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!

    • New

      @Tyranno I think you might be overreacting on @arnadil post a little bit. He merely voiced an overall concern he (and quite a few others) has. As far as I can see he didn't accuse the ID book to have ignored this or made rnf infantry significantly weak.

      You already gave a good answer on how the book tries to avoid scoring dart spam. The other question would be, how infantry compares internally to the single model entries.

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


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

      Traumdieb wrote:

      I think breath of the brass bull is a little to good on small bull and esspecially chariot.

      Make bearers model to bearer.
      small bull is TP so no chance to use it.

      Chariot with this breath is crazy good at grinding but with 6Mar opponent can easy avoid his fragile targets.



      8hp is almost the same to 5hp/2+save/4++ ward on VS War platforms :)
      OK ACS :OK:
      ID LAB :ID:
      Animosity Poland Team
    • New

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      As I said, I cannot say which one is true. Maybe none. I just like to express that if the evaluation results show that this critisicm is correct, then a counterbalance would be welcome.
    • New

      Odoamar wrote:

      Traumdieb wrote:

      I think breath of the brass bull is a little to good on small bull and esspecially chariot.

      Make bearers model to bearer.
      small bull is TP so no chance to use it.
      Chariot with this breath is crazy good at grinding but with 6Mar opponent can easy avoid his fragile targets.



      8hp is almost the same to 5hp/2+save/4++ ward on VS War platforms :)
      Only bell costs 130 pts more on mage, can only be taken by a master and does not buff shooters or can be taken as a single unit. Oh and it does not have a crush attacks which hits any monster and any char@cter except with distractrict or def 8 on a 4+. Oh and our magister does not buff as engineer a war machine.

      Fair point about the bull. So bearers model affects only a chariot that gives an hp extra anyway.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Traumdieb ().

    • New

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      Tyranno, I think some of the issue here is an external vs internal metric.
      It is entirely possibly for (core) combat infantry battlelines to be externally OP and internally UP.

      And I think Arnadil's post primarily refers to combat, given the discussion in the thread he is referring to.
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • New

      DarkSky wrote:

      @Tyranno I think you might be overreacting on @arnadil post a little bit. He merely voiced an overall concern he (and quite a few others) has. As far as I can see he didn't accuse the ID book to have ignored this or made rnf infantry significantly weak.

      You already gave a good answer on how the book tries to avoid scoring dart spam. The other question would be, how infantry compares internally to the single model entries.
      I am asking for things to settle down before asking for massive sweeping changes. That is all.

      arnadil wrote:

      As I said, I cannot say which one is true. Maybe none. I just like to express that if the evaluation results show that this critisicm is correct, then a counterbalance would be welcome.
      Then again, I will ask for patience. Now is not the time for asking for massive changes to how the book supposedly does/does not function. Now is the time to study what rules do/do not work as intended. Once that is more ironed out, then we can look at adjusting the power of specific elements of the book.

      DanT wrote:

      Tyranno, I think some of the issue here is an external vs internal metric.It is entirely possibly for (core) combat infantry battlelines to be externally OP and internally UP.

      And I think Arnadil's post primarily refers to combat, given the discussion in the thread he is referring to.
      If something is internally UP, then it does not see play. But I am seeing infantry-heavy lists popping up, so I don't see how combat infantry is UP and not at least "ok".

      And yes I am 100% aware of what he is referring to, I have read the thread.

      Lord of the Hobby

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

      Tyranno wrote:

      Now is not the time for asking for massive changes to how the book supposedly does/does not function. Now is the time to study what rules do/do not work as intended. Once that is more ironed out, then we can look at adjusting the power of specific elements of the book.
      Unless this is explicitly part of the new process (in which case I need to have a chat with Emgies :P ), I disagree I'm afraid.
      From bitter experience with other books I would say that the details are the easy bit to sort.
      The bigger/harder/more insidious problems need addressing as soon as possible, and take the most iterations to get right.
      This is why I have provided so little feedback on points (or the silly UP/OP arguments about individual units), because they are so easy relatively to fix, and my feedback has been focussed on big picture issues.

      I am asking for things to settle down before asking for massive sweeping changes. That is all.
      Then again, I will ask for patience.
      I have raised significant big picture concerns, that I did not arrive at lightly or rashly, and (WW aside, who I've been speaking with privately anyway), I can't recall a public response from the team to say "interesting, maybe we should look into that" or anything like it. I don't think I've had a public response to my concerns other than "no you're wrong" or "we don't see that", no matter how nicely I tried to raise these concerns.
      (Indeed, the different responses I have received in different places are even kinda contradictory (as to whether certain changes happened and were intended, or haven't happened).)
      Whilst this is not so important if it is just me, I think my experience amongst the community is not unique.


      For these two reasons, I think counselling patience is a little unfair here.

      I get that some members of the community are exaggerating things and being unreasonable.
      I have even posted to point to this out and ask them not to.
      I know that sucks, I've been in your shoes.
      But I think maybe the team aren't aware of how they are coming across (I'm certainly sure you guys don't intend to come across this way).

      Some of us are really trying to help, and phrase things nicely, and have praised the book publicly multiple times in multiple places.
      Maybe you do have a big list somewhere internally with all these concerns on, including the ones e.g. arnadil raised.
      But the impression the team generally is giving is not that, whether you guys realise it or not.


      As an olive branch, perhaps I can make a suggestion. Why don't each of the team post an example of something that the community feedback has changed that individual's mind about, or convinced them to look into that they didn't think need looking into before?
      Once people see that there are concrete effects and results to their feedback, maybe they will chill out a bit :)

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • New

      DanT wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      Tyranno, I think some of the issue here is an external vs internal metric.It is entirely possibly for (core) combat infantry battlelines to be externally OP and internally UP.

      And I think Arnadil's post primarily refers to combat, given the discussion in the thread he is referring to.

      Sure, but that's very different from the situation if it's externally UP and internally UP, or externally OP and internally OP. And we'd like some evidence on those, because the big benefit of releasing it (apart from people getting to use it) is that we have an extra source of data to refer to... but people need more than a week to read it and make lists.


      As of this week, my personal primary focus has been making sure people understand why things are the way they are. Not to try and change their minds, but because community feedback is more useful when people are better informed.


      I'd love to say "the team has reconsidered X based on Y" but honestly, right now we're still gathering Y's and I have been free of editing duties for all of two days.

      And I don't consider it particularly good practice to publically say "my mind has been changed on X" before discussing X with the rest of the team. The team may have a good point that someone missed, and we made the book as a team, I'd like us to adjust it as a team.


      I think almost every person who has posted on the ID book has had something worth listening to say.



      As for "big picture things are the hardest to fix and require the most work" - that's true. But a big picture shift requires team unity, and believe it or not, we raised most (not all) of the arguments made externally internally. People just weren't always convinced, and often? They wanted to see the data, see the reactions, measure both and then reevaluate.

      Right now, we're working some minor tweaks - layout, wording, nothing particularly rule-affecting. Let us get past the initial release week before we tackle the big things; it's one thing to wait months, it's another to wait a week for the dust to settle.

      Background Team

    • New

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      Tyranno, I think some of the issue here is an external vs internal metric.It is entirely possibly for (core) combat infantry battlelines to be externally OP and internally UP.
      And I think Arnadil's post primarily refers to combat, given the discussion in the thread he is referring to.
      Sure, but that's very different from the situation if it's externally UP and internally UP, or externally OP and internally OP. And we'd like some evidence on those, because the big benefit of releasing it (apart from people getting to use it) is that we have an extra source of data to refer to... but people need more than a week to read it and make lists.


      As of this week, my personal primary focus has been making sure people understand why things are the way they are. Not to try and change their minds, but because community feedback is more useful when people are better informed.


      I'd love to say "the team has reconsidered X based on Y" but honestly, right now we're still gathering Y's and I have been free of editing duties for all of two days.

      And I don't consider it particularly good practice to publically say "my mind has been changed on X" before discussing X with the rest of the team. The team may have a good point that someone missed, and we made the book as a team, I'd like us to adjust it as a team.


      I think almost every person who has posted on the ID book has had something worth listening to say.



      As for "big picture things are the hardest to fix and require the most work" - that's true. But a big picture shift requires team unity, and believe it or not, we raised most (not all) of the arguments made externally internally. People just weren't always convinced, and often? They wanted to see the data, see the reactions, measure both and then reevaluate.

      Right now, we're working some minor tweaks - layout, wording, nothing particularly rule-affecting. Let us get past the initial release week before we tackle the big things; it's one thing to wait months, it's another to wait a week for the dust to settle.
      Sorry WW, I feel like I'm not getting your point here?

      I don't think anyone is expecting any of this to be actioned tomorrow?
      That certainly wasn't what I was saying.
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • New

      The calls to action feel very immediate. "You need to do this, this and this". "This is utterly broken". etc.

      Some of us are really trying to help, and phrase things nicely, and have praised the book publicly multiple times in multiple places.
      Maybe you do have a big list somewhere internally with all these concerns on, including the ones e.g. arnadil raised.
      But the impression the team generally is giving is not that, whether you guys realise it or not.

      We don't have a big list... yet.

      We're still in phase one - managing the first beta release, making sure people understand the rules, understand the principles, understand what we were trying to do. (Phase two is gathering information from an *informed* public)

      And people want to jump a few phases, straight to "this is how you should solve the problem"... but "work out what the problems are is like phase three, and we're still in phase one.


      I don't believe you were meaning to say we need to action things tomorrow... but it IS an available impresison. And other people kinda *are*.

      Background Team

    • New

      I belive a sensible way to move forward is to identify and adjust the broad, big picture things first and than go from the big picture to the details.
    • New

      I have a hard time trying to understand all the feedback about battlelines.

      When people says "battlelines" it seems to mean something different from person to person, and so, I can't really follow what each individual is trying to explain.

      It would help if people defined what is a battleline for them. For example, I don't want to focus my answer on any particular person, but since DanT is voicing this loud, I went to his lists thread to see which are these battleline that were possible with slimbook but not with the LAB and so I can understand his pov.

      Overall, looking at his lists (if are meant to be the missed battlelines), these used to involve something like 4 mmu/big low-maneuverable units.
      I was able to update these lists to "LAB version" almost on a 1-1 equivalents except for the blunderbuss blocks and still had some free points to spend.

      I think that 28 LAB Flintlocks are close enough equivalent to 28 Slimbook Blunderbuss with GW (march and shoot, Str5 in combat) and 20 LAB Citadel Guard with Pistols&Shields are close enough to 20 Slimbook Warriors with BB&S (weaker shooting, but better combat capabalities with +1str/arm).

      So, if these lists are possible now, I guess that the issue isn't that LAB can't build battlelines, but that these battlelines will be outshined by other playstyles in the book, which is something that could be said to be systemic of this game, and honestly, I think that always happened with the slimbook. Anyway, looking at posts history and the things that could change how the army will be played now, I guess that people is trying to point at Taurukh characters going obviously into Taurukh units, and so, core won't be filled with units to hold these characters but with msu shooting setups. I think that this should be a valid way of playing per guidelines but no one, included LAB Team, will like it to be the main way to go for the army and I would expect actions if this happens.


      About if the LAB Team is hearing or not to feedback, let me say that something similar happened internally.

      Higher ups appeared with complaints/concerns very often and when as a quick answer the LAB Team tried to explain why things were that way, higher ups said that LAB Team were refusing to listen, just to get a list of changes days later adressing their concerns.

      What I mean is, if Tyranno for example answer to your concerns with "this is this way because these reasons" or similar things, it doesn't mean that he isn't hearing or refusing your point. It means that he is trying to give the context for more focused feedback.

      I personally have already a list of 20 suggestions mostly based on things that I have seen in this public forum that will send to the LAB Team when they start updating the LAB again. I also know that Tyranno is writting a similar list.

      So, please put yourselves for a second on the shoes of a LAB Team that is being sieged internally and externally, and if someone tries to explain the reasoning for the current iteration of rules don't take it as refusing to hear your concerns.

      Because really there is a lot of misunderstanding about the LAB process and what the LAB Team was asked to do.

      Just few days ago, I had to read that the LAB book was bad because had many full redesigns while the slimbook was mostly ok and didn't need those changes.
      And while I agree about the slimbook, that shows the little knowledge about what the LAB Team was asked to do, like literally forgetting about the slimbook and building it fresh from the background (it has nothing to do with LAB Team being some maniacs that liked to change things for the sake of change).

      Or other example could be people saying that Prophet is worth 4 unit entries complex, if so, How many entries is worth the combination of WDG lord with 7 favours and 5 upgrades? If I still had access to the internal forum, I could quote Head of RT saying that a single extra rule like Prophet of Nezibkesh/Ashuruk isn't worth like a single full entry in complexity, and so, shouldn't be split into a separated entry, while still the whole package is obviously worth complex more than a single plain entry (but people that don't know this will say that LAB Team greedily tried to put as much as possible into a single entry to bypass complexity limits, sorry but complexity budget doesn't work that way).

      Again, there is little understanding of what the LAB Team was asked to do or how was supposed to work. Even by people with direct LAB responsibilities.

      This isn't ID LAB Team or community fault, but the project failing to clearly communicate the big picture and implications of what the new LAB process means.
      Thanks god, ID LAB Team had Emgies as Team Leader (main mind behind the new LAB process), but I think that mostly everyone else is lost without his direct guidance and a big part of the bad backlash about the ID LAB roots in this issue.
    • New

      Gomio wrote:

      I have a hard time trying to understand all the feedback about battlelines.

      When people says "battlelines" it seems to mean something different from person to person, and so, I can't really follow what each individual is trying to explain.

      It would help if people defined what is a battleline for them. For example, I don't want to focus my answer on any particular person, but since DanT is voicing this loud, I went to his lists thread to see which are these battleline that were possible with slimbook but not with the LAB and so I can understand his pov.

      Overall, looking at his lists (if are meant to be the missed battlelines), these used to involve something like 4 mmu/big low-maneuverable units.
      I was able to update these lists to "LAB version" almost on a 1-1 equivalents except for the blunderbuss blocks and still had some free points to spend.

      I think that 28 LAB Flintlocks are close enough equivalent to 28 Slimbook Blunderbuss with GW (march and shoot, Str5 in combat) and 20 LAB Citadel Guard with Pistols&Shields are close enough to 20 Slimbook Warriors with BB&S (weaker shooting, but better combat capabalities with +1str/arm).

      It's worth noting that the Overlord usually featured prominently in his lists, with Fanning the Flames being a fairly pivotal element and reward.



      So, if these lists are possible now, I guess that the issue isn't that LAB can't build battlelines, but that these battlelines will be outshined by other playstyles in the book, which is something that could be said to be systemic of this game, and honestly, I think that always happened with the slimbook. Anyway, looking at posts history and the things that could change how the army will be played now, I guess that people is trying to point at Taurukh characters going obviously into Taurukh units, and so, core won't be filled with units to hold these characters but with msu shooting setups. I think that this should be a valid way of playing per guidelines but no one, included LAB Team, will like it to be the main way to go for the army and I would expect actions if this happens.


      About if the LAB Team is hearing or not to feedback, let me say that something similar happened internally.

      Higher ups appeared with complaints/concerns very often and when as a quick answer the LAB Team tried to explain why things were that way, higher ups said that LAB Team were refusing to listen, just to get a list of changes days later adressing their concerns.

      What I mean is, if Tyranno for example answer to your concerns with "this is this way because these reasons" or similar things, it doesn't mean that he isn't hearing or refusing your point. It means that he is trying to give the context for more focused feedback.

      I personally have already a list of 20 suggestions mostly based on things that I have seen in this public forum that will send to the LAB Team when they start updating the LAB again. I also know that Tyranno is writting a similar list.




      So, please put yourselves for a second on the shoes of a LAB Team that is being sieged internally and externally, and if someone tries to explain the reasoning for the current iteration of rules don't take it as refusing to hear your concerns.

      Because really there is a lot of misunderstanding about the LAB process and what the LAB Team was asked to do.

      Just few days ago, I had to read that the LAB book was bad because had many full redesigns while the slimbook was mostly ok and didn't need those changes.
      And while I agree about the slimbook, that shows the little knowledge about what the LAB Team was asked to do, like literally forgetting about the slimbook and building it fresh from the background (it has nothing to do with LAB Team being some maniacs that liked to change things for the sake of change).

      Or other example could be people saying that Prophet is worth 4 unit entries complex, if so, How many entries is worth the combination of WDG lord with 7 favours and 5 upgrades? If I still had access to the internal forum, I could quote Head of RT saying that a single extra rule like Prophet of Nezibkesh/Ashuruk isn't worth like a single full entry in complexity, and so, shouldn't be split into a separated entry, while still the whole package is obviously worth complex more than a single plain entry (but people that don't know this will say that LAB Team greedily tried to put as much as possible into a single entry to bypass complexity limits, sorry but complexity budget doesn't work that way).

      Again, there is little understanding of what the LAB Team was asked to do or how was supposed to work. Even by people with direct LAB responsibilities.

      This isn't ID LAB Team or community fault, but the project failing to clearly communicate the big picture and implications of what the new LAB process means.
      Thanks god, ID LAB Team had Emgies as Team Leader (main mind behind the new LAB process), but I think that mostly everyone else is lost without his direct guidance and a big part of the bad backlash about the ID LAB roots in this issue.

      Mmmm. The Prophet was 2-3 units worth of complexity; the team made the call that that was worth it, and I was thankful they did because I was pushing hard for it as a way to show an important part of the background.

      Background Team

    • New

      I really like the new book , thanks LAB team for your work .
      I dont want to speak about feeling or power of specyfic units becouse I do not have enough game experience with them yet. My first impresion is that book allows all ID playstyles from the past , ”fast” monstrous/monster/cav push, gunline, infantry bricks. There are no general restrictions , except fire of industries ,that limits each playstyle but specyfic unit rules, options and available synergies creates natural pressure to follow one of the path as its power rises as you include more elements working for the same goal.
      Internal and external balance between each option available is yet to be setted in future updates , but I like the direction.

      Number of special rules can be overwhelming for non ID players at first , but I think its still better than first impresion of new WotDG or DL. There is probobly room for some simplification in the future without changing final effect.

      One thing I would like to mention specyficly , would it be possible to add monstrous level of tauruk ritual in the future? Same rules but bigger base, to allow joining them to annointed unit? I dont think it would affect the power level but iy would allow more options, possibly even removing subjugator profile but with better effect overall.
    • New

      Whamme, I just remade on army builder the latest lists and Overlord wasn't always there, a superficial review just to get some understanding, but superficial anyway.

      I agree that without Fan the Flames there is no way to put Infernal Warriors (and other units) not even close to slimbook level in offensive power. +1 Armour doesn't compare on GW troops to conditional Battle Focus + Hatred + fear immunity, but we really tried and it wasn't possible to keep something similar to that. "ID characters aren't buff wagons and synergies are for flaming stuff/lesser beings". Now try to make a Mov3" infantry character that is worth beyond being a cheap general/bsb, doesn't buff/debuff armies, with high eliteness, not a combat berserker, etc. It isn't that the Taurukh upgrade will overshadow it, is that the design constraints were so strong that if we see Overlord only in its Taurukh/mounted version, we can be glad enough about it.

      The two things that I repeated more constantly internally were "no more focus on shooting" and "no more autohits". I got tired of pushing to no success for a combat AWSR for dwarves and after that tired to push for some discipline related mechanic (refering to previous posts).

      It should not surprise ID players that the ID AWSR ended being "dwarves get not AWSR at all". Even if I like the rule and I think that promotes tactic games plus mixed lists, Its almost a meme by itself and it should hint people about how things were internally. Anything significant enough was still a big "nope" as in the past, and so, units got the demanded high eliteness in other ways that now people complain since its harder to see what was lost.

      hypnotic wrote:

      One thing I would like to mention specyficly , would it be possible to add monstrous level of tauruk ritual in the future? Same rules but bigger base, to allow joining them to annointed unit? I dont think it would affect the power level but iy would allow more options, possibly even removing subjugator profile but with better effect overall.
      As I understood the background, ID veterans may do a ritual to become a baby Taurukh, but Anointed are created/born this way, so the approach is different and I don't think that we will see "Anointed Ritual".

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

    • New

      Hello everyone! :)

      Today I had the opportunity to bring out my DH miniatures and play a game against my friends SE army, of course I've used DH miniatures, but tried our new rules for ID! And I had a blast with it, I guess too much blast :)

      TL:DR - my friend had 0 models left at the start of ID turn 4, I was going 1st, so he just played whole 3 turns.

      My list:


      820 - Prophet of Nezibkesh, General, Infernal Bastion, Flintlock Axe (2+), Lugar's Dice, Triple Speed, Mask of Ages, Wizard Master, Pyromancy
      205 - Vizier, Shield, Blunderbuss (4+), Potion of Strength, Battle Standard Bearer, 2x Aether Icon
      534 - 22 Infernal Warriors, Shield, Blunderbuss (4+), Champion, Musician, Standard Bearer, Flaming Standard
      534 - 22 Infernal Warriors, Shield, Blunderbuss (4+), Champion, Musician, Standard Bearer, Flaming Standard
      120 - 20 Shackled Slaves, Paired Weapons
      500 - 20 Immortals, Great Weapon, Musician, Standard Bearer
      474 - 19 Immortals, Great Weapon, Musician, Standard Bearer
      170 - 5 Vassal Cavalry
      170 - 5 Vassal Cavalry
      155 - Gunnery Team, Titan Mortar (4+), Cluster Munitions
      155 - Gunnery Team, Titan Mortar (4+), Cluster Munitions
      260 - Infernal Artillery, Rocket Battery (4+), Kadim Manifestation
      110 - Vassal Slingshot
      290 - Infernal Bastion


      His list (from the top of my memory)

      Shamanism Wizard Master hero heart paired weapon
      Druidism Wizard Master magic res(2) +1 channel
      Prince with distracting spear 1+/5++
      BSB with ballista bow and magic res(2)
      23 Archers soft cover banner
      26 Dryads
      28 Woodsmen soft cover banner(those elves with 2 handed axes)
      6 Treekins
      10 Sentinels
      1 Eagle

      The game was really one-sided and of course it was fun for me playing those undestructable bricks of T4 3+ and soft cover dwarves, I've felt like playing 40k, but I think that my opponent felt it same way, the problem is that he had elves with bows and I had space marines with terminator armours and blasters...

      Hereditary is super strong, with 7+ cv I was able to kill 1/6 of his Dryads, Archers and 1/3 of his Woodsmen :O
      Two Titan mortar gunnery teams were really devastating against his elves, sure it is just s3ap0, but having 39" effective range, cluster munition and flaming swords... it was like hell for poor Men in Tights.
      The only target for Rocket battery were Treekins and with 2 turns of shooting here I hit 4 times, then it was so easy to wound on rerollable 2+ (yeah, flaming sword aura) and their only save was 5+ ward, due to divine attacks all 4 wounds were successful, but with 4d3 I did whole 5 wounds, so you know... bad luck here for me.
      But it is not the end of the story, my opponent had soft cover banners and woods everywhere, so my poor Blunderbusses were shooting on 6s at long range... but you know what? I just needed five 6s to get 15 hits wounding on rerollable 3+ against Woodsmen (thank you slaves, thank you vassals, thank you flaming swords!) Then next turn I had 31 hits(4+ rerolling 1s) wounding on rerollable 4+ against his Dryads (I love you slaves, love you vassals, oh flaming swords you're hot too!)
      Infernal bastions with 360 los for spells and shooting is boosted, 96" range hereditary is boosted, but imho most overpowered candidate here are... flaming swords, this spell is way way stronger in this army than in any other.
      The other thing is while I had really huge firepower that was super effective against everything in his army, even T4 5++ dryads weren't any problem, but for his archers and magic my T4 3+ dwarves in soft cover were something that he had no chance to move, even gunnery team with 4hp, 4+ and hard target was really problematic to kill, Immortals were fighting with all things that I couldnt shoot off, so few Treekins, Prince with spear, few Woodsmen (regrowth was really helpful here) but it was nothing that Immortals couldn't fight back.

      Overall feeling of the army is really nice, ID close combat capabilities are nowhere near those of Warriors of the Dark Gods, but omnipresent synergies alongside with magic and well-armored, strong and tough dwarf profiles are way too powerful, and in my humble opinion the problem is not 1 or 2 entries, almost whole book should be like 25% more expensive and flaming synergy should be little nerfed.

      @kangur I guess nobody will be offended if Kangur will reply here how this game looked from his perspective :)
    • New

      A few things that nag me the most.

      Infernal Warriors: They are smaller in size than every unit that means to be elite. Have no bonus and no bonus available except flame attacks. The current blunderbuss is a solution to nothing. It should be the only option stand and shoot again. There is no model on foot currently that can decently support the dudes.

      Btw if Citadel Guards Darts were the problem. Restrict them to 0-2 per army and its solved.

      Infernal Weapon:
      Give back parry to them. Take it away from the Immortals. Having this with Spears or Great Weapons is simply rigged.

      Overlord:

      Its hillarrious that the guy who has it all ("keys to the citadel") is the only one that has hatred. Fan of Flames was such a good option.

      Fires of Industry (X)
      Simply not plausible that a completely stationary flamer costs same as the engine or a vassal sling costs one point but an engine without shooting weapon or a tower nothing.
      I can play two towers (which should be one per army), engine with rock crusher, engine shooty, three gunnery teams and an engine.
      But cannot play two flamer, gunnery team and a shooty engine.

      Maybe this should be the new hail of the gods instead of industry points.

      Bring back some things that were awesome:
      Tablet of Ashuruk
      Burning Steel (instead of Flames of the East)

      Do away stuff that breaking the common rules (do that away):
      Little Units (Taurukhs) got more amour then the big ones.
      Parry as standard rule while characters cant with Infernal Weapon.
      All core shooters can march and shoot.
      An item that improves the HP of a chariot or protects a gigantic thing with an ward save.

      People complain about the gunnery team rocket launchers. How about bringing a volley gun back?
      Things that got worse but are now more expensive (Flamer Gunneryteam, Shooty Engine).
    • New

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      I posit that neither is the case. My argument comes from the belief that the game is a rank and flank game. The first word being first for a reason. Ranks are the most important component to the game. I see this as an issue game wide. But with ID getting a new book this is the perfect place to push for making the game more rank orientated.

      Since core is supposed to symbolise the "core" of an army I didn't expect to see the new book have some small units of dwarves and a support unit of vassal/slaves that honestly could just be an upgrade for the dwarves. I wanted to see slaves amassed held in line by iron will dwarves ready to rank and flank.

      The previous book was far better at this, since slaves had much better stats and born to fight, hobgoblins also had poison, and bonuses for getting flanks, which blocks of orcs could provide due to prolonged combats. But for thematic reasons you still needed dwarves to hold the slaves at bay. I would have liked this theme to be further explored.

      My interpretation of the current core choices is very different. You take 2 blocks of shooty/fighty dwarves, and vassal/slave upgrade.

      The reason I also take issue with this is that's not my vision of the core of an army. An army should be many blocks of troops. I wouldn't expect any army to field less than 100 models from core, now this isnt the case for basically any army, but I want to push changes that move in that direction and with ID having a new book this is a good place to begin.


      So what im trying to say is that pushing "larger blocks" isnt what I wish for, but rather that an army is made up of ranked/core troops with some special support pieces. Not the other way round where the army is made up of special pieces and the are some scoring/core/ranked units.
      I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
    • New

      Gomio wrote:

      Whamme, I just remade on army builder the latest lists and Overlord wasn't always there, a superficial review just to get some understanding, but superficial anyway.

      I agree that without Fan the Flames there is no way to put Infernal Warriors (and other units) not even close to slimbook level in offensive power. +1 Armour doesn't compare on GW troops to conditional Battle Focus + Hatred + fear immunity, but we really tried and it wasn't possible to keep something similar to that. "ID characters aren't buff wagons and synergies are for flaming stuff/lesser beings". Now try to make a Mov3" infantry character that is worth beyond being a cheap general/bsb, doesn't buff/debuff armies, with high eliteness, not a combat berserker, etc. It isn't that the Taurukh upgrade will overshadow it, is that the design constraints were so strong that if we see Overlord only in its Taurukh/mounted version, we can be glad enough about it.

      The two things that I repeated more constantly internally were "no more focus on shooting" and "no more autohits". I got tired of pushing to no success for a combat AWSR for dwarves and after that tired to push for some discipline related mechanic (refering to previous posts).

      It should not surprise ID players that the ID AWSR ended being "dwarves get not AWSR at all". Even if I like the rule and I think that promotes tactic games plus mixed lists, Its almost a meme by itself and it should hint people about how things were internally. Anything significant enough was still a big "nope" as in the past, and so, units got the demanded high eliteness in other ways that now people complain since its harder to see what was lost.

      I was there buddy, I know. But players are going to judge by end results, and apportioning blame doesn't really help anyone. FWIW I still think grenades were the right solution from a BG POV (hell, just give them only to characters - a little bit of like 8" range shooting that you can also toss at enemies you're in melee with), as they're the intersection of "technology" and "close quarters damage".

      But "post release" is where we have the real second chance, where we can get evidence about what's too good and what's not good enough. Like fundamentally, I see Dan as being *on* your side there - the voice of "better infantry Overlord, do what it takes to make it happen" and "more incentives needed to fight in melee, less incentive needed to shoot them".

      hypnotic wrote:

      One thing I would like to mention specyficly , would it be possible to add monstrous level of tauruk ritual in the future? Same rules but bigger base, to allow joining them to annointed unit? I dont think it would affect the power level but iy would allow more options, possibly even removing subjugator profile but with better effect overall.
      As I understood the background, ID veterans may do a ritual to become a baby Taurukh, but Anointed are created/born this way, so the approach is different and I don't think that we will see "Anointed Ritual".

      The Commissioners are a fairly important piece of the background - they're the overall leaders of the Taurukh, the ones who choose who may become Anointed or Enforcers.
      It could probably have been done as a named upgrade though.

      Anointed are not born, they are made, just like any Taurukh; the difference is that Anointed are made *younger*, and after the initiate spends years forging a bond with the bull that will become their lower body... and they are recruited specifically from acolytes of Shamut, so are less secular and less free to "go their own way". They're Church Knights, specifically, an actual order of Taurukh, whereas the "normal" ritual is practiced and known more widely (i.e. by the other Temples) (and requires less sacrifice and dedication from the initiate).

      Traumdieb wrote:

      A few things that nag me the most.

      Infernal Warriors: They are smaller in size than every unit that means to be elite. Have no bonus and no bonus available except flame attacks. The current blunderbuss is a solution to nothing. It should be the only option stand and shoot again. There is no model on foot currently that can decently support the dudes.

      Btw if Citadel Guards Darts were the problem. Restrict them to 0-2 per army and its solved.

      Citadel Guard Darts weren't a "problem" on a mechanical level. The "problem" was Blunderbusses; shotguns make negative sense as a ranked fire unit, so we needed to (once a-bloody-gain) redesign them. OTOH, Flintlocks *do* make sense as a ranked fire unit.


      So we swapped their mechanics around and then iterated a bit. IW Blunderbuss darts are the successors to Citadel Guard darts, CG Flintlock blocks are the successors to Blunderbuss blocks.



      Infernal Weapon:
      Give back parry to them. Take it away from the Immortals. Having this with Spears or Great Weapons is simply rigged.




      Broadly speaking, it was "Parry" OR "Magical Attacks, cannot be enchanted" as the options we could choose between. Which do you prefer?
      (We went with the latter so that we could change the Onyx Core to it's current design, thus balancing it in power level with corebook enchantments and allowing the Overlord's Keys to the Citadel to work)


      I'll also note I personally find Whispers of the Mask + Parry to be elegant symmetry, and that before, people seldom took Great Weapon Immortals.


      Also, Immortals are not just regular troops. I wish the LAB was out, but I invite you to consider the flavour behind "Whispers of the Mask".



      Overlord:

      Its hillarrious that the guy who has it all ("keys to the citadel") is the only one that has hatred. Fan of Flames was such a good option.

      Fires of Industry (X)
      Simply not plausible that a completely stationary flamer costs same as the engine or a vassal sling costs one point but an engine without shooting weapon or a tower nothing.
      I can play two towers (which should be one per army), engine with rock crusher, engine shooty, three gunnery teams and an engine.
      But cannot play two flamer, gunnery team and a shooty engine.

      Maybe this should be the new hail of the gods instead of industry points.

      "Fires of Industry" sounds cooler than "Barrage". I regret nothing.



      Bring back some things that were awesome:
      Tablet of Ashuruk
      Burning Steel (instead of Flames of the East)

      Do away stuff that breaking the common rules (do that away):
      Little Units (Taurukhs) got more amour then the big ones.
      Parry as standard rule while characters cant with Infernal Weapon.
      All core shooters can march and shoot.
      An item that improves the HP of a chariot or protects a gigantic thing with an ward save.

      People complain about the gunnery team rocket launchers. How about bringing a volley gun back?
      Things that got worse but are now more expensive (Flamer Gunneryteam, Shooty Engine).

      o.0

      Enforcers work like Cavalry units (get +1 Arm for being them), Anointed work like Large Cavalry units (do NOT get +1 Arm for being them).



      Other requests noted. Price in particular will adjust automatically to play/success rates.

      Background Team

    • New

      duxbuse wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      There was NO intent with the ID book in trying to make infantry blocks worse.

      If anything we tried to push larger blocks more. You can see this in the fact that every infantry unit in the book has a unit size of 12 or higher, no more 10-man-spam. Now, if you are suggesting that shooting is too pushed, that would be a different argument. But the infantry here is not pushed towards tiny scoring darts.

      Also, I am getting complaints that big blocks of ID infantry is OP, so frankly I don't know what people want here. There have been numerous complaints about large blocks of Immortals, like a lot of complaints. I am also seeing tournament players devise lists with 2 blocks of 30 of them. So which is it?

      "Big units of ID infantry is OP"

      "Big units of ID infantry is UP"

      Choose.
      I posit that neither is the case. My argument comes from the belief that the game is a rank and flank game. The first word being first for a reason. Ranks are the most important component to the game. I see this as an issue game wide. But with ID getting a new book this is the perfect place to push for making the game more rank orientated.
      Since core is supposed to symbolise the "core" of an army I didn't expect to see the new book have some small units of dwarves and a support unit of vassal/slaves that honestly could just be an upgrade for the dwarves. I wanted to see slaves amassed held in line by iron will dwarves ready to rank and flank.

      The previous book was far better at this, since slaves had much better stats and born to fight, hobgoblins also had poison, and bonuses for getting flanks, which blocks of orcs could provide due to prolonged combats. But for thematic reasons you still needed dwarves to hold the slaves at bay. I would have liked this theme to be further explored.

      My interpretation of the current core choices is very different. You take 2 blocks of shooty/fighty dwarves, and vassal/slave upgrade.

      The reason I also take issue with this is that's not my vision of the core of an army. An army should be many blocks of troops. I wouldn't expect any army to field less than 100 models from core, now this isnt the case for basically any army, but I want to push changes that move in that direction and with ID having a new book this is a good place to begin.


      So what im trying to say is that pushing "larger blocks" isnt what I wish for, but rather that an army is made up of ranked/core troops with some special support pieces. Not the other way round where the army is made up of special pieces and the are some scoring/core/ranked units.


      The RT wrote at great length in the guidelines that Slaves should absolutely not be good at killing the enemy.

      Personally, I think Vassal Levy with Spears are a pretty good combat unit, and worth taking, but have no objection to feedback of "they should be even better and more likely to be included in armies".

      But "dangerous fighting slaves" is not a supported concept for the book. (We actually discussed having Vassal Orcs for a bit, as more fighty vassals, but decided that it was better to try to better support people's extant models)

      Background Team