Planned changes for version 4.21
#1
With the release of the upcoming Dwarf book, it's important that we also make our Dwarfs on par with the official rules. Apart from that, there are a few issues that have been brought up by tournament players. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but it would be beneficial to do something about it to avoid having the book be banned.

Suggested/planned changes:
- Remove stacking of War Academy abilities like Rapid Deployment, make it 30 pts, general only.
- Only 1 Merchant Prince may be included, including special characters.
- Paymaster increased to 45 pts.
- Paymaster "death-range" increased to 18" with a paychest.
- Nerf Lucrezzia Belladonna.
Nerf/reword Stunning Beauty: "Any friendly Human unit within 8" of her rallies automatically during the Compulsory Movement phase."
Nerf Phial of Poison: "Nominate D3 enemy characters at the beginning of the battle. Roll a D6 for each; a roll of 4 + means that the character has been poisoned and starts the battle with one Wound less than normal. "
This keeps enemy characters from possibly getting killed outright.
Nerf Potion of Pavona: "At the beginning of the battle, Lucrezzia may give the potion to any one character, unit Champion, or take it herself. Roll a D3..."
- Staff of Fickle Fortune: 3+ to work, 2 does nothing, 35 pts.
- Marksmen of Miragliano: remove Marksmen ability.
- Increase Ogre Great Weapons to 8pts/m.
- Equipment options mandatory for Stradiots to increase their base price, while still keeping available model options at a maximum.
- Increase Merc Elves to 7pts/m.
- Justintine's Paychest gives "cold-blooded" for psychology tests.
- Better clarification for Scorpions as units.
- Ballista/Scorpion cap to avoid spam.
- Leonardo will only boost units in his vicinity, 100 pts.
- Ghazak Khan is now normal Ca rather than MC.
- Galloper Guns can no longer march, Bronzino's range nerfed to 3".
- Dwarfs updated in accordance with 8th ed.
Reply
#2
You can only have a "Best Money can Buy" once as Merc Prince is an 0-1 so that is moot, you cannot have a SC Merc Prince and a common one.
Rapid Depyment as General only, like the Charismatic Leader, problem solved. sicne you can only have 1 general
For the all the others maybe go the Bret virtue route of first one is base cost, second time is double cost, third time is triple cost.
Merc Orges to 8 pts for GW fine.
No need to do anything Stradiots IMO
Mark Mir, increase starting cost to 200 to add in the value to marksmanship for the unit, leave the troop cost same.
Staff of F.Fortune, works as expected, do feel the need to do anything with it.
Elves, at 6 is ok as we dont get Valor of Ages nor Martial Prowess, very important if you load them out w spears or bows. Howver increase to 7 not a game breaker.

I will take some time and draft some views of Lucrezzia/Borgio over the next day or two
Reply
#3
You can have more princes with special characters, that's where the issue lies.
Rapid deployment will be general only, yes.
Don't think we need that though to be honest, none of them are really must take in any regard imo.
Stradiots currently allow for 55 pts redirectors, which quite a few think is too cheap (wolf rider suffers from animosity). At 60 pts min, it's a little less throwaway. The only thing this will mean is that you cannot take them with nothing but hand weapons, so you can still use the desert dogs/ungols/marauders etc as long as you give them a bow or a shield.
The problem is that people will just take huge units of them, so the individual price really do need to go up.
At 7 pts (with free spears) they are 2 pts cheaper than HE spears, or 1 pt cheaper with shields. This is because, as you say, they don't have any prowess or other special rules.
Reply
#4
(02-03-2014, 04:22 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: You can have more princes with special characters, that's where the issue lies.
Rapid deployment will be general only, yes.
I disagree with regards to the SC (Merc Prince) and common Merc Price, if the model counts as Merc Prince like the SC char's do then the 0-1 restriction should apply. Using the logic of the Empire SC character who is a Battle Standard Bearer, you cannot take a common hero and make him a BSB BC you already have one. See when I did the coding for Armybulder 3.4c dataset, I used the assumption that if the model is classfied as a Merc Prince then you could only have one model with that rule, which is why the issue was moot to me. I also think that this is the method to solve that issue, if model has Merc Prince rule is a 0-1, done.

(02-03-2014, 04:22 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: Don't think we need that though to be honest, none of them are really must take in any regard imo..
The increase cost for traits was just a stab using a GW method already in acceptance.

(02-03-2014, 04:22 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: Stradiots currently allow for 55 pts redirectors, which quite a few think is too cheap (wolf rider suffers from animosity). At 60 pts min, it's a little less throwaway. The only thing this will mean is that you cannot take them with nothing but hand weapons, so you can still use the desert dogs/ungols/marauders etc as long as you give them a bow or a shield
Valid counter point on stradiots, again could live with it
(02-03-2014, 04:22 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: The problem is that people will just take huge units of them, so the individual price really do need to go up.
So increase starting value to 190 and trooper cost to 12 for Marksman

(02-03-2014, 04:22 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: At 7 pts (with free spears) they are 2 pts cheaper than HE spears, or 1 pt cheaper with shields. This is because, as you say, they don't have any prowess or other special rules.
So call it seven and let move on to the harder issue of those pesky SC's Smile
Reply
#5
Merc Prince. Just state that you can only have one in each army. We need to view this as someone that is trying to break the army and get as many bonuses as possible for as cheap a cost. This type of person WILL read the rules in their favor. No matter what was intended. To that matter we need to be obvious and very specific as to what can or can not be used, or how it can be used.

That will prevent a lot of pain and having to rewrite the book in short order. Hopefully those people will read the changes that are made here and participate in the discussion.

The other changes seem fine to me. I do not have any problems with them.

One suggestion: We need to refer to the Dogs of War book and RoR book as a single entity. They are not 2 different books in my opinion but two aspects of one army. Is there a way to combine the two into one pdf?
To alcohol the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Reply
#6
I am surprised that master of intrigue is on that list, and I hope it does not change. I think it is already inherently balanced and one of the best parts of the war academy. I often play with 3 or 4 units of duelists and while i would love to get scouting on all of them i can never afford more than two. It is not abuse-able IMO.

I also don't think Borgio is broken, he is just the gateway to 4 cannons and nothing is loathed more than cannons. Change master of siege craft to a once per game reroll of the artillery die so he still keeps the tie to cannons but losses the offending ability to cannon spam.

The fickle staff might also be better at a 3+ for the good, so it is less "automatic".
Reply
#7
How about this for Borgio, Master of Siegecraft: May take 1 extra cannon then normally allowed. That would limit at 3 under 3k. Same as Empire.
Reply
#8
Borgia get up from being killed was a bigger issue than the cannons. But +1 cannon does make sense.

I think that Bella's change back to possibly doing a single wound to multiple characters is a better step than possibly killing off a general or wizard before the game begins. Its her poisoning the stew at the dinner before battle and some eating it and others not.... its also closer to what she did previously.

Fickle on a 3+ ok but only fail on a 1, and a 2 does nothing?

Remember its not what is actually ab-usable but the perception of what can be abused that's important.
I know I keep repeating that mantra -- but we must keep it in mind at all times.
To alcohol the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Reply
#9
(02-03-2014, 09:55 PM)tarastop Wrote: Borgia get up from being killed was a bigger issue than the cannons. But +1 cannon does make sense.

I know I keep repeating that mantra -- but we must keep it in mind at all times.

Then how about we remove it and replace it with Difficult to Slay: Borgio has a special 4+ WSv when rolling for his final wound. This would bring it back 5th Ed version.
Reply
#10
(02-03-2014, 08:18 PM)Uktabi Wrote: The fickle staff might also be better at a 3+ for the good, so it is less "automatic".

Here is my concept for the staff working on a 3+ and only harming on a 1.

At the beginning of each of your magic phases you may roll a D6 to activate the staff; on a roll of 1 the wizard malfunctions and the bearer suffers –D3 to his casting rolls for the remainder of the turn, on a roll of 2 the staff does not work at all, on a 3+, the staff's focusing ability works as planned and the wizard gains +D3 to all his casting attempts (roll for each spell) for the remainder of the turn.

No change in points.
Reply
#11
We can probably keep master of intrigue as is, it got some complaints at first, but then they noticed that only a few characters where limited to it and were fine with it.

Ironically enough, the Merchant Prince issue is actually already fixed, because most of the special characters already counts as Merchant Princes in the Bestiary! I just couldn't fit it in in the army list, so I forgot about it. We just need to make this clearer in the army list section. This makes sense really as each of the princes are rivals to each other, so while I could see them ally in the face of a greater threat, they would still lead their individuate armies rather than be fighting under one banner so to speak.

I think EdSteiner's idea for the staff is a good one. I would make it 40 pts though, and even that is making it a little overpriced. But this should keep the complaints away at least.

As for Borgio, I agree with the +1 Cannon, it's good enough. I don't think his difficult to slay rule makes him too good though, it's no different from having a regeneration save in 6th ed (to be fair, it's worse since it only applies once he is down to 1W), and his normal Ward save ain't that great either. It's pretty much just an extra 4+ ward save once he is down to his last wound, one bad roll and he is down for good. Will try to do some reasoning with the power gamers there first.

For the Marksmen, I think we really just have to nerf them. Since they are hitting on 3's most of the time, they can really tear through a lot of units in short order. BS4 with crossbows is still pretty damn good without going OTT, and still allows them to stay as a core unit.

As for combining the books, I'm afraid that's a no-show. It would make it too large and unwieldy. I think it should be allowed with the list, but at the same time, it does give us a bunch of hero-units that no one else usually can access during the tournament. I personally fine with disallowing them there, unless all armies can take them. Though if the allies rules are true, this will be much less of an issue in 9th ed. Alternatively, we can nerf the crap out of the captains and make them more like Champions, then you won't have to pay through the nose for a generic combat character either. Though this would probably diminish a bit of their flavour :/
Reply
#12
For the Marksmen, I think we really just have to nerf them. Since they are hitting on 3's most of the time, they can really tear through a lot of units in short order. BS4 with crossbows is still pretty damn good without going OTT, and still allows them to stay as a core unit.


Sigh...at least make them cheaper in that case.

As for the staff, in it's suggested form I'd say 35 points.
Reply
#13
(02-04-2014, 05:13 PM)Akbar Wrote: For the Marksmen, I think we really just have to nerf them. Since they are hitting on 3's most of the time, they can really tear through a lot of units in short order. BS4 with crossbows is still pretty damn good without going OTT, and still allows them to stay as a core unit.

Sigh...at least make them cheaper in that case.

Well falling back on my notes if then it should be 165 total cost with 9 starting troops, full command and hero. Add. troops at 11 points per model.

Also we could add the Marksman War Acdemy trait to Maximilian only. Then have that be our fluff has he only recuits the best, something I think is already there.
Reply
#14
Markmen would still be 11ps each, like their official rules. Some purist might argue that that is too cheap, since Empire crossbowmen costs 9 pts now. With Marksman, the Marksmen are actually a bit underpriced to be honest.

I will do some re-calculations on the staff to come up with an actual balanced cost.

I'm fine with giving Maximilian the Marksman trait. It anyone should have it, it would probably be him.

As for their basic cost, it's 11x9 + 50 + 5 + 20 = 174 (9 marksmen + 1 captain + crossbow + standard/musician).

____________________________________________________

Regarding Borgio, there doesn't seem to be much on an issue that he is too good, only that he has a special rule that no one else have (according to Oh-Con). Which is entirely fitting for a special character!
Reply
#15
Feels like fighting a brick wall on facebook... a couple of guys are convinced that the paymaster should cost 55 pts... because of reasons. And when you present them with mathematical evidence that he is in fact OVERpriced at the moment, I either get smug replies back with examples from other books that aren't even correct, or get told "well, you make up the rules, just because you don't want to listen..." instead of giving an actual argument. Sigh.

It's then suggested we make the staff work 50% of the time - yes, 50%. Meaning it should be 0 pts, and add nothing on average.

And we should drop Justintine's Paychest "because it wasn't in the book last version".

And we should drop rapid deployment, because apparently, removing the stacking just isn't good enough.

And that's pretty much what I expected. Show that you listen to feedback, and you'll get berated about nerfing everything, because there's always something that somebody doesn't like. And if you don't, well then you get told that "well, then we won't accept the list!". So...god...damn...frustrating...
Reply
#16
(02-05-2014, 03:52 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: Feels like fighting a brick wall on facebook... a couple of guys are convinced that the paymaster should cost 55 pts... because of reasons. And when you present them with mathematical evidence that he is in fact OVERpriced at the moment, I either get smug replies back with examples from other books that aren't even correct, or get told "well, you make up the rules, just because you don't want to listen..." instead of giving an actual argument. Sigh.

It's then suggested we make the staff work 50% of the time - yes, 50%. Meaning it should be 0 pts, and add nothing on average.

And we should drop Justintine's Paychest "because it wasn't in the book last version".

And we should drop rapid deployment, because apparently, removing the stacking just isn't good enough.

And that's pretty much what I expected. Show that you listen to feedback, and you'll get berated about nerfing everything, because there's always something that somebody doesn't like. And if you don't, well then you get told that "well, then we won't accept the list!". So...god...damn...frustrating...

<o Cyber beer for you Smile
Reply
#17
TBH it's sounding more and more like they're just moaning about the list in order to nerf it past the point of being an actually viable tournament list, so they don't have to bother thinking about strategies to beat the Dogs of War.

The Borgio argument is pure BS, virtually every special character in the game has at least one rule that only they have. There's the occasional repeating theme but usually abilities are unique. That's the point of special characters...

Maybe it would be better to reset the special characters where possible to the GW 'official' ones from the Warhammer Annuals? Possibly just tweak the costs?

Maybe the staff would still be viable at 50% success if failure didn't subtract anything any more, i.e. 1-3 nothing, 4-6 bonus. But yeah, 1-3 penalty is stupid. What do they think of changing it to just +/- 1 like a couple of versions ago instead of D3?

Honestly I'm not sure if it's worth trying to win over that particular tournament crowd, it sounds like they are just dead set on not allowing Dogs of War and are coming up with BS reasons to avoid admitting it.
Zark not believe in Democracy. We go left!
Reply
#18
Thanks, though I can't really stand the stuff IRL. Some Viking I am, lol Tongue

Anyway, apparently the chest is broken...because of reasons. A 150 pt BSB with no option to take a ward save and a 3+ AS at best. While I can understand that being able to take Break tests on 3D6 over 18" can be really good, he's not exactly hard to get rid of. But apparently, we have to nerf it. We might as well make it only apply to the Paymaster's unit only and save ourselves some trouble. I can still see merit to this complaint, but saying "drop it" rather than "fix it" is just annoying.
Ofc, ironically enough, the same guy who said it's broken just now said "I don't know, Id say its priced ok." earlier today. I'm not kidding.

The staff is apparently STILL too good because "even giving a wizard a CHANCE to cast with a +7 is beyond comprehention". I mean, totally. You will have to, you know, use an additional dispel dice to beat it on average or something.

And +1 to go first is completely broken because:
1. We can take cannons.
2. HE used to have it in 6th/7th ed, and now they don't. Which is only because everyone used it to auto-win games and not because 80% of all magic items were removed in the 8th ed books to make each item more unique.

Also, we cannot do 1 vs 1 comparisons with other books, because of antisymmetry between different lists. Which is exactly why the paymaster is too cheap compared to a Goblin boss. Even though the Paymaster has a huge drawback (that no one ever brings up), is a mandatory BSB (that still pays for his BSB ability unlike the Bretonnians). You know what makes him so great though? The fact that he doesn't automatically die if he breaks from combat (he only has a 60% chance of dying instead of 100%). Unless he takes a paychest ofc. Which he almost always do.

Also, Dogs of War shouldn't be allowed because one guy played against them several years ago and didn't find it that enjoyable. I wish I was kidding.

If we remove all magic items, the entire war academy section, all special characters, all new units and preferably make pikemen 10 pts each again, we might be in the clear on the tournament scene though. Which means we are playing the Chronicles 2004 list again. Except that one shouldn't be allowed either, because GW doesn't support it any more.

Also, light magic + ogres could potentially be broken, because that lore has a spell that really good if used on ogres. Better ban light magic or make Ogre 40 pts each I suppose.

Insert facepalms at your leisure.

Zark, all special characters are already at their "factory reset" from Warhammer annual. Except I nerfed them even further to avoid moaning.
Reply
#19
(02-05-2014, 03:52 PM)M4cR1II3n Wrote: It's then suggested we make the staff work 50% of the time - yes, 50%. Meaning it should be 0 pts, and add nothing on average.

And we should drop Justintine's Paychest "because it wasn't in the book last version".

And we should drop rapid deployment, because apparently, removing the stacking just isn't good enough.

So...god...damn...frustrating...

It's disturbing that these people seem to see a new book as a threat rather than a revision of a good old army that never should have been dropped by GW. Can anyone really, honestly, claim that this humble book is OP?

It's not something I have encountered in the gaming communities I am engaged in, and it surprises me that these people exist. Given rumours of GW's faltering support of Fantasy, I still feel a sense of optimism and that time is on our side. The community in general may actually be forced to move in a more self-perpetuating direction.

That said, something might have to be done about the staff (though the proposed nerf is clearly ridiculous).

I don't care about Justintine's Paychest myself; gives to much of an empire feel ruleswise. Drop it and replace with something more unique, like giving a one-use ASL to the enemy ("the gold! It's so bright!")

On the traits, I feel that a unrelenting stance is in order. Removing stacking of Rapid is enough.
Reply
#20
I even offered to put together a pure "tournament version" of the list that would just contain updated rules for vanilla Dogs of War without any of the additions to the book. "Nah, that would be too confusing with two different versions", they said. Because "Warhammer: Dogs of War - Tournament Edition", a pdf attached to the tourney rules package, is so hard to distinguish from "Warhammer: Dogs of War - the big book with tons of fluff and new stuff not present in the tournament version that otherwise uses the same rules just with more options intended for friendlier play" available on other sites. I sure hope no one else will think to make a Dogs of War book, then we are really screwed - people wouldn't possibly know how to separate the two! It sometimes happens that I accidentally bring my 4th ed Empire book to my local club instead of the 8th ed book. I mean, they both have Warhammer: Empire written on them!

Sorry, just needed to vent.

*grumble, grumble*
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Warhamer Armies: Dogs of War version 4.0 out now! M4cR1II3n 210 149,799 02-06-2013, 02:49 AM
Last Post: Aldhick
  Dogs of War Play Test Version 3 BilboBaggins 12 9,685 06-06-2010, 06:36 PM
Last Post: someone2040
  Dogs of War Army Book Play Test Version 2 BilboBaggins 7 6,620 11-03-2009, 05:36 PM
Last Post: Baumann
  Dogs of War Army Book Play Test Version 1 BilboBaggins 101 65,480 10-21-2009, 10:22 AM
Last Post: henerius

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)