What... Is Your Favorite Ticket?

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.

  • What... Is Your Favorite Ticket?

    Heyo ^^

    As you may know, discussion towards the May update has begun. As members of our ACS, @Masamune88 and I serve an advisory role for our Task Team. However, our advice is listened to and respected. Our Task Team has proven very good at respect and communication thus far ^^ . Anything you post in this thread will be listened to by us, and by extension either be voiced, or at the minimum seriously considered and weighed.

    There are two roles Task Team has in the following update:

    The first is two redesigns. These are guaranteed to be looked at. Discussion has been limited and nothing officially agreed on, but likely candidates are the War Banner of Ryma and Navigator’s Banner. Because discussion has been limited at this point, the public has already discussed several excellent ideas, and a lot of the design will be negotiation between teams, the intent of this thread is not to focus on these redesigns. Note the intent and scope is not a total redesign, rather tweaks to get the banners where we need them (for example: viable on infantry for WBoR and higher than 0-1 for Navigator’s). Definitely though, if there’s something else you’d rather we used a design slot for, please let us know ^^ and I won’t stop you from posting suggestions ;)

    The second is tickets. The process itself is kinda complicated, but basically the idea is TT can ask for (design) changes, and RT will get through as many as they have time for. ACS (in charge of prioritization) is working to make the ticket system as fair for every army as they can.

    As there are a lot of factors that go into something being implemented, I ask that you come into this discussion with no expectations for specific changes.

    Tickets
    The specific process is up in the air, but it's likely Masa and I will be the ones to sort the priority of our tickets (at the minimum we will advise this). A big reason for this thread is to hear what tickets you all want to see prioritized the most

    Don't be shy on advising new tickets in addition to suggestions with existing ones ^^

    The criteria for tickets are

    "Fix dysfunctional and disliked designs"
    “Keep the game stable: fix only actual problems”
    “Small changes”

    Please note that BLT will adjust prices accordingly, so if a redesign brings an item's power down, its price is likely to go down as well (and vise-versa)

    Ancient Dragon
    Display Spoiler

    Problem: The mount lost 1 resilience for +1 HP. While Res 6 serves to reduce rps and to comply with ASAW, a 50% increase from wounds taken from str 6 and a 100% increase from wounds takes by str 5 is a significant increase in damage taken. Furthermore, there is the increased vulnerability 100x150 mm base

    Proposal: +1 HP

    TT thoughts: A resounding “I think the problem is cost, not design”


    Daemon's Bane
    Display Spoiler

    It has been discovered that the item's wording is such that it only works against models with Magical Attacks (such as Supernal) and not models carrying weapons with Magical Attacks (such as characters)

    T.T

    The change is to make it work against weapons with Magical Attacks, we also asked to include all attacks with Magical Attacks (such as the Terrorgheist scream) for consistency
    If we don't address this, an addendum will be added that clarifies this. Also, as this item was priced to not work against weapons with Magical Attacks, if adjusted the price will possibly see an increase (just to prepare ya)

    The ticket has already been submitted with this change, but I'd like to know how important it is to you compared to other changes, so @Masamune88 and I know how to prioritize them

    In the meanwhile... I won't tell your opponents ;)


    Elein Reavers
    Display Spoiler

    Proposal: Elein Reavers without Bows do not count towards Queen's Arrows

    Reasoning:
    1) 3/5 of our core entries counts towards Queen's Arrows
    2) Considering the high price of Sea Guard counting towards Queen's Arrows, while a chunk of those points are invested in combat and not shooting, allowing players who play Sea Guard to not have Reavers count towards the Queen's Arrows cap will afford much welcome list flexibility, and reduce unnecessary restriction in the Queen's Arrows category
    Has been voiced: Certainly aligns with the only shooting units in the shooting category, as seen in the spirit of the SE update

    Note: This ticket has yet to be submitted, it likely will be soon. The reason is that some concern has been voiced that this is a boost to our shooty avoidance builds (Reavers don’t shoot well, but they chaff well, and chaff does benefit shooting builds). That said, there’s room for discussion and I believe it wouldn’t. But sorting that out first is probably not a bad idea ^^ (it's been approved by TT in its current form, so no need to worry about that).

    Note 2: I know a lot of people would like to see a boost the the unit's shooting, I just don't think this is the place for it. The criteria is designs disliked by players and are dysfunctional. The unit may not work in a way players like, but it does work and sees play. The current proposal fits the criteria because while Reavers are not a dysfunctional unit, Sea Guard+Reavers is a dysfunctional use of Queen's Bows points. Furthermore, giving a fast core unit viable shooting can be seen as a boost to our shooty avoidance build


    Elu's Heartwood
    Display Spoiler

    Problem: When translating this item to 2.0, due to losing the multi-shot penalty the item lost a pip of ap (str 5 ap 3 to str 5 ap 2). Considering the high point cost, and the fact that our characters already have a high aim score, the item is seen by players as too expensive for too little. In 1.3, the item was a popular pick for QG BSB, but now it is +1 str and +1 ap for +75 points (not seen as worth it). Furthermore, there are a slew of support items such as Talisman of the Void and Crystal Ball which are too expensive to combine with this item.

    Proposal: The item either needs
    1) To be at most 60, preferably 50 points
    2) More impact/identity, probably more than +1 ap

    TT thoughts: Points reduction is seen as a preferable change, there is a concern with restoring the ap going against the goal of reducing ap in the game


    Favour of Meladys
    Display Spoiler

    The spell needed to be nerfed, no question, but it got nerfed hard from several angles

    Losing tokens before special saves was probably necessary to reduce combo with Flame Wardens. The spell costs a lot of power dice though (through casting cost and tokens).

    Proposal: Make the spell give 2 tokens again

    TT thoughts: Still a topic of discussion with ideas being thrown around, but something being discussed is making the spell give 0 tokens (which aligns with other token costing spells) to try to help with cost reduction. A recent idea is having a non-boosted single target and a boosted aoe version


    Ring of the Pearl Throne
    Display Spoiler

    Considering the limited scope of redesign allowed, redesign flexibility is probably within changing the magic item targeted, and/or what models may carry it. A significant price reduction is needed to see play

    BLT's stated reason for the price it the item's synergy with Dragon characters (considering mobility, size of the base, and less need for magic item allotment).

    Proposal:
    Ring of the Pearled Throne
    May not be taken by Gigantic models
    Same Effect

    Note: It has been confirmed by our BLT reps that this change would lead to a cost reduction, how much is up in the air. TT has universally endorsed it, though the ticket has not yet been submitted so the proposal can be changed. A concern that has been voiced is that the item can shut down battleplans and character builds. The change is green to go, just please keep that in mind (for example, while @pk-ng' 's proposal of 18" one use only is an interesting one, such a proposal would likely concern this member. Doesn't mean I can't include these ideas, but please keep that in mind ^^ I'll happily forward your arguments). Just please remember the “small changes” criteria.

    Note 2: I believe I have misrepresented the community by stating what you really wanted was a price reduction, and would be happy with the same effect. Upon re-reading your feedback (which I should have carefully done in the first place) I no longer believe this to be the case. I apologize, and will being this up with TT


    Banner of Becalming
    Display Spoiler

    *Not yet proposed*
    How do you feel about this being Special only? If unsatisfied, would a price reduction be enough for you, or would you like to see the banner offer more for combat blocks (such as magic resistance)?


    Warden's Bond
    Display Spoiler

    This isn't officially a ticket, but has been brought up.

    Some TT members believe the 3+ rebirth to be un-fun, as it only serves to conserve points. However, other TT members like the effect. How do you feel about Rebirth?

    Proposal: remove the 3+ Rebirth effect, add +1 str +1 ap to Warden rider (for 2A str 5 ap 2)

    This also can be a chance to give the Frost Phoenix more of a role of "Hero hunter", as well as focus the upgrade towards the role of "independent hunter"

    Though it may very well be argued that this change goes against the spirit of the update, if that's the case it won't happen ^^ still, your thoughts would be appreciated.

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

  • So, not my primary army, my DE just masquerade as HbE occasionally (so HbE gets blamed, of course).

    Banner of Becalming going back to allowed on core I feel is the biggest deal, because moving it to special feels like it pushes QG (and firebase/avoidance/counter-charge) a lot. Moving away from that playstyle seems desirable.

    Edit: second biggest thing would be Navigators to 0-2 or 0-3, at least for core. I think HbE should gladly trade WBoR down to 0-1 for this.
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Design Change
    1) War banner of Ryma - definitely yes
    2) Navigators banner - hell no, it’s fine as it is don’t waste a design change. If people are designing their list around this item then this item is a problem. Do something else like dragons

    Tickets (comments/feedback)
    Ancient dragon - issues - base size too big, res 6 to HP 8 ratio is bad (min res7) and cost
    Daemons Bane - pointless and just use FAQ to clarify
    reavers - not high priority (probably the lowest). Personally it’s useless to ticket as it won’t change list by that much.
    elu’s heartwood - on the fence for this item. Reduce points is the way to go. Low priority.
    FAvour of meladys - agree what is stated. Above average priority.
    ring of pearl - high priority. Can the people with concern tell me what battle plan with be shutdown by this item? WDG having an ability like this and we losing it? It’s like wtf...
    Banner of Becalming - leave as is
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • @Squirrelloid I feel that moving Becalming back to core won’t happen. I think the probable fixes are 1) price drop 2) effects to make it worth it on a combat block (for example: +1 mr, friendly spells targeting this unit gain +1 to cast)

    @pk-ng Noted on Navigators. An initial reason for the design was to test the effect on core, it being 0-1 de-promotes that. Furthermore, the current design promotes a single LG block with the banner and then be done, which is a boost the unit probably doesn’t need, and also goes against the hope of testing it on core. The item can always be moved to a ticket, though
  • PapaG wrote:

    The second is tickets. The process itself is kinda complicated, but basically the idea is TT can ask for (design) changes, and RT will get through as many as they have time for. ACS (in charge of prioritization) is working to make the ticket system as fair for every army as they can.
    Fun, you are going with an Agile approach? Honestly, that should probably have been one of the first ways to handle stuff. Probably for nerfs as well.

    For redesigns: Agree with pk-ng. War Banner is a big yes, Navigator's is unnecessary.
    Preference for secondary redesign is... Well, I'd go for phoenixes because after recosting they feel expensive and I've always felt they should be budget monsters, rather than centerpieces. Dragons (and particularly the ancient dragon) are a decent alternative as well.

    Tickets (highest to lowest):
    -Favour of meladys - agreed with solution.
    -ring of pearl - full redesign pleeze.
    -Ancient dragon - personally I don't care much about dragons, but I understand they generally are not in a good place. I'd try to start by figuring out what this thing is supposed to be doing in the army, and fix him accordingly
    -Daemons Bane - As per pk-ng suggestion.
    -Warden's bond: Why not make it a secondary source of leadership? bubble leadership is one of the supposedly strong point of our army, and a non-character model granting leadership buffs would help in many builds.
    -elu’s heartwood - as Pk-ng. Personally, I've used it a couple times in 2.0 and felt like it has a niche, even if it is somewhat expensive.
    -Reavers - honestly, I'm fine with them as they are. Even without bows, chaff synergizes well with shooting, which is why I've always found sensible for them to share the cap. Wouldn't be against a redesign to make them more viable combat cavalry, though.
    -Banner of Becalming - leave as is

    The post was edited 1 time, last by ramesses2 ().

  • 1. War banner of Ryma, absolutely yes. Needs to be viable on infantry.
    2. Navigators.... i agree to not waste a design slot on this. Most lists (not all lists and sure it seems like a useless restriction) but most lists seem to only have a single Navigators used on LG, where WBoR were seen on most other infantry on foot. Fix WBoR and navigators being 0-1 is “good enough”

    For me much more important for fixing is favour of Meladys. That would be my #2 fix. 8+ CV, no veil token generation, and wounds negated before special saves is fair enough.

    #3 becalming back in core, or allow it to be more useful in Combat because If you dont take queens guard or QC bsb its hard to justify taking it.

    #4 ring of the pearl throne absolutely needs a redesign. I would love to see this item grant a bound spell similar or identical to the old High Magic vaul’s unmaking (i forget what we called it in 1.2)

    #5 wardens bond: I dont suggest adding more combat potential to the warden, we dont need another unchosen option because its trying to do too much. Maybe just reduce points cost or keep the points as it is but make the rebirth a 2+ (Or even a guaranteed rebirth).

    #6 points reduction on Elu sounds good, lowish priority. If becalming and Elu could be taken on a QC bsb that would be cool. Probably wont happen

    #7 I initially misread demons bane myself, and still didnt take it so Doesnt matter to me.

    #8 reavers like the idea, just low priority.
  • pk-ng wrote:

    Design Change
    1) War banner of Ryma - definitely yes
    2) Navigators banner - hell no, it’s fine as it is don’t waste a design change. If people are designing their list around this item then this item is a problem. Do something else like dragons

    Tickets (comments/feedback)
    Ancient dragon - issues - base size too big, res 6 to HP 8 ratio is bad (min res7) and cost
    Daemons Bane - pointless and just use FAQ to clarify
    reavers - not high priority (probably the lowest). Personally it’s useless to ticket as it won’t change list by that much.
    elu’s heartwood - on the fence for this item. Reduce points is the way to go. Low priority.
    FAvour of meladys - agree what is stated. Above average priority.
    ring of pearl - high priority. Can the people with concern tell me what battle plan with be shutdown by this item? WDG having an ability like this and we losing it? It’s like wtf...
    Banner of Becalming - leave as is
    I agree with most of what has been said by @pk-ng, but I have different opinion on following:
    • Ancient dragon - something has to be done, but I can't figure out what exactly. Bringing it back to res 7 probably won't happen, and another rebasing would drive people mad.
    • Banner of Becalming - allow it back to core. Increase in price if needed.
    Other tickets:
    • Warden's bond - I don't agree. At current state it's unpopular, but I don't think that proposed change would change anything.


    And what about Sea Guard? No redesigns/tickets for them?
  • Guys, WBoR is never going to work on both infantry and cavalry at the same time. It will be priced and restricted for whichever it is better for. Choose one and design for it.

    Further, striking really hard on the charge is not the HbE thing. HbE should focus on a different way to engage in close combat - Navigator's does that, and so Navigator's should be the priority.
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Guys, WBoR is never going to work on both infantry and cavalry at the same time. It will be priced and restricted for whichever it is better for. Choose one and design for it.
    Agreed - to a degree. The real interesting part that the 2.0 WBoR brought to the game to me was aggressive spearmen - even if in a "restricted" manner. I think that was an interesting design idea, and one that should stick around - though maybe not through the same formula.

    I do believe that this concept also agrees with your point of "different ways to engage in close combat", at least for them.

    That said, the banner was also nerfed compared to its pre-2.0 status with the additional restriction to affecting characters in the unit, which I guess is due to its interaction with the new magic item rules, but I feel it might have been too heavy handed, given that previously it wasn't too common, anyway, and I would like to see a compromise.
  • What voting is concerned: it's hard to vote because it will depend on what it will come down to. I may want the H spell to be great again - but it may be that it will never be allowed and it 's way better to vote for some banner improvement.

    Ancient Dragon - not sure it it is really ever getting better as it primarily isn't a HbE problem, it's a game balance/Res only focused defense problem.
    Daemon's Bane - LOL we played it like it was intended as vs models with weapons with magical attacks. Never even saw any room for ambiguity here?!
    Elein Reavers - well .. no prio for me, I don't use them anymore.
    Elu's Heartwood - Price decrease would be welcome to take it, if it can be combined with some other very handy item as Crystal Ball.
    Favour of Meladys - I'd give it very high prio but I won't hold my breath until it becomes viable again. I have the feeling the community is way too scared of it to give it any breathing space (so to speak).
    Ring of the Pearl Throne - do it away.
    Banner of Becalming - hard to say anything about this. Would LOVE some magical resistrance added, especially in the light of the HbE magical defense strength.

    As @Squirrelloid said, split the WBoR into a cav and an infantry version and get rid of the Pearl Throne to make room to add the extra banner.
    War Banner of Ryma: as is, 0-3 (50pts) +1S 1AP on charge (cav)
    War Banner of Dorac 0-3 (65pts): Swiftstride, +1S on charge (inf)
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..
  • Teowulff wrote:

    As @Squirrelloid said, split the WBoR into a cav and an infantry version and get rid of the Pearl Throne to make room to add the extra banner.

    War Banner of Ryma: as is, 0-3 (50pts) +1S 1AP on charge (cav)
    War Banner of Dorac 0-3 (65pts): Swiftstride, +1S on charge (inf)
    I fear you'll have to choose one, and it's not going to be 0-3. This does not align with an army strength, and should not be 0-3 available. You want a 0-3 banner, navigator is the one that potentially aligns with HbE's playstyles and ASAW.

    If you want to play kill stuff on the charge elves, that's literally DE's only schtick.
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Teowulff wrote:

    As @Squirrelloid said, split the WBoR into a cav and an infantry version and get rid of the Pearl Throne to make room to add the extra banner.

    War Banner of Ryma: as is, 0-3 (50pts) +1S 1AP on charge (cav)
    War Banner of Dorac 0-3 (65pts): Swiftstride, +1S on charge (inf)
    I fear you'll have to choose one, and it's not going to be 0-3. This does not align with an army strength, and should not be 0-3 available. You want a 0-3 banner, navigator is the one that potentially aligns with HbE's playstyles and ASAW.
    If you want to play kill stuff on the charge elves, that's literally DE's only schtick.
    Nope. All evels have first round damage in their Army Strengthes.
  • Gerfaks wrote:

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Teowulff wrote:

    As @Squirrelloid said, split the WBoR into a cav and an infantry version and get rid of the Pearl Throne to make room to add the extra banner.

    War Banner of Ryma: as is, 0-3 (50pts) +1S 1AP on charge (cav)
    War Banner of Dorac 0-3 (65pts): Swiftstride, +1S on charge (inf)
    I fear you'll have to choose one, and it's not going to be 0-3. This does not align with an army strength, and should not be 0-3 available. You want a 0-3 banner, navigator is the one that potentially aligns with HbE's playstyles and ASAW.If you want to play kill stuff on the charge elves, that's literally DE's only schtick.
    Nope. All evels have first round damage in their Army Strengthes.
    HbE absolutely do not. SE and DE do. Elf ASAW were forcibly differentiated at places so they'd play more differently from each other.

    HbE ASAW:
    Strengths:
    Leadership: Bubble
    Leadership: Independent
    Mobility: Speed*
    Magic: Defense
    Magic: Offense
    Range: Small Arms
    Range: Medium

    Weaknesses:
    Defense: Strength in Numbers*
    Defense: Toughness*
    Leadership: Ignore
    Mobility: Special Deploy
    Support: Wagons/Characters
    Range: Heavy

    *shared with all elves
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • shmeker wrote:

    And what about Sea Guard? No redesigns/tickets for them?
    The goal is to fix dysfunctional designs. If something can be fixed with price, that is preferable


    Gerfaks wrote:

    Nope. All evels have first round damage in their Army Strengthes.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    HbE absolutely do not. SE and DE do. Elf ASAW were forcibly differentiated at places so they'd play more differently from each other.
    @Squirrelloid is correct. However, there is a soft agreement to replace light shooting with avoiding hits (seen through Grey Watchers, and Navigator's Banner)


    Squirreloid wrote:

    Guys, WBoR is never going to work on both infantry and cavalry at the same time. It will be priced and restricted for whichever it is better for. Choose one and design for it.
    Agreed, to a degree. However, my number 1 goal is to get some infantry on the field, and I'd argue that in its current state WBoR is basically a cav banner (though perhaps with Cav only it can gain some sort of "speed" bonus), so I'd either want to leave it and work on Navi and Becalming, or if made into a ticket maybe do something like "Cav only, Re-roll lowest charge dice, +1 str"


    @all are you really okay with Navigator's staying 0-1? To me the problem is it enhancing the performance of a solo LG block, I'd like to see this thing on a line of infantry, not enhance the "problem" playstyle

    How would you feel if we left WBoR to be a cavalry banner, and instead made Navigator's something like
    0-2 Cannot be taken by models with valiant

    That alongside making Becalming more viable on a combat block (through ticket) would help to strengthen our under-performing infantry and promote multiple units of infantry
  • Thanks for delivering us such inputs.

    AS for my thought :
    Doing Something to the AD is for me better than a point drop, but both are appreciate.
    Demon's bane: i didn't knew it works this way and this make me sad as i kinda liked it. Now it IS like a shelf decoration, point reduction is not the way to go.
    Elein reavers : finally. really appreciate this one.
    Elu heartwood : totally agreed. point drop is a better solution in my eyes.
    Meladys : if no token are generated and the casting value is lower than 10 i'm fine. I would prefer a less powerful spell but with less casting value.
    Ring of the pearl throne : i would prefer a redising than a point drop. If non-gigantic, the cost has to be REALLY lower. i don't take it at more than 50pts, the target (artefacts) are the problem in my opinion.
    Banner of becalming is a bit frustrating but not that uch of a priority in my eyes. point drop don't serve the point.
    Warden bound : i found the complete model way to costly.
  • PapaG wrote:


    Squirreloid wrote:

    Guys, WBoR is never going to work on both infantry and cavalry at the same time. It will be priced and restricted for whichever it is better for. Choose one and design for it.
    Agreed, to a degree. However, my number 1 goal is to get some infantry on the field, and I'd argue that in its current state WBoR is basically a cav banner (though perhaps with Cav only it can gain some sort of "speed" bonus), so I'd either want to leave it and work on Navi and Becalming, or if made into a ticket maybe do something like "Cav only, Re-roll lowest charge dice, +1 str"

    @all are you really okay with Navigator's staying 0-1? To me the problem is it enhancing the performance of a solo LG block, I'd like to see this thing on a line of infantry, not enhance the "problem" playstyle

    How would you feel if we left WBoR to be a cavalry banner, and instead made Navigator's something like
    0-2 Cannot be taken by models with valiant

    That alongside making Becalming more viable on a combat block (through ticket) would help to strengthen our under-performing infantry and promote multiple units of infantry
    I'd shoot for 0-1 (0-3 core) or core only 0-3 on Navigators, and I'd be willing to axe WBoR entirely if necessary. Navigators could be the lynch-pin of HbE's infantry strategy if its possible to use multiple big blocks of spears with it.

    WBoR is fine as-is for a cav banner. Does M9 swiftstride really need more help getting the charge?
    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.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I'd shoot for 0-1 (0-3 core) or core only 0-3 on Navigators, and I'd be willing to axe WBoR entirely if necessary. Navigators could be the lynch-pin of HbE's infantry strategy if its possible to use multiple big blocks of spears with it.
    Personally (and I fully admit to bias: my preferred infantry are Sword Masters) I would like to see this option on Sword Masters, to help reduce the extreme rps of "paper thin res 3 5+ as". Between taking Divination or Cosmology for Hard Target and 5++, and a MotCT for 5/4++ regen, and distracting, not to mention if our hereditary is fixed, the unit could be in a nice place. That said, definitely I'd like to see this on core with less restriction

    In my eyes and personal opinion, LG don't need the banner (plus it strengthens our "problem build"). Also, the banner went from 0-3 to 0-1, with LG/strengthening shooty avoidance apparently being the problem. In my eyes, why not just circumvent that problem, minimize the restriction (but still try to have it as an infantry banner), and just try to do what needs to be done get that 0-1 up. This is me though, there's many other members on our team ^^ that's the point of this thread too: to gather other views


    Squirrelloid wrote:

    WBoR is fine as-is for a cav banner. Does M9 swiftstride really need more help getting the charge?
    Fair enough ^^
  • ramesses2 wrote:

    PapaG wrote:

    The second is tickets. The process itself is kinda complicated, but basically the idea is TT can ask for (design) changes, and RT will get through as many as they have time for. ACS (in charge of prioritization) is working to make the ticket system as fair for every army as they can.
    Fun, you are going with an Agile approach? Honestly, that should probably have been one of the first ways to handle stuff. Probably for nerfs as well.
    You have to thank @nightwun for starting agile work at T9a. :)

    I agree this had to be done long before, but with new people like me joining, supporting and improving the new agile system we have a long way to go, but it's a step in the right direction.

    I hope everyone likes the new ticket system. The ACS's in the Task Teams are flooding us with tickets! Exactly what we hoped for.
    More, faster and smaller changes.

    Keep the feedback and tickets incoming!

    Army Design Team Coordinator

    Army Design Team


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs
  • PapaG wrote:

    @pk-ng Noted on Navigators. An initial reason for the design was to test the effect on core, it being 0-1 de-promotes that. Furthermore, the current design promotes a single LG block with the banner and then be done, which is a boost the unit probably doesn’t need, and also goes against the hope of testing it on core. The item can always be moved to a ticket, though
    If the issue is LG - off the top of my head. You can redesign it to be always -1 to hit in the front but only restricted to core. That way Lancers, Spearmen and SG can sort of "tank" and there won't be an issue - not that I can think of.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    Guys, WBoR is never going to work on both infantry and cavalry at the same time. It will be priced and restricted for whichever it is better for. Choose one and design for it.

    Further, striking really hard on the charge is not the HbE thing. HbE should focus on a different way to engage in close combat - Navigator's does that, and so Navigator's should be the priority.
    The Navigator's Banner works fine at the moment. People have issue with the restrictions of 0-1 which isn't a big issue. Personally I don't think it's an issue at all as I've stated above.

    @PapaG - Warden's Bond - no suggestion is frankly sh!t (no offense) and really pointless.
    Issues I see with Phoenii
    1. A bit expensive
    2. Warden's Bond upgrade is expensive maybe if the base cost if reduce and the WB is reduced by 10? 15? ish
    Rebirth vs no Rebirth
    Firstly I'd rather keep rebirth
    Secondly if we drop rebirth then I would like to see WB increases the Strength of the flaming attack and also the debuff of the Frostie in which case restrictions need to be add for the "new" WB probably 0-1 and maybe a points upgrade

    Banner of Becalming
    It can never be in core because it's really really good. It's in a good position due to what it does.

    Design Change Preference
    1. War Banner of Ryma
    2. Ring of Pearl Throne - Prefer my idea of the "arcane what you call it". If big no no then something like
      1. Enemy weapons within 6" lose weapon enchantment
      2. Enemy attacking characters suffers -2 Strength
      3. When a non-Attribute non-Bound Spell is successfully cast by a friendly Wizard within 12" of the bearer (and after the corresponding Path Attribute Spell has been resolved if applicable), the bearer may automatically cast Scrying from Divination, which cannot be dispelled.

      4. During the opponents magic phase increase or decrease the Flux result by 1
    3. Sliver of the Blazing Dawn - my suggestion
    Ticket Preference (assuming minor / price change)
    1. Ancient Dragon (in preference order)
      1. Reduce base size
      2. Decrease points
      3. Increase Res
      4. Increase HP
    2. Nova Flare - decrease cost
    3. Favour of Meladys - decrease casting cost and increase token to 2
    4. Phoenix - as above
    5. [lexicon]Sky Sloop[/lexicon] - too expensive.
    :HE: Beware of the panda....with big guns
  • pk-ng wrote:

    (no offense)

    None taken ^^

    pk-ng wrote:

    Ticket Preference (assuming minor / price change)
    To be clear, TT has no control over price. ACS will be submitting a feedback report to BLT I believe, Masa and I can suggest price changes there. For example, this looks to be the favored option with AD (base size change is a no-go as I understand it). However, an indirect way to reduce price/CV is through a nerf (for example, that's why losing the 1 token on Hereditary is being thrown around). We have some (awesome) BLT reps on our team, so we're not doing this blind (they can tell us their experience and give a general idea of if/how buffs/nerfs will be reflected in price). TT can suggest what kind of price they'd like with a design change/ticket, too.


    pk-ng wrote:

    Sliver of the Blazing Dawn
    Additional thoughts are welcome ^^

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