Warmaster Beastmen

[Ithoriel]

That's why we switched to Impetus Fantasy - any cavalry could mass so many dice they'd just blast trough an opposing army on a couple of rolls, job done, game over

Warmaster cavalry heavy armies, mine included, died regularly when there was a decent amount of terrain around.

However, armoured cavalry should  be devastating in Fantasy games because that's how the source material treats them.

I have no idea why people insist on turning Fantasy into "medieval with monsters."

In fantasy, at least the stuff I've read, the following are true:

- Cavalry are queen of the battlefield

- nobody out-shoots elves

- there are no such things as skirmishers ... to be fair, I'm not sure many medieval armies understood skirmishers either

- peasants are cut down like chaff ... unless the hero is a peasant, in which case peasants have the combat skills of ninja and engineering skills that put The Corps of Royal Engineers to shame!

- a pointy stick is a pointy stick - a four foot javelin,  a six foot spear or an eighteen foot pike all work the same

- magic is destructive but tricksy

- dragons are not invulnerable ... but you do well to remember that you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

Warmaster gives me that in a way other rules have not ... so far.

[getagrip]

Warmaster cavalry heavy armies, mine included, died regularly when there was a decent amount of terrain around.

However, armoured cavalry should  be devastating in Fantasy games because that's how the source material treats them.

I have no idea why people insist on turning Fantasy into "medieval with monsters."

In fantasy, at least the stuff I've read, the following are true:

- Cavalry are queen of the battlefield

- nobody out-shoots elves

- there are no such things as skirmishers ... to be fair, I'm not sure many medieval armies understood skirmishers either

- peasants are cut down like chaff ... unless the hero is a peasant, in which case peasants have the combat skills of ninja and engineering skills that put The Corps of Royal Engineers to shame!

- a pointy stick is a pointy stick - a four foot javelin,  a six foot spear or an eighteen foot pike all work the same

- magic is destructive but tricksy

- dragons are not invulnerable ... but you do well to remember that you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

Warmaster gives me that in a way other rules have not ... so far.

Agree with all of this.  In point of fact, your comment some time ago (in my previous incarnation) about a human having 3/3 stats has stayed with me.  Nutter units aside (flagellants et al) they should be 3/3 and cavalry should smash everything in the open.

However, if you insist on playing warmaster with very little terrain you are going to have a very dull game.

[toxicpixie]

We found scaling up the armies just meant more cavalry to overrun the more infantry

It's not so much that super heavy shock cavalry are dangerously Good, more that *all* cavalry are effectively super heavy shock cavalry. I enjoy the rules (and still have an army based for it just in case), but as a group we weren't very impressed. I gather Warmaster Ancients deals better with that but then we'd have to add the fantasy back in

Terrain - we don't play on a billiard table, but you can't hide forever unless you're the Viet Cong

[getagrip]

Terrain - we don't play on a billiard table, but you can't hide forever unless you're the Viet Cong

We use two or three village areas and I suppose these act a bit like infantry squares.  We've also adapted some rules to make the game slicker.  I know people argue this but I really think the game comes into it's own at 2000 points plus.  I don't know why but cavalry seem less effective when you mass the infantry up: they seem to tun out of steam.

[jchaos79]

Warmaster cavalry heavy armies, mine included, died regularly when there was a decent amount of terrain around.

However, armoured cavalry should  be devastating in Fantasy games because that's how the source material treats them.

I have no idea why people insist on turning Fantasy into "medieval with monsters."

In fantasy, at least the stuff I've read, the following are true:

- Cavalry are queen of the battlefield

- nobody out-shoots elves

- there are no such things as skirmishers ... to be fair, I'm not sure many medieval armies understood skirmishers either

- peasants are cut down like chaff ... unless the hero is a peasant, in which case peasants have the combat skills of ninja and engineering skills that put The Corps of Royal Engineers to shame!

- a pointy stick is a pointy stick - a four foot javelin,  a six foot spear or an eighteen foot pike all work the same

- magic is destructive but tricksy

- dragons are not invulnerable ... but you do well to remember that you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup

Warmaster gives me that in a way other rules have not ... so far.

Hat off for that disertation. 

[jchaos79]

In my humble opinion the thing has a lot to do with the way people made the armylist, not with the rule engine. If someone only think the points and how to maximieze efectiveness "is it worth? is it worth? for 5 points is not worth... do not make the list you would like to enjoy because taking another unit of heavy cavalry make you winner", yes then all the games you play are the same. But when people use the armylist to build armies beyond the "best option in points", armies that are a mirror of an idea or have a mood then the games are very diffirenent each others.

Sorry I am feeling that I could not explain myself properly... hope you get the idea of what I am trying to say.

[getagrip]

In my humble opinion the thing has a lot to do with the way people made the armylist, not with the rule engine. If someone only think the points and how to maximieze efectiveness "is it worth? is it worth? for 5 points is not worth... do not make the list you would like to enjoy because taking another unit of heavy cavalry make you winner", yes then all the games you play are the same. But when people use the armylist to build armies beyond the "best option in points", armies that are a mirror of an idea or have a mood then the games are very diffirenent each others.

Sorry I am feeling that I could not explain myself properly... hope you get the idea of what I am trying to say.

Totally: don't use the rules to create a "destroy anything army" but instead build an army to a romantic ideal.

Couldn't agree mmore.  I suppose that's the problem with fantasy; there isn't a historical precedent to follow 

[toxicpixie]

The problem is not "too much heavy cavalry", but more "all cavalry is disproportionately effective".  Illyrian Reavers (the elf bow armed riders, think spell check is mangling that for me!) are a good case in point - narrow bases, shooting, high move. Massive dice on a tiny frontage means they're brilliant Combine with high CV and they're astonishingly effective.

It's an odd conversation, I was the one in the group defending the rules and the cavalry bias. Here it looks like I'm fighting it

The question isn't "is cavalry disproportionately effective" so much as Ithorial touches on - "it is, and are you happy with that?".

[jchaos79]

The question isn't "is cavalry disproportionately effective" so much as Ithorial touches on - "it is, and are you happy with that?".

That is a very interesting / refreshing  way of seeing the old conversation.

[getagrip]

The problem is not "too much heavy cavalry", but more "all cavalry is disproportionately effective".  Illyrian Reavers (the elf bow armed riders, think spell check is mangling that for me!) are a good case in point - narrow bases, shooting, high move. Massive dice on a tiny frontage means they're brilliant Combine with high CV and they're astonishingly effective.

It's an odd conversation, I was the one in the group defending the rules and the cavalry bias. Here it looks like I'm fighting it

The question isn't "is cavalry disproportionately effective" so much as Ithorial touches on - "it is, and are you happy with that?".

Fair point but cavalry that shoot are really tough; you can't charge 'em and neither do you want to be charged by them.

Largely agree with Ithoriel though: them's the rules.  A few tweaks here and there, I like 'em.  

[toxicpixie]

It even goes for warhounds; anything on those narrow cavalry bases becomes disproportionately good. Dogs, horses, monsters, chariots, whatever.

The Elves (and esp the Reavers) are the most egregious example. Light skirmishing cavalry who are basically eagle eyed knights with extra powerful bows, under the best available generals. Lethal!

I actually rather like Warmaster. It's just after a few games it's obvious where the issues are - I'm happy to play it off and on, accepting the above foibles, others aren't. And tbh I've found Impetus Fantasy to be the better game anyway so am not unhappy we shifted

[getagrip]

It even goes for warhounds; anything on those narrow cavalry bases becomes disproportionately good. Dogs, horses, monsters, chariots, whatever.

The Elves (and esp the Reavers) are the most egregious example. Light skirmishing cavalry who are basically eagle eyed knights with extra powerful bows, under the best available generals. Lethal!

I actually rather like Warmaster. It's just after a few games it's obvious where the issues are - I'm happy to play it off and on, accepting the above foibles, others aren't. And tbh I've found Impetus Fantasy to be the better game anyway so am not unhappy we shifted

Fair comment: what basing does Impetus use?

[toxicpixie]

We're using 15mm sized basing - 80mm wide, depth variable for unit type between 30mm for heavy foot to 60mm for mounted. I started with sabot'ing Warmaster bases onto closest way to fit, then rebased except for one army that's a keeper for me Basically two 'Master bases to one Impetus unit

[getagrip]

Thanks, was hoping it would be the same.  Couldn't bare to do it to all my WM armies.  May have a go at saboting 

[jchaos79]

@getagrip: Which armies do you have?

@Toxicpixie: What is the army you keep and not rebase?