Pinned DE 2.0

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • New

    I don't understand the rework of the altar and the priest.
    The issue wasn't it was mandatory with a BSB on top ? make it better, and the BSB cheaper (I guess the nerf (which is not a point, just adjusting with other army's priest)is followed by a point decrease) don't resolve the problem here. If only the altar is going large size it will solve half the issue (and it's no more a problem of unit scale as now cavalry is normal size).

    This "change" is not for me a change of using this units, just renforcing their current utility. The only good thing in term of new design is the merch move on the altar.
    So it's buff, but bad design. Altar is always complex (three blessing, have to explain and choose/chek each turn with a bonus that's stack weirdly), Priest will always be here mainly for 18" BSB as she has no real synergy with cultist unit (the lose of KI was intialy for balance executionner or dancer's right ?).

    Not realy happy regarding cult's changes.
  • New

    durion wrote:

    KiRaHyuU wrote:

    But again if your saying every unit on our roster can benefit from having an Altar and that's a bad thing...then look I'm sorry...I'm sorry we made sure that all the Altar buffs have a use...
    It is a bad thing if we have to pay the points cost on every unit even if we don't take the altar...
    I'm sorry I sound like a broken record right now, but my questions are being ignored and this points allocation issue is something that is truly breaking my desire to play with DE. It's out of principle that we should not pay any points for a buff that is not present in our army.

    You've just actually made the altar better, this means likely a point increase not only on the altar, but also to every other unit in our book.

    Or @KiRaHyuU can you tell us that this madness has stopped and we just have a very expensive altar we can choose to take or not?

    Seriously, if it's not possible to find a good points value - just delete the unit. I like the altar, I have two of them, but I would rather see this removed than it being forced down our throats through points balancing.
    All i can say is as @Grimbold Blackhammer stated previously which i can agree upon is that when comparing 1.3 and what we're playtesting right now, i can definitely fit more in....

    We've heard these pleas...and it's okay do sprinkle them occasionally as it's ammunition for us for lobby!

    So yes we've talked about moving more of the pts into the altar :)
  • New

    I feel man people here mix design with pricing.

    Especially with Altar and no Altar lists.

    Altar is very much viable for MSU lists, especially with march value of 10".

    It means that effective max range of your buffs is 22" and encompasses multiple units as it is aura buff.

    So I really do not understand this "it is bad for MSU" outcry. If you are worried that all units pay for using the Altar buff regardless of Altar providing it or not, that is a matter of pricing, not design.

    And as @Giladis stated, the queation has been brought to BLT attention and is currently under discussion.

    As of dread pontiff upgrade that provides KI to unit joined, I am a bit puzzled by the responses, or to put it more precisely, by what those responses contain.

    Things such as: "why have characters provide such minor buff" etc. are making me scratch my head.

    We have made a mechanism to include KI to cult units, which was asked by the community, and now you attack said mechanism? ?(

    I know that your preffered choice would be to have it from the get go without of the cult priest, but here is what this change and option enteils:

    The community asked for KI always even with the cult rules.

    We as a Task Team deliberated on it and decided to include it on a character.

    And I as the Full DE Redesign Team Leader was directly asked if I condone such a design and my answer was a simple "Yes!"

    Now to elaborate on it a bit more, why yes and why on a character and not directly to units?

    First off, the Full Redesign will entail just that, a FULL redesign. Everything will start from scratch, from concepts and then be redesigned anew. Some things that are now will fit into new concepts and new book, some wont.

    And Killer Instincts has a big target painted on it's back for a thorough conceptual discussion and redesign based on that same concept once agreed upon. That means that the KI as a rule migjt change or stay as is. We do not know which one of the two yet. And since we are scheduled for the full redesign just arround the corner after the 2.0 hits, we needed to design 2.0 adjustments with full redesign in mind.

    So, why a character upgrade?

    1.) If KI stay as is, it will be a nice platform to playtest how does the output of units change from KI, Cult rules and KI+Cult rules, which will give us information on what to do with them.

    2.) If 1.) shows the combo to be OP, it will stay as is or be removed as an option from priest, as it is easier to remove one character option than a full AWSR from multiple units (DISCLAIMER: IMHO this is the LEAST likely solution to occur).

    3.) If the combo proves to be just right and KI do not change, we can move it as a full rule on all Cult units without of any fear.

    4.) If the KI change to some other effect that fits DE better conceptually we habe more room to play with design as if we up the power and hence need to remove it form being able to mix and match with Cult rules it will again be only removing single character option and not AWSR from several units.

    5.) Cult rules may also receive co cept and then design changes which might change how they interact with KI and which by itself may trigger any of the 1.)-4.) effects.


    As you might notice, there is a LOT of space for various interactions to happen, so we opted for thenoption that

    a) Provides us with a way to see how KI and Cult rules interact together at current rules and design.

    b) Allows for the easiest way to make changes in either direction with minimal ripple effects as compared to current (by that I mean on 2.0 adjusted book) version of the book.

    I hope this helps shed some light on some of the reasons for changes and their implementation in the 2.0 adnustment phase.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    3.) If the combo proves to be just right and KI do not change, we can move it as a full rule on all Cult units without of any fear.
    So get KI on all cult units, approximately for the point cost of the Pontiff? This is going to be hard to balance (ie number of bodies). You have to take the points into account to make this experiment, it's not just about the mechanics.

    Not complaining, I like the fact that the option is now available.
  • New

    After all the negative things I've said about the past updates I thought I'd just chime in and say I like the changes to altar and cult priest all in all.

    Altar:
    Much more usable for my MSU.
    - 12" can be a limiting but seeing how it's an aura I can see how 18 or 24" might have been to much. Other options such as "buff for xx amount of units within xx inches" or "debuff xx unit(s) within xx inches" I might have liked more but all in all it's a buff.
    - march 10, great! Am I right in that this is march 12 with yema?

    Cult priest:
    - In theory I really like him, even the nerfed combat stats. Why? In the past I only bought him to safe points over other combat characters (who with cult allegiance would be more expensive), mostly as a cheap BSB. When I run MSU I prefer troops over chars, so if this is priced right, so I can include it as a very cheap ld9 general or BSB with optional 18" range or maybe even as a chaff piece, I'll be delighted! If he's priced wrong though...(Is dread pontif an auto-include if you go w/o altar?)
  • New

    I don´t like the whole cult implementation.

    There are cult units from different cults, with some rivalry, that are so small that it is no proplem to field them together (why then different cults at all and not including all of them in the CULT thing).
    These cult units have different boosts. one is hatred, the other one is a strange short range shooting bonus, the last is a movement bonus and ignoring terrain. All these cult rules come for the price of killer instinct.

    Now the CULT priest brings the killer instinct? would it not be a lot more reasonable that the cult priest should trengthen the cult aspect of the units?

    And it is told us that mono cult armies are not meant to be competitive, I wonder why we can´t aim at a single cult, but this beeing designed as competitive choice instead of getting 3 or more cults without real identity.


    I always liked the old GW cult of blood background beeing the leading cult in DE society because it has support of the leaders, who more or less were in control of the cult. The storm of chaos implementation of the pleasure cult, was not done well, and this second cult alsways was one of the "target" when the political or economical situation did not allow to focus on an foreign enemy.
    At the new book in 8th edition came out, there was still 1 cult only. There were additional units in the book to make those new double unit in one box approach. 9th age should have stopped there, taking out these double unit thing, and concentrate on one more religious approach for the DE cult beside the regular army, with the cult units beeing an important part of the army up to a degree where the army is led by a cult general and is dedicated to be more an army of the cult instead of regular troops. Instead we have a mess with 3 cults that have no flavour at all. Beeing just excuses for strange implementations of special rules.
  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I feel man people here mix design with pricing.

    Especially with Altar and no Altar lists.

    Altar is very much viable for MSU lists, especially with march value of 10".

    It means that effective max range of your buffs is 22" and encompasses multiple units as it is aura buff.
    Nope, the extra dice in charge is before movement so, only 12". Do you really need to me explain that?
  • New

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I feel man people here mix design with pricing.

    Especially with Altar and no Altar lists.

    Altar is very much viable for MSU lists, especially with march value of 10".

    It means that effective max range of your buffs is 22" and encompasses multiple units as it is aura buff.

    So I really do not understand this "it is bad for MSU" outcry. If you are worried that all units pay for using the Altar buff regardless of Altar providing it or not, that is a matter of pricing, not design.

    And as @Giladis stated, the queation has been brought to BLT attention and is currently under discussion.

    As of dread pontiff upgrade that provides KI to unit joined, I am a bit puzzled by the responses, or to put it more precisely, by what those responses contain.

    Things such as: "why have characters provide such minor buff" etc. are making me scratch my head.

    We have made a mechanism to include KI to cult units, which was asked by the community, and now you attack said mechanism? ?(

    I know that your preffered choice would be to have it from the get go without of the cult priest, but here is what this change and option enteils:

    The community asked for KI always even with the cult rules.

    We as a Task Team deliberated on it and decided to include it on a character.

    And I as the Full DE Redesign Team Leader was directly asked if I condone such a design and my answer was a simple "Yes!"

    Now to elaborate on it a bit more, why yes and why on a character and not directly to units?

    First off, the Full Redesign will entail just that, a FULL redesign. Everything will start from scratch, from concepts and then be redesigned anew. Some things that are now will fit into new concepts and new book, some wont.

    And Killer Instincts has a big target painted on it's back for a thorough conceptual discussion and redesign based on that same concept once agreed upon. That means that the KI as a rule migjt change or stay as is. We do not know which one of the two yet. And since we are scheduled for the full redesign just arround the corner after the 2.0 hits, we needed to design 2.0 adjustments with full redesign in mind.

    So, why a character upgrade?

    1.) If KI stay as is, it will be a nice platform to playtest how does the output of units change from KI, Cult rules and KI+Cult rules, which will give us information on what to do with them.

    2.) If 1.) shows the combo to be OP, it will stay as is or be removed as an option from priest, as it is easier to remove one character option than a full AWSR from multiple units (DISCLAIMER: IMHO this is the LEAST likely solution to occur).

    3.) If the combo proves to be just right and KI do not change, we can move it as a full rule on all Cult units without of any fear.

    4.) If the KI change to some other effect that fits DE better conceptually we habe more room to play with design as if we up the power and hence need to remove it form being able to mix and match with Cult rules it will again be only removing single character option and not AWSR from several units.

    5.) Cult rules may also receive co cept and then design changes which might change how they interact with KI and which by itself may trigger any of the 1.)-4.) effects.


    As you might notice, there is a LOT of space for various interactions to happen, so we opted for thenoption that

    a) Provides us with a way to see how KI and Cult rules interact together at current rules and design.

    b) Allows for the easiest way to make changes in either direction with minimal ripple effects as compared to current (by that I mean on 2.0 adjusted book) version of the book.

    I hope this helps shed some light on some of the reasons for changes and their implementation in the 2.0 adnustment phase.
    I'm confused... are you saying that all these changes we're seeing now are just to fill the void in the period that leads up to a complete redesign - i.e. that EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK might be scrapped when the new book is being designed? If that's the case, I simply don't understand why we're spending time on it. Why waste the time of th RT, BLT, etc. on something that will only last some months?

    Also, if you really want to test if KI on cult units is that OP as you expect...why not give it to cult units NOW and see what happens during testing? I doubt that you will get a lot of data to make any good analysis from if the only way to get it is through the Ponty - she's not going to be worth it for enough players. Why? Because you're spending points on giving a unit back a rule it already paid for before it became a cult unit.
    Commission painting needed? Visit my Facebook page: IpaintUplay
  • New

    Girien wrote:

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    I feel man people here mix design with pricing.

    Especially with Altar and no Altar lists.

    Altar is very much viable for MSU lists, especially with march value of 10".

    It means that effective max range of your buffs is 22" and encompasses multiple units as it is aura buff.
    Nope, the extra dice in charge is before movement so, only 12". Do you really need to me explain that?
    The other 2 buffs still have 22“ effective range.
  • New

    Laurfelt wrote:

    1. are you saying that all these changes we're seeing now are just to fill the void in the period that leads up to a complete redesign -

    2. i.e. that EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK might be scrapped when the new book is being designed?

    3. If that's the case, I simply don't understand why we're spending time on it. Why waste the time of th RT, BLT, etc. on something that will only last some months?

    4. you're spending points on giving a unit back a rule it already paid for before it became a cult unit.
    1. Yes. No surprise, we have been saying this since the beginning. Also, it has been mentioned repeatedly that DE will come in the 3rd or 4th position, after WDG and DL, and along with ID. See also my 3.

    2. Sort of. You will see with WDG AB what it means exactly, i.e. if anything might be scrapped, it will not be everything.

    3. It is not worthless.
    First, this is what DE will look like in the meantime. We (in the staff) don't know how long it will take to design the future DE AB, it could be less or more than a year, so better have an improved AB to play with during that period.
    Second, some of the changes are indicative of what the future AB could look like. It is a way to test the community, and also to bring new ideas progressively. For example, contrary to WH DE who were massively Khaine monocult pychopaths, T9A DE are much more nuanced, and no cult has a predominant influence. Judging by the comments here, not everyone is ready to integrate this background.
    So the more we can test, the more data will be available for when the next DE AB will be designed, and the better prepared will be the players.

    4. Wrong. There is no paid rule which was taken away.
    - Units which automatically belong to a cult do not have the non-existent KI cost integrated, that would be plain silly.
    - Units which may or may not belong to a cult have a cost change due to the trade-off, which takes into account the loss of KI.
    This was true for 1.3 DE AB (although the cost and the trade-off were apparently overestimated for Nabh units, and OK-ish for Yema).
    This will most likely remain true with 2.0 DE AB (and hopefully the cost will be more appropriate).

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • New

    @ArchangelusM

    First off, the Full Redesign will entail just that, a FULL redesign. Everything will start from scratch, from concepts and then be redesigned anew. Some things that are now will fit into new concepts and new book, some wont.


    In that case, why no introduce the new design of the Xbow? For sure that this change will be affect the way to play of some units and probably all army.

    That is all
  • New

    setrius wrote:

    @ArchangelusM

    First off, the Full Redesign will entail just that, a FULL redesign. Everything will start from scratch, from concepts and then be redesigned anew. Some things that are now will fit into new concepts and new book, some wont.


    In that case, why no introduce the new design of the Xbow? For sure that this change will be affect the way to play of some units and probably all army.

    That is all
    Because the scope of the change to keep the army functional was to great to be conduced at this time as almost every other unit would need to be evaluated and adjusted to these new circumstances and more likely than not provided benefits to compensate for the loss of longer ranged shooting.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    GILADIS GOES TO AMERICA - ARMY BLOG
  • New

    Calisson wrote:

    Laurfelt wrote:

    1. are you saying that all these changes we're seeing now are just to fill the void in the period that leads up to a complete redesign -

    2. i.e. that EVERYTHING IN THE BOOK might be scrapped when the new book is being designed?

    3. If that's the case, I simply don't understand why we're spending time on it. Why waste the time of th RT, BLT, etc. on something that will only last some months?

    4. you're spending points on giving a unit back a rule it already paid for before it became a cult unit.
    Thanks for your answers. It's much appreciated :)

    1. Yes. No surprise, we have been saying this since the beginning. Also, it has been mentioned repeatedly that DE will come in the 3rd or 4th position, after WDG and DL, and along with ID. See also my 3.
    2. Sort of. You will see with WDG AB what it means exactly, i.e. if anything might be scrapped, it will not be everything.

    3. It is not worthless.
    First, this is what DE will look like in the meantime. We (in the staff) don't know how long it will take to design the future DE AB, it could be less or more than a year, so better have an improved AB to play with during that period.


    Ok, that kinda makes sense. I would just have thought that it would be more efficient to just make the new stat adjustments and call it a day. Then spend the real time when doing the actual book redesign. Especially since players will now get used to a new 'normal' and meta, which might again be scrapped.


    Second, some of the changes are indicative of what the future AB could look like. It is a way to test the community, and also to bring new ideas progressively. For example, contrary to WH DE who were massively Khaine monocult pychopaths, T9A DE are much more nuanced, and no cult has a predominant influence. Judging by the comments here, not everyone is ready to integrate this background.
    So the more we can test, the more data will be available for when the next DE AB will be designed, and the better prepared will be the players.


    If you guys (anyone involved in making T9A) see a predominant anti-cult reaction from players shouldn't YOU also be prepared to revise your plans? I mean, if this is truly a community driven project, the majority of players shouldn't be 'forced' to accept a vision of their army that a much smaller number of people came up with (some of which might not even play that army). Right?

    4. Wrong. There is no paid rule which was taken away.
    - Units which automatically belong to a cult do not have the non-existent KI cost integrated, that would be plain silly.
    - Units which may or may not belong to a cult have a cost change due to the trade-off, which takes into account the loss of KI.
    This was true for 1.3 DE AB (although the cost and the trade-off were apparently overestimated for Nabh units, and OK-ish for Yema).
    This will most likely remain true with 2.0 DE AB (and hopefully the cost will be more appropriate).


    OK? Are we just talking characters? I mean, 40 pts for an Oracle to replace one lores with another and to gain +1M over KI seems quite harsh. In my book she's not really being upgraded - she's being changed. And if Blades are not paying for KI, how on earth did they end up costing the same as executioners at their most expensive value??
    Commission painting needed? Visit my Facebook page: IpaintUplay