BTS Blog - Issue 7 Discussion Thread

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!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • BTS Blog - Issue 7 Discussion Thread

    Hey guys!

    If you have not checked out the latest BTS blog, click here: Issue 7 - MOAR 2.0 Spoiler and a Sneak Peak at DL

    As explained there, it is kinda hard to follow a discussion in the comment section. Hence, the easy and really obvious decision has been made to have a dedicated Discussion Thread for each issue.

    Please keep in mind that the main topics in here should be either the Blog itself or the topics in it. So please do not stray to much off-topic with your discussions (the chief Inquisitors won't be all to happy about this).

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
  • My first impression on split S: are you developing game rules that is meant human readable or an application code? Rules evolve into direction of being abstract classes and methods having nothing in common with world they are to model. You sucrificied also common sense on the altar of balance. 'High S will not help you to break armor' ??? And that because you can't cope with a few bordeline cases? Not the direction I'd like to see.
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook

    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
  • JimMorr wrote:

    My first impression on split S: are you developing game rules that is meant human readable or an application code? Rules evolve into direction of being abstract classes and methods having nothing in common with world they are to model. You sucrificied also common sense on the altar of balance. 'High S will not help you to break armor' ??? And that because you can't cope with a few bordeline cases? Not the direction I'd like to see.
    Rules are an abstraction. If I had a high movement speed and a high initiative(reflexes) I probably would be hard to hit in close combat in real life. But in wargaming it does not work that way. High movement speed lets units choose combats better etc. Almost none of the stats reflects real life very good, but they are in most cases very good abstractions and let us simulate combat in a decent way.
    Having Strength being a "double stat" seriously limits design options, and makes it damn hard to balance. And (from my personal viewpoint) is one of the strongest reasons old GW editions suffered from imbalance.

    Now if you wanted realism, then you should advocate that we change the way to hit works.
    It would be a lot more realistic if you first made a to hit roll, then special saves, then armour saves, and lastly to wound. It makes 0 sense for realism to wound before you bypass armour! But as an abstraction in terms of gaming it works fine, and gives a good flow to the game "first player 1 rolls, then player 2 rolls".
    On Hiatus. Want to see my Ogre Badlands Terrain?
  • Breaking through armor is less about strength, and more about the weapon IMO.

    Try breaking through full-plate with a longsword cut...Meanwhile a warhammer or even a wood axe, while far fess versatile, will have all their added momentum concentrated into a very small area, effectively negating armor.

    This is why weapons evolved over time, and we didn't all turn into gorilla's after centuries of warfare... :P
    <3 Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank! <3
  • My first thought was about how DL seems to be taking shape as a true RPS army and the problems which might follow with this.
    Since apparently even though DL´s community voted First turn and grinding damage to be two of the armies strenght neither were chosen for the army. How this might effect a highly specialised book we will see. But in my mind it looks like it will turn out as an Mixed arms army since if you load up on one thing and meet resistance you will break. And if you load up on the right things and meet an CC oriented army you will be on pair.
  • Ney wrote:

    Rules are an abstraction.
    Just two notes on that one:

    1. GW systems which are inspiration for the T9A have always been very specific when compared to other wargaming: they offered much less abstraction modelling combat at the mini-scale level of single rank-and-files exchanging blows. This was very different to other systems where usually whole formations are taken into account. There was of course the cost - tons of dice rolls and game lasting hours just to perform 5-6 turns. If you move away from realism in the rules you may remove one of the most important features of the game leaving only overweighted mechanics.

    2. Rules need to be sexy to attract players. They shall allow some abstraction where needed but they cannot break real-world logic. At least not in the game of that level of complexity. As my kids are crying I'll come back to the topic of S/AP split breaking logic a bit later...
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook

    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
  • I think splitting S and AP is a really bad idea. It was a bad idea for 40k for many years. Now 40k changed it back but you want it in 9th age.
    If strength is too good, then give GW a minus 1 to hit modifier, making it a trade off, so that its hard to hit with tem, but when they do hit, they hit hard.
    Anyway.
    These changes have me feeling really ambivalent, I started out loving the stuff you have done, but the 2.0 rules, so far, has me looking at other wargames, old hammer, and even writing my own set of rules(even if it is just a project for me)
  • Altao wrote:

    Again BTS without arts? ;(
    Didn't get the green light ;(

    However, I hope this changes for the next issue ^^

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
  • Kathal wrote:

    @alltaken, out of curiosity, what has the Strength and AP split to do with the 7 gods?

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    nothing actually, it's about unit divisions and rules and things. The lore isn't interesting first hand. Now the division of units feels like a kills a lot of the old units people have, which could have definetly adapted into a 4 gods or something like that approach with applications of the different daemons.
  • alltaken wrote:

    Now the division of units feels like a kills a lot of the old units people have, which could have definetly adapted into a 4 gods or something like that approach with applications of the different daemons.
    Er...Are you claiming that having more options kills off existing models in people's collections? That sounds very strange to me. :/
    <3 Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank! <3
  • Kristian wrote:

    I think splitting S and AP is a really bad idea. It was a bad idea for 40k for many years. Now 40k changed it back but you want it in 9th age.
    If strength is too good, then give GW a minus 1 to hit modifier, making it a trade off, so that its hard to hit with tem, but when they do hit, they hit hard.
    Anyway.
    These changes have me feeling really ambivalent, I started out loving the stuff you have done, but the 2.0 rules, so far, has me looking at other wargames, old hammer, and even writing my own set of rules(even if it is just a project for me)
    I disagree with you here. I think splitting S and AP is a really good idea, and for multiple reasons:

    1) Ease of use: if AP is written out, then you don't have to pause to figure out how a high strength attack is affecting armor (real life example: Last game I played I used a Kadim Titan vs. KoE. S7 is an uncommon strength value (compared to S4 and S6, which I've just used so often that the armor reduction has been fully ingrained. I had to pause each time to work out exactly what the new save was going to be. "Let's see, 4 is 1, 5 is 2, 6 is 3, so 7 is 4. Your armor is reduced by 4, so you have to roll a 6".). If this was just written out, then in all instances it is more useful. For units you use regularly, you will remember the AP value. For those you forget, it is a simple matter of looking. Easy.

    2) Design space: Doing the split makes it easy to design some really interesting units. Instead of having to mess with all sorts of side rules to get to the same space, you just adjust one or the other. For example, if you were to design a unit that wounds more easily but can't pierce armor using current rules (so someone that is stronger against unarmored targets, like a whip user), you need to make them have +1 to wound on top of a low strength. With the split, you can just give them S4 and AP0. Simple.

    Conversely you can also make a unit that pierces armor easily, but can't wound easily (so someone using a mail breaker dagger, for example). It goes through armor easily, but it is much harder to kill with. With old rules, you need to give them a specific AP rule to represent this. With the new split, you just give them S3 and AP1. Again, simple. It is all in one place, rather than needing to cross reference anything.

    3) Scope of the change: From what I understand, this change is not going to effect every unit. Most will have the same AP capabilities they have now. An S3 unit won't usually have any AP. An S6 unit will usually have AP3. You aren't going to have to relearn everything. It will only really come into effect for units where it makes the most sense.


    Weapons will be adjusted so be more differentiated. Some will give more strength. Some will give more AP. Some will give a combination. It should make the choices more meaningful, rather than GW being the default best choice.
  • Kapten Kluns wrote:

    Can I get a comment on the direction that the DL book is taking?
    You mean a comment on your critique? I think we have answered them already in earlier Blog posts:
    1. Community voting was used as a guideline, not a definitive result - but as we've pointed out in earlier posts, DL will have certain units that excel at 'grinding' - just not army-wide (although one could argue a built ward-save plus non-fleeing comes pretty close).
    2. Yes, the army is specialized. It will reward very skilled players at the cost of versatility. Another upside of this is that it also comes with fewer hard weaknesses, and can participate in a broad array of playstyles.
    <3 Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank! <3
  • ...continuing

    Physics aside for a while. Each and every role-playing game I played gave you bonus to Armour penetration thanks to your high strength. It is imprinted in players expectations. Removing it from rules will make rules feel more abstract. Figure stats will not mean what you expect them to mean. S will not represent physical strength of the model. It will be ability of the model to counter opponents characteristic called T. Both will become just variables of the object miniature[23] of the class rat-at-arms extending class infantry. It may sound sexy but only to Java developers not to the most players.

    Ney wrote:

    Having Strength being a "double stat" seriously limits design options, and makes it damn hard to balance. And (from my personal viewpoint) is one of the strongest reasons old GW editions suffered from imbalance.
    IMO exaggeration and a huge one. When you'll start rewriting ABs 90% of units with S4 will get AP1. There are a few cases like strong models armed with primitive weapons which might result in S4 AP- like feral orcs, but I do not think you will use such rule very often. And you could easily just add for such cases negative AP getting exactly the same result. The only case which may be difficult is equipment with built in AP (spears anyone ?) and its stacking with S bonuses. So you'll split a characteristic into two to deal with border cases like spear-armed hero with Potion of Strength... far from 'of the strongest reasons old GW editions suffered from imbalance'. They suffered from imbalance because GW wanted them to to sell more of the latest releases which for some strange reason have always been OP.

    Logic of S and AP being split

    If something can ct steal it will cut flesh. There are so many armor types that analyzing which weapon shall be better at penetrating armor will lead us nowhere: if on is better in breaking plate armor it will be countered by thick fur...

    IMO you went in opposite direction then needed. You identified problem with dual characteristic. The real problem is T and Armor being split. Please try to explain me why do you need separate characteristic for toughness and armor? Steam tank has both innate defense 1+ and T6. What does it represent really? Wouldn't it be enough for it to have T8 or T 6(8)?
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook

    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
  • @JimMorr, @Squirrelloid is probably the best one to talk about armour penetration and strength relation ship. You put to much focus on the strength part, when the real clutch is the Weapon and the users' skill.


    Either way, I would personally like to see the defense system used in the old Lord of the Rings games, where you had no Armour, if you had Armour it just added it to your Defense value. Weapons could only increase the Attack Value (so the value you compare against the Defense).

    However, this comes with several drawbacks:
    - You lose a complete defense stat (Armour) and thus units become more "squishy"
    - Special Saves are pretty broken in this system and you need to relay on them pretty hard for some unit types
    - Catapults, Bolt Throwers and Cannons (or in general all War Machines) are super screwed usually
    - Defensive and Offensive Buff magic is kinda broken, either it is useless or overpowered. There is only a thin line in between.
    - You would need to rebalance everything AND it is a clear break of the traditional tabletop games

    Though, if done correctly, with an overhauled "to-hit" and "to-wound" tables I think, it would pan out really well.

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]