Pinned Feedback: Infernal Dwarf Design Guidelines

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

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Feedback: Infernal Dwarf Design Guidelines

      Here we are folks! Gears are turning and the great FAB machine is revving it's engines! The engine fires just need feeding, which is where we are now.

      For I present the first draft of the Infernal Dwarf FAB guidelines. These will dictate the direction the FAB process will take, and well, the first few paragraphs should explain things.

      But before this becomes set in stone, we want the communities input on it first. What do you like, what do you not like etcetera. The feedback from this thread will then be passed on to help adjust this guideline into something we can all (hopefully) agree on.

      If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask them. But enough talk...








      Infernal Dwarves Army Book Design Guideline




      General Information


      This guideline is meant to convey a common understanding of how the project envisions the Infernal Dwarves (ID) army book to be designed. The document is split into several parts below you find a short description about every layer:
      • Game Level: Racial aspects - what does it mean to be an elf / dwarf / undead / ... (these are shared between armies and create a background link between different factions of the same race without diluting the uniqueness of the specific armies); in this layer racial descriptions can be found which are shared among different books.
      • Army Level: Overarching army specific aspects shared by most units - these traits should actively be incorporated in as many units as possible. Furthermore basic equipment and weaponry are defined as well as play styles which should be actively supported by the army book designers.
      • Intra-Army Level 1: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise and require different design profiles to be captured adequately.
      • Intra-Army Level 2: Defining important sub-themes / factions in the book which should be represented design wise but are already covered by higher level design layers (these themes are within the already existing Guidelines but make out an important part of the appeal and uniqueness of any given book and therefore deserve special attention. Note: This layer should be actively expanded during the conceptual phase of the book.



      Note: The design layers follow the principle of Lex specialis derogat legi generali meaning that in the case of contradicting guidelines the more specific takes precedence.





      A. Game Level Design Guidelines



      A.1 Racial Background Description - Dwarves


      Dwarves are known for their robust physique and are very resistant. Furthermore they have a short and sturdy nature and are generally very heavily muscled. Although dwarves are bad sprinters, they excel at long marching. Dwarven military units will generally be well trained and equipped with above average equipment (both quality as well as quantity). Dwarves are a stubborn race and won't be giving ground easily even if heavily outnumbered and suffering severe casualties.




      A.2 Racial Design Notes - Dwarves


      Their physical traits should be represented (on an army level) by above average resilience, weapon skill / aim score and a high march movement compared to low advance movement. Psychologically Dwarves are able to function well inside and outside the general / BSB bubble with a clearly above average discipline value. Even basic troops should have a variety of mundane equipment options and access to heavy armour.




      A.3 General Game Level Design Guidelines


      Besides army specific design instructions the general design philosophy of T9A for all publication has to be observed (game-wide Guidelines).







      B. Infernal Dwarves Army Level Design Guidelines



      B.1 General Information



      B.1.1 Army Composition
      The core and main bulk of the army consists out of standard sized infantry which is supported by a wide variety of specialized combat and ranged units. ID units are elite with the exception of hobgoblins (semi elite conscripts) and slaves (not elite). While the majority of the book is centred around R&F standard sized infantry units, armies are usually supported by non-standard sized infantry elements. Pure standard sized infantryarmies are be a niche build which sets ID apart from DH.



      B.1.2 Common Equipment
      The technological advancement of the ID combined with rich metal ores in the surrounding areas, results in it being easy to produce high quality armour for a large fraction of their soldiers. Furthermore the dwarfs have the physique and body strength to wear heavy suits of armour for extended periods of time. Thus troops are well equipped (non-dwarves are an exception here) and due to the high level of industrialisation and technology even basic Infernal Dwarves troops (which only serve their mandatory 30 years of military servive) have access to high quality and high quantity mundane equipment. As common mundane equipment can be considered: heavy and plate armour and shields defensively as well as great weapons and various shooting weapons with close combat applications offensively.



      B.1.3 Overall conveyed in-game feeling (including level of eliteness)
      The army should convey an aggressive/offensive and relentless feeling: "the enemy can run, but they can't hide"; the ID will get them eventually, it is inevitable.


      The dwarf part of the book should have a similar eliteness level as their DH counterparts. Hobgoblins should be more elite than they currently are (to better differentiated with slaves and to make wolf rider less ideal redirectors).


      The Army should not feel overly static with manoeuvrability being limited by the R&F nature of the army. The army has a high eliteness level (with exceptions) and is thus limited in numbers. As such, the army should never be able to play in an avoidance/harrassment style and, although the slave elements are less elite, they should always be a supporting element; a horde army built around slaves should not be possible or be a niche suboptimal build.


      Combat and shooting can both be important primary sources of damage; both gunlines and highly focused combat armies should be possible. The former will be short ranged and a touch more mobile (but not able to quickly redeploy to other areas of the table) than a traditional gunline and the latter is likely to have a strong taurukh/kadim focus in order to have sufficient tactical options. The army is JOAT, and has a quality tool for every occasion, but will never have every tool in every list due to the eliteness.


      Flying units can be part of a more aggressive ID army, but the amount of flyers should not approach that required for a flying circus playstyle; the flying elements should primarily be support for non-flying elements.




      B.2 Special Deployment
      Special deployment should be strongly limited, and cannot be present at all on mainline combat units or play an important role in a list's strategy.




      B.3 Movement
      The ID army does not perform lightning strikes and raids; instead it grinds relentlessly forward. Speed is not a goal for ID; Victory is inevitable as the masses of plate clad bodies break any resistance they face. While some units are fast in the army's context, each individual unit should not be fast for its type. There should be very little focus on improving unit speed. (Dwarfs can still have their standard movement statline of course). Manoeuvrability or lateral movement is limited.


      Furthermore, the perceived inevitably of the ID victory and straightforward approach leaves little room in their strategy for movement tricks. They rely on supporting elements and ranged damage to control the battlefield and not on speedy highly manoeuvrable units.




      B.4 Leadership
      Infernal dwarf armies are brave and resolute, stoically facing the terrors of the world while rarely showing fear or a lack of resolve. They should not break or panic easily. The dwarfs respect/fear their leaders and follow orders. Even when leaders are not nearby.
      Aim for the dwarven part of this army to have discipline abilities near the game's top tier, both when alone and when inside discipline bubble, this is not license to make them the best overall (roughly top5 army, not top1). Note that punishment in the ID society is harsh, usually resulting in being burned alive (while magically kept alive as long as possible) and relatives made slaves (see ID background for more information).


      Bubble discipline should be of less (but not zero) importance to this army, with the clear and obvious exception of vassals and slaves, who do not only benefit from the presence of dwarfs, but may even actively require it.


      Non-dwarfs are much more unruly in nature. They follow orders when leaders are nearby as disobedience results in harsh punishment. On the other hand when leader are not nearby, these units have a tendency to follow their more primal emotions instead of a strategical approach. These non-dwarf units need external overseers to operate exactly as the players wants them to.




      B.5 Magic
      The ID use of magic is flexible, but not overtly special: buffs and damage are all part of the arsenal. Their magic casting and dispelling abilities are average in a game wide comparison.


      The army has access to three main paths: Alchemy, Pyromancy and Occultism.
      In addition, they can have very limited access to Witchcraft in non-dwarven casters (e.g. lamasu).


      Alchemy and Pyromancy tie into the flaming sub-theme, whereas Occultism is tied into the slave sub-theme. Magical attacks/abilities are present through the contraptions/creations and often linked to technology, more than raw supernatural ability.




      B.6 Shooting
      Infernal dwarf shooting should mainly be short ranged*, highly damaging, and able to move and fire**.


      The ID favour large and powerful items, believing in quality over quantity with their shooting while still being able to equip even basic warriors with specialised shooting equipment due to the level of industrialisation. War machines should be powerful but be limited in range. The artilleryshould have a magical/daemonic/un-conventional feel to it. The majority of shooty units (dwarfs, some contraptions/creations) should not be afraid of entering melee.


      Hobgoblins are not armed with ID weapons, instead they are armed with low tech weapons from the BRB such as bows/throwing weapons, or something similar. They have less damaging shooting (quality / eliteness), and less focus on mobility and short range. Unlike dwarven shooting units Hobgoblins don't desire to enter close combat. Hobgoblin shooting should not be impressive by any means, and it should not be possible to have it as the primary backbone of a gunline list. Hobgoblin shooting should not allow ID builds with significant long range shooting (overcoming the intended short ranged but powerful shooting theme).


      Slaves are not trusted with shooting weapons


      * When considering range for a weapon, place it towards the lower range of similar weapons in other armies (e.g. had held personal weapons 8-18", catapults: 36-68", bolt throwers: 36-48", and so on). The shooting of the army should have a clear feeling of being short ranged


      ** This doesn't exclude possibility of static war machines. This doesn't have to mean all weapons are quick to fire. There could still be some incentives for not moving. Note that this is mobile shooting by dwarven standards, not elven. When combined with the army's limited lateral movement, this shouldn't be seen as access to avoidance shooting. If Taurukhs are given shooting, than it should not enable very mobile shooting builds - the same feeling as hand held dwarf shooting should be conveyed.




      Mechanical contraptions and creations
      Dwarf-created machines (war machines, Gunnery Teams, Infernal Engine etc) are a common sight in the ID army. In the context of the guideline, these should be considered dwarven units. These machines can potentially include bound daemons, in which case they may borrow aspects from Kadims.




      B.7 Close Combat
      The ID army forms an unyielding hard and resolute battleline. Their main combat units do not break easily or die quickly, and ID armies are generally comfortable in prolonged combats. The main combat units relentlessly and continuously whittle down their foes. Enemies are slowly choked to death - victory is inevitable. The supporting close combat elements which are more specialised (e.g. Kadims, Lugars) are tools for flanking and hammers to support the main combat units which function as anvils and upon which the enemy lines break like waves on a cliff. These supporting elements, although comfortable in prolonged combats, trade in defensive capabilities (compared to the main fighting units) for higher movement rates ("fast" in the context of the army, not the game) and damage output without reaching glass hammer territory. Melee survivability is based on the fact that units are hard to rout (therefore staying reliably in combat) and on high quality mundane equipment (armour / shields).




      B.8 Defensive Capabilities
      The survivability of dwarfs should come from a combination of basic physiology and mundane equipment (armour and shields). Average armour is high but peeks are rare (e.g. plate armour on most dwarfs, but few options with armour 5 and 6).


      The primary form of defence for Hobgoblins and Slaves are their high numbers. These units don't have much armour or good stats compared to the rest of the ID force (with Hobgoblins being semi-elite).


      Kadims, being supernal beings bound into metal constructs, crave to regain their freedom and are generally very enraged and primal beings. Their disregard for their physical form results in a generally offensively focused unit, trading in protection for improved offensive capabilities.




      B.9 Chaff
      Redirecting and avoiding enemies isn't the way of the Infernal Dwarfs. If they need to stop something, they are more likely to feed it large amounts of slaves than to try to lure it away (= using chaff as redirectors). Redirector-focused chaff units should be sub-optimal as pure chaff. This can be achieved by increasing the eliteness and therefore overall quality of the chaff unit.


      Redirector-chaff in core should be completely impossible. Tarpits should be readily available (e.g. Slaves, Hobgoblins, unbreakable machines).




      B.10 Synergies
      ID are generally self-obsessed and disdainful towards other races and therefore have below average inter army synergies besides thematically fitting background driven exceptions: Domination over lesser beings and the flaming / flammable subtheme (see D. Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes for further information).





      C. ID Intra Army Level 1 - Subfractions
      While the army book is mainly centred around the dwarven elements there are noteworthy exceptions: Taurukhs, Kadmins, Disciple of Lugar, Hobgoblins and Slaves.




      C.1 Taurukhs
      A particularly important sub-faction of ID are the Tauruks. Being a magical symbiosis of Dwarf and Bull their movement is compared to the army standard high but still not exceeding average in their unit type class in a game wide comparison. They are similarly well equipped as dwarven units and therefore the regular ID dwarf guidelines apply in this regard. Taurukh units should convey a feeling of being physically strong and being bred fighters with a strong connection to the Shamut clergy. Being used as police (and rioting police) hand held ranged weaponry could be made accessible - in this case the unit should convey the same feeling as the R&F dwarven shooting units (short distance, damaging, mobile by dwarf standards but not very manoeuvrable).





      C.2 Kadim
      Kadim and Disciples of Lugar should convey a strong fire based theme. They sacrifice protection for offensive capabilities and are among the faster units in the book while still not reaching upper level movement speeds in their respective unit class in a game wide comparison. While these units are offensively focused they do not reach glass cannon territory - prolonged fights should still be manageable for the units. The protection of Disciples of Lugar is not based on armour but on cunning and the attributes gained by the symbiosis with the fire elemental bound into them. Kadims being bound to a contractual agreement should express itself in being more reliable near the ones who are holding / enforcing their contract. The generally unstable nature of Kadim-binding should be expressed in the units design, setting it apart in playstyle and feeling from the (very) reliable dwarven units.




      C.3 Vassals & Slaves
      Hobgoblins are goblin-like creatures in appearance and physique, differentiating them starkly from the bulk of the heavily armoured and physically strong ID army. Being entrusted to join the ID armies as free soldiers they are semi elite troops fulfilling special roles in the ID army. On the one hand they do provide a decent quantity of ranged bow fire support for soft targets complementing the higher quality low quantity ID shooting - contrary to ID shooting units Hobgoblin shooting units are easy prey in combat. On the other hand they do provide wolfriders which are among the fastest elements in the book. Design wise bow shooting should only be a supplementary tool and never a strategy on its own. Although wolfriders may be among the cheaper units in the book, they do come with good mandatory equipment and a semi-elite statline resulting in being worse chaffbut a better light (for ID standards) utility unit. Being semi-elite Hobgoblins are in general able to operate somewhat on their own.


      Slaves fuel magical rituals, are cannonfodder, and used to tarpit opponents. Due to the Slave import the racial heritage is not uniform but all IDslaves fielded in battle are considered highly expendable, not trained and not entrusted with ranged weaponry. Slaves should suffer severe drawbacks if no dwarven / Taurukh unit is nearby. As their primary role is being a tarpit, and they should therefore be fielded primarily in large units. Slaves should not offer significant damage output or be used for important strategical roles (e.g. scoring).



      D. ID Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes
      Synergy is not an important or ubiquitous quality in ID armies due to the self centred and condescending nature of ID. After all, they are already better than their enemy, so units with the primary role of improving other ID units are unneeded.


      Synergies should therefore be heavily limited to a few main themes (see below). Synergies outside these should be few in numbers and low in game impact. Synergies in the mentioned themes should be average game impact (i.e. it should not approach the game impact levels that we see in the heavily synergy dependent armies). Note that these synergies must not be required for constructing good army lists.



      D.1 Flaming / Flammable Subtheme
      The art of manipulating fire and using fire to your advantage. The core of this theme should be about giving yourself flaming attacks and making enemies flammable (i.e. don't use flaming to implement typical "basic" synergies. E.g. "The unit gains hatred if they have flaming attacks").


      This theme should be present for magic, ranged and melee.



      D.2 Domination over lesser beings Subtheme
      Leaders using fear to make slaves, goblins, supernals etc submit to their rule. E.g. Herding slaves, controlling kadims, ordering hobgoblins. This could potentially be applied to dwarfs following strong leaders as well.


      This synergy should focus on discipline, movement, and spending lives for the benefit of their dwarven masters. It should never be used to directly make units more effective at killing enemy units. Exception: sacrificing slaves for making dwarfs, kadims or machines more killy would be thematically fitting.

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • Shooting Taurukhs? Finally. Hope it gets implemented.

      Only skimmed it, but feels quite good. Seems it won’t be any radical changes, which is a bit...boring. I mean, I realise the book won’t get anything near the treatment of the Daemons, but... I really think the book could draw inspiration from the creativity that book proved the project capable of, if nothing else.
      The shooting Taurukhs is an Idea I ”pushed” for some time now, and feels like one such fluff driven change I hope we will see more of.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      Note that punishment in the ID society is harsh, usually resulting in being burned alive (while magically kept alive as long as possible) and relatives made slaves (see ID background for more information).
      Not a fan.
      Personally I feel that ID frown upon enslaving members of their own race and have in their legal code an Indentured Servant Contract for Dwarfs. Enslaving a fellow dwarf would lead back to the time of troubles and rebellion.
      Enslaving the same race feels more like a Dread Elf thing.


      Tyranno wrote:

      The generally unstable nature of Kadim-binding should be expressed in the units design, setting it apart in playstyle and feeling from the (very) reliable dwarven units.
      With their offesnive nature being more leaned on at the expense of defense, this seems like a very good place for some kind of "Red Haze" rule like the DL book has. ....considering there will probably be alot of ways to reliably wound with the ID army, perhaps a Red Haze ability that gives +1 to hit at the the expense of giving the opponent +1 to hit would be fitting with the Kadims.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Design wise bow shooting should only be a supplementary tool and never a strategy on its own.
      Sounds like low point bows on a unit that can also take shield and spear are gone. Perhaps bow upgrade will be single choice while the shorter throwing weapons/javalins can be combined with close combat weapons.
      Also, if Hobgoblins are going to be more elite then they should probably get access to magical banners.

      I like this direction as curently massed bow fire in big units is very effective.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Slaves fuel magical rituals, are cannonfodder, and used to tarpit opponents. Due to the Slave import the racial heritage is not uniform but all IDslaves fielded in battle are considered highly expendable, not trained and not entrusted with ranged weaponry. Slaves should suffer severe drawbacks if no dwarven / Taurukh unit is nearby. As their primary role is being a tarpit, and they should therefore be fielded primarily in large units. Slaves should not offer significant damage output or be used for important strategical roles
      Interesting approach from the current form.
      Not sure how this can be achieved since the slaves are 25mm base which leads to a rather large and unattractive footprint on a unit that breaks easy and can't do damage.

      Make sure to play test the ideas for this thoroughly as if done improperly the unit might not see any play and be a dud. People want to take dwarfs and they aren't going to waste points on a bad slave unit that can't even semi chaff.
      Obviously going to have to scrap the Born to Fight rule. And give some kind of borrowed leadership bonus from units with CoA, and probably give some kind of rank bonus for steadfast in order to get that 'tarpit' role. A big footprint means easy flank charges though, so going to need a good rank/steadfast rule.



      Tyranno wrote:

      Exception: sacrificing slaves for making dwarfs, kadims or machines more killy would be thematically fitting.
      ooo, perhaps the Artillery that is upgrade to Daemonic can get some kind of boost from shoving slaves into the Daemonic Furnace.
      I'm thinking that the Bound Daemons can move and fire obviously - no quick to fire but by sacrificing nearby slaves you can roll more shots. Maybe the bound daemon isn't an upgrade but a separate choice so we can make the ranged weapon balanced rules wise.

      This also fits with my idea that the Gunnary teams have a 1 time use slave goblin that lets them re-roll the hit dice when getting a missfire.


      And of course, a Pyro Mage riding an infernal engine while playing a flaming guitar axe that shoots flame, and then kicking slaves into the Infernal Daemonic Furnace to make it go faster, louder, and shoot more flame. :)
    • Tyranno wrote:

      A.1 Racial Background Description - Dwarves



      Dwarves are known for their robust physique and are very resistant. Furthermore they have a short and sturdy nature and are generally very heavily muscled. Although dwarves are bad sprinters, they excel at long marching. Dwarven military units will generally be well trained and equipped with above average equipment (both quality as well as quantity). Dwarves are a stubborn race and won't be giving ground easily even if heavily outnumbered and suffering severe casualties.

      So return of universal Dwarf 'Stubborn'? I'm not sure what else to take away here.

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.1 Army Composition
      The core and main bulk of the army consists out of standard sized infantry which is supported by a wide variety of specialized combat and ranged units. ID units are elite with the exception of hobgoblins (semi elite conscripts) and slaves (not elite). While the majority of the book is centred around R&F standard sized infantry units, armies are usually supported by non-standard sized infantry elements. Pure standard sized infantryarmies are be a niche build which sets ID apart from DH.

      Pure infantry armies are supposed to be niche, yet seem to be exactly what the ideal playstyle below is describing. I'm not sure how to rectify this statement with, say, the first sentence of B.1.3 or the inevitable march forward mentality of B.3.

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.2 Common Equipment
      The technological advancement of the ID combined with rich metal ores in the surrounding areas, results in it being easy to produce high quality armour for a large fraction of their soldiers. Furthermore the dwarfs have the physique and body strength to wear heavy suits of armour for extended periods of time. Thus troops are well equipped (non-dwarves are an exception here) and due to the high level of industrialisation and technology even basic Infernal Dwarves troops (which only serve their mandatory 30 years of military servive) have access to high quality and high quantity mundane equipment. As common mundane equipment can be considered: heavy and plate armour and shields defensively as well as great weapons and various shooting weapons with close combat applications offensively.

      Are Taurukh considered Dwarves or not (by the ID society)?


      Also, why wouldn't the dwarves equip at least trusted servants well (ie, Hobgoblins).


      How do ID compare to DH in terms of industrialization. I want to assume more industrialized, and I'm curious how that can or should be realized.

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.3 Overall conveyed in-game feeling (including level of eliteness)
      The army should convey an aggressive/offensive and relentless feeling: "the enemy can run, but they can't hide"; the ID will get them eventually, it is inevitable.


      The dwarf part of the book should have a similar eliteness level as their DH counterparts. Hobgoblins should be more elite than they currently are (to better differentiated with slaves and to make wolf rider less ideal redirectors).


      The Army should not feel overly static with manoeuvrability being limited by the R&F nature of the army. The army has a high eliteness level (with exceptions) and is thus limited in numbers. As such, the army should never be able to play in an avoidance/harrassment style and, although the slave elements are less elite, they should always be a supporting element; a horde army built around slaves should not be possible or be a niche suboptimal build.

      How do you make a slave army not possible? Further, thinking about this from the ID perspective, why should it be niche? Slaves are more plentiful than dwarves - throw them into the forge of war and hammer out the impurities. It's only a problem when you lose control of your slaves.


      I can't think of any good background related reasons to make playing a slave army hard, and thus any such limitations are going to feel inorganic and stilted.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Combat and shooting can both be important primary sources of damage; both gunlines and highly focused combat armies should be possible. The former will be short ranged and a touch more mobile (but not able to quickly redeploy to other areas of the table) than a traditional gunline and the latter is likely to have a strong taurukh/kadim focus in order to have sufficient tactical options. The army is JOAT, and has a quality tool for every occasion, but will never have every tool in every list due to the eliteness.
      Gunlines simply aren't possible at 18" firing range, especially with only advance 3. It's not really a gunline, it's 'you get to S+S', pretty much, and maybe you get to fire before that if you can march and shoot. Let's not play make believe and pretend this is the same thing as real 24-30" gunlines with advance 4 or 5, which are probably getting multiple turns of shooting before combat.

      Now, dwarf ranged units always being dual-purpose ranged/melee and firing while they advance (ie, all can march and shoot), that I could get behind as a design concept.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Flying units can be part of a more aggressive ID army, but the amount of flyers should not approach that required for a flying circus playstyle; the flying elements should primarily be support for non-flying elements.

      How many flying units make it a flying circus?

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.3 Movement
      The ID army does not perform lightning strikes and raids; instead it grinds relentlessly forward. Speed is not a goal for ID; Victory is inevitable as the masses of plate clad bodies break any resistance they face. While some units are fast in the army's context, each individual unit should not be fast for its type. There should be very little focus on improving unit speed. (Dwarfs can still have their standard movement statline of course). Manoeuvrability or lateral movement is limited.

      Furthermore, the perceived inevitably of the ID victory and straightforward approach leaves little room in their strategy for movement tricks. They rely on supporting elements and ranged damage to control the battlefield and not on speedy highly manoeuvrable units.

      This is verging on 'clear as mud' territory. Are current Kadim Incarnates too speedy or too maneuverable? I'm honestly not sure. Repeat for all the other non-basic dwarf units.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Non-dwarfs are much more unruly in nature. They follow orders when leaders are nearby as disobedience results in harsh punishment. On the other hand when leader are not nearby, these units have a tendency to follow their more primal emotions instead of a strategical approach. These non-dwarf units need external overseers to operate exactly as the players wants them to.

      Is this a design document, or a regurgitation of what already exists?

      Tyranno wrote:

      The army has access to three main paths: Alchemy, Pyromancy and Occultism.
      In addition, they can have very limited access to Witchcraft in non-dwarven casters (e.g. lamasu).

      I'm thrilled to see RT can't spell Lamassu either.

      How does Lamassu access to Witchcraft work with B.3?

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.6 Shooting
      Infernal dwarf shooting should mainly be short ranged*, highly damaging, and able to move and fire**.

      The ID favour large and powerful items, believing in quality over quantity with their shooting while still being able to equip even basic warriors with specialised shooting equipment due to the level of industrialisation. War machines should be powerful but be limited in range. The artilleryshould have a magical/daemonic/un-conventional feel to it. The majority of shooty units (dwarfs, some contraptions/creations) should not be afraid of entering melee.

      Hobgoblins are not armed with ID weapons, instead they are armed with low tech weapons from the BRB such as bows/throwing weapons, or something similar. They have less damaging shooting (quality / eliteness), and less focus on mobility and short range. Unlike dwarven shooting units Hobgoblins don't desire to enter close combat. Hobgoblin shooting should not be impressive by any means, and it should not be possible to have it as the primary backbone of a gunline list. Hobgoblin shooting should not allow ID builds with significant long range shooting (overcoming the intended short ranged but powerful shooting theme).

      Slaves are not trusted with shooting weapons

      I reiterate - is this a design document, or regurgitation of the status quo? Because that's awfully darn specific.

      Also, with hobgoblins being 'promoted' to semi-elite, shouldn't their equipment options similarly get promoted... If ID industry is so amazing, you'd think they could provide crossbows or something - bows are a signifier of a low tech society because it trades the industrial costs of advanced weapons for the social costs of rigorous training. All bow-reliant societies demanded a dedication to the bow from an early age. The bow simply feels anachronistic as a weapon for ID. Why wouldn't dwarves provide better arms for Hobgoblins? As a matter of in-world background.

      Tyranno wrote:

      * When considering range for a weapon, place it towards the lower range of similar weapons in other armies (e.g. had held personal weapons 8-18", catapults: 36-68", bolt throwers: 36-48", and so on). The shooting of the army should have a clear feeling of being short ranged


      ** This doesn't exclude possibility of static war machines. This doesn't have to mean all weapons are quick to fire. There could still be some incentives for not moving. Note that this is mobile shooting by dwarven standards, not elven. When combined with the army's limited lateral movement, this shouldn't be seen as access to avoidance shooting. If Taurukhs are given shooting, than it should not enable very mobile shooting builds - the same feeling as hand held dwarf shooting should be conveyed.

      So, Taurukh are allowed to have ranged weapons, but they can't actually use them worth a darn? Err.. what?

      Also, is anyone really going to pretend that adv7/mar14 cavalry-equivalents without light troops are really avoidance shooting? Light troops is vastly more important than a couple of inches for being avoidance shooting.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Mechanical contraptions and creations
      Dwarf-created machines (war machines, Gunnery Teams, Infernal Engine etc) are a common sight in the ID army. In the context of the guideline, these should be considered dwarven units. These machines can potentially include bound daemons, in which case they may borrow aspects from Kadims.

      Are bound daemons the same as Kadim? Are they something different? (If so, shouldn't they have their own specifications?)

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.8 Defensive Capabilities
      The survivability of dwarfs should come from a combination of basic physiology and mundane equipment (armour and shields). Average armour is high but peeks are rare (e.g. plate armour on most dwarfs, but few options with armour 5 and 6).

      The primary form of defence for Hobgoblins and Slaves are their high numbers. These units don't have much armour or good stats compared to the rest of the ID force (with Hobgoblins being semi-elite).

      If Hob-goblins are becoming semi-elite, shouldn't they receive improved gear options?

      Tyranno wrote:

      Kadims, being supernal beings bound into metal constructs, crave to regain their freedom and are generally very enraged and primal beings. Their disregard for their physical form results in a generally offensively focused unit, trading in protection for improved offensive capabilities.

      This doesn't sound right? Can we get a BGT check?

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.9 Chaff
      Redirecting and avoiding enemies isn't the way of the Infernal Dwarfs. If they need to stop something, they are more likely to feed it large amounts of slaves than to try to lure it away (= using chaff as redirectors). Redirector-focused chaff units should be sub-optimal as pure chaff. This can be achieved by increasing the eliteness and therefore overall quality of the chaff unit.

      Redirector-chaff in core should be completely impossible. Tarpits should be readily available (e.g. Slaves, Hobgoblins, unbreakable machines).

      How does this work in practice? I mean, Taurukh can probably pitch in as redirectors, but that's not really what they're good at.

      Tyranno wrote:

      B.10 Synergies
      ID are generally self-obsessed and disdainful towards other races and therefore have below average inter army synergies besides thematically fitting background driven exceptions: Domination over lesser beings and the flaming / flammable subtheme (see D. Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes for further information).

      ... Wait, the most industrialized society in the T9A world (ie, masters of synergy at vast scales) should suck at synergy? ... Roll save to disbelieve. This makes zero sense at any level. "Leveraging synergies" has become a parody of modern business parlance because it comes up so much in Dilbert-esque slideshow presentations.

      Tyranno wrote:

      C. ID Intra Army Level 1 - Subfractions
      While the army book is mainly centred around the dwarven elements there are noteworthy exceptions: Taurukhs, Kadmins, Disciple of Lugar, Hobgoblins and Slaves.


      C.1 Taurukhs
      A particularly important sub-faction of ID are the Tauruks. Being a magical symbiosis of Dwarf and Bull their movement is compared to the army standard high but still not exceeding average in their unit type class in a game wide comparison. They are similarly well equipped as dwarven units and therefore the regular ID dwarf guidelines apply in this regard. Taurukh units should convey a feeling of being physically strong and being bred fighters with a strong connection to the Shamut clergy. Being used as police (and rioting police) hand held ranged weaponry could be made accessible - in this case the unit should convey the same feeling as the R&F dwarven shooting units (short distance, damaging, mobile by dwarf standards but not very manoeuvrable).

      Okay, i think my vision of Taurukh ranged units and RTs aren't so incompatible. I leave my earlier comment merely as a cautionary note.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Slaves fuel magical rituals, are cannonfodder, and used to tarpit opponents. Due to the Slave import the racial heritage is not uniform but all IDslaves fielded in battle are considered highly expendable, not trained and not entrusted with ranged weaponry. Slaves should suffer severe drawbacks if no dwarven / Taurukh unit is nearby. As their primary role is being a tarpit, and they should therefore be fielded primarily in large units. Slaves should not offer significant damage output or be used for important strategical roles (e.g. scoring).

      So no more orc slaves?

      Tyranno wrote:

      D. ID Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes
      Synergy is not an important or ubiquitous quality in ID armies due to the self centred and condescending nature of ID. After all, they are already better than their enemy, so units with the primary role of improving other ID units are unneeded.

      Self-centeredness leads to cooperation for mutual gain, so I'm not sure the conclusion follows from the premises. (And just because they're better than their enemy doesn't mean next quarter's profit margins couldn't be even better! It's not competition against the enemy, it's competition against each other to be better, faster, stronger, ... and above all, more productive)

      Also, are we using synergy solely to mean direct buffs? That's an interestingly limited use of the term.
      Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

      Legal

      Playtester

      Chariot Command HQ

    • Squirrelloid wrote:

      So return of universal Dwarf 'Stubborn'? I'm not sure what else to take away here.
      I think it might hint at the True Grit rule or some form of it. Which would be awesome.

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      How do you make a slave army not possible?
      I think it's just referring to the current slave rule where you need a decent number of Chosen of Ashuruk models or the slaves become very unreliable.

      -------------------------------

      I noticed a conflict of interest with the Tauruks and the Goblin Wolf Riders.
      The mandate says that the goblin wolf riders are not supposed to be cheap chaff anymore and should be some kind of elite. ...easily solved by just making the upgrade options mandatory. Is the mandate suggesting the goblin wolf riders lose more chaff abilities like light troops? But if Tauruks get ranged weapons and goblins riders cost more, then would that make goblin wolf riders role not needed? For slightly more points you get a beefy Tauruk with better ranged weapon. ...or you can take an expensive chaff goblin wolf rider. I think people would rather take the beefy tauruk, wait for the enemy to kill 3-4 models and then use the Taruuks as chaff.

      I don't see a way that Goblin Wolf riders are not going to be used as Chaff. They can be utility chaff whos role can actually let them do something for the first couple turns with their light troops and fast move.
      Kinda like DE Dark Raiders when you take the xbows and shields. ....they can go kill some stuff but they typically turn into chaff by turn 4 or 5.

      Now, when the book is all made up it might be annoying to make army lists if we don't have a unit where we can throw 5-20 pts worth of upgrades. ....that's what decides if my Goblin Wolf riders get any upgrades - how many points do I got left over? I assume it is similar for other players, might be different at top tier competitive play.

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

    • I'm more or less in line whith what has been said here. Just a couple of thoughts:

      - The state of wolfriders. If it is desired to make them less appealing, I only see a couple of ways of doing it; or shields (and maybe light lances) become mandatory or increase the minium size. I would push for the former, but then they sort of lose against Taurukhs, who at 150 points allready have +4 AS, 2A and S4. Increasing miniumsize also desteoys them.

      - How to make hobgoblins semi elite. Maybe it should be needed to merge citadel guard and infernal warriors, with infernal statline and infernal armour (flintlocks giving +2 S and AP1 to keep current state/price and acces to Infernal weapon to have current hand weapon + shield citadel guard). This allows to give heavy armour to hobgoblins and increase his elitteness.

      I really like the concept of sacrificing slaves to gain buffs on teoops/warmachines/demons.
    • Squirrelloid wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      A.1 Racial Background Description - Dwarves



      Dwarves are known for their robust physique and are very resistant. Furthermore they have a short and sturdy nature and are generally very heavily muscled. Although dwarves are bad sprinters, they excel at long marching. Dwarven military units will generally be well trained and equipped with above average equipment (both quality as well as quantity). Dwarves are a stubborn race and won't be giving ground easily even if heavily outnumbered and suffering severe casualties.
      So return of universal Dwarf 'Stubborn'? I'm not sure what else to take away here.

      "All Dwarves have Discipline 9 or 10 and some units have Bodyguard, Unbreakable, Stubborn and the like" is how I'd read it. But it could easily go in other (similar) directions.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.1 Army Composition
      The core and main bulk of the army consists out of standard sized infantry which is supported by a wide variety of specialized combat and ranged units. ID units are elite with the exception of hobgoblins (semi elite conscripts) and slaves (not elite). While the majority of the book is centred around R&F standard sized infantry units, armies are usually supported by non-standard sized infantry elements. Pure standard sized infantryarmies are be a niche build which sets ID apart from DH.
      Pure infantry armies are supposed to be niche, yet seem to be exactly what the ideal playstyle below is describing. I'm not sure how to rectify this statement with, say, the first sentence of B.1.3 or the inevitable march forward mentality of B.3.

      Dwarven Holds do mono-[standard]infantry.

      ID should basically always include some cavalry, Large or Gigantic units in the mix. A unit of Kadims and some Hobgoblin Wolfriders makes the army not "pure" infantry. So would a pain train and a bound daemon mortar.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.2 Common Equipment
      The technological advancement of the ID combined with rich metal ores in the surrounding areas, results in it being easy to produce high quality armour for a large fraction of their soldiers. Furthermore the dwarfs have the physique and body strength to wear heavy suits of armour for extended periods of time. Thus troops are well equipped (non-dwarves are an exception here) and due to the high level of industrialisation and technology even basic Infernal Dwarves troops (which only serve their mandatory 30 years of military servive) have access to high quality and high quantity mundane equipment. As common mundane equipment can be considered: heavy and plate armour and shields defensively as well as great weapons and various shooting weapons with close combat applications offensively.
      Are Taurukh considered Dwarves or not (by the ID society)?


      Also, why wouldn't the dwarves equip at least trusted servants well (ie, Hobgoblins).


      How do ID compare to DH in terms of industrialization. I want to assume more industrialized, and I'm curious how that can or should be realized.

      - Taurukh are Dwarves and given the full respect due a Dwarf. If anything they tend to be (on average) higher status than regular Dwarves.

      - ID don't trust the Hobgoblins *that* much; note that the guidelines effectively specify letting Hobgoblins have missile weapons is a privilege denied less trusted minions. (I'd say that it's as much "we don't trust the rotten sods to not nick the good stuff and sell them on the black market" as anything else, mind...)

      - ID are the most industrialized faction in the game. DH, EoS and VS are the next three, in alphabetical order NOT 2,3,4.
      They're also possibly the least numerous major race in the world; things like their generally high quality equipment are supposed to reflect that.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.1.3 Overall conveyed in-game feeling (including level of eliteness)
      The army should convey an aggressive/offensive and relentless feeling: "the enemy can run, but they can't hide"; the ID will get them eventually, it is inevitable.


      The dwarf part of the book should have a similar eliteness level as their DH counterparts. Hobgoblins should be more elite than they currently are (to better differentiated with slaves and to make wolf rider less ideal redirectors).


      The Army should not feel overly static with manoeuvrability being limited by the R&F nature of the army. The army has a high eliteness level (with exceptions) and is thus limited in numbers. As such, the army should never be able to play in an avoidance/harrassment style and, although the slave elements are less elite, they should always be a supporting element; a horde army built around slaves should not be possible or be a niche suboptimal build.
      How do you make a slave army not possible? Further, thinking about this from the ID perspective, why should it be niche? Slaves are more plentiful than dwarves - throw them into the forge of war and hammer out the impurities. It's only a problem when you lose control of your slaves.


      I can't think of any good background related reasons to make playing a slave army hard, and thus any such limitations are going to feel inorganic and stilted.

      How? The TT will work it out. I'll point towards the current version of the book as doing just that however, since Slaves will spontaneously run away if you run out of slave masters.

      Like, you can run an Orc Slave heavy list - no problem with them being the majority of bodies on your side of the table - it's just that the army should be recognizable as ID, not OnG.

      Remember, "it's legal, you'll just lose a lot" is acceptable; "niche suboptimal build" is fine.


      Tyranno wrote:

      Combat and shooting can both be important primary sources of damage; both gunlines and highly focused combat armies should be possible. The former will be short ranged and a touch more mobile (but not able to quickly redeploy to other areas of the table) than a traditional gunline and the latter is likely to have a strong taurukh/kadim focus in order to have sufficient tactical options. The army is JOAT, and has a quality tool for every occasion, but will never have every tool in every list due to the eliteness.
      Gunlines simply aren't possible at 18" firing range, especially with only advance 3. It's not really a gunline, it's 'you get to S+S', pretty much, and maybe you get to fire before that if you can march and shoot. Let's not play make believe and pretend this is the same thing as real 24-30" gunlines with advance 4 or 5, which are probably getting multiple turns of shooting before combat.
      Now, dwarf ranged units always being dual-purpose ranged/melee and firing while they advance (ie, all can march and shoot), that I could get behind as a design concept.

      Noted. (and, for what it's worth, agreed)


      Tyranno wrote:

      Flying units can be part of a more aggressive ID army, but the amount of flyers should not approach that required for a flying circus playstyle; the flying elements should primarily be support for non-flying elements.
      How many flying units make it a flying circus?

      As many as a piece of string is long.

      The benchmark isn't a number, it's "would the resulting army configurations be described as 'an ID flying circus'?"

      Actual numbers would have to be settled by the TT and vetted by the RT.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.3 Movement
      The ID army does not perform lightning strikes and raids; instead it grinds relentlessly forward. Speed is not a goal for ID; Victory is inevitable as the masses of plate clad bodies break any resistance they face. While some units are fast in the army's context, each individual unit should not be fast for its type. There should be very little focus on improving unit speed. (Dwarfs can still have their standard movement statline of course). Manoeuvrability or lateral movement is limited.

      Furthermore, the perceived inevitably of the ID victory and straightforward approach leaves little room in their strategy for movement tricks. They rely on supporting elements and ranged damage to control the battlefield and not on speedy highly manoeuvrable units.
      This is verging on 'clear as mud' territory. Are current Kadim Incarnates too speedy or too maneuverable? I'm honestly not sure. Repeat for all the other non-basic dwarf units.

      To the best of my knowledge, all ID units are currently acceptable; this is a "no you can't make them faster or more maneuverable".


      Tyranno wrote:

      Non-dwarfs are much more unruly in nature. They follow orders when leaders are nearby as disobedience results in harsh punishment. On the other hand when leader are not nearby, these units have a tendency to follow their more primal emotions instead of a strategical approach. These non-dwarf units need external overseers to operate exactly as the players wants them to.
      Is this a design document, or a regurgitation of what already exists?

      The project is not opposed to the TT saying "this aspect of the book is fine, leave it as-is".

      That said, this IS a map for going forwards, so if there are changes you want, this is THE thread to suggest them.


      Tyranno wrote:

      The army has access to three main paths: Alchemy, Pyromancy and Occultism.
      In addition, they can have very limited access to Witchcraft in non-dwarven casters (e.g. lamasu).
      I'm thrilled to see RT can't spell Lamassu either.

      How does Lamassu access to Witchcraft work with B.3?

      "It's fine" is the short answer. Limited access to spell boosts is a long way from what some armies can do on the maneuverability front.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.6 Shooting
      Infernal dwarf shooting should mainly be short ranged*, highly damaging, and able to move and fire**.

      The ID favour large and powerful items, believing in quality over quantity with their shooting while still being able to equip even basic warriors with specialised shooting equipment due to the level of industrialisation. War machines should be powerful but be limited in range. The artilleryshould have a magical/daemonic/un-conventional feel to it. The majority of shooty units (dwarfs, some contraptions/creations) should not be afraid of entering melee.

      Hobgoblins are not armed with ID weapons, instead they are armed with low tech weapons from the BRB such as bows/throwing weapons, or something similar. They have less damaging shooting (quality / eliteness), and less focus on mobility and short range. Unlike dwarven shooting units Hobgoblins don't desire to enter close combat. Hobgoblin shooting should not be impressive by any means, and it should not be possible to have it as the primary backbone of a gunline list. Hobgoblin shooting should not allow ID builds with significant long range shooting (overcoming the intended short ranged but powerful shooting theme).

      Slaves are not trusted with shooting weapons
      I reiterate - is this a design document, or regurgitation of the status quo? Because that's awfully darn specific.

      Also, with hobgoblins being 'promoted' to semi-elite, shouldn't their equipment options similarly get promoted... If ID industry is so amazing, you'd think they could provide crossbows or something - bows are a signifier of a low tech society because it trades the industrial costs of advanced weapons for the social costs of rigorous training. All bow-reliant societies demanded a dedication to the bow from an early age. The bow simply feels anachronistic as a weapon for ID. Why wouldn't dwarves provide better arms for Hobgoblins? As a matter of in-world background.

      - The lines you question here as 'regurgitation?' have been the ID design specs for as long as I've had access to them (so since before 2.0). This isn't a new restriction, just making it clear that nothing has changed in terms of the kinds of things we can include in the book (if you think that's bad, speak up).


      - If you think Hobgoblins should have more advanced technology due to their association with the ID, well, fair enough. I'm sure Tyranno will pass that on.

      Speaking Background-wise, Hobgoblins are vassals of the ID and have their own military traditions and society. It might be conceivable to have *some* Ziggurats that equip them better.

      Speaking practically, people have a lot of bow-armed hobgoblin miniatures.


      Tyranno wrote:

      * When considering range for a weapon, place it towards the lower range of similar weapons in other armies (e.g. had held personal weapons 8-18", catapults: 36-68", bolt throwers: 36-48", and so on). The shooting of the army should have a clear feeling of being short ranged


      ** This doesn't exclude possibility of static war machines. This doesn't have to mean all weapons are quick to fire. There could still be some incentives for not moving. Note that this is mobile shooting by dwarven standards, not elven. When combined with the army's limited lateral movement, this shouldn't be seen as access to avoidance shooting. If Taurukhs are given shooting, than it should not enable very mobile shooting builds - the same feeling as hand held dwarf shooting should be conveyed.
      So, Taurukh are allowed to have ranged weapons, but they can't actually use them worth a darn? Err.. what?

      Also, is anyone really going to pretend that adv7/mar14 cavalry-equivalents without light troops are really avoidance shooting? Light troops is vastly more important than a couple of inches for being avoidance shooting.

      I believe this should be interpreted as "don't give Taurukhs missile weapons and light troops".

      Like, giving them Blunderbusses (per current rules), Pistols or Flintlock Axes could all potentially be okayed, giving the those and Light Troops would get vetoed super-quick.


      Tyranno wrote:

      Mechanical contraptions and creations
      Dwarf-created machines (war machines, Gunnery Teams, Infernal Engine etc) are a common sight in the ID army. In the context of the guideline, these should be considered dwarven units. These machines can potentially include bound daemons, in which case they may borrow aspects from Kadims.
      Are bound daemons the same as Kadim? Are they something different? (If so, shouldn't they have their own specifications?)

      BGT is literally debating this internally as we speak - we missed the answer to this question out in our earlier passes on the background.

      Feel free to weigh in on what y'all think should be the case - this is your chance! :)


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.8 Defensive Capabilities
      The survivability of dwarfs should come from a combination of basic physiology and mundane equipment (armour and shields). Average armour is high but peeks are rare (e.g. plate armour on most dwarfs, but few options with armour 5 and 6).

      The primary form of defence for Hobgoblins and Slaves are their high numbers. These units don't have much armour or good stats compared to the rest of the ID force (with Hobgoblins being semi-elite).
      If Hob-goblins are becoming semi-elite, shouldn't they receive improved gear options?

      Do you want them to? They might just get better stats but remain a Goblinoid culture (with the same level of tech sophistication as other Goblins), but please do venture an opinion.

      (Like, it's fairly clear that the current outline says "No, they won't" but you can totally say you think they should and it might even change accordingly)


      Tyranno wrote:

      Kadims, being supernal beings bound into metal constructs, crave to regain their freedom and are generally very enraged and primal beings. Their disregard for their physical form results in a generally offensively focused unit, trading in protection for improved offensive capabilities.
      This doesn't sound right? Can we get a BGT check?

      The BGT is doing their own pass on this (I'm in charge of making sure that happens! Go me!).

      I have flagged sections of this paragraph for review by the rest of the team already. That said, "being supernal beings bound into metal constructs" is correct, and again: if you dislike the vision, say so. This is a community opinion fact-finding mission.


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.9 Chaff
      Redirecting and avoiding enemies isn't the way of the Infernal Dwarfs. If they need to stop something, they are more likely to feed it large amounts of slaves than to try to lure it away (= using chaff as redirectors). Redirector-focused chaff units should be sub-optimal as pure chaff. This can be achieved by increasing the eliteness and therefore overall quality of the chaff unit.

      Redirector-chaff in core should be completely impossible. Tarpits should be readily available (e.g. Slaves, Hobgoblins, unbreakable machines).
      How does this work in practice? I mean, Taurukh can probably pitch in as redirectors, but that's not really what they're good at.

      In practice? No idea, it's a design guideline. "Hobgoblin Wolf Riders should cost more points per model but have more eliteness to justify it" is the take-away here though.

      Again, "shouldn't be good at using redirectors" is the design goal; if opposed to us trying to find a way to make that work, speak now. :)


      Tyranno wrote:

      B.10 Synergies
      ID are generally self-obsessed and disdainful towards other races and therefore have below average inter army synergies besides thematically fitting background driven exceptions: Domination over lesser beings and the flaming / flammable subtheme (see D. Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes for further information).
      ... Wait, the most industrialized society in the T9A world (ie, masters of synergy at vast scales) should suck at synergy? ... Roll save to disbelieve. This makes zero sense at any level. "Leveraging synergies" has become a parody of modern business parlance because it comes up so much in Dilbert-esque slideshow presentations.

      Please don't just say 'this is bad'; say what level of synergy (defined as things like buffwagons, buff characters, and other "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" mechanics) you feel ID should have.

      (As a player, I think the answer is 'more than this guideline allows for')


      Tyranno wrote:

      C. ID Intra Army Level 1 - Subfractions
      While the army book is mainly centred around the dwarven elements there are noteworthy exceptions: Taurukhs, Kadmins, Disciple of Lugar, Hobgoblins and Slaves.


      C.1 Taurukhs
      A particularly important sub-faction of ID are the Tauruks. Being a magical symbiosis of Dwarf and Bull their movement is compared to the army standard high but still not exceeding average in their unit type class in a game wide comparison. They are similarly well equipped as dwarven units and therefore the regular ID dwarf guidelines apply in this regard. Taurukh units should convey a feeling of being physically strong and being bred fighters with a strong connection to the Shamut clergy. Being used as police (and rioting police) hand held ranged weaponry could be made accessible - in this case the unit should convey the same feeling as the R&F dwarven shooting units (short distance, damaging, mobile by dwarf standards but not very manoeuvrable).
      Okay, i think my vision of Taurukh ranged units and RTs aren't so incompatible. I leave my earlier comment merely as a cautionary note.

      Tyranno wrote:

      Slaves fuel magical rituals, are cannonfodder, and used to tarpit opponents. Due to the Slave import the racial heritage is not uniform but all IDslaves fielded in battle are considered highly expendable, not trained and not entrusted with ranged weaponry. Slaves should suffer severe drawbacks if no dwarven / Taurukh unit is nearby. As their primary role is being a tarpit, and they should therefore be fielded primarily in large units. Slaves should not offer significant damage output or be used for important strategical roles (e.g. scoring).
      So no more orc slaves?

      This guideline does seem to re-envision the ID slave units as something with less damage output, yes.


      Tyranno wrote:

      D. ID Intra Army Level 2 - Subthemes
      Synergy is not an important or ubiquitous quality in ID armies due to the self centred and condescending nature of ID. After all, they are already better than their enemy, so units with the primary role of improving other ID units are unneeded.
      Self-centeredness leads to cooperation for mutual gain, so I'm not sure the conclusion follows from the premises. (And just because they're better than their enemy doesn't mean next quarter's profit margins couldn't be even better! It's not competition against the enemy, it's competition against each other to be better, faster, stronger, ... and above all, more productive)

      Also, are we using synergy solely to mean direct buffs? That's an interestingly limited use of the term.

      Not strictly, no (I think things like the debuff wagons would also count). Contextually, WDG are low-synergy, DL are high-synergy.


      Again: Say what you want, don't just pick apart what's been posted. It'll help Tyranno a lot if he can say what the community *wants*.

      Background Team

    • Dragus wrote:

      I've read the first post and there is one question I must ask:

      What exactly are you planning to change?

      I mean, every point fits exactly what we have just now, with the only exception of shooting tauruks.
      It doesn't need to change too much. Unlike WDG and DL, ID is a much more stable base to work off of.

      I'm expecting that the new ID book will be recognizable (dwarves, fire monsters, goblins and slaves, etc., etc.) but will be refined and updated. Maybe the slaves will be adjusted from orcs to a variety of races. Maybe the Kadim will be adjusted to be a little more uniform with each other. Maybe a new form of Kadim will be added. Maybe the engineer will be made useful. Things like that.
    • I've posted several thoughts in that other thread about where I'd like ID to go, fwiw. I'm sure Tyranno knows where they are.

      Anyway, on some specific issues:

      1. I'd like Orc Slaves to remain. While I'm sure ID are equal-opportunity slavers, I don't think they'd bother pushing, say, human slaves into combat. Also, I think there'd be real price/balance issues, considering how cheap orc slaves already are. I don't think ID should end up with a VS slave level unit that's pretty much useless for anything besides tarpit, especially as VS has rules which let them exploit that a lot better, so the ID version would need to be even cheaper...

      2. Hobgoblins - it depends strongly on precisely what the relationship is between hobgoblin groups and the ID political entity(ies?). (Does this have a name? The faction is not the country). But I'd still like to see some improved gear options - heavy armor for hobgoblins shouldn't be unreasonable.

      The region ID finds itself in (roughly historical persian empires) has an unfortunate gap in local indigenous leadership during the most critical time periods. Later empires are almost entirely gunpowder based (with little room for 'tribal' allies). To find an earlier empire you have to go back to the Sassanids from late antiquity. Between then the persian area was ruled by either islamic caliphates or mongols (the ilkhanate and the timurids primarily). So there's some room for interpretation here.

      On the other hand, ID's level of industrialism surpasses any historical expectations for the area. So I'd tilt towards more better equipment than less, solely because spillover is inevitable.

      3. Synergy
      I'd like to see ID have extensive synergy in terms of units working well together. Not necessarily direct buffs or debuffs, but just the philosophy of the army as a whole being integrated into the design of units and their interactions. ie, they might be weak in explicit synergy, but they should be strong in implicit (functional) synergy.

      By way of example:
      One thing I pointed out elsewhere is that short ranged artillery doesn't really make sense with short-ranged dwarf-portable weapons, because the artillery cannot adequately provide fire support for the (necessarily) advancing infantry. This is a profoundly stupid army philosophy from an in-world standpoint, not just a tabletop standpoint. Only long range man-portable weapon armies can afford short range artillery, because they can push the enemy into advancing into the range of the artillery.

      There's two possible exits to this conundrum: (1) long range artillery, (2) highly mobile artillery that can keep up with the infantry while providing fire support.

      4. Taurukhs
      Just thinking about what I'd do if I had a military group like Taurukhs available for military uses, ranged weapons like Blunderbusses are only the beginning.

      "Horse"-artillery that can march and shoot (probably with a slight penalty to adv/mar like 6/12) would solve the synergy issue with artillery. They're also an easily accessed possibility for a faction which is well ahead of the curve on industrialization and can train centaur-like creatures as artillery operators. ie, ID are the ideal faction to develop and deploy such a unit. Their obsession with powerful weapons also makes this a natural route to take. The better question to ask is 'why hasn't anyone implemented this before?', because it's literally the second thing (after blunderbusses on Taurukhs) i think about when i think about what ID should be doing.

      5. Background developing organically, not just by writer fiat (and army design following)
      As per the reasoning under Taurukhs above, I'd like to see background begin by posing questions in world about what you could do with known assets.

      This is where my comments on 'is this a design document or regurgitation of the status quo' come from, because the design document feels like it wants to set down existing limits as hard lines, but no one has bothered to ask what a society with its known assets and limitations would choose to do. I'd like to see a design document that is deeper and less mechanical detail specific. It should provide answers to questions like 'what types of assets does ID have access to?' and 'what sort of limitations does ID suffer from?' - not in terms of statlines, but in terms of resources, production, populations (numbers and types), political structure, etc...

      Avoiding this work almost inevitably leads to one of several failure modes, up to total suspension of disbelief failure. In fiction and movies these are a class of plotholes where if protagonists and/or antagonists could just ignore the idiot ball in the script, there's an obvious plan of action they're only not doing because the script writer didn't want them to. Our factions should not be holding idiot balls.
      Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

      Legal

      Playtester

      Chariot Command HQ

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

    • @All

      These are a first draft of the RT guidelines to give to the army book team, which sketch things out roughly and aims to not be super prescriptive (except where we anticipate specific questions from the army book team).
      The background team are also providing feedback on them as we speak, and once they are finalised the army book will go into a conceptual phase where the background and mechanical scope of the book are fleshed out together in more detail.

      What we primarily want to hear about off you guys is the broad-brush scope/feel of the faction that you get from these.
      Does it kinda match how you envisage ID to be?
      Who they are?
      Their attitude?
      How they fight?
      Etc...
      Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
      Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
    • Squirreloid:

      I've passed on some of what you just said to the BGT.

      One thing I'll note is that Taurukh were made (not born) for a purpose ("we need dwarf cavalry, but dwarfs are lousy horsemen"). If the ID want mobile artillery, they're quite capable of creating something purpose-built for the task; the gunnery teams and iron daemon as-is do that, and move-and-shoot Bound Daemons don't seem like a violation of anything written in the guidelines.

      That is, they don't have centaurs; they have oxen, dwarves, ritual materials and an expensive spell for fusing said oxen and dwarves together.
      (Taurukh are primarily mounted policemen, not soldiers, because you need to be able to run down escaping slaves. Most ID [inc Taurukh] models on a battlefield aren't professional soldiers - they're conscripts and policemen who've been mobilized.

      It's not that ID aren't expansionistic, it's that they have a small population and they've already engulfed a lot of other minor nations that they need to patrol and enforce order in... and unlike Rome, they don't have a policy of making conquered peoples' populations "into Romans".)


      Uh. Point is, why make a Taurukh and train them to use artillery when you can make a cannon and fuse it with an angry fire elemental that moves just as fast and can bounce bullets off a hide of steel for a comparable investment?

      (Some qualities you want in a policeman - such as "not inclined to eat people that come too close" and "ability to speak" and so on - are not as useful in a war machine, so you have different design specifications)


      But yeah. It kinda puts it in perspective: an ID army is basically a bunch of police (Citadel Guard, Taurukhs) with maybe one unit of actual soldiers (Immortals) and possibly some conscripts (Infernal Warriors), plus the mechanized stuff that's actually designed for war (Bound Daemons). Their police double as a military because they need an enormous police force to keep their conquered lands subjugated. Heck, even the Iron Daemon has a day job as an honest-to-goodness train.

      (Of course, the ID words for "policeman" and "slavecatcher" are probably synonyms. ;) )

      Background Team

    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Squirreloid:

      I've passed on some of what you just said to the BGT.

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      It's not that ID aren't expansionistic, it's that they have a small population and they've already engulfed a lot of other minor nations that they need to patrol and enforce order in... and unlike Rome, they don't have a policy of making conquered peoples' populations "into Romans".)
      This is exactly what I'm getting at regarding slavery.
      I've studied lots of History, and part of that includes the study of slavery worldwide - not just the USA kind.
      Infernal Dwarfs enslaving their own dwarf people just wouldn't be viable - especially if they have a low population. What happens is that people start to find ways of enslaving their competition and after a while there are lots of citizens who are slaves. In this case, lots of dwarfs who are slaves - who know how to make good armour and weapons. This always leads to rebellion. And not an easily squashed rebellion either, usually a long protacted war because the slaves are literally the equal of the masters.

      I heavily suggest for credibility that we write into the lore that at one time Infernal Dwarves enslaved dwarfs but this quickly lead to rebellions and has since changed so that a dwarf cannot be a slave in ID society.
      I wrote this a bit more elegantly in the general thread.



      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Uh. Point is, why make a Taurukh and train them to use artillery when you can make a cannon and fuse it with an angry fire elemental that moves just as fast and can bounce bullets off a hide of steel for a comparable investment?
      This can probably be done both ways by making sure the unit entries have enough varied base sizes and rules to allow for model customization.
    • I'm not really the one you need to say that to, I'm personally opposed to ID enslaving ID (I personally advocate for a "Dwarves being enslaved is unthinkable!" belief whereby they actually actively free DH dwarves who end up on the block thanks to DE raids - although they naturally demand an appropriate recompense for this ;) ).

      I've passed it along.

      Background Team

    • Just a quick note: Dwarves being a stubborn race is not meant in the sense of the in-game rule stubborn. It is an attribute meant to describe their attitude and not their actual in game rules. Thanks for pointing out that this part of the wording should be made less ambiguous :)

      If you have any specific questions that don't take ages to answer than feel free to tag me - if I find the time than I will happily answer them :)

      Regards,
      Philip
      Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age Founding Member

      ETC 2012 2nd Place
      ETC 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017 & 2018 Participant

      Rules Questions?
      Moderator Requests
    • Sir_Joker wrote:

      Just a quick note: Dwarves being a stubborn race is not meant in the sense of the in-game rule stubborn. It is an attribute meant to describe their attitude and not their actual in game rules. Thanks for pointing out that this part of the wording should be made less ambiguous :)

      If you have any specific questions that don't take ages to answer than feel free to tag me - if I find the time than I will happily answer them :)

      Regards,
      Philip
      Is it the same case when guidelines say that dwarves have a "sturdy nature"? Because it is hard to not read it as asking to reimplement Sturdy in the army.
    • Gomio wrote:

      Is it the same case when guidelines say that dwarves have a "sturdy nature"? Because it is hard to not read it as asking to reimplement Sturdy in the army.
      Not related to the rule either :)
      Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age Founding Member

      ETC 2012 2nd Place
      ETC 2011, 2012, 2013, 2016, 2017 & 2018 Participant

      Rules Questions?
      Moderator Requests