A simple solution to RPS

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!

  • Marcos24 wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme maybe I’m using the wrong word so hopefully you can help me better explain what I mean, but here’s what I’m thinking at least.

    Believable comes with consistency (But again maybe not right word, and maybe not even verisimilitude). However, if the fluff describes one situation and incident, and that incident implies all sorts of rules of physics for that world, then a very similar situation occurs, and it progresses completely differently from that other situation, and the results are also totally different... that breaks someone’s belief in that other situation. And the whole world just becomes a joke.

    Instead you have a story with a lot of different incidents that don’t all go together, and conflict, and may as well be coming from different stories where each has its own world and reality with different physics but don’t tie in together.

    "Internal Consistency", yeah.

    Note that this has nothing to do with historicity.

    Background Team

  • @Markos, have you read "Vampire Wars"?

    I've read that one twice already :)

    In it, it describes the Vampire Wars and there is a passage that talks about how powerful Vlad's Ring is (the one that let's him come back to life).

    The important thing in that passage for this discussion is that Vlad is "killed" multiple times. Once by a Cannon ball that decapitates him. Another time it is by a Knight Company of the White Wolfs. He is also killed a third time by something else, I can't remember now.

    It also describes "lesser vampires" assaulting the walls of Altdorf. Even though they kill dozens of soldiers on the walls, some of them are killed either by gunfire or even melee.

    So there is fluff that shows vampires can be killed. It's just that they are pretty tough to kill
  • Dragons aren't WMDs, sure. They're air power. Win the air, win the war.

    As for the notion that all our conflicts in T9A end in extermination: hell naw.

    Taking slaves requires a bunch of soldiers to keep them rounded up, not just dragons.

    Dwarves with Orc vassals totally exist. They have their own book, even - and no, ID aren't fundamentally different. There are dwarf communities at midpoints between the two big picture splits.

    This is not Warhammer. Our factions have trade and diplomacy and complexities.

    You win the air war *for* your infantry, because the populace are the spoils. T9A factions fight for realistic reasons.


    Note: *I want infantry to kick backside on tge table*. But I am not going to back THIS argument for them.

    Squirrelloid wrote:


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    "Defeats the purpose of the war" - exactly.

    I'm confused. In what way do dragons or uber-heroes turn the target into uninhabitable radioactive wasteland for decades? Because that's why modern weapons of mass destruction defeat the purpose of war.



    Dragons and heroes are not WMDs that destroy all objectives in a war. They're not comparable in the slightest.


    We still have infantry because you need to *hold the ground*. Not because they win field engagements.

    In a world where Elf Lords on dragons and Avatars of Nature can splatter rnf, you still need boots on the ground to secure objectives, locate the enemy, etc.

    And they can't hold the ground if they can't win combats.


    It's not clear to me exactly what role you think 'hold the ground' entails. Claim objectives? Many armies have better units than infantry for the purpose, some even in core (ie, core heavy cavalry). And T9A's current strange conception of that is rush out and grab the objective after hiding all game. Whose vision of how a clash between armies works does this represent? Further, they can't claim objectives if they're dead. (My DL army in 1.2 had one scoring unit in the whole army, and rarely suffered for it).


    Holding the ground in the sense of laying claim to territory only makes sense as a concept between battles, not during battles. It also only makes sense in the context of subjugating a conquered populace, because it's basically police actions. If you're just going to exterminate any captured populace, you don't need to worry about insurgencies or popular resistance. And most factions have zero interest in enemy populations. EoS might care in conflicts with KoE, but all other races it would probably genocide to the last woman and child. Dark elves take slaves home with them, not towns and farms. There are no orc villages forced to swear fealty to DH kings - no DH kings would accept any such pledge. Territorial victories should generally be expected to be followed by genocidal campaigns to clear the land for their own people.


    Regardless, even if basic infantry was useful for killing helpless women and children, you wouldn't bring them to the battlefield if they have no use there.


    The measure of utility is 'remove all restrictions based on unit limits and categories. Would this unit ever see play'. If the answer is no, it's either a unit or game design problem. Given it returns 'no' for a class of units, I'd argue it's pretty clearly a game design problem.


    And you seem to be of the opinion you can batter down visceral feelings of enjoyment with logic.

    No, you cannot.

    They like having badass characters who stomp things. Their fun is not your fun and your arguments cannot persuade them because you don't see their preferences as valid. Empathy is a vital skill for persuasion and you need to employ it here. Or agree to disagree. Or give up. Or keep having the same argument over and over.

    If you want to sell the fun gameplay, first work out what your audience finds fun.
    And at some point, people who don't want to play a game about armies should find a skirmish game. The game can't be all things to all people. There are plenty of games that cater to what they want.
    That said, I've pointed out how the OP would allow eliminating most categories, and thus being able to field more monsters while simultaneously changing cannons so they aren't monster deleting laser-guided rockets. These things just get ignored, even though you'd think people who like monsters would find those things exciting. I've even explained repeatedly how characters can counterplay the mechanic. Totally ignored.

    You're basically saying there's no point in even discussing rule changes, because some people will have an emotional reaction against any proposal, and there's no convincing them. I disagree. Empathy won't help convince them. I know why they dislike it - I think they're playing the wrong game.

    When I've gone out of their way to explain how characters are still useful, and how they can take advantage of infantry units or flanks/rears to avoid suffering Overwhelm wounds, their opposition devolves to 'I should just win because i play herohammer'. You may be right there's no point arguing with them, but it's because they want a game where basic infantry is useless, not because I haven't made every attempt to be reasonable. That's an irreconcilable difference, and no amount of empathy will change that. Seriously, they're unwilling to even consider having to use a little more strategy than 'rush straight into the first infantry unit I come across with my kitted character'. And you think I'm the one being unreasonable here?

    You've written them off as ignorant and unreasonable.

    Try instead "they have a viewpoint that is to them reasonable. Why?".

    They don't want to "win because they play herohammer". They have undoubtedly lost games and still want to play.

    They find different things fun and don't care about the stuff you find important and that is not a sin against logic and reason.

    They don't like your fixes. Ask them why, and not in a "have you stopped beating your wife" way.

    Or don't. I'm not the boss of you. HTH. HAND.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme maybe I’m using the wrong word so hopefully you can help me better explain what I mean, but here’s what I’m thinking at least.

    Believable comes with consistency (But again maybe not right word, and maybe not even verisimilitude). However, if the fluff describes one situation and incident, and that incident implies all sorts of rules of physics for that world, then a very similar situation occurs, and it progresses completely differently from that other situation, and the results are also totally different... that breaks someone’s belief in that other situation. And the whole world just becomes a joke.

    Instead you have a story with a lot of different incidents that don’t all go together, and conflict, and may as well be coming from different stories where each has its own world and reality with different physics but don’t tie in together.
    "Internal Consistency", yeah.

    Note that this has nothing to do with historicity.
    Well I believe it does have something to do with historicity. This game draws heavily from history, and we reference what we know of what happened or what we’ve experienced, or at least how we perceive it. None of the designers for T9A or WHF made up rules for units (that clearly are derived from history) out of their own independent imagination, and just coincidentally closely matched rules that would describe the function and behavior of historical units or experiences.

    The biggest issue comes from people that know very well, vs people that kinda don’t, or don’t know at all. Its like why people with no medical background watch dramatic movies with super inaccurate medical emergencies and conditions and think it’s amazing and thrilling, whereas medical professionals see that think those movies are rediculously stupid unbelievable. I and others have thought so many times “that would never, ever happen... who the hell did research on this?”
  • @Squirrelloid
    I’ll try again, though you keep ignoring me.

    Can we agree that uber characters are not a dime a dozen?
    They can’t be everywhere at once. They can’t occupy another country.
    Collect taxes. Make checkpoints. Conduct searches. They may also have other duties to perform because politics. Also, battle is just a short while, maybe powers need to be recharged? Dragons fed etc...

    These powerful characters can exist and still infantry can have a purpose.

    The other argument is this: having very powerful individuals is fun for a lot of people. They find it cool that these individuals are able to kill entire units. Thus we need it represented in gameplay.
    The trick is finding balance and making a game that can be enjoyed by both kinds of people.
    BTW kings of war sounda excactly like a game you would love.
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme maybe I’m using the wrong word so hopefully you can help me better explain what I mean, but here’s what I’m thinking at least.

    Believable comes with consistency (But again maybe not right word, and maybe not even verisimilitude). However, if the fluff describes one situation and incident, and that incident implies all sorts of rules of physics for that world, then a very similar situation occurs, and it progresses completely differently from that other situation, and the results are also totally different... that breaks someone’s belief in that other situation. And the whole world just becomes a joke.

    Instead you have a story with a lot of different incidents that don’t all go together, and conflict, and may as well be coming from different stories where each has its own world and reality with different physics but don’t tie in together.
    "Internal Consistency", yeah.
    Note that this has nothing to do with historicity.
    Well I believe it does have something to do with historicity. This game draws heavily from history, and we reference what we know of what happened or what we’ve experienced, or at least how we perceive it. None of the designers for T9A or WHF made up rules for units (that clearly are derived from history) out of their own independent imagination, and just coincidentally closely matched rules that would describe the function and behavior of historical units or experiences.
    The biggest issue comes from people that know very well, vs people that kinda don’t, or don’t know at all. Its like why people with no medical background watch dramatic movies with super inaccurate medical emergencies and conditions and think it’s amazing and thrilling, whereas medical professionals see that think those movies are rediculously stupid unbelievable. I and others have thought so many times “that would never, ever happen... who the hell did research on this?”

    I would argue the WHF designers made up rules for historical seeming units based on their imagination that match up to history poorly at best.

    So yes, they don't *coincidentally* match history but that is because they don't match history, end of sentence.

    And T9A is not amazingly different. There are historical inspirations, but history is just a small part of a big mashup of fantasy fictions, history based fictions, historical propaganda and actual historical facts.

    It is indeed like movies that get medical facts wrong... which often do so despite a consultant specfically pointing that out.

    Because in movies? The Director (and others) outrank the researchers.

    Accuracy is not the highest goal.


    As you say "how we perceive it to have been". You can market a movie for ER doctors, or the mass market, but probably not both. Because what the doc sees as accurate, the common man will be like "no way that is ridiculous" because unlike fiction, reality is under no obligation to make sense.

    Background Team

  • No one claims that chaff is useless and most armies have chaff that could be used to fill up core and yet infantry blocks (from core) still manage to make it into the game. The reality is that most core infantry is not totally useless. Putting aside core infantry that shoots, static combat resolution is fairly important in winning some fights, most core infantry can tarpit stuff that has a low volume of high quality attacks, and core infantry can also beat shooting units like warmachines (I realise against a good player these will be protected but this does still mean these things have to be protected). I will admit against most other combat units core infantry will lose but is it so ridiculous that in a world of super magic and monster stuff that basic front line troopers would lose (eventually) in a straight up fight to most things?

    In my most recent list I took 3 units of skeletons with hand weapons and a unit of zombies (all 20 man squads with legion standards on the skellies). According to this thread, these should have been useless. Shockingly enough, after raising them up to 35+ man squads, it gets somewhat difficult to deal with 4 large units of infantry running around stacking a lot of combat res. If you engage one to the front and another flanks you, your down by 9 just on combat res. Sure there's stuff that's killy enough to not care but there's a lot of stuff that does care, and that this will break. Like a character on a monster incidentally.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Dragons aren't WMDs, sure. They're air power. Win the air, win the war.

    As for the notion that all our conflicts in T9A end in extermination: hell naw.

    Taking slaves requires a bunch of soldiers to keep them rounded up, not just dragons.

    Dwarves with Orc vassals totally exist. They have their own book, even - and no, ID aren't fundamentally different. There are dwarf communities at midpoints between the two big picture splits.

    This is not Warhammer. Our factions have trade and diplomacy and complexities.

    You win the air war *for* your infantry, because the populace are the spoils. T9A factions fight for realistic reasons.
    Note: *I want infantry to kick backside on tge table*. But I am not going to back THIS argument for them.

    It's not clear to me that most factions bother ruling anyone not of the same race(s) as them. Slaves don't count (and keeping slaves in line isn't the army's job). Certainly SE don't (we have a FAB), and no acknowledgement of SE ruled by others in it either. UD doesn't, and no one else rules UD. WDG and DL don't bother ruling people at all. We have no examples of FABs where a faction governs races that aren't part of its faction, and no evidence from any of the fluff material of any AB governing a race outside their AB. (Not even ID - as goblins are part of the AB).


    Regardless, even if everyone is conquering territory and ruling the conquered peoples, infantry would at best be police forces. That doesn't mean you take them to the battlefield with you.


    Air Support/
    If dragons were really air support, they wouldn't eat cannonballs, and they wouldn't land and fight units. They'd strafe and fight other air support. T9A has no rules to represent air support, so pretending flyers function that way is not really viable. And there's a good argument to be made that we wouldn't see the ABs we do if we had real air support (another time if you're actually interested).


    You've written them off as ignorant and unreasonable.


    Key thing about 'reasonable'. It means using reason, ie, logic. If they aren't doing that, then by definition they're being unreasonable. Emotional attachment to something is the very essence of being unreasonable.


    Anyway, I've only written them off as unreasonable because they've proven themselves unreasonable. I was patient for pages and pages, but when i find myself repeating the same thing for the 10th time, and no one has bothered to actually respond to it in a meaningful way...


    Try instead "they have a viewpoint that is to them reasonable. Why?".


    If their viewpoint was reasonable, they could back it up with something other than awful GW fluff that doesn't make any coherent sense in any world. They could explain how their viewpoint forms a coherent world. They'd have a role for basic infantry other than designated punching bag.

    They don't want to "win because they play herohammer". They have undoubtedly lost games and still want to play.

    They find different things fun and don't care about the stuff you find important and that is not a sin against logic and reason.


    They want a game about armies to be dominated by characters. That is a sin against reason. The world painted by the ABs makes no sense in such a system.



    But worse, they can't even defend a coherent world in which their desires are manifest.


    I mean, defending the current rules because 'dragons must be invulnerable badasses that are 1000' long' (that pretty much happened, repeatedly, in this thread), when the current rules don't even describe such a thing... That's unreasonable by definition.


    They don't like your fixes. Ask them why, and not in a "have you stopped beating your wife" way.

    Look, when they can't even answer an open-ended question like 'what's the purpose of infantry in the game' in a way that addresses the game balance issue or meaningfully answers the question in a way that wouldn't equally apply to giving stats to a salt shaker and putting it on the table, I'm not sure why you think I'm the bad guy. That wasn't a leading question. That's the key issue here.

    Kristian wrote:

    @Squirrelloid
    I’ll try again, though you keep ignoring me.

    Can we agree that uber characters are not a dime a dozen?


    They appear (or at least could appear) basically every game, so no, they do appear to be a dime a dozen. If they were 'with opponent's permission only', then I might believe they're rare. Maybe. A category that can have 40% of the army's points spent on them? Super common.


    I mean, virtually every two bit count and captain has a magic sword or enchanted maille. Hard to buy 'this stuff is rare'.


    They can’t be everywhere at once. They can’t occupy another country.


    They can be everywhere relevant. It's not like a major battle starts every 30 min. They've got access to flying mounts that can probably cross whole countries in an afternoon.


    I know you people hate history, but up through the end of the Renaissance, virtually no country maintained multiple separate armies. When it was time to go to war, they assembled the army. Not a army, the army. (Sure, there are minor garrisons places, but those aren't armies.) China and Imperial Rome at its height may have been the only powers before the 18th century to maintain multiple field armies, certainly for any length of time. So yes, the high muckity muck and his ubermenschen would be in every significant fight, and most of the insignificant ones.



    As to occupying a country - you don't need a combat army for that. You'd do better to have a specialized police force, if you bother to occupy them at all (and not just wipe them out to the last man, woman, and child, and then invite your settlers in). But again, you're thinking like a modern - medieval peasants didn't particularly care who their sovereign was. Same crap life for them either way. You didn't have insurgencies like Iraq. Rebellions were events (where you could send your one army to deal with it), not ongoing policing problems.



    Collect taxes. Make checkpoints. Conduct searches. They may also have other duties to perform because politics. Also, battle is just a short while, maybe powers need to be recharged? Dragons fed etc...

    None of those things involve troops used in combat. Police actions at best. You don't send the NYPD or the IRS to the front lines in Afghanistan.



    These powerful characters can exist and still infantry can have a purpose.

    OP doesn't prevent powerful characters from existing. And it gives them a purpose. That purpose is simply not ploughing through units by face-planting into them. What it does do is give them a weakness, so they can't serve (virtually) all purposes.



    If you do something stupid, you should be punished for it by the game mechanics. Is it really so rough to play intelligently with heroes?


    The other argument is this: having very powerful individuals is fun for a lot of people. They find it cool that these individuals are able to kill entire units. Thus we need it represented in gameplay.


    Conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because they find it cool does not mean it needs to be represented in the game, especially when it goes against the spirit of the game itself (you know, a game about armies). Especially when it conflicts with much more valid goals that align with that core identity, like (1) making all units valuable, (2) making a game where the army performs as an army, (3) making a game based on skillful play. There are equally people who hate heroes who have no weaknesses and just chop through units, and we can't please both of them - the only correct solution is to please the ones whose desires align with the purpose of the game. It's right there in the title: fantasy battles, not fantasies of one man slogging through infinite hordes. A battle, meaning a clash between two armies.


    But you know something, the OP suggestion does let heroes perform, so long as you don't insist on running face-first into the first unit you lay eyes on. Flank. Support another unit. Use your maneuverability. Can you imagine, a game which expects players to play skillfully to get the value out of their pieces?


    I can't believe people are defending a position where someone literally wants their kitted character to just blow through most of the units in the game without a scratch. Is that really going to be fun for the opponent?


    The trick is finding balance and making a game that can be enjoyed by both kinds of people.
    BTW kings of war sounda excactly like a game you would love.


    Kings of war is a really boring game. The movement phase is incredibly one dimensional, which makes the mechanics degenerate. No real skill required, just like smashing heroes face-first into everything.



    T9A is pretty much the only game that really delivers a battle between armies which requires skill to play. Could it be better? A lot better. But KoW doesn't do that, and everybody else is making skirmish games.


    Sounds like people who want uber-characters have literally dozens of skirmish games they can choose from though, which give them exactly what they want.
    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

  • Voymire wrote:


    1) Any comparison of peasants and knights to 9th Age world is out of place. While it might be true that a mob of peasants could kill the best and most armored knight in the real world, in 9th Age, some heroes are so powerful that it's more like comparing a knight to 2 year olds with plastic knives.
    I'll have you know that's a lethal combination. I still got a scar...

    And don't get me started on plastic toy food lying on the ground
  • What people seem to forget is that there are power levels and units in between infantry and Chaos Lords. Sure the core infantry is unable to kill the chaos lord but you still have units on the battlefield that could hurt, kill or at least hold up a single character or monster if that person showed up alone.

    If a chaos lord showed up alone against an empire army he would definetly lose even if they didnt have a chaos lord or dragon on their own side. They wouldnt stop him with any number of normal core infantry even if they were in the hundreds or thousands. But an EoS army is much more than that. They would shower the chaos lord with missile fire. Darken the sky with arrows, bolts, bullets, rockets, artillery shells. Lighten up all the smoke with the magic from the wizards and prelates as it supresses the chaos lord. After that then have the elite leaders and their retinues with magic equipment finish off the battered and exhausted chaos lord.

    To prevent that the chaos lord would instead show up with his own army to occupy the enemy so they can't swarm him with things that can hurt him. Use his own infantry to hold up an element of the opposing army so he can go and slaughter what ever unit he wants at his own leisure.

    This is common in many fantasy works. You have a pyramid of characters and power levels. Those extremely few at the top can fight 1 vs 1 against each other and are almost like gods if fighting against any number of the lowest level. Depending on the world, 2-100 of those on the step below can fight against a single person above them and they themselves can solo anyone with ease that is below them.

    So if you have 2 equally powerful armies, each with a hero on a dragon at the top but no crappy core infantry. Just tens of thousands of medium infantry, thousands of heavy infantry, hundreds of elite infantry and then douzens of heroes, wizards, retinues etc. If one of the armies would then add a hundred thousand lightly armed troops to their side they could have a huge advantage despite them being worthless against the guy on a dragon. You would have the light infantry fight to a stalemate against the opponents medium infantry while your medium infantry go for their heavy infantry etc. Then you would have your hero on a dragon with the support of all the rest of your heroes and wizards fight against the opponents lonely hero on a dragon and most likely win that fight. And if you win that figh you will have a huge advantage in the bigger battle and probably win that too. All because you brought a bunch of crap troops that prevents their trump card from getting support despite the crap troops themselves being completly pointless in a fight against their trump card directly.

    If you think about battles this way every unit type has a purpose in a fantasy world. Ofc there are badly written fantasy worlds were there is only normal human soldiers and then demigods and nothing in between, yet the demigods wont take over the world. WFB wasnt such a world. Sure, it wasnt the best written but you couldnt have a single vampire, chaos lord or dragon just take over any of the larger powers due to what I described above. And that is the lore most people are familiar with and probably still think of when playing and not the 9th age lore.

    Oh, and hundreds of peasants stabbing a large monster to death. Even if a few hundred spear thrusts were able to kill a dragon, normal peasants wouldnt be able to kill the dragon even if they were thousands. Unless they were under some spell or such they would run and break as soon as that monstrosity got close. Even if they had better chance of killing a dragon than an elite regiment of heavy infantry I bet that they would rather fight the heavy infantry. That is an opponent they can understand and feel that they have a small chance of taking them down and survive and probably stand up longer to fight. Against a huge monster on the other hand they wouldnt think rationaly and know that if we just sacrifice a hundred of us we could take it down. No no, they would run. Elite troops with higher disciplin might follow orders and swarm the monster but no way that normal troops would ever do that.

    In our world normal soldiers would easily break as soon as it started to look bad. You have full frontal charges in our history that immideatly broke seasoned soldiers after moments. None of those charges could probably get close to the carnage a magical monstrosity could wreak on a frontline. Just try to imagine yourself a few ranks deep in a unit and then see people getting eating alive, burned to death, dissolved by acids, crushed under foot and bodies flying around you. Any sane person would run when that happen in front of you and you see it shrug off blows as it continues deeper into the unit closer to you.

    In 7th edition Warhammer, both sides had to take terror tests for just getting within 6 inches of a gigantic monster. Even monsters who themselves caused fear had to take fear tests against monsters with Terror. Thought those rules reflected what soldiers on a battlefield would do when facing such monsters really well. You wouldnt swarm them and use weight of numbers, you would just RUN!!



    Ofc stuff has to be balanced but I feel people are forgetting some stuff when discussing how fantasy battles would really turn out and focus on a smaller detail and try to compare it to the closest thing we have in our world when that misses the larger picture.
  • Unreasonable and illogical are not synonyms, and using either to apply "I like this and want more of it" is asinine.

    Seeking to make things the way you like it is rational behaviour. Maximising your personal *fun* from your hobby is logical.

    There is no inherit merit to a game being based on logic and history; it CAN make the game better, but taken to an extreme diminishing returns kick in.


    So consider this: is there any possible answer to "why do you like 'Herohammer" other than it leading to easy wins?

    Yes, there is. Several, actually.

    You've even railed against one of them: "I imagine a really cool story where the awesome magical dude stomps armies".

    The kind of game that caters to THAT impulse requires a setting where armies exist but so do awesome dudes who can smash them.

    Claiming such a thing is impossible to write about is an absurdly strong claim and trivially false.

    And so now you are just down to "I don't like the same things you do".

    Background Team

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Kristian wrote:



    The other argument is this: having very powerful individuals is fun for a lot of people. They find it cool that these individuals are able to kill entire units. Thus we need it represented in gameplay.


    Conclusion does not follow from the premise. Just because they find it cool does not mean it needs to be represented in the game, especially when it goes against the spirit of the game itself (you know, a game about armies). Especially when it conflicts with much more valid goals that align with that core identity, like (1) making all units valuable, (2) making a game where the army performs as an army, (3) making a game based on skillful play. There are equally people who hate heroes who have no weaknesses and just chop through units, and we can't please both of them - the only correct solution is to please the ones whose desires align with the purpose of the game. It's right there in the title: fantasy battles, not fantasies of one man slogging through infinite hordes. A battle, meaning a clash between two armies.

    Nah you go away. I think what I like is more important than what you like.
  • core infantry are useful and sometimes even deadly. Come in this thread and say that, get shouted down by the echo chamber, leave for a few days. Come back, same is still happening...

    Realism of world or whatever aside, I play the game, very often core infantry are pivotal in the game result. Tell me I'm wrong and that I'm lying if you like.

    If anything in my meta cowboys and solo monsters have become less popular thna characters that can hide in units because it's too dangerous being out there on your own.
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2020
  • you pay for what you get.

    if the unit of peasants is able to defeat an expensive model with an autowounds no skill point and click rule then they will also cost like they are able to defeat such a model with an autowounds no skill point and click rule... if you want to have a game where a horde of peasants costs ~1k points, fine, go ahead but afterwards dont be butthurt :D

    bottom line is, it does not matter how you think such a fight in RL would look like (not to mention that we have no reference of superhumans and demigods full of magic items fighting hordes of peasents), it is still a game and has to be balanced.
  • Kristian wrote:

    The other argument is this: having very powerful individuals is fun for a lot of people. They find it cool that these individuals are able to kill entire units. Thus we need it represented in gameplay.

    The trick is finding balance and making a game that can be enjoyed by both kinds of people.
    BTW kings of war sounda excactly like a game you would love.
    Key here is the part in bold. No-one has tried arguing Characters should be bad, or anything like that, only that basic infantry shouldn't be bad.

    Any argument for keeping infantry restricted to their only value coming from filling core requirement and scoring, is basically an argument for "my fun matters, yours doesn't". Yes, some people like playing with powerful characters as the focus of their army, that's fine. But some people also like playing with infantry as the focus of their army. Both are EQUALLY VALID, but only one is presently supported by the rules, yet some people want both to be supported, and others want only one of those to be supported.

    And KoW, is not a very good game for anybody who wants in depth, tactical battle game of R&F units. I could justas easily point out any of the several skirmish games which I think are what some of these people really need to be playing instead of a game who's mechanics are fundamentally R&F based, but I'm not going to, because telling people "go play another game" is not helping anyone, and doesn't contribute anything to the discussion.


    cptcosmic wrote:

    you pay for what you get.

    if the unit of peasants is able to defeat an expensive model with an autowounds no skill point and click rule then they will also cost like they are able to defeat such a model with an autowounds no skill point and click rule... if you want to have a game where a horde of peasants costs ~1k points, fine, go ahead but afterwards dont be butthurt :D

    bottom line is, it does not matter how you think such a fight in RL would look like (not to mention that we have no reference of superhumans and demigods full of magic items fighting hordes of peasents), it is still a game and has to be balanced.
    Firstly, why does that not apply the other way around?
    Peasants able to beat an expensive single model will be costed as such, but single models can be able to beat more expensive infantry blocks?

    Yes, the game has to be balanced, and that is entirely the point here, it isn't balanced now, but any attempt to address the imbalance can't go anywhere, because of people who like infantry being crap because it lets them feed their superhero fantasies, with no consideration of the people who actually like infantry, and want them to be as useful as anything else.

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    core infantry are useful and sometimes even deadly. Come in this thread and say that, get shouted down by the echo chamber, leave for a few days. Come back, same is still happening...

    Realism of world or whatever aside, I play the game, very often core infantry are pivotal in the game result. Tell me I'm wrong and that I'm lying if you like.

    If anything in my meta cowboys and solo monsters have become less popular thna characters that can hide in units because it's too dangerous being out there on your own.
    You keep saying the same things, yet failing to provide any evidence to support what you are saying.

    If I go around telling people the Earth is flat, not round, but then refuse to produce any evidence to support my claims, I can't be surprised when people ignore me.

    You keep making claims totally at odds with everyone else's experience (even the other people arguing against changes aren't claiming infantry are actually good, just that they are meant to be this bad), and you provide no evidence to support what you are saying.

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

  • Voymire wrote:

    I really regret writing that about the Chaos Lord as I obviously did not get through what I wanted. In any case, let's ignore this and concentrate on what I really wanted to get across:
    Do not regret it, because for a reasonably large amount of people what you were discussing is exactly what they want. There has been enough literature of powerful heroes killing tens of lesser warriors with a single swing of their sword to fill entire libraries, and the musou genre of video games (Dinasty warriors, for example) is popular for a reason.

    Some people WANT big heroes who can take on hundreds of enemies. I hate it with a passion because it breaks my willing suspension of disbelief hard, but again, different strokes for different folks.

    Incidentally, even in the TW:WH game characters can take on whole units by themselves. It easily requires 2-3 units to take down a combat dedicated character - and units there are 50-100 strong each.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by ramesses2 ().

  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    You keep saying the same things, yet failing to provide any evidence to support what you are saying.

    If I go around telling people the Earth is flat, not round, but then refuse to produce any evidence to support my claims, I can't be surprised when people ignore me.

    You keep making claims totally at odds with everyone else's experience (even the other people arguing against changes aren't claiming infantry are actually good, just that they are meant to be this bad), and you provide no evidence to support what you are saying.
    What evidence do I need to provide? do I need to realtime record all my games and send in video evidence, including all dice rolls to show I wasnt cheating it to look good in my favour?! you come across as a very arrogant and unpleasant person and I don't think the project should be represented by people like you
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2020
  • WastelandWarrior wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    You keep saying the same things, yet failing to provide any evidence to support what you are saying.

    If I go around telling people the Earth is flat, not round, but then refuse to produce any evidence to support my claims, I can't be surprised when people ignore me.

    You keep making claims totally at odds with everyone else's experience (even the other people arguing against changes aren't claiming infantry are actually good, just that they are meant to be this bad), and you provide no evidence to support what you are saying.
    What evidence do I need to provide? do I need to realtime record all my games and send in video evidence, including all dice rolls to show I wasnt cheating it to look good in my favour?! you come across as a very arrogant and unpleasant person and I don't think the project should be represented by people like you
    Wait, I'm unpleasant and arrogant for asking you to support your statements with evidence, yet I've been repeatedly asked to provide evidence for MY statements in this and the other related discussions.

    I'm sorry, but that's not unpleasantness or arrogance. When someone makes a claim which utterly contradicts your experience, asking for some sort of evidence supporting their claim is normal. I'm not asking you to provide conclusive and indisputable proof, just something to support your statement, like maybe a link to recent tournament lists and results showing list building trends which support what you are saying, or some mathhammer showing core infantry murdering cowboys (see HERE for mathhammer showing exactly the opposite).

    If the way I've asked for evidence came across as unpleasant or arrogant, I apologise, that was not my intention, but making the request itself was neither unpleasant nor arrogant.

    cptcosmic wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    Peasants able to beat an expensive single model will be costed as such, but single models can be able to beat more expensive infantry blocks?
    for example?
    SA Saurian Veteran on Raptor and Iron Orc Chief on warboar are both good examples. The Veteran isn't cheap, but some of the better builds can grind their way through around 5 R3 core infantry per round on average, while only taking a wound every 7-8 rounds or so, with Di8 coldblooded ensuring they stick around if they roll badly and lose combat narrowly. It'll take a few rounds, but that'll beat even stuff like big units of elven spears after a while, and that's assuming it charged in the front, not the flank or rear. Iron Orc isn't quite as powerful, but only cost 2-300pts, and is similarly unkillable to most core infantry.