Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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!

  • Giladis wrote:

    It is not impossible but very highly unlikely because categories are both balance and design elements if the book.
    I know that for the next update it will not be possible.
    However the division of categories is one of the problems for the construction of synergies between some units of this book.

    If the next update goes in the right direction in terms of reducing the cost of some elf units in general, it will show that 9th is moving forward.
    My galery
    Lord of the Hobby: Quickstarter Highborn Elfes
  • Vespacian wrote:

    I am one of the crowd that felt the book was ‘fine’ a year ago, a lot has changed since then and I tend to agree with the tiering that RT just released

    Vespacian wrote:

    Would you not agree that tiering is relative? If 2 out of 16 books get moved above you, when you could previously handle the match up your relative tier placement has declined.
    What does quotation mark means for the word 'fine', why would you have to use it I wonder?
    True, at least two books was considered worse than our an year ago, did it make ours fine? What has changed for VS from the last year that you included them in your example?
    And at the same time as some armies got buffed in the last update, others got nerfed, right? I know, the scale was not as big as for WDG and OK but still. What were the changes HbE book received then, was it buffed or nerfed summing up?

    What I'm trying to say here is, I don't understand how you could say that the book was alright before the last year.
  • DanT wrote:

    Anyone here still want to moan about data driven approaches? Anyone?

    Is this a “I told you so?” Because the data driven approach does have flaws even if I support it as the only real logical measurement of external army strength.

    Giladis wrote:

    It should be noted that being in the bottom tier does not mean the army is awful.

    It merely means that within the spread of performances it has the strongest trend to be placed there.

    The army performances which will most likely be published at some point during this whole process are so tight that our entire game fits within a single power tier of 8th Ed WHFB.

    This is purely subjective. I doubt you have data to back that up. However while the tiers in WHFB prior ET were existent I disagree that the deviation was larger than the current S-D tier. Even comparing uncomped with Comp against T9A I would surmise the difference wasn’t as large as you make it sound outside of the bottom two books being: TK and Beastmen. Of which the latter never got an update.

    Fnarrr wrote:

    It won't (because MoCT is 285, Adept is 225, 60 points for extra spell and the healing ability is fine - so you can see MoCTs in support caster roles), but it will force us to take some other commander chump to make into a BSB, which is basically a 200 point nerf to the external balance of the army.

    That’s simply wrong.

    Not allowing a Bsb upgrade for a MotC would effect external balance, and the choice internally as players are not going to saddle themselves with a do nothing commander model that cannot be mounted as a secondary mage as that would eat up too many points via character allowance. You would then be featuring four characters every game which is a poor ROI if when they are as fragile, and non-multi utility as they would be with only an honor, or only a Bsb.

    Bluntly I think you’d instead see:

    -Prince with MotC and Bsb with QC
    -No MotC

    Which when combined would simply be a net loss, or a push when it comes to cost expenditures. (Save 25 points here on this character and that one, spend an extra 30 points for MotC and then 85 for 2 more spells).

    Self restriction isn’t the way to go that’s why the book is where it is right now. Instead, just increase the points cost to properly reflect its utility.

    Feaynnewedd wrote:

    It's only points adjustments anyway....... for the umpteenth time.

    We’ll have to wait and see.

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    Points only my fellow Princes and fair Elven Maidens. :D

    So, think in terms of points, as it is extremely unlikely to be anything else but point tweaks.

    I for one hope on some nice point drops on Frosty the Snowbird and Happy little Griffon. :D

    Among other things, ofc. :beer:

    I want the Fire Phoenix to have its AEGIS SAVE back. For this exorbitant cost, and no Aegis Save it’s reluctantly unplayable, and the justification for why it didn’t have one is ‘lore weak’ and a simple fix by streamlining the profile through a single sentence in the book is ‘arguably’ not even a design change on a single model platform.

    You could lower the points to 400 and add a +5 Aegis and I bet a beer that the meta would see an increase in the models play.

    elendor_f wrote:

    N3okorrales wrote:

    Vespacian wrote:

    @AlexCat
    We will see, I’m not sure something on the magnitude of Furions video could be expected.
    yeah cause an extra elf on every list is such a huge improvement. weve been saying the army is crap for over 2 years while enduring the " the army is fine" crowd triying to justify the state of the book. Finally data prove weve been right all this time. Without data we got hit by the nerfhammer on multiple levels nerfing us into freaking oblivion( hello HWOTF) and now you are telling us that the buffs might be meaningless? they better be significant cause another year with this book might spread the trend we see in spain with 0 HBE on tournaments.
    Emphasis mine.It's not all this time, it's only since the new data-based analysis has begun. Which is for 2019 and maybe the last third of 2018, I'm not sure. But definitely not for "over 2 years".

    Emphasis not yours. . . ? It has been two years. I deployed right when the “guy feeling” tests had taken effect to nerf the army.

    Fall 2018 post last ETC the army noticeably started to get poor results when I was tracking NA and some West European results.

    IntrigueAtCourt wrote:

    We'll see what will happen. I don't really think getting 100 points (an eagle or 4-5 more bodies) is going to solve much of anything. But, if the core units become more efficient it could help a lot. All the book's problems start in the core section, its a 1125 point anchor of 1a st3 res3 with bad armor, st3 range. The only non st3 thing in there is overpriced by 40%.

    Obviously though, its good that the project recognizes that there is a problem.

    My personal opinion agrees with you. Getting an extra Eagle isn’t going to do that much, I’d hardly anything.

    However, getting a larger discount in characters, so that we can better equip/bring out better zoning threats to maintain external efficiency against S, A and B armies will help.

    I feel I’m short 180-450 points per game pending what I play against roughly 4-10%.

    Kapten Kluns wrote:

    I guess that changes to other armies will also help HBE ^^ , if HBE lists on avarage gets a 5% decrease in cost while the top performing armies gets a similar increase. Then the external balance of HBE will also get better :D .
    I guess what in trying to say is that the bigger picture matters just as much as what happends to a single AB in a vacuum.
    Cheers

    It wholly depends on what the external deviations are in each tier, and what the cause effect relationship balance would be if a points nerf takes place.

    The best example I can think of off of the top of my head is in 2015 when Yugioh introduced Mermails to the scene. After 6 months they were hit with Abyssteus, and the Diva to x2 and x1, but the deck just ran slightly slower until a replacement was found or players ran tech. The skeleton wasn’t effected enough to force the player to make a deck, or deck composition choice. Thus, a second limitation, and eventually a third banning was needed to weaken the deck to the point that players abandoned it.

    Ideally, T9A balancing squad hits UD, VS, etc . . . , for example (correctly enough with points hikes) that the army could still play for example the Pendulum, or Vermin Demon, but in doing so would hinder the ability to also fit support pieces, chaff, scoring, artillery without breaking percentages.

    It’s a fine edge between points increasing a unit into obscurity, and not doing enough.
    Fortunately for VS and UD, for they have better internal balance than their communities think, and alternative units/enchantments could easily become plug and play. How well of a plug play needs to be considered as apart of the external balance cause and effect relationship. Replacing x2 Doomwheel with another slightly less nasty unit inter synergy would be replacing one “disease” for another (less Diva and Abyessteus? More Dragoon, and Upstart) and foster another year (Vice 6 months in my Yugioh example) of “S tier rating.”

    Vespacian wrote:

    Would you not agree that tiering is relative? If 2 out of 16 books get moved above you, when you could previously handle the match up your relative tier placement has declined.
    Yes it is relative, but OK and WDG were in a better spot via post etc data than we are now if you cross-compare the numbers not include the rest of the world singles, army scarcity/representation, and other factors.

    ________________________________


    I also feel semi-validated that what data I tracked, and claim I levied has a result. Especially as the first person to actively bring that HBE are “10% over cost across the board” (some spots 5% or others 15%), with roughly three entries that could use a points 5-10% points increase (not including design changes).

    This is was one of the earlier ones:

    Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    Unit costs and the current AWSR: the book is largely overcosted externally by about 10%. Some spots ranging from needing +10% to others needing -15%. The current AWSR is redundant, and a poor man’s version of one of SA’s many rules. Bluntly put its bottom tier: tier 3 in terms of AWSR, and possibly the worse in the game. . . [Etc. . .].”


    -Circa 2018 October

    I was inside he ballpark with this stance. Almost 10 months prior to the current ETC and calendar year.

    Hot takes is my name. Spicy claims (hypotheses) are my game.

    We’ll have to wait and see for the next one.
    I type on mobile so my spelling mistakes can hide that English is my native tongue. :write: :HE: :KoE:

    Evershade Gaming on YouTube
    youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

    theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog
  • Adam wrote:

    Wesser wrote:

    Ah, but if that was true where would that leave VC who have Core that are far worse?
    It is quite funny that you keep claiming that but to be honest having played both armies I get way more mileage out of VC core than from HBE core.
    That is perfectly possible. After all VC Core can be enabled as immoveable bricks (provided the enemy don't have units to lawnmower them), but suddenly you're requiring a lot of setup in terms of magic, choice of bloodlines and other support elements. And it also have to do with VC Core being priced backwards with small unit being cheap and big units being expensive.

    But enough about VC. I've got no issue with HBE Core getting cheaper - preferably in the additional models cost department
  • Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    That’s simply wrong.

    Not allowing a Bsb upgrade for a MotC would effect external balance
    ...that was basically what I said, but enjoy your rant anyway ;)

    MotC that isn't a BSB is a valid option internally though. You need a support mage a lot of the time, and with bow of elu for 365 he is a reasonable tradeoff vs an adept for 225; your actual BSB will probably end up being QC (around 250 pts).
  • The difference between top and bottom tier in WHFB prior to ET was per ETC estimate 500 old points and even then it wasn't enough to be on exactly level playing field. So over 25% of the army. On the other hand the estimate is that top and bottom in T9A are separated by no more than 250 new points.

    There is another factor which plays into some of the armies scoring lower than what the army itself would allow. It has been noticed that there is some corelation between comments the army or units within the army do not play/perform as the player wants. Or in otherwords a portion of the reason why some armies on the lower end of performance spread are there is because of having a potentially a higher percentage of players that try to push a square peg into a round whole.

    The reasons why each individual army ends where it ends as the balance gets tighter progresivelly less has to do with the armies themselves and more with the sociology of the playing group and the psychological charactersitics of the person playing it.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    Art Team Coordinator

    Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
  • Giladis that last paragraph...
    While this relationship makes some sense theoretically, it completely juxtaposes the data driven argument. How is one going to factor in sociology or psychology in data Driven approaches? How do we define these variables?

    So if we are to blame HE players rather than the list. Can you provide concrete example of hbe lists taken where the player is clearly confused. For example: a castle list where we can justify telling that player to go play EoS or DH. Or a cav list player to go play KoE...
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • To wrap up my spree of meta-commentary, I'm genuinely pleased to see that our collective diagnosis as masochists playing a trash army (and sadomasochists rubbing it in) hasn't relieved this place of its toxicity.
    ETC Team Belgium 2014 Dark Elves
    ETC Team Belgium 2015 Skaven
    ETC Team Belgium 2016 Lizardmen
    ETC Team Belgium 2017 Highborn Elves
    ETC Team Belgium 2019 Highborn Elves
  • Giladis wrote:

    The difference between top and bottom tier in WHFB prior to ET was per ETC estimate 500 old points and even then it wasn't enough to be on exactly level playing field. So over 25% of the army. On the other hand the estimate is that top and bottom in T9A are separated by no more than 250 new points.
    Mmmm, i'm on the conservative side of things, but I feel like you are undershooting here.
    To be precise, I think you are underestimating UD, who've been top tier three years in a row now.

    They're about 200-250 points above the middle ground themselves.
    The low tier isn't anywhere nearly that badly off from middle, but this by itself leaves no budget to work with.

    The tier gaps just aren't even, the distance between 1 and 3 is way bigger than the distance between 3 and 5.
    And the distance between 2 and 4 is barely noticable.

    Frankly, in terms of absolute rather than relative gaps, @DanTs tiering system below isn't far off:
    Tier 1: UD
    Tier 2: Everyone else
  • I wonder if Hbe could climb the FAB works list with their current position in tiers?
    I believe in AWSR change and strong redesign to get our desired balance (internal and external).
    I also believe that at some point we missed the chance to get a new unit entry.
    Also everything @Trains_Get_Robbed said.
    "Le donne, i cavallier, l'arme, gli amori,
    le cortesie, l'audaci imprese io canto"

    Ludovico Ariosto
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Frankly, in terms of absolute rather than relative gaps, @DanTs tiering system below isn't far off:
    Tier 1: UD
    Tier 2: Everyone else
    Don't bring me into this :P
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • jaith1 wrote:

    Giladis that last paragraph...
    While this relationship makes some sense theoretically, it completely juxtaposes the data driven argument. How is one going to factor in sociology or psychology in data Driven approaches? How do we define these variables?

    So if we are to blame HE players rather than the list. Can you provide concrete example of hbe lists taken where the player is clearly confused. For example: a castle list where we can justify telling that player to go play EoS or DH. Or a cav list player to go play KoE...
    He is saying that the gap between armies is so small that it's going to be progressively harder to address balance with points update and not that HBE players are not capable to see the good elements of the army.

    I gather that the second type of problem is that players have different ideas of what an army is meant to represent and what playstyles are desired/optimal(that would be me playing elves only with SE), that can only be partially addressed with LABs and the associated background i guess
  • @Chack
    He literally said that this factor is currently influencing lower tier army performance and then mentioning a correlation of what players want/perceive in a unit.

    Maybe the best example is SE playing with zero bows and zero trees, with an attempt at an elf only battle line (but they surely cannot be the majority).
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    The difference between top and bottom tier in WHFB prior to ET was per ETC estimate 500 old points and even then it wasn't enough to be on exactly level playing field. So over 25% of the army. On the other hand the estimate is that top and bottom in T9A are separated by no more than 250 new points.
    Mmmm, i'm on the conservative side of things, but I feel like you are undershooting here.To be precise, I think you are underestimating UD, who've been top tier three years in a row now.

    They're about 200-250 points above the middle ground themselves.
    The low tier isn't anywhere nearly that badly off from middle, but this by itself leaves no budget to work with.

    The tier gaps just aren't even, the distance between 1 and 3 is way bigger than the distance between 3 and 5.
    And the distance between 2 and 4 is barely noticable.

    Frankly, in terms of absolute rather than relative gaps, @DanTs tiering system below isn't far off:
    Tier 1: UD
    Tier 2: Everyone else
    Add WoTDG to tier 1, please. Their new book is bonkers. They have things almost as crazy as in 8th edition. Practically everything is: more powerful than it should/more cheaper than it should/a mixture of both.
  • Giladis wrote:

    There is another factor which plays into some of the armies scoring lower than what the army itself would allow. It has been noticed that there is some corelation between comments the army or units within the army do not play/perform as the player wants. Or in otherwords a portion of the reason why some armies on the lower end of performance spread are there is because of having a potentially a higher percentage of players that try to push a square peg into a round whole.
    Surely this is alleviated when you take data cuts of the top tables only? I imagine you aren't working with only one data measure...

    DanT wrote:

    Don't bring me into this

    Come roll around the filth with the rest of us ;)

    Arthur wrote:

    To wrap up my spree of meta-commentary, I'm genuinely pleased to see that our collective diagnosis as masochists playing a trash army (and sadomasochists rubbing it in) hasn't relieved this place of its toxicity.
    I blame @AlexCat :P
  • Giladis wrote:

    The reasons why each individual army ends where it ends as the balance gets tighter progresivelly less has to do with the armies themselves and more with the sociology of the playing group and the psychological charactersitics of the person playing it.

    This is a cute theory, and I agree it a partial explanation.

    Though the dice care not. Units themselves have ASAWs. Doxa excists. Hidden gems excist.

    But so does real power discrepancies.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • jaith1 wrote:

    @Chack
    He literally said that this factor is currently influencing lower tier army performance and then mentioning a correlation of what players want/perceive in a unit.

    Maybe the best example is SE playing with zero bows and zero trees, with an attempt at an elf only battle line (but they surely cannot be the majority).

    It works. Its not very strong or flexible. But it works.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Do not fall to the folly of the best laid of plans - for the mind of man is fickle in the face of the dice gods.
    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.
  • Furion wrote:

    Again. I will gladly contribute to improving HE armybook. I know this army inside-out like no player in the world :(
    My hands and mind is at the disposal of whoever is in charge.
    Hi @Furion

    Please submit a constructive list of your proposed changes and reasoning for these changes to the HE ACS team:

    @Vespacian and @Masamune88

    :)

    Background Team

    9th Scroll Editor

    Ammertime Podcast Host
    soundcloud.com/ammertime-podcast
    Team Ireland ETC 2019 :HE: