Parry proposal

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!

  • Parry proposal

    I've found that Parry on low Def units is perhaps a little too strong vs high Off units. This is primarily vs characters/elites. In addition, in it's current form, Parry effectively acts as magic immunity to Off augments on attackers fighting a unit with Parry and Def hexes on defenders with Parry. This is because Parry generally "always sets" Def to the attackers Off which trumps any other add or subtract modifiers.
    So my suggestion is:

    D.b.7 - Parry
    Parry can only be used against Close Combat Attacks from the Front Facing. The model gains the following effect:
    • If the model's modified Def is less than the modified Off of the attacker, the attacker suffers -1 to hit.
    The +1 Def when the defender had a higher Def already almost never makes a difference to the toHit roll and when it did the matchup is already terrible for the attacker anyways. This also would streamline the parry rule without the binary choice of which option is better at two different priority steps.


    In addition, this change allows an attacker with a much higher Off (ie. difference of 4 or more) to still make use of that high Off while still letting Parry have an effect and would then hit on a 3 instead of a 4 where normally they'd be a 2.


    This would also slightly distinguish things like Orcs with Parry vs Feral Orcs with Parry even just slightly.


    This doesn't effect many matchups but would for some characters/elites fighting low Def parry units.


    Furthermore, this also allows spell modifiers to make a difference when up against a parrying unit or to benefit a parrying unit with a low base Def.


    1. Parry should give a benefit to defense for sure but it shouldn't be an effective magic resistance to Off /Def augments/hexes.
  • I think your statement is wrong... I believe you mean "more than"

    TowerGuard712 wrote:


    • If the model's modified Def is less than the modified Off of the attacker, the attacker suffers -1 to hit.



    I don't understand this statement, could you provide an example?

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    In addition, this change allows an attacker with a much higher Off (ie. difference of 4 or more) to still make use of that high Off while still letting Parry have an effect and would then hit on a 3 instead of a 4 where normally they'd be a 2.


    Elaborate with characteristic numbers

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    This would also slightly distinguish things like Orcs with Parry vs Feral Orcs with Parry even just slightly.


    This does not sound accurate, it sounds like elite with HW/S would become much more survivable vs. core, or even lesser elites.

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    This doesn't effect many matchups but would for some characters/elites fighting low Def parry units.


    Parry only applies to half of that calculation. Remember that with most spells, OWS and DWS are both reduced. So although HW/S may mitigate the DWS debuff, the OWS still is reduced. Why shouldn't forgoing damage output potential (by selecting HW/S) also provide you with some protections from being debuffed? Do we really want more halberds/GW in the game? Not to mention parry is still mitigated by Paired weapons and being flanked, so it already can be completely mitigated.

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    Furthermore, this also allows spell modifiers to make a difference when up against a parrying unit or to benefit a parrying unit with a low base Def.


    I see where you are going with trying to improve the HW/S choice on an elite unit, it sounds like some other parts of the rules change also hurt low DWS HW/S choices. I am against anything that makes core worse, as core is already pretty worthless.

    As for elites gaining something for HW/S, what if the current rule was just amended to add +2 DWS instead of +1 DWS, would that provide a large enough number of circumstances where the +X DWS portion of parry relevant?

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

  • I like the idea of parry not being what it currently is.

    -1 to hit does pose an issue though, simply because of what happens when an already high Defensive Skill model decides they're going to make use of the rule.
    Now you might need 6s to hit them, and they'll likely be toting some high Armour and likely a Special Save as well.

    But you've retained the "no effect for anyone with skill" and while your effect might be less, it still doesn't solve that problem of how come my actually skilled guy can't benefit from the rule?

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

  • @theunwantedbeing
    @The Beninator

    I did mean less than. Meaning if Unit A has parry and a Def less than an attacking Unit B's Off than Unit B is -1 toHit since parry helps Unit A deflect the attacks. See examples below.

    Currently Parry makes an attacker with a higher Off always require a 4+ toHit no matter what. What I'm suggesting with my change is that if the attacker would normally need a 2+ toHit, it would go to a 3+ rather than automatically a 4+.

    Again to clarify I'm only suggesting a -1 toHit for the attacker if the defending model with parry has a lower Def than the attacker.

    This would mean a defending elite with high Def already (ie. 5) will not benefit from parry unless they are fighting something with an even higher Off (6+). This part is similar to how parry functions now.

    Let me provide some examples:

    Example 1:
    Unit A with Def 5 and parry is attacked by Unit B with Off 3. Unit A has a higher Def (5) than Unit B' Off (3) so Parry does not apply. Unit B needs a 4+ toHit.

    Note: Unit A will still benefit from it's parry rule against Units/Characters with Off 6+ so it's not a total waste to have it.

    Example 2:
    Unit A with Def 3 and parry is attacked by Unit B with Off 6. Unit A has a lower Def (3) than Unit B's Off (6) so Unit B is -1 toHit. Unit B needs a 4+ (without parry it would be a 3+)

    Note: Either a debuff on Unit A of -1 Def or a buff of Unit B of +1 Off will allow Unit B a toHit on a 3+. Current parry rules would effectively cancel out these spells and Unit B would still require a 4+.

    Example 3:
    Unit A with Def 2 and parry is attacked by Unit B with Off 6. Unit A has a lower Def (2) than Unit B's Off (6) so Unit B is -1 toHit. Unit B needs a 3+ (without parry it would be a 2+ and current parry rules would make this a 4+)

    The difference between Example 2 and 3 would make the distinction I mentioned about Orcs with Parry and Feral Orcs with Parry. Again it wouldn't make a difference most of the time since there aren't that many units with Off 6 but a spell can put you there and there are characters with Off 6+ that will still be effected by parry but not as much.

    I think this is a healthy balance for parry. It doesn't ignore Off/Def modifiers and provides some nuance to strategy with spells, etc. It also differentiates between a Parrying unit with varying Def characteristics.

    One last example with a spell:

    Example 4:
    Unit A with Def 3 and parry is attacked by Unit B with Off 6 with a buff of +1 Off (Total Off 7). Unit A has a lower Def (3) than Unit B's Off (7) so Unit B is -1 toHit. Unit B needs a 3+ (without parry it would be a 2+; current Parry rules would still make Unit B require a 4+ even though they got a spell off that would normally affect their toHit role)

    The post was edited 5 times, last by TowerGuard712 ().

  • Vulgarsty wrote:

    I think “Parry provides a-1 toHit for the attacker if the defending model with parry has a lower Def than the attacker“


    Is a simple concept. Means parry is worthwhile without making off buffs pointless.

    Elegant, simple, does what i think we all want it to intend. V good.
    Sounds good. I like the simpler wording.

    Just would need to make it clear that this rule applies after Off/Def modifiers but maybe the rules already do say that. I'd have to check.


    The Beninator wrote:

    I get it now, great explanation. I think it has elegance in having a subtle change to parry. It seems like a counter intuitive concept so making a transition may be difficult
    Cool. I think @Vulgarsty worded it a bit better than I did originally but glad the examples helped.
  • his would still mean that the better fighters don't benefit from shields, which is quite weird.
    What about: If a model with parry gets attacked in melee, every '1' the attacker roles cancels a successfull hit vs the model
    Every unit would benefit the same from shields, units that hit on 3+ have more hits left than those who hit at 4+ or 5+, and it would really represent a parry, meaning it blocks hits.
  • rolan wrote:

    his would still mean that the better fighters don't benefit from shields, which is quite weird.
    What about: If a model with parry gets attacked in melee, every '1' the attacker roles cancels a successfull hit vs the model
    Every unit would benefit the same from shields, units that hit on 3+ have more hits left than those who hit at 4+ or 5+, and it would really represent a parry, meaning it blocks hits.
    That is effectively -1 to hit in most cases, except better because it also stacks with -1 to hit (as you normally cant stack -1 to hit modifiers).
    I'm guessing the math changes a bit if you have re-rolls.

    Regardless, it sounds like a very frustrating rule to actually use, as you end up parrying your own blows. I would foresee that ending in much crying.

    Seriously, if you want better def units to gain more from a shield, then have it provide +2 DWS instead of +1 DWS. That would provide a much larger cross section of instances where a superior profile with a shield actually benefits against a weaker profile.
  • King Kazador wrote:

    The rule for parry was the longest thread on this board. Virtually everyone was against it.

    It is a crap rule.

    Only crappy units with shields benefit. Good units with shields don’t benefit. Awesome rule.
    Good units (high Def units) with Shields would still benefit against Characters, etc with higher Off skills. For example, it would always be useful vs Lords, Dragons, Vampires etc.

    Not every rule needs to always apply or be beneficial in every single matchup. For example, a unit with AP3 is technically "wasting" that extra AP against troops with no armour for instance.

    You still benefit from the shield. If you are being attacked by a unit with a lower Off than your Def they're already hitting you on at best a 4+ (possibly 5+). That is not a bad situation to be in.

    And with the change I suggested a character might be hitting a low Def Parrying unit on a 3+ because it would normally be a 2+, but your high Def unit with Parry would almost always limit that to a 4+ (normally 3+) since not many characters would have an Off that is equal to your high Def + 4.

    That's exactly why I like my suggestion. It does differentiate your high Def Parrying unit from a low Def Parrying unit.
  • Crappy units benefit greatly from parry against all units better than them. This is a huge in-game benefit.

    Elite units with parry benefit against a small subset of units, namely characters that have higher OS (which is often mitigated if the character has rerolls to hit or +1 to hit).

    Your logic is completely wrong. Parry benefits cheap units almost every single game. Parry might benefit an elite unit one time over several games. In which case, it likely has no effect on the outcome of the combat.

    You are comparing a strong effect that applies to almost all combats to a weak effect that applies to very few combats.

    It is a crap rule.

    The rule dramatically favors lower DS infantry.

    A good rule would equally apply to all shield infantry whether elite or non-elite. A new parry rule can be easily crafted. It just won’t be.

    Because 9th age.
  • Another option for parry would be:
    a model or unit with parry can choose to parry instead of normal attacks. In that case, the model/unit automatically strikes after its oppopnents close combat attacks, but before the to-wound-rolls are made. Any hit the parrying unit achieves reduces the hits the opponent made, to a minimum of 0.
    The parrying units close combat attacks don't deal any damage this way.

    Now the better fighters are also better at parrying, but it is an option to use parry, not an automatic effect.
    Might give the game a nice new opportunity.
  • rolan wrote:

    Another option for parry would be:
    a model or unit with parry can choose to parry instead of normal attacks. In that case, the model/unit automatically strikes after its oppopnents close combat attacks, but before the to-wound-rolls are made. Any hit the parrying unit achieves reduces the hits the opponent made, to a minimum of 0.
    The parrying units close combat attacks don't deal any damage this way.

    Now the better fighters are also better at parrying, but it is an option to use parry, not an automatic effect.
    Might give the game a nice new opportunity.
    Attacks are not equal between fights. So your S6 Taurasaur with 5 attacks is suddenly being completely blocked out by peasants with shields?
    Elite would never use this ability, as they have high damage output, so it falls back into the "elites do not benefit from HW/S"
    Its also really wordy and counter intuitive to how combat has been working for many years. You are now mixing initiative step hits from multipart models. How would you resolve a character in a unit? Who's hits get blocked? Its just too complicated and would change the paradigm of combat far too much.
  • Ciara wrote:

    How about simple +2def? Always, no matter the off of atacker, def of defender etc, simple as that.
    I actually kind of like this. It puts a normal Def 3 unit up to elite level Def 5 which makes most elites need 4+ to hit them.

    It can really boost an elite Def 5 up to a Def 7. This would make normal Off 3 units need to hit the elites on 5+ and most characters would need a 4+.

    It somewhat deters a really low Def 2 unit from taking Shields like ferals, gobs if other options exist but might make sense sometimes when fighting Off 3 units or basic elves Off 4.

    You do lose out a bit if you are Def 3 (5 with parry) unit and are fighting an Off 6 unit but there aren't that many Off 6 units in the game that don't already have paired weapons anyway.

    And it allows magic to affect these units which was my original complaint. There is a bit more nuance here than the straight -1 toHit I suggested when the attacker's Off is higher than the Def of the parrying unit but that's not necessarily bad. And it might just satisfy the issue @King Kazador had with my suggestion for elite parrying units.

    Perhaps drop the paired weapons automatically cancel out parry in this case and just rely on the +1 Off that paired weapons already give to combat parrying units. Or drop the auto cancel parry and simply make paired weapons give +2 Off but perhaps that's too strong.

    I'd be ok with this change or at least think it should be seriously considered.
  • King Kazador wrote:




    A good rule would equally apply to all shield infantry whether elite or non-elite. A new parry rule can be easily crafted. It just won’t be.

    Because 9th age.
    For the record, I quite like the current parry rule, and the interplay with paired weapons.
    I don't find this to be problematic in any of my games, there are no units that I don't use because of parry, and if anything it makes me ponder more different things at list selection.

    Regarding it not changing: the project froze the core rules by popular demand. Whatever it does, someone will object :(

    But you should feel free to make your own game with a different version of parry if you don't like this one :)
    Thankfully t9a doesn't cost you anything, so you haven't lost anything if you move on to a different game or make your own.

    Personally, speaking macroscopically, I really like the current iteration of the game and I'm having more fun with it than I've had at any point previously in the last 21yrs of square based rank and file gaming.
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE