Pinned IMMORTALS Beta 4

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

    • DanT wrote:

      SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      @DanT @WhammeWhamme does it sound viable?
      *shrug*
      As usual it depends on exactly what the problems with infernal weapons are deemed to be (if any) at the point that the goals are set for the net update.

      Being very frank (because so far the people posting in this thread have done a fair job of being mature and reasonable (please don't make me regret this :P ), and speaking only for myself...

      I personally think they are unfavourably relatively priced in the current book, have problematic relative interactions vs spears in the context of ID, and are lacklustre on R&F compared to the slim book (as opposed to on characters, where their key advantage to before is manifest).

      I think these reasons combined have put the community's collective backs up and caused them to see little use, making it very difficult to evaluate whether the design is actually reasonable and functional in the context of the LAB.
      Moreover, I think these reasons have created a situation where eliteness creep is desired as a solution, which I think is potentially a poor and dangerous solution in this case. There is a web linking infernal weapons, spears, immortals, overlord, onyx core, mask item etc etc.
      So, it is indeed a difficult web to untangle, and pulling on any one thread could upset many things.
      Well if you are asking for a more concrete and punctual list of arguments against Infernal Weapons:
      -they are not very popular and see little use;
      -they struggle against spears, paired weapons and great weapons because they must have a high cost while not being as attractive as the other cheap weapons;
      -they are not very flavourful since it is not clear what kind of "weapon" are they and why do they have their effect (the name "weapon" doesn't help);
      -they are something unique for elite units but since they are the less viable one they do not help differentiating elite units from Core ones.

      My suggestion, again, is to make them a unique rule that affects all weapons of a specific army entry, which may be Overlord, Commissioner, Immortals and Anointed. The effect should affect all the weapons used by these entries without making any of them excessively viable in comparison to the others. The effect should be linked to the "Flammable" theme of the army, which has lost some of its attractiveness after the removal of the ammos.

      Maybe "Infernal Crafted" may solve both the removal of the ammos and the unattractiveness of the Immortals in comparison to the Core choices, together with the need to make Enforcers and Anointed more different. Something like:

      FULL INFERNAL JACKET (melee/ranged): the unit has Divine Attacks (OR WHATEVER, IT'S A RANDOM SUGGESTION) against Flammable targets when attacking with the attack type stated in brackets.

      Infernal Artilleries may have access to a similar rule instead of the current Higher Calibre. Not due to it being bad, but just to have two effects merged into one rule. I don't know if Divine attacks are considered too strong, but it sounds situational, flavourful and can be interesting for the Immortals to beat some kind of special units, which was their original design. It works in synergy with the "flammable" thing of the army. All the weapons carried by Anointed and Immortals would have this rule.
      Also, Slaves could be carrying this type of ammos and give a unit within 3" the rule. Dunno.

      How does it sound?
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      They're a better target for Hand of Glory than pretty much any other unit in the game, because it's +1 aegis. Paired with access to Word of Iron and it's a unit you can actually snap off two top-tier defensive buffs on (1+ armour or 4+ aegis), meaning if you split your dice between the two your opponent usually can't stop both and might stop neither.
      Hang on, I'm confused. Hand of Glory grants +1 Aegis... but it also grants a 6+ Aegis save (which the Immortals already have if they're in defensive mode, so that part of the spell does nothing unless they've opted for Battle Focus that turn). Doesn't that mean, at the end of the day, that the Immortals get the same eventual benefit (i.e. a 5+ aegis save) as anyone else would get? So why are they such a good target for this spell?

      Same thing with Word of Iron. Yeah, if you get those two spells off, you get a 1+/5++ brick... but you could cast the same spells on a unit of Taurukh Anointed and get the same 1+/5++ outcome, but also have R5 and 3 HP.

      I feel like I'm missing something here, because I don't see Immortals getting any more benefit out of those spells than anyone else.

      EDIT: Figured out what I was missing. Immortals grant Aegis +1, not 6+. Disregard.
    • darkknight109 wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      They're a better target for Hand of Glory than pretty much any other unit in the game, because it's +1 aegis. Paired with access to Word of Iron and it's a unit you can actually snap off two top-tier defensive buffs on (1+ armour or 4+ aegis), meaning if you split your dice between the two your opponent usually can't stop both and might stop neither.
      Hang on, I'm confused. Hand of Glory grants +1 Aegis... but it also grants a 6+ Aegis save (which the Immortals already have if they're in defensive mode, so that part of the spell does nothing unless they've opted for Battle Focus that turn). Doesn't that mean, at the end of the day, that the Immortals get the same eventual benefit (i.e. a 5+ aegis save) as anyone else would get? So why are they such a good target for this spell?
      Same thing with Word of Iron. Yeah, if you get those two spells off, you get a 1+/5++ brick... but you could cast the same spells on a unit of Taurukh Anointed and get the same 1+/5++ outcome, but also have R5 and 3 HP.

      I feel like I'm missing something here, because I don't see Immortals getting any more benefit out of those spells than anyone else.

      Immortals don't have a 6+ Aegis (srsly, reread their entry). They have a +1 Aegis. So Hand of Glory is 6+, +1, +1, for a 4++.

      Background Team

    • Fwiw, as I don’t know if this has been stated already.

      Immortals were not changed in this latest update because the LAB team were not given a remit to change them.


      The reason they were not given a remit to change them was due to a number of things, including

      a) fairly new design in previous update, that had not brought about any/not tied to any considerable issue (as opposed to let’s say lugars which were tied to complexity issues)

      b) evidence to support immortals in the current form were being used, and used effectively by players





      There is no guarantee that any of the above will change, though obviously community concerns are noted as part of the guidelines set for each update.

      It will be interesting to review over the next few months of this update how frequent/how effective immortals are from the data.



      Does anyone here have much anecdotal feedback from using the unit in the scope of the current public beta (not a previous version)?

      (And it should be noted that “no I don’t use them because I don’t like them because X” is not anecdotal feedback here)

      RT Team

      ID_LAB Team

    • Mike newman wrote:

      Fwiw, as I don’t know if this has been stated already.

      Immortals were not changed in this latest update because the LAB team were not given a remit to change them.


      The reason they were not given a remit to change them was due to a number of things, including

      a) fairly new design in previous update, that had not brought about any/not tied to any considerable issue (as opposed to let’s say lugars which were tied to complexity issues)

      b) evidence to support immortals in the current form were being used, and used effectively by players





      There is no guarantee that any of the above will change, though obviously community concerns are noted as part of the guidelines set for each update.

      It will be interesting to review over the next few months of this update how frequent/how effective immortals are from the data.



      Does anyone here have much anecdotal feedback from using the unit in the scope of the current public beta (not a previous version)?

      (And it should be noted that “no I don’t use them because I don’t like them because X” is not anecdotal feedback here)
      I've been told that they are a very strong brick with a Gunnery Flamer, Overlord, Prophet, Vizier, line formation. They force you to charge due to both Arrogance and the Flamer. They will always have +2 armour or aegis 4 or at best both of them. They are a deathstar but without the biggest flaw of an infantry deathstar, which is lack of mobility, because one way or another the enemy risks to be forced to charge you.

      If this is intended as the most viable way to deploy them, I'm not a fan of it. I'd like them to be an interesting solution even just to protect a Prophet general alone. At least, they'd be more viable in comparison to Citadels.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Immortals don't have a 6+ Aegis (srsly, reread their entry). They have a +1 Aegis. So Hand of Glory is 6+, +1, +1, for a 4++.
      Yeah, figured that out just after I posted my message - tried to edit my post, but it looks like you quoted it already.


      Mike newman wrote:

      Does anyone here have much anecdotal feedback from using the unit in the scope of the current public beta (not a previous version)?
      I used them in one list - mostly to try them out - and my opinion on them is that they were functional, but kind of lacklustre. Their biggest draw for me is and remains Bodyguard, but even that limits them. ID doesn't have many characters that are both effective on foot AND want to be in combat where the Immortals will take them. Overlords probably want to be a bull or be on a bull so that they can pick their targets and not be limited by their poor on-foot mobility; Prophets usually have better things to do (Shamut prophet cannot join the unit at all, Lugar prophet probably wants to be in either a chariot or with other Lugars, as the Immortals slow him down, the only time I see Nezibkesh prophets getting used is to get a cheap Bastion and Ashuruk prophet usually doesn't like close combat); Viziers are usually taken as BSBs and are vulnerable to duels; and none of the rest of our characters can join the Immortals.

      As it stands, the more lists I play around with, the more I find them sitting on the shelf. CGs with spears have been a rising star in my armies and I find they do 90% of what Immortals do AND add a shooting attack to soften the enemy up to boot. I'm finding it harder and harder to see a spot for the Immortals in my army. I don't think they're overcosted for what they do or even underpowered, but they just don't have a job that another unit can't fulfill instead (usually on top of some other perk that unit brings to the table in its favour).

      They're not a disaster and if the LAB goes gold without them changing I won't consider it a huge misstep, but I will probably view it as a missed opportunity for a more interesting unit.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      I mean, what I'm really hearing here is people want S3 AP0 Citadel Guard, which is something we can totally deliver on.
      I don't think this is helpful to bring up, especially given the effort you guys have gone through to fix our core choices this beta (something which has met with pretty much universal acclaim as far as I can see, at least on this forum). Citadel Guard are fine and I don't think anyone's suggesting otherwise; the issue that people are consistently bringing up is to do with Immortals, not CG.

      You guys are, of course, free to accept those views or disregard them, but I don't feel that comments like this are going to help find a good solution to the problem.


      SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      I think Infernal Weapons are a problem too. Not to mention its name, which sounds a little too general to me, I think it could make Immortals more appealing if it was an upgrade for common weapons (spears, hw, gw). Something like:

      "Infernal-crafted Weapons: units with this rule gain Lightning Reflexes against Flammable targets (RANDOM SUGGESTION ALERT)"
      Interesting idea, but it suffers from the same limitation as Battle Focus (at risk of resurrecting *that* discussion again...), which is that LR isn't a huge benefit to models with a small attack pool (which Immortals, with their one attack per model, have). A rule like this will only add 1-2 hits per round on average, and even then only against flammable targets. Speaking from a list-building standpoint, that benefit wouldn't be enough to make me abandon the spear-and-shield build for Immortals, nor significantly change my calculus regarding them vs. spear CG.

      My suggestion to date has been to simply give them parry back (which would 100% justify their cost and give a reason to take them over the other options), but a conditional bonus against flammable targets isn't a bad idea either. I'd be inclined to just make it simple and say that attacks with Infernal Weapons become flaming. Easy to understand, fits with the army theme, not super-overpowered given all the ways we already can get flaming onto our units.

      DanT wrote:

      I think these reasons combined have put the community's collective backs up and caused them to see little use, making it very difficult to evaluate whether the design is actually reasonable and functional in the context of the LAB.
      Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the fact they're not being used much a sign that there's an issue with the design (or at least the cost)? From my own personal perspective, I've gone from being a huge fan of IW Immortals in the slimbook days to literally never using them, because spears are both cheaper and better against everything that isn't R6. I still use them on my Anointed, because it's their only one-handed weapon option and I like having a 3+ save on them (plus S6/AP3 is more than sufficient for a close combat profile) and they're good on characters, but they just don't work on Immortals at the moment and I haven't heard a good reason to take them.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      "Not listening" would be unsubscribing from this thread.

      Listening is the reason I come to this conclusion, because every second post is about how Immortals aren't elite enough compared to Citadel Guard, and given Immortals can't go up, well...
      Fair enough, let's split hairs then.

      You're not hearing what people are saying. The fact that you assume it's either 'Immortals go up' or 'CG go down' just proves my point that you're filtering what people are saying through a fixed viewpoint.

      For example, there have been lots of suggestions for moving them sideways from 'bits and bobs' to 'fewer but more acute'.
      Your stance of 'Well they're not going to go up, so if you keep complaining you'll get crappy CG' is far too rigid, comes across as personal, and isn't contributing anything helpful.

      The fact this thread exists shows that something needs to be done. So far you really aren't coming across as at all on board with that.
    • Immortals struggle because the elite level of the core dwarfs. They already have a bunch of special rules that make them nearly as good on defense as deep watch AND that make them dealing more damage than deep watch (depending on weapon) including some magic support they are clearly better than the DH counterparts already. (but DH also can have some sort of magic support, even when this is laughable compared to real magic buffs.

      Taking the Aegis into account plus the banner they already are "better" than deep watch on elite level on defense and they also do more damage. They also cost more. So fine. But adding anything on top seems not approbiate. It should be thought about adjusting the prices of core dwarfs and immortals accordingly.
      The core dwarfs are in my opinion underpriced, that makes immortals even look worse in comparison. Or the core dwarfs should have reduced elite level a bit and give immortals some area they could realy be significant more elite than the core.
    • Mike newman wrote:

      @darkknight109

      so your issue is not their eliteness - but that, for you, they lack clear definition
      Basically, yes. I've posted at length over the last few pages the specific concerns I have with them, so if you want the in-depth write-up, it's all been posted in the last 24 hours in this topic.

      I do think the unit could stand to be *a tad* more elite, both to give them a bit more breathing room from our Core infantry (whom I think are right where they should be in terms of eliteness) and to live up to the fact that dwarves are supposed to be pretty much the hardiest race in the game (considering both natural constitution and skill at armouring) but the team's statements on the matter suggest that's almost certainly not going to happen. Failing that, I think the Immortals need a job that doesn't overlap with the other infantry units in the book. Right now the main hindrance that I think they have is they are simply too similar to CG (and, to a lesser extent, Warriors) in both rules and battlefield role. When I already have a mandatory Core requirement I have to fill, why would I not use CG when they'll be just as good against most (admittedly not all) of what I'll need them to fight?

      Beta 1 and Beta 2 Immortals did a good job of this. They had a *very* clearly defined role as an anvil that was super-effective against enemy elites that nothing else in the book could come close to touching. If they got something like the special rules they had then again (even if it led to a points increase), I would be 100% satisfied with the unit and it would be showing up in a lot more of my lists. If that is considered "too elite" (which I disagree with, but it's not up to me to make that call), then just something else along those lines - some combination of stats, equipment, and wargear so that I can pick at least one generic archetype of enemy or tactical situation *that I'm likely to face on the battlefield* and say, "Immortals are hands-down the best, most effective unit to deal with this."

      Hopefully I'm explaining myself clearly. For whatever reason, I sometimes struggle to articulate what I'm looking for in the Immortals that isn't there right now.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by darkknight109 ().

    • darkknight109 wrote:




      SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      I think Infernal Weapons are a problem too. Not to mention its name, which sounds a little too general to me, I think it could make Immortals more appealing if it was an upgrade for common weapons (spears, hw, gw). Something like:

      "Infernal-crafted Weapons: units with this rule gain Lightning Reflexes against Flammable targets (RANDOM SUGGESTION ALERT)"
      Interesting idea, but it suffers from the same limitation as Battle Focus (at risk of resurrecting *that* discussion again...), which is that LR isn't a huge benefit to models with a small attack pool (which Immortals, with their one attack per model, have). A rule like this will only add 1-2 hits per round on average, and even then only against flammable targets. Speaking from a list-building standpoint, that benefit wouldn't be enough to make me abandon the spear-and-shield build for Immortals, nor significantly change my calculus regarding them vs. spear CG.
      My suggestion is that Immortal Spears ARE Infernal Crafted Weapons (or "Full Infernal Jacket" weapons...). So that you automatically have something better than the Citadels with the same weapon.
    • In the former iterations the immortals also had the same problem as now. Core dwarfs can fill nearly the same roll, with some other benefit (beeing core, shooting, fihgt in extra rank, cheaper bodies). And now, with increased Resilence on the small taurukhs, this will even be more true than before.

      Why bring another slow, resilent block when you can with ease take the points and put them into more shooting, more monsters or some fast units that are very resilent too? Or add extra chaff, an extra mage....
    • SlaveToThePyre wrote:

      My suggestion is that Immortal Spears ARE Infernal Crafted Weapons (or "Full Infernal Jacket" weapons...). So that you automatically have something better than the Citadels with the same weapon.
      Yes, I did see that. I'm a little more bearish on that idea, because I'm not a big fan of layering rules on top of other rules (for Infernal Spears, for instance, you'd need to remember what a spear does, including the special charge rule, then also remember that the Infernal rule is doing something as well). I'd be more in favour of keeping it as a separate weapon.

      I also don't think Infernal Weapons are inherently bad, per se - they work on Anointed and on characters, which are everything else that can carry them, so I think talking about overhauling them too much risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The issue is with Immortals specifically and the fact that they can get spears, which are statistically the same or better in almost every application.

      I still kind of like the idea I voiced earlier (and this goes to what I mentioned above in my response to @Mike newman which is that you could solve both the IW problem and the Immortals "redundancy" issue by removing Battle Focus/Whispers and giving them Weapon Master and granting them parry with IW again. Then GW becomes the offensive weapon, IW becomes the defensive weapon, spears become the middle ground (and ideal charge-receiver) and the unit as a whole has a very fluffy solution that both fits with their "many souls, many specialties" personality and gives them a unique trick that nothing else in the list can replicate. My sense is that this also wouldn't drastically raise the eliteness level of the unit either, although others may disagree on that. Certainly I'd be more inclined to take them if they worked that way.
    • Kreigscmidt wrote:

      The fact this thread exists shows that something needs to be done

      This is not particularly true. Something will not need to be done merely because a thread exists. The project will take a much wider view when evaluating guidelines for the next update.

      While community opinion is considered its is only part of the picture - if it was purely on the fact threads existed we’d have to change everything all the time :D



      Darkknight109 wrote:

      Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but isn't the fact they're not being used much a sign that there's an issue with the design

      This is also only part of the picture.

      But data did not suggest they were particularly underused in the last update.

      Obviously that will be reviewed again when the new update cycle

      RT Team

      ID_LAB Team

    • berti wrote:

      In the former iterations the immortals also had the same problem as now.
      In Beta 1 and Beta 2, Immortals had special rules that made them very tough against anything with S5 or better, which made them some of our best cowboy-and-monster-hunting anvils. A unit that would turn CG inside out could get stonewalled by Immortals thanks to those rules. When they lost that, they lost the specialization that gave them their unique role in our army and they don't have much to show for it now.