Pinned ID General Chat

    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!

    • New

      Villon wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      So far Tourney results don't support ID Beta 2 to be weak. More the other direction.
      @ cinco ID performs much worse than at Ocho. How much data do you got? Five tourneys with ID in which Frederick performed thrice?
      Can you please link the 3rd Tourney Freddy played ID in under the current ruleset?And yes we weekly update performance and list data.

      Shortly before the prices are set we will also test linking performance to unit entries. I have been working on making such things possible since last year.

      But that direct linking increases the error barsch and reduces the weight.

      Currently eleminating Freddys results would reduce ID performance but till now only 1 Tourney in my database has ID as not overperforming that would not change mich.

      Of course as more and more results come in it is still possible that ID performance drops a lot.

      Lets see what france UB Tourneys, US summercamp and what else ended this week will bring.

      Just at the moment ID up is not data supported.
      @Just_Flo if needed i can insert casual games too, if we need more data. Because actually is not enough data to say ID are op/up
      But we have enough data to say that no one is taking Immortals, and imho is not because they are bad (they can be better for sure) but the real problem is that we pay a core tax, you need to fill with core units, and now our core units are OSOM.

      IW are cheap, and powerful and can shoot like daemons

      CG with pistols are cheap, shoot, hit you hard...

      Why anyone will pick another infantry block? When you can pick monsters? Arty? Engines? Characters? :|
      I think i was never as completly on your side as on this one. I know - comparsions are bad - but to be honest:

      IF greybeards (still in core) would get plate armour and pistols, spears or 18" m&s range-weapons ... i would never field DW or KG ever again. I would gladly fill the rest of my list with warmachines, copters, miners and chars. And i see the same for ID right now. As long as the core remains as it is, immortals (in my humble opinion) will be extreeeemly hard to balance to find a spot in the lists without making them a unkillable deathstar.

      ps: No, i dont judge if the core is too strong/weak/cheap/expensive, and i also dont want to point fingers.
      But the LAB Team created their own "monster" with a core like this. I think its nearly the same issue (atleast mine) with the Chosen from wotdg. Why should i field chosen, if i alrdy have my brick with the same equipment/same task in core?

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

    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      Villon wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      So far Tourney results don't support ID Beta 2 to be weak. More the other direction.
      @ cinco ID performs much worse than at Ocho. How much data do you got? Five tourneys with ID in which Frederick performed thrice?
      Can you please link the 3rd Tourney Freddy played ID in under the current ruleset?And yes we weekly update performance and list data.
      Shortly before the prices are set we will also test linking performance to unit entries. I have been working on making such things possible since last year.

      But that direct linking increases the error barsch and reduces the weight.

      Currently eleminating Freddys results would reduce ID performance but till now only 1 Tourney in my database has ID as not overperforming that would not change mich.

      Of course as more and more results come in it is still possible that ID performance drops a lot.

      Lets see what france UB Tourneys, US summercamp and what else ended this week will bring.

      Just at the moment ID up is not data supported.
      @Just_Flo if needed i can insert casual games too, if we need more data. Because actually is not enough data to say ID are op/upBut we have enough data to say that no one is taking Immortals, and imho is not because they are bad (they can be better for sure) but the real problem is that we pay a core tax, you need to fill with core units, and now our core units are OSOM.

      IW are cheap, and powerful and can shoot like daemons

      CG with pistols are cheap, shoot, hit you hard...

      Why anyone will pick another infantry block? When you can pick monsters? Arty? Engines? Characters? :|
      I think i was never as completly on your side as on this one. I know - comparsions are bad - but to be honest:
      IF greybeards (still in core) would get plate armour and pistols, spears or 18" m&s range-weapons ... i would never field DW or KG ever again. I would gladly fill the rest of my list with warmachines, copters, miners and chars. And i see the same for ID right now. As long as the core remains as it is, immortals (in my humble opinion) will be extreeeemly hard to balance to find a spot in the lists without making them a unkillable deathstar.

      ps: No, i dont judge if the core is too strong/weak/cheap/expensive, and i also dont want to point fingers.
      But the LAB Team created their own "monster" with a core like this. I think its nearly the same issue (atleast mine) with the Chosen from wotdg. Why should i field chosen, if i alrdy have my brick with the same equipment/same task in core?
      I think you are right except they get an special task like they had.

      Btw I think that would be the same if they loose March and Shoot and that unncessary rule with third rank (which should belong to Flintlocks).

      It would be also thinkable if they loose shields when taking spear & pistol as an example for a change.
    • New

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Villon wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      So far Tourney results don't support ID Beta 2 to be weak. More the other direction.
      @ cinco ID performs much worse than at Ocho. How much data do you got? Five tourneys with ID in which Frederick performed thrice?
      Can you please link the 3rd Tourney Freddy played ID in under the current ruleset?And yes we weekly update performance and list data.Shortly before the prices are set we will also test linking performance to unit entries. I have been working on making such things possible since last year.

      But that direct linking increases the error barsch and reduces the weight.

      Currently eleminating Freddys results would reduce ID performance but till now only 1 Tourney in my database has ID as not overperforming that would not change mich.

      Of course as more and more results come in it is still possible that ID performance drops a lot.

      Lets see what france UB Tourneys, US summercamp and what else ended this week will bring.

      Just at the moment ID up is not data supported.
      @Just_Flo if needed i can insert casual games too, if we need more data. Because actually is not enough data to say ID are op/upBut we have enough data to say that no one is taking Immortals, and imho is not because they are bad (they can be better for sure) but the real problem is that we pay a core tax, you need to fill with core units, and now our core units are OSOM.
      IW are cheap, and powerful and can shoot like daemons

      CG with pistols are cheap, shoot, hit you hard...

      Why anyone will pick another infantry block? When you can pick monsters? Arty? Engines? Characters? :|
      I think i was never as completly on your side as on this one. I know - comparsions are bad - but to be honest:IF greybeards (still in core) would get plate armour and pistols, spears or 18" m&s range-weapons ... i would never field DW or KG ever again. I would gladly fill the rest of my list with warmachines, copters, miners and chars. And i see the same for ID right now. As long as the core remains as it is, immortals (in my humble opinion) will be extreeeemly hard to balance to find a spot in the lists without making them a unkillable deathstar.

      ps: No, i dont judge if the core is too strong/weak/cheap/expensive, and i also dont want to point fingers.
      But the LAB Team created their own "monster" with a core like this. I think its nearly the same issue (atleast mine) with the Chosen from wotdg. Why should i field chosen, if i alrdy have my brick with the same equipment/same task in core?
      I think you are right except they get an special task like they had.
      Btw I think that would be the same if they loose March and Shoot and that unncessary rule with third rank (which should belong to Flintlocks).

      It would be also thinkable if they loose shields when taking spear & pistol as an example for a change.
      There are 2 possible solutions i could think of. And both are no easy task.

      1) Change the core units so that Immortals can fulful a job the core units can not do.
      2) Change the immortals to a unit that dont pale off in comparison to other non-core choices without breaking a certain elite/power level.

      My gut tells me that 1) would be easier. I think there is a a certain reason, that Greybeards don't have / should not have access to real shooting weapons. Thats what marksmen are there for (which pale in comparison to greybeards in their combat stats).
    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Villon wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Just_Flo wrote:

      So far Tourney results don't support ID Beta 2 to be weak. More the other direction.
      @ cinco ID performs much worse than at Ocho. How much data do you got? Five tourneys with ID in which Frederick performed thrice?
      Can you please link the 3rd Tourney Freddy played ID in under the current ruleset?And yes we weekly update performance and list data.Shortly before the prices are set we will also test linking performance to unit entries. I have been working on making such things possible since last year.
      But that direct linking increases the error barsch and reduces the weight.

      Currently eleminating Freddys results would reduce ID performance but till now only 1 Tourney in my database has ID as not overperforming that would not change mich.

      Of course as more and more results come in it is still possible that ID performance drops a lot.

      Lets see what france UB Tourneys, US summercamp and what else ended this week will bring.

      Just at the moment ID up is not data supported.
      @Just_Flo if needed i can insert casual games too, if we need more data. Because actually is not enough data to say ID are op/upBut we have enough data to say that no one is taking Immortals, and imho is not because they are bad (they can be better for sure) but the real problem is that we pay a core tax, you need to fill with core units, and now our core units are OSOM.IW are cheap, and powerful and can shoot like daemons

      CG with pistols are cheap, shoot, hit you hard...

      Why anyone will pick another infantry block? When you can pick monsters? Arty? Engines? Characters? :|
      I think i was never as completly on your side as on this one. I know - comparsions are bad - but to be honest:IF greybeards (still in core) would get plate armour and pistols, spears or 18" m&s range-weapons ... i would never field DW or KG ever again. I would gladly fill the rest of my list with warmachines, copters, miners and chars. And i see the same for ID right now. As long as the core remains as it is, immortals (in my humble opinion) will be extreeeemly hard to balance to find a spot in the lists without making them a unkillable deathstar.
      ps: No, i dont judge if the core is too strong/weak/cheap/expensive, and i also dont want to point fingers.
      But the LAB Team created their own "monster" with a core like this. I think its nearly the same issue (atleast mine) with the Chosen from wotdg. Why should i field chosen, if i alrdy have my brick with the same equipment/same task in core?
      I think you are right except they get an special task like they had.Btw I think that would be the same if they loose March and Shoot and that unncessary rule with third rank (which should belong to Flintlocks).

      It would be also thinkable if they loose shields when taking spear & pistol as an example for a change.
      There are 2 possible solutions i could think of. And both are no easy task.
      1) Change the core units so that Immortals can fulful a job the core units can not do.
      2) Change the immortals to a unit that dont pale off in comparison to other non-core choices without breaking a certain elite/power level.

      My gut tells me that 1) would be easier. I think there is a a certain reason, that Greybeards don't have / should not have access to real shooting weapons. Thats what marksmen are there for (which pale in comparison to greybeards in their combat stats).
      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?

      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
    • New

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.

      My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.
      My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      I play for quite a while Infernal Dwarfes (about 120 games from 2018 - 05/2020 with then and two since the beta, first opponents did not want me to field them against them second beta simpyl a book I dont like at all) and there was allways a spot for Immortals and will be. Since you still can only play one big unit of CGs which is a good base but there is no room for two since you cant strengthen the second unit up.

      If Immortals would be a good unit they would see some play. But this may be a record that repeats itself. Base unit cost now 345 pts with GW and Shield and costed before this 300 pts with shields. If you count in CoA rule with 1 pts and blessing > the current rule which it was in my view also with 1 pts we are now talking about a difference from 75 pts to slim book version. If you ask me there is a spot for Immortals if they solve any problem. Since the major task is a bunker for one or two mages or death star in the book for them. Some things CG cannot really be or at least not for the same costs.

      So if you ask me. The problem is more the point that price up (for GWs), loss of parry plus a rather bad rule for Whispers of the mask are the major problems. Which was a nerf of about 45-60 pts maybe more.

      Also at least about Kingsguard. They can also be played without character in them and still got a decent spot in them. But better Greybeards could be a reason not to play them but this is more a problem of the DH book (which is not valid currently) which does not really apply for the ID book since it is/was a different army with very different tools.
    • New

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      If Immortals would be a good unit they would see some play. But this may be a record that repeats itself. Base unit cost now 345 pts with GW and Shield and costed before this 300 pts with shields. If you count in CoA rule with 1 pts and blessing > the current rule which it was in my view also with 1 pts we are now talking about a difference from 75 pts to slim book version. If you ask me there is a spot for Immortals if they solve any problem. Since the major task is a bunker for one or two mages or death star in the book for them. Some things CG cannot really be or at least not for the same costs.
      I don't think that's necessary true. Good units could also see no play if they are out shined by even better choices. I don't want to say that the immortals are good or bad (i don't judge right now), but just because a unit does not see play, it don't has to be because its bad. I personally - if asked - think the immortals do not see play mainly because they are over-the-top out-shined by the lugars as a special choice and the shooty CG as a core choice.
    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      If Immortals would be a good unit they would see some play. But this may be a record that repeats itself. Base unit cost now 345 pts with GW and Shield and costed before this 300 pts with shields. If you count in CoA rule with 1 pts and blessing > the current rule which it was in my view also with 1 pts we are now talking about a difference from 75 pts to slim book version. If you ask me there is a spot for Immortals if they solve any problem. Since the major task is a bunker for one or two mages or death star in the book for them. Some things CG cannot really be or at least not for the same costs.
      I don't think that's necessary true. Good units could also see no play if they are out shined by even better choices. I don't want to say that the immortals are good or bad (i don't judge right now), but just because a unit does not see play, it don't has to be because its bad. I personally - if asked - think the immortals do not see play mainly because they are over-the-top out-shined by the lugars as a special choice and the shooty CG as a core choice.
      I can tell you that if I had a Kingsguard as option (obv. with normal Bodyguard) I would certainly use it for the task to guard my general/mage. But the current Immortals are simply gain < costs. This is the difference between DH and ID. There is a spot with a strong citadel guard but not at this price level with the bad rules.

      Lugars are another matter. They are a different tool and certainly underprised for what the can do. But here is the same Immortals to bad, Lugars to good for the price. Actually I expected them to be more nerfed than Immortals.
    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.
      My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      There's a few key distinctions between Citadel Guard and "Greybeards with Plate and Guild-Crafted Handguns".

      One is OS/DS; Greybeards have that 1 point edge that they share with the other elite DH units, Citadel Guard do not.

      Two is that the missile weapon that compares to a Handgun or Crossbow (Flintlocks) downgrades their melee ability. +1 S but no shield is a very bad trade for combat purposes. Flintlock Guard get a 3+ save vs. shooting and spells, but in close combat Greybeards have better defense (same armour, Parry + Shieldwall).


      In fact, comparing Citadel Guard (with Flintlocks) to Marksmen (with Great Weapons) yields interesting results. One unit has a 4+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP1. The other unit has a 5+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP2.

      Citadel Guard have better Agility (2 instead of 0) and are harder to shoot off the table, but their combat ability (with Flintlocks) is still actually closer to that of Marksmen than it is of Greybeards.


      Citadel Guard with Spears are more comparable (still less OS/DS, but spears are a pretty good weapon), but Pistols are not Handguns. I would suspect Greybeards with Pistols would not dramatically outcompete KG or DW.


      See, the detail people tend to miss? In the LAB, the good gear is the ID AWSR. Stacking two books worth of AWSR is obviously going to result in an OTT unit.

      If we transplanted Citadel Guard precisely as-is to DH, I doubt they'd outcompete everything. Certainly ID players have expressed envy of King's Guard exactly as they are.

      Background Team

    • New

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      There's a few key distinctions between Citadel Guard and "Greybeards with Plate and Guild-Crafted Handguns".
      One is OS/DS; Greybeards have that 1 point edge that they share with the other elite DH units, Citadel Guard do not.

      Two is that the missile weapon that compares to a Handgun or Crossbow (Flintlocks) downgrades their melee ability. +1 S but no shield is a very bad trade for combat purposes. Flintlock Guard get a 3+ save vs. shooting and spells, but in close combat Greybeards have better defense (same armour, Parry + Shieldwall).


      In fact, comparing Citadel Guard (with Flintlocks) to Marksmen (with Great Weapons) yields interesting results. One unit has a 4+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP1. The other unit has a 5+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP2.

      Citadel Guard have better Agility (2 instead of 0) and are harder to shoot off the table, but their combat ability (with Flintlocks) is still actually closer to that of Marksmen than it is of Greybeards.


      Citadel Guard with Spears are more comparable (still less OS/DS, but spears are a pretty good weapon), but Pistols are not Handguns. I would suspect Greybeards with Pistols would not dramatically outcompete KG or DW.


      See, the detail people tend to miss? In the LAB, the good gear is the ID AWSR. Stacking two books worth of AWSR is obviously going to result in an OTT unit.

      If we transplanted Citadel Guard precisely as-is to DH, I doubt they'd outcompete everything. Certainly ID players have expressed envy of King's Guard exactly as they are.
      I think this is the point were we have completely different opinions about them to a point, were we just have to accept it as such.
      I personally (and i accept that other players dont agree) consider units that are able to fight AND shoot above 12" in a different league than any straight-forward melee-unit. Especially with a dwarf-profil. Its one of the reason - and you may quote me at any time when the DH Lab turn arise, i really dislike the idea of units that are able to do well in close-combat AND range shooting. And IF there has to be such a unit (flavour-wise or whatever reasons) it has to be a 0-1 choice and outside core.
    • New

      Zwei wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Zwei wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      The question is do Citadel guards with Spears do need shooting weapons except flintlocks as option of a weapon?
      But on the other hand Infernal Characters are weaker than Dwarf Characters so far I have been very successfull with a Clansmen unit as hero buncker next to a unit of seekers with two dragon seekers. But Infernal Characters are far from the strength of a king i.E. the unit needs to be better. Also DH players may not like it but apart from to expensive throwing weapons they got a lot of good rules to run them. So they can be used as a big unit (without throwing weapons) as well as a dart to keep the lines of a gunlin part.
      Sorry, i dont intend to turn this into a "ID/DH chars are stronger/better/more useful than their counterpart" discussion.My point was: greybeards are a really good melee unit as they are right now. If the DH Lab decides to give them plate armor and guild-crafted handgungs/crossbows, you will not see any units of DW/KG. And imho thats the problem ID has right now. Why bothering with Immortals who distribute nothing to the army if you can have shooting CG in core?
      There's a few key distinctions between Citadel Guard and "Greybeards with Plate and Guild-Crafted Handguns".One is OS/DS; Greybeards have that 1 point edge that they share with the other elite DH units, Citadel Guard do not.

      Two is that the missile weapon that compares to a Handgun or Crossbow (Flintlocks) downgrades their melee ability. +1 S but no shield is a very bad trade for combat purposes. Flintlock Guard get a 3+ save vs. shooting and spells, but in close combat Greybeards have better defense (same armour, Parry + Shieldwall).


      In fact, comparing Citadel Guard (with Flintlocks) to Marksmen (with Great Weapons) yields interesting results. One unit has a 4+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP1. The other unit has a 5+ armour save in close combat, S5, AP2.

      Citadel Guard have better Agility (2 instead of 0) and are harder to shoot off the table, but their combat ability (with Flintlocks) is still actually closer to that of Marksmen than it is of Greybeards.


      Citadel Guard with Spears are more comparable (still less OS/DS, but spears are a pretty good weapon), but Pistols are not Handguns. I would suspect Greybeards with Pistols would not dramatically outcompete KG or DW.


      See, the detail people tend to miss? In the LAB, the good gear is the ID AWSR. Stacking two books worth of AWSR is obviously going to result in an OTT unit.

      If we transplanted Citadel Guard precisely as-is to DH, I doubt they'd outcompete everything. Certainly ID players have expressed envy of King's Guard exactly as they are.
      I think this is the point were we have completely different opinions about them to a point, were we just have to accept it as such.I personally (and i accept that other players dont agree) consider units that are able to fight AND shoot above 12" in a different league than any straight-forward melee-unit. Especially with a dwarf-profil. Its one of the reason - and you may quote me at any time when the DH Lab turn arise, i really dislike the idea of units that are able to do well in close-combat AND range shooting. And IF there has to be such a unit (flavour-wise or whatever reasons) it has to be a 0-1 choice and outside core.

      Then why haven't Clan Marksmen outcompeted King's Guard already?

      Again - they're essentially as good as Flintlock Guard are in melee (+1 AP, -1 Armour, Agi 2 usually goes last anyway) and shoot 24/30".

      Background Team

    • New

      Ever heard of unwieldly?
      And realized that marksman hit on 4 and not 3 with their shooting?

      So they are not really able to do both jobs...as Citadel guard can. Moving around and beeing some kind of cc threat and at the same time use shooting.

      Kings guard is there for close combat. And you see them in lists because they are already cheap for the bang they bring to the table
    • New

      berti wrote:

      Ever heard of unwieldly?
      And realized that marksman hit on 4 and not 3 with their shooting?

      So they are not really able to do both jobs...as Citadel guard can. Moving around and beeing some kind of cc threat and at the same time use shooting.

      Kings guard is there for close combat. And you see them in lists because they are already cheap for the bang they bring to the table
      marksmen have accurate, so... at 10" CG shoot at 4+ too.
      And Marksmen have more range.

      But for me is more a problem that a shooting unit have armour safe 3+ 5++
      Kislev army thread, We need You!
      New Army book Hetmanate of Ukray
    • New

      berti wrote:

      Ever heard of unwieldly?
      And realized that marksman hit on 4 and not 3 with their shooting?

      So they are not really able to do both jobs...as Citadel guard can. Moving around and beeing some kind of cc threat and at the same time use shooting.

      Kings guard is there for close combat. And you see them in lists because they are already cheap for the bang they bring to the table

      With all due respect berti, I wasn't talking to you. The person I was talking to was of the opinion that Greybeards with Crossbows (and plate) would drive King's Guard out of lists.

      I want to know why they think Citadel Guard would do the same, but Clan Marksmen with Crossbows and Great weapons do not.

      Background Team

    • New

      Just_Flo wrote:

      And Berti gave you part of the answer. Clan Marksmen with crossbows and Great Weapons have far less armour, no shieldwall and move and shoot does not go well with them.

      Greybeards with Crossbows would be equally bad at moving and shooting. So that cannot be the answer the person I was actually talking to would give.

      And if the argument is that Plate Armour + Shieldwall would be broken - yes, it would. That's why ID got Plate Armour and not Shieldwall.


      Now, if someone wants to argue that Greybeards with Crossbows (but not with Plate) would be fine, but that Citadel Guard are OP, because Citadel Guard can move and shoot (and thus pull double duty of being a combat unit and a shooting unit), then we are in a very different discussion.

      Because at that point it's not about the eliteness of Citadel Guard - it's about their fundamental design. An argument that having units that can both competently fight and shoot and move towards the enemy renders pure combat units redundant may be correct - but at that point, the only possible solution is to change the ID guidelines, because "competently fight, shoot AND move towards the enemy" is the strategy the book was based around.

      And, like, I can respect that: "the problem is that ID get Flintlocks instead of Handguns and Crossbows. ID should have longer ranged Unwieldy shooting that doesn't come on a S4 AP1 chassis because that's fairer" is an argument I can respect.

      Hell, if that's what someone wants to argue I'll join them. Making moving-and-shooting work is hard work. Making it work without becoming SA-style cloud is even harder. I'd be perfectly happy to have the RT change their minds and say "ID should be more like EoS and DH in terms of range and wieldiness of their weapons".

      But if they just want to argue that moving and shooting is the problem but the ID guidelines are fine then they are wasting my time.

      Background Team

    • New

      Having march and shoot on citadel guard is in my opinion the proplematic part. And I still don´t understand the reason they got pistols when they don´t use flintlocks. Of course they are always better than immortals when even their CC design can shoot 12".

      Greybeards with shooting would be taken because they are CORE. Depending on the price of the shooting of course. They are even taken now with 5 points for the throwing weapons...because they are core, and don´t count against any category of shooting. If you would also give +1 to hit to greyabeards and handguns...they would for sure immediatly put the marksman out of every lists. (as the citadel guard has it).

      You know why the "multitask" forge wardens see no play at all, beside having a inferior designed shooting weapon....they can be replaced by a core unit. Even when this one is way more expensive, the greybeards fight at least as good (better because of shieldwall) and their shooting option also is only sometimes useful.




      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Then why haven't Clan Marksmen outcompeted King's Guard already?
      My answer was to this question.
      Kings guard are a high damage CC unit.(the things you should compare them in ID book rolewise is the monsters and monstrous stuff rather than dwarfs, because dwarfen holds has none of these).
      Marksman, even with great weapons are not damage CC units, they fight at acceptable level but you would not rely your CC abilities on them. And they can be outmanouvered with ease, so that they would need to move around to shoot.
      And marksman that move around don´t hit anything, even on short range.