Empire of Dannstahl

    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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

    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!

    • Empire of Dannstahl

      Latest Version (1.1) HERE. With points!


      Hi all

      I'm going to make a tweaked version of EoS, mostly for my own interest, and partially to demonstrate what a possible endpoint could be if the direction of the 2.0 update was carried to conclusion.


      To make this exercise as useful as possible, I have used the project guideline structure as was published for the DE and ID guidelines that have been made public.
      These guidelines are not set in stone; I intend to update them during the process and maintain them as a living document.

      The idea behind this is to be able to broadly separate issues and feedback into two categories:
      (A) Dissatisfaction at the guideline level: different vision of the army, different interpretation of the guidelines...
      (B) Dissatisfaction at the book level: specific implementation considered to be poor, not in line with the guidelines...


      I don't have access to internal EoS background, so it is possible, even likely, that this work will be contrary to the EoS background in places.
      If anyone wants to draw any published EoS background to my attention, to either support or go against my guidelines, please do.
      I will update the guidelines to stay within my understanding of the background.



      POINTS DISCLAIMER
      The only thing I am sure of is that the prices are wrong!
      They are intended to be a rough starting point, enough to allow people to play some games where the forces are roughly fair.

      I will update any egregious pricing errors based on the feedback I get, but I am not going to try to get it properly balanced on the level of the project books; that would require substantial tournament data.



      My vision for EoS: big picture and tabletop feel

      • Ordinary men in a hostile and strange world.
      • Individually mediocre fighters (in the context of t9a battlefields; they'd still handily batter me and you).
      • Strength comes from their co-operation and military structure: their mate in a nearby unit with a handgun, their officer commanding/leading them, the work of engineers and wizards etc etc.
      • Characters lead/inspire: they bolster the troops rather than being individually powerful fighters.
      • Military feel/structure/hierarchy.
      • Technological themes, typically in proportion to eliteness.
      • Focus on combined arms, able to score VPs with both ranged damage and combat, and with a wide variety of shooting and combat tools (so the player can choose to go for a more combat or more ranged heavy army).
      • Synergy focus: in isolated unit vs unit fights, EoS will struggle. But truly 'whole is greater than the sum of its parts". Parts implicitly and explicitly boost each other.
      • Army powerful when used coherently and fighting in the way it wants to fight.
      • Weak if the enemy can isolate units and disrupt the empire battle line, preventing the units from mutually supporting.
      • Army typically forms a battleline and fights from this position, forming a united front facing the enemy.
      • Gunlines and cavalry armies should be possible, but not the "go to" focus within the book (these are essentially the two extremes of the "combined arms" spectrum).
      • Multiple medium/small units, with limited Death Star potential.



      Empire of Dannstahl guidelines :)

      General Information
      This guideline is meant to convey how I envision the Empire of Dannstahl army book (I.e. my take on EoS). I have stolen/copied the guideline structure as the project has released for ID and DE. None of this should be taken as a project statement or representative of the project view on the faction (although of course when I was staff I had numerous conversations with a wide variety of staff, including background, rules and design staff, all of which has shaped my vision of the faction). I apologise that I cannot remember all of these conversation in enough detail to explicitly acknowledge you all, but if you have had a relevant conversation with me, feel free to claim credit for parts of the guidelines/book that you like :)


      A. Game Level Design Guidelines
      A.1 Racial Background Description - Humans
      Humans are essentially "average" in the sense that they are the lens through which the world is seen (not in the sense that their stats are the arithmetic mean of all the units in the game!). Their stats should thus be the baseline value against which "good" and "bad" are compared.

      Individual rank and file models should not naturally possess large numbers of special rules that boost their individual eliteness.
      Specific individuals can be specialised towards specific pursuits: marksmanship, magical craft, skill at arms etc, however these should not reach "game-wide" peaks.
      The exception to this is the effect of leaders on their troops: the "value added" to rank and file troops from characters, can be amongst the best in the game.

      EoS soldiers are largely professionals, supported by irregulars such as militia and flagellants.


      A. 2 KoE vs EoS distinction
      Both of these societies/armies are predominantly human. At the crudest level, as far as their militaries go, the distinction is between the whole and the individual.
      The KoE military is about higher skilled individuals, achieving feats by themselves. The EoS military is about tactics, strategies and co-operation. This co-operation also manifests on higher levels and outside the battlefield, including a focus on technological advances and an academic/scientific approach to magic. Of course this co-operation isn't absolute, there is strong rivalry between branches of the military, and even individual regiments. But ultimately, they all know they are on the battlefield for the same purpose, and the greatest EoS commanders are those who can leverage the disparate aspects of the army into a coherent force.

      A typical KoE knight should be more skilled and higher eliteness than a typical EoS human (including EoS cavalry). The individual model eliteness and skill peaks of EoS should be lower than that of KoE.

      Note that it is the human part of the model that is most important for the distinction here. EoS soldiers can be overshadowed by their mounts and support pieces, whereas KoE knights should not be overshadowed by their mounts and support pieces.


      B. EoS Army Level Design Guidelines

      B.1 Army Composition
      The army primarily consists of standard sized models: cavalry, war machines and particularly infantry.
      Large sized models are typically support/specialised pieces and should be few in number (and outside core).
      Gigantic sized pieces should be rare, 1 or 2 maximum in the whole book.
      Few, if any, entries should have the type "beast".

      Each entry should have a human element present, even if implicit: whether a rider, driver, or crewman.
      I.e. there should be no undridden monsters, beasts or animals, and no animated statues or autonomous golems: the technology made by the Empire is for humans to wield, not heretical magical experiments.

      The bulk of the army should convey the feel of professional soldiers and a military organisation and hierarchy. This should include the idea of commanders leading and directing their troops, to be emphasised to a greater or lesser extent.

      The overwhelming majority of units should be rank and file, with few light troops and skirmishers: these should be supporting units.
      The focus should be on medium sized units, with smaller supporting units (but not true MSU).
      Deathstars should not be a focus of the book, and peak eliteness of individual units should not reach game-wide peaks.

      Individual tools/units should typically be of medium eliteness.

      Psychological warfare (fear, terror, discipline debuffs and attacks, scary things, ambush, terrain effects etc) are not part of the EoS arsenal (the odd individual unit may have one of these rules if appropriate, but it should be an important part of what that unit brings to the table)

      The focus should be on combined arms approaches, and the army should have a variety of tools for both ranged damage and melee.
      The extreme ends of this should both be realisable (e.g. gunlines and full cavalry armies) but these should not be better than combined arms builds, and are likely to have more pronounced RPS matchups; care should be taken to ensure that this RPS nature doesn't go too far.

      Most professional soldier entries in the book should relate to the parent/support system.

      War platforms should be avoided, as they disrupt the "real world"/regimented nature of the parent/support unit system and military hierarchy.

      Individual units tend to be slightly specialised: their equipment is likely to make them shooting or combat or magic focussed.
      However, war machines aside, individual units should not be highly specialised against specific types or functions of units: the bulk of the army is composed of units who match up fairly equally against a wide variety of enemy units, rather than specialists to hunt specific targets.


      B.1.2 Common Equipment
      Equipment is an important part of the EoS army, particularly that produced by the engineers and artificers. Most of this equipment should predominantly follow the core rules.
      Ranged weapons should generally be higher technology: crossbows, handguns, pistols, blackpowder war machines. (Blackpowder is a sub-theme for the equipment).
      Melee weapons should follow the core rulebook, with a reasonable presence of polearms.
      However, EoS is not (yet) as industrialised as a nation like the ID. So whilst higher technological elements are present in the army, that doesn't mean to say that every grunt soldier possesses weapons and armour that would make a dwarf family jealous.
      The equipment level of units is broadly related to their eliteness. E.g. Plate armour is restricted to the more elite elements of the book.


      B.1.3 Eliteness and overall in-game feeling
      The army should convey a "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" feel.
      The units and tools work together, implicitly and explicitly, to achieve tactical and strategic battlefield goals.
      Rank and file units should be towards the lower end of eliteness for their type.
      Individual support pieces can be higher eliteness.
      As a result, whilst some of the units have strength in numbers, the army as a while is unlikely to look like a horde army (unless a player selects very few support pieces).
      See B1.2 for comments on play/list styles and importance of both ranged and melee elements.


      B.2 Special Deployment
      Special deployment is not an important strategy for the army.
      A few units with special deployment rules (vanguard, scout) could exist, especially where this is normal for the type of unit (e.g. “fast cav”).
      Ambush is not part of how this army operates.
      Special deployment should only be on supporting units.


      B.3 Movement
      Units should not be fast for their type, but neither should the army feel cripplingly slow.
      Movement/mobility boosts can come from the synergy and support pieces in the army.
      The primarily rank and file nature of the army naturally limits lateral mobility.
      Fly can only be present on single models, not units, and such models should not work as a dominant point scoring component of the army.
      There should be no light troop (primarily) combat units.
      Shooting elements should not be mobile and (pistols aside) quick to fire probably shouldn't be present.
      Heavy cavalry can be present in core, but light cavalry cannot.


      B.4 Leadership
      Rank and file troops should be of average leadership for their type: 5-8 depending on eliteness level and position in the command hierarchy.
      Discipline 9 is restricted to character entries.
      Wizards should not be good generals.
      Discipline boosting/improvement effects should come primarily (exclusively?) from characters, showing their role in leading and inspiring the troops.
      The army should feel disciplined and militarily organised.
      The command structure can be used to alleviate discipline issues outside of the general/bsb bubbles, however this should not be implemented in a way that incentivises the army to not form a battleline: instead it should allow for pockets to work outside of the main battleline without being crippled by discipline issues. The general/bsb bubble should still be better than the discipline available to the "pockets".


      B.5 Magic
      Individual EoS casters should be of average eliteness at best, with no casting/dispelling bonuses beyond those present in the rulebook.
      The theme of EoS magic should be to be flexible and help the army to solve problems, rather than individually devastating spells.
      This can include ranged damage, hexes and buffs.
      The EoS magic phase is supplemented by bound spells from constructions and priests, but a bound spell only phase should be limited in utility and impact.
      Magic should have an academic feel, centred around learning and understanding the nature of the universe and the elements within it, and mastering these elements. It shouldn't have a "wild" or "primal" feel to it.
      Whilst magic damage can act as an important component of the ranged damage within a list, this should not be able to be sufficiently enhanced to become a major source of VPs for an army.


      B.6 Shooting
      Shooting can be an important source of damage and VPs in an EoS army.
      The primary implements are str4 light arms and a variety of war machines, with a gunpowder focus.
      Ranges should be typical for their types.
      The army should have a variety of ranged tools, that cover most/all targets.
      The shooting should be able to destroy/damage targets that will be difficult for the EoS melee troops to engage, and should also be able to provide counter-fire against opposing gunlines.
      The shooters should not be highly-skilled; their eliteness should primarily come from their equipment.
      War machine eliteness should not be increased or expanded: it should stay similar and/or be reduced. It is acceptable (but not required) for individual war machines to be quite specialised.
      Shooting should be at best averagely mobile, and typically less mobile than average (but below average mobility can be alleviated through synergy and the command structure).
      Shooting units should typically be easy pickings in combat.
      Non light troops support units with ranged weapons can be part of the parent/support structure.
      Characters shouldn't contribute more shooting than simply being armed with a basic shooting weapon, unless they are a shooting focussed character. Shooting characters can contribute more than this, but should be average-poor in melee.


      B.7 Close Combat
      Melee can be an important source of damage and VPs in an EoS army.
      Melee units should not generally be highly specialised, or highly focussed on burst damage.
      Most units will be a combination of offence and defence, depending on their equipment: pure anvils with zero fighting capacity and glass cannons should not be present.
      The army should have a variety of combat tools, able to answer most situations (but the most elite enemy units may require the full combined arms, synergy, and support of the army to be defeated).
      Mainline combat units should not possess ranged damage of their own.
      Mainline units should be of below average to average eliteness for their type, but able to defeat more elite enemies through the synergy and support options of the army.
      Characters should not be high eliteness melee fighters, and should primarily be focussed around boosting and leading friendly troops. The peak fighting characters in the book should not be amongst the game-wide peaks.
      Bonuses from combined charges and counter-charges should be part of the parent/support structure.
      The human nature limits the possible spectrum of statlines: for EoS, humans with a statline containing str/res 5 are not allowed.


      B.8 Defensive Capabilities
      The majority of the troops in the army should be resilience 3. Some characters and support models can be higher resilience, but there should be no many-model units with resilience 4.
      Core troops and mainline standard sized units can/should be relatively numerous for their types. But not to the extent of facilitating cheap tarpits (slave type units).
      Special saves should be rare and only present on supporting units/pieces.
      Avoiding hits should not be an overly prevalent feature of the army, particularly natively to units.

      Armour is a key defensive aspect of this army:
      Plate armour can be present on higher eliteness units (cavalry, characters, special combat infantry).
      Characters, including infantry, should have easy access to 1+ saves. Notably, it should be possible to field 3 infantry characters with unconditional armour(6) through a combination of the army book and arcane compendium options. It should be possible for at least one infantry character per army to have unconditional armour(6) whilst wielding a weapon that usually requires 2 hands.
      No non-character infantry can have better than armour(4) from their unit entry.
      Armour is focussed on the higher eliteness units (and cavalry) and should be in proportion to the unit's eliteness; core infantry primarily rely on strength in numbers, rather than armour.
      Through a heavy cavalry army, the book can field an army that is entirely arm(5) or higher, but this should have significantly reduced tactical and strategic flexibility compared to the book as a whole.


      B.9 Chaff
      EoS should not have dedicated chaff. Chaffing options should typically come from supporting units, which will predominantly also do ranged damage. The ranged damage/multiple role nature of these units should make them sub optimal as pure chaff.
      High movement chaff should be primarily (exclusively) cavalry.
      Single model pieces in the army should not be so cheap as to be good chaff.


      B.10 Synergies
      Synergies are an important part of this army.
      Synergy here means that different unit entries somehow benefit from each other's presence, either implicitly or explicitly.
      Synergies can boost movement, discipline, combat ability and shooting ability.
      Synergies should not be used to boost spell casters or support pieces: the synergy should flow in the direction "characters&support pieces bolster/improve rank&file units", not vice versa (of course, it is likely that support pieces bolster support naturally under this framework, but this should not be their primary purpose).
      Synergies that affect multiple units and thus naturally work with parent/support (and disfavour deathstars) are encouraged.
      Synergy ranges should not be too large, in order to incentivise battlelines rather than a more scattered setup.
      Synergies should be seen as a tool to incorporate background driven sub-themes for the army's identity in the book (such as military structures).
      Parent&support and special items are the only places where the synergy effects can be debuffs to opponents rather than buffs to friends; buffs should be the norm.
      There are multiple important synergy sub-themes.

      B.10.1 Inter-unit-synergies - Characters
      Characters are a key source of synergy in the book, and should follow several sub-types.

      B.10.1.1 Military: Officers
      They should primarily bolster discipline and/or parent&support units.
      They should represent the command structure of the army on the table.
      Their presence should not generally cause a high increase to the damage capabilities of the troops they are commanding: the presence of an officer should not suddenly turn a halberdier into a warrior of the dark gods.

      B.10.1.2 Religious and magical
      This includes wizards, priests, inquisitors etc.
      Wizards are naturally support pieces, and their available special equipment and options should keep their focus here (e.g. they shouldn't ride dragons or be good at fighting).
      Priests and inquisitors do not have to be solely support pieces in the same way, but neither should they be highly elite damage dealers by themselves (some semi-elite specialised damage dealers are reasonable, particularly if it draws out important background elements, but this should not be the primary role of these characters).
      These support characters should not typically make a big different to the ranged or movement capabilities of the troops.
      The different gods could possibly be represented in some way, but this should not be an important or powerful theme.

      B10.2 Parent&support
      This is a key mechanical and background theme to the army.
      The majority of (standard sized) professional soldiers should be involved in this.
      The focus should be around parents and support units working together, benefiting from each others presence, and allowing them to tackle enemy units together that they couldn't tackle individually. It should show that these units train together.
      There is no requirement for the bonuses here to be related to combat resolution.
      Out of sequence countercharges can be allowed, but must be carefully included to not be too powerful or overly incentivise the EoS player never charging.
      Parent/support synergy should naturally allow counterplay, but that doesn't necessarily mean easy to prevent; a balance needs to be struck.

      B10.3 Constructions/individual support pieces.
      This is a cover-all for other support pieces that might be in the army.
      It includes the arcane engines, the war altar, and scope for other units.
      E.g. some sort of engineering support unit (nudge nudge wink wink :P )
      These units should be a less ubiquitous presence in the army than the other two forms of synergy, and should be of sufficiently high eliteness to not be cheap or throwaway models. Synergy should be their main purpose.


      C. Intra Army Level 1 - sub-factions
      All entries in the EoS army can be divided into one of the following sub-factions.

      C.1 Professional soldiers
      C.1.1 Knightly orders (probably best if fully developed in an auxiliary book)

      C.2 Irregulars

      C.3 Religion (probably best if fully developed in an auxiliary book)

      C.4 Magic

      C.5 Engineering guild


      D. Intra Army Level 2 - sub-themes
      D.1 Low fantasy elements
      There is a substantial part of the community who focus on the low fantasy elements of the book. Where possible, it would be good for the low fantasy subset of the army book to be a semi-complete self-contained book. In particular, it would be preferable if no high fantasy tools were required to deal with particular opposition.
      Note: Further and stronger versions of this guideline would be ideal. For example, being able to achieve similar melee eliteness without high fantasy elements, and the low fantasy subset not having a different skill curve to the complete book.
      However, the compound effect of all of these is highly restrictive and unlikely to be achievable. If these things can be borne in mind and small tweaks made to aid in achieving these goals, so much the better, but it should not be considered a key goal of the book.

      D.2 Blackpowder
      Guns and gunpowder are a distinguishing feature of EoS.



      Notes for future

      (These are things that I've earmarked for the next update, or open questions/possibilities that I am pondering; they are posted here because (A) I won't lose them this way, and (B) I see no reason to keep these notes secret haha!)
      • 50 model flaggie cap
      • Tank weapon needs to be in 0-2.
      • Do something with Light of sonnstahl: marshals gain +1 attack? If the bearer is the general, his attacks are set to 4?
      • light infantry model cap (50); Min size 12?
      • 0-1 artificer horse?
      • Cavalry banner needs to be HP losses
      • Uber griffon base size?

      • Possible shooting option to support a charge with regimental marksmen
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE

      The post was edited 7 times, last by DanT ().

    • Sounds like you have allready put a few thoughts into this.

      I'm interested to see your ideas considering the realization of this:

      DanT wrote:

      Most professional soldier entries in the book should relate to the parent/support system.

      In my opinion the biggest weakness of the current book (maybe the only relevant one) is the failure to integrate militia and (to an extent) the knights into the parent/support system.

      Looking forward to your solution
    • baexta wrote:

      Sounds like you have allready put a few thoughts into this.

      I'm interested to see your ideas considering the realization of this:

      DanT wrote:

      Most professional soldier entries in the book should relate to the parent/support system.
      In my opinion the biggest weakness of the current book (maybe the only relevant one) is the failure to integrate militia and (to an extent) the knights into the parent/support system.

      Looking forward to your solution
      Spoiler alert, I'm not going to. At least, I think I will only partly satisfy what you want :P
      Militia are not professional soldiers ;)
      Knights... well you'll just have to wait and see...
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • Nemeroth wrote:

      Love this Dan, what do you think is most different in your approach to what the book is in its current state?
      Ooooh, interesting question... I'm not really sure how to answer this...

      I am really chuffed with the work that was done on EoS for 2.0, I think it was a big improvement on 1.3.
      But it isn't an LAB of course: it wasn't a full treatment from scratch.

      Here, I am going to do a sort of halfway house: I'm not going to tear the book entirely and do a complete rebuild.
      But neither do I want to just add a unit and change some points values.
      My goal is to try and make some changes to the book in the form of coherent themes, following the guidelines, and abandoning legacy where it doesn't fit the guidelines.

      So, I hope to finish with a book that is more coherent and has clearer and better developed themes, but which builds on the successful (in my view anyway!) parts of the 2.0 book rather than just writing an entirely new book.

      Of course, something something omelettes something breaking eggs; I'm sure that some people will detest some of my changes, and their favourite list will be ruined...
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • DanT wrote:

      Nemeroth wrote:

      Love this Dan, what do you think is most different in your approach to what the book is in its current state?
      Ooooh, interesting question... I'm not really sure how to answer this...
      I am really chuffed with the work that was done on EoS for 2.0, I think it was a big improvement on 1.3.
      But it isn't an LAB of course: it wasn't a full treatment from scratch.

      Here, I am going to do a sort of halfway house: I'm not going to tear the book entirely and do a complete rebuild.
      But neither do I want to just add a unit and change some points values.
      My goal is to try and make some changes to the book in the form of coherent themes, following the guidelines, and abandoning legacy where it doesn't fit the guidelines.

      So, I hope to finish with a book that is more coherent and has clearer and better developed themes, but which builds on the successful (in my view anyway!) parts of the 2.0 book rather than just writing an entirely new book.

      Of course, something something omelettes something breaking eggs; I'm sure that some people will detest some of my changes, and their favourite list will be ruined...
      I’m very much looking forward to your home brew now! I agree with getting away from legacy issues too, something I’m really hoping the DE LAB will do too. I also like your idea for consolidating themes and elevating the current book which I agree is an excellent book compared to 1.3. I think it’s important to take a measured approach to the LABs, not every faction needs a tear up.

      I also like your concepts behind the “average human” trope and am impressed by the historical accuracy. Most fighting men in a medieval/renaissance setting were in fact professionals or at least trained to stand in the battle line, which is why I find the KoE peasantry concept quite annoying. No feudal lord would waste vast sums of money equipping untrained farmers with expensive armour and weapons and putting them into battle, the bill and pike armed foot troops would have been professional men-at-arms just like their imperial counterparts.
    • First pass through the book complete LINK.
      Some things removed, some things added, some things changed, some things the same.
      Basic skeleton in place.



      Next steps:
      • Add a couple more items.
      • Decide on parent/support charge bonus.
      • Ponder whether to combine tank/altar into some crazy "monument to sunna" entry.



      What I haven't done (and am in no hurry to do :P ) :
      • Start pondering if there any balance issues with the designs/book so far.
      • Points.
      • Fully precise and correct wordings/rule types etc (but if something isn't clear or doesn't make sense, let me know).



      Nemeroth wrote:

      I’m very much looking forward to your home brew now! I agree with getting away from legacy issues too, something I’m really hoping the DE LAB will do too. I also like your idea for consolidating themes and elevating the current book which I agree is an excellent book compared to 1.3. I think it’s important to take a measured approach to the LABs, not every faction needs a tear up.
      I also like your concepts behind the “average human” trope and am impressed by the historical accuracy. Most fighting men in a medieval/renaissance setting were in fact professionals or at least trained to stand in the battle line, which is why I find the KoE peasantry concept quite annoying. No feudal lord would waste vast sums of money equipping untrained farmers with expensive armour and weapons and putting them into battle, the bill and pike armed foot troops would have been professional men-at-arms just like their imperial counterparts.
      Haha, I think you are giving me too much credit :)
      I am no history buff...
      I've picked up bits and pieces that friends have told me, but my concerns are much more about answering questions about the identities of models and units: who are they, how do they fit into society/the army, etc etc.
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE

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

    • Feedback:

      Blessings look strong, and I believe that these are the true Hereditary Spells of EoS. Comparing the Change from Hatred to Battle Focus will come when I see units with this rule. In the past Hatred was probably a buff because Frenzy is expected to come with Battle Focus. So possible nerf here.

      Orders appears like a huge increase from the current form. I think this is a good place to focus your armies strength though as it is the most unique part of EoS. I think since you have increased the number of Orders that can be ordered you might consider having more orders to choose from rather than doubling them all up

      Pride of the Empire - I have been hoping the game would remove anti-fear rules like these and move towards just using fearless. This is still much better than the normal, "Ignore Fear" used by many armies. I will look more at this rule as I get further into the book, but right now this rule is a clear improvement for any units receiving it.

      Great rule in Signal Corps. We're trying to get Discipline units like this into DE. Nice rules and again focusing on Orders seems a good move.

      Will do more tomorrow.
    • Hey this is really great @DanT. I especially like the rules for the Inquisitor and the artificer on horse, which would make both units be played more often I think.Great to see the war wagon back in play too. Overall it feels and reads very empirisch. Good job, would be a nice base for the FAB.

      The engineers engine is a mount for an artificer?

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

    • @DanT Hi Dan
      The Danstahl book looks really promising and very much inline with what I envision and even suggested some times.
      I love that changes balance between subtle buffs and nerfs. Both feels as changes to more fitting rules.


      The new items are amazing and very fitting, (I think some of the banners, especially marksmans pennant should 0-3)
      Is the signal core a part of the griffon choice? or just same cost. It would seem logical that the Marshall delegates orders to the signal corps from his mount, so that he still commands the army while he himself fights airborne.

      The engineer rule upgraded artillery, will get arty banned from turneys :)

      LOOOVE the Inquisitor (unless he would become too expensive. and the regimental commander <3 :thumbsup: <3

      The pegasus, need some more love. devastating charge +1 ST to rider? something like that.
      The altar of battle needs impact hits D6+1 (Like every other chariot)

      remove the shield and give heavy armor to halbardiers ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")

      You missed the shield on Electoral cavalry - could the max unit size be increased
      and hopefully ST4 on knightly orderes

      option for halbards on Imperial Guard annoys me as we need even more models to have all options. Weaponmaster or just choose at the start of battle or individual combat is better. ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam") Is an option for a lightning reflexes buff gone? That would be a HUGE nerf to GW IG.

      Too the change to arcane engine is weird and doesn't synergise well with the divination spell that increase stats (or maybe too much if they stack) Not very human to have OS and DS 8 (or 6 for that instance)

      the change to volley gun should either be only on short range or give it accurate nsted (though that sound counter intuitive)

      the steamtank only charging to the front is a change to core rules is that clever? Though it could (should) reduce its price ALOT

      Overall I just love it!
      It really could be a good model for the FAB
      and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
      For Sunna and the Emperor!!
    • echoCTRL wrote:

      Feedback:

      Blessings look strong, and I believe that these are the true Hereditary Spells of EoS. Comparing the Change from Hatred to Battle Focus will come when I see units with this rule. In the past Hatred was probably a buff because Frenzy is expected to come with Battle Focus. So possible nerf here.
      Hatred is better in first round, BF better afterwards.

      Change is driven by several things: more thematic, grinding rather than burst/glass cannnon, stops it combo-ing with death warrant for super deathstar. Note that flaggies have had their BF replaced with hatred, because I think this is more fitting for this unit anyway, and they are the closest EoS unit to glass cannon.

      Orders appears like a huge increase from the current form. I think this is a good place to focus your armies strength though as it is the most unique part of EoS. I think since you have increased the number of Orders that can be ordered you might consider having more orders to choose from rather than doubling them all up
      Changes here were specifically designed to emphasise the parent/support structure by affecting more units.

      Too many different orders is confusing for little gain, and also risks being able to add too much to a single unit.

      Pride of the Empire - I have been hoping the game would remove anti-fear rules like these and move towards just using fearless. This is still much better than the normal, "Ignore Fear" used by many armies. I will look more at this rule as I get further into the book, but right now this rule is a clear improvement for any units receiving it.
      Note that kotsg and young griffon mounts have all lost fear. So it is an eliteness drop for all of those models.
      Knight commander used to give fearless, but I don't think it is appropriate for EoS units to not be able to panic.
      So I think this isn't quite the obvious clear improvement you are claiming...
      It is a boost to knightly orders without a character, but those are basically extinct currently, and this helps to give them a role as slightly more reliable flank units and larger model hunters. And I didn't want to give them a rule that boosted their combat power, because they are core and this is EoS not KoE.



      Great rule in Signal Corps. We're trying to get Discipline units like this into DE. Nice rules and again focusing on Orders seems a good move.
      I was really chuffed with this concept/theme, particularly as a way to the character on pegasus a more interesting choice.


      Will do more tomorrow.
      Cheers for the details. A couple of comments above that I think are relevant to the context.


      Adaephon_Delat wrote:

      Hey this is really great @DanT. I especially like the rules for the Inquisitor and the artificer on horse, which would make both units be played more often I think.Great to see the war wagon back in play too. Overall it feels and ready very empirisch. Good job, would be a nice base for the FAB.
      Is this the book built from the guidelines that you think just describe the current book? :P
      (In case it isn't clear, I'm just winding you up, I know your position was more nuanced than this)

      Glad you like it. I was chuffed with the idea of how to incorporate the war wagon.



      Smythen wrote:

      @DanT Hi Dan
      The Danstahl book looks really promising and very much inline with what I envision and even suggested some times.
      I love that changes balance between subtle buffs and nerfs. Both feels as changes to more fitting rules.
      Great, glad to hear it :)



      The new items are amazing and very fitting, (I think some of the banners, especially marksmans pennant should 0-3)
      Is the signal core a part of the griffon choice? or just same cost. It would seem logical that the Marshall delegates orders to the signal corps from his mount, so that he still commands the army while he himself fights airborne.
      The models that have the signal corps rules are as follows: marshal with flying mount, regimental commander with flying mount. I.e. any character with orders who is on a flying mount. It is included in the cost of the respective mount for these models (although currently all of these costs are "XX" haha!)


      The engineer rule upgraded artillery, will get arty banned from turneys :)
      Note that the two war machines he can boost, both dropped in power in their basic from in the book.


      LOOOVE the Inquisitor (unless he would become too expensive. and the regimental commander <3 :thumbsup: <3
      Great


      The pegasus, need some more love. devastating charge +1 ST to rider? something like that.
      Why? Models with orders on pegasus (i.e. everyone except wizard) get signal corps, giving them a clear role and extra rules. Why is something extra thematically or mechanically necessary?



      The altar of battle needs impact hits D6+1 (Like every other chariot)
      Why? I see no mechanical or thematic necessity for this. There are plenty of chariots without the +1. And the altar is half showpiece/divine inspiration rather than purely efficient piece for killing stuff.


      remove the shield and give heavy armor to halbardiers ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")
      No. I see no reason this is thematically or mechanically necessary. It is explicitly against the guidelines. It just adds more armour creep to a big picture where AP is being carefully examined. Halberdiers work fine as they are.


      You missed the shield on Electoral cavalry - could the max unit size be increased
      and hopefully ST4 on knightly orders
      Good spot, thanks. KO should be str4 ap1. Electoral cav should come with shields.

      I'm not sure I want units of more than 15+characters electoral cav running around. I think this start to promote deathstar type play more.


      option for halbards on Imperial Guard annoys me as we need even more models to have all options.
      Sure. Making omelettes and breaking eggs and all that. I sympathise, but I think the thematic gain here is kool. Frankly, I'd have no issue with my opponent using great weapon models as halberds, but I can't speak for your local opponents of course.



      Weaponmaster or just choose at the start of battle or individual combat is better. ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")


      Is an option for a lightning reflexes buff gone? That would be a HUGE nerf to GW IG.
      LR option is gone. I am not sure it is as big an issue as you are claiming: it is likely to be very context dependent. In the contexts I play in, LR wagon is considered worse than distracting, and taking both is a rare luxury (and usually creates a weakness elsewhere in the list).

      Also, the "lots of buffs stacked on a single big IG unit" was explicitly moaned about and something I wanted to address as being not fitting for EoS.
      Also a note on terminology: nothing I have done is a buff or nerf, it is an increase or decrease in eliteness. It only becomes a buff or nerf to an entry once the new points cost is also known.


      Too the change to arcane engine is weird and doesn't synergise well with the divination spell that increase stats (or maybe too much if they stack) Not very human to have OS and DS 8 (or 6 for that instance)
      But it is really human to have lightning reflexes and distracting?
      Yes, they stack.



      the change to volley gun should either be only on short range or give it accurate nsted (though that sound counter intuitive)
      Why? Mechanical or thematic reasons? Or both? The concept in my head is that it fires a hail of bullets, making it less important if the target is e.g. skirmishing or behind a hedge. It also helps to give it a bit of a unique niche rather than just making it strictly better.


      the steamtank only charging to the front is a change to core rules is that clever? Though it could (should) reduce its price ALOT
      I'm doing this for several reasons:
      • Tank does a lot of different things and is mechanically problematic, so something needs to give
      • I don't think the 360 degree charge arc fits something that should be quite lumbering
      • The ability to charge 360 degrees is a trap that encourages players to use it sub-optimally


      Overall I just love it!
      It really could be a good model for the FAB
      Awesome, glad you think so. Seems we found at least some things we could agree on ^^

      Lots of details here, great, thanks. I've put some comments in the quote above.
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE

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

    • @DanT Hi Dan

      @DanT Hi Dan
      The Danstahl book looks really promising and very much inline with what I envision and even suggested some times.
      I love that changes balance between subtle buffs and nerfs. Both feels as changes to more fitting rules.
      Great, glad to hear it




      The new items are amazing and very fitting, (I think some of the banners, especially marksmans pennant should 0-3)
      Is the signal core a part of the griffon choice? or just same cost. It would seem logical that the Marshall delegates orders to the signal corps from his mount, so that he still commands the army while he himself fights airborne.
      The models that have the signal corps rules are as follows: marshal with flying mount, regimental commander with flying mount. I.e. any character with orders who is on a flying mount. It is included in the cost of the respective mount for these models (although currently all of these costs are "XX" haha!)



      The engineer rule upgraded artillery, will get arty banned from turneys
      Note that the two war machines he can boost, both dropped in power in their basic from in the book. Didn't notice :) I think its good if it means we can have more an cheaper ones. Still reroll to wound AND MW on a cannon is rough on enemy monsters.



      LOOOVE the Inquisitor (unless he would become too expensive. and the regimental commander
      Great
      If you make the Inquisitor give his angry mob the "Die heretic" rule.



      The pegasus, need some more love. devastating charge +1 ST to rider? something like that.
      Why? Models with orders on pegasus (i.e. everyone except wizard) get signal corps, giving them a clear role and extra rules. Why is something extra thematically or mechanically necessary? Missed this as an option, you are right




      The altar of battle needs impact hits D6+1 (Like every other chariot)
      Why? I see no mechanical or thematic necessity for this. There are plenty of chariots without the +1. And the altar is half showpiece/divine inspiration rather than purely efficient piece for killing stuff. It is a massive/heavy chariot. so?



      remove the shield and give heavy armor to halbardiers ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")
      No. I see no reason this is thematically or mechanically necessary. It is explicitly against the guidelines. It just adds more armour creep to a big picture where AP is being carefully examined. Halberdiers work fine as they are.
      I don't see this as armor creep, it doesn't change anything vs shooting and just put them in line with swords and spears.



      You missed the shield on Electoral cavalry - could the max unit size be increased
      and hopefully ST4 on knightly orders
      Good spot, thanks. KO should be str4 ap1. Electoral cav should come with shields.


      I'm not sure I want units of more than 15+characters electoral cav running around. I think this start to promote deathstar type play more. Yea no deathstars, would just love the more ranks to break steadfast from flanking, but this should be a change to core rules (heavy cavalry with atleast one full rank, counts as having two full ranks)



      option for halbards on Imperial Guard annoys me as we need even more models to have all options.
      Sure. Making omelettes and breaking eggs and all that. I sympathise, but I think the thematic gain here is kool. Frankly, I'd have no issue with my opponent using great weapon models as halberds, but I can't speak for your local opponents of course.
      Most will be fine with this, but some people really like having the correct models



      Weaponmaster or just choose at the start of battle or individual combat is better. ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")



      Is an option for a lightning reflexes buff gone? That would be a HUGE nerf to GW IG.
      LR option is gone. I am not sure it is as big an issue as you are claiming: it is likely to be very context dependent. In the contexts I play in, LR wagon is considered worse than distracting, and taking both is a rare luxury (and usually creates a weakness elsewhere in the list).


      Also, the "lots of buffs stacked on a single big IG unit" was explicitly moaned about and something I wanted to address as being not fitting for EoS. It's a hard call, IG with the right buffs against lower agi units, is the best unit in the game. But it is hard to achieve. But as you I don't really like it.
      Also a note on terminology: nothing I have done is a buff or nerf, it is an increase or decrease in eliteness. It only becomes a buff or nerf to an entry once the new points cost is also known. True :D


      Too the change to arcane engine is weird and doesn't synergise well with the divination spell that increase stats (or maybe too much if they stack) Not very human to have OS and DS 8 (or 6 for that instance)
      But it is really human to have lightning reflexes and distracting? True
      Yes, they stack. Don't feel it, would change it, but for what? Maybe something defensive -1 to wound,



      the change to volley gun should either be only on short range or give it accurate insted (though that sound counter intuitive)
      Why? Mechanical or thematic reasons? Or both? The concept in my head is that it fires a hail of bullets, making it less important if the target is e.g. skirmishing or behind a hedge. It also helps to give it a bit of a unique niche rather than just making it strictly better. (Didn't notice the "decrease to 2d6" - It will become way more reliable... I think I like it.



      the steamtank only charging to the front is a change to core rules is that clever? Though it could (should) reduce its price ALOT
      I'm doing this for several reasons:
      • Tank does a lot of different things and is mechanically problematic, so something needs to give
      • I don't think the 360 degree charge arc fits something that should be quite lumbering - true
      • The ability to charge 360 degrees is a trap that encourages players to use it sub-optimally Really?
      The major problem I see is that, with random movement it is uncertain where you charge angle will end up. If the roll of movement is just maximum move it would be fair. But that is yet another change to core rules.



      Overall I just love it!
      It really could be a good model for the FAB
      Awesome, glad you think so. Seems we found at least some things we could agree on We agree a lot more than you think. I can really see the ideas and logic behind your suggestions, that in many ways are a better representation of what I have suggested (because it is setup as a whole)
      and I still believe; Light infantry should fight and shoot in 3 ranks, FREE command groups for EoS units. Imperial Guards should have weaponmaster and both parent and support, and that halbardiers should wear heavy armor. Brace for impact should be changed to, or there should be an extra order: " Have at THEM!" The unit gain battle focus.
      For Sunna and the Emperor!!

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

    • In my opinion it would be a needed change to the core rules for all the random movement things in the game.
      Just allowed charges in front arc, pretty much as it is at current ID train.

      If this core rule change is not doable due to reasons, it should be done on army book level with the overhauls of the books.
      Current random movement is NOT priced at the proper point costs. It is way to cheap in my opinion.


      Just read through the book.

      I like the changes. I am not totally sold on the arcane engine, because +3 def is strictly worse than distracting. On the other hand it also comes with an increase in the offensive department, so depending on the price, it is ok.
      I also don´t like the halbard option for Imperial guard. This is because there already is the normal Halbard unit in core.


      Oh..and the BSB upgrade should for sure be able to leave his unit.
      Other regimental commanders, not, but BSB should be able to do so.


      The changes to warmachines have to be done with focus of powerlevel of warmachines of other books that are done before. (ID currently). It makes little sense to adapt the warmachine level of a single book in one way, and do it with other books that are in rework do it in the different direction. Price is of course the big equalizer.

      All in all I realy like the DAN book. Seems to fit a lot better in my imagination of EoS than the current book.

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

    • Perspective (As a LAB team member) on Dahnstahl Guidelines: Overly restrictive. If I were handed that much detail I'd consider telling them to write the book themselves.

      Of course, you are in fact creator of both, so it's basically fine here that they're so precise - they match your own vision.


      On AB rules: seem fairly similar to slim.

      - Not a fan of hatred -> battle focus.

      -Drill Sargent is interesting. I'm not conviced EoS needed a champion level "hero" . Why not make it a unit upgrade?

      - Angry Mob is adorable.

      - Uber Griffon has a LOT of hp. It's... why is it not an Imperial Dragon?

      - Motley Crew is... hmmm. It makes for a block with missile weapons that you feel OK about ranks 3&4 existing. Flavour is nice too. Flipside is it's on a unit who don't benefit from the presence of ranks 3 & 4. I suppose it keeps ppm down. Personally I'd consider scoring + no light troops.

      - A lot seems the same.

      Background Team

    • New version up, with some items added to get to the full complement of 15, and some provisional support/counter charge rules.
      I've also corrected a few issues that people found, such as no shields on the knights.

      dropbox.com/s/n0mp8wzkvb0bq2v/…homebrew_0pt1pt1.pdf?dl=0


      Some explanations/answers below to some of peoples comments.

      Display Spoiler


      berti wrote:

      In my opinion it would be a needed change to the core rules for all the random movement things in the game.
      Just allowed charges in front arc, pretty much as it is at current ID train.

      If this core rule change is not doable due to reasons, it should be done on army book level with the overhauls of the books.
      So I think it should be case by case. I have no issues with abombinations or wretched ones charging 360 degrees.
      Some random movers should charge 360 degrees, they are unpredictable and weird.
      But the tank is a small house, if some light cavalry run past it, it shouldn't be able to turn on a dime and intercept them.


      Current random movement is NOT priced at the proper point costs. It is way to cheap in my opinion.
      If you are right, data will show this and it will change :P







      Just read through the book.


      I like the changes.
      Great :)

      I am not totally sold on the arcane engine, because +3 def is strictly worse than distracting. On the other hand it also comes with an increase in the offensive department, so depending on the price, it is ok.


      I also don´t like the halbard option for Imperial guard. This is because there already is the normal Halbard unit in core.
      I kinda see halberds/polearms as iconic for EoS. And the eliteness and roles of these units are quite different, so I don't see an issue from introducing this option.





      Oh..and the BSB upgrade should for sure be able to leave his unit.
      Other regimental commanders, not, but BSB should be able to do so.
      He can leave. Is this not clear? Let me know if so and I will come up with another way to write it.





      The changes to warmachines have to be done with focus of powerlevel of warmachines of other books that are done before. (ID currently).
      I see no NEED for this, just a choice of whether to do it or not.
      It makes little sense to adapt the warmachine level of a single book in one way, and do it with other books that are in rework do it in the different direction. Price is of course the big equalizer.
      Actually, I am trying to deliberately introduce a distinction between EoS and DH/ID warmachines.



      All in all I realy like the DAN book. Seems to fit a lot better in my imagination of EoS than the current book.
      Glad to hear that, thanks.






      Smythen wrote:

      Still reroll to wound AND MW on a cannon is rough on enemy monsters.

      But D3 not D3+1.












      The altar of battle needs impact hits D6+1 (Like every other chariot)
      Why? I see no mechanical or thematic necessity for this. There are plenty of chariots without the +1. And the altar is half showpiece/divine inspiration rather than purely efficient piece for killing stuff.
      It is a massive/heavy chariot. so?
      It is a physically big piece, sure. But it isn't designed to mow down troops the way a pure/dedicated chariot is. It is just random eliteness creep.








      remove the shield and give heavy armor to halbardiers ("Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam")
      No. I see no reason this is thematically or mechanically necessary. It is explicitly against the guidelines. It just adds more armour creep to a big picture where AP is being carefully examined. Halberdiers work fine as they are.
      I don't see this as armor creep, it doesn't change anything vs shooting and just put them in line with swords and spears.



      Exactly, it is filling in this unit's disadvantage compared to other units. They currently compare favourably to these units anyway, don't make the comparison even more in the halberds favour!










      [TANK discussion]
      • The ability to charge 360 degrees is a trap that encourages players to use it sub-optimally
      Really?
      I claim so. I think it encourages it to be used on the flanks rather than as a coherent part of the battleline/to break up opposing battlelines, which is where it really shines.

      The major problem I see is that, with random movement it is uncertain where you charge angle will end up. If the roll of movement is just maximum move it would be fair. But that is yet another change to core rules.
      I have no issue with it having these disadvantages. It is a nod to the unreliability of an early steam engine, without some super complicated or clunky rules.








      We agree a lot more than you think. I can really see the ideas and logic behind your suggestions, that in many ways are a better representation of what I have suggested (because it is setup as a whole)

      Very kind of you to say so, thankyou :) I am glad you like so much in the book.



      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Perspective (As a LAB team member) on Dahnstahl Guidelines: Overly restrictive. If I were handed that much detail I'd consider telling them to write the book themselves.

      Of course, you are in fact creator of both, so it's basically fine here that they're so precise - they match your own vision.
      Fair.


      - Not a fan of hatred -> battle focus.
      Why? Mechanical issue? Flavour? Bad representation of guidelines?


      -Drill Sargent is interesting. I'm not conviced EoS needed a champion level "hero" . Why not make it a unit upgrade?
      Deliberate choice as I felt it represented the flavour better (castellan entry in KoE was part of my inspiration). I don't want EoS to have "super champions", and if it is just a unit upgrade/special rule I feel it loses the flavour of the military structure/hierarchy. Moreover, it allowed me to create.



      - Uber Griffon has a LOT of hp. It's... why is it not an Imperial Dragon?
      Because dragon is legacy. The point is to show a young griffon->griffon->big griffon lineage/breeding program etc, and imply that flying mounts of the griffon type are bred for the signal corps. In t9a context I find the dragon very weird/random and unfitting.
      But of course a dragon model could easily be used for this unit entry.



      - Motley Crew is... hmmm. It makes for a block with missile weapons that you feel OK about ranks 3&4 existing. Flavour is nice too. Flipside is it's on a unit who don't benefit from the presence of ranks 3 & 4. I suppose it keeps ppm down. Personally I'd consider scoring + no light troops.
      Pfft... we can't trust the militia with the objectives! Intent of the rule is primarily flavour, and to prevent militia from being highly points efficient shooting units, whilst still working well as chaff/chip damage/chaff fighters/supporting units.

      Arosy wrote:

      Hi!

      Liked it, wanna to see prices to playtest.
      Great.

      I would encourage playtesting without prices.
      Write a list that seems to contain about the same amount of stuff as a list from the current book and see how it plays.
      It probably won't be exactly fair, but you will still be able to see what the difference are in the *feel* of how the army plays, and spot any rules that are problematic on the tabletop.


      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE