Are warband banners +2/+2/-1, or +2/+1/-1?

Now that the devs have confirmed the new Labyrinth banner giving +2/+2/-1 was intentional, can we get some sort of hint about the new warband banners so we know which are +2/+2/-1?

New +2/+2/-1 banner:

Mystery warband banner, unknown if this is +2/+1/-1 or +2/+2/-1:

Though, I still suggest we make the new +2/+2/-1 banners be visually different. By appearance we know what these all mean without needing any text:
Screenshot_20210115-091921__01 Screenshot_20210115-091928__01

It is only the three colour banner that isn’t clear anymore. One idea could be to make the new +2/+2/-1 banner have two vertical colours and a border. That is, make it look like a +1/+1 banner, like the blue/brown example above, and give it a border of the -1 colour.

1 Like

Bought today Fire and Fury:

+2 red +1 yellow -1 blue

looks like +2/+1/-1

1 Like

They are already in game as +2/+1/-1


Never noticed I could see unowned banners. Awesome thanks. Learned two new things today.

I am still going to ask for an obvious visual indicator though to separate the +2/+1/-1 and +2/+2/-2 banners. :wink:

They could simply introduce a new color for the crown thingy on top (in addition to the silver and gold used today).

I’m still convinced they simply screwed up and are now wondering whether to leave things be as they are, like they did with The Warrens, so this could very well remain a unique anomaly not needing any particular signaling.


Could you please point me out where devs confirmed it?


Salty confirmed during the Twitch stream on Monday


Not much help, I never recognized the “crown thingy”.
On the new +2+2-1 banners the +colors could be diagonally painted while the border still could mean the -1 color.

I can imagine that situation that banners are not pictures but rendered by formula. which would be stupid, but we have seen stupid things in gow.

Did she said anything more? Will the +2/+2 banners be the new thing for the rest of the factions? I always wonder why the first one did not have - 2, but -1 after having +2/+2. But I won’t complain.

I don’t understand why everyone keeps asking for +2/+2/-2 as a “fix” for the “imbalance”.
The banners are most important for the factions, for which there is always one colour missing, so that the factions are always gaining +2/+2 with no negative effect.
For the rest of players, more often than not banners are selected to enhance one or two primary colours only, so the negative banner effect is much of a muchness really IMHO.

tl;dr - increasing the negative effect does not negate positive effect

I tend to agree. It will be interesting to see what the next one released does.

1 Like

I’d tend to agree in most cases, but I still think having the same net-gains across all banners is better game balance, as a general rule. But you’re right that it’s pretty easy to avoid having the minus color present at all, so it doesn’t matter if it’s -1 or -2 because both are irrelevant to that team. That’s why, even though I still think -3 would be more appropriate than -1, it’s not really solving the problem as I see it.

But why not have a +2, +2, -1, -1 instead? That would be a net-balance that is interesting because - suddenly - it’s harder to avoid being penalized for that big +4 “advantage.”

I get banners are probably only currently programmed to deal with 3 colors at a time, but. That’s not a great argument for having net +3 banners, imo.

As @BUSCHKA25 said, Salty confirmed this was intentional in the last stream. I made the suggestion then to make it look visually different.

Salty didn’t really say much else about it. Not how often this will happen, etc.

I actually really like this idea. Sure it’s a penalty but as you said, it is interesting.


The bug report here on the forum is still open. Anything Salty said while streaming probably only counts as personal opinion, otherwise there would have been an update. It’s not like she hasn’t been wrong in the past, like when she kept on insisting that the Werewoods faction belongs to Maugrim Woods, even when confronted with data to the contrary.