2.0 without core tax, please

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

The latest T9A Scroll is released!! Check out the latest issue for new background information, an exciting battle report and much much more!

  • LoeC wrote:



    Pd: as you said, I like taxing the repetition of the same units instead of the core units.
    that just punishes themed lists. All lists from a book would be forced to look pretty much the same, with no real identity, at least if they wanted to be competitive.
    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.
  • When making suggestions about changes to core, please consider how it will affect list building for all people. If you make it so that only certain kinds of lists are possible, you're going to make list building a lot more limited.

    Your goal should be so that new kinds of lists are possible if (and only if) people wish to do that (like having 50% core, or the like), rather than because they are forced to make lists like that.

    Open up options, rather than clamping down on them.
  • That is the reason why I wrote, that this factor has to be linked to the unit, and not in general.

    Could be that the factor for "core" units or units that are no problem when taken more often is 1,0, or after the 3rd unit the first factor larger than 1 comes into play.
    On units that tend to be a problem the factor could easy start on the second model with 1,5 for example.

    This would not limit themed lists, and would be less restricting than a plain 0-1 on problematic things.
    In a themed list, you normally not realy care much for power. So paying some additinal points for the duplication of stronger elements would not be so problematic. Problem is...themed lists are often just a mask for powergaming. Hard to find the point where it is realy a theme or just overuse of some "to good/to cheap" units.


    And I am of course aware that such a thing, while beeing propably less limiting in list building then normal 0-X rulings, would be a lot harder to get into. List building would be a nightmare without proper programmed tools. So I don´t think it is possible to use it.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Chuck13 wrote:

    I can see your point. I do agree that right now there are many armies with cheerleaders in core used as just scoring units.

    But I just think that it's not the idea of the core tax that is wrong but the core units need to be beefed up so that they are useful in the armies. If every army have useable units in core then core tax would not be a problem.

    Thoughts?
    these are sort of equivalent things. If you make the core units better without changing their cost, you've reduced core tax because you get more for the same points.
    Similarly, you could leave core alone and jack up the price of everything else.

    Core tax ultimately destroys the value of core (that is, the benefit per point spent, relative to other uses of the same points). And that compels you to minimize core to whatever you're required to bring, and to find uses for core which don't involved 'measuring' it against your opponent's non-core (ie, using them as combat blocks), because they simply don't have enough performance value.
    It seems to me, you are now just making 'crazy talk' to squash the creativity of players interested in this issue.
    I am a student. I will always be a student. Because I am always studying for better ways to do things.
  • A quick pointer


    I think many here are missing the required flexibility of the army list when talking about limitations or lack of them.

    Each army is subdivided into several categories. These categories ensure that armies used in the game can represent
    vastly different modes of play; from a single character and his hunting party to large armies numbering in their
    thousands clashing for the fate of the world, while still restricting the selection in such a way to enable players to enjoy
    a balanced gaming experience.


    The army list is not here only to represent large armies but a wide variety of force sizes depending how one imagines the scale of the game as explained in the Rulebook.



    Carry on :)

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    The Saucy Quill Inn - First Batch of info from the Survey - 1886/95
  • DaveRaven wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Chuck13 wrote:

    I can see your point. I do agree that right now there are many armies with cheerleaders in core used as just scoring units.

    But I just think that it's not the idea of the core tax that is wrong but the core units need to be beefed up so that they are useful in the armies. If every army have useable units in core then core tax would not be a problem.

    Thoughts?
    these are sort of equivalent things. If you make the core units better without changing their cost, you've reduced core tax because you get more for the same points.Similarly, you could leave core alone and jack up the price of everything else.

    Core tax ultimately destroys the value of core (that is, the benefit per point spent, relative to other uses of the same points). And that compels you to minimize core to whatever you're required to bring, and to find uses for core which don't involved 'measuring' it against your opponent's non-core (ie, using them as combat blocks), because they simply don't have enough performance value.
    It seems to me, you are now just making 'crazy talk' to squash the creativity of players interested in this issue.
    How do you come to that conclusion? Nothing he is doing is crazy talk, he is clearly and logically explaining the issue, and clarifying terms and usage when necessary. what Squirrelloid said is completely correct. There is no difference between reducing core tax and making core usable. They both amount to the same exact thing just using a different name.

    So you cannot make core both worth it's points, while stating to leave core tax as it is, because those two concepts are diametrically opposed. The core tax is the reason core isn't worth it's points to begin with.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    It does exist and the explanation was that it's intended to make core units less points efficient compared to elite. Whether core units are overcosted or elites underscored (relatively speaking), the purpose is so that when looking at core infantry vs equal points elite infantry in that same faction, the elite is clearly more elite. That's the general idea and I don't think that specific example applies to all models, but more of a guideline when pricing core vs non-core
    To me:

    - core units should reflect the basis of an army - the "expected" units of said army.
    - special units should reflect specialization - filling more specialized roles opening up new strategies for the army.

    The incentive to playing special units already exists in the form of new possibilities they offer to an army, so a "core tax" is really not required and should not exist!

    A "core tax" will never allow for good internal balance and is in my opinion a bad design option (players penalized as soon as they invest 1 more core point than the minimum allowed is just plain wrong as it drastically narrows down the creative possibilities).

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Astadriel ().

  • I understand the need to make special fighting blocks different to core fighting blocks. If both will be best at grinding no-one will take specials because they are too vulnerable to all those impact hits, toxic attacks and shooting. Cores can just ignore them and carry on fighting. However taxing cores does not provide them different role: they become burden not part of the army.

    If you want to keep core taxed give them at least unique role of cannon fodder: make core units value reduced to 75% when calculating VPs.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    I understand the need to make special fighting blocks different to core fighting blocks. If both will be best at grinding no-one will take specials because they are too vulnerable to all those impact hits, toxic attacks and shooting. Cores can just ignore them and carry on fighting. However taxing cores does not provide them different role: they become burden not part of the army.

    If you want to keep core taxed give them at least unique role of cannon fodder: make core units value reduced to 75% when calculating VPs.
    I disagree. Special is more vulnerable to some things, but it has plenty of advantages too, from force concentration, to mobility, to increased gain from most buffs, and more.

    As for cannon fodder, how does that help? It does nothing to change the fact that taking significantly over the minimum required core is not viable.
  • In my thinking all of this can be worked out as each book is redone for the 2.0 rules. My reasoning for that is instances in which the special unit is the same as the core unit with some increased stats will be more and more rare. Redesigns will want to take the opportunity to make special units more distinctive. For this reason, core tax won't be needed to differentiate special from core.
  • ....we hope.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW

    UD Army Community Support

    Playtester

    Supreme Death Cult Hierarch

    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • It's been a while since I've been on these boards - been a while since I played 9th age, or any fantasy wargame, for that matter. I had high hopes for 9th age (and still do), but at the moment am finding it hard to get excited about the game because it's very hard for me to build a list that I enjoy playing. Core tax is at the heart of that, because I like core troops.

    I like building armies that are 50% core or more. I like the way they look on the battlefield. I like the look of multiple large blocks of troops. I like horde-ish armies. Over-valued core troops make those kinds of forces difficult or impossible to field sometimes.

    Eh, what can you do?

    I guess I would like to proffer the idea that the "core tax" and indeed the balance issues that the game suffers from overall are legacy issues left over from the previous game that 9th age broke off from. I know that 9th age has been trying hard to establish itself as its own game, and I think that a lot of the balancing issues could be solved if the game would have the courage to truly leave tradition behind and completely change the way that armies are constructed, balanced, and fielded.

    It cannot be said emphatically enough: the ruleset for WHFB was designed primarily to help sell models. The core engine of the game was good enough and fun, but when it came to developing and point-pricing new units there was a definite press to get people to buy more and newer models. The hot new units were always under-costed or far too overpowered (or both) and as a result, core units were always going to seem over-costed by comparison. You can't guarantee sales of the new models if the old models (specifically, the core troops that the established players already have plenty of) are just as effective on the battlefield. Hence the cultural attitude has evolved that core units are a bit crap and should be a bit crap. Hence the weird power creep and the strange expectations we have that certain units should be able to plow through anything or else they aren't worth it, etc etc.

    However, The 9th Age has no need to sell models. Why do we need to follow the old army building and costing methods of the past? Why can't we be willing to embrace an entirely new paradigm when it comes to army composition and balance?0

    Is there some reason that we MUST buy units by the model? Why not buy them in set sizes? Surely balancing unit vs. unit is easier than trying to balance the cost of a single trooper?

    Why can we not decide that a unit of 30 or 40 orcs should have the same cost and combat effectiveness as (for instance) a unit of 10 or 15 Swordmasters, or a unit of 5 WDG uber-knights, or a single hero mounted on a dragon. Why can't we re-write the rules to make that happen?

    Why not try to make every single unit in the game roughly equivalent in combat ability and cost? Sure, it's hard to balance the capabilities of a cannon vs. a rat swarm, but is it impossible? Honestly, when it comes right down to it the game probably has way too many unit types anyway - another legacy of the need to sell models. It would probably be in the best interest of balance to reduce some of the overall variety in the game, as heretical as that may sound to the folks who love this game BECAUSE of the variety it offers. I would say to those people that there can be too much of a good thing, and a little moderation might do wonders.
  • Sir Robert wrote:

    Is there some reason that we MUST buy units by the model? Why not buy them in set sizes? Surely balancing unit vs. unit is easier than trying to balance the cost of a single trooper?
    No there is not, and the suggestion is not new. However there is also a large group that really enjoy tinkering with each individual point in the book, to get a list fit. There are pro's and con's for each approach, the are just very far from each other.


    Sir Robert wrote:

    Why can we not decide that a unit of 30 or 40 orcs should have the same cost and combat effectiveness as (for instance) a unit of 10 or 15 Swordmasters, or a unit of 5 WDG uber-knights, or a single hero mounted on a dragon. Why can't we re-write the rules to make that happen?
    On a grand scale that is exactly what BLT tries to achieve, but more on an army-to-army comparison rather than unit to unit.


    Sir Robert wrote:

    Honestly, when it comes right down to it the game probably has way too many unit types anyway - another legacy of the need to sell models. It would probably be in the best interest of balance to reduce some of the overall variety in the game, as heretical as that may sound to the folks who love this game BECAUSE of the variety it offers. I would say to those people that there can be too much of a good thing, and a little moderation might do wonders.
    But how do you decide which units to kill off? It's just one of those things that's nice on paper, lets just kill some redundancy, but very hard to implement given our player base and their existing collections. A lot of our players use our rules because they can use their existing models. Take that away and who knows ...

    Advisory Board


    Have you ever split the spline of a dragon? It's a good feeling. Come play Ogres!
    Show off your gaming table!
    Want a peek behind the doors?
  • Ney wrote:

    But how do you decide which units to kill off? It's just one of those things that's nice on paper, lets just kill some redundancy, but very hard to implement given our player base and their existing collections. A lot of our players use our rules because they can use their existing models. Take that away and who knows ...
    I certainly don't claim to have all the answers (or really any answers) to that question, but I have often thought that we could "divorce" some (maybe even all) unit types from their models - have some general units that do not require a particular, peculiar model... as an example: some kind of generic monster unit that could just as easily be represented by a Gargantula as by one of those big Ogre beasts or a Demonic Abomination, etc. You could even have a generic "Heavy Infantry" unit that could be represented by an armored orc or a WDG armored warrior or an Imperial Greatsword model, etc.

    While I know that would probably be undesirable if we left it at that, more variety could then be brought back into things via army-specific rules: Maybe all armies would have a basic units that all have the same stat line, but every army has their own "doctrine" which causes their units to do things slightly differently.

    These are extreme examples of what's possible, but with more thought and teamwork perhaps something less drastic but still helpful could be developed. I am very much open to a radical shift in the mechanics of army design, and I hope that I am not alone in that.
  • berti wrote:



    never beeing endangered to loose the battle due to irrelevant static combat points.

    Smythen wrote:

    a better example is EoS heavy infantry. with characters and they still loose most front to front combats.

    fadenye wrote:

    Even if it was a better unit flanking it is most likely going to loose anyway because the Goblin unit is bleeding CR.
    You guys know that the opposite of to win is to lose, while the opposite of tight is loose?

    Sorry for the english lesson, my english isn't perfect either :D
    That's a mistake a lot of people make in the 9th age community. I am starting to think that loose is the new wording for "lose" in the 9th age forum.

    We are creating 9th age slang! :D
    Photos of models/armies from ETC 2017:

    Cool models seen at ETC 2017
  • Vamp87 wrote:

    A better option may be to make it that all models in the front row can attack as it is assumed that they swarm around the opponent.
    This would also be my favourite solution. Very important point for this is also, that the "bus" formation for large units would finally not be the "always better" solution and that each wideness of the combat blocks has effect on the game and may be valid. Choosing the right wideness upon deployment would be another chance to show your skills as a general and dropping everything to get turn 1 would get another downside (albeit a smaller one, but still…).

    On the downside: I don't think we'd see 15+ wide units. These would become very troublesome to move and in the end might block huge parts of movement for your units. Also a flank charge on a unit like this, means certain doom.

    However, if it turns out to be a problem, one could easily add a second rule: Width may not be more than Ranks*10 (actual number might vary) (on the other hand we don't have a rule that prevents a unit of Rats-a-Arms to go 5x12, so there could also be a rule: No more ranks than files).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • skrak wrote:

    berti wrote:

    never beeing endangered to loose the battle due to irrelevant static combat points.

    Smythen wrote:

    a better example is EoS heavy infantry. with characters and they still loose most front to front combats.

    fadenye wrote:

    Even if it was a better unit flanking it is most likely going to loose anyway because the Goblin unit is bleeding CR.
    You guys know that the opposite of to win is to lose, while the opposite of tight is loose?
    Sorry for the english lesson, my english isn't perfect either :D
    That's a mistake a lot of people make in the 9th age community. I am starting to think that loose is the new wording for "lose" in the 9th age forum.

    We are creating 9th age slang! :D
    Maybe in this context 'loosing' is referring to secretly loosening some screws in the gaming table so that it never actually comes to losing a battle. :D

    DarkSky wrote:


    Vamp87 wrote:

    A better option may be to make it that all models in the front row can attack as it is assumed that they swarm around the opponent.
    This would also be my favourite solution. Very important point for this is also, that the "bus" formation for large units would finally not be the "always better" solution and that each wideness of the combat blocks has effect on the game and may be valid. Choosing the right wideness upon deployment would be another chance to show your skills as a general and dropping everything to get turn 1 would get another downside (albeit a smaller one, but still…).
    On the downside: I don't think we'd see 15+ wide units. These would become very troublesome to move and in the end might block huge parts of movement for your units. Also a flank charge on a unit like this, means certain doom.

    However, if it turns out to be a problem, one could easily add a second rule: Width may not be more than Ranks*10 (actual number might vary) (on the other hand we don't have a rule that prevents a unit of Rats-a-Arms to go 5x12, so there could also be a rule: No more ranks than files).
    Wouldn't that buff elite hordes even further? Multi attack units would profit most from a change like that.