Community Brainstorm - Goblin Design Principles 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!

  • Community Brainstorm - Goblin Design Principles for LAB

    Hi green mates

    Long ago discussed. Long ago forgotten. Far ahead still. But some day it will come - the LAB process for OnG. I think we should keep it in mind, and when it will start, we should be able to provide some helpful suggestions.

    (for those not familiar with the word LAB: it means the full redesign of the book)

    Once it was discussed how to reduce complexity in our book. Not sure how urgent it will be when LAB comes, but it is worth to think about it. As the three Goblin sub-races consume a lot of complexity (3 stat lines, 3 sets of equipment...) with very small differences only in gameplay, I think merging those in the rules (not in the background!) is a realistic change.

    Considering the standard infantry, I think every type should have access to every addon (mad guys, assassin guys, poison guys, net guys etc). In my opinion it just makes no sense that Cave Goblins should not have poison, Forest Goblins no Assassins, etc. I think there should be just one unit with access to any two of the current Goblin unit options. Sure, it is not covered by the old GW background, but we get a new better story anyway. And I don't see any problem with Forest Goblin Mad Gits or Cave Goblin Assassins.

    Please discuss.
    Further topics about Goblins will follow.

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

  • Well, it really does come down to flavour vs. complexity.

    What could be done here is that goblins are...well... goblins. That's it.

    They could have access to, say, gitz (one or the other).

    For anything extra, it could require a Goblin Chief.
    IE: Forest chief gives the unit poison CC attacks, Cave Goblin chief gives feigned flight, Common Goblin chief gives a 2++ against all attacks... ... ... okay, no, but something simple but fluffy with some stylistic impact. FGs take down big beasties, Caves are tricksy as can be and Common Goblins are...? I always go with the idea that they are one sacrifice (and about 30 inches) away from garnering Sugulag's favour... never going to happen... but they sure are a greedy and shiny-loving-lot.

    Otherwise, the sub-entries are probably fine as is.

    Gnashers are gnashers. Dasher or otherwise. Can be used, thematically, in a variety of ways.
    Raiders are raiders. Heck, make them a single entry if need be... and maybe also open to chief-buffs.
    War machines are war machines, chariots are chariots etc etc etc.

    The reason I really look to the Chiefs rather than the Kings would be their minimal inclusion/uses if they aren't a backline bsb.

    Make chiefs matter.
    Goblin, Daemon Legions and Warriors of the Dark Gods Player and 9th Age Staffer
    Follow my journey through the world of 9th Age HERE
  • I Could get behind this for sure. One stat line for all core goblin units. I think it could look something like this:



    Goblins 120p for 20 models, 6pp per additional models max unit size is 60

    Comes with Hand weapon, shield

    Weapon Options:
    -may replace shield with bow for free*
    -bows 1ppm*
    -Spears 1ppm (2ppm if forest goblins)

    *max 100 models per army total

    Light Armour 1 ppm


    may become forest goblins for 1 ppm

    May take Creepers -free (the skirmish thing)


    May take nets for 20p


    may select one of following:
    - 0-x mad gits* -50p each (max 9 per army)
    - 0-x Sneaky Gits* 10p each

    *x is based off of unit size
    0-29 max 2
    30+ max 3


    The unit would go from a whole page to half a page, and it would have slightly more options without making any ones brain hurt. I also adjusted some of the units current point cost issues






    arwaker wrote:

    Once it was discussed how to reduce complexity in our book. Not sure how urgent it will be when LAB comes, but it is worth to think about it. As the three Goblin sub-races consume a lot of complexity (3 stat lines, 3 sets of equipment...) with very small differences only in gameplay, I think merging those in the rules (not in the background!) is a realistic change.
    I would not consider O&G "complex". The DL book is probably 10 times more "complex" then this book. i find this book quite simple with just a couple more units than some other books. If there was some mysterious complexity value for every thing in each book and each book had a maximum value we would have seen those numbers by now.

    If this book was rated its complexity on a scale from 1-10 (10 being crazy complicated, 1 being as simple as it gets) I would rate it at around a 2 maybe a 3. DL would be a 9, UD a 5, etc...

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Phoenix5 ().

  • Idle broad brush thought:
    str2 ap1 for gobbos; focus on weapons/technology/abilities to get through armour and flank charge bonuses
    str4 ap0 for orcs; focus on born to fight type "bully" ideas and physicality
    no eadbashers
    Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
    Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
  • SkargitCrookfang wrote:

    The reason I really look to the Chiefs rather than the Kings would be their minimal inclusion/uses if they aren't a backline bsb.


    Make chiefs matter.
    Chiefs make great cowboys and imo are one of the best and most versatile entries in the army.

    On a Wolf they are so fast and can fit through very small gaps so are probably our best chaff

    On a gnasher they hit really hard, can’t be chaffed and are often my MVP

    On a scuttle spider they can scout in places that units with bigger footprints cannot

    On a huntsmen they can be surprisingly tanky.

    And then you can put them on a chariot for zoning and a bit of combat support.

    It is very rare that I don’t use at least of these options in my games.
  • From a currently a bit "outsider" view, the most important thing from my POV is making sure each type of Goblin (if there are types) and their equipment options are all properly costed vs each other and there aren't obvious best builds / best combinations - as it leaves the others being basically redundant except for possible 'fluffy' reasons.

    Like currently, if you want bows on Goblins, Common Goblins stand out as being the most efficient for getting 'free' Light Armour and Shields with their bows too. Or if you want to pay for Spears, then the extra cost to make them Forest Goblins is almost certainly worth it to get the poison attacks too. The only point of Cave Goblins seems to be to get an extra point of Agility, and some extra add on options - but at the downside of losing a point of Discipline and armour.

    Some of these things made more sense in the "old days" when things like Mad Gits (Fanatics) were completely unknown to the enemy, so Cave Goblins had the added 'threat value' of do they include Mad Gits or not - but as that isn't a factor any more with shared lists, I think it's more important that they are actually internally balanced vs each other better.
    My gaming website: agoners.wordpress.com
    My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming
    I currently can play for T9A: Orcs & Goblins, Empire of Sonnstahl (QS only)
  • sgu97bjd wrote:

    SkargitCrookfang wrote:

    The reason I really look to the Chiefs rather than the Kings would be their minimal inclusion/uses if they aren't a backline bsb.


    Make chiefs matter.
    Chiefs make great cowboys and imo are one of the best and most versatile entries in the army.
    On a Wolf they are so fast and can fit through very small gaps so are probably our best chaff

    On a gnasher they hit really hard, can’t be chaffed and are often my MVP

    On a scuttle spider they can scout in places that units with bigger footprints cannot

    On a huntsmen they can be surprisingly tanky.

    And then you can put them on a chariot for zoning and a bit of combat support.

    It is very rare that I don’t use at least of these options in my games.
    Agreed 100% on all the above... but wow is that ever unfluffy.

    No disrespect, I use actually ALL the above, too! But, where are the chiefs with the mobs?
    Goblin, Daemon Legions and Warriors of the Dark Gods Player and 9th Age Staffer
    Follow my journey through the world of 9th Age HERE
  • Frederick wrote:

    I hope T9A will take the golden opportunity and make two LABs instead of one. One for Orcs and one for Goblins. Both have more then enough potential to have their own books :)
    That would be radical, I would be interested if it meant even more options and toys. I kind of grew to like the combined ecosystem even if I only ever build and painted one orc.

    Pellegrim wrote:

    Seeing the new DL book, and having build lists with it, the Goblin situation isn't complex at all really.
    Quite true, but they only have 4 core units so it is very much like the OP proposal. Fewer stat lines by reducing the options and then giving options back by adding items in case of O&G. That could work rather well and keep it simple with a lot less names to remember. If there is no split I would want Orcs and Goblins to be treated equal. Either both core options get folded into one stat line or none.



    With a simplification we should demand more complexity at the same time. I would not want the LAB team to bend options to just get the old choices back with a technical trick. It should give rise to new options and tribal goblin types to choose for. Just call them Goblins in the LAB but open the doors to some creativity at the players side.
    In general I am all in favor to be surprised when the background is better understood and we can start discussing what it will mean for us. Until I have seen the new background I can only say that I am ok with a merger on all goblin types.
  • DanT wrote:

    Idle broad brush thought:
    str2 ap1 for gobbos; focus on weapons/technology/abilities to get through armour and flank charge bonuses
    str4 ap0 for orcs; focus on born to fight type "bully" ideas and physicality
    no eadbashers
    Yay for the goblin part.

    Boooh! For the orc statline and no eadbashers.




    General comment to this topic

    - one global statline for each , orcs and goblins would be awesome.
    - However, it should be possible via army trait / general trait to shift towards a specific theme. (orcs, heaby armored orcs, ferals, cave gobbos, Forest gobbos, all mounted gobbos /orcs, monster mash, etc. )
    - pricing of the goblins could be adjusted, for 4500 points it always feels like there aren't enough of them on the field.
    - synergies between units and / or chars could be focused on a bit more to my taste.
  • I think the common statline for all Goblin types is a really small change, that would make a lot of space in the book.

    Whether to still differentiate the types by other kinds of rules/options, or keep that diversification for auxiliary books is more of a controversial point I think. I would completely merge all Goblin types in the main book, just to spend free complexity on other fancy stuff.

    Orcs should not be the topic here, as it is clearly stated as Goblin design guideline. Aside from the basic assumption that Orcs and Goblins will be in the same book. Separation is really something for the auxiliaries. Whether Orc types will have a common statline is a question that might find a logic answer as soon as the relevant background info is published. I think Orc discussions should wait until that time.

    Back to Goblins:
    Would it be a problem for someone if any type of Goblin unit could be equipped with any option? Is there a potential uber-combo not allowed at the moment like Nets+Poison? Is there any real problem with that degree of freedom?
  • Yes, seperate entries seems far fetched. One basic statline with several subchoices would do, but this would lead to the exact same options, more or less.

    Would this solve the design space issue? Or can someone explain what the actual issue is? I feel it's a bit of a none-issue tbh. But maybe I simply don't understand this.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Thanks for the above, its a ninja reaction to my question.

    arwaker wrote:

    ...
    Back to Goblins:
    Would it be a problem for someone if any type of Goblin unit could be equipped with any option? Is there a potential uber-combo not allowed at the moment like Nets+Poison? Is there any real problem with that degree of freedom?
    Yes, that would be a problem for me, as it takes away flavor from the unit, takes away character by making things more generic. Its one of my biggest fears that more books will be designed like the DL book. That book is more of a math excercise then a rulebook in my opinion. I have to nuance this a bit: the characters are awesome. The insane upgrade options are too generic, which makes it blend. Imo.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • I'm not an O&G player yet, but i have been collecting an army and looking at the book. Is it not an option to merge the standard goblin and orc profiles, and choose a "flavour" as an upgrade?

    Ie, standard goblins can be upgraded to cave goblins or forest goblins and gain ONE special rule and/or access to ONE special upgrade. Emphasis on one special rule/upgrade, since it's alot more comprehensive to players if they're facing a goblin horde with 3 kinds of goblins and 3 kinds of orcs if they only have this one special rule/upgrade but the same stat line. (especially considering the difference between the 3 races right now is 1 agi / 1 dis, which has a minimal impact and only creates more stat lines to remember).

    For example: Common goblins have no special rule and access to netters, cave goblins gain access to nets and mad gits, and forest goblins gain strider and poison upgrade. And all goblins can choose spears / shields / bows.



    Maybe the same could be done with orcs but i think the main difference between the orc are a bit too complex to design this way.
  • I like making goblins with low S and extra AP (especially on flanks) and orcs with more S and less AP, gives it an interesting look. I would like the army to allow full goblins or full orcs and remain competitive, so I think that for goblins not to choke on T4+ units (think they would go to 6+ to wound) they should have something for +1 to wound or reroll I wound conditional, for example have more ranks than the enemy, or double, which would make you see big units of them, which is what it should be.With the reunification of the profiles of goblin and orcs could leave room for more customization of other units, here I think of goblin cars pulled by gnashers or spiders in addition to wolves. Maybe the orcs should have another type of animal apart from the wild boar.Maybe you could make all goblins by definition are common goblins with the option to buy nets, crazy fanatics or killers and if you include a boss or king the unit wins a few rules of race diversity while inside. For example swamp goblin chief and his unit get Strider (Water) and Distracting while inside. Volcano goblin chief and his unit get BF vs. units with fire attacks (i.e. absurd but understandable concepts) and that there are 5 or 6 races. You want simplicity in the units but complexity and flavor in the characters.It could be done that, just as orc chiefs have warcry (Waaaagh!), goblin chiefs have a sharp battle squeak (Weeeeeyaaaah!) That instead of functioning as orcs, a single scream for the entire army, goblins make a squeak per character, but all the same turn, which would affect only their unit, to represent that their screams are not as powerful but are a little more coordinated. The warcry of orcs should work only with orcs and the warcry of goblins only with goblins.
  • Pellegrim wrote:

    Thanks for the above, its a ninja reaction to my question.

    arwaker wrote:

    ...
    Back to Goblins:
    Would it be a problem for someone if any type of Goblin unit could be equipped with any option? Is there a potential uber-combo not allowed at the moment like Nets+Poison? Is there any real problem with that degree of freedom?
    Yes, that would be a problem for me, as it takes away flavor from the unit, takes away character by making things more generic. Its one of my biggest fears that more books will be designed like the DL book. That book is more of a math excercise then a rulebook in my opinion. I have to nuance this a bit: the characters are awesome. The insane upgrade options are too generic, which makes it blend. Imo.
    Just that I understand you right: You have no problem with a common statline of all Goblin types, but you have a problem with for example Poison and Sneaky Gits in the same unit, because it makes the army feel too generic?

    I hardly can agree with you sorry. I still don't get why such artificial restrictions should bring flavour to our army.