Dread Elf LAB Brainstorm/Ideas 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!

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    If you want to argue that the T9A rulebook plate armour should have been named something different, I'll agree. At a minimum the world "full" should have been left in there and then it would be clearer that half-plate, breastplates and muscle cuirasses were not meant to be included under that one word label (instead being heavy, light and light armour respectively).

    If you want to argue that the minis you picked represent miniatures that actually look well-protected, that I will not give you.

    (And again, WDG armour is explicitly magical. I'd allow a chainmail bikini that you sold your soul for to give +3 AS.)


    If you want to apply the standards of fantasy, I'll point to ridiculous looking things that look more like power armour than anything a normal person could wear. Those elves aren't especially heavily armoured by fantasy standards. They're armoured, but not more so than anyone else.

    And you're arguing for them to be exceptionally well-armoured. Because light armour on common infantry and heavy on elites is the human norm. You're arguing that they are more heavily armoured than comparable human ranges. Not buying it.
    Of just a breast plate isn't plate armor. But if you've got full-body armor, at least half of which is metal plates, then it's arguably plate armor. More than half? Clearly plate armor. Full body metal plates? Obviously plate armor. Many of those pictured definitely satisfy that last category.

    And top 5 armor factions have 3+ infantry, 1+ cavalry, and/or ubiquitour 2+: WDG, ID, DH, EoS, KoE. #6 is currently HbE (which can also do ubiquitous 2+, and has "3.5" infantry in LG). Given there are only 16 factions, and 6 of them are those, 4+ infantry is looking pretty average. Especially since Orcs are probably #7 even if DE had 4+ infantry. (OnG has 3+ special infantry, 2+ cavalry, and iirc potentially 4+ infantry in core). Assuming HA/shield spears and plate TG/DJs, that would probably make DE a solid #8, which is average, and that's assuming SA doesn't push them into 9th (which they probably do, with 3+ special infantry, 4+ core infantry, and 2+ cavalry).

    So no, i'm not buying the average is 6+ or 5+. That's clearly below average when you look at faction capabilities.

    And the miniatures certainly look as well protected as things I've seen used for EoS knights. Not everyone uses historical models even when they're available.
    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

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And the problem is that piercing resist can allow you to make an armour save against things armour should not work against. Why is it not an aegis, if it's going to be a magical protection that works against things armour does not work against?
    got an example because I'm not sure what you mean.

    i agree about "why not just use an aegis save" but then we are just spamming aegis saves everywhere.
  • The names maybe would be better if called light armor, medium armor and heavy armor. Then we would get rid of the unnecessary mix between models and rules.

    Even Plate armor is not necessarily plate armor. Plates could be thick or thin. Maybe those DE in "plate" just wear a very thin plate, while the EoS plates are twice or three times as thick. Agility values of the models could be the reason. An Elf in EoS plate might suffer more from agility loss than a human, therefore they just wear their light and medium armor.

    It all comes down to what design guidelines are. If the guideline for EoS and DE indicate that DE don't have as heavy armor, don't just find a way to work around that with AP resist (which is nearly as good as +1 armor). How would you DE players react if EoS had a knit with agility 6?

    Always keep in mind how a design would look like from other faction's point of view. Noone likes to get stepped on their toes.
  • arwaker wrote:

    don't just find a way to work around that with AP resist (which is nearly as good as +1 armor)
    AP resist won't go on 2+ save models the way I designed the book. Except maybe a character on raptor mount, but that can already be done with many armies with the generic magical armour.

    And if people boost with magic, ...well if you go alchemy and get then 9+ spell off then it should be good.
  • Idea:

    Oracle and Cult Priest have access to Slaves. Inspiration comes from the Dark Shards ability in Vermin Swarm.
    They are One Use Only slaves that can be sacrificed to do something.
    Maybe have a multipurpose like it's allowed to be used for the Magic Path Occultism and It can be used to boost the range of the Alter bubble for 1 turn.
    ...it's pretty open ended. Can pretty much make any kind of niche rule for it.

    Boost the range of Spells - perhaps specific spells like Hex's.
    Lower enemy dispel attempt since we are supposed to have strong magic.

    For priest it could trigger another instance of death trance on the unit it has joined. (less reliant on alter buffs).
  • Squirrelloid’s breakdown is pretty compelling. Visually, I absolutely agree that DE models are usually on the protected side, some selections very much so with edgy plate.

    And yes, if you list the factions according to some armour example minimums, DE should be able to sit in the middle of the pack by these criteria.
    Is 4+ so threatening to design & balance as it stands?
  • Dopey wrote:

    Squirrelloid’s breakdown is pretty compelling. Visually, I absolutely agree that DE models are usually on the protected side, some selections very much so with edgy plate.

    And yes, if you list the factions according to some armour example minimums, DE should be able to sit in the middle of the pack by these criteria.
    Is 4+ so threatening to design & balance as it stands?
    You should post this in the guidelines feedback thread!!
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And the problem is that piercing resist can allow you to make an armour save against things armour should not work against. Why is it not an aegis, if it's going to be a magical protection that works against things armour does not work against?
    I'm not sure I understand this sentence.

    If you have Heavy armor (5+) with AP-resist(1) then I'd imagine it would play out like this:
    AP0 strikes your armor - 5+ save
    AP1 strikes your armor - 5+ save
    AP2 strikes your armor - 6+ save
    AP3 (or more) strikes your armor - no save

    This would make DE heavy armor with AP resist slightly better than normal heavy armor, but not as good as plate armor. Which would reflect the eliteness of the DE without trespassing on the armor strenghts of plated factions.
  • Something about on foot character in MSU / MMU builds :

    As MSU and MMU don't really favor the use of character inside thoses "small/fragile" units, characters needs to have a good impact but also a great mobility to reach the good unit.
    The impact can come from many mechanism well known (a good bunch of attacks, units buff).
    The intra-unit mobility is generaly not well : if you want a good move you need a mount and then you are targetable even inside units... so it will be good to think about mechanisms which help character to be not too tied to one unit. My ideas for now :
    - artefact that boost the march value (only march because advance help too much to charge), it can be some straight +6" march, but can also be conditionnal movement (like in the terrain supplement, exemple : you gain march 24" if you finish your move joining a friendly unit)
    - magic / rules to teleport inside other unit (bound spells, assassin rules !), maybe swap character...

    I see too often character build to join only one unit (and often there is also only one or two unit they can join anyway).
    So, it will be good if we think about mechanisms and tools for the combination of character/unit and not only "how to make units works in MSU/MMU" because it's also tied a little to "how to make character join on foot units".
    1 - Start of the Charge Phase (and start of the Player Turn)
    2 - The Active Player chooses a unit and declares a Charge
  • Idea: Unit swapping
    Supposedly a tactical manoeuvre used by Romans. Here's a lindybeige video on the subject: youtube.com/watch?v=croWDsDhgPo

    Short-ish version: Romans would swap soldiers in the front rank during battle. It's unknown how exactly it was done and we only have speculations. (1) One option is that a soldier in the first rank would step backward and squeeze through all the way to the back of his file and the soldier initially right behind him would take his place in the first rank, and they would continue swapping every few minutes so that the soldier who just withdrew has time to catch his breath before it's his turn to go again. (2) Another is that entire units would fall back simultaneously leaving enough space for fresh units to charge into the gaps.

    If there's an army in T9A that could pull off a manoeuvre like that it's DE, since it would definitely require a well trained and drilled army. But how could we implement it?
    (I assume DE are gonna have some kind of significant bonus in first round of combat)
    Idea (1): Swapping front rank could simply mean letting the bonus for more turns if a certain requirement is fulfilled, kinda like Born to Fight works for Orcs as long as they remain steadfast. (I don't really like the idea of having an army-wide special rule that works exactly like one that Orcs have though ;) )
    Idea (2): Swapping entire units by voluntarily fleeing from combat in order to make room for another unit to charge in and make use of the bonuses. So how about something like this:

    Special Rule X:
    After resolving a combat involving this unit, but before any combat reforms are performed, if this unit is engaged only in it's front facing it may choose to withdraw from combat. If it does, treat this unit as having failed a Break Test with the following exceptions:
    1) Other friendly units with this special rule automatically pass all Panic Tests caused by this unit Breaking from Combat and Fleeing through their unit's Unit Boundry.
    2) If the first friendly unit this unit Flees through has this special rule and one or more pursuing enemy units rolled equal or higher on their Pursuit Rolls than this unit's Flee Roll, it is not destroyed. Instead, each of the enemy units performs a Charge Move against the first friendly unit this unit has fled through (if possible).
    3) [Unit gains something akin to Feigned Flight for one turn]

    Now that I've written it down it's longer than i thought. :)
    I'd probably replace 2) with a *requirement* to have another friendly non-fleeing unit with this special rule behind this unit to flee through (and it's front facing in this unit's direction) - for example within 4" and then always counting as having rolled a 4 for the Flee distance, just enough to end up on the other side.

    This would represent a difficult and well performed manoeuvre of one unit falling back being covered by another unit ready to take its place.

    Probably could turn out to be quite broken, seeing how (as far as I know) no unit in T9A has the option of voluntarily breaking from combat, but I just wanted to put it out there.

    Please, feel free to discuss and criticize ;)

    Best Wishes
    Ozzy
  • Minidudul wrote:

    I see too often character build to join only one unit (and often there is also only one or two unit they can join anyway).
    So, it will be good if we think about mechanisms and tools for the combination of character/unit and not only "how to make units works in MSU/MMU" because it's also tied a little to "how to make character join on foot units".
    I think this is why most people don't want the restricted cults.
    In my LAB proposal I have the cult priest able to join any unit. It gives the unit Death Trance(buff) and Frenzy(slight drawback). She gets a 4+ aegis in close so you can spend the 100pts of gear on other stuff.
    She gains the cult bonus of the unit she joins as well so it gives incentive to place her into cult units rather than Academy units. Which I really like because it encourages deployment strategies rather than just plopping your army down because everything is restricted and only goes in 1 unit anyway.

    Only thing I came up with for the Prince/Captain was to give the unit minimized Discipline rolls. I figured that Acadmey units are trained to operate on their own anyway and don't need encouragement to put a prince/captain in the front. But this minimized discipline is for any unit he joins.
  • Ozzy666 wrote:

    Idea: Unit swapping
    Supposedly a tactical manoeuvre used by Romans. Here's a lindybeige video on the subject: youtube.com/watch?v=croWDsDhgPo

    Short-ish version: Romans would swap soldiers in the front rank during battle. It's unknown how exactly it was done and we only have speculations. (1) One option is that a soldier in the first rank would step backward and squeeze through all the way to the back of his file and the soldier initially right behind him would take his place in the first rank, and they would continue swapping every few minutes so that the soldier who just withdrew has time to catch his breath before it's his turn to go again. (2) Another is that entire units would fall back simultaneously leaving enough space for fresh units to charge into the gaps.

    If there's an army in T9A that could pull off a manoeuvre like that it's DE, since it would definitely require a well trained and drilled army. But how could we implement it?
    (I assume DE are gonna have some kind of significant bonus in first round of combat)
    Idea (1): Swapping front rank could simply mean letting the bonus for more turns if a certain requirement is fulfilled, kinda like Born to Fight works for Orcs as long as they remain steadfast. (I don't really like the idea of having an army-wide special rule that works exactly like one that Orcs have though ;) )
    Idea (2): Swapping entire units by voluntarily fleeing from combat in order to make room for another unit to charge in and make use of the bonuses. So how about something like this:

    Special Rule X:
    After resolving a combat involving this unit, but before any combat reforms are performed, if this unit is engaged only in it's front facing it may choose to withdraw from combat. If it does, treat this unit as having failed a Break Test with the following exceptions:
    1) Other friendly units with this special rule automatically pass all Panic Tests caused by this unit Breaking from Combat and Fleeing through their unit's Unit Boundry.
    2) If the first friendly unit this unit Flees through has this special rule and one or more pursuing enemy units rolled equal or higher on their Pursuit Rolls than this unit's Flee Roll, it is not destroyed. Instead, each of the enemy units performs a Charge Move against the first friendly unit this unit has fled through (if possible).
    3) [Unit gains something akin to Feigned Flight for one turn]

    Now that I've written it down it's longer than i thought. :)
    I'd probably replace 2) with a *requirement* to have another friendly non-fleeing unit with this special rule behind this unit to flee through (and it's front facing in this unit's direction) - for example within 4" and then always counting as having rolled a 4 for the Flee distance, just enough to end up on the other side.

    This would represent a difficult and well performed manoeuvre of one unit falling back being covered by another unit ready to take its place.

    Probably could turn out to be quite broken, seeing how (as far as I know) no unit in T9A has the option of voluntarily breaking from combat, but I just wanted to put it out there.

    Please, feel free to discuss and criticize ;)

    Best Wishes
    Ozzy
    I think the best thing for that would be to make a rule that if a unit charges a unit already locked, the friendly unit counts as its first turn of combat, so it is represented that they are rested or more motivated to return to fight. Something like this:

    "Academy Tactics:
    A unit with this rule, and with a rank after the first minimum, that is locked in combat, considers the current turn as its first turn of combat (not considered a charge) for the purposes of special rules and weapons when a friendly unit joins its same combat or wins the combat.

    With such a rule, hate works again, the spear bonus, etc., but you don't charge devastating or +1RC for charging. The soldiers of the rear ranks replace those of the first to rest and these attack with the fury of the beginning, but if there are no soldiers behind it does not work.
  • Was thinking about Hydra and Kraken.

    I like squirrels idea in his homebrew book for his Hyrda. Although I think a permanent increase to attacks is a bit much.
    Anyway, it basically gets the giant/scourge ability where if it gets extra attacks if it has missing health points. But it loses the 4+ regen save and instead gains 1 wound back at the start of every turn. And his wounds gets increase to about 7, maybe 8wounds.
    I also wouldn't mind it being a bit more RNG and let it roll a dice per missing wound and on 6's it regains. ...might be too similar to 8th edition.

    Obviously gotta be tested. It provides synergies with occultism as a sac target. If opponent is ignoring the hydra you can sac a health point on it and it will regrow it next turn. Gives a bit of incentive to take cosomo with that 1 health regrow spell as that spell isn't too good but if you can potentially get wounds from the regeneration then it stacks well.
    And because it loses the 4+ in close it means combat res isn't negated. And it's more susceptible to range but opponent needs to focus on it instead of plink a wound off here and there. So not a drastic increase in points. On the flip side, running down the hydra in combat is more viable.
    Perhaps in an effort to make the Hydra more specialized it could get a rule that makes it more suited to attacking smaller stuff. Something like +1 to wound when fighting standard size models, and then reduce it's strength down to 4.


    For the Kraken, The current sats seem ok. Could tweak something here and there, maybe an extra wound.
    But I would like to see a +1 to hit vs units with more than 1 wound in it's profile. Or perhaps just +1 to hit vs Large/Gigantic.This makes it more specialized and less reliant on beastmaster re-roll.


    Oh also, I found out that the reason our monsters are overcosted is because the beast-master re-roll points is shifted onto the monsters. Sigh...... that pricing system has to be scrapped when you are dealing with fragile units that give up points easily.
  • Solutions
    Basic: most see the problem in the shot, if they will change cadaron to +1 to shot both short and long. Would that be acceptable?Species:- executioners: remove the restriction of multiple wounds. Would that be acceptable?- dancers: remove the restriction from the special and make it a normal Aegis 4+. Would that be acceptable?- black guard: (this is something I personally would like) an Aegis 5+. Would that be acceptable?The rest I do not see that it needs changes....perhaps the monsters that had r6 as a typical monster...
  • Peacemaker wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    And the problem is that piercing resist can allow you to make an armour save against things armour should not work against. Why is it not an aegis, if it's going to be a magical protection that works against things armour does not work against?
    got an example because I'm not sure what you mean.
    i agree about "why not just use an aegis save" but then we are just spamming aegis saves everywhere.

    So (and this is more for someone else):

    1) if it can't get to a 1+ save (even with +2 from Alchemy), it's just +1 armour, not vs. AP0 attacks. And given how common AP0 isn't, that's not much of a limitation and is very close to just being a flat +1 AS.

    2) If it CAN get to a 1+ save, even if only on a character with Alchemy spells targeting them, it gives you an effective 0+ save. You gain the ability to make an armour save against AP6 attacks. That shouldn't be possible; AP6 is supposed to mean the same thing as "no armour saves".

    ----

    On the "controlled retreat" thing : I'd call it a Fighting Retreat and say that if a unit attempts it, then on a failed break test they flee 2" and on a successful one they roll a normal distance and the enemy cannot pursue.

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    1) if it can't get to a 1+ save (even with +2 from Alchemy), it's just +1 armour, not vs. AP0 attacks. And given how common AP0 isn't, that's not much of a limitation and is very close to just being a flat +1 AS.

    2) If it CAN get to a 1+ save, even if only on a character with Alchemy spells targeting them, it gives you an effective 0+ save. You gain the ability to make an armour save against AP6 attacks. That shouldn't be possible; AP6 is supposed to mean the same thing as "no armour saves".
    Ah.
    Very easy work around for number 2. Get a rules lawyer guy to word AP resist in a way that doesn't let it get better than an effective Armour save of 1+.
    Example: doesn't work against AP5 or more.

    I heavily disagree about the AP 6 means no armour as their is a plethora of AP 10 in the game. ...it's not like this is even an exception or oversight, multiple books have access to AP 10.
    And we went through multiple beta updates and test where they could have made it say AP 6 instead of 10. Heck piercing resist idea was on the table before 2.0 gold was done.

    Thanks for the info.
  • Academy Tactics:
    Rank Bonus: +1 for each Full Rank after the first (maximum +3)
    Each side adds unit with Academic Tactics adds +1 to their Combat Score for each Full Rank after the first in a single unit, up to a maximum of +3.
    Only count this for a single unit per side (use the unit that gives the highest Rank Bonus). Units in Line Formation cannot add Rank Bonus to their Combat Score.

    With this change in the rule Rank Bonus I think a MSU/MMU are be able to survive and deal against big blocks units.

    That is all
    The Al-Qassar Sultanates (Homebrew)
    Halflings (Homebrew)
    Silexian Goblins (Homebrew)
    Feral Orcs (Homebrew)