Thoughts/Questions on 3/14/11 units

[Hannibal]

Amazon Light Sword (needs cooler name)

Wayfarers?  Pathfinders?  Sentinels?  Vanguard?

(I like the last one, as it connotes that they're the scouts/expeditionary force of the army)

Amazon Spears - 244 - Core
O:(6*)5*/5*  D:2/2  R:L  M:L  C:12
4/3/3
Ranged attack uses the Pila rule.

We had a little back and forth on this -- I'm curious how people feel on them using a single spear that can double as a thrown weapon or a fighting spear for taking a charge.  I like this even more now that we have the link with Centaurs.

Strikes me as needlessly complex.  Plus figuring the cost would be a pain.  A spear unit with a Pila is sufficiently neat.

Disciples of the Huntress - 185 points - Elite
O:(3)/6*/5*  D:2/2  R:4L  M:L  C:13
3/2/2
Priestess
Foresight: 1 (all Foresight is cumulative)

Does the asterisks mean they lose effectiveness in melee?  Also, I see the foresight on them (being seers and all) but what about giving to the elder centaurs as well?

Disciples of the Oathbreaker - 125 points - Elite
At the start of the game, draw a Command Card.

Do they really need the draw a CC?

Oathbreaker's Influence - Curse.  R:3L
Change cursed unit's Standing Orders to Hold.  Cursed unit makes no ranged attacks.  Curse lasts until unit is engaged or until its commander spends a CA to remove the curse.

This is waaaay too powerful.  I can auto-strip 3 CAs from my opponent during the game?  I'll take 2 please.

I really like the idea of archer priestesses, but only for the devotees of Artimis.  I'm totally happy being overruled on that, BTW.

I'm with you on that.  Maybe have the Disciples of the Oathbreakers be 'plug the gap' units?  Give them (3) 5/6 in melee?  (I'm thinking they have big giant clubs, something the Oathbreaker would use)

Elder Centaur - 305 points - Elite
O:(4)6/5  D:3/1  R:L  M:LS  C:13
3/1/2
Centaur javelins.  Cavalry.  Normal cavalry charge bonuses.  No Arete.

I really didn't like the idea of these guys going all the way to skirmisher.  They fight in the centaur style, but with fewer attacks and one fewer hit than they would have in their prime.

I dunno, that seems kinda vanilla.  Both with other centaurs and with Ravenwood centaurs.  I kinda was seeing these guys as wily old veterans, who use experience and skill to confound an enemy.  What if we cribbed from Nubians?  Make them 3 attacks but cavalry are at (-2)-0/-0 against them.  These guys become unique because they're a "cavalry tarpit" unit.

Young Centaurs - 345 points - Standard
O:(6)5/5  D:2/2  R:L  M:LS  C:12
3/2/2
Impulsive.  Centaur Javelins.  No Arete.

I'd like to do more to differentiate these guys from the Ravenwood originals.  Suggestions more than welcome.

Make them D: 2/1 and Mv LL.  Combine with the Impulsive and they're essentially fast chargers.  They're not line-breakers like Centaurs.  Maybe lower their attacks to 5 dice to make them even cheaper.

Choragos - 230 points - Elite
O:(7)5/5  D:1/3  R:-  M:L  C:-
Hits: 3/2/3
Fearless.  Always on Close.

I tend to agree with Kevin -- flavorwise I get the 4 offensive skill (they aren't trained) but I think the stats were a bit off somehow.  I'm open to the case being made that they should go back to a 4.

The case is simple:  7 dice makes command cards really powerful.  Its something we learned with Phalanxes, something that's not captured in the formula and must be captured holistically.

Demigoddesses - 457 points - Elite
O:(6)6/6  D:3/3  R:-  M:L  C:14
4/4/2
Priestess
No Arete boxes.
All units with a center point within S of Demigoddesses get C+1.

I like having them be absolutely fearless but it adds about fifty points to what is already a very high total.  I want to avoid forcing these guys to sit in the box -- already a risk given that the faction has mostly pricey units.

Drop 1 attack die.  That'll allow you to make them Fearless for slightly fewer points.  To me the selling point on this unit is that it'll never run.  Without it, I don't think they're good enough to be worth the 160 pts more than they cost over the Paragons.  I'd rather take a unit of Paragons and Light Infantry.

[Hannibal]

Responding to Kevin's thoughts here, since the other sections says 'not for responses' (Chad, maybe you should lock everyone but you from posting there, as it's an easy thing to hit the reply button.  I almost did too).

Disciples of the Huntress - 213 - Standard
O:(4)5/5  D:2/1  R:3L  M:LL  C:12
2/2/2
Cavalry.  No Move & Shoot.

This unit makes me nervous.  Usually regular archers can hold their own (or, more often, win) vs. horse archers.  But with a 7" movement range this unit will be 4/1 vs. ranged attacks, meaning she wins an artillery duel nearly every time!  I strongly recommend the speed be cut to 6".   (Which is the speed of the other horse archers in the game.)

I'm in the other camp.  I'd like to see them have more differentiation with the Wildmen bow.  I agree with Kevin that a 7" horse archer is a scary thing, but I'd be happy by lowering their number of attacks to 3.

Young Centaurs - 345 points - Standard
O:(6)5/5  D:2/2  R:L  M:LS  C:12
3/2/2
Impulsive.  Centaur Javelins.  No Arete.

Can you please double check the formula for these?  I'm truly shocked that they're coming in only 35 points under regular centaurs!

Yeah I also get a different result when I stat these guys up.  I have no clue what modifiers you're putting on there but I get 283pts.

[Kevin]

Oopsie.  Moved this comment from the other thread.
-----------

OK here's my 2 cents.

Meta Comment. This faction at the moment feels like what I consider the saddest thing about the High Elves:  the High Elves have all sorts of amazing units, but they all cost ~300+  So the player ends up filling his army with Battlesquads, then taking 2-3 items from the bounty of fancy things.

This is feeling the same way.  Assuming that people are going to want to take a couple of priestesses and keep them behind that line, that's soaking up 300ish points right there.  Leaving you with 1700 points to get a line of 8 (or even 9).  That's like 7 vanilla Amazon swords and one good unit.

I don't have the time to do it right now, but IMHO this faction needs some cheaper units, and/or the units which it has need to be toned down.

(And while I'm not going to bitch about the chosen faction ability, I just want the record to show that the ability I suggested would've let the Amazon units get fewer green boxes = cheaper price....)

Army ability: Arete.  Most units have two Arete boxes -- attack and defense (we'll want cooler names).  Either one can be marked for one command action.  While at least one box is marked the unit has C+1.  Erase all marks if a unit routs.

If you want to give them two boxes, that's fine, but I strongly recommend that both boxes be usable for either attack or defense.  Sometimes, based on die rolls, the unit won't be able to use these at all.  And the chance gets pretty high that an Arete box will be wasted if a unit can't play it half the time!

The benefit of the Arete box is that, while a bit less good than a card, the unit will be able to use then where the command deck fails. For example, if you draw 3 cards and they're all red, you can plan to use Arete for defense.  If you're forced to pre-choose if they're attack or defense you lose a lot of this benefit.

Final point:  IF this is changed, then the morale cookie may not be needed.  Maybe require both boxes to be checked for it?  Typically units only get a morale cookie for their box if it's really hard to convert to a point, like Carthage (where you need a total whiff) or Lizardmen (where you need to do 2 damage without a card).  Factions where it's worth a point but easier to convert (Dark Elves, Umenzi) don't give a morale cookie. 

(Yeah, yeah, I know I'm contradicting myself here.  But basically I'm saying it's better to make it easier to convert the box and lose the morale cookie than to make it really hard to convert to damage and keep the cookie, as in the later case I usually won't bother marking the box--too risky that the command action is wasted.)

Amazon Spears - 244 - Core
O:(6*)5*/5*  D:2/2  R:L  M:L  C:12
4/3/3
Ranged attack uses the Pila rule.

We had a little back and forth on this -- I'm curious how people feel on them using a single spear that can double as a thrown weapon or a fighting spear for taking a charge.  I like this even more now that we have the link with Centaurs.

Are you implying that they get a checkbox, which is marked if they throw pila?  I'm cool with that.  Thinking how it would be worded...

Amazon Spears - 244 - Core
O:(5*)5*/5*  D:2/2  R:L  M:L  C:12
4/3/3  Range 3.5"*
Ranged attack uses the Pila rule.

You may choose not to have this unit make a ranged attack.  If you make a ranged attack, mark the "spear" box.  You may spend a command action to unmark the box.

* (+1) +0/+0 when not charging if the spear box is not marked.
* (+0) +1/+0 vs. cavalry/large opponents if the spear box is not marked.
* (+0) +0/+2 when holding vs. cavalry or large opponents if the spear box is not marked.

If that's not what you meant, then...uhh...never mind.   

Of course, one way to make these things cheaper is to cut them to 5 dice with no "asterisk."

Disciples of the Huntress - 213 - Standard
O:(4)5/5  D:2/1  R:3L  M:LL  C:12
2/2/2
Cavalry.  No Move & Shoot.

OK, I'm going to assume you mean "no move and shoot penalty" or opposed to "can not move and shoot."

This unit makes me nervous.  Usually regular archers can hold their own (or, more often, win) vs. horse archers.  But with a 7" movement range this unit will be 4/1 vs. ranged attacks, meaning she wins an artillery duel nearly every time! I strongly recommend the speed be cut to 6".   (Which is the speed of the other horse archers in the game.)

Disciples of the Huntress - 185 points - Elite

Disciples of the Oathbreaker - 125 points - Elite

I might have more to say on these later, but at a once-over they're looking good!

Young Centaurs - 345 points - Standard
O:(6)5/5  D:2/2  R:L  M:LS  C:12
3/2/2
Impulsive.  Centaur Javelins.  No Arete.

Can you please double check the formula for these?  I'm truly shocked that they're coming in only 35 points under regular centaurs!

Making them both impulsive and lower skills feels pretty different enough from normal Centaurs, IMHO.  If someone comes up with a cool tweak, I'm good with that, but I don't think we need to come up with something just because...

Elder Centaur - 305 points - Elite
O:(4)6/5  D:3/1  R:L  M:LS  C:13
3/1/2
Centaur javelins.  Cavalry.  Normal cavalry charge bonuses.  No Arete.

I'm really tempted to put them a 3/2 defense.  Can you come up with a flavor justification as to why they're only toughness 1?  (And don't say old & frail.  If they're that old, they're not going to be super-dodgy.)

That said, I'm not sure how useful a unit this is going to be.  With only 4 dice it's not putting on too much a hurt.  (4) 6/5 in general is a pretty bad dice confiuration, esp. for cavalry--witness those awful Spanish Cav (Carthage).  Maybe give then one more attack die?

Amazon Light Sword (needs cooler name)

What about "Amazon hunters?" or "Amazon foot hunters?"

[Hannibal]

(And while I'm not going to bitch about the chosen faction ability, I just want the record to show that the ability I suggested would've let the Amazon units get fewer green boxes = cheaper price....)

Going 3-3-4 would net like maybe 10 pts a unit at the disadvantage of making them take a Cge check a full turn before most units.

But Kevin does bring up a great point:  the combination of medium-to-high cost units and linking a lot of card effects to priestesses means your line is going to be much smaller.

Maybe we shouldn't go the Umenzi route and have the support spell casters be necessary for optimal use.  Why not remove the linkages to priestesses (especially on the command cards) and let a player field an army without them without any downside?

[Chad_YMG]

A few more quick thoughts:

My version of Arete doesn't count as playing a command card, which is a nice boost.  It may still be better just to go with the original version, though -- at least we should playtest it, since I think it's better unless it's too powerful and playtesting is the best way to figure that.  I'll make that change official in the morning (I'm about to have a late dinner and then go to bed).

My original thought with Priestess was to have a couple of line units count as Priestesses as well, in which case you can get the full effect without them.

This army definitely needs a tank unit -- something like O:(4)5/5  D:2/3.

Another thing to ask is what is this army bad at?  (That is, what should it be bad at?)  That might help us identify a good way to create some cheaper units.  My earlier vision had them as lightly armored but then they were too much like Umenzi.

Final thought: Kevin, my problem with giving them only 3 green hits as standard is that then the army ability isn't just a solution -- it's almost a necessity.  When two decent lines meet it's very likely for multiple units to take 3 damage, making early breaks a bit too likely.  We've tried 3 green hits in the past and except with the Ratmen (who are designed to rout early and rout often) it tends to lead to too many unfun games.

[Kevin]

OK, to blatantly steal, what about an Amazon Battlesquad?

Like the regular Amazon swords, but with 3 dice and 3/3/2 hit points?  That'd be nice and cheap!  You could even do a regular version and a pila/spear version.

[Niko White]

What is this army bad at?

How about instead of being bad at Toughness they're bad at defense skill?  Mostly 1's (either unskilled + shield, or dual wield or great weapon fighters) and a few 2's?  It's been a long time since we had a faction like that, and with the heavy armor and general theme I think we could get away with it.  Might help with the Centaurs too...

I also like it because IMO Arete is going to be quite annoying on a 3-defense-skill unit.  It's generally harder to boost hit rolls via game effects (no charge bonus), and some factions are very, very short on 6-skill guys; Arete stacks with cards, so getting that down to 1's isn't unlikely (and it negates 50% of successful dice going for 2's, in any case.)  Arete's defensive use gets extremely frustrating if you're going for 1's because it becomes as good as Fumble, and that's exacerbated on the hit roll rather than the damage roll because you're way less likely to counter it with a Cunning/Follow Through if you aren't even assured of a damage if you do.  Meanwhile, one nice thing about Arete is that it scales quite well with extra dice - it gives you more chances to use it, but doesn't scale up in the way +x to hit or damage does, and it scales quite well with two-handers and high skill because it has less of a pronounced effect on powerful units.

Centaurs

I think we have kind of an issue currently where Centaurs are basically cavalry functionally.  I mean, it isn't a huge issue given that they really should fight basically like cavalry, but I think "centaur javelins" aren't actually a good "unifying feel" for Centaurs.  First, I think this is the case because it's a fiddly thing to be unifying, and doesn't make much sense.  I mean - what about being a Centaur makes you able to huck many Javelins at once?  That doesn't make any sense.  Also, that ability is IMO obviously and annoyingly a throwback to when we didn't have the understanding of design we do today.  The current javelin rule is a bit more fiddly, but makes worlds more sense - the whole "spend a command action to get an extra throw" thing is fiddly and counter-intuitive, and just hoses the rare 2.5" mover beyond belief.  It isn't worth errata on one 380 point standout unit, but I don't think there's a reason to repeat it.  Other than that, we have some javelin cavalry already with more coming in the historical line, so keeping Centaurs as javelin users doesn't make any sense unless we keep the special Centaur javelins rule, which I think would be a mistake.

If we want Centaurs in the Amazon army, therefore (which seems fine to me) I think we should concentrate on their high skill/wisdom/whatever and perhaps toughness (basic Centaurs are 6 skill and 2 defense which to me says they're skilled on both, and 2 toughness which probably also is unusual - after all, they seem to be unshielded, unarmored, and armed only with those javelins.)  I think it'd be neat to have "Centaur Lancers" or something, which might be more like Knights, though that might get in the way of the merc knights, who I like (though I don't see them in the newer list?  I'm still post-PAX'ed so might be missing them.)

"The Priestess Thing"

How about instead of the Umenzi-style proximity to priestess thing, we base the command card bonuses on which of the two gods you happen to worship?  We could give every unit an affiliation.  I'd suggest we do it by printing an icon in the "blade dancer area" so that you can tell from the front; for basic units, we could either print them with both or make half of them have each mark, so that you've got that additional interesting army comp choice.  Then you'd make it either so that the priestesses gave slightly better bonuses to the followers of their god, or made nearby units count as followers even if they didn't have the icon (or both.)  Or, perhaps, make it so that some of the "comes into play" benefits scale with the number of followers: Foresight 1 for each 3 units in your army with that icon, for example.  That seems more interesting to me, and adds a neat little thing to think about without being hard to understand or particularly complex.

[Niko White]

OK, to blatantly steal, what about an Amazon Battlesquad?

Like the regular Amazon swords, but with 3 dice and 3/3/2 hit points?  That'd be nice and cheap!  You could even do a regular version and a pila/spear version.

I actually don't like this.  Battlesquads are something I've gotten less fond of as time has gone on, not as a play thing, but as something to do with design.  (Yes, I say this having lobbied for the "Dark Elf Battlesquad"/Standard Bearers.)  New players don't like Battlesquads because they're hard to understand ("wtf, this guy has great stats but no dice and HP, what is this?) and they can also be frustrating to play both with and against - as units that have very few, but high quality dice, they tend to win fights more often than they should if given command cards, particularly dice adders.  Meanwhile, as units that have high defense stats but few hit points, they tend to frustrate the attacker in most cases, but have low enough margins for error that one or two lucky rolls frustrate the defender because they crumple rapidly; it is almost like a rout check.  I like them well enough in the High Elf army, because that army is all about playing the numbers, scrounging little advantages, and living or dying by the narrow edges.  But I think we don't want another army with that feel, at least not yet, and I also think they'd interact annoyingly with Arete, on both sides.  (It would make them vastly more likely to do a point to most units on the attack, and vastly more frustrating to try to break through.)

I think probably some kind of HP sponge would be a better fit on both ends, and I'm sure we could come up with some good flavor for it.

[Hannibal]

Quote Chad:

My version of Arete doesn't count as playing a command card, which is a nice boost.  It may still be better just to go with the original version, though -- at least we should playtest it, since I think it's better unless it's too powerful and playtesting is the best way to figure that.  I'll make that change official in the morning

I think the original version, modify any one die, works okay.  Especially if there's no Courage cookie, because then its a gamble to use it.  It'd be a 'dead CA' until your opponent rolls exactly what he needs.  Granted that's fairly likely to happen given enough time, but in the meantime that's one less card you could have.  It's insurance.

My original thought with Priestess was to have a couple of line units count as Priestesses as well, in which case you can get the full effect without them.

So then they'd be exactly like the Umenzi... 

If you want to synergize with the priestesses, have them grant free Arete or something like that.  But much of the problem goes away if you don't need to have a priestess for optimal army use. 

This army definitely needs a tank unit -- something like O:(4)5/5  D:2/3.

I'm not so sure of that.  Why does this army need a traditional tank unit?  I mean they have the Light Sword, which comes in at a very affordable 152 points.  And they have the Choragos, which if you dropt heir Off Skill back to 4, they come down to like 180 pts for a fearless unit.  Sure its on Close, but only 3.5" so it'll stay in line if you advance.  If you drop the horse archers down to 3 attacks but keep their speed at 7" they'll be i the ~180 pt range as well, for a very hard hitting cavalry unit.

I think the lack of tank is frankly a better weakness.  They have plenty of opportunities for cheap units, so their flaw can be they simply don't have a unit that can stand there at pin an enemy down.  Every one of their cheap units is one that will fold relatively quickly, so you have to be aggressive with your breakthrough units.


Quote Niko:

How about instead of being bad at Toughness they're bad at defense skill?  Mostly 1's (either unskilled + shield, or dual wield or great weapon fighters) and a few 2's?

I think that's just a bad idea.  Goblins are universally panned for a good reason.  I think a baseline Def 1/2 would get crushed.  Also it massively conflicts with the theme of competent warriors, of that Greco-Roman "spear and shield" theme.  Twin hand weapons and such is getting into gladiator-ella type stuff, which is campy.

Centaurs

I think we have kind of an issue currently where Centaurs are basically cavalry functionally.  I mean, it isn't a huge issue given that they really should fight basically like cavalry, but I think "centaur javelins" aren't actually a good "unifying feel" for Centaurs.

I see nothing wrong with that being the unifying theme.  I'm thinking of the elder and younger centaurs as bookending the Ravenwood ones.  I see centaurs as being essentially bi-polar:  they're very intuitive but very passionate.  That intuition is what gives the more powerful javelin throw, they just know when to time it right.  The catch is that when they're younger, their emotions take control.  The older ones lack the fire and drive, but their 'combat instincts' are more honed.  The Ravenwood ones are centaurs in their prime, the perfect balance of fury and calm.

[Niko White]

I was thinking 1/3 as the most common defense line, not 1/2.  1/3 is both a good stat line and one we don't have a lot of.  Also, in a metagame sense, we're at a point with the game where 6 skill is pretty much laughably better than 6 strength.  That isn't entirely a function of faction design/availability, but it is certainly related.  The last faction we made with common 3 toughness is Monsters and Mercs, which sees little play as a base faction; the one before that was Lizardmen.  Meanwhile since Lizardmen we've had High Elves (3/2's with a few 3/1's and 2/2's), Dark Elves (3/1's and a few weaker dudes and 2/2's), and the two (soon four) historicals, among whom only elephants have over 2 toughness.  Aztecs also lack any armor at all, and so are all x/1's, and though a few Spanish units are plate wearers, it is only a few.  So, basically, I feel like the balance is increasingly tipping towards always preferring skill 6 guys over strength 6 to such a margin that it is hurting game balance.  I also think my points about Arete (which you didn't quote) are quite important.

I'm also pretty sure the gameplay on Centaur javelins sucks, which I note you also didn't quote; that's the meat of my objection to that rule!  It makes them more or less assured of two javelin throws, but in a gamey way that isn't immediately obvious without some fiddly rules knowledge, and it is very frustrating to play against, as it heavily rewards bizarre maneuvers if you have fast movers that really go contrary to the overall authentic military feel of the game.

I obviously like that the game rewards skill, and it is impossible to avoid some strange gamey situations.  But as an example of the problematic nature of centaur javelins, I recently had a game where a flank dissolved into a bizarre game of chicken/strange ritual dance where I tried to keep my Raptor Pack exactly 11 inches from my opponent's Centaurs so that they'd have to advance into my final rush range but not into their javelin range, to limit them to only one throw.  With a lot of corner cases I can make some kind of argument for what's going on, or for why being able to tell a convincing story for what's going on on the ground makes sense.  With the centaur javelins I really can't.  When players bring that kind of situation to us in the rules, we've virtually always gone with fixing the rules.  (For example, Kevin's argument with Fear creating a turn-order issue with fear influencing javelins.)  That's clearly an outdated rule, and one that people are willing to forgive, I think, in an outdated unit, but that's likely to cause some legitimate annoyance if we print it again.

[Hannibal]

I was thinking 1/3 as the most common defense line, not 1/2.  1/3 is both a good stat line and one we don't have a lot of.

Okay, but it just doesn't fit with the theme.  If the theme is more along the lines of a "Homeric hero society" that's spears/swords & shields.

The last faction we made with common 3 toughness is Monsters and Mercs, which sees little play as a base faction; the one before that was Lizardmen.  Meanwhile since Lizardmen we've had High Elves (3/2's with a few 3/1's and 2/2's), Dark Elves (3/1's and a few weaker dudes and 2/2's), and the two (soon four) historicals, among whom only elephants have over 2 toughness.  Aztecs also lack any armor at all, and so are all x/1's, and though a few Spanish units are plate wearers, it is only a few.  So, basically, I feel like the balance is increasingly tipping towards always preferring skill 6 guys over strength 6 to such a margin that it is hurting game balance.

The fact that YMG has chosen to do those factions in that order is not a very compelling argument to give wonky stats to Amazons.

I also think my points about Arete (which you didn't quote) are quite important.

Fair enough.  But I think Arete should count as a command card.  Then you won't have it becoming the frustrating fumble.  Because if you're playing it, that means you passed up on a card that could be more useful.

I'm also pretty sure the gameplay on Centaur javelins sucks, which I note you also didn't quote; that's the meat of my objection to that rule!  It makes them more or less assured of two javelin throws, but in a gamey way that isn't immediately obvious without some fiddly rules knowledge, and it is very frustrating to play against, as it heavily rewards bizarre maneuvers if you have fast movers that really go contrary to the overall authentic military feel of the game.

M'eh, I'm less bothered by it.  If its really a problem, then fix it in the main rules by making all Centaurs follow the normal javelin rules.  And face it, the only thing that separates centaurs from any other jav-cav is the free throw.  So if you took it away from Amazon's centaurs but not Ravenwood, then I think people would feel (understandably) annoyed.  So if the problem is frustrating enough to "fix" with Amazons, then the fix should also apply to Ravenwood ones.

But I also don't think centaurs are that scary.  I think they just eat enemy cavalry and other fast-but-fragile units.  Put two units which a total cost of equal or less than 380 pts, and that flank is pretty secure from roving centaurs.

[Niko White]

Okay, but it just doesn't fit with the theme.  If the theme is more along the lines of a "Homeric hero society" that's spears/swords & shields.

Pretty sure the equipment really doesn't have a lot to do with the feel of that society.  If you're going for historical authenticity, sure, but I don't see why a) you'd have to or b) there's any particular reason to.  Again, the feel is "heroic individuals in a Greek-style society."  That's very broad, and I think we have a long way to go in filling that one in.  Certainly I don't find it a stretch to have heroic epics of great heroes who fight with massive two-handers, or whirl around with two light weapons.  We already kept the "Amazons love bows" thing, which stems from Greek myth, but isn't a style embraced, on the whole, by Homeric heroes.

That aside, 2/3 is a perfectly acceptable statline if we decide to have them be a "toughness first" faction; the only limitation would be that we wouldn't want to do 3/x's or 2/1s, and to do more 1/3's than 2/2s.  Basically what a "toughness first" faction implies is that you're going to pull your 5/6's out against that faction over your 6/5's, if given such a choice.  I think we can easily do a Homeric faction within those constraints.

(By the way, I also think we should move away a bit from the Greek inspirations for those divinities - there's a risk here, I think, because some unfortunate ideas of gender roles are represented by those two and how they relate to women.  I think the general "law vs. chaos" or "wild vs. civilized" ideas are neat, but risk straying into some serious "maidens or whores" dichotomy issues.  My opinion would be that if we want to keep them they need to go deeper in the design, and we should have some unexpected units or cards on either side.  I realize the Maenads I just posted don't go in that exact direction, but we may not keep them, and there are other units as well.)

The fact that YMG has chosen to do those factions in that order is not a very compelling argument to give wonky stats to Amazons.

Yes, it absolutely is.  If we were to conclude that Amazons weren't doable without being "elfy" (ie, high def skill/low toughness) I'd argue against doing them now, in the same way I'd argue we don't want to do Snow Elves (or whatever Elves) at this time.  We have plenty of other options, after all!  Our job in publishing a set is to make the game better.  That includes considerations like how they fit in with existing factions, and what the "metagame" looks like at the time of publication as opposed to how we think it should look.

Again, I'd argue we can easily do Amazons (as female warriors) within that context; I'd also argue we can do the Homeric ones in that context.

Fair enough.  But I think Arete should count as a command card.  Then you won't have it becoming the frustrating fumble.  Because if you're playing it, that means you passed up on a card that could be more useful.

It'll still be as good as Fumble whenever the opponent is going for 1's, and that's still really good.  It is also still far better when the opponent's bad stat is hit rather than damage, because countering it is still much less appealing.  All you really gain from making it count as a card is that it is kind of a sucky ability rather than a pretty good one, IMO.  It'll still be equally frustrating when it comes up, it'd just make it come up enough less as to justify itself less often.

M'eh, I'm less bothered by it.  If its really a problem, then fix it in the main rules by making all Centaurs follow the normal javelin rules.  And face it, the only thing that separates centaurs from any other jav-cav is the free throw.  So if you took it away from Amazon's centaurs but not Ravenwood, then I think people would feel (understandably) annoyed.  So if the problem is frustrating enough to "fix" with Amazons, then the fix should also apply to Ravenwood ones.

But I also don't think centaurs are that scary.  I think they just eat enemy cavalry and other fast-but-fragile units.  Put two units which a total cost of equal or less than 380 pts, and that flank is pretty secure from roving centaurs.

I'm unconvinced that we shouldn't remove it from Ravenwood Centaurs, honestly; I'd certainly never print them with it again.  And the overall point, in any case, isn't that they're broken, it's that they're very gamey.  The fact that you can arrange easily to get an extra hit in all but the strangest circumstances is bizarre and frustrating.

I think if Amazon Centaurs were equipped differently, such that they didn't have javelins at all, they'd not be jarring.  Especially if they were priestesses or archers of some sort.  I also think the "Homeric heroes" idea doesn't need centaurs all that much, at least not compared to the "horse-worshiping tribe" thing.  I'd rather ditch them from the faction entirely than continue to print units with centaur javelins.

[Chad_YMG]

(I started this post earlier and then forgot about it and did some others in a different window...so if it seems out of place, that's why.)

Vanguard seems good as a name.

Yes, the Disciples of the Huntress are crap in melee.  That's certainly not the only option -- we could make them uber-Battlesquads so they can fill a place in the line, but I think they're better (i.e. cheaper) as archers.

Disciples of Oathbreaker don't need to draw a CC but I've noticed that a lot of people really like buying CCs.  We don't have to charge full retail for the ability.

Oathbreaker's Influence probably is too powerful -- or else we need to up the cost of the unit.  We could combine that with making them workable line guys, since then you'll only use the ability before the armies close.

Cavalry tarpit...interesting.  What does everyone else think?

On the Young Centaurs, maybe they don't have javelins?  Maybe that's something Centaurs learn to use but they start off bashing?  Or maybe we drop the young centaurs altogether and just give the Amazons ancient teachers?

Choragos.  I agree that 7 dice are really powerful with CCs.  Is your point that this is why they should have a crappy offensive stat?

What does everyone else think about the Demigoddess's courage?

[Chad_YMG]

I agree with Niko that it's time in the portfolio for a high-toughness faction.

How about this as a killing machine?

Demigoddesses - 421 points
O:(7)6/6  D:1/3  R:-  M:L  C:-
5/3/3

[ZiNOS]

I agree with Niko that it's time in the portfolio for a high-toughness faction.

Why then develop a faction of scantily clad women and not a brute hard skinned force m8?


I think this is the thing i want to do after Alexander