Important Question: Slaves

    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!

    • Important Question: Slaves

      Ok guys, we need your help again. I have a few questions for you, but all based on a specific topic, (if you didn't read the title) it's slaves.

      So without further adieu, on to the questions.


      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • Tyranno wrote:

      Ok guys, we need your help again. I have a few questions for you, but all based on a specific topic, (if you didn't read the title) it's slaves.

      So without further adieu, on to the questions.


      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      Yes



      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      Yes



      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?


      Same?


      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?


      Interesting. They need a purpose on the battlefield besides 'cheap tarpit'. If that's not fighting, it better be something useful, or why would ID bother?
      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

    • Answering as a player

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?
      I do.

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?
      Just well enough.

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?
      I wouldn't change them.

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      Bland and dull. Slaves are a feature of the army's identity but I wouldn't want to give them any role greater than to be sacrificed at the whim of their masters. Orcs are as stupid as they are strong - a perfect combination for our exploitation!

      Executive Board

      Administrator

      Human Resources



      Want to help out? The 9th Age is an all volunteer organization and we're always looking for like-minded folks! Message me if you are interested!!
    • 1. Slaves fit to the spare known background. So they fit in the army. I am not sure if they should be a army corew unit.
      2.) They should not have the orc special rule....they are broken slaves, not highheaded fighters that trust in their strength.
      3.) As in 2....using the orc special rule born to fight seems not to reflect a slave status.
      4.) no stapling special rules on throw away tarpit units please. If anything they are currently to reliable beeing allowed to use dwarfen leadership.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?
      Yes, although I would like to see it broadend a bit. As often suggested/hinted some sort of sacrificing ability for some effect would do the trick.

      Tyranno wrote:

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?
      Yes, compared to Infernwal Warriors maybe slightly to good actually.

      Tyranno wrote:

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?
      Neither.
      I'm also against having 2 different kind of slave unit entries (one better figther, the other worse) as that would just take away space from whats important.
      I could see maybe make them worse but have an upgrade, so with upgrade they pretty much stay at the level they are now.

      Definitly not better though.

      Tyranno wrote:

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      I'm not sure how to understand this question. What makes a unit interesting or bland? Are Citadel Guard interesting because they have acess to one weapon? Or ar they interesting because of the inherit ID rules?

      I agree with @Squirrelloid that they need a job, else why bother? That could be fighting, that could be sacrificing for gain or both.
      I don't want them to have some overload of special rules though.
      If going with the upgrade idea: Maybe in their "weak" form they have one rule to get sacrificed, or they get the upgrade to fight but lose it? Would that count as interesting or bland?

      So on some scale I'd say: both? Interesting in a sense that they have a role to fullfill. Rather bland in the grand scheme of things that they shouldn't overshadow the dwarves themselves.
    • I guess we aren't talking about hobgoblins here.

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?
      Yes. They have the power to stop some things like dreadmills and win the chaff war, but lack mobility.

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?
      Not indeed. But I don't think they need to do it.

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?
      As they are. Slightly above mediocre, but not middle class fighters.

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      As was speaked, sacrificing slavez to bost troops is interesting.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?
      They are fine. They make for good sacrifice fodder, and they can certainly help get in the way of units. Nothing inherently wrong with that, though they are not for every list.


      Tyranno wrote:

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?
      No, they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Then again, they don't need to, that isn't their role.


      Tyranno wrote:

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?
      Tough question. I'd say that it depends on what their role is in the new book. If they are meant to be sacrificial fodder and speed bumps, then no, I don't want them to be good at fighting. I want them to be cheap so that I don't care when they die. If they are going to have some other purpose, then maybe they should be better? I dunno, it depends on what they do.


      Tyranno wrote:

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      Interesting question. The most important part of slaves is that the unit needs to exist to provide the in-game world building. This is of the UTMOST importance. So long as they show the layers of ID society, I don't care what else they do. They could be super cheap, super bland sacrifice fodder, they could be buff wagons (ammo carriers, unit death prevention battery, etc.), they could be something I haven't even thought of yet. But the most important part is that they show through in-game representation how the ID society works. Everything else is secondary.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?
      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      1. Yes

      2. Yes

      3. Worse. Remove Born to Fight, keep them really cheap.

      4. This is tough. Like was said above, they should feel as trash unit as per world building. And while giving them some slave-y rules could be really cool, it could also mean that they become more of a star of the army. What I mean by that is some combos might become too much slave dependent giving the other participant much lesser part in the combined power (as it would most likely be a dwarf, it feels wrong having its status lessened).
      I honestly don't have an opinion.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      1: Yes, i believe they fill a role in the army... Though i think they die 100% of games (which is fine)

      2: Yes, they fight quite well, (maybe to well) compared to our dwarves.. perhabs ID need better combat skills? :)

      3: Depends.. I like that you can choose between paired weapons for extra fightiness, or shield for parry.. With such a big block of 25x25 units.. They need to be better then vermin slaves, otherwise it just feels like a burden, we have to suffer because of *reasons*

      4: Interesting.. I agree with many others here, in that slaves should show the hierarchy of ID society.. They are fodder, and used as everything from industrial slaves, to sacraficial lamps, to fighting the enemie, fatique them, before ID swoop in for the kills... They dont need alot of special rules, but it would be cool, if they synchronized with our dwarves.. Some buffs or enchancement for our dwarven units..

      I'v already posted some ideas somewhere on the forum, and you can find it by typing in *whip of doom* in the search box.. I really hope we can get some whip like weapon, that can be wieled by our heroes, champions (slavemasters?) and lords, which can make slaves preform better or go into a frenzy (unbreakable or stubborn?), so you get that tar pit function.. Right now they die on the round they get charged.. which is sad.. especially if they get a use for sacrafice and buffs..
    • 1: Do you like Slaves in their current role? Yes, but most things can be improved with creativity.

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now? No, but they're not priced to do so.

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting? Similar. But potential to be buffed would be nice.

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland? Interesting. I look at the DL book and the depth and character of units is what inspires people to pick up an army. Slaves are part of what makes us unique.
    • I am pretty happy with them right now but always thought the addition of an infernal dwarf slaver who could "inspire" better performance would be characterful- maybe by rolling a dice wanting to result in the killing of one slave prior to the charge or in prep for a charge would lead to better performance or in the case of a "bad" roll the slaves turn on the slaver and slaughter him or her and then flee in the name of freedom.
    • 1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      Sort of. I actually find them to be a conundrum. I think 20 Orcs are worth their points for fighting, but since I put them in my list and use them for sacrificing primarily, it can be challenging as you can't sacrifice once they're in combat.



      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      Yes



      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      Orcs are ok, with shield. I think the backstabbers could be ever so slightly more interesting. I loved the wrap around rule from a million years ago. :)


      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?

      Definitely interesting as it's a cool idea that makes the ID stand apart. Not sure how interesting you can make them and not overshadow the ID core choices. I always felt that the Slaves LIKED being Slaves. That they actually felt that they were serving instead of being oppressed?
    • I am assuming you mean orcs not hobgoblins.

      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      Love them

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      Yes. I use them regularly in all configurations, big units, minimum size units, naked, shields, two hand weapons.

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      They are in a very good place. The special rule is a good handicap which balances them out. They should stay the same and definitely should not get scoring.

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?

      Bland. I mean, my models are pretty interesting (my greenskins are very heavily converted) but in a game sense they should just be boring throwaways. That is what makes them interesting, they play as completely expendable, they aren't chaff but they make great redirectors. They pretty much embody insignificant. Our other units should be interesting, slaves should be sacrifices to save our other interesting units; that is their purpose and they fulfil that game role very well currently.

      For all those calling for the removal of born to fight, think about it as a disadvantage. They lose their strength when they lose a combat. If they were S4 base instead of born to fight they would probably be too strong in larger blocks. The talk of dwarf leadership being OP is silly as Orc warlords are ld 9 too and it isn't OP in OnG either, it is the same (if they are near the general or a very expensive weaker giant they are all good, if they aren't they will run). If there is a serious push to move them down to S3 or move them to special then there should be a big points drop as it will make two hand weapons worthless. No more than 90pts for 20 at S3. That will make them notably more spammy but I could live with that. If they were over 100pts and S3 I'd stop taking them and take more hobgoblins who have scoring and better equipment.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Tsagadai: adding some more ().

    • Tyranno wrote:

      Ok guys, we need your help again. I have a few questions for you, but all based on a specific topic, (if you didn't read the title) it's slaves.

      So without further adieu, on to the questions.


      1: Do you like Slaves in their current role?

      2: Do you think slaves fight well right now?

      3: Do you think slaves should be better or worse at fighting?

      4: Do you think slaves should be interesting or bland?
      1: Yes
      2: Yes
      3: i think no changes
      4: I miss goblins