BTS Blog - Issue 8 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 8 Discussion Thread

      Hey guys!

      This is the discussion (and feedback) thread for the new 8th BTS Issue, which you can find here:

      As always, keep it civilised and somewhat ontopic ;)

      Btw. this is the first time in a rather long time that I haven't contributed to the BTS issue at all, so the guys in charge of this issue where solely Mr. High Elf himself, @Calcathin and Mr. "I swear, I'm serious!" @There Is No Spoon.


      Have a look at the WIP new layouts for the slim rulebook and let us know what you think of them here!






      Important Links:
      Issue 8 - Loads of new 2.0 content: Profiles, Troop types and New Layouts

      Past publications and threads:


      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]
    • Laughingman wrote:

      Good layout,

      I have one serious issue though. Why are you changing things like leadership , initiative , toughness?

      These can in no way be copywritable as they are used in multiple other game systems. It just seems like change for change sake on these few things. Other than that... I like the layout.
      I completely agree with the last couple of comments, the layout looks great but not sure why we need to change all the stat names.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by evan336333 ().

    • I like the new layout, however there is one thing i really dislike about it and hope that get's changed. I can accept that the weapon and other equipment options are in the same place as the special rules, but i hate that in some places the equiment boni are already counted in the stats (like the boni of light armour, shield, etc. are already counted in the AS-Value but are also mentioned in the special rules additionally), and in other places they are not accounted for (like the boni of weapons, where only the weapon is stated in the special rules part, but no adjustments to the ST/AP-Values are done).
      I find this quite inconsistent and there also is no way to know which boni are already accounted for and which not, so you basically have to use your existing knowledge of the units to then decide. I personally would like to see the mount's protection and innate defense special rules removed as such, and instead be included in the AS-stat, and all extra armour just being mentioned as equipment and not counted in the AS-Value, same as weapons behave currently.
    • I really like the new layout! Good work!

      The changes to the names are... I don't know what to think. Agility makes more sense than initiative for one, I guess it will be just to get used to the new names like when the names to the units changed. Now I can't remember the old names of lots of units.

      The change to ballistic skill is neat! Like it a lot.

      Thanks for the hard work everyone! Appreciate the efforts :thumbup:
    • Well done! Agility change makes sense. Health points make even more sense and they have been often translated as hp / vitality anyway. And changing most of attributes we may well change them all. Sections will allow to learn and find them faster.

      However @weberknecht has a point. Will you merge unit profile and weapon options? Design really looks like ready for that, especially with offensive / defensive split.
      StormRider Games
      StormRider Facebook
      _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
      Or my WoT EU clan:
      The Ninth Army
    • I'm liking the layout of stats, i'm sure it will take a while to get our heads round and may slow us all down for a couple of games but i'm sure it won't be a problem after a while. My main issue is that in all the examples in the BTS even with the new splitting in the stats there is no stat changes at all e.g. offensive WS and defensive WS are the same and the Strength and AP are the same.

      Are there any examples of where there will actually be a difference or have all these changes just been made to distinguish the 9th Age from another system?

      You've introduced this new mechanic, i hope you use it to it's full extent. I'd like to have seen the Elf character have a higher defensive WS for example, in my head elves should be expert swordsman and really difficult to hit, makes up for their terrible toughness Resistance.
    • JimMorr wrote:

      Will you merge unit profile and weapon options? Design really looks like ready for that, especially with offensive / defensive split.
      That's one of the biggest advantages of the three lines IMO:
      • Global: movement/deployment special rules like Scout/Vanguard & Swiftstride
      • Offense: attacking special rules like Hatred, & various weapon options
      • Defensive: defending special rules like Distracting/Hard Target, & shields
      This way the rules are a bit easier to keep track of (I hope).
      Open Source INTERNAL BALANCE: HBE | DL 2.2 | WDG 2.2 | ID | SA | VC
    • So this is all very exciting. Aimed Shot needs a reword but the rest looks great. I especially like renaming Leadership to Discipline. Is this a herald of things to come (conditional failure)?

      To all those asking why names have changed, the answer is probably (as always): IP. It's really not that hard guys.

      Who's joining me to play T9A change thread bingo? I think we've already got one or two!
      #freekillerinstinct
    • AxelVicious wrote:

      You've introduced this new mechanic, i hope you use it to it's full extent. I'd like to have seen the Elf character have a higher defensive WS for example, in my head elves should be expert swordsman and really difficult to hit, makes up for their terrible toughness Resistance.
      This will take time, initially, 2.0 should not mean major stat changes to units - but your proposal regarding elf characters highlights the subtle flexibility designers will have at their disposal when it comes to Full Book Redesign.
      Open Source INTERNAL BALANCE: HBE | DL 2.2 | WDG 2.2 | ID | SA | VC
    • There Is No Spoon wrote:

      AxelVicious wrote:

      You've introduced this new mechanic, i hope you use it to it's full extent. I'd like to have seen the Elf character have a higher defensive WS for example, in my head elves should be expert swordsman and really difficult to hit, makes up for their terrible toughness Resistance.
      This will take time, initially, 2.0 should not mean major stat changes to units - but your proposal regarding elf characters highlights the subtle flexibility designers will have at their disposal when it comes to Full Book Redesign.
      That's cool. I get the reason to introduce the changes slowly, i'm just super keen to see all the possibilities these different stats can produce. It should be very interesting times ahead.
    • Regarding the layout :


      Here's a modified version i proposed internally :



      What i changed and the reasons why :
      Display Spoiler

      Drakkar wrote:

      Calcathin wrote:

      All

      what do you all think of the new profile layout? any comments?



      Nice work with the layout.

      Here's what i would change (positions & orders) :




      1 = moved unit size near the name. i believe we should read the starting size and potential size before we read the pricing for add models
      2 = inverted "Type/Base/Height" with "units/army". Type/Base/Height is supposed to be aligned with model rules & equipment.
      3 = remplaced "size" with "height". I hope with "size" you didn't meant "Size = Standard or Single Model". That would be a pointless info. Height could be more interesting. And given height would appear here, each unit could have it's own height instead of being. You wouldn't have the need for Large Target rule and so on.
      4 = moved the name of the models below "Global" and i believe it should be bolded for better visibility.
      5 = switched Offense & Defense statlines as Offense should always be first, i find that more logic.
      6 = Merged movements stats and weapon skills stats, I find that a lot easier to mesmerize that way. Then in the BRB it is explained the Move stat is Advance/March and Skill stat is Offense/Defense. No need to divide everything in the layout. We could do the same with the defensive stat Save with 5+/4++ for example with Armor/Ward, we are used to talk like that in the forums (i didn't merged the save stats there but we could).
      7 = You changed the layout but you didn't take that opportunity to rearrange the stats ? Please do it. Agility > Attacks > Strength > AP = the order in which we roll our dices on the table and i believe it should be the same order in which they are displayed in the layout.
      8 = What i said in 7 is exactly what you did on this statline :thumbup: Toughness / Armor / Ward / Wounds. Statline order = Dice Rolls order.
      9 = I changed the order again with the "rules" (what should be "rules & equipment") : Army Wide Rules > Unit Rules > Equipement. Again i find that order a little more logic.
      10 = I don't see why you changed the order with the command group. Champion/Standard/Musician. That's the same order as now, the same order in which we raise wounds of command group, let's stay consistent and don't change stuff for the sake of changing. You'll already have to deal with angry GW fanboys that already hate necessary changes.

      Drakkar wrote:

      Here's a clean version :




      1 last change i forgot earlier : pts/mod. >>> pts/model (no need for acronym here)

      Drakkar wrote:

      Mittierim wrote:

      Drakkar wrote:

      Here's a clean version :
      pic
      1 last change i forgot earlier : pts/mod. >>> pts/model (no need for acronym here)
      Think it should be 26 pts/ additional model since this still looks like you have to pay the per model price + base for the first 5.Other than that, I really like this.
      You are right, error on my part.

      BTW i just noticed i copied the command group in the wrong order X/



      If you have suggestions it's now or never.
      " 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
      " Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr
    • Offence Skill must be on the offence line, because of multipart models. It's the only line that is replicated.
      Also it fits nicely along the other stats you would look for when carrying an attack.
      Likewise, I don't see why the defense rule would end up somewhere else than the defense line.
      As for reordering characteristics within one line, two things make sense: listing them in the order you use them (agility, attack value, offence skill, strength, AP), or keeping the vertical symmetry between paired characteristics (like Resilience and Strength in the same column, Offence and Defence, AP and AS, ...). Unfortunately you can't have both.
      Last, because of multipart models, you're going to end up with a defense line that can run around relatively far down. The only two logical orders that you can have for lines IMO are Global, Defence and Offence(s), or Offence(s), Defence and Global.
    • From a game designer's point of view I have to say that I agree with most of the changes you made, Drakkar. Thumbs up! The only thing I would change is to merge the Awsr section with the unit specific rules. If a new player is looking for what rules that affect this model he/she now has two rows/places to look at (even though they are close in proximity to each other) to find the answer. Maybe all special rules and army wide rules could be in the same box/on the same line, but that the awsr are in a cursive font and the unit specific rules are in a bold font?
      That way the specific rules still gets a pop-out effect so they stand out, and now the player will have a harder time missing a row of rules since he/she does not have to look in two places on the same page to see all the rules that has to do with that unit entry.

      Oh, and I would also move the " , 5 models up to 20" away from the name row ("Centaurs") to keep it cleaner. :) Maybe have it say "5 models. Can add up to 15 additional models for X per model" or something similar to avoid people that interpretate that "5 models up to 20" means that you can field a unit of a size of your choosing between 5-20 for the base cost, and then add beyond that for an additional cost.
      Drill the earth, it's no trouble; mining metal, making rubble.
      Mine and drag, toss the slag; Sift the soil, leave the spoil.
      Work with zeal, as hammers peal; Melt, anneal and pound to steel!

      Proud owner of 1432 unique metal dwarf sculpts!

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Kallstrom ().

    • Kallstrom wrote:

      From a game designer's point of view I have to say that I agree with most of the changes you made, Drakkar. Thumbs up! The only thing I would change is to merge the Awsr section with the unit specific rules. If a new player is looking for what rules that affect this model he/she now has two rows/places to look at (even though they are close in proximity to each other) to find the answer. Maybe all special rules and army wide rules could be in the same box/on the same line, but that the awsr are in a cursive font and the unit specific rules are in a bold font?
      That way the specific rules still gets a pop-out effect so they stand out, and now the player will have a harder time missing a row of rules since he/she does not have to look in two places on the same page to see all the rules that has to do with that unit entry.

      Oh, and I would also move the " , 5 models up to 20" away from the name row ("Centaurs") to keep it cleaner. :) Maybe have it say "5 models. Can add up to 15 additional models for X per model" or something similar to avoid people that interpretate that "5 models up to 20" means that you can field a unit of a size of your choosing between 5-20 for the base cost, and then add beyond that for an additional cost.

      Thanks. But my change with the rules was bad. And yeah the " , 5 models up to 20" could be below, they were a discussion internally about how the unit size and pricing should be written. I want to go like this or like this :




      but some people don't like this.


      Shlagrabak wrote:

      Offence Skill must be on the offence line, because of multipart models. It's the only line that is replicated.
      Also it fits nicely along the other stats you would look for when carrying an attack.
      Likewise, I don't see why the defense rule would end up somewhere else than the defense line.
      As for reordering characteristics within one line, two things make sense: listing them in the order you use them (agility, attack value, offence skill, strength, AP), or keeping the vertical symmetry between paired characteristics (like Resilience and Strength in the same column, Offence and Defence, AP and AS, ...). Unfortunately you can't have both.
      Last, because of multipart models, you're going to end up with a defense line that can run around relatively far down. The only two logical orders that you can have for lines IMO are Global, Defence and Offence(s), or Offence(s), Defence and Global.

      Agree, when i did the rules distribution i did not think about multipart models so you are right about on which line rules should be.
      But i don't like to see that Defense line to be before Offense just because of the layout of Razor Chariot, i don't find that intuitif.
      " 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
      " Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr