Pinned Feedback thread for WDG 2.0 beta

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

  • Feedback thread for WDG 2.0 beta

    Feedback for WDG beta.
    When do we need to post our comments?
    Before the January the 10th. This is for the first planned revision.


    What can change? What can we suggest?
    There is room for both minor and major changes. But there are also some restrictions. The books background needs to be kept mostly intact. Much of the background have impact broader than the single entry, and belongs in a bigger picture. The background needs to be consistent, and anything conflicting with this, is problematic. So as a guiding rule: don’t expect background to change.

    When that is said, this could stand in the way of some really, really good ideas. So, if you’re about to suggest a rule change, that would need background changing, please support your suggestion with good argumentation, and some idea for how the background could change in a meaningful way. And again – It WILL be easier to get an idea accepted, if it doesn’t collide with the current background.
    • Favors will also be difficult to change, since we share favors with the Daemon Legion. If the favor rules are particular disliked, we will provide more explanation of why they are difficult to change, and guidelines for how they have to be constructed.
    • Other part that can't change: the army wide strengths and weaknesses.
    Also remember: this is a new army book, and it is supposed to be new. Arguments about the army needing to be more like 1.0/1.3 will not be considered.

    There are subjects where we have a particular interest in you feedback:
    1. On average more elite but fewer models?
    2. On average less elite but more models?
    3. Good as is?
    How can we best provide feedback?

    We need feedback on everything! It can be details and it can be the broader picture. Do you like the different builds you can make? Does it have enough variety in builds? Will it be fun to play? What does it need to achieve this?
    It might be useful for you to know, that we work with a loose complexity budget. The book as it is now, is as complex as it can be. It’s stuffed to the rim. If you suggest anything in addition to what we already have, we need to remove something else. There are some quite complex rules in the book: the reckoning, the hellmaw, the favours to name some of them. These of course take up some of the complexity budget.

    Other things that add to the complexity budget:
    • the number of entries – including mounts
    • options for entries (fx. Options on the chimera)
    • Special rules
    Think about this, when you suggest rule changes.

    Then there’s the question about pricing. A lot can be fixed with the right pricing. If a unit is disliked, please ask yourself: would I like this entry if it was 20% cheaper? If you would, then it’s probably not a design issue. Then it’s a pricing issue. Be clear about what you want from a change – it will help us give the right feedback. Also, anything that makes a unit stronger, will probably also make it more expensive.

    Could you give an example?

    Sure, an entirely fictional example though

    Let’s say that I would like our sorcerer to be more of a fighter. I want a plated bastard that can both be in the thick of a fight, and not just a fella with a heroes sword. This is what I would want to see. I have some options:
    • I can suggest an option for the Chosen lord to get access to magic. This would be very, very expensive, and it would need to be implemented in the background. Would it change the background, or could it be incorporated with what is already in the background? If it’s in conflict with the background, this would be difficult.
    • I could suggest a remake for the sorcerer entry. Again: background check
    Let’s say option two looks to be possible. Then I could suggest some combat stats and equipment changes. This would make the model sky rocket in price on an already expensive unit. That would mean that our only real wizard entry will always be really expensive.

    This is where one typically starts thinking: couldn’t the combat stats just be an option under the current sorcerer?
    Well, yes it could, but it would be just as complex as an entirely new entry. There is no room for such an entry in the complexity budget. Another option would be to make the sorcerer a combat sorcerer, and then asking for barbarian shaman. That would give the army book the option for a cheap caster and a combat caster. Still – complexity.
    So what to do?
    • Suggest something for removal or make a clever change to something that is already too complex. If you do this, without background conflicts – then you have a good suggestion.
    • Of course, you need good arguments for why you combat caster is the sheit. Reasoning is best if it stand on two legs: what does it provide gameplay wise and ‘feel’/story wise?
    This is example is meant to provide information on how complex it can be to make changes, and that we ask of you to not only ask for 'more', but for solutions. Any feedback where you suggest reductions in complexity will be welcome.

    Are you done?
    Yes, almost
    We hope you can agree with these guidelines. These are the guidelines the ACS will follow when validating posts, that we send forward.
    You can post anything, and most of all: we are interested in what makes you happy about the new book, and what you don’t like.

    @noir
    made a great mask for how to give feedback, and we will ask you guys to use the same mask. I have added a bit to Noir's original post, since this book will also need feedback on broader aspects:

    "Please use the following mask for feedback. Posts not following the concept below will be deleted.
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy
    2. What is the problem?
    3. Why is it a problem?
    4. How to solve it?
    And guys please consider your tone while writing. RT will read this, ADT as well as BLT and what they really like is a friendly and constructive community. It would help us out so much more than going full enrage. If you can make it work then I'm sure we will be taken more seriously. This is just a psychological tip. So try to avoid exaggerations and try to be as objective as possible. This also makes the internal work easier. If you guys point out the different up- and downsides your self then the internal teams might not have to do it themselves and are able to find more time to consider changes.

    happy feedbacking!"
    (Link to thread: 2.0 FEEDBACK THREAD)

    Best regards,
    WDG ACS

    Edit: Last but not least: please comment on things you like. What parts do you like particularly? It would be such a shame, if we change anything that is players like.

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

  • I don't play warriors but I think the book looks really interesting. My only nitpick is part of the layout. It doesn't say the unit starting size. Just the points for it and then the number of models that can be in a unit like 10-24. It almost makes it look like you can pay that starting price for the 24 instead of the ten. How it's presented in the non updated books is definitely less confusing and you understand it right away.
  • I already tested the game with 2 lists, 4 games with the First list (2 against SE, 2 against EoS), and second list 2 games with the second (against SE).

    So i'll begin with what I saw:

    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Forsworn
    2. What is the problem? 2 Health Points
    3. Why is it a problem? because even if they are resistant (R5, AS 2+) they are way too much expensive (roughly 36-50 pph) for an anvil unit that will get destroyed hard against anything we would want to be stubborn at, elves and some elites come to mind. Also some chosen can accomplish that role given the right favour while doing even more things.
    4. How to solve it? They could be either cheaper, or come with more health.


    This are the first ones I have while making lists and playtesting.
    There are good things of course, Hell Maws mainly are amazing and give headaches to opponents, Orb of foreboding and Wasteland Torch do wonders too. And I managed to play a Lord on foot while being able to make him choose some combats and win.

    Finally while I see many viable lists, there are some choices that feels inherently weak in rules and uses compared to others, roughly 30-40% of the codex seems inferior to the rest (Irremedable units at the first position due to expensive combos or no sinergy between units).
    Testing WDG 2.03

    HBE and DL for tournaments.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Feynn: Separating things ().

    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Scoring units.
    2. What is the problem? It's nearly impossible to fit 4+ scoring units if you want to play infantry.
    3. Why is it a problem? While we have 15 naked Barbarians as a cheap scoring choice, they are really hard to make work without Feldrak + BSB and at the same time pretty slow. If you don't want to play Barbarians then you're screwed because everything is really expensive. Barbarian Horsemen are nice to score, but they basically make your infantry an Special choice wich hardly calls for infantry style then.
    4. How to solve it? Fallen could become scoring in some way? Those could become a fast scoring unit as almost every other army have. Make it work just with Doomlord, wich by the way can't hope to use 6 Fallen unit if they aren't scoring anyway.
    Testing WDG 2.03

    HBE and DL for tournaments.
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Sorcerer
    2. What is the problem? Between to worlds without accomplish no one.
    3. Why is it a problem? Actually I found Exalted Herald to be a really nice choice with magic, while at the same time kicks hard in close combat. Sorcerer can be nice at magic, but while it may go up to 500 points or more, he doesn't even resist or makes damage and he died all games due to being forced to follow into combat and not saving good enough.
    4. How to solve it? Either make it a really cheap non-combat unit or make it a tank that can survive 1-2 rounds in a duel. However even if I used it in those 2 lists it feels really wonky.
    Testing WDG 2.03

    HBE and DL for tournaments.
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Infantry Strategy
    2. What is the problem? an ABC choice, either you just use Hellmaws or you're screwed.
    3. Why is it a problem? While Hell Maw are really good at giving the necesary mobility to deal even with highly mobile SE or similar, that's about the only choice if you want to go with infantry. Any other choice and you wont have enough movement pressure to bring your infantry into combat. Specially I suffered that with Barbarians wich couldn't really choose any combat until magic and shooting made them leak enough wounds that they were pretty weak. Also flayers are really paper thin, so no use for them against S3 or better shooting.
    4. How to solve it? We've got 2 choices on improving our chances to give movement pressure, Hell Maw and Flayers, there are nice things (Orb of Foreboding, Wasteland Torch) but they are more tangential and can't provide the main movement pressure. However Flayers are flawed either in cost or design. You can't pay nearly 400 points for a unit that will vaporize when anything touch it, it isn't chaff so it shouldn't be like that in an army that can't spam them. So either they are more resistant or cheap or should be able to avoid retaliation easier.
    Testing WDG 2.03

    HBE and DL for tournaments.
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Warhounds
    2. What is the problem? release the hounds rule
    3. Why is it a problem? It is actually a self-defeating rule. Why would we want Warhounds to charge on first turn? Maybe a 1% games where our opponent puts their highly mobile but weak chaff in front of them and we manage to win the combat? That's hardly a thing, and since they work to chaff in infantry lists they don't really need 24" March on first turn. While it has this uses it makes our main chaff usable just in certain lists but we are paying full points for the rule all times.
    4. How to solve it? Make the rule usable One Use Only or remove it making them cheaper.
    Testing WDG 2.03

    HBE and DL for tournaments.

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

    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy:
      First and foremost I have to say that I am not a WDG-player, nor have I been a WoC-player in the past. So see this feedback as questions from an outsider's perspective.
      By just flicking through the pages of the new Army Book I must say that I am impressed by the effort! Great work! There is a Lot of text though, which could be great for really letting players get immersed in this new setting - but the sheer effort of sitting down and taking it all in could be a daunting task for some players. Side question, how did you guys go about deciding how much text you wanted to put into the book..?

      My question though is this: I can imagine that the dark gods are somewhat of a driving force when it comes to adding flavor to the army, and I like the direction of the new gods, but how did you guys go about coming up with the different names for them?
      I know that background lore would be a difficult sale when it comes to changing it, but here is some feedback regarding the Dark Gods anyway. Since the gods themselves are so important to the army they need to feel just right, and besides their cool themes they need to have names that are easily connected to their chosen sin and be iconic enough to invoke emotion and recognition whenever a player just mentions their name (so not their title or their sin). So for example, the Dark God of Lust is named Savar. The name "Savar" needs to carry enough weight to it to make people feel like the name in itself carries all the aspects of the corresponding sin that when a player says "I play a Savar-themed army" people should instantly get pictures conjured up in their heads that displays the full glory of a dark god of pride. Catch my drift? :)
    2. What is the problem?
      I feel that the name of the dark gods are cool names, but some "fit" better than others. Maybe some of them could need some tweaking, or a more apparent reason for why they are named in such a manner?
    3. Why is it a problem?
      But what is in a name anyway, why is it so important? Well, there is a concept called "Lumumma & Takete" that describes how different names and shapes can give people preconceived notions regarding the object's attributes and feel. If one were to classify either "Lumumma" or "Takete" as the word that best describes spikes, evil, haste, anger, thinner etc. they would pick "Takete", and if they were to classify one of those two words to be the one that best describes a smooth shape, calm, goodness, rounder, etc. they would pick "Lumumma". Basically the name of an object can invoke certain feelings depending on how it sounds and looks alone.
      Now these are the names of the dark gods:

      - Savar, the Fallen Star, Dark God of Pride.

      - Cibaresh, the Tempter, Dark God of Lust.

      - Akaan, the Devourer, Dark God of Gluttony.

      - Kuulima, Lady of Flies, Dark Goddess of Envy.

      - Sugulag, the Collector, Dark God of Greed.

      - Vanadra, the Adversary, Dark God of Wrath.

      - Nukuja, the Sleeper, Dark God of Sloth.
    4. How to solve it?
      Now this is of course my personal opinion, and it does not mean that I am in the right in the slightest (I just want to offer my two cents), but out of these I would like to comment:

      - Savar, the Fallen Star, Dark God of Pride. = Glorious. It rhymes, and falling from grace (falling star) is usually something to dread if you want to keep your pride intact. The whole title sounds like a bestseller.

      - Cibaresh, the Tempter, Dark God of Lust. = Does not roll off the tongue (which would be neat since tongues could be used for lust). Cibaresh does not, to me, sound like such a sexy name. More like something you could attract on your genitalia after indulging in too much lust. ;) I would suggest maybe changing the title too, to maybe "the Temptation" or something similar if you want to stick to the theme of tempting the followers of the dark god. Being "the Tempter" implies that you are "tempting" the followers - and since none of the other dark gods are lowered to a status of seeming to care so much in the individual desires of the followers this Dark God might want to change his title to better represent his nonchalance to his followers desires (on a personal level), unless that is supposed to be his role? :)

      - Akaan, the Devourer, Dark God of Gluttony. = I love the name Akaan. It is easy to remember, and it sounds like something you could say while opening your mouth to devour something (so a sweet connection there!). Great name and title overall.

      - Kuulima, Lady of Flies, Dark Goddess of Envy. = Nice to see a goddess in the list! Kuulima sounds like the name of a person with at least a little girth. Since we cannot see a picture of her in the army book I guess that she is a bit..compact? Lady of Flies is a cute name but since everyone else is named "the SomethingSomething" the title "Lady of Flies" sticks out. If this is intentional and there is an idea behind it then great, but otherwise I would try to bring it back in line. Why would this deity go by another style of title?
      If Kuulima is supposed to be of a slender physic I would maybe try to rename her into something more..."takete"-like.

      - Sugulag, the Collector, Dark God of Greed. = Fitting title for the sin. Sugulag sounds like a name for a bloated being, and I reckon that someone filled with greed would be quite bloated (either when it comes to his character or his appearance - or both!). So the name might be fitting the sin, too. I am not really sure what I think of the name as a standalone name, but it is growing on me.

      - Vanadra, the Adversary, Dark God of Wrath. = This is probably something that won't bother most people but at least here in the north most names that end with an "a" tends to be female names, like for example "Fredrik" being a male name and "Fredrika" being a female name. Vanadra sounds, at least to me, like a female name. It does however make me think of "Vanära" which means "dishonour" in swedish, or "Vandra" which means "to wander". So it gives me a "wandering dishonour"-vibe (I know this is a super personal interpretation of the words) which is actually quite cool. Anyway, since this is the God of Wrath I reckon that the name in itself should instill the same kind of feeling that the name "Khorne" does in the Warhammer universe. And at least to me "Vanadra" seems a bit too generic to be as easily remember and recognizable. Too many "a"s to make it stand out. :)

      - Nukuja, the Sleeper, Dark God of Sloth. = When I first read this name I read it as "Nukunja", which sounds both groovy and gives me some sweet voodoo-vibes. However, "Nukuja" is quite a cool name, too. Out of all the names and titles of the dark gods, this one intrigues me the most by just reading it, and it makes me want to find out more about it. Why is it called "the Sleeper"? What happens when you wake it? Who knows! Do we even want to know? Interesting concept all around.

      -----------

      Overall I must again say that I am super impressed by the book by just looking at it. This book really showed off a creative spark that has been missing for so long after looking at so many plain, white-paged slim army books. It is great to have some color, art, and lore in my hands again when reading an army book!

      If my suggestions above regarding the names seems completely off and/or completely irrelevant then I would at least like to give this comment: Put the names and titles of the Dark Gods in a bold text. Make them pop, make the words linger in the reader's mind.

      Cheers!
    Edit: If my train of thought seems unclear, or if some words seem to have fallen off from their sentences, I gladly blame the holidays for draining my ability to spell correctly. ;)

    Drill the earth, it's no trouble; mining metal, making rubble.
    Mine and drag, toss the slag; Sift the soil, leave the spoil.
    Work with zeal, as hammers peal; Melt, anneal and pound to steel!

    Proud owner of 1411 unique metal dwarf sculpts!

    The post was edited 4 times, last by Kallstrom ().

  • Ok just got a game in. A lot of elves in my meta so might be taken more from a vs. Elves perspective (or at least have to always prepare for elves in every list).
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy
    Agility. More specifically, average agi in WDG.
    1. What is the problem?
    WDG has average agi, relatively low model count and every model lost hurts damage output.
    1. Why is it a problem?
    Since there's little to mitigate losses from shooting, making sure that CC damage is maximized is crucial. Since a lot of units in the game has agi 5 or higher, and coupled with the fact that elves with GW and agi 5 still strikes first, this means that for our average agi 4 units, we absolutely need to get the charge just to ensure that CC damage doesn't get further compromised. However, elves have M5 vs our M4 and hence the only way to get more M is to go all mounted which restricts infantry builds.
    1. How to solve it?
    Increase to agi 5 as the baseline for WDG.
    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy
    Chaff.
    1. What is the problem?
    Reliable chaff clearance.
    1. Why is it a problem?
    WDG depends on getting into CC asap. Chaff clearance becomes a crucial aspect of army game play. Currently the only way to clear chaff is using magic. Hereditary spell + Lightning Vambraces forces investment into magic which goes against the option of having magic-less armies being viable.
    1. How to solve it?
    Bows for Barbarians.
  • Feynn wrote:

    1. Rule/unit/Item/over all feel/strategy: Infantry Strategy
    2. What is the problem? an ABC choice, either you just use Hellmaws or you're screwed.
    3. Why is it a problem? While Hell Maw are really good at giving the necesary mobility to deal even with highly mobile SE or similar, that's about the only choice if you want to go with infantry. Any other choice and you wont have enough movement pressure to bring your infantry into combat. Specially I suffered that with Barbarians wich couldn't really choose any combat until magic and shooting made them leak enough wounds that they were pretty weak. Also flayers are really paper thin, so no use for them against S3 or better shooting.
    4. How to solve it? We've got 2 choices on improving our chances to give movement pressure, Hell Maw and Flayers, there are nice things (Orb of Foreboding, Wasteland Torch) but they are more tangential and can't provide the main movement pressure. However Flayers are flawed either in cost or design. You can't pay nearly 400 points for a unit that will vaporize when anything touch it, it isn't chaff so it shouldn't be like that in an army that can't spam them. So either they are more resistant or cheap or should be able to avoid retaliation easier.

    Did you try multiple Banners of the Restless company? 2 of them in a list make medium infantry units much scarier.
  • 1. Warrior point values.

    2. A maxed-out unit of warriors with halberds hits 898 points, and it feels like a kick in the balls.

    3. Coming in at 898, in a 4500 point game, makes the point cost of halberds hurt that much more since the cheapest possible Core add-on is a naked (and largely useless) minimum Barbarian unit or a minimum Fallen unit. That heavily mitigates the advantage we have with a 20% Core requirement.

    4. Increase the base cost of 10 Warriors to 275 points. That way, 24 halberds warriors with full command and a 50 point (possibly sub-optimal) banner can fulfill Core requirement, becoming the very definition of an elite army.
    I hereby curse Raistlin 100 times over for being every fanboy's ideal wizard archetype. What's so wrong with my blue-eyed boy Thulsa Doom? Now there's a sorcerer worthy of the dark gods.
  • 1. Barbarian Chieftan.

    2. Bro doesn't get to ride a Black Steed.

    3. Only having access to a Shadow Chaser is a huge visual and thematic disconnect when the leader of the tribe rides to battle on a mount that offers less protection AND less offensive output than what even the lowliest horsemen of the tribe get.

    4. Give him the option to ride a Black Steed.
    I hereby curse Raistlin 100 times over for being every fanboy's ideal wizard archetype. What's so wrong with my blue-eyed boy Thulsa Doom? Now there's a sorcerer worthy of the dark gods.
  • 1) Forsaken one
    2) It is flipping useless
    3) OS and DS Of one means he will likely be hit on 3s and 4s. He cannot attack, or stomp, and so only puts out D6 + 3 grind attacks per turn. All for 425 pts! Oh and he is unstable so will die quickly to combat res as soon as he had a bad combat.
    4) bring back the blood beast, a full on assault driven monster. Otherwise raise the OS and DS and give him some baseline attacks.
    Please, bring back a blood beast type monster!!!!
  • 1. Chosen unit size.

    2. Chosen are capped at 10 models/20 wounds.

    3. Capping the unit at 10 models/20 wounds limits their offensive output and staying power and, despite their increased Attack value and superior stats, makes them less of a threat than Core Warriors in many situations. While the punch that such a small unit can make is very in keeping with their elite nature, it seems unfitting that a similarly-costed unit of Warriors is often the scarier unit.

    4. Increase the Chosen unit cap to 12 models/24 wounds, which seems reasonable given the potential wound count, offensive power, and point cost of Core Warriors.
    I hereby curse Raistlin 100 times over for being every fanboy's ideal wizard archetype. What's so wrong with my blue-eyed boy Thulsa Doom? Now there's a sorcerer worthy of the dark gods.