Pinned Spoiler for 205 #2

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.

  • Eisenhans wrote:

    Nomad Rat wrote:

    I have a question... Lightning Attacks are now Close Combat right? I get it for the Dreadmill, but what about the "Lightning" Cannon.
    It applies to shooting as well but could be worded better.
    @Eisenheinrich - thoughts on this? I did not notice it on my original read through.


    Find me on Twitter! - twitter.com/SkavenInAZ
  • SkavenInAZ wrote:

    Eisenhans wrote:

    Nomad Rat wrote:

    I have a question... Lightning Attacks are now Close Combat right? I get it for the Dreadmill, but what about the "Lightning" Cannon.
    It applies to shooting as well but could be worded better.
    @Eisenheinrich - thoughts on this? I did not notice it on my original read through.
    You're probably referring to the "Close Combat" keyword after "Lightning Attack", right?

    This does not make lightning attacks close combat attacks (see 21.G Attack Attributes in the BRB).

    The close combat keyword means that if a model or model part is given the lightning attack rule, only its close combat attacks will gain that rule (but not its special attacks, shooting attacks, etc.).
    And if lightning attacks are given to a weapon or an attack, then all hit made with this weapon/attack will have the model rule (regardless if it's a shooting or close combat weapon).

    So technically, the close combat keyword doesn't have any effects for lightning attacks (since in both instances in the book the rule is given to a weapon/attack), so I assume it's there to "fit the system" ;) .
  • Eisenheinrich wrote:

    SkavenInAZ wrote:

    Eisenhans wrote:

    Nomad Rat wrote:

    I have a question... Lightning Attacks are now Close Combat right? I get it for the Dreadmill, but what about the "Lightning" Cannon.
    It applies to shooting as well but could be worded better.
    @Eisenheinrich - thoughts on this? I did not notice it on my original read through.
    You're probably referring to the "Close Combat" keyword after "Lightning Attack", right?
    This does not make lightning attacks close combat attacks (see 21.G Attack Attributes in the BRB).

    The close combat keyword means that if a model or model part is given the lightning attack rule, only its close combat attacks will gain that rule (but not its special attacks, shooting attacks, etc.).
    And if lightning attacks are given to a weapon or an attack, then all hit made with this weapon/attack will have the model rule (regardless if it's a shooting or close combat weapon).

    So technically, the close combat keyword doesn't have any effects for lightning attacks (since in both instances in the book the rule is given to a weapon/attack), so I assume it's there to "fit the system" ;) .
    Thank you, Head of Clarity :)
  • arwaker wrote:

    Dear fellow mice, don't be too sad if your greatest wish of point reduction has not been implemented so far. We from analysis crew try to push RT to make those rounds of points change more frequently. Maybe even on a 6 monthly base.
    Isn't it enough once/year so it can be like good/crappy Christmas? We already know the Vermin demon and Dreadmill is going up in points until they are unplayable, just let us play with them another year! :D
  • Eisenheinrich wrote:

    You're probably referring to the "Close Combat" keyword after "Lightning Attack", right?
    This does not make lightning attacks close combat attacks (see 21.G Attack Attributes in the BRB).

    The close combat keyword means that if a model or model part is given the lightning attack rule, only its close combat attacks will gain that rule (but not its special attacks, shooting attacks, etc.).
    And if lightning attacks are given to a weapon or an attack, then all hit made with this weapon/attack will have the model rule (regardless if it's a shooting or close combat weapon).

    So technically, the close combat keyword doesn't have any effects for lightning attacks (since in both instances in the book the rule is given to a weapon/attack), so I assume it's there to "fit the system" ;) .
    Is the "close combat" keyword necessary?

    I mean it is confusing, and for sure my future opponents will try not to get those 1d6 extra hits when I shoot at them. They will be right to do as "close combat" makes you think only to apply them on close combat phase.

    I am afraid to predict lots of arguing in my future games because of this.

    What if this keyword get erased? As I see it, will save complexity and arguments.
    scissors: "OMG ROCK IS SUPER OVERPOWERED! NERF IT!!" "what about paper?" "paper is fine"

    Photos of models/armies from ETC 2017:

    Cool models seen at ETC 2017
  • Eisenhans wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    Dear fellow mice, don't be too sad if your greatest wish of point reduction has not been implemented so far. We from analysis crew try to push RT to make those rounds of points change more frequently. Maybe even on a 6 monthly base.
    Isn't it enough once/year so it can be like good/crappy Christmas? We already know the Vermin demon and Dreadmill is going up in points until they are unplayable, just let us play with them another year! :D
    I fear it's not like you predict. Nothing should become unplayable by points increase, because changes are treated with caution. And I don't know of any such case where points increase alone made something unplayable. All those events were correlated to design changes.

    So, as long as VD and Mill are considered as too cheap, they will receive further points increases. But even before your feared unplayability kicks in, the process of point increase will stop, hopefully at the perfect price. Perfect price is probably where about half of community thinks it is slightly too expensive, and the other half thinks they would just still play it.

    So, unless some party is pushing for major design changes, I have no suspicion of something becoming unplayable. When Full Book comes out some day, I think some things could be of low efficiency, sure. But only until the regular points change sessions have corrected that.
  • arwaker wrote:

    Eisenhans wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    Dear fellow mice, don't be too sad if your greatest wish of point reduction has not been implemented so far. We from analysis crew try to push RT to make those rounds of points change more frequently. Maybe even on a 6 monthly base.
    Isn't it enough once/year so it can be like good/crappy Christmas? We already know the Vermin demon and Dreadmill is going up in points until they are unplayable, just let us play with them another year! :D
    I fear it's not like you predict. Nothing should become unplayable by points increase, because changes are treated with caution. And I don't know of any such case where points increase alone made something unplayable. All those events were correlated to design changes.
    So, as long as VD and Mill are considered as too cheap, they will receive further points increases. But even before your feared unplayability kicks in, the process of point increase will stop, hopefully at the perfect price. Perfect price is probably where about half of community thinks it is slightly too expensive, and the other half thinks they would just still play it.

    So, unless some party is pushing for major design changes, I have no suspicion of something becoming unplayable. When Full Book comes out some day, I think some things could be of low efficiency, sure. But only until the regular points change sessions have corrected that.
    The part of wanting updates more rarely was serious, the part of things getting priced to death was semi-serious. Things that see a lot of play gets more expensive, in the end they get too pricey to include in your list without viable options to replace them with. Grenadiers and the assassin are two prime examples of too costly units; I can get a Chief w/Fetthis Broodmaster, Heavy armour, Paired weapons and tail weapons and King slayer for 215 points instead of 300 for the assassin and I'll have better threat-range with the chief, sure the chief will die but the character I aim for most likely will be too.
  • Eisenhans wrote:

    The part of wanting updates more rarely was serious, the part of things getting priced to death was semi-serious. Things that see a lot of play gets more expensive, in the end they get too pricey to include in your list without viable options to replace them with. Grenadiers and the assassin are two prime examples of too costly units; I can get a Chief w/Fetthis Broodmaster, Heavy armour, Paired weapons and tail weapons and King slayer for 215 points instead of 300 for the assassin and I'll have better threat-range with the chief, sure the chief will die but the character I aim for most likely will be too.
    Now that is a completely different statement. I can agree with your opinion that some elements in the book have still too high prices, like for example assassins or gutterdudes.
    But why you don't like more frequent price changes? The earlier we make the next balance round, the sooner we get better prices for those expensive things.
  • @arwaker Even though I think the VS-book is in a really good place there is still the problem of internal balance which in my opinion can't be solved by repricing. I like playing with all sorts of "trash" units (which should be evident from my lists I post here) but I shouldn't be forced to play with sub-par units as a default when the few really good entries are overused, points adjustments as I see it are a blunt instrument. Also it is getting tiresome to relearn pointvalues over and over ;) Guess I'm trying to say that I am waiting for the FAB^^
  • Eisenhans wrote:

    Guess I'm trying to say that I am waiting for the FAB^^
    No you are probably not. FAB means huge balancing issues. The WoDG book has been being re-balanced and redesigned for a year now and still no one is sure where they are. A FAB is not the end of changes, it means starting balancing from scratch. At least judging by WoDG.
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook

    _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar

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

  • Some day, after some more rounds of points adjustment, there hopefully will not be any "really good entries", neither any "sub par units". Only entries which are playable.

    It will not look like this to all players, because everybody has a different meta, different experience and different playstyle. So for some players unit A will be considered slightly overpriced and unit B slightly underpriced. But for other people it will be exactly the other way round. But nothing will be unplayable for a majority of the community. And nothing will be an auto-pick for the majority of the community. Do not expect that you individually will feel perfect internal balance, because it is very unlikely that your individual style is exactly the community-average.

    For future rounds of points adjustments, I suggest the following mental a) to e) approach to get the best information out of community feedback:

    a) Consider the external balance of your army as perfect, even if it is not. External balance is measured, and carefully considered within the update process. Do not waste only the slightest thought about it, because it blocks your mental capacity to visualize your individual internal balance map. Only think of your beloved army in a vacuum, as if all matches were mirror matches. Don't trigger your dark God of envy by looking at other armies and their beautiful and underpriced stuff.

    b) Take a deep breath and think about units you have taken often lately. Think about why you took them often. Think about whether you would still use it if they would be slightly more expensive. If you found such a unit/item/option that you would still take in your army, even if it costs more, write it down and take another deep breath. Eat some cheesecake maybe to overcome your growing self-hate. Continue and find more such entries.

    c) If you really can't take it anymore, if your hate for the project has grown to a mountain of madness. Stop it. Take some more deep breaths and maybe some bacon. Call it a day and go sleep or clean your fur or whatever you do when not rolling dice for ratmen. Next day, repeat step b). After some weeks, you might have a number of entries. Let's call it Q. Because X is a dull variable for elves. Be proud on your Q. Treat your Q like a secret Christmas present. Now wait for a really really bad day.

    d) You had a bad day. Your mouse wife got some children from your brother. Your cheese was stolen. Your fur is falling off. Your boss in the warpstone factory is such a cat. Whatever. Now it's your day of revenge. You look at your army book and look for things you have never used. Things you really want to use because they are shiny and spiky and dangerous. Things you never bought because too expensive for a poor rat. Take Q of them and write them down. Not more that Q.

    e) Provide entries b, c d to your ACS when next round of point changes is about to come. You will see it, because suddenly polls and surveys pop up e everywhere. ACS will collect those for all members, give it to RT and hopefully when Micemas (even better than christmas) comes out some weeks later, your get some of your wishes come true.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    Eisenhans wrote:

    Guess I'm trying to say that I am waiting for the FAB^^
    No you are probably not. FAB means huge balancing issues. The WoDG book has been being re-balanced and redesigned for a year now and still no one is sure where they are. A FAB is not the end of changes, it means starting balancing from scratch. At least judging by WoDG.
    There were a huge number of learnings from the WDG process... now the DL process gets to prove if we actually learned any of them.

    I really don’t look forward to the process of the VS book for no other reason than we will need to clarify the idea of risk/reward to people who want predictable. The job of communicating how fluffy and cultural this army is compared to the others is not going to be easy.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • @Fleshbeast I've been playing the game that shall not be mentioned since you could put Warpfire throwers in units and roll one misfire and all of a sudden you have 3 Clanrats and a half-dead Doomwheel left on the table. There is an utter lack of risk built in to the weapons presently, as an old rat I can appreciate this; the risk-reward comes down to playstyle instead. But I also like the old ways. As long as Honourless don't get erased I will be happy :thumbsup: