Page 1 of 1

Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 10:20 am
by mattbird
I fielded:

overlord, gw, shield, great taurus, armor of stone, magic blunderbuss
great horn bull centaur, gw, shield, amulet of hashut, bsb
scroll caddy

10 annihilators (using new trial rules)
10 annihilators
10 annihilators
5 wolf riders, spears
8 bull centaurs, command
8 bull centaurs, command
20 sneaky gitz (using "scout")
daemoneater
4 golems
hellcannon

Steve had an artillery heavy Empire army, w/ 2 cannons and Stank, otherwise well rounded. The game ended in a major win for Empire, as his Stank did it's thing, his cannon killed my Great Taurus before I got him stuck in, the sneaky gits were demolished by flaggellants (in the 3rd combat round, Steve got very lucky), and a str10 character popped the daemoneater on it's charge.

Overall impressions:


Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:22 am
by Renufus
I'm surprised to hear you think the list is in a good place because it got annihilated by the most vanilla of vanilla armies. Do you feel you lost the game because of your mistakes as a player or because you were using a fan-made list that was intentionally kept weak? I understand and agree with your sentiment of not wanting to create another Daemons of Chaos or Vampire Counts abomination but at the same time most of us don't like to get bootstomped despite outplaying the other guy just because of poor rules... That's why I decided to shelf my Chaos Dwarfs in the first place before I got involved with this project. The aim should be somewhere around Empire/Skaven power level; middle-of-the-road, but competitive in the hands of the right person.

Anyway, as to the rest of your points... I think the new Blunderbuss rules may be a keeper, but the Golems don't need to be unbreakable. Between Ld9/10 for most troops, BSB, the unbreakable Hellcannon, and (potentially) stubborn/ITP Obs Guard it's not really adding very much and may even make the army in general too hard to punch through. I'd like to see them a bit more survivable, as most have suggested, with a 3+AS, Ld9, WS4 for their current cost would suffice. I'll try them out this way in my next game this weekend and report back.

What did you think of the scouting Gits? I tried them once and found that, like Dwarf Rangers, it just doesn't make sense from both a gameplay and background context to have a fully ranked scouting unit with no move-through-terrain rule. If you haven't already, please try them out at least once as 8pt skirmishers. You might be surprised.

One more thing I might try out is having units affected by the Earthshaker effect count as moving in their next shooting phase (war machines affected on either a 4+ like before or not at all - hard to say if this would still be balanced in the context of all the new changes so I'll give both a try). Obviously it would have to be a bit more expensive to compensate, around 120-130pts, but this is what most rare-choice war machines are running around anyway.

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 8:22 am
by mattbird
I'm surprised to hear you think the list is in a good place because it got annihilated by the most vanilla of vanilla armies. Do you feel you lost the game because of your mistakes as a player or because you were using a fan-made list that was intentionally kept weak?


well- in total context, my record is now 2 wins, 2 losses, 1 draw, so a .500 % winning record is exactly what you want to aim for with a new test list. That's all I meant.

I lost this game on account of a bad matchup (3 cannons vs. Great Taurus), some bad luck (SG vs. flaggellants), and the 3 martinis I downed right before playing. ;)

The scouting Gits I thought worked well. I know skirmish is 1000x better, but just ranked and scouting puts a different kind of pressure on the enemy.

I'm open to trying put bringing back the "no shoot" earthshaker rule.

You're probably right on the Golems being unbreakable.

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 1:01 pm
by steve
Well in my defence Matt I only fired at the Gt Taurus once, misfired more than once and the Stank didn't fire and really only dealt with one BB unit and the HC (= 300pts??)
I've been thinking about the new BB rules and as I said on the night my memory of the old rules is non existent, however the "lighting up" rule still jars and I can see it being massively useful (and seriously aggravating to your opponent) which I guess is the point, but would restricting it to one unit (Opponents unit) per turn be too much of a handicap?
Otherwise the game was fun,if a bit rushed. I would definetely like to try again when you have a more complete list (I know you left stuff behind as they were unfinished) and more time, and maybe slightly fewer Martinis though I didn't notice any vermouth inspired errors (apart from the wolf riders at the end!!)
so until next time
steve

oh and
I lost this game on account of a bad matchup (3 cannons vs. Great Taurus), some bad luck (SG vs. flaggellants), and the 3 martinis I downed right before playing.
Whereas I'd like to think that you lost this game cos I played well enough to win, cheeky bugger :lol:

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:53 pm
by Arash
Birdoff-

Isn't playing drunk basically just doing GT-level playtesting?

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:58 pm
by Ring87
3 martinis=taken it easy

How did you get a scroll caddy?

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:13 pm
by Guy In Suit
When I played him it was more aptly called a 'hexi-caddy'

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:36 pm
by mattbird
I knew the magic system would change, and assumed, for this game, that magic would have been rest to normal.

Re: Mattbird Report #5 vs. Empire

PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 4:36 pm
by mattbird
Arash wrote:Birdoff-

Isn't playing drunk basically just doing GT-level playtesting?


:D