Full command group

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

    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!

    • Full command group

      Ive played the new DL and i cant for the love of me understand why Clawed Fiends have option for full command whereas treekins do not, same with hoarders. Treekins used to have access to it but then nope. What makes dryads only have a champ whereas Lemures get it all? Are they musically gifted?
      Give back command group to sylvan spirits. And also make them beast, why are they infantry though
      Finnveden
    • Kudis wrote:

      Ive played the new DL and i cant for the love of me understand why Clawed Fiends have option for full command whereas treekins do not, same with hoarders. Treekins used to have access to it but then nope. What makes dryads only have a champ whereas Lemures get it all? Are they musically gifted?
      Give back command group to sylvan spirits. And also make them beast, why are they infantry though

      Removing all command options from all DL units would have been a bold direction to head in that would have invalidated a lot of DL models.


      From a background perspective, Trees aren't quite the same thing as most Daemons. Daemon Legion forces are an army raised by a powerful daemon and led through into the mortal world to achieve a mission. Trees are spirits living in the material world who are (generally) asked for help by the Elves; they're volunteers, not conscripts, and not really an army.

      Or, to put it more pithily: Daemon Legions are soldiers, Trees are civilian irregulars.


      From a game design perspective, Treekin and Dryads don't have command because they're in a book where there are other units that more clearly deserve it. The RT wanted some units in the game to not have command (to make having command actually a relevant bonus), but were leery of denying it to an entire army. If Daemons were part of a combined "Servants of the Dark Gods" book along with Warriors, maybe they'd have been treated the same way as Trees.

      But they ain't, so they weren't.

      Background Team

    • @WhammeWhamme - You mention a background perspective for Sylvan spirits, is there any intention to make this public soon? There is very, very little information about the Sylvan Spirits and their relationship with the Elves within our own army book. I thought maybe the main rule book would contain some information, or the magic path background, but alas. We've been told that they are supernal daemons, but not a mention of them within the Daemon Legions book. I think it's a shame that the decision to use first person human perspective seems to have completely blown over what I think is a hugely important detail for the Sylvan background.

      I'd just like to know some basic things, like why do they support the Elves and Not the Beastherds? Are they the followers of a 'God'? Is there a distinct hierarchy between the different levels of Sylvan Spirits and if so, who governs it? Do all Sylvan spirits work towards the same goal? There's a lot of info that just hasn't been released, but whenever I've asked about it someone has said it's just waiting behind the curtain.
    • Alexwellace wrote:

      @WhammeWhamme - You mention a background perspective for Sylvan spirits, is there any intention to make this public soon? There is very, very little information about the Sylvan Spirits and their relationship with the Elves within our own army book. I thought maybe the main rule book would contain some information, or the magic path background, but alas. We've been told that they are supernal daemons, but not a mention of them within the Daemon Legions book. I think it's a shame that the decision to use first person human perspective seems to have completely blown over what I think is a hugely important detail for the Sylvan background.

      I'd just like to know some basic things, like why do they support the Elves and Not the Beastherds? Are they the followers of a 'God'? Is there a distinct hierarchy between the different levels of Sylvan Spirits and if so, who governs it? Do all Sylvan spirits work towards the same goal? There's a lot of info that just hasn't been released, but whenever I've asked about it someone has said it's just waiting behind the curtain.

      "Is there any intention to make this public soon?"

      No.

      Sorry, but no.


      To the best of my knowledge, extra SE info is not planned any time soon.

      And part of that is intentional, to allow people to imagine different things and not bandy canon at each other. But yeah I get where you're coming from.

      Background Team

    • I think there is a difference between letting people come up with their own things completely off the cuff vs giving people a stable skeleton for people to work and flesh out on their own. Last time I asked these sorts of questions Scottish Knight suggested that some light might be shed on the situation within a Ninth Scroll but I think that might've fell through. But it would certainly be a good idea to carve out in the future, maybe alongside a Sylvan Spirit auxiliary book which I think would be comparatively simple to produce.

      Sorry, I'm not looking to high-jack the thread. But it seems counter productive to have Background, make important design decisions off of this background, all the while asking people not 'in-the-know' of the background for feedback. Then when feedback about design choices are made those people run into a brick wall of 'it doesn't fit the background'.

      It's happened a few times I can think of, Dark Riders being branded as Cult of *insert hunter god* which the community wasn't fond of, Sylvan Elf community being told that the lore for Witchcraft didn't fit with Sylvan lore while Divination is inexplictly linked to Sylvan spirits when all of the released Witchcraft lore did fit and all of the released at the time Div lore didn't, Warriors loosing re-roll to Ld checks in exchange for the apparently fluff friendly 5+ vs toxic hits. I'm not suggesting releasing every bit of background, and I don't know how to fix the situation, but it seems like we're taking a sub-optimal route to get where we're going that isn't as community friendly as it could be. ^^
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Kudis wrote:

      questions about stuff...
      No, because your surgestion dos not fit the secret background that you are not allowed to know because then your surgestions would not be so easy to dismiss.
      fixed that for you. :)

      @Kudis Be happy that you have team members willing to give you an answer however dismissive. In a tripple A game noone would have even looked at your post long enough to ignore it. You are not part of the team so your oppinion dos not really matter.
    • How about all those command models that are also invalidated like archer standard and champions.

      That each and every unit pays exactly the same for command is pretty darn silly.. especially if it carries into the FABs

      Id love to see for example archer units fielding standards and champions, but you’d be pretty silly to do it, which is a big visual problem
    • Alexwellace wrote:

      I think there is a difference between letting people come up with their own things completely off the cuff vs giving people a stable skeleton for people to work and flesh out on their own. Last time I asked these sorts of questions Scottish Knight suggested that some light might be shed on the situation within a Ninth Scroll but I think that might've fell through. But it would certainly be a good idea to carve out in the future, maybe alongside a Sylvan Spirit auxiliary book which I think would be comparatively simple to produce.

      Sorry, I'm not looking to high-jack the thread. But it seems counter productive to have Background, make important design decisions off of this background, all the while asking people not 'in-the-know' of the background for feedback. Then when feedback about design choices are made those people run into a brick wall of 'it doesn't fit the background'.

      It's happened a few times I can think of, Dark Riders being branded as Cult of *insert hunter god* which the community wasn't fond of, Sylvan Elf community being told that the lore for Witchcraft didn't fit with Sylvan lore while Divination is inexplictly linked to Sylvan spirits when all of the released Witchcraft lore did fit and all of the released at the time Div lore didn't, Warriors loosing re-roll to Ld checks in exchange for the apparently fluff friendly 5+ vs toxic hits. I'm not suggesting releasing every bit of background, and I don't know how to fix the situation, but it seems like we're taking a sub-optimal route to get where we're going that isn't as community friendly as it could be. ^^

      Future Ninth Scrolls may or may not have more info; all I know is that it's not planned for the literal next Ninth Scroll, I have no idea what content will be in the one after that (or later ones).

      FWIW I do think it would be good if we more background information and I'm doing what I can to make that happen, but background releases need to go through Scottish Knight and the man already does the work of three people.

      Also:

      - If not Dark Raiders, who else should be of the Cult of Cadaron? They are very clearly hunters.
      - Divination is the magic of spirits. It is blocked by physical barriers (armour) but ignores physical matters (resilience).
      - The magic chart (who gets what lores) was apparently really hard to negotiate. It's not actually a background issue - flavourwise, almost any faction could have mages with almost any path at least as a one-off special character - so much as nobody wants to reopen those debates.
      - Warriors re-roll was partly lore unfriendly (when people looked at it closer; Warriors should not be the most well-drilled troops around) and "magical daemonic armour" providing any kind of aegis is fluffwise justified; toxic specifically was (AIUI) asked for by the ADT.

      Cortrillion wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Kudis wrote:

      questions about stuff...
      No, because your surgestion dos not fit the secret background that you are not allowed to know because then your surgestions would not be so easy to dismiss.
      fixed that for you. :)
      @Kudis Be happy that you have team members willing to give you an answer however dismissive. In a tripple A game noone would have even looked at your post long enough to ignore it. You are not part of the team so your oppinion dos not really matter.

      Dude. I spent a lot of time agonizing over what I could say. Ended up being slightly late to pick up the wife even.

      I care about people's opinion of the game. So do others on the team. I try to make sure things aren't dismissed.



      The decision to not release background from a god's eye view is made at the highest levels. It's intended to make the background more immersive and realistic; you get to see the setting the way you see most fantasy settings; through the eyes of protagonists of stories.


      Wesser wrote:

      How about all those command models that are also invalidated like archer standard and champions.

      That each and every unit pays exactly the same for command is pretty darn silly.. especially if it carries into the FABs

      Id love to see for example archer units fielding standards and champions, but you’d be pretty silly to do it, which is a big visual problem

      Archer flags just require magic banners worth taking on them. Champions are harder - what price other than 'free' would do it?

      Background Team

    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Archer flags just require magic banners worth taking on them. Champions are harder - what price other than 'free' would do it?
      Banners yes, but with the archer champs, why not look outside the box a little, if they add literally nothing to the unit as it stands, why not make the champ upgrade affect ranged units and melee units differently? We did the same for Devastating charge and look how much design space was opened up.
      Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
    • Masamune88 wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Archer flags just require magic banners worth taking on them. Champions are harder - what price other than 'free' would do it?
      Banners yes, but with the archer champs, why not look outside the box a little, if they add literally nothing to the unit as it stands, why not make the champ upgrade affect ranged units and melee units differently? We did the same for Devastating charge and look how much design space was opened up.

      1) Rolling a single one-pip-more-accurate die (or an extra shot) is annoying and easy to forget about.

      2) Extra +1 Aim or +1 Shot varies in value from shooting unit to shooting unit. +1 Aim would be more valuable for low accuracy multishot weapons (e.g. Ogre Bombardiers) while +1 Shot would be more valuable for high quality shots.

      3) Different costs for command makes it easier to make mistakes when manually making lists (which I for one always do).

      4) There are a number of units that are hybrid shooting-melee.

      5) The rulebook is locked in gold, remember?


      I could see a FAB treatment for SE or HBE specifically implemented something like Favoured Champion for archer champions, but IMO it would need to be a pretty sizable upgrade to be worth the extra brainspace to remember.

      Could be cool though. Would make snipe spells better.

      Background Team

    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      1) Rolling a single one-pip-more-accurate die (or an extra shot) is annoying and easy to forget about.

      2) Extra +1 Aim or +1 Shot varies in value from shooting unit to shooting unit. +1 Aim would be more valuable for low accuracy multishot weapons (e.g. Ogre Bombardiers) while +1 Shot would be more valuable for high quality shots.

      3) Different costs for command makes it easier to make mistakes when manually making lists (which I for one always do).

      4) There are a number of units that are hybrid shooting-melee.

      5) The rulebook is locked in gold, remember?
      1) you're arguing past me whilst agreeing with the notion that archer champs do nothing and provide nothing, which is why I put the premise out there to rework the idea of unit champs as they are almost exclusively only useful in melee units. Basically meaning that archer units and archer cav units find them to be useless. I.E this is an issue that needs some thought put into it otherwise why have the option?

      2) no argument here, I was thinking about other things, as shooting in a unit is not about the individual prowess per say, but about how the champ can combine the shooting prowess of all into something meaningful. Hence my suggestion of something like Devastating charge (Blah), could do something like Ranged Champion (+1 Aim to stand and Shoot reactions, one use only), brackets being changeable per type of unit much like we have in devastating charge.

      3) Cognitive load is pretty poor as an excuse for not doing something when you're supposed to bring a fully written copy of your list that is accessible at all times for your opponent. Dev Charge was probably one of the best changes into 2.0 as it opened so much space and I have yet to see anyone complain about it as being too complicated to remember that what goes in the brackets happens and stacks

      4) not enough to justify all the archer unit champions being fundamentally useless

      5) being gold doesn't and shouldn't stop ideas being spoken about or cultivated as they could be utilised in some way in FABs regardless of BRB being locked. Just beacuse the project is "done" doesnt mean the progress stops and should be cut off
      Once a Highborn, always a Highborn.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:



      Wesser wrote:

      How about all those command models that are also invalidated like archer standard and champions.

      That each and every unit pays exactly the same for command is pretty darn silly.. especially if it carries into the FABs

      Id love to see for example archer units fielding standards and champions, but you’d be pretty silly to do it, which is a big visual problem
      Archer flags just require magic banners worth taking on them. Champions are harder - what price other than 'free' would do it?
      No sense in making Archer flags.

      There's just a LOT of units where Standard/Champion should just cost 5 points.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      From a background perspective, Trees aren't quite the same thing as most Daemons. Daemon Legion forces are an army raised by a powerful daemon and led through into the mortal world to achieve a mission. Trees are spirits living in the material world who are (generally) asked for help by the Elves; they're volunteers, not conscripts, and not really an army.

      Or, to put it more pithily: Daemon Legions are soldiers, Trees are civilian irregulars.
      I made a thread about Angelic Legions and how they are the manifestations of the 7 Virtues.
      I also hooked onto the idea of using trees for demons in the new DL book. Similar to the pestilence trees thing was before.

      So when I think about 9th age fluff and the veil, I don't automatically assume that everything from the other side is evil. There are the 7sins and there are the 7 virtues.
      Perhaps the "tree spirits" that the sylvan elves work with are the more virtuous types of beings from the veil. And perhaps their are some more sinful tree spirits in the Gnarlwood that don't like working with the goody elves. ...unless those elves are also on the sinful side.


      Alexwellace wrote:

      @WhammeWhamme - You mention a background perspective for Sylvan spirits, is there any intention to make this public soon? There is very, very little information about the Sylvan Spirits and their relationship with the Elves within our own army book. I thought maybe the main rule book would contain some information, or the magic path background, but alas. We've been told that they are supernal daemons, but not a mention of them within the Daemon Legions book. I think it's a shame that the decision to use first person human perspective seems to have completely blown over what I think is a hugely important detail for the Sylvan background.

      I'd just like to know some basic things, like why do they support the Elves and Not the Beastherds? Are they the followers of a 'God'? Is there a distinct hierarchy between the different levels of Sylvan Spirits and if so, who governs it? Do all Sylvan spirits work towards the same goal? There's a lot of info that just hasn't been released, but whenever I've asked about it someone has said it's just waiting behind the curtain.
      Continuing on what I wrote above. The tree spirits that help the elves are the virtuous kind and do so because the Elves exhibit the same virtues that the trees do. Perhaps there are more sinful tree sprits that do not help the elves - do these ones get along with the bestherds? maybe, maybe there are other problems with the beastherds, depends on what direction the Beastheard fluff goes. Do they even worship the sins or are they just an animalistic heard that roams around?

      The trees that help the elves are the "civilian kind" which is why they inhabit the mortal realm. They have found spots that are more magical where they can plant their roots ;)
      Perhaps those trees aren't extremely virtuous or extremely sinful but just more neutral and have become more natural - hence why they exist as trees.

      OR maybe the denizens of the Veil also contain manifestations of the Elements!
      The Sylvan Trees are Manifestations of Nature/Earth and founds spots in the world where the magic is enough that they can thrive.
      This also explains the Infernal Dwarves and their relationship with the Fire Elementals - they are manifestations of FIre. Their ritual from the 3rd age mage that region a nice place to live for these fire elementals.

      Maybe the Dwarf Holds harness Earth elemental magic to make Golems. The runes they carve in the golems lets the Stones be inhabited by earth elemental spirts!

      We got water and air.
      And these elements can manifest in diferent ways. Earth can manifest as Nature Trees, or in rock forms or whatever.
      Whatever we want it to be.


      I'm just rambling on about fluff here so that's all I have to say.


      Alexwellace wrote:

      II think there is a difference between letting people come up with their own things completely off the cuff vs giving people a stable skeleton for people to work and flesh out on their own. Last time I asked these sorts of questions Scottish Knight suggested that some light might be shed on the situation within a Ninth Scroll but I think that might've fell through.
      I like open ended skeletons in order to theme make up cool themes for armies.

      --------------------------------------------


      On the topic of command groups:
      I and many others like that command groups are options as it allows some min/maxing for list building. Do I want a standard or do I want an extra body?

      But this doesn't mean the rules can't be played around with. We already see some unit entries in T9A that have a Champion

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

    • The Beast Herds are not connected to the Seven Dark Gods (+Father Chaos).


      As for why SE have trees but BH don't?

      All the Elven factions have Supernals aiding them; SE have the trees, HBE have Frost Phoenixes, DE have Medusae.


      I would say it's reasonable to extrapolate that Elves in general are just more mystically attuned to the Other Side and better able to make alliances with beings from the Supernal Realm.

      Other factions do so as well of course; Kadims, Vermin Daemons and anything I've forgotten.

      Background Team

    • Yes to varying command group costs between unit entries. Not only does it allow for balancing them to be worthwhile, it also allows for the opposite, using them for army differentiation and ASAW. Something like the swift reform of musicians would be far more appropriate for drilled armies like EoS, HbE and DE than it would be for unruly greenskins or individualistic wasteland warriors. Imagine if a musician was a "free" auto-include for the former but unit starting costs increased by 10, while the latter would have musicians as an optional upgrade for 30 pts. It's not immediately clear who'd be better off, the latter would be paying more for the musician but the former would be paying points for him whether he's of any use or not.
      Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.