Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • Because as a General current price is OK, more magical allowance and you are using the Dis10 that you pay.

    But if not General you are wasting the DIs10 points and losing the Magicall allowance just for nothing, so with current profile if not general they are a Bad cowboy or a bad BSB, and if you bring down his cost to make this options valuable probably you will have an OP General.

    For me the only way is give some love the "not general" options and this can only be done with rules change (or making the General have cost for the LL)
  • As read previously somewhere here above, grant the battle focus to Legion Legate when included in an Academic Training unit.
    230pts + 100pts or 150pts allowance if general
    And character internal balance is getting better right?
    Fantastique Bataillon de Joinville (FBJ)
    6 Nations 2014 Winner. French DE player
    ETC 2016 & 2017. Luxembourg coach. 2018 & 2019 Norway coach.True Norses go to Valhalla!
    Chairman ETC2018

    European Masters League, the most exciting event! Check this europeanmastersleague.com/
  • IntrigueAtCourt wrote:



    @Kriegschmidt I'm not sure about not needing a BSB. I feel like it's an army that takes many leadership checks. But that's outside the scope of this discussion.
    It's a general discussion thread, so I think feel free to elaborate on your ideas - we can have a more than one discussion going (and I'm curious to hear them).

    rolan wrote:

    Right now LL has the lowest magic allowance, the worst combat stats of the combat characters, and no real synergy. So picking him as BSB removes the only thing he is good at: giving dis 10 aura.
    So I either pick him as a general, who functions more like a EOS marshal, giving a moral boost but doesn't help much in combat, or I add him as a bad cowboy, or as a bad BSB.

    If he had like the rings power as his own special rule, and an allowance of 150p for magic, he would compete with the other choices the army has.
    Or make him a proper General, with a decent Academy Training ability, and 200pts' items...

    arwaker wrote:

    Got your point. Hm. Maybe there is something with it, not sure.

    Just imagine the Temple Legate would not exist at all and you would have a Legion Legate as army general...would you consider getting a second Legion Legate for BSB or would you rather not take a BSB at all?
    ...and this is why I think BSB option should be removed from the Legion Legate. It would also make the decision about which of the other characters to make BSB much clearer and easier.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Got your point. Hm. Maybe there is something with it, not sure.

    Just imagine the Temple Legate would not exist at all and you would have a Legion Legate as army general...would you consider getting a second Legion Legate for BSB or would you rather not take a BSB at all?
    This is a bit missed. I would take than a TL BSB and a Beastmaster Gen + Outcast. If wouldn't take the Outcast than I would consider 2x TL's.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Still, can someone try to explain in detail why he can't be balanced? I really want to understand you better, because I fear I actually miss something here. All what I read sounds to me like he is not point efficient. But I can't see the reason why he should be unable to be balanced with point changes.

    Edit:
    Oh, wait a second. Am I understanding right, that Legion Legate is viable as army General because his 10, even if having worse stats and less items than the prince. But as BSB he would not have the 10 bubble, therefore the BSB upgrade is not worth the cost to take? Is that the point?

    I'll try and put this in the terms your asking for.

    I'll go through the issues for each role that the legion legate can fulfill.

    GENERAL

    As the general the LL can make use of his Dis 10 and the extra special item allowance allows for a good mix between offensive, defensive and unit buffing items. This fits the unit entries background well.

    However because of his academy training there is a weird incentive (against the background, or just incentivising one aspect of his background) to mount him (particularly on the extraordinary specimen Manticore), to both increase his Dis Bubble through Towering Presence and to be an academy trained unit within 8 inches (probably behind) other academy trained units to give them the bonus effects of academy training.
    While this is fine, it feels wrong (background) that there isn't an different direct (aka not a special item) incentive for him to actually be in an academy unit itself.

    Fixes that have been proposed are
    1) Make the Ring of 9th an ability for the LL (add the appropriate points)
    Or
    2) Make an Academy Trained unit joined by an LL always count as having a friendly academy trained unit within 8inches (might be too trivial)
    3) Some other bonus

    All these tie in with LL background, having him march with the legion ranks should improve the performance of his troops.

    BSB
    Limited special item allowance and minimised use of his Dis 10 make the LL less attractive than the TL as a BSB

    Fixes for this to make the LL BSB more attractive are among.
    1) Those mentioned above in the General entry (or those could be limited to a LL only if they are the general. (Thes again tie in with LL background)
    2) Some sort of extra buff for him being the BSBz
    possibly even restricted to if on foot or while he's in an academy unit (like minimised dis rolls for his unit only, or a larger BSB aura, which again tie in with LL background,
    3)Increased special item allowance.


    Cowboy
    Probably ok as in this roll, as he acts as a nearby academy unit (see general section)
    Increase item allowance when not the general helps this roll as well

    Character in a Unit
    Suggestions in General section probably help in this roll to.
    Ties in with LL background

    These suggestion I think help better fix the LL, particularly the BSB to a spot where it compete with the TL BSB, more so than a points cut.

    It also avoids nerfing the TL who is a unique and liked character (bsb plus adept) and is what I think most people consider a success from the LAB team.

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

  • Please, no, do not remove the BSB on the LL! Stop thinking about ultra optimization, think about those who don't want to play TL, those who want to play BSB LL. There are not only tournament players, there are also those who want to play friendly. I am not interested in BSB TL (I will test it anyway in a special cult list, but in the future I don't think I will play it often). It doesn't hurt to leave him. But I am not against reviewing the design of the LL. Compared to other characters, it lacks a special rule for more flavor / rivalry.
  • Khadath wrote:

    Please, no, do not remove the BSB on the LL! Stop thinking about ultra optimization, think about those who don't want to play TL, those who want to play BSB LL. There are not only tournament players, there are also those who want to play friendly. I am not interested in BSB TL (I will test it anyway in a special cult list, but in the future I don't think I will play it often). It doesn't hurt to leave him. But I am not against reviewing the design of the LL. Compared to other characters, it lacks a special rule for more flavor / rivalry.
    It would be false to assume that my proposal of removing BSB from the LL is anything to do with optimisation (doesn't interest me) or tournaments (never entered one, doesn't interest me).

    I only play friendlies.
  • IntrigueAtCourt wrote:

    @Kriegschmidt I'm not sure about not needing a BSB. I feel like it's an army that takes many leadership checks. But that's outside the scope of this discussion.
    To me this flows from the army being a glass cannon army. Multiple times I had a situation where a single failed panic check would spell doom for my army. Personally, I find that having 2 units of OG around also does the trick, but for builds without those it's crucial. Or, you'd have to put banners of discipline on your most important units, yet 3 banners of discipline is more expensive than a BSB upgrade ;)
    Have you checked out my Youtube channel yet? Link: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8s5AkuzccDY_M0zBVIDd7w
  • @AlWeeks: Well, I don't agree with the general inevitable conclusions you state, but it still it helps me better understand the situation from your point of view. Thank you a lot for this detailed post.

    While I generally think of "less is more", I am convinced we could reach a similar situation with just "nerfing" the Temple Legate, instead of bringing the Legion Legate up.

    I don't get rid of the feeling about what will happen with your approach. I think you buff the BSB section of the Legion Legate in a way that it competes with the Temple Legate for bing the BSB. I fear that it will make his price so high that he will be unattractive in his role as army general. It seems like cloning the TL's incapability of being balanced, and then having two such "BSB-only" models. As a consequence I fear the following situation: Large majority of armies will have exactly one Legate (temple or legion, depending on personal preference) which is BSB, and nearly nobody plays those characters without BSB. I don't like this vision.

    I think the LL in his current design in viable as army general and as BSB. It's just the hyper attractiveness of the TL that outcompetes the LL as BSB. I am convinced that reducing the efficiency of TL-BSB is the better approach to go on, because here I see at least a chance to allow successful point changes.
  • What would you guys think of going the route of the EoS Marhal for the Legion Legate? Making BSB option cheaper or even free?

    Thinking is: Many of you posted feedback, that LL as general is okay, but lacking as BSB. So it seems we have an imbalance between those two options. The easiest points tweak on this one is the cost of the BSB upgrade.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    What would you guys think of going the route of the EoS Marhal for the Legion Legate? Making BSB option cheaper or even free?

    Thinking is: Many of you posted feedback, that LL as general is okay, but lacking as BSB. So it seems we have an imbalance between those two options. The easiest points tweak on this one is the cost of the BSB upgrade.
    Works for me, coupled with a discount on mastery of slaughter we could see something like mastery of slaughter, basalt infusion and ring of the 9th legion.

    And coupled with having to choose between bsb and adept (starting at apprentice) on the TL it would give a lot manouver room for other parts of the book i guess.
  • DarkSky wrote:

    What would you guys think of going the route of the EoS Marhal for the Legion Legate? Making BSB option cheaper or even free?

    Thinking is: Many of you posted feedback, that LL as general is okay, but lacking as BSB. So it seems we have an imbalance between those two options. The easiest points tweak on this one is the cost of the BSB upgrade.
    I don't think even free points for BSB upgrade will fix the issue . For me his 100 points allowance is not enough . He is not a good fighter and not well protected . Now when you take a Ring of 9th Legion you have 60 points to spend for your protection or increase damage output . I don't want so fragile hero to be in front of combat or such a weak wounds dealer who give extra 200 pts to my opponent when dead . 4++ on TL makes such a big difference .
    I will fix maybe kraken cloak somehow and transfer 9th legion ring abilities to model rules like you do with Beastmaster lash . Then i would start using him
  • I still don't see how the warlock outcast is worth 380pts.
    Since the casting value is increased it nullifies the +1 from master(so he's same as Adept),
    So basically you pay the standard 225pts for 2 extra spells and -3 to dispel.
    From what I've experienced with magic casting and dispelling, players just throw all their dice at stopping the spell that matters. ...sure sure, for those of you who usually play other armies that 2 dice every spell, you may think this -3 to dispel is really good, but the only spells you can 2 dice are ones that are NOT "must stop" spells.

    Without a magic weapon to equip, all the "elf stats" are wasted since he will never see combat. And because of no weapon, the mount options are overcosted too(especially the Dragon).

    And most other armies wizards have artifacts that do something interesting for their wizards. Dread elves get Ceinran’s Gambit.... The wheel turns is a great spell for undead and goblins, but it's extremely situational for Elves since it only affects enemy rank and file.

    So this warlock is looking more like a 360pts wizard. Which is as low as an elf wizard can really go compared externally. ...but this might not even be internally viable!
    And the dragon will probably have to be the cheapest Dragon the game since the warlock has 'not a leader' and doesn't get a decent weapon.

    Not much point in taking a Warlock on combat Mount when it doesn't get a weapon, is expensive and can't be general, no synergies with rest of the book, ....and you got a combat Adept on foot.


    ....I guess they truly are "Outcasts" ;)
  • arwaker wrote:

    @AlWeeks: Well, I don't agree with the general inevitable conclusions you state, but it still it helps me better understand the situation from your point of view. Thank you a lot for this detailed post.

    While I generally think of "less is more", I am convinced we could reach a similar situation with just "nerfing" the Temple Legate, instead of bringing the Legion Legate up.

    I don't get rid of the feeling about what will happen with your approach. I think you buff the BSB section of the Legion Legate in a way that it competes with the Temple Legate for bing the BSB. I fear that it will make his price so high that he will be unattractive in his role as army general. It seems like cloning the TL's incapability of being balanced, and then having two such "BSB-only" models. As a consequence I fear the following situation: Large majority of armies will have exactly one Legate (temple or legion, depending on personal preference) which is BSB, and nearly nobody plays those characters without BSB. I don't like this vision.

    I think the LL in his current design in viable as army general and as BSB. It's just the hyper attractiveness of the TL that outcompetes the LL as BSB. I am convinced that reducing the efficiency of TL-BSB is the better approach to go on, because here I see at least a chance to allow successful point changes.
    I don't think the price hike is that great; if you add the effect of the ring, you also add the price of the ring. A higher amount of points to be spend on magical allowance pays for itself, as you have to pay for what you buy with your allowance.

    The ring effect does not stack in the same unit, so all you get is maybe a second unit with BF in the first round.

    The only thing that should probably change is the access to academy training through a banner for units like judicators, but that would actually be nice if the academy banner provided some bonus for academy trained units instead of giving the training effect to some untrained unit.

    So in the end, the LL would come up with a cost of 210p and 150p to spent on magic, that does not sound unreasonable to me.