Mierce Miniatures

Thought I would start a thread regarding this.

Robs comments from the Kickstarter thread as follows.

1 - each command must have a mainstay unit (which is either Compelled or Influenced, but two Influenced units must be taken to become that mainstay unit)
2 - up to 2 uncommon units can be taken in a command, but only if no rares are present. If a rare (or mythic) is present in the same command, only 1 uncommon unit can be taken
3 - only 1 mythic per host
4 - many things are changing ubiquity slightly to reflect the above
5 - sorcerers are having their skill and authority lowered by around 10

Realms are dealt with differently too. If a unit in a command is not from its commander's realm, it must double its authority for command authority purposes (i.e., adding up to less than the commander's authority). Overlord negates this completely, a new ability called Kinsman (x) negates this for certain profiles.

Realms thus become more important and less restrictive.

So my understanding is now
There is no Ubiquity limit in a host anymore (apart from 1 mythic)
The Ubiquity of Commanders no longer matters (apart from mythic)
No limit on mainstays or commons per command but a limit of 2 others, whereby only 1 of the 2 can be rare.

As for the commands/realms comment about doubling authority, how would that work for the Byzantii/Infernii who have a lot of double entry for ubiquity slots (such as Fiends either being common 2 or uncommon).

demyse wrote:So my understanding is now
There is no Ubiquity limit in a host anymore (apart from 1 mythic)

Correct.

demyse wrote:The Ubiquity of Commanders no longer matters (apart from mythic)

It does matter if you muster a noble that is not the commander in a command (I know you said commander but I'll reinforce the point).

demyse wrote:No limit on mainstays or commons per command but a limit of 2 others, whereby only 1 of the 2 can be rare.

Not quite. You can have 2 Uncommons, but only if there are no Rares. You can have 1 Rare and 1 Uncommon in the same command.

demyse wrote:As for the commands/realms comment about doubling authority, how would that work for the Byzantii/Infernii who have a lot of double entry for ubiquity slots (such as Fiends either being common 2 or uncommon).

You shall have to wait and see... but I will say, Demi nobles have the Kinsman (Dis) rule, which means they can have Dis units in their command without doubling their AUTHORITY.

Cheers
Rob

Let me be sure I have this straight.

Some kindred commanders can be from various realms depending on the need. For Brythoniaid, the human warlords can be from Ceredigion, Gwynedd or Powys.

So lets assume that the general Teyrn is from Gwynedd.

He wants some Dyndraig in the host, so selects a Prifdyndraig "realm commander" who includes some Dyndraig in his command (regular authority cost since they are both Gwaelod) and throws in a Tarwdraig too.

But that general wants a Gwyfern in the host, so he has an Uchelwr "realm commander" from Ceredigion so that he can fit the Gwyfern in the command (since nobody could afford a gwyfern by doubling 49 authority). This commander has to get Rhyfelwr for a mainstay.

But he also wants a Draiggoch in the host (this is some type of big battle). So he gets another Uchelwr, this time from Gwynedd. That way he can get the Draiggoch (who can be Gwynedd or Gwaelog now), plus a group of Rhyfelwr from Gwynedd for mainstay.

Those are all viable or even likely options for commanders, right?

Ultimately there are some changes that allow some new options but exclude some older ones. For instance, since Brythoniaids don't have any Overlords, if you want a Tarwdraig or a Grymdraig in your host they must be in the command of one of the two Gwaelod nobles (Prifdyndraig or Dewindraig). Well Dewindraig can't afford the authority of a Grymdraig - but the principle is that no other nobles can afford the doubled authority for these. Until we see some new Gwaelod nobles these are the only options to field those two units, whereas before they could be in a human's command.

Blue Prophet wrote:Let me be sure I have this straight.

Some kindred commanders can be from various realms depending on the need. For Brythoniaid, the human warlords can be from Ceredigion, Gwynedd or Powys.

Yes.

Blue Prophet wrote:So lets assume that the general Teyrn is from Gwynedd.

He wants some Dyndraig in the host, so selects a Prifdyndraig "realm commander" who includes some Dyndraig in his command (regular authority cost since they are both Gwaelod) and throws in a Tarwdraig too.

But that general wants a Gwyfern in the host, so he has an Uchelwr "realm commander" from Ceredigion so that he can fit the Gwyfern in the command (since nobody could afford a gwyfern by doubling 49 authority). This commander has to get Rhyfelwr for a mainstay.

But he also wants a Draiggoch in the host (this is some type of big battle). So he gets another Uchelwr, this time from Gwynedd. That way he can get the Draiggoch (who can be Gwynedd or Gwaelog now), plus a group of Rhyfelwr from Gwynedd for mainstay.

Those are all viable or even likely options for commanders, right?

Yes, right.

Blue Prophet wrote:Ultimately there are some changes that allow some new options but exclude some older ones. For instance, since Brythoniaids don't have any Overlords, if you want a Tarwdraig or a Grymdraig in your host they must be in the command of one of the two Gwaelod nobles (Prifdyndraig or Dewindraig). Well Dewindraig can't afford the authority of a Grymdraig - but the principle is that no other nobles can afford the doubled authority for these. Until we see some new Gwaelod nobles these are the only options to field those two units, whereas before they could be in a human's command.

Correct. Certain warriors can only be within certain realm commands, and as there are no humans in Gwaelod, you need a Prifdyndraig from Gwaelod to command them.

It's a lore thing as much as a mechanics thing.

Cheers
Rob

Don't you need an uncommon to go with those rares? If not, my gwaelod host just became tenable again.

My understanding is that you can have one of these combinations:

1 uncommon
2 uncommon
1 rare
1 uncommon and 1 rare

Jeff is correct.

Cheers
Rob