.205 Warriors of the Dark Gods

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • yedee wrote:

    The HFA change is terrible. Every iteration of WDG book the armour gets worse and worse, why does one even bother giving such mariginal rules like aegis 5+ against toxic attacks? Not only are they very rare but the 5++ is no solid protection anyway...
    I spent some time working on a homebrew WDG and actually ended up doing almost the same thing. My version of HFA was would have granted an aegis save against toxic attacks, lethal strike and possibly one or two other types of damage. 5++ seems reasonable.

    I think if you included lethal strike it would have more of a game impact but due to the 5++ still not too OP.
  • TT should correct me if I'm wrong, but it is primarily a fluff rule.

    It is part of the world building of explaining what magical energy is, how it affects living beings and what HFA armour is (i.e. in some ways a bit like a radiation suit to protect against magic*).

    We get told all the time that our rules should be more immersive, evocative, background driven etc...


    * : I am not on BGT, this is just my limited simple understanding of a deeper issue. Do not quote me on this and apply copious amounts of salt.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • Taking away useful rules to replace them with fluff rules without adequate price adjustments is still baffling. My previous questions stand:


    yedee wrote:

    So according to what you say the price of the warriors got lowered twice (step 1 and 2) and still they ended costing just 1ppm less (apart from great weapon ones who stayed the same)?
    What about warrior knights?

    Don't you think that it's kind of pointless to keep internally strong choices (as supposedly warriors are) without changes while the army externaly is lower tier and needs buffs? This way of reasoning will make (at best!) an internally balanced army that is still weak, am I right?
  • Right, but then your issue is with the price, not the design. So I wouldn't waste time moaning about the design :P

    I cannot answer you further on prices because I disagree with RT consensus on the prices for warriors. To the extent that I specifically brought them up on a meeting and made several of the points that have been made in this thread.
    But the point of being part of a team is that one gets outvoted sometimes. I must trust&hope that my colleagues are right.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • DanT wrote:

    Right, but then your issue is with the price, not the design. So I wouldn't waste time moaning about the design :P

    I cannot answer you further on prices because I disagree with RT consensus on the prices for warriors. To the extent that I specifically brought them up on a meeting and made several of the points that have been made in this thread.
    But the point of being part of a team is that one gets outvoted sometimes. I must trust&hope that my colleagues are right.
    No it's not that simple. Design and pricing influence one another.

    New HFA armour is garbage (even if it is/would be free). Losing re-roll marches (design) and getting 5++ against toxic with almost non-existant price drop is a failure of pricing at the same time.

    I should have learned a long time ago that there is no point in moaning when you can't influence anything, but with every change of this kind (like HFA in 2.05) I feel like I can't really not give a comment...
  • yedee wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Right, but then your issue is with the price, not the design. So I wouldn't waste time moaning about the design :P

    I cannot answer you further on prices because I disagree with RT consensus on the prices for warriors. To the extent that I specifically brought them up on a meeting and made several of the points that have been made in this thread.
    But the point of being part of a team is that one gets outvoted sometimes. I must trust&hope that my colleagues are right.
    No it's not that simple. Design and pricing influence one another.
    New HFA armour is garbage (even if it is/would be free). Losing re-roll marches (design) and getting 5++ against toxic with almost non-existant price drop is a failure of pricing at the same time.

    I should have learned a long time ago that there is no point in moaning when you can't influence anything, but with every change of this kind (like HFA in 2.05) I feel like I can't really not give a comment...
    Right, but if it had been accompanied by a sufficient price drop, it would be fine, right?
    That's what you said above. Or have I misunderstood?
    Put differently, If it had been accompanied by a sufficient price drop, would you still have an issue with the design?


    (It is important for us to work to parse and understand feedback as well as possible which is why I am pushing this).
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • If we didn't lose re-roll marchers and just gained this 5++ against toxic in addition to it then I wouldn't really care as 95% of players would forget about it's existance within 6 months.

    When I'm losing a useful rule (fluff rule is worthless so I ignore it completely) then I'm expecting some price decrease. On top of another price decrease due to the entire army being bottom tier. And on top of other price deacreases for rules that I lost (like Spiked Shields on Knights).

    HFA 5++ against toxic is a waste of space and doesn't really make a lot of sense from (my personal) background POV either. If it's a hazmat suit against Veil and Veil is toxic then why is it just 5++? How come HFA armoured units pass through Hellmaw portals without any danger at all? That is just inconsitent to me. Make it that toxic attacks auto fail (like with Hellmaw portals) or just give 2++ against them at the very least (and drop Hellmaw clause about toxic attack automaticaly failing at the same time for consitency).

    I'm not sure that even complete immunity to toxic attacks or 2++ against them would be worth as much as march re-rolls but it might actually matter sometime unlike the current 5++.
  • Fluff driven is okey, but sometimes minor rules are easily forgotten because they do not have an important impact on gameplay.
    Aegis 5+ vs. toxic is close to meaningless, maybe 4+ would be better. But then we risk that this stops being fun when playing VS against WDG. :)

    Lethal strike protection is all over the place, sometimes it is so common it is just wtf, why does Lethal strike then exist? Same with Battle Focus, sometimes it is so common no one is special for heaving it.

    And lets not forget Fearless on HFA. I get reminded of that each time I do not need to pass Fear or Panic test which could result in catastrophe for your battle line.
    Some previous game nerve wrecking moments still haunt me when my Scoring units were failing very important panic tests on 5th and 6th turn after loosing a model or two from puny shooting :)
    Army Design Team.
  • yedee wrote:

    'm not sure that even complete immunity to toxic attacks or 2++ against them would be worth as much as march re-rolls but it might actually matter sometime unlike the current 5++.
    complete immunity to toxic is a bad design because it would add far too much skew. VS player with lots of toxic? LOL get rekt, unfun game.

    Adding in some defence against lethal strike and poison would make it more worthwhile whilst keeping the same theme.

    I think it is a valid criticism that the current HFA rule will quickly get forgotten because it so rarely impacts the game. I would actually say that making rules that trigger extremely rarely (1 game in 20?) is bad design: either expand the rule so that it triggers at least once in every 3-4 games, or just get rid of it. @Krokz any thoughts on expanding this to include 5++ against lethal strikes that roll '6' to wound? I don't care about price, that can be fixed later.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Fluff driven is okey, but sometimes minor rules are easily forgotten because they do not have an important impact on gameplay.
    Aegis 5+ vs. toxic is close to meaningless, maybe 4+ would be better. But then we risk that this stops being fun when playing VS against WDG. :)

    Lethal strike protection is all over the place, sometimes it is so common it is just wtf, why does Lethal strike then exist? Same with Battle Focus, sometimes it is so common no one is special for heaving it.

    And lets not forget Fearless on HFA. I get reminded of that each time I do not need to pass Fear or Panic test which could result in catastrophe for your battle line.
    Some previous game nerve wrecking moments still haunt me when my Scoring units were failing very important panic tests on 5th and 6th turn after loosing a model or two from puny shooting :)
    Question - who have Lethal Strike protection? I have played against Dwarves, HBE, SE, DE, EoS, ID, BH, O&G, OK, KoE and VS, but never encountered such kind of protection.

    PS: The one thing is common in WODG - we have no lethal strike, battlefocus, poison or any other kind of combat rules (do not mention barb chief - right now he is considered as a biggest joke in my local community).
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future

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

  • AutoHammer wrote:

    complete immunity to toxic is a bad design because it would add far too much skew. VS player with lots of toxic? LOL get rekt, unfun game.
    Tell that to KoE player facing those "lots of toxic attacks" VS. You could make countless arguments that certain rule on any chosen army makes life harder for some build in another army but you don't see tons of people complaining about 3++ etheral units in VC that screw armies without magical attacks. That is part of the game and it makes building lists more interesting. It's not chess, we shouldn't aim for both sides to be perfectly balanced under every circumstances as it's impossible.

    Also, I brought up immunity to toxic attack (in Hallmaw rules) vs HFA rules as proof of background/fluff discrepancies that make no sense to me.
  • Not going to complain about new rule (since even without march re-rolls now we have discipline checks covered with herald), but I was always told before that HFA rerrolls both to break tests and to march tests - is very expensive stuff, so it surprises me greatly that with removal of this rules we didn't get big discount on stuff. Not blaming anyone for anything, but it just feels weird and diminishes the previous price arguments.

    Personally I don't think that right now, with all changes to the army, our core warriors are so overpriced (except halberds).
    What I am really disappointed is price change for Wasteland Behemoth for sorcerer in comparison to Doomlord. ~20p decrease for the unit that almost no one ever used (except me, and only because I am building my own fluff about their friendship). With introduction of Battleshrine as mount (thanks for that by the way, since i honestly asked for that) there is no point in even using behemoth for sorcerer anymore.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • yedee wrote:

    @Happy Aspid So basically you are saying we need to play with Herald to at least partially mitigate loss of march re-rolls. Remember Herald can't be everywhere at once and the Atrribute range is very short and you can't expect him to realiably cast enogh spells to cover every need.

    Usually there are no more than 1-2 melee combats at the same time. Herald have movement 8/16, with range of A 12' and additional range of +3' for every nearby sorcerer (if I understand rules correctly). While I think that Herald became overall weaker in melee, in WODG army he became nigh irreplaceable when it comes to usefulness. In case of pride favor - you receive double minimisation while have easy potential to have LD9 and still have access to BSB.

    PS: About price - warriors right now are almost equal to Grey-beards in terms of pure cost, while being superior combatants. Further decrease of price will just kill their supposed "Elite" concept.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • yedee wrote:

    And that is once again a poor design.

    What do melee combats have to do with marching though?
    Ability to get your unit where you want it to be when a lone half dead wolf rider is near your 30 warriors (scary thing). But honestly - I am yet to loose even one march test with HFA units.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • fjugin wrote:

    Looking at 0.201 prices of warriors (with reroll break, two support attacks, no favours etc), comparing it to current price, and then drawing conclusion that 0.205 warriors should be cheaper has one major flaw in its reasoning: It assumes that 0.201 warriors were correctly priced. We don't know if that is true or not. We don't have a lot of data on it, and the data is outdated and done against armies in a different meta.
    *Pointing at 1.3 Warriors*

    Come on, you should know that a comment like this is just a PR smoke bomb and that's it...

    Krokz wrote:

    Are you sure about that? Because I stopped using Chariots after reroll Break was removed. Reroll Break helped their staying power after Charging, I used them as tarpits. Warrior Chariot usually loose combat by 1 or 2, not more, and here Break rerolls help immensely.
    Yeah, they lost a lot of value from removal of the re-roll break test.

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    ETC 2016 - ID
    ETC 2017 - WDG
    ETC 2018 - ID
  • Kathal wrote:

    fjugin wrote:

    Looking at 0.201 prices of warriors (with reroll break, two support attacks, no favours etc), comparing it to current price, and then drawing conclusion that 0.205 warriors should be cheaper has one major flaw in its reasoning: It assumes that 0.201 warriors were correctly priced. We don't know if that is true or not. We don't have a lot of data on it, and the data is outdated and done against armies in a different meta.
    *Pointing at 1.3 Warriors*
    Come on, you should know that a comment like this is just a PR smoke bomb and that's it...

    Krokz wrote:

    Are you sure about that? Because I stopped using Chariots after reroll Break was removed. Reroll Break helped their staying power after Charging, I used them as tarpits. Warrior Chariot usually loose combat by 1 or 2, not more, and here Break rerolls help immensely.
    Yeah, they lost a lot of value from removal of the re-roll break test.
    Greetings,
    Kathal
    Our standard chariots lost a lot with removal of re-rolls to break test, since march re-roll was useless for them. Now at least there something to utilise.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future