The purpose of this thread is to collect community erratas and rules improvements.

Personally I would prefer erratas and rule changes that still works good with Tabletop admiral, as it is a vital tool (at least for me), thus point changes are not optimal, but changes to card texts or general rules are (as they can easily be printed and proxed).

Post list

1. Scuttling Horror timing adjustment
2. Insatiable Hunger timing adjustments
3. Spined Threshers rerolls scratched
4. Ankaur necromancy buff
5. Ardus Ix'Erebus Skill action
6. Carrion Lancer blighting adjustment
7. Reanimate Archer gets regenerate
8. Rune Golems
9. Terrain rules

Unit Balance Survey

Thoughts on Balance

Scuttling Horror

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST A SUGGESTION, PLEASE TEST AND GIVE FEEDBACK!

The Scuttling horror for only 3p gives free outside-activation sideways shift (which, as @Budgernaut pointed out, actually means that it is at 3 places at once during the Command phase) and delivers stun tokens, for the most powerful unit in the game. WHAAAT!?

This version phases the shift to Before instead of After the Command Phase, and it removes the stun ability. 3 points for a free shift every turn still seems more than fair in my book.

Insatiable Hunger

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST A SUGGESTION, PLEASE TEST AND GIVE FEEDBACK!

One of the most discussed upgrades is the Ravos wrecking ball Insatiable hunger.

Ravos' unique upgrade Insatiable Hunger's trigger is now AFTER he "eats" (idea from @Jukey and @Church14 ). So at least he can't run over the WHOLE table turn 1 and then eat.

Spined Threshers

ARE DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING THREAD:

Currently what discussion participants agrees on are the "Spending Threshers" where the spending of the panic token is the change from the original:

Ankaur Maro

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST A SUGGESTION, PLEASE TEST AND GIVE FEEDBACK!

Ankaur's necromancy is not cost effective without heavy infantry. And from what I gathered from other threads his main draw is his ability to muster Spined Threshers :X

By just removing the worst of his self-destruction, he could get ahead with the necromancy and MIGHT survive a shot from an enemy when he tries to heal from them with his initiative 6 ranged attack. I will remove this if an elite infantry is released. I also added melee for this ability, as healing with that single melee attack die won't break him by far.

I have not managed to figure out any overpowered combo that lead to his infantry upgrade being unable to add trays to his own unit. It is better if he could, since you don't need to run 2 infantry units, but overpowered?

So now it does. I also added the lesser self destruction as Ankaur above. This won't really affect when he is in the Reanimate unit, but it makes his cavalry upgrade possible. Since you can only put him in Death Knights, you had to sacrifice one Death Knight (the most expensive cavalry in the game!) for each tray of infantry. Who has ever done that thinking it was a good idea?

Test report:

Ardus Ix'Erebus

UNDER DISCUSSION

Ardus is generally seen as the worst hero in the game, so he surely needs some love.

I think that he is too hard to keep alive and still getting him to do something useful. He is too slow, too soft and lacks ranged abilities. He is an easy target for long and short charges as well as getting sniped by archers. His battlefield role too often becomes "Hide the points!" or "Expensive meatshield!"

BUT THERE IS HOPE! He has an initiative 2 Skill action that currently is unused!

Currently what discussion participants agrees on is the "Protected Ardus" who better can withstand a charge as the Skill action ability has been added:

Carrion Lancers

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST A SUGGESTION, PLEASE TEST AND GIVE FEEDBACK!

Carrion Lancers are pretty good, but they play weird due to their "can't blight engaged units".

I believe getting rid of the Carrion Lancer's "can't blight engaged units" is the clearest "fix-all" for Waiqar. It makes the Lancers a reliable support unit that helps "defend" engaged allies and it increases the potential for other Lancers to activate their Mortal strike ability. They are ok now, but they need to rival Threshers and Scions. The Heavy upgrade makes Reanimates into the tar-pit they are meant to be. It makes Ardus better since he can put the now-powerful Heavy lancer in the Reanimate 6-tray, as mentioned he is more easily defended through blight and he has more opportunities to borrow the Mortal strike ability. Ankaur also becomes more viable due to easier defence via blight, and that Reanimates becomes more valuable to necro when having the heavy Lancer. Also, when blighting, it happens after the enemies attacks and the Lancers can't do anything else. Waiqar needs to be good at SOMETHING. But this fix also has a limitation, it can only blight if the target does not already contain any blight. This is necessary as otherwise a 13 solo Lancer army just breaks the game by blighting. This fix, with the limitation, still has been more powerful than the "can't blight engaged units" original when I've tested it.

Test report:

12 hours ago, Darth Matthew said:

Tried two games, one with lancer spam, one with 4 solo lancers supporting. Not being able to put a 2nd blight out hurt a lot. Being able to put multiple blights on a unit in combat is too good.

Maybe add a blight at range, or give an unblighted unit in combat a blight? Losing the ability to give multiple blights at range in exchange for 1 blight in combat didn't feel like a boost. Opponent just banked an inspiration and waited until he needed it.

Reanimate Archers

THIS IS CURRENTLY JUST A SUGGESTION WHICH IS NOT ACTIVELY DISCUSSED, PLEASE TEST AND GIVE FEEDBACK!

Since the Reanimates in melee infantry form seems biologically/magically similar (or the same) to their ranged kind, leving the Regenerate ability out must be a designed nerf, but I can't see this breaking them, as their trays seem to be either full or dead. Also, Regenerate on Reanimates have not done as much work for me as I'd hoped either so this ought to be minor.

Rune Golems

ARE DISCUSSED IN THE FOLLOWING THREAD:

Currently what discussion participants agrees on are the "Stun Golems" which has the Collide-to-stun ability added:

Please test and give feedback!

TERRAIN RULES

ARE DISCUSSED IN THIS THREAD:

hold

I wish you had broken these up into individual threads so that they could be discussed easier.

37 minutes ago, Xelto said:

I wish you had broken these up into individual threads so that they could be discussed easier.

Yeah, I thought about it, but I was afraid that I was over-ambitious as is.

If you start a new thread on a errata topic due to this one becoming to crowded, I'll add it to the opening post and link to the discussion.

For example: If the terrain rules errata thread that is currently active gets to some sort of agreement I'll add it.

Hope that seems reasonable.

Now don't overthink the method, vote and write about erratas instead!

One could always spread out the discussions in their own threads. that way they don't come all at once. There's no reason to rush a project like this.

Quote

My bold vision is that some erratas will get a net of 10 positive likes, thus making it clear that the errata is valid.

Replace valid with popular. Individual posts can be valid, but a vote just shows what is popular.

I like where you're going with these. But rather than voting and using likes/dislikes, I think testing is key with any rules changes/errata.

I'm planning to post soon (later this morning in brief, later this week in detail) with my plan for a fan-run organized play initiative. Organized play can be a great place for testing new things, if a local metagame all agrees that a version of something is too powerful or not powerful enough. Three games in rapid succession with the same change against different opponents tends to generate a lot of data. Even more if more than one person brings it. As such, I'm going to encourage tournament organizers, when they are thinking about the needs of their community, to consider some of the fixes here. One of the important parts of my plan is feedback and data, so anyone who does allow/require different versions of unit/upgrade cards will be strongly encouraged to send feedback to me. If a certain change gains enough traction, we will consider adding it to the unofficial errata/faq we're creating.

Of course, not all testing happens at events, and testing should be done as much as possible in casual games as well. Get out and play with these! See if they feel too powerful, not powerful enough, or just right.

10 minutes ago, Zetan said:

I like where you're going with these. But rather than voting and using likes/dislikes, I think testing is key with any rules changes/errata.

I'm planning to post soon (later this morning in brief, later this week in detail) with my plan for a fan-run organized play initiative. Organized play can be a great place for testing new things, if a local metagame all agrees that a version of something is too powerful or not powerful enough. Three games in rapid succession with the same change against different opponents tends to generate a lot of data. Even more if more than one person brings it. As such, I'm going to encourage tournament organizers, when they are thinking about the needs of their community, to consider some of the fixes here. One of the important parts of my plan is feedback and data, so anyone who does allow/require different versions of unit/upgrade cards will be strongly encouraged to send feedback to me. If a certain change gains enough traction, we will consider adding it to the unofficial errata/faq we're creating.

Of course, not all testing happens at events, and testing should be done as much as possible in casual games as well. Get out and play with these! See if they feel too powerful, not powerful enough, or just right.

Great!

I will incorporate your analysis from these tests in one way or another (thinking about something like noting them in the head post and linking to post or thread or wherever you publish your findings).

I can't remember everything we said on the podcast, but if we ever suggested that Maro is the worst hero in the game...oops. We definitely mean Ardus. Maro, although he is expensive and his initiatives are disappointingly high, can be a big threat if you play him well and have good blockers for him to do his thing. Ardus is straight trash...he's just way too slow.

3 minutes ago, FranquesEnbiens said:

I can't remember everything we said on the podcast, but if we ever suggested that Maro is the worst hero in the game...oops. We definitely mean Ardus. Maro, although he is expensive and his initiatives are disappointingly high, can be a big threat if you play him well and have good blockers for him to do his thing. Ardus is straight trash...he's just way too slow.

I've updated the texts in order to avoid misrepresentation.

3 minutes ago, Maktorius said:

I've updated the texts in order to avoid misrepresentation.

Haha...no worries, just wanted to make sure we were absolutely clear about what we think is garbage 😉

RUNE GOLEMS ARE STILL TERRIBLE, FIGHT ME LUKE

2 hours ago, Maktorius said:

Yeah, I thought about it, but I was afraid that I was over-ambitious as is.

If you start a new thread on a errata topic due to this one becoming to crowded, I'll add it to the opening post and link to the discussion.

For example: If the terrain rules errata thread that is currently active gets to some sort of agreement I'll add it.

Hope that seems reasonable.

Now don't overthink the method, vote and write about erratas instead!

****, the forums are my long reply. I'm at work, so the short version is: make sure the community is willing to follow you before going extensively into the changes you want. Little causes more confusion than a quarter of a group heads of in a different direction, builds up a good head of steam, then finds out that the other three quarters of the group isn't following them.

Also, individual threads. Trying to follow alternate ideas, idea tweaks, and test results of nearly a dozen units in a single thread just doesn't work well.

My vote is for allowing a community-run balance/thematic set of changes. But I want to make sure there's a strong agreement for it within the community first.

actually rune golems are perfect companions for crossbowmen block with zachareth and fire runes. they shake out stuns perfectly, can turn after late move, deal stuns early and if they die u dont miss them that much. can be event slightly better than spearmen 2*1 with corruption. as such, they are great fillers.

13 minutes ago, Skaflok said:

actually rune golems are perfect companions for crossbowmen block with zachareth and fire runes. they shake out stuns perfectly, can turn after late move, deal stuns early and if they die u dont miss them that much. can be event slightly better than spearmen 2*1 with corruption. as such, they are great fillers.

28 minutes ago, FranquesEnbiens said:

RUNE GOLEMS ARE STILL TERRIBLE, FIGHT ME LUKE

We go to war with the golems we have, not the golems we want.

I mean, unless they get buffed!

1 minute ago, Bhelliom said:

We go to war with the golems we have, not the golems we want.

I mean, unless they get buffed!

Talk to @Zetan about that 😉