Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Dynastic Alliances will now be a baseline Army Rule for the 100K. Adaptability to Adversity now only has you choosing between Veterans and Relentless Drills. Hundred Kingdoms is now the faction with two Warlords.
[Designer’s Note]: A lot of scenarios have been adjusted and no longer give points for killing a Warlord.
Not sure how much that really helps the struggling Hundred Kingdoms but it's a nice thing, and I'm sure they'll have more changes to individual units.
All I can say is I've always played Tempered Dwegholm and since the latest update I have been absolutely steamrolling my opponents with little effort. People I used to have challenging matchups with before. I don't even feel like my skills are being used because I just need to show up and have a pulse then my murder blocks kill everything.
NinthMusketeer wrote: All I can say is I've always played Tempered Dwegholm and since the latest update I have been absolutely steamrolling my opponents with little effort. People I used to have challenging matchups with before. I don't even feel like my skills are being used because I just need to show up and have a pulse then my murder blocks kill everything.
Dweghom barely made it to the top 5 in the last 3 Tournaments.
NinthMusketeer wrote: All I can say is I've always played Tempered Dwegholm and since the latest update I have been absolutely steamrolling my opponents with little effort. People I used to have challenging matchups with before. I don't even feel like my skills are being used because I just need to show up and have a pulse then my murder blocks kill everything.
Dweghom barely made it to the top 5 in the last 3 Tournaments.
This is pretty untrue.
Adepticon there were 2 in the top 5. They won an 8 man at my local. They won a 1500 event in Germany. 4th at a 2k event in Germany. What do you consider the last 3 tournaments? These are the ones listed as rated on Longshanks which is what people are pushing to be used so stats like this can be gathered.
Also, there's the general community experience which matches up with what Ninth is saying.
The game is doomed to fail if the ego of the rules writer and "vanguard reps" doesn't deflate fast enough.
What?
When rules questions are brought up, they provide no explanation on how they come to their conclusion, they just state "it is this way because I say it is." When pressed to provide justification because their ruling is inconsistent with how they rule similar situations in the past, they demean the person asking and tell them to "lower their tone."
Just this week someone asked for clarification on the rule bloodlust and the vanguards tell them how it works in game, but when asked how they justify that ruling since it directly contradicts a previous ruling on bloodlust, they get told "just play it like that."
For context on the bloodlust question:
Spoiler:
Bloodlust: When a Regiment with this Special Rule is currently on the battlefield and takes an Action, if the Regiment is not in contact with an Enemy Regiment, roll a D6. If the result is less than or equal to the highest Resolve characteristic in the Regiment, you may perform an Action as normal. If the result is higher, you must perform a Charge Action against the closest Enemy Regiment in Line of Sight and within the Regiment’s maximum Charge Distance.
If there is no eligible Target to Charge, you must perform a March Action directly toward the closest Enemy Regiment in Line of Sight. A Regiment must always March its maximum March distance when forced to move as a result of this Special Rule. This Special Rule allows a Regiment to Charge a Target even in the Round in which it arrived on the Battlefield from Reinforcements.
The current accepted ruling is that the red section of the second paragraph does not care about the outcome of the resolve roll established in the first paragraph. But the green section of the second paragraph is beholden to the outcome of the resolve roll established in the first.
It was asked why one part cares about the outcome and the other part does not, and they just say "play it that way." very dismissive.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/25 13:58:43
I will add my 2 cents that I've also had poor interactions with PB staff in the past (over a year ago now). Not going to go into more detail than that. I'd hoped they had gotten better by now.
With the caveat that I am not a rules guy, how do they arrive at the conclusion the Red section is not dependent on a roll result when the entire rest of the paragraph, including the opening sentence, is dependent? That’s really counterintuitive.
The game is doomed to fail if the ego of the rules writer and "vanguard reps" doesn't deflate fast enough.
What?
When rules questions are brought up, they provide no explanation on how they come to their conclusion, they just state "it is this way because I say it is." When pressed to provide justification because their ruling is inconsistent with how they rule similar situations in the past, they demean the person asking and tell them to "lower their tone."
Just this week someone asked for clarification on the rule bloodlust and the vanguards tell them how it works in game, but when asked how they justify that ruling since it directly contradicts a previous ruling on bloodlust, they get told "just play it like that."
For context on the bloodlust question:
Spoiler:
Bloodlust: When a Regiment with this Special Rule is currently on the battlefield and takes an Action, if the Regiment is not in contact with an Enemy Regiment, roll a D6. If the result is less than or equal to the highest Resolve characteristic in the Regiment, you may perform an Action as normal. If the result is higher, you must perform a Charge Action against the closest Enemy Regiment in Line of Sight and within the Regiment’s maximum Charge Distance.
If there is no eligible Target to Charge, you must perform a March Action directly toward the closest Enemy Regiment in Line of Sight. A Regiment must always March its maximum March distance when forced to move as a result of this Special Rule. This Special Rule allows a Regiment to Charge a Target even in the Round in which it arrived on the Battlefield from Reinforcements.
The current accepted ruling is that the red section of the second paragraph does not care about the outcome of the resolve roll established in the first paragraph. But the green section of the second paragraph is beholden to the outcome of the resolve roll established in the first.
It was asked why one part cares about the outcome and the other part does not, and they just say "play it that way." very dismissive.
Can't see why they should justify how rules are written, thus opening an endless debate about how rules should be written.
The game is doomed to fail if the ego of the rules writer and "vanguard reps" doesn't deflate fast enough.
What?
Ego at its finest.
This may sound harsh, but the justification given is pretty telling. Bloodlust does two things: a) it forces morale tests and b) it allows to charge the turn you enter.
The red part is independent from the result of this dice roll because it has nothing to do with it. The green part depends on the result *because it is the consequence of failure*.
It is fairly clear and going into this much detail is frankly a hassle that plenty of people will avoid. Nothing malicious nor ego driven.
Edit: At most, you can make a very fair case about them needing to break the paragraph.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 06:12:49
The game is doomed to fail if the ego of the rules writer and "vanguard reps" doesn't deflate fast enough.
What?
Ego at its finest.
This may sound harsh, but the justification given is pretty telling. Bloodlust does two things: a) it forces morale tests and b) it allows to charge the turn you enter.
The red part is independent from the result of this dice roll because it has nothing to do with it. The green part depends on the result *because it is the consequence of failure*.
It is fairly clear and going into this much detail is frankly a hassle that plenty of people will avoid. Nothing malicious nor ego driven.
Edit: At most, you can make a very fair case about them needing to break the paragraph.
To be clear, the ego is when the vanguards and staff dismiss any pushback with insults and heavy handed discord moderation, instead of rationalizing the decisions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 11:57:52
For someone browsing Salute unaware of what this is all about, they had games and a huge poster saying "conquest watever subtitle" and "Conquest whatever's subtitle" 2 games 1 company... something like that
Looking at the tables and dispersed miniatures displays I was extremely confused of what was actually on offer. Some miniatures looked ok others not so good.
What im saying is, it was one of those stands/tables that assume you already know what they are talking about, which I dont so I turned away and moved into something else.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/04/26 12:56:56
The game is doomed to fail if the ego of the rules writer and "vanguard reps" doesn't deflate fast enough.
What?
Ego at its finest.
This may sound harsh, but the justification given is pretty telling. Bloodlust does two things: a) it forces morale tests and b) it allows to charge the turn you enter.
The red part is independent from the result of this dice roll because it has nothing to do with it. The green part depends on the result *because it is the consequence of failure*.
It is fairly clear and going into this much detail is frankly a hassle that plenty of people will avoid. Nothing malicious nor ego driven.
Edit: At most, you can make a very fair case about them needing to break the paragraph.
To be clear, the ego is when the vanguards and staff dismiss any pushback with insults and heavy handed discord moderation, instead of rationalizing the decisions.
I mean, I haven't seen any of that, tbh. Moderation is pretty lax.
Cough, cough blegh, been a while since anyone posted new releases here huh?
Either way, here's a new picture of the Founder's Exclusive for 100K: Saint George and the Dragon (which was previously in the Catalogue, but only as a silhouette)
And additionally, Dorilates, Lochagos and the Thorakites/Agema dual kit are now up for pre-order for City-States, and the Ashen Dawn for Hundred Kingdoms.
Cough, cough blegh, been a while since anyone posted new releases here huh?
Either way, here's a new picture of the Founder's Exclusive for 100K: Saint George and the Dragon (which was previously in the Catalogue, but only as a silhouette)
Wait, they newly/officially released this image? This looks like the unfinished version that was originally in the catalog that they pulled because it was unfinished. Namely the blob of an arm.
Any rumors of a Dweggy/Tempered nerf in the near future? I'm not on the Discord so not tuned in to the latest discussion (whatever it may be). Have any others had issue with nuDweg being too powerful? Which options?
Edit: to get ahead of this; I am a long term Tempered player, I am asking this because I feel my own army is too strong. Not because I'm upset over losing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/03 21:50:05
Tempered are most likely going to be toned down in the next few weeks when the army lists get updated. Community in the discord pretty unanimously agrees that Dweghom are pretty overtuned, with Tempered being a fairly negative play experience with their tokens.
There haven't been any murmurings of what exactly that nerf will look like, though. I'm also speculating that Steelforged will, if nothing else, get a points increase, because holy cow they are the best 200 points you can spend in the game.
Also for those unaware the latest CORE rules update has come out. Cleans up charging, reinforcement lines finally work, and volleying works in a way where terrain matters more. Among other things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/05/04 01:00:46
Points increases would do the trick IMO. Having less of everything would make me need the tokens again rather than just having them on top of a functional army.
Nerfs to torrential and aura of death help though!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/04 12:40:09
NinthMusketeer wrote: Points increases would do the trick IMO. Having less of everything would make me need the tokens again rather than just having them on top of a functional army.
Nerfs to torrential and aura of death help though!
Points increases would impact Ardent too though. It just incentives to play tempered more rather than actually fixing the problem.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
A valid concern, but I am thinking point increases to Tempered units (wizards specifically) wouldn't really impact Ardent. After all, consider that steelforged are ONLY available as retinue for the steelshaper.
Though Ardent Creed itself could use a bit of a buff--IMO the new one is kinda pathetic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, anyone else disappointed by the Herald of Magma? I feel like the visual aesthetics and themes don't line up with the rest of the army very well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/05/07 17:53:12
