Sub Factions

[NegativeZer0]

Baisically a second starter deck for each army.  Specific units from the original 2 decks would be useable plus some new units in the sub-faction box plus a new command deck and army ability.

Examples
Undead - Tomb Kings (new units mummies, chariots, a chance to officially fix skeletons, etc)
Orks - Goblins (people are already doing this to an extent this gives a chance to flush out the army and give it some uniqueness with a special army ability) drop the orcs get more gobos.  simple enough.
Raven Wood - Gaya (an all animal / nature spirits army)  Keeps Wolf Pack, Stag Cavalry, Bear Pack, Centaurs, Treant + gives new units like fae, more animals, etc (added bonus of being a unique army that most other games do not have)


These are the easiest three but I'm sure people could come up with ideas for the other factions as well.

Advantages - The decks are never needed to play the original faction, expands the number of armies with a limited amount of work (no expansion deck for the subfactions, they already have one), gives players that really like one army more variety and choices, plus a lot more.

[andrewgr]

That's an interesting twist.  Since you're giving them a new command deck, it really is a completely new faction: there's no "you said you'd never make me buy another deck to play my faction" problem.  The faction would become the new starter deck + the existing faction's reinforcements deck.

I'm not sure whether I think it's a good or a bad idea, but I am sure that it's clever and interesting.

[andrewgr]

In fact, now that I think about it, it's almost the opposite of making someone buy a new deck: you're letting them re-use an existing deck.

[Niko White]

It would be very cool, but logistically difficult.  You currently get 18 unit cards in a starter.  I don't know if you could add more without increasing the price much, but I'd assume there's a good reason for 50 total cards.  Even if you could get up to 60, (28 units) that's not a lot of actual unit cards in the numbers you'd want to be able to confidently say "you can make any army you like" as you can with current factions while also making sure you can play adequately with just the starter.  If you're really stuck on 18, I don't think it can be done at all.

A variant, though, might be to say that some armies can use others as mercenaries.  For example, one could pretty easily see the Goblin faction that just got posted here as being able to merc for the Orcs and vice versa, or the ice dwarves able to merc for Runeguard and/or vice versa.

You could also theoretically issue the opposite kind of faction variant: reinforcement only.  Have the repeat units be available with alternate art (to let you spice up the initial faction if you want to as well) and the new units be mixed in, but make both use the same command deck.  For example, you could issue the Men of Flamingohold, pink-colored men who use most of the same foot units as the Hawks with new, red and pink based art (which you'd be free to mix in with your blue-based Hawks to mix it up a bit) and replace their cavalry with war flamingo based variants, while having then use the Hawkshold command deck (either with Bravery or with a new faction ability, since none of the Hawk cards talk about Bravery.)  If, you know, you were in to flamingos for some reason, but I can't imagine why one would be, they're just for the sake of example.

[andrewgr]

I think it works fine.  The point is, the new command deck and the new army ability are what make it a new faction, not new units; that's why it's a "sub-faction".

With 18 cards, you could do 3 or 4 new units, which was all that NegativeZer0 was suggesting anyway (if I read his post correctly).

[Chad_YMG]

That's intriguing.  I'd have to see some market research before I was convinced that it would be seen as a good idea, but if players were into it I could see it working.

[gull2112]

As a heavily invested player (I own everything put out for BG:FW), I would think it quite cool. I am wondering how confusing it might be to the new player seeing the decks on the shelf? Maybe a mail-order only thing, but them you get into all sorts of feasability(sp?) issues. I'm thinking that as soon as we start outselling Magic we could do this. Until then, lets each and every one of us try to get six people who are willing to get six people who are willing to get six people....Has anyone heard of anybody doing something like this??? We could call it GAMEWAY

[NegativeZer0]

I am wondering how confusing it might be to the new player seeing the decks on the shelf?

no more confusing the current expansion decks.

I think it works fine.  The point is, the new command deck and the new army ability are what make it a new faction, not new units; that's why it's a "sub-faction".

With 18 cards, you could do 3 or 4 new units, which was all that NegativeZer0 was suggesting anyway (if I read his post correctly).

This is exactly what I mean it would use a lot of the units already printed exclude some from being used and add new units that could only be used in the subfaction.  on top of this a new command deck and ability to make it unique and interesting.

Oh and did I mention this is a perfect opportunity to FIX THE SKELETONS

[gamejunkie]

as a new member who just ordered the undead deck, can u tell me what is wrong with the skeletons?

[andrewgr]

They cost a bit too much, so no one ever buys them.  They should either cost less, or else they should be made better to match their points.  (This doesn't apply to the bowmen, just the melee units).

Don't worry about it; there are plenty of other units included in the deck.  And it's certainly not the only unit that doesn't get fielded very often.

(For example, I've won 3 national tournaments playing the Undead, and I've never fielded skeletons; but then, I've also never fielded Death Knights, which I also think are overpriced.  And lots of people would never field Ghouls, including one of the game's developers.  I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.)

[andrewgr]

you're too slow Dru'ahn

Well yeah, but I'm in a meeting with 10 other people code reviewing a several hundred line change, so cut me some slack.

[Chad_YMG]

When we first developed the game we naturally weren't as good at playing it as we are today.  We playtested a LOT, of course, but years later we have a better understanding of the relative importance of things.

With the skeletons we underestimated the significance of their fragility, especially since they aren't cheap enough to take as a throwaway unit (like Peasant Mob or Zombies).

Robert and I are currently debating how much (or little) needs to be done to fix them.  He argues for just adding a red hit, whereas I think they need to more hits.  With two hits they would compare reasonably with other light units and if they didn't get fielded it would be because they didn't fit your army rather than because they didn't work.

As Andrew said, the Undead army is still plenty strong.  For a while it was clearly the best army; now that we've improved the range rules (which originally made Undead stand-and-shoot too good), it's no longer dominant but it's still very strong.

[gamejunkie]

I found the thead where u explained this all before but thank you for covering it again!

[JoseDominguez]

New sub factions would only need a new army ability, command cards 21-30 and a small selection of units really. Definately a PDF in that I'd say.
E.g. 'Army of blood' uses the undead decks but replaces death knights with mounted vampires, skeletons with thralls and the giant rock lobber with 'vampire council' or something similar. Not too many new cards needed, but a total rethink on tactics. In fact, thralls could possibly be core infantry from any other faction really.

[Chad_YMG]

One thing that complicates any effort like this is that creating new command cards and army abilities is actually a lot harder than creating new units.  A "sub" faction would thus require almost as much development and playtest time as one that was done completely from scratch.