On unit based play and 50% characters

[Ether Dude]

Boring boring boring. I think having 50% lord characters allowance dumbs down the game even further and it eliminates a lot of choices and variety. The beauty of warhammer in my opinion is the variety of lists that can be built. Say goodbye to MSU. Say hello to maxed out warmachine lists.

While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure max war machines is the only answer. Back in 6th/7th there was a "suicide elf" style of play where a player spent all of 200-300 points on characters and the rest on units. Now, I'm not sure this is completely viable any more, since damage output is so stupidly high right now (not to mention 1+ armor saves).

Is this an option any more?

I ran a WoC list today where I spent 300 points on a single character and the rest on units (10 units, 8 of which had multiple s5+ attacks). I was crushing my opponent by the end (standard ETC lizardmen). Can elves do the same or do we not have the durability to make this happen?

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi Ether,

You may be interested to know that your musings on 50% characters lists and their impact on the game is talked over by different players not only here. I talked to SmithF yesterday and thanks to your inspiration to play with absolute minimum of characters (something he is familiar with anyway) he designed an Empire force based on infantry too (thanks to some more insightful articles on warhammer-empire forum). He had:

Archlector on Altar, Witch Hunter, BSB

Horde of Halbardiers + Detachment of these
Horde of Greatswords + Detachment of 20-ish Halberdiers
2 x 5 Knights
2 x 3 Demigryphs
Cannon
Steamtank
Luminarc
Hurricanum

I can't tell how this army performed as I had no time to watch the game but it seems to have a combination of more classical force (Griffon formation it is called on Empire forum) and combined arms principle.

Empire, however, has good tools to provide some challenges in the form of hard hitting regiments or relatively cheap infantry that can soak up the damage and have enough to try and hit back.

Now, as you say, they question is if HE have tools for the job? I think Boothy had some good examples of aggressive force that has very few characters but medium sized regiments instead.

I think the way to tackle this is to first identify how other armies would change to use the new 50% allowance and then think how to deal with it. Because by increasing the number of characters they decrease the number of other choices. So it is not the situation where they only gain.

It is also worth noting that more characters does not mean better chances in certain scenarios. Many tournament organizers have them (scenarios) and it is often the case where it is a unit, not a character, that can hold the objective for example. Versions of Blood and Glory are also not character heavy friendly.

Cheers!

[Ether Dude]

Hi Swordie,

Thanks for the reply. Smith and I talked during the aforementioned game today. He told me about his list and I felt compelled to mock him on both the steam tank and lector. Real men use level 2 mages.

That aside, the significant difference between that list and things that the elves field are cannons and 1+ armor saves. The difference between 1+ and 2+ cannot be overstated, and there is a plethora of that in the empire army. The other is the steam tank, but that's a bit different as it's an insane brick if the correct tools are not brought to bear.

For high elves, we have superior individual troops, movement, fliers, and magic.

In general I think that armies are tending toward either high density, well protected, high strength attacks (star dragon, demon prince, silver helm busses, pegasus riders) concentrated into fast moving bunkers. Alternatively, there's a very heavy defensive mindset with many redirectors, magic, and war machines.

[Swordmaster of Hoeth]

Hi Ether,

I know he felt filthy about the choices he made

Yes, 1+ armor makes a huge difference. I know you don't need any more examples but my new report (to be written in a few days) will show that again!

You can look at the question you posted from at least two angles. First, how would 50% change elven armies. True, they tend to evolve into armies that are fast, well protected (do not give up points easily) and can have significant amount of attacks on small frontage. I wonder how they would change (if at all) if 50% became a norm. Many people pointed out it does not have to lead to armies with 50% in characters but simply 25%+. You know, sometimes you just can't allocate more magic items due to percentage limits. With 50% you can but don't have to go overboard and have similar armies as you have now just with all the toys you wanted to take.

If, however, these armies are going to go to town and get many (or more expensive) characters then how would they look like? You need 25% core anyway. Does that mean that you are going to spend 1800 points in 2400 army on characters? And if yes, how would that army look like?

Second, how does that affect army composition of other armies? I can imagine Undead Legion going for character heavy option as with their magic they would be able to create more troops. But again, I wonder what would people do. Triple Daemon Prince in WoC army? And would investing in more characters be the good way to counter such threats?

Cheers!

[Prince of Spires]

In general I think that armies are tending toward either high density, well protected, high strength attacks (star dragon, demon prince, silver helm busses, pegasus riders) concentrated into fast moving bunkers. Alternatively, there's a very heavy defensive mindset with many redirectors, magic, and war machines.

In a way I feel that moving towards multiple characters is also a "defensive" mindset. Characters are relatively easy to protect and don't give up points that easily. In contrast they are good at getting points. This makes them reliable and good at getting decent wins, big wins if things go your way. Which makes them good for tournament play.

For example, Curu's list a bit up on the page, where would you get points from that list? There is a GE and 2 X reavers that give up easy points. Other then that, those points are very hard to get for regular R&F models.

In contrast a unit based army will likely give up more point along the way. In a MSU army (which is the other extreme in list building), each unit by itself is relatively easy to take points from. Result is that even if you win, you're likely to lose some points along the way. Which makes it harder to win big with such a list.

Rod

[Curu Olannon]

If anything, I think msu got a boost. The armies that do msu well, i.e. DoC, DE, WE and LZ, all have the same problem: If an enemy can project too many threat arcs, their entire concept of swarming an enemy falls together. With more power focused on fewer units and more WMs being taken to counter this, they are getting just what they need: A few powerful threats to deal with that can easily be controlled, compared to multiple threats that are all strong enough to decimate them. 3 Demigryphs will destroy a unit of Skinks just as easily as a huge HE bus or a Star Dragon, these semi-soft support choices are a true pain for MSU armies but with the End Times rules, I believe these will be rarer as these, in turn, are very weak against powerful characters.

With that said Delaqure, I agree with your assessment on the viability of monsters. We only need a slight nerf, like re-introducing rules-based LoS to make it possible to hide our monsters again and preferably a reduction in artillery accuracy.

Swordmaster makes 2 excellent points, which go back to the old saying "it`s all about the meta":

I think the way to tackle this is to first identify how other armies would change to use the new 50% allowance and then think how to deal with it. Because by increasing the number of characters they decrease the number of other choices. So it is not the situation where they only gain.

It is also worth noting that more characters does not mean better chances in certain scenarios. Many tournament organizers have them (scenarios) and it is often the case where it is a unit, not a character, that can hold the objective for example. Versions of Blood and Glory are also not character heavy friendly.

While I believe lots of armies can counter the influx of characters with "standard" army composition, I believe our options become a lot less flexible. The triple-DP WoC and double SD + frostheart + bus HE builds will basically break just about any HE army that is not character centric I believe. Again though, note the above which Swordmaster wrote: If these are not viable due to how the rest of the meta develops, then it`s not that big of a deal (the same way we don`t currently write our lists to counter 500-model Skaven armies for example). Furthermore scenarios can really mess with army composition. Said HE list absolutely cannot play buildings-based scenarios for example.

Lots to consider.

[Ether Dude]

If anything, I think msu got a boost.

I strongly disagree with this statement. Your argument is predicated on the desire to avoid arcs/unfavorable combat. Well and good. You then make a leap to fewer arcs=easier control. This is inaccurate. I've played wood elves since ravening hordes, and it's always been a small unit oriented army. In every single incarnation of the army and game, the #1 thing that I struggle with is flying armored characters.

Rather than look at the total number of arcs, consider the inescapability of those arcs. With 4 tough flying monsters, many MSU armies will be hard pressed to contain them enough to get strong counter charges, and even then, those counter charges are unlikely to result in substantial damage to the large flier.

While I do agree that more threats can be difficult to manage, it's categorically different from trying to manage combat power that you can neither avoid nor kill.

While I believe lots of armies can counter the influx of characters with "standard" army composition, I believe our options become a lot less flexible. The triple-DP WoC and double SD + frostheart + bus HE builds will basically break just about any HE army that is not character centric I believe.

I am curious what you think characters are going to be able to do against such armies. This is an assertion you have made a couple of times, and I still can't quite make sense of it, as elven heroes are neither durable nor particularly dangerous when compared to vampire lords, demon princes, or chaos characters.

The only thing that comes to mind for me is trying to get milage out of an anointed and high magic, but I don't think that's quite what you meant.

I also disagree with the premise that units are not useful. For starters, you can get 15 white lions for the cost of a cav prince. Secondly, I played a game yesterday using a Boothy-style list against double dragon/glade rider wood elves.

My RBTs did 0 wounds in the 3 turns they lived. My loremaster jumped down a hole turn 1. My bsb failed 2 rerollable 1+ armor saves from the 2 shots that were allocated on him due to unit depletion. All I had were units. At the end of the game, I had killed 16 way watchers, 600 points worth of glade riders, the highborn dragon rider, and had killed the sisters and broken their dragon, netting a 200 point win (600 if the dragon had been caught).

Keep in mind this is with the nonsensical Swedish comp ruling where ASF and ASL on the same model means that ASF models get rerolls to hit.

Wood elf dragons are not star dragons, nor demon princes, but I think the game suggests that masses of models pose an interesting challenge to a meta game evolving more and more toward concentrated power, as mentioned by Curu.

[Curu Olannon]

I agree that flying armoured characters is a pain, but I don`t think the meta will evolve to seeing a significantly bigger amount of armoured, flying characters. SD with its 3+ can`t really be considered armoured as any WE arrow leaves it at 4+ or worse. WoC could be a problem, but multiple DPs can`t all armour up.

I could of course be wrong, but in my experience MSU armies struggle more with the units supporting said characters. DE MSU is based around volume of AP fire backed up by soulblight and doombolt and <insert L4 lore> which I think is excellent for these. LZ and WE msu under ET rules should revolve around poison I think, meaning only armour will be the problem.

What can characters do vs multi-dp, double-sd lists that normal lists can`t? Well see my Lifestar + SD list above: Vs WoC there is nothing the WoC player can threaten the HE army with. DPs just die vs both the bus and the SD. You can plug one down to stall the bus for a while, meanwhile the SD will run rampant. Why can`t normal HE lists do the same? Because the bus can`t kill the DP either, the S7 prince is needed. Also, Life magic helps the SD out tremendously. Vs double SD you can create no-go zones with the same list. Again, Life helps out a lot. Without these elements the double SDs can just ram home into whatever`s your strongest unit.

As for the WE game it`s impossible to comment on specifics but the forest dragon having significantly worse stats AND magical attacks is a huge difference.

By the way, I have yet to play in a comp system where you don`t get re-rolls vs ASF+ASL models. Is this commonly ruled so that you don`t get re-rolls vs these if you have ASF? Example: Helms vs Lions.

[SpellArcher]

My last tournament ruled that true ASF doesn't re-roll vs GW ASF.

There's some disagreement on it.

[Curu Olannon]

Sounds weird, seeing as ASF and ASL cancel eachother out, but as long as there`s disagreement we`ll have to accept it. It makes our cavalry and heroes weaker but Lions and SM stronger, so it`s a tradeoff that some armies benefit from and others suffer from.

[Domine Nox]

I don't feel that there is any real big change. If a unit based army find itself facing a more character centric meta then the biggest thing I see is a change in magic lore, Death becomes much more important for your Lv4 if it means he can no single handedly wipe out 50% of the opposing army in 1-2 magic phases. Characters are good, and can be powerful, but I feel there are so many ways to deal with it. I've seen enough games where somebody has their lord on a dragon or similar and a cannon, or a bolt thrower just plinks them off, and done. Investing more in those kinds of targets is a bigger gamble than a unit.

My last tournament ruled that true ASF doesn't re-roll vs GW ASF.

I would love to know the justification on that one.

[SpellArcher]

They didn't give one!

My new list has Rangers in it, so as Curu says, there are ups and downs.

[Ether Dude]

I agree with what you say about the woodelf game Curu, it's impossible to take anything from a single game. However, I fail to see how magical attacks on the forest dragons makes any difference.

In fact, your entire assessment of every match up has assumed that a demon prince will go into a world dragon unit. The only justification I can come up with is that the only alternative is a star dragon, which should be able to take the demon if both are coming in fresh with no help. For argument's sake, let's take the crutch of the world dragon out of the picture by replacing one of the demon princes with a s7 stubborn 3++ chaos lord on a disc.

I guess I still don't see how characters offer anything other than s7 on a narrow frontage which are vulnerable to killing blow, mundane attacks and magical attacks once the banner is no longer a concern.

Another way to phrase this is that the banner can only be in one place. Is there a point to having another unit in the army or is it just too vulnerable?

RE: Rerolls. Asf and asl cancel out and the model strikes at initiative order. It still has the asf rule. A model with asf does not get to reroll against another model with asf. Therefore no rerolls are given. We usually play it this way on UB and here in the states.

[Curu Olannon]

Wood Elf game: Magical attacks is a big deal in a general setting for WE vs HE as the most important HE unit will, more often than not, sport the BOTWD.

DP vs HE. Again, see my example list above: There`s a Dragon, a Frostheart and a bus with BOTWD. That`s all there is. Thus, the DP either has to engage BOTWD or he won`t engage at all. If a S7 stubborn lord with 3++ comes along he can be tanked until the SD can come help out. It`s a good example though, because this is where the SD Prince setup really shines: Though he is fragile, Star Lance and TOTS on the Prince absolutely devastates these builds.

I guess I still don't see how characters offer anything other than s7 on a narrow frontage which are vulnerable to killing blow, mundane attacks and magical attacks once the banner is no longer a concern.

Again, referring to my Lifebus list above, there is nothing for the enemy to engage except for the bus. With multiple characters, stubborn, life magic and near-immunity to magical damage, it is extremely hard for many enemies to deal with. Killing blow are less and less common I find and the Frostie + SD combo is still extremely powerful on their own - doubly so with Life backup.

Another way to phrase this is that the banner can only be in one place. Is there a point to having another unit in the army or is it just too vulnerable?

Excellent point. Under ET rules, I believe a second unit will more often be a liability than an asset. However this is all theoretical, seeing as I have 0 games with ET rules. I`m just extrapolating from my experience with non-character heavy HE vs character heavy enemies.

As for ASF-ASL-re-rolls. Take it to the rules forum if you guys want to discuss it further please

[SpellArcher]

[Ether Dude]

Excellent point. Under ET rules, I believe a second unit will more often be a liability than an asset. However this is all theoretical, seeing as I have 0 games with ET rules. I`m just extrapolating from my experience with non-character heavy HE vs character heavy enemies.

This is the core of what I was hoping we could talk about. By saying that non-BotWD units are liabilities, you're forced into putting your points in characters and frost hearts (and sky cutters because they can fly too ). Is there an alternative? CAN high elves play the unit game? What are the pros and cons?

For instance, take the bus list. It relies heavily on characters and the banner of the world dragon. Unit based high elves don't care about 4 s7 attacks. Nor are they bothered by botwd. Are you going to charge the bus into 40 WL? Not unless the dragon and frostheart were going in too. Now it's a conversation about mitigating the damage those two deal, and the bus becomes a liability, or at the very least, is pushed into a support role. So we've gone from 3 units down to 2. Is the star dragon really that invincible that you can throw him at 2400 points of the enemy and not worry about it?

Even if ET doesn't become popular, you can't deny that armies are concentrating points more and more. Case in point your cav bus. All of the reasons that you stated that it's good (s7, botwd) mean nothing to an army based on hordes of high strength mundane attacks. My line of inquiry is whether or not the reverse is a good counter. Instead of fighting concentrated combat power with concentrated combat power in the form of characters, push it to the other extreme with diffuse combat power that can't be eliminated easily. Could this work? Can high elves pull it off? What are the concerns going forward?

Cheers,
Ether