T9A Version 3 Rules Suggestions (long term future)

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!

  • Pigtails wrote:

    I want templates back as much as the next guy, but I don't think the solution at the moment is to be taking into consideration how large bases are - 4x4 is nice and clean to understand. Once you get into "80mm x 80mm" or whatever you start getting into partials and if that should have any relevance on the rules, and changing it to be different areas on differently sized units (1x5 vs standard, 1x3 vs large) is an interesting idea to explore but it's also wordy and works best as sort of a one-off thing rather than something you'd want to pivot to as the standard.

    I still feel like templates are one of the better options if there is a desire to shift how area/template weapons work. I especially would be a fan of adjusting that for flamethrowers and breath weapons and the like. I can see how that might slow it all down but hey, extra wigits. That's always cool.

    For my personal wants, I'd rather prefer to rework the offensive/defensive split in weapons skill. So many unit profiles have the same offense and defense, with the bulk of exceptions looking like they're in characters and it's by maybe a point. Some beasts are lower in defense by 2 or something but it's never too dramatic. Either unify it again (it worked fine, it was straightforward, GW doesn't even use it like this anymore) or make the differences more meaningful and more apparent across the board with units.

    Well, this IS kinda the "3e wishlist" thread... I think "Dispersed X: Units containing one or more models with Dispersed reduce the size of Area Effect hits on the unit by the largest value of Dispersed in the unit, to a minimum of 1." would work fine.

    So like very big War Platforms could have Dispersed 2 (shrinking the size quite a bit) while Large models would have Dispersed 1, as would Swarms and re-based ex-Skirmishers.


    Edit: As for OS/DS - there's only been two books since the split, and both were begun a bit before the split. ID had (for a while at least - it's no longer the case, sadly) a unit with OS6 DS1. :)

    So it IS a useful tool.

    Background Team

  • Personally I find exceptions to area attacks for skirmishers too much words for the benefit. Usually a huge area attack weapon (like a catapult) either would not shoot at skirmishers at all or if its does and hits, usually score one hit per model. With some exceptions, maybe that 5x1 skirmisher unit will get 3 instead of 4 hits, or 4 instead of 5.

    I tend to think of the amount of rules, special rules, exceptions and stuff as a limited and expensive resource. Each one raises the barrier for newer players. Each one causes the game to take a little longer or might be missed during the game. So I try to convince everybody here to look at it the same way (probably with limited success, but hey we're in for the fun of it anyway).

    That is why my opinion on skirmishers is so negative. Sure, there are some exceptions, some special cases and game states where being a skirmisher is really making a difference. However in my games this rarely happens. Not nearly enough to justify the added complexity and complicatedness of the game. Represeting them just as light troops with hard target would be a huge upside for my games.

    1. You don't need movements trays with gaps anymore (= time saved).
    2. You can use your normal movements trays (=time and money saved)
    3. You don't need to calculate half inches anymore to see who can attack (=time saved, easier gameplay).
    4. Skirmishers could actually have CC potential again (=in my book huge improvement, more designspace for skirmishers).
    5. A recognizeable set of rules removed (= time saved in reading rules, newer players need to learn less rules, less parent/child rule interactions)
    6. The freed up complexity could be used for higher impact (special) rules (= think of cool new stuff units could do)

    Of course there are ways to "preserve the skirmishers better", like empty bases, larger bases with FiER, etc. But many of those proposals keep the skirmisher label or introduce separate rules. This means you "just" change the existing rules for something else, not freeing up anything from the complexity budget. This is why I don't particuarly like them.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • DanT wrote:

    Am I really the only person who thinks the amount of normal ranked up units with hard target is weird?

    Like, what the smeg are they all doing? Synchronised ducking? :lol: :lol:
    Well, it sure is weird looking, but it was applied to units that used to be skirmishers, but were made for melee, like fallen, plague bearers and others like them. Without being able to close the gaps as soon as melee started (as it was before), they either had very big disadvantages in melee, but looked like hard target, or didn't look like hard target (even if they had it) but could still perform the role they were made for.
    I rally prefer the solution used on them, so I can live with the units having HT without looking like it.
  • I'm a bit sad with how meaningless skirmishers have become, given how important they are in real (and fantasy) warfare. I think a lot of that is how utterly gutted terrain rules have become, first in later editions of Warhammer, then in Ninth Age. I think that was a large part of what made them valuable.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    Collection of all offcially posted Vermin background

    'All the gifts your parents gave you, all the love and patience of your friends, you drowned in a neurotoxin. You let misery win. And it will keep on winning till you die — or overcome it.'
  • secondaries could really be chosen more "realistic", like
    Kill all enemy mages; as soon as 1 player has no spellcasters left on the table, the other player wins the objective, if at least one side has no spellcasters to start with, choose another scenario.
    Capture the generals equipment: the enemy general must be killed in melee to win the scenario, if both generals are killed in melee it is a draw. Catching him fleeing does not count for this scenario.
    Get the enemy running: if one player has no enemy troops in his half of the table he wins the scenario.

    Problem is you don't need scoring for those scenarios, but I wouldn't care as I don't really like the idea of specific troops needed to get scenarios, like the general on his dragon is not able to hold the hill in the middle, but the single last bowman from the almost erased unit can do it...
  • rolan wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Am I really the only person who thinks the amount of normal ranked up units with hard target is weird?

    Like, what the smeg are they all doing? Synchronised ducking? :lol: :lol:
    Well, it sure is weird looking, but it was applied to units that used to be skirmishers, but were made for melee, like fallen, plague bearers and others like them. Without being able to close the gaps as soon as melee started (as it was before), they either had very big disadvantages in melee, but looked like hard target, or didn't look like hard target (even if they had it) but could still perform the role they were made for.I rally prefer the solution used on them, so I can live with the units having HT without looking like it.
    I know historically why it is there.

    Some of them I would solve/fluff differently in LABs, and I hope they will be.


    My point was that this problem gets much worse if the skirmish rule is removed.

    For some that will be worth the cost.
    For others it won't.

    I quite like the visual nature of skirmishers. I think used properly and appropriately in LABs, this rule could really add a lot in terms of aesthetic and interesting mechanics/interactions.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Tying back in what we had earlier: bring proper terrain back, thus also solving skirmisher problems! Speed penalties for broken ground and forest! Penalties for fighting uphill! Forests blocking line of sight and slowing you down and killing cavalry!
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    Collection of all offcially posted Vermin background

    'All the gifts your parents gave you, all the love and patience of your friends, you drowned in a neurotoxin. You let misery win. And it will keep on winning till you die — or overcome it.'
  • 100% agree, it was so much fun when landscape would slow you down and then those knights charging your fleeing skirmishers would then spend 3 turns to get out of the forest with their half movement XD

    Russian Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    Public Relations

    GHAÂAÂAÂARN ! — The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young
    First T9A player in West Africa
  • Ah, man. When luring enemies within charge range and then vanishing into the forest actually meant something.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    Collection of all offcially posted Vermin background

    'All the gifts your parents gave you, all the love and patience of your friends, you drowned in a neurotoxin. You let misery win. And it will keep on winning till you die — or overcome it.'
  • Yes,I want to keep skirmishers, and I would like them in loose formation. I had no problem pushing the models in rank and file formation once melee started, and the problems of LoS changes is not even there if they only "shrink" after all charges are moved. So yes, I would rather have skirmishers on the field, who have HT because they are in loose formation, and light cavarly without HT, because they are in close formation. The term light troops could easily disappear, the rules written in light cav and skirmish.

    Terrain influencing movement could mean dangerous terrain (for those it is dangerous to) -1 advance, dangerous(1) if marching at -4, dangerous (2) if marching at full speed
    No need to bring back half movement from before...
  • New

    I was thinking about how the Psychology and Discipline mechanics could change in the next version. To me, discipline tests as they are now are too aleatory and random; it is too easy to destroy an enemy units by causing casualties and too hard to destroy it by making it reach the table edges: this issue affects the game's depth, in my opinion.
    What if we removed discipline tests?
    In my opinion it should work as follows:

    -Discipline is a sort of "morale health pool": every unit has a starting amount of discipline points according to its discipline characteristic;
    -everything that in the current version would normally demand a discipline test, such as redirecting a charge, pursuit/overrun mechanics, terror, fear, stupidity, reorganizing, and so on, no longer needs a test: these actions simply have a "difficulty rate" (for example 3 for a charge redirection, 5 for Terror...) and the unit automatically passes it as long as it has the amount of Discipline points needed;
    -so, for example, if Terror was set to "difficulty 5" (and maybe different monsters could have different Terror values!), a unit of Goblins would ignore it as long as it has its discipline value of 5 or 6 stable;
    -events during the battle would reduce the amount of discipline points a unit has: some of them would affect every friendly unit, such as the death of the General, some others only the unit suffering from the single factor itself;
    -many events could damage a unit's Discipline, such as the death of the general, the removal of 25% of its models as casualties, too many combats faced one by another (this would allow us to represent the "stamina" factor, thus units being tired after too many fights without rest), the absence of friendly units within a certain range, spells, fire, destroyed or fleeing units within x inches, losing combat...
    -as previously said, there would be no "2d6" discipline tests: no arbitrary factors, just tactical issues affecting a unit's resilience;
    -when a unit loses all its discipline points, it flees;
    -maybe even combat resolution would be different: after resolving a combat, the losing unit loses a single discipline point, so it would be harder for elite units to destroy core units in a single round of combat just by winning the combat by 10-15...
    -some actions or events may also restore a unit's morale: other units standing their ground, enemy general fallen, spells, routing enemy units...;
    -this way, a fleeing unit would be able to stand its ground after fleeing and try to get back to combat.

    This would open the game to a lot of new possible tactics: a skilled player would be able to destroy an enemy army by affecting the enemy's morale. We would lose less time in throwing dices for every discipline test one has to do during the battle. It would be very deep and fascinating and realistic.

    What do you think guys?
  • New

    Sounds lovely. One problem. How would you keep track of it for every unit? The rules team generally frowns on things like that, as much as I'd like to add more resources to the game.
    A summary of all proposed ideas from the VS LAB brainstorm thread

    Collection of all offcially posted Vermin background

    'All the gifts your parents gave you, all the love and patience of your friends, you drowned in a neurotoxin. You let misery win. And it will keep on winning till you die — or overcome it.'
  • New

    Eldan wrote:

    Sounds lovely. One problem. How would you keep track of it for every unit? The rules team generally frowns on things like that, as much as I'd like to add more resources to the game.
    Thanks! I suppose with D10s, for example. You can put one behind every unit, or in some chart. Don't know, but we already do it with wounds, veil tokens, other markers... Why not?
  • New

    And I was thinking about Special Items for version 3 unless part of these changes to it are still possible (Arcane Compendium isn't gold, right?).
    I would call two main points:

    1. Costs of some Weapon Enchantments
    - problem comes from enchantments for multiple weapon type
    - e.g. Touch of Greatness & Supernatural Dexterity (without Lightning Reflexes) for Great Weapon

    2. Rules of Weapon & Armour Enchantments
    - lack of "simple" Enchantments (+1/2 to attacks or +1 armour) in universal enchantments
    - number of limits (again enchantments like Touch of Greatness & GW and armour section)
    - Section "22.A.a Weapon Enchantments" & Weapon Master

    Some possible solutions:
    - rule: A model may only have a single Weapon Enchantment. Model with Weapon Master may have more than a single Weapon Enchantment.
    - rule: A model armed with an enchanted weapon (including a Hand Weapon) must use it by default. If model have another weapon (and is allowed to use it), model can't use it during combat round unless its use was announced at the beginning of that combat round.
    Explanation to any of these two - bringing back usability of Weapon Master rule as it currently is choice use it or enchantments for weapons.

    - review some of Enchantments with more enchantments but with more limited weapon types or simplified rules
    Orc & Goblins - coming soon

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!

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