The Great Battle Companies feedback thread

mertaal · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 7:53 am

Preamble for the uninitiated:
Some of you may or may not know that some years ago Games Workshop released a very cool little system for playing SBG as a league progression system, rather like Blood Bowl "league rules". The general idea is that you start off with just a hand full of models, each of whom gains XP and can buy equipment and gain abilities as time goes on.

Sadly, GW never fleshed out the system, and so your friend and mine, Euronion (memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2441) took it upon himself to do so. You can find it here:

http://www.one-ring.co.uk/kb.php?a=259

And also an announcement/discussion topic here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28020&hilit=battle+companies

So what's this thread for then?

Well, I remember Jonathan (Euronion) saying that while he'd fleshed the system out as much as he could he hadn't been able to play test it all that much, and that he would appreciate comments, feedback etc. Well, as far as comments and discussion is concerned the above thread does fine.
However, while playing Battle Companies using various different companies a number of issues have been raised by myself or my opponents. Not problems exactly, but things which might be re-thought or re-balanced. Also grey areas and slight discrepancies. Basically, exactly what Jonathan asked for in the first place- player feedback! I'm certain that I'm not alone. Seeing the GBHL channel Battle Company videos (available here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... HTVaoWhezd) they've introduced a house rule, and made a few comments about suggested changes.

So I thought this would be an appropriate place, not exactly to discuss the battle companies in general, but to list issues and possible solutions, and to discuss potential changes.

Have at it!

mertaal · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 8:14 am

I'll make a start then!

First thing that springs to mind:

Generally- when a model is promoted, does it retain its existing equipment, gain the equipment listed on the upgrade profile, or both?

Rules clarifications for Warg Riders and other mounted models-
1. If the warg rider dies, does the warg become a wild warg? Similarly, if the rider survives but the warg is injured do you roll on the injury table separately for the warg?
2. In either case- does the surviving model retain all the XP previously earned?
3. If a warg rider hero gets a strength bonus is it given to the rider (and is therefore meaningless as the Warg already has strength 4) or is it given to the warg? Or can the player choose?
4. More generally- do other hero upgrades always go to the rider or can the player choose?

Durin's Folk. The "upgrade" from a dwarf warrior with bow to a Dwarven Ranger isn't really an upgrade.

Suggestion:
The biggest problem I've encountered so far with Battle Companies is balance between companies which have unequal company ratings.
Bloodbowl solves this problem very neatly= the weaker player can basically buy "mercenaries" to the value of the difference between their team ratings. Obviously if someone has a run of bad luck and has 3 people out of action that's just too bad: it's not the difference between the rating on the field, but the rating on paper.
And of course those mercenaries do not gain XP or stay with the company longer than one game.
In BB there are "star players" but I would suggest that mercenary heroes might be unbalancing and actually provide an advantage to the weaker player. I'd say people can just hire from their own list, or maybe if you wanted to get fancy, from "allied" lists. Uruks, Orcs and Goblins can hire each other. Khand, Easterlings and Umbar. Gondor, Rohan and Fifedoms. Durins folk with Erebor Dwarves. Galadhrim with High elves, etc. I don't know. Maybe just your own list would be better.

The big advantage of this is that regardless of the "level" of your battle company (how many games you've played) you can play a veteran team on a level playing field, and not just hand them free XP while you get smashed.

Lots more, but that'll do for now!

Zirak-Zigil · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 11:27 am

I haven't played BC as much as I would like, (although I'm enjoying playing vicariously through James and Jamie!!) but I really like your idea for hiring mercenaries. There are rules for hiring scouts to benefit your company so hiring mercenaries is not too far from that. Also the fact that it'd only be for one game and they don't upgrade is certainly the best way to go.

I think that way it would help balance out the forces but you would probably not try smash stuff with them because they will remove xp that your normal guys could have gotten.

I like the idea that depending on where your story arc has you within middle earth, you could hire the basic troops from that region as the mercenaries? So for example, Ballion and his dwarves are in Rohan. They hire bog standard Rohan infantry in that area. In ithilien, rangers. The shire, hobbits etc.

obviously doing it this way means that there are certain areas you'd rather fight and recruit in more often! Isenguard for evil, Rivendell/Lothlorien for good! But I think if you're playing for the right reasons and making the narrative more important than winning, it could be a very cool way of doing it?

Sithious · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:07 pm

I have played a lot of BC's. I also have a couple BC battle Reports on youtube.

I know that I have run into issues with scenario endings, I did post it in one of the threads. Some scenario's can run way too long if neither player is killing the other and the scenario end criteria is not met. It becomes a fight to the death but if nobody rolls wounds then death never comes. So I was thinking of looking at some of these and put in a end option, something we commonly see in other scenario's, like after turn 10, roll a single die and on a 1 or 2 the game suddenly ends. I will look when I get home as to which scenarios I had trouble with.

The mercenary rule is interesting, but I also like the bonus dice rules too and you can't have both. There is no reason that a player can't play at a serious disadvantage one match and get several dice of gold/influence dice (if playing old school) and then buy reinforcements or hire wandering elf etc from the optional equiptment list. There are suitable ways to beef up a weak BC after a single match. I like the unbalanced BC's because that is what makes this realistic and different from SBG. You don't always have it fair, nor can you show up to battle and see you are out numbered and say "wait a minute we will be right back with some mercs to make this even." I think the player has his gold and can decide before the match just how he wants to play, either recruit, buy maps, flasks, scouts, dogs, whatever. or, decide to play at the disadvantage and get a quick game out of the way, take the extra gold and get his wounded guys back in line and come back strong.

mertaal · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 5:13 pm

Yes, I know what you mean about the endings- we played "rescue" the other night, and the last fight did drag on for quite a while.

My main point about uneven battle companies is mostly thinking about league, rather than round robin style play: if I have a brand spanking new company of six brave but unexperienced dwarves, there is simply no way I want to play against your vets of 20 games comprising of twice my number of upgraded awesomeness. It'll just be a cake walk, and nobody likes a cake walk. The Merc system means that two people can have a decent game despite being hugely disparate in terms of experience.

For a rounds system, where everyone gets, lets say, one game a week, the way it is works absolutely fine, because while you may have a better company rating than me, we've still played the same number of games and so are at least somewhere in the same ballpark.

With league play it limits how easily people can play against each other because, although asymmetric games can be fun, most people don't enjoy getting their 350 point army smashed by a 1000 pointer.

I do take the point about not being too obsessed about things being perfectly equal. I'm not sure how to get around that. Maybe set up a threshold? You get Mercenary reinforcements in the rating difference is more than 20 points maybe?

I think there's a reason Bloodbowl has such a rule, and it really makes a league easy to run- people can drop in and drop out (as they inevitably will).

Sithious · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 6:55 pm

Those are valid points, if you wanted tournaments then you do need an equalizer that works across the board and 'reroll' dice don't really do that.

It is hard to say a points amount because with BC's there is also a model limit, so if we are both at 15 models and I am 100 points more from upgrades, then what do we do? Do we at that time allow a merc model count that goes beyond that, and how do we control that so we don't get people making a horde army on purpose?
These questions are not to make holes, it is to help tailor what you are thinking about to come up with a system that works well, that I could easily back up myself or play test with my friend.

I like the idea of mercs coming from a separate list. The reason is that perhaps recruits can be rolled on a ally chart and the cost is 'indebted to the person and that has to be paid back 1 gold per match until the debt is repaid? Something along those lines. It goes back to the old days of influence and Lords that you are serving. and one Lord can help another Lord but politics are politics and eventually when the war tides are turning they will want to be compensated (and if any of those mercs get hurt or killed then well, some compensation should be given right?). This would allow a new BC to recruit right out of the gate from an ally but will have a negative gold amount. Then of course in the verbage you would need to stipulate a limit of either models, or that this can only be done if a points difference of more than 30 points exists between the two BC's. And recruits bought in this way are temporary and cost 1 gold to buy Hope that makes sense, I am not home to look at my BC papers and clear my head.

ElfGeneral · **Joined:** Fri May 11, 2012 6:04 pm **Posts:** 336

On the topic of equal numbers and bias your're very rarely going to have a game where one BC is massively stronger or weaker e.g 15 Rivendell Knight Heroes vs 5 new goblins so why don't you just weight the scenario in the weaker BC favour. Some ideas that come to mind are

1) The smaller company is defending their camp so get +1D if there within 6'' of the camp or don't break after 50%

2) The smaller company launches a surprise attack on the larger ones scouting party and the larger battle company has to roll a D6 for each member of it company and on a +2/3/4/5/ (depending on how much larger) to see which members are present in the battle

3)Lighting strike/Hit and Run - the larger company is aiming to kill/injury a certain model or maybe a seize the prize style thing and the smaller company is trying to stop them but the game ends in like 5-6 turns putting pressure on the larger BC who have a much harder job

4) Give the BC's different rewards for winning, everyone get the 2 gold for taking part but the smaller one gets 3-4 extra for winning whilst the larger might only get 1-2 giving the smaller company a sort of risk/reward situation and would make it more worthwhile for the bigger BC to take on companies of a similar size

4) The added help/merc idea that is being thrown around if one BC is noticeably larger than the other perhaps the smaller gets some thematic help e.g they are helping defend a local village so some rohan/dale/laketown style units (the locals) help them and make up the points difference

5) Different objectives, this one is just an expansion of 3, you are giving the smaller company an easier objective (or bigger harder) which will hopeful even out the points differnce

Sithious · **Posted:** Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:21 pm

Some great idea's ElfGeneral. The extra gold is already present in the rules system for a smaller BC. In step 6, near the end, for every 15 points of difference pregame ratings, the smaller BC gets 1 gold. I will often play smaller BC's (wounds or losses keeping lads out) and try to keep my heroes alive and push for a quick end game however that is met. Then I can get some extra gold ad get my wounded back so that the next battle I have a good chance of bringing a stronger force.

slaktarn · **Posted:** Sat Jul 19, 2014 1:25 pm

Hi.
I am getting famililar to the rules again and play 3 BCs by myself (not so much fun yes but hoping to get more people into it when I am better at the rules).

Love the rules that have been made.

As far as the warg riders are concerned I think that it is always the rider you go by.
A hero on a warg that get a Strenght bonus applies to the hero and not the warg itself, it is used when the hero get dismounted after all.
The warg is only equipment for your hero.
When it comes to warriors and injuries I would also say you go by the rider. If the rider dies but the warg surivives the entire battle I would roll on the injury chart. But if the warg dies and the rider continues on foot and survives I would not roll on the injury chart. The roll then applies to the entire cavalry model as a whole. Ypu dont roll seperatly for the warg and rider.
The warg is only a piece of equipment after all and not an "extra model".
From how I read the rules this is my interpretation.

I do not like the mercenary rules, I do not want any generic models in my band of awsome heroes stealing exp. :-D

I think that the dwarven ranger upgrade is an upgrade, it has helped me a lot, the range is great in these old style scenarios and narrative scenbarios when you could start far away from each other.
But it could read "Dwarven ranger with choice of equipment" so you could take a throwing axe should you wish.

Generally- when a model is promoted, does it retain its existing equipment, gain the equipment listed on the upgrade profile, or both?
-This I wonder also, like with the dwarven ranger, what does he really get, a dwarven ranger cant use a dwarf bow(which is silly really), and models are not allwed equipment that they cant have. Longbow beacuse he was a bowmen before? No equipment at all so you have to buy something, is it choice of equipment?

I think you should be able to use gold or something to influence your hero and warrior promotion roles. An elven hero that get +1fight and courage is not so much fun and is worth less than a goblin getting +1 Attack and strenght.
You would have to choose to use gold for reinfoprcment or to get the upgrade you want, perhaps it coud be two gold to change the dice for promotion.
I also think the hero damage chart is really mean, an arm wound means only using hand weapons (or spears). Leg wound is ok beacuse most heroes can get some kind of mount. With only 1 wound, heroes die a lot.

Have fun
slaktarn

Gondorian Captain · **Joined:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:13 pm **Posts:** 267

Honestly I think that overall BC is fairly well balanced. There are certainly a few bits that need house ruling.

I think mercenery's could be somewhat fun, aren't there all ready rules for gaining scouts to add to a company for a game?

Mostly I'd just like to see even more added

Perhaps different equipment to spend gold on eg Lembas/Orc medine ect, even more scenarios would add to the fun I think

Back when BC first hit white dwarf the way a hero was upgraded seemed pretty random, determined by dice roll only. The next edition they did introduced the ability to pick a skill once you hit a table, I preferred it when it was random myself but what do other people think?

Sithious · **Posted:** Mon Jul 21, 2014 5:04 pm

For scenario's I have looked at ones in the SBG books and adapted them.

Rescuing people from the fire in Burning of the Westfold had given me idea's for other objectives. Instead of take and hold objectives, you can have objectives you take and must escape the field with. For example you place three objectives on the board, 1 is 5 gold, 1 is 3 gold, 1 is 1 gold... or something like that. Then the players must get to the objective, and carry it off the opposite board edge. If he dies in combat then his enemy gains that objective, if dies by bow fire the objective is lost (or dropped at that place). Then victory is determined, most objectives wins, or if nobody gains more or less objectives including zero, then victory is determined by how many players escaped the opposite board edge. These can be fun, Call it football.

Gondorian Captain · **Joined:** Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:13 pm **Posts:** 267

Read through all of the BC rules again last night

I really like all of the effort Eruninion has put it into them, all of the pics and small clarifiactions must have taken a long while to do and are greatly appreciated.

Most of the companies look really balanced on paper and I think it might be a cool idea to get some play testing on and report the feedback (mertaal, I shall be returning to the capital soon, will try and get some BC events organised

, perhaps a one day event at the Titans and follow with a league?)

The one criticism I have is that there are quite a few abilities which are repeated throughout several companies, mostly the hero being a banner or causing terror. Not that there's anything wrong with this but there could be more room to make companies that little bit more unique from one another (in my opinion anyhow).

Also I was thinking about both courage and will points within BC. The main issue as I see it is that with Might and Will being in the same slot...no one ever picks Will. (Poor Will)

Likewise a courage boost is often a bit lack lustre compared to say rolling an extra wound/attack or point of strength/defence.

I would like to playtest the game where courage increase is +2 and where you can choose between gaining a might point or 2 points of will (Might get interesting with the shaman/storm caller characters).

On the magic front there could also be a whole new mage chart, allowing more spells than the basic ones, however this would need to be really well balanced.

Finally do people think the following would add or detract to the game, if the starting hero automatically had one of the company specific upgrades?
Reason I suggest this is because again with a choice of the company specific ability or going to one of the three other charts I think the company ability is often overlooked. But that's just my opinion.

In terms of adding mercenaries to the company the precident is set by being able to pay for scouts. I don't see why this couldn't be expanded on to add wandering wargs, spiders, elves, the odd rider.

tom_foolery · **Posted:** Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:29 pm

I want to start by echoing the other comments thanking Erunion for the high quality rules set he has provided. It's incredibly detailed and really professional, which all adds to the experience.

Quote:

Also I was thinking about both courage and will points within BC. The main issue as I see it is that with Might and Will being in the same slot...no one ever picks Will. (Poor Will)

I completely agree with what you are saying about Will, especially in combination with the comments about race specific traits.

A lot of the lists have magical powers as their race specific ability, however there is only 1 member of the battle company that can use this to start with as only the Lieutenant starts with a Will point. I can understand the reasons for this as making magical powers rare is an effective means of balancing warbands and keeping them balanced, but it does feel like a section of the game that is removed.

The other observations I've had so far relate to the scenarios, where the Game End conditions could be tweaked.

Treasure Hunt - the game only ends on a roll of 1 once a BC is below 50%. This lead to a situation where I controlled 3 objectives and my opponent controlled 3, with no other models on the table. Neither of us really had an incentive to move as neither of us could increase our chances of winning at this point, only reduce the chances of losing, meant it was repeated rolling until a 1 was rolled. I think escalating roll requirements (1, then 2 the next turn, then 3 the next turn) would be better to add a game clock.

I like the mercenaries rule. Whilst it might mean that your company lose XP, it makes you competitive in the current game such that you can recruit and/or have injured members returning in the next game. I don't think it should be the full points difference, but something around 1/2 to 2/3 of the points difference, so you are still at a disadvantage.

mertaal · **Posted:** Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:11 am

Great input guys. Euronion isn't actually around at the moment, but I hope this is helpful to him when he does get back to us.

In the meantime, I thought I'd say a few things about the different ways you can play, and the different rules requirements they might have- I think it's probably quite natural to make assumptions that other people use the Battle Company rules in the same way that you do, which of course is not always true.

For example, a round robin style league, or escalation league where each battle company plays exactly the same amount of games is one thing, and has a certain set of assumptions about a company's levels of experience.

A bloodbowl style ongoing league where people play at different rates, drop out, drop in, retire an old team and start a new one is a very different thing, and has a totally different set of assumptions about the relative experience of the participants.

Some people play Battle Companies as an ongoing and very much story driven "campaign" and are happy to write in their own scenarios.

Some people play only against a select few close friends, and are very happy to house rule and fudge to make things interesting and fun.
Other people play against acquaintances, who may or may not take a more competitive attitude.

In an ideal world, a ruleset is designed to deal with all of these things, and still be fair and interesting. This is hard to do of course. I keep coming back to Bloodbowl, because it's very similar to battle companies in a lot of ways (in fact, I'm pretty sure that the original rules were very influenced by Bloodbowl). Bloodbowl has a set of "vanilla" rules for playing matches, and then a separate set of rules for running a league- the assumption here is that the league is a "season" style league where players each play a similar amount of games, but the designers understand that in real life that's very often (in fact usually) not possible, and puts all sorts of pressures on the players. Therefore they design a way for players to have a fair match, even if their battle company ratings are quite different.

I feel that Battle Companies been designed with the assumption that teams will always meet with a similar level of experience, and thus not be /too/ far apart from each other. Under those circumstances I think that the re-roll and extra gold system works adequately. However, when the gap becomes bigger things start to fall down somewhat. There's also the problem of Merry and Pippin each starting a Battle Company at the same time. Merry faces Aragorn, who's battle company has seen much action, and has a high rating. Pippin however faces Frodo, who is also reasonably new to Battle Companies.

Both Merry and Pippin concede the game after loosing 50% of their force. However, because Merry faced an opponent many times better than he was he gets extra gold as compared to Pippin, who still has the same base chance of loosing models permanently.

Mercenaries idea: only intended for the sort of ongoing bloodbowl style league. It isn't necessary for other types of play, unless two friends who have battle companies want to play despite a large disparity in their ratings (but of course, under those circumstances it's an optional rule).

There's a problem with Mercenaries though- if we only allow players to pick mercenaries from the starting list then we quickly encounter the model cap. Especially with cheaper companies such as Angmar or Mordor. How do we balance the games then?
I'm tempted to say that we simply apply re-rolls after the model cap has been reached.

James- I like the idea of having a smaller mercenary allowance than the true points difference. However, if it's a percentage then it is increasingly negative for the smaller company the higher the difference is. Perhaps having a set threshold would be better? So for example, 15-29 points of difference gives only a re-roll. 30+ gives you re-rolls plus mercenaries to the value of the difference exceeding 15. So a difference of 30 gives you one re-roll and 15 points of mercenaries?

mertaal · **Posted:** Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:24 am

Elfgeneral:

I really do like the idea of asymmetric scenarios, and more generally, I think Battle Companies weakest point is the scenarios- not the scenarios themselves, but the number of scenarios. I would like to see at least another six official ones. Also, as Tom Foolery pointed out, some of the existing ones could do with a bit of tweaking I think. Treasure Hunt particularly, just seems a little too random and favours larger companies.
I think those are some solid and fun ideas, although perhaps a little difficult to balance in a more competitive environment.
Personally, I think Battle Companies should be played outside a competitive spirit, but frankly, that's not realistic- most people who play the game play because they want to win, and so I think fairness and balance is important when designing scenarios, if only to protect the non-competitive people against the powergamers.

Anyway, when Gondorian Captain and I were playing, each time we finished a game we tried to think of a scenario which would serve to balance the new disparity in the battle companies. I do understand Sithious' point of embracing the unevenness, but I also know that nobody likes seeing their school rugby team getting kerb stomped by the NewZealand Allblacks.
I would enjoy seeing some scenarios which are designed to counteract a points difference, and perhaps as well as casual or round robin league play these could work to augment the mercenary system once the model count has been reached.

mertaal · **Posted:** Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:39 am

Kieran: Great thoughts, and certainly, a Battle Companies day at Titans would rock, and to kick off a league- even better!

I guess we could all keep updates of our companies on here somewhere.

Other thoughts- yes, I do think that courage is a duff roll (especially when your leader's first two upgrades are both Courage!). I don't know if that's a bad thing= maybe it should be possible to get something pointless you don't really want?

On the might/will point, I agree with you here as well. However, I looked at it a bit differently- the chances of getting an effective spell caster are absolutely astronomical- especially for the companies that get a crappy spell first, and a decent one second.
Building a spell caster just doesn't seem worth trying to me. I'd rather take a combat ability and some might than a spell I cannot use (because I don't have will) and then wait to roll a 5 on the table.
I wonder if Will and Might shouldn't be split up, and you simply get a point of will if and when you choose a spell ability?
Therefore you can use your spell once each game (hardly seems overpowered), then pick a second spell and get an extra point of might, and thirdly pick a spell you already have just to get your will capped out at 3?
Having said that, your solution of 2 will to each might makes taking a spell you can't use (or 2 points of will in the hope of rolling a 5 next time) a better gamble than it was before. I'm still not sure I'd take the gamble though personally.

I do quite like the idea of your LT having one of the company special abilities. One of the few things I don't like about Battle Companies is that there's no customisability in your initial squad- you just get what you're given. This at least would add a bit of veriety to a company.

At any rate, when we get the Titan's event sorted we could play test it. The only problem I can foresee is that certain company abilities may be more powerful than others?

A note on Dwarves:
Since it's almost impossible for a dwarf to die, their battle companies become large pretty quickly. Considering this, would it be wiser to make them another 4g reinforcement company? Or is this balanced out in a way I haven't yet seen?

tom_foolery · **Posted:** Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:34 pm

Really interesting thoughts James, particularly the part about the different ways in which people play the game and the way in which the rules need to interact with that. It will, presumably, be impossible to please everyone!

I agree regarding the Mercenaries proportion idea, hadn't thought of the impact as the gap increases.

I like the idea of splitting might and will up (as might seems so important in the game, this is barely a choice), and that a point of will is granted if you choice the spellcaster power. I think this makes sense, as otherwise you require both a special rule and a point of will, when you would likely still take the might point. I agree it doesn't seem overpowered to have the opportunity to cast the spell once, and could add an interesting dynamic to the game.

Adding on to this, I think it would be good to clarify the Heroic Presence special rule (Mertaal - this has absolutely nothing to do with your High Elf Captain. Honest). Does it really grant a free Heroic Combat every turn? Is it only once per game? I guess in the light of the other Fighting special rules, these can also be used once per turn, but the point of Might (or Will) actually seems underpowered here by comparison, outside of it's versatility.

On the Dwarf reinforcements, I agree, with the high defence, and knowing you only really have to worry about S4 initially (meaning 6's to wound at best), perhaps 4 gold is best for Dwarves. I would also say, given certain companies require 4 gold to recruit, shouldn't companies where units dies relatively quickly (Goblin Town, Moria as examples) require 2 gold? This would seem likely when compared to let's say Kingdoms of Men, and would allow the companies to use their 25 unit limit effectively, as otherwise I think they would be unlikely to get there.

In summary, I can't wait for the Titans day!

mertaal · **Posted:** Sun Jul 27, 2014 9:16 pm

I never thought about reducing the Goblins to 2 gold to re-enforce but that certainly seems like it might be a good idea. Especially for Goblintown goblins, who can't upgrade except to a hero.
I get why Dwarves (costing 8 ) weren't included in the 4g category, but given their special rule of basically only dying 1:36 times, they seem extremely handy for 3g a piece. Perhaps there's something I've missed though.

A free Heroic Combat per turn is a really great ability, but I don't think it's broken- remember, in order for it to do anything other than jumping the priority order, all enemies in the Heroic Combat have to be killed. Most of the time it will be wasted. In the case of Goblins, just make sure he's facing one more goblin than he has attacks and you effectively negate the ability completely.
A free might point per turn? Now THAT'D be scary!

On the subject of some abilities being better than others, I think that's fine, provided it's random. You /want/ to roll a certain number, while another number isn't so great. What I don't like is a choice between two things where one is obviously superior, like the Might and Will example.
Another possible example, although I haven't really thought about it too carefully, is the choice of tables you roll on. It seems a pretty simple choice to roll on the combat table- those abilities appear on first impressions to be more than a little better than the others.
I'd like to see them better balanced so it's a genuine choice, and not a foregone conclusion.

slaktarn · **Posted:** Wed Jul 30, 2014 9:26 pm

Just a quick reply here with some thoughts.

Very true about how to diffrent people play the game. I think the mercenearies can work if both players agree on it and only if there is a really big diffrence in rating. You could also pay X amount of gold to hire X amount of points in mercenaries. Example 1 gold gives you 20p mercenaries.

About the dwarves and being hard to kill. The "Hardy" speical rule is a rule that only heroes can choose and that is if they make the role for a special rule,a 5, so dwarves die just as easily as any other models. Assuming you refer to the injury chart.
I dont think they need to cost 4g, juist my opion.

Concering might, will on the same roll. I think an easy fix is to put courage and will on the same roll and let 6 be might or pick what you want if might is full.
Why would you choose courage over will? Beacuse will is just one of and courage is permant. Why would you choose will over courage? Because you can use it to resist spells, if you paly custom scenarios ther can be spell caster.
Also your model should be bumped up to 2 will no matter how many it already has when it chooses a spell casting ability, otherwise fury is never going to be used. And if you choose the spellcasting ability again, to get the other spell, you should not get any will or just 1 extra.

I would love to see a normal banner in the equipment, a high F company really has no use for it, normal banner however is really worth something.

Just some quick thoughts...

Have fun
slaktarn

mertaal · **Posted:** Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:00 am

Slaktarn, interesting points which I will get to later, but for now just posting something from another thread:

Question by memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=10901
"""
Quick question: when determining the cost of war gear for heroes, if you have a warg rider leader, do you add on the cost of the warg on top of the cost of the base value of the unit? Surely if you do that you are paying for the wary twice,since the original cost of the unit takes the warg into account?

Edit: if you do add on the wargs as wargear the base cost or the battle company rockets up to over 100, well over the 88 base that seems to be shared by most new battle companies"""

My response was:

"""

Yes, this is a thorny one, because obviously you have to pay a higher price for equipment once your hero has gained attacks/wounds. I don't add the cost of the warg as it's already included in the profile cost as you say, and I only apply the multiplier to equipment he has bought rather than what is on his profile.

I think this is the correct way of doing it, but you point out an interesting point- shouldn't the warg, and/or other equipment be more valuable when the hero progresses?

Perhaps the better way to do it would be to treat the hero as an orc without warg, and add equipment including the warg at the multiplier appropriate to the level of the hero.

So basically, don't treat the warg rider as a warg rider, treat him as an orc who has a warg as part of his gear.
"""

The Great Battle Companies feedback thread

Who is online