Pinned DE General Discussion

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

  • SmithF wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    I think the FieR was chosen on purpose with the explicit intention to encourage people playing Militants in bigger but narrower units. May this intention be valid, it is imho still in conflict with immersion.
    The idea behind the change was to reinforce the theme of a religious mob as opposed to highly skilled independent models like the Blades of Nabh were. We went through various iterations, but in the end decided to stick with FiER for simplicity's sake.

    (for example, one version discussed that I remember of was: Attacks = (1+ Rank Bonus), with a rule name that was evocative of the religious mob)

    The benchmark for the power level of Militants was the old Blades of Nabh, but slightly toned down and more dependent on extra bodies. I think that FiER and "only" 1 attack per model achieves that - compared to an "old" Nabh unit, militants with similar frontage gain the same amount of attacks, as long as there are enough of them alive.

    There is another benefit to this, which is smaller frontage for roughly the same combat effectiveness: Temple MIlitants in MSU configuration can stay 5-wide, while getting almost maximum benefit from their attacks, as opposed to the old Blades where going deeper felt bad due to losing all those poisoned attacks. The gain in maneuverability and the ability to maintain that extra rank for longer is a non negligible bonus.

    I hope this sheds some light to why this design direction was taken. I assure you that most of the suggestions were on the table back when we discussed temple militants, none of the designs were selected lightly. ;)
    That's what I meant. The decision for FieR (instead of +1A for example) was made for game mechanics reasons, not for background (logic/immersion) reasons. I understand the reason for the decision, but still want to highlight my concerns.
  • First of all, there should be a conses what fight in extra rank representates.

    - wild hordes that are uncontrollable.
    - trained and disciplined troops.

    IN vermin book it is used to represent the wild units. (in combination with highly trained and controlled units due to other special rules). In DE book it seems to represent more the less trained, but wild approach of the militia.


    I like the militia. I think the blades rule is a bit too much (multiple spells) and should be limited to ANY number of spells triggering a +1St effect. Else I hope the BSB temple legate either gets adept OR the unit buff back.
  • berti wrote:

    First of all, there should be a conses what fight in extra rank representates.

    - wild hordes that are uncontrollable.
    - trained and disciplined troops.

    IN vermin book it is used to represent the wild units. (in combination with highly trained and controlled units due to other special rules). In DE book it seems to represent more the less trained, but wild approach of the militia.


    I like the militia. I think the blades rule is a bit too much (multiple spells) and should be limited to ANY number of spells triggering a +1St effect. Else I hope the BSB temple legate either gets adept OR the unit buff back.
    In VS book, the trained and coordinated troops have FieR (Legionaries, Veterans), while the wild religious troops (Plague Disciples) don't have. But the disciples have +1A stats as compensation. This is the logic I can clearly follow.

    But in DE book it is the other way round. Here the wild religious troops have the FieR, but just 1 A.

    I see this as clear contradiction. Even if it might be a reasonable design from game mechanics point of view, but for me a clear and logic immersion is slightly more important.

    Or is my comparison
    VS Disciples <=> DE Militants
    VS Legion <=> DE Legion
    not applicable?

    Edit:
    I understand the gameplay related reasons SmithF (thank you very much for the insight) told us about how the different rules affect Militants differently on the table. I can accept that the design team wants to maximize the the correctness of how units should be operated. But here I see the benefit of having FieR to gameplay as minor, compared to the disadvantage we get from having the feeling of " logic incorrectness" in FieR.

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

  • SmithF wrote:

    Banner of the green tide doesn’t make orcs more disciplined and well trained , does it? Its name points to a connection to a brutal and unstoppable horde. ;)
    Yeah, I think it is also not that immersive, unless one is considering that the "Green Tide" effect in reality somehow magically improves coordination among the affected warriors. I would not bet my hand on this item surviving LAB is its current form.

    The current name "Gree Tide" would more indicate something like "1 grind attack per rank" or something alike (which would btw solve the issue with disproportionate effect for poison/non-poison troops).
    Or maybe they find a more appropriate name for improving unity and coordination, maybe based on a certain Warborn diety. Maybe not all OnG gods stand for raging fury, maybe one is responsible for the unifying green spirit.

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

  • Minidudul wrote:

    It's a magical banner in a non-LAB book.
    Maybe Myrmidons then? :love:


    arwaker wrote:

    [...]
    The current name "Gree Tide" would more indicate something like "1 grind attack per rank" or something alike (which would btw solve the issue with disproportionate effect for poison/non-poison troops).
    [...]
    The means of additional attacks will obviously be better if the quality of said attack is higher. Same reason why that banner would be even better on Irons at WS5 and S5-7, or Ferals with BF and S5. Why would it be an issue?
  • Myrmidon are described as really organized :

    Demon LAB wrote:

    Many a commanding officer has come to fear the marching footfall of
    the myrmidons among the disorienting whirlwind of the less disciplined
    Legions that writhe alongside them.
    [...]
    Their behaviour is often compared to colonising species like ants or
    bees, since they exhibit an unparalleled ability to work together as a
    single fighting unit, allowing them to charge their foes with infamous
    effectiveness.
    So, yes, FieR in LAB is mainly (if not only), tied to well organized regiment and not mob.
    :UD_bw: :SE_bw:

    Strider (Open Terrain)

    I hold no truth except mine. And I'm not sure about this last one.
  • arwaker wrote:

    berti wrote:

    First of all, there should be a conses what fight in extra rank representates.

    - wild hordes that are uncontrollable.
    - trained and disciplined troops.

    IN vermin book it is used to represent the wild units. (in combination with highly trained and controlled units due to other special rules). In DE book it seems to represent more the less trained, but wild approach of the militia.


    I like the militia. I think the blades rule is a bit too much (multiple spells) and should be limited to ANY number of spells triggering a +1St effect. Else I hope the BSB temple legate either gets adept OR the unit buff back.
    In VS book, the trained and coordinated troops have FieR (Legionaries, Veterans), while the wild religious troops (Plague Disciples) don't have. But the disciples have +1A stats as compensation. This is the logic I can clearly follow.

    The wild and untrained unit in VS that has FieR are the fethis brutes, not the disciples.

    But in DE book it is the other way round. Here the wild religious troops have the FieR, but just 1 A.

    I see this as clear contradiction. Even if it might be a reasonable design from game mechanics point of view, but for me a clear and logic immersion is slightly more important.

    Or is my comparison
    VS Disciples <=> DE Militants
    VS Legion <=> DE Legion
    not applicable?

    Edit:
    I understand the gameplay related reasons SmithF (thank you very much for the insight) told us about how the different rules affect Militants differently on the table. I can accept that the design team wants to maximize the the correctness of how units should be operated. But here I see the benefit of having FieR to gameplay as minor, compared to the disadvantage we get from having the feeling of " logic incorrectness" in FieR.
  • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    [...]
    The current name "Gree Tide" would more indicate something like "1 grind attack per rank" or something alike (which would btw solve the issue with disproportionate effect for poison/non-poison troops).
    [...]
    The means of additional attacks will obviously be better if the quality of said attack is higher. Same reason why that banner would be even better on Irons at WS5 and S5-7, or Ferals with BF and S5. Why would it be an issue?
    Hm, "issue" is maybe too strong of a word.
    But there is definitively something. The point cost of an item is based on the effect it has on the most attractive unit for it. But this makes the item unattractive for others.
    When the benefit would be more equally strong, it could be priced in a way that it is attractive for more different units. For example also for Goblins that don't have poison attacks.
    But that's a different topic. I don't want to derail DE threat with OnG discussion.
  • How about the following to make militants more of a mob:

    -Remove Blades of Dorag from them
    -Remove FieR and Battlefocus

    Replace with:
    -Models in the front rank can choose to gain grind (x), where x is the current amout of ranks in the unit, but the rest of the unit cannot attack
    -Augments cast on militants are 1 easier to cast

    Reasons:
    I do agree that FieR does sound more like a rule for organised units rather than a mob
    Removing blades would be a simplification and reduction in power to the unit
    Removal of battlefocus would be to reduce rule complexity, and because if the unit would be using grinds, its a redundant rule

    Idea behind this is that because the unit is a bunch of fanatics flailing at the enemy, they would be smashing themselves upon them
    The max grinds the unit would be able to get with this is 30, due to 6 total ranks and 5 models in the front, if thats too much then it can be capped, like max rank bonus of +3, or it can be tied to if the unit has any rank bonus (I.e. fighting in a forest)

    The easier augment casting would help make them an easier target for various buffers in the armies, to offset their str 3
  • Haradrada wrote:

    How about the following to make militants more of a mob:

    -Remove Blades of Dorag from them
    -Remove FieR and Battlefocus

    Replace with:
    -Models in the front rank can choose to gain grind (x), where x is the current amout of ranks in the unit, but the rest of the unit cannot attack
    -Augments cast on militants are 1 easier to cast

    Reasons:
    I do agree that FieR does sound more like a rule for organised units rather than a mob
    Removing blades would be a simplification and reduction in power to the unit
    Removal of battlefocus would be to reduce rule complexity, and because if the unit would be using grinds, its a redundant rule

    Idea behind this is that because the unit is a bunch of fanatics flailing at the enemy, they would be smashing themselves upon them
    The max grinds the unit would be able to get with this is 30, due to 6 total ranks and 5 models in the front, if thats too much then it can be capped, like max rank bonus of +3, or it can be tied to if the unit has any rank bonus (I.e. fighting in a forest)

    The easier augment casting would help make them an easier target for various buffers in the armies, to offset their str 3
    militants really don't need the huge nerf, they are quite bad right now, same with the incentive to build big units, that is not what DE should be about.
  • Ivar K wrote:

    Are Temple Militants truly a mob or a religiously motivated and Temple equipped part of the DE military?
    Temple Militants are Ex-Military. Basically DE Soldiers which left (academy) military after the basic training and then joined the militant sect in their local temple as some kind of paramilitary troops/militia.

    They are common enough, but not part of the standing forces (these are academy)

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


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

    Ivar K wrote:

    Are Temple Militants truly a mob or a religiously motivated and Temple equipped part of the DE military?
    Temple Militants are Ex-Military. Basically DE Soldiers which left (academy) military after the basic training and then joined the militant sect in their local temple as some kind of paramilitary troops/militia.
    They are common enough, but not part of the standing forces (these are academy)
    But are they a mob that just happens to hang around my army or are they part of my army? Are they troops given under the command of the general by the temple or did they just heard that there is a fight and decided to take part?

    There is a difference between standing army of the Daethen and the 4500p army on the field ;)
  • What are the temple militia? Religious fanatics with the characteristics of ordinary elves.
    Except for their religious zeal which is expressed in their ardor in battle, their frenzy and their lack of fear because they have religion as their support, what could possibly happen to them!
    That these troops fight on an extra row to show their enthusiasm, not necessarily!

    The big difference with other types of elven troops is their weaponry: the Darag Blade!

    Can we say that these weapons channel divine energy to their worshippers, boosting their owners in battle? Yes !

    In what way ?
    - You keep the default bonus attack of the weapon,

    But the weapon can channel the magical energy around them and turn it into a bonus as follows:
    - By Improvement on the unit (1 turn) => bonus (+1) in strength (maximum +1),
    - By the possibility to siphon the magic energy present on the opponent, by improvement on the opponent's unit (1 turn) => bonus (+1) Attack for all the militia figurines of the fighting temple (rank included!) (maximum +1),
    - By the possibility to siphon the magic energy present on the opponent, by curse on the opponent unit (1 turn) => bonus (+1) armor penetration on the attacks of the temple militiamen (maximum +1).

    One could find oneself, starting from a basic unit, facing booster units, with units whose chances to be up to their task are improved by the divine will, while remaining quite "ordinary" facing "ordinary" troops!
    At most, you can have a troop with 3 attacks (1 basic +1 blade +1 divine bonus) on the first rank, Strength 4 (3 basic +1 divine bonus), armor penetration 1 (0 basic +1 divine bonus) plus on the second rank 2 attacks (1 support +1 divine bonus), of the same strength and same armor penetration

    Too strong? I don't think so, because you need an opponent with 1 curse and 1 active enhancement, plus 1 enhancement on the militia, all at the same time! This will not happen all the time!
    It's up to you.

    On Acolytes, this would give:

    On the first rank maximum 3 attacks per miniature, strength 5, Armor Penetration 2 under the same conditions. Yes, it's a little more operational!
    But to justify, it's a conclave of magicians, used to handling magic energy, so with more efficiency!
    It's up to you to see.