Patch 2022 DL DISCUSSION THREAD

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

  • Harbingers not being able to join more than half the units in the book is a mistake, in my opinion. If Harbingers had the option to become Large with a 40x40 base it would open a ton of possibilities and it would be really fun.

    and yeah, the lack of personalization in the Sentinel, one of the (supposedly) most powerful wizards in the game, is a little boring.

    Don’t get me wrong, I am happy with the changes in Hellhounds and Titanslayer (not Veil Serpents) but the change in the harbingers would affect so many more things than any particular unit. Please keep this in mind for future updates

  • @Rubert the situation of the heralds is a very complex issue
    adding more manifestations to be able to go to 40x40 creates design problems

    my theoretical herald 40x40 works on the Clawed Fiends, but not on the Hoarders (and vice versa) and for the veil serpents?
    it is impossible (unfortunately) in the current state of the book to obtain a single mount/rule that can work on everything

    PERSONALLY it's much better for units that can't access the herald by design to be self-sufficient

  • Rubert wrote:Harbingers not being able to join more than half the units in the book is a mistake, in my opinion. If Harbingers had the option to become Large with a 40x40 base it would open a ton of possibilities and it would be really fun.

    and yeah, the lack of personalization in the Sentinel, one of the (supposedly) most powerful wizards in the game, is a little boring.
    [/quote]I agree


    Cultivator wrote:

    I know I say this a lot, but the fact that the harb. is a different size and type is rarely relevant. I've taken a pale horse harb., with clawed fiends, to three tournaments, and he's never been sniped due to differing unit type or size.
    I tried it few games and at least for me it didn't work.

    To regards the hereditary, I don't see the need to check it or remake it since there are other things more important to improve than the hereditary.

    To regards harbringers, one idea I had is to divide manifestations points between towering presence models and models that do not have towering presence. So some prices of some manifestations would be feasible for harbinger. Buuut, as I understand the idea of this update is to make things easier. This makes my proposal "useless". So I don't know how to improve or which idea to give for providing easier access to them to get manifestations. Any suggestion?

    PS: it's a pity that its not being considered to have an extra mount for the harbringer to give enhancements to 40x40 units.

  • I am sure that balance wise it’s much easier to have the harbinger only joining core units and brazen beast.

    I was thinking of something like giving harbingers the following rule:

    ‘Adaptive’ (or whatever you want to call it): “When joining a unit, the harbinger becomes the same unit type, size, base size and gets the same Advance and March move of the unit it joins”

    i don’t think any of the current manifestations would be broken on the fiends, hoarders or serpents. What do you guys think?

  • There was a LOT of things happening this update, all around the game, and the idea of broadening how guiding manifestations are given was discussed. But it was taken off the table simply by the sheer enormity of the task of considering every possible implication, on top of all the work they were already doing.

    For example, Hoarders with Red Haze/Digestive Vomit, for Str 5 ap 1 grinds, was one of the things mentioned as being off the hook. <- Has anyone done this with a mismatched Harbinger?

    It was considered, which means it's on the table for the future, but I hope you'll understand that due to the whole game undergoing a shake up, the RT didn't have the spare time to dedicate to what expanded guiding manifestations will give.

    I know I'll be considering a Envy Harbinger with guiding Venom Sacs and Greenfire eyes to run in Hounds or Clawed Fiends. Greenfire eyes gives those units huge charge ranges.

  • One way to make things easier is reducing god specific manifestations to 1 per god. Make them more impactful. Only make god specific entries option to be guiding and allowing harbringers to choose freely which god specific manifestation to pick. Then make father of chaos manifestations unguided with 3 different powerlevel types lesser, greater, eternal.
    Each manifestation has a type etched Into them similar to enchantment, offensive, defensive and arcane. A character can only buy a single version per type and tier.
    Would make characters more impactful with upgrades, units gets less complex since they could get options for god specific manifestations and lesser manifestations and point allowance for specific characters could become a balance tool or a specific character could perhaps not be granted access to say arcane manifestations.
    I feel that such a system would allow for less complex unit building and less text in the book while making character builds a lot more diverse.

  • Kapten Kluns wrote:

    One way to make things easier is reducing god specific manifestations to 1 per god. Make them more impactful. Only make god specific entries option to be guiding and allowing harbringers to choose freely which god specific manifestation to pick. Then make father of chaos manifestations unguided with 3 different powerlevel types lesser, greater, eternal.
    Each manifestation has a type etched Into them similar to enchantment, offensive, defensive and arcane. A character can only buy a single version per type and tier.
    Would make characters more impactful with upgrades, units gets less complex since they could get options for god specific manifestations and lesser manifestations and point allowance for specific characters could become a balance tool or a specific character could perhaps not be granted access to say arcane manifestations.
    I feel that such a system would allow for less complex unit building and less text in the book while making character builds a lot more diverse.
    refined as it is, I'm afraid it's closer to a complete rewrite of the book..
    currently many units are designed on the boons of other sins (example Clawed Fiends)

  • Dragus wrote:

    I've been saying for a while that the problem with eidolons is their poor combat stats along with the inability to flee.

    The very same applies to imps, IMO
    open question to all, do you have any feedback on how Eidolons perform on the battlefield

    We know I'm not a performance unit at the moment, but I'd appreciate it if you could give us your perspective on what's working and what's not working

  • To give you my experience with Eidolons:
    I have never performed well with them in units of 10 due to its unit boundaries. Therefore small units of 6 or up to 8 were more or less OKeish.
    By the shoot they were never the leaders in winning games, with this I mean that somehow they were "acceptable" as supporting in the shooting phase of the game, but not relevant. That's one of the reasons that I don't play them. I would say that in 80% of the games I played with them they were easily to be changed by any other unit.

    Their short range in shooting (18) make them vulnerable to things that they are good at shooting, e.g. cavalries with good armour. So you expose them to a charge of 11+. That's why lots of people pay the aura of despair, to avoid being charged here). They are also quite vulnerable to magic and therefore they must normally play in the flanks. (Normally in flanks you find units with high Resilience), so they are also not amazing by shooting there. If you deploy them in the center you expose them to be targeted by other spells.

    At combat they are also not amazing, so I cannot expose them to fight in combats. That's another reason for me not to pick them.

    With the champion, they become more a magic support unit when the list does not have enough spells. So sometimes is worth to play with them but just sometimes.

    The only manifestations that currently make sense on them right now is the possibility to get flamming attacks (due to its cost against some pyro mages they are good), and aura of despair.

    I see them more in lists of control or defensive than aggressive lists (understanding aggressive as combat lists).

    Possible ideas that come to my head? Increase range to 21, make them more powerfull in fighting. Provide anything that enhance other units around them...

    Just my thoughts

  • Ive played eidolons extensively. A big souped up unit doesn’t make its points outside of a lucky hand heaven against an expensive single model.

    The biggest problem with the unit is actually skirmish imo. The “short” range means shooting from closer than the front rank brings them into charge range of their intended targets. Even with aura of despair. And the unit is 500pts for 10 with champ and AoD. There are games where you are up against things like elven elite cavalry, where they make their points with shooting, but that’s rare.

    A smaller 6-8 man unit, with champion upgrade, is quite good in my experience, but the damage mostly gets done by the spells and a little bit by the shooting, but you don’t have the issue with the large footprint and you can keep everything at max range.

    I’d love to see 2 of 3 things: price drop, loose skirmish or 20” range.
    'Ammertime member :thumbup: - Podcast like a MoFo!

  • Metallo wrote:

    Kapten Kluns wrote:

    One way to make things easier is reducing god specific manifestations to 1 per god. Make them more impactful. Only make god specific entries option to be guiding and allowing harbringers to choose freely which god specific manifestation to pick. Then make father of chaos manifestations unguided with 3 different powerlevel types lesser, greater, eternal.
    Each manifestation has a type etched Into them similar to enchantment, offensive, defensive and arcane. A character can only buy a single version per type and tier.
    Would make characters more impactful with upgrades, units gets less complex since they could get options for god specific manifestations and lesser manifestations and point allowance for specific characters could become a balance tool or a specific character could perhaps not be granted access to say arcane manifestations.
    I feel that such a system would allow for less complex unit building and less text in the book while making character builds a lot more diverse.
    refined as it is, I'm afraid it's closer to a complete rewrite of the book..currently many units are designed on the boons of other sins (example Clawed Fiends)
    true and impossible. Just wanted to highlight that there could have been easier ways to do it without putting all eggs in the same basket

  • Metallo wrote:

    Dragus wrote:

    I've been saying for a while that the problem with eidolons is their poor combat stats along with the inability to flee.

    The very same applies to imps, IMO
    open question to all, do you have any feedback on how Eidolons perform on the battlefield
    We know I'm not a performance unit at the moment, but I'd appreciate it if you could give us your perspective on what's working and what's not working
    ive stopped playing them. They feel like easy points for opponents to grab. The special rule increases their cost immensly where a flat ap 2 would be just as good or better in most cases. They were generally played on flanks but there is more able units to pressure flanks than the poor eiodolins.
    If they could be a mid tier combat threat aswell as decent short range shooting theyd fit much better with the overall DL lists.

    Something like 2 shots S4 ap2
    And S4, 2A ap1 R4 in combat. Then they wouldnt need special saves and could help out on the flank even during round 3-6 easier aswell as taking fights against chaff units where they are aweful atm. Its simply a waste point for point to shoot at chaff atm. And if having ap 2 instead of always only allowing as 5+ they would be less rps.

  • Metallo wrote:

    Dragus wrote:

    I've been saying for a while that the problem with eidolons is their poor combat stats along with the inability to flee.

    The very same applies to imps, IMO
    open question to all, do you have any feedback on how Eidolons perform on the battlefield
    We know I'm not a performance unit at the moment, but I'd appreciate it if you could give us your perspective on what's working and what's not working
    dont worry @Metallo im pretty sure that the entire community consider you a high performance unit arm ;) .
    Jokes aside thanks for doing a great job as our ACS.

  • I agree that the eidolons have the potential to be a cool entry of the book, but that at the moment they're a bit meh. Removing skirmisher is indeed a very interesting idea, making it more easy for them to navigate around our other units, obtain interesting position on the flanks, and it would almost give them like a +1 range in medium / large units (even if I agree that 18" still seems really close for a non fleeing unit that don't have any cc abilities at all -> make it 20" without skirmisher and I think it would be very convinient to use without being OP)

    Also, regarding the overall simplification process, the dark fire rule seems like an obvious go aswell. Maybe give them AP2 flat, or eventually the choice between 2 shooting options, one vs really heavy armored stuff and one more all around, a bit like what SA had on their howdah devices.

    and sorry @Ursa06, I do read you ! :)
    Check out my Battle Report Youtube Channel : Blackwood (FR)

    Here's the thread where I'm developing my DL ideas : Shizuu's Defensive Legions

    And my painting blog : Blue Themed Daemon Army

  • Kapten Kluns wrote:

    dont worry @Metallo im pretty sure that the entire community consider you a high performance unit arm ;) .Jokes aside thanks for doing a great job as our ACS.

    don't worry, I know very well that not everything we propose as ACS will be accepted by RT

    but I want to be prepared in case RT accepts the proposal!

    I think Eidolons pay the price of being a unit that does 2 things at the same time (one of which is a dedicated rule)
    considering the nature of the army I would like Eidolons to be taken because it is a Wizard Conclave > ranged unit (like the Briar Maidens of the SE)

    but I wanted to understand if someone who had played them had a point of view that could make me see another perspective

    p.s. I understand the joke now, unfortunately to avoid spelling error I use the translator, I haven't reread this :girlabc:

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Metallo ().