Empire: What Is and What Should Be

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Smythen wrote:

    Litoperez wrote:

    what i think this rule is intented for is that support units make «automatically» a flank charge if the main troop charge/is charged. I know it sounds too good, but this could be easy to play for everybody, it is just a matter of adjusting the points i think. Anyway it would be still easy to avoid for good players but at least it wont be that hard to get (view angles, distances, charge range....)

    as for shooting, shooting as a charge reaction is in my experience seldom used or irrelevant. I just use the support unit system with shooting to get the extra rank, it could be interesting to find easier ways to use the support fire as for example the DE army does.

    maybe my answer goes too much to the point and not to the general intention of the rule: i think parwnt-support rules should make eos fearfull when you have many troops on the table and easy to win when they are isolated. The situation is that right now it is very easy to isolate and negate the parent support system, that is far from being «fearfull». I am not good at writting rules, so i dont know how this could be done :)
    100% with you!
    @DanT : "are people willing to give up eliteness elsewhere for a more elite support system (bigger effects, fewer counters, etc)?"

    YES!

    IMO, EoS massed infantry lines (well placed) , should feel like charging into a meatgrinder of doom, unless you do it smart. Right now it feels like you have to play the infantry line smart or be ground to beef.
    I agree too. I'm not a competitive player and I don't care about EoS being mega powerful, but Support units and their supporting abilities is the core differentiation for our faction, and it should feel impactful and special
  • (not commenting in staff role)

    Thanks for the answers.

    Something to think about/double check:
    Are people sure that they have thought through the consequences and answered the question I am asking? (rather than the question that one thinks or assumes I am asking).
    I.e. are people really sure that they are prepared for anything else in the book to be fair game for an eliteness reduction, if that is necessary to get more elite parent/support etc mechanics?


    I am not asking this in a staff role, or trying to be deliberately difficult, and this is not surreptitious probing for the future EOS LAB as that is not on the cards currently (and I likely won't be directly involved anyway).

    I am just trying to get people to really think about what they do and don't want, and what is and isn't important to them, as this will make you all give better (and more relevant/insightful) feedback as and when guidelines are the EOS LAB are presented to the community.

    In particular, it has become clear to me that it is often missed by the community what the guidelines for a particular faction don't say, so if we all know very explicitly what is important to each of us, we can look whether those things are (A) in the guidelines, (B) contradicted in the guidelines or (C) not mentioned either way in the guidelines.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • AutumnLeaves wrote:

    I can't speak for others, and I'm not entirely certain what is meant by "Eliteness", but anything that makes the faction fun to play and leans into the flavour of blocks of regular men in formations supporting each other I'm keen for
    For clarity: eliteness is sort of "design power".
    I.e. it is the total game impact (or possible game impact) from the model's stats and rules.

    A basic warrior of the dark gods is more elite than a basic goblin.


    We use the term eliteness to distinguish from "points efficiency".

    A goblin could be better per point or worse per point than a warrior of the dark gods, depending on what the current price of each of them is.
    But the warrior will be higher eliteness in both cases: it is independent of the current price.


    Edit:
    Of course, generally one expects the correct price of a higher eliteness model to be higher than that of a lower eliteness model, so there is some correlation between points and eliteness.
    But generally they are distinct concepts when designers are working:
    "make this unit better" can be solved by a points reduction.
    "this unit isn't elite enough" or "that unit is too elite" (e.g. to give the correct flavour/feel/background) cannot be solved by a points increase or reduction.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • @DanT my personnal answer, would be that i would not like to see elitness tune down.

    But i think there is some way to compensate a increase of parent support ability, by small adjust.
    And i am not sure if it is what you call a reduction of elitness, in my homebrew for exmeple i suggested some pist of reflexion. (remove the FieR, limit order to 1 only etc..)

    Otherwise i would also balance the book and compensate by modifying some of the most big advantage of EoS. Like cheap Electoral cavalry, they help a lot for external balance. By winning some match due to armored chaff/scoring ability. I think potentially increasing elitness of electoral cavalry and cost by consequence, will have a negative impact on external balance. Or personnaly i would be open to even rework enterely steam tank concept to make it less unique role into the army.`
    I think external balance of EoS could be easily impacted a lot just by modifying such unit. And this is not necesseraly a reductin of book elitness.

    So i am not sure what is my answer.
    if i can resume i would say:

    Should we do evolve support parent system:
    Yes, but without changing everything, i would love to keep concept from actual system like countercharge, etc..

    Why make it evolve ?
    To increase list building possibility, and allow different move strategy than actually, during move phase for EoS.
    But not to make parent support really stronger than actually.

    How compensate the change ?
    If possible by light adjust, but without really reducing elitness of the army.

    Also, seeing the position of EoS comapre to DL WDG etc..
    I think we have a small marge that allow us to increase elitness for exmeple by improving parent/support, without breaking external balance.
    But maybe i am wrong on this.

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net

    T9A Mission - Join the Team - Donate

    The post was edited 5 times, last by Casp ().

  • @Casp
    Eliteness and external balance are different concepts; I think you are muddling them a little.


    A book can get more elite and worse at winning, or less elite and better at winning.
    Heck, a book can get better at winning without its eliteness changing.


    Also note that I am not saying the book should become less elite overall, I am just asking if people who want more eliteness in the parent/support system would still want that if it required eliteness drops elsewhere.

    Basically, most players want more eliteness in most places if asked individually about those places.

    What I am trying to get people to think about is what are their priorities.
    I.e. assuming that there is a certain amount of eliteness to be spread across the book, where/how do people most want it to be present?

    This sort of comparative/prioritisation generally acts as better and more useful/actionable feedback for the designers than just asking "do you want X?" in a vacuum.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • I really need to reply to this thread properly at some point, because I cannot understate how strongly I disagree with many of the notions proposed for how EoS should change come their shot at the LAB process, as well as the 'issues' that they supposedly currently have.

    Currently, I think EoS are in a fairly good spot, and don't really need much changed. Although, given how 'whacky' the LABs post DL/DE have become, I'm afraid that they are going to need to change a lot, in order not to pale in comparison to the other LAB'd books - by which point, I'm guessing, will be the majority of books. But that's a topic for another time. I believe the worst that can be said for EoS at the moment is the lack of diversity in lists which we see - it's clear quite quickly that there are much better lists to take than others - think a big Imperial Guard block supported by two units of Light Infantry - but even then, I think that a facet of this issue is players being both reluctant to try out something new, and potentially bad, as well as feeling safe with something which is 'easy'. The call I'm reading of here for other aspects of EoS stuff to be made 'easy' is my biggest gripe with some of the proposals mentioned previously.

    In particular, the call for the Parent-Support mechanics to either be scrapped entirely or made "much easier" is what I find hugely problematic. I read here of players saying that it's too hard to pull off supporting charges, and that they can never manage to do it - and I agree, it can be very hard to do! But, when I play, I feel like that's an issue which rests with me, and not with the rules. After all, I don't think - nor have I read here - that people think it's impossible - it's just hard at times. I feel like making it 'easy' - however that 'easy' might look - is just lazy. It's incredibly rewarding to work hard over a series of games, working at practicing to get the most out of this system, to then actually have success at pulling it off. It requires practice. And - perhaps controversially - I can't help but wonder if there is an aspect of 'forum-theory-crafting' here, when people - people like @Smythen, who have been saying the exact same thing for years now - go on about how hard it is. I want to be surprised and wrong, but have you forced yourself to play with a TVI or Parent-Support heavy list over several months, to see how it goes, and to see how you improve? Or is it a case of trying it only a handful of times, to find that it's hard to pull off, before reverting back to something 'easier'?

    How 'easy' do you want it to be? In a previous edition of legacy, supporting charges (counter charges, I think they were called then) were auto-, guaranteed charges, which were always into the enemy unit's flank. Is that what you would like to see us go back to? Whilst I have no doubt that even I would like this, I think we would miss the sense of achievement which comes from having practiced hard to set up these 'support-nets' well and successfully.

    And I say this as someone who is yet to master Parent-Support. I am getting better, bit-by-bit, by getting the odd, sometimes surprising, flanking charge. And I've no doubt, that if I play more and keep at it, I'll become much better at it.

    For clarity - because it's super easy to misread stuff on forums - I wish nought but peace and love <3 There's no anger or upset here - I just struggle to really see the sense in some of these points. I wonder to what extend they are somewhat anecdotal and unfounded - which is what I refer to by this 'forum-theory-crafting'.
    ┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°)つ Mat Git Radio - Scotland's 9th Age Podcast!├┬┴┬┴
  • @DanT Hum but then, with my answer above, what would you consider my answer is ? ^^...

    I guess, then yes, put a large amount of elitness and complexity budget into parent support system is fine for me.

    But it should not become the only playstyle possible. The book should keep some possibility open for other unit more elit by themself that do not benefit from parent support system, and do not synergize too much well with list than benefit from parent/support, to prevent than increasing elitness of parent support necesseraly means tuning down those more independant unit.

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net

    T9A Mission - Join the Team - Donate
  • micdicdoc wrote:

    In particular, the call for the Parent-Support mechanics to either be scrapped entirely or made "much easier" is what I find hugely problematic. I read here of players saying that it's too hard to pull off supporting charges, and that they can never manage to do it - and I agree, it can be very hard to do! But, when I play, I feel like that's an issue which rests with me, and not with the rules. After all, I don't think - nor have I read here - that people think it's impossible - it's just hard at times. I feel like making it 'easy' - however that 'easy' might look - is just lazy. It's incredibly rewarding to work hard over a series of games, working at practicing to get the most out of this system, to then actually have success at pulling it off. It requires practice. And - perhaps controversially - I can't help but wonder if there is an aspect of 'forum-theory-crafting' here, when people - people like @Smythen, who have been saying the exact same thing for years now - go on about how hard it is. I want to be surprised and wrong, but have you forced yourself to play with a TVI or Parent-Support heavy list over several months, to see how it goes, and to see how you improve? Or is it a case of trying it only a handful of times, to find that it's hard to pull off, before reverting back to something 'easier'?
    i dont think counter charge is really "hard" to do.
    I always manage to succeed them.
    But i think it is a bit boring, and force to move that are not really cool.

    What i would like is to move more freely in a kind of battle line.
    What i have now is a 2 line system, where second line should not look straigh forward to increase possibility of flank charge.

    if we can find a system that keep same degree of skill required, but that allow the army to move more freely, i would be fully satisfy, ;)

    Also rework parent/support potentially mean include more unit entry than actually. Maybe cavalry ?

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net

    T9A Mission - Join the Team - Donate

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Casp ().

  • As @micdicdoc said I hope there won’t be massive change with the LAB, but tweaks to change the dynamic of things that are already there: cavstars and large defensive shooting blocks are overwhelmingly taken because they’re obvious, encouraged through rule synergy, and comparatively easy to play.

    I’d like to see more abilities that encourage more risk taking from players with mixed arms infantry lists and the like.
  • How about adding cavalry to the list of units that can receive Orders and be part of Parent-Support?

    Also, what about an upgrade available from spears to pikes which takes away the shields but grants the unit Distracting, adds an additional rank to the combat beyond the extra spear rank, and grants Always Strikes First?
    Form our lines. Shields...UP! Advance!
  • You can actually already give cavalry Parent Unit with the Knight Commander rule. I don’t need any more slingshotting mounted Inquisitors. ;)

    And speaking as someone who wrote a homebrew centered around Pikes and who cares very much about them: I don’t think pikes are different enough from spears to warrant a different weapon option. In fact if we were to do that, I’d rather first see Great Weapons broken up into multiple categories or Halberds broken up into different types of Polearm. It’d be cool to see a +2S +1AP option mirrored with a +1S +2AP weapon, for instance.

    But if they were to be added, in terms of balancing them we would also need to resist the urge to give them too much: in my own book they're spears with two handed and an extra FiER. That may sound boring, but when you start tacking on Agi10/Distracting/etc. in an attempt to chase realism they become exponentially more difficult to balance, and ultimately much more expensive.
  • I'd want great weapons to be something which can be added to spear units in a mixed formation :) to simulate the pike and sword formations of the era.

    I like mixed units in general in the game. It opens up a wider variety of how to create army lists without inventing entire new units. :)


    edit: It could be the empire unique style combined with orders. Mixed units in an army of mixed warfare. I don't think it should be that difficult to add more infantry-specific rules to the army. In my head I see the empire armies as infantry based with small support troops.

    I would gladly remove the knight commander and inquisitor if it would mean more complicated units were in the game instead. :)

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Davian ().

  • @micdicdoc Guilty
    I have only tried TVI style a few times and have been very disappointed. Unfortunately I only play against one guy, so playing the same list all the time would bore him to death.
    and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
    For Sunna and the Emperor!!
  • Casp wrote:

    i dont think counter charge is really "hard" to do.I always manage to succeed them.
    But i think it is a bit boring, and force to move that are not really cool.

    What i would like is to move more freely in a kind of battle line.
    What i have now is a 2 line system, where second line should not look straigh forward to increase possibility of flank charge.

    if we can find a system that keep same degree of skill required, but that allow the army to move more freely, i would be fully satisfy, ;)

    I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "and force to move that are not really cool"? From what you wrote afterwards on a battle-line, do you mean the need to deploy your units in a kind of 'chain', with appropriate support from characters, magic and Support Units? Being careful to check all of the ranges and that?

    I feel like this is an issue which isn't exclusive to EoS. Since we are quite reliant on bubbles (in particular with the General's Dis, BSB reroll), there is a certain proclivity towards a 'static' line, with your 'main' unit(s) in the centre, and your support units around them. It's an issue for EoS because the base Dis across the board is 7, but other armies have the same issue. I think there certainly are options in the book which lessen this issue: Flagellants, naked Marshals for Dis buffs, 'Steady, Men!' for minimised Dis, and the Banner of Discipline. But it seems to me that the issue taps into the restraints imposed by the Inspiring Presence/Rally Round the Flag elements of the game, and isn't something to be fixed exclusively in the EoS book.

    Davian wrote:

    I believe, by using the experiences of ID,DE and VS, that there will be overhauls of most of the things in the empire and more rules will be added to make the mechanics more fluid than they are now. :)


    I would like the empire to get mixed units in addition to detachments. Or more type of detachments at least. :)

    I really like the idea of giving the EoS LAB more unit options for Support Units (which is what I assume you are referring to when you write 'detachment' :) ). In an earlier version of EoS, State Militia were Support Units, but had their entire profile overhauled in that update (if I remember correctly, originally you had a kind of 'build-a-bear' State Militia, were you could choose to give them Pistols, or Bows, etc ... I think the update gave you both of these as standard).

    Whilst State Militia are treated as Insignificant by Parent and Support Units - which I think is good, and makes sense - I would love to see them return, somehow, to the Parent-Support system. I think one space for development for the EoS LAB lies in this direction, and the LAB team could ask how they could induct the other standard height models on foot units into the Parent-Support system, and if these remaining units should be inducted at all. For instance, I could see State Militia re-inducted into Parent-Support in some fashion, but don't immediately see Imperial Rangers finding their way in. One suggestion I have would be to make State Militia a Support Unit, but not causing Panic to other Support Units, and to give Imperial Rangers the 'Reserves' Special Rule, even if this meant changing the name of this rule to fit with Imperial Rangers. It might be, that in order to make this hierarchy of Parent-Support interactions more translucent, you have something like Parent-Support-Reserves, whereby Reserves are Support Units which don't cause Panic. This would then allow you to put a variant of 'Reserves' on things like Imperial Rangers, without being inducted entirely into the Parent-Support system. I'm totally spitballing here, but it seems like this would be quite a simple if not entirely minute addition to the system, which would clarify the interactions between the standard height, models on foot units in the EoS book.

    I think that something along these lines would help to give a bit more 'sense' to the interactions we have between the different units of this class in the army. I find my immersion broken at times, when, for instance, Imperial Rangers cause Panic to either a Heavy Infantry Parent or Support Unit, but State Militia do not ... do these Parent-Support Units not regard these Rangers as much a dishevelled bunch of dudes as they do State Militia? I think that interactions like this are something which could be addressed by the LAB :)
    ┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°)つ Mat Git Radio - Scotland's 9th Age Podcast!├┬┴┬┴
  • Uradel wrote:

    How about adding cavalry to the list of units that can receive Orders and be part of Parent-Support?

    Also, what about an upgrade available from spears to pikes which takes away the shields but grants the unit Distracting, adds an additional rank to the combat beyond the extra spear rank, and grants Always Strikes First?

    dan wrote:

    You can actually already give cavalry Parent Unit with the Knight Commander rule. I don’t need any more slingshotting mounted Inquisitors. ;)

    And speaking as someone who wrote a homebrew centered around Pikes and who cares very much about them: I don’t think pikes are different enough from spears to warrant a different weapon option. In fact if we were to do that, I’d rather first see Great Weapons broken up into multiple categories or Halberds broken up into different types of Polearm. It’d be cool to see a +2S +1AP option mirrored with a +1S +2AP weapon, for instance.

    But if they were to be added, in terms of balancing them we would also need to resist the urge to give them too much: in my own book they're spears with two handed and an extra FiER. That may sound boring, but when you start tacking on Agi10/Distracting/etc. in an attempt to chase realism they become exponentially more difficult to balance, and ultimately much more expensive.

    I quite often employ and make use of a Knightly Orders bus with several different Characters. Initially, I did find it odd that the Knight Bus could receive orders, since it was a Parent Unit, but I wasn't able to issue orders to other cavalry units. Now, I think I understand why. The means of making a unit of Knightly Orders a Parent Unit means you are able to buff one cavalry unit with things like Fight in Extra Rank and +1 Adv, +4 Mar with Orders. I interpret the access to Parent Unit and Orders entirely as a means of providing buffs to the unit, and not as a half-hearted attempt to induct it into Parent-Support; whilst you can have Support Units around this Knight Bus, given the vast disparity in movement values, I do not think that it is really intended to run it as a Parent Unit in the same way that you might run Imperial Guard as a Parent Unit. It's almost like it's an 'accident of terminology', whereby the book has access to this synergistic-and-buffing system, but we are only taking advantage of the 'buffing' part here. That's my interpretation of the scenario, and I hope it makes sense.

    As such, I don't think I see - nor do I think I would want - Cavalry to be inducted into Parent-Support on a wider basis. I believe that the backbone of the EoS LAB must be the infantry - and as noted in my previous post, I think I see space to develop a Parent-Support system which encompasses, in some regard, all of the standard height, models on foot units (again, I'm spitballing here - I haven't chosen this as my 'mound to die on' - change my mind! :D ). I think that the 'synergy' aspect of the book should be focused entirely on this 'on-foot' aspect of the book. I would not want to lose abilities and synergies for our infantry at the cost of giving synergy to our cavalry elements. I think that these cavalry units should only ever be 'support' units in the usual sense of the word, and not in the Parent-Support usage of the word. Other arguments against extending the Parent-Support synergies to cavalry elements include the encroachment on KoE it would amount to, which I also think makes sense.

    On Pikes - I totes agree with @dan , and have nothing else to add. Spears, with the rules they have, are good enough to encompass this weapon if you want to model your models as having them <3

    Davian wrote:

    I'd want great weapons to be something which can be added to spear units in a mixed formation :) to simulate the pike and sword formations of the era.

    I like mixed units in general in the game. It opens up a wider variety of how to create army lists without inventing entire new units. :)


    edit: It could be the empire unique style combined with orders. Mixed units in an army of mixed warfare. I don't think it should be that difficult to add more infantry-specific rules to the army. In my head I see the empire armies as infantry based with small support troops.

    I would gladly remove the knight commander and inquisitor if it would mean more complicated units were in the game instead. :)

    When you write "I like mixed units in general in the game", are there examples of units which contain different models with different weapons in the way you mean? I exclude here units with different model parts like Horses and Knights in Electoral Cavalry, for instance. I appreciate the point you are making, but I think it taps into something which extends beyond the situation for EoS alone. I think other armies would like to see the type of 'mixed formation' that you describe. I think the biggest issue we have here - and why I don't think I see this being made a reality - is the impact it would have on the speed and pace of the game. You might have a huge unit - mean, we're talking EoS here afterall :D - but then some RnF models have a different weapon than other RnF models. Since the models in both sets are still RnF models, can you target and remove those models with the 'different' weapon in the same way that you might target a Champion in close combat? Besides this, you then would slow down melee with the different types of attacks that need to be rolled, allocated ... and this is on top of already having different rolls for any Characters you might have in the unit.

    Again, I appreciate the appeal of wanting to mimic the historical context which the army might be said to mimic - but the game, as a whole, needs to be interpreted - I think - as a form of crude approximation to the reality. It is a game, afterall, so the degree to which players might have the 'approximation' at the forefront of their mind will vary :) . It is, afterall, a fantasy game, and not historical, so I don't believe we should care so much at all about these considerations. Is it true that everyone used the same type of weapon in these units historically? Certainly not in the case of Landsknechts. Is it true everyone was armoured to the same degree? Nah, for sure not ... But then, we're playing a fantasy game here :D
    ┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°)つ Mat Git Radio - Scotland's 9th Age Podcast!├┬┴┬┴
  • micdicdoc wrote:

    When you write "I like mixed units in general in the game", are there examples of units which contain different models with different weapons in the way you mean?
    Except characters and caimans/skinks I don't know of mixed units. :) But in this particular case I can see the unit being spearmen, wich can add Imperial guard to it. The IG makes up the first rank/s and the spearmen stands behind. So all attacks the enemy does are directed at the IG until they are removed. :)

    Which means a unit of 40 Empire infantry might consist of 30 spearmen and 10 imperial guard. :)

    In combat the empire unit fights as normal according to their weapon rules. The spearmen fights with FiER and so on, while the guards are using either great weapon or sword/shield. ( In my head only great weapon guards are supposed to be in the unit :) )

    It means the opponent charging have to deal with both spearmen and spearrules, and guards with great weapon and heavy armor.


    I don't think mixed unit mechanics are any way slower than normal units. :) If you want to find the real culprits in slowing the game down you should look at the magic phase :p
  • @Davian, that's a good catch - I hadn't thought about the Caimans/Skinks combo :)

    If, game-mechanics wise, this were to be implemented exactly the same as the 'Combined Strength' rule for Caimans/Skinks, do you think that would encapsulate what you want well enough? Or would you impose any other restrictions or changes to make it better fit your vision for the rule?

    I think it's actually a neat idea, but I would clarify that I don't think it's necessary for EoS - rather something which could be cool for the army, but I'm neither hot nor cold about, nor that the army really needs :) Something fresh and cool :D Taking your idea further, I would play around with:
    • Keeping the 'different' RnF models simple: I wouldn't use an IG profile for these models (I'm wondering if their role on the battlefield is different to fighting in the front ranks of the core, Heavy Infantry blocks of the Empire), and would instead use the same profile for Heavy Infantry, except with a Great Weapon, and maybe even Heavy Armour on these models only. This would ensure that Dis remains at 7 for the unit, and keeps the Off/Def the same.
    • Copy Pasta the 'Combined Strength' rules for SA as they are (naturally, without 'Stomp Attacks').
    What do you think of my suggestions here? I wonder what other followers of the thread - or other, fellow Marshals of the Empire - think about your suggestion :)
    ┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°)つ Mat Git Radio - Scotland's 9th Age Podcast!├┬┴┬┴