DE LAB updates

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • The guidelines have made a pretty tall order. Infantry MMU without an abundance of special deployment, ranged protection, counter shooting, or armor. This will be a difficult task but I’m confident the book will manifest itself in an enjoyable way. This team has been excellent in employing Main rule book rules to spice up units too. This should limit complexity by a large margin.
  • GSbasic wrote:

    The guidelines have made a pretty tall order. Infantry MMU without an abundance of special deployment, ranged protection, counter shooting, or armor. This will be a difficult task but I’m confident the book will manifest itself in an enjoyable way. This team has been excellent in employing Main rule book rules to spice up units too. This should limit complexity by a large margin.
    no special deployement, no armor, no good shooting, no protection
    So what can de do?
  • sarcasm on

    follow the path of ID and implement multiple spcial rules everywhere

    like...hiding units in the mist of shadows via banners (0-3) that forbid the enemy for 1 turn (one use only) to target this unit with magic/shooting.
    Or even better make this an aura (12") spell for the mage (hereditary) ...and to make sure it works also as a bound spell on medusas and as magic item.

    I am sure armys that have to rely on ranged damage to be able to fight glass canons would love this.
  • berti wrote:

    sarcasm on

    follow the path of ID and implement multiple spcial rules everywhere

    like...hiding units in the mist of shadows via banners (0-3) that forbid the enemy for 1 turn (one use only) to target this unit with magic/shooting.
    Or even better make this an aura (12") spell for the mage (hereditary) ...and to make sure it works also as a bound spell on medusas and as magic item.

    I am sure armys that have to rely on ranged damage to be able to fight glass canons would love this.
    No sympathy for gunlines.
  • Mass shooting is not classified as mixed arms, don´t you think?
    So no matter what solution is found, it should not make the most balanced approach to the game unplayable.
    Inventing more and more RPS mechanic doesn´t help to make the whole game balanced.

    Whan one army (DE) get´s a way to be untouchable on range for even a single turn, next powercreep spiral would be to improve all "shooty or mixed" army CC abilities to stand a chance against high damage DE CC units. #


    So it is realy not easy to find a solution.
  • For me "closing the gap" is also the ability to move forward and being able to stand the charge you give to your opponent (it can be a conditional stubborn on R&F units : first turn and with a friendly unit nearby => create real anvils so you can move forward without the fear to be submerged - it's just a bad idea among all ;)).
    It can also be just higher march rate like in the WDG book (sneak in enemy line turn 2 if you go straight forward). More feigned flight. Ability to prevent the redirection (or just malus to the roll), making flee a better charge reaction in a battleline.
    The key is about to be able to apply pressure with a 5+2D6" charge range without being to much harmed at this range.
  • Radian wrote:

    GSbasic wrote:

    The guidelines have made a pretty tall order. Infantry MMU without an abundance of special deployment, ranged protection, counter shooting, or armor. This will be a difficult task but I’m confident the book will manifest itself in an enjoyable way. This team has been excellent in employing Main rule book rules to spice up units too. This should limit complexity by a large margin.
    no special deployement, no armor, no good shooting, no protectionSo what can de do?
    I didn’t say “No” I said limited. But yes a challenge still.
  • Zwei wrote:

    Closing the gap sounds for me like a DE special rule, that could help "closing the gap" to the enemy when really needed. Like "If a DE standard-size unit was the target of any Range attack (doesnt matter if magic or shooting phase) in the previous enemy player turn, it gets +2 advance /+4 march rate in the following player turn.
    AND STAND AND SHOOT ATTACK!
    so the enemy can decide if want to shoot us, making charge easier, or not and do no dmg
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    For the LAB team, has the RT addressed the potential of increase of RPS with what they’re asking for?

    Does the RT actually want RPS armies or is the LAB Team also expected to prevent that and already taking steps towards preventing it?
    @GSbasic @Lord Drakon @KiRaHyuU I think this is a very pertinent question.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    For the LAB team, has the RT addressed the potential of increase of RPS with what they’re asking for?

    Does the RT actually want RPS armies or is the LAB Team also expected to prevent that and already taking steps towards preventing it?
    This is a very complicated question.. let me take a swing at it.

    The first thing i would like to point out is that the Task Team is responsible for the design on the book. RT is sort of a checks and balances tool. They are very good at the "what if" game and point out holes in design. I'm not sure exactly who was responsible for the guidelines, I know RT has a big role in that.
    Second: Guidelines are supposed to be followed to the best of their ability, but they are not "law". There has been flex in the guidelines where the teams have felt that it was necessary to create a good book.

    On to the questions itself. RT and the task team are very concerned with RPS. That along with the task of creating a unique book that doesnt trample on SE and HE future labs. This along with dealing with the natural internal and external balances is no easy task. In fact its darn near impossible but damn do these teams get close. My concerns are the same as everyone's. How are we going to get a MMU infantry style book that has limited everything else except CC power and some synergy to be competitive and fun. Im not convinced it will be possible without some flex. Armies should have some weakness, which always leave some room to a little RPS, so im not sure its completely avoidable. I do believe the TT and RT are very diligent in their pursuit to eliminate this as much as possible.

    My real concerns: The last three new books have soon a pretty decent increase in power level. The complexity has also been pretty high. The complexity trend should not continue and im curious to see what will happen with ID in this regard ( i know its in beta so it may be to early to include it in this statement). There seems to be a sentiment that power creep and complexity must be stopped... unfortunately DE may end up being the other end of the pendulum swing. I don't see this happening as of yet... so please to pull any thing out of these statements. I say this because these are the things as a representative of the community we ACS will be monitoring closely. We dont want a bloated power boosted book with crazy rules, but we do need to have a functional and flavorful book.

    We have a really good TT team, ill reiterate that they have worked so fast that we will have a LOT of time to go back and forth between some design ideas. They are also very transparent and open to ACS feedback, i know for a fact most of them are watching these types of threads closely.

    Hopefully this gives you guys some understanding? Please let me know if you guys have more questions or worries.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by GSbasic: Child decided to press enter on my computer....... ().

  • I'm sure that the toning down of cults( which the players insisted the quidelines tone down even more than intended), will automatically make for a less complex book.

    ...I'd be surprised if they can make it more complex than 4 cults that can't join each unit, general swaps cultural trait for cult trait in some core units, some units get both cultural trait and cult trait, and characters can swap cults for professions. And then there is another cultural trait that sounds like a cultish dance that works for 1st round unless its double stacked but only with banner or alter buff, and that alterbuff can be swapped for a different buff.

    ....good luck making a book more complex than that! Lol
  • this guy knows what's up

    Nemeroth wrote:

    As opposed to the other way round like now? For a non-competitive player who can’t get 20 games a week in they are almost unplayable against anything with catapults, pyro and mass shooting. I’m sick and tired of having 30% of my models in the dustpan by turn 2.
    Current reigning #1 Dread Elf Kang in Australia, voted all-time best Dread Elf in the northern Sydney to Newcastle region by my peers, thanks guys
    :thumbup:
  • GSbasic wrote:



    On to the questions itself. RT and the task team are very concerned with RPS. That along with the task of creating a unique book that doesnt trample on SE and HE future labs. This along with dealing with the natural internal and external balances is no easy task. In fact its darn near impossible but damn do these teams get close. My concerns are the same as everyone's. How are we going to get a MMU infantry style book that has limited everything else except CC power and some synergy to be competitive and fun. Im not convinced it will be possible without some flex. Armies should have some weakness, which always leave some room to a little RPS, so im not sure its completely avoidable. I do believe the TT and RT are very diligent in their pursuit to eliminate this as much as possible.


    My real concerns: The last three new books have soon a pretty decent increase in power level. The complexity has also been pretty high. The complexity trend should not continue and im curious to see what will happen with ID in this regard ( i know its in beta so it may be to early to include it in this statement). There seems to be a sentiment that power creep and complexity must be stopped... unfortunately DE may end up being the other end of the pendulum swing. I don't see this happening as of yet... so please to pull any thing out of these statements. I say this because these are the things as a representative of the community we ACS will be monitoring closely. We dont want a bloated power boosted book with crazy rules, but we do need to have a functional and flavorful book.

    Has anyone actually stopped to ask whether it's even possible to do what this project is trying to?

    With a game like chess at one end of the spectrum and an online game like any from the total war series at the other, it's immediately obvious that perfect balance is sought after* either by decreasing variability between players, or increasing number and types of statistics and special rules to allow for significant inter-faction variations. On top of this, if the latter option is the goal, there is still a relatively large RPS component pertaining to which factions to choose to play against certain opponents - the difference is that you can change with a click of a button on a computer, rather than having to pour hundreds of hours (and dollars) into your given choice to turn up and find it's already half beaten.

    Maybe the RT and task teams are too concerned with being adherent to the fundamental guidelines of high variability but with simple mechanics when there is actually no possible solution that allows for this? Maybe we as a community should stop arguing over the minutia in the hopes of achieving a perfectly balanced game and accept it as a flawed paradigm?

    Let's be realistic here too - there are some players, presumably in the vast minority, who play this game to win tournaments. Period. And there are some who have no particular allegiance to most factions and will choose between a large number they enjoy depending on whichever is the most fun or effective to play.

    And then there are the rest of us, who I would confidently say are most likely in the majority, who have a select few factions (or sometimes only one) that we love for the story and the feelings they evoke when playing, factions with which we have fallen in love with specific models or background stories, and factions that we would likely never abandon - the choice between playing a different faction because ours is non-functioning or just stopping altogether often results in the latter.

    The DE community as a whole are very vocal, and our comments have ranged from broad guideline suggestions to highly specific single-integer value changes to stat-lines of units, often with both purporting to be the most important change this game needs.

    Maybe we should stop focusing on absolute balance, on special rules bloat, and on all of the tiny details and just allow the team to build something that is overall fun to play with? Inherent randomness in dice rolls will ultimately play a larger part than most balance issues on any given day, and you don't NEED to know every single faction's special rules if you're not trying to dominate the 9th Age tournament scene - you just need the special rules for your faction to be fun to play with thematic.

    Maybe we should focus our attention on achieving an enjoyable experience, on creating a faction that is both fun to play and fun (or thematic) to play against.

    Forest for the trees :)

    GSbasic wrote:

    The guidelines have made a pretty tall order. Infantry MMU without an abundance of special deployment, ranged protection, counter shooting, or armor. This will be a difficult task but I’m confident the book will manifest itself in an enjoyable way. This team has been excellent in employing Main rule book rules to spice up units too. This should limit complexity by a large margin.

    *I use the term 'sought after' here because there is still debate even nowadays as to whether Chess is actually balanced or slightly tipped in White's favour, so it would seem that nothing is perfect...