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!

  • DanT wrote:

    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.
    Just because the rules froze does not mean they are frozen forever afaik. I could see a main rules update down the line a couple years from now but you never know, you may be right, if enough people are too scared of change. But on the flip side if enough people agree to it then we can make a change. I've been playing for 25 yrs and I'm enjoying this game more than the other square based ones. Doesn't mean it can't improve more.
  • It may sound complicated but I would like to see the parry rule this way:

    You can parry something if it is the same size or one size bigger than you. Having parry against a dragon by an infantry unit is just doesn't make sense at all... Infantry can parry against cavalry, monsters infantry and so on but not against giantic models

    Social Media Team


    The Round Table of Bretonnia 9th Age Forum
    ETC '17 - Team Turkey; Kingdom of Equitaine Player
    ETC '16 - Team Turkey; Highborn Elves Player
    ETC '15 - Team Turkey; Bretonnia Player
  • TowerGuard712 wrote:

    Just because the rules froze does not mean they are frozen forever afaik. I could see a main rules update down the line a couple years from now but you never know, you may be right, if enough people are too scared of change. But on the flip side if enough people agree to it then we can make a change. I've been playing for 25 yrs and I'm enjoying this game more than the other square based ones. Doesn't mean it can't improve more.
    Sure, but the implication was at least to do all of the LABs first.
    My objection was more to the idea that not changing this faster was somehow unreasonable or incompetent behaviour on behalf of the project.
    I have no objections to anyone brainstorming for 3.0.

    And it is nothing to do with being scared of change. It is pretty insulting and disingenuous to suggest this.
    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
  • DanT wrote:

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    Just because the rules froze does not mean they are frozen forever afaik. I could see a main rules update down the line a couple years from now but you never know, you may be right, if enough people are too scared of change. But on the flip side if enough people agree to it then we can make a change. I've been playing for 25 yrs and I'm enjoying this game more than the other square based ones. Doesn't mean it can't improve more.
    Sure, but the implication was at least to do all of the LABs first.My objection was more to the idea that not changing this faster was somehow unreasonable or incompetent behaviour on behalf of the project.
    I have no objections to anyone brainstorming for 3.0.

    And it is nothing to do with being scared of change. It is pretty insulting and disingenuous to suggest this.
    I don't think I ever suggested that the project was incompetent or unreasonable in any way for not changing sooner. I understand that the Gold version will be around for some time.

    I simply made a brainstorming suggestion for a change to Parry for any future update and like the discussion.

    Also I did not mean YOU personally were too scared of change but I can see how some people, in general, might take the don't rock the boat approach. That was not intended as a personal attack at all.
  • TowerGuard712 wrote:

    I don't think I ever suggested that the project was incompetent or unreasonable in any way for not changing sooner. I understand that the Gold version will be around for some time.
    I simply made a brainstorming suggestion for a change to Parry for any future update and like the discussion.

    Also I did not mean YOU personally were too scared of change but I can see how some people, in general, might take the don't rock the boat approach. That was not intended as a personal attack at all.
    Oh sure, I don't think I objected to the thread in general did I?
    I objected to a specific post in it that was not from you.

    I mean, I disagree with your analysis of parry and whether its a problem, but thats not the same as objecting to your post.
    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
  • DanT wrote:

    TowerGuard712 wrote:

    I don't think I ever suggested that the project was incompetent or unreasonable in any way for not changing sooner. I understand that the Gold version will be around for some time.
    I simply made a brainstorming suggestion for a change to Parry for any future update and like the discussion.

    Also I did not mean YOU personally were too scared of change but I can see how some people, in general, might take the don't rock the boat approach. That was not intended as a personal attack at all.
    Oh sure, I don't think I objected to the thread in general did I?I objected to a specific post in it that was not from you.

    I mean, I disagree with your analysis of parry and whether its a problem, but thats not the same as objecting to your post.
    All good.

    Well, I will say that it's currently not game breaking by any means but it certainly can be irritating.

    Mostly it bothers me that it completely nullifies Off or Def aug/hex spells. Also that really high Off units (characters) are affected to the same extent as a unit that is low Off when attacking a low Def parrying unit.

    I'd be happy to at least have considered my original suggestion or the one @Ciara had to just raise Def by 2. Although I could see the latter being a bit too good for elite troops with parry since most regular troops would be hitting them on a 5+. That's fairly harsh against an entire unit. Remains to be seen I suppose.
  • I'm not so bothered about historical realism.

    And given some of the arguments I've seen on this forum, nearly every historical claim gets strongly argued about anyway.

    As long as something seems vaguely reasonable, then I'm happy.
    E.g. "Shield+sword used in combination to parry and deflect blows, making it hard to hit the warrior".
    Kool, I can buy that, no problem :)
    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
  • Paired, hatred, lightning reflexes, battlefocus... there are plenty of things to help deal with parry.

    It's not like armies full of shield wielding infantry are dominating anything, internally or externally :)
    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
  • I think the simplest way to make it more useful without changing rules wholesale is for parry to grant +2 DEf.

    Not to say that's as good as some of the other solutions discussed in this thread, but I think its the best outcome for minimum tweaking, and certainly something I could live with.