Infernal Dwarf First Update Feedback Thread

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

  • @saint_barbara I copy your post here since I feel it's good feedback and it's relevant to fi d it in the "right" thread also. If you want me to remove it please say so and I'll fix it.

    saint_barbara wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    strauss wrote:

    Odoamar wrote:

    plz remember this is first iteration after this tweak.

    I hope after few price updates both units will be balanced between each other, now maybe it looks odd but forget it. So go test and give us feedback.
    Actually, this would be a worst case scenario. This issue is not in their pricing but in the fact that they do have the same role/utility. They feel very similar and currently, the incentive to opt for CG with spears is outshined by the possibility to have cheaper IW with Great weapons.
    Then give feedback on how to better distinguish them.
    1. Merge BB and FL and give both units different to-hit value.2. Make FL S3 AP2 multishoot x2, BB S5 AP0 QTF
    3. Make BB 12"
    4. Take away shooting options from IW, give spears to IW, take away spears from CG, give BB to CG.
  • @DanT Many thanks for your answer. You grasped the essence of my posts :) Indeed, I have a limited view on the things happening in the background and the "longer" planning for the LAB process.

    I appreciate this smooth and clear reply. It comforts me to read it and indeed, I'll wait for the next update. Let's hope that it will be an holistic one, with ups and downs, considering both micro and macro level. In the meantime, I'll start playing my updated list and provide more feedback !
    ETC Belgium ID Player Novi Sad 2019

    My journey with ID ==> Tales of an infernal general :ID:
  • denelian5 wrote:

    @saint_barbara I copy your post here since I feel it's good feedback and it's relevant to fi d it in the "right" thread also. If you want me to remove it please say so and I'll fix it.

    saint_barbara wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    strauss wrote:

    Odoamar wrote:

    plz remember this is first iteration after this tweak.

    I hope after few price updates both units will be balanced between each other, now maybe it looks odd but forget it. So go test and give us feedback.
    Actually, this would be a worst case scenario. This issue is not in their pricing but in the fact that they do have the same role/utility. They feel very similar and currently, the incentive to opt for CG with spears is outshined by the possibility to have cheaper IW with Great weapons.
    Then give feedback on how to better distinguish them.
    1. Merge BB and FL and give both units different to-hit value.2. Make FL S3 AP2 multishoot x2, BB S5 AP0 QTF3. Make BB 12"
    4. Take away shooting options from IW, give spears to IW, take away spears from CG, give BB to CG.

    I must say that I like the suggestion of @saint_barbara very much !
    ETC Belgium ID Player Novi Sad 2019

    My journey with ID ==> Tales of an infernal general :ID:
  • It's interesting but completely changes all the weapons. Also means a forced rework of triple speed most likely. I do kinda agree with making Infernal Warriors the melee unit and CG the mainline shooting unit though. Makes their roles a bit clearer but I still like having access to the shorter range guns on IW.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Painting League 2021

    :OK: :DH: :EoS:
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ghost Step captures the essence of tunneling. They may be overpriced; that would be unfortunate, but can be solved by cuts. They are definitely not useless; there will be a price point where Monstrous Infantry with Arm 2 and Aegis 5+ + some output are worth it, and ignoring terrain allows for some neat tricks.
    Actually, fly would have captured the essence of tunneling. When I read the tunneling rule, I thought "why didn't they simply keep fly if they don't want to put too many new rules into the game.It would have left the kadim exactly as before, and it would have been a BRB rule.Now they are nerfed (appearently for no reason?)
    Because they don't bleeping fly.

    Clipped Wings makes no sense on them. Grounding them with a Storm makes no sense on them. Lightning vulnerability makes no sense on them.

    They don't fly.

    Rule names mean something in-universe. People attach things to them, and that means you can only use them to reflect things where the flavour matches up right. Same reason train lost Parry.
    OK, a couple of points I have here:
    -I know why tunneling was used, and I loved the idea. As I said "if they don't want to put too many new rules into the game", which was a major complaint by some people, used as a mantra. I don't approve, I would have simply kept tunneling as it was exactly what they are doing, and I cannot care less about the number of special rules, if it is a hundred new ones each AB, I would still love it.
    -Fly would have been as unfitting on kadim as it is on gnasher dashers, yet they have it because it was streamlined, and giving them fly was easier than explaining the special rule they should have. So it could have been done to kadim the same way: calm down the new-rule-haters by using a known rule that does the same thing as the new special rule did, but avoiding the big nerf and keeping the idea alive.
    -simply add "kadim are not affected by clipped wings" and your problem with fly as a crutch would have been gone.

    Rule names should mean something, and I would be glad if every bok had its own big set of special rules that all have the right name to explain the special things a specific unit is supposed to do. That will not happen because there are also many people who don't like many special rules, so there will be crutches, either in effect or in naming the effect.

    And my post was because ghost step is very different from tunneling, while fly would have been very close. So yes, I understand your feelings about fly on kadim, but since you claim the team wanted to preserve the effect of the rule, fly (without clipped wings) should have been picked because that would have been capturing the essence of tunneling, with a wrong name but the right effect.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    baldargent wrote:

    The more i read the Book and the more i think that Tauruk anointed could have a similar thing as scrapling lookout .
    It could be fix the problèm with anointed and the commissioner ,problem of long day.
    IS it possible?
    No. If the "large characters" army has an exception, that's fair - it's their schtick. If every army that could use it gets it, it effectively becomes a change to the core rules.

    And, at least in theory, there were good reasons to not make it a core rule, right?
    on an other side taurukh commissioner IS (as long i remember) the only one large beast character on foot (not harnessed so not a mount) with this base (50/75) .wich make him harder to deal with . Right?
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Because they don't bleeping fly.
    Lol, even the old Forge World models don't have wings or whatever.
    Magma Tunneling totally fits.

    Odoamar wrote:

    In army guidelines we have note about heavly limit Fly rules in this book. We considered drop Fly from Bulls to that and allow them Fly only in first turn (fly down from Heaven) but like you see Fly on Bulls is very limited and Kadims don't have it.
    We know ID suppose to me Jack of All trades army but some armies deserve for much better Air Forces ( who knows, maybe DH?)
    I think this is a good mandate. The army has to have something things it is bad or at least mediocre at.
    I do wonder if the supernal combined with Fly 6/12" move on bulls is going to be any good. Points might drop to the point where it's too good for the walking 7/14"move. Fly is great for no chaffing but it's severely diminished by how far you can charge.

    Something to just watch out for in further updates. Subtle imbalances like this one can take a while to identify the problem, or that it's not a problem.
  • Jomppexx wrote:

    It's interesting but completely changes all the weapons. Also means a forced rework of triple speed most likely. I do kinda agree with making Infernal Warriors the melee unit and CG the mainline shooting unit though. Makes their roles a bit clearer but I still like having access to the shorter range guns on IW.

    I suggested re-dividing the book into "melee guys" and "shooty guys"; this was a year ago, it lost the debate then, and I suspect it would still lose the debate now.

    (Tyranno was the voice of "that would tick people off by somewhat invalidating their models")

    In a vacuum it's a decent idea. In practice, we didn't feel we could get away with it even in Beta 1, let alone now.

    rolan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Ghost Step captures the essence of tunneling. They may be overpriced; that would be unfortunate, but can be solved by cuts. They are definitely not useless; there will be a price point where Monstrous Infantry with Arm 2 and Aegis 5+ + some output are worth it, and ignoring terrain allows for some neat tricks.
    Actually, fly would have captured the essence of tunneling. When I read the tunneling rule, I thought "why didn't they simply keep fly if they don't want to put too many new rules into the game.It would have left the kadim exactly as before, and it would have been a BRB rule.Now they are nerfed (appearently for no reason?)
    Because they don't bleeping fly.
    Clipped Wings makes no sense on them. Grounding them with a Storm makes no sense on them. Lightning vulnerability makes no sense on them.

    They don't fly.

    Rule names mean something in-universe. People attach things to them, and that means you can only use them to reflect things where the flavour matches up right. Same reason train lost Parry.
    OK, a couple of points I have here:-I know why tunneling was used, and I loved the idea. As I said "if they don't want to put too many new rules into the game", which was a major complaint by some people, used as a mantra. I don't approve, I would have simply kept tunneling as it was exactly what they are doing, and I cannot care less about the number of special rules, if it is a hundred new ones each AB, I would still love it.
    -Fly would have been as unfitting on kadim as it is on gnasher dashers, yet they have it because it was streamlined, and giving them fly was easier than explaining the special rule they should have. So it could have been done to kadim the same way: calm down the new-rule-haters by using a known rule that does the same thing as the new special rule did, but avoiding the big nerf and keeping the idea alive.
    -simply add "kadim are not affected by clipped wings" and your problem with fly as a crutch would have been gone.

    Rule names should mean something, and I would be glad if every bok had its own big set of special rules that all have the right name to explain the special things a specific unit is supposed to do. That will not happen because there are also many people who don't like many special rules, so there will be crutches, either in effect or in naming the effect.

    And my post was because ghost step is very different from tunneling, while fly would have been very close. So yes, I understand your feelings about fly on kadim, but since you claim the team wanted to preserve the effect of the rule, fly (without clipped wings) should have been picked because that would have been capturing the essence of tunneling, with a wrong name but the right effect.

    Fly + "immune to clipped wings" would be just as much complexity as leaving Magma Tunneling the way it was = not an option.

    (It also would have attracted SO many complaints about 'ignoring the weaknesses')


    I mean, noted that you don't care for reducing complexity, but it was the mission. I suggest finding a way to convince other players it was fine, not me.

    Background Team

  • I’m just getting back into gaming (10+ years away) and this was the first new book I’ve had a chance to see and play as it is being developed. I appreciate the hard work and long hours you and the design team have put into it. However, I have a few comments and questions.
    1. I started playing again only after researching this game extensively because GW had wrecked their version of it for me. One of the strongest points that convinced me to start playing again was the data driven aspect of revisions to the rules and any changes in T9A. Therefore, when I hear that changes were made in the ID book because people were “unhappy” or it was “un-fun” or some were just generally complaining non-stop it is very disappointing as those are all subjective not quantitative.
      All major changes besides background ones like adding supernal on the bull should be data driven first and a larger dataset taken before changes were made. It seemed very knee jerk and took away from what I thought was a great first effort. Even with the bull not being supernal I believe that your reasoning of the rider controlling it should have been sufficient for the BG team person that objected. But if a fix can be made than it can be remedied.
    2. Which “other players” think that the magma tunneling is too complex and need to be convinced otherwise? Quite frankly there are many many other things in the game that are harder to understand than that special rule.
    3. If an army book needs a few special rules in order to make the units and their background work because BRB rules are insufficient than that should be fine. Changing things so they are all “similar” and plain (you mentioned in another thread) is what “they want”. If this is truly their mindset just have them pick 1 army book and change the title and the unit names only and they will have exactly what they’re looking for. Everything the same “but different”. Otherwise, removing a rule like magma tunneling (great idea btw) should be embraced as a simple but elegant way that is NOT too complex to give unique flavour to a unit and thus the whole book.
  • Well as DanT has already layed out, the first update is often mostly about fixing obvious mistakes, rules combinations that were not thought of, unforeseen problems, complexity issues and so on.

    Of course you might ask yourself why some of the above did reach Beta and wasn't spotted in Alpha by Playtest or other review Teams. In fact on some of it the feedback during Alpha was divided. In the past (WdG, DL) the project did take the be better ultra safe than sorry answer to that. The new process is more open to find out which side of the divided feedback is correct. And there are parts where taking the risk was worth it as what for example I did intern label as problematic again and again and again turned out to be total okay and there were things where I could say I told you so.

    While defacto we did use for that the feedback from the initial reactions, that feedback sort of stayed the same after the first 2 weeks but only got less frequent. Basically most of the Feedback after 2 weeks was constant repeat or single persons discovering a new entry of the book (I know it because I did collect it and forward it and continue to monitor it.)

    On the data driven side we used 2 tourneys for the unit usage data (Ocho and MAPM Juni) as we got on their armylists in time. Waiting for Tourney results would in the time of UB tourneys meant we would have started work on the update last week. The Unit usage data was used for pricing together with several other scources.

    The next Update will focus more on data and give us more time to collect it (and more tourneys will happen offline or start and finish during that period).

    Advisery Board Member

    Click to apply to staff. I Organise: TA, TS and ACS. My Perspective on T9A on Youtube: T9A in Bayern - YouTube and T9A in Bavaria - YouTube
  • Slayer Zabojcow wrote:

    A lot of people are complaining that IW and CG are too similar, and I think they are right. IW feel as much elite as CG because of same survivability while being a lot cheaper and both of them can get up to S5, so in my opinion IW and CG need some serious redesign.
    Maybe giving great weapons and blunderbusses and no shield option to CG, while making IW basic troops with hw+shield, spear+shield or flintlock axe would do the trick?
    It would be a lot easier if Infernal Warriors would get back their heavy armour instead of plate, then we wouldn't have to change it so much, but I guess everybody here loves their plate armors in core so we have to figure it out somehow how to make them feel different...
    plz try look at this from different angle and consider IW and CG as possible unit types on battlefield. If we take away points ( i hope someday we achieve good balance between all options ) we have:
    • small 12 cheap, durable scoring (3+save, simple s3ap0 attacks)
    • small 12 support shooting unit, durable scoring
    • medium shooting unit with good dmg output ( 15hits s4ap2, mostly on 5+ ), can fight with any type of no heavy armoured enemy s5ap1 attacks
    • medium scoring/anvil with some shooting output, if we consider Pistols are something extra than main thread
    • medium wizard bunker (15-20models) durable against shooting, good in CC but strike last. Probably 15 s5ap2Agi0 attacks
    • great horde unit with GW, even without Hatred or other to hit bonuses they can strike well
    • big shooting buss together with Bastion, 2 options depends what you want ( almost always 2hits s3ap1 - perfect against R3, or one s4ap2 hit )
    • big Spear Block with few extra shoots, completely different than DH Spears (more elite) and different than Spear Immortals


    I think it isn't all possible options but we achieve this only by 2units. Merging have sense, we considered it at start but decided to keep legacy and work with it.
    GDT, ID LAB :ID: Animosity Poland Team
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    Well as DanT has already layed out, the first update is often mostly about fixing obvious mistakes, rules combinations that were not thought of, unforeseen problems, complexity issues and so on.

    Of course you might ask yourself why some of the above did reach Beta and wasn't spotted in Alpha by Playtest or other review Teams. In fact on some of it the feedback during Alpha was divided. In the past (WdG, DL) the project did take the be better ultra safe than sorry answer to that. The new process is more open to find out which side of the divided feedback is correct. And there are parts where taking the risk was worth it as what for example I did intern label as problematic again and again and again turned out to be total okay and there were things where I could say I told you so.

    While defacto we did use for that the feedback from the initial reactions, that feedback sort of stayed the same after the first 2 weeks but only got less frequent. Basically most of the Feedback after 2 weeks was constant repeat or single persons discovering a new entry of the book (I know it because I did collect it and forward it and continue to monitor it.)

    On the data driven side we used 2 tourneys for the unit usage data (Ocho and MAPM Juni) as we got on their armylists in time. Waiting for Tourney results would in the time of UB tourneys meant we would have started work on the update last week. The Unit usage data was used for pricing together with several other scources.

    The next Update will focus more on data and give us more time to collect it (and more tourneys will happen offline or start and finish during that period).
    fair enough, of course mistakes are made, and it really is a good idea to use the first weeks to discover those and to make an update rather quickly to get rid of those early mistakes.
    But things like remove tunneling, triple nerf immortals or triple nerf bastion, or include a melee unit into the shooting pool - that is changing things that are discovered as being OP, not correcting an error.
    And there is not enough data to come to the conclusion that things are OP. There is a bit tournament data showing that ID seem to be in a spot in the middle, and there is the complaining of a handful of people about the very things you nerfed.
    That should not be enough to apply nerfs and rule changes.

    Oil Skins cannot be used when marching: too early, no data There to include another special rule that adds complexity ( but in this case it seems not to disturb those who fought for nerf by saying it was too complex)


    Hereditary Spell:
    This combined with the shooting created too much firepower for the army. A close-combat aiding ability was seen as a better long-term idea. - not enough data for this either



    Lugar's Dice:
    Concerns raised over re-rolling the Crush Attack on the Bastion. - no data, just some gut feeling complaints


    Infernal Bastion gains Fire of Industry(1), lost 360 degree line of sight and ignore distracting caused by walls:
    Combination of too complex, too much shooting power in a single list, and hard to counter by high movement armies.

    This is really weird. If I have high movement to reach melee early, I simply attack the bastion unit and destroy it in melee. That is the best way to deal with it anyways. If I want to null around it with shooting troops playing the avoidance game the bastion was a counter, and funny enough the same people who claim that high movement should be restricted for single models because they cannot be catched by rank and file have no problem to ask for the removal of an ability that is good at catching exactly those things they find annoying in another context.
    Again, not enough real data to decide it is OP, but much gut feeling.


    Citadel Guard no longer gain FieR:
    Unit was too punishing to charge, lead to standoffs. - See infernal warriors


    Infernal Warriors gain FieR when wielding great weapons:
    Unit lost considerable strength since the previous book, was seen to need a boost when used in larger units. -see citadel guard.

    No data for this one either, and apparently no clear vision.



    Immortals lost Parry, and ability was changed so S5 or higher get -1 to wound:
    Unit was perceived by some not to be fun to play against. - the reason given already explains it all, some scream loud enough, so their will is done. No data prooving the complaints


    Kadim Incarnates lost Magma Tunnelling for Ghost Step:
    Too many non-rulebook special rules present in ID book. - the book lost many special rules in this update, and this was not streamlining, but change. No data here either


    Infernal Engine gains Def3 and loses Parry. Also gains Fires of Industry 2 on the Rock Crusher:
    Streamlining rules into statlines. Also Rock Crushers plus war machines was seen as oppressive.
    No data, only complaints again


    Without the changes mentioned above I would not have a problem with dans explanation, it really would have been Reducing complexity and correcting fluff-wise.
    As it was done it looks like repeating complaints without data often enough - leads to nerfs.
  • As I explained, we had PT and Stakeholder Feedback before. On some of the things which got changed that Feedback was slightly bellow our act threshold or we took a risk to see if for example I am to overcriticly.

    The incoming Feedback than divided the cases where someone before cried Wolf without cause and those where some fears were belived to be genuine. Sometimes concerns raised before but taken a risk on were confirmed and than acted on. In other cases concerns were shown to have been wrong.

    Advisery Board Member

    Click to apply to staff. I Organise: TA, TS and ACS. My Perspective on T9A on Youtube: T9A in Bayern - YouTube and T9A in Bavaria - YouTube
  • rolan wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Well as DanT has already layed out, the first update is often mostly about fixing obvious mistakes, rules combinations that were not thought of, unforeseen problems, complexity issues and so on.

    Of course you might ask yourself why some of the above did reach Beta and wasn't spotted in Alpha by Playtest or other review Teams. In fact on some of it the feedback during Alpha was divided. In the past (WdG, DL) the project did take the be better ultra safe than sorry answer to that. The new process is more open to find out which side of the divided feedback is correct. And there are parts where taking the risk was worth it as what for example I did intern label as problematic again and again and again turned out to be total okay and there were things where I could say I told you so.

    While defacto we did use for that the feedback from the initial reactions, that feedback sort of stayed the same after the first 2 weeks but only got less frequent. Basically most of the Feedback after 2 weeks was constant repeat or single persons discovering a new entry of the book (I know it because I did collect it and forward it and continue to monitor it.)

    On the data driven side we used 2 tourneys for the unit usage data (Ocho and MAPM Juni) as we got on their armylists in time. Waiting for Tourney results would in the time of UB tourneys meant we would have started work on the update last week. The Unit usage data was used for pricing together with several other scources.

    The next Update will focus more on data and give us more time to collect it (and more tourneys will happen offline or start and finish during that period).
    fair enough, of course mistakes are made, and it really is a good idea to use the first weeks to discover those and to make an update rather quickly to get rid of those early mistakes.But things like remove tunneling, triple nerf immortals or triple nerf bastion, or include a melee unit into the shooting pool - that is changing things that are discovered as being OP, not correcting an error.
    And there is not enough data to come to the conclusion that things are OP. There is a bit tournament data showing that ID seem to be in a spot in the middle, and there is the complaining of a handful of people about the very things you nerfed.
    That should not be enough to apply nerfs and rule changes.

    Oil Skins cannot be used when marching: too early, no data There to include another special rule that adds complexity ( but in this case it seems not to disturb those who fought for nerf by saying it was too complex)

    This was an intentional nerf, yes.



    Hereditary Spell:
    This combined with the shooting created too much firepower for the army. A close-combat aiding ability was seen as a better long-term idea. - not enough data for this either

    This was multi-part.


    First, simplifying the H spell was suggested to reduce complexity, as book complexity is not a matter of data.


    Then, once we'd made a simplified version... we didn't like it very much. The previous H spell was contentious before release and release did it no favours.


    I don't know where "too much firepower" came from; I-for-one voted to replace it because I'd always hated Fury of Nezibkesh and have been trying to kill it for most of a year, because it's brutal vs. honest block infantry and useless vs. lone models and that makes it the single worst idea for a spell I've ever heard of.



    Lugar's Dice:
    Concerns raised over re-rolling the Crush Attack on the Bastion. - no data, just some gut feeling complaints


    This was a mistake. It was never intended to work with the Crush Attack and nobody tested it with it re-rolling the Crush Attack.



    Infernal Bastion gains Fire of Industry(1), lost 360 degree line of sight and ignore distracting caused by walls:
    Combination of too complex, too much shooting power in a single list, and hard to counter by high movement armies.

    This is really weird. If I have high movement to reach melee early, I simply attack the bastion unit and destroy it in melee. That is the best way to deal with it anyways. If I want to null around it with shooting troops playing the avoidance game the bastion was a counter, and funny enough the same people who claim that high movement should be restricted for single models because they cannot be catched by rank and file have no problem to ask for the removal of an ability that is good at catching exactly those things they find annoying in another context.
    Again, not enough real data to decide it is OP, but much gut feeling.

    360 LOS was not playing into intended usage. Sometimes you see people doing things with things that aren't what you really intended.



    Citadel Guard no longer gain FieR:
    Unit was too punishing to charge, lead to standoffs. - See infernal warriors


    Infernal Warriors gain FieR when wielding great weapons:
    Unit lost considerable strength since the previous book, was seen to need a boost when used in larger units. -see citadel guard.

    No data for this one either, and apparently no clear vision.

    We knew IW were kinda bad from before release; they got hit hard by other design changes, but we released when we did rather than continue to iterate because it was good enough to beta.


    Preliminary data from tournament lists did match up with internals here.



    Immortals lost Parry, and ability was changed so S5 or higher get -1 to wound:
    Unit was perceived by some not to be fun to play against. - the reason given already explains it all, some scream loud enough, so their will is done. No data prooving the complaints

    This was an intentional nerf, yes.



    Kadim Incarnates lost Magma Tunnelling for Ghost Step:
    Too many non-rulebook special rules present in ID book. - the book lost many special rules in this update, and this was not streamlining, but change. No data here either

    It's a functional change, yes, but the unit was already problematic internally. Leaving it as-is was pointless; I fully expect we'll need at least a third pass, but at least this way we're getting data on a version with only core-book special rules.
    (It was an issue when it released, it's an issue now, and I hope we can fix it for Beta 3. Sorry Incarnate fans.)



    Infernal Engine gains Def3 and loses Parry. Also gains Fires of Industry 2 on the Rock Crusher:
    Streamlining rules into statlines. Also Rock Crushers plus war machines was seen as oppressive.
    No data, only complaints again

    Not really seeing why "was seen as oppressive" is there; "having it keep Fires of Industry was seen as flavourful" would be more on point. It's not like it's easier to make a Rock Crusher than a shooting train.


    Parry -> Def 3 is somewhat of a nerf (although the unit does end up better when flanked by units with OS2, OS3, OS5 or OS6 - which is most units), but it's also a buff to the non-Rock Crusher trains and a simplification to the entry as a whole.


    And Parry, too, was extensively complained about on flavour grounds; "how can a train parry? it doesn't have a shield!".


    And unlike power level, flavour issues don't need data.



    Without the changes mentioned above I would not have a problem with dans explanation, it really would have been Reducing complexity and correcting fluff-wise.
    As it was done it looks like repeating complaints without data often enough - leads to nerfs.

    Background Team

  • @WhammeWhamme can you please explain why nerfing the Vassal Cavalry with "cannot use Oil Skins when Marching" was intentional?

    I'm OK with removing Parry from the Rock Crusher, 360 line of sight from the Bastion and Clipped Wings from the Rocket, the agility from the Vassals and reducing the Tauruk Ritual, but the rest seems quite overkill especially with point increases.
  • TheChange wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme can you please explain why nerfing the Vassal Cavalry with "cannot use Oil Skins when Marching" was intentional?

    I'm OK with removing Parry from the Rock Crusher, 360 line of sight from the Bastion and Clipped Wings from the Rocket, the agility from the Vassals and reducing the Tauruk Ritual, but the rest seems quite overkill especially with point increases.
    Some entries deserve to higher point increase but together with design nerf we get it lower. Data show overused GW option on Immortals over Spear and IW, so only GW get small point increase (1pts per model) other variants get only small nerf:
    • parry mostly used against characters or weak Off2 enemies so not huge gain
    • new mask is more fun to play but still the same against S5attacks. It allow to more counters like s4 and +1 to wound or don't waste huge Str. In the the same time mask for characters become stronger



    We want from players clever play rather than use my fast and put flammable. This unit have different goal than simple chaff+extra effect, for some reason mount have 2attacks (maybe stronger attacks from riders have better sense or extra rules) but this unit suppose to be multitask unit:
    • warmachine hunter
    • counter chaff
    • chaff in late phases if needed
    • source of flammable synergy
    like you see now it is hard to use all this stuff together unless your normal move is enough to redirect enemy then you can throw flammable on him. Against slow hiting enemies (3Agi on charge) you can put flammable in CC.

    Also remember, nothing is set to stone. Next updates will be more data driven so if data show unit is underused it probably gain point decrease
    GDT, ID LAB :ID: Animosity Poland Team

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

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    Oil Skins cannot be used when marching: too early, no data There to include another special rule that adds complexity ( but in this case it seems not to disturb those who fought for nerf by saying it was too complex)
    This was an intentional nerf, yes.

    OK, can you maybe explain why it was seen necessary?

    Hereditary Spell:
    This combined with the shooting created too much firepower for the army. A close-combat aiding ability was seen as a better long-term idea. - not enough data for this either
    This was multi-part.


    First, simplifying the H spell was suggested to reduce complexity, as book complexity is not a matter of data.


    Then, once we'd made a simplified version... we didn't like it very much. The previous H spell was contentious before release and release did it no favours.


    I don't know where "too much firepower" came from; I-for-one voted to replace it because I'd always hated Fury of Nezibkesh and have been trying to kill it for most of a year, because it's brutal vs. honest block infantry and useless vs. lone models and that makes it the single worst idea for a spell I've ever heard of.

    Thanks for the explanation, I thought it fit the army really good, earthquake/lava explosions fit the theme to me, but maybe balance-wise it didn't hit the intended targets (I found that ID struggles somewhat with big fighty units, so I thought it was nice they had a tool against those, but I might be wrong here, I myself don't have enough data to decide, anecdotically I never experienced the spell as too strong as I found I need to hurry into combat vs ID anyways, so the spell only had 1 or 2 tries before it became useless.
    But I really hope that the spell gets a redesign again, the current solution is redundant and boring, heredtary spells should be a bit special at least.



    Lugar's Dice:
    Concerns raised over re-rolling the Crush Attack on the Bastion. - no data, just some gut feeling complaints
    This was a mistake. It was never intended to work with the Crush Attack and nobody tested it with it re-rolling the Crush Attack.


    OK, fair enough



    Infernal Bastion gains Fire of Industry(1), lost 360 degree line of sight and ignore distracting caused by walls:
    Combination of too complex, too much shooting power in a single list, and hard to counter by high movement armies.

    This is really weird. If I have high movement to reach melee early, I simply attack the bastion unit and destroy it in melee. That is the best way to deal with it anyways. If I want to null around it with shooting troops playing the avoidance game the bastion was a counter, and funny enough the same people who claim that high movement should be restricted for single models because they cannot be catched by rank and file have no problem to ask for the removal of an ability that is good at catching exactly those things they find annoying in another context.
    Again, not enough real data to decide it is OP, but much gut feeling.
    360 LOS was not playing into intended usage. Sometimes you see people doing things with things that aren't what you really intended.

    OK, can you maybe explain what should have been done with the 360°?

    Citadel Guard no longer gain FieR:
    Unit was too punishing to charge, lead to standoffs. - See infernal warriors


    Infernal Warriors gain FieR when wielding great weapons:
    Unit lost considerable strength since the previous book, was seen to need a boost when used in larger units. -see citadel guard.

    No data for this one either, and apparently no clear vision.
    We knew IW were kinda bad from before release; they got hit hard by other design changes, but we released when we did rather than continue to iterate because it was good enough to beta.


    Preliminary data from tournament lists did match up with internals here.

    I see the buff for IW explained, but at the same time, I could use the explanation used for the nerf of CG to call for removing the buff, as now IW could be seen as too punishing to charge, as they now function exactly as CG did, (agi 2 or agi 0 is rarely different ), but way cheaper.

    Can you maybe explain why it was seen necessary?


    Immortals lost Parry, and ability was changed so S5 or higher get -1 to wound:
    Unit was perceived by some not to be fun to play against. - the reason given already explains it all, some scream loud enough, so their will is done. No data prooving the complaints
    This was an intentional nerf, yes.
    Can you please explain why?
    Kadim Incarnates lost Magma Tunnelling for Ghost Step:
    Too many non-rulebook special rules present in ID book. - the book lost many special rules in this update, and this was not streamlining, but change. No data here either
    It's a functional change, yes, but the unit was already problematic internally. Leaving it as-is was pointless; I fully expect we'll need at least a third pass, but at least this way we're getting data on a version with only core-book special rules.
    (It was an issue when it released, it's an issue now, and I hope we can fix it for Beta 3. Sorry Incarnate fans.)
    OK, so let's hope for more fitting rules or a big reduction in price ...

    Infernal Engine gains Def3 and loses Parry. Also gains Fires of Industry 2 on the Rock Crusher:
    Streamlining rules into statlines. Also Rock Crushers plus war machines was seen as oppressive.
    No data, only complaints again
    Not really seeing why "was seen as oppressive" is there; "having it keep Fires of Industry was seen as flavourful" would be more on point. It's not like it's easier to make a Rock Crusher than a shooting train.

    While you are right that it is not easier to build, fires of industry was introduced as a inovative way to bring a cap on shooting. Applying that to non-shooting units destroyes the idea.
    There is already "instruments of destruction" limiting big constructs, the shooting pool should only include shooting things
    .



    Parry -> Def 3 is somewhat of a nerf (although the unit does end up better when flanked by units with OS2, OS3, OS5 or OS6 - which is most units), but it's also a buff to the non-Rock Crusher trains and a simplification to the entry as a whole.


    And Parry, too, was extensively complained about on flavour grounds; "how can a train parry? it doesn't have a shield!".


    OK, fair enough







    Well,



    And unlike power level, flavour issues don't need data.

    Yes, but I was asking specifically about changes that were done because of power level, not fluff based.
    Some explanations are good enough so I can see them s flavour based now, but the ones I asked about again I would really like a more insightful explanation.


    Without the changes mentioned above I would not have a problem with dans explanation, it really would have been Reducing complexity and correcting fluff-wise.
    As it was done it looks like repeating complaints without data often enough - leads to nerfs.

  • Odoamar wrote:

    TheChange wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme can you please explain why nerfing the Vassal Cavalry with "cannot use Oil Skins when Marching" was intentional?

    I'm OK with removing Parry from the Rock Crusher, 360 line of sight from the Bastion and Clipped Wings from the Rocket, the agility from the Vassals and reducing the Tauruk Ritual, but the rest seems quite overkill especially with point increases.
    Some entries deserve to higher point increase but together with design nerf we get it lower. Data show overused GW option on Immortals over Spear and IW, so only GW get small point increase (1pts per model) other variants get only small nerf:
    • parry mostly used against characters or weak Off2 enemies so not huge gain
    • new mask is more fun to play but still the same against S5attacks. It allow to more counters like s4 and +1 to wound or don't waste huge Str. In the the same time mask for characters become stronger



    We want from players clever play rather than use my fast and put flammable. This unit have different goal than simple chaff+extra effect, for some reason mount have 2attacks (maybe stronger attacks from riders have better sense or extra rules) but this unit suppose to be multitask unit:
    • warmachine hunter
    • counter chaff
    • chaff in late phases if needed
    • source of flammable synergy
    like you see now it is hard to use all this stuff together unless your normal move is enough to redirect enemy then you can throw flammable on him. Against slow hiting enemies (3Agi on charge) you can put flammable in CC.
    Yes, forgot about removing Parry on the Immortals. I don't really care about it because they already had DS5, so it was useful only against characters and Sword Masters.

    Regarding the Vassal Cavalry I played lots of games with them and and sometimes I didn't even shoot in order to be safe from the opponent to be able to shoot tokens later, or go war machine hunting or chaff later in the game. Actually I never wanted them to chaff except in one game where I had to.
    This change is totally nonsense in my point of view.
  • It is nonsense in gameplay context, your RL imagination or something else?

    Im short, I think it is not fair if your 170-180pts mobile unit redirect enemy hammer unit and at the same time allow reroll wounds from Bastion or Flaming Rocket/Catapult/Flamer.

    Only few units in game can do similar things. Example: Pteradon Skinks can clear chaff and redirect for similar price but their rule is limited differently ( one use and low range ). FYI we considered kind of Flammable Sweeping Attacks :)
    GDT, ID LAB :ID: Animosity Poland Team