Jump to content


Photo

[8Th Ed.] Size Of Hammerers Regiment


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 28 November 2017 - 09:36 AM

Hail, Dwarf-Brothers!

 

An opinion. Do you think that 25 (to be precise 23 plus two characters) is enough for a regiment of Hammerers? I know that the obvious answer is the more the best, but I have a shortage of points. So, it is this size or change them for Iron Breakers.

Thanks.



#2 Zidane_blade

Zidane_blade

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts

Posted 28 November 2017 - 10:30 AM

I actually tend to use my hammerers more as a joker, rather than one big unit of deadlyness. In order to lose out on as few attacks as possible, my ranks in those types of units are usually dividable by seven. 21 Hammerers in a unit, works great 👍

#3 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:00 PM

Hail, Zidane-Brother!

 

Thank you for the feedback. Until now I didn't test Hammerers yet, in the 8th ed. I tested Iron Breakers and they performed wonders. All in all, I think I will keep using them in that edition. Furthermore, I don't have  to be afraid that my Hammerers will remain on the shelf, as I still play a lot of 7th ed. games with my friends.

 

P.S. As a supporter of Juventus Football Club of Turin, I greatly appreciate your nickname!



#4 Killer Angel

Killer Angel

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 28 November 2017 - 12:46 PM

Hi,

in 8th i would tend to give preference to Iron Breakers, as they are much more reliable.

So, it really depends on points; that said, ZIdane's suggestion sounds fine.

 

 

 

P.S. As a supporter of Juventus Football Club of Turin, I greatly appreciate your nickname!

 

a luck it's not "Materazzi_hammer" :P



#5 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 28 November 2017 - 01:03 PM

Oh, yes!

 

There was that episode in the final of World Cup 2006. That was poor sportsmanship, but anyway Zidane remains a great champion. He left nice memories in the soul of all Juventus supporters. We were very sad when he went to Real Madrid.



#6 Hero of Rome

Hero of Rome

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 07:12 PM

Hammerers are killed to quickly too be cost effective. You're better off taking Dwarf Warriors with Great Weapons. If Hammerers had Gromril Armour they would be worth it. But they don't ;) However, if you want a small 10 man unit with a runic banner, they can be worth it - you can just take the Master Rune of Valaya banner to get that +2 to dispelling and hide the unit away somewhere XD



#7 Zidane_blade

Zidane_blade

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 08:33 PM

Hammerers are killed to quickly too be cost effective. You're better off taking Dwarf Warriors with Great Weapons. If Hammerers had Gromril Armour they would be worth it. But they don't ;) However, if you want a small 10 man unit with a runic banner, they can be worth it - you can just take the Master Rune of Valaya banner to get that +2 to dispelling and hide the unit away somewhere XD


You just need to spread out your threads and not have all your eggs in one basket.
In my eyes, having a ten man unit hide is more a waste than having twice the number, making them more of a supportive tool.

#8 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 29 November 2017 - 08:35 PM

Hail, Dwarf-Brother!

 

Thank you for the suggestion. But I will give up completely the 8th ed. We are playing the 6th ed. now. It was the most balanced and tactical wise.



#9 Killer Angel

Killer Angel

    Dwarf Hammerer

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 12:30 PM

Hail, Dwarf-Brother!

 

Thank you for the suggestion. But I will give up completely the 8th ed. We are playing the 6th ed. now. It was the most balanced and tactical wise.

 

Really? I have no experience with 6th, but i loved 7th. More balanced and fun than 8th.



#10 Zidane_blade

Zidane_blade

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,245 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 06:10 PM

Funny, I think 8th gave everyone a chance to kill anyone and having multiple roles.
Unlike in 7th, where if the front rank got killed, you could do diddely squad, for example.

Edited by Zidane_blade, 30 November 2017 - 06:10 PM.


#11 Lord Alisk

Lord Alisk

    Dwarf Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,254 posts

Posted 30 November 2017 - 09:02 PM

It depends on opponents, and the like, but when playing 8th I prefer larger games (4000+ points, really), so that influences what I say.

 

Given the vulnerability of hammerers, my feeling is for mainline combat units it's very much go big or go home, so I'd generally go for around 40 or so, with all the trimmings (runic banner, usually the BSB, usually the general, a runesmith, etc.).

 

Having a 2nd small unit (in part to get another banner in there) is pretty handy if you need the extra banner.

 

I've experimented with two units of about 25, which works fine, and has the advantage of looking neater on the tabletop. A lot depends on the local environment though - hammerers need to soak up damage before they do anything, so a lot depends on how deadly the enemy is, how much shooting they have, etc., but also how easily they can evade the hammerers (it's much easier to evade 40-50 hammerers than 2 units of 25).



#12 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 10:41 AM

 

Hail, Dwarf-Brother!

 

Thank you for the suggestion. But I will give up completely the 8th ed. We are playing the 6th ed. now. It was the most balanced and tactical wise.

 

Really? I have no experience with 6th, but i loved 7th. More balanced and fun than 8th.

 

Hail, Killer Angel-Brother!

 

Yes, I agree with you that 7th ed. was more balanced and fun than than 8th. But the 6th was even better. Basically there are two differences between the two editions. The first one is that, in the 6th, you get victory points equal to half the value of a unit if you reduce it to less than 50% of its initial consistency. The second difference is more tactical. I talked about it in another post. In the 7th ed. if you break an enemy unit, pursue and impact another enemy unit in the pursuing, you are considered to have charged that second unit and the combat is resolved immediatly. In the 6th ed. you always are considered to have charged that unit, but the combat is resolved in the next turn. So, the charged player get a movement phase before the combat and can countercharge the pursuing unit that charged. This was of unvaluable help to defensive armies, like Dwarfs. Furthermore, it helped not physically strong armies, like High Elves or Dark Elves, to give a sense to their combat phase and a very important role to the shooters. In that time, very slow armies like Dwarfs, or physically weak armies like elves (no freaks like Always Strike First to the whole army, or Swordmasters with 2A each, in that time), used to screen their battleline with thin lines of shooters. So the enemy had to break and pursue before getting the infantry blocks. But they were at risk to be countercharged in the flank in the following turn. That's why even strong regiments, like Chaos Warriors or Black Orcs couldn't simply throw themselves against enemy, but they had to act in a coordinated way with fast cavalry or other support units. To be big and strong, or just numerically larger, was simply not enough to win a combat. Of course that was frustrating for a lot of players. Many of them, especially the younger ones, wanted something more simple: "Hey! My regiment is made of tall sturdy Chaos Warriors, yours is of slim weak Elf Spearmen. Why I didn't win?". The 8th ed. satisfied the primal bloodlust of many young players. But had to totally sacrifice tactics. Furthermore we know very well that GW did it to increase the average size of armies and sell more miniatures. 


Edited by Thoric, 01 December 2017 - 10:45 AM.


#13 Thoric

Thoric

    Dwarf Longbeard

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 378 posts

Posted 01 December 2017 - 11:42 AM

Funny, I think 8th gave everyone a chance to kill anyone and having multiple roles.
Unlike in 7th, where if the front rank got killed, you could do diddely squad, for example.

Hail, Zidane-blade Brother!

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. The 8th ed. gave everyone the chance to kill anyone. And that's what it was all about. Maybe with the add of magic. You are right, in the 7th, the front rank could be completely wiped out. Well, not just in the 7th. In ALL the previous 7 editions of Warhammer, that was possible. That forced the players to do really a lot of brainwork.

The reasoning: "I give my Warriors the great weapon, I wound you on 3+" was really not getting you anywhere. At least, not if it was the main course of your reasoning. But already in the 7th we begun to see the seeds of madness. The new rules of the 7th ed. begun to stress speed over tactics. That was frustrating for a lot of Dwarf gamers, who wanted to "play" (You can't "play" Dwarfs. Or you ARE a Dwarf, or you are NOT!) Dwarfs, but were unwilling to fight like a true Dwarf: steady, slow, unyielding. In the 7th ed. you begun so see the most extravagant, freaky, unlikely collection of Dwarfs armies, in the desperate attempt to build a Dwarfish army that was the more undwarfish possible. Strollaz armies, Multiple Small Units armies, Anvil-Gunline armies.

Where all that led the Warammer Fantasy Battle game to, is under the eyes of everybody.


Edited by Thoric, 01 December 2017 - 11:47 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users