Game design philosophy - what is Core?

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's Up, Ninth Agers!!! New issue of the Behind the Scenes blog! More rules sneak peeks, a glimpse at the future layout of army entries, and a duel between characters with the new rules.

  • Phenatix wrote:

    Thank you for your response. Now, on to the actual point of my post... Which army is the standard, or closest to the design goal, or otherwise considered the most balanced by the design team?
    I am not on the design team and I am not sure how useful your question is but I would say Orcs & Goblins:
    No super powerful special rules
    Access to every unit type (Monsters, cavalry, war machines, archers) none of which are the best of their type
    No access to powerful synergies (divination WarMachines, engineers, 1+AS, buff/hex wagons)
    Good (S5 T5) but not great (low WS, low I, no easy access to Plate Armour or Lightning Reflexes) combat lords
  • Vrubel wrote:

    Phenatix wrote:

    Thank you for your response. Now, on to the actual point of my post... Which army is the standard, or closest to the design goal, or otherwise considered the most balanced by the design team?
    I am not on the design team and I am not sure how useful your question is but I would say Orcs & Goblins:No super powerful special rules
    Access to every unit type (Monsters, cavalry, war machines, archers) none of which are the best of their type
    No access to powerful synergies (divination WarMachines, engineers, 1+AS, buff/hex wagons)
    Good (S5 T5) but not great (low WS, low I, no easy access to Plate Armour or Lightning Reflexes) combat lords
    Ahh thank you. This is exactly what I was looking for. I will take a look into the variety of units and options O&G have as a template for general unit targets.
  • OnG as a reasonably average army seems about right to me.

    As to most balanced, however, I know UD was considered to be at the target power level at one point. But they're not such a good choice for 'average army', since they break the normal rules in some important ways. (Like ignoring modifiers to shooting).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.
  • I posted it in VS subforum, this part is universal so I'll repeat it here:

    JimMorr wrote:

    Each army should have one main default style based on its cores and some other units supporting it. Cores should be designed so that they allow this style and reflect all army weaknesses. Non-core units are there to support that style or give tools to deal with army weaknesses. This default style should work regardless of who army general is and should never require a single piece of army list to be included. It should allow multiple list variants, yet all within this style.

    At the same time each army should be allowed to have alternative playstyles, yet those to fully implement would require army to have a specific general. Selection of army general could unlock unit option, change some unit classification or add some units special rules they lack when someone else commands the army. This way armies would get more focus on a single playstyle which I believe would allow better 'inner balance' management for armies.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    JimMorr wrote:

    Each army should have one main default style based on its cores and some other units supporting it. Cores should be designed so that they allow this style and reflect all army weaknesses. Non-core units are there to support that style or give tools to deal with army weaknesses. This default style should work regardless of who army general is and should never require a single piece of army list to be included. It should allow multiple list variants, yet all within this style.

    At the same time each army should be allowed to have alternative playstyles, yet those to fully implement would require army to have a specific general. Selection of army general could unlock unit option, change some unit classification or add some units special rules they lack when someone else commands the army. This way armies would get more focus on a single playstyle which I believe would allow better 'inner balance' management for armies.

    Really interesting idea. My first thought it that it's a little too limiting, but then I'm thinking about my army, the Saurian Ancients. Our persistent problem with internal balance has been that many of our units are underpowered in a heavy infantry list, but overpowered in a Skink Cloud. Forcing the choice of a Skink Captain or Skink Priest as General might create some tools to nerf what needs nerfing.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I know UD was considered to be at the target power level at one point.

    Yes, last summer under 1.0 meta.
    " Des chercheurs qui cherchent, on en trouve. Des chercheurs qui trouvent, on en cherche " Charles de Gaulle
    " Si l'on bâtissait la maison du bonheur, la plus grande pièce en serait la salle d'attente " Jules Renard
    " Plus j'aime l'humanité en général, moins j'aime les gens en particulier " Fedor Dostoïevski