Pinned ID General Chat

    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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

    The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

    • Giladis wrote:

      The issue with that (old) rule is that it brings the unit's eliteness above the allowed level for a dwarf unit within the game.

      Immortals are not supposed to be more elite than other dwarven equivalents. :)
      OK I know I am no-one of any great importance on any level, and this is not meant to be a personal attack at all, but this is insane. What is "eliteness"? How is this defined? A unit that seems pretty standard in one army will look amazing in another so is there some kind of spreadsheet or rubric being used? Is this "eliteness" scale only being measured against the DH?

      Just trying to understand something I feel really passionate about,
      HC330
    • Giladis wrote:

      HappyCan303 wrote:

      What is "eliteness"? How is this defined?
      In the T9A terminology Eliteness is a totality of stats, rules and abilities that a model/unit possesses.
      Yeah that part I get. I guess I should have phrased it more as: is this a subjective measure or an objective measure?

      If it's the first, subjective, I'd argue that those judging might need to re-evaluate where the DH are at the moment and maybe flip the paradigm to say that the Deep Watch should be brought up to where the Immortals are, not vice versa, if testing shows the Immortals are balanced over all.

      If it's the second and it's being applied universally then.. well OK, not much to say there.


      Hopefully that makes sense,
      HC303



      p.s. I LOVE game design so this is something I find fascinating as well
    • HappyCan303 wrote:

      is this a subjective measure or an objective measure?
      It is both. Parts are objective and parts are subjective and the conclusion will be more subjective or objective depending on how much of the design is made out of each.



      HappyCan303 wrote:

      If it's the first, subjective, I'd argue that those judging might need to re-evaluate where the DH are at the moment and maybe flip the paradigm to say that the Deep Watch should be brought up to where the Immortals are, not vice versa, if testing shows the Immortals are balanced over all.
      That is not how we do things. New LABs need to fit into the existing game and conform to existing limitations unless there is strong incentive to change that in order to make them compliant to the T9A background. Which is why the DE LAB team was instructed that the eliteness of the DE must be comparable to the eliteness of HE and SE in existing books. Upon review of the guidelines it looks the ID team was told the same but not as clearly which might have lead to a misunderstanding.

      As for why it was not spotter or objected sooner I do not know at the moment but since we are still in the production of the book - this is after all just public playtesting phase - I do not see any issue with it being amended now. It would have been a problem if we made the book Gold and only then noticed the discrepancy.

      Advisory Board

      Background Team

      Assistant Head of Art Team

    • Eliteness is objective when coarse-grained, and subjective when fine-grained.
      E.g. it is objectively correct that a warrior of the dark gods is more elite than a goblin.

      Note: Eliteness is a design/thematic measure, not a power/viability measure.
      The word "balance" nearly always refers to power/viability.
      So in that sense, whether DW are "balanced" is irrelevant to their use as a measure of eliteness.

      (Which doesn't per se mean that DW are a sensible choice as an eliteness measure, just that whether or not they are a sensible choice is not balance related. Personally, I'd use Kings guard as the reference point, because if they are more elite than DW, and DW are used as the comparison point, then KG must be reduced in eliteness in the DH LAB...)
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
    • DanT wrote:

      *shrug*Those are separate issues :P

      I would like to know what eliteness level that design is seen as.

      Eliteness is largely only well defined from a coarse grained perspective, so it would be good to get a better feel for what RT see as the important characteristics in the comparison to deep watch.
      Without knowing that, it is hard for us to make suggestions that both us and RT will see as "lower eliteness".

      (For example, I consider the slim book immortals more elite than the current LAB immortals, and I consider my Danfernal dwarf immortal design to be of parity with the slim book).
      Well it was an issue that put me off using Immortals.

      I agree in the view that current Immortals are less elite than the slim ones. This ability is just so poor, requiring that it only work in specific circumstances as well. I am just surprised that 4+ to wound was too much; it didn't stop AP, so hitting with high S high AP attacks wasn't totally prevented from working.

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • Tyranno wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      *shrug*Those are separate issues :P

      I would like to know what eliteness level that design is seen as.

      Eliteness is largely only well defined from a coarse grained perspective, so it would be good to get a better feel for what RT see as the important characteristics in the comparison to deep watch.
      Without knowing that, it is hard for us to make suggestions that both us and RT will see as "lower eliteness".

      (For example, I consider the slim book immortals more elite than the current LAB immortals, and I consider my Danfernal dwarf immortal design to be of parity with the slim book).
      Well it was an issue that put me off using Immortals.
      I agree in the view that current Immortals are less elite than the slim ones. This ability is just so poor, requiring that it only work in specific circumstances as well. I am just surprised that 4+ to wound was too much; it didn't stop AP, so hitting with high S high AP attacks wasn't totally prevented from working.
      What about the rule: successful to wound rolls of 3 or less must be re-rolled? It's clearly worse than the original 4+ to wound but still (I think) captures the feeling of them being hard to kill even with the strongest of weapons while not being too durable against lower-powered troops. It could be modified to 2 or less/4 or less if deemed too strong or too weak, respectively.
    • I find it a little bit funny that people say that getting -1 to wound to s5 or higher is weak.
      I have never heard anyone saying my 5+ blessing vs s5 is weak^^

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
    • Klexe wrote:

      I find it a little bit funny that people say that getting -1 to wound to s5 or higher is weak.
      I have never heard anyone saying my 5+ blessing vs s5 is weak^^
      Well because a 5++ is generally better than -1 to wound. Plus it is more perceivable by players.

      Example; I faced a KoE player the other week, passed about +75% of his 5++ saves, felt annoying as hell. That I can see and feel in the game on a much greater level than looking at dice and pointing out all the ones that would have passed with the ID rule.

      Also, the -1 to wound does not work on AP. So if you hit with a S6 attack, you still reduce the Immortals to 6+/nothing saves. A 5++ works against the entire attack.


      Not to mention this is on a single slow unit. Whereas with KoE the extra speed means you have less choice on if you are going to fight them.

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • Tyranno wrote:

      Klexe wrote:

      I find it a little bit funny that people say that getting -1 to wound to s5 or higher is weak.
      I have never heard anyone saying my 5+ blessing vs s5 is weak^^
      Well because a 5++ is generally better than -1 to wound. Plus it is more perceivable by players.
      Example; I faced a KoE player the other week, passed about +75% of his 5++ saves, felt annoying as hell. That I can see and feel in the game on a much greater level than looking at dice and pointing out all the ones that would have passed with the ID rule.

      Also, the -1 to wound does not work on AP. So if you hit with a S6 attack, you still reduce the Immortals to 6+/nothing saves. A 5++ works against the entire attack.


      Not to mention this is on a single slow unit. Whereas with KoE the extra speed means you have less choice on if you are going to fight them.
      I think a -1 to wound is better then a +1aegis

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/
    • Klexe wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      Klexe wrote:

      I find it a little bit funny that people say that getting -1 to wound to s5 or higher is weak.
      I have never heard anyone saying my 5+ blessing vs s5 is weak^^
      Well because a 5++ is generally better than -1 to wound. Plus it is more perceivable by players.Example; I faced a KoE player the other week, passed about +75% of his 5++ saves, felt annoying as hell. That I can see and feel in the game on a much greater level than looking at dice and pointing out all the ones that would have passed with the ID rule.

      Also, the -1 to wound does not work on AP. So if you hit with a S6 attack, you still reduce the Immortals to 6+/nothing saves. A 5++ works against the entire attack.


      Not to mention this is on a single slow unit. Whereas with KoE the extra speed means you have less choice on if you are going to fight them.
      I think a -1 to wound is better then a +1aegis

      Mathematically (for at least S5) -1 to-wound (for Res4) and +1 aegis is exactly the same, because you take 1/6 less wounds (didn't count AS).
    • Klexe wrote:

      Tyranno wrote:

      Klexe wrote:

      I find it a little bit funny that people say that getting -1 to wound to s5 or higher is weak.
      I have never heard anyone saying my 5+ blessing vs s5 is weak^^
      Well because a 5++ is generally better than -1 to wound. Plus it is more perceivable by players.Example; I faced a KoE player the other week, passed about +75% of his 5++ saves, felt annoying as hell. That I can see and feel in the game on a much greater level than looking at dice and pointing out all the ones that would have passed with the ID rule.

      Also, the -1 to wound does not work on AP. So if you hit with a S6 attack, you still reduce the Immortals to 6+/nothing saves. A 5++ works against the entire attack.


      Not to mention this is on a single slow unit. Whereas with KoE the extra speed means you have less choice on if you are going to fight them.
      I think a -1 to wound is better then a +1aegis
      Guys, the average amount of wounds done is statistically identical for -1 to wound and +1 aegis. The variance is a bit higher on the aegis save. They're pretty well the same; personally, I might take the aegis save due to the fact that to-wound re-rolls are probably slightly more prevalent in my meta than divine attacks, but, as I said, it's pretty well tomato tomata.

      Regardless, considering rules in a vacuum is kinda silly. Certainly they're units that would become too much with a 5+aegis and other units that would still suck if they had a -1 to wound rule.
    • Tyranno wrote:

      ferny wrote:

      I'm surprised this comes as a shock to T. This reinforces my point - I'm surprised if Gs statement can be the case, and if it was, for the ACS to not know about it til now and only find out incidentally in this thread shows a serious communication issue earlier in the process.
      I found out about a week ago.
      Certainly long after the update where the damage was done.
      same difference with regards to comms.

      @Emgies from this post quoted below and ensuring discussion, can you shed any light on the process, or pick it up internally with the team.

      Giladis wrote:

      The issue with that (old) rule is that it brings the unit's eliteness above the allowed level for a dwarf unit within the game.

      Immortals are not supposed to be more elite than other dwarven equivalents. :)
      Join us on Ulthuan.net
    • DanT wrote:

      @Tyranno @WhammeWhamme @Giladis
      I would be interested to hear from RT whether the old slim book design is of acceptable eliteness.
      That design was eminently usable :)

      Amen. This was a design that solved problems and did not led big units be op. But it needs parry with IW otherwise IW option is useless.

      Tyranno wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      @Tyranno @WhammeWhamme @Giladis
      I would be interested to hear from RT whether the old slim book design is of acceptable eliteness.
      That design was eminently usable :)
      Personally I have my doubts that it was that ability that made them see play. Rather the Icon being held by them.
      Also if giving them that ability puts them back at 34 points a blasted model again, I would rather not.
      Not like there was a BSB to carry it. It was the bodyguard and cannot be impacted and trampled down by a monster when only playing 15 to 17 as mage bunker. Which was a solution to a problem.

      Carrying the Icon was just convenient. Also they were at 27 with gw and they had bf in second round and so on. Even full equipped they were cheaper than 34. Last but not keast since the infernal weapon went up to 4 pts nobody played them with IW.

      In total I think they are currently more expensive than in the slim book if you count in what they were able to and what they can do now. Currently they are just a bad option.
    • HappyCan303 wrote:

      I just thought the 4+ to wound version of Whispers of the Mask was different and neat.It was something not seen in other armies.

      :thumbsup:


      That's all I got,
      HC303
      Well for reasons, don't you think?

      I strongly agree with Giladis. If the "argument": Its a LAB so it has to/shoulb be better than the slim books! would be valid, the only thing we would accomplish would be a power/elite creep.
    • it was never said that it should be better, and it was never proofed that it was better.
      Not being wounded on better than 4+ was different and new, and it triggered the new-has-to-be-bad reflex some people sadly have.
      It is also a pitty that repeating a mantra often enough results in reaction eventually, no matter If data proofs the point or is even available...
    • Giladis wrote:

      It doesn't matter if a book is in Slim or LAB the elitness levels have for the most part been established in T9A what the LAB process is doing is creating books based on T9A background. It is not an excuse to start an eliteness creep.
      Same applies to the DE book which is under production, the designers are not allowed to create elves that are more elite than the existing HE and SE though how that eliteness is expressed can vary.

      this seems like a foolish approach to the game. If something in the slim books is bad then it should be acceptable to allow for an increase in eliteness of their counterparts so when they’re day comes to get LAB they can also be buffed. Why would you handicap the new unit off something bad that can change in the future.

      Giladis wrote:


      Tyranno wrote:

      If the desired state of them was to mimic Deep Watch in the "only taken once in a blue moon" then I guess it was a success...
      Aren't the pricing updates meant to sort that out?
      there are some things pricing updates cannot fix that require a better design.
      ETC 2021 Luxembourg: Team Ireland (Captain)
      ETC 2019 Novi Sad: Team Ireland :ID:
      ETC 2018 Zagreb: Team Ireland :O&G:
    • ferny wrote:


      Tyranno wrote:

      It would be nice if we had been told what the boundry for "too elite" was. Rather than waiting for a design, allowing it into the book, and then scrapping it afterwards.

      It feels like "moving the goalposts".
      I'm surprised this comes as a shock to T. This reinforces my point - I'm surprised if Gs statement can be the case, and if it was, for the ACS to not know about it til now and only find out incidentally in this thread shows a serious communication issue earlier in the process.
      sadly this seems like a case of poor communication between the team(s). But it’s probably not all that surprising. There’s been multiple oversights and bits of bigger picture missed that have revealed themselves since the book came out. Hopefully it can all be learned from as we go forwards but when at least two people helping to design a book don’t realise that taking hand weapon status off a weapon takes away the weapons ability to parry it gets a bit worrying as to how many of them looked at the book as a whole and then looked at it within the lens of the project.
      ETC 2021 Luxembourg: Team Ireland (Captain)
      ETC 2019 Novi Sad: Team Ireland :ID:
      ETC 2018 Zagreb: Team Ireland :O&G: