The 9th Age: Cityscape Skirmish (formerly known as The 9th Heim)

    Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!

    • Mad 'At wrote:

      1. I have no immediate plans to add rules for Empire in Flames, mostly because I don't know much about it. I know it is about fighting in more of a countryside surrounding, but I don't know what that entails for rules. Could you enlighten me? What would be needed to make that sort of gaming possible?
      2. This is intentional. It felt unnecessarily complex to me and on top of that removed one of the greater weakness of being mounted. If you use a mount you cannot climb, ever (unless it is a spider :P).
      3. Very good question, never thought about that. I would say that it does count. The mount is little more than equipment. But I shall add a clarification.


      The great thing about the empire in flames is that you can go with your normal ninth age scenery This make it more accessible for starting players and gives you something to play while building a city. Some rules changes highlight:
      1. Not demolished buildings are occupied by normal farmers etc. Which you clear for no experience (or be kicked out of). You can run around them, but it cost you something to have a defensible elevated position in them.
      2. less runes or walls means you have less cover, but you have more forest, hills and fences. You can never see or charge more then 2 inch into a Forrest and even if it is only 1 inch you can't look further then the forest.
      3. You have other rules for terrain, like swamps and rivers and it is preferable to have more rules for mounts as the terrain is good for wagons etc.
      Please let me know if you want to know more.
    • Sounds like a lot of that could easily enough be included in the Terrain rules. Under Terrain Pieces we could define "Closed Buildings" and "Open Building (including Ruins)". Close Buildings can be occupied by models and from the start of the game contain NPC that you have to kill in order to get inside. Rules for Forests can also be included there, as sort of an alternative to Trees, with rules much more similar to 9th Age (and with limits on LoS).

      All in all it feels very doable, and it has gotten me thinking on some grander schemes. Will need some time to figure this out.
    • Also thought, what do you think of making not all the "base" units 6 hp? It might make it feel more thematic if you can be almost guarenteed to squash an skink, but a saurus should probably be able to stay up. Also i found the mount rules in the core rule book. You could also base damage off of a characters base strength(do like str +d3) becasue currently, the dice make it easier to do 6 wounds than 5.
      These are just my musings though so take them with a grain of salt
    • @cynicalfirefly Sorry for the late reply. I do really appreciate you commenting though :)

      cynicalfirefly wrote:

      For SA, are the stats for the raptors meant to be ripped from the Dread Elves Pet Raptor?
      The differences are intended, hence the difference in name. The stats of the normal raptor to be a bit extreme for the henchman variant, so that one got reduced values. Possibly unnecessary, don't know for sure...


      cynicalfirefly wrote:

      Also thought, what do you think of making not all the "base" units 6 hp? It might make it feel more thematic if you can be almost guarenteed to squash an skink, but a saurus should probably be able to stay up. Also i found the mount rules in the core rule book. You could also base damage off of a characters base strength(do like str +d3) becasue currently, the dice make it easier to do 6 wounds than 5.
      These are just my musings though so take them with a grain of salt
      There are some differences, dwarves all have for example. But in general it is 6 all around, I find that easier to remember. In general 1 Wound in 9th Age equal 6 Hit Points in Skirmish, and each additional Wound equals 3 additional Hit Point.

      I don't think basing damage on Strength is a good idea. Strength is already considered to be one of the most important stats, no need to make it more dominant. And I'm not sure what you mean about it being more likely to cause 6 than Hit Points. It is a neat (but point) bell curve actually.
      Files
      • 2D3 Output.png

        (36.44 kB, downloaded 6 times, last: )
    • Just posting to let you know that this project is still being worked upon, but it is in a bit of a back-burner atm due to me being preoccupied with other stuff (mainly T9A v2.0).

      I can inform you that I've decided to go with what I've discussed with @Redduke and will change the game to be playable in all kinds of landscapes. This will mostly just affect the terrain rules which will be expanded. While at it I will restructure the Terrain section a bit, I've done that before but am not quite happy with it. Some of the standard scenarios will also need some work, but nothing too tricky.

      Another thing that will change is the name of the game... again. I know it is silly to change the name so often but I want to get it right. My current thought is to call it "The 9th Age: Skirmish Campaigns" or "T9A:SC". Simple and straight forward. Any thoughts on that?

      For the terrain rules the biggest change is perhaps the introduction of Forests. An important aspect of the game is to limit Line of Sight, since shooting becomes to powerful otherwise. Therefore Forests similar to T9A:FB, but which block Line of Sight, will be introduced. I've have two ideas for rules and would like your opinions on what you think is better, A or B.


      A

      Models cannot draw Line of Sight through more than 2" of Forests. Models behind or inside a Forest are always considered to be in Cover.
      Wording needs polishing. The problem I see with this method is that measuring up 2" of Forest is a bit tricky. Especially when the target is behind a forest and not inside it. Essentially it means that the base of the forest isn't its true sice for LoS blocking, but rather a smaller footprint with a size dependant the positions of target and shooter.


      B

      Forests block Line of Sight completely with two exceptions:
      • Models inside Forests can draw Line of Sight out of it.
      • All Models can see other Models inside Forests, but they always gain Cover.

      Again, the wording needs polishing. I think this is a lot more straight forward. You cannot see through a forest but you can see into and out of it.

      Regardless of A and B there is also the problem of height. Should forests be infinitely high? In T9A:FB that is only natural, but with more 3D-terrain it is possible with situations where both shooter and target are clearly above the forest. Maybe it could be worded so that if both are higher up that the tallest tree marker (that is effectively what they will be, markers that can be moved out of the way) in the forest it is ignored for LoS and cover.

      EDIT: Fixed as per @Blonde Beers comment

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Mad 'At ().

    • I prefer version A. Being able to see through 10’’ of one forest when someone is sitting in it, but not through a 1’’ line of trees when a model is behind it seems counter-intuitive. (Or am I getting this wrong?) I’d rather have the option to hide inside the forest, not behind it. Concerning height, I'd never consider anything else than the actual model in a skirmisher...


      Skirmish Campaigns is a bit too straightforward to my taste. Nevertheless, until there is more background to give it a more immersive name, it might be the way to go.
      And through the storm there came a ringing:
      Thirteen tolls of that dread bell
      And all of those who dwelt in Kavzar
      Watched their city turn to hell.
    • Spaulding wrote:

      I prefer version A. Being able to see through 10’’ of one forest when someone is sitting in it, but not through a 1’’ line of trees when a model is behind it seems counter-intuitive. (Or am I getting this wrong?) I’d rather have the option to hide inside the forest, not behind it. Concerning height, I'd never consider anything else than the actual model in a skirmisher...
      True, there could be some strange situations with strange forest shapes. My intention is that the rules for Forests should be used with the same terrain you use for T9A:FB, so about the size and shape of the GW Citadel Forest. The trees would just be markers that you move out of the way. A 1" line of tree would be better suited for the rules for individual Trees, where each tree is considered separately and provides cover as any other terrain piece would.

      That is also why the Forest would need an artificial height of the Forest, since the Trees will just be markers.

      Regardless of A or B I'd definitely add that you can always make Hide Manoeuvres inside Forests, possibly even after Run Moves.

      Spaulding wrote:

      Skirmish Campaigns is a bit too straightforward to my taste. Nevertheless, until there is more background to give it a more immersive name, it might be the way to go.
      I've been toying with the idea to name it to be place within the ruined parts of Avras, which are mentioned in the Diary of Claude le Petit. My own campaign I imagine being set there. But I'd rather keep the options open for the players to place their campaign anywhere they want. Will probably even add some extra Exploration Charts and Local Markets in the Optional Rules document, to help represent places like the Virentian jungle or the Taphrian desert.
    • Mad wrote:

      I've been toying with the idea to name it to be place within the ruined parts of Avras, which are mentioned in the Diary of Claude le Petit. My own campaign I imagine being set there. But I'd rather keep the options open for the players to place their campaign anywhere they want. Will probably even add some extra Exploration Charts and Local Markets in the Optional Rules document, to help represent places like the Virentian jungle or the Taphrian desert.

      I understand the reasoning behind a more abstract approach, but I am still in favour of a default setting.



      Not sure if I am able to express my thoughts in a coherent and understandable way, but I’ll try anyway.

      For once, it is much easier for the lazy and/or less committed gamers, who are still interested in story-driven games. Not everyone has the time (or the talent) to write a complete background for their campaigns or even single games. It is nice to be able to have a concrete basic background, that gives meaning even to casual single games. If you can just take two random warbands, throw them on the table and they are still part of a greater story-line, that immensely improves the gaming experience.

      In addition, it is a good way to lure new people in.


      Concerning Mordheim as the obvious example, I’d say that for me the story was the main reason to play the game, even if I never actually played in Mordheim itself. It was always hard to get enough appropriate terrain so I usually used empire in flames (and Khemri/BtB settings) and most games took place in a different time. Nevertheless, I don’t think I would have started playing it, if this narrative wasn’t there.

      You can always play anywhere and anything you want, but to have a basic story - some common ground for all participants - is still a good way to advertise a game. (It might also help to establish T9A background.)


      Not that I want to convince you of anything. I just thought it might be worth considering these aspects.
      And through the storm there came a ringing:
      Thirteen tolls of that dread bell
      And all of those who dwelt in Kavzar
      Watched their city turn to hell.
    • Charging a space where you end up being in contact with multiple units

      New

      Hi,
      i've never posted before, but this is a recurring theme popping up in every game we play with the group.
      The problem arises always when someone wants to charge a single model that is nearby friendly models. From my perspective, if you can't fit a base without it touching the other enemies, you should be forced to declare a multiple charge, but it seems that my group of players think for some reason that you only make a multiple charge if you declare one, and ignore any other base contact if you only declared a single charge.
      Is there any mention of this situation in the rulebook? It only states that you can only get into base contact with the target of the charge, does this count with the diagonal contact too?
      Also, when you have multiple units engaged with the same enemy, what happens when it dies? should the models get spaced inmediately or do you have to move them before you can separate them?

      Thanks a lot!

      Great rules btw, i love the HP addition.
    • New

      @AG10 First off, welcome to the forums :)

      AG10 wrote:

      Hi,
      i've never posted before, but this is a recurring theme popping up in every game we play with the group.
      The problem arises always when someone wants to charge a single model that is nearby friendly models. From my perspective, if you can't fit a base without it touching the other enemies, you should be forced to declare a multiple charge, but it seems that my group of players think for some reason that you only make a multiple charge if you declare one, and ignore any other base contact if you only declared a single charge.
      Is there any mention of this situation in the rulebook? It only states that you can only get into base contact with the target of the charge, does this count with the diagonal contact too?
      Also, when you have multiple units engaged with the same enemy, what happens when it dies? should the models get spaced inmediately or do you have to move them before you can separate them?

      Thanks a lot!

      Great rules btw, i love the HP addition.
      My intention when writing the rules was that you should never be able to charge multiple a single of your models into base contact with several enemy model. I will see if I can make it clearer. In a case where it would be impossible to charge a model because of other enemy models close-by, the simplest thing to do relay is to charge those other models. If that too is impossible I don't really know, it has never come up for us in our group, has it in yours?

      One other thing that perhaps should be made clearer is that there is no such thing as "Closing the Door" or aligning the bases. When you charge you can choose to make contact anyway you want, side to side, corner to corner or corner to side, it doesn’t matter. The bases really aren’t that important in the ed, since there also are no facings. So you could even use round bases if you wanted to.

      About the Model Spacing Rule, it uses the same principle as 9th Age. When charging you can get within 1/2", and the rule remains ignored until you move out of 1/2". So in your example the models would remain where they are, but as soon as they move away they have to start abiding the 1/2" spacing rule.

      And I'm very glad to hear you like the HP mechanic ^^