Pinned ID General Chat

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

    • oreogolem wrote:

      Rather than go into Incarnates being a buff wagon, one could push their s and ap up and attacks down.
      S5ap2 2 attacks. If it needs more power add a clause +1 grind attack for at least one model behind. Something like that.

      You could, but why?

      I mean literally, why would you consider that to be a better design? I'm not arguing, I just don't understand your rationale.

      Background Team

    • Winduck wrote:

      Please consider the following third support option for Enslaved Porters. The old reroll 1's to hit with blunderbuss/flintlock axe. In order to not make people able to get the bonus and march 9" away with blunderbuss and shoot after perhaps even with a banner of relentless company just restrict the bonus to be within 6" of the unit when shooting. If the support option has to be tied to some kind of upgrade then call it ekstra ammunition or something. Why not make people able to buy both upgrades or with my added third option giving you the ability to choose between all three support options, if you want to pay for it.

      I bought my models carrying ammunition and granates to support the old rules. So pretty please!
      With the arty discussion going elsewhere, I will try again Any chance these could get another look at? It would be very cool to get a buff for defense (cover), offense cc and offense shooting. The option to actually choose each turn in the old version is also surely missed.
    • Crazydwarf wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      That said, I feel something that might be more useful (for both of us) would be for me to ask you a question: what about Triple Speed made you prefer it to the Eye of the Bull?
      What (if anything) could be done to the general Eye of the Bull concept ("more dwarfy Flintlock Axe enchantment") to help bring it to the place Triple Speed has in your heart?
      After playing 2 games with it (1 on Engineer prophet + 1 on Vizir)
      The auto hit is very sweet, but only 1 hit is just not cutting it.. (Its aimed at cowboys?) - The name implies its some kind of Sniper flintlock (18 range sniper :P)

      Rather then list what it works on or what its used against, i will simply state that its not powerful enough, to warrent use on other then a prophet engineer atm.. (He also lose parry, unless he also grab kadim binding)

      Thats just my thought tho :)

      For fix:
      Requires Flintlock - Number of shots is based on attacks from character (prophet 2, Vizir 3 and Overlord 4 respectively)
      Range: 18, Auto hit, S5 AP4 -
      Melee: Auto hit, S5 AP4, Bearers model gains Distracting.

      It synergise with the characters attacks, so its worth taking on more expensive fighty characters. It will lose MW and 6 AP, but gains distracting insted, which can help the character survive for longer, and also buffs the Small and Greater bull builds, for a much needed melee survivial buff.

      The Cost would prolly be in the 50-70 category, if i would take it

      Just my 2 cent :)
      I found it has a nice synergy with the pyro attribute, it's another nail in the coffin of cowboys, chariots or even monsters, you chip away with the attribute, with the knowledge of another S5AP10 hit in shooting phase, it is a lot more unsettling for your opponent to let weaker pyro spells get through...
    • I have a question to the designers about Incarnates. As stated, they are obviously anti-armour units now. Apart from Dwarven units, I don't think there are many high armour units that can stand and shoot, so why do they have Ash Storm? Don't get me wrong, I like this rule, it is very fluffy, but don't see much use for it on the incarnates. On top of that, high armoured units in the game tend to be cavalry, which in turn cannot be stomps by incarnates, thus not making use of their full damage capacity. Was it intended to be this way?

      With an offensive profile of Off3 S4 Ap2 (no rerolls, bf etc.) I get the feeling these guys really heavily on the grind attacks, which I've heard complaints about before because of auto-hit. (Not affected by special rules)

      Let's pit 6 incarnates against 10 electoral cavalry upgraded to knightly orders. (High armoured, cavalry).
      Incarnates have the agility advantage, even if EC charges, so they can use all normal attacks. 6x3=18 attacks, hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+, armour save of 3+ results on average in...2 kills.
      The grind attacks only come from the front rank, so 6 grind attacks. Auto-hit, wounding on 2+, armour save of 5+, results on average in...3 kills.

      Disregarding in this case if the total number of wounds is enough to break the enemy, to me it feels wrong that the grind attacks do 'more' damage than their normal attacks. And this is only versus Res3 high armoured troops. Many high armoured Res4 troops are out there as well, resulting in even fewer kills from normal attacks.

      Pitting them against a big unit of Deep Watch results in the same (due to arm 4 iso 6), but with one additional kill from stomps. Though in this case the unit wouldn't flee due to static combat bonus.

      TLDR; is it intended that the Volcanic Embrace hits *potentially* do more damage than the incarnates themselves?
    • Big fan of the new Incarnates! But - putting on my DE hat temporarily - I feel that Lugars and Incarnates don't really need Ash Storm and it's something that DE could really do with to survive against shooting armies.

      I don't mean to derail this into DE talk - just thought that with ID having Ash Storm, that takes it off the table for DE, with some players already gnashing their teeth at the defences not allowed under DE guidelines. Do Lugars and Inc's really need it...?
    • Speaking quickly/loosely (meaning don't over-interpret these sentences and be aware they are lacking in nuance):

      Note: Ash storm was not directly tied to the molten copper nature of the grinds.
      (Notice that it is on disciples as well.)

      Ash storm was partly intended to help emphasise the more "hammer" roles of these units, and partly as a specific flavour tie-in.
      The full reasoning/story is somewhat torturous so I don't want to go into it any further here.
      However, ultimately I think in this case our reasoning is not very important.

      Instead, I would ask the community these questions:
      • Do you like ash storm?
      • Is it fun?
      • Is it evocative?
      • What is it evocative of?
      • Does it make flavour sense to you?
      • Given the designs of kadims/disciples, what do the designs tell you about the connections (or not) between disciples and kadims?
      • What is conjured up in your minds by reading the rules for the various units?
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • DanT wrote:

      Speaking quickly/loosely (meaning don't over-interpret these sentences and be aware they are lacking in nuance):

      Note: Ash storm was not directly tied to the molten copper nature of the grinds.
      (Notice that it is on disciples as well.)

      Ash storm was partly intended to help emphasise the more "hammer" roles of these units, and partly as a specific flavour tie-in.
      The full reasoning/story is somewhat torturous so I don't want to go into it any further here.
      However, ultimately I think in this case our reasoning is not very important.

      Instead, I would ask the community these questions:
      • Do you like ash storm?
      • Yes
      • Is it fun?
      • Yes
      • Is it evocative?
      • Yes
      • What is it evocative of?
      • A wall of fire and smoke advancing on the enemy, what to shoot at?
      • Does it make flavour sense to you?
      • Absolutely
      • Given the designs of kadims/disciples, what do the designs tell you about the connections (or not) between disciples and kadims?
      • Not sure, Disciples just feel like dwarves on fire (that hasn't changed from old AB). Do you mean fluff connections, or mechanical connections? Are we supposed to have both in the list, complementing each other?
      • What is conjured up in your minds by reading the rules for the various units?
      • For incarnates, more and more just a cloud of fire instead of an actual monster shaped from fire. They sort of engulf you, searing through you with their heat (low Off, low Str, volcanic embrace, moves through terrain)

    • @DanT Ash Storm is evocative and does tie Lugars and Inc's together but I think I can best make my point with this list...

      -If enter a Forest, it becomes Ruins for the rest of the game (as it catches fire)
      -Ambush (as they can emerge from rock, etc)
      -Fear (every creature is instinctively afraid of fire)
      -'Choking Smoke': enemy units in base contact suffer minus 1 Agility

      ...which are all things that Lugars/Inc's could conceivably have and which would be evocative/flavourful and tie them together... but which they don't need.

      It also creates a logical inconsistency across the game, when things like ghosts (Wraiths) or camouflaged/stealthy units are just as easy to Stand and Shoot at as a clumsy Orc... but ID units that could be seen from a mile away because they're on fire make it impossible.
    • DanT wrote:

      Herminard wrote:

      Swift pivot
      Plus ca change... ;) :P
      Maybe you can propose a full design for the unit please?
      Or do you mean swift pivot on top of the current design?
      Because I was specifically asking for suggestions that don't include the current volcanic embrace riule.
      S5 Ap0

      Volcanic Embrace. Enemy units in contact suffer -1Ag (and/or -1Def) for every two points of armour.

      DanT wrote:

      Speaking quickly/loosely (meaning don't over-interpret these sentences and be aware they are lacking in nuance):

      Note: Ash storm was not directly tied to the molten copper nature of the grinds.
      (Notice that it is on disciples as well.)

      Ash storm was partly intended to help emphasise the more "hammer" roles of these units, and partly as a specific flavour tie-in.
      The full reasoning/story is somewhat torturous so I don't want to go into it any further here.
      However, ultimately I think in this case our reasoning is not very important.

      Instead, I would ask the community these questions:
      • Do you like ash storm?
      • Is it fun?
      • Is it evocative?
      • What is it evocative of?
      • Does it make flavour sense to you?
      • Given the designs of kadims/disciples, what do the designs tell you about the connections (or not) between disciples and kadims?
      • What is conjured up in your minds by reading the rules for the various units?

      I like it a lot, it's very evocative but I think it should give -1 additional to S&S or reroll to hit S&S.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Arienai wrote:

      Why did it take 1 year to come to this conclusion though? It really sucks to have a favourite item like Triple speed go when you thought it was okay for making it through 3 betas only to have it replaced by something lackluster. I thought the original design was okay seeing as it was capped at low ap?
      Because we had a huge amount of other things to do?

      It didn't take us a year to think of that, it took us most of a year to get to a point where we could take a second look at enchantments.

      That said, I feel something that might be more useful (for both of us) would be for me to ask you a question: what about Triple Speed made you prefer it to the Eye of the Bull?

      What (if anything) could be done to the general Eye of the Bull concept ("more dwarfy Flintlock Axe enchantment") to help bring it to the place Triple Speed has in your heart?
      I can understand that the team had other things to look at but things like this seemingly come out of thin air when it is not talked about at the forum. During most of the beta process things have been transperent and problems were easily identified in the manner of "Blunder darts are becoming a problem", "There are problems with elite infantry we are trying to adress" or "we need more simplicity ruleswise". Seeing as some changes were still being made in the magic item section (items bieng removed, changed or point adjusted) I had the impression that this was looked at and that there were not any major problems from an outside perspective that needed seeing to.

      Triple speed and Eye of the Bull are very different in design and as such hard to compare. The main appeal of Triple speed I belive was in the +3 A which made the relatively unpopular Overlord on foot more viable for a blender role with comparitively low AP. It coupled well with The keys to the citadel and made for a good option for our combat characters while also offering reliable shots. With the removal of Triple speed and the change to Flame of the East our own magic weapon section have become a little underwhealming to say the least. It is sad to see a weakening of combat builds like the Overlord and Characters on Bulls because of this.

      Subsequently any suggestions of changes to the eye of the bull is dependent on what your vision is for the ID magic weapon section. Do you want it to function as a ranged magic weapon, a close combat magic weapon or a mix between the two? Currently the item is only really viable for one specific type of character subset: The Prophet of Nezibkesh. This is a very limited design and one I think will see very little play.

      I would like to give you more in terms of feedback or ideas instead of just saying "this and that is bad" but I feel that you have an idea of what the item should do already and that that idea is currently very restrictive. Right now I can only suggest that you look over the magic weapon section, find a way to make Eye of the Bull and flame of the east have more impact to be more attractive to combat characters as well as figure out how to make a shooting weapon with short range viable and interesting.
    • Kasocles wrote:

      I have a question to the designers about Incarnates. As stated, they are obviously anti-armour units now. Apart from Dwarven units, I don't think there are many high armour units that can stand and shoot, so why do they have Ash Storm? Don't get me wrong, I like this rule, it is very fluffy, but don't see much use for it on the incarnates. On top of that, high armoured units in the game tend to be cavalry, which in turn cannot be stomps by incarnates, thus not making use of their full damage capacity. Was it intended to be this way?

      With an offensive profile of Off3 S4 Ap2 (no rerolls, bf etc.) I get the feeling these guys really heavily on the grind attacks, which I've heard complaints about before because of auto-hit. (Not affected by special rules)

      Let's pit 6 incarnates against 10 electoral cavalry upgraded to knightly orders. (High armoured, cavalry).
      Incarnates have the agility advantage, even if EC charges, so they can use all normal attacks. 6x3=18 attacks, hitting on 4+, wounding on 3+, armour save of 3+ results on average in...2 kills.
      The grind attacks only come from the front rank, so 6 grind attacks. Auto-hit, wounding on 2+, armour save of 5+, results on average in...3 kills.

      Disregarding in this case if the total number of wounds is enough to break the enemy, to me it feels wrong that the grind attacks do 'more' damage than their normal attacks. And this is only versus Res3 high armoured troops. Many high armoured Res4 troops are out there as well, resulting in even fewer kills from normal attacks.

      Pitting them against a big unit of Deep Watch results in the same (due to arm 4 iso 6), but with one additional kill from stomps. Though in this case the unit wouldn't flee due to static combat bonus.

      TLDR; is it intended that the Volcanic Embrace hits *potentially* do more damage than the incarnates themselves?

      I mean... yes? One thing I've (speaking as the BG rep) advocated for for ID has been the idea that Kadim Incarnates are dangerous simply because of what they are, not how good they are at fighting.

      They're made out flipping lava. Simply standing next to them is a good way to die. But their attacks? These are not vicious creatures. These are not combat trained creatures. Left to their own devices, they might be happy to just potter about and make some pretty roads. But they're made out of lava, so even clumsy attacks are still going to do heinous burn damage.

      Kriegschmidt wrote:

      Big fan of the new Incarnates! But - putting on my DE hat temporarily - I feel that Lugars and Incarnates don't really need Ash Storm and it's something that DE could really do with to survive against shooting armies.

      I don't mean to derail this into DE talk - just thought that with ID having Ash Storm, that takes it off the table for DE, with some players already gnashing their teeth at the defences not allowed under DE guidelines. Do Lugars and Inc's really need it...?

      "Lugars and Incarnates don't really need Ash Storm and it's something that DE could really do with"


      The block on DE getting it is going to be "this would be really useful for DE". Adding really useful things after the initial draft rounds is generally only going to happen if other really useful things are getting cut or if the initial pass missed the mark badly.


      Ash Storm may go, I wouldn't be surprised if it does, but that decision will be made months from now so I wouldn't recommend putting too much effort into arguing about it now. But regardless of whether it stays or goes, "DE don't get much shooting protection" is very much an issue internal to the DE book and the guideline intent thereof.

      It's presence on the table is unlikely to be affected by whether or not it gets cut here. (It might even help, as "Ash Storm isn't a problem" might sell RT members on something similar)


      A lot of people view design as a battle between factions trying to claim buffs. That's not how a professional would look at it, and the project aspires to professionalism.

      Background Team

    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      I mean... yes? One thing I've (speaking as the BG rep) advocated for for ID has been the idea that Kadim Incarnates are dangerous simply because of what they are, not how good they are at fighting.

      They're made out flipping lava. Simply standing next to them is a good way to die. But their attacks? These are not vicious creatures. These are not combat trained creatures. Left to their own devices, they might be happy to just potter about and make some pretty roads. But they're made out of lava, so even clumsy attacks are still going to do heinous burn damage.

      [...]
      Thank you for this explanation! It confirms indeed my view of what the rules present as I answered to DanT's post. Bit sad now that I converted treekin with crude weapons instead of putting some cotton on a base :D (they still look the off5 str5 Ap2 part)

      But with your explanation in mind, would it then not be better to really decrease their normal attacks more to really carry the point of grind attacks home? "OK so these guys have only 1 shitty 'normal attack', you can't buff or nerf it, but when the grinds hit, they hit freakin' hard."
      I guess that's what being a cloud all comes down to. :whistling:
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      A lot of people view design as a battle between factions trying to claim buffs. That's not how a professional would look at it, and the project aspires to professionalism.
      Ummmm... that's a pretty hasty and condescending comment, not to mention wrong. That's precisely how GW have distinguished army books in the past: by divvying up BRB buffs.