VS Brainstorming for LAB

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!

  • This basic concept should allow counterplay and encourage risky behaviours rather than offer random reward / punishement.

    What about overcharged attack having random range? When standard attack is 24" let the overcharged version be 2x2D6. Rolled after you declare target which you do on base of maximum range...
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Current goals:
    • Launch crowdfunding campaign to publish The IXth Age Legendary rulebook in Hardcover
    • Convert and paint army of Ogres for my son
  • Come closer if you want to be sure... Random range could be something like 4 + 2d6 to give some guaranteed minimal range. It also opens space for engineers granting maximized roll :)
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Current goals:
    • Launch crowdfunding campaign to publish The IXth Age Legendary rulebook in Hardcover
    • Convert and paint army of Ogres for my son
  • arwaker wrote:

    I think it is important to have a very similar rules mechanic for risk-reward implemented in all our weapons. Sure, some small deviations are necessary, but it would be a nightmare if every weapons has a completely different rule for this.

    Therefore I think it is necessary to have a basic concept for overcharging before going into details with the specific weapons.
    I agree.

    However, at this point in LAB (ie not even really much beyond random brainstorming) we should probably explore the possibilities before settling on a methodology.

    We should probably also get a feeling for which parts of the book will allow Risk/reward.

    What is the fluff behind it? Ie. Is it throughout the culture or just reserved for machinists and their creations?

    How far do we want Risk/Reward to bend? Do we want stuff to explode or just take a malus. Should that malus be permanent or just for that action point?

    Is Risk/Reward a dice rolling thing or a decision point with a set outcome?

    There are heaps of questions that need answering before we LAB. But we’re not there yet so brainstorming is what we have. :)
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • The “too hard to use” argument is interesting as I considered it to be a very simple mechanic yet two people now have said they couldn’t deal with it. What would you find to be difficult about it?


    As a side note: “Hard to price” is not an appropriate argument any more as the new/current pricing approach settles the price to its appropriate level based on usage over time.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • It's easy to understand, but difficult to depend on. That's what I meant by use. The more instances of rolling a success that you introduce into a ruleset, the more chances you have to fail over that usage.

    Pricing random over time is easier, but that initial setting is difficult. Getting that wrong could delay the decay of pricing for nonuse for several iterations.


    Find me on Twitter! - twitter.com/SkavenInAZ
  • arwaker wrote:

    I think it is important to have a very similar rules mechanic for risk-reward implemented in all our weapons. Sure, some small deviations are necessary, but it would be a nightmare if every weapons has a completely different rule for this.

    Therefore I think it is necessary to have a basic concept for overcharging before going into details with the specific weapons.

    An interesting idea would be to allow an increased 'maximised roll' but include a higher misfire chance. I.e.
    The chosen weapon (instance rotary gun) can shoot 2d6 shots at strength 5 or increase to 3d6 at strength 4. It can then maximize its roll, however a misfire now goes off on any double 5 as well as 6.

    The canon could use this feature in strength, maximising the to damage roll, however if a 1 or 2 is rolled out misfires.

    Fleshbeast wrote:

    The “too hard to use” argument is interesting as I considered it to be a very simple mechanic yet two people now have said they couldn’t deal with it. What would you find to be difficult about it?


    As a side note: “Hard to price” is not an appropriate argument any more as the new/current pricing approach settles the price to its appropriate level based on usage over time.
    Actually the pricing method at the moment is flawed. It assumes that all the designs are good enough to be chosen. Otherwise a badly designed unit (or unit without its own role) that isn't chosen could cause the only other useful units to be taken and therefore increase them in price.
  • Twisted Magpie wrote:

    arwaker wrote:

    I think it is important to have a very similar rules mechanic for risk-reward implemented in all our weapons. Sure, some small deviations are necessary, but it would be a nightmare if every weapons has a completely different rule for this.

    Therefore I think it is necessary to have a basic concept for overcharging before going into details with the specific weapons.
    An interesting idea would be to allow an increased 'maximised roll' but include a higher misfire chance. I.e.
    The chosen weapon (instance rotary gun) can shoot 2d6 shots at strength 5 or increase to 3d6 at strength 4. It can then maximize its roll, however a misfire now goes off on any double 5 as well as 6.

    The canon could use this feature in strength, maximising the to damage roll, however if a 1 or 2 is rolled out misfires.

    I like the idea of the additional maximised roll. Ideally graduated so you can keep adding dice one after the other but legal may have to weigh in on that one.



    If we were to use the exact example above i’d argue for maintaining the Str of the shot at 3D6 as the higher misfire should be enough of a risk without taking a direct malus.


    Fleshbeast wrote:

    The “too hard to use” argument is interesting as I considered it to be a very simple mechanic yet two people now have said they couldn’t deal with it. What would you find to be difficult about it?


    As a side note: “Hard to price” is not an appropriate argument any more as the new/current pricing approach settles the price to its appropriate level based on usage over time.
    Actually the pricing method at the moment is flawed. It assumes that all the designs are good enough to be chosen. Otherwise a badly designed unit (or unit without its own role) that isn't chosen could cause the only other useful units to be taken and therefore increase them in price.
    That is not a flaw of the pricing methodology but an assumption the methodology draws of having a quality design process. If anything I would call it a feature/control as entries which don’t see play at any price are pulled out as they become cheap to the point of being outliers.
    Yes, the pricing method assumes that everything is usable, but i’d hope that the LAB process would weed out any entries which are that bad.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • Divine Favor: Before Casting a Spell or making a Shooting Attack, a model with this rule may declare that they are using this rule to give the Ranged Attack one of the following effects:
    • +12 inch range
    • +1 to-wound
    • Maximized Roll when determining the number of hits
    After resolving the Ranged Attack, roll a D6. On a 3+ the Enemy Player gains a Wrath Token. At the start of the Enemy Player's Magic Phase if they have 3 Wrath Tokens in their possession and a Wizard that has not been removed as a casualty, they can exchange their Wrath Tokens to automatically cast the spell Wrath of God from Path of Thaumaturgy. This special version of Wrath of God is resolved at the end of the Magic Phase instead of subsequent Magic Phases.
  • Have you seen the last ID spoiler?

    Zanta Claws wrote:

    Aye, Slaves will be mules and help us to reign death from afar. It's true that occasional a couple dozens of them explode or burn to death, a small price to pay for our victory!
    I feel robbed...
    StormRider Games
    StormRider Facebook
    _____________Current goals:
    • Launch crowdfunding campaign to publish The IXth Age Legendary rulebook in Hardcover
    • Convert and paint army of Ogres for my son
  • This seems to have been cleared up a bit.

    ID LAB Team have spent a chunk of time ensuring that their slaves design fits the niche for ID without impacting the VS niche. @WhammeWhamme

    Also it is my understanding that their war machines will not be unreliable as they are still dwarf-make.
    "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
  • Fleshbeast wrote:

    This seems to have been cleared up a bit.

    ID LAB Team have spent a chunk of time ensuring that their slaves design fits the niche for ID without impacting the VS niche. @WhammeWhamme

    Also it is my understanding that their war machines will not be unreliable as they are still dwarf-make.

    There's a continuum of war machine reliability. Elves are at one end (what misfires?), VS are at the other. ID are closer to VS than most factions are as they're still risk-takers.

    At least that's how it should be. ID are roughly in the EoS ballpark for reliability, I think?


    Just to be clear, we didn't spend all the time I mentioned avoiding clashes with VS; we did it finding a use for slaves that fit the ID philosophy, which values slave lives higher than VS does (dwarves are stingy), but still considers them a resource to be spent.

    Background Team