ID FAB Public Idea Thread

    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!

    • Danrakh wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      Buff magic is better than blast magic in most circumstances. DH can have a perfectly good magic phase. And since everyone gets basically the same number of magic dice, magic is always a wash.
      Care to elaborate more about it?
      Buff spells can make an okay combat unit into a good combat unit, or a good combat unit into a great combat unit. Not only does it result in either more kills or less casualties (which has an immediate material effect on combat), but it can also swing who wins or loses and by how much. Breaking the enemy and running them down is vastly more effective than any blast spell. And losing by less and not breaking is similarly far superior. But even absent those two ends of the spectrum, a buff spell with a suitable target will frequently result in more direct kills than a blast spell will, or save more lives than a blast spell will have killed. Just swinging a loss to a win means its your opponent rolling that Break Test and not you.

      For MSU, hex spells replace buff spells (as you'll tend to have multiple smaller units benefit rather than one bigger unit).

      I mean, don't get me wrong, blast spells have their place. But swinging that key combat? Highest impact in the game. It's also worth pointing out that many buff spells tend to reduce randomness towards a higher average (rr misses, rr failed wounds), whereas the impact of blast spells tends to be highly random.

      Now, it's certainly true that one player can get better flux draws or just roll better dice than their opponent. But this is luck of the draw, so over a large number of games everyone will experience the same average magic dice and the same average roll luck. Most of our impressions of 'crazy good magic phases' happen because of luck, which has nothing to do with the balance of the spells cast.

      Peacemaker wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      If vassals gets generalized, should we expect some kind of human cavalry, or does that make us too fast?
      this would be handled by the wolf riders entry.
      ... How?

      Horses and wolves are quite distinct in the rules. Unless human cav are riding wolves for ID? 8|
      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

    • Squirrelloid wrote:

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Interesting analysis, but a few things I want to note:

      1) The main push for eliteness is actually for Wolfriders, not the core units (because they're too cheap as chaff ATM). Hobgoblins should match whatever we do for the Wolfriders but that could affects their eliteness in a multitude of ways, potentially including leaving it as-is.

      Interesting.



      2) Slaves have a directive to not be "Orc" slaves going forwards and will thus be losing Born to Fight and possibly R4 as well. (This reflects the background better; ID are equal opportunity slavemasters).


      I dislike this immensely. If the Slaves get any less elite, they'll intrude on VS territory, and we'd pretty much need to be able to shoot into their close combats like VS.

      I always presumed ID used Orc Slaves for combat because they've got tons of slaves. They can afford to be choosy about which ones they use for which tasks. Just putting all their slaves into one giant pile and using them indiscriminately doesn't seem very efficient. I expect better of ID.

      This is a clear RT directive and I personally pushed for it, as I felt "only Orcs are slaves" was a bad message to write into our game. Also, Slaves are currently more elite in melee than Hobgoblins; surely it should be obvious why that's an incoherent design?

      And "Orcs aren't enthusiastic about fighting when enslaved" is perfectly reasonable. If everyone is equally unenthusiastic when enslaved, there's no efficiency to be gained.


      Keeping their eliteness high enough to stay out out of VS territory will need something but there are options other than Callous. Most likely direction involves them being pre-prepared for ritual sacrifice for mystical advantages.

      3) Infernal Warriors might go up in eliteness; some people want all ID to be S4 AP1 and wearing Plate (except for Lugars), while others have other ideas for how they might become more elite. (Background-wise, they're conscripts but conscripts in a militaristic society so potentially they could be particularly war-ready - or they could get really good equipment)

      I don't know that more eliteness will actually help IW see play.
      It might not, but the point was that if Vassals end up where IW are now, that isn't necessarily a problem as IW can move up higher without a problem - but that's just one possible solution to the directive.


      4) Backstabbers aren't really a notable background element. They don't need to be preserved for any reason other than not invalidating models.

      OTOH, backstabbers are one of the more interesting things you can do with Hobgoblins. Just saying.
      Sure - but the point is that we could move their mechanics on to *all* Hobgoblin warriors (including Wolfriders), and thus raise their minimum eliteness.


      5) ID Vassals include humans. Potentially the statblock will be "Infernal Vassals" and apply equally to human and hobgoblin vassals. This might adjust your expectations upwards a little.
      Interesting. I assume wolf-riders are still goblins, though? If vassals gets generalized, should we expect some kind of human cavalry, or does that make us too fast?
      Hobgoblins already do have basically generic human stats. Admittedly, humans have a bit more upward stat potential. But the problem, ofc, isn't just they're goblins, but that getting much better stats also intrudes on IW/CG territory.

      Gear-wise, halberds might be more possible as a gear option. (GW would intrude on IW territory too much. Halberds only overlap flintlocks a little bit - they lack the shooting, and the difference in base strength is a big deal here).

      Nothing is set yet. I could see the entry becoming "Vassal Cavalry" and having Adv 8 Mar 16 and a nondescript name like "Vassal Mount", thus allowing people to field horses in the slot. I could also see it staying specifically as Hobgoblin Wolfriders.

      Also, the directive is "semi-elite" on a scale where IW and CG are "elite". If they're intruding on them, it's probably too much of a push - or the IW need a bit more of a push upwards.

      The solution isn't going to be gear though, no, as T9A tries to keep models valid and the point is to raise the *floor* of Vassal eliteness, not so much the ceiling. So heavy armour is a possibility, but new weapon options wouldn't really solve the problem as the "old" configurations would still be insufficiently elite.

      FWIW, the ballpark goal is for Vassal Cavalry to be around Reiter-level in point cost (and thus also eliteness). Without just lazily copying the Reiters.

      Peacemaker wrote:

      Squirrelloid wrote:

      If vassals gets generalized, should we expect some kind of human cavalry, or does that make us too fast?
      this would be handled by the wolf riders entry.

      Human Cavalry are slower than Wolfriders are currently... not seeing how it would make us "too fast". It's a possible option, as is the generic "Vassal Cavalry" entry.

      But I think Peacemaker is a bit too certain there; I don't know how we're going to do things and I'm ON the team. :)

      Background Team

    • 2) Slaves have a directive to not be "Orc" slaves going forwards and will thus be losing Born to Fight and possibly R4 as well. (This reflects the background better; ID are equal opportunity slavemasters).



      I dislike this immensely. If the Slaves get any less elite, they'll intrude on VSterritory, and we'd pretty much need to be able to shoot into their close combats like VS.




      I always presumed ID used Orc Slaves for combat because they've got tons of slaves. They can afford to be choosy about which ones they use for which tasks. Just putting all their slaves into one giant pile and using them indiscriminately doesn't seem very efficient. I expect better of ID.



      This is totally my thought. I also believe that slaves brought to battle should be orcs. They are better fighters and the other slaves are probably in the mines.

      I also dislike the idea of general vassals. Hobgoblins are nice and there is no reason to get human light cavalry or general vassal light cavalry instead.

      BTW if the slaves become generic what would happen to the base size? Orcs are 25mm and humans and goblins are 20mm.
      Elves would not make good salves because they are too weak and vermin swarm neither because they are too treacherous and unpredictable.
    • Squirrelloid wrote:

      ... How?

      Horses and wolves are quite distinct in the rules. Unless human cav are riding wolves for ID?

      WhammeWhamme wrote:

      Human Cavalry are slower than Wolfriders are currently... not seeing how it would make us "too fast". It's a possible option, as is the generic "Vassal Cavalry" entry.

      But I think Peacemaker is a bit too certain there; I don't know how we're going to do things and I'm ON the team.
      When going generic route - You go the generic route.

      So wolf riders would not be called wolves. A move 9/18 stat line 3 mounts is already pretty generic. And if I saw this statline without a 'wolf' word next to it, I would not think it is a wolf. Wolves are hunters, carnivores, they have some bite.

      Move 9/18 stat line 3 is an elven horse with agility 3 instead of 4.
      Move 9/18 statline 3 is is a human horse with +1/2 move.
      Throw any kind of fluff you want in there to explain why the mount is a slightly better/slightly worse. The KoE do it. The Griffon/Great Griffon fluff does it. Barbarian horseman does it. Call it a human racing horse. Or a human horse unit that is trained more for speed.
      And if they are considered elite, then wouldn't they have some of the most elite horses around?
      ...could just call it an "infernal horse" and put what ever statlines you want on it.

      Personally I prefer generic entries, I'm happy they are at least doing it for slaves. The rest of the entries it's fine to go either direction. It's cool to write some specific fluff for actual goblins, worf riders, ogre artillery attendant, etc... But it's also easy to add more fluff describing that many types of vassals are used such as goblins, skinks, humans, halflings, etc...
      Sometimes all you need is literally 1 sentence just saying there are other races as vassals. Then say the most common is goblins and the fluffy unit entry is goblin focused.
    • Why not have “Vassals” and “Slaves” as unit entries, then give us a choice (with points being paid) to make them a specific race, which would come with certain rules and base sizes.

      For example: Vassals could be chosen as Hobgoblins, gaining “Opportunist” or a humans, gaining Heavy Armour ect... same for Slaves.

      I strongly dislike that only Hobgoblins can be vassals and only Orcs can be slaves. Makes no sense to me! Let the players choose who resides within the boarders of their domain and whom they choose to enslave!
    • El Handy wrote:

      Manxol wrote:

      ...the fluff it tells with hobbos being vassals is great.
      what fluff?! The fluff from a game that no longer exists? Why aren’t we trying to expand and create new fluff like they did for DL?Instead we seem content to just copy the same tired fluff and units from a dead game system. I find that sad and frustrating.

      T9A has it's own unique background for the Infernal Dwarves. It'll all be revealed when the LAB is done, however. It took over a year to get DL up to where it is now.

      I'll point to some things, though:

      -Disciples of Lugar are devotees of the god of lawyers and tricksters, reverse-possessed by Fire spirits.
      -Tauruks are deliberate creations of the Prophets who serve as the police of the assorted Infernal Dwarf holds.
      -The Infernal Dwarves are named after the Inferno, a hubristic (and catastrophic) attempt to harness unlimited magical energy for power and profit.
      -Infernal Dwarves and Hold Dwarves have no particular animosity and in fact tend towards friendly relations (of course this is still a wargame, everyone fights everyone at times :) ).


      But yeah. Brave new world. Infernal Dwarves are prolific slavers, buying and seizing them from across the known world, and have multiple minor human kingdoms as their vassals. Generic doesn't mean flavourless; we can make it hum. I have faith in the LAB team that when you see everything... it'll be great.

      Background Team

    • I like the fluff of Goblins being above Orcs in the "natural" order.
      If somebody wants to use human slaves..they can do that at the moment (I've seen several Barbarians as Orc Slaves).

      But why would I want to spit into anybodys tea? When those units are more generic.. I can still have Hobgoblins > Orcs. Others can have Goblins > Humans or Skinks > whatever (jungel themed Infernal Dwarves do sound kinda cool).
      In the end, the army is Infernal Dwarves, that's what should be represented. Their Slaves and Vassals are less important and I don't think we would lose much flavor by having those more generic.
    • The most probable result for slaves is:

      - That base size will remain the same to keep models available.
      - That slaves will turn into a mass of races that would let you field any model of your choice.
      - Very unlikely they will keep orc related rules and stats like born to fight and Res4.

      This doesn't mean that you will get plain less. Not only this will be done. There are other interactions and things studied to make slaves appealing, like sacrifice mechanics for boosting nearby models. Things like these, would make slaves far more flavourful than before, in my opinion.
    • El Handy wrote:

      Manxol wrote:

      ...the fluff it tells with hobbos being vassals is great.
      what fluff?! The fluff from a game that no longer exists? Why aren’t we trying to expand and create new fluff like they did for DL?Instead we seem content to just copy the same tired fluff and units from a dead game system. I find that sad and frustrating.
      In the case of DL, they just copied the seven deadly sins. I'd much rather have the old gods (or something equally imaginative, but new) than the ones ripped from Christian mythology. The deadly sins are pretty threadbare concept in our real world and the fantasy we create, so it really watered down my interest in DL.

      Hobbos and their old fluff is really specific and strong, and I fear that it will get watered down too. Now if they do come up with a good background for multiple vassal races that can hold up for the old one, I'm all for it!
      Besides I think of Hobbos as outcasts of the Greenskin society and more cowardly than man and many other races, so they do really make the best vassals as they can be easily dominated to the will of whoever they are the closest by. (reminding me of the Spathi, if there are other Star Control fans).

      Now slaves I think could be anything. Orcs are just a good fit as I think them pretty dominable too, are numerous and make a better fighting force than many other races. The other slaves I see doing more industry and commerce.
    • WhammeWhamme wrote:

      T9A has it's own unique background for the Infernal Dwarves. It'll all be revealed when the LAB is done, however. It took over a year to get DL up to where it is now.

      I'll point to some things, though:

      -Disciples of Lugar are devotees of the god of lawyers and tricksters, reverse-possessed by Fire spirits.
      -Tauruks are deliberate creations of the Prophets who serve as the police of the assorted Infernal Dwarf holds.
      -The Infernal Dwarves are named after the Inferno, a hubristic (and catastrophic) attempt to harness unlimited magical energy for power and profit.
      -Infernal Dwarves and Hold Dwarves have no particular animosity and in fact tend towards friendly relations (of course this is still a wargame, everyone fights everyone at times :) ).


      But yeah. Brave new world. Infernal Dwarves are prolific slavers, buying and seizing them from across the known world, and have multiple minor human kingdoms as their vassals. Generic doesn't mean flavourless; we can make it hum. I have faith in the LAB team that when you see everything... it'll be great.
      These are the things that I love about the ID, that's the imaginative stuff I live for! This stuff gives me hope if we are going to go generic.

      Gomio wrote:

      The most probable result for slaves is:

      - That base size will remain the same to keep models available.
      - That slaves will turn into a mass of races that would let you field any model of your choice.
      - Very unlikely they will keep orc related rules and stats like born to fight and Res4.

      This doesn't mean that you will get plain less. Not only this will be done. There are other interactions and things studied to make slaves appealing, like sacrifice mechanics for boosting nearby models. Things like these, would make slaves far more flavourful than before, in my opinion.
      Born to Fight I could easily see going, as if it was Orcs' joyous freedom that gave them the bonus. But not going Orc (Res4) slaves seems weird. What else do the ID do with Orc slaves than fighting or heavy labor? Why wouldn't they use the best fighter slaves in battle?
    • For me, the question is not why orc slaves don't get Res4. The question is why a mass of humans, orcs, elves, goblins,... would get above average Res?

      ID would use orcs, but not only orcs.

      Don't misunderstand me, there is a realm of possibilities and ways to do this, a part from a single mass of bodies, and we could even end with different types of slave units. But I would prefer to not waste much design space with slaves and focus on the real cool things of the army.