Should we move to having all magic items in the specific army books?

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

  • Should we move to having all magic items in the specific army books?

    Okay, hear me out for a second!

    The first point in favor of this: You only need ONE book to build your list. All the costs and explanations for everything would be in your army book. So that simplifies list building, as you only need to have your Slim Army Book for list building fun. So this makes it easier for new players to join in because you only have to reference one thing for your own army.

    The second point in favor: Items can be designed for EACH specific army, rather than being generic. Furthermore, they can be COSTED correctly. Why do I say this? A common theme when points costs are discussed for items is that you have to take into account the "best case scenario" for an item. This means that there are items that will ALWAYS be overcosted for your army as long as they are BRB items.

    For example, BRB armors should be costed assuming easy access to 1+ with T5 (as there are at least 3 armies that can easily do this). BRB weapons MUST be costed assuming S5 A5 because quite a few armies have this available. Spellcaster items must be priced assuming they are going on a master from one of the "Magic power" races (HbE, DE, SA Cuatl, etc.). So no matter what, there are some types of items that are overcosted for you. This could be VERY easily changed up by taking the change of 2.0, moving magic items into army books To A Degree, to its full extent. Remove the BRB items, and make the magic items in each army book.

    The final point: It adds flavor to armies! This way you can separate the armies in the ways they can protect themselves, what spellcasting items are available, and what weapons they have and how they work. Armies can have unique effects (e.g. the Highborn Elf "doubling hits" mechanic, Beast Herds having the old Bluffer's Helm, etc.). So you'd have magic items as an additional point where armies can either differ and show their uniqueness.

    Opinions?
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • In my opinion is not very useful. Because in each army there are different characters with different profiles.

    You want different prizes for each weapon in each book, but for example, should be the same price a +3S weapon for a vampire than a Necromancer?

    As you propose in addition to different prices for each book also there is necessary different prices for each character in the book depending their profile.

    Army Design Team

    Translation-Team ES

    Battlescribe-Mod ES

  • Fantastic idea!
    Having a single Armoury is much simpler for new players and veterans.

    Also:

    It removes them from the Rules Freeze
    They'de be out of the core rules and free to be tweaked and altered, rather than being forced upon all armies who are waiting for updates.

    Easier to find and compare items
    It's a single document to navigate through rather than two, so you can use the main rules for special rule checking not special rule checking and finding items. As the items are all right next to each other, it's easier to compare effects and abilities.

    More significant looking armoury
    Currently each armies Armoury generally looks very sparse and pathetic, with usually only 1-3 items for most sections.
    Putting everything in one place means you get a full page of items (9+) at a minimum, making it feel like an actual armoury and not just the characters personal hand luggage.

    Optional benefits:
    Points costs can be tailored to each army
    Items can be omitted
    Items can be added
    Names can be changed

    Added document length?
    It only adds up to 3 pages, since the current Common Special Equipment is 4 pages and has enough spare space to accommodate the army specific equipment without going over that.

    31 Orcs&Goblins
    28 Demon Legions (no change)
    27 Vampire Covenant
    27 Warriors of the Dark Gods
    25 Dread Elves
    25 Highborn Elves
    24 Sylvan Elves
    24 Vermin Swarm
    24 Undying Dynasties
    23 Beast Herds
    23 Empire of Sonnstahl
    23 Infernal Dwarves
    23 Kingdom of Equitainne
    23 Saurian Ancients
    20 Dwarven Hold
    20 Ogre Khans



    So the highest page total goes up from 28 to 31, and everyone else stays below that.
    I know there are big changes coming for Daemon Legions but O&G are still at 28 pages right now, which is the biggest book even if we buffed everyone else by 3 pages.

    It also means the core rules get slightly shorter, it's very minor of course.

    Negatives?
    Aside from a slightly longer document length and as a result a few more pages to sift through going back and forth across the documents I'm not sure there are any real downsides from a player interaction point of view.
    In terms of rules creation I'm not entirely convinced it's all that much extra work either, since you can copy & paste most of it to start with (assuming no changes) and add in the current armoury items on top of it, it might be a bit more work overall but it shouldn't be a huge additional effort.

    The benefits seem to outweigh the negatives (imo).
  • I think this would probably be a good idea.

    One thing you could do to keep things simple would be to have a set of generic items that get reused between books, but with different costs.

    We already do this with mundane weapons; crossbows are crossbows in every army but they have different point costs in different places.
  • ?(
    I thought this had already been looked at during the poll on magical items, and discarded. Regardless of whether it would objectively be a better product (which is not a trivial question), and given the length of the to-do list there is already, to reconsider the question so soon would be terrible practice in my opinion. If we keep revisiting the same questions over and over instead of moving forward we'll still be working on the third FAB 2 years from now. Let's be wary of not becoming a dog chasing its tail.
  • Both were options in the poll.
    I think part of the decision was the complexity and effort in balancing required, meaning the total number of enchantments accessible to an army would have been reduced as a result. But this is probably an oversimplification (and I don't claim to have been involved so I may be missing some important part) you should look at the news article and thread that went out at the time - it was right after the suggestions for the new magic phase mechanics if I recall correctly.
  • Tried to find it. Unfortunately, the search function is . . . . less than useful here. Personally I'd love to read through it again. However, I consider the time that it would take better spent cooling down from an overly horrible week at work. Apologies in advance.

    At any rate, I really DO think it would provide a better game. If we can pour countless (and some would say pointless) hours into miniscule points adjustments to units to try and achieve "perfect balance", taking some time to actually make army items that are tailored to each army and priced appropriately is a superior course of action.

    The argument of "complexity" is a strawman argument. Look at the core rulebook! It's so ridiculously complex that WE CREATED A PARALLEL GAME to try and get people into 9th Age. Which, for the record, is a HORRIBLE idea that should NEVER have been approved by ExB in my opinion. The whole IDEA of a "complexity budget" is ridiculous, and deserves to be thrown in the trash. Again, ESPECIALLY when we've specifically made the core rules of the game so complex that the Powers That Be judged 9th Age's ability to attract new players somewhere between "snowballs surviving in hell" and "getting attacked by a shark on an airplane that is hit repeatedly by ball lightning". If we're willing to make the core rules so complex that WE LITERALLY RISK THE GAME DYING OFF FROM SCARING NEW PEOPLE, then we really SHOULD be willing to increase complexity in areas that will actually BENEFIT the game.


    At any rate, as @theunwantedbeing mentioned, this step would actually have QUITE a few benefits in decreasing complexity, making the game easier to approach for new players, AND improving the game overall. It could even make a very powerful and unique "Huzzah" to kick off the freeze. "Here's a bunch of new magic items and fun stuff *RIGHT* after ETC to kick off the freeze and the start of the new army books through FAB redesign as 9th Age's sole project".

    I also think it would help increase balance AND flavor significantly, because then armies can be given appropriate magic items for their background and ASAW, AND have them priced appropriately for the item. It's kind of unfair, after all, that KoE adepts have to pay a tax because Highborn/Dread adepts get extra powers when casting. Same as a KoE Duke having to pay a tax because Warrior/Vampire lords start at High OW/S5/A5.

    Personally, I agree with @Warboss_R'ok to a degree on having a "hidden" list for BRB items, that is then modified for each army in terms of availability and pricing. It would cut down on work for the ADT, RT, and BLT. It's likely the best way to move forward with this sort of project. HOWEVER, my personal opinion is that the best product would be created by having a completely unique set of army magical items and mundane armory designed by a combination of ADT and ACS members as a task team with RT/BLT having a voice in an advisory role (e.g. "This item is outside of your ASAW/themes" or "that's a really great idea, why not try an develop it further" or "I think that will never pass review by the overall team, please reconsider").

    PETREOPATROKLOS wrote:

    In my opinion is not very useful. Because in each army there are different characters with different profiles.

    You want different prizes for each weapon in each book, but for example, should be the same price a +3S weapon for a vampire than a Necromancer?

    As you propose in addition to different prices for each book also there is necessary different prices for each character in the book depending their profile.
    Actually, no there is not. The price should be done the same as it is done for every BRB item right now:
    - Using the "highest return on investment". The big change here is that instead of it being for a single best army, it is done only for the army in question.

    That means that within a single army book, you would look at the highest potential for the army in question. So to continue the example with vampires:
    - Necromancer Masters might be the baseline for costing Spellcasting Items.
    - Vampire Counts would be the baseline for costing armors and weapons.

    To use a few examples:
    - Prices for weapons in all books go by their Lord level characters, not heroes, because these have less output by default.
    - Prices for armors go by Highest potential defense. So in DE, you'd assume "easy access to 1+ armor" because you have to consider the potential for Fleet Officer.
    - Casting items go by their strongest Master Level Caster.

    This has a few advantages:
    1) There is no tax imposed by the S5/A5 armies on army books that are A4, S4, or both.
    2) There is no tax imposed by the T5 armies with high armor on other army books.
    3) There is no tax by the "Super Casters" on the other 11 (Or is it 12?) armies.
    4) Armies that get "mundane" versions of an enchantment (e.g. Dragonforged Armor) wouldn't be taxed by armies that cannot do so.

    Yes, there would still be some taxing within specific books. To use HbE as an example, Any On Foot Only Armor *MUST* be assumed to come with a 4++ packed in because THAT IS THE IDEAL DEFENSIVE SCENARIO. However, it is FAR better to have a book's specific taxes only apply to itself rather than the current "our book taxes every other book because of XYZ".
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • I think that this ship has sailed, but other than that I don't mean to stand in the way of your debate.

    For reference and information purposes, this news article summarizes some of the conclusions that were drawn. You will find links to thread discussions and source material (the aforementioned poll).
    Issue 9 - A look at the new Magic Items
  • Seriously I love this idea. This approach is exactly what made the older editions of whf so cool. I was just reading my 6th edition tomb kings today actually. Destroyer of eternities, brooch of the great desert, icon of rakaph, flail of skulls, scorpion armour, cloak of the dunes, the jar and so on. God I miss some of those items or heck even just having 5 pages to brew with even if some were niche.

    To me the game would be richer if items were primarily by AB. However I don't see this particular project ever going there. Still a great idea though.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.

    Post by Aegitru ().

    This post was deleted by the author themselves: double post ().
  • I never understood how freezing the costs of magical items was a good idea when there is still 14 FAB to do. It will necessarily leads to issues in balance hard to fix because BRB will be frozen, or force design to adapt to this.

    I understand that re-balancing the items would be too much work for now with the BRB freeze and the DL FAB coming up, so don't. Don't give them new prices for now, just put copy paste them in each AB. The team will adapt the costs later.
    Just thoughts

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

  • I agree only insofar as the (formerly) BRB items remain identical (aside from cost). All army books should retain access to all of them.

    But the advantages for list building alone would be huge. Having to flip back and forth between an AB and the BRB for items is super annoying.

    Morgan_Treeman wrote:

    you could copy paste them into the AB but most of us build list with battlescribe that shows you all the options and the rules for them.
    Speak for yourself. I've never bothered with battlescribe. The day I can't do addition of small numbers in my head, put me out of my misery.
    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