Quick feedback as someone about to view this No timestamps. And zero graphics. This makes it a bit rough on me as a viewer. Doesnt have to be a million timestamps. But a handfull? "Dragon meta?" "Army X" "Army Z" "Influence of the arcane journals" Or even, if you feel like its a ton of work, just a few. "Preamble" "Forces of Fantasy" "Ravening hordes" "Future meta?"
I enjoyed the video. In Regards to infantry buffing. Solutions could be the close order keyword only being available for infantry and cavalry of a certain type i.e. heavy cavalry. 1+ for out numbering the opponent. And the free movement during charing. Our gaming group continues to play 8th edition with a lot of house rules. At the moment we are testing the old world combat resolution. Old world is played on the side by a couple of people me included.
Unbelievable!! Seen Scott was on and i thought... Great, that will get me to sleep. However its now 1am and i listened to the whole chat. 😂 Great listen lads, really enjoyed it. Myself and Jack will hopefully be on Forgotten North soon playing Andys filthy Beastmen. Chaos forever!!!!
Really great discussion! 👌🙂 In my group we've bumped Rank Bonus back up to +3 for Regular and Heavy Infantry only. Small change, but it does help them out a bit with that extra point of static combat res. We've also capped non-base contact bonus attacks to "max 1 per side". Which means you can still do the Drilled "Butterfly Knife" charge and be pretty devastating, but it never really turns into weird LineHammer slapstick.
Thanks! It says the whole front rank fighting represents the unit encircling the enemy which I think is quite cool, but it can definitely be taken too far.
Is there any reason you guys didn't extend this to Monstrous Infantry? I don't even think it would be good for them since they're too expensive to rank up. Nonetheless I find it rather random to leave them out of that deal.
I never could understand the "dead game" view with regards to tabletop wargames. All the rules for pretty much all wargames are freely available (either as PDF and/or in ample supply via eBay), figures are now available more widely and in greater variety than ever before (thank you, 3D designers and independent manufacturers), and through the internet, communities can organise and support themselves. I guess it's because I am also in the historical wargames sphere that I consider any game to be alive (if it is actually good). Like chess.
this was super interesting, I honestly wish I could smash the "like" button more than once :) here's hoping that something like the Swedish comp does emerge and we can be spared the atrocities of linehammer or avoidance lists
Thanks for the episode. I think the onus is on players and event organisers to impose some balance. Tournaments defining their own comp schemes adds fun variety to the hobby. If GW does all the balancing then it steers every event down a single image of how Warhammer is played which could get stale. Looking back at all the Fantasy tournaments I used to go to there were some really creative comp schemes.
I’m doubtful that GW will produce something specifically for competitive play but as you say I’m sure the community will come up with ways to make it work.
@@d6wounds Been doing it in my games, with infantry and war machine rewarding 50% of its points in VP, with flying behemoths rewarding 200% VP. So far it felt good.
Thanks for this - an enjoyable conversation. I'm going to keep saying I enjoy your battle reports to encourage further output on that front. Don't forget the Dwarfs though!
wrt the early discussion of character focus in this edition, I don’t think anyone is feeling oppressed by spam of the lower strength characters, it’s just the big monsters and level 4 casters. I think that Old World would be really interesting if GW brought back the distinction in list building between Lords and Heroes. Instead of giving each army up to 50% on characters, let them have up to 25% on Lords and 25% on heroes. So yeah, at 2k pts you could still have a beater on a dragon but you aren’t also getting a kitted out level 4 caster.
Yes the 50% lords was something that GW did to 8th ed and then after it was discontinued the community mostly went back to 25% lords as there were some armies that could get really silly when given a massive character allowance.
Tournaments should be either 1999pts or 2500pts. In first case you need to choose between dragon or lvl4 caster, second case you can take more stuff to deal with the opponent's dragon.
Finally someone with more armies than myself! (By one) :) My rules change would be to enforce the rule in the book that stomps and impact hits cannot be directed at characters in units of 5 or more. That’s a big buff to characters by making both more survivable against dragons.
@@d6wounds Pg 209 Characters in Combat last bullet point. Everyone seems to say that being in a challenge over rides this rule, but nothing in the rules explicitly say this. The FAQ about challenges sort of contradicts this but it's not clear which takes priority.
Characters limited to 40% and not allowing mounts to benefit from their riders wards/regens would greatly improve the game, its as simple as that. For the rank n flank crowd the rank bonus should be moved back up to +3 (not sure why they changed it for this edition). Problem is that when the community calls out for a fix GW will come in with its good 'ol nerf hammer and smash it too far into the other direction.
"Every Tom Dick and Harry has an Ogre Blade". How dare you! My Duke is called Dave, don't exclude him from taking an Ogre Blade! 😉 See I don't think the Ogre Blade is under costed, I just think basically every other magic weapon, particularly the common ones, are way over costed so it looks cheap in comparison. The lack of consistent good AP on common magic weapons is what lets them all down. I'd gladly take a sword of might on my duke for much cheaper than the ogre blade, if it was -2 AP. Or the Giant Blade if it had fixed consistent AP
Yea I agree about the Ogre Blade, it's the likes of sword of battle and duellist blades which are overcosted in comparison. However I think sword of might and biting blade are good for the points..
@@d6wounds Biting blade is solid and is something I’ve really considered on the duke because of his base strength 5. Sword of might at 15 maybe at what it is, but for 20 points I’d like another AP all the time. Maybe I’m just being too picky though!
Biting Blade, Sword of Might and Ogre Blade are pretty much the only common magic weapon that are good. Their are rare cases where example a Headsman's Axe on a Death Hag is good.
Those Bret armies we're almost identical at the top table of Crown. What are you talking about? They had roughly 4 differences in their lists -of which, x1 was an item. The theme was HKB boys and Peg Spam
Yes I suppose they were - I think we were taking into account that they had both performed very well up to that point and so obviously had the HKB and pegs..
Would it make sense to allow skirmishers to only charge in their forward arc? They can move / shoot 360 still. We've have to have a way to show the facing of the unit, maybe that's as simple as saying all models must be aligned. Maybe as compensation allow skirmishing units not to be obstructed by their own models when shooting.
@@ForgottenNorthGaming Pretty much just using the 8th edition rules for skirmishers! Quite a few of the issues in the current rules come from trying to reinvent the wheel when they had a perfectly good one they could have copied and pasted (see also random movers).
@@chriscousens111 "see also random movers" Yes, in a game where everyone's charge distance has a random element anyway the random movers don't seem to move very randomly now they can choose not to go the full distance. Particularly noticeable in armies with impetuous where for example a mangler squig is arguably a more reliable mover than say an orc general. Not sure the old rules were perfect though as I think not being able to stand and shoot them has been carried through from the old rules and is nonsense.
17:35 it's probably an unpopular opinion, but I love hordes. 40 man blocks just look so much cooler, so much more sturdy and 'army like' than a tiny little 20 man unit that just looks inconsequential.
O yea 100% I love the look of a big horde. Best looking thing you can put on the tabletop IMO. However It was always a bit weird that 9 wide didn’t grant any bonus but then as soon as you were 10 wide that was the magic number!
Thanks for the interesting talk. Is an Arachnarok, when ridden by a character, not a chariot mount according to Ravening Hordes? Doesn't that mean, that the Bretonnian Duke on his flying pony cannot Monster Slay the Arachnarok as long as it's considered a chariot? Thus Monster Slayer just works on a regular Arok without the shaman on top. Pretty neat and in that context better than the wyvern (or even a dragon), correct?!?
Where does it say that initiative 0 can't attack or that attack phase ends at initiative 1? Relevant rules I see, Who strikes first: "A model's Initiative characteristic determines when it attacks. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. Models make attacks when their Initiative value is reached." / 0 Characteristics: "If a model has a characteristic of '0', it has no ability whatsoever in what the characteristic represents. This is seen most often with Ballistic Skill, as many models simply lack the ability to make any form of ranged attack. If any model or object has a Weapon Skill of 0 then it is unable to defend itself in combat, and any blows struck against it will therefore automatically hit. If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds characteristic is reduced to 0, it is slain and removed from play." No mention of 0 initiative. / "Choose & Fight Combat The active player chooses a combat and, starting with the models with the highest Initiative, attacks are made, wounds inflicted and casualties removed. Then, surviving models with lower Initiative repeat this process until all models involved in the combat have fought." No mention of 0 initiative not participating.
IMHO Old World needs: 1) Step up rule 2) Supporting Attacks from the 2nd rank (not the whole front line) 3) If unit is wider, than give it a +1 CR. 4) Go back to +3 Rank Bonus for Close order Infantry.
The idea that "8th was unplayable" is just internet echo chamber through "rotten rose tinted" glasses. Every game has a "meta" development, however, I saw as many cannons, and cav armies the first 6-18 months as "death stars" or MSU. While every game needs FAQ's TOW doesn't feel fixable due to it's poor core rules unsimilar to 6th ed or 8th for example. As a former 6th, 7th and 8th ed (including 8th comp) as well as T9A player, this edition just feels rushed and unplayable. (Conspiracy theories aside -pushing MESBG releases back to publish TOW sooner and continue their copyrights contract agreements with CA). The entire game boils down to non-rank and flank units, which turns into 360 degree LOS MSU spam, flying units and cowboys. It's boring, feels easily breakable and the least "rank and flank" of any of the editions. If I wanted to play a skirmish game, I would go play MESBG, or 40K. The foundation of the rules are the sloppiest edition ever written. This is unfortunate, because the only real way to fix sloppy rules writing is to change the core rules through a new edition -which won't happen within a couple years of release. And additionally, through "dedicated resources" for a team that understands their target player base and has experience in multiple Fantasy editions, not just shoved off to "specialist games" team. I love MESBG, but the guys that wrote that game and helped write TOW really didn't/don't understand the nuances of 8th and missed 8th ed quality of life changes when constructing the rules that made the game rank and flank playable and it shows. Until a new rulebook comes out, I will continue to play MESBG -a game they writers know a lot about as they are involved at the grass roots level of local gaming within the GBHL, tournaments and more abroad. It's a reason why it's the best GW game system they currently produce (next to Bloodbowl).
I’m a huge fan of 8th and I think it’s a much better game than OW as it currently stands. I think our point is that the power levels of the armies were unbalanced in 8th and it took a lot of FAQs and comp systems to create a balanced competitive scene. OW is reasonably balanced between the different factions currently, just very unbalanced between troop types. But yes I agree it’s the core rules that are flawed and it needs a new edition to bring back infantry..
@@d6woundsthe faction balance in 8th was lacking, I agree. Perhaps I misunderstood or missed that point you both made. That being said I think it’s fundamentally easier to balance factions and change rules within a book than it is to adjust core rules. And I would take those issues over core rule book issues.
Stating a game is meant to be played in a narrative style is just making excuses for poorly play tested and flawed rules. There needs to be a purpose for units in the game, currently, there is no need for most of them. It seems to be giant dragon game.
Thank you for having me on! Enjoyed our chat immensely 🥰
I've subscribed to your channel as well
@@NisGaarde thank you so much!
I'm half way through and enjoying this immensely. Thank you for taking the time!
Glad you enjoyed it
Quick feedback as someone about to view this
No timestamps. And zero graphics. This makes it a bit rough on me as a viewer.
Doesnt have to be a million timestamps.
But a handfull?
"Dragon meta?"
"Army X"
"Army Z"
"Influence of the arcane journals"
Or even, if you feel like its a ton of work, just a few.
"Preamble"
"Forces of Fantasy"
"Ravening hordes"
"Future meta?"
I enjoyed the video. In Regards to infantry buffing. Solutions could be the close order keyword only being available for infantry and cavalry of a certain type i.e. heavy cavalry.
1+ for out numbering the opponent. And the free movement during charing.
Our gaming group continues to play 8th edition with a lot of house rules. At the moment we are testing the old world combat resolution.
Old world is played on the side by a couple of people me included.
Unbelievable!! Seen Scott was on and i thought... Great, that will get me to sleep. However its now 1am and i listened to the whole chat. 😂
Great listen lads, really enjoyed it. Myself and Jack will hopefully be on Forgotten North soon playing Andys filthy Beastmen.
Chaos forever!!!!
Ha, looking forward to it
Really great discussion! 👌🙂
In my group we've bumped Rank Bonus back up to +3 for Regular and Heavy Infantry only. Small change, but it does help them out a bit with that extra point of static combat res.
We've also capped non-base contact bonus attacks to "max 1 per side". Which means you can still do the Drilled "Butterfly Knife" charge and be pretty devastating, but it never really turns into weird LineHammer slapstick.
Sounds like very sensible house rules to me.
Thanks! It says the whole front rank fighting represents the unit encircling the enemy which I think is quite cool, but it can definitely be taken too far.
@@d6wounds Agreed. Anything wider than 10-12 just looks and plays a little weird IMO 😅
Seems like a good start. I'd like to see the 360 vision arc of skirmishers limited to unit strength 1 and perhaps 2 models.
Is there any reason you guys didn't extend this to Monstrous Infantry? I don't even think it would be good for them since they're too expensive to rank up. Nonetheless I find it rather random to leave them out of that deal.
Cavalry+dragon+ogre blade+lvl 4 wizard. EVERY ARMY.
Pretty much yea
I never could understand the "dead game" view with regards to tabletop wargames. All the rules for pretty much all wargames are freely available (either as PDF and/or in ample supply via eBay), figures are now available more widely and in greater variety than ever before (thank you, 3D designers and independent manufacturers), and through the internet, communities can organise and support themselves. I guess it's because I am also in the historical wargames sphere that I consider any game to be alive (if it is actually good). Like chess.
I agree. A game is only dead if people stop playing it, not if GW says so...
Long live 8th edition!
Really good listen. Hopefully we'll get a game again soon Simon.
Cheers Andy
this was super interesting, I honestly wish I could smash the "like" button more than once :) here's hoping that something like the Swedish comp does emerge and we can be spared the atrocities of linehammer or avoidance lists
Cheers buddy
Thanks for the episode. I think the onus is on players and event organisers to impose some balance. Tournaments defining their own comp schemes adds fun variety to the hobby. If GW does all the balancing then it steers every event down a single image of how Warhammer is played which could get stale. Looking back at all the Fantasy tournaments I used to go to there were some really creative comp schemes.
I’m doubtful that GW will produce something specifically for competitive play but as you say I’m sure the community will come up with ways to make it work.
@@hughallen8027 I definitely feel as the game settles people will begin to put things in place to adjust things and balance for competitive play
@@d6wounds Been doing it in my games, with infantry and war machine rewarding 50% of its points in VP, with flying behemoths rewarding 200% VP. So far it felt good.
Thanks for this - an enjoyable conversation. I'm going to keep saying I enjoy your battle reports to encourage further output on that front. Don't forget the Dwarfs though!
wrt the early discussion of character focus in this edition, I don’t think anyone is feeling oppressed by spam of the lower strength characters, it’s just the big monsters and level 4 casters. I think that Old World would be really interesting if GW brought back the distinction in list building between Lords and Heroes. Instead of giving each army up to 50% on characters, let them have up to 25% on Lords and 25% on heroes. So yeah, at 2k pts you could still have a beater on a dragon but you aren’t also getting a kitted out level 4 caster.
Yes the 50% lords was something that GW did to 8th ed and then after it was discontinued the community mostly went back to 25% lords as there were some armies that could get really silly when given a massive character allowance.
Tournaments should be either 1999pts or 2500pts. In first case you need to choose between dragon or lvl4 caster, second case you can take more stuff to deal with the opponent's dragon.
I agree, you need to either limit character allowance somehow or play bigger games so you can fit in all the tools..
Or just limit to say 35% to characters.
Great vid, subscribed.
Great video, thanks for the intro to forgotten north, I just subscribed :)
How to make infantry more relevant. Let all rank bonuses stack
Finally someone with more armies than myself! (By one) :)
My rules change would be to enforce the rule in the book that stomps and impact hits cannot be directed at characters in units of 5 or more. That’s a big buff to characters by making both more survivable against dragons.
Why would a rule not be enforced?
@@d6wounds Pg 209 Characters in Combat last bullet point. Everyone seems to say that being in a challenge over rides this rule, but nothing in the rules explicitly say this. The FAQ about challenges sort of contradicts this but it's not clear which takes priority.
@@Zenfoxgames I think the faq is pretty clear that you can stomp in a challenge.
But yes I see your point.
It’s just frustrating when the interpretation of an FAQ ruins game balance and it’s not clear if it is actually what they were intending.
Characters limited to 40% and not allowing mounts to benefit from their riders wards/regens would greatly improve the game, its as simple as that. For the rank n flank crowd the rank bonus should be moved back up to +3 (not sure why they changed it for this edition).
Problem is that when the community calls out for a fix GW will come in with its good 'ol nerf hammer and smash it too far into the other direction.
Yes I like the idea of reducing character allowance too.. so youre forced to can't fit in a big killy lord and a lvl4 and a bsb etc.
51:17. I would argue that the best magical missile is actually the one on the bastilladon with solar engine: 3D3 S5 AP-2 at 24".
43:23 I largely agree, except for the fact that it's looking like Empire might be the best gunline in the game.
"Every Tom Dick and Harry has an Ogre Blade". How dare you! My Duke is called Dave, don't exclude him from taking an Ogre Blade! 😉
See I don't think the Ogre Blade is under costed, I just think basically every other magic weapon, particularly the common ones, are way over costed so it looks cheap in comparison. The lack of consistent good AP on common magic weapons is what lets them all down. I'd gladly take a sword of might on my duke for much cheaper than the ogre blade, if it was -2 AP. Or the Giant Blade if it had fixed consistent AP
Yea I agree about the Ogre Blade, it's the likes of sword of battle and duellist blades which are overcosted in comparison. However I think sword of might and biting blade are good for the points..
@@d6wounds Biting blade is solid and is something I’ve really considered on the duke because of his base strength 5. Sword of might at 15 maybe at what it is, but for 20 points I’d like another AP all the time. Maybe I’m just being too picky though!
I'm agreeing it on the opposite, the Ogre Blade is too cheap, and yeah I don't want the state of herohammer that we have now.
Biting Blade, Sword of Might and Ogre Blade are pretty much the only common magic weapon that are good.
Their are rare cases where example a Headsman's Axe on a Death Hag is good.
Ah hi Scott, we played in Worcester a few years ago. We had a good game of your empire Vs my lizardmen when i was brand new to tournaments.
Those Bret armies we're almost identical at the top table of Crown. What are you talking about?
They had roughly 4 differences in their lists -of which, x1 was an item. The theme was HKB boys and Peg Spam
Yes I suppose they were - I think we were taking into account that they had both performed very well up to that point and so obviously had the HKB and pegs..
Would it make sense to allow skirmishers to only charge in their forward arc? They can move / shoot 360 still. We've have to have a way to show the facing of the unit, maybe that's as simple as saying all models must be aligned. Maybe as compensation allow skirmishing units not to be obstructed by their own models when shooting.
@@doubleskulls I definitely think something like that kind of thing has serious potential as a balancing tool 👍
@@ForgottenNorthGaming Pretty much just using the 8th edition rules for skirmishers! Quite a few of the issues in the current rules come from trying to reinvent the wheel when they had a perfectly good one they could have copied and pasted (see also random movers).
@@chriscousens111 I agree this is particularly evident in skirmishers and 8th edition rules for them were sufficient in my eyes 👍
@@chriscousens111 "see also random movers"
Yes, in a game where everyone's charge distance has a random element anyway the random movers don't seem to move very randomly now they can choose not to go the full distance. Particularly noticeable in armies with impetuous where for example a mangler squig is arguably a more reliable mover than say an orc general. Not sure the old rules were perfect though as I think not being able to stand and shoot them has been carried through from the old rules and is nonsense.
@@ClydeMillerWynant I love the random movement on the squigs. Knowing exactly what the distance is, and avoiding charge reactions is great.
17:35 it's probably an unpopular opinion, but I love hordes. 40 man blocks just look so much cooler, so much more sturdy and 'army like' than a tiny little 20 man unit that just looks inconsequential.
O yea 100% I love the look of a big horde. Best looking thing you can put on the tabletop IMO. However It was always a bit weird that 9 wide didn’t grant any bonus but then as soon as you were 10 wide that was the magic number!
@@d6wounds that's very fair.
Thanks for the interesting talk.
Is an Arachnarok, when ridden by a character, not a chariot mount according to Ravening Hordes? Doesn't that mean, that the Bretonnian Duke on his flying pony cannot Monster Slay the Arachnarok as long as it's considered a chariot? Thus Monster Slayer just works on a regular Arok without the shaman on top. Pretty neat and in that context better than the wyvern (or even a dragon), correct?!?
Thank you! I believe the arachnarok gets some of the chariot rules from the Howdah rule but is still a Behemoth so Monster troop type.
Where does it say that initiative 0 can't attack or that attack phase ends at initiative 1? Relevant rules I see, Who strikes first: "A model's Initiative characteristic determines when it attacks. Work your way through the Initiative values of the models, starting with the highest and ending with the lowest. Models make attacks when their Initiative value is reached." / 0 Characteristics:
"If a model has a characteristic of '0', it has no ability whatsoever in what the characteristic represents. This is seen most often with Ballistic Skill, as many models simply lack the ability to make any form of ranged attack.
If any model or object has a Weapon Skill of 0 then it is unable to defend itself in combat, and any blows struck against it will therefore automatically hit. If at any time a model's Strength, Toughness or Wounds characteristic is reduced to 0, it is slain and removed from play." No mention of 0 initiative. /
"Choose & Fight Combat
The active player chooses a combat and, starting with the models with the highest Initiative, attacks are made, wounds inflicted and casualties removed. Then, surviving models with lower Initiative repeat this process until all models involved in the combat have fought." No mention of 0 initiative not participating.
Also great conversation! Subscribed.
I think light and heavy infantry should get a free combat reform
New to this channel, great stuff. Liked & subscribed so count me in. 👍
Awesome, thank you
It's always meta this and meta that, have y'all ever heard of the broken soap and hot water combo?
Do tell...
@d6wounds 😆 🤣 Just joking, enjoyed the video. You made some good points about the Echo chamber meta.
@@WarhoundHobbies 🤙🤙
I don't know what lies in the North of the country nothing exists outside of Knights bridge. Oh noooo👻👻👻👻
Ha. I wish I lived in Knightsbridge
@@d6wounds I would amend the game in a couple of ways to make infantry viable. One level four per army
Max Two Bohemiths
Max 3 war machines
IMHO Old World needs: 1) Step up rule 2) Supporting Attacks from the 2nd rank (not the whole front line) 3) If unit is wider, than give it a +1 CR. 4) Go back to +3 Rank Bonus for Close order Infantry.
With all that though you might as well just play 8th haha
The idea that "8th was unplayable" is just internet echo chamber through "rotten rose tinted" glasses. Every game has a "meta" development, however, I saw as many cannons, and cav armies the first 6-18 months as "death stars" or MSU. While every game needs FAQ's TOW doesn't feel fixable due to it's poor core rules unsimilar to 6th ed or 8th for example.
As a former 6th, 7th and 8th ed (including 8th comp) as well as T9A player, this edition just feels rushed and unplayable. (Conspiracy theories aside -pushing MESBG releases back to publish TOW sooner and continue their copyrights contract agreements with CA). The entire game boils down to non-rank and flank units, which turns into 360 degree LOS MSU spam, flying units and cowboys. It's boring, feels easily breakable and the least "rank and flank" of any of the editions. If I wanted to play a skirmish game, I would go play MESBG, or 40K.
The foundation of the rules are the sloppiest edition ever written. This is unfortunate, because the only real way to fix sloppy rules writing is to change the core rules through a new edition -which won't happen within a couple years of release. And additionally, through "dedicated resources" for a team that understands their target player base and has experience in multiple Fantasy editions, not just shoved off to "specialist games" team.
I love MESBG, but the guys that wrote that game and helped write TOW really didn't/don't understand the nuances of 8th and missed 8th ed quality of life changes when constructing the rules that made the game rank and flank playable and it shows.
Until a new rulebook comes out, I will continue to play MESBG -a game they writers know a lot about as they are involved at the grass roots level of local gaming within the GBHL, tournaments and more abroad. It's a reason why it's the best GW game system they currently produce (next to Bloodbowl).
I’m a huge fan of 8th and I think it’s a much better game than OW as it currently stands. I think our point is that the power levels of the armies were unbalanced in 8th and it took a lot of FAQs and comp systems to create a balanced competitive scene. OW is reasonably balanced between the different factions currently, just very unbalanced between troop types. But yes I agree it’s the core rules that are flawed and it needs a new edition to bring back infantry..
@@d6woundsthe faction balance in 8th was lacking, I agree. Perhaps I misunderstood or missed that point you both made.
That being said I think it’s fundamentally easier to balance factions and change rules within a book than it is to adjust core rules.
And I would take those issues over core rule book issues.
@@d6wounds No need to be political. Anyone denying the game wasn't a mess on release is deluded. It was terrible. You could railroad units ffs.
Stating a game is meant to be played in a narrative style is just making excuses for poorly play tested and flawed rules. There needs to be a purpose for units in the game, currently, there is no need for most of them. It seems to be giant dragon game.