Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

GSword Infantry Analysis- Emp Greatswords not cutting it

24

Comments

  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Registered Users Posts: 2,473
    Well this thread was just a concealed buff the empire case.

    Empire is one of the strongest Factions right now, that is regurally picked in tournaments. Has very good units, most flexible roster of all, best support tools and very stong units. They have second best cav in the game. Their Greatsworfs are a bit medicore, yet pretty ok, far from terrible and have their uses to surprize oponen, that is prepering to face chaff.

    No buffs needed, same for FS and the rest
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    Not sure it's concealed.

    It's literally in the title.
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I chose to only involve units that are Greatsword Infantry hence the inclusion of SMoH and the exclusion of GW infantry.
    Such as GGGW

    If we were to include GW infantry it actually supports the case for buffing Greatsword Infantry.

    Greatsword Infantry as discussed are MORE niche than GW Infantry. Greatsword Infantry SHOULD in theory beat similarly priced GW infantry as they are less well rounded.

    If, as currently happens GW infantry trade better than or nearly the same as Greatsword infantry it is clearly demonstrative that Greatsword Infantry in general are not in a good place.

    GGGW beat greatswords and are generalist GW infantry.

    The problem highlighted with Empire Greatswords is not actually their MA including their BVI. They can hit opponents BUT they have the lowest damage output of any Greatsword Infantry. Their WS and AP is an outlier. Whilst their resilience isnt enough to justify a low damage output.

    Foot Squires are closer to SMoH and Executioners in damage output.

    Pairing Greatswords with a Warrior Priest doesnt alleiviate the problem it enhances their MA which already isnt the issue with Empire Greatswords.

    Greatsword Infantry are designed to be damage dealers, not defensive Infantry or more rounded infantry. In a similar vein to Shock Cavalry which is damage oriented vs Generalist Cavalry

    Buffing LD would serve to make them more resilient which is useful.

    Currently they just fall between two stools, neither Tanky nor damage orientated.

    Greatswords could be used to punish opponents who take an unarmoured frontline. But they dont trade effectviely, cost FAR more than the units they are then fighting and dont particularly deal damage at a sufficient rate. This is the crux of Greatsword Infantry, they are AP anti infantry NOT Anti Infantry. They get used in that role but its not their niche.

    I appreciate all the comments so far

    Ehm, GGGW is GENERALIST GW inf. !? WTF !?
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    Apologies I was going off of the Greatswords vs Great weapons piece I forgot about their BVI.

    GGGW handily beat Greatswords as previously said.

    They beat Greatswords before their buff and price increase, and do so even more now.

    They hit less often than Greatswords, but do significantly more damage when they do. They also have more Health per model, won't break and cause Fear.

    In their role as Anti Armour Infantry they are superior to Greatswords by some margin

    Because GG GW is inf. of rush factions and they were togher and stronger on TT. Questions ?
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    See the following posts that is amended.

    GGGW are unusual that they are great weapon infantry but with BVI so an omission when I was selecting greatsword infantry.


    I've no problem with GGGW being better than Greatswords.

    The fact they are only 50 gold more and far superior is however an illustration of Greatswords shortcomings.

    They used to beat them even when they were cheaper.




  • CirdanCirdan Registered Users Posts: 726
    edited January 15
    Well, you've argued yourself that it's a part of an asymmetric game in another thread:

    "It's a weakness of the race just as: (broadly speaking)

    Lack of armour is for TK,
    Missiles for Vp,
    Missiles for Chaos,
    Armoured inf for VC
    Fast skirmishers for Liz
    Grinding units for BM
    Elite cav for GS
    Long range missiles for DE
    Armour and chaff for WE
    Mobility for Dwf
    Mobility, character survivability and leadership for skaven
    SEM and magic loves for Bret
    Mid - long range missiles for Norsca

    Now whether all these weaknesses are fair is a different point but it's an Asymmetric game and I know you don't like that as a reason, but it's part of the reason for the character and replayabikity of the game and the skill involved in mastering factions.

    That's not to say imbalance is desired nor that roster filling is a good thing. I don't want homogenous races and that's part of the whole design of WHFB and people's affinity for 'their race'."

    I hope i don't offend you in quoting you, but i think it's equally applicable here.

    Empire don't have much in terms of heavy infantry/elite infantry, though they have amazing lords, great support heroes which can buff up Great swords and other infantry to god levels, artillery, magic, cheap AP missiles both mounted and unmounted and among the best cav in the game. All of these tools are capable of dealing with elite infantry.

    The question is wether Empire should have cost effective elite infantry as well, which i think the answer is no to. That said, great swords should not be completely useless ofcourse. I don't think great swords needs a buff, and in case they do get a buff, it should be a very small one, like 5 armor or something that has been proposed earlier in this thread.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 15
    No problem at all with using my quote and I stand by it.


    The Asymmetric balance point is not contradicted by pointing out the anomaly of Greatswords compared to other Greatsword infantry

    Believing in Asymmetric balance does not preclude unit balancing.

    Greatswords are clearly not in balance for their role. The minor buffs suggested ( of which armour is one of the Original posts suggestions) don't address the weakness of the empire in 'elite' infantry.

    Greatswords are too niche as anti Armour infantry and not as greatweapon infantry who are more flexible. And the changes proposed make them more efficient but not broken or class leading.

    Again the problem is not Greatswords MA, so buffing with Franz or Priests doesn't address their problem of damage output or resilience (thoufh resilience is more helped by the ward save)

    As has been pointed out they currently sit at the bottom of the class for damage.

    Their cost and niche precludes their spamming.

    A line of 4x greatswords is far less flexible than 4x CW GW for instance... And costs more!
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I chose to only involve units that are Greatsword Infantry hence the inclusion of SMoH and the exclusion of GW infantry.
    Such as GGGW

    If we were to include GW infantry it actually supports the case for buffing Greatsword Infantry.

    Greatsword Infantry as discussed are MORE niche than GW Infantry. Greatsword Infantry SHOULD in theory beat similarly priced GW infantry as they are less well rounded.

    If, as currently happens GW infantry trade better than or nearly the same as Greatsword infantry it is clearly demonstrative that Greatsword Infantry in general are not in a good place.

    GGGW beat greatswords and are generalist GW infantry.

    The problem highlighted with Empire Greatswords is not actually their MA including their BVI. They can hit opponents BUT they have the lowest damage output of any Greatsword Infantry. Their WS and AP is an outlier. Whilst their resilience isnt enough to justify a low damage output.

    Foot Squires are closer to SMoH and Executioners in damage output.

    Pairing Greatswords with a Warrior Priest doesnt alleiviate the problem it enhances their MA which already isnt the issue with Empire Greatswords.

    Greatsword Infantry are designed to be damage dealers, not defensive Infantry or more rounded infantry. In a similar vein to Shock Cavalry which is damage oriented vs Generalist Cavalry

    Buffing LD would serve to make them more resilient which is useful.

    Currently they just fall between two stools, neither Tanky nor damage orientated.

    Greatswords could be used to punish opponents who take an unarmoured frontline. But they dont trade effectviely, cost FAR more than the units they are then fighting and dont particularly deal damage at a sufficient rate. This is the crux of Greatsword Infantry, they are AP anti infantry NOT Anti Infantry. They get used in that role but its not their niche.

    I appreciate all the comments so far

    Ehm, GGGW is GENERALIST GW inf. !? WTF !?

    See the following posts that is amended.

    GGGW are unusual that they are great weapon infantry but with BVI so an omission when I was selecting greatsword infantry.


    I've no problem with GGGW being better than Greatswords.

    The fact they are only 50 gold more and far superior is however an illustration of Greatswords shortcomings.

    They used to beat them even when they were cheaper.




    If you are blind they ARE greatsword inf.( or , to be prescise, they use some kind of bladed weapon that looks like grotesque gross messer or shorted naginata or dao sword ). And if you want to say that they are not than trow away Executioners as well because their weapon is even more strange looking ).
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 15
    I'm going by their Unit Cards not aesthetics and I misread GW and GS.

    'Great Weapon Infantry'

    and

    'Greatsword Infantry'

    They are different categories, re read the original post, this is outlined.

    Greatsword infantry are anti infantry specialists

    Great Weapon Infantry are anti Armour specialists.

    It's an important difference.
    Post edited by The_real_FAUST on
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116
    And if you want buffs than it can be either + 5 armor ( original +4 armor save from TT ) or leadership or immune to psychology ( Stubborn rule on TT ) but I stiil dont any reason to buff them. Weakest in vacuum ? Maybe but they are viable and they have ton of support tools as well.
    In tournaments and in my games they can trade pretty well ( better then dwarf cav and vampire counts range if you understand ).
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 15
    I believe a better niche for them would be to grant the plus 5 armour and introduce Stubborn though I think it would be fairer that it grants ITP at under 50% Unit models than just flat ITP.

    Failing that the Damage output could be brought into line looking at the average of their competitors. +3 WS and +3 AP
    puts them at exactly the same as Foot Squires.


    Their niche and cost would still prevent useable Frontlines of them which I am against.
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I'm going by their Unit Cards not aesthetics.

    'Great Weapon Infantry'

    and

    'Greatsword Infantry'

    They are different categories, re read the original post, this is outlined.

    Greatsword infantry are anti infantry specialists

    Great Weapon Infantry are anti Armour specialists.

    It's an important difference.

    I guess if it was artillery you would say that they are artillery. :D
    By all your standarts GG GW IS greatsword inf. ( except wierd annotation but our dear CA is all about weird stuff anyway ). Their stats are poor in general and they are specialised. And they should be better in melee because VC are all about melee and previous blob tactics was nerfed for good so you are currently see classic frontline more often. In fact, previous buff to GG GW was made because VC have problem with elite halberds currently unlike Empire. Of course you can call my opinion trash but pretty much the same thing were told by by other people ( and many of them are very skilled players as well. So all in all I dis agree with insane buffs you proposed . If anything, I think that GS are better than WWR of PCB if you consider them on real battlefield.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 15
    I dont know exactly what you are disagreeing with me on. GGGW beat greatswords, and should do.. I havent argued against that.

    They werent included in the original analysis because of oversight of them being called GW, yes they are Greatsword infantry. But this doesnt change anything?

    Not sure what 'insane' buffs you are referring to, I've called for a potential option and listed 6, its not culmulative...
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I dont know exactly what you are disagreeing with me on. GGGW beat greatswords, and should do.. I havent argued against that.

    They werent included in the original analysis because of oversight of them being called GW, yes they are Greatsword infantry. But this doesnt change anything?

    Not sure what 'insane' buffs you are referring to, I've called for a potential option and listed 6, its not culmulative...

    I disagree that GS should be buffed ( except LD because Stubborn rule was their main feature - combat wise they sucked even more on TT. )
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Registered Users Posts: 2,473
    edited January 15

    I believe a better niche for them would be to grant the plus 5 armour and introduce Stubborn though I think it would be fairer that it grants ITP at under 50% Unit models than just flat ITP.

    Failing that the Damage output could be brought into line looking at the average of their competitors. +3 WS and +3 AP
    puts them at exactly the same as Foot Squires.


    Their niche and cost would still prevent useable Frontlines of them which I am against.

    or we can stop buffing empire becasue they want every unit to be top notch in their respected category

    GS or FS for that matter are ok and don't need all those buffs. But if you really ant to buff emp GS what will be your proposed nerf? Or we gonna just endlessly buff emp?
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,955
    Well, there's little evidence they underperform in the first place. Ok, so they have a bit less HP than HGE or SM. They have 15 models more.

    Or 30 more models compared to Shades.

    Model number matters, a lot.

    From what I recall from testing, Greatswords beat everything they should beat. I'm not a fan of just looking at unit cards. And Greatswords have been good for a while now. But, there is this narrative (quite similar to White Lions) that they're bad.
  • zer0zer0 Registered Users Posts: 333
    "A line of 4x greatswords is far less flexible than 4x CW GW for instance... And costs more!"

    Yes... you'd probably be disappointed by a front line of 4x Executioners too.

    That doesn't mean they are bad, their job is to make sure the state troops don't get run over by mid tier inf while the guns/arty/cav keeps them relatively safe from large enemies and elite infantry. They see common use in tournaments and I've personally lost tournament games due to underestimating how well they do their job.

    While a bonus vs infantry makes the unit a a little weaker overall it actually is handy in a bunch scenarios as well since it can't be taken away by percentage based debuffs (i.e. fatigue).
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 16
    Whilst I agree with your assessments. THe picture builds a whole, of course model numbers matter, as does dropping models quicker as you well know, healing has less effect and combat power drops quicker with lost models than lost health. Its particularly egregious for Foot Squires.

    The additional health of SMoH or HGE grants them longer life against weaker chaff, their defensive stats are higher and their offensive stats higher so they maintain models better and cut through the chaff quicker its part of a spiral.

    Don't get me wrong I think greatswords perform to a satisfactory standard. But the feeling that they dont compare to other anti inf units led to this look , and clearly that is right to an extent. I don't imagine most here knew they had lower combat stats than Shades for instance or that Foot Squires inflict more damage. Its a particularly nerdy thing to have noticed/known and I'm bringing it to light here.

    I'm not calling them broken and neither am I calling for OP levels of adjustments. It is similar to the Dragon Princes AP and Mass issue.

    Did they NEED 100 less mass or +1 AP, possibly not, did it bring them more into line. Yes it did.

    I use them and others use them but thats partly as there is simply no other choice in the roster it doesnt mean resting on laurels and feeling that they are just 'right', job done go home everyone.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 6,350
    of course Swordmasters have more HP per model lol, I would hope so, they are 1250g vs 900g of Greatswords.

    If we buff Greatswords to be on par with Swordmasters, or even only on par with Executioners, can we buff Bolt Throwers to be on par with Cannons?

    For internal consistency, as you say.

    While we’re at it let’s give Demigryphs to Beastmen and lore of Metal to Wood Elves.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 16
    There are no buffs to suggest they should be on par with SMoH or Executioners stop being typically Green

    Upping their damage to foot Squires doesn't.

    Upping armour doesn't

    Upping hp doesn't

    Upping LD doesn't.

    None of the proposals are cumulative it's one only not multiple.

    Don't exaggerate/ mislead it's not useful to man nor beast.

    It's interesting to note your opposition to this but support for the dragon Prince +1 AP for internal consistency
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 6,350
    edited January 16

    There are no buffs to suggest they should be on par with SMoH or Executioners stop being typically Green

    Upping their damage to foot Squires doesn't.

    Upping armour doesn't

    Upping hp doesn't

    Upping LD doesn't.

    None of the proposals are cumulative it's one only not multiple.

    Don't exaggerate/ mislead it's not useful to man nor beast.

    It's interesting to note your opposition to this but support for the dragon Prince +1 AP for internal consistency

    difference being that HE don't dominate cavalry, artillery and lord choices already like Empire so +1 AP in my view was a reasonable small buff on them. It was also not for consistency reasons but because ALL competing cavalry units from release (including Empire ones) got buffed with the exception of DPs so it made sense at that time to buff DPs also to keep up with the powercreep.

    If you want we can do +1 AP on Greatswords also that's the extent to which I think they deserve to be buffed (in my view +3 LD like I proposed or +1 AP is same strength of buff i.e. a minor buff) BUT at the same reason I don't see why you wanna massively buff them except spam 4+ Greatswords frontlines as a safe pick which would be inconvenient for the enemies of the Empire.

    Here MUs where I think they're playable:

    HE (they counter WL frontlines well which is the go-to pick these days for HE)
    Chaos (they buy time + counter any shielded infantry including CW and give a fair fight to CW GW, in my tests vs AI they even win this engagement)
    VC (they make it tough for VC to blob on you and punish all chaff armies hard paired with healing, blob your GS with a WP or KF and suddenly even Blood Knights start not having a good time)
    to a degree vs some BM armies also (Gor Herds are the go-to pick vs most Empire armies, although I don't think you should play defensively vs BM hence why I say "to a degree")
    I've seen them picked vs Greenskins also by who is by many considered the best player in the world, I think it was 2 units too, surely he's not a fool and understands those 2x Greatswords could have been 2 more Emp Knights.

    I think 4-5/15 matchups where they're playable makes them OK considering that Empire is not meant to have strong infantry to begin with.

    I'm also not exactly sure how you can advocate for buffs for the Empire when they are like top 3 at the moment. I do think Empire is in a good spot and doesn't need nerfs but I also think it's not reasonable at this stage to make Empire yet stronger when there's factions that don't even make top 7 such as Chaos.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    I'm not going to get into tier lists with you it's a red herring. But just because a race is seen as strong doesn't mean it's anomalous units should get it ignored.

    Greatswords are too expensive and niche for frontlines of them. If upping any one of the proposed options suddenly makes that a useful viable frontline vs all I will eat my words.

    Again they should trade well vs CWGW and White Lion's it's almost their exact niche as highly specialised anti armoured infantry vs generalist flexible AP infantry with relatively low MD. And greatswords cost more than them

    The matter is that any of those adjustments are so slight and greatswords so expensive and niche that it won't happen.

    All Greatsword infantry have received buffs bar shades with great weapons. Greatswords have received +1 BVI

  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    I'm not going to get into tier lists with you it's a red herring. But just because a race is seen as strong doesn't mean it's anomalous units should get it ignored.

    Greatswords are too expensive and niche for frontlines of them. If upping any one of the proposed options suddenly makes that a useful viable frontline vs all I will eat my words.

    Again they should trade well vs CWGW and White Lion's it's almost their exact niche as highly specialised anti armoured infantry vs generalist flexible AP infantry with relatively low MD. And greatswords cost more than them

    The matter is that any of those adjustments are so slight and greatswords so expensive and niche that it won't happen.

    All Greatsword infantry have received buffs bar shades with great weapons. Greatswords have received +1 BVI

    900 $ is not THAT expensive.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Registered Users Posts: 2,473
    I don't see

    I'm not going to get into tier lists with you it's a red herring. But just because a race is seen as strong doesn't mean it's anomalous units should get it ignored.

    Greatswords are too expensive and niche for frontlines of them. If upping any one of the proposed options suddenly makes that a useful viable frontline vs all I will eat my words.

    Again they should trade well vs CWGW and White Lion's it's almost their exact niche as highly specialised anti armoured infantry vs generalist flexible AP infantry with relatively low MD. And greatswords cost more than them

    The matter is that any of those adjustments are so slight and greatswords so expensive and niche that it won't happen.

    All Greatsword infantry have received buffs bar shades with great weapons. Greatswords have received +1 BVI

    so what do you want for GS to trade extremely cost efficiently with Chaos frontlines, a faction that has but a fraction of Emp support power and build versitality and is designed as a melee rush faction? How about we give ap archers to bretonnia and armoured cav to wood elves?
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 768
    edited January 16
    The chaos vs Emp match up is determined by swarming and mobile units not Greatswords vs CWGW as the culmination point.

    Chaos has well known problems given its missing most of its roster. And Greatswords having the same AP and WS stats as Foot Squires or +5 Armour or +4LD or stubborn is not it.

    Bringing Greatswords to standard with their peers is nothing at all like introducing AP archers to Bretonnia or Armoured cav to WE.

    Greatswords already exist.

    A bit melodramatic?

  • OrkLadsOrkLads Registered Users Posts: 1,857
    edited January 16
    This discussion is missing a major point imo, it's not just about how a unit trades but how it fits in thematically. While it is true that rising powercreep will need to lift all factions, there does need to be a limit to how far that goes and where factions power creep to stay competitive.

    Geatswords are just men with big swords. Not 8 ft Orcs who live for war, or ancient Elves whose training lasts the same length as a human lifetime, or a sturdy Dwarf who are built for endurance, or a Chaos Warrior who sacrifice their humanity for power in this world.

    What is it that Greatswords in their current state make the Empire exceptionally vulnerable to that isn't just the intended result of the asymmetric balancing of their faction (that their frontline isn't top tier)? That is a defining weakness of the Empire, they need to overinvest to win a frontline pure infantry fight, they shouldn't trade very well into CW GW even if Chaos gets roster gaps filled because that is not thematically correct. Why would a normal human pound for pound beat a chaos blessed human? What's the point of selling your soul if you get a bigger power bump from wearing frilly leggings?

    Greatswords seem very usable and strong in the right context, are only 900, can be easily buffed in the Empire roster a number of ways, and can be easily supported a number of ways.

    So what is the actual balancing issue here? What problem is the current state of Greatswords actually causing that is out of line with what should be the weaknesses of the faction? If there is a problem Empire is facing, maybe other units would be better buffed to deal with it, like mortars or hellblasters if the problem is dealing with infantry.

    P.S. The comparison to Dragon Prince tweaks are off base because the mass nerf was about eliminating silly outliers to armoured horses, the ap buff was probably because stats showed High Elves being excessively vulnerable to armoured top tier cav (which isnt a High Elf weakness that makes sense, like being weak to width and being swamped).
  • SarmatiansSarmatians Registered Users Posts: 3,955

    Whilst I agree with your assessments. THe picture builds a whole, of course model numbers matter, as does dropping models quicker as you well know, healing has less effect and combat power drops quicker with lost models than lost health. Its particularly egregious for Foot Squires.

    The additional health of SMoH or HGE grants them longer life against weaker chaff, their defensive stats are higher and their offensive stats higher so they maintain models better and cut through the chaff quicker its part of a spiral.

    Don't get me wrong I think greatswords perform to a satisfactory standard. But the feeling that they dont compare to other anti inf units led to this look , and clearly that is right to an extent. I don't imagine most here knew they had lower combat stats than Shades for instance or that Foot Squires inflict more damage. Its a particularly nerdy thing to have noticed/known and I'm bringing it to light here.

    I'm not calling them broken and neither am I calling for OP levels of adjustments. It is similar to the Dragon Princes AP and Mass issue.

    Did they NEED 100 less mass or +1 AP, possibly not, did it bring them more into line. Yes it did.

    I use them and others use them but thats partly as there is simply no other choice in the roster it doesnt mean resting on laurels and feeling that they are just 'right', job done go home everyone.

    I doubt people know that Shadow Walkers have better melee stats than Wardancers.

    With MP on and BvI included, Shadow Walkers have: 54 MA, 39 MD, 46 WS
    Wardancers have: 48 MA, 38 MD, 44 WS

    Shadow Walkers also have poison on top, better AP ratio, and more HP per model (82 vs 68).

    But, 30 fewer models means they simply can't be used like Wardancers, much in the same way Shades can't do what Greatswords can.

    Sure, I understand your point. It is simply my opinion that Greatswords perform as they should for their price, and since Empire infantry is supposed to be your garden variety, middle-of-the-road in quality, I don't think they deserve buffs.

    Buff could be implemented together with price increase, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

    And, yeah, Dragon Princes didn't really need that +1 AP.
  • ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116

    Whilst I agree with your assessments. THe picture builds a whole, of course model numbers matter, as does dropping models quicker as you well know, healing has less effect and combat power drops quicker with lost models than lost health. Its particularly egregious for Foot Squires.

    The additional health of SMoH or HGE grants them longer life against weaker chaff, their defensive stats are higher and their offensive stats higher so they maintain models better and cut through the chaff quicker its part of a spiral.

    Don't get me wrong I think greatswords perform to a satisfactory standard. But the feeling that they dont compare to other anti inf units led to this look , and clearly that is right to an extent. I don't imagine most here knew they had lower combat stats than Shades for instance or that Foot Squires inflict more damage. Its a particularly nerdy thing to have noticed/known and I'm bringing it to light here.

    I'm not calling them broken and neither am I calling for OP levels of adjustments. It is similar to the Dragon Princes AP and Mass issue.

    Did they NEED 100 less mass or +1 AP, possibly not, did it bring them more into line. Yes it did.

    I use them and others use them but thats partly as there is simply no other choice in the roster it doesnt mean resting on laurels and feeling that they are just 'right', job done go home everyone.

    I doubt people know that Shadow Walkers have better melee stats than Wardancers.

    With MP on and BvI included, Shadow Walkers have: 54 MA, 39 MD, 46 WS
    Wardancers have: 48 MA, 38 MD, 44 WS

    Shadow Walkers also have poison on top, better AP ratio, and more HP per model (82 vs 68).

    But, 30 fewer models means they simply can't be used like Wardancers, much in the same way Shades can't do what Greatswords can.

    Sure, I understand your point. It is simply my opinion that Greatswords perform as they should for their price, and since Empire infantry is supposed to be your garden variety, middle-of-the-road in quality, I don't think they deserve buffs.

    Buff could be implemented together with price increase, but I don't think that would be a good idea.

    And, yeah, Dragon Princes didn't really need that +1 AP.
    Well, if you consider that after spending all your ammo you have ~2/3 unit of wardanser it seems fair trade.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 204
    After reading all this the only thing that stands out to me is they actually do have lower hp per model even compared to other high model count units. I don’t know why CA does this to certain infantry units but i’ve noticed that hp differences though only slight over all seem to drastically effect over all holding power when on low end. This in turn means suffering unit loss faster so less attacks as well as leadership.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 1,843
    Nothing is more LOTR elves like than using shadow walkers and charge in enemy back line after using all ammos up

    Too bad shadow warriors are just a lot better for the cost
Sign In or Register to comment.