Pinned ID General Chat

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

    • The Changing Constant wrote:

      @darkknight109, dwarven hold do have a limit on their artillery. Also, DH do not get monster or cavalry. FOI is nearly identical to a 15% artillery cap, without having to have some convoluted pointing schema to say only part of a model counts toward the limit.
      They have *a* limit, yes, but not one as restrictive as FOI. Believe me, I know - one of my regular opponents is a dwarf player and it is not uncommon for me to be staring down 4+ artillery pieces across the board.

      The dwarven limit is 20% for Engines of War, which is 900 points in a standard-sized game, and it applies to their artillery and engineer and literally nothing else. For that, you can field roughly six artillery pieces of varying types (four ballistae, a flame cannon, and an organ gun, for instance), with some room for rune crafting in there. If you want to really go nuts, you can actually fit seven artillery pieces under that limit (four ballistae, two flame cannons, and a catapult comes out to 895 points). And all of those guns are better than ours and have a bonus to the misfire table that ensures they'll never blow themselves up thanks to a bad roll.

      Meanwhile, *our* limit not only applies to our big guns and engineer, but also our train and our bastion (even though neither of those perform the same function as heavy weaponry). We cap out at four artillery pieces in a standard-sized game (three if you aren't taking double slingshots), which is half of what DH players can bring. And doing so locks us out of the train and bastion, even if we don't bring along any heavy weapons.

      And I get it, heavy artillery is something Dwarven Holds are supposed to be good at, so I don't begrudge them their toys. But *we* are supposed to be almost as good and heavy industry with a demonic flare is supposed to be *our* big thing. I'm not saying that our artillery should be completely free of all restrictions, but it's gotten almost impossible to run a big gun-heavy army. Believe me, if I could roll out as many rocket launchers, flame cannons and mortars as the western dwarves could, I would be a happy man indeed.

      Honestly, I liked the way the slim book did it - Barrage category to limit the big guns, Bound and Binders to cover our nasty CC stuff (Kadim, train, giant). It makes zero sense to me that a limit to an artillery piece also covers something like a Rock Crusher train, which can't even shoot at all.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by darkknight109 ().

    • The problem is half our monsters are under the same restriction as our artillery pieces which, as previously mentioned, is more restrictive than DH.

      And I don't recall people complaining about this in the slimbook days, when it was possible to field a Train, a Titan, some gunnery teams and a couple of the bigger artillery pieces all in the same list, which isn't even close to doable anymore. And it's not like our artillery pieces got a big buff in the LAB either - both the old rockets and Titan Mortar were better than their current versions (what I would give to have that lovely 48" max range back again...), the Grenade Launcher gunnery team was better than the current rocket gunnery team, and the Flamethrowers were pretty much identical in both the big and small variants.

      And, again, *this is what this army is supposed to be good at!* We are the Mad Scientists of the Ninth Age world! We are an early Industrial Revolution society in a world that is almost entirely stuck in Middle Ages tech. We are supposed to come to battle dragging along a cavalcade of bizarre and sinister infernal constructs that belch alchemical fumes from stovepipe chimneys and spew lava and daemonfire from snarling gun barrels! Our technology is our 'hat' (other than, you know, our actual hats)!

      And the LAB team seemed to be onboard with that idea. One of the selling points of the now defunct ammunition types was that it would allow us all sorts of customization options and modelling opportunities to play to that ideal. Yet every update from the very first Beta has seen our ability to take constructs and big guns further and further curtailed.

      Now that infantry shooting has been fixed, this is, to my eye, the biggest issue facing this armybook and the last major one that I see. The DH dwarfs are Craftsmen, we are Engineers. Both should be able to make impressive war machines, but those are two fundamentally different approaches to creation. If anything, from a fluff perspective, it would make more sense that the DH weapons would be fewer in number, but better on an apples-to-apples comparison and more reliable, whereas ID weapons should be more numerous, but more dangerous to the wielder and of not quite as good quality. That may not make for good crunch, but it's still worth mentioning in light of the fact that DH is able to get a much more effective gunline than we do.
    • New

      darkknight109 wrote:

      The problem is half our monsters are under the same restriction as our artillery pieces which, as previously mentioned, is more restrictive than DH.

      And I don't recall people complaining about this in the slimbook days, when it was possible to field a Train, a Titan, some gunnery teams and a couple of the bigger artillery pieces all in the same list, which isn't even close to doable anymore. And it's not like our artillery pieces got a big buff in the LAB either - both the old rockets and Titan Mortar were better than their current versions (what I would give to have that lovely 48" max range back again...), the Grenade Launcher gunnery team was better than the current rocket gunnery team, and the Flamethrowers were pretty much identical in both the big and small variants.

      And, again, *this is what this army is supposed to be good at!* We are the Mad Scientists of the Ninth Age world! We are an early Industrial Revolution society in a world that is almost entirely stuck in Middle Ages tech. We are supposed to come to battle dragging along a cavalcade of bizarre and sinister infernal constructs that belch alchemical fumes from stovepipe chimneys and spew lava and daemonfire from snarling gun barrels! Our technology is our 'hat' (other than, you know, our actual hats)!

      And the LAB team seemed to be onboard with that idea. One of the selling points of the now defunct ammunition types was that it would allow us all sorts of customization options and modelling opportunities to play to that ideal. Yet every update from the very first Beta has seen our ability to take constructs and big guns further and further curtailed.

      Now that infantry shooting has been fixed, this is, to my eye, the biggest issue facing this armybook and the last major one that I see. The DH dwarfs are Craftsmen, we are Engineers. Both should be able to make impressive war machines, but those are two fundamentally different approaches to creation. If anything, from a fluff perspective, it would make more sense that the DH weapons would be fewer in number, but better on an apples-to-apples comparison and more reliable, whereas ID weapons should be more numerous, but more dangerous to the wielder and of not quite as good quality. That may not make for good crunch, but it's still worth mentioning in light of the fact that DH is able to get a much more effective gunline than we do.
      the slim books were heavily inspired by legacy stuff, and some were/are a lot more flexible than others. Sadly I think part of the point of the FAB is to try and give each faction a more even slice of the pie with stuff the can or can’t do. And if you ever feel hard done by remember the new ID have way more options in play stay that WotDG :)
    • New

      arwaker wrote:

      They gained +1S and +1AP. I would not call that "next to nothing". Point cost is secondary for the moment, time will fix this. Currently it is more about how well fitting is the design.
      We just have to disagree then, losing distrachting, leathal strike, the deployment rule, skirmish, grind, the option to not be flaming, feign flight in return for ghost step, +1 S and AP, ashstorm and a rule with overall negative effect in my book in combination with a prophet.

      Yes this can be fixed with point decrease as said, but it is important to voice that it must be done, since they are no where near old power level, which is fine.

      I think the role for the unit is right, we just need to get the points right, and I really dont like the special rule.
    • New

      Tbh, I think ID should also be weaker in magic, not as weak as DH, but for my personal feeling ID are currently too magic heavy with all their different prophet rules and stuff. Under this circumstance I welcome such a MR rule on the Lugars that kind of weakens indirectly their own magic flexibility. Strange that noone had this brilliant idea before. Imho the best of all the latest updates in the book.
    • New

      How can we mesure the magic strengh of the book? Compared with what?

      Are we talking about how synergies the current paths with the current units?

      Imo RM2 in Lugars will end of people trying other units before, just to see if any other unit can fill his role.

      If no other unit can do it, then they will try Lugars.
    • New

      "Measuring" magic "strength" is of course difficult and subjective. For me it has much to do with the number of paths, special rules and equipment for wizards. How much design space in the book is reserved for models that do something in the magic phase. And this is quite a lot in the current ID book. It seems to be more than in DE, and this somehow feels wrong to me. But that might just be an individual singual opinion.
    • New

      Just to give a better understanding of my opinion, I will explain how I had designed (or better, change the design of) the Prophet. This is not a claim that it should be changed, I'm not totally unhappy with the situation. I appreciate all the work the designers have done and how creative and appropriate the rules are. It is just a diffuse feeling of wrong focus.

      I would remove all the spell special rules text of the Ashuruk Prophet and make him the "default" wizard with access to all 3 paths, but no further special rules. The special rules and options of Lugar, Nezibkesh and Thaurukh stay as they are, but each of them only has one path availible (Lugar=Pyromancy only, Nezibkesh=Alchemy only, Thaurukh=Occultism only) and can't become a Wizard Master. And I would remove the Pyromancy path from the Vassal Conjurer.

      I know this would cause bad feelings in ID players. It feels more restricted. Similar feelings are currently causing lots of unrest in DE players who also feel unnecessarily restricted in path access. But in my opinion this should be the general approach for future LABs, to restrict the path access and limit the number of different combinations of who can take which path and who can become a Wizard master. Such restrictions open up the space for other armies that should be more connected to magic to feel better about not being as strongly restricted.

      But, this kind of restrictions in ID reducing design space and flexibility in list building should not come as a solitary change, but also providing a positive trade-off. I actually liked the artillery ammunition special rules, and I think it was a bit of a wrong focus to remove them, instead of tuning down the prophet stuff a bit.

      But who am I, I don't even play ID. Don't take my claims too serious. It's a great book now. Average opinion is what counts, not so much an individual's.
    • New

      arwaker wrote:

      Just to give a better understanding of my opinion, I will explain how I had designed (or better, change the design of) the Prophet. This is not a claim that it should be changed, I'm not totally unhappy with the situation. I appreciate all the work the designers have done and how creative and appropriate the rules are. It is just a diffuse feeling of wrong focus.

      I would remove all the spell special rules text of the Ashuruk Prophet and make him the "default" wizard with access to all 3 paths, but no further special rules. The special rules and options of Lugar, Nezibkesh and Thaurukh stay as they are, but each of them only has one path availible (Lugar=Pyromancy only, Nezibkesh=Alchemy only, Thaurukh=Occultism only) and can't become a Wizard Master. And I would remove the Pyromancy path from the Vassal Conjurer.

      I know this would cause bad feelings in ID players. It feels more restricted. Similar feelings are currently causing lots of unrest in DE players who also feel unnecessarily restricted in path access. But in my opinion this should be the general approach for future LABs, to restrict the path access and limit the number of different combinations of who can take which path and who can become a Wizard master. Such restrictions open up the space for other armies that should be more connected to magic to feel better about not being as strongly restricted.

      But, this kind of restrictions in ID reducing design space and flexibility in list building should not come as a solitary change, but also providing a positive trade-off. I actually liked the artillery ammunition special rules, and I think it was a bit of a wrong focus to remove them, instead of tuning down the prophet stuff a bit.

      But who am I, I don't even play ID. Don't take my claims too serious. It's a great book now. Average opinion is what counts, not so much an individual's.
      i need to say... that i like this option to restrict the path linked to a church.

      Yes, that will hurt us a bit, but... will end with lugar supremacy just because he have aegis 4+

      And shamut sue his mobility is cute to link with Occultism, i dunno...

      But i think that is not a bad idea at all
    • New

      arwaker wrote:

      Just to give a better understanding of my opinion, I will explain how I had designed (or better, change the design of) the Prophet. This is not a claim that it should be changed, I'm not totally unhappy with the situation. I appreciate all the work the designers have done and how creative and appropriate the rules are. It is just a diffuse feeling of wrong focus.

      I would remove all the spell special rules text of the Ashuruk Prophet and make him the "default" wizard with access to all 3 paths, but no further special rules. The special rules and options of Lugar, Nezibkesh and Thaurukh stay as they are, but each of them only has one path availible (Lugar=Pyromancy only, Nezibkesh=Alchemy only, Thaurukh=Occultism only) and can't become a Wizard Master. And I would remove the Pyromancy path from the Vassal Conjurer.

      I know this would cause bad feelings in ID players. It feels more restricted. Similar feelings are currently causing lots of unrest in DE players who also feel unnecessarily restricted in path access. But in my opinion this should be the general approach for future LABs, to restrict the path access and limit the number of different combinations of who can take which path and who can become a Wizard master. Such restrictions open up the space for other armies that should be more connected to magic to feel better about not being as strongly restricted.

      But, this kind of restrictions in ID reducing design space and flexibility in list building should not come as a solitary change, but also providing a positive trade-off. I actually liked the artillery ammunition special rules, and I think it was a bit of a wrong focus to remove them, instead of tuning down the prophet stuff a bit.

      But who am I, I don't even play ID. Don't take my claims too serious. It's a great book now. Average opinion is what counts, not so much an individual's.
      I like this.

      If I was asked to trade some of our strenght in Magic for more gunpower I'd sign it immediately.

      Also, I like the church design but it should have affected list building a little more. I'd go for:

      1) Ashuruk: can choose any path of the three we have, access to the Master option (the others don't have it), access to the Seat of Authority;
      2) Nezibkesh: Alchemy only, access to the Bastion, Engineer;
      3) Shamut: Occultism only, access to weapons, access to the bulls and the ritual;
      4) Lugar: Pyromancy only, access to the Chariot, Aegis 4+.

      Maybe a single special items giving access to spells 5 and 6 of the Paths would be needed not to have an excessively punitive setting. But I like this design, seems balanced and simple. 50 points, and if you add 50 points of Magical Heirloom and a Lamassu you get some interesting Magic phase in my opinion.

      Then, as Magic is less effective, we would have access to more war machines, right? I'd sign this immediately.

      @Tyranno is there any space left for changes of this size? Or should we discuss less impacting changes for next version lest we waste words?
    • New

      SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      @Tyranno is there any space left for changes of this size? Or should we discuss less impacting changes for next version lest we waste words?
      Probably not, and I don't know if you would really want this. Plus it treads on DH's toes to have weaker magic.

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • New

      Slavetothepyre wrote:

      @Tyranno is there any space left for changes of this size? Or should we discuss less impacting changes for next version lest we waste words?

      The book only came out on Thursday! I would say discussing changes of any size for any further version at this point is premature and probably more likely to risk being forgotten.

      RT Team

      ID_LAB Team

    • New

      Tyranno wrote:

      SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      @Tyranno is there any space left for changes of this size? Or should we discuss less impacting changes for next version lest we waste words?
      Probably not, and I don't know if you would really want this. Plus it treads on DH's toes to have weaker magic.
      I will never understand what they really want.

      Mike newman wrote:

      Slavetothepyre wrote:

      @Tyranno is there any space left for changes of this size? Or should we discuss less impacting changes for next version lest we waste words?
      The book only came out on Thursday! I would say discussing changes of any size for any further version at this point is premature and probably more likely to risk being forgotten.
      Fair, ok.