Feedback on 3/24/11 post

[Hannibal]

If you love the current direction of Amazons, don't read this post, cause you're not gonna like it.

The current direction of Amazons is a good example of why you shouldn't design by committee.  The current incarnation of the Amazons, by trying to please everyone, has this smorgasbord of themes and thus no central core idea. 

Are they holy warriors, blessed by a Goddess with magic support? (That seems to be a holdover from their original idea, with a return of their army ability)  Are they a super tough faction?  (That was shoe-horned onto them because the feeling was there wasn't enough x/3 factions)  Are they a Classical Greek-inspired faction that focuses on eliteness?  (that was the inspiration for units like Paragons & Demigoddesses)

I think Niko's idea of chicks in platemail works.  I think my idea of a 'hero society' focusing on skill works.  I think a strong 'divinity' role works.  I think trying to smash all three together has created this muddled hangover of a faction.

Army Ability: Aegis of the Faithful.

Units have two Aegis boxes.  For one CA you may mark both.  (You can do this if one is already marked but receive no extra benefit.)  As long as at least one of a unit's boxes is marked, it has D+0/+1.  At the end of any phase in which the unit was attacked, erase the mark on one box per attack.

If the goal is to create an x/3 faction, this is the wrong way to do it.  Army abilities are by definition not as good as cards and so an ability is only situational.  The majority of units in this army simply won't have x/3, thus defeating the central goal of the stated design.  If the idea is to have an x/3 then make the line units actually have toughness 3.  Which means either platemail these chicks or start over with a new faction.

Amazon Sword - Core - 192 points
O:(5)5/5  D:2/2  R:-  C:12  M:L
4/3/3

Kevin's original point is that this is the most vanilla unit in the game.  If that was true then, its still going to be true now.

Amazon Spears - Core - 244 points
O:(6*)5/5  D:2/2  R:-  C:12  M:L
4/3/3

No javelin?  So now they're just like every other spear unit out there.

Light Cavalry - Standard - 202 points
O:(5)5/5*  D:2/1  R:-  C:12  M:LL
3/2/1
Cavalry.  Light cavalry charge (impact hit and +1 power)

I've ditched the centaurs -- I think they fit my original (more Umenzi) flavor than the direction Hannibal has taken us in, although I'm quite happy to put them back.  (My sense was that we were struggling to find a good fit for them.)

I felt the centaurs added uniqueness to this army, be they young or old (or both).  Certainly in the Greek heroic society idea it fit well to have a unit of elder centaurs as advisers.  This light cavalry is just generic.  Boring.

Paragon Warriors - Standard - 290
O:(5)6/5  D:2/3  R:-  C:13  M:L
4/3/3

A hangover unit.  Paragons, sure, but why the extra toughness?  If this army is no long about platemail they should be Def 3.  However, I'm not seeing them as anything other than the usual "oh this is the upgrade unit for the Core swordsmen."

Maenads - Standard - 108 points
O:(6)4/4  D:1/1  R:-  C:-  M:L
3/3/3
Close only.  Auto-pass courage checks.

Choragos - Elite - 211 points
O:(7)5/5  D:1/2  R:-  C:-  M:L
3/3/4
Close only.  Auto-pass courage checks.

So with the loss of the Priestesses of the Oathbreaker this just comes across as a weird set of units to have.

Paragons of the Hunt - Standard - 361 points
O:(4)6/5*  D:1*/3  R:3L  M:SS  C:13
3/2/1
Full cavalry charge.

While I liked the idea in the Platemail theme army, I just don't see how they fit anymore.

Command Cards..

Mechanically they're fine, but the names takes away most of the connotations of the "skilled warrior society" theme.  So this is where my objection to the Paragons and Demigoddess come in.  Without any theme they just come across as "how can we name the elite stuff that we put in every faction."



This faction is just a train wreck.  A bunch of people had ideas and they all hurtled together to create this mess.  There are three workable themes in this army:

-Platemail chicks:  a high toughness faction, where the base unit has x/3.  Theme can be Heroic Greek or Norse Valkyrie, almost interchangeable.

-Homeric Greek:  A Def 2/2 faction focusing on skill/Arete with Paragons & descended Demi-gods.  This one is most likely out because the game needs a high Tougness faction instead of a high Skill.

-Tribal Amazons:  aka 'Umenzi Chicks'  This seems to be what a lot of people on the forum think that Amazons should be.  Light infantry & light horse archers. 


If the idea is that a high toughness faction is needed, then I'd say either go with platemail chicks or ditch this faction and move onto another that most easily fits that theme.

The community design idea is admirable, but ultimately a bad idea.  Chad should nominate one person to be in charge, and that person should lay down a vision in terms of theme, game play, and design. 

[Chad_YMG]

I think you're way over-reacting here.

First off, the goal wasn't "make an X/3 faction" but rather "make a faction against which you'd rather have 6-power than 6-skill" because right now the Battleground world is skewed the other way.  X/3 is one way to do this, but hardly the only way -- giving them a base 2/2 defensive stat line and a toughness-enhancing army ability works, too.

On to some specific comments:

Kevin's original point is that this is the most vanilla unit in the game.  If that was true then, its still going to be true now.

My comment, then and now, is "so what"?  This is a human faction with fairly normal equipment -- its baseline unit being generic isn't a drawback.

No javelin?  So now they're just like every other spear unit out there.

My bad -- they still have a pila attack.  I'll add it back in after I finish this response.

I felt the centaurs added uniqueness to this army, be they young or old (or both).  Certainly in the Greek heroic society idea it fit well to have a unit of elder centaurs as advisers.  This light cavalry is just generic.  Boring.

Three thoughts.  First, I cut the Centaurs but am happy to put them back.  I felt like we were struggling with them.

Second -- not every unit should be exciting.  I think it's actually terrible design to insist that every unit be new and exciting, especially for a human faction.  Most armies (High and Dark Elves are notable exceptions) should have a decent share of vanilla units -- human(oids) with normal training and equipment.

Third -- I think this unit actually happens to be pretty exciting.  There aren't that many LL cavalry in the game and this one has a nice spot between the Antonians (devastating but 80 points more) and the Wolf Riders (20 points less but more fragile).  They can be beefed up to 3/2 if necessary and I suspect they offer a lot of tactical value for 200 points.

A hangover unit.  Paragons, sure, but why the extra toughness?  If this army is no long about platemail they should be Def 3.  However, I'm not seeing them as anything other than the usual "oh this is the upgrade unit for the Core swordsmen."

Just like the Hawks have some units in heavier armor, I thought these might wear plate.  Doesn't have to be.

So with the loss of the Priestesses of the Oathbreaker this just comes across as a weird set of units to have.

I think that may reflect memory of prior steps more than a problem.  The Huntress and the Oathbreaker each have units that are particularly inspired by them -- the Huntresses are archers with a semi-mystic ability to foresee enemy plans and the Oathbreaker's are fanatic warriors.  I think it makes at least as much sense this way than to have mind-meddling priestesses of the Oathbreaker.

While I liked the idea in the Platemail theme army, I just don't see how they fit anymore.

I think they fit in much the same way that they do in the Hawks or in historical armies where heavy cavalry wore more armor than a man-at-arms.

This faction is just a train wreck.  A bunch of people had ideas and they all hurtled together to create this mess.  There are three workable themes in this army:

-Platemail chicks:  a high toughness faction, where the base unit has x/3.  Theme can be Heroic Greek or Norse Valkyrie, almost interchangeable.

-Homeric Greek:  A Def 2/2 faction focusing on skill/Arete with Paragons & descended Demi-gods.  This one is most likely out because the game needs a high Tougness faction instead of a high Skill.

-Tribal Amazons:  aka 'Umenzi Chicks'  This seems to be what a lot of people on the forum think that Amazons should be.  Light infantry & light horse archers. 


If the idea is that a high toughness faction is needed, then I'd say either go with platemail chicks or ditch this faction and move onto another that most easily fits that theme.

The community design idea is admirable, but ultimately a bad idea.  Chad should nominate one person to be in charge, and that person should lay down a vision in terms of theme, game play, and design.

I'd like to hear what other people think about this.  I think it's way, way, way too early to declare this experiment dead and I'd feel that way even if I agreed with Hannibal that the current draft is dire.  At worst I think we would take a step back, decide whether we've melded too many ideas into a mess (i.e. Hannibal's right and I'm wrong) and then choose a direction for the next incarnation.

It's certainly easier to have a strong theme when there's a single lead, but there are major drawbacks to that approach as well.  All of the early factions were designed by consensus between Rob, Darwin and me.  We later took more of a "faction lead" approach, but even then there was a lot of consensus work.

[Hannibal]

I think you're way over-reacting here.

Well let me back up and say I'm not coming at this with burning pitchforks and internet histrionics.  This is not "the worst faction ever".  It's just that the faction feels like a kitbash of several different themes...because that's exactly what it is.

My apologies for connoting flame.  I feel strongly about the muddled nature of the current incarnation, but that is all.

First off, the goal wasn't "make an X/3 faction" but rather "make a faction against which you'd rather have 6-power than 6-skill" because right now the Battleground world is skewed the other way.  X/3 is one way to do this, but hardly the only way -- giving them a base 2/2 defensive stat line and a toughness-enhancing army ability works, too.

Okay, but again, by the way the rules currently work a player is rewarded much more for drawing his entire deck in his hand than he is in using army abilities.  So unless the rules are changed regarding drawing cards, we should keep that in mind when designing a new faction.

Therefore, if I'm playing this faction I'd expect my opponent to draw cards and not have an army ability, thus making this a Def 2/2 faction.  So it wouldn't really reward people taking Pow 6 units anymore than Skill 6 units. 

The most you can expect your Amazon opponent to bolster 1 or 2 units with Destiny.  At which point its not worth taking a Pow 6 unit and trying to match it up with an enemy.  Better to simply draw cards and spend them where he puts Destiny.

As the rules currently stand, making a CA ability bump toughness does not make an army a "take Pow 6 units against them" army.

Kevin's original point is that this is the most vanilla unit in the game.  If that was true then, its still going to be true now.

My comment, then and now, is "so what"?  This is a human faction with fairly normal equipment -- its baseline unit being generic isn't a drawback.

Okay, fair enough.  I figure silence = consent.

Second -- not every unit should be exciting.  I think it's actually terrible design to insist that every unit be new and exciting, especially for a human faction.  Most armies (High and Dark Elves are notable exceptions) should have a decent share of vanilla units -- human(oids) with normal training and equipment.

I'll pick this as my response to your replies about units.  I agree that not every unit needs to be new and exciting.  I feel the best way to make an army new and exciting is to give it a theme and build the units towards that theme.  My laundry list of comments on the units was basically a point-by-point demonstration that this army lacks that.  Perhaps that's my mistake and so the conversation got lost in the details.

The point is that this army isn't exciting because its just a mash-up of ideas.  Generic swordsmen, plus heavy plate swordsmen, plus semi-elite swordsmen, plus elite swordsmen, plus generic light cavalry, plus light infantry that will be a copy of Alexander & Persia.  And while there is a virtue to 'covering the spectrum' there's already and army for which that is its theme:  Hawkshold.

I'll grant the archer are neat and the heavy horse archers (cataphracts) are a neat idea but if I cracked open the box I'd be scratching my head and saying "wait, shouldn't Amazons be this light faction?  Their other cavalry is light..."

The army just lacks direction.

I'd like to hear what other people think about this.  I think it's way, way, way too early to declare this experiment dead and I'd feel that way even if I agreed with Hannibal that the current draft is dire.  At worst I think we would take a step back, decide whether we've melded too many ideas into a mess (i.e. Hannibal's right and I'm wrong) and then choose a direction for the next incarnation.

Well, let's be clear, there is a lead:  you're it.  You're the one culling from suggestions and posting up the ideas.  So we all are running ideas through you.  The problem is you're being too nice.     You're so very open to ideas, and so very interested in getting opinions, that we've switched gears like three times on this faction.  It was a psuedo-tribal faction.  Then it became a skill-based faction.  Then it because a skill+toughness faction.  Now its returning to a semi-tribal faction but with these "hangover units" from previous incarnations.  So there is no central theme to the faction. 

I'll say it again, to be clear:  any of the three ideas work.  But the lead should pick one theme and go that direction. 

While I personally am not a fan of the wicca/tribal Amazon theme, it is doable.  The catch is that its almost certainly going to be a 2/1 or 2/2 faction.  For obvious reasons, I'm okay with the Homeric style faction, but that is definitely built with a Def 2/2 in mind.  Niko's idea of a plate mail faction works too in my mind, and that is a 2/3 faction.  A lot of people don't like the words "Amazon" and "High Toughness" in the same sentence, but I think its a neat idea.  Perhaps changing the name to Valkyries or some such, and spinning some of the units to have a more Nordic theme would help dispel that. Still, I personally see that having a Greek themed faction in plate mail is a way to make YMG's Amazons unique.

[Niko White]

I think Hannibal overstated the case too, but I agree that I don't feel this version of the faction as strongly as earlier ones.  Honestly, I think for me the biggest issue is that I don't like Divinity/whatever it is now called as a faction ability.  It's a neat idea, but I think it just makes unit design awkward: at both the low and high end, you have to worry about whether it makes units either too good if they have it marked, or too bad if they don't.  It also feels pretty soullessly mechanical to me, and it is frustrating that some of the faction's best units need to not have it or have a toned down version for game balance reasons, rather than flavor reasons.   Because of this, this faction's units currently aren't telling the "story" of the faction in a way that I like.  They're all over the place!  It seems like the basic infantry are 2/2's, but everyone else is all over the place.  I suppose Hawkshold was like that, but it was telling a story everyone knows.  Here we're doing unusual amazons/female warriors, so we need to make sure the faction design conveys better what's going on.  I don't mind the vanilla units, but I do think this one feels all over the place.

I'm still in favor of building the high toughness thing right in to the faction, and having a more exciting and flavorful army ability, I think.  That one's a workhorse but it doesn't get me pumped for the faction.  (I think it also might be broken, not so much in being too good but in being too important - the difference between a unit with this marked and unmarked is not only a lot of points, but a huge psychological thing.  It feels like Faith Armor+ to me, and Faith Armor is enough of a woah, in my mind.)

Anyway, my work time fast approaches, but I'll see if I can sit down and do another rival faction design soon; I think this one is mostly not a step in the right direction from the previous one.  I sort of like the idea of the Valkyries as a basis...anyway, we'll see what my time looks like.

(I certainly agree with Chad, though, that design-by-group is a fine pattern to go with; it's just not a brief process!)

[Hannibal]

Anyway, my work time fast approaches, but I'll see if I can sit down and do another rival faction design soon; I think this one is mostly not a step in the right direction from the previous one.  I sort of like the idea of the Valkyries as a basis...anyway, we'll see what my time looks like.

(I certainly agree with Chad, though, that design-by-group is a fine pattern to go with; it's just not a brief process!)

The problem I have is not design by group.  Its that this is the worst of both worlds:  it has one (or two, since you're posting up alternate units) as the semi-lead who are the ones posting units but consensus based swinging it all over the place.  If we're gonna be a group then let's do it by vote and go down each theme and unit and ability vote by vote.  If we're going to have a lead with veto power, then let's just be upfront about it.  But right now there's this sort of veto power with people posting different unit ideas and ultimately consensus is achieved by volume of posts.

I think you posting up different variant ideas is exactly my point.  There's a lot of "I see Amazons as XYZ, which is a 180 of idea ABC."  There should be one person that says "these are the themes, and design suggestions need to be towards that end."  Certainly consensus is important, but there should be one guy to veto certain ideas/themes and one person to choose when there are competing/contradicting themes.

A great example of that is how Persia & Alexander shook down.  Kevin and I often ended up on the opposite sides of a debate, ultimately stemming from our different playstyles.  Usually one of us could convince the other, but there were times when we were simply at odds and Zinos, as lead designer, would step in and make a decision.  It wasn't a pretty process, but I think it worked.  This current process isn't pretty but in my opinion it also isn't working.

[Chad_YMG]

OK, I think I understand where you're coming from better than I did before.

I think you're right that the second draft doesn't have a tight theme -- and pulling it towards one is almost certainly a good way to go.  I think we differ slightly on some specifics of what theme "works" but in general I agree.

I'm really confused when you say, "The way the rules currently work a player is rewarded much more for drawing his entire deck than he is in using army abilities."  I see them as much more balanced, at least ideally.  There are some armies (Orcs, for example) where I use the army ability sparingly or only when specific circumstances make it good but that relates to those specific abilities.  With the Hawks I use it pretty freely (not on every unit, but often close by the time the battle's done).  Same with the Umenzi.  Rob and Darwin both frequently began games with Runegard by giving most of their line +1 attack.

Speaking to the (X)6/5 vs. (X)5/6, I think you're incorrect that Aegis wouldn't make you prefer the latter.  I won't use the ability on every unit, but I'll sure use it (to very good effect) anywhere you've got a 6/5 profile because it's quite effective against them.  (You score 12.5% more damage needing 3s and 3s than 4s and 2s.)  It won't make you prefer it as much, but I don't think that's a huge problem.

Going back to the question of theme.  I think we could still be pretty close to your original theme, albeit with one major change.  I still see Homeric warriors with a strong connection to their two deities -- but now the connection is more explicit, with their generals able to bestow a divine Aegis that protects Amazon warriors from harm.

I'd be OK having armor type for heavy infantry, giving them a 2/2 profile for most units and the only exceptions being due to light armor or divinity.  Paragons would have a six skill but perhaps instead of a 3 defensive skill we give them an extra attack as well -- they're warriors whose skill is reflected offensively.  Demigoddesses would have a permanent 3 toughness (Aegis always on) and an extra power (Greek demigods were generally stronger than humans).

With that flavor I think I'd drop the cataphracts (saving them for another faction) but keep the light cavalry so they have two light units that harass flanks.  I'd also be happy to bring back the centaurs -- I think I was just having trouble with where the centaurs were going.

[Chad_YMG]

I think you posting up different variant ideas is exactly my point.  There's a lot of "I see Amazons as XYZ, which is a 180 of idea ABC."  There should be one person that says "these are the themes, and design suggestions need to be towards that end."  Certainly consensus is important, but there should be one guy to veto certain ideas/themes and one person to choose when there are competing/contradicting themes.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

[Hannibal]

I'm really confused when you say, "The way the rules currently work a player is rewarded much more for drawing his entire deck than he is in using army abilities."  I see them as much more balanced, at least ideally.  There are some armies (Orcs, for example) where I use the army ability sparingly or only when specific circumstances make it good but that relates to those specific abilities.  With the Hawks I use it pretty freely (not on every unit, but often close by the time the battle's done).  Same with the Umenzi.  Rob and Darwin both frequently began games with Runegard by giving most of their line +1 attack.

In almost every case Command Cards are better than an army ability.  That's the design decision, which makes sense: you can't count on getting that Accuracy when you need it, but you can always count on the Rune of Uruz.

However, Kevin has pounded into my skull tricks to make sure you draw a huge portion of your deck before you ever engage with the enemy.  And his attitude is correct:  the more CCs you have the more valuable they become.  So the primary disadvantage of command cards (randomness) diminishes and then can effectively vanish.  At which point, spending CAs on CCs is just a better buy (one of the reasons I'm becoming more and more strongly convinced that there should be a 15 card hand limit).

Now this doesn't hold true for all factions.  Umenzi and Hawkshold are two off the top of my head that are at least a 50/50 split.  But even Lash and Maneuver Mastery are something that if you spent 10% of your CAs on them in a game it'd be unusual.  Most others (Regeneration, Pain Touch, Rune of Uruz, Fury, Determination, Reinforcement) are simply not as good when you can draw a card.

Speaking to the (X)6/5 vs. (X)5/6, I think you're incorrect that Aegis wouldn't make you prefer the latter.  I won't use the ability on every unit, but I'll sure use it (to very good effect) anywhere you've got a 6/5 profile because it's quite effective against them.

Well if you give a CA to the Aegis player you have to give one to the other guy.  And chances are I'll be able to play Force or Might.  The Aegis player would be better served to draw his hand and then either play Hardened or Mettle if he's trying to confound that (X)6/5 unit.

I think we could still be pretty close to your original theme, albeit with one major change.  I still see Homeric warriors with a strong connection to their two deities -- but now the connection is more explicit, with their generals able to bestow a divine Aegis that protects Amazon warriors from harm.

I think my theme is a terrible fit for the high toughness design.  My Homeric theme was all about martial skill and Arete, which is being taken away to make the faction more high toughness.  So you're left with a vaguely Greek looking faction with an army ability that doesn't really work.  My theme is nice, your high toughness design decision is nice.  Just not together.  So dump my theme. I won't be offended.   

If you want to go high toughness theme, switch to Valkyries.  Go with the nordic theme.  That jives much more with the design aesthetic you're taking. You'd ditch the Maenads and Choragos (or at least heavily redesign them), plus the Centaurs would go. 

I'd be OK having armor type for heavy infantry, giving them a 2/2 profile for most units and the only exceptions being due to light armor or divinity.

We'll just agree to disagree on that one.  Making them baseline 2/2 with Aegis doesn't make them a "bust out your Pow 6 guys" faction.  Plus Aegis is just wonky and probably overpowered as is.  Making them a 2/3 faction in my mind achieves that goal, and it's simpler.  Plus it gives them a built in weakness in that their army is going to be fairly points intensive.

[Niko White]

I think you posting up different variant ideas is exactly my point.  There's a lot of "I see Amazons as XYZ, which is a 180 of idea ABC."  There should be one person that says "these are the themes, and design suggestions need to be towards that end."  Certainly consensus is important, but there should be one guy to veto certain ideas/themes and one person to choose when there are competing/contradicting themes.

I think this makes a lot of sense.

I agree this is a fine way to do it, but I think we need to either come up with some way you and I can both cover, or decide who needs to do it so they can be really disciplined about it.  I'd be glad to; I couldn't be sure of being able to catch up more than once a day on all days, but I could do at least once a day every day.  If you can do that go for it as well, of course, I just think that if we're going to have a lead, they have to be posting at least that often and catching up with all the threads or else discussion stalls out waiting on word from the lead.  (I sorta had this feel with some of our discussions earlier where we came to the "Chad needs to decide" conclusion; I think posting in discussions like that is at least as important for the lead as posting new unit lists from time to time.)

Anyway, that seems good to me, so I think now the steps are 1) who's lead 2) what mechanical/flavor direction do we want to go with them.

[Chad_YMG]

Because of this, this faction's units currently aren't telling the "story" of the faction in a way that I like.  They're all over the place!  It seems like the basic infantry are 2/2's, but everyone else is all over the place.  I suppose Hawkshold was like that, but it was telling a story everyone knows.

I think this reaction -- which I believe Hannibal shares -- is part of the disconnect.  My assumption is that a human faction will usually be "all over the place" (to the extent the Hawks were) because so many low-tech human armies were.  Armor is expensive so it's pretty normal that some units will have leather or nothing, others will have chain/breastplate and wealthier and/or elite units would have the heaviest/best armor.

Factions where no one wears armor (wood elves, umenzi with the exception of the semi-divine worthy/chosen) are one thing, and a culture where all the warriors have the best armor is coherent and no more unrealistic than any number of fantasy concepts but a human faction where almost every unit has "medium" armor feels odd to me.  I'm OK going with that direction if that's how we're telling a specific faction story.  That may explain why when I tried a version with 2/2 as the normal profile it seemed almost automatic that there would be some light ones and heavy threes.

[Niko White]

I think this reaction -- which I believe Hannibal shares -- is part of the disconnect.  My assumption is that a human faction will usually be "all over the place" (to the extent the Hawks were) because so many low-tech human armies were.  Armor is expensive so it's pretty normal that some units will have leather or nothing, others will have chain/breastplate and wealthier and/or elite units would have the heaviest/best armor.

Factions where no one wears armor (wood elves, umenzi with the exception of the semi-divine worthy/chosen) are one thing, and a culture where all the warriors have the best armor is coherent and no more unrealistic than any number of fantasy concepts but a human faction where almost every unit has "medium" armor feels odd to me.  I'm OK going with that direction if that's how we're telling a specific faction story.  That may explain why when I tried a version with 2/2 as the normal profile it seemed almost automatic that there would be some light ones and heavy threes.

I don't necessarily disagree with this in principle, and it works better if there's a command card set and/or army ability that pushes a strong theme.  I think one problem, though, is that whatever the faction's going at in terms of theme, it needs to be easily grasped by the player looking at the units.  "Women Warriors" doesn't have an inherent mechanical or flavor theme that has much impact on anything but the art, so we need something that makes these people cool that isn't just "well their fighters are women."  This list has a slight Balkans/Eastern Europe feel with cataphracts, good archery, and decent spears, but it isn't all that historical, that historical region isn't as well known, and I'm pretty sure "men are from England, women are from Bulgaria" isn't really a great plan for the interaction between our two European Human factions

[Hannibal]

(I apologize to those who have to wade through all this.  I happen to be at my keyboard today.)

Anyway, that seems good to me, so I think now the steps are 1) who's lead 2) what mechanical/flavor direction do we want to go with them.

May I suggest that number 2 be a decent opportunity for a poll?  This is where consensus is a good thing, unless the project lead has a specific vision in mind.

My votes would be (in no real order):

Asgardian Valkyries:  Def 2/2 with some toughness boost faction ability.  The army would almost certainly have to be more about close combat than an archery heavy army.

Homeric Amazons:  Def 2/3 base with an Arete "skill" faction ability (heck you could take Aegis mechanic and rename it to a Def bonus)  I like the chicks in platemail and cataphracts.  A 'Classic Greek society with high medieval technology' Amazon army has never been done.

I think this reaction -- which I believe Hannibal shares -- is part of the disconnect.  My assumption is that a human faction will usually be "all over the place" (to the extent the Hawks were) because so many low-tech human armies were.

I personally see this as no more necessary than all centaurs getting the "centaur javelins."  In fact, being all over the place should be a design theme in general (no reason we couldn't have, say, world travelling Halflings with that as part of their theme).  I think there is nothing wrong with a part of their stats being relatively homogeneous.  Further, I feel very strongly that YMG has too much of that design decision in its armies already.  There's a lot of units out there that are "upgrade/downgrade" units:  they do something that another unit does but better/worse (and for a different cost).  Hawkshold, Dwarves, Umenzi, Lizardmen, Rome, Carthage, Dark Elves.  (Rome & Carthage is expected as they are bound by history)

One of the cool things about High Elves and Orcs, is that they have more or less a pretty static portion of their stat block.  High Elves, with the exception of the Cygnets, are all D 3/2. Orcs are a 2/3 faction, and if you deviate you're greatly changing the unit's role.

I think that's a very good design theme to incorporate is that instead of having "Swordsmen with a +1 somewhere" the upgraded unit has a different role.  So instead of being Libyan Foot vs Hannibal's Chosen, if you have a unit of Swordsmen vs Maenads, you have different roles in mind with them if you take them.  (Not sure I'm being totally clear on my point, but can't articulate it better).

[Chad_YMG]

Agreed.  I'm off to bed now, but will put up a poll tomorrow.

[ZiNOS]

Most units in AvP have very specific and different roles, something that lead to very interesting to play factions IMHO, so i am with Hannibal on this.

But before the poll, give more detalis to the first option also:

"Asgardian Valkyries:  Def 2/2 with some toughness boost faction ability.  The army would almost certainly have to be more about close combat than an archery heavy army."

It will have a flying cavarly unit named Valkyties.

Ithinkthat it should also have some chicks with two handed weapons. .