New Ubiquity Rules- Not Happy!
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 6:42 pm
The new muster rules (v2.08) are out and I have to give some feedback on the ubiquity rules- I think they're terrible, and a detriment to the game. Specifically, they hobble the game at higher gold costs to the point of unplayability. I’m using 2000g as an example here; previously, the only minimum unit you’d need was 1 mainstay. It’s now risen to 3 mainstay, 2 common. This causes so many problems:
1) Darklands is still a game in its infancy. Unlike well-established games like WHFB and Warmahordes, most people don’t have a huge collection they can play around with. Due to the price of the models, and so many of them not being out yet, everyone I know who’s been starting the game has planned an army list and bought accordingly. The new rules now mean that all our armies are now invalid at higher gold cost. Mine- which was complete 2000g force- is now completely unplayable.
2) It kills variety at higher points. One of the main things that attracted me to Darklands was how much variety you could have in your lists. Take the Brythoniaid for instance: although from the same realm, you could easily have a pure human list, or a mono-dyndraig list, or even a mono-dynwocor list. You could base armies on a theme, and it was fantastic. These new muster rules mean you can no longer do that. Previously taking a non-human commander meant their matching non-human unit became mainstay, and thus fulfilled your minimum requirements. Now you’re forced to take a mishmash of units just to make your force legal (especially with effective size sucking out your points), and due to what counts as common, everybody will be taking the same thing. For armies with not much development (eg Vras) this means those players are stuck taking multiples of the exact same unit.
3) It will lead to ridiculous builds. I’ll use my own force as an example here: in 2000g previously I had a sronax commander, leading a unit of sronax. This fulfilled my minimum mainstay requirement, was a nice solid unit and looked fantastic on the battlefield. Now I have to take 3 separate units of 3 sronax each, except that the commander doesn’t have the authority to command them all, meaning he’s leading two separate blocks (who can’t join up as a single unit) with the single other sronax now following the warlock. Absolutely stupid and just makes things even more complicated.
4) It punishes players who use monstrous infantry. Let’s be honest, one of the big appeals of Darklands is its monstrous infantry. When Mierce first launched, the trolls and the dyndraig were amongst their earliest models, and they caused massive excitement in my gaming area. Historical wargames are ten a penny, but the MI really makes Darklands stand above the others. Except now you can no longer make viable armies based on them- see points 2 and 3. It’s especially punishing for players who had been building up their forces with this objective (see point 1). The effective size rule is another twist of the knife, as you now need a minimum of 3 models per unit. Good luck with fielding 9 vassals with their 2 commanders, let me know how many points/money you have left over afterwards.
5) It just doesn’t make sense. Take the rare choice, for instance- why is there a minimum rare choice for cataclysm battles? The clue’s in the name- it’s rare, as in something barely seen. A rare choice being compulsory doesn’t make sense. Same with common/uncommon units; if they’re compulsory, it defeats the point of their ubiquity. Players shouldn’t be forced to take these supposedly elusive units. It just smacks as forcing players to purchase multiple different units instead of the same ones they like using.
In a nutshell, I think the new ubiquity limits are absolutely awful. They don’t scale to large battles, make list building a chore, and are incredibly punishing. I’ve spent several hundred pounds on my Darklands force, and now it’s completely unplayable. All that money, wasted. I’ll be honest, this has made me seriously consider giving up on the game; I’ve spent a lot on a game that technically isn’t out yet, and I’m not willing to spend even more to essentially restart my army from scratch. The variety is what really attracted me to Darklands, but if it’s turning into a game of mass infantry and draconic restrictions, I might as well stick with Warhammer Fantasy.
For all doom and gloom, some suggestions as how to improve this:
- Reduce the minimum mainstay. I actually liked the previous amount (1 min for skirmish/battle, 2 for war, 4 for cataclysm), since it gave a solid core to your force without throttling it.
- Reduce minimum common. Say, 1 for battle, 2 for war, 3 for cataclysm.
- Get rid of uncommon/rare minimum ubiquities. They don’t make sense anyway.
- Bring back the old rule of having commanders making their kin mainstay, instead of common, since it reduces the pressure on what counts as mainstay and gives more flexibility on who the general is.
Please sort this out Mierce; I really think these new ubiquity rules are a step in the wrong direction, and just too harsh for a game that has previously given players a lot of freedom and variety in building their force. I'll admit I'm pretty furious that my army- which I've spent ages planning and painting- is now unlikely to see play, but even putting my personal feelings to one side, I don't think these ubiquity rules are balanced or fair.
1) Darklands is still a game in its infancy. Unlike well-established games like WHFB and Warmahordes, most people don’t have a huge collection they can play around with. Due to the price of the models, and so many of them not being out yet, everyone I know who’s been starting the game has planned an army list and bought accordingly. The new rules now mean that all our armies are now invalid at higher gold cost. Mine- which was complete 2000g force- is now completely unplayable.
2) It kills variety at higher points. One of the main things that attracted me to Darklands was how much variety you could have in your lists. Take the Brythoniaid for instance: although from the same realm, you could easily have a pure human list, or a mono-dyndraig list, or even a mono-dynwocor list. You could base armies on a theme, and it was fantastic. These new muster rules mean you can no longer do that. Previously taking a non-human commander meant their matching non-human unit became mainstay, and thus fulfilled your minimum requirements. Now you’re forced to take a mishmash of units just to make your force legal (especially with effective size sucking out your points), and due to what counts as common, everybody will be taking the same thing. For armies with not much development (eg Vras) this means those players are stuck taking multiples of the exact same unit.
3) It will lead to ridiculous builds. I’ll use my own force as an example here: in 2000g previously I had a sronax commander, leading a unit of sronax. This fulfilled my minimum mainstay requirement, was a nice solid unit and looked fantastic on the battlefield. Now I have to take 3 separate units of 3 sronax each, except that the commander doesn’t have the authority to command them all, meaning he’s leading two separate blocks (who can’t join up as a single unit) with the single other sronax now following the warlock. Absolutely stupid and just makes things even more complicated.
4) It punishes players who use monstrous infantry. Let’s be honest, one of the big appeals of Darklands is its monstrous infantry. When Mierce first launched, the trolls and the dyndraig were amongst their earliest models, and they caused massive excitement in my gaming area. Historical wargames are ten a penny, but the MI really makes Darklands stand above the others. Except now you can no longer make viable armies based on them- see points 2 and 3. It’s especially punishing for players who had been building up their forces with this objective (see point 1). The effective size rule is another twist of the knife, as you now need a minimum of 3 models per unit. Good luck with fielding 9 vassals with their 2 commanders, let me know how many points/money you have left over afterwards.
5) It just doesn’t make sense. Take the rare choice, for instance- why is there a minimum rare choice for cataclysm battles? The clue’s in the name- it’s rare, as in something barely seen. A rare choice being compulsory doesn’t make sense. Same with common/uncommon units; if they’re compulsory, it defeats the point of their ubiquity. Players shouldn’t be forced to take these supposedly elusive units. It just smacks as forcing players to purchase multiple different units instead of the same ones they like using.
In a nutshell, I think the new ubiquity limits are absolutely awful. They don’t scale to large battles, make list building a chore, and are incredibly punishing. I’ve spent several hundred pounds on my Darklands force, and now it’s completely unplayable. All that money, wasted. I’ll be honest, this has made me seriously consider giving up on the game; I’ve spent a lot on a game that technically isn’t out yet, and I’m not willing to spend even more to essentially restart my army from scratch. The variety is what really attracted me to Darklands, but if it’s turning into a game of mass infantry and draconic restrictions, I might as well stick with Warhammer Fantasy.
For all doom and gloom, some suggestions as how to improve this:
- Reduce the minimum mainstay. I actually liked the previous amount (1 min for skirmish/battle, 2 for war, 4 for cataclysm), since it gave a solid core to your force without throttling it.
- Reduce minimum common. Say, 1 for battle, 2 for war, 3 for cataclysm.
- Get rid of uncommon/rare minimum ubiquities. They don’t make sense anyway.
- Bring back the old rule of having commanders making their kin mainstay, instead of common, since it reduces the pressure on what counts as mainstay and gives more flexibility on who the general is.
Please sort this out Mierce; I really think these new ubiquity rules are a step in the wrong direction, and just too harsh for a game that has previously given players a lot of freedom and variety in building their force. I'll admit I'm pretty furious that my army- which I've spent ages planning and painting- is now unlikely to see play, but even putting my personal feelings to one side, I don't think these ubiquity rules are balanced or fair.