Pinned DL 2.3. Question to RT

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!

  • AlexCat wrote:

    What are the conditions for design changes during beta test?
    Not easy to give an exact answer to this. It depends heavily on how early in the beta phase we are. The closer we are to final release, the fewer and smaller/safer changes we want to do. Because large changes risk screwing over lots of things and delay final gold release.

    Beyond regulating the size and amount of design changes based on how far we are from (planned) gold release, we also usually have a set of overarching goals for an update. For example, the update before the current one (or was it before that even?) had an overarching goal "simplify and streamline the book" (because it was a common complaint back then that the book was too complicated).

    Design changes are also required to stay within the framework defined for the army (guidelines, background etc).
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • fjugin wrote:

    For example, the update before the current one (or was it before that even?) had an overarching goal "simplify and streamline the book" (because it was a common complaint back then that the book was too complicated).
    And the current update's goal is?

    fjugin wrote:

    It depends heavily on how early in the beta phase we are.
    And where are we right now?

    I just want to understand whether its worth for community members to propose anything now, Of course it is easy to say - propose away, but if there is no real chance of them proposals being considered, its better to save the time.
  • Are we talking about the one just released or as in the next to come? If the latter, we have not yet decided. Not even started looking at it yet. Probably won't for a few weeks as there are other more pressing matters to do first.

    But generally, community reporting what problems they see is always useful. Much more useful than ideas for solution. Because if the route cause problem is known, a solution can be found that works with the intended scope of the update.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • fjugin wrote:




    But generally, community reporting what problems they see is always useful. Much more useful than ideas for solution. Because if the route cause problem is known, a solution can be found that works with the intended scope of the update.
    So does that mean that proposals will not be viewed as RT wants to make the decisions themselves, and RT is only interested in knowing the problems?
  • (1) Is there a reason Blazing Glories can't be treated as Champions? I understand the Pride aspect makes this a little odd, but from a gameplay perspective makes them significantly better. They can't be challenge blocked and can take part in swirling melee.

    (2) Completely understand the weakness to magic aspect of the army. Is there a reason a couple of the sensible choice GDs can't start with Armor 1? It means Chitinous Scales actually makes a big difference for them. The things I'd like to see this on are the Throne of Overwhelming Splendor and Scourge. Usually chariots provide some sort of Armour save - so this isn't breaking new ground and most of the models we own for Scourge tend to have Armour plates on them
    Amit Hindocha
    England ETC 2016 Undying Dynasties
    England ETC 2017 Undying Dynasties
    England ETC 2018 Selector
    England ETC 2019 Undying Dynasties
    England ETC 2020 Captain
  • AlexCat wrote:

    fjugin wrote:

    Are we talking about the one just released or as in the next to come?
    Umm, I thought, this beta period was the last for DL to try and change the designs. At the end of this period is the Golden Update. Was I wrong?
    I think there will be one final update before gold


    rolan wrote:

    fjugin wrote:

    But generally, community reporting what problems they see is always useful. Much more useful than ideas for solution. Because if the route cause problem is known, a solution can be found that works with the intended scope of the update.
    So does that mean that proposals will not be viewed as RT wants to make the decisions themselves, and RT is only interested in knowing the problems?
    First, RT doesn't actually do the design changes. That would be the DL LAB team.
    Organizational structure is something like this:
    Rules team (RT) deals with large-scale design. Think of them as lead game designers. They did rule book, they are responisbile for points changes (e.g. the recent game-wide balance update) and they create overarching design guidelines for armybooks (e.g. see ID and DE sub forums for an example of what these look like).
    Daemon legion legendary armybook team (DL LAB team) are the people that does the detailed design of each unit entry.

    Actual suggestions on how to design a unit entry should therefore go to the DL LAB team. Questions regarding e.g. pricing or more large-scale things (e.g. why doesn't daemons have heavily armoured units?) should be directed to rules team.

    Ok, with that out of the way, let me try to explain why I personally find it more useful to understand root cause issues than potential solution. It's easier for people to agree what a problem is than to agree what to do about it. Once the problem is agreed on one can try to fond solution that fixes the exact problem, with minimal collateral. It's also easier to find solution that are aligned with other restrictions that might be put on you.

    This doesn't mean that suggestions aren't read. It means that it would be more useful if people also told us why thye found something problematic.

    For example, instead of saying: "Give scourge plate armour", say "I find that scourge dies too easily, especially too divination magic. I can't reach combat. Plate armpour would solve this problem".
    The DL LAB team knows that plate armour is no-go, because there are design-guidelines relating to DL book that says DL shall be an army with bery limited access to armour. But the feedback is still useful because they can try to find different solutions to the identified problem. Without this additional piece of information there is nothing the designers can do with the feedback.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • Jal wrote:

    (1) Is there a reason Blazing Glories can't be treated as Champions? I understand the Pride aspect makes this a little odd, but from a gameplay perspective makes them significantly better. They can't be challenge blocked and can take part in swirling melee.

    (2) Completely understand the weakness to magic aspect of the army. Is there a reason a couple of the sensible choice GDs can't start with Armor 1? It means Chitinous Scales actually makes a big difference for them. The things I'd like to see this on are the Throne of Overwhelming Splendor and Scourge. Usually chariots provide some sort of Armour save - so this isn't breaking new ground and most of the models we own for Scourge tend to have Armour plates on them
    1. Yup, pride. The main pride unit being able to refuse challenges without drawbacks feels very unaligned with fluff. We try to make all designs based on fluff ("background driven design").

    The only reason I have heard for making it champion is power-related. And power could just as well be adjusted with points. So why not do it with points and have the unit be both points effective and flavorful?


    2. This is probably too specific for to me to answer, might be better addressed to the DL LAB team. Rules team's vision of DL is an army with very limited access to armour. How exactly this is realized is up to the DL LAB team.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • @fjugin thankt for the clear explanation. Now I better understand the purpose of this topic.

    Therefore, I will address units/rules, that I feel are struggling and might need a second/closer look at:

    1. Iron Husk. I guess it was indended as a choice, but its not. Its a crutch for 2 models and a waste for all others. I hope Data will be able to show it before its too late.
    2. Roaming Hands. Pretty rule not worth spending points and choices on. I was hugely surprised to see it go up in cost for Threshing Engines, may be I lack some data.
    3. Courtesan. Weakness to magic and low DPS. If 6 S5AP4 attacks were hot, we would be seeing more ShieldBreakers in the game.
    4. Titanslayer. Its specialization is too narrow and there is nothing attractive about it beside specialization.
    5. Imps and Eidolons. I guess, if it is a guideline from RT to keep shooting power of the army at the level of OnG - we cant do anything about their shooting, but may be its a reason for redesign?
    6. Miser. I dont understand the role of this model and he is second most expensive GD in the book. It seems, almost no one understands it. Whats the trick with him?
  • I found too much problematic opponents with 3x Aether icon + obsidian rock in a heavy bunker.
    2x binding scroll is even more anoying.
    I think those magic items should be at a higher point cost.

    Iron husk feels good for some army entries (maw, herald) but too useless in the rest of the cases. I suggest replacing it with "aether husk: +1 aegis, against magical attacks". This even could be given to some unit entries, and could have guiding version.

    Eidolons are a mess. They don't work. I think that kind of special AP is a really interesting concept, but in a bad chasis.
  • Dragus wrote:

    I found too much problematic opponents with 3x Aether icon + obsidian rock in a heavy bunker.
    2x binding scroll is even more anoying.
    I think those magic items should be at a higher point cost.

    Iron husk feels good for some army entries (maw, herald) but too useless in the rest of the cases. I suggest replacing it with "aether husk: +1 aegis, against magical attacks". This even could be given to some unit entries, and could have guiding version.

    Eidolons are a mess. They don't work. I think that kind of special AP is a really interesting concept, but in a bad chasis.

    fjugin wrote:

    None of those are questions.
    as the main man says, please use the other topic

    Playtester

    DL-Comunity Support

    Master of the Coins

  • Ok, with that out of the way, let me try to explain why I personally find it more useful to understand root cause issues than potential solution. It's easier for people to agree what a problem is than to agree what to do about it. Once the problem is agreed on one can try to fond solution that fixes the exact problem, with minimal collateral. It's also easier to find solution that are aligned with other restrictions that might be put on you.


    This doesn't mean that suggestions aren't read. It means that it would be more useful if people also told us why thye found something problematic.

    For example, instead of saying: "Give scourge plate armour", say "I find that scourge dies too easily, especially too divination magic. I can't reach combat. Plate armpour would solve this problem".
    The DL LAB team knows that plate armour is no-go, because there are design-guidelines relating to DL book that says DL shall be an army with bery limited access to armour. But the feedback is still useful because they can try to find different solutions to the identified problem. Without this additional piece of information there is nothing the designers can do with the feedback.
    None of those are questions.
    Now I'm really lost.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    Ok, with that out of the way, let me try to explain why I personally find it more useful to understand root cause issues than potential solution. It's easier for people to agree what a problem is than to agree what to do about it. Once the problem is agreed on one can try to fond solution that fixes the exact problem, with minimal collateral. It's also easier to find solution that are aligned with other restrictions that might be put on you.


    This doesn't mean that suggestions aren't read. It means that it would be more useful if people also told us why thye found something problematic.

    For example, instead of saying: "Give scourge plate armour", say "I find that scourge dies too easily, especially too divination magic. I can't reach combat. Plate armpour would solve this problem".
    The DL LAB team knows that plate armour is no-go, because there are design-guidelines relating to DL book that says DL shall be an army with bery limited access to armour. But the feedback is still useful because they can try to find different solutions to the identified problem. Without this additional piece of information there is nothing the designers can do with the feedback.
    None of those are questions.
    Now I'm really lost.
    alex, this thread are for questions only, if people will give suggestion, in the way Fjugin wrote, should use the other thread and I report them to RT.

    Playtester

    DL-Comunity Support

    Master of the Coins