No Apprentice

[horrorbeard73]

Evening
I am building my first ever warband and am really thinking about having a Witch as my wizard but not having an apprentice at all. Anyone else had any luck playing without one? #curious

[Tungdil]

I think it's the best way to have a apprentice. He's a spellcaster and so important for your tactic.
I think you'll have difficult games, without your apprentice. But i have to read the rules more carefully. The other members here can you give you far better advice then me.

[Ogrob]

Probably not the answer you want but no. It's handicaping yourself for no good reason. It's not just another powerful model, it's a whole game phase, more xp and a second chance at out of game spells.

[spect_spidey]

I know that they are expensive to add to your warband, but without one you are missing a phase of each turn. If your opponent has an apprentice and you don't, that would gives them the possible activation of up to four models (the apprentice and three regular warband members) with a group activation while you do nothing. In addition, they are going to be doubling up in two phases, either wizard and apprentice would activate one after the other or they would be activating their apprentice and then their remaining warband members one after the other. In an IGYG type of game with possible group activations and a swingy D20 system, that could mean a devastating assault that you would have to weather before you could react. And it could result in an assault that you can't recover from. IMHO, you always take the apprentice. In addition, if your wizard dies, the apprentice can take over leading your warband and allow you to retain all your items, cash, and base upgrades. Without the apprentice, you would have to start from scratch again.

[giles the zog]

What the others say !
In games when my apprentice(s) have met an untimely demise, it certainly leaves a hole in your war band and ability respond.

Spect_Spidey's comment aboutt the base and resources is also spot on.

[LiamFrostfang]

  take one.

[jp1885]

Pros:
Extra spending money

Cons:
No apprentice phase, giving your opponent two turns before you
Less chance of casting spells
Leading to less XP earned for casting spells
One less cool model on the table

[casual tea]

Interesting idea. Probably not optimal. The biggest downside is that you can't have more than 10 members in your warband.

[joe5mc]

Also remember - an apprentice cannot be replaced by a soldier. You still have a maximum of 8 soldiers, so your warband will likely be one smaller.

[Michi]

Never miss the apprentice. He collects experience in favour of your wizard. Let him cast easy spells as often as possible, even let him boost failed results by his lifeforce to gain experience.

[horrorbeard73]

Thanks guys, i really appreciate the feedback and am now revising everything

[Brandlin]

My apprentice has officially survived more often and earned more xp than my wizard!

So much so i swapped over the models for them!

[Karadek]

I tried the same thing initially, and found that an apprentice is definitely a must-have model.  It gives the other player way too much of an advantage if you don't have an apprentice in that phase.  Plus my wizards seem to get taken out regularly, so the apprentice has saved my bacon a few times. 

[Wyrmalla]

Thematically you could represent the apprentice as a familiar, or even just a floating crystal ball and say that the Witch is casting her spells through it.

You need an Apprentice. Without using one you're playing the game on hard Mode. Its the reason why I fork out for a Captain as well, the benefits are just so heavy that its difficult not to take one (that's without the spells, the "with me" action is great).