Tiers and patch discussion

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!

  • Tiers and patch discussion

    The following was just posted by the project in relation to points adjustments to be made around December-ish time frame:


    Top tier: UD, VS
    High Tier: WDG, VC, OK, BH, DL
    Mid Tier: KoE, OnG
    Low Tier: DE, DH, EoS, SA SE, ID
    Bottom tier: HE

    It is also noted that:
    1. High performing armies gets more and bigger points increases on their over-used entries, and fewer and smaller points decreases on their under-used entries.
    2. Vice versa for badly performing armies
    Complete post is here: the-ninth-age.com/community/ne…hp?news/905-patch-update/

    So, interesting news. I kind of thought VC would be mid-tier as opposed to high but that's just my experience. Anyway, discuss away!
  • Not unexpected despite the whole ETC discussion

    I won't repeat my opinion of tiers as a balancing tools, but remember that these tiers aren't comparable to the WFB days. All 16 armies could probably fit within 1-2 tiers of those days.

    The data on unit use has been gathered (but we still need to do the common magic items before the update can happen) and I'm not entirely sure the ACS will be heard about the changes, but if anyone have a top 3 for what should have a cost reduction, what can be increased and what should really not be touched then feel free to post it here.

    I will at least bash the rules teams over the head with your wishes :)
  • I find it laughable that they consider we are in the same tier as WoTDG (an army as broken as the infamous UD & VS duo, in my opinion). I know that scales must be made at some point, but the difference between armies in the same tier is huge.

    Anywat, let´s be constructive (...)

    @Wesser, my preferred 3 options for points reduction:

    1- Winged reapers. The ones that need it more desperately. Their overcost is ridiculous, they should get a 10ppm reduction at least.
    2- Additional black knights. The first 5 are ok, but 48 points por the extra ones is nuts. Crazy. Mad. They should be no more than 40ppm, even less.
    3- Spectral hunters. The same as black knights, the first 5 are ok, the next ones overcosted. Reduction between 3/5 ppm should do it.


    I know that there are units (corpse cart, altar undeath, the two spectral characters) even in worse shape than these ones, but that units need rules changes (a total overhaul, in cases like the corpse cart), a mere point reduction won´t fix them. And we are repeatly told that this patch will be only points reduction, so... go bash their heads, my friend!


    PD: the fact that this is only a points change patch is why i also don´t talk about bloodlines, powers and magic items. Some would also work with only points reduction (BoTD, Crimson Rage...), but the majority needs some tweak in their rules (VonK, Stormcaller...), and i think that going for units instead would be a better and more streamlined option in this case.

    The post was edited 4 times, last by hugomac ().

  • Was anyone a bit surprised by other faction's tiers?

    I was surprised HBE were clearly last. I had them pegged as the strongest of the three elf armies. DH in lower also comes as a surprise to me.

    As for VC points adjustments, Cadaver wagon and fell wraith were just never taken. I'm sure they will get points drop if ACS does not say a word about them. Agree with @hugomac that an additional black knight reduction is probably warranted.

    On the other side, tournament data would support increases to items like reapers harvest and the necromantic staff (if i'm reading it correctly)

    Surprisingly SH were also very popular in swift death. imo reapers harvest and SH suck but if they go up in points nothing changes for me :)
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    Was anyone a bit surprised by other faction's tiers?

    I was surprised HBE were clearly last. I had them pegged as the strongest of the three elf armies. DH in lower also comes as a surprise to me.
    You should tell the HBE forum this :) ;)
    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
  • DanT wrote:

    VampsinMD wrote:

    Was anyone a bit surprised by other faction's tiers?

    I was surprised HBE were clearly last. I had them pegged as the strongest of the three elf armies. DH in lower also comes as a surprise to me.
    You should tell the HBE forum this :) ;)
    No doubt! And I'm sure the project is spot on with their macro-view...

    In my meta HBE are more represented than the other elf factions and in my personal experience they tend to be tougher, mostly because of their potent magic phase. It's a bit easier to make direct comparisons with DE as many of the units are similar and at least to me it seems like many of the HBE units have a slight edge... that's why I was a bit surprised. I could also pick another couple factions I thought they'd be ahead of (EoS comes to mind).
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    No doubt! And I'm sure the project is spot on with their macro-view...
    In my meta HBE are more represented than the other elf factions and in my personal experience they tend to be tougher, mostly because of their potent magic phase. It's a bit easier to make direct comparisons with DE as many of the units are similar and at least to me it seems like many of the HBE units have a slight edge... that's why I was a bit surprised. I could also pick another couple factions I thought they'd be ahead of (EoS comes to mind).
    Yes, spot on.

    Micro/local context is huge.

    I reckon the number of permutations of possible tiers that different players would have given if asked is probably in the 100s; the best the project can do is try to perform some sort of sensible marginalisation.
    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
  • @DanT,

    So am I correct in thinking that most points changes will be made based on the tournament data that is available for us all to see on the army sub-forums?

    Also, do you know how the project handles points changes as they relate to army identity? e.g. vampire counts and zombies were taken much more than the mean for their categories. Imo that is because they are staples of the army. One who wants to play vampires, typically wants to take a vampire count and if they are equally competitive with another choice then one would typically choose the vampire. This presents the issue that if we are increasing points based on what is often taken then their price would surely go up despite that they may be balanced power-wise. Kind of the same thing with zombies and I'm sure other armies have iconic unit entries that are popular.
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    @DanT,

    So am I correct in thinking that most points changes will be made based on the tournament data that is available for us all to see on the army sub-forums?

    Also, do you know how the project handles points changes as they relate to army identity? e.g. vampire counts and zombies were taken much more than the mean for their categories. Imo that is because they are staples of the army. One who wants to play vampires, typically wants to take a vampire count and if they are equally competitive with another choice then one would typically choose the vampire. This presents the issue that if we are increasing points based on what is often taken then their price would surely go up despite that they may be balanced power-wise. Kind of the same thing with zombies and I'm sure other armies have iconic unit entries that are popular.
    the question I think they are trying to answer is if it’s used because it’s cheap or used because other things are over priced. So there is no assumption that something highly used needs a point increase.
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    @DanT,

    So am I correct in thinking that most points changes will be made based on the tournament data that is available for us all to see on the army sub-forums?

    Also, do you know how the project handles points changes as they relate to army identity? e.g. vampire counts and zombies were taken much more than the mean for their categories. Imo that is because they are staples of the army. One who wants to play vampires, typically wants to take a vampire count and if they are equally competitive with another choice then one would typically choose the vampire. This presents the issue that if we are increasing points based on what is often taken then their price would surely go up despite that they may be balanced power-wise. Kind of the same thing with zombies and I'm sure other armies have iconic unit entries that are popular.
    I'm the wrong person to ask; I stopped being staff 9 months ago, so I would be guessing.

    Anecdote:
    In my experience, most tourney players, and certainly those towards the higher end and those who play more events, typically won't use iconic units just because they are iconic.
    I do do this (e.g. I took halberds to every legacy event I took my empire to, even when everyone else said all cavalry lists were better and fielded zero infantry), but I am a bit weird :P
    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
  • it really is astounding as well as mind boggling that VC get punished points wise for having larger unit sizes. Buying two units of 5 whatever is usually cheaper than a single unit of 8 (applies to BKs and SHs). It really destroys our staying power since we need those large numbers.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • VampsinMD wrote:

    @DanT,

    So am I correct in thinking that most points changes will be made based on the tournament data that is available for us all to see on the army sub-forums?

    Also, do you know how the project handles points changes as they relate to army identity? e.g. vampire counts and zombies were taken much more than the mean for their categories. Imo that is because they are staples of the army. One who wants to play vampires, typically wants to take a vampire count and if they are equally competitive with another choice then one would typically choose the vampire. This presents the issue that if we are increasing points based on what is often taken then their price would surely go up despite that they may be balanced power-wise. Kind of the same thing with zombies and I'm sure other armies have iconic unit entries that are popular.
    That data (more precis the used at least once per army part of it) and External Experts and Community Feedback gathered threw the board together are the base for it.

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations DE Blog: Inside TA. The biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    it really is astounding as well as mind boggling that VC get punished points wise for having larger unit sizes. Buying two units of 5 whatever is usually cheaper than a single unit of 8 (applies to BKs and SHs). It really destroys our staying power since we need those large numbers.
    Personally I think it's weirder why Skeleton and Zombies are priced like that. Maybe it's to force a playstyle around making the army larger-than-start but it still seems weird actively discouraging big units
  • There are some strange views of pricing here.

    The project rarely does anything other than try to price things correctly.
    I am aware of no attempts with VC core to do anything other than price them correctly.

    If the data backs up the claimed issues with the core, then I'm sure they will change in price appropriately (the project seems to be explicitly trying to distinguish between units used in min sizes and max sizes in e.g. the community surveys).
    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