Fear and Terror

    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!

    • @theunwantedbeing

      First point: No, that is exactly not what I was writing about. I was writing about Vampires having some kind of innate Vampiric Power which they actively and willingly employ to strike (supernatural) fear into the hearts of their victims. I was not talking about the kind of fear usually associated with Zombies, which mainly comes from the fact, that people fear to be eaten by walking corpses.

      In the end it all makes sense (or doesn't make sense) due to the background. If the Zombies are "just" walking corpses, fear does not make a lot of sense. If the Zombies are magically emanating an "aura of dread" (or however you want to call it) it makes sense. Generally I am of the opinion, that the argument "All Undead should have Fear" is invalid, as the setting already implies that armies may expect to face undead creatures.

      Second point: Sure, the rule "fear" is associated with "what is scary". But scary differs. For me a drug addict with a knife in a dark alley is scary. But it wouldn't be for a soldier in the middle of a battle. You need to factor in the basic premise here: What is significantly, generally, and consistently more scary to a soldier on a high fantasy setting battlefield than a "regular" opponent? Scary enough to make you even be unable to perform actions that are imprinted in your muscle memory, like fighting with your weapon?

      Third point: I agree that consistency is important, but it does not make the game feel more believable or realistic on the point of which units should have fear. First off, because fear is an emotion and is itself not consistent. The same person might experience fear or no fear in the seemingly exact same situation based on how their inner state of emotional affairs is at that exact point in time. I assume this is one of the reasons why people want non-binary results on discipline tests, because they hope to get more believable results. E.g. An archer unit gets charged by a monster. Imagine the following two scenarios: (1) The Monster evaporated a similar Archer unit the turn before. (2) The archer unit shot down a similar monster with a stand & shoot reaction the following turn. I guess everybody agrees with me, that the unit would flee in the first scenario and definitely stand & shoot in the second one. Currently we do not have that kind of context in the game. The question would be whether it is benefical to the game to introduce context-based discipline as it adds complexity to the game.

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


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

      @theunwantedbeing

      First point: No, that is exactly not what I was writing about. I was writing about Vampires having some kind of innate Vampiric Power which they actively and willingly employ to strike (supernatural) fear into the hearts of their victims. I was not talking about the kind of fear usually associated with Zombies, which mainly comes from the fact, that people fear to be eaten by walking corpses.

      ...
      that's the same power that dark elves (=albae/alfar) have in the fantasy setting of "the dwarves" and "the legends of the alfar".
      "Albae have the ability to magically create darkness and fear. However, this magic in the blood does not allow most Albae to cast other spells."

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • DJWoodelf wrote:

      "Albae have the ability to magically create darkness and fear. However, this magic in the blood does not allow most Albae to cast other spells."
      i read those books and you are of course right. But this ability is also some kind of a mainstay in fantasy settings. In Demonworld the High Elves can do that based on their charisma.

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


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

      The argument for zombies not causing fear is they're weak, so not scary
      It's more like that Zombies are actually quite common and so weak that even Equitaine peasants can kill them in droves. That is not particularly scary.

      Also if Zombies cause fear then you could argue that KoE Peasants should cause fear too. Peasants are diseased, extremely ugly and horrifically dirty which would be very scary for anyone who is not any of those things. You might kill the peasant but you might catch something in the process...
      Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
    • Can we also please discuss the fact that fear is next to useless. I'd wadger that units that you want the enemy to take fear tests on are totally immune.
      Maybe its a meta call but:
      Wotdg almost whole army is immune
      Demons whole army is immune
      Ogres whole almost whole army
      Vc immune
      UD immune

      Elves and dwarfs largely resistant.
      All other fearless units

      Basically I've played VC for my last 5 tournaments and my opponents have only had to even roll for fear tests probably 2 or 3 times.
      If anything its been detrimental as KoE knights fight harder against my vampire.
      #freekillerinstinct
    • @duxbuse
      I'm leaning more towards it being "zero or one", it's either really strong or straight useless. Still, it's a nice rule solely because it makes you immune to it. And if someone happens to fail it, boy oh boy you're in for a treat.
      Some armies, those with low baseline disci namely, are pretty bad versus it, especially if not within IP and/or RAtF range: Rats, Orcs, SA, BH, EoS, Elves.
      IMO it's not that bad. It's pretty good actually. But still, I'm a SA player.
    • duxbuse wrote:

      Can we also please discuss the fact that fear is next to useless.
      It's the nature of the design direction of the game.

      We've reduced 'randomness' so dice rolling doesn't really decide the game so much, it's more where you put your units and what you do with them (after building a powerful list) that decides who wins.

      However, that came with the downside of meaning a lot of time was spent rolling dice to just pass a test and then nothing happens as a result, which is just wasting everyone's time for minutes each game. So we've got a lot of immunities in place that give near enough the same result (without that frustration of failing that 1% of the time and then losing) while retaining the skill element.



      Most players don't actually like psychology having a big effect on the game, or having the game result be based on singular dice rolls.
    • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

      Rats, Orcs, SA, BH, EoS, Elves.
      Rats have some of the best LD in the game. But at least must take the test. Armies with fear don't typically shoot. Which makes taking a Vernon demon difficult to punish.

      Orcs
      Tough units are fearless
      If your goblin spearmen or wold riders fail a fear test it has little impact.
      BH actually quite susceptible.
      Eos also susceptible
      Elves solid LD. And plenty of fearless units.


      Swarmsorbust wrote:

      Fear is either good or nothing.
      Ive found it to be nothing. The only units that even take the test will likely never win combat anyway. Its only relevant as -1 LD to the steadfast test.


      theunwantedbeing wrote:

      We've reduced 'randomness' so dice rolling doesn't really decide the game so much, it's more where you put your units and what you do with them (after building a powerful list) that decides who wins.
      To me this is fine. I'm onboard with this. My problem is with fear. Its less likely to have any in game impact than having a 6+ armour save. So I'm OK with reducing randomness. And even for fear tests to disappear completely and the rule only provide -1 Discipline. As that will allow fearless as a rule to be removed.

      Just like terror it only works while charging and is only countered by also having terror. I think fear should be similar. You need the fear rule to ignore it.
      #freekillerinstinct
    • I've been on both end of the fear spectrum and i can say this :
      Fear usually have ok number of viable targets, and when it have an influence is really powerful, but obviously because of that your opponent will try to make sure that your units with fear won't reach their targets or that their targets are in bsb/general range.
      So if you have fear you'll feel that it isn't making any effect and if you are defending from fear you'll feel that it is omnipresent because is not exactly easy to use a unit if you you have to avoid unit causing fear, also a lot of unit suffering a lot from fear are core scoring infantry tarpit units that when hidden lose a lot of their purpose, obviously you can put them in general/bsb range but then you are committing your general/bsb to that.

      All this to say that maybe it feels like it has no effect, but that's not true, it affect movement and positioning, and i don't need to explain how much those are important in this game.
      Also a note for the all fearless armies out there, sure they are immune to fear, but they can't flee as charge reaction ever, which is a significant downside and that's in play also when you have no benefits from being immune to fear.
    • I play VS and DL. Fear is a total waste of time ( yet a very good rule now ). Even stuff like Ogres have item to ignore it.

      My VS, stuff I don't want to take Fear Checks or Panic all have Fearless. Some people are right here in that Fear should be like Terror in that only Fear ignores Fear. Fearless should be more about not taking Panic.

      You can still be scared but not panic........

      I mean, doesn't every army have General Bubble and BSB Bubble options??? It's not like every army doesn't have option to counter it. To me, it's a waste and even if I didn't get to make someone take a fear test, I'll probably forget as it never happens.
    • X-C-Y wrote:

      Even stuff like Ogres have item to ignore it.
      The entire Ogre army is immune to Fear by default :P

      (except Scraplings and Tigers)

      Fear is really useful to have though. Might not be against all races, but it certainly has it's uses.
      Rules Questions?

      ETC 2016 - Referee
      ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
      ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
      ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
      ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
    • X-C-Y wrote:

      Lagerlof wrote:

      X-C-Y wrote:

      Even stuff like Ogres have item to ignore it.
      The entire Ogre army is immune to Fear by default :P
      Sorry, they pay for item to cause fear was what I ment.
      And be immune to Terror, that is probably the biggest value in that item.
      Rules Questions?

      ETC 2016 - Referee
      ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
      ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
      ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
      ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
    • I would like to see fear have a random number such as (-1, or -2, 0r -3) I love to playtest a monster with fear (-3). Maybe a colossal undead dragon on a 100 x 150 base. This would make the fear a lot
      more deadly and interesting. come at me dwarf!!!! This would not need to be in the rulebook and could allow the individual book teams to design new and interesting monsters.
    • X-C-Y wrote:

      Fearless should be more about not taking Panic
      I totally agree.


      toddymac2012 wrote:

      I would like to see fear have a random number such as (-1, or -2, 0r -3) I love to playtest a monster with fear (-3). Maybe a colossal undead dragon on a 100 x 150 base. This would make the fear a lot
      more deadly and interesting. come at me dwarf!!!! This would not need to be in the rulebook and could allow the individual book teams to design new and interesting monsters.
      Wow this is a really elegant solution. Minimal change to pre existing rule but opens it right up. You can have various scales of scary.
      You can also do something like skeletons have fear(1) if steadfast. Or devastating charge fear(+1)
      #freekillerinstinct
    • toddymac2012 wrote:

      I would like to see fear have a random number such as (-1, or -2, 0r -3) I love to playtest a monster with fear (-3). Maybe a colossal undead dragon on a 100 x 150 base. This would make the fear a lot
      more deadly and interesting. come at me dwarf!!!! This would not need to be in the rulebook and could allow the individual book teams to design new and interesting monsters.
      Sounds like that might promote more hero-hammer.

      Charge dragon in alone..
      Challenge...
      Gain 5 CR (Charge, Kill, +3 Overkill). Against a normal unit (banner + 3 ranks) you win. Now you stack on an additional -3 fear. So, that steadfast block that just lost a champion is now testing on Dis-3.

      Brutal...