The Bigwing upgrade is not correctly balanced: Change my mind.

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!

  • sgu97bjd wrote:

    sure that they would be very happy if you applied to be on the staff and contribute to making it better.
    yes but most likely positions to do with game design are oversubscribed and what's really needed is, IDK, community support, lectoring, miniatures library ...

    (which is kind of correct, they shouldn't let any random forum troll do important stuff)

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Auto2 ().

  • Auto2 wrote:

    Gingersmali wrote:

    game was better balanced. Sadly the rules team are volunteers and have a finite amount of time
    I could do a better job of balancing it myself and so could a lot of other people, especially if we invited people from various other armies to make arguments and suggestions.
    The argument against this is that RT are the best of the best, so it's better to leave it to the real experts.

    But this is kind of nullified if they don't actually do anything, or deliberately un-balance it (because that's easier) as has happened here.
    Have you tried joining the rules team?
  • yes some time ago to design and it was oversubscribed.

    But RT and design are a bit different. RT should be quite a select group. Even design is quite a select group, they are busy doing full army books. What is needed here is a bit less demanding IMO.
  • Hi!
    As one of guys who pushed the idea of introducing Big Wing in the game I decided to drop few words despite the fact that probably i should not (after all its closed door stuff and its really ACS/PR/others job to deliver such lines).
    It was decided long time ago that we want to close the book for design changes. Only books which were to have design changes were those in Beta (WDG, DL). Despite that we decided to add this option and the option for Big Brother on Giant. Sole reason - models range.
    We wanted to be optional thing to not mess around with players collections. We also wanted to actually implement it rather sooner than later because of freeze and unknown time from next design changes. We had no interest in spending more time than actually necessary for implementation hence this "small tweak" approach was taken and tiny boost was chosen in hope that it can be balanced in next iteration (point only balance update). After quick votes, discussion and votes again we ended up with this solution knowing that its "better safe then sorry" because we intentionally did not wanted to break the balance and pressure in some way players to suddenly re-base their models. We wanted it to be slow transition from one base size only to two bases both playable. To do so without hitting phase of "this new base size version is straight up better" one have to take small steps.
    In other words - we are going for a long run there. We knew that right now this option might be lackluster or even borderline never fielded at all. But by introducing that we allow future iterations of the game to build up on that and actually strive to make both base sizes workable. Also it helps in future rewrite of the book in creating a bit more space to wiggle around. We might have failed in doing so (as in - in creation of potentially easily tweaked solution). Still we tried and we see our approach as quite rational and well-founded. So yeah. If we failed we will still try to fix that later but its better this way than to waste such chance and leave cool models to not be fielded at all.

    Hope that it sheds a bit more light onto whole situation.
  • slivek wrote:

    hope that it can be balanced in next iteration (point only balance update
    Since it only costs 10 points and it is going to be bad at 0, I can't personally see how a points only update could possibly fix it, unless you change something other than points. Maybe it will go to 5, then a year later to 0.


    slivek wrote:

    we are going for a long run there
    In the long run (maybe mid 2020s?) I'm sure this can be improved. But for now I think I would advise to treat it as if it doesn't exist. It will be bad for a LONG time.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Auto2 ().

  • hey folks -

    Slivik - that’s a really interesting note and thanks for the inside info as it really helps set the context.

    The Wyvern has always been a bit of an odd bird.

    I remember in 5th edition of Warhammer, the characters could select monster mounts from a generic list - and the Wyvern was just kind of the worst of the lot.

    6th edition brought about the army specific monstrous mounts and the Wyvern has been tinkered with in each army book since.

    In The Ninth Age OnG Book, if you want a flying cowboy character then the Cave Goblin Gnasher build is among the most cost efficient in the game.

    The Wyvern is average as a mount, but can boost character leadership traits prett significantly and makes that discipline bubble more mobile.

    A larger base increases the effect of that discipline boost (albeit slightly, but still adds an inch or two to the bubble)

    If I was going to tinker with BigWing - I’d make it factor in the Orc riding it. The Common Orc Wyvern would have vanguard. The Savage Orc Wyvern would have Battle Focus. The Iron Orc Wyvern would have barding 2 armor.

    Something like that.

    -Duuuuuude