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.

  • New

    At this stage if common item prices would be subject to change in each individual Army Book, this would shatter external balance which is pretty good at the moment.

    From the Tool Support point of view it would be even worse. I, for example, would have to rewrite every single item from RB to army book files sixteen times over. Thanks, but no thanks.
  • New

    At best simply copy/paste from BRB into army books for .205 and points will be looked at during BRB 3.0. If it is decided that moving forward that point totals for items will be shifted only do it when the armies book is moving to FAB this will of coarse mean reworking the 2 FABs either out or coming out this year.

    My preference is to copy/paste to FAB and leave until 3.0

    More important stuff to work on as this is simply a quality of life improvement in list building.
  • New

    Magic Item Survey Results

    vegetalss4 wrote:

    We had a big questionaire about this exact question which reached a far greater part of the community than this forum thread. There people made clear that they preferred common magic items in the BRB and army specific ones in the AB.
    Actually that's not true.

    Question 1 of the survey gave 3 options with responses in brackets

    A: (216) No common items - all items in army book
    B: (423) Status Quo
    C: (486) Common and army items - all items in army book and costed for the army

    This proposal is closest to option C of question 1 on the survey (although there is some traction for moving to A), which the highest number of respondents preferred. And in fact more than 50% of people voted for A and C, which shows that change is preferred to keeping things the same.


    Your quote references question 2 which asked you to select the best 2 options available from a list of 5 (responses in brackets).

    A: (516) Status Quo
    B: (304) As Per C in Qu1 - complexity reduced elsewhere in army book
    C: (311) As Per C in Qu1 - remove some common items to circa 60% of the current common items remain available
    D: (455) As Per C in Qu1 - Only 60% of common items available to the army. Which items are available would depend on the army
    E: (435) No common items - all items in army book

    B, C and D are all variants of the same option from question 1 (option C). Responses for these 3 options were 1070 out of a possible 2021 which is a higher percentage than 516 out of 1011 which is the maximum that could have selected the Status Quo.

    I feel that question 2 in particular is flawed as it gives 3 options for Question 1 part C, that are essentially the same but offer different options for achieving the goal. the key here is that the goal was shared by most respondents. A better way of doing this would have been to redo question 2 to:

    If the team choose to implement option C from question 1, how would you prefer to achieve this:

    A: complexity reduced elsewhere in army book
    B: remove some common items to circa 60% of the current common items remain available
    C: Only 60% of common items available to the army. Which items are available would depend on the army


    What is clear from the survey, is that using a first past the post system, this proposal was favoured by the respondents at the time. I imagine that the majority of the people who responded choosing option A in question 1, would prefer option C to option B, but that is just conjecture at this point.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • New

    DeBelial wrote:

    From the Tool Support point of view it would be even worse. I, for example, would have to rewrite every single item from RB to army book files sixteen times over. Thanks, but no thanks.
    It would be good if there was a central database for the content of the game, so designers would make changes to that and then it would automatically propagate to tools like battlscribe and army builder, and hopefully to other systems like automatic balance testing.
  • New

    @Warboss_R'ok
    It would be good if we had our specific 'app to rule it all':
    - all armybooks
    - rulebook
    - paths
    - army builder
    - magic flux
    - central result reporting system
    - tournament and pairing management system
    - ELO ranking

    Kind of like War Room for WM/H but with more 'tournament' features:


    That would solve a lot of our current discussion in regard to:
    - data gathering
    - global rules updating
    - advertising the game to younger players

    ...and many more.

    BTW if we have a person that would like to code it I offer my help in designing the front end.
  • New

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Magic Item Survey Results

    vegetalss4 wrote:

    We had a big questionaire about this exact question which reached a far greater part of the community than this forum thread. There people made clear that they preferred common magic items in the BRB and army specific ones in the AB.
    Actually that's not true.
    Question 1 of the survey gave 3 options with responses in brackets

    A: (216) No common items - all items in army book
    B: (423) Status Quo
    C: (486) Common and army items - all items in army book and costed for the army

    This proposal is closest to option C of question 1 on the survey (although there is some traction for moving to A), which the highest number of respondents preferred. And in fact more than 50% of people voted for A and C, which shows that change is preferred to keeping things the same.


    Your quote references question 2 which asked you to select the best 2 options available from a list of 5 (responses in brackets).

    A: (516) Status Quo
    B: (304) As Per C in Qu1 - complexity reduced elsewhere in army book
    C: (311) As Per C in Qu1 - remove some common items to circa 60% of the current common items remain available
    D: (455) As Per C in Qu1 - Only 60% of common items available to the army. Which items are available would depend on the army
    E: (435) No common items - all items in army book

    B, C and D are all variants of the same option from question 1 (option C). Responses for these 3 options were 1070 out of a possible 2021 which is a higher percentage than 516 out of 1011 which is the maximum that could have selected the Status Quo.

    I feel that question 2 in particular is flawed as it gives 3 options for Question 1 part C, that are essentially the same but offer different options for achieving the goal. the key here is that the goal was shared by most respondents. A better way of doing this would have been to redo question 2 to:

    If the team choose to implement option C from question 1, how would you prefer to achieve this:

    A: complexity reduced elsewhere in army book
    B: remove some common items to circa 60% of the current common items remain available
    C: Only 60% of common items available to the army. Which items are available would depend on the army


    What is clear from the survey, is that using a first past the post system, this proposal was favoured by the respondents at the time. I imagine that the majority of the people who responded choosing option A in question 1, would prefer option C to option B, but that is just conjecture at this point.
    Seems like I misremembered, my objection is thus withdrawn.
  • New

    DeBelial wrote:

    At this stage if common item prices would be subject to change in each individual Army Book, this would shatter external balance which is pretty good at the moment.

    From the Tool Support point of view it would be even worse. I, for example, would have to rewrite every single item from RB to army book files sixteen times over. Thanks, but no thanks.
    To me the ideal situation is cut and paste BRB items into Army book files. No changes at this point. Print Gold 2.5.... with confidence. Only make changes to any costs when full army books are release. At this stage you would only need to update one army book file every 3-4 months, something like the old GW release cycle. While I absolutely can't thank you enough for your hard work I do think if done this way the future holds a slower pace of updates that is not the same as updating all 16 books at once.
  • New

    DeBelial wrote:

    That I could survive ;)

    But I believe that greater part of items is worth the same for all armies, therefore if moving the items out of rulebook will happen, I would move them into Paths of Magic document, which is supposed to be open for change anyway, and create sort of Magic supplement with both paths and items.
    Why though? Half of the point of moving it to the army books is to make it easier for list building. It may seem inconceivable to you that someone would not want to use an army building tool, but I won't. I will continue to write my lists with paper and pencil as long as I can still purchase those 2 products.
  • New

    Totally inconceivable! Ubelievable! Outrageous! Sigh...

    I'm more afraid about game balance if the cost of the same items will be different for some armies. Another room for great tinkering, hundreds of changes, 5 points up, 2 1/3 points down, etc.

    If the items will be transferred to books but the costs of them will be the same for all armies, I'm fine.
  • New

    DeBelial wrote:

    Totally inconceivable! Ubelievable! Outrageous! Sigh...

    I'm more afraid about game balance if the cost of the same items will be different for some armies. Another room for great tinkering, hundreds of changes, 5 points up, 2 1/3 points down, etc.

    If the items will be transferred to books but the costs of them will be the same for all armies, I'm fine.
    We want to do this for the exact reason of balance.

    For example; a sword that gives extra attacks is worth WAY more to someone like a Saurus, Orc or Vampire (characters with natural high strength), than compared to something like a Goblin or a Dwarf (even a combat orientated one).
  • New

    I think some are talking past each other at the moment. I think it is understood that changing specific items cost within each army is acceptable OVER TIME ( ideally when each book is redone individually). Most objections I think are to start right now for next patch and introducing a huge amount of needless tinkering when we are getting close to balance of place holder books. Rather than delay the end of place holder books cycle, remove from BRB so the Gold version can be cemented in place and then revisit what each item is worth as each book gets its full review.

    As to location of removed brb items. some are asking for separate item files, or placed in magic spells file, where as others simply want them place with in army books to avoid cross referencing more than 1 book.

    two different goals are getting bounced around language barriers I think
  • New

    DeBelial wrote:

    Totally inconceivable! Ubelievable! Outrageous! Sigh...

    I'm more afraid about game balance if the cost of the same items will be different for some armies. Another room for great tinkering, hundreds of changes, 5 points up, 2 1/3 points down, etc.

    If the items will be transferred to books but the costs of them will be the same for all armies, I'm fine.
    seems to be the best way towards balance nirvana though no? For example, a hero's heart enchantment is worth way more to a goblin chieftain than it is to a barbarian chieftain. So the goblin should pay more correct?
    Also, it would be pretty rad if the relevant magic paths were also included in the army book PDF files as well. Only instance where you wouldn't have what you needed in your book would be if you gave someone the wizard king crown and randomized a magic path that your army cannot normally take.
  • New

    msu117 wrote:

    I think some are talking past each other at the moment. I think it is understood that changing specific items cost within each army is acceptable OVER TIME ( ideally when each book is redone individually). Most objections I think are to start right now for next patch and introducing a huge amount of needless tinkering when we are getting close to balance of place holder books. Rather than delay the end of place holder books cycle, remove from BRB so the Gold version can be cemented in place and then revisit what each item is worth as each book gets its full review.

    As to location of removed brb items. some are asking for separate item files, or placed in magic spells file, where as others simply want them place with in army books to avoid cross referencing more than 1 book.

    two different goals are getting bounced around language barriers I think

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    DeBelial wrote:

    I'm more afraid about game balance if the cost of the same items will be different for some armies.
    :huh: Why?
    I will be honest with you - I don't believe that items will be priced fairly. I find it hard to believe in BLT in this case. Maybe I'm wrong, and I hope I am, but this is how I feel.

    EDIT:
    There was once a moment in T9A versions when items were priced differently for Lords and Heroes. It was abbandoned, and I think it is for the best. Differences would be minimal anyway, it will be more fuss than actual gain.

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

  • New

    It sounds good to have magic item points priced fairly for book but I can see why it will be very hard to do in 2.0 and will most likely to be kept out of it.

    But I can't understand If you want to have those same items from the the core rulebook to your army book why you don't just add those pages to the army book? I did it long ago to make the building a bit easier. It's not that pretty but it took only a couple of minutes to add those 4 exact pages to the army book and I was done with it :D