The 9th Age: Skirmish Campaigns

    • @alltaken

      I've PMed you about access to the doc.

      About armour. I am aware that armour is seldom worthwhile, particularly not at the start of a campaign. Later, when your troops are more valuable and the cost of loosing them is greater it can be a worthwhile investment. This is intentional. It is a skirmish game of not so well funded groups of fighters. Armour is expensive to make so they shouldn't have easy access to it.

      I do however plan to make some alternative Local Markets and Exploration Charts in the optional rules to represent fights in different regions. I suppose it is conceivable to make a region where armour is cheaper in general.


      About Underdog bonuses. Those scenarios sound interesting. I really like the idea of incentiveising the top dog to play more aggressively. Attacking the underdog leader though I can see a problem with, because if he succeeds it really sucks for the Underdog.

      If you come up with more ideas here I am all ears :)


      About UD. As I said, the Acolyte is an error, they should be T3, WS2 and BS2, nothing else.

      I don't agree with you compassion with the Minotaur. The mino has the huge advantages of being able to use equipment and being able to gain experience. But regardless, the Scorpion will get a reduced statline to be less extreme.
    • I understand your point and with the points about a ragged band or mercenaries it works the armor concept. I would trust you on a longer running campaign, never got that far.

      Our current underdog bonuses are a first starting sample, we'll see if it works.
      The level where you attack the Lord we included it as part of the end condition since it's harder and you can shield your lord with bodies before him. It's risky, but if you can think of another type of underdog protection it could be a good idea.
      Regarding the free Henchmen scenario we thought that you're inside a bar or a communal area and the other band comes raiding, so some randos help you out for their lives.

      The mino is potentially better on a very long run or perfect skill improvement level ups, but as it is, the scorpion runs him over. But that's a moot point if it gets reduced.
      Don't you think the acolyte could get one more skill tree?
    • The biggest problem with balance in a campaign skirmish game is and forever will be the changes of warbands through the campaign. Some warbands are strong at firsts, other grow stronger later. The most obvious example I guess would be to compare The Leuge of Cogs (EoS9 to and DH warband. the former gets 100 extra pts to start with while the latter gets 10 extra pts each game. After 10 game the DH come out on top basically. UD also stand out in this regard since their henchmen can't get xp. I suppose something could be done about that though, as you suggested with bought upgrades of a sort. That is something I would like to look into but I don't know when.


      I really like those scenario ideas. I think it would be great to have a common scenario that greatly rewards underdogs and forces action in the top dogs. I was never too fond of Defend the Treasure as a common scenario and so could easily see that replaced. Would you be willing to help me write something up for this kind of scenario @alltaken?

      The henchman variant sounds like great fun. I think it would be tricky to have it as a common scenario since it would require extra models that cannot always be assume to be available. As a special scenario it would be great though I think. The group could choose to play when they are bringing in a new warband to the campaign.


      I suppose the Acolyte could get access to Combat Skills, that would make sense. Another thing I would like to do is to add more Skills to the UD's unique list, but I've had trouble coming up with ideas. One thing I noticed now though is that the warband as a whole does not have access to Speed Skills, which is reasonable. But if there is any single, specific Speed Skill we'd want them to have access to we could add it to their own list, any ideas? Maybe Scale Sheer Surfaces?


      Also, @alltaken, I'm curious. Do you in your group play multiplayer games or just 1v1?
    • The point with dwarfs is that it pays in the long long run. Starting with 4 heroes is hard on economy, and if you start with those then it's expensive and normally not well armed (if it's well armed it's economically risky).

      Also the small numbers, your quality is decent, but any 2:1 model ratio warband can just statistically screw you once a couple of heroes die, and they do. So it rewards safe play, small losses, remember all dwarf henchmen are expensive (forgot to say, our henchmen only die on 1's so you are interested in having more expensive ones like swordsmen with 2 swords [something like 40 gc each]).
      Cogs army starts quite strong (we play at 600 GC starting so you don't feel your band is such a lowlife group, we played a lot, so the experience of having crappy start is no longer appealing to us) and can have that good early start up.

      I'm game to help you with the scenarios! (the multiple hence thing you can allways use whichever 20 mm minis available, that's why we proposed a bar, more or less anyone can be there. All the stats are the same it's 3's all around 6 wounds 1/2 attacks with no special rules say blunts without the negate helmet rule,no armor, no parry. Some other guy waiting to play can borrow minis.

      On UD acolyte's all have speed which is pretty wierd, if it was as academics and combat (no speed) it would be great, since they can buy strength from common or other things from common and it doesn't hurt as much coming from a 0xp profile. A simple tree for UD is getting skills for not needing the leader close to run, rerolls on injury chart like dwarves, a smaller mummies curse, you can charge out of dazed, a scarab swarm around them (-1 to hit). We could think some.

      We tend to play 3 rounds 1v1 then one 4v4. I think alliances need a proper review on that, we ran across a scenario where it had a real bad execution.
    • @alltaken Wow, I really just drifted off from this nice little discussion we had going on. Sorry about that.

      I've PMed you about scenarios.

      I've reagred the Skill lists of the Acolyte a fair bit. Academic felt odd to me, except for the Death Cult warband. Now they've got Speed, Combat and UD. Also added a Skill for shooting to the UD list, simply granting proficiency for Aspen Bows. You also had some good suggestions there for additional skills so I'll look into adding those too.


      Very interested in what you say about muliplayer battles and alliances. In my experience the Alliance rules very seldom come into play. The player do make agreements and team up, but the actual rules are not used. Could you go into greater detail how your group experienced it?
    • We played defend the treasure on a 4 player map, the random building was determined to be a center building, pretty much the deployment zone for the middle player. Which would've meant kinda auto win so we swapped the defending player around.

      Then questions started popping, if you ally only the defending player wins? If not, why would you ally someone? Or better you "ally yourself with someone then just wait for the moment to stab him and go from there. And then who wins when the defender routs, all other 3 bands?

      Also alliances
      are the best for the 3rd player I think. Not being able to change all alliances on each players end phase makes issues for the first player in the turn.
    • I suppose Defend the Treasure is the most complicated scenario with regards to Alliances, yet another reason to replace it.

      I'm don't really follow what you mean about alliances though. I've inserted some comments in red.

      alltaken wrote:

      We played defend the treasure on a 4 player map, the random building was determined to be a center building (it should not be determined randomly, the defending player chooses), pretty much the deployment zone for the middle player. Which would've meant kinda auto win so we swapped the defending player around. Who would have autowon? How did you swap? How did that help?

      Then questions started popping, if you ally only the defending player wins? If not, why would you ally someone? Here I don't following you at all, who allies with whom?
      Or better you "ally yourself with someone then just wait for the moment to stab him and go from there. Backstabbing is always a risk with alliances. I'm hoping it has been a bit mitigated by the v0.2 addition of models with Trust relations not being able to backstab in the same turn they left the Alliance.
      And then who wins when the defender routs, all other 3 bands? If the defending player routs and all of the attacking players were in an Alliance, that Alliance wins. if not the game continues and the attacking players now fight over who gets the building.


      Also alliances
      are the best for the 3rd player I think. Not being able to change all alliances on each players end phase makes issues for the first player in the turn.
      Alliances are negotiated at the start of each player turn, so it shouldn't really favour anyone.
    • Mad 'At wrote:

      I suppose Defend the Treasure is the most complicated scenario with regards to Alliances, yet another reason to replace it.

      I'm don't really follow what you mean about alliances though. I've inserted some comments in red.

      alltaken wrote:

      We played defend the treasure on a 4 player map, the random building was determined to be a center building (it should not be determined randomly, the defending player chooses) This wasn't clear to us when we read it (I think it should be placed in the scenario rules to make it easier), pretty much the deployment zone for the middle player. Which would've meant kinda auto win so we swapped the defending player around. Who would have autowon? How did you swap? How did that help? A center player witha a center building if he has enough minis it's too easy. If the oposing warbands don't have much shooting you'll have more minis than the rest and therefore win the scenario. Or the defending player has enough shooting and it scares you into runnin safe. Any way, the rewards from the scenario are not good enough to go rush the middle and possibly loose a hero, it's more expensive that what you can win. There is no incentive and the game is too easy for the defending center.
      We roled it who was the defending, which couldn't be the center player (since the building was there).


      Then questions started popping, if you ally only the defending player wins? If not, why would you ally someone? Here I don't following you at all, who allies with whom? 2v2 we played good vs bad, if the defending player won, would his ally win with him? IE all bonuses applied (XP and Extra dice? splitting of the loot? If not, then the allied player has no real incentive to colaborate with the defender, and thus no alliance needed).
      Or better you "ally yourself with someone then just wait for the moment to stab him and go from there. Backstabbing is always a risk with alliances. I'm hoping it has been a bit mitigated by the v0.2 addition of models with Trust relations not being able to backstab in the same turn they left the Alliance. Backstabbing for me is the most interesting part of the system, SC (mordheim) is a game of risks and where things like double crossing and backstabbing should be a norm.
      And then who wins when the defender routs, all other 3 bands? If the defending player routs and all of the attacking players were in an Alliance, that Alliance wins. if not the game continues and the attacking players now fight over who gets the building. We made it like there where new defending players randomly selected in that case.


      Also alliances
      are the best for the 3rd player I think. Not being able to change all alliances on each players end phase makes issues for the first player in the turn.
      Alliances are negotiated at the start of each player turn, so it shouldn't really favour anyone.

    • alltaken wrote:

      (it should not be determined randomly, the defending player chooses) This wasn't clear to us when we read it (I think it should be placed in the scenario rules to make it easier)
      It is part of the rules for Defending the Treasure, but I'll see if I can make it clearer.

      Who would have autowon? How did you swap? How did that help? A center player witha a center building if he has enough minis it's too easy. If the oposing warbands don't have much shooting you'll have more minis than the rest and therefore win the scenario. Or the defending player has enough shooting and it scares you into runnin safe. Any way, the rewards from the scenario are not good enough to go rush the middle and possibly loose a hero, it's more expensive that what you can win. There is no incentive and the game is too easy for the defending center. We roled it who was the defending, which couldn't be the center player (since the building was there).
      The Defending Player cannot win by simply controlling the building, only the other players can do that. The Defending Player can only win by routing the other other warbands (or allying with some and routing the rest).

      In our experience the Defending Player has been at a disadvantage, being surrounded by foes on all sides. If the defender does nothing the enemy can swarm him and defeat him. If the defender strikes out to kill the enemies on at a time his risks loosing supremacy of the building and therefore loosing the game. The best he can do is often to try to ally with someone.

      Here I don't following you at all, who allies with whom? 2v2 we played good vs bad, if the defending player won, would his ally win with him? IE all bonuses applied (XP and Extra dice? splitting of the loot? If not, then the allied player has no real incentive to colaborate with the defender, and thus no alliance needed).

      Split wins are explained in the Alignments section of the rules. Basically, if an Alliance wins, they have one last chance to make deals and break promises, potentially ending the Alliance and continuing the game. If they agree to end the game all in the Alliance win, but non gain the extra Exploration Die (all gain the extra XP on the Leader though). Loot is shared equally or as per deals made between the players.

      In the case of Defending the Treasure I'd say the Loot is not affected y the Alliance rules. But it is a bit unclear so I'll work on that. At the same time I think a change could be in order to the amount of loot, cause as you say, it is not that large. Maybe a fixed 40 pts to the player/alliance controlling the building is better, and if no one controls it, each player/alliance that is tied for it gains 10 pts?

      I'm hoping it has been a bit mitigated by the v0.2 addition of models with Trust relations not being able to backstab in the same turn they left the Alliance. Backstabbing for me is the most interesting part of the system, SC (mordheim) is a game of risks and where things like double crossing and backstabbing should be a norm.
      Agreed, backstabbing has a very natural place :)

    • Last night I worked a bit on the scenarios. I came up with a neat thing that I think I'll add to the Optional Rules,which can be added into any scenario to create a little side quest that mainly the players with low Warband Rating can focus on. It would go something like this.


      Camps and Raids

      During the deployment phase, all players must deploy a Camp Marker. The Camp Marker is deployed as if it were a model in the Warband, with the exception that it has to be deployed within 3" of a model in the Warband. The Camp Marker cannot move in any way, it cannot take any action, cannot be destroyed or harmed and cannot be targeted by anything.

      If any model ends an Advance Move in contact with a Camp Marker belonging to a Warband with a higher Warband rating that the model's own Warband has, it may Raid it. If it chooses to do so, the player controlling the model gains a Loot Counter and the player controlling the Camp Marker gains a Raid Counter. The Warband of the model will also be considered to have fought against the Warband of the Camp Marker for the purpose of Underdog Bonus.

      At the end of the Exploration Phase, all players gain 5 pts for each Loot Counter they possess and loose 1 pt for each Raid Counter they possess. Afterwards, all Loot and raid Counters are discarded.


      The intent is to create an objective for players with low warband rating that doesn't conflict much with the interests of the warbands with high rating. So they can focus on this while playing a very defensive game without engaging many opponents.

      The fluffy explanation as to why only low rated warbands can raid is that they have nothing of value to the warbands with high rating. While the warbands of low rating even consider the trash of the warbands with high rating to be valuable, which is why 5 pts are gained but only 1 pt lost. Kind of a Robin Hood theme, steal from the rich and give to the poor.



      I've also been thinking about the replacement scenario for Defend the Treasure, something that should force the players with high Warband rating into action. It seems tricky to get right but I believe I'm making progress. One thing I'd like to introduce is that after a few Game Turns (6 maybe), the warbands with high rating will have to start taking rout checks. So the players with low warbands rating can play defence.
    • alltaken wrote:

      Ah, yeah 2 quick questions. We missed the dwarven axes and the aspen bows (DH, UD) rarities and rules
      In v0.2 the Aspen Bow took the shape of a special rule on the UD archers. They were the only ones who could use it so they simply bought a Bow and ignored to hit modifiers with it. In the coming release it will be a unique item for UD, so only models from that army can ever use it.

      The Dwarven Axe is removed. Its exact rules can be copied by buying a Sharpened Sword. The difference is though that it cannot be upgraded further and does not interact with some Skills and such.
    • UPDATE! Check out the first post for updated documents.

      This update became a bit of a strange one. I've had a few things in the pipeline for a rather long while now, most importantly another name change of the whole game (I know, it sucks that I can't make up my mind, but I think this last one is good), but I haven't really had time to finish it until now. And as I'm sure you all know, just about now the v2.0 Beta of The 9th Age: Fantasy Battles is also being released, which presented a problem. I know that I will want to interoperate a lot of things from that Beta into this game, but doing so will take time. I didn't want to postpone the name change update any further so thus I decided to release an extra time now.

      Now, what is changed? This should summarize the most important changes:
      • The name. the game is now called The 9th Age: Skirmish Campaigns (T9A:SC). It is not the most exciting name but it gets the message across while keeping the game open for battles in any environment.
      • Terrain. Some layout changes and the addition of Forests and Closed Buildings. Water is also simplified.
      • Underdog Bonus. The increments are changed.
      • Movement. Layout and wording changes. Also name changes to closer mimic T9A:FB.
      • Undying Dynasties. Other armies are changed a little bit too, but UD changed to most.
      • Scenarios. Mostly layout and wording changes of End Conditions. Also, the #6 scenario is replaced.
      • Optional Rules. A sort of mini-scenario added, called "Camps and Raids".


      That is all for now. Merry Christmas everybody!
    • alltaken wrote:

      I totally failed at making scenarios and sending from you to check, and yet I come asking gifts. Is there a possibility to make KoE less dependant on horses? That is one rule I never enjoyed on mordheim and it always felt out of place.
      I'm not sure I get what you mean about them being dependant on horses. They have access to horses from the start, and at a reduced price, but there is nothing forcing you to take it, there isn't even any synergy that encourages them to as far as I can see. What is it that you mean?
    • Mad 'At wrote:

      alltaken wrote:

      I totally failed at making scenarios and sending from you to check, and yet I come asking gifts. Is there a possibility to make KoE less dependant on horses? That is one rule I never enjoyed on mordheim and it always felt out of place.
      I'm not sure I get what you mean about them being dependant on horses. They have access to horses from the start, and at a reduced price, but there is nothing forcing you to take it, there isn't even any synergy that encourages them to as far as I can see. What is it that you mean?
      What I mean it's that it's a human warband with highly circumstancial special skills with only 2 henchmen options.
      Heroes have lousy progresión with aspirants not having option for strength.
      The blessing at AP3 is even more terrible here than in the big game.
      Very small item selection which isn't that inviting.
      And an incentive to buy horses early on, which put a Lance and a horse and that is more inviting that trying to do a foot build with all those drawbacks
    • alltaken wrote:

      What I mean it's that it's a human warband with highly circumstancial special skills with only 2 henchmen options.Heroes have lousy progresión with aspirants not having option for strength.
      The blessing at AP3 is even more terrible here than in the big game.
      Very small item selection which isn't that inviting.
      And an incentive to buy horses early on, which put a Lance and a horse and that is more inviting that trying to do a foot build with all those drawbacks
      Thank you.

      I'll see what I can do. Adding Peasant Crusades should be easy, and I can also see the Knights gaining access to Halberds. The Blessing is constantly on my list of things to change but for now I think it is best to keep it as close to T9A as possible (though I realise the current wording doesn’t work until the S and AP split has been implemented). Maybe I can add some more skills to their list too.

      Though I'd like to point out that if any Warband should have incentives to take mounted heroes, it is them ;)
    • New

      Update! Check out the first post for the new documents.

      Nothing big. Just a few clarification and even fewer little balancing adjustments. The documents have also been proofread so should read better now. Many thanks to @Roob.