Is Hero's Heart good for the game?

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.

  • We don't want to create a lot of busy-work in the game. The way characters interact with ranked units feels quite weird to me.
    Its a beautiful busy-work, dont take it away from me, plese. I like to ponder where my characters are regardong the target unit's characters, remember all too late about the assassins special MakeWay rules etc. T9A is a complex game amd this layer of complexity I think we shouldnt touch.

    I think it makes sense that ranked units should be able to protect weaker characters like wizards.
    There is a rule for this. Its called Front Rank. Easy.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    We don't want to create a lot of busy-work in the game. The way characters interact with ranked units feels quite weird to me.
    Its a beautiful busy-work, dont take it away from me, plese. I like to ponder where my characters are regardong the target unit's characters, remember all too late about the assassins special MakeWay rules etc. T9A is a complex game amd this layer of complexity I think we shouldnt touch.
    This is not a useful response. Lots of people like lots of different things, and just liking something is not sufficient reason to keep it. (As any author will tell you, some of their best lines get cut because they don't serve the story, and liking a line isn't enough to keep it). But how is this complexity good for the game? How does it serve the game? What is actually gained by having it? Complexity for the sake of having complexity is a terrible use of player's thought time.
    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

  • Gotta kill all 60 skeletons before you can attack the necro, great that wont make vc even more bent.

    Gotta kill all 60 goblins before you attack the bsb, that wont make them stay steadfast even longer.

    Im an elite unit getting maimed by a choppy character that i cant attack, better wade through all his minions wounds before he takes out our ten wounds, cool.

    Just a few instances that i can think of that would wreck a lot of the game for, from my perspective, no gain at all other than to appease some lets change everything guys!
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army
  • But how is this complexity good for the game? How does it serve the game? What is actually gained by having it? Complexity for the sake of having complexity is a terrible use of player's thought time.
    What do you mean, how does it serve the game? It adds another tactical layer to it obviously. The interactions between characters and units they join as well as with enemy models are a lot.
  • WastelandWarrior wrote:

    Gotta kill all 60 skeletons before you can attack the necro, great that wont make vc even more bent.

    Gotta kill all 60 goblins before you attack the bsb, that wont make them stay steadfast even longer.

    Im an elite unit getting maimed by a choppy character that i cant attack, better wade through all his minions wounds before he takes out our ten wounds, cool.

    Just a few instances that i can think of that would wreck a lot of the game for, from my perspective, no gain at all other than to appease some lets change everything guys!

    We can do this with more nuance than that. Consider the following as a set of rules:

    Characters in units:
    Characters are part of the unit, and may not normally be targeted by any attacks while the unit lives. Any wounds dealt to the unit's wound pool in excess of RnF models must instead be assigned to any characters in the unit, remembering to remove whole models when possible.

    Challenges:
    Champions and characters may issue challenges. To issue a challenge, they must be in base contact with a model that could accept the challenge. Once a challenge is issued, the other player may either accept the challenge with any character or champion in the same unit, or refuse. (If both players wish to challenge, the active player declares first).

    If the challenge is refused, the challenging player may choose a character or champion in the enemy unit. That model can make no attacks, cast no spells, has his advance and march rates set to zero, and can make no use of any voluntary abilities, all until the start of the next close combat phase. Additionally, the challenging player gains +2 to his combat resolution score.

    If the challenge is accepted, the models fighting in the challenge are considered in b2b only with each other. They must direct attacks at each other, and wounds are dealt directly to the enemy model, not the unit's wound pool.

    Assassin - Universal Rule.
    A model with this rule can direct attacks at individual models (characters or champions) he is in base contact with. Any wounds inflicted are dealt to these models and not the unit. Additionally, the assassin can make way even if he is already in base contact with enemy models.

    Assassins may neither issue nor accept challenges, and cannot be the character chosen by the opponent for refusing to accept a challenge.


    AlexCat wrote:

    But how is this complexity good for the game? How does it serve the game? What is actually gained by having it? Complexity for the sake of having complexity is a terrible use of player's thought time.
    What do you mean, how does it serve the game? It adds another tactical layer to it obviously. The interactions between characters and units they join as well as with enemy models are a lot.
    Except there isn't any strategic depth added. And it removes depth from army building by forcing compulsory choices (gear, magic items, wizard bunkers).

    Meanwhile, that 'tactical depth' is just busy work. It's a lot of little fiddly detail with very low impact 99% of the time.

    But something like the above preserves some of that character positioning game (in fact, it makes it even more important, as you can't even challenge unless you're b2b with a model that could accept), while making characters in units unable to be killed just by directing a bunch of RnF attacks into them.
    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

  • Except there isn't any strategic depth added. And it removes depth from army building by forcing compulsory choices (gear, magic items, wizardbunkers).

    Meanwhile, that 'tactical depth' is just busy work. It's a lot of little fiddly detail with very low impact 99% of the time.
    Oh. Stating you own not so educated opinion as a final truth. Guess, you've won.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    Except there isn't any strategic depth added. And it removes depth from army building by forcing compulsory choices (gear, magic items, wizardbunkers).

    Meanwhile, that 'tactical depth' is just busy work. It's a lot of little fiddly detail with very low impact 99% of the time.
    Oh. Stating you own not so educated opinion as a final truth. Guess, you've won.
    It may have been parenthetical, but there is evidence there. And for someone who has done nothing but state opinion, and made no attempt to support any of his assertions with evidence, that's a rich sentiment.

    Removes depth from army building
    -Virtually no hero-level combat characters outside BSBs in many ABs, and what ones there are max out on defensive gear as their first priority.
    -Wizards require dedicated wizard bunkers whose sole job is to avoid combat and keep the wizard from getting attacked. Either compels ranged units (who can do this and still fire), or wasted units who can't be used for combat roles.

    No evidence of any strategic depth. You've made no such claims either.

    Would you like to make arguments that it isn't just busy work? Much of the time it's better to just kill RnF models and break/pop the unit. The few times it isn't, it's immersion breaking, as these units which have no purpose except protecting their characters can't do anything to protect them.

    And anyway, I thought this was a game about armies. Squad level organization should be almost beneath notice. That's like a general micromanaging what his squad seargents are doing.
    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

  • And anyway, I thought this was a game about armies. Squad level organization should be almost beneath notice. That's like a generalmicromanaging what his squad seargents are doing.
    Ok, before I go into details, lets agree what we are arguing on.
    What exactly in the current ruleset regarding characters/units interaction you are against?

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

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Except there isn't any strategic depth added. And it removes depth from army building by forcing compulsory choices (gear, magic items, wizard bunkers).
    Depends on Army and Build Used IMHO.

    DH Army.
    If you are using Deep Watch or Clan Warriors as your main Fighting Unit due to their low damage output you have to use your Character allowance on Weapons enhancements.
    If you are using Kings Guard with GW you may have less defence but much higher offence. End result your Characters can spend more of their allowance on defence both for combat and or magicial defence.

    This choice is obviously at Army build stage but in my humble opinion it is a Strategic Decision that alters the way the army feels and plays.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    Gotta kill all 60 skeletons before you can attack the necro, great that wont make vc even more bent.

    Gotta kill all 60 goblins before you attack the bsb, that wont make them stay steadfast even longer.

    Im an elite unit getting maimed by a choppy character that i cant attack, better wade through all his minions wounds before he takes out our ten wounds, cool.

    Just a few instances that i can think of that would wreck a lot of the game for, from my perspective, no gain at all other than to appease some lets change everything guys!
    We can do this with more nuance than that. Consider the following as a set of rules:

    Characters in units:
    Characters are part of the unit, and may not normally be targeted by any attacks while the unit lives. Any wounds dealt to the unit's wound pool in excess of RnF models must instead be assigned to any characters in the unit, remembering to remove whole models when possible.

    Challenges:
    Champions and characters may issue challenges. To issue a challenge, they must be in base contact with a model that could accept the challenge. Once a challenge is issued, the other player may either accept the challenge with any character or champion in the same unit, or refuse. (If both players wish to challenge, the active player declares first).

    If the challenge is refused, the challenging player may choose a character or champion in the enemy unit. That model can make no attacks, cast no spells, has his advance and march rates set to zero, and can make no use of any voluntary abilities, all until the start of the next close combat phase. Additionally, the challenging player gains +2 to his combat resolution score.

    If the challenge is accepted, the models fighting in the challenge are considered in b2b only with each other. They must direct attacks at each other, and wounds are dealt directly to the enemy model, not the unit's wound pool.

    Assassin - Universal Rule.
    A model with this rule can direct attacks at individual models (characters or champions) he is in base contact with. Any wounds inflicted are dealt to these models and not the unit. Additionally, the assassin can make way even if he is already in base contact with enemy models.

    Assassins may neither issue nor accept challenges, and cannot be the character chosen by the opponent for refusing to accept a challenge.


    AlexCat wrote:

    But how is this complexity good for the game? How does it serve the game? What is actually gained by having it? Complexity for the sake of having complexity is a terrible use of player's thought time.
    What do you mean, how does it serve the game? It adds another tactical layer to it obviously. The interactions between characters and units they join as well as with enemy models are a lot.
    Except there isn't any strategic depth added. And it removes depth from army building by forcing compulsory choices (gear, magic items, wizard bunkers).
    Meanwhile, that 'tactical depth' is just busy work. It's a lot of little fiddly detail with very low impact 99% of the time.

    But something like the above preserves some of that character positioning game (in fact, it makes it even more important, as you can't even challenge unless you're b2b with a model that could accept), while making characters in units unable to be killed just by directing a bunch of RnF attacks into them.
    None of these solutions help at all with any of the situations i used as an example. I know you are a tenacious argumentalist and more eloquent than me but on this you are wrong.
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army
  • I had a big post written and I just deleted it because I want to keep this focused on whether the value added by allocating attacks outweighs the costs it imposes. So whether or not I'm unhappy with the current attack allocation rules, that's not the issue (and I do have several issues, which could be solved in a variety of ways, not all of which necessarily require removing attack allocation, and many of which are about poor simulation, which was not what I was trying to get at in this thread).

    So, let's just keep this to a cost-benefit analysis.

    Some Costs (no claim this is exhaustive):
    -Army Creation/Play: Hero-level characters are useless in many ABs outside of being BSB
    -Play: Fiddly busy work at a level well below that proper to commanding an army.
    -Army Creation: Hero-level character magic item budgets are compelled to be spent mostly on defensive gear.
    -Army Creation: Creates the need to field units whose primary role is to stay out of combat.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: heroes getting killed by RnF models while their unit is fine.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: unrealistic level of control over the decisions made by units engaged in combat.

    Now, I'm not disputing that a game where you can't generally target characters with attacks wouldn't be different. But would it be worse? How much? Enough to be worth the costs?

    Also consider there's multiple possibilities besides the current here:
    -Characters can never be targeted, are part of the unit
    -Characters can only be targeted in challenges
    -Characters may allocate attacks, but RnF may not.

    So it's not a 'yes/no allocate attacks', but are we sure we've chosen the best possible attack allocation scheme.

    And all these decisions should be considered from what kind of game this is supposed to be. I would contend that this should be an army game first and foremost, and so preference should be given to rules which make sense for a game that's about armies, and the decisions which can be made by generals. Costs and benefits should be valued in that context. So when I asked 'how does it serve the game?', i meant it as 'how does it serve the play and feel of a game about commanding a fantasy army?'.

    I mean, I think we'd all agree that the infamous board game, The Campaign For North Africa, is needlessly complicated because it focuses on details well below the strategic level of the game (including who drives your supply trucks, what kind of containers you store oil in, and the italian need for an extra ration of water to boil for pasta). Those things make a difference, but they also distract from the actual game.

    I'm open to the answer being 'yes, attack allocation is worth it', but we should probably examine in detail if it is or not (and which version is best for smooth play, game narrative, and AB/item diversity).
    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

  • The real cost would be in changing it.

    It would impact a lot of armies in various different ways that would, in turn, effect everything else. This would create a massive amount of balancing work and may halt progress on more pressing content.

    Is this really the kind of thing that needs changing. Is it that bad now, that you would risk the whole pretty damn decent playing field and all the decisions and time that have been spent on building it, to change the way characters interact with rank and file troops (or insert any other; lets change something pretty rivial that would massively butterfly effect the whole game idea).

    Creativity and ideas are great but the round wheel is fine. Enhancements and new shiny stuff (books, campaigns, all that good stuff) are whats needed.

    Just my opinion though of course.
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I mean, I think we'd all agree that the infamous board game, The Campaign For North Africa, is needlessly complicated because it focuses on details well below the strategic level of the game (including who drives your supply trucks, what kind of containers you store oil in, and the italian need for an extra ration of water to boil for pasta). Those things make a difference, but they also distract from the actual game.
    Little know fact time. The Italians were the First Army to have powdered Minestrone Soup. My father served in the Desert Campaign and he swore it was the best soup he ever had. Still needed extra water though.

    Squirrelloid wrote:

    I had a big post written and I just deleted it because I want to keep this focused on whether the value added by allocating attacks outweighs the costs it imposes. So whether or not I'm unhappy with the current attack allocation rules, that's not the issue (and I do have several issues, which could be solved in a variety of ways, not all of which necessarily require removing attack allocation, and many of which are about poor simulation, which was not what I was trying to get at in this thread).

    So, let's just keep this to a cost-benefit analysis.

    Some Costs (no claim this is exhaustive):
    -Army Creation/Play: Hero-level characters are useless in many ABs outside of being BSB
    -Play: Fiddly busy work at a level well below that proper to commanding an army.
    -Army Creation: Hero-level character magic item budgets are compelled to be spent mostly on defensive gear.
    -Army Creation: Creates the need to field units whose primary role is to stay out of combat.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: heroes getting killed by RnF models while their unit is fine.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: unrealistic level of control over the decisions made by units engaged in combat.

    Now, I'm not disputing that a game where you can't generally target characters with attacks wouldn't be different. But would it be worse? How much? Enough to be worth the costs?

    Also consider there's multiple possibilities besides the current here:
    -Characters can never be targeted, are part of the unit
    -Characters can only be targeted in challenges
    -Characters may allocate attacks, but RnF may not.

    So it's not a 'yes/no allocate attacks', but are we sure we've chosen the best possible attack allocation scheme.

    And all these decisions should be considered from what kind of game this is supposed to be. I would contend that this should be an army game first and foremost, and so preference should be given to rules which make sense for a game that's about armies, and the decisions which can be made by generals. Costs and benefits should be valued in that context. So when I asked 'how does it serve the game?', i meant it as 'how does it serve the play and feel of a game about commanding a fantasy army?'.

    I mean, I think we'd all agree that the infamous board game, The Campaign For North Africa, is needlessly complicated because it focuses on details well below the strategic level of the game (including who drives your supply trucks, what kind of containers you store oil in, and the italian need for an extra ration of water to boil for pasta). Those things make a difference, but they also distract from the actual game.

    I'm open to the answer being 'yes, attack allocation is worth it', but we should probably examine in detail if it is or not (and which version is best for smooth play, game narrative, and AB/item diversity).
    End of the day this is a Fantasy Game , I want my Heroes and General to do amazeing things or be a damp squid due to dice roll. Not some buff counter without any character.
    We as players OPT to play a game with Dice.. and how much we spend in points to equip our characters and the roll they play in our armies is an important facet of the game. I honestly feel that the loss of custom building will be a poor decision.
  • The fact of the matter is that characters are over-costed. They can't do the damage that eqauls or exceeds what it cost to field them. This is a prime example of a poorly balanced system.
    I think that the costs should either come down, (my preferance) or the viability, both in offensive power and defensive/ more hit points allocated for survivability be seriously considered.
    Failure is not an option.

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

  • DeBelial wrote:

    Maybe this could be how Bodyguard rule would work. Instead of giving stubborn, characters being subject to bodyguard could not be attacked until all bgs are killed.
    Some wizards could have special rule that gives bodyguard (wizard) to any unit he joins.
    No thanks!

    Squirrelloid wrote:




    Some Costs (no claim this is exhaustive):
    -Army Creation/Play: Hero-level characters are useless in many ABs outside of being BSB
    -Play: Fiddly busy work at a level well below that proper to commanding an army.
    -Army Creation: Hero-level character magic item budgets are compelled to be spent mostly on defensive gear.
    -Army Creation: Creates the need to field units whose primary role is to stay out of combat.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: heroes getting killed by RnF models while their unit is fine.
    -Unsatisfying narratives: unrealistic level of control over the decisions made by units engaged in combat.
    What army do you play that makes you want to kill the fun for me? Elves maybe? :P
    Jokes aside I regularly play low defence characters with high attack potential (I play mostly VS) and I would say you'd make the game infinitely more boring with these kind of rules. Yeah sure everybody thinks a Chief with 5 S4/3D6 S3 attacks clad in heavy armour is useless until he ends up in basecontact with your master wizard. To me it makes perfect sense that my cowardly troops would put all their effort into killing the mage spewing fire (or whatever) than the less scary troops around him.
  • I do highly agree that characters are overcosted in terms of dmg but I don't want the old cowboy meta back where 1 guy beats a whole regiment of infantry.


    Quite frankly.
    More HP.
    Less armour / ward
    More situational dmg vs intended targets
    Same dmg as lords vs everyone else

    Is imo the way to go.
    Too close to home; too lightly guarded!