Always take an Apprentice and Chronomancers are the worst wizard

[tys123]

The general consensus seems to be that you should always take the apprentice and Chronomancers aren't much good.

I decided to ignore this and went for
Chronomancer ( Decay , Slow , Fast Feet , Bone Dart , Mind Control , Elemental Ball , Heal , Fog )
2 Templars
Treasure Hunter
Tracker
Archer
Crossbowman
2 Thugs

I was facing a Soothsayer with a Apprentice , Barbarian , Infantryman , Archer , 4 Thugs and a Thief.

Turn 1 and the Barbarian's sword rusted away.
Turn 2 and the Infantryman lost his sword as well.
Turn 3 and I failed to remove the archers bow.
By this point my missile troops had removed a Thug and injured the Apprentice.
Then my melee troops got into combat and that was basically the game.
He sent 2 thugs into one of the Templars and they both died.
Barbarian and Infantryman without swords are worse than Thugs
He Mind Controlled one of my Thugs and attacked my Templar with him ( That Thug was my only casualty. )
He got away with one treasure as he rolled a 20 to unmindcontrol one of his thugs that was carrying treasure.

That got me enough treasure to get the apprentice for game 2.

The Barbarian again lost his sword early and basically the same thing happened again. My superior soldiers just ran forward and engaged the enemy.
This time he got 2 treasure off but I still finished off ahead.

In conclusion you don't need to start with an Apprentice as having better soldiers from the start improves your chances of winning the 1st game.

Also while the Chronomancer has some bad spells ( An one spell I wouldn't cast if you let me try as a free action before each turn - Time Walk I am looking at you ) Decay is really good.

A 12 to give someone -2 fight and -2 damage is good. Especially when there is no will save and no benefit from cover.
A Barbarian goes from killing a thug on a 14 to needing a 20.

It will get less effective when people start getting magic weapons but should be good for quite a few games.

[Lotan]

A barbarian even without a weapon is better than a thug. He has the same fight, same armour, but 4 more will than the thug and 4 more health.

Also you may have got the calculations wrong. If you take out a barbarians two handed weapon he loses loses 2 fight, taking him to +2, but he doesn't get -2 damage, he just loses his +2.

An armed barbarian rolls a 14, +4F=18. If he wins he deals 8 damage plus the 2 from the two hander, killing the thug on a 14.
An unarmed barbarian rolls a 20 (as in your example) +2F= If he wins, he deals 12 damage to the thug, killing him.

It is infact an 18 to kill a thug, yes, I know it's not great, but an 18+2F=20, if he wins that is 20-10A=10 damage = dead thug. That has raised the odds you gave him killing a thug from 1 in 20 chance to 3 in 20 (just under a 1 in 7) chance.

The thug on the other hand rolls a 20. 20+2F=22. 22-10A is 12 damage, leaving the barbarian on 2H as long as you aren't playing the critical damage optional rules. So given that, the barbarian is still superior to the thug.

The infantryman is only slightly worse, yes, without a weapon he is only at +1F, but the thug needs to roll a 19 to kill him outright because of that 1 armour point.
The infantry man needs the same to kill the thug, he needs a 19, plus the +1F, to kill the thug. The only advantage the thug has is the +2F, which only really comes into play in the case of a draw, and a draw in a d20 game is again a 1 in 20 chance. So yes, technically the thug has the advantage, but it is minor. You just need to watch out further down the line where that spell ceases to affect the barbarian with a magic weapon.

As for the apprentice, I'd give it a go! Sounds interesting, but with the loss of those extra casts....I don't know. I think the fact you went up against a soothsayer (probably one of, if not the weakest caster, may have given you a bit of a free pass!

Also, I think the reason why the chronomancer is seen as one of the weakest casters is due to that lack of decent high level spells. Time store loses you a turn to gain one action, and on a 14+ no less, and Timewalk essentially gives you an extra move in a turn on an 18+ with an extra 2 damage suffered for a fail. Those two spells are the reason chronomancers are deemed to be weak. You actually took the useful spells!

Good to see people testing the waters with them though!

[tys123]

Unarmed gives you -2 fight and -2 damage.
Surely if a Barbarian loses his 2 handed sword he loses the +2 damage and gains -2 damage.

[MacavityandMycroft]

Yes, fighting un-armed is a penalty not to your weapon but to damage, he would hit at -2 damage.

ANYONE unarmed is -2
ANYONE with a dagger is -1
etc, etc...

[Argonor]

I think it's fairly unimportant, and probably mostly up to preferred playing style, if one should take the apprentice from the beginning.

If you choose a lot of 'difficult' spells from the start, to be able to buff them down to manageable casting rolls early on, it is probably better to wait a couple of games, as the apprentice won't have much chance of casting them, anyway, but most starting wizards may benefit from either apprentice or a few extra specialists - it's all about how you intend to use the members of your warband.

[Lotan]

Unarmed gives you -2 fight and -2 damage.
Surely if a Barbarian loses his 2 handed sword he loses the +2 damage and gains -2 damage.

Yes, fighting un-armed is a penalty not to your weapon but to damage, he would hit at -2 damage.

ANYONE unarmed is -2
ANYONE with a dagger is -1
etc, etc...

Yup, you are both right, I apologise, I even checked the rules and missed the -2 dmg on unarmed.... For some reason I read it as -2F and not the dmg!!!

[JohnDSD2]

I was that Soothsayer!
My take on it was as follows.
Decay rather upset me, I'd paid good money for that Barbarian and then to have him reduced to an under dressed Thug in the first turn was a little distressing. It only needs line of sight and there is no 'save', so probably more effective than you might first consider.
My Apprentice took an arrow early on despite using a Thug as a human shield, only -1 to hit when standing right behind someone? I feel a house rule coming, perhaps the target should have been randomised when they are so close but no -1 to hit. A wounded Apprentice isn't much use.
What I learnt from the experience was perhaps we needed a bit more terrain, I needed more ranged troops, Wizards Eye is a handy spell as is Mind Control, Thiefs seem to be a bit of a waste of money and it did rather back up what 'Calmdown' has been saying about the snowball effect.
Having said all that the games were enjoyable and I do like the fact that so much has been left open for us, the players, to invent our own campaign styles.
I will be back and the more people tell me the Soothsayer is no good, the more I will persist, its just a matter of tactics! 

[Ferkitt]

JohnDSD2
When we were preparing the demo games we found you do need a lot of terrain to stop archers and "shooty" wizards dominating the game. Every piece of scenery the shot has to pass through adds a further -1.
I would be a bit hesitant about giving any further cover for "hiding" behind someone. The shooter is deliberately aiming for the target so is effectively taking the obstacle into account plus its not as if the person in the way would want to get hit by the arrow and the chances are they would try to get out the way 
Thugs are people too 
If you were in combat then you would randomize as neither of you is paying much attention to anyone except the guy you are fighting
Dave

[Dewbakuk]

No one should be casting line of sight attacking spells on the first turn, if they are you aren't using the right terrain. As the book says, you should mostly only be able to see 12 inches and never beyond 24. We found that even in demo games where you want spells being thrown around and people dying quickly, we still needed some big scenery pieces down the middle to prevent first turn casting.

[joe5mc]

As stated in the rules (p.40), if the apprentice is truly standing right behind the thug - the thug counts as cover, not intervening terrain, so is worth +2 or +4 to the target's fight roll.

[Calmdown]

To save argument I won't dissect the OP, but just be wary of falling into the classic trap of "I won a game with something so clearly it is just as good as the things that everyone thinks are better!"

If I roll a single D100 and score a 1, and you roll a single D6 and score a 6, does that mean D6s roll higher than D100s?

Anyway, good to hear you had some interesting games breaking the "norms" (insofar as you can have norms with a few week old game!) Sounds like it was fun. That Barbarian needs to hide his sword from the Chronomancer a little better

No one should be casting line of sight attacking spells on the first turn, if they are you aren't using the right terrain. As the book says, you should mostly only be able to see 12 inches and never beyond 24. We found that even in demo games where you want spells being thrown around and people dying quickly, we still needed some big scenery pieces down the middle to prevent first turn casting.

I dont agree with this. It's perfectly feasible, and completely fine, to be able to get line of sight on turn 1 - and even with boards as cluttered as ours it was normal.

Are you going to get line of sight to what you *want* to see? Probably not. Is it easy to hide models that you *want* to hide? Yes. But there is almost always something to shoot at, especially if the enemy has shooters too who are trying to draw LoF, or you (and your opponent) have placed treasure counters so that they are in the open to stop people being able to sneak them easily.

You should have enough scenery that LoS is blocked and people have the option of hiding, certainly, but there will always be sight lines to things in a game where objective play forces you to advance.