[Warhammer Dark Omen Forum]

Warhammer Dark Omen Forum | Warhammer Dark Omen | Multiplayer | Rules and Standards
5000/15

[alavet]

night goblins should be 1/0/1 or 1/1/0

[Flak]

i think you underestimate the power of an angry goblin my friend hehe

[alavet]

i just mean that night goblins get little useless since you may hire two orc boyz regiment for the same price.

Orc Boyz  Level 1  1  1  2
Night Goblins  Level 1  1  1  1 

[Flak]

i suppose that is correct, it would benefit the use of goblins with 1/1/0

making zombies 1/0/1 has been a great success for undead armies in adding an otherwise overlooked unit

[olly]

Great Idea!

[alavet]

i think wraiths should be changed to 5/6/7 like mummies (or even 5/6/5)

wraith a VERY fragile and flee from ANY back attack. that means that even two regiments for 1 points (like goblins) may kill them. they also may flee from the unholy sword or horn so cost for this unit is too much in my opinion.
maybe for 3k/10 cost is rather okish, (6 points) cause therer is not very big number of regiments used, but at 5k/15 there is usually at least 6 regiments placed (or orc usually have 10 regiments).

[bembelimen]

Ok guys I read all the posts and tried to make a collection of all suggestions (ofc everything is a subjective collection  )

ok, let's start:

I agree with the following changes:

Dwarfs: they're slow, that's correct, but the other skills are much better than the "normal" infantry in DO. So i would suggest: 2 2 2.
Spider: The "2" in the first point was the 360° view, cause in 3k you havn't the number of regiments to overlook all sides, so it's very useful there. Unlike in 5k. So 1 2 2 sounds good for me.
Goblins: Yep, yep, yep, they suck. Decrease is ok. But I would like to see more Fanatics, so i would suggest to decrease them too:

• Night Goblins - 1 1 0
• Night Goblin Archers - 1 1 1
• Night Goblins With Fanatics - 1 2 1
• Night Goblin Archers With Fanatics - 2 1 2

Orc Shaman: He's a tough fighter (did someone noticed it?) and his spells are ok, compared to the other mages I would suggest: 2 2 3
Screaming Skull Catapult: Very slow, so 3 3 4 is ok for me.
Skeleton Horsemen: Very hard decision, but I like the idea of 2 4 4.
Wraiths: 5 6 7 looks good for me.
Black Grail: 9 10 10 or 8 10 10? How tough is a BKG+2*Ghouls +2*Skeleton Archers+2*Zombies? I want to see 9 points for the grail....

I don't agree with the following:

Orc Boar Boyz: weaker than Big'uns
Big'uns: strongest Greenskins (very hard to defeat in cc if you have to fight several of them)
Wood Elf Glade Guards: Very fast, average fighter, so I neither see the matter to increase it nor to decrease it.

I hope I didn't forget an army. If nobody object, I would update the ruleset in a few days. Otherwise please post.

[Flak]

Good ideas bembe

i would say that dwarf warriors are still over prices compared to their vulnerability to archers and not much better stats than swordmen, if they had more movement i would agree but i think 2 for first is a little high

Skeleton warriors i think 2/4/4 takes away the point to buy 2, since they are just 1 pts less than wraiths

I love the goblin idea, being a big fan of goblins myself hehe
and i agree with your comments on everything else

[alavet]

i still dont get idea of INCREASING second/third  mages in cost (actually i HATE it) but rest seems ok
especially decreasing of wraiths HAHAHAAAA

[bembelimen]

i still dont get idea of INCREASING second/third  mages in cost

The idea is still the same as the increase for the other units: avoid multiusing of regiments (regardless how useful the third regiment of the same type is)

[alavet]

>>>avoid multiusing of regiments

so why u dont ban 3 zombies then? i just dont get it.
wtf if you think that 3 mages are imba crush me/some1 else, but im sure that its NOT.

so if its useless why not to allow people use it? cause its really opens up some tactics (for example increasing chance of screming scull spell of fire mage) and id use it but i cant afford 4 points for that. 3 possibly ok but not 4

wtfffff i feel sick about it sirs

[bembelimen]

so why u dont ban 3 zombies then? i just dont get it.
[...]
i cant afford 4 points for that. 3 possibly ok but not 4this is a (rather) lopsided comparison

I'll explain the "idea" of the increase:

At the beginning we had (for example) much armys with 4 big'uns, 2 archers, 1 shaman+items....very equal, the idea of the "increase" is now, that a player who want to use a 3rd regiment of the same type have to think, if he should take it or if he should take 2 other cheaper regiments (for your example with the bright wizard: you could use your 3rd bright wizard for 4 points or you use a Ice Mage+Mercenary Ogres). So the "weaker" units will used too and no multiusing of "perfect" units.

The main goal of the two rules (3k/10+5k/15) are making all regiments playable and avoid specialized armys. And we allow to use the 3rd mage, but (conform) to the rules it "hurts" you, if you try to use more units of the same type.

so if its useless why not to allow people use it? cause its really opens up some tactics

I never said, that 3 mages are imba/useless. But this is a (rather) lopsided comparison. If you wanna have a better chance to get your prefered spell, why shouldn't you pay more for it? And for example, if I wanna use BGK+horn should we allow it? I think that would be a nice tactic......

[alavet]

for your example with the bright wizard: you could use your 3rd bright wizard for 4 points or you use a Ice Mage+Mercenary Ogres

So the "weaker" units will used too and no multiusing of "perfect" units.

If you wanna have a better chance to get your prefered spell, why shouldn't you pay more for it?

the problem in your example that bright wizard not "perfect unit".
not at all.
i very hard to imagine that someone would EVER use even SECOND mage (im not talking about third). mages pretty useless at lvl1, i doubt they really cost 2pts for the first one. so having SECOND mage usually is not AN ADVANTAGE but its actually very bad idea, especially if it costs 3 points.

in our current rules about half of all regiment have the same cost for the second units, and using 2nd regiment for same prices usually an advantage. but using second mage for the same price but with less efficently (cause they share mana points) is kinda absurd. and its illogial to force ppl pay more for weaker things. ive never seen 2nd bright wizrard at games but i saw a lot of double regiments (x2 biguns, x2 ghouls etc etc) DO YOU SEE WHY?

And for example, if I wanna use BGK+horn should we allow it? I think that would be a nice tactic......

and its definately incorrect example, cause BGK+horn most probably imba, but second mage is not, and with current rules he is actually weaken army.

[bembelimen]

I can repeat me only again and again:

avoid multiusing of regiments (regardless how useful the third regiment of the same type is)

The main goal of the two rules (3k/10+5k/15) are making all regiments playable and avoid specialized armys.

If you wanna use multiple regiments of the same type with this rules, you have to pay.

On the other way: This ruleset is not the "best" ruleset in the world, it's only a guideline for playing (if both player agree). So in general you can create an other ruleset (in the Wiki) who have other goals and post it here (for example without point restriction but more like DOST rules etc.). I bet, everyone will be happy to have more different rulesets for playing.

[alavet]

If you wanna use multiple regiments of the same type with this rules, you have to pay.

you contradict yourself
Night Goblins    Level 1    1    1    1
Mercenary Ogres    Level 1    2    2    3
Mercenary Cavalry    Level 1    3    3    4
Dwarf Warriors    Level 1    2    2    3
Skeleton Horsemen    Level 1    3    3    4

etc etc etc