v2 playtest question
#1
Hey hey,

Couple of questions -
1, Are the traits/background abilities and such meant to take up the magic item allowance or are they like Vamp bloodlines where it is a seperate allowance.

2, Flankers, just wondering if there is something I am missing with this unit, why not just use duelists?

Will post more as they crop up, my gaming group is keen to play them so should be able to get in quite a few games over the next month or so.
Reply
#2
1. No, but you are still limited by the number each character is allowed.

2. Just use duellists... Sad
Reply
#3
(11-10-2009, 04:58 AM)Rumor Wrote: 2, Flankers, just wondering if there is something I am missing with this unit, why not just use duelists?

There was a concept that was being worked on, but time ran out before it could be finished. So feel free to ignore them, as they didn't go in correctly
This is my Admin voice, when i use it i am invoking the power of the great Moderating Lords. Learn to fear it mortals!
Reply
#4
Master poisoner is badly worded. And since I wasn't around to discuss it, I can't say.

Pikemen fight in three ranks when they charge, see the BRB for the rules of spears.
Reply
#5
G'day guys, I've kept most of my comments to myself regarding this bookk but I think I should say something now. There is both positive and opinion and I understand if you disagree with my views.
1) The book need better layout and I'm glad you guys have been taking on board peoples ideas and comments regarding it. The better laid out the book is the more attention it will attract. The more attention you attrach the better the chances of a Dogs of War book being done.
2)Stop simply re-writing RoR's. There are two problems here, first you get trapped into re-writing the 5th ed book when what you really need is something new and inovative. Secondly you seemed to have failed to have noticed the brutality that has crept into the last 6 army books.
If you just modernise the 5th ed book or Alisseo's list then we won't gain any ground. If you make something new, make sure it can stand up to WoC with Gateway or a dragon, Dark Elves, Spaming VC, Daemons, Lizardmen and Skaven of any configuration because if it can't, you're wasting everyones time, especially yours. Sadly what I've seen so far woulndn't last 6 turns against any of them.
Reply
#6
(11-10-2009, 06:57 PM)Captian_Eikren Wrote: I can imagine flankers being used much like the Empire detachment system, automatically jumping into the flank of the enemy when they charge the Pikemen.

Although I honestly can't picture anyone willingly charging into pikemen as it is, let alone if they have stuff like this. Smile


A quick question, does the Master poisoner affect ranged weapons? For example Thrown knives or Crossbow bolts?

1. Flankers are mainly there to defend the flank of the pikes, but they are a work in progress.

2. YES, weapons (all weapons) the unit has are poisoned. That may get changed after this round of play testing.
(11-10-2009, 11:12 PM)Horus the Warmaster Wrote: G'day guys, I've kept most of my comments to myself regarding this bookk but I think I should say something now. There is both positive and opinion and I understand if you disagree with my views.
1) The book need better layout and I'm glad you guys have been taking on board peoples ideas and comments regarding it. The better laid out the book is the more attention it will attract. The more attention you attrach the better the chances of a Dogs of War book being done.
2)Stop simply re-writing RoR's. There are two problems here, first you get trapped into re-writing the 5th ed book when what you really need is something new and inovative. Secondly you seemed to have failed to have noticed the brutality that has crept into the last 6 army books.
If you just modernise the 5th ed book or Alisseo's list then we won't gain any ground. If you make something new, make sure it can stand up to WoC with Gateway or a dragon, Dark Elves, Spaming VC, Daemons, Lizardmen and Skaven of any configuration because if it can't, you're wasting everyones time, especially yours. Sadly what I've seen so far woulndn't last 6 turns against any of them.

1. the book is in play test and isn't the final layout but the Dogs of War book follows the layout of the current GW Army Books. The Regiments of Renown book is something different (think our version of Warhammer Chronicles or Lustria/Storm of Chaos books) and we are still working on that layout.

2. We realise that the power creep has been going on at GW and we are working to make the Dogs of War Army competitive but not overpowering. The Dogs of War under thier current rules still do well in tournaments where they are allowed (but then that might be the general leading them in Australia. Big Grin )
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#7
I think it is pritty competative, I mean you can have a good magic defence (6 DD 2 scrolls, 1 hero slot) for 160 points, which in my view is slightly overpowers

pikes now can kill things for there cost, putting out 5D3 impact hits for 25 of them roughly works out at
vs T3 Sv4+ troops (empire swordsmen, various elves) = 5.5 dead
Vs T4 Sv 3+ troops (dwarfs, chaos warriors e.c.t) 3.3 dead
Vs T3 Sv 1+ troops (heavy cavalry) 2.2 dead
Vs T4 SV 1+ troops (undead/chaos cavalry)1.6 dead which isn't bad considering there cheepenss (7/8 points)

The only surgestion I'd make is if the enermy is chargeing more than 10in then they go up to S5AP hits due to the impact the pikes make and maybe up them to 9/10 points possibly

in other words
Vs T3 Sv 1+ troops charging over 10in (heavy cavalry) 4 dead
Vs T4 SV 1+ troops charging over 10in (undead/chaos cavalry) 3.3 dead

this means that cavalry now have to close in order to not to get killed when charging pikes (which is there entire point) or flank them, rather than charging to the front and just taking the 1/2 death before crushing the front rank

also maybe allowing the elves to scout and/or skirmish for +1 point per rules might be a good idea to represent way 'watchers/shades/shadow warriors'? I don't think its just going to be blocks of elves, more likely small squads of skirmishers
Reply
#8
(11-10-2009, 11:12 PM)Horus the Warmaster Wrote: G'day guys, I've kept most of my comments to myself regarding this bookk but I think I should say something now. There is both positive and opinion and I understand if you disagree with my views.
1) The book need better layout and I'm glad you guys have been taking on board peoples ideas and comments regarding it. The better laid out the book is the more attention it will attract. The more attention you attrach the better the chances of a Dogs of War book being done.
2)Stop simply re-writing RoR's. There are two problems here, first you get trapped into re-writing the 5th ed book when what you really need is something new and inovative. Secondly you seemed to have failed to have noticed the brutality that has crept into the last 6 army books.
If you just modernise the 5th ed book or Alisseo's list then we won't gain any ground. If you make something new, make sure it can stand up to WoC with Gateway or a dragon, Dark Elves, Spaming VC, Daemons, Lizardmen and Skaven of any configuration because if it can't, you're wasting everyones time, especially yours. Sadly what I've seen so far woulndn't last 6 turns against any of them.

People know who and what the original RoR are, they don't need to be new, those units are part of the legacy and history of the Dogs of War army, I personally wouldn't want to see those disappear. New ones being introduced in an expansion book is fine with me.
Not to mention that putting a dozen new RoR into the book instead is a sure way of not getting GWs blessing. They are still selling some of the original models and would want people to buy them (especially as they cost more) so they wouldn't want to do anything to harm any potential sales.

I am quite happy with the way the list is going. Sure some things need to be toned down and a few things need to be improved but I think it is going in the right direction.
In my playtesting of the list I have had victories against an uber slann led lizardman army and a grey seer on bell led skaven army. I think the competativeness of the list is pretty good. Dogs of War is the sort of army that needs to be played well as there are so many different parts to it, it shouldn't be some point and click type army like Daemons or Vamps where it is difficult to actually lose with them.

Matt
Reply
#9
(11-11-2009, 02:40 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: pikes now can kill things for there cost, putting out 5D3 impact hits for 25 of them roughly works out at

The max would be 4D3 not 5 (fighting ranks).
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#10
(11-11-2009, 10:36 AM)BilboBaggins Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 02:40 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: pikes now can kill things for there cost, putting out 5D3 impact hits for 25 of them roughly works out at

The max would be 4D3 not 5 (fighting ranks).

what that means all my averages are out- and this could be specified in the next version of the rules as its not clear

anyway the new averages work out like so on average its 8 impact hits

vs T3 Sv4+ troops (empire swordsmen, various elves) = 4.4 dead
Vs T4 Sv 3+ troops (dwarfs, chaos warriors e.c.t) 2.6 dead
Vs T3 Sv 1+ troops (heavy cavalry) 1.7 dead
Vs T4 SV 1+ troops (undead/chaos cavalry) 1.3 dead which isn't bad considering there cheepenss (7/8 points)


with The S5 over 10inch charge thing
Vs T3 Sv 1+ troops (heavy cavalry) 3.3 dead
Vs T4 SV 1+ troops (undead/chaos cavalry) 2.6 dead so that helps kills some

so yes it kind of works though upping the point to 9/10 points and adding the S5 thing
Reply
#11
(11-11-2009, 02:40 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: pikes now can kill things for there cost, putting out 5D3 impact hits for 25 of them roughly works out at

(11-11-2009, 10:36 AM)BilboBaggins Wrote: The max would be 4D3 not 5 (fighting ranks).

(11-11-2009, 11:44 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: what that means all my averages are out- and this could be specified in the next version of the rules as its not clear

It say fighting ranks, pikes fight in 4 ranks. What isn't clear?
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#12
(11-11-2009, 11:49 AM)BilboBaggins Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 02:40 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: pikes now can kill things for there cost, putting out 5D3 impact hits for 25 of them roughly works out at

(11-11-2009, 10:36 AM)BilboBaggins Wrote: The max would be 4D3 not 5 (fighting ranks).

(11-11-2009, 11:44 AM)danny-d-b Wrote: what that means all my averages are out- and this could be specified in the next version of the rules as its not clear

It say fighting ranks, pikes fight in 4 ranks. What isn't clear?

can see it now sorry me just being an idiot, never mind new averages it is then
Reply
#13
Honestly, I could see that wording being as issue, it should say up to four ranks to avoid this situation. Make the rules idiot-proof Tongue
Reply
#14
I had that but some crazy swede talked me into the current wording. But why would anyone argue that 5 deep pikes would get 5D3 when the pike rules say they only fight in 4 ranks is the reason I say the education system has failed us.
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#15
(11-11-2009, 03:50 PM)BilboBaggins Wrote: I had that but some crazy swede talked me into the current wording. But why would anyone argue that 5 deep pikes would get 5D3 when the pike rules say they only fight in 4 ranks is the reason I say the education system has failed us.

well some people might thing that by full fighting ranks you mean any ranks that is 5 wide rather than the max of 4, where as if you say a max of 4 with in the text then that stops all confusion
Reply
#16
(11-11-2009, 04:13 PM)danny-d-b Wrote:
(11-11-2009, 03:50 PM)BilboBaggins Wrote: I had that but some crazy swede talked me into the current wording. But why would anyone argue that 5 deep pikes would get 5D3 when the pike rules say they only fight in 4 ranks is the reason I say the education system has failed us.

well some people might thing that by full fighting ranks you mean any ranks that is 5 wide rather than the max of 4, where as if you say a max of 4 with in the text then that stops all confusion

Thank you! That's exactly what I meant!
Reply
#17
And they would be WRONG. fighting ranks are full and reachable by the pikes, I guess I should have kept my original wording, which left no doubt my intent, and which my freindly neighborhood insane swede had me change for being too much. Big Grin
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply
#18
(11-11-2009, 04:55 PM)BilboBaggins Wrote: And they would be WRONG. fighting ranks are full and reachable by the pikes, I guess I should have kept my original wording, which left no doubt my intent, and which my freindly neighborhood insane swede had me change for being too much. Big Grin


well rather than havin a long descussion lets just add in the max 4 ranks bit and move on to other things


like what are peoples view on the cannon/morter 2 for 1 slots, makeing a gun line two effective?
Reply
#19
Wouldn't the simplist thing be to make the impact hits 1 per pike in contact x next 3 ranks at S4? So 4 ranks 5 wide would be 20 S4 impact hits against 5 wide infantry charge. No dice roles. A chariot would therefore cop 4 wide x 4 ranks = 16 S4 impact hits etc
Reply
#20
Since we were giving the reverse impact hits and their normal attacks afterward we felt D3 per rank was fair.
[Image: cdosig.gif]
[Image: SignatureEditor.jpg]

Keeper of the lost pdfs of Games Workshop.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Procedure question for named unit characters in Regiments of Renown. EdSteiner 14 8,647 01-09-2013, 04:29 PM
Last Post: tarastop
  Procedure question for named unit characters in Regiments of Renown. EdSteiner 0 1,360 12-29-2012, 02:00 AM
Last Post: EdSteiner
  1 Playtest game ZigZagMan 21 12,703 10-20-2011, 09:30 AM
Last Post: Zark The Damned
  FAQ Question EdSteiner 3 3,062 09-01-2011, 07:24 PM
Last Post: someone2040
  playtest game (playtest 2 rules) Raymon 5 3,374 01-03-2010, 04:25 PM
Last Post: Raymon
  29DEC09 V2 Playtest wonkobaggins 7 4,590 01-02-2010, 09:22 PM
Last Post: wonkobaggins
  Two Playtest Games Mattman 8 5,155 10-09-2009, 12:39 PM
Last Post: Slick

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)