Gar Shadowfame:
finishing armybook without real playtests is like painting your car red cos it will go faster that way…
warh:
is like painting your car red cos it will go faster that way...But that is true ain't it?:P:~
Gar Shadowfame
Baggronor:
and however things look good on paper, playtesting is what makes Indy CD so recogniseableJudging by the Annihilator rules and the huge waste of points that is the Kollossus Tower, they can't have been playtested that much. At least not by decent players.
has anyone in the forum ever thought about trying to organize a "formal" print run?Its a great idea, but the amount of hassle it took to organise the recent custom dice ordering leads me to suspect its best left alone :) It could easily end up with someone's garage being filled with untended books. The logistics of posting it to each member and so forth is enough to give me the terrors already. Besides, we could just get it done ourselves at Prontaprint or somewhere.
Thommy H:
finishing armybook without real playtests is like painting your car red cos it will go faster that way...Why don't you playtest it for me then?
Gar Shadowfame
I'll be revising this tonight, with some of the changes as suggested. The plan will be to take down the Issuu version that's there now and replace it with the new one, and I'll save uploading a PDF version until it's relatively stable. Some of the changes I'll be making:
- Clarifying that Great Horns gives +1 to the model's Strength characteristic.
- Tightening up some of the wording here and there, as per Slev's suggestions.
- Petrified Sorcerer will become a unit upgrade for Immortals and Acolytes, and will therefore appear in the army list after them (where the bit about the hats is now). It counts as part of its unit in all respects.
- Lesser Daemonic Engines are going - instead, Mortal Engines can take a very limited selection of Daemonic Upgrades. Greater Daemonic Engines (renamed just "Daemonic Engines") will become 1-3 per unit, but the limit of 100 pts of Upgrades will remain for the whole unit, meaning that the more you take, the fewer you can spend on Upgrades.
Gar Shadowfame:
Bagro: some units are aimed to be less powerful than they suppose to be by their points and are not ment as tournament selection, exactly like some units in GW AB’s, (examples: Lion chariots, Shagoth, warhawk riders, vargulf, empire militia, witch elves, har’ganeth, treekin, flame cannon, grail pilgrims, slayers, etc, note its 7ed metagame)
actualy colossus and blunderbusses were some of the longest topics on playtet forum,
thomy: warlord + pickled head + armor of ghazrak + 50 free points, + taurus with wings, great horns, thunderous charge, whirling blades and 30 free points
total 145+50+ 50+ 85= 330 pts for lord with 4S4 attacks with rerol (possible upgrade up to 50 pts) and D6S6 impacts and D6S6 attacks with rerol ( hate for whle model) that might have killing blow for some more pts.
LOL
oh and its flying but better attack stats than a dragon, and if someone wants more survivability you can pick dawnstone for 25 for a rerol, and still have pts for magic weapon.
mate i’d playtest a CD list if, IF, the creator hadnt sid many times it is his work and he doesnt care what ppl think nor he wants input from other ppl, why would i waste my time to play a list by you, oly so you can ignore feedback cos its your “chilld”
+ bulcentaurs are weird, 2 wounds are nonsensual, and why the hell scaly skin? game wise, you gave them chaos armor already, fluff wise “scales”?
but thats just me
what actualy might interest you is that lesser engine entry in army selection is unclear, “2 dwarfs and 1-3 engines”
also Inferno Shells- are u mad, who do you think will play with you against -no charge or march- no charge??
Thommy H:
( hate for whle model)Hatred doesn't affect mounts.
+ bulcentaurs are weird, 2 wounds are nonsensual, and why the hell scaly skin? game wise, you gave them chaos armor already, fluff wise "scales"?Scaly skin isn't always literally scales. They have Scaly Skin 6+ because they were going to be Monstrous Cavalry, but I changed them to Beasts. Since they lost out on +1 save, I gave them Scaly Skin to make up for it. This gives them a 2+ save (3+ in close combat though...) making them an acceptable equivalent to heavy cavalry, see?
but thats just me
what actualy might interest you is that lesser engine entry in army selection is unclear, "2 dwarfs and 1-3 engines"Why is that unclear? The unit consists of two Dwarfs and between 1 and 3 engines.
also Inferno Shells- are u mad, who do you think will play with you against -no charge or march- no charge??Probably the same people who play against Earthshakers, since it's virtually the same effect. Halving movement and preventing shooting is literally the same thing as not allowing march moves, and preventing charges altogether for a single unit is no more powerful than making it much harder for every unit within 2D6" of the target point to actually make their charges.
some units are aimed to be less powerful than they suppose to be by their points and are not ment as tournament selectionTell you what, Gar, if it makes you feel better, the following units in my list are not intended for competitive tournament play:
Ghorth the Cruel, Zhatan the Black, Astragoth, Lord Bhaal, Sorcerer Lord, Warlord, Hothgar Daemonbane, Volgar the Mad, Gorduz Backstabber, Sorcerer, Despot, Bull Centaur Elder, Chaos Dwarf Warriors, Chaos Dwarf Stormcallers, Immortals, Acolytes of Hashut, Hobgoblin Wolf Riders, Ogres, Black Orcs, Mortal Engines, Bull Centaurs, Petrified Sorcerer, Altar of Hashut, Daemonic Engines.
Baggronor:
some units are aimed to be less powerful than they suppose to be by their points and are not ment as tournament selection, exactly like some units in GW AB's, (examples: Lion chariots, Shagoth, warhawk riders, vargulf, empire militia, witch elves, har'ganeth, treekin, flame cannon, grail pilgrims, slayers, etc, note its 7ed metagame)I am well aware that certain units have their points inflated due to the army's strengths and weaknesses. I do think the concept of a unit 'not being meant as a tournament selection' is inaccurate though. I have seen Lion Chariots, Varghulfs, Treekin and Slayers all being used by top players (I used a Varghulf regularly in my Grand Tourney lists, he is well worth his points in the context of VCs) so I am highly doubtful there is any intentional 'non-tournament-choice' unit creation, rather some qualities are simply unfavourable for all-comers lists to a certain extent, depending on playstyle. I can't imagine what the reasons were for the bloated points cost of the Kollossus Tower, as its abilities are frankly pathetic. The issues with Annihilators' rules have already been discussed at length, and I don't see how they made it into the book for any reason other than poor judgement. But this is all my opinion, and its off topic anyway.
actualy colossus and blunderbusses were some of the longest topics on playtet forum,
thomy: warlord + pickled head + armor of ghazrak + 50 free points, + taurus with wings, great horns, thunderous charge, whirling blades and 30 free pointsHe is on a 2 wound, T5 mount. Be my guest. He'll be walking turn two.
total 145+50+ 50+ 85= 330 pts for lord with 4S4 attacks with rerol (possible upgrade up to 50 pts) and D6S6 impacts and D6S6 attacks with rerol ( hate for whle model) that might have killing blow for some more pts.
LOL
oh and its flying but better attack stats than a dragon, and if someone wants more survivability you can pick dawnstone for 25 for a rerol, and still have pts for magic weapon.
Thommy H:
Listen, can we just move away from this? Gar, you were kind of antagonistic for pretty much the same reasons in the thread for the last version of this book. As I said right at the beginning, if you have fundamental problems with the way I’ve done things, maybe this book is just not for you. What’s the point in pursuing an argument you can’t win? Do you think I’ll take it down? Do you think I’ll invite you to help me write a brand new revision? Do you imagine me sheepishly coming 'round to your point of view and admitting you were right all along and submitting my list to your expert edits?
No. There’s no endgame for you in this debate. It would be much easier to just leave it. I’m asking you respectfully. I don’t want this thread to be an argument. I’ve already taken on board comments and criticisms from others so far, so this is not about me not being able to take advice, it’s just that you seem to disagree with some fundamental principles of my working methods, so why bother? Life is too short - and I speak as a man who spent hours upon hours writing a pretend sourcebook for his toys that hardly anyone will ever use.
Also, huge thanks to Xander for linking to this on the main page! I didn’t realise this was considered so newsworthy, but I’m glad you think so highly of it.
Gar Shadowfame:
thommy,
"A model striking hated foe in close combat re-rolls…"
and 2 wound flying taurus is a single model with warlord, also what you might have missed one cant shoot at the taurus only character, also i dunno if it has Stomp because i didnt read carefuully,
and only thing you can say after seeing overpowered combo is “hatred doesnt affect mounts” this model has ability of inflicting 16 S6 attacks on charge, costing under 400 pts, so its viable lord for small 1600 game.
i’m not following this BC being beasts, what are the merits besides whim? and what centigors are atm?
thomy d u rly claim that in the times of mass infantry units and deathstars “no charge” is the equivalent of old earthshaker, especialy you added scatter reroll,
so 2 dwarfs + 1-3 engines is silly, its more beneficial to buy them as separate choices 2+1;2+1 etc, you get 2 wounds for the same price, more strategical options, and you ignore the limits on upgrades
and in the end, so whole army is not ment for tournaments, so it lacks balance so playing against it will be horrible cos either you get smashed or you smash enemy but there is no sportsmanship that follows balanced rooster
you asked for playtesting but yet you cant stand small criticism, if i had spend a week on you book, checking the probabilities, and points variations and then composing strong army to show that there are basic flows in design, ( if any ofc) then i would hear same thing from you, “its mine allone, you may only say nice things cos i wont listen to bad ones because i dont want to change it cos i like it as it is because its my creation” pfff
baggro: it was mentioned that anihilators are as they are cos 5ed rules take longer to play, measuring adequate firezone then counting valid targets blah blah, yet they wanted to keep the spirit of unusual shooting.
Thommy H:
"its mine allone, you may only say nice things cos i wont listen to bad ones because i dont want to change it cos i like it as it is because its my creation"And yet I am making changes right now based on what other people have said in this thread. I'm going to ask you politely one last time: walk away. There's nothing for you to win here. All you can do is make people dislike you. Is winning an argument on the internet so important to you that you're going to drag this thread down into an endless debate over minute details?
aka_mythos:
I’m going with Thommy on this… since he actually writes legibly and I don’t get a headache trying to make sense of the poor grammar.
This is a proposed rule set and Thommy is actually taking criticisms into consideration. So there really isn’t any “wrong” on his side. Just because its proposed doesn’t mean its met the full scrutiny of playtesting; if we held everything to that standard we would only ever see “completed” army books and would leave us seaking changes at the least appropriate time to see worthwhile changes realized.
clam:
Looking great. Looking forward giving it a good read. Looks impressive - can’t even imagine how much time you must have spend creating this epic book.
EDIT: Already seen two typos! Ho hum.
Not exactly a typo - but I can’t take credit for the Mortal Engine on page 76. It Ghrask Dragh’s work - mine is painted - but still needs to finish the base
Xander:
Gar Shadowfame, please be civil. Criticisms are fine, as Thommy has stated, but your belligerent attitude isn’t helpful at all. Thommy has every right to compose a book with as little or as much influence from others as he desires. Additionally, your short-hand is becoming increasing hard to read and goes against forum policy. Please aim to improve this.
* Don’t use excessive txt spk or other shorthand ways of writing. It’s hard to read and is completely unnecessary.@Thommy, I think this is quite news-worthy. I look forward to the updated copy. Let me know when it’s ready to go on the main site.
* Use punctuation.
Rules
Thommy H:
if we held everything to that standard we would only ever see "completed" army books and would leave us seaking changes at the least appropriate time to see worthwhile changes realized.Pretty much. I'd much rather people give this a try and see what works now that the presentation has already wowed the audience. See, I figure a complete looking document is way more likely to impress potential players and make them think its worth using. Much like the Indy GT book became popular by promising to become quasi-Official, which got people interested, I'm going for, "hey, that looks great and the fluff is really interesting so a lot of thought must have gone into the rules too."
Clam: you were credited erroneously in the Word of Hashut too then! Shame to take you out as a contributor, but I'm glad you like the book so far.
Xander: I'll let you know when it's updated (shouldn't be too long, actually - I've just got to fill some space in the Army List now I've taken out Lesser Engines).
mattbird:
hey, this looks fantastic! I have only flipped through it, looking forward to reading it all.
I assume you know you are missing all the GW legal copy? 
Khan!:
I speak as a man who spent hours upon hours writing a pretend sourcebook for his toys that hardly anyone will ever use.But it is a very nice sourcebook. So there's that!
Thommy H
Thommy H: Anyways, this is a very impressive piece of work. As you've noted, there are some spelling or grammatical errors interspersed throughout the book (mostly in your fluff sections, that I've noticed). But I'll let you deal with them, unless you'd like specific citations.
Overall however I think the level of polish on this is tremendous, and the amount of hard work that's gone into it is obvious. It also sounds like the adjustments proposed by Baggronor and aka_mythos will improve the book a fair bit, so good things all around!
Thommy H:
I assume you know you are missing all the GW legal copy?The credits at the end should make it clear what I own and what I don't own...
Thanks for the comments, Khan!
Gar Shadowfame:
It should be clear from the unusually complete nature of this document that certain decisions were taken long ago, and they ain't changing now.i gave you some serious issue, on both lesser engines and taurus, would you like to comment 16 S6 attacks or not? (ah 12 could be with KB)
Xander, i agree that ppl have right to do what they want with what they create, but if they ask for an oppinion then after they hear it they cant say "oh you rude brute stop saying that", he created an army book, great, is it game balanced, no, is it important, well it should be.
It is a PUBLIC forum, so constructive criticism is included, is saying that unbalanced army list is bad constructive, yes it is.
now i am usualy not using certain grammar aspects cos its a choice, i do know them and i have docuumentation to prove it, i passe IELTS getting band 8 2 years ago, i am not an english teacher but i am above the average brit, australian, or american
its also a form of test if i hear about grammar in post exchange with someone i know this person is not worth my efforts anymore, either she is using dirty arguments just to say something or is too ignorant to see meening behind text.
but i am not the devil
demonic upgrades are great idea, and i miss variety in certain aspect of present warhammer, but what i've shown earlier with 16 attacks model ruins the idea. sadly same as artificial boundaries of how many points the model can buy.
Firstly lets look at the point based top limit, it is a monster that can cost maximum 165 for a lord character, (50 base 15 wings 100 rest)
compare it to great taurus.
also monster for this points is more potent than great taurus
whne designing structure like this, its advised to use models, like a clip board with papers representing each ability and its points listed, then i'd suggest divideing them into categories, (attack, defense, other) and mark papers with 3 colours representing categories, this way its more wisible for a designer what can he mix,
then maby it would be a good idea to allow lord level mount to pick up to 2 upgrades from each category, and hero level up to 1.
other option is to create more subcategories, aka wh40k squad upgrades, so for example monster can take poison or killing blow or random attacks, it can have armor or magic resistance etc
this way designer is in controll and knows all the possible combinations, sorry to say that but i doubt you anticipated combination i posted earlier on.
also with slow thing, despite the limitations you tried to build in one cheapest charge blocker costs 105 so you can have 3 in bellow 3k army in specials alone, and still have lots of options
Thommy H:
Also, after trying really hard to make it work, I’ve abandoned the idea of multiple Engines in one unit. Too many of the Upgrades were only suitable for a single model and I couldn’t find a way to make the entry work without loads of clunky language to explain which Upgrades were allowed. So screw it - you can just have one big Golem instead of three together like a unit of Ogres.
clam:
Clam: you were credited erroneously in the Word of Hashut too then! Shame to take you out as a contributor, but I'm glad you like the book so far.So it Willmarks fault, then :D - and yeah, a shame to see my name go - and had I just known (that you were looking for a swivel gun picture) I would have finished mine, just for you :D
Thommy H