Question about beast giant price

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!

  • Question about beast giant price

    New

    I have a question about how the giants prices are made between the different army books.

    Can we know the prices are made ?

    One finding :
    Giant of the warriors of the dark gods : 260pts
    Slave Giant of the Ogres : 265pts
    Giant of the Orcs and Gobelins : 285pts
    Giant of the ID : 300pts
    Beast Giant of the Beast Herds : 300pts

    There is a huge gap between 260 pts and 300pts !!! Mostly all giants have the same caracteristics, the same size base ...
    Casual french player who want the success of the 9th age in the whole world ;) !
  • New

    Darkwise wrote:

    I have a question about how the giants prices are made between the different army books.

    Can we know the prices are made ?

    One finding :
    Giant of the warriors of the dark gods : 260pts
    Slave Giant of the Ogres : 265pts
    Giant of the Orcs and Gobelins : 285pts
    Giant of the ID : 300pts
    Beast Giant of the Beast Herds : 300pts

    There is a huge gap between 260 pts and 300pts !!! Mostly all giants have the same caracteristics, the same size base ...
    Different books, different special rules.

    They have better synergies in certain armies (Vanguarding Giants in a vanguard/ambush BH are very strong for example).

    Giant in WTDG is a low armour unit in a high armour army, so might just be easy points for the opponent.

    Even a copy-paste unit would have different pricing depending on the army it belongs too ;)
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
    ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
  • New

    @Darkwise
    What kind of answer do you want?

    The empirical balancing that the project implements means that "identical units in different books being equally priced" is neither necessary nor sufficient for the game to be balanced.

    Nor is it necessarily claimed that any of these pieces have reached their "correct price", only that each price iteration is more correct than the last.

    So, one could go through a whole of history and updates and answer your question, but I suspect that this is not really what you want to know?


    The important facts are these:
    If the internal balance of the beast giant is bad according to the data, he is likely to be better off after the update.
    Whether or not he is better off after the next update is independent of the prices of other giants.
    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
  • New

    Lagerlof wrote:

    Darkwise wrote:

    I have a question about how the giants prices are made between the different army books.

    Can we know the prices are made ?

    One finding :
    Giant of the warriors of the dark gods : 260pts
    Slave Giant of the Ogres : 265pts
    Giant of the Orcs and Gobelins : 285pts
    Giant of the ID : 300pts
    Beast Giant of the Beast Herds : 300pts

    There is a huge gap between 260 pts and 300pts !!! Mostly all giants have the same caracteristics, the same size base ...
    Different books, different special rules.
    They have better synergies in certain armies (Vanguarding Giants in a vanguard/ambush BH are very strong for example).

    Giant in WTDG is a low armour unit in a high armour army, so might just be easy points for the opponent.

    Even a copy-paste unit would have different pricing depending on the army it belongs too ;)


    Really thanks for yours answers !

    @Lagerlof
    But, i will ask you another question like ours beloved board (and this is not ironic, they do a damn stamping job between 9th Age players and designers ;) ).

    Isn't that your feeling ?


    Because, if you take the army book of the beast herd, we are not so overpowered in vanguard units ! May be Centaur according the option chosen, Giant if we paid a barrel, dogs according the deployement or if they don't have the chaff job, razorstucks and chariots if we paid a magic item... (just my feeling, before you burn me in hell for sharing my opinion). And, beast herds are jumping around their ennemies naked too ;). Giant is easy points for the opponent too.

    So if we take an option or an unit and the synergy of it army book, the Dread Elves Raptor shoud be the "double" of the price of the Saurian Ancient raptor's because it gives a resilience of 5 to an army that should have low resilience and especially that the saurian characters already pay the resilience tax of 5 in their basic profile ... !!!???


    So, why don't take a same base cost/a same base taxe for all the giant in all army book and well priced the option (of vanguard) ? Because if we play a beast giant without the barrel (without vanguard), we are really really overtaxed for nothing.

    But, as DanT says, may be it will take care for the next update. And as you both says, may be the actual price of the giant beast isn't correct (for an up or down).

    My aim is just to understand why a such difference. And, my feeling, I think the actual price of the beast giant, is really unfair compare to the giants of WotDG and OK. Only the option of barrel should really increase is price to taxe the vanguard option. May be this fact will be solve for the next update.
    Casual french player who want the success of the 9th age in the whole world ;) !

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

  • New

    Darkwise wrote:


    My aim is just to understand why a such difference.

    There is no difference to understand really. Given the philosophy espoused by the news post, it isn't meaningful to really make the comparison. I explained this in a touch more detail in a post in the BH general discussion thread.



    And, my feeling, I think the actual price of the beast giant, is really unfair compare to the giants of WotDG and OK.
    As I say, it isn't a sensible question to ask in the existing paradgim.
    Moreover, if BH are higher tier, and giants are reasonably used, then a decrease logically necessitates points increases elsewhere.

    Suggestion:
    Read my list building thoughts in my list thread and beginners tactics threads (both in sig).
    I also think somehwere in there I link to some help I gave someone writing a WotDG list, where I show my thought process.
    At no point do I ever really ask the question "is X worth its points?".
    I don't really ask this question until I get to the finished 4500pt list, and then I ask it of the list as a whole.

    Maybe this will give you a different perspective/thought process...
    Maybe you will think I am talking utter nonsense :D

    (Of course I hope that you will find it helpful, but I cannot promise :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
  • New

    @DanT , i wrote this post because i find the beast giant's price too hight in comparaison of the other giant ! I just want answer. Don't burn me in hell. If we cannot focus a rules point that seems unfair, it become a dictature !!!

    If you only want lick-buttock posts, you aren't in a good position with a grouch french player xD ! If we cannot spot in light what in the 9th Rules is/seems unfair or that doesn't/seems doesn't work it's not a game made by the players for the players... The 9th project would have lost it spirit.

    We all know that the update will arrive. And i think all the players on this forum want to add is stone to the bulding. If "negative" posts (i don't consider my post as negative. I just want to alert) aren't allowed, the board should communicate on this fact.
    If, in so many sub-forum there are so many crying people, may be the game and the rules aren't so good balance. May be they should have some little improvements. Not big changes. But accept the critisims and reassure the players that the feedback of dysfunctions will be studied.

    What worries many players is the time taken by the updates and the publication of army books in gold version. And it's that fact that the board have a ton of crying posts. You know that i propose another organisation of work for the publication of army books. I know and i assume that it will be a heavy work to reorganise the process but, after it will be a highway ! But you don't agree and you are the only one that give me an answer :) !

    Moreover, to avoid the continuous birth of plaintive subjects, perhaps, on of the members of the ACS team could be identified as collecting all the points of dysfunction or unbalance, in each sub-forum. thus, a player of a disctinct army can alert and the ACS can identify and follow the points to study. There would be only one post collecting the complaints. The ACS would have to updated the first post. No more problem with eternal toxic posts. All would be centralized and the ACS's job would be less arousing.



    On the other hand, thanks for the links. May be yours posts could appear in a special 9Th Scroll and traduce by each translator's team in each country. It isn't really easy to read tactics in our non-native language when we aren't bilingual.
    Casual french player who want the success of the 9th age in the whole world ;) !

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Darkwise ().

  • New

    Darkwise wrote:

    @DanT

    Thanks for the links. May be yours posts could appear in a special 9Th Scroll and traduce by each translator's team in each country.

    It isn't really easy to read tactics our non-native language when we aren't bilingual
    Oh, interesting. I hadn't thought about this. Apologies :(

    I have written a few things for the t9a scroll, but not the things that I am referring to here.

    If you are interested PM me, and maybe I can help you understand what I am saying in some of what I have written.
    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
  • New

    Darkwise wrote:

    @DanT , i wrote this post because i find the beast giant's price too hight in comparaison of the other giant ! I just want answer. Don't burn me in hell. If we cannot focus a rules point that seems unfair, it become a dictature !!!
    You can't compare the points for units with units in other books.

    Even if the units are identical in every way.

    Maybe it will see a small price reduction with the coming updates.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans
    ETC 2019 - Team Sweden
  • New

    @Darkwise
    Hmmm.... it seems most of your post post appeared after I first replied to it.
    Which is very confusing.
    Clearly I need better medication... ;)

    I will try to answer a few points below, but I think you haven't really understood my posts above so I am clearly failing to communicate.
    I will try to put things differently and hopefully I will make more sense this time :)
    If not this time then I surrender. I have run out of alternative ways to write it. I will go away and try to think of others, but won't post again unless I do.

    (Caveats:
    This is based on my experience as staff, and how I interpret the tiers news post etc. If one of the decision makers objects to my characterisation, feel free to correct me.
    In no way should this post be taken as a statement by the project. I am not staff. I am just trying to help you).

    Darkwise wrote:

    @DanT , i wrote this post because i find the beast giant's price too hight in comparaison of the other giant ! I just want answer.
    There is no answer though. Not of the kind you want.
    That is what I have been trying to explain to you.
    No-one got out of bed one day, waved a magic wand, and decided "right, I've decided that giants should be priced differently in different books". No-one did that. So, there is no answer to your question.

    What happened is that an initial price was guessed for each giant (IIRC these were pretty similar, maybe even identical in some cases), then the prices evolved in accordance with internal and external pressures, as outlined in concept in the tiers news post. Go back yourself through the various versions of 2.0 if you still have them and you can see the evolution. At each of those stages, the internal balance of each book was evaluated, and giant internal balance within each book improved accordingly (modulated by any external balance considerations that may have been present regarding the performance of e.g. the BH book as a whole).


    Don't burn me in hell. If we cannot focus a rules point that seems unfair, it become a dictature !!!
    I don't want you to burn in hell. You should feel free to mention a rules point that you think is unfair. I never said otherwise.
    You should feel free to say you think that the beast giant isn't worth taking compared to other options in the beast book.
    Indeed, the project explicitly asked you for your opinion on this through the internal balance survey.
    But you are not saying that, you are asking for an answer to a question that is ill-defined as far as the project is concerned, so no-one can give you an answer.




    If you only want lick-buttock posts, you aren't in a good position with a grouch french player xD ! If we cannot spot in light what in the 9th Rules is/seems unfair or that doesn't/seems doesn't work it's not a game made by the players for the players... The 9th project would have lost it spirit.
    Eugh... so many assumptions and unspoken things underlying this one sentence that I don't know where to start...
    (A) Firstly, you need to define unfair. To do that you need to define balance. The way the project defines balance (there is not a single god given definition, one must choose a definition and specify it), it is not meaningful to compare entries between books the way you are doing. The only two ways one can define "fairness" given how the project defines balance (or at least, my interpretation given what the news post says and my experience from working for the project) are:
    (i) Do armies achieve vaguely equal win rates? (i.e. is the external balance "fair"?)
    (ii) Are all elements in an army used? (i.e. is the internal balance "fair"?)
    Essentially, by definition, it isn't really meaningful to ask whether the price of a unit entry in book X, is "fair" compared to some unit entries in book Y.
    You really need to read that post I mentioned above. It is brief, but hopefully it gets the message across

    the-ninth-age.com/community/in…ostID=1274396#post1274396


    (B) I don't see how the spirit of t9a is even relevant here? The project has never been about player voted prices or anything of the sort. And one person's unfair is another person's fair.



    We all know that the update will arrive. And i think all the players on this forum want to add is stone to the bulding. If "negative" posts (i don't consider my post as negative. I just want to alert) aren't allowed, the board should communicate on this fact.
    I don't think I objected to your post did I?
    I just tried to answer your question, or at leats to explain that there isn't an answer in the sense that you are looking for.



    If, in so many sub-forum there are so many crying people, may be the game and the rules aren't so good balance. May be they should have some little improvements. Not big changes. But accept the critisims and reassure the players that the feedback of dysfunctions will be studied.
    Honestly? I think the more balanced the game gets, the more complaints there are.
    And I even have an explanation of why. But that is not my problem anymore.
    More to the point, there are very few things that the community are united on... I mean two random community members will disagree hugely on which armies are best, which units are best etc...
    So if you dislike the approach of looking at the data, how do you want the project to accept and acknowledge criticism from community members, particularly if they are saying opposite or different things, or want different directions for the game?


    What worries many players is the time taken by the updates and the publication of army books in gold version. And it's that fact that the board have a ton of crying posts. You know that i propose another organisation of work for the publication of army books. I know and i assume that it will be a heavy work to reorganise the process but, after it will be a highway ! But you don't agree and you are the only one that give me an answer :) !
    So complain to the staff. This isn't my fault and I can't change it for you. I learnt long ago that the staff don't do what I ask them to do, so I can't help you.
    I answered you to try to help you. That is all the help I can give you.




    Moreover, to avoid the continuous birth of plaintive subjects, perhaps, on of the members of the ACS team could be identified as collecting all the points of dysfunction or unbalance, in each sub-forum. thus, a player of a disctinct army can alert and the ACS can identify and follow the points to study. There would be only one post collecting the complaints. The ACS would have to updated the first post. No more problem with eternal toxic posts. All would be centralized and the ACS's job would be less arousing.
    You need to suggest this to the ACSes not me.
    But of course, what to do with opinions that are different on different army forums... (like tiers)?
    Thankfully not a problem I need to solve anymore

    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
  • New

    @Darkwise just to clarify, the Beast Giant has Drunkard regardless of if it takes Looted Booze. So it can always vanguard if you choose to make it sober.

    Looted Booze just allows it to go from sober to drunk at some point, and to throw the barrel for the area attack.
    Probably the Least Useless Player in the World - International Herminard Poll 2018
  • New

    I’ve got a 3 giant list. It’s fast and fun. Dark Rain is awesome for my giant list. Also if players want to spend time shooting at my giants great!!! That means more minotaurs make it to combat. Would I take cheaper giants? Hellz ya!!!, but I don’t think they are overpriced. I think those that have cheaper is because they wouldn’t get played as much if they cost more, other books have better choices to spend their points in.

    If Ogres and WotDGs want to spend points on giants I’m all for it!!! It’s their other stuff that’s scarier lol