• Roll-up! Roll-up! Come one and all the fantastic Turning the World to Darkness painting competition. Welcome to any skill level, you can find out more here.
  • It's time once again to ferret out those murderous vampires in a new VAU - Vampires Amongst Us. A cross between Cluedo and a roleplay, sometimes gory and often hilarious! Find out more here.

LoN 8th Edition: Army Wide Rules

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#26
What Uziel says seems balanced and fair. Perhaps you could choose one of the three options as an "enchantment" to your BSB? So that, included in the price of the BSB, you could have one of the three options in that BSB? This would also be justified in the fluff: 'Nagash's wizards enscorcelled the banners of the legions in potent magicks...'.
I personally prefer option 3, though.
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#27
Ideally, I'd like to see the BSB impove Channeling within 12", as well as the usual LD re-roll for the mortal troops, and then have the "safer to cast" angle tied to the wizards and their teachings at the proverbial feet of Nagash'es throne.
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#28
So you want "safer to cast" to appear in wizards' profiles, rather than BSB? That sounds much better; I think BSB should do the channeling thing Uziel says.
 

Bishop

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
2,887
#29
The Dread King said:
So you want "safer to cast" to appear in wizards' profiles, rather than BSB? That sounds much better; I think BSB should do the channeling thing Uziel says.
This seem cool to me... along with the generic BSB options for the living troops.
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#30
Yeah but if we keep generic options, mortal wizards will really benefit, getting the re-roll and the power to channel. Are we going to have mortal wizards? If so, perhaps the BSB price should be raised.
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#31
Mortal wizards or not, a small bonus to channeling vs. A loss taken towards reducing casualties seems like a pretty fair deal point-wise. I don't really think it justifies a bsb point change, but that is just my immediate opinion.
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#32
Alright, well, it wouldn't be very OP either way, seems like we're agreed on this. Any thoughts, DoN, or is it time to wrap this up?
 

Disciple of Nagash

The Perverted One
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
27,916
#33
So just to clarify. The LoN BSB will help towards channeling (+1 to roll within 12"), mortal troops can re-roll as normal, however it will not negate 1 wound for the undead troops? I think that works.

If that is correct, then yes I think we have wrapped up the army wide rules. Woohoo! :happy:
 

Bishop

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
2,887
#34
I'm okay with the +1 to channel within 12", as long as it's either a) non-stackable bonus or b) there are no other items that provide such a bonus.
 

Lynks

Lord of RAW
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Dec 29, 2010
Messages
2,262
#36
There is a singular army book item called the channelling staff which gives +1.

I wouldn't say it's too overpowered to make it stackable, so long as the LoN rules have no other way of boosting channelling ability

EDIT: Oops, meant BRB item
 

Disciple of Nagash

The Perverted One
Staff member
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
27,916
#37
Isn't there a generic item that does it that as well? Personally I agree with Bishop, making it non-stackable just makes it a lot simpler and ensures it is not OP.
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#38
I'm not really sure I see it as a big problem. If you pay for a benefit twice in points, then more often than not, you should benefit from both instances. You have paid for it in points after all.
That said however, I also see the need for some balance here, but personally I think that magical power is quite fitting a boon to our army overall. The question is that IF this is so, what tactical aspect do we suffer at to compensate? The problem I see so far, is that the tactical "theme/identity" of the army is not that well developed when measured against the other armies, and this things become a bit hard to balance at this stage, as we have no idea of what we will en up with in the end. People seem very loathe to discuss any kind of weaknesses overall, and "nagash" seem to be the the proverbial excuse for going above the "norm" for most units and so on. It seems like it was agreed on at some point, that the LoN was going to be more of an Elite undead army, which to me personally goes against what the real threat of nagash which was vast numbers... Those two don't unite particularly well in a point per model game.

Before we start on all the units again, I think we should have a real discussion on the overall army from a tactical standpoint, as this will help everyone get a much clearer picture of what we are trying to achieve with the project, as well as establishing some guidelines to unit creation etc. It will also help the theme of the army immensely to get things written down now that we have the core army rules done. Speaking as a relative newcomer to the project, it has been really hard to pin down any kind of definite tactical theme to the army, beyond "undead but more powerful, which again, really doesn't go all that well with what the threat of nagash was all about in a point based game.
just saying, that I think we have some things to figure out before we continue ahead, or at least that I personally think we could benefit gratly from taking the time to look things over, review things, work a bit on the story element of the army (what is the status present day etc?).. There is just a lot that needs answering to build the theme of the whole army and tie the whole project together.

Just a thought btw, we could let the BSB allow a Channeling re-roll within the AOE instead of a flat +1 bonus, just to prevent too many commulative +x bonuses..
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#39
There are several significant weaknesses, Uziel:

Undead can't run (even when you want them to!)
Without a good character, undead are in danger of crumbling, and a locus who tries to stop that may die in the attempt
Undead can't march very well
Legion has a lack of cheap, easy-to-obtain zombies
Skeletons can't resurrect past starting size
Leaders are chosen through locus and leadership; you can't really choose your own
And maybe many more...
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#40
The Dread King:

You sort of miss my point there D.K.

I'm not saying that UNDEAD don't have any particular strengths and/or weaknesses. I'm talking about what is going to distinguish this army on the battlefield (both good and bad) when measured against the VC and TK lists in particular, but also against the other armies out there.

More important than that however, I assume we are making a "present day" type army list, and I think we need to establish what is happening in Nagashizzar? Who is in charge and where do the leaders come from (background)? What is the great scheme this time? How will things be different this time around? This time mortals cultists are a factor, but why? Etc etc... The list seems to lack this part all together, which I think is quite necessary to give it some depth, purpose and focus.

Not going to start a point for point discussion here D.K, that was not my intention, but you know just as well as me that many of those weaknesses are conditional, can be overcome by our magic, we have compensated for this by other means, etc etc. We also have our strengths as undead, not just weaknesses. :)
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#42
Again, you seem to miss my major points D.K, but since you insist on discussing the points you mentioned above:

2.Without a good character, undead are in danger of crumbling, and a locus who tries to stop that may die in the attempt

-When measured against the VC/TK armies, I think we come out pretty well here in fact, especially compared to the TK list, who have no second chance to stop crumbling at all. With a number of decent (or cheap for that matter) heroes scattered around, we have a fair chance of retaining parts of our armies, while in the VC case, it is more do or die for the army as a whole due to the death of the general. There are pros and cons to be sure, but I'm not really sure we come out of things worse than the VC army, and certainly not worse than the TK's with their vulnerable Hierophant.
As to the chance of loosing a character due to a failed LD test, it is not all that likely, as the whole unit has to crumble around him before he takes any wounds himself, and raising may still keep him and his unit in the game for a long while. Besides, what is to stop him from leaving a crumbling unit to save his own skin if he doesn't believe the necromancers can keep it "afloat" numbers-wise?
My overall point is that considering that crumbling is an undead weakness that we can hardly avoid, we don't come out of it that bad. There are advantages to being undead as well, which we can only really have with the compromise of crumbling...


3.Undead can't march very well

True. We do however have Locusts to lead our regiments where we need them to be if we so chooce, or we can gamle that we can get it done with magic instead. Overall, sure it is a disadvantage, but I'd say that the 12" march bubble that the VC army has might be a bigger problem, especially in larger battles.

6.Leaders are chosen through locus and leadership; you can't really choose your own

This is a bit of a difficult thing do discuss at this stage, as the characters are not themselves fully developed, and so we don't really know how common Locusts will be etc... I do imagine that we won't have too many character options that are not Locusts however...
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#43
I thought Locuses trying to stop the crumbling processes took direct wounds if they failed to take control of the army. That is Legion-specific. And sorry abut saying 'point 3', I meant point 4:

TKs have cheap skellies, which we have to buy in blocks of 50, and VC have cheap zombies, which we don't have, looking at the core section - we have expensive revenants. We have a lack of very cheap troops.
 

Bishop

Master Necromancer
True Blood
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
2,887
#45
I'm okay with rerolling channeling rolls. It something a little different, which still gives you basically the same effect.
 

The Dread King

Moderator
Staff member
True Blood
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,897
#46
Yeah and it solves the problem of chanelling bonuses stacking, which some consider OP. I like it a lot, but bear in mind, if that's yet another BSB ability, BSB should be raised by 5 points, because benefits of BSB for living are 25pts in normal armies, benefits for living AND dead are 25pts in this army (doesn't seem OP) but re-roll channel rolls within 12" on top of that...I think it should be 5pts higher.

Sidenote: And only a few posts ago I thought we'd finished with this thread... :O
 

Uziel

Vargheist
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
689
#47
D.K.

We don't have the normal -1 Wound to Undead units from the BSB as the VC and TK armies do. We have that part simply changed with the Channeling bonus instead. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top