Empire 8th Army Book in Comparison to other 8th Edition Army Books

[wascloud]

I've only played a couple of games with the new book so far. First game, I was still trying to play like I did in 7th, and got rolled by my mates skaven. Second game, I had had a couple of weeks to hammer lists down, and did very well against a pretty decent ogre opponent. Some bad luck on his part, but my defensive line was very strong with a war alter and hurricanum, and 3 demigryph killed 6 lead belchers and a stonehorn on their own!

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I don't think the situation is that extreme with Empire troops, instead without buffs they go from modest troops, point for point, and with buffs they go to strong performers. ...

If we assume that a warrior priest and captain are needed for every decent block, then you've got a 100+ overhead for each unit.

A Captain doesn't make them strong performers, just better losers. I don't think Captains other than the BSB or Captasus have a place. Even if we only assume those two combat blocks we were speaking of a WP and Captain are 140+ points on top of the unit. That's too much in my eyes for two characters with different roles, not in comparison to an old book but from the perspective of list-making. Throwing more weakly armoured characters in there for target saturation is just throwing easy points at the enemy. That's rather a target rich environment but this is more a discussion for the Tactica really.

[Bigman]

A Captain doesn't make them strong performers, just better losers. I don't think Captains other than the BSB or Captasus have a place. Even if we only assume those two combat blocks we were speaking of a WP and Captain are 140+ points on top of the unit. That's too much in my eyes for two characters with different roles, not in comparison to an old book but from the perspective of list-making. Throwing more weakly armoured characters in there for target saturation is just throwing easy points at the enemy. That's rather a target rich environment but this is more a discussion for the Tactica really.

+1

Can't see an environment where I would ever take a naked captain in a block. Not even in knights.

[GodlessM]

Agreed; a properly tooled Priest is enough.

[Glen_Savet]

Agreed; a properly tooled Priest is enough.

Indeed, the priest is there to make the block win. The captain, to help them not lose.

As a tangent, I keep seeing people say that the captain makes them cold blooded. That isn't strictly true; they take break tests on 3d6, not everything.

[Lord Inquisitor]

I find a defensive captain is a must for any unit that may potentially be used as an anvil. Now I get one free captain with my BSB and he's going to be tooled for defence but a stubborn crown captain in a halberdiers horde makes a great tarpit with quite some grind.

There's certainly a school of thought that items or characters that stop you breaking are points that are better spent trying to win combat, but these rules are invaluable when the chips are down.

[Wesser]

Stubborn crown captain is 100+ points for an easily taken out guy.

I just wonder where people get points for actually taking troops....

[Lord Inquisitor]

I confess I do have a bit of an issue with keeping points back for troops but with a suitably big hammer it can be worthwhile investment of points.

[Jericho]

That's always a challenge in Empire, you want the force multiplier characters but you run out of force to multiply if you spend all the points on heroes/lords/magic wagons.

One alternative that I've thrown around before is using lore of Beasts if you feel you must spam characters. If you get either of the area of effect augment spells off, it will make your characters within range into goons. Failing that, Wildform will give the characters +1S and +1T, which is more than welcome.

[Jezbot]

A Captain doesn't make them strong performers, just better losers.

I've seen you write in the army list section that Ld 9 is great and well worth the increase in points (for an arch lector). Well, Ld 9 is just about being better losers... except of course you gave the advice to pay the extra for Ld 9, because you'd know that every army, and especially Empire, will make leadership checks even when things are generally going quite well across the battlefield. Our state troops win not by winning every combat round, but by grinding the enemy down, staying in combat and winning the war of attrition.

HtL, like Ld 9, is about ensuring your troops stay in the combat while they ground down the enemy.

I don't think Captains other than the BSB or Captasus have a place. Even if we only assume those two combat blocks we were speaking of a WP and Captain are 140+ points on top of the unit. That's too much in my eyes for two characters with different roles, not in comparison to an old book but from the perspective of list-making.

Except they don't have two roles, merely different rules that serve the same ultimate goal - stay in combat and win the war of attrition. The Warrior Priest does this with hatred and with buffs to improve survivability and score more wounds on the enemy, while the captain greatly improves the chance of the unit staying in the combat.

Throwing more weakly armoured characters in there for target saturation is just throwing easy points at the enemy.

You misread my comment. You aren't throwing them in there for the sake of target saturation, you're taking them for the various buffs they offer, and in doing so happen to have gained target saturation. The only character that one might target purely for target saturation is the unit champ.

[Lord Solar Plexus]

I'm not going to put a wizard anywhere near combat if I can help it. I'm also of the opinion that it is often better to a) keep the hero section lean and b) spread them out to cover not just one unit (and its detachments). There's also a limit as to how many characters one can properly armour. I can see that most people don't even have a second unit at 2,500 points, which I find extremely problematic against both old and new books but that's their prerogative.

True, the General and BSB are there in case something goes awry, and things have a tendency to do just that. I just happen to think that these two are sufficient insurance. Hold the line came somewhat out of left field to borrow that phrase. It does serve a different role insofar that it is defensive and comes into play if the unit loses, hatred however is offensive and helps you win. Of course you are right that having both make the unit better, it's just a question of balancing the strengthening one unit with the weakening of other parts of the list or table.

[Yowzo]

Can't see an environment where I would ever take a naked captain in a block. Not even in knights.

Detachments.

Even a small detachment down to the last man can be testing on cold-blooded, steadfast 8 thanks to a naked captain on the parent unit.

[Jezbot]

I'm also of the opinion that it is often better to a) keep the hero section lean and b) spread them out to cover not just one unit (and its detachments). There's also a limit as to how many characters one can properly armour. I can see that most people don't even have a second unit at 2,500 points, which I find extremely problematic against both old and new books but that's their prerogative.

I agree that there's a limit to the number of characters one can properly armour. However, with two main infantry blocks you're looking at four characters on foot, and that's well and truly within the limit.

True, the General and BSB are there in case something goes awry, and things have a tendency to do just that. I just happen to think that these two are sufficient insurance. Hold the line came somewhat out of left field to borrow that phrase. It does serve a different role insofar that it is defensive and comes into play if the unit loses, hatred however is offensive and helps you win. Of course you are right that having both make the unit better, it's just a question of balancing the strengthening one unit with the weakening of other parts of the list or table.

Now here I absolutely agree with you, it is absolutely about balance, and deciding if the improvement in defence is worth what it costs you elsewhere in the list. With the new book, in the games I've run so far from 2,000 to 3,000 points, I've found pretty quickly that what works best for me is two main infantry blocks of about 50 men a piece. With that build the insurance of HtL has been invaluable. Against most decent combat troops, even with much cheaper units, I expect to lose combat rounds far more often than I win, but expect that they'll run out of bodies before I will.

Note that at times, and especially at lower points values, those two captains have been the General and the BSB.

I think the point is that this is what I've found working for my preferred build, it isn't mandatory, or the optimum build for all army lists.

[FLUEVOG]

Would you guys recommend putting the Crown of Command on the BSB or keep gearing him up with a ward save?

[Lord Solar Plexus]

Detachments.

Even a small detachment down to the last man can be testing on cold-blooded, steadfast 8 thanks to a naked captain on the parent unit.

Well, first of all you do not know whether a unit has more ranks. Secondly, we don't know for certain how SF & detachments work. Thirdly, some rules gurus have raised a pretty cogent point about HtL not transferring to detachments unless they too have a character. Lastly, it can be a major PITA to keep the surviving guy within 3" of its parent.

I agree that there's a limit to the number of characters one can properly armour. However, with two main infantry blocks you're looking at four characters on foot, and that's well and truly within the limit.

Quite so, and I do see your point.

[Yowzo]

Well, first of all you do not know whether a unit has more ranks. Secondly, we don't know for certain how SF & detachments work. Thirdly, some rules gurus have raised a pretty cogent point about HtL not transferring to detachments unless they too have a character. Lastly, it can be a major PITA to keep the surviving guy within 3" of its parent.

99% of the people plays it like "use the parent unit number of ranks instead of the detachment for purposes of steadfast". This might be a contested topic on the internet but there's a huge consensus here around the topic and I'd be very surprised if the FAQ goes any other way than that.

A captain on the parent unit has stopped scary units from hitting the flank on my main blocks, and set them up for a flank charge of my own. People see an easy overrun and go all for it.

[GodlessM]

99% of the people plays it like "use the parent unit number of ranks instead of the detachment for purposes of steadfast". This might be a contested topic on the internet but there's a huge consensus here around the topic and I'd be very surprised if the FAQ goes any other way than that.

Even though that is how I would play it, you still canot speak certainly about 99% of anything. How do you know that many people play it that way?

[Bigman]

Indeed, the priest is there to make the block win. The captain, to help them not lose.

As a tangent, I keep seeing people say that the captain makes them cold blooded. That isn't strictly true; they take break tests on 3d6, not everything.

In this instance the WP is the more offensive choice.

My usual set up for characters at 2400 is

Wizard lord shadow-life 6+ ward arcane item.

Bsb FP ench shield 5+ ward

WP foot shield

Engineer (hellblaster - always taken)

then my general ends up being:

AL war altar with defensive gear

Or

AL on foot defensive gear

If I take the second I spend the points elsewhere (hurricanum etc)

This is all I take, and it's fine as I run two blocks. I get plenty of coverage.

I dont feel you need hold the line as one block is 40 models the other is stubborn.

[Bigman]

If you take light to get asf or I 10 then your guys will hit before they have a time to allocate any attacks to WP.

[The bearded one]

If you take light to get asf or I 10 then your guys will hit before they have a time to allocate any attacks to WP.

If you manage to wipe out the enemy maybe, but otherwise the survivors will simply strike back.