ID Preview - Part 9

    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Fire on impact probably isn't impossible, if it doesn't count towards CR in the first round of combat (I don't think I've ever played with or against EoS in Ninth Age, so I don't really know their rules).

      Please remember, the TT did not design the new Blunderbuss Rules. The design we suggested did involve shooting in combat (and not, in fact, only in the first round of combat).

      Don't worry, we understand this one. Tbh, I am not sure yet if it is going to be effective or not...but it is kinda dull and that is the biggest departure negatively I see from the last incarnation.

      I did have an idea for Blunderbuss's that they do a certain amount of shots per rank (like D3 etc) of the Infernal Warrior unit and they always hit on a set number; showing that the buckshot just does not care about anything intervening outside of something like a cliff or a house.



      As for R1 Battle Focus: Given the adverse community reaction, I'm sure the team for the new book will look hard at our AWSR's.

      Again, I'm going to take some blame here: I suggested a rule that only works in round 2 because it struck me that no army actually had that - many armies got worse after round one, but none actually got better - so it seemed that that could be a cool thing to have. This was a power-level independent concern - the idea was to find something that would make ID feel different from other armies.

      Why do we need to be so different though in this manner, is my question. If anyone shouldn't play in the same aggressive style it is Dwarven Holds.
      We already have uniqueness in our multiple-layered society that actually plays out on the battlefield, our bizarre combination of units, engineer-mages and many other parts.



      I mean yes, we could possibly have gotten Battle Focus in general - but as I understand it, the general reply from the community is that it was a poor choice of AWSR's in general, and we should go with a defensive rule. (because it's nice being the "offensive dwarves" and all, but rubber hits the road, we need to survive longer)

      And our new rule does not help with surviving anyway, just rewards us if we magically do. Greater initial damage output means our defense only has to last a shorter amount of time.
      Once again, let Dwarves have Battle Focus; their rules are geared perfectly towards it's application.



      So bearing in mind that we're stuck with the new CoA until the new book, and then there's a chance for a massive redesign, are you *sure* you'd ask for Battle Focus in every round? (To be honest, the second it got renamed Battle Focus I didn't want to keep it. "In the second round of combat, Infernal Dwarves Get Furious" sounds good, power level aside. Battle Focus? Meh)

      If you are looking for good names that are fitting how about; Apoplectic, Rage, Incendiary Hate.
    • Our units are weird in flavour, but on the table we tend towards Jack of All Trades - a little bit of everything.

      If you were proxying an ID force using EoS models, would the ID units play very differently from the EoS equivalents?

      Kinda yes, sure, but IMO it's worth differentiating a bit harder.


      Conversely, DH is mono-infantry, everything is M3, but tons of scout and ambush. Very distinctive on a rules level.


      And yes, I know that the 2.0 rules don't give us better defense. I was talking about what 2.0X should be like - as you've said, we should possibly ditch Battle Focus entirely for something defensive. (Although that's harder than you might think - stealing Shieldwall is probably a tall ask, +1 AS would get flat vetoed, Distracting doesn't actually fit our ASAW... my best idea so far is adding "re-roll 1's on armour saves" to Infernal Armour, as that's worse than +1 AS but still a bonus to armour)
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Our units are weird in flavour, but on the table we tend towards Jack of All Trades - a little bit of everything.

      If you were proxying an ID force using EoS models, would the ID units play very differently from the EoS equivalents?

      Well the humans would move oddly for a start. We have Daemonic units which Empire 100% lack. Also our War-Machines lean more towards the weird than anybody elses. And humans cost less due to being T3, so their elite infantry function differently to ours. We also have insignificant units that we really do not care about in game terms; meaning we can potentially field far more bodies than empire. Plus we have the fire stuff everywhere.

      Kinda yes, sure, but IMO it's worth differentiating a bit harder.


      Conversely, DH is mono-infantry, everything is M3, but tons of scout and ambush. Very distinctive on a rules level.


      And yes, I know that the 2.0 rules don't give us better defense. I was talking about what 2.0X should be like - as you've said, we should possibly ditch Battle Focus entirely for something defensive. (Although that's harder than you might think - stealing Shieldwall is probably a tall ask, +1 AS would get flat vetoed, Distracting doesn't actually fit our ASAW... my best idea so far is adding "re-roll 1's on armour saves" to Infernal Armour, as that's worse than +1 AS but still a bonus to armour)

      What about Infernal Armour lowering AP numbers as the sweltering heat from them makes enemy weapons soft? (Not 100% negating AP, just like, lower it by 1/2 or something)
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      The difference between -1 AP and +1 AS is kinda small. Probably too small.

      Ah what the heck, share my brainstorms:

      - +1 AS vs. Great Weapons
      - reroll 1's on AS
      - +1 AS vs. S5 or higher
      - +1 AS in close combat to the front
      Buffing Infernal Armor does not realy cut it for me. It buffs the Immortals which are already in a good spot, the new Taruk which is nice but does not realy solve their problem and our characters which already are on the tough side.
      Units that need it more like IW or even CG don't get it.
      I don't like "rerolle x" in General. +/- on a throw is a much more elegant and faster way (streamling) of applieing buffs.
      I do actually like the -AP suggestion but I'm not sure if it's better then Battle Focus even on 2nd turn.
    • I had the feeling than since freeing from GW overwatch DH are trying to adopt CHD playstyle. Vanguards, ambushes , tripple march, scouts so all is about improving mobility while of course keeping top artilery and resistance. New units are MI and more flyiers. They are begging for bear riders like forever, I am sure if they would ever get them next move would be Ancestral Titan and Runesmither lvl 4... I guess playing static gunline can be boring but what can you expect from dwarfs, this is what that army was always about. Yet it was allowed to move from this playstyle. And now we are more and more pushed into grinding gunline with better mobility to keep up with bad weapon ranges.
      I know we still got a lot of fast units but it seems they do not fit into new vision of ID.

      So I personaly do not understand this whole lack of ID uniqueness and similarities to DH. If DH are allowed to be more mobile and hardhitting while ID more grinding , both armies are getting more similar in playstyle. It should be expected , but seems that we are the one punished for that and forced to find a solution. It come to this ,that we are trying to invent another shieldwall rule, but not saying it loud. Dwarfs and warmachines are just part of the army, fiery deamons and angry bulls are also important one but I am worried it might be not reflected properly.
    • Er... Citadel Guard have Infernal Armour. Buffing Infernal Armour would buff Citadel Guard, Immortals, Taurukhs and Characters. It wouldn't buff Lugars, but Lugars don't get Battle Focus from CoA anyway.

      So it just leaves Infernal Warriors as stripped down bare-bones dwarves (and thus hopefully cheap).


      As for our fast units: we couldn't deliver the new vision for them with just the 4+4 updates. There IS a plan there.
    • i think that the buffs of wodg when they are not charging should be perfect for ID. -1 to be hit/wounded or +1AS when you are not charging.
      A) increases our survivability in griding mode
      B) affects all army luggars both kinds of tauruks, cg, warmachines. Nowdays we have a buff in the army wich works in a 25%? of the army.

      I dont see they utilityof battle focus in an army with a msu core+slaves and has agi 2 in most of cases
    • hypnotic wrote:

      I had the feeling than since freeing from GW overwatch DH are trying to adopt CHD playstyle. Vanguards, ambushes , tripple march, scouts so all is about improving mobility while of course keeping top artilery and resistance. New units are MI and more flyiers. They are begging for bear riders like forever, I am sure if they would ever get them next move would be Ancestral Titan and Runesmither lvl 4... I guess playing static gunline can be boring but what can you expect from dwarfs, this is what that army was always about. Yet it was allowed to move from this playstyle. And now we are more and more pushed into grinding gunline with better mobility to keep up with bad weapon ranges.
      I know we still got a lot of fast units but it seems they do not fit into new vision of ID.

      So I personaly do not understand this whole lack of ID uniqueness and similarities to DH. If DH are allowed to be more mobile and hardhitting while ID more grinding , both armies are getting more similar in playstyle. It should be expected , but seems that we are the one punished for that and forced to find a solution. It come to this ,that we are trying to invent another shieldwall rule, but not saying it loud. Dwarfs and warmachines are just part of the army, fiery deamons and angry bulls are also important one but I am worried it might be not reflected properly.
      Im not sure about DH ASAW but I guess that they share with us being top at Heavy Arms Fire, so it is fair if we both find some common ground there, but each one in their own way.

      The main difference between ID and DH is that they got special deployments while we are more mobile on the table thanks to various monsters, different cavalry units, new lugars, flying ogres...

      I know that some DH players are asking for cavalry since a long time (while others despise it), but just in my opinion, I dont think that it will happen and throne losing swifstride is an indication of where is going the army.

      During this update we could pick a limited amount of things to "fix" and the TT focused their effort mainly in the shooting department, because it was found the most lacking. Im sure that most of you will agree on this (the old gunnery team was shameful).


      ID have 3 main playstyle (this doesnt mean that all other playstyles would be unplayable):

      - "Gunline": Many players wanted to have some real dwarf shooting and fearsome warmachines. With the changes introduced during this update this could be a viable playstyle or at least more viable than before.

      - "Mixed Arms: A mix of war machines, infantry, monsters... I think that this playstyle will be in a good spot with the changes made during this update. Mixed Arms seems like the true ID playstyle for me, but how strong it gets will depend on how the meta shifts.

      - "Rush Army": Than means flying bulls, anointed, lugars, monsters... Somekind of fast agressive force. Flying Mounts and Taurukh have received the most impressive point reductions in our army, not sure if it will be enough. Anyway, I agree that this is the part that will need more improvements during the full rework. But still it could be playable during this update if some changes go well like new lugars, Anointed with Infernal Weapons become a thing or whip giant makes our core march 10".

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

    • Gunline army will be buffed with this update, no doubt, but I am worried that it is happening at the expense of Rush army style. I understand you had limited working area but I think one could be done without charming the other. I also understand that ID got conflicting playstyles from total defense to total ofense, and it is hard to balance it. Maybe big point costs change will be enought , we will see, yet I think it should reach deeper. Thats why I am against single universal ruleset for dwarfs and tauruks. Like with kadims, they have their specyfic rules, we can argue if they are too weak or too strong but we agree what we expect from them and volcanic embrace wont afect dwarf infantry role. I would personaly go further with this like general choice determinating units availability and even core/special/rare composition. Like with little tauruks. I do not find role for this unit at all ,unles its somehow available as core. I guess RT are against such mechanic in general so maybe something like DE cults can be implemented. It is already tested, they even got 2 new one (mostly useless but still :) ) and could solve inner contradictions in ID army.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Also our War-Machines lean more towards the weird than anybody elses.

      Not really IMO. We got a Volley Gun, as do EoS, we got a Catapult, as do they, ours has a small special rule atatched to it, but otherwise identical in function. We both got a tank, their's got a Cannon, ours a Volley Gun, neither is really wierder than the other much.

      Irondaemon wrote:

      I don’t think that Battle Focus is a bad rule. I kinda like it. But it should be from first turn for CoA, not second. Other than that I like it. Well, not the name.
      THen it might be like the DH AWSR's, i.e. atually somewhat useful, can't have that! :)

      Manxol wrote:

      And what about somekind of ofensive grinding like "when a unit rolls a 1 to wound them, ID can perform 1 attack" or something like that. Maybe with S4 AP0 flaming?
      Neat, but I fear it would slow down gameplay too much, or at least that the RT would Think it would (remember that they removed Hidden because player's were unable to make decisions...)
      I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

      Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void