Mierce Miniatures

VALPHAOMEGAV wrote:In the Fomoraic muster both the Ograx and Ograx Reiver Untain have 1d10 Wound+ on their paired weapons profile, said profile also doesn’t have a cost associated with it.

Good spot - sorted. They're 14 and 13 respectively.

VALPHAOMEGAV wrote:Also, how will khelones fit in with the other khthones kindreds, as currently the only feasible way to field the khelon is with a Gorgon or Gorgor due to their overlord ability.

Well, like that, for now. Until the Khelones are expanded that's the only way.

VALPHAOMEGAV wrote:Byzantii: The Demiurion has the option for segmentata and also scutum remnants, but I don't think the C+A with segmentata is 78 as stated, should it not be 69 as the segmentata replaces the hamata completely for an improvement of 4 (difference between hamata Armour+ and segmentata Armour+) rather than being additional for an improvement of 13?

Yeah, got that wrong - I'll sort it. It'll end up 70.

VALPHAOMEGAV wrote:Erainn: Fir Bholg, Hurlers and Throwers have Bound (Tuanagh, Fiannagh, Fir Bholg), however the Fiannagh have no Bind (Fir Bholg (any variety)) and Tuanagh only have Bind (Fir Bholg, Fir Bholg Hurlers) with the additional caveat of the Tuanagh needing to be of the Connacht realm as well. Are these rules holdovers from the previous revision of the muster or are Fiannagh intentionally exempt from the realm caveat?

Fiannagh shouldn't be able to have them; they're Uí Néill, so only the Tuanagh should have them. I'll remove that. They'll be able to Bind to Deaisbard though, when they arrive (hearthguard).

Cheers
Rob

antoine wrote:Hi everyone,
Concerning the 2-influenced-or-common-units-to-form-a-mainstay question:
when I read in the new muster rules « Each command must include at least one Mainstay unit of effective size within it - effectively the commander's household warriors - and this is called the command Mainstay unit», I find it perfect, both il terms of Darklands lore and in terms of game mechanics.
The rule of "2 influenced units = a command Mainstay unit" is in the same spirit, and a very good idea to allow variations while keeping coherence. But 2 random common units = mainstay... I really don't see the point...
So I think the muster rules are great as they're writen now, and only adjustements on who compels/influences who are required.
Antoine

Yes, I am with you for sure, that's why I wrote it; I need to adjust nobles, basically.

Cheers
Rob

So I'll address this now...

demyse wrote:Ok. As far as I can see these are the miniatures (apart from sell swords) that are warlords or war chiefs that can no longer form commands
Rose of ker-ys
Augur drune
Seer drune
Harvest drune

They can have Veteran Ax-Drunes, although that's a bit silly... but it'll have to do for now. Hopefully this puts off lots of sorcerers as commanders, which was kind of my aim...

There will be some standard Drune infantry at some point - Spear-Drunes - but I won't add those until the miniatures arrive. One fine day...

The Rose will be able to Compel Sword-Melusines.

demyse wrote:Kynigos

I'll make him able to Influence (Oplites, Phalangites, Khalkotes). Veteran Oplites will become Mainstay though.

demyse wrote:Thaumaturios (crap spelling, mage dude)

Veteran Oplites - same deal as the Ysian sorcerers, until something standard comes along... Oplites are good infantry, common, but not your bog standard Atalantes.

demyse wrote:, dreaguth deathbringer

Oops I forgot to reduce his Authority. He's now 33, so you can have him in another command with the Dreaguth Thain. Tough monkeys on him - he can't have a command... yet.

demyse wrote:Wiglaca (if wiht)

Whoops... he should be able to Compel Wihts. I'll sort that to be: Compel (Wihtgār); Influence (Wihtsweord, Wihtax). The Licwaca will compel all those.

Cheers
Rob

I was looking at the Fomoraic Muster thinking about trying to build a Reiver muster and I had the following questions:

Should the Reiver Untain, Reiver Tain, Reivers, and Reiver Hunters gain Shieldwall when they purchase shields?

Should Archer Maari be added as a model option to the Reiver Untain and Tain since she is leading the Reiver Hunter infantry starter host?

Reivers and Reiver Hunters have Bind (Ograx Reiver). Ograx Reivers have Bound (Reiver) but does not have Bound (Reiver Hunter), should they?

Hi! My questions revolve around Atalantes and Kthones today.
So the Strategos and Lokagos have the Kthones lord rule which allows them to potentially take specific types of Kthones in a Atalantes force.
If I had a Strategos/Lokagos and tried to muster one of the nobles (Gorgonarch, Krokodarch etc) would that have to be mustered within the Strategos/Lokagos own Command? Or if the Strategos/Lokagos is the general, could they muster the Kthones nobles as commanders who respectively can take their own commands?
Furthermore if they can be mustered as commanders doesn’t the change of ubiquity to ‘Uncommon’ become slightly redundant in this scenario as commander ignore their own ubiquity when mustering?
Also due to the way realms work now does the doubling authority effect still apply here if a Strategos/Lokagos were to take the Kthones units, (Gorgonar, Gorgonrar and Krokodar) despite the changes of them becoming the slave privilege?
Last one, the Lokagos authority is 81 but with the Lord of Kthones rule could muster a Gorgonarch who’s Authority is 83, this would cause it to become a individual character without the chance to muster anything under its own command (if that’s correct) is that purposely designed in this case?
That’s all for today, I did reread the muster rules before posting so hopefully I haven’t asked easily answerable questions that just needed some reading, I’ll post up again if I notice anything else.
Many thanks
James

Jeff wrote:I was looking at the Fomoraic Muster thinking about trying to build a Reiver muster and I had the following questions:

Should the Reiver Untain, Reiver Tain, Reivers, and Reiver Hunters gain Shieldwall when they purchase shields?

They're too wild for that; they don't have Shieldwall for a reason, basically. So, no...

Jeff wrote:Should Archer Maari be added as a model option to the Reiver Untain and Tain since she is leading the Reiver Hunter infantry starter host?

Aye... I'll add her.

Jeff wrote:Reivers and Reiver Hunters have Bind (Ograx Reiver). Ograx Reivers have Bound (Reiver) but does not have Bound (Reiver Hunter), should they?

Yes - I'll add that!

Thanks for that Jeff.

Cheers
Rob

Crazyguy501 wrote:Hi! My questions revolve around Atalantes and Kthones today.
So the Strategos and Lokagos have the Kthones lord rule which allows them to potentially take specific types of Kthones in a Atalantes force.
If I had a Strategos/Lokagos and tried to muster one of the nobles (Gorgonarch, Krokodarch etc) would that have to be mustered within the Strategos/Lokagos own Command? Or if the Strategos/Lokagos is the general, could they muster the Kthones nobles as commanders who respectively can take their own commands?

Bloody good spot. You raise something I'd not addressed in the Muster rules; commanders cannot be of beast, slave or engine privilege. I'll add that in. It will say: "Warriors of Beast, Slave or Engine privilege cannot become a commander."

So no, Khthones nobles can't be commanders - they're slaves; they can Join the slave units and be their leaders, of course.

Crazyguy501 wrote:Furthermore if they can be mustered as commanders doesn’t the change of ubiquity to ‘Uncommon’ become slightly redundant in this scenario as commander ignore their own ubiquity when mustering?

Now moot...

Crazyguy501 wrote:Also due to the way realms work now does the doubling authority effect still apply here if a Strategos/Lokagos were to take the Kthones units, (Gorgonar, Gorgonrar and Krokodar) despite the changes of them becoming the slave privilege?

Another excellent point. I'll change it to this - "...the following Khthones units may be mustered as if their Ubiquity is Uncommon, their Privilege is Slave and their realm the same as the Strategos in an Atalantes host: Gorgonarch, Gorgórix, Gorgonargós, Krokodarch, Gorgonar, Gorgórar, Krokodar..."

Crazyguy501 wrote:Last one, the Lokagos authority is 81 but with the Lord of Kthones rule could muster a Gorgonarch who’s Authority is 83, this would cause it to become a individual character without the chance to muster anything under its own command (if that’s correct) is that purposely designed in this case?

Another good point. It must be noted I'm kind of fudging this for the moment (the Khthones loyalists will have their own profile in the Atalantes musters at some point) so I'll also add that their AUTHORITY is halved.

Crazyguy501 wrote:That’s all for today, I did reread the muster rules before posting so hopefully I haven’t asked easily answerable questions that just needed some reading, I’ll post up again if I notice anything else.

Keep it Jeff - great work. All these things make Darklands as watertight as possible!

Cheers
Rob

The Vras Goz-Horror has the bulk charger rule, meaning when it charges it gets impact hits, but one of its actual attacks is called 'bulk charge' which also has under the weapon rules 'impact strike'
does this mean on the charge it gets 2 sets of impact strikes? if so how would this affect trampling, as in would the additional trample attacks equate to additional impact strikes.

Also the goz-horror kill head weapon option does not grant armour, but the Kill thing kill head does, is this correct?

many thanks

demyse wrote:The Vras Goz-Horror has the bulk charger rule, meaning when it charges it gets impact hits, but one of its actual attacks is called 'bulk charge' which also has under the weapon rules 'impact strike'
does this mean on the charge it gets 2 sets of impact strikes? if so how would this affect trampling, as in would the additional trample attacks equate to additional impact strikes.

Ah - no, that's a line that I hide on the spreadsheets - it's just to calculate the points for the bulk charge and shouldn't be there.

demyse wrote:Also the goz-horror kill head weapon option does not grant armour, but the Kill thing kill head does, is this correct?

Yes.

Cheers
Rob

Hi,
I'm a bit surprised that the reiver untain with bow Influences the Reiver hunters, while the reiver tain with bow Compels them. Is there a mistake here?

Well, yes ;o)

I'll fix that.

Cheers
Rob

Some quick ones:

In the muster rules on pg. 5 the last abstarct under "Mainstay" is titled "Compelled Mainstay units gain free Unit Command Warriors"
Reading the examples I think that might be intended to say "Command Mainstay units get..."

Also on pg 5, first abstract under "Ubiquity": A commander ignores his own ubiquity when mustering units within his command.
So if f.ex. Belech would be my commander his whole ubiquity of Rare + Mythic + Unique would be ignored?

Overlord says " This means the general's kindred and realm are all of the kindreds and realms listed on his profile ..."
The following example then uses the Gorgon, but looking at the Gorgon, he only has one realm listed on his profile.
Should
a) Overlords list all realms on their profiles
or
b) the Overlord ruling refer to "all realms of the generals kindred"?

Erainn Oak Beast:
There seems to be an issue with the cost for High Cross upgrade. The might of 7 attacks is increased and the damage output rises a LOT, yet the cost is negative.

Overall feedback on the changes:
After reading through it and listening to the podcast I think I really like it.
The reduction of sorcerers was a good move that I hoped for for a while now and it's done in a really good way.
I'm also happy to read that you are warry of ranged troops.
The whole new approach to host building has a really nice feel to it and seems less restrictive yet leads to thematically correct armies. The only possibe exploit I currently see might be that the above mentioned ignored ubiquity for commanders could allow rare-spamming.
I'm excited to do some list building now.

Best Sven

demyse wrote:, dreaguth deathbringer

Oops I forgot to reduce his Authority. He's now 33, so you can have him in another command with the Dreaguth Thain. Tough monkeys on him - he can't have a command... yet.

demyse wrote:Wiglaca (if wiht)

So the Dreaguth Deathbringer's Authority is now 33?

I tried downloading the updated rules, and it still shows at 48. Am I missing something here?

Thanks in advance!

vanderhagast wrote:

demyse wrote:, dreaguth deathbringer

Oops I forgot to reduce his Authority. He's now 33, so you can have him in another command with the Dreaguth Thain. Tough monkeys on him - he can't have a command... yet.

demyse wrote:Wiglaca (if wiht)

So the Dreaguth Deathbringer's Authority is now 33?

I tried downloading the updated rules, and it still shows at 48. Am I missing something here?

Thanks in advance!

The musters get updated in blocks, usually with the addition of new units or with large sweeping changes that effect all the kindreds. It could take a while for the next update to be released, in the meantime it's best to consider Rob's answers here to be an errata of sorts with regards the units in question.

James

What James said...

Cheers
Rob

Hi Rob,

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but I was looking through the Fomoraic muster and noticed that the invocation ice weapons references 1d10 per invoke dice added to the weapon + of an armour element. Was this copied from the secreted armour invocation and not amended to combat weapon?

On the Ysian side of things, is the death melusine meant to have 93 authority as a warchief? Meaning if I had a War Drune and Death Melusine in the a muster the melusine would have to be the general?

Grizzle wrote:Hi Rob,

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but I was looking through the Fomoraic muster and noticed that the invocation ice weapons references 1d10 per invoke dice added to the weapon + of an armour element. Was this copied from the secreted armour invocation and not amended to combat weapon?

Cracking spot, that's a copy and paste error right there. It should indeed be amended to combat weapon.

Here's the full new text: "Armed Marks: The Marked unit must contain warriors with at least one combat weapon of the class Natural or Borne.
Continuous Effect: The Marked Unit becomes an Iced unit until the end of its next activation. Each Marked warrior within the Iced unit (a Iced warrior) gains 1D10 Weapon+ per invoked die to the Weapon+ value of any one combat weapon of the type Natural or Borne (now also called the Iced Weapon) which now also causes freeze damage. The Iced Weapon must be of the same class and type for each Marked warrior where possible.
Rules: Once per Mark; Entire Mark"

Grizzle wrote:On the Ysian side of things, is the death melusine meant to have 93 authority as a warchief? Meaning if I had a War Drune and Death Melusine in the a muster the melusine would have to be the general?

Yes. Death-Melusines are the left hand of Euryalia.

Cheers
Rob

Rob Lane wrote:

Grizzle wrote:On the Ysian side of things, is the death melusine meant to have 93 authority as a warchief? Meaning if I had a War Drune and Death Melusine in the a muster the melusine would have to be the general?

Yes. Death-Melusines are the left hand of Euryalia.

Cheers
Rob

Aha! Cheers Rob.

I suspected as much, had this conversation with the other darklands player in my group.

Got another question about the Ysian muster.

The shadow drune's daggers reference 'swift strike' but is it meant to be 'quick strike'?

Grizzle wrote:Got another question about the Ysian muster.

The shadow drune's daggers reference 'swift strike' but is it meant to be 'quick strike'?

Yes, it is - I'll sort that.

Cheers
Rob

Hi,
So... It's currently very difficult to field a Vasilisk:
He must be in a Lisk command, for he's Authority 50. Lisk commanders Compels units that don't exist yet (liskar). But they can't use mainstay units from other realms because of their spécial rule "baleful presence". So at the moment, the only way is to lead the vasilisk with a Gorgon, which is a bit sad for the liskarchon/liskarch and very limited.

antoine wrote:Hi,
So... It's currently very difficult to field a Vasilisk:
He must be in a Lisk command, for he's Authority 50. Lisk commanders Compels units that don't exist yet (liskar). But they can't use mainstay units from other realms because of their spécial rule "baleful presence". So at the moment, the only way is to lead the vasilisk with a Gorgon, which is a bit sad for the liskarchon/liskarch and very limited.

Okay. Fixes are:

1 - command Mainstay / command Common units must be from the same realm as their commander (can't believe I didn't state this before now)
2 - Sávrar nobles gain Kinsman (Líska)
3 - Lískar nobles gain Kinsman (Sávrar)
4 - Lískar nobles' baleful presence is amended to state as a suffix ", except for those he is Kinsman with."

I don't think 2/3/4 will stand the test of time (i.e., when the Lískar are fleshed out) but it will do for now.

These fixes will be applied in the next round of updates, which should be by the end of February (if I keep to my quarterly update thing).

Cheers
Rob

Can't believe I haven't seen this one Sven. Apologies.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Some quick ones:

In the muster rules on pg. 5 the last abstarct under "Mainstay" is titled "Compelled Mainstay units gain free Unit Command Warriors"
Reading the examples I think that might be intended to say "Command Mainstay units get..."

Fixed that, thanks...

deadlydeceiver wrote:Also on pg 5, first abstract under "Ubiquity": A commander ignores his own ubiquity when mustering units within his command.
So if f.ex. Belech would be my commander his whole ubiquity of Rare + Mythic + Unique would be ignored?

Ah, no - it just means it has no relevance to the command itself - i.e., if Belech being Rare doesn't count for the command's Rare slot. I'll make this more explicit.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Overlord says " This means the general's kindred and realm are all of the kindreds and realms listed on his profile ..."
The following example then uses the Gorgon, but looking at the Gorgon, he only has one realm listed on his profile.
Should
a) Overlords list all realms on their profiles
or
b) the Overlord ruling refer to "all realms of the generals kindred"?

It should be a). I'll make sure the Overlords state the realms etc.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Erainn Oak Beast:
There seems to be an issue with the cost for High Cross upgrade. The might of 7 attacks is increased and the damage output rises a LOT, yet the cost is negative.

Good spot. Fixed it now.

deadlydeceiver wrote:Overall feedback on the changes:
After reading through it and listening to the podcast I think I really like it.
The reduction of sorcerers was a good move that I hoped for for a while now and it's done in a really good way.
I'm also happy to read that you are warry of ranged troops.
The whole new approach to host building has a really nice feel to it and seems less restrictive yet leads to thematically correct armies. The only possibe exploit I currently see might be that the above mentioned ignored ubiquity for commanders could allow rare-spamming.
I'm excited to do some list building now.

Best Sven

Great! Glad you like it.

Cheers
Rob

Hi, the Warrior of Dis is noted on 100mm base in the Muster, but on 80mm on the webstore, which one is wrong ?

antoine wrote:Hi, the Warrior of Dis is noted on 100mm base in the Muster, but on 80mm on the webstore, which one is wrong ?

It's 80mm - I'll fix the muster.

Cheers
Rob

WILD OGHURÜC - classed as Monstrous Beast Solitary but unit size 1/2/3

demyse wrote:WILD OGHURÜC - classed as Monstrous Beast Solitary but unit size 1/2/3

Good spot, I'll change that.

Cheers
Rob

Norse Runic Powers:
Lightning Bolt and it's Invocation rules has under Friendly Fire "Forked Lightning" listed instead of "Lightning Bolt"

Rick_Boer wrote:Norse Runic Powers:
Lightning Bolt and it's Invocation rules has under Friendly Fire "Forked Lightning" listed instead of "Lightning Bolt"

Thanks Rick, sorted now.

Cheers
Rob

For the Rose of Ker Ys invocation "Enslaved to the Rose" it list it as a sight invocation but it has no range. When playing we ruled it as a Focus invocation but want to double check our assumptions were right.

With the Holumann resculpt coming soon should Holumann have an option to take spears?

DrNO172000 wrote:For the Rose of Ker Ys invocation "Enslaved to the Rose" it list it as a sight invocation but it has no range. When playing we ruled it as a Focus invocation but want to double check our assumptions were right.

Yeah, that's correct - it should be focus. Good spot, fixed!

DrNO172000 wrote:With the Holumann resculpt coming soon should Holumann have an option to take spears?

They already do my friend - unless you're looking at the old version. The new version gives them spear options - I will be updating the musters this week, so watch out for those. I'm aiming to update quarterly you see!

Cheers
Rob

Hi!

For Dyndraig, I noticed that their War Cleavers have a 1 handed and 2 handed profile. Should they have switch hands? Or is the 1 handed profile there merely for if they purchase the Tarlan?

DrNO172000 wrote:Hi!

For Dyndraig, I noticed that their War Cleavers have a 1 handed and 2 handed profile. Should they have switch hands? Or is the 1 handed profile there merely for if they purchase the Tarlan?

I believe it should have the switch but the idea is you can either go one handed and shield for a defensive buff or go all in for damage by swinging two handed.

@Rob the Ceffyldraig is listed on the Teryn profile as 125 gold and on its own sheet as 122 gold.

DrNO172000 wrote:Hi!

For Dyndraig, I noticed that their War Cleavers have a 1 handed and 2 handed profile. Should they have switch hands? Or is the 1 handed profile there merely for if they purchase the Tarlan?

I will be removing all "Switch Hands" because it's just confusing - you already have a hands value, which should tell you what you can / can't use with your hands. So that's why it's not there, really. Switch Hands is a legacy of rules before I added the Hands rule.

The Hands rule explains it better - p64.

Cheers
Rob

Jonathon Chester wrote:@Rob the Ceffyldraig is listed on the Teryn profile as 125 gold and on its own sheet as 122 gold.

The Teyrn is able to utilise it more effectively, which is why all mounts are more expensive than the base mount for nobles.

Cheers
Rob