Infernal Dwarf First Update Feedback Thread

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

  • Well, whatever. Anyway. Of all my post, the bull thing is the least important of all. It was a bitter update to swallow. The army has lost all the things that made ID unique for a more bland version.

    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
  • Manxol wrote:

    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    IW with GW can be specialized formation under one entry. When CG can be professional soldiers upgraded from standard IW.

    Flat stats and rules can be confused but I think BGT do hard work to solve all issues.
    GDT, ID LAB :ID: Animosity Poland Team
  • Manxol wrote:

    The army has lost all the things that made ID unique for a more bland version.

    Can I ask more precisely what you mean here?
    Do you mean that the difference between this patch and the initial LAB release is that all the things that made ID unique were killed?
    Do you mean that the initial LAB did most of this and the patch finished it off?
    Something else?


    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    Yarp, I also find this a bit jarring.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • I don't think that ID have lost that much... If we look at the changes

    bastion 360 and anti wall distracting
    FiER in CG
    March and oil flask on Vassal
    Parry on immortals and a "slightly" different rule
    A new Hereditary
    Incarnates now have Ghost Step
    Clipped Wings of Rocket
    Parry on Infernal Engine

    which of this things are extremly hard to lose, to say that ID are not unique anymore?

    And I don't talk about what they "gained"
  • DanT wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    The army has lost all the things that made ID unique for a more bland version.

    Can I ask more precisely what you mean here?
    Do you mean that the difference between this patch and the initial LAB release is that all the things that made ID unique were killed?
    Do you mean that the initial LAB did most of this and the patch finished it off?
    Something else?


    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    Yarp, I also find this a bit jjarring.

    Well... Yes, of course they still feel unique, but imho the pach has made them less unique.

    Infernal armour had a more distinct feel than WotDG armour, now it is a different kind of plate armour with same vives (+5 aegis vs toxic or vs fire). I can see, for example, DH getting +5 aegis vs magic attacks or silvan elves +5 aegis versus DAngerous test. Those kind of armours are distinct, but like different ice cream flavors, whereas the previous version feeled like a different ice cream but not same chasis.

    The hereditary spell was an earthquake... Now it is something bland with no identity.

    But even when the changes were made for good like in the annoited, they loose character.

    ID core feel were 2 main themes: jack of all trades army and fire. The first one still feels like this, but I'm not sure about the second one. There are flaming sinergies here and there, but almost all the focus was on vassals. Indeed, the fire theme was a Kadim (and lugars) and vassals feel, like if Dwarves had nothing to say there.

    Also, and I might be a little boring with my insistence, the lose of Fier was a hard pill to swallow, IMHO. It had given me a new vision of dwarves (tos narrow and deep units) which now was lost.
  • I may be in the minority here, but i loved the old Immortals special rule "Blessing of Nezhkebish"

    'reduce strenght of all special attacks by halve, and -2AP'

    on top of that, they could parry + strenght 5 / AP 2


    They really had a nice niche role in the army.. You fielded this for either a bunker or a sturdy block that could hold a center..

    No enemie player would in their right mind, throw a big single target or even medium sized unit against them without backup. These guy could take that punishment!
    They were the ONLY infantry unit, that wanted to fight large and gigantic models..

    They were on the pricey side, sure, and maybe needed a slight reduce in cost.

    What if that was perhabs considerd to be brought back? It would make them viable against certain matchup's and fill out a niche role, the ID lack. Love the idea of blessings aswell..

    The mask is... fine, but not really my cup of tea.
  • Crazydwarf wrote:

    I may be in the minority here, but i loved the old Immortals special rule "Blessing of Nezhkebish"

    'reduce strenght of all special attacks by halve, and -2AP'

    on top of that, they could parry + strenght 5 / AP 2


    They really had a nice niche role in the army.. You fielded this for either a bunker or a sturdy block that could hold a center..

    No enemie player would in their right mind, throw a big single target or even medium sized unit against them without backup. These guy could take that punishment!
    They were the ONLY infantry unit, that wanted to fight large and gigantic models..

    They were on the pricey side, sure, and maybe needed a slight reduce in cost.

    What if that was perhabs considerd to be brought back? It would make them viable against certain matchup's and fill out a niche role, the ID lack. Love the idea of blessings aswell..

    The mask is... fine, but not really my cup of tea.
    I agree fully here, I used to start every list with 20 of them and a bsb with a flaming toxic breath just to give them one turn of punch Incase they needed to fight something with a lot of bodies. They were a really unique and characterful tool. Now they’re an awful amount of work to get to do a similar job. Taking up a lot of magic and other resources
    ETC 2022: Ireland (C)
    ETC 2021: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2020: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2019: Ireland :ID:
    ETC 2018: Ireland :O&G:
  • Mannnnnn, I don't even play this army and I can plainly see it took a giant kick to the groin. Like things couldn't just have been nerfed once, they had to be nerfed 3 times or just chucked in the bin. I feel bad for the books designers, who clearly wanted to bring out a book that was a little different, but it is getting smudged down. Yes, some of the rules were written without the clarity that was needed, but they didnt need to be given the ol Jimmy Hoffa.
  • Manxol wrote:



    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.

    You know spears fight in extra rank already right? So there's already an incentive to use them ranked.

    If you expected no changes to CG then you didn't have realistic impressions. They were a massive problem internal balance wise.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • Crazydwarf wrote:

    I may be in the minority here, but i loved the old Immortals special rule "Blessing of Nezhkebish"

    'reduce strenght of all special attacks by halve, and -2AP'
    No argument from me.
    I think it was a really important tool in the previous book.
    I liked it, thought it was really unique, not OTT, and one of the more successful lists I blogged about had two units of immortals :)

    My understanding is that a majority of the community didn't like it.
    Or at least there was a vocal contingent on the forum moaning about it (same as blunders, CoA etc).

    If this is correct, I totally understand why the team changed it.



    On this forum, I genuinely felt in a minority for how much I liked the old book.
    I thought the ID forum regularly expressed more negativity than positivity about the old book.

    If that wasn't a fair representation of the community's view of the book, then I think something has gone wrong.
    Either people who liked the book didn't speak up enough, or the feedback didn't get filtered/understood properly, or whatever.

    Of course, maybe the team working on the book would have changed things substantially anyway in order to fit the background properly.
    I dno. *shrug*.


    @WhammeWhamme Was much guidance given to the LAB team in terms of what the community liked/didn't like about the previous book, and were any decisions of what to change based on community feedback about the previous book?




    Manxol wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    The army has lost all the things that made ID unique for a more bland version.

    Can I ask more precisely what you mean here?
    Do you mean that the difference between this patch and the initial LAB release is that all the things that made ID unique were killed?
    Do you mean that the initial LAB did most of this and the patch finished it off?
    Something else?


    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    Yarp, I also find this a bit jjarring.

    Well... Yes, of course they still feel unique, but imho the pach has made them less unique.
    Infernal armour had a more distinct feel than WotDG armour, now it is a different kind of plate armour with same vives (+5 aegis vs toxic or vs fire). I can see, for example, DH getting +5 aegis vs magic attacks or silvan elves +5 aegis versus DAngerous test. Those kind of armours are distinct, but like different ice cream flavors, whereas the previous version feeled like a different ice cream but not same chasis.

    The hereditary spell was an earthquake... Now it is something bland with no identity.

    But even when the changes were made for good like in the annoited, they loose character.

    ID core feel were 2 main themes: jack of all trades army and fire. The first one still feels like this, but I'm not sure about the second one. There are flaming sinergies here and there, but almost all the focus was on vassals. Indeed, the fire theme was a Kadim (and lugars) and vassals feel, like if Dwarves had nothing to say there.

    Also, and I might be a little boring with my insistence, the lose of Fier was a hard pill to swallow, IMHO. It had given me a new vision of dwarves (tos narrow and deep units) which now was lost.
    Interesting, ok, thanks :)

    For me personally, there are too few changes in the patch for it to have a substantial effect on the flavour of ID.

    I am not a fan of the new hereditary, so we defo agree on that :)
    (But equally I wasn't a big fan of the previous two either so I probably feel like I haven't lost much haha!).


    Cam wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    You know spears fight in extra rank already right? So there's already an incentive to use them ranked.

    If you expected no changes to CG then you didn't have realistic impressions. They were a massive problem internal balance wise.
    Even assuming your premise is true, the outcome you reached is far from the only solution.

    And I understand that the instructions given to the team regarding CG were possibly caused by external, not internal balance issues?
    So maybe your premise is not true. But perhaps I misunderstood.

    Either way, the unit was the thing in the book that best delivered the guidelines, internal balance could have been fixed without changing them, and they could have been changed in other ways.


    To be honest, I think that responding to a community member expressing reasonable concerns in a reasonable manner with "If you expected no changes to CG then you didn't have realistic impressions" seems to me to be a little unfair and not unambiguously correct in this instance.

    *shrug* ?( :S :/
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Crazydwarf wrote:

    I may be in the minority here, but i loved the old Immortals special rule "Blessing of Nezhkebish"

    'reduce strenght of all special attacks by halve, and -2AP'
    No argument from me.I think it was a really important tool in the previous book.
    I liked it, thought it was really unique, not OTT, and one of the more successful lists I blogged about had two units of immortals :)

    My understanding is that a majority of the community didn't like it.
    Or at least there was a vocal contingent on the forum moaning about it (same as blunders, CoA etc).

    If this is correct, I totally understand why the team changed it.



    On this forum, I genuinely felt in a minority for how much I liked the old book.
    I thought the ID forum regularly expressed more negativity than positivity about the old book.

    If that wasn't a fair representation of the community's view of the book, then I think something has gone wrong.
    Either people who liked the book didn't speak up enough, or the feedback didn't get filtered/understood properly, or whatever.

    Of course, maybe the team working on the book would have changed things substantially anyway in order to fit the background properly.
    I dno. *shrug*.


    @WhammeWhamme Was much guidance given to the LAB team in terms of what the community liked/didn't like about the previous book, and were any decisions of what to change based on community feedback about the previous book?

    Guidance about community opinions? Not from above. Our ACS had access to point things out, so I'm not saying there was no official community consideration, but interpretations came from within the LAB team (inc ACS).


    As rules go it was a fairly strong rule, but definitely one that... it helped against big things, not against other infantry, which I think was the main reason it drew complaints. We did consider keeping it.


    (It's not the most background appropriate of rules, although on reflection I think I know how to fluff it)



    Manxol wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    The army has lost all the things that made ID unique for a more bland version.

    Can I ask more precisely what you mean here?
    Do you mean that the difference between this patch and the initial LAB release is that all the things that made ID unique were killed?
    Do you mean that the initial LAB did most of this and the patch finished it off?
    Something else?


    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    Yarp, I also find this a bit jjarring.

    Well... Yes, of course they still feel unique, but imho the pach has made them less unique.Infernal armour had a more distinct feel than WotDG armour, now it is a different kind of plate armour with same vives (+5 aegis vs toxic or vs fire). I can see, for example, DH getting +5 aegis vs magic attacks or silvan elves +5 aegis versus DAngerous test. Those kind of armours are distinct, but like different ice cream flavors, whereas the previous version feeled like a different ice cream but not same chasis.

    The hereditary spell was an earthquake... Now it is something bland with no identity.

    But even when the changes were made for good like in the annoited, they loose character.

    ID core feel were 2 main themes: jack of all trades army and fire. The first one still feels like this, but I'm not sure about the second one. There are flaming sinergies here and there, but almost all the focus was on vassals. Indeed, the fire theme was a Kadim (and lugars) and vassals feel, like if Dwarves had nothing to say there.

    Also, and I might be a little boring with my insistence, the lose of Fier was a hard pill to swallow, IMHO. It had given me a new vision of dwarves (tos narrow and deep units) which now was lost.
    Interesting, ok, thanks :)
    For me personally, there are too few changes in the patch for it to have a substantial effect on the flavour of ID.

    I am not a fan of the new hereditary, so we defo agree on that :)
    (But equally I wasn't a big fan of the previous two either so I probably feel like I haven't lost much haha!).



    The earthquake had pretty good flavour. Mechanics... not so good.



    Cam wrote:

    Manxol wrote:

    I'm specially bitter with CG losing Fier. I specially liked it since it incentivates the big deep unit theme. Now I'm non incentivated to play those kind of units. And is specially annoying than dwarves with lesser training got FieR and trined ones lose it.
    You know spears fight in extra rank already right? So there's already an incentive to use them ranked.
    If you expected no changes to CG then you didn't have realistic impressions. They were a massive problem internal balance wise.
    Even assuming your premise is true, the outcome you reached is far from the only solution.
    And I understand that the instructions given to the team regarding CG were possibly caused by external, not internal balance issues?
    So maybe your premise is not true. But perhaps I misunderstood.

    Either way, the unit was the thing in the book that best delivered the guidelines, internal balance could have been fixed without changing them, and they could have been changed in other ways.


    To be honest, I think that responding to a community member expressing reasonable concerns in a reasonable manner with "If you expected no changes to CG then you didn't have realistic impressions" seems to me to be a little unfair and not unambiguously correct in this instance.

    *shrug* ?( :S :/

    Mmmm.

    Straw poll!

    Who would have preferred to lose SiER instead of FiER on Citadels?

    Background Team

  • Unit should have neither of it. It is a core unit, and neither extra shooting nor more combat power should be there.

    Eliteness should be reflected by stats and equipment, and in my opinion this was done on citadel guard.

    Perhaps it was not the best move to give IW the infernal armor, so making them closer to citadel guard in eliteness from equipment and at the same moment making both shooting weapons closer with the same range.
  • Lot of discussion about fearless on Immortals. I'd rather the Overlord had fearless to incetivise taking him in a combat unit than on the unit itself. Keeps the vulnerability to terror but adds a little boost to those fear tests
  • TheChange wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Straw poll!

    Who would have preferred to lose SiER instead of FiER on Citadels?
    Mmm.. If you choose to go this route Citadel Guard with Flintlock Axe need to go back to a minimum of 10 models per unit..
    Why? They’re cheaper now for the extra 5 it’s worth getting them for bodies. Also just deploy 7 wide if you want all to shoot. It’s what I do sometimes anyway so I can march/shoot with all
    ETC 2022: Ireland (C)
    ETC 2021: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2020: Ireland (C) :ID:
    ETC 2019: Ireland :ID:
    ETC 2018: Ireland :O&G:
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Guidance about community opinions? Not from above. Our ACS had access to point things out, so I'm not saying there was no official community consideration, but interpretations came from within the LAB team (inc ACS).


    As rules go it was a fairly strong rule, but definitely one that... it helped against big things, not against other infantry, which I think was the main reason it drew complaints. We did consider keeping it.


    (It's not the most background appropriate of rules, although on reflection I think I know how to fluff it)

    Great, thanks for the info :)

    berti wrote:

    Unit should have neither of it. It is a core unit, and neither extra shooting nor more combat power should be there.
    Disagree :D


    Eliteness should be reflected by stats and equipment, and in my opinion this was done on citadel guard.
    Eliteness can be reflected by stats and equipment, there is no need for it to be the only way.


    Perhaps it was not the best move to give IW the infernal armor, so making them closer to citadel guard in eliteness from equipment and at the same moment making both shooting weapons closer with the same range.
    Agree; I think these are both sensible comments :)

    Although the shooting weapons is a hard fix, there are a lot of overlapping constraints and issues.

    20phoenix wrote:

    Lot of discussion about fearless on Immortals. I'd rather the Overlord had fearless to incetivise taking him in a combat unit than on the unit itself. Keeps the vulnerability to terror but adds a little boost to those fear tests
    This is quite neat I think.
    In my head it is fitting for overlords too, but I dno what the t9a background says.


    TheChange wrote:

    Mmm.. If you choose to go this route Citadel Guard with Flintlock Axe need to go back to a minimum of 10 models per unit..
    I think SIER should be a flintlock rule maybe.
    The impression I get is that it was the spear+pistol unit that was seen as most problematic.

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