Warhammer - The Old World

[Sception]

I'm not convinced that lizards are in that bad a state.  Certainly not Saurus Warriors specifically.  Most damage is lower across the board, T4 4+ is tough enough for a bastic battleline block that you should be getting attacks back in most cases, and 2 attacks a model at S4 and AP-1 is nothing to sneaze at.  By comparison chaos warriors have only one attack each.  Like again, battleline heavy infantry vs. battleline heavy infantry, same points per model, chaos warriors striking first with hand weapons kill 0.22 saurus warriors per chaos warrior (1 attack, *2/3 to hit, *1/2 to wound, *2/3 get past the saurus' 4+ armor after ap1 for chaos weapons).  the saurus warriors fighting back kill 0.26 chaos warriors even accounting for casualties (0.78 still alive *2 attacks *1/2 to hit *1/2 to wound *2/3 get past the warriors' 4+ armor save after ap1 for obsidian weapons).  So even allowing for the fact that they'll be fightig last, saurus warriors still out-fight the equivalent heavy core/battleline infantry from arguably the most melee-centric of the official supported factions even after getting attacked first.

If a core infantry unit (not special or rare) outfights chaos warriors both model for model and point for point (same points per model makes for easy comparison) even after the warriors hit you first, then I don't think you can reasonably call them bad.  You may need something extra to deal with special or rare melee threats, or core threats with hero support, but you have your own heroes and your own special and rare threats to draw on for that, plus a really fantastic tar pit in jungle swarms to delay anything you just don't want to deal with directly.

[Doko]

1 minute ago, Sception said:

I'm not convinced that lizards are in that bad a state.  Certainly not Saurus Warriors specifically.  Most damage is lower across the board, T4 4+ is tough enough for a bastic battleline block that you should be getting attacks back in most cases, and 2 attacks a model at S4 and AP-1 is nothing to sneaze at.  By comparison chaos warriors have only one attack each.  Like again, battleline heavy infantry vs. battleline heavy infantry, same points per model, chaos warriors striking first with hand weapons kill 0.22 saurus warriors per chaos warrior (1 attack, *2/3 to hit, *1/2 to wound, *2/3 get past the saurus' 4+ armor after ap1 for chaos weapons).  the saurus warriors fighting back kill 0.26 chaos warriors even accounting for casualties (0.78 still alive *2 attacks *1/2 to hit *1/2 to wound *2/3 get past the warriors' 4+ armor save after ap1 for obsidian weapons).  So even allowing for the fact that they'll be fightig last, saurus warriors still out-fight the equivalent heavy core/battleline infantry from arguably the most melee-centric of the official supported factions even after getting attacked first.

If a core infantry unit (not special or rare) outfights chaos warriors both model for model and point for point (same points per model makes for easy comparison) even after the warriors hit you first, then I don't think you can reasonably call them bad.  You may need something extra to deal with special or rare melee threats, or core threats with hero support, but you have your own heroes and your own special and rare threats to draw on for that, plus a really fantastic tar pit in jungle swarms to delay anything you just don't want to deal with directly.

now add khorne mark or nurgle to the numbers......the marks are wich make broken overpower to warriors of caos in the initial tiers rigth now.

baseline they are balanced,but add marks and they are BROKEN

[Jamopower]

7 minutes ago, Doko said:

error , with armor of blood and shield then you have save 4+ of dragon or ryder untill you start killing things.

fine for you? sure,but not fine for dark elf players that would preffer have save2 allways as the high elfs and that if we ignore that high elfs have regen 5+ and dark elfs cant get it and is huge.

 

again as all in the legacy vs core,isnt umplayable but is a big gap betwen legacy vs cores

You can buy you dragon lord full plate, shield and sea dragon cloak and he will have the 2+ save when it matters the most: during shooting phase.

[Doko]

9 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

You can buy you dragon lord full plate, shield and sea dragon cloak and he will have the 2+ save when it matters the most: during shooting phase.

are u trolling? shooting phase have been nerfed in tow and war machines are wett noddles and regular shooting units are as allways have been bad.

shooting dont matter nothing,is all melle where matters

its the reason that dwarfs are the worst army in initial rankings and wood elves are close to botton,but in wood elves case the wild ryders and wardancers save the day but dwarfs dont have that luck.

entire top tiers are the melle armys

Edited January 24 by Doko

[Kitsumy]

9 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

I played a lot of 6th ed with Lizardmen and they were very broken army back then. Especially cold blooded was ridiculously good. I however still have strong faith that screen of skinks backed up with heavy hitting dinosaurs (that have more variety than before) is still a very good combination.

 

I also don’t believe iniative will really matter that much. Getting rid of chariots and dragons (perhaps with poisoned blowpipes) will matter much nore.

how have been broken?? first time i heard lizardmen being broken in any edttion, they were strong in some edittions at best. and always for slan magic.

blowpipes wont be used i guess, same than on other edittions (how would u get into ≤6 that dragon ?), they would hit at 7s 99% of the time, so javalin will be better.

and on a fast maths, 10 skinks with javalin shotting at 6-12 since being closser wouldnt be realistic, would do 0,25 dmg to a dragon with 6t and 2save. so u would need 40 shots only to do 1w, not counting that dragon will have ward and even regen most of the time haha 

so 360 skinks would be nedded only to kill a non warded regen dragon, with ward and regen it could go up to 500+ wont bother with that math.

so i dont think that be the viable option, we need some magic like russ in order to have a shot killing a dragon, carnosaur should be the monster killer, but having WS 3 against those elves high ws means he will hit them at 5s, with only 4 atacks. so no chance there neither

 

[Sception]

Khorne warriors will outfight saurus, sure.  But khorne warriors are frenzied, which means generally speaking you should get to pick what they fight and where.  Let them fight jungle swarms all game.  Let them charge an msu unit of skink skirmishers and end up far our of position.  Frenzy is strong, but even more than how strong it is frenzy is bad.  they paid extra points to make themselves super easy to exploit, play around it.

Mark of nurgle is a more relevant comparison since it doesn't change how the unit plays fundamentally or come with a huge exploitable weakness attached*.  Nurgle adds 2 points per model, so the points are a bit off now, but still.  Warriors kill the same 0.22 saurus warriors, only now the warriors had 1.14 models per warrior to start due to the warriors costing more.   So 0.92 models attack back, x2 attacks each, 5/12 hit due to mark of nurgle, 1/2 wound, 2/3 get through armor, for 0.256 slain chaos warriors.  So yeah, point for point at least saurus warriors still outfight chaos warriors even with the mark of nurgle.

"But there's no step up now, models won't all be in the front rank, you can't assume wider frontage for the saurus just because they cost less".  Fair enough.  But even model for model you're looking at 0.217 slain chaos warriors, which is barely any different from their 0.22 slain saurus.  So even ignoring points and looking model for model, saurus warriors come out essentially on par with nurgle chaos warriors even accounting for the fact that the warriors will swing first.  And you can't call a core unit that on the odds essentially ties combat with nurgle warriors despite costing 2 points less per model bad.

For battleline melee infantry, Saurus are Not Bad.  They just aren't.

 

*Nurgle warriors do lose the extra resistance to fear, panic, & terror from undivided.  their leadership is decent so i don't call this a huge weakness, but lizardmen do have tools to exploit this.

Edited January 24 by Sception

[Jamopower]

I have a feeling that you Kitsumy and Doko haven’t played much of 6th edition?

Lizards were good at everything and poisoned blowpipes on cheap skirmishers were always one of the strongest things. I don’t see why this wouldn’t still be the case, especially with the in overall worse saves.

Archers also look to me pretty good in this game, and the repeater x-bow dark elves (as always). 

[Kitsumy]

31 minutes ago, Sception said:

I'm not convinced that lizards are in that bad a state.  Certainly not Saurus Warriors specifically.  Most damage is lower across the board, T4 4+ is tough enough for a bastic battleline block that you should be getting attacks back in most cases, and 2 attacks a model at S4 and AP-1 is nothing to sneaze at.  By comparison chaos warriors have only one attack each.  Like again, battleline heavy infantry vs. battleline heavy infantry, same points per model, chaos warriors striking first with hand weapons kill 0.22 saurus warriors per chaos warrior (1 attack, *2/3 to hit, *1/2 to wound, *2/3 get past the saurus' 4+ armor after ap1 for chaos weapons).  the saurus warriors fighting back kill 0.26 chaos warriors even accounting for casualties (0.78 still alive *2 attacks *1/2 to hit *1/2 to wound *2/3 get past the warriors' 4+ armor save after ap1 for obsidian weapons).  So even allowing for the fact that they'll be fightig last, saurus warriors still out-fight the equivalent heavy core/battleline infantry from arguably the most melee-centric of the official supported factions even after getting attacked first.

If a core infantry unit (not special or rare) outfights chaos warriors both model for model and point for point (same points per model makes for easy comparison) even after the warriors hit you first, then I don't think you can reasonably call them bad.  You may need something extra to deal with special or rare melee threats, or core threats with hero support, but you have your own heroes and your own special and rare threats to draw on for that, plus a really fantastic tar pit in jungle swarms to delay anything you just don't want to deal with directly.

didnt see ur numbers, but if u are right, u are forgetting something. chaos warriors are 2 atacks because khorne, dont know why would u do any number with basic stats, they can have that option, why wouldnt use it? it is like comparing a cavalry charging vs other non charging. so even doing half his atacks numbers would be so cloose, now add the tankiness of nurgle or khorne etc since they have real pasives.

so in reality khorne chaos warriors would kill 0,44 saurus per warrior, dont even need to do saurus maths. since it would be like 0,1-0,2, completly stomped

sure they would cost 1p more than saurus, but on ur example saurus would have cost 1p more. so i guess it dont matters.

 

and compare 6 saurus vs 10 dwarf warriors with 2 hand axes ( same 90points ), saurus will always loose always, even with saurus charging and ataking first.

 

thats the example i said sairus were so bad, they will be stomped hard by every heavy infantry, but hey. i did numbers and they would win against basic elven spearmens!

Edited January 24 by Kitsumy

[Doko]

as i sayd before,this forum is too much positive so this is my last post about this topic.

 

facts: gw copy/pasted the high elf book in dark elves but with nerfed versions.

other fact: high elf hero can have save 2,ward 5 regen 5 while dark elf only save 3, ward 5 and nothing more.

 

to everyone in internet is obvious that the gap is huge,same model and rules but one for same points have +1 save and 5+ regen. its umbalanced.

but here everyone see this huge gap and is fine all is great.....ok up to you

[Public Universal Duardin]

1 hour ago, Doko said:

i wont continue saying the same because this forum is very positive and dont acept negative coments,but rigth now internet is burning with everyone laughing of the supposed gw gave same love and effort toward legacy armys

OK, I'll bite

I'll preface this by saying that I can't comment on any faction's viability as I'm anything but competitive - I only ever play casual or narrative games - but what I can comment on is this forum, participating in various degrees since 2019. While TGA is in general more optimistic than most other Warhammer groups out there, I wouldn't say that nobody accepts negative comments. I know I have grumbled my fair share the last 3-4 years!

I also don't think the Internet is burning at all - from what I've seen the reception to the legacy pdfs have been generally positive even outside these forums. Honestly, Square Based's proposed standard event format got more mixed reactions than the legacy pdfs themselves, lol

I don't want to insinuate that you're in a negative bubble - equally well I could be in an optimistic one, or my non-competitive self doesn't have the 'eye' to discern criticism...but I feel like you're unfair towards this forum. There's real good people here, and it's not all hugboxing and shilling for daddy James Workshop, heheh.

[Sception]

6 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

didnt see ur numbers, but if u are right, u are forgetting something. chaos warriors are 2 atacks because khorne, dont know why would u do any number with basic stats, they can have that option, why wouldnt use it?

addressed in the other post, but khorne has frenzy, which forces charges even when the only charge option is disasterously stupid.  if the warriors have mark of khorne they should never be fighting on their own terms or on equal footing.  I guess i could account for that by giving the saurus a free flank charge, but honestly it's just not an apples to apples comparison.

[The Red King]

37 minutes ago, Doko said:

error , with armor of blood and shield then you have save 4+ of dragon or ryder untill you start killing things.

fine for you? sure,but not fine for dark elf players that would preffer have save2 allways as the high elfs and that if we ignore that high elfs have regen 5+ and dark elfs cant get it and is huge.

 

again as all in the legacy vs core,isnt umplayable but is a big gap betwen legacy vs cores

Okay fine but how long is it going to take your dreadlord on black dragon to inflict 3 wounds? And just going to keep ignoring the 4+ ward save from the amulet? Regen is nice and all but you can't take 2+ armor saves or 5+ regens against monster slayer insta kill attacks which are imo the biggest threat to a dragon. You know what you can take? Wards. And in most cases a 4+ ward which is mathematically much better than a 5+ regen on top of being negated by almost nothing (as opposed to regen which many many rules and spells ignore)

[Doko]

4 minutes ago, The Red King said:

Okay fine but how long is it going to take your dreadlord on black dragon to inflict 3 wounds? And just going to keep ignoring the 4+ ward save from the amulet? Regen is nice and all but you can't take 2+ armor saves or 5+ regens against monster slayer insta kill attacks which are imo the biggest threat to a dragon. You know what you can take? Wards. And in most cases a 4+ ward which is mathematically much better than a 5+ regen on top of being negated by almost nothing (as opposed to regen which many many rules and spells ignore)

yes you are rigth, the 1% of situations where you get attacked by a monster slaying the dark elf is a 16% better and the other 99% of situations the high elf is a 46% better

[Kitsumy]

3 hours ago, Jamopower said:

I have a feeling that you Kitsumy and Doko haven’t played much of 6th edition?

Lizards were good at everything and poisoned blowpipes on cheap skirmishers were always one of the strongest things. I don’t see why this wouldn’t still be the case, especially with the in overall worse saves.

Archers also look to me pretty good in this game, and the repeater x-bow dark elves (as always). 

well i get similar reactions on every number analisis i do in my armyes releases in aos,  you can check them on seraphon and idoneth forums,  to see if i were right or if the comments replying me saying that i need learn to play, need to learn maths, i am wrong etc etc were right

 

u were right, didnt see shield points, they cost the same. my bad

Edited January 24 by Kitsumy

[Jamopower]

In the numberhammering it’s easy to forget how difficult is it to get your good unit where it needs to be in classic Warhammer. That’s where the lizards (and wood elves, Tzeentch daemons, Vampire counts, Chaos, etc) have always been good at. It’s a game of movement, not game of calculating how many attacks you will dish out.

Edited January 24 by Jamopower

[Garrac]

18 minutes ago, Jamopower said:

In the numberhammering it’s easy to forget how difficult is it to get your good unit where it needs to be in classic Warhammer. That’s where the lizards (and wood elves, Tzeentch daemons, Vampire counts, Chaos, etc) have always been good at. It’s a game of movement, not game of calculating how many attacks you will dish out.

Yeah, that's why everyone on 8th edition hated giant rats

[Sception]

56 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

sure they would cost 1p more than saurus, but on ur example saurus would have cost 1p more. so i guess it dont matters.

Chaos warriors have to pay for shields.

And I've spoken of khorne warriors in two other posts already.  They have frenzy, which makes them bad.  They will charge out of position, waste charges on tar pits and distraction chaff, charge into things that will beat them in combat (causing them to lose the frenzy rule that they paid extra for), charge into forests and be bogged down half the game, block off lines of advance from other units in your battleline, etc.  To have any hope of using them in a reasonable fight you have to buy entire separate units just to block off line of sight to units they don't want to charge, which you then have to consider in their points cost.  To the extent that warhammer fantasy is a game of maneuver and positioning, and Frenzy is one of if not the worst penalties you can hand yourself in that aspect of the game, essentially handing control of your unit to your opponent.

As for comparing to dwarf warriors with additional hand weapons...  I'm not seeing 2 hand weapons as an option for dwarf warriors?  Am I going blind?

Chaos warriors can take additional hand weapons instead of shields, in which case they do beat saurus warriors, though they now have a worse armor save to defend against shooting, meaning more likely to take more casualties on the way into the fight.  And saurus warriors can take spears to more or less even that out again (though now they do cost a bit more per unit, unless the warriors are also taking a mark), and the saurus don't have to give up their shields.

 

I'm not trying to say that saurus warriors are amazing or anything.  But they are compulsory core troops, and compared to other core heavy infantry, at least those that don't have extra per-x-points limits, I'm just not seeing where they're so bad.

Edited January 24 by Sception

[Kitsumy]

7 minutes ago, Sception said:

comparing to dwarf warriors with additional hand weapons...  I'm not seeing 2 hand weapons as an option for dwarf warriors?  Am I going blind?

last post i swear, u were totally right. didnt see shield points.

i meant 2 hand weapon (axes).

and if u dont count frenzy ( that can be played for) both shield version are the same. yep. but saurus havent the option of 2handweapon, and they will get stomped hard against any 2hand weapon unit, seems like shield was too nerfed now.

ill give u that, saurus and chaos warr are similar with shields, so give saurus the option to wield 2 hand weapons too to make them as good as them there too!!

[Beliman]

14 minutes ago, Sception said:

As for comparing to dwarf warriors with additional hand weapons...  I'm not seeing 2 hand weapons as an option for dwarf warriors?  Am I going blind?

You are not blind.

[Sception]

53 minutes ago, Kitsumy said:

ill give u that, saurus and chaos warr are similar with shields, so give saurus the option to wield 2 hand weapons too to make them as good as them there too!!

Great weapons would be amazing on them, sure, probably too good given that initiative 1 is a key weakness to the unit balancing out those 2 attacks base on a compulsory core unit.  I'd probably happily pay points for great weapon saurus out of special, though I don't think kroxigor are an entirely terrible substitute there.  I don't know, haven't run the numbers on them, mostly I just like their silly skink rules.

Saurus can take spears at +1 attack per frontage, exactly the same bonus that chaos warriors get out of additional hand weapons, and saurus don't have to give up their shields to get them.  Yes, the warriors do slightly out-fight saurus then, 3 attacks instead of 2 isn't as big an advantage as 2 instead of 1, but still not by much AND the chaos warriors are more vulnerable to shooting now, something lizardmen can certainly take advantage of.

And yeah, great weapon infantry will out-fight saurus typically, but great weapon infantry are again more vulnerable than shield infantry to shooting AND suffer a strikes last penalty that hurts in many match ups.  Not so much in the match up against saurus specifically, but are you suggesting that great weapons are going to be the automatic choice for every unit that can take them?  I mean, you might be right if so, I haven't really considered it broadly.

EDIT: While Lizardmen aren't getting direct balance updates any time soon, if Great Weapons in general do turn out to be way better than other weapon options, such that non-great weapon units are always worse than great weapon units, then we might see a general nerf to great weapons in the future that could help Saurus out against those opponents.

Again, I'm not trying to say saurus are amazing, just that they aren't *bad* when you compare them to other non-limited core melee infantry, and most of the arguments for lizardmen as a faction being bad that I've seen so far leaned a lot on how bad saurus are, and I don't really see it.  Especially compared to other compulsory/tax units, the requirement to take one block of saurus just doesn't seem faction-destroying.

Anyway, if that was your last post on the subject, thanks for chatting it out with me @Kitsumy.  I'm really not trying to be blindly optimistic here or stamp down any nay saying or criticism at all, just the bit about saurus specifically seemed off to me.

Edited January 24 by Sception

[Sception]

In terms of default positive attitude about Old World and a reflex to reject criticism, I do have to acknowledge that bias in myself.  I think it comes from the fact that I'm an 'any undead all undead' player.  If damage is down across the board leading to less rocket tag and more grinding battles of attrition, that absolutely favors undead with our recursion.  If base leadership matters more, then that also favors undead with our immunity to psychology, unbreakability, and access to leadership penalties.

Even if sphinxes or blood knights or whatever have been knocked down a peg or two (and with the available support spells and healing I'm not sure I'd agree with that in the blood knights' case), 9th edition still seems like a great time to be undead, for both official and legacy factions.

Edited January 24 by Sception

[The Red King]

1 hour ago, Doko said:

yes you are rigth, the 1% of situations where you get attacked by a monster slaying the dark elf is a 16% better and the other 99% of situations the high elf is a 46% better

1% is not a fact.

That's a pretty disingenuous way of saying 33% chance of success against a one hit kill versus 50% chance of success. Yeah that's a 16% difference but it isn't 96% versus 80% it's literally the difference between "statistical anomaly" and "coin flip".

 

Yes you're worse against small arms fire that will likely struggle to wound your tough 6 dragon to begin with but you're better (with pendant) against anything strength 6 or higher. Meaning if they have even a 50% of wounding you then you have a 50% chance of ignoring it without even factoring armor. Fine if you park your dragon within short range of a unit with mass poison shooting then yes you're worse off than a star dragon and I'm sorry the game doesn't prevent you from making bad decisions but in the real world where your tough 6 monster is mostly being threatened by cannons, great weapons, monsters and spells you'll be happy you're not a star dragon. 

 

Legitimate question with no malice or snark behind it. what do you THINK is going to happen to your black dragon? Mass poison? Small arms fire rolling statistical anomalies to wound? Bearing in mind that by the time you're in short range or melee you ought to have (ought to have is not a mathematical fact) caused 3 wounds considering the damage output and initiative of a dreadlord on dragon. Give us a real scenario to compare instead of the white box of math hammer.

 

Most importantly (and again no snark). Do you have fun playing this game? I mean the variables of dice and positioning and people making mistakes etc. Etc. Do you enjoy this or would you rather compare spreadsheets and then shake hands and collect your win?

[pnkdth]

7 minutes ago, Sception said:

And I've spoken of khorne warriors in two other posts already.  They have frenzy, which makes them bad.  They will charge out of position, waste charges on tar pits and distraction chaff, charge into things that will beat them in combat (causing them to lose the frenzy rule that they paid extra for), charge into forests and be bogged down half the game, block off lines of advance from other units in your battleline, etc.  To have any hope of using them in a reasonable fight you have to buy entire separate units just to block off line of sight to units they don't want to charge, which you then have to consider in their points cost.  To the extent that warhammer fantasy is a game of maneuver and positioning, and Frenzy is one of if not the worst penalties you can hand yourself in that aspect of the game, essentially handing control of your unit to your opponent.

It is a challenge but it you played Witch Elves or similar you'll get used to it. Not sure if chaos will get furies but if they do (or something similar) it is a decent way to ensure the unit cannot charge the wrong unit. If desperate, simply blocking the unit so it cannot voluntarily charge.

That being said, chaos warriors are fairly slow and wasn't the competitive choice most of the time. Khorne cav should have play though. Even hard hitting units seem to have a fairly low number of attacks so the +1 atk from frenzy is more valuable than viewing it from an AoS lens. Assuming you still get +1 atk from it that is.

[JerekKruger]

1 hour ago, Sception said:

And I've spoken of khorne warriors in two other posts already.  They have frenzy, which makes them bad.

Yeah, the former 6th edition poster in me reflexively wants to avoid frenzy. I always wanted to make it work, because mathhammer wise it can be really powerful, but everyone I'd take a unit of Khorne warriors they'd just get lead around the garden by my opponent. I dare say better players than me could make it work, and it's certainly possible for Frenzied units to do horrendous damage, but I developed an allergy to the rule 😄

[Sception]

9 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

It is a challenge but it you played Witch Elves or similar you'll get used to it. Not sure if chaos will get furies but if they do (or something similar) it is a decent way to ensure the unit cannot charge the wrong unit. If desperate, simply blocking the unit so it cannot voluntarily charge.

That being said, chaos warriors are fairly slow and wasn't the competitive choice most of the time. Khorne cav should have play though. Even hard hitting units seem to have a fairly low number of attacks so the +1 atk from frenzy is more valuable than viewing it from an AoS lens. Assuming you still get +1 atk from it that is.

Eh, longer potential charge range is just giving frenzy more rope to hang you with.  I played some dark elves back in the day and my singular witch elf unit constantly had me pulling my hair out, even with dark riders and harpies to help focus their attention.  More than that, I played a lot of wood elves against various frenzied units, and they always felt like free wins.

So long as your army is fairly maneuverable (or at least has access to maneuverable elements) then you can use the opponents own frenzy blinder units to protect your vulnerable targets from the frenzied unit, and as long as your army is fairly shooty (or at least has access to some shooty elements), you can clear those blinders right when you need a frenzied unit to make the worst possible charge.  Lizardmen are not my faction (despite my apparent decision to die on the hill of 'saurus warriors don't suck in TOW'), but just from reading their pdf they seem to have access to both maneuverable units and shooty units enough to really punish frenzy hard.  If I were a lizardmen player, I don't think Khornate chaos warriors (or witch elves for that matter) would be high on my list of troublesome match ups.

But maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe I'm basing too much of that opinion on experience with a different army (mostly wood elves, admittedly probably the best faction for punishing frenzy in most editions of the game) in different editions (mostly 5th through 7th, 8th is when I switched over to all undead all the time).

Edited January 24 by Sception