Pinned DE General Discussion

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • @berti Perhaps "don't work" is a bit strong. I definitely don't think they work properly.

    On points: I really don't think dropping Judy points cost is the solution either. Otherwise, they'll become a bit like Corsairs: a relatively cheap unit that is only situationally useful and which doesn't directly connect to the army's synergies. This is fine for Corsairs as that's their role in Core: perform a fairly niche role on the sidelines (figuratively speaking).

    But this shouldn't be the role of Judicators: they're clearly meant to be our killy-est Infantry, our main footslogging murderers, our bipedal hammer. OG are meant to wade through bodies; Judies are meant to hack the heads off people (and even threaten monsters, thanks to Str 5 and +1 to wound). Of all the Infantry, Judies should be the ones that an enemy with any elite units should be frightened of. At the moment, however, because they are not included in any of the army's synergies, they are a bit too easily managed by the enemy - unless you play MMU and buy the expensive Pennon, which isolates Judies to that specific build.

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

  • setrius wrote:

    Is it too much to add the Academy Training rule in Raptor Chariots?
    Short: Yes. Too much.
    Long: You didn't even mention why you think the Raptor Chariots need a buff. The TT doesn't hand out special rules like candy. More important though: Academy Training is specifically reserved for troops that went through the Academy. Raptor Chariots are ridden by nobility. The nobility doesn't go through classic Academy Training, but is "home schooled". So they can never have Academy Training.

    setrius wrote:

    Could be great add a expecific rule for Raiders
    They have. It is called Hunting Bolas. Just like all Beast Handlers have "Cannot be Stomped".

    ----

    Generally I think there is quite a disconnect between what is there in the book and what you as DE players actually recognize. I learned a lot from the back and forth with Gerfaks, but I think these discussions come up quite often. Maybe we should try to produce a document to put it all together?

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Out of curiosity, could the main participants in this discussion state how many games they’ve played with the new DE book? Is the information here based on in-game experience, or is it an educated guess?

    I’ll start: 10 games with the current alpha, roughly 20 games with previous alpha versions and playtesting versions.
  • I am sure you can with ease replace most of the obsidian guard units with judicators and not have very different results.
    Obsidian guard has a bit more synergy, the +1 to charge and the supressing fire beeing the reason you take them over judicators currently. Mostly because their price is nearly identical.

    IF obsidian guard would be 2 points per model more expensive than judicators (you can adjust points on both units, could be OG should go up a little bit and Judicators down) you would see some swap propably.

    Add the predator banner to judicators makes them better at charging. Of course OG could also use it but then there is no rending banner on them.

    In my opinion BOTH units. Judicators and Obsidian guard should be very killy, and bring fear to the enemy.


    About 10 games with and against DE. 8 with current book.
    I did not try everything in the book (Mist leviathan and beast breakers did not make it into the lists)

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

  • SmithF wrote:

    Out of curiosity, could the main participants in this discussion state how many games they’ve played with the new DE book? Is the information here based on in-game experience, or is it an educated guess?

    I’ll start: 10 games with the current alpha, roughly 20 games with previous alpha versions and playtesting versions.
    13 games (possibly more thats just recorded) current alpha, last game being on the 4th May.
    Free command groups for standard infantry
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Short: Yes. Too much.Long: You didn't even mention why you think the Raptor Chariots need a buff. The TT doesn't hand out special rules like candy. More important though: Academy Training is specifically reserved for troops that went through the Academy. Raptor Chariots are ridden by nobility. The nobility doesn't go through classic Academy Training, but is "home schooled". So they can never have Academy Training.
    Is there some way then to actually represent the nobility aspect across the associated units? It's clear from the fluff that it's a major feature, so why not bring it up to a level with Academy Training in terms of it doing anything and supporting particular unit relationships?

    If I've understood you correctly, it seems that Judicators are closer to nobility than Academy, so they could be brought into nobility as something that works between units - it could be a way to give them an edge without changing their stats, dropping their price, etc.

    @SmithF That's quite a loaded question. If we should infer from your comments that having played more games gives more credence to our opinions, then yours are diminished by the extent of your involvement in the creation of the LAB: you don't have the same impartiality that people not invested in its creation have.

    I think even floating the possibility that "I've played more games than you so your opinion is less important" is fairly pompous.

    Not to mention of course that while you may feel that not playing games reduces people's insight into a unit's actual performance, don't forget that it's not uncommon for people to draw too-hasty and downright erroneous conclusions about a unit's efficacy from their own games (by mistaking poor use, bad luck, strong opponent, game events, etc for weakness in a given unit - eg "Judies were my LVP in three games therefore they must be the problem").

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

  • That is not my goal, @Kriegschmidt. Your opinions are valuable and I personally thank you for taking the time to contribute.

    However, stating “X doesn’t work” on paper is not the same as “I’ve tried X and I’ve found it has the following shortcomings”.

    @'Cam’ always had insightful comments during the alpha thanks to playing the book extensively, and I highly value his input for that. So there has to be a distinction between conjecture and in game experience.
  • @SmithF I just edited my previous post to add a bit more, so it may have crept in behind you:

    I believe that any weakness of conjecture due to its theoretical nature is offset by the lack of perspective frequently displayed by players on the reasons why a given unit performed well or badly in actual games. If this wasn't the case, army lists would be much more homogeneous across the army's community (as most people try to win, regardless of how important it is whether they win or not). And I believe this is one of the key reasons that T9A values large pools of data for assessing units, etc.
  • Kriegschmidt wrote:

    Is there some way then to actually represent the nobility aspect across the associated units?
    There are quite a few ways to do this, but most of them are "null rules" in terms of gameplay. Nobility is by intention not a major theme with special rules and effect on the gameplay, like Academy and Beast Tamers are. Keep in mind, that the book would work just as well without any unit being nobility, if the background would be different. It is an inter-woven aspect between the units and the background.

    E.g. the team wanted to have a Manslayer concept of a killing machine character, arrogant, elegant, and a menace on the battlefield. Additionally the Manslayer should distinguish himself from a regular military leader. So the TT and BGT worked together to create something that makes sense: The Manslayer is nobility, which does not train with the plebs, but focuses on personal skill, while the Military Leader is more trained towards tactics and leading. This results in the special rules and stats we see today. They make sense: A Legionnaire only becomes a Legion Legates if he shows capability of leading others and excellence in the Academy Trained Tactics. On the other hand a noble man only becomes a "Dread Prince" through excellency in personal fighting.

    Could this have been done with different background distinctions: Certainly, but the result we have is one that matches everything developed so far, trying to change it, would mean to untangle a lot of stuff.

    What I mean by "null rules", could be: "Daeb Nobility - This unit gains: +1 Dis, +1 Off, +1 Def, etc." and then remove the changed stats from the profile. This is more evocative, but doesn't serve any rules purposes, plus it makes unit entries more difficult to read.

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    If I've understood you correctly, it seems that Judicators are closer to nobility than Academy, so they could be brought into nobility as something that works between units
    If I gave this impression, I communicated poorly. Sorry for that.

    AFAIK (I might mix up something here, so don't reference this as canon):
    • The Judicators are not (per se) nobility. (I don't think nobility is barred from being a Judicators, but I don't know if they would pursue this career, even if allowed to, as I don't know the social status of Judicators)
    • Judicator is a profession, nobility is usually by birth, so both are not naturally linked (IDK whether nobility in Dathen can be something you can achieve regularly through skill, wealth, or something like that)
    • Judicators, just like Temple Militants, went through normal Academy Training, but afterwards didn't stay in the military (thereby losing Academy Training) and instead become Judicators (thereby gaining their own set of special rules).
    • Having Judicators as part of nobility would pose some problems with the existing background. So, a change to make them part of nobility would also mean they need different background. Either the judical system in Dathen would need to be re-written into one where only nobility are allowed to be judges (which clashes with the very basic principle of Daeb freeing from aristocratic Highborn Elves) or (much more doable) the unit would need to represent something very different, e.g. a military sect from nobility. However even this comes with problems: Nobility has Dis 9, so you can buff the unit, but then have to pay a price. And the most important questions hasn't been answered: Why? Nobility as said before is not a army building theme, nor does it naturally lead to special rules that synergize units, because the main gist of nobility is the exact opposite: Individual excellence. So there is no reason why a Dread Knight would fight coordinated or better besides a Dread Prince or a Nobility Judicator.

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    That's quite a loaded question.
    Only if you assume, that SmithF's intention are not honourable.
    It is important for the team to distinguish all kinds of problems, but we need to be able to categorize them: An unit looking very good, but failing on the battlefield all the time is a different problem than an unit which would be good on the battlefield, but is never taken, because players don't like it or can't figure it out. Both problems are worth looking at.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • I can understand @SmithF question can raise eyebrows, but I also think its a valid question since playing games has often revealed hidden gems. One example is from quite a while ago when seeker vanguard lists were unexplored by DH and "forum wisdom" dictated it was bad. Until games were played, combiniations figured and and the seeker vanguard lists got extensively played and after a while it look like a seriusly valid and dangerous list.

    As for my expecience, about 8 or 9 games with the current book as I used it in WTC.
    Not with great results but on the practice games I had 1 Obs Guard block and 1 Judicator block next to academy core. I switch to 2 OG blocks as it synergized better and a simple rending banner and magic solved the lack of AP issue. It was clear that Judicators are just on their own in that kind of list.
    Army Community Support: :UD: :WDG: Also playing: :DE:
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    Is there some way then to actually represent the nobility aspect across the associated units?
    There are quite a few ways to do this, but most of them are "null rules" in terms of gameplay. Nobility is by intention not a major theme with special rules and effect on the gameplay, like Academy and Beast Tamers are.
    Isn't nobility exactly the reason Dread Knights and Raptor Chariots are DI9?
  • DarkSky wrote:

    setrius wrote:

    Is it too much to add the Academy Training rule in Raptor Chariots?
    Short: Yes. Too much.Long: You didn't even mention why you think the Raptor Chariots need a buff. The TT doesn't hand out special rules like candy. More important though: Academy Training is specifically reserved for troops that went through the Academy. Raptor Chariots are ridden by nobility. The nobility doesn't go through classic Academy Training, but is "home schooled". So they can never have Academy Training.

    Where is this background information on the nobility because I can't find it?

    setrius wrote:

    Could be great add a expecific rule for Raiders
    They have. It is called Hunting Bolas. Just like all Beast Handlers have "Cannot be Stomped".
    I speak in giving a rule to these units where you feel that they belong to these sub-factions like the units with Academic Training. Equipping a unit with Bolas, Repeater Crossbow or other piece of equipment doesnt mean nothing. A good example is Blades of Darag, Repeater Crossbow or Hunting Bolas where you can find this weapon different subfactions.

    DE army have a lot of lacks. I suggest sacrify in some factions Ruthless Efficiency in exchange to provide some generic rules in these subfactions to minimise the lacks of this army or rules according with this subfaction.

    For example:
    According with Cambrigde dictionary a Raider is : someone who enters a place illegally and usually violently, and steals from it.
    Is there a rule in DE army to represent this? Seriously, that the answer is a Hunting Bolas


    ----

    Generally I think there is quite a disconnect between what is there in the book and what you as DE players actually recognize. I learned a lot from the back and forth with Gerfaks, but I think these discussions come up quite often. Maybe we should try to produce a document to put it all together?
  • Wesser wrote:

    DarkSky wrote:

    Kriegschmidt wrote:

    Is there some way then to actually represent the nobility aspect across the associated units?
    There are quite a few ways to do this, but most of them are "null rules" in terms of gameplay. Nobility is by intention not a major theme with special rules and effect on the gameplay, like Academy and Beast Tamers are.
    Isn't nobility exactly the reason Dread Knights and Raptor Chariots are DI9?
    I was under the impression that "having Dis 9 to signal nobility" was insufficient for @Kriegschmidt

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • SmithF wrote:

    Out of curiosity, could the main participants in this discussion state how many games they’ve played with the new DE book? Is the information here based on in-game experience, or is it an educated guess?

    I’ll start: 10 games with the current alpha, roughly 20 games with previous alpha versions and playtesting versions.

    I have played 11 games with DE and faced them 7 times since LAB book was released.
    I feel like I have a fair grasp and understanding of how the DE book works, but I am growing quite reluctant to add to the discussion.

    By and large I feel that my views are neither wanted nor welcome with the T9A stakeholders. It is a bit of a painful situation to be in as a nerd and I dont really see any other way of dealing with it than to distance myself from the forum.

    I most certainly do not wish to add burden or bile to your work. I will add my positives when I find them :)

    H

    Edit:

    To be more contributive; I did field Judicators in all my games and have faced them only once in the hands of Harakiri. I have fielded them as 3 units of 10. Harakiri fielded them as 24 with the Caedhren`s Pennon.

    I feel their contributions have been adequate - even if they often dont make their points back. Harakiri also found them fairly useful as a mainline unit - but overall a worse investment at a higher risk than ThunderCows or more dakka/monsters/characters.

    I think most players would struggle to get the most of both Judicators and Obsidian Guards in sizes of 24. Units of 10 Obsidian Guards as a mini-BSB seems to have some prevalence, but their positions in the field leave alot to be desired for the elves to earn a name of infamy and dread. Passive/supportive linebacker plays much more common than aggressive frontline plays.

    There is also a cost trap with the LAB not giving themselves a solution to the issue the former book had with units of 10 elite elves not being used and still not being able to come down in cost to a place where nerds would field them.

    Insisting that it is the game at large that needs to morph into a state where 10 elite elves are worth ~200 points is playing a game of a fairly far horizon.
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond.
    Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably caracal morale.

    Give yer high fives where yer opponents dice have been blessed, and in equal give yer handshakes when dice fall in malicious ways.

    With plague at the pinecone throne - what else can one do but to roll dice and women around?

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

  • DarkSky wrote:

    Gerfaks wrote:

    lord level character.
    Such a thing doesn't exist in T9A: Fantasy Battles and I think some of the "disconnects" (e.g. "Beastmaster is a Lord level characters and should have Off/Def 6 because of it") you are experiencing are due to you still searching for Hero/Lord level distinctions, when there are none.
    But it obviously still exists. Let's open army books (even LAB) and we will see than some heroes have 100 point limit for magic items and some higher. We will see that some heroes have gigantic mounts as option, and some have not. We will see that some weaker heroes can be bsb and some stronger can not.

    I agree that the boundaries between lord/hero are more blurred nowadays, but they still exist.

    DarkSky wrote:

    Not true.

    Warlock Acolytes, Black Cloaks, Shadow Riders, Beast Handlers of all special and menagier entries, Elven Crew for Battery and Hunting Chariot, etc. These are all Elves from non-core categories with default Elven profiles or slight adjustments (Acolytes have more Str/AP).

    Now I know your next move You will say "but these aren't Elven Warriors". To this I reply: There is no definition of Elven Warriors in the Game Design of The Ninth Age. There is a definition of "standard Elf profile", there is a definition of "standard Daeb profile" (which is Standard Elf + Lightning Reflexes + Ruthless Efficiency). Everything else is: "This unit has significant training in a specific aspect, which results in a special rule or increased stats). Some of these are grouped. E.g. "All Daeb belonging Raiders have 'Hunting Bolas'", some are not.
    Let's see. Shadow Riders are core. Warlock Acolytes have S4. Beast Handlers are just core Beast breakers without shields, the same story with Elven Crew for Battery and Hunting Chariot. Only Black Cloaks are put in unique position. But they have poison and special deployment.
  • I've played 7 games in total through the various incarnations of the Alpha LAB.

    I've used judicators in all my games with the LAB.

    Definitely felt the loss of the academy banner from V1 to V2 (not saying it wasn't the right move)

    I have most definitely struggled to get them into combat in an intact enough form to achieve anything with them since (I've tried both the banner of speed and the new banner on them, and while it helps, I still haven't had them get in in large enough numbers to achieve anything meaningful (I guess this is where the battle focus ring was helping them).

    Looking back on my games, I'm pretty certain I would have achieved more with a similar costed unit of Obsidian Guard.
  • SmithF wrote:

    Out of curiosity, could the main participants in this discussion state how many games they’ve played with the new DE book? Is the information here based on in-game experience, or is it an educated guess?

    I’ll start: 10 games with the current alpha, roughly 20 games with previous alpha versions and playtesting versions.
    I have played a few games with DE but faced them about 5-10 times… and I am happy when I see a block of Judicators (and on one occasion I was even playing KoE versus them when they had BF). I played msu Judicators only once and regretted it.

    umbranar wrote:


    I switch to 2 OG blocks as it synergized better and a simple rending banner and magic solved the lack of AP issue. It was clear that Judicators are just on their own in that kind of list.
    This has been my experience as well, in both cases with a Witchcraft Master, and I ended up preferring OG with Rending Banner + Flaming BsB over Academy BF Judicators.

    I think it really just comes down to OG or Dread Knights are better choices for how I play. Dread Knights are both independent but also have the mobility to deliver their high S/AP attacks… this is why I feel Judicator’s need just a little bit extra push, but honestly not by much.

    SmithF proves a point that Judicators can presently be viable. I personally would only take one unit with Caedhren's Pennon, supported by a BSB with Eye of the Gorgon + Banner of Speed BSB. I just wish they had a bit more autonomy, but I guess they are presently designed/balanced around these combos (or crutches maybe?) for deathstar-type units.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.