Balance Update 2.1 beta - Summary and 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!

  • Just to keep this thread productive I would resume the main alternative proposals that arose from this discussion to bring the UD back in the pack.

    With regard yo the magic phase:
    • discard a veil token to cast the H
    • add only +1 to the CV of the H spell
    • limit the H spell targeting the same unit at once per turn
    • decrease by 1 the amount of raising on every heal after the first one on the same unit
    • substitute the path attributes with the H spell
    • modify the Rsr value of large units and chariots (I don't agree with this one)
    • change how does the Sacred Hourglass work, limiting its use at once per turn and repricing it accordingly (I think this should be done in any case; with the SH as is, having a balanced magic phase is very difficult)
    One or a mix of the solutions above will probably reach the goal and be perceived as less invasive.
    This being said I think that our units are overall overpriced because they pay the strong synergies they have with the magic phase. Due to this, if the magic phase will be tuned down, I'd like to see some point adjustments on our units.

    Clustering our troops I'd propose:
    • units that need a substantial reduction in price:
      • skeletons
      • skeletons archers
      • skeleton cavalry
      • tomb reapers (additional models)
    • units that need a slight reduction in price:
      • shabti
      • shabti archers
      • cataphracts
      • sand stalkers
      • scorpion
      • battle sphinx
      • necropolis guards
    Maybe i missed to report some additional solution that has been proposed, please fell free to add it

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

  • Drakkanor wrote:

    Just to keep this thread productive I would resume the main alternative proposals that arose from this discussion to bring the UD back in the pack.

    With regard yo the magic phase:
    • discard a veil token to cast the H
    • add only +1 to the CV of the H spell
    • limit the H spell targeting the same unit at once per turn
    • decrease by 1 the amount of raising on every heal after the first one on the same unit
    • substitute the path attributes with the H spell
    • modify the Res value of large units and chariots (I don't agree with this one)
    • change how does the Sacred Hourglass work, limiting its use at once per turn and repricing it accordingly (I think this should be done in any case; with the SH as is, having a balanced magic phase is very difficult)
    One or a mix of the solutions above will probably reach the goal and be perceived as less invasive.
    This being said I think that our units are overall overpriced because they pay the strong synergies they have with the magic phase. Due to this, if the magic phase will be tuned down, I'd like to see some point adjustments on our units.

    Clustering our troops I'd propose:
    • units that need a substantial reduction in price:
      • skeletons
      • skeletons archers
      • skeleton cavalry
      • tomb reapers (additional models)
    • units that need a slight reduction in price:
      • shabti
      • shabti archers
      • cataphracts
      • sand stalkers
      • scorpion
      • battle sphinx
      • necropolis guards
    Maybe i missed to report some additional solution that has been proposed, please fell free to add it
    I think we don't want to confuse the Resurrection Value (Rsr in the AB) with the Resilience Value (Res in all book) :p
    Good summary, thanks.
    :UD: :WDG: :DE:
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    Just to keep this thread productive I would resume the main alternative proposals that arose from this discussion to bring the UD back in the pack.

    With regard yo the magic phase:
    • discard a veil token to cast the H
    • add only +1 to the CV of the H spell
    • limit the H spell targeting the same unit at once per turn
    • decrease by 1 the amount of raising on every heal after the first one on the same unit
    • substitute the path attributes with the H spell
    • modify the Rsr value of large units and chariots (I don't agree with this one)
    • change how does the Sacred Hourglass work, limiting its use at once per turn and repricing it accordingly (I think this should be done in any case; with the SH as is, having a balanced magic phase is very difficult)
    One or a mix of the solutions above will probably reach the goal and be perceived as less invasive.
    This being said I think that our units are overall overpriced because they pay the strong synergies they have with the magic phase. Due to this, if the magic phase will be tuned down, I'd like to see some point adjustments on our units.

    Clustering our troops I'd propose:
    • units that need a substantial reduction in price:
      • skeletons
      • skeletons archers
      • skeleton cavalry
      • tomb reapers (additional models)
    • units that need a slight reduction in price:
      • shabti
      • shabti archers
      • cataphracts
      • sand stalkers
      • scorpion
      • battle sphinx
      • necropolis guards
    Maybe i missed to report some additional solution that has been proposed, please fell free to add it

    I agree with a lot of points made, except the ones about the price reductions.
    I think no unit needs a substantial reduction in this beta.
    Small reduction could be useful for;
    - Skeletons
    - Skeleton Archers
    - Skeleton Cavalry
    - Necropolis Guards

    But by all means, point-wise, I think the update was correct.
    Pharaoh's Unite!

    ETC Team Belgium 2018 - Undying Dynasties
    ETC Team Belgium 2019 - Undying Dynasties
  • Drakkanor wrote:

    Just to keep this thread productive I would resume the main alternative proposals that arose from this discussion to bring the UD back in the pack.

    With regard yo the magic phase:
    • discard a veil token to cast the H
    • add only +1 to the CV of the H spell
    • limit the H spell targeting the same unit at once per turn
    • decrease by 1 the amount of raising on every heal after the first one on the same unit
    • substitute the path attributes with the H spell
    • modify the Rsr value of large units and chariots (I don't agree with this one)
    • change how does the Sacred Hourglass work, limiting its use at once per turn and repricing it accordingly (I think this should be done in any case; with the SH as is, having a balanced magic phase is very difficult)
    One or a mix of the solutions above will probably reach the goal and be perceived as less invasive.
    IMHO a mix is necessary.
    SH needs to be changed (single use per turn) and we would thing attribute substitution + discard veil token

    I'm not for setting the attribute once per unit because I still remember what was TK in 8th Ed with the Constructs limited to 1 wound heal per turn which was changed for 1w/spell in Nagash.

    additional possibility:
    The H is not automatically known.
    - The Hierarch must pay a "Book of deads" to know it (as in 1.3 and rename the Artefact Primeval Book of Deads ^^)
    - The Hierarch sacrifice one of its Learned Spells to get the H or knows it via ncestral Heirloom

    For units, I think a decrease on :
    Skeletons Warriors (additional model)
    Skeletons Archers (additional model)
    Necropolis Guards (additional model)
    would be appreciated

    and Adv6" for Battlesphinx (wishlist ^^)

    UD Community Support

  • Just_Flo wrote:

    The only option left is to play and to report on how the healing is.
    This one came over as if you had missed some of the things people wanted to transport to your community. That would have been sad. It also sounded as if the numbers and reason which were provided had already failed. But the time to evaluate them still lies in the future. I belived that info to be relevant, too.
    I am not angry. That would express by me handing the scource of anger over to be solved by someone eIse as anger seldom is a good advisor. I more feel like a broken record.
    care to tell how they failed? I didn't see any indication why numbers failed, but I'd appreciate if it was provided with actual counter numbers and not gut feeling.
  • I think you may have misread what Just_Flo said.

    Just_Flo wrote:

    It also sounded as if the numbers and reason which were provided had already failed. But the time to evaluate them still lies in the future. I belived that info to be relevant, too.
    @Just_Flo was answering the idea someone posted before, stating that decisions were already made and all further analyses and reasons were irrelevant.
  • I don't think Shabti or Sphinxes pay a premium to be able to to be resurrected. A unit of 8 Shabti is very cheap for what it does on the battlefield, its a great monstrous infantry unit that costs less than 800 pts, that's great value in any book.

    To me the only unit that really seems to be taxed by resurrection are skeletons. This seems very clear since there are other low quality troops in other books that have almost the same stats, but are a lot cheaper. I think this partly is due to the fact that they resurrect so many per heal. Maybe the solution is not to increase their Rsr so much but make them cheaper instead. This way they don't rely on magic as they do now.

    On a side note they fall prey to the obvious comparison with VC skeletons. But these units are fundamentally different because VC skeletons can raise above their starting size.
  • Echunia wrote:


    On a side note they fall prey to the obvious comparison with VC skeletons. But these units are fundamentally different because VC skeletons can raise above their starting size.
    And access to different magic paths and different synergy tools and characters. And ofc different army dynamics...oh and background.. UD are supposed to have the clever skellies eh?

    Not much left to compare :)
  • Looking at VC lists, I found that many lists used units of 25-40 skeletons with a weapon/magic banner. They are rarely used in min sized units nor max sized units, which seems pretty healthy.
    I assume this is due to how a unit of ~35 effectively function as a unit of 60 skeletons.
    The total cost of such unit comes at 335 pts, so each skeleton is almost 6 ppm, which is exactly the cost of goblins (same stats, same role, different rules).

    While I doubt 6 ppm is the right price for UD skeletons in a world without free heals, I suspect it needs to be lower than 9 ppm. So around 7-8 ppm.

    Can you share some insights on the VC experience with skeletons @Wesser ?
  • Folomo wrote:


    Can you share some insights on the VC experience with skeletons @Wesser ?
    Well there's probably my experience and everyone elses

    For everyone else you take multiple smaller units (20-25) with Legion banner and have a Necromancer or two AoE Arise them up in number. For some weird reason point cost for additional Skeletons is very high, so big units make extremely little sense. If they increase in size Skeletons are decent tarpits and "clippers" for breaking Steadfast and if Arise is dispelled those units are expendable

    I'm the guy who takes big units (50+) with spears or halberds are try to have skellies make a dent. Sadly their profile is too weak for buffing to have much effect (if you cast reroll to hit they'll still have trouble wounding/penetrating) and crumble means they have very little staying power, so generally paying for special weapons actively makes the unit worse. 58 Skeletons with full command and Rending banner is close to 700 points, and so far they've only held their own against two types of enemy. Non-def6 elven elites and Goblins.

    It is possible with supreme effort to make a semblance of a deathstar with skellies as a base, but note that the skellies themselves won't contribute any damage in it

    IMO VC Skellies are priced backwards. Minimum-sized should go up and additional models way down... and special weapons should be free
  • I've seen 50+ skelly units in a list of the tourney I played in last week-end. It was on 2.0. Refreshing to see a UD list which isn't another copy of the usual build. Pairings weren't as automatic as they can be. I don't know how it fared, maybe @Ezekiel57 will want to share his analysis!

    @Ezekiel57 - Undying Dynasties
    Characters: 1215/1800
    Core: 1508/1125
    Special: 1115
    Ancient Ordnance: 1048/1575
    Total: 4498

    260 - Death cult hierarch, Adept, book of arcane mastery, evocation
    275 - Death cult hierarch, Adept, hierophant, binding scroll, divination
    230 - Nomarch, crown of the pharaos, bow general
    160 - Nomarch, heavy armour, shield, bow
    290 - Tomb harbringer, heavy armour, shield, death mask of teput, scourge of kings, willow's ward, potion of swiftness
    388 - 29 skeletons archers, M, C
    560 - 2*55 skeletons, spears, M, S, C
    320 - 3*3 cataphracts, M
    155 - 3 great vultures
    330 - 2*4 sand stalkers
    Total : 4498

    Slim Layout Coordinator

    Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    I ♥ LaTeX

    Local Moderator (French)


    LaTeX... You fear to go into those complex interactions between packages. The dwarves coded too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of TeX-dum... shadow and flame.
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    Nicreap wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    It is still meant to hit around the date of the Update. (The final version).
    Just to be clear, you are asking us to demonstrate before the beta ends something should be reconsidered but aren't going to release the data the project is working on until after the beta is finished?The later makes the former rather challenging, wouldn't you agree?
    Is it possible that we both speak about different reports?
    I mean the performance data of the armies.

    What your post seems to indicate is the usage data. Which both in every armyboard, in the Tournament board and the general board is accessible or linked from.
    I'm speaking of both, usage is already available, performance is not, and honestly, usage is kinda worthless without performance. Who cares out 1/2 of the people took scarab swarms if that half lost miserably?

    Yes, I'm aware that data isn't directly in the performance data, but it can be produced with the performance data, which we apparently won't get to even see until the beta is over.

    The data the project won't let us see led to this update. If we want to make an argument to have stuff looked at we need to prevent evidence, but we won't get access to a huge chuck of the data that could be used to do that until after the beta is closed. So it feels like a catch 22.

    I'm not saying the project is being malicious, it just seems to very clearly not be enabling the community to do the kind of number crunching it keeps asking the community to do if it wants changes to even be considered.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Nicreap wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    Nicreap wrote:

    Just_Flo wrote:

    It is still meant to hit around the date of the Update. (The final version).
    Just to be clear, you are asking us to demonstrate before the beta ends something should be reconsidered but aren't going to release the data the project is working on until after the beta is finished?The later makes the former rather challenging, wouldn't you agree?
    Is it possible that we both speak about different reports?I mean the performance data of the armies.

    What your post seems to indicate is the usage data. Which both in every armyboard, in the Tournament board and the general board is accessible or linked from.
    I'm speaking of both, usage is already available, performance is not, and honestly, usage is kinda worthless without performance. Who cares out 1/2 of the people took scarab swarms if that half lost miserably?
    Yes, I'm aware that data isn't directly in the performance data, but it can be produced with the performance data, which we apparently won't get to even see until the beta is over.

    The data the project won't let us see led to this update. If we want to make an argument to have stuff looked at we need to prevent evidence, but we won't get access to a huge chuck of the data that could be used to do that until after the beta is closed. So it feels like a catch 22.

    I'm not saying the project is being malicious, it just seems to very clearly not be enabling the community to do the kind of number crunching it keeps asking the community to do if it wants changes to even be considered.
    The external performance data did together with External Expert and Community surveys lead to the tierlist, which was hared with the community in september.

    That tierlist was than used to give the algorhythms factors to use for calculating changes according to external balance. For the algorhythms changing prices according to internal balance the data form the analysing threads was used.


    If I understand you correctly, you want to know how armies using unit A performed compared to armies using unit B. That wasn't collected or calculated and so not used. We did and do sofar not link armylists to its performance. (But the last days planing and doing improvements on the files we use I worked on ways, to do that for next years update and stored it on the laptop which crashed around lunch. Don't worry backups or a repair or me now knowing how I planed it will make it restorable in a few hours.)

    If you want to know how we used the internal balance data and the surveys to give factors to the algorhythems, than the blog article I am at the moment writing a second time (was on the crashed Laptop, too) and which should hit either thursday or friday will explain that in detail. 8In short words, we Did seperate the usage of charackters, core and noncore/noncharackters in 6 Grades defined by % from average usage in that category (Char, core, nonchar/noncore), where grade 1/2 and 5/6 did cover much less % than 3 and 4. 1 and 6 indicated more and higher need of adjustment than 2 and 5, where 3 and 4 indicated no adjustment. That grades were also used in the surveys).
  • Just_Flo wrote:

    If I understand you correctly, you want to know how armies using unit A performed compared to armies using unit B. That wasn't collected or calculated and so not used. We did and do sofar not link armylists to its performance.
    This is kind of my point. The project didn't do it, which means it offers an avenue where the community could compile data and present an argument the project hadn't taken into consideration, just like you asked us to. Just because your team didn't have the time to do it, doesn't mean the community doesn't have the time.

    Personally, if I don't get the ability to do that until after the beta is closed I won't bother because it will be a complete waste of my time and won't have any use... well, if you call potentially enflaming the community a use I guess it could technically have a use :P

    Like I said, you and the rest of ACS keeps saying we need to provide evidence to back our arguments, I would love to do that, but that requires the project to provide the massive dataset it has for the community to actually do what it is requesting, within the time frame it has provided. Otherwise it's just empty words on your part.

    To make my request perfectly clear, give us access to the performance data. That can then be linked with lists, both halves are already compiled, they just need to be linked.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Basically everything that the project has is publicly available, right?
    None of it is proprietary or private.
    I don't know exactly what the project has or in what format, but it might not be understandable without significant staff time to explain it.
    People can of course volunteer to join the data team and help out with this sort of thing; the team has asked for recruits on the forum more than once this year.
    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
  • Basically it should be less work, for anybody interested to get the rankings from the tourneys we have lists from (only about 70) than for me to eliminate the tourneys we don't have lists from ( a much higher numbe, i would have to calculate by hand) from the database.

    But than the problem starts. The way the armylist data analysis was done and stored in our files, we don't have the individual lists in the files but only one tab per tourney and and one file per army.

    So you would have to enter each list in a seperate tab, again.

    Yes, that way to store the data doesn't allow the linking of performance to individual lists.

    Looking back we sort of decided suboptimal in that regard. i am not happy about that, too. But pelease realize and remember, that from "only" doing performance data to doing listanalysis was a huge jump in workload and complexity. One and a half year ago i would have doubted if we manage that. Half a year ago I would have doubted that we can manage to analyse lists and link performance data to it. And yes, finding ways to organize and do that, basically building a structure which gives one list one tab with one ranking multiplier but still groups the tabs in tourneys to apply the same size and number of rows played multipliers was what I worked on the last days.

    And yes, we are recuiting. At the moment I am for ACS and TA in recuiting processes with 4-6 persons.