Pinned Infernal Dwarf Legendary Army Book Feedback Thread

    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!

    • berti wrote:

      Xou need the move and march change to allow him to join the disciples and keep up with them.
      You misunderstood. The question is whether he needs the conditional change to be conditional. It makes no sense to deny the change when mounted on Kadim Chariot, because it won't affect the Chariot's movement.

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
    • DarkSky wrote:

      Again some layouting and styling feedback from my side:

      Prophet of XYZ rules: In the ID book, the rules are written with an "and gains access to the following options" sentence. AFAIK we never included access to options into a rule. E.g. the Greenhide Races which function similar do not include that statement into their rule.

      Edit: Second point. Is the condition of the Adv/Mar modifier on Prophet of Lugar really necessary? If he gets those changes and mounts the Kadim Chariot, the changes are just non-effective, as the chariots values will be used anyway. (Or do I misunderstand rules here?)
      1. That's sort of a "new" layout, which we don't have in any other army book. The statement regarding access is there to clarify that the options underneath are specific for that upgrade. Technically we could probably do without, but I don't think that it hurts to have it either ;) .
      Besides, the OnG book is one of the last books that are still gdoc-based, so once we transfer that one to latex, we might streamline the greenhide race options with the prophet upgrades ;) .

      2. No, we don't need the restriction for the Adv/Mar modifiers, but we do need them for feigned flight. So technically, we could change it to

      <The model part gains +1″ Advance Rate and +3″ March Rate and, if on foot, Feigned Flight>

      but imo the way it is right now is more elegant.
    • 1: What rules do you enjoy using?
      Unknown, yet to play games

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?
      Unknown, yet to play games

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?
      • Infernal Weapon - just state it plus one strength and ap
      • Infernal Brand - So really, there are 2 levels of insignificant, with the lowest level only containing Shackled Slaves. Furthermore, infernal brand inverts the unit from receiving the bonus to the another unit. Make it hard to read for new players, because they should just go down the state line and be able to resolve attack. Yes, buff wagons categorically do this, but buff wagons buffs are primary driver for their inclusion, Infernal Brand units are not. Couldn't Infernal Brand be dropped altogether and replaced 2/3 special rules?
        1. Super Insignificant on Shackled Slaves
        2. Add Battle Focus/charge re-roll when with within range of non-insignificant ID unit to all units not currently fire branded
        3. Add Insignificant to all units not currently Infernal Brand
        4. Drop Infernal Brand
      • [lexicon]Volcanic Embrace[/lexicon] and Kadim Manifestation nesting seems awkward
      • [lexicon]Taurukh[/lexicon] Ritual (on foot only) - just change [lexicon]mount[/lexicon] to select one
      • Vassal [lexicon]Chieftain[/lexicon] in [lexicon]Cavalry[/lexicon]
      • [lexicon]Artillery[/lexicon] seems overly complex, particularly Gunnery Teams. I understand that is simplifies limiting the weapon types so you can't have triple/quad mortars + [lexicon]flaming swords[/lexicon]. But the base state line only applies to 2 out 3 entries.
      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?

      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?

      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?
      • Gunnery Team - particularly Rocket Batteries, the ammunition also seems underpriced
      • Infernal Artillery - particularly Rocket Battery, the ammunition also seems underpriced
      • Infernal Engine - particularly Rocket Battery, the ammunition also seems underpriced
      7: What are your overall favourite units?

      8: What are your least favourite units?

      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above questions and are not related to balance, the number of special rules or the wording of said special rules?
      • I think moving Vassal Levies to the last entry in Core and Vassal Cavalry in the first unit specail would make slightly easier to read. This would make slightly easier to read.
    • Alright, so initial impressions. This is based on my first couple of games, so it may change after further use.

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?
      It's nice that the Infernal Weapons can now be upgraded like normal weapons.

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?
      Incendiary. It winds up being a little too much book-keeping in terms of remembering to add/take away some signifier of the status
      Infernal Brand. I dislike the interplay of Infernal Brand with units that don't have Infernal Brand. I get that this was done to encourage "mixed" armies of dwarves and non-dwarves, but I don't like that this appears to have been "forced" via the rule (and, reading elsewhere, it appears that this was an intentional design choice). In my opinion, armies that are comprised as "pure" dwarf armies with minimal or no vassal/Kadim units should be just as viable as those with those units as well. This is something that has always bothered me, even back in the Warhammer Chaos Dwarf days. Most of us don't play Infernal Dwarves because we enjoy putting down a bunch of greenhides (in the old book) or generic non-dwarf slaves (in the new). This is always an army that has received minimal model support. That situation has dramatically improved in the last 10 years, with the rise of ID-compliant models from The Russian Alternative, Lost Kingdom Minis, Scibor, and the like, but for those of us who are willing to collect an army that has always been on the periphery of the hobby, it's disheartening when half your models aren't even really part of the faction you're supposed to be playing as.

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?
      Taurukh Ritual. I feel like it would have been easier just to put this in as a separate stat-line for those units where it is an option.
      Infernal Weapon. Probably nit-picky, but given that this isn't an army that uses halberds anywhere else, it just makes for an extra trip to the rulebook to remember the specifics. +1S/+1AP, Cannot Parry would have been just fine. I suppose "One-handed halberd" also prevents it from taking hand weapon enchantments, but there's literally only one of those ("Hero's Heart"), so unless there's a really good reason why the design team didn't want that specific enchantment going on that weapon (and I can't think of any), I'd be in favour of just leaving it as a hand weapon with +1S and AP.
      Everything to do with the new heavy weapons (Naptha Thrower, Titan Mortar, Rocket Battery). Gunnery teams get -1 S and AP and you can march and shoot. The Infernal Artillery versions get better range and accurate, but have move or fire. The choo choo train versions get Quick to Fire, unless they don't because Steel Juggernaut. And you always get one of the three special options to tack onto the weapon. It just feels like way too much to keep track of. I can never remember the stats of what I'm firing, and I'm the one who's playing the army! I feel like it must be even more frustrating to be playing against these guys and having to constantly mentally recalibrate what each specific combination of options and rules does. I like that customization was the theme here, but I feel this went too far into the thickets. I actually would have preferred the old book style of each "base" (artillery platform, gunnery team, train) having a specific couple of weapons to pick from that was exclusive to them, and then maybe adding the custom rules on top of that.

      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?
      Fires of Industry feels needlessly restrictive. The weird and wild machines that the Infernal Dwarves put out are supposed to be a centrepoint of the army, and this really cuts down on what you can bring to the table. You have a maximum of three dwarf machines, or two if you're also taking gunnery teams or a vassal slingshot. I used to have great fun occasionally rolling out an army that had one or two titan mortars, a rocket battery, a train, and a gunnery team or two (sometimes with a bolt thrower swapped in as well). That's not even close to possible now and I don't even see a particularly good justification for it.
      Same thing with the "maximum 60 models with guns" bit, though that one I can't see myself reaching in most normal games. This actually ties into a larger complaint I have with 9th Age overall, which is that it's difficult to scale games. Sometimes my gaming partners and I feel like playing a larger-than-standard game, but there's so many mechanics that we have to houserule in in order to make it happen. It annoys me whenever I see more of them being added.

      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?
      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?
      Haven't played around enough to get a good feel for this yet. I have identified a couple of units where the cost and design don't line up, but my complaints there are usually that the issue is with the design, rather than the cost, so it doesn't really fit here.

      7: What are your overall favourite units?
      Citadel Guard are absolutely amazing.

      8: What are your least favourite units?
      Kadim Titan. I loved this thing and this book just felt like it got absolutely slammed at the thing it was previously excellent at (laying out a large number of high S, high AP attacks in close quarters).

      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above questions and are not related to balance, the number of special rules or the wording of said special rules?
      A petty one - I'm upset that my beloved Hellcannon still doesn't have a proper ruleset. It was, if memory serves, the only unit from the old Legion of Azgorh army list that didn't get a T9A equivalent. I've been using it as a "counts-as" Titan Mortar or Rocket Battery, but it's not the same and I was really hoping it would get proper rules this time around. It holds a special place in my heart as my first Chaos Dwarf/Infernal Dwarf model, and really the only sign of the army being alive in the almost 20 years between the old "big hats" era and the new LoA era.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by darkknight109 ().

    • New

      Well, after playing and watching some games with and against ID, this is my view of them. But I want to add, some of the topics were shared by the other players or my mates, and I agree with them in the mayor part. As you can see, I've tried to include many of the options in the book, but still haven't played all of them (even if I've seen almost everything being used by other players).

      Apologies if not the correct thread to post it, but I'm unsure where I should.

      Lists that were used:

      Display Spoiler

      A
      555 - Overlord, Shield (Kadim Binding), Death Cheater, Taurukh Ritual
      485 - Prophet, General, Prophet of Nezibkesh, Wizard Master, Alchemy, Tablet of Vezodinezh
      245 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Great Weapon
      190 - Vassal Conjurer, Wizard Adept, Pyromancy
      709 - 26x Citadel Guard, Pistol and Spear, Standard Bearer (Banner of the Relentless Company), Musician, Champion
      280 - 13x Infernal Warriors, Shield, Standard Bearer (Banner of Discipline), Musician, Champion
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      402 - 17x Immortals, Great Weapon, Champion
      294 - 7x Taurukh Enforcers, Shield, Champion, Musician
      260 - Infernal Artillery, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      260 - Infernal Artillery, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      170 - 5x Vassal Cavalry
      110 - Vassal Slingshot
      400 - Infernal Engine, Rock Crusher
      4500

      B
      610 - Prophet, General, Prophet of Ashuruk, Wizard Master, Occultism, Shield (Blaze of Protection), Mask of Ages, Ring of Desiccation
      305 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Flintlock Axe (Triple Speed)
      235 - Vassal Conjurer, Vassal Steed, Wizard Adept, Witchcraft
      600 - 20x Citadel Guard, Flintlock Axe, Standard Bearer (Flaming Standard), Musician, Champion
      250 - 20x Vassal Levies, Shield, Bow, Vassal Chieftain
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      365 - 3x Taurukh Anointed, Infernal Weapon, Champion
      365 - 3x Taurukh Anointed, Infernal Weapon, Champion
      155 - Gunnery Team, Naphta Thrower (Kadim Manifestation)
      155 - Gunnery Team, Naphta Thrower (Kadim Manifestation)
      490 - Infernal Engine, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      400 - Infernal Engine, Rock Crusher
      290 - Infernal Bastion
      4500

      C
      700 - Prophet, Prophet of Shamut, Bull of Shamut, Wizard Master, Alchemy, Shield, Mask of Ages, Infernal Weapon, Obsidian Rock, Dragonfire Gem
      565 - Overlord, General, Shield (Kadim Binding), Death Cheater, Lucky Charm, Taurukh Ritual
      270 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Great Weapon, Gauntlets of Madzhab
      190 - Vassal Conjurer, Wizard Adept, Witchcraft
      728 - 27x Citadel Guard, Pistol and Spear, Standard Bearer (Flaming Standard), Musician, Champion
      257 - 23x Vassal Levies, Bow, Vassal Chieftain
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      340 - 15x Disciples of Lugar, Paired Weapons, Musician
      170 - 5x Vassal Cavalry
      330 - Citizen Giant, Tower Shield
      330 - Citizen Giant, Vaneb-Blessed Maul
      480 - Kadim Titan
      4500


      Games played:

      Display Spoiler

      LIST A

      WDG 9-11
      SE 13-7
      BH 19-1
      HBE 17-3
      DL 9-11
      OK 18-2
      DH 6-14
      Asklanders 18-2
      DH 17-3


      LIST B

      DH 5-15
      VS 2-18
      EOS 14-6


      LIST C

      WDG 16-4
      DH 13-7
      EOS 12-8
      ONG 10-10


      Conclusions

      Won't discuss the approach of adding special rules everywhere, nor the way rules are written, as it's been already pointed out both internally and externally by plenty of knowledgeable players. This is by far our biggest concern with the book, as units being to good can mostly been fixed with points (other than really specific cases like Citadel Guard with Spears + Pistol being close to auto include because of how all around while powerful they are). But too many rules and complexity might move people away, and a few of my gaming buddies have expressed if that is the tendency, they'll quit after 1-2 more books.

      • Ammunition: Extremely cheap for how impactful it can be in a game. That's going to be hard to balance.
      • Hereditary: potential to destroy 1/3 of several infantry units around on a 7+, able to cast in the entire table. Also makes the choice between a master pyro and alchemy and Warmachines way easier, as you don't really need pyro to deal with big units unless heavy tailoring. I don't know, it seems way too powerful and way too easy to cast, while being another stepping stone for infantries with enough drawbacks in the game already.
      • Mask of Ages: I don't think it should be accesible in models with Towering Pressence, as it makes up for their biggest counter. I think a fat dragon with Aegis 5++ is enough already?
      • Trial of Ashuruk: too cheap, and that's before consider the Sinergy with the Lammasu ignoring MR.
      • Tablet of Vezonizeh: My initial thoughts was this item was overpowered, but after a few games I don't think so. Using 3 dice is a high price to get even a more reliable magic phase. I haven't found a magic setup that makes it worth.
      • Lugars dice: So lucky charm being 1 rerrol per game for armors is 10pts... This item is up to 12 rerrol with 3 options for 40? Uhmmm. Maybe owner's turn would make it more fair, since a price hike would make him non usable.
      • Wall Standard: well. It doesn't come to me as an item an arrogant and offensive army should have. I think this could fit way more in the DH theme (defending the Bastion and the likes). Army got some tools that incentive to play in a "passive/stall to shoot and magic more" way. I think that fits more in DH. Also looks like is on the undercosted side of the book.
      • Overlord: then again, I thought flexibility when given the opportunity to select your gear after list building should be paid as premium? Yet this guy feels undercosted. The Tauruk Ritual seems to be hidden behind a expensive enough price wall, but I have this feeling with Citadel Guard, comparing to their own category (on foot characters, Standard infantry, they look in a completely new pricing level. So either all the other books see discounts or they are just too efficient. And I'm totally OK with those categories improving globally)
      • Prophet: so many cool choices. Ashuruk with Occultism feels a bit too much like cheating, and the Kadim Chariot one might be too point efficient for how resilient it is (4hp R5 4+ 4++ for 400-500pts??). And a Mage with 8hp R5 no LOS needed, giving cover to a unit and all the other perks... While really expensive, I don't see how it can be healthy for the game.
      • Vassals Conjurer: why he sports better stats (extra wound mainly) than a goblin while being cheaper?? Also access to Witchcraft considering all the other tools the book has might been restricted with a biggest pay wall... But I love this guy. Maybe make him adept only to avoid being used as cheap chaff/redirector? Or Wolf being Adept only... Tricky one. But I'm seeing him taking most because of his chaff potential than magic support, and I don't think that's his goal.
      • Infernal Warriors/Citadel guards: currently there is no competition. In my opinion giving Spears to CG instead of IW with the premise to not make them too similar to regular dwarves it's a mistake. You already have access to Str4 spears elsewhere in the book in the Immortals. Fight in 4 ranks looks a bit cheesy, they are not a horde like OnG with Green Tide, nor Disciplined to the max like HbE Spearmen. Might aswell give the spears to the Str3 core guys and infernal weapons to the CG so you have 1) your thematic weapon in core, 2) two options of str5ap2 in core, one being more elite, 3) overall better internal balance. Plus, if Citadel stays like this, I can only see them getting way more expensive or every other core unit in the game getting way cheaper.
      • Slaves: well, they have cool sinergies, but too forgiving ones. I don't like the book adding mechanics to ignore Damage terrain on other units, and I think Blunderbusses rerrolling 1s should still add to them dying. With Paired Weapons and Battlefocus they can scare more than a unit, especially if they are supporting a combat, so I think the option between PW and Shields is un a good spot. They feel too cheap but they have many drawbacks...
      • Vassal Levies: Same as Conjurer... Yeah not by starting price but why extra models are as expensive as gobbos while being better? Also being able to select more than a weapon upgrade for "trash" units seems not in line with the rest of the books. But I really like that they are more restricted to being a support tool than main units, looks like design and fluff well implemented.
      • Immortals: Inbuilt parry... Yeah that's a bit too much. You can't use most of the CC oriented magic in a combat against them, as they ignore OS DS and Str buffs, T debuffs.
      • Disciples if Lugar: too much damage output for their price: for 320pts you get 20-30 str4 attacks with OS5 ignoring parry at agi 3 or 15-20 str6 ones. And then Grinding, Flaming and Magical, or keep your AP, whatever fits you better. As a side note, I really dislike the increase of auto hits in the book.
      • Tauruk Enforcers: again, way too cheap. Small units for 190pts with PW (205 if going for the extra armor from shield) seems like the most efficient Cavalry dart in the game. And they go from 37ppm at starting to just 24 from extra models? I'm kinda afraid about units with 9-12 of them with Tauruk Characters, but haven't played with or against that yet so...
      • Lammasu: I don't like the mechanic as it has nothing to do with skill. Also don't really understand why it's allowed to ignore MR. We decided to leave him out of our games for now, and try all the other entries.
      • Vassal Steeds: Why os4 and 2 attacks on the mount? It seems situational yes, but this adds a lot when looking at them for a multipurpose duty. They are great for their price, I don't get people complaining about them.
      • Artillery: Rocket Battery is just bollocks. In my opinion, best artillery in the game by a large margin, while not even being one of the most expensives. It goes really well with the rest of the book (engineer, flammable and Kadim thing...). 4 shots, 36 Range with accurate and engineer available, the access to rerrol to wound, and why does it have Crippled Wings? The damage potential to one-shot Dragons or cripple Large models seems a bit too much OTT. And on top of that is harder to misfire. Too reliable. And way too wide pool of targets that is good against. About half of the games with those were decided mainly because of them. Also, similar to the Giant, is considerably more resilient to Pyro and light shooting.Did not play the others but 36 range on a possibly 3+ catapult with Str (7) 4, for 235 also seems like too much. I will try them soon.
      • Infernal Engine. Feels cheap. When thinking about my poor EoS tank being 0-1, or the DH Buster... LOL. 3d3 str6 Grinding. Parry. Unbreakable. 400pts. Crazy. The restriction regarding movement is interesting and I cheer the guys who had this idea, fits both the theme and fluff, while adding drawbacks to the model.
      • Giant. Hands down best giant in game. For 330 points he either has distracting and hard cover, on a model already harder to take down by light shooting/magic than all the other giants in game, or activable flaming attacks that he can also give to close units.
      • Infernal Bastion: another of the main tools that allow to play ID in a more passive/preventive way. I just think it doesn't fit them. The idea of being a ram moving forward to the enemy is cool, but I don't see it being used like a siege tower, more like a I'll sit here, good luck taking me down.


      All the other entries/options I didn't mention I think are cool and most of them flavorful/fit the theme. Many things I was concerned about turned out to be less overpowered than I thought (but still strong enough). Most can be fixed with price. And the more I played with and against the book, the more I came to enjoy the theme and mechanics of it (but I also had pretty clear what things I think stand out in a negative way).
      Also, I think a mixed arms approach works better than most other books and it's a great step in the way I'd like the game to move on (even though it might be because some of the infantry entries feel too cheap for how good they are? Overlord and Citadel Guard being the mayor offenders) But it's more of a mixed arms based on Shooting and deterring playing aggressive... I appreciate the direction I think it was intended to be given to the book, but I'm not so sure it currently encourages players to go that way. And I have no idea how it could be done better.

      Only units I feel that are probably up are Big Tauruks and the Lord (I tried them as minimum sized and really liked them, tho, but I see no place for the Tauruk Lord in any list), and Kadims (those could be fixed just by getting cheaper?).


      Q&A

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?

      Icendiary, not that hard to keep track as one could think and not as widespread, it limits your list if you want to have it. Tauruk Ritual, since it gives possibility to play Cowboys with Dwarves (crossing fingers DH gets something similar!). Kadim Manifestation, again, not as widespread as some people claim (but Divine + Flamming is broken in certain Match-ups, mainly because of the Rocket Battery).

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?

      Lamassu Riddle, well, most people I know just dislike this rule, saying it involves no Skill. I tend to agree.

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?

      Oil Skins, Wallbreaker being 3 rules in 1, Vaned Bleesed Giant, Kadim Manifestation, Infernal Weapon.

      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?

      Immortals should probably have Units/Army restrictions.

      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?

      Tauruk Anointed. Kadim Incarnates.

      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?

      Fine Design: Overlord. Infernal Artillery Mortar. Tower Shield and Vaneb Blessed Giants. Prophet on Chariot with 4+ 4++.

      Complains About Design: Vassal Conjurer Apprentice on Steed (will be used mainly because of him being cheap chaff than because being a mage). Disciples of Lugar (too much Damage output). Citadel Guard with Spears (too good overall, break Internal Balance IMO). Infernal Engine Rock Crusher. Infernal Artillery Rocket Battery.

      7: What are your overall favourite units?

      To abuse their power: Citadel Guard with Spears and Rocket Battery.

      Because they are cool: Tauruk Ritual Overlord and Upgrades Giants.

      8: What are your least favourite units?

      Lamassu.

      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above questions and are not related to balance, the number of special rules or the wording of said special rules?

      -
      Armies I play: :DH: :O&G: :OK: :SE_bw:
      My hobby's Blog

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Firthunands91 ().

    • New

      Personally I would like to see the following changes

      Bastion down to one per Army. Also 8 hp feels about one to much.
      Gunnery teams down to two.
      Rockets should cost an industry point extra or better Engine allways one industry point. Flamer and Titan plus 1. Rocket plus two.
      Rockers loose clipped wings and Kadim.

      Disciples of Lugar should loose an ap. Ap4 for GW feels to much. Ap2 with Pws too. Mayhaps the rule Ap cannot be improved beyond this.
    • New

      darkknight109 wrote:

      Alright, so initial impressions. This is based on my first couple of games, so it may change after further use.

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?
      It's nice that the Infernal Weapons can now be upgraded like normal weapons.

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?
      Incendiary. It winds up being a little too much book-keeping in terms of remembering to add/take away some signifier of the status
      Infernal Brand. I dislike the interplay of Infernal Brand with units that don't have Infernal Brand. I get that this was done to encourage "mixed" armies of dwarves and non-dwarves, but I don't like that this appears to have been "forced" via the rule (and, reading elsewhere, it appears that this was an intentional design choice). In my opinion, armies that are comprised as "pure" dwarf armies with minimal or no vassal/Kadim units should be just as viable as those with those units as well. This is something that has always bothered me, even back in the Warhammer Chaos Dwarf days. Most of us don't play Infernal Dwarves because we enjoy putting down a bunch of greenhides (in the old book) or generic non-dwarf slaves (in the new). This is always an army that has received minimal model support. That situation has dramatically improved in the last 10 years, with the rise of ID-compliant models from The Russian Alternative, Lost Kingdom Minis, Scibor, and the like, but for those of us who are willing to collect an army that has always been on the periphery of the hobby, it's disheartening when half your models aren't even really part of the faction you're supposed to be playing as.
      Two things I wanted to comment on.

      1. I am glad to see someone noticing this and saying it is a good think. I agree, it is a good thing!

      2. This is an understandable reaction, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. This Infernal Brand rule is on the Dwarves, but the COST of this rule is on the models that benefit from it (Kadim, Vassals etc).

      You are NOT paying for a "useless rule" if you take an army of only Dwarves and nothing else. We are not trying to encourage you to take an army that can only be built in the way of mixed types of units.
      Team Wales ETC 2017 - Beast Herds
      Team Scotland ETC 2018 (Captain) - Beast Herds
      Team England ETC 2019 - Empire
      Team England ETC 2020 (Vice Captain) - Empire
    • New

      Izzilduuur wrote:

      Great book, lots of flavour - thank you for all the work :) All in all the army feels right for me. I do have a few issues, that I hope might be adressed later on.
      • The titan mortar was a center piece for my old army. Now it is too plain for my liking. I miss some of the old rules and would gladly pay for it! - I find the different kind of ammunition cool but unnecessary - plus I need some way to represent the different types on my models so my opponent knows which is which.
      • Adding an optional ogre crew for war machines - pretty much to keep old models
      • 0-7 fires of industy points instead of 0-6 would be great! Or are 3 war machines and a character/slingshot too much?
      • I miss unbreakable on my lugars, would stubborn be out of the question when activating their ability? Perhaps at the cost of reduced damage output? I might be one of the few who liked the old version better :P And where is my old lugar hero?? :/
      • Pistol OR spear on citadel guard would make it a difficult choice for me, as it is now, I need to add 30 pistols to my spear models :D
      Other than that, I am really looking forward to playing with this army :)

      Lugars simply have no background reason to be unbreakable; they are not fanatics. They're actually kinda the opposite - they're clever, tricky and adapable (think dwarf ninjas with firebending? :) ), which is why they have Feigned Flight.

      And the Prophet of Lugar is the intended replacement for Chosen of Lugar; slightly less fighty, but gained spellcasting.


      Clangeddin Silverbeard wrote:

      lawgnome wrote:

      On the other hand, how often are characters on monsters even brought? Actual monsters, not monstrous mounts?

      I have never once brought the big bull. I have used the alpha carnosaur a few times for fun, but never without the Starfall shard.

      It isn't like this is a huge defensive boost against 95% of the units in the game. It may end up making the big bull played a bit more, which is not a bad thing. And if it is proven to be problematic, it is easy to change.

      I would rather it be there to test, rather than just assuming that it is some outrageously overpowered thing and killing it right away, thus causing the status quo of no big character riding monsters to continue.

      So it's supposed to be a part of a move towards more viable characters on gigantic monsters? That's a bit better, I guess, but then I feel kinda cheated with my WDG gold army book including a dragon with the usual dragon weaknesses.
      Also, if I played cannons more than I do, I wouldn't be happy reading this thread.

      Consider it more... "let's see how this goes". If it goes poorly, expect Mask to gain restrictions. If not, perhaps other big things could be pushed. Right now I wouldn't say it's looking good for this being a trend.


      ferny wrote:

      So - before I go into the specifics I'd like to make a couple of general points and caveats, first three about gameplay and last two about process and background.
      • Firstly, I never played the old ID book so I'm coming at this fresh - I'm not making comparisons to what was lost or what has been gained, I simply don't know that. I'm purely looking at what is.
      • Secondly I've been primarily a HBE player since 8th Ed and throughout 9th, but I've army hopped a bit too. Most recently I've stumbled across dwarfs, which seem to suit my playstyle much better, so that's my jump-in point for looking at ID.
      • Thirdly - on paper the book looks ridiculous! Ashuruk to give pyro mages combat buffs. Bulls galore to get away from poor movement. The big bull with the mask. Immortals. Flintlock spam. Keys to the Citadel. Divine bulls. Divine flaming. Jeez, there's everything! I even saw one post suggesting that Overlords can strike first against anyone with Unflame and Pot of Speed! But actually, once you start building lists, you can't have everything. The book has strong core and exciting characters, so you've always got a good base to the army, but then there's only so much you can have of any particular type of toy. I don't think in practice it's as bad as it looks on paper, though there will be some very RPS match ups (elves and especially Sylvans I think). I also don't see any obvious bad match ups, except maybe some sort of super aggressive rush list. So well done team on internal balance, and I suspect it's not too bad on external - and on both fronts we'll see points tweaks to correct.
      • Fourthly, I'm super excited to have the new book out. It allows me to write lists and compare my dwarfs to the infernals, and to consider hobby opportunities. I plan to use my dwarfs as dual purpose, so it helps with model selection etc for buying. This is one reason, amongst many, why I would have favoured a much earlier release given how advanced the rules were even by Christmas 2019. But that's a whole other thing.
      • Fifthly, kudos to the team - I think this book is full of character and flavour. There have been complaints about complexity, but I don't think it's too bad - some of the rules are a bit poorly written/laid out which makes it feel more confusing than it actually is IMO. But I get a feel for what the book is meant to be and meant to do (I think). Because of my modelling choices, and a general adaptation to the slow pace and relative inaccessibility of fluff release, I also intend to use my own lore - but such as we know is well represented by the army.



      1: What rules do you enjoy using?

      • Incendiary - looks like a fun mechanic. It's a shame it's so wordy (compare to the alchemy attribute for a masterclass in simplicity), but I don't have a suggestion on how it could be improved.
      • Keys to the Citadel - yes, just yes! OK, little more - it's an interesting and unique mechanic, and it captures the extreme wealth of the overlord very well.
      • Prophets (different types) - yes, just yes! OK, little more - I really like customisation. As a HBE player at heart, this is like the honours - presented in a different layout, but similar concept; take a base chassis and modify with interesting, fluffy and functional rules to add variety and depth. All four branches seem different and usable, which is impressive.
      • Magma tunnelling - I've heard plenty of salt from ID players who recall the previous iteration, but I think this rule captures the background nicely. It also fits with how I envisage Kadims, as earth-fire mixed(magma) spirits/demons/elementals. It's a useful rule too, not OP I don't think but very functional.
      • Riddle of the Lamassu - whether or not it is OP or UP and whether I'd take the model or not, this is a fun new mechanic and I welcome it's entry to the game. I don't know the background, but it evokes the Riddles of the Sphinx, so it is evocative of a BG which is always good.
      • Furnace Breach - I've heard DanT describe it as the Kadim leaking out over the engine and this is incredibly evocative. I like it! As an aside, if it is a trapped our bound Kadim powering the Infernal Engine, what is the difference between this and the Chariot which means that the Engine does not get Contract Driven rule?


      First: Lammasu are related to the (living) Sphinxes of the setting, so yes, very much intended to evoke the Riddle of the Sphinx.

      Second, the difference is that the Kadim Beast is literally pulling the Kadim Chariot, whereas the Kadim in the boiler room is... er, in the boiler room. So he can't get out and push.

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?

      An Eye For An Eye - 1) this rule ties him in to a unit. 2) why should this guy in particular have such a response to a comrade being slain? 3) the rule feels unnecessary and has a very niche trigger. I would prefer either for it not to exist and the model to stand on his own two (four) feet as a basic Big Bull Hero, or for the rule to be more generic or trigger. It's a wierd mix of you're coming with me and hatred. I'd even be happy to see the rule become more powerful if it were less niche and more easily applied. Could it not simply be Hatred? Note that Shamut's Thunder also ties him to the unit, so he's really shoehorned in that direction (opportunity cost rules wise) rather than cowboy. This may be intentional and may be fine (his possy), but as he's unique to just that one unit I'm not sure I like it.

      It's intentionally there to tie him to the unit. If er wanted him to to be a good cowboy we'd have given him better stats and call it a day.


      Vassal Cav - why do their steeds have 2 attacks? It seems unnecessary, is more than goblin wolfriders if that's what it's a reference to. Is it legacy from the old book? It feels particularly odd if the riders are now humans and modelled on horses (I know it's model agnostic, but background is that they're hobgoblins or humans now, so it's reasonable). Gamewise it also seems a bit much, especially given easy battlefocus which also affects the steed.

      It's not legacy, it was done to help the unit as a whole achieve their target eliteness, which was "needs to cost at least 170 points".

      It could potentially go if it proves unnecessary and disliked (but then again, that's generally true of anything :) ).

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?

      Infernal Brand!
      Display Spoiler

      Infernal Brand wrote:

      The model considers all units that do not contain any models with Infernal Brand Insignificant. It can only join or be
      joined by models with Infernal Brand. In addition, models without Infernal Brand in units within 6″ of a friendly
      non-Fleeing model with Infernal Brand:
      • Gain Battle Focus.
      • Must reroll failed Charge Range rolls in the Charge Phase.
      This rule has four effects. Four! This makes it a clunky rule and easy to forget bits - it would be easier to follow if it were separated. It also includes two effects which not only do not apply to the unit but also are not in any way referenced on the units to which they do apply. In several reviews people have missed this effect on Kadims. If I were a new player to the game picking up the book I'd very easily miss it, likewise if I were playing in a tournament and I weren't familiar with the book it's not a rule on Kadims/vassals/slaves etc so as my opponent goes round the board telling me what the units do, he won't mention this in relation to them.


      I've seen justification for this as "think of it as a buff engine", but the difference here is that you might have one or two units in an army which are buff engines, and that is a very specific role which they have. Here, every dwarf/taurok/giant model in the army provides the buff!

      A final note - the name does not put across the background meaning which I'm sure is associated with it (though I don't know what exactly it would be). Brand suggests a hot iron scorching into their flesh, often associated with cattle or - even more unsettlingly - slaves. It is strange to imagine that it is something which would be done to citizens (giants, tauroks and dwarfs).
      Display Spoiler

      Dwarves are hardcore, and Infernal Dwarves like fire. :)



      DanT wrote:

      @Tyranno My apologies for replying to this here, I wasn't sure where else to do it.
      Happy to move it elsewhere if it is clogging up your feedback thread.

      Fthunder wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      Question(s) for the LAB team (the answer to which I think is important for feedback collection):

      (A) Which playstyles** are supposed to be the important/primary playstyles for the book?
      (I.e. should be roughly equally represented and should comprise the majority of army lists that are seen)

      (B) How well do the team feel these are delivered currently? Are any of them a concern/being particularly watched for?
      Would the team like particular input on the availability and incentivisation/disincentivisation of any particular playstyles?

      (**Perhaps a quick/brief sentence or so explaining what you mean by each of them to avoid confusion?).
      For A, this is the brief we were working to.The core and main bulk of the army consists out of standard sized infantry which is supported by a wide variety of specialized combat and ranged units. ID units are elite with the exception of hobgoblins (semi elite conscripts) and slaves (not elite). While the majority of the book is centred around R&F standard sized infantry units, armies are usually supported by non-standard sized infantry elements. Pure standard sized infantry armies are be a niche build which sets ID apart from DH.

      Combat and shooting can both be important primary sources of damage; both gunlines and highly focused combat armies should be possible. The former will be short ranged and a touch more mobile (but not able to quickly redeploy to other areas of the table) than a traditional gunline and the latter is likely to have a strong taurukh/kadim focus in order to have sufficient tactical options. The army is JOAT, and has a quality tool for every occasion, but will never have every tool in every list due to the eliteness.

      So I suppose to answer your question the primary playstyle(s) of the book is R+F infantry units, supported by lots of cool toys that you can mix and match to play the way you want.

      As for B, I personally feel as if we have done a good job (but I would). The majority of lists I am seeing shared around in the UK community are heavily centered around the great core options and Immortals/Lugars in special, with the sprinkling around the edge to taste being monsters, Kadims, shooting etc.

      I think the Lugars and Immortals can currently be replaced with both kind of Taurukh (baby probably more effectively than big) and you can also get away with more "toys" instead of either sets of those troops.
      Thanks for the fast reply :-)Could I just clarify a couple of things please?
      (I know things sometimes get muddled because the community/staff operate in different contexts and there can be all sorts of "telephone game" misunderstandings).

      (A) Is this a representative/team response?
      (B) What does "the primary playstyle(s) of the book is R+F infantry units" mean?
      The kind of thing I have in mind here is what sorts of numbers & sizes of units, what tactical roles do they play, what sort of feel should accompany how they are used and fit into the rest of the army? Is this different between core and non-core? etc etc

      a) The team, at this point, is down to Odo, myself, and Fthunder, and I think we all agreed that that's what our design spec was.

      b) Good answers were given on what the design assumptions were.

      berti wrote:

      Hmmm...are Vassals still “green skins”?
      There is nothing they havin in common with goblins any more. Their stats imply them to be basic humans. The champion even seems to be a hero and the vassal cavalry is even better than humans from stats. (Off/Def 4, Agi4)

      The "basic human" profile is attainable by goblins. The Vassal Chieftain is, in fact, meant to be a Hero (who won't leave his unit).

      ID Vassals include anyone they can subjugate. They ain't fussy. It's mostly humans and goblins, though, just on the demographics of the Blasted Plains.

      Firthunands91 wrote:

      Well, after playing and watching some games with and against ID, this is my view of them. But I want to add, some of the topics were shared by the other players or my mates, and I agree with them in the mayor part. As you can see, I've tried to include many of the options in the book, but still haven't played all of them (even if I've seen almost everything being used by other players).

      Apologies if not the correct thread to post it, but I'm unsure where I should.

      Lists that were used:

      Display Spoiler

      A
      555 - Overlord, Shield (Kadim Binding), Death Cheater, Taurukh Ritual
      485 - Prophet, General, Prophet of Nezibkesh, Wizard Master, Alchemy, Tablet of Vezodinezh
      245 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Great Weapon
      190 - Vassal Conjurer, Wizard Adept, Pyromancy
      709 - 26x Citadel Guard, Pistol and Spear, Standard Bearer (Banner of the Relentless Company), Musician, Champion
      280 - 13x Infernal Warriors, Shield, Standard Bearer (Banner of Discipline), Musician, Champion
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      402 - 17x Immortals, Great Weapon, Champion
      294 - 7x Taurukh Enforcers, Shield, Champion, Musician
      260 - Infernal Artillery, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      260 - Infernal Artillery, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      170 - 5x Vassal Cavalry
      110 - Vassal Slingshot
      400 - Infernal Engine, Rock Crusher
      4500

      B
      610 - Prophet, General, Prophet of Ashuruk, Wizard Master, Occultism, Shield (Blaze of Protection), Mask of Ages, Ring of Desiccation
      305 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Flintlock Axe (Triple Speed)
      235 - Vassal Conjurer, Vassal Steed, Wizard Adept, Witchcraft
      600 - 20x Citadel Guard, Flintlock Axe, Standard Bearer (Flaming Standard), Musician, Champion
      250 - 20x Vassal Levies, Shield, Bow, Vassal Chieftain
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      365 - 3x Taurukh Anointed, Infernal Weapon, Champion
      365 - 3x Taurukh Anointed, Infernal Weapon, Champion
      155 - Gunnery Team, Naphta Thrower (Kadim Manifestation)
      155 - Gunnery Team, Naphta Thrower (Kadim Manifestation)
      490 - Infernal Engine, Rocket Battery (Kadim Manifestation)
      400 - Infernal Engine, Rock Crusher
      290 - Infernal Bastion
      4500

      C
      700 - Prophet, Prophet of Shamut, Bull of Shamut, Wizard Master, Alchemy, Shield, Mask of Ages, Infernal Weapon, Obsidian Rock, Dragonfire Gem
      565 - Overlord, General, Shield (Kadim Binding), Death Cheater, Lucky Charm, Taurukh Ritual
      270 - Vizier, Battle Standard, Destiny's Call, Great Weapon, Gauntlets of Madzhab
      190 - Vassal Conjurer, Wizard Adept, Witchcraft
      728 - 27x Citadel Guard, Pistol and Spear, Standard Bearer (Flaming Standard), Musician, Champion
      257 - 23x Vassal Levies, Bow, Vassal Chieftain
      140 - 20x Shackled Slaves, Shield
      340 - 15x Disciples of Lugar, Paired Weapons, Musician
      170 - 5x Vassal Cavalry
      330 - Citizen Giant, Tower Shield
      330 - Citizen Giant, Vaneb-Blessed Maul
      480 - Kadim Titan
      4500


      Games played:

      Display Spoiler

      LIST A

      WDG 9-11
      SE 13-7
      BH 19-1
      HBE 17-3
      DL 9-11
      OK 18-2
      DH 6-14
      Asklanders 18-2
      DH 17-3


      LIST B

      DH 5-15
      VS 2-18
      EOS 14-6


      LIST C

      WDG 16-4
      DH 13-7
      EOS 12-8
      ONG 10-10


      Conclusions

      Won't discuss the approach of adding special rules everywhere, nor the way rules are written, as it's been already pointed out both internally and externally by plenty of knowledgeable players. This is by far our biggest concern with the book, as units being to good can mostly been fixed with points (other than really specific cases like Citadel Guard with Spears + Pistol being close to auto include because of how all around while powerful they are). But too many rules and complexity might move people away, and a few of my gaming buddies have expressed if that is the tendency, they'll quit after 1-2 more books.

      • Ammunition: Extremely cheap for how impactful it can be in a game. That's going to be hard to balance.
      • Hereditary: potential to destroy 1/3 of several infantry units around on a 7+, able to cast in the entire table. Also makes the choice between a master pyro and alchemy and Warmachines way easier, as you don't really need pyro to deal with big units unless heavy tailoring. I don't know, it seems way too powerful and way too easy to cast, while being another stepping stone for infantries with enough drawbacks in the game already.
      • Mask of Ages: I don't think it should be accesible in models with Towering Pressence, as it makes up for their biggest counter. I think a fat dragon with Aegis 5++ is enough already?
      • Trial of Ashuruk: too cheap, and that's before consider the Sinergy with the Lammasu ignoring MR.
      • Tablet of Vezonizeh: My initial thoughts was this item was overpowered, but after a few games I don't think so. Using 3 dice is a high price to get even a more reliable magic phase. I haven't found a magic setup that makes it worth.
      • Lugars dice: So lucky charm being 1 rerrol per game for armors is 10pts... This item is up to 12 rerrol with 3 options for 40? Uhmmm. Maybe owner's turn would make it more fair, since a price hike would make him non usable.
      • Wall Standard: well. It doesn't come to me as an item an arrogant and offensive army should have. I think this could fit way more in the DH theme (defending the Bastion and the likes). Army got some tools that incentive to play in a "passive/stall to shoot and magic more" way. I think that fits more in DH. Also looks like is on the undercosted side of the book.
      • Overlord: then again, I thought flexibility when given the opportunity to select your gear after list building should be paid as premium? Yet this guy feels undercosted. The Tauruk Ritual seems to be hidden behind a expensive enough price wall, but I have this feeling with Citadel Guard, comparing to their own category (on foot characters, Standard infantry, they look in a completely new pricing level. So either all the other books see discounts or they are just too efficient. And I'm totally OK with those categories improving globally)

      The Taurukh Ritual's very large starting price tag for the Overlord is specifically because of the utility of his ability varying based on whether he waddles around on dwarf legs or gallops around on bull legs. (It's more useful to be able to customize your weapon and pick your target, rather than them being more easily able to avoid you).

      Other books may end up seeing discounts based on the system whereby less-played units drop in price, but these starting prices reflect opinions people held.


      • Prophet: so many cool choices. Ashuruk with Occultism feels a bit too much like cheating, and the Kadim Chariot one might be too point efficient for how resilient it is (4hp R5 4+ 4++ for 400-500pts??). And a Mage with 8hp R5 no LOS needed, giving cover to a unit and all the other perks... While really expensive, I don't see how it can be healthy for the game.
      • Vassals Conjurer: why he sports better stats (extra wound mainly) than a goblin while being cheaper?? Also access to Witchcraft considering all the other tools the book has might been restricted with a biggest pay wall... But I love this guy. Maybe make him adept only to avoid being used as cheap chaff/redirector? Or Wolf being Adept only... Tricky one. But I'm seeing him taking most because of his chaff potential than magic support, and I don't think that's his goal.
      • Infernal Warriors/Citadel guards: currently there is no competition. In my opinion giving Spears to CG instead of IW with the premise to not make them too similar to regular dwarves it's a mistake. You already have access to Str4 spears elsewhere in the book in the Immortals. Fight in 4 ranks looks a bit cheesy, they are not a horde like OnG with Green Tide, nor Disciplined to the max like HbE Spearmen. Might aswell give the spears to the Str3 core guys and infernal weapons to the CG so you have 1) your thematic weapon in core, 2) two options of str5ap2 in core, one being more elite, 3) overall better internal balance. Plus, if Citadel stays like this, I can only see them getting way more expensive or every other core unit in the game getting way cheaper.
      • Slaves: well, they have cool sinergies, but too forgiving ones. I don't like the book adding mechanics to ignore Damage terrain on other units, and I think Blunderbusses rerrolling 1s should still add to them dying. With Paired Weapons and Battlefocus they can scare more than a unit, especially if they are supporting a combat, so I think the option between PW and Shields is un a good spot. They feel too cheap but they have many drawbacks...
      • Vassal Levies: Same as Conjurer... Yeah not by starting price but why extra models are as expensive as gobbos while being better? Also being able to select more than a weapon upgrade for "trash" units seems not in line with the rest of the books. But I really like that they are more restricted to being a support tool than main units, looks like design and fluff well implemented.
      • Immortals: Inbuilt parry... Yeah that's a bit too much. You can't use most of the CC oriented magic in a combat against them, as they ignore OS DS and Str buffs, T debuffs.
      • Disciples if Lugar: too much damage output for their price: for 320pts you get 20-30 str4 attacks with OS5 ignoring parry at agi 3 or 15-20 str6 ones. And then Grinding, Flaming and Magical, or keep your AP, whatever fits you better. As a side note, I really dislike the increase of auto hits in the book.

      Point of order: DoL always had auto-hits from Volcanic Embrace, as did Incarnates and the Titan, and it's hard to see how else one could represent a burning body.


      • Tauruk Enforcers: again, way too cheap. Small units for 190pts with PW (205 if going for the extra armor from shield) seems like the most efficient Cavalry dart in the game. And they go from 37ppm at starting to just 24 from extra models? I'm kinda afraid about units with 9-12 of them with Tauruk Characters, but haven't played with or against that yet so...
      • Lammasu: I don't like the mechanic as it has nothing to do with skill. Also don't really understand why it's allowed to ignore MR. We decided to leave him out of our games for now, and try all the other entries.
      • Vassal Steeds: Why os4 and 2 attacks on the mount? It seems situational yes, but this adds a lot when looking at them for a multipurpose duty. They are great for their price, I don't get people complaining about them.
      • Artillery: Rocket Battery is just bollocks. In my opinion, best artillery in the game by a large margin, while not even being one of the most expensives. It goes really well with the rest of the book (engineer, flammable and Kadim thing...). 4 shots, 36 Range with accurate and engineer available, the access to rerrol to wound, and why does it have Crippled Wings? The damage potential to one-shot Dragons or cripple Large models seems a bit too much OTT. And on top of that is harder to misfire. Too reliable. And way too wide pool of targets that is good against. About half of the games with those were decided mainly because of them. Also, similar to the Giant, is considerably more resilient to Pyro and light shooting.Did not play the others but 36 range on a possibly 3+ catapult with Str (7) 4, for 235 also seems like too much. I will try them soon.
      • Infernal Engine. Feels cheap. When thinking about my poor EoS tank being 0-1, or the DH Buster... LOL. 3d3 str6 Grinding. Parry. Unbreakable. 400pts. Crazy. The restriction regarding movement is interesting and I cheer the guys who had this idea, fits both the theme and fluff, while adding drawbacks to the model.
      • Giant. Hands down best giant in game. For 330 points he either has distracting and hard cover, on a model already harder to take down by light shooting/magic than all the other giants in game, or activable flaming attacks that he can also give to close units.
      • Infernal Bastion: another of the main tools that allow to play ID in a more passive/preventive way. I just think it doesn't fit them. The idea of being a ram moving forward to the enemy is cool, but I don't see it being used like a siege tower, more like a I'll sit here, good luck taking me down.


      All the other entries/options I didn't mention I think are cool and most of them flavorful/fit the theme. Many things I was concerned about turned out to be less overpowered than I thought (but still strong enough). Most can be fixed with price. And the more I played with and against the book, the more I came to enjoy the theme and mechanics of it (but I also had pretty clear what things I think stand out in a negative way).
      Also, I think a mixed arms approach works better than most other books and it's a great step in the way I'd like the game to move on (even though it might be because some of the infantry entries feel too cheap for how good they are? Overlord and Citadel Guard being the mayor offenders) But it's more of a mixed arms based on Shooting and deterring playing aggressive... I appreciate the direction I think it was intended to be given to the book, but I'm not so sure it currently encourages players to go that way. And I have no idea how it could be done better.

      Only units I feel that are probably up are Big Tauruks and the Lord (I tried them as minimum sized and really liked them, tho, but I see no place for the Tauruk Lord in any list), and Kadims (those could be fixed just by getting cheaper?).


      Q&A

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?

      Icendiary, not that hard to keep track as one could think and not as widespread, it limits your list if you want to have it. Tauruk Ritual, since it gives possibility to play Cowboys with Dwarves (crossing fingers DH gets something similar!). Kadim Manifestation, again, not as widespread as some people claim (but Divine + Flamming is broken in certain Match-ups, mainly because of the Rocket Battery).

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?

      Lamassu Riddle, well, most people I know just dislike this rule, saying it involves no Skill. I tend to agree.

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?

      Oil Skins, Wallbreaker being 3 rules in 1, Vaned Bleesed Giant, Kadim Manifestation, Infernal Weapon.

      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?

      Immortals should probably have Units/Army restrictions.

      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?

      Tauruk Anointed. Kadim Incarnates.

      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?

      Fine Design: Overlord. Infernal Artillery Mortar. Tower Shield and Vaneb Blessed Giants. Prophet on Chariot with 4+ 4++.

      Complains About Design: Vassal Conjurer Apprentice on Steed (will be used mainly because of him being cheap chaff than because being a mage). Disciples of Lugar (too much Damage output). Citadel Guard with Spears (too good overall, break Internal Balance IMO). Infernal Engine Rock Crusher. Infernal Artillery Rocket Battery.

      7: What are your overall favourite units?

      To abuse their power: Citadel Guard with Spears and Rocket Battery.

      Because they are cool: Tauruk Ritual Overlord and Upgrades Giants.

      8: What are your least favourite units?

      Lamassu.

      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above questions and are not related to balance, the number of special rules or the wording of said special rules?

      -

      Background Team

    • New

      Fthunder wrote:

      ...


      2. This is an understandable reaction, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. This Infernal Brand rule is on the Dwarves, but the COST of this rule is on the models that benefit from it (Kadim, Vassals etc).

      You are NOT paying for a "useless rule" if you take an army of only Dwarves and nothing else. We are not trying to encourage you to take an army that can only be built in the way of mixed types of units.
      But it would be easier to read if it was on the unit that it affected.
    • New

      The Changing Constant wrote:

      Fthunder wrote:

      ...

      2. This is an understandable reaction, but I think you are looking at it the wrong way. This Infernal Brand rule is on the Dwarves, but the COST of this rule is on the models that benefit from it (Kadim, Vassals etc).

      You are NOT paying for a "useless rule" if you take an army of only Dwarves and nothing else. We are not trying to encourage you to take an army that can only be built in the way of mixed types of units.
      But it would be easier to read if it was on the unit that it affected.
      And while you may not be *paying* for a useless rule in an all dwarf army, it does then *become* a useless rule:

      useless Infernal Brand wrote:

      The model considers all units that do not contain any models with Infernal Brand Insignificant.
      It can only join or be joined by models with Infernal Brand.

      useless Infernal Brand pt 2 wrote:

      In addition, models without Infernal Brand in units within 6″ of a friendly non-Fleeing model with Infernal Brand:
      • Gain Battle Focus.
      • Must reroll failed Charge Range rolls in the Charge Phase.
      It would certainly be easier to follow if pt2 were listed under the models to which it actually applies.
      Join us on Ulthuan.net
    • New

      Fthunder wrote:

      Then you need two rules instead of one and it takes up more real estate in the book.
      But it's worth it because it makes the rule easier to follow, because the bit which affects non-branded models would actually be in their profile, rather than in a profile to which it adds nothing!

      Look at the KoE book - having one rule (Infernal Brand) instead of two (dwarf part and non-dwarf part) is equivalent to saying that there shouldn't be seperate rules for The Blessing and Serfs because it takes up more real estate in the book; it should all just be covered in The Blessing rule.

      Besides, what is the *cost* of that real estate in this instance?
      1) The existing rule already takes up space in the Universal Rules section, so it is only the addition of the title and gap between paragraphs needed here.
      2) the non-dwarf part would be added to the Global line of the non dwarf entries. It will either spill over to a second line, or it won't. If it doesn't it costs nothing. And if it does, then it is no different to for example the Bastion or baby kadim's currently.

      In an army with *so many* unique rules I'm not sure that argument holds much water anyway. I honestly can't tell if that was a serious point you were making or if you're just joshing me?


      Let's look at the background justification for the rule, as it is background driven. The function of the rule in describing society - that some models are considered Infernal/Branded (citizen? dwarven?) and those which are not are Insignificant to them and scared into acts of recklessness or bravery in their presence - is very evocative. That's great! But the same background could be packaged just as effectively in two rules - one for the current branded models and one for the non-branded models. In fact, more so because it opens up the opportunity for another meaningful name (for the 'non-branded') models.

      And for that matter, does "Infernal Brand" mean? It can't be simply 'dwarf', because although Tauroks are just upgraded dwarfs and Giant's might be honarary dwarfs a la Carrot, It's not just Giant's which get it - Lamassu's do to. So maybe it means citizen? Which is cool - but that isn't clear from either the name or the mechanic. And why are the dwarfs themselves being branded, rather than their slaves and vassals? (Whamme said because they're hardcore and like fire and I'm 99% sure that was tongue in cheek, but this being the internet it's actually impossible to tell). Having a name for the non-branded component would explain their role (e.g. browbeaten, inferior, scaredshedless, boundbycontract, ifyoudon'ttoleratethisthenyourchildrenwillbenext - whatever, background would come up with it based on the actual background which they know), and you can either keep Infernal Brand name as is or change it if BGT felt it could better express the nature of the dwarf/giant/taurok/lammy element of society with a different name if the rule were split.

      I'd like to either understand the costs - because I clearly don't currently - or hear that the team is open to making changes if they concur with the point I'm making (not just me, it's been echoed plenty, but the one I'm expressing here - to split the rule has non-negligible benefits but no significant cost).
      Join us on Ulthuan.net
    • New

      Not a real feedback on the book, but just a compilation of suggestion to reduce the complicated and "almost useless" rules :

      - incendiary : specify to use markers. It's better for each side.

      - incendiary : I get the point of losing the effect on wound. But most player are most used to hit or HP lost to keep track of an effect. The most logical in cinematic term is the hit with flaming removing the marker. But HP loss is quite effective in term of game mechanic too.

      - taurukh ritual : can be change to a mount without offensive profile. May need the reference in the option for the "removing march and shoot and gain impact hits (1)" part, or a special rule... still seems worth to me.

      - blunderbuss : a conditional reroll '1' (at 9" !) seems so pointless. Like, even if you remind the rule, it has such low impact. I'm not sure it's worth a point/model to remove it at this state.

      (- you know for infernal weapon, :p)

      - flame of the east : I don't really see the point for keeping the 1 hit for the lugar's prophet (only interaction). Even if it grants divine this way, this make little sense for balance.

      - golden idol of shamut : as already said, it would be simpler if the characteristics bonus is limited to "on foot / infantry" and using the keyword "set" instead of "always at least" : it's easier to play with witchcraft attribute. Side effect with ranger's boots (maybe something to see balance wise).

      - infernal bastion : I consider useful to add a third rule for the joining part.

      - infernal engine : do you consider adding an optional offensive profile in the entry ? (in square bracket on the profile, and in the rule : change the Chassis's part by "bigger chassis" (with the attacks but not quick to fire), the model gain +1 HP, +2 Def and is base size change).

      More personal though (might imply my vision of power level) :

      - reroll charge from infernal brand (including the chariot / vassal governor) : replacing it by swiftstride seems easier to learn (reroll charge is quite uncommon). It can be "only in the charge phase" if necessary, but I don't think this kind of limitation is necessary : it's an incentive to use the vassals with dwarves in combat. It's sure be a loss for the vassal cavalry, but as long they have battle focus for the harnessed part, it seems fair.

      - kadim manifestation : is it really necessary to give a conditional divine attacks to 4 CC units + 2 magical weapon + all artillery ? I though this rule was limited for a reason, like AP for armor. Whatever. In this case the problem for simplification is that the effect is triggered by an other conditional effect (it's still quite easy to add the flaming banner for characters and disciples). If it's mainly to counter Aegis (X against flaming) just add Divine against this. This will be more simple and clear (the wording will be quite long but easy to remind for both side : "this unit have something to bypass his weakness" instead of "this unit may have a bonus to bypass his weakness and also the entire DL army" :D).

      - taurukh anointed => shamut's thunder : I don't like this kind of convoluted rule to bypass the normal limitation of an other special rule. As UD player I'll be totally OK to get rid of it on my chariots (they still have 4 supporting attacks ^^). I really think there is here a better rule to make with their "police" background (psychological bonus or else).

      I must say I like the table for artillery weapon at the end. It show well the monster created ! ;)


      PS : in general I like the book, there is a good and obvious dynamic at reading. I just hope this beta is released with the intention to give a little too much and you'll don't fear to cut superfluous and the most complicated (=/= complex).

      Devastating Charge (-2 Str)

    • New

      - Golden Idol of Shamut's wording is so that you don't end up feeling dumb for taking it on a character with Taurukh Ritual ; if it 'set' it to 4/12, then Taurukh characters (including the very Prophet of Shamut!) would never want to take it. (Conversely, if it gave a bonus, it + Ranger's Boots on said Taurukh characters would be exceptionally silly)

      - Kadim Manifestation is not actually there to bypass Flaming Aegises (it would have been simpler to say "may gain Flaming Attacks"). It's there because it seemed neat on a mechanical level (we wanted an ammo that granted flaming and I wanted all the ammo types to be available to all the types of weapon, so I suggested double-flaming should have a bonus, specifically Divine Attacks) and Kadims and Bulls of Shamut are servants of non-Dark Gods. ID are one of our more pious and overtly divine-blessed factions, Kadims are the servants of their Gods... and their Gods are not the Seven.

      "Kills Daemons good" is not an accident, teams recruiting Kadims from the Inferno site are likely to have to fight Daemons.

      (It may be an issue on a mechanical level; please do keep an eye on that)


      Suggestions appreciated, to be clear!

      Background Team

    • New

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?
      Almost everything minaret! The LoS, the Crush, the elegant way it got us to a deep shooting unit, the style. Even went over a wall during the game!

      Incendiary mechanic. Contrary to many others, I think the mechanic is much easier to use and especially remember than the regular one-turn flammable. It's a bit wordy (like everything is, to make them waterproof), but when you distill it to its essence it's super simple to use with tokens.

      All the different new character mounts we got. (Give Seat of Authority to some Prophets too!)

      Many of the items have double effects which makes them feel like they are never fully unusable.


      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?
      Minaret Engineer. The minaret wants to go forward, but our war machines apart from the Infernal Engine, are either deployed back or are too clumsy to keep up so that the Engineer rule ends up being wasted.

      Industry points. Too much of a hard cap to artillery weapons.

      Lammasu. Don't want to deal with the hassle.

      Infernal Brand (and Incendiary). The Brand has nothing for the Dwarfs, it makes Vassals angry and not the Dwarfs; It is really binary, see-through, forced and "gamey" synergy between units. The Incendiary forces to take Vassals and limits lists if you want to take advantage of the whole flaming thing ID supposed to have; and the Oil Skins make Vassals to be always useful, whereas Dwarfs can find themselves in a position where they can do nothing, yet again reinforcing the image that Vassals are the actual star players here.
      A simple name change for the Brand would alleviate some of this.


      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?
      Lammasu. I don't even.

      So many different ranges for shooty stuff to remember. Kinda comes within the category.


      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?
      Industry points. You could do much more with the old percentile limit and really think how'd you wanna spend your points, this hard cap just feels one point too limiting. If big Flamethrowers would cost only 1 Industry point it would be more in line with the old system.

      I had my reservations about the different ammo effects, thought them to be too powerful, but after playing the first game I think they are really not that crazy. The low amount of War Machines coupled with limited ranges and the fact of sometimes just not hitting anything makes up for surprisingly low amount of special ammo effects triggered.

      Infernal Engine weapons 0-1 of each type. What's the reason behind this?


      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?
      -

      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?
      -

      7: What are your overall favourite units?
      Minaret.


      8: What are your least favourite units?
      Lammasu.


      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above
      Had a nagging feeling that with this new book I was missing a unit, which made my battle line a bit more vulnerable, which is made up by the step up in eliteness, which I think was the goal of the book, which I'm OK with.


      Had my first real match with the book against DE. Won 15-5.

      Left flank was:
      Giant
      15 Citadel Guards
      5 Vassal Cavalry
      VS.
      Kraken
      Bolter
      Small Spear unit
      5 of those Wizard Conclave riders.
      Lost bad. Vassal Cavalry was shot down turn 1a and Giant lost horribly to a bad matchup. Citadel Guards managed to hang on and keep the enemy busy almost till the end of the game.

      Center fight was:
      Minaret Prophet
      with 25 Blunderbusses
      22 Slaves
      20 Hobbows
      Gunnery Flamer
      Big Rocket
      Big Mortar
      VS.
      Giant unit of Witches with BSB and Oracle
      Small Spear unit
      5 Harpies
      Manticore Prince
      I won center, but with some unexpected losses. Manticore Prince punched through my Slaves to my backlines really early and was a huge terror to my stuff. I managed to cripple the big Witch block with magic and shooting so much that it couldn't fight at all, then drove my Minaret at the center of the board where it could rain lead and fireballs everywhere it wished with no real opposition.
      I also legendarily threw out my Hereditary spell at 1b, only to be the sole recipient for it at turn four or something.

      Right flank was:
      15 Immortals
      Engine
      VS.
      Kraken
      5 Raptor Riders
      Bolter
      I won right flank. The Engine emerged victorious through a fight with Kraken and Raptor Knights with a single wound, then got shot down by the Bolter after failing the charge against it by a single inch. Immortals deployed their wall, scratched their butts and ran to the objective.


      Overall a really enjoyable game. Many things happening in the game were such Hail Maries from both sides that not much real data was made, so I refrain myself to talk about much of any balance stuff. My opponent didn't have any glaring balance issues either, probably for the same reason.

      MVP was handily the Minaret combo (especially the Pyro Prophet). I tried to play it in to a position where it could do its stuff the best way possible, and I succeeded. Just the visual fantasy of a giant tower that shoots hot lead and a mage on top of it raining down hot fire on to everything around it is such a strong visual that has easily taken the no. 1 spot of the cool things that has ever happened in a game of fantasy battle, if not in any game ever. I hope whoever designed the unit can feel as much happiness from, hopefully, reading this as I did playing it.

      LVP, apart from bad rolls and bad matchups, might have to go with Bow Hobbos. Just because how much they cost and how much of a not-fight they put on. And some of it kinda comes back to the Infernal Brand/Incendiary synergy...
      I didn't calculate how much I need Incendiary stuff with my flaming stuff (needed more, especially since the Hobbos were punched through quite early), which makes me feel that there is an optimal amount of Incendiary stuff one needs, which makes a big potion of the list kinda predetermined.

      P.S. Forgot Vassal and Slave Battle Focus 8-)

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Jarec ().

    • New

      This opinion may (justifiably) get lost in the avalanche of good feedback being generated, but...

      Can anyone reasonably comment on things like point cost whilst using the army against anything other than DL and WDG currently? Given we are made to understand that the rest of the armies will undergo significant transformations, including to inherent things like access to certain styles of play or special rules, what value do you as the ID LAB team place on 'oh that unit killed my *INSERT UNIT X * too quick so it's under-costed'? If people are referring to a unit from a re-worked book, then fine - there may be more justification in talking about power level. Trying to compare power though to books that in themselves are going to be made redundant in the coming years just seems like a waste of time though to me...?

      Not meant to be inflammatory at all, as I actually like the manner in which the initial post suggested offering comments re: feel of units, enjoyment in playing with them. And of course this issue will definitely be easier as more LABs are released, allowing for a more full picture of the game and it's components.

      Of course, the counter to my point may well be 'should a new unit be over/underpowered compared to the majority of the current armies just because it's trying to operate in a future space that doesn't widely exist yet', to which I don't know the answer. Though it's something that maybe the different leadership teams may know and be able to answer?
    • New

      Jarec wrote:

      Infernal Brand (and Incendiary). The Brand has nothing for the Dwarfs, it makes Vassals angry and not the Dwarfs; It is really binary, see-through, forced and "gamey" synergy between units. The Incendiary forces to take Vassals and limits lists if you want to take advantage of the whole flaming thing ID supposed to have; and the Oil Skins make Vassals to be always useful, whereas Dwarfs can find themselves in a position where they can do nothing, yet again reinforcing the image that Vassals are the actual star players here.
      A simple name change for the Brand would alleviate some of this.
      It is intended direction. Comparing to DH, ID use lesser races to on front lines, don't care about Kadim, Vassals, "combat" slaves ( they have plenty of slaves but use then in common live).
      New ID suppose to work like in clockwork, every part is important. If you want full Dwarf Army, unfortunately DH is better choice.
      Anyway no-one disallow it. I hope, players can build effective list without "lesser" parts but this list will be more limited, example:
      No Kadimmanifestation on warmachines because your can't make enemies flammable for ranged attacks.
      More Flaming Banners because main flaming units are Kadims etc



      Infernal Engine weapons 0-1 of each type. What's the reason behind this?
      only balance reasons , imagine two mobile rockets. This kind of unit is powerful against specific targets, then against some armies/lists one is painful, but two?
      OK ACS :OK:
      ID LAB :ID:
      Animosity Poland Team
    • New

      1: What rules do you enjoy using?

      I would not say I enjoy any of the race rules that much. I like engineer on my mages but thats not a ID only rule. This is not really a rule but the base size on the seat of authority really need to change to 40*20 like the dwarf throne.
      You losse to many attacks when it´s that big.

      2: What rules do you not enjoy using?

      I did not like Incendiary so much at the start but now I like it more but I am still not sure about it.
      I relly do not like the rules for the Lamassu. I understand that the team wanted to do something diffrent but I think riddle of
      the Lamassu should go away.

      3: What rules are fine functionally, but worded in an overly-convoluted way?

      I think all are ok now. When I first read the rules I was confused but they are not that hard to understand if you read them some
      times. I guess it can be a problem for ppl that play against ID since they might not get the rules first time,

      4: What restrictions do you think are too light or too heavy?

      I do not think any restrictions are to heavy. 6 fires of Industry is fine and we don´t need more. I think the 0-60 flintlock
      is to light. I would change that to 0-50 and add in pistols to,

      5: What unit feels too expensive (but the design feels fine)?

      I would say fast units and mounts overall are to expensive. I have played with overlord and vizers on tharuks and bulls and they are not worth there pts. The vizers are to weak in combat and you can make the overlord on a mount stong in combat but he will be so expensive that it´s not worth it. They only fast unit I kind of like are Taurukh enforcers. But since they have low agi they are only really worth there pts in some games,

      6: What unit feels too cheap (But the design feels fine)?

      I would say that Infernal artillary with mortar or rocket might be to cheap. But that might only be cus I compare them to gunnery team.
      A infernal kadim rocket is 70 pts more expensive then the gunnery team variant but I feel that you get more then 70 pts of woth for it since it hits better, have longer range but ofc most of all have higher str and ap. I don´t think the naphtha artillary is to cheap but that cus it short range and it can not move.

      7: What are your overall favourite units?

      I would have to say warriros with blunderbuss. Sure they have low str and don´t hit so good but they work fine and even if they are expensive overall they are not so expensive to many other units in the book.


      8: What are your least favourite units?

      It have to be a tie between Lamassu and Infernal engine with rock crush. I don´t like the Lamassu cus you have to pay to much
      for it´s special rule that I don´t even like. For the engine with rock crush it´s cus it low march rate but most of all cus no fire save.
      Almost everything else have fire ward save so alch is not a good lore against them but it´s good against the engine. If the engine have shooting weapons it´s ok cus can stay away from the alch mages and can fire just fine even if few wounds left.

      9: Do you have any overarching concerns that do not fit within the above
      questions and are not related to balance, the number of special rules or the wording of said special rules?

      Well my concern is related to blance I guess but I take it here anyway. Atm I feel like you have to play ID with alot of shooting and
      that is cus our core is focus on shooting. I would like to have a fast core unit even if it´s not good. Like mounted slaves with some
      other force compliance ruke that are more focused on aggresive lists.

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

    • New

      ferny wrote:

      Fthunder wrote:

      Then you need two rules instead of one and it takes up more real estate in the book.
      But it's worth it because it makes the rule easier to follow, because the bit which affects non-branded models would actually be in their profile, rather than in a profile to which it adds nothing!
      Look at the KoE book - having one rule (Infernal Brand) instead of two (dwarf part and non-dwarf part) is equivalent to saying that there shouldn't be seperate rules for The Blessing and Serfs because it takes up more real estate in the book; it should all just be covered in The Blessing rule.

      Besides, what is the *cost* of that real estate in this instance?
      1) The existing rule already takes up space in the Universal Rules section, so it is only the addition of the title and gap between paragraphs needed here.
      2) the non-dwarf part would be added to the Global line of the non dwarf entries. It will either spill over to a second line, or it won't. If it doesn't it costs nothing. And if it does, then it is no different to for example the Bastion or baby kadim's currently.

      In an army with *so many* unique rules I'm not sure that argument holds much water anyway. I honestly can't tell if that was a serious point you were making or if you're just joshing me?


      Let's look at the background justification for the rule, as it is background driven. The function of the rule in describing society - that some models are considered Infernal/Branded (citizen? dwarven?) and those which are not are Insignificant to them and scared into acts of recklessness or bravery in their presence - is very evocative. That's great! But the same background could be packaged just as effectively in two rules - one for the current branded models and one for the non-branded models. In fact, more so because it opens up the opportunity for another meaningful name (for the 'non-branded') models.

      And for that matter, does "Infernal Brand" mean? It can't be simply 'dwarf', because although Tauroks are just upgraded dwarfs and Giant's might be honarary dwarfs a la Carrot, It's not just Giant's which get it - Lamassu's do to. So maybe it means citizen? Which is cool - but that isn't clear from either the name or the mechanic. And why are the dwarfs themselves being branded, rather than their slaves and vassals? (Whamme said because they're hardcore and like fire and I'm 99% sure that was tongue in cheek, but this being the internet it's actually impossible to tell). Having a name for the non-branded component would explain their role (e.g. browbeaten, inferior, scaredshedless, boundbycontract, ifyoudon'ttoleratethisthenyourchildrenwillbenext - whatever, background would come up with it based on the actual background which they know), and you can either keep Infernal Brand name as is or change it if BGT felt it could better express the nature of the dwarf/giant/taurok/lammy element of society with a different name if the rule were split.

      I'd like to either understand the costs - because I clearly don't currently - or hear that the team is open to making changes if they concur with the point I'm making (not just me, it's been echoed plenty, but the one I'm expressing here - to split the rule has non-negligible benefits but no significant cost).
      Flagging for @Eisenheinrich
      Team Wales ETC 2017 - Beast Herds
      Team Scotland ETC 2018 (Captain) - Beast Herds
      Team England ETC 2019 - Empire
      Team England ETC 2020 (Vice Captain) - Empire