Dwarven Holds 1.3 General Discussion Thread #2

  • Omarcomin wrote:

    Comes into direct conflict with my vision of dwarf canon. I add my voice to the chorus of those on this forum who feel our vision should be jammed down everyone else's throat and be forced upon them whether they like it or not. I will vehemently dissagree with anything that hurts my roleplay, as I am a roleplayer. Particularly if it is a rational, well-thought-out, and popular solution to a very obvious deficiency in our book. No one should have any choice in how a DH army functions unless it fits exactly within my 30-year-old mold. I especially don't want anyone to have a choice about whether or not they can select these entirely optional but somehow particularly offensive unit types for their respective armies or not because if I cant have fun no one else should.

    Thank you for not flaming me as I am a delicate flower and will report inflammatory posts on this matter.

    Kindest regards,

    OMARCOMIN

    Finally, someone who gets me and what we're trying to do here. Thank you, Omar. I'm glad someone is on our side in all this.

    I reported your post just in case, but I really appreciate your sentiment even so. I'd like to think that's reward enough in itself.
  • In all seriousness, though the swiftstride change might not be the most clear instance of it, the issue that he jokes about is one of the issues that this closed doors design process sometimes creates: The designers are chosen to act as the voice of the larger community, and sometimes it turns out that even when they think they're doing what the players want, they're not.

    On the UD side, we had a massive case of this with the Dreadsphinx, which *I* had been spearheading and which turned out garbage. Thank god for the spoiler system we have this time, though, because this allowed us to spot the mistake just in time to re-do it. It would have been a disaster if the book had gone into open playtesting un-spoilered.

    At least with the swiftstride change, there seems to be more of a mixed reception about it instead of absolute dislike.
  • Palmu wrote:

    In all seriousness, though the swiftstride change might not be the most clear instance of it, the issue that he jokes about is one of the issues that this closed doors design process sometimes creates: The designers are chosen to act as the voice of the larger community, and sometimes it turns out that even when they think they're doing what the players want, they're not.

    On the UD side, we had a massive case of this with the Dreadsphinx, which *I* had been spearheading and which turned out garbage. Thank god for the spoiler system we have this time, though, because this allowed us to spot the mistake just in time to re-do it. It would have been a disaster if the book had gone into open playtesting un-spoilered.

    At least with the swiftstride change, there seems to be more of a mixed reception about it instead of absolute dislike.
    SS is bad Nerf, but it is a Nerf who can also be away if he is saving the right points for the Throne, perhaps hoping for better net improvements in the definitive 2.0.

    A NERF that will be hard to endure, is ANVIL RIP.
    I do not see many ways to stop Fly / Skirmish / Ambush that will surround us very easily and quickly, and this work the Anvil did it very well.
    I played Dwarfs since 1,989, and this has always been a problem since I remember.
    The anvil I really liked because it was a strong weapon against these units, and I use the Anvil half of the matches.

    Another thing I'm afraid is that the game turns too much into Magic-Hammer.
    We should be the strongest Anti-Magic Army, but this is not currently reflected in T9A. A return of Magister Runic Smith would be magnificent, perhaps with the induction as the War Platform.

    Instead it makes me very happy to see the first little Nerf at the Ogres (in our area half of the players use OK and win almost always, even the least good).
    I'm clearly still the most OP army, but that is the right way.
  • I'm thing of 'em constantly. Every time I'm in a toy shop (and having a wee baby gives you many occasions) I check out Schleich animal range and look for bears, then fantasize about getting some dwarf riders models and putting them on top.

    Someday, someday...
    Northern Dwarfs Armybook in the Homebrew Section.

    Northern Dwarfs ADT

    The King in the North

    Furthermore, I consider that Carthage Norther Dwarfs Armybook must be destroyed made official! - Vitnar Ironbeard
  • Well let's not conflate bear cav with swiftstride. Bear cav is in direct conflict thematically with traditional, Tolkienesque Dwarves (not "Dwarfs"). However swiftstride added to our normal movement, being a tool of reliability rather than speed, is not.
    Fun Fact: The reason we use the term "Dwarves" and not "Dwarfs" is the works of J.R.R Tolkien. tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Dwarves
  • New

    grungimusic wrote:

    What's really bad about this is you are flat out wrong about swift stride and its supposed poor thematic fit to DH. Swift stride is not about swift movement, and it does not extend charge range. Swift stride simply increases charge reliability, and reliability is very Dwarfy indeed. Our troops are more reliable because they do not easily run, our magic is more reliable because of low cast values and cost, our war machines are more reliable because they do not misfire and become inoperable, etc. Having our charges, short though they are, become more reliable is well in keeping with Dwarven character. Swift stride does not mean fast Dwarves and is not unDwarfy, which is more than I can say for M6 monstrous infantry
    I think this post rather hits the nail on the head in terms of the swiftstride argument. I think it's the name of the rule rather than the effect which feels undwarven. Would much rather have reliable infantry charges than mechanical monstrosities or runic golems to improve our mobility. I'm aware that my outlook is only one of many possible viewpoints, but I really think fluffwise an all infantry army ought to remain a competetive choice, regardless of how many other options (MI, MC, Cavalry, fliers...) are added to our book.
  • New

    grungimusic wrote:

    ilovepeanut wrote:

    I also have a theory about AP and AS care to hear It? :evil:
    yes please
    Let's do this.

    So what's up with AS & AP ?

    • Observation #1
    AS can get so high that some models can become somewhat invincible against s3 and s4 attacks.
    • Observation #2
    You need AP to deal with such models under the current rules.
    • Observation #3
    There is so much AP everywhere now that a light/heavy armour is useless most of the time, even you still got to pay for the damn thing.
    • Observation #4
    Infantry is the least armoured type of unit in the game and cavalry is the most armoured type of unit.
    Infantry dies in strove because they suffer the most from AP since they have no AS most of the time after deduction of AP and cavalry is absurdly expensive.

    Remark: Since when does sitting on a god damn horse give you any kind of protection against shooting?
    #rememberagincourt

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

    Here is my proposed solution.

    We need to stop the arms race.
    I appreciate the thought of anti-AP armour but the simple fact that we need such a thing is a very bad sign.

    First, we need to level the armour save down. And cav. shouldn't get any kind of bonus AS. Sitting on a horse makes you fast, and makes your charge dangerous as hell. It doesn't protect you from anything though, even in close combat you just need to stab the horse.
    So:
    -Rule#1:

    • max AS is 3+ for R&F
    • Max AS is 2+ for characters
    Second, we can't keep the current AP it needs to go down.
    Armour piercing 1 only for weapons that are designed to pierce armour and "regular" monsters.
    We also need to make it absolutely distinct from strength.
    If you take strong blow when you're wearing an armour you're most likely going to be "just" brushed aside.
    Spears, lances, heavy weapons. Handguns and pistols at AP1.
    (remember that as the maximum AS is lower you don't need that much AP for the same effect)

    AP2 is the absolute maximum AP that should exist.
    It's allowed only to big freaky monsters, magic weapons and artillery pieces.
    - Rule#2:

    • AP1 to Spears, lances, great weapons. Handguns, pistols. Large size models.
    • Ap2 to War machines, magic weapons and Gigantic size models.
    Now that we've established a healthy environment we can rethink the pricing of units.
    Cav. needs to go down in points because they are going to suffer heavier casualties, they still need to be more expensive than infantry because of the obvious movement / charge advantage.

    There you go.
    tl;dr Stop the arms race. Make small protection worth something. No unit should be invincible or near invincible, this is war.
    Core tax is absurd lets get rid of it!
  • New

    ilovepeanut wrote:

    grungimusic wrote:

    ilovepeanut wrote:

    I also have a theory about AP and AS care to hear It? :evil:
    yes please
    Let's do this.
    So what's up with AS & AP ?

    • Observation #1
    AS can get so high that some models can become somewhat invincible against s3 and s4 attacks.
    • Observation #2
    You need AP to deal with such models under the current rules.
    • Observation #3
    There is so much AP everywhere now that a light/heavy armour is useless most of the time, even you still got to pay for the damn thing.
    • Observation #4
    Infantry is the least armoured type of unit in the game and cavalry is the most armoured type of unit.
    Infantry dies in strove because they suffer the most from AP since they have no AS most of the time after deduction of AP and cavalry is absurdly expensive.

    Remark: Since when does sitting on a god damn horse give you any kind of protection against shooting?
    #rememberagincourt

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt

    Here is my proposed solution.

    We need to stop the arms race.
    I appreciate the thought of anti-AP armour but the simple fact that we need such a thing is a very bad sign.

    First, we need to level the armour save down. And cav. shouldn't get any kind of bonus AS. Sitting on a horse makes you fast, and makes your charge dangerous as hell. It doesn't protect you from anything though, even in close combat you just need to stab the horse.
    So:
    -Rule#1:

    • max AS is 3+ for R&F
    • Max AS is 2+ for characters
    Second, we can't keep the current AP it needs to go down.
    Armour piercing 1 only for weapons that are designed to pierce armour and "regular" monsters.
    We also need to make it absolutely distinct from strength.
    If you take strong blow when you're wearing an armour you're most likely going to be "just" brushed aside.
    Spears, lances, heavy weapons. Handguns and pistols at AP1.
    (remember that as the maximum AS is lower you don't need that much AP for the same effect)

    AP2 is the absolute maximum AP that should exist.
    It's allowed only to big freaky monsters, magic weapons and artillery pieces.
    - Rule#2:

    • AP1 to Spears, lances, great weapons. Handguns, pistols. Large size models.
    • Ap2 to War machines, magic weapons and Gigantic size models.
    Now that we've established a healthy environment we can rethink the pricing of units.
    Cav. needs to go down in points because they are going to suffer heavier casualties, they still need to be more expensive than infantry because of the obvious movement / charge advantage.

    There you go.
    tl;dr Stop the arms race. Make small protection worth something. No unit should be invincible or near invincible, this is war.
    Absolutely agree.
    The armor is now an expensive option and cavalry should no longer have armor.

    But I think it's a job to redesign everything, that's why I hope it's done in 2.0, maybe with Ranghi 4 (more maneuver, more tactical) with a maximum of 20 models (30 for Goblin type).