ID FAB Public Idea Thread

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • DanT wrote:

      I have a different, but related question for you all:

      What don't you want to see in the ID FAB. Particularly from a broad brush/conceptual perspective?
      I don't want to see cowardly ID who wait for the enemy to advance. (There's even a current offender - short range static artillery: cannot support an advance. Artillery either needs to be mobile or long-range. Maybe needs 'Horse' artillery? That is, artillery drawn by Taurukh and capable of rapid deployment and firing).

      I don't want the implied caste system (dwarves > hobgoblins > slaves) to be eliminated. Most flavorful rule(-part) in the game.

      I don't want to see avoidance ID. Note: I don't consider Taurukh 'avoidance' - feigned flight and light troops are the keys to avoidance, and they don't have it.
      Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

      Legal

      Playtester

      Chariot Command HQ

    • DanT wrote:

      Ok, maybe I wasn't very clear with my question.

      Let me give a couple of examples:
      Do you guys want to see avoidance ID?
      Massively numerous (i.e. less elite) ID (slaves aside)?
      Super-ambushing ID?
      This is easier to answer when we know what type of direction the Dwarf Holds book is going. We don't want extreme role overlap. Hobgoblins and Orc Slaves should be generics so they can go in any design direction, if not then we would also have to know the direction that Orcs and Goblins book is going.
    • Peacemaker wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      Ok, maybe I wasn't very clear with my question.

      Let me give a couple of examples:
      Do you guys want to see avoidance ID?
      Massively numerous (i.e. less elite) ID (slaves aside)?
      Super-ambushing ID?
      This is easier to answer when we know what type of direction the Dwarf Holds book is going. We don't want extreme role overlap. Hobgoblins and Orc Slaves should be generics so they can go in any design direction, if not then we would also have to know the direction that Orcs and Goblins book is going.
      I don't think those details matter.
      I want to get a feel at basically the highest possible level what you guys think should be embodied by the ID book, and what shouldn't.
      I ain't saying you'll get it of course :P
      It's just more data into the grinder.
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • I don't want any unit (titan aside) feel the best unit of his kind. And I don't want any unit feel the worst unit of its kind; i.e. the best large cavalry should belong to WotDG or OK, and annoited should feel like mid tier. Good, not the best.

      Avoidance is a no go for me. Long range too. I think our best aproach should be mmu, but I don't feel like msu or deathstar are concepts who don't fit us.

      Fluffwise, I would like ID to be a race who has gods, but just because fhey gain something from believing in them, qnd having the knowlege than gods gain from them too. The part of Lugars tricking kadims really is lovelly, I want more of this kind.

      I would like movile shoothing. Not like big repositioning, but low range + having to move drops drastically our eficiency like nothing. I don't know if global accurate is the key, but I dislike a lot getting long distance malus for Stand and Shot.
    • Don't want:
      - gunline playstyle
      - move forward and grind playstyle
      - msu, like a lot of small units of citadel guard and immortals. I'm still supporter of reducing infernal warriors to groups of 10 and citadel guard(with flintlocks or hws) and immortals to blocks of 20.
      - to lose our 5+ flaming aegis
      - 2nd turn battle focus for all dwarven units

      Do want:
      - a cool Overlord rule. I mean of all books, only the SA top character is as bland as the Overlord, though Overlord has 250pts magic items. O, and the Vermin Daemon is not customizable, but he is already a big f-ing uh- rat! Most (what used to be) lord level characters have some form of customisation which makes the army unique if the character is chosen. I want that too.
      - enchantable infernal weapons
      - an actual engineer
      - new searing rage rule
      - ambushing hobgoblins and/or wolfriders
      - chosen of ashuruk on infernal engine, this is just silly to leave out for streamlining purposes. Give the entire rule to the crew only. The only real benefit is that it can keep Slaves in check.
      - run and gun playstyle. Run, shoot, run, shoot, smash through combat (run=any move). This is obviously already possible but usually with great penalties. If the enemy has T1 he can move around your 18" range (speaking for flintlocks) or you have probably -2 to hit, if you have turn 1, you usually cannot fire that turn. I would either like to see:
      • a) no moving penalty
      • b) march and move (but with move penalty)
      • c) 'longer' short range (i.e. 12"/18" one of my earlier suggestions)
      (Note that this mainly goes for flintlock units, as BB already have this and weapon teams also have M&S)[Note to self: perhaps I should try Blunderbusses finally...if only they were size 10]

      Nice to have:
      - Baby Taurukh (not a cowboy) to make units of 10+ Taurukh core. Perhaps with a slaving rule like minimised roll on flee rolls for enemies they break.
      - GT upgrade for citadel guard

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kasocles ().

    • After reading through everyone's responses, I want to make some additions and clarifications to my prior comments.

      In regards to flaming synergy:
      I don't want the flaming synergy to be a forced option. Yes, some units should have flaming attacks as part of their nature (kadims, disciples, etc.), and yes there should be some items/spells/options that let us build toward being super fire heavy. However, it shouldn't be something that you HAVE to use for the army to work well. Instead, I want the flaming synergy in the army to be easy to access, so that any army list could add it if they want, rather than having to build heavily into it.

      As an example of what I'm thinking, I'm going to bring up the old signature spell again. In v1.1 (which was the last time I really felt that the flaming synergy was in a good state for the army, though your experiences may vary), the signature spell let you give a unit flaming attacks, and it had the path of the forge attribute which caused an enemy unit to become flammable (to all sources, not just melee only). If I wanted to build heavily into flaming, I could take the flaming banner, and lots of kadims, and have the ring of desiccation on a vizier sitting in a unit of flaming CG with flintlocks, and volcano cannons, etc. However, if I didn't want to build heavily into it, I still had access to flaming synergy with by bringing a cheap mage.

      I really liked that the army always felt like it cared about fire. It added a lot to the character of the army when I started, and I really liked that character, because it felt so uniquely ID.


      Things that I want to see:
      The rules implying the social structure (CoA units don't care if goblins or orcs die, goblins don't care if orcs die, everyone cares if CoA units die) are the absolute best. They are examples of character derived through mechanics, and the army will truly lose something amazing if this isn't in the new book.

      Also, I want to see some more customization for certain options. Things like the Titan and the ridden bulls don't really need options, because they have singular purposes. But things like the lamassu really REALLY need to be more customizable, because they have a lot of different purposes, and having one single build on it really hurts because you end up paying for options that are cross-purpose to your strategy.


      Things that I don't want to see:
      I really don't want to see forced build paths. It was an experiment back in v1.2, and I was so happy when it was removed. It makes list building so much more limited, which is so bad for a jack of all trades army. There are only so many points to work with anyway, so this is just unnecessary restriction.
    • I agree about the flaming synergies not being a forced option as the way to go.

      This can be difficult to design if not careful. What other books do is have these types of things as 1 of the 3 build paths.
      We already kinda have this build path with the Fire Daemons all having flaming. Just need easy ways to make the opponents be flammable. Other units in the army can have access to flaming weapons too but they would also need other upgrades that are more enticing than going the flaming route. Flaming banner and Banner of Shamut is a good example. ...do you want +1 Off and +1 combat rez? or do you want flaming weapons? Most would chose the Shamut banner unless they were trying to go for a full flaming army.

      And of course since all special Items will be in armybook, the arcane compendium items can be vastly different.

      Brainstorm idea
      Situational shooting into combat is becoming a highly requested addition to T9A. Now everyone realizes that shooting into combat and killing enemy models is just to overpowered. But shooting into combat and giving a buff of some kinda is within reason. Especially when you factor in that you still need line of sight with the arc you are in.
      So something like the weapon team that makes an enemy flammable could be allowed to target enemies in combat. The weapon team is standard height so it will typically need to be in the flank in order to see the enemy.

      Something to think about.
    • Manxol wrote:

      I don't want any unit (titan aside) feel the best unit of his kind. And I don't want any unit feel the worst unit of its kind; i.e. the best large cavalry should belong to WotDG or OK, and annoited should feel like mid tier. Good, not the best.
      Not even our Barrage?
      In general design point I think it's good for everybody to have the best 'something'. It reinforces the army's identity and gives a certain power fantasy. It's absence can make an army feel really dull compared to every other.
    • Jarec wrote:

      Manxol wrote:

      I don't want any unit (titan aside) feel the best unit of his kind. And I don't want any unit feel the worst unit of its kind; i.e. the best large cavalry should belong to WotDG or OK, and annoited should feel like mid tier. Good, not the best.
      Not even our Barrage?In general design point I think it's good for everybody to have the best 'something'. It reinforces the army's identity and gives a certain power fantasy. It's absence can make an army feel really dull compared to every other.
      The best barrage should be DH, since they lack our movility. I'm perfectly okay with that.

      That aside, and going to specificks, our barrage should have a high damage output but low range. Some sort of repositioning would be nice too (even if it is as tiny as being able to move 3 inches and still shoot).

      The best artillery we have, fluffwise and in the feel they give, is titan mortar. It is the best mortar statswise + the earthquake rule, but it has 12 inches less range than other mortars.
    • Jarec wrote:

      Manxol wrote:

      I don't want any unit (titan aside) feel the best unit of his kind. And I don't want any unit feel the worst unit of its kind; i.e. the best large cavalry should belong to WotDG or OK, and annoited should feel like mid tier. Good, not the best.
      Not even our Barrage?In general design point I think it's good for everybody to have the best 'something'. It reinforces the army's identity and gives a certain power fantasy. It's absence can make an army feel really dull compared to every other.
      *takes RT hat off and makes a personal comment as any other member of the community*

      For me personally, I think it depends on how wide/narrow the category is.
      I mean, I think it would be bad for the game if an army is *the best* at "shooting".
      However, there are clearly shooting niches that could perhaps be occupied more by specific armies than others.
      Like one army could have the most reliable war machines, another could have the most devastating war machine(s), etc etc
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • I would like to see ID be weighted more heavily into the whole idea of medium sized blocks forming a steadfast battle line. Whittling away at the opponent with magic and/or shooting.
      The kadim and taurukh should be flanking and support units which countercharge after the block holds up the opponent.
      Would also like to see mounted characters become more useable.

      At the moment most ID lists run around with small units of Flintlocks and monsters/monstrous units supporting. It’s becomeing more of an MSU style.
      :O&G: :BH: :ID: :HE:
    • JamesMcDonnell wrote:

      I would like to see ID be weighted more heavily into the whole idea of medium sized blocks forming a steadfast battle line. Whittling away at the opponent with magic and/or shooting.
      The kadim and taurukh should be flanking and support units which countercharge after the block holds up the opponent.
      Would also like to see mounted characters become more useable.

      At the moment most ID lists run around with small units of Flintlocks and monsters/monstrous units supporting. It’s becomeing more of an MSU style.
      Interesting, thanks James.
      Do you not think "more medium blocks" and "more mounted characters" are a smidgen opposite in terms of design goals?
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      JamesMcDonnell wrote:

      I would like to see ID be weighted more heavily into the whole idea of medium sized blocks forming a steadfast battle line. Whittling away at the opponent with magic and/or shooting.
      The kadim and taurukh should be flanking and support units which countercharge after the block holds up the opponent.
      Would also like to see mounted characters become more useable.

      At the moment most ID lists run around with small units of Flintlocks and monsters/monstrous units supporting. It’s becomeing more of an MSU style.
      Interesting, thanks James.Do you not think "more medium blocks" and "more mounted characters" are a smidgen opposite in terms of design goals?
      Well perhaps. The mounted characters was more an internal balance and give people options wish.
      Also was thinking more of using them as support pieces than playing hero hammer and soloing units themselves. So having an overlord protect flanks and zone or a prophet on lammy being a tad more cost effective so he doesn’t have to be standing in a bunker all the time?
      But maybe if characters do get a buff it removes incentive to run medium blocks from core I guess. Hadn’t thought about the knock on effect.
      :O&G: :BH: :ID: :HE:
    • JamesMcDonnell wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      JamesMcDonnell wrote:

      I would like to see ID be weighted more heavily into the whole idea of medium sized blocks forming a steadfast battle line. Whittling away at the opponent with magic and/or shooting.
      The kadim and taurukh should be flanking and support units which countercharge after the block holds up the opponent.
      Would also like to see mounted characters become more useable.

      At the moment most ID lists run around with small units of Flintlocks and monsters/monstrous units supporting. It’s becomeing more of an MSU style.
      Interesting, thanks James.Do you not think "more medium blocks" and "more mounted characters" are a smidgen opposite in terms of design goals?
      Well perhaps. The mounted characters was more an internal balance and give people options wish.Also was thinking more of using them as support pieces than playing hero hammer and soloing units themselves. So having an overlord protect flanks and zone or a prophet on lammy being a tad more cost effective so he doesn’t have to be standing in a bunker all the time?
      But maybe if characters do get a buff it removes incentive to run medium blocks from core I guess. Hadn’t thought about the knock on effect.
      Haha, no worries, it wasn't an attack, I was just musing on the consequences of your comments.

      One solution that might help both is reduced eliteness/lethality from the big mounts, and a corresponding points decrease.
      This makes them into more (affordable) support pieces, where medium (or bigger) blocks are required to deal with the enemies units, and the mounted characters facilitate this by performing other roles, and combo charging to finish things off...

      Just thinking out loud though, nobody panic that I am necessarily advocating anything like this :)
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      Haha, no worries, it wasn't an attack, I was just musing on the consequences of your comments.
      One solution that might help both is reduced eliteness/lethality from the big mounts, and a corresponding points decrease.
      This makes them into more (affordable) support pieces, where medium (or bigger) blocks are required to deal with the enemies units, and the mounted characters facilitate this by performing other roles, and combo charging to finish things off...

      Just thinking out loud though, nobody panic that I am necessarily advocating anything like this :)
      yeah maybe something like that. But it’s just an idea. Will be working my way through most the units in the book over the next few week hopefully to see how they do. Testing builds for etc. Will hopefully have a more complete feeling of it all then.
      :O&G: :BH: :ID: :HE:
    • Since when is our great bull of shamut expensive compared to other mounts?

      Here are a few things I definitive want to see
      Taurukh Subjugator getting Oger Rule regarding distributing hits.

      There must be fewer than 3 R&Fmodels before hits can be distributed onto Characters with the same Type and Height as the unit.

      Taurukh Annointed getting Grind Attack instead of stomp.
      Thundering hooves: Taurukh Annointed gain grind attack (1) but loose stomp.
    • Manxol wrote:

      That aside, and going to specificks, our barrage should have a high damage output but low range. Some sort of repositioning would be nice too (even if it is as tiny as being able to move 3 inches and still shoot).

      The best artillery we have, fluffwise and in the feel they give, is titan mortar. It is the best mortar statswise + the earthquake rule, but it has 12 inches less range than other mortars.
      This is just incoherent with short-ranged man-portable weapons. The artillery needs to be able to support the army. If the infantry has to advance to engage, (whether melee or short ranged firearms), then short ranged artillery don't make any sense, because they're incapable of supporting advancing infantry. It's not like artillery can advance with the army under existing rules and do anything.

      Ergo, ID should have long-ranged artillery to support their short range of engagement infantry. Its the only thing that makes sense in-world. The ability of units to support each other isn't just stuff that randomly happens - the ID military machine would only choose to adopt complimentary technologies.

      Armies which tend to stand back and let the enemy come to them (ie, have long ranged man-portable weapons) are the only ones who would choose to have short-ranged artillery. Because they can force the enemy to advance into range of those weapons.

      The only alternative for ID is making ID artillery mobile. That is, can move and shoot. Then the artillery can keep up with the army on the field of battle.
      Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

      Legal

      Playtester

      Chariot Command HQ