Balance Update 2.1 & 2.2

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

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • Wes456123 wrote:

    Thanks for sharing @Klexe.

    I'm very surprised by the lack of Brigands - even more so that they're picked less than core Bowmen. What is it that people don't like about them? Light Troops, Skirmisher, Quick to Fire, and Aim (3+) always felt a winning combination to me, even when compared to elves considering how damn cheap they are.
    What other already said: a normal koe list ist
    40% chars
    25% core
    = 65%
    Adding yeomen and scorps and 1 bus of your choice (grails, questors) and you have zero space left

    Glonojad wrote:

    There's so much more to take in Special.
    agreed. That is why i hope for 5% drop in core % or yeomen into core (elfen already have that)

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    ealistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters so they're pretty much up to 40% or certaintly in the high 30 percents. Core is a minimum of 25% so that's as near as 65% of your army gone without thinking about special units.
    yep

    McBaine wrote:

    What do you mean that doesn't sound healthy?! Of course knights will be picked more, the appeal of this army is for most people, that it is a knigt/cavalry army.

    And what do you mean by fair?! Equality of outcome is stupid. Would you say that Special has to be distributed equally too to be fair? That makes no sense and removes choice for no reason. If I can't field an all cavalry army, that would seriously suck.

    My rates are similarly low or lower. My last list had 34,2% Aspirants, 52,9% Realms, 12,9% Bowmen and 0% Levy in Core. Since this lone unit of archers was the only instance of peasants in my army, overall peasants where 3,8% of my army.
    agreed. But they still need to be picked! Else we could just remove them.
    And if we are straight true here.... if we remove current peasants the powerlevel of KoE wouldnt drop one bit.

    Most lists have zero peasants.

    What i meant with FAIR (i wrote it fat because fair is not fair if you now what i mean). It is hard to say.

    KoE is cavalry focused! So 50/50 would NOT be fair.

    The unit needs to have an pick rate. Zero pick rate means the unit failed.
    And if KoE is cavalry focused the unit should be there to support cavalry and help cavalry.
    For that it needs a task.


    Chaff is the counter to cavalry so anti chaff is a good task which bowmen have.

    So the question is: why do people not play more bowmen? They are there to help cavalry by removing chaff. Answer is: They are not good enough


    I personally hope for a 10% pick rate on both of them

    McBaine wrote:

    So? That means they aren't picked much. This number is close to my list, but I think you interpret this number different than me. I took them for a specific task (removing chaff and softening up some units if possible). I didn't take more because I think 1 unit is enough and I solve the rest with other units. Doesn't mean they are trash. I don't take forlorn either (because I don't have the models and like an all - or 96,2% - cavalry army). That doesn't mean Forlorn are trash, it just means I chose to build my army list different.
    Well everyone can interpret the numbers in his own way. There is a reason why people get payed for evaluating stuff like this.
    And i think i made it clear that what i am talking is ONLY my point of view, nothing offical or anything else!

    McBaine wrote:

    None. There shouldn't be an acceptable or unacceptable number of peasants. Everyone should have the choice to field them as they wished. That choice should be able to be 0%.
    Sure. Everyone should be able to choose and you are free to choose. The only unit you need is a general and 4500 points. The rest is your choice.

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    It’s probably mostly because they’re in special lol, and I love brigands! @Klexe
    I know you do. Funnily i find brigands one of the better units because of movement, anti vanguard and better hitting power and i truly belive if we had like 5% more special points we would see them more (and a little buff)

    That is why I again say:
    Range dmg should only be special and be good at supporting cavalry
    20% core only
    Move yeomen into core (but then 25% core)

    ---> this would allow us 1-2 units more in special and would open up builds to support pieces

    Peacemaker wrote:

    why go by % points at all?
    The very fact that a unit gets taken means it is viable. I have not seen other forums use % points in this fashion.
    infernal dwarves had a neat chart of lists and what units were taken. They had a good spread for their core. No one even mentioned points.
    I dont understand you really having a chart or % is for me personally the same.

    But i disagree hard with you.
    If 97 people dont take the unit and 3 people take the unit it clearly states the unit is NOT viable

    But dont worry for the true data evaluation i take the approche just flo and co want.

    Feel free to build a nice pie chart :) you have the stats

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • Glonojad wrote:

    Well, if I have ca. 130p free I go for yeomen. If it was closer to 200 it would be another hero or maybe a pair of ballistae...

    In other words, in my current army I would have to drop either:
    - 7 forlorn making the unit useless as anvil
    - reliquary, making the forlorn useless as anvil
    - 2 grail knights, making them useless as a hammer
    - a paladin, making KotR doubtful as a hammer...

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    There's no chaff in core (you can run aspirants or realms as chaff but they're not as good at it as yeomen) so you buy 1-2 units of yeomen. You're now down to 1350 points.
    Yes that's both fair. I suppose it's down to what you're using as chaff. And then there's the rest of the list to consider on top of that. Personally I like Aspirants *and* Brigands as it splits the job of Yeomen into two different units that do those jobs better (Aspirants can actually clear things in combat, Brigands are more effective at shooting than Yeomen). Of course this is a far more expensive solution and probably tends more towards a more MSU style of play.
  • Klexe wrote:

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.
    What's wrong is, that you want peasants to be good and viable, when the background and design stated until now that they are notorious for being bad... so, if background informs rules, you better hope for better background for the peasants. As it is now the levy can barely work as a tarpit.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • I see what you’re saying, but, 5% of course is 225 points. The crossbow unit I use is just 23 points more, but puts me 10 points over core anyway. However, if they become more powerful, which is your goal, they’d be more expensive. Which means I’d have to take less models... and then they’d probably be roughly just as effective? Or even less effective if they have better defense and less models (your pavise shield idea).

    bottom line is s4 shooting is not bad, and we already have 30 inch range. The problem is they can’t hit well... it they’re cheap to make up for with more models I suppose. This is where brigands come in, they’d super mobile and don’t any suffer any penalty other than cover and long range, and with 30inch s3 shots they’re good enough for mobile chaff that try to hide
  • Klexe wrote:

    I dont understand you really having a chart or % is for me personally the same.

    But i disagree hard with you.
    If 97 people dont take the unit and 3 people take the unit it clearly states the unit is NOT viable

    But dont worry for the true data evaluation i take the approche just flo and co want.
    % points has no bearing on whether a unit is viable or not. All a unit needs to be viable are a significant amount of players taking them.
    % points is used for an entirely different purpose.

    I'm not sure how you can disagree with that since your own quote shows exactly what I'm talking about.

    Klexe wrote:

    If 97 people dont take the unit and 3 people take the unit it clearly states the unit is NOT viable
  • If that happened our cav would be weak. But that would never happen anyway.

    On Core, many factions have asked for less percentage but few got it. And honestly its a lazy approach. Fix core units instead! And perhaps even re-envision what KOE core is. Tarpits? Not a needed role and thats 1/4 of our choices.
    Bowmen ya they have a good role, but its also fulfilled by aspirants plus we don't need much more than 1 unit. So thats 1/2 our core choices in mostly unused units.

    Getting value from core should be a priority no something we try and avoid taking.

    For example currently we can build a functional mainline lance from core, if we set aside a character for each lance.
    If not the unit gets BotLC.. aka the default since its a specific tool and cheaper plus it doesn't take character percentage.

    Any core knights not in those two categories (character supported or BotLC) is chaff/anti chaff and this is partly due to lack of value from the other 2 core units limiting options.

    In essence I feel we are somewhat forced into more knights then is healthy because infantry doesn't fill the roles the army could find useful.
    This leads to predictable builds and restriction in list design. Sure we should be more capable of all cav than anyone but not at the exclusion of combined arms.


    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters so they're pretty much up to 40% or certainly in the high 30 percents. Core is a minimum of 25% so that's as near as 65% of your army gone without thinking about special units.
    Haha this made me Lol for truth! Sig'd..
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • Pigtails wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Peasant Archers (in Special):
    no.
    not in special.

    in core.

    if you wanna make a band of merry men as a unit in special, then by all means. but no, you're not going to move bowmen from core to special.

    more to the point of 'bAcKgRoUnD dRiVeN dEsIgN':

    the army doesn't have any background and is therefore not a factor into any of these discussions. there's this circular trap of "we do designs based on background" but what really is the influence for design is a) old bretonnian stuff, and b) player needs/wants/desires which the fluff is then designed to accommodate, if referenced at all. unless the implication here is that these things are not listened to, two dudes sit down and fart out a few paragraphs, and work gets started on that of course. so no, we don't have to justify why X makes sense when coming up with suggestions to 'fit in' with the lore in the same way you guys don't - it's literally anything goes right now and that's a good thing.

    the goal ought to be to have an engaging, interesting army to play. that's first and foremost. i am a huge lore nerd on a LOT of stuff, but at the same time i can recognize that this is a warGAME and not a story - we're at a table to push dudes around and roll dice and have fun for a while. fluff has it's place but if anything it's a far distant second to the mechanics. as part of the community that has no influence on fluff that is already written or something??? (it's really not clear what has been in the pipe for a while or is finished or what, just this kind of ethereal 'things are written down, but we can't show it' state), the best we can do is offer input on RULES. the things that we interact with on a constant basis.

    Nope, nope, nope.

    Fluff comes first, end of discussion. Your accusations are false; the BGT did not begin from GW's lore. It is a ground-up fantasy setting, and the fact that we haven't publically released all the details doesn't mean the BGT haven't spent six (or more? not sure, I don't actually know when the project began, just when I first found it) years working on it.


    "Mechanics first" design is BAD design. It's "oh we need to WIN GAMES so let's copy this thing that everyone else does and justify it with some half-assed backstory later maybe". It feels generic, it feels bland, it's uncreative and it almost never comes up with anything new and cool.


    Whereas when you come up with something neat in the backstory and then figure out how to express that? You end up in places you never thought you would begin.


    Yes, the goal is to have an engaging interesting SET OF SIXTEEN armies to play with; the worst possible way to do that is to start with a wishlist of buffs and just shovel them onto units. Wishlists are typically full of the more powerful, most boring, least engaging power fantasies the creators can imagine. It'd be fun - until the price tag for balancing all the buffs shows up, and then the book will not be fun.


    So here's what you can do to be useful:

    1) Don't repeat the tripe you just said. Every time someone makes me waste my time shooting down claims that the background is irrelevant, or not really done, or based on someone else's IP, you are directly harming the project by pushing project members that much closer to burnout. Oh, and wasting time I COULD be using on actually improving the army books. Literally, this is interrupting me working on the ID LAB. AND making me angry, because it's an insult to the integrity of the BGT and literally everyone who has taken time out of their own lives to try and explain the project to people honestly.

    2) When commenting on rules, identity problems, not solutions. Your wish lists are nowhere near as clever or as useful as you think they are, but the community is the absolute best resource we have for working out what people don't like. There is a reason the ABCs are gone, and that's because rules design by the community didn't work very well. Y'all do not understand, or respect, the design constraints the game needs on a holistic level. But you do have a lot of experience at playing the game, and remembering what you didn't like.

    3) If you want to do more than that, apply for a team. When the project says "community driven" it means "anyone can just sign up for a team and become part of the project" not "we do exactly what random forumites demand".

    Background Team

  • McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.
    What's wrong is, that you want peasants to be good and viable, when the background and design stated until now that they are notorious for being bad... so, if background informs rules, you better hope for better background for the peasants. As it is now the levy can barely work as a tarpit.

    "viable" is not the same as "elite" and it definitely isn't the same as "high OS/DS" or "wears heavy armour".

    "This unit is not skilled at fighting" has plenty of options for "BUT".

    Identify problems, don't worry about solutions, and especially don't go "I figure we can get this buff, if we whine right, even though it's not really what I would want". Your job isn't to make compromises; that's the LAB team's job. Your job is make it clear what options they have that will make the community happy - and that means, if you really must specify designs, you need to specify EVERY design you would find acceptable.

    Community unity on what the problem is is good. The community fixating on a specific mechanical fix when there's dozens others they would also be happy on but think would be less likely to get implemented (and could be WRONG about that - one of the others might be much more tenable) is not good.

    Background Team

  • I think infantry just needs to buff our knights in combat. It’s a way to keep the stats low on peasants, and way to make up for them dying a lot. When in the same combat, peasants can increase the amount of wounds our knights cause to offset them dying so much.

    And it could very well be fluffy, instead of the old lore where Bret mobility basically hated peasants, it could be the exact opposite. When their countrymen they’ve sworn to protect are in immediate danger, they fight that much harder. It could be tied to any model with Insignificant
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Literally, this is interrupting me working on the ID LAB. AND making me angry, because it's an insult to the integrity of the BGT and literally everyone who has taken time out of their own lives to try and explain the project to people honestly.

    probably prudent to not look in the koe forum then so you can work on your book :)

    i sincerely hope you are not attached to this particular part of the project. i'll leave it at that.

    Marcos24 wrote:

    I think infantry just needs to buff our knights in combat. It’s a way to keep the stats low on peasants, and way to make up for them dying a lot. When in the same combat, peasants can increase the amount of wounds our knights cause to offset them dying so much.
    i like it as an idea, but the thing is it's sort of hard to come up with a universal "good for all knights" rule i feel - what would benefit a grindy unit is going to be at least a little different than what you want out of a stack of dudes to rock in and smash face. but i'm all for anything that can bump up any sort of strength in terms of levy being more than points you just toss in the trash bucket.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.
    What's wrong is, that you want peasants to be good and viable, when the background and design stated until now that they are notorious for being bad... so, if background informs rules, you better hope for better background for the peasants. As it is now the levy can barely work as a tarpit.
    "viable" is not the same as "elite" and it definitely isn't the same as "high OS/DS" or "wears heavy armour".


    I never said I wanted them to be elite, or with heavy armor. I could live with better OS/DS to represent them being better fighters, but since I don't like infantry that much, I really have no horse in this race :P


    "This unit is not skilled at fighting" has plenty of options for "BUT".


    That's fine. If you come up with good rules and good background, maybe I'll take them. At the moment, they aren't for me.



    Identify problems, don't worry about solutions, and especially don't go "I figure we can get this buff, if we whine right, even though it's not really what I would want". Your job isn't to make compromises; that's the LAB team's job. Your job is make it clear what options they have that will make the community happy - and that means, if you really must specify designs, you need to specify EVERY design you would find acceptable.

    Community unity on what the problem is is good. The community fixating on a specific mechanical fix when there's dozens others they would also be happy on but think would be less likely to get implemented (and could be WRONG about that - one of the others might be much more tenable) is not good.
    My problems with Peasant Levy as they are now (without looking at background or personal liking as much as I can):
    • They have really low Dis, therefore are easy to panic and easy to break if no fealty knights are close
    • They have a hard time keeping up with the knights to keep the better Dis and March rate
    • Even if they keep up, they can't really support the knights and might make things more difficult, due to dying very easily.
    • They can't act alone as a tarpit, because they lack the survivability and Dis.
    • There are just better options to take
    These are my problems with Levy.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • @Pigtails I think there’s plenty of ways. They can affect the enemy unit when knights attack them, such as lower their defense vs the knights’ attacks, peasants gain distracting when the enemy targets peasants instead of the knights. For each failed hit roll against peasants, knights gain +1 automatic hit.

    or even add attacks to the knight’s profile, or hatred, LR. Change to reroll to wound on the following rounds of combat after a charge. And I’m not thinking so much in terms of grinding necessarily, but more so on making the charge actually devastating
  • McBaine wrote:

    My problems with Peasant Levy as they are now (without looking at background or personal liking as much as I can):


    They have really low Dis, therefore are easy to panic and easy to break if no fealty knights are close

    They have a hard time keeping up with the knights to keep the better Dis and March rate

    Even if they keep up, they can't really support the knights and might make things more difficult, due to dying very easily.

    They can't act alone as a tarpit, because they lack the survivability and Dis.

    There are just better options to take
    These are my problems with Levy.
    Ya this is pretty much ALL the problems with peasants. Survivability is solved with more bodies but the rest agree.

    I've been trying serfs again both levy's and crusaders plus bowmen. I feel serfs need the combo of humility and forlorns and then optional but worth considering is ranged units. And forlorns require the bsb. Pretty intensive on the list. At least if going crusaders instead of levy's then they can operate outside of the bubbles or even get away without humility.
    "Realistically (unless you're DanT or some other genius) you need characters.." -Sir_Sully

    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
  • Stygian wrote:

    Ya this is pretty much ALL the problems with peasants. Survivability is solved with more bodies but the rest agree.
    Depends. More bodies are not always a solution. As a tarpit, even if there are more bodies, they will lose, because they die in droves and even with steadfast are not likely to stick around without some fealty knights close by.

    Even worse if you try to support knights in combat, they might just give easy CR to the enemy and make it more likely that knights break too.

    These might not be the intended uses, but at the moment, they have no real use. Even with more bodies as a tarpit they have a shaky stand in my opinion.

    I'll try to go through the slim book and post my opinions about problems I have with the different units.
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw:
  • McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.
    What's wrong is, that you want peasants to be good and viable, when the background and design stated until now that they are notorious for being bad... so, if background informs rules, you better hope for better background for the peasants. As it is now the levy can barely work as a tarpit.
    There is no background so that is wrong right now.
    Also they can be "bad" and still be "good".
    Weird is we have the same opinion about their tarpit function

    Marcos24 wrote:

    I see what you’re saying, but, 5% of course is 225 points. The crossbow unit I use is just 23 points more, but puts me 10 points over core anyway. However, if they become more powerful, which is your goal, they’d be more expensive. Which means I’d have to take less models... and then they’d probably be roughly just as effective? Or even less effective if they have better defense and less models (your pavise shield idea).

    bottom line is s4 shooting is not bad, and we already have 30 inch range. The problem is they can’t hit well... it they’re cheap to make up for with more models I suppose. This is where brigands come in, they’d super mobile and don’t any suffer any penalty other than cover and long range, and with 30inch s3 shots they’re good enough for mobile chaff that try to hide
    1000points in 1 model is stronger then 1000models each 1 point.

    Sure s4 is not bad. Crossbows are still bad.

    The reason lower models are stronger
    • less panic prone (if higher ld)
    • Easier to move the own unit
    • Easier to move other units
    • better at capping points
    • Better at hiding
    • better vs enemies (less space for the enemy to attack)


    More models = better shooting is wrong as this would need line formation which makes them worse again

    Peacemaker wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    I dont understand you really having a chart or % is for me personally the same.

    But i disagree hard with you.
    If 97 people dont take the unit and 3 people take the unit it clearly states the unit is NOT viable

    But dont worry for the true data evaluation i take the approche just flo and co want.
    % points has no bearing on whether a unit is viable or not. All a unit needs to be viable are a significant amount of players taking them. % points is used for an entirely different purpose.

    I'm not sure how you can disagree with that since your own quote shows exactly what I'm talking about.

    Klexe wrote:

    If 97 people dont take the unit and 3 people take the unit it clearly states the unit is NOT viable

    i took % of points... which for me personally is the same as saying we had 10peasants entries and 200 knight entries.
    Feel free to make your own stats

    McBaine wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    McBaine wrote:

    Klexe wrote:

    But if all competative lists do NOT pick them it means there is something wrong with this unit. Competative lists are mostly powerplay and thus are taking units to win.
    What's wrong is, that you want peasants to be good and viable, when the background and design stated until now that they are notorious for being bad... so, if background informs rules, you better hope for better background for the peasants. As it is now the levy can barely work as a tarpit.
    "viable" is not the same as "elite" and it definitely isn't the same as "high OS/DS" or "wears heavy armour".

    I never said I wanted them to be elite, or with heavy armor. I could live with better OS/DS to represent them being better fighters, but since I don't like infantry that much, I really have no horse in this race :P


    "This unit is not skilled at fighting" has plenty of options for "BUT".


    That's fine. If you come up with good rules and good background, maybe I'll take them. At the moment, they aren't for me.



    Identify problems, don't worry about solutions, and especially don't go "I figure we can get this buff, if we whine right, even though it's not really what I would want". Your job isn't to make compromises; that's the LAB team's job. Your job is make it clear what options they have that will make the community happy - and that means, if you really must specify designs, you need to specify EVERY design you would find acceptable.

    Community unity on what the problem is is good. The community fixating on a specific mechanical fix when there's dozens others they would also be happy on but think would be less likely to get implemented (and could be WRONG about that - one of the others might be much more tenable) is not good.
    My problems with Peasant Levy as they are now (without looking at background or personal liking as much as I can):
    • They have really low Dis, therefore are easy to panic and easy to break if no fealty knights are close
    • They have a hard time keeping up with the knights to keep the better Dis and March rate
    • Even if they keep up, they can't really support the knights and might make things more difficult, due to dying very easily.
    • They can't act alone as a tarpit, because they lack the survivability and Dis.
    • There are just better options to take
    These are my problems with Levy.
    1. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (i talk about peasant anvil and not tarpit)
    2. Can be helped with the anvil is in special (banner option and more space for rules)
    3. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (heavy armor in core? never=
    4. well as tarpit they work imo and that they need a ld buff for that is fine. Most tarpit need that
    5. yep they are not viable

    Stygian wrote:

    Ya this is pretty much ALL the problems with peasants. Survivability is solved with more bodies but the rest agree.
    Eh yes and no. It depends. Vs LD test more bodies does not help survivablity

    McBaine wrote:

    Depends. More bodies are not always a solution. As a tarpit, even if there are more bodies, they will lose, because they die in droves and even with steadfast are not likely to stick around without some fealty knights close by
    yes

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

    Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
  • Klexe wrote:

    McBaine wrote:

    My problems with Peasant Levy as they are now (without looking at background or personal liking as much as I can):
    • They have really low Dis, therefore are easy to panic and easy to break if no fealty knights are close
    • They have a hard time keeping up with the knights to keep the better Dis and March rate
    • Even if they keep up, they can't really support the knights and might make things more difficult, due to dying very easily.
    • They can't act alone as a tarpit, because they lack the survivability and Dis.
    • There are just better options to take
    These are my problems with Levy.
    1. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (i talk about peasant anvil and not tarpit)
    2. Can be helped with the anvil is in special (banner option and more space for rules)
    3. Can be helped with when the anvil is in special (heavy armor in core? never=
    4. well as tarpit they work imo and that they need a ld buff for that is fine. Most tarpit need that
    5. yep they are not viable


    You seem keen on making them an anvil. I do not necessarily agree that is the way to go. They have to be good at something, but it doesn't need to be as anvil.

    With moving them to special you propose some kind of better equipment, stats and rules. I see the following problems with that:
    1. We are left with only 3 core choices, two of which are 0-4. (Not a problem for me, but it limits choice and that is never good in my opinion).
    2. If they are in special (and "better" stat/equipment wise), they will become more expensive, therefore competing with the other special entries
    3. If they are in special (and "better" stat/equipment wise), they will muddy the waters, because there are already Forlorns who can do what you want the peasants to do (being an anvil).
    Stone: "Nerf Paper, it is overpowered. Scissors are well balanced."

    :KoE: :VC: :WDG_bw: