elf Ranger who showed up one night announcing that she owed me a favour...

The only use for Zealots, in my opinion, is get you that early sixth Hero. I find Zealots to make a better base for a Hero than Flagellants because they aren't so restricted on the kinds of equipment they can take.

I would agree that Marienburgers are pretty weak after the first few games. It only takes the loss of one well equipped character to wipe out their starting advantage, and thereafter they're really just a Human Warband with no special rules...

Inquisitor Konig
14-11-2007, 04:08
Witch Hunters and Merc. warbands get more Hired Swords than any other warband. I think that is how they get "balanced" compared to other warbands.

Sisters are not over powered at all, although they get two crazy weapons, they are still humans... Possessed are the most over powered in the game! They can start with what, 5* T4 W2 models!?! Gosh I hate them... my sisters dont have a chance.

BigRob
14-11-2007, 09:06
Yeah, possessed start with 2 wounds, but a wall of crossbows from my Marienburg boys will still put them down. You should see how quickly things like Ogres, beastmen and vampires can fall.

Possessed are candidates for the underdog due to initial start up costs. Heroes are very expensive, especially if you want the good mutations, You have no real shooting power and your spells are frankly pants.

Each warband is stronger than one, but weaker than another at various stages. It depends how you play. Marienburg Warbands dont always have lots of money tied up in one guy. I use my extra money to fill up on bodies, pop in a couple of hired swords and occassionaly get helmets/duelling pistols for the heroes.

thunderwolf
14-11-2007, 19:25
I never quite got why the Witch Hunters were restricted to 12 men- I would've thought they'd have been more of a lynch mob feel- lots of rubbish peasants with pitchforks who've been stirred up by the rabble-rousing orations of the witchfinders and priests.

Inquisitor Konig
14-11-2007, 20:32
Besides Elf Warbands I dont think shooting is that big of an advantage early on. This is City Fight by the way... lots of cover to skirt around if the enemy has to stand still to shoot crossbows...

Ethlorien
15-11-2007, 17:58
What about Orc Mobz? While my vote goes to Witch-hunters 9as I posted earlier), I was wondering how folks fared with the greenskins. I ask this only because I played a few games with them once and lost each one (yes, it could easily be down to me being a terrible player), but also, I've played a few games against friends who had Orc Mobz warbands and I've never lost to one (not trying to boast, just stating a fact).

Now, to be fair, these warbands, both the one I played shortly as well as the ones I have played against either had few or no goblins at all. Perhaps they're the key?

Basically, is it just my experiences with them? Who out there does well with them? Looking at these blokes on paper (that T4 staring you in the face) I wouldn't think they would do as poorly as they have performed in my basement.

Etienne de Beaugard
16-11-2007, 11:13
The Orcs in my campaign were tough as nails. The player maxed up on shooting with a couple of his characters. Trying to take down a T4 crossbow sniper is tough.

Then again, we that player seemed to get a lot of Toughness boosts and shooting skills, more than averages suggested he should.