deadlydeceiver wrote:In this thread I would like to address a special topic, that I've been thinking about for a while already and now that I get more games done feel encouraged to bring up.
Basically I feel there're quite obviously poor choices when it come to weapons on certain models.
So the point of this thread is either
a) To be corrected in my view
or
b) point out choices that might need improvement
I have only "in depth" experience with some musters so please feel free to add to this thread if you feel "your" musters have similar points.
Let me begin with the (surprise, surprise)
Khthones
Okay, let's have a look... it's a fair enough idea.
deadlydeceiver wrote:1. The trident on the Hydrachon seems to be a very poor choice, not only reduces it your attack dice by 2, it also deducts enough might to take the Hydrarchon from the 80s to the 70s and all that for a bit more range (that is of course not added to the snake bites, which might end up useless when I use the full range of the trident) and 9 gold saving.
Well, it is cheaper, and that greater attack range will come into its own in the full rules (thanks to Reflex Attack reactions). Have you used it? If, in playtesting, we find it's too weak, we'll change it of course, but you have to give warriors poorer choices as well as better ones, if only to save gold - but we do try to give options that alter how a warrior acts in combat.
deadlydeceiver wrote:2. Trident, Net, Shield and Kindeblade on the Gorgon: Without a doubt that combination adds some awesome defensive potential to the Gorgon, but it also costs a big chunk of gold and not only reduces the attacks by 4, it also reduces half of the remaining ones to the 70s. That is a heavy trade in and takes the Gorgon to a potential damage output of 10D10 (less than a regular Gorgonar's).
I'm not sure about your point here - at the end of the day, I'm not going to give you a "nailed on" option which becomes something that everybody wants to use. What is the point of an option that doesn't make you think? For me it's fine, you snare an enemy rather than attack him outright. It's a choice, and if you want to be defensive, it's hardly likely to be more offensive than his other options.
deadlydeceiver wrote:Those two points are especially obvious, as the models come with those choices (and look supercool). A slight adjustment to the trident (Would+ or INCREASED might f.ex.) could fix both.
Again, I don't feel either need to be changed, but more playtesting could make me change my mind. But we'll see.
deadlydeceiver wrote:3. Not a weapon but something I have been thinking about in the same line: I feel Hydrar and Gorgorar look rather pale next to the Gorgonar. Hydrar are 10 gold more expensive and feral (quite a big drawback in my experience) and only get one potential D10 more damage, while Gorgorar loose a lot of constitution and might for getting a bit higher skill and 10 gold... just my personal toughts though...
Trust me, Feral becomes less of a drawback in the full rules, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Again, this is all about choice, and giving people choices that are not necessarily based upon how those choices work on the battlefield. You do realise that many people will choose the units in their host based on how they look, right? Don't underestimate that - at the end of the day, many people will play Darklands for fun, not competitively.
Ysiansdeadlydeceiver wrote:1. Battle-Falchion: Ok, why should I ever NOT chose this option. It has the same offensive value of the standard axe, while providing parry and a one-handed option for 0 gold... looks like a no-brainer to me...
My latest Ysian muster has the Battle-Ax at 18, the Battle-Falchion (if used in both hands) as 16, although the effect is much the same of course. I can see what you're getting at, but again, this is about choice and what's on the miniature.
As well as that, axes will be more useful against a shieldwall than a falchion. That's a rule to come...
deadlydeceiver wrote:2. The Battle-Chain on the Battle-Drune seems strangely pricey. I feel just like with the War-Drune the chain should cost the same as the glaive.IN the same line the "Axe and Whip"-combination looks ridicolously overpriced for having the same stats as the "Two Battle-Axes" (for which I actually get gold back) and only an increased range on half of the attacks...
It's because of the attack range. Don't underestimate that either! You can often attack enemies without fear of suffering an attack back, if they are already engaged.
deadlydeceiver wrote:Angelcynn1. I wouldn't even choose
Guthgár for Penda if he had it to begin with (and honestly same goes for the Wulf's Claw). Why should I trade 2 attacks in the 80s with wound+ 2D10 (potential 6D10 damage) for 4 attacks in the 80s on the charge without any wound+ (potential 4D10 damage)? But to pay 31 gold for it seems rather strange.
To be fair, Nægling should have the rule "Foot only" when used with two hands, so it's good that you've raised this point!
Anyway: it costs a lot more because it's in addition to his other weapons, and he can use it very effectively. As well as that, he can use it with a shield and raking claws, and it has a good strength bonus. There's no point having those extra D10 wounds if you can't wound in the first place!
deadlydeceiver wrote:FomoraicEverything looks well-priced here.
deadlydeceiver wrote:I hope this wasn't to bold to post, it's just something that has been puzzling me for ages and I wonder whether I've been missing a point ^^
Best Sven
Not at all! I welcome it to be honest, it helps my thinking and often things crop up that I've missed. I will always listen to an opinion, but of course it's my choice as to whether I act upon that opinion.
The only other thing I'd really say is, you do need to remember that not all choices are about weapon effectiveness, a lot of them are driven by the miniatures themselves, and whilst I do try to ensure there is a "game" point to each weapon choice sometimes the only point is its aesthetics!
Hope that helps.
Cheers
