2.0 without core tax, please

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

  • Perhaps if all models in the front rank can attack, but not in the turn in which they are charged, and not if they made a combat reform in the previous round of combat (it takes time for the flanks to wrap around the enemy), or something like that. Then you also introduce the choice of is the unit deep enough to hold the charge of the enemy? If you don't have enough ranks to be steadfast, then knights will simply smash through your thin line of troops, but if you hold, you can start swamping them.
  • Smythen wrote:

    I support the idea of having the entire front attacking. This would also fix problems with flank charges into congalines/ slim units problem. As thorne there need to be limitations to this.
    A good one would be to have a max unit size around 20 for 2 attack elite units.
    Well it would promote things like 30 wide chosen units 1 rank deep. That is ridiculous.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HBE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HBE generals: HBE Beginners corner
  • 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
    You have no idea how much this triggers me :D
  • yrtomin wrote:

    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
    You have no idea how much this triggers me :D
    That is what you get when they are so similar both in spelling and pronunciation and most people on this forum are not native English speakers ^^ . I get triggered when my boss at work says the word "idea" like it's an Apple product.
  • Adam wrote:

    Smythen wrote:

    I support the idea of having the entire front attacking. This would also fix problems with flank charges into congalines/ slim units problem. As thorne there need to be limitations to this.
    A good one would be to have a max unit size around 20 for 2 attack elite units.
    Well it would promote things like 30 wide chosen units 1 rank deep. That is ridiculous.
    That's why I suggested the limitations I did. You put Chosen in 1 rank of 30, and the first decent combat unit to come along is going to plow right through them.
  • On the "each model in the frank rank can attack" suggestion as an alternative to the horde rule.

    Arrahed wrote:

    Wouldn't that buff elite hordes
    I do not see how, as the additional attacks come from the front rank. I'd wager it's more of a buff towards mid-sized elites, to guaranetee they actually bring their combat prowess on the table.

    There are two easy balancing options available, which I think could alleviate the point you are making:
    1. Points adjustments
    2. Change the rule, that all models in the front rank are allowed to make support attacks instead of normal ones. As elites often have more than one attack this might reduce the effectiveness of a=2 elites a little bit more.

    Smythen wrote:

    This would also fix problems with flank charges into congalines/ slim units problem
    I agree 100% here, and would like to point out, that this rule has a lot of desirable "side effects", which I think outweigh other downsides by a lot. (see further down)

    Adam wrote:

    it would promote things like 30 wide
    Cannot agree at all here. The moment an opponent shows up with a 30 wide chosen unit, I am already plotting the destruction of the unit. Serisouly, I'd expect to win the game easily. The unit cannot wheel more than a few degrees. While be hindered by almost all terrain. While block the movement of other units and won't be able to withstand any flank attack at all. There are tons of easily achievable scenarios, where the unit won't be able to make any charge at all. Additionally it will never be able to claim cover from anything, so shooting wiithout modifiers is possible, even if the unit is chaffed up.


    Sambazorcopter wrote:

    but perhaps we shouldn't dismiss an unpolished idea because it is not yet perfected.
    Fully agree here. The rule as it is, might not be a good solution. But I think it is 500% superior to the nonsensical horde rule we have right now, and is more fluffy, as it represents a wider formation wrapping around a smaller one.

    Here is my personal bullet list:
    1. Rules Design & Fluff: Does not have the awkward 9 is not a hord, 10 is a horde binary distinction
    2. Fluff: Does not have nonsensical "because i am wider, dudes standing further back can now attack"
    3. Strategy: Creates situations where every possible wideness can actually be "the best".
    4. Strategy: Creates more decisions and considerations in deployment phase to choose the best formation.
    5. Strategy: Puts a downside to "drop everything get first turn" deployment strategies.
    6. Rules Design: Creates an easy and effective countermeasure to abusive conga line/slim unit formations without needing additional extra rules
    7. Balancing: Removes some power from lone models with small frontage (i.e. chariots, monsters, mounted characters). As these are currently dominating the game, the shift is probably very welcome.
    8. Balancing: The 5 wide, max deep bus formation loses some attractiveness, if the opponent can actually go wider and create more attacks.
    9. Balancing: 25mm infantry loses the additional downside of having less models on a wider front. With larger bases they already have the downside of less mobility. As templates are gone, they have no upsides (do they?).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • Vamp87 wrote:

    I understand the sentiment behind lowering the unit max unit size for special units but feel this would be a bad idea game wise. If the goal is too see more big blocks on the table why ban the big units we see now? I agree that poor troops need to get some boost and the way horde formation works right now is a bit silly. Why does having more guys on the side of you help more guys in the back fight? It should probably be replaced with a CR bonus which would enable weaker units to take advantage of it. Right now there is no reason to run something like zombies in a horde formation. Actually, because static combat res does basically nothing, conga-lining them is the best option.

    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. Although this would likely create wierd 15 across units so is probably not the best option either unless one capped the max width of units which would also not be great.
    I'm afraid this would cause more problems than it solves. It may as well be named nowhere to hide or your formations are worthless since its Specials that benefit more from this then from the current horde formation. As a side effect it would also result in units growing massively wider after first contact by combat reforms.. Rd 1 -> 5 wide PCR -> 30 wide, Rd 2 delete -> PCR back to 5 wide.

    Instead of banning bigger units or creating rules like this just delete horde formation as a general rule. Then as some of us have suggested in the past give it only to units that need it. Not to specials. Especially elite killing machines like swordmasters and such.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • kargan wrote:

    I do not agree. The Core are the basis of an army, they bring it to 40%.
    My last KoE list has 1204 points in core = 26.76% core points.

    In models: I had 31 Core models and 29 non core models - this means that over 50% of the army was core. And I chose units with smallish numbers from core deliberately - I could have taken a horde of 60 peasants instead of a KotR bus.

    The Non core costs more but that's not unusual - Napoleon put a lot of money into his artillery and conscripted his infantry but the infantry was still the CORE of his Armies.

    All the "Core is the basis / backbone of armies so we need it to be 40%/50% or more" comments are just untrue, in my experience. Maybe there are other armies out there that do have this issue but that is more to do with their options in Core than the actual rules.

    If 50% isn't enough to be the backbone for some people - bear in mind that removing core tax will increase the amount of core on the table.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    kargan wrote:

    I do not agree. The Core are the basis of an army, they bring it to 40%.
    My last KoE list has 1204 points in core = 26.76% core points.
    In models: I had 31 Core models and 29 non core models - this means that over 50% of the army was core. And I chose units with smallish numbers from core deliberately - I could have taken a horde of 60 peasants instead of a KotR bus.

    The Non core costs more but that's not unusual - Napoleon put a lot of money into his artillery and conscripted his infantry but the infantry was still the CORE of his Armies.

    All the "Core is the basis / backbone of armies so we need it to be 40%/50% or more" comments are just untrue, in my experience. Maybe there are other armies out there that do have this issue but that is more to do with their options in Core than the actual rules.

    If 50% isn't enough to be the backbone for some people - bear in mind that removing core tax will increase the amount of core on the table.
    i would have called artillery the core of Napoleon's armies. The infantry was just there to support it. (He was originally an artillery commander after all, and Napoleonic doctrine stressed artillery use, which is why he fielded a significantly higher ratio of cannon:infantry than any of his opponents).
    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.