Pinned HE General and News - 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.

  • Kapten Kluns wrote:

    I am since it has been said that we arent getting a change in hereditary spell nor a change in path choices. The paths we have doesn't really scream of a strenght in small magic missiles.
    I just saw this. I'm a bit confused, with pyro / div / cosmo, and easy access to alchemy, what lore selection would you say screams "strength in magic missles" ?
    Hristo Nikolov
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    Kapten Kluns wrote:

    I am since it has been said that we arent getting a change in hereditary spell nor a change in path choices. The paths we have doesn't really scream of a strenght in small magic missiles.
    I just saw this. I'm a bit confused, with pyro / div / cosmo, and easy access to alchemy, what lore selection would you say screams "strength in magic missles" ?
    He is talking about demons I presume. Although this topic is quite hard to track :P
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • Fnarrr wrote:

    I suppose having a MM hereditary + pyro / div / alch access (basically like SA) means you can run various version of the magic machine gun setups.

    I'd be sad if that imba hereditary goes away for some rando missle though.
    yeah sorry for messing up in the HbE thread, answered to @Aenarion43 about DLs magic paths bein evo, div, witchcraft and thauma together with +1 to aegis save hereditary.
  • Aglion wrote:

    @Masamune88

    Nobody play frost phoenixes.

    Rymas rely on armour.

    In both case what do you prefer :
    Be certain to cancel a wound or try your lucky 6++ or 5++ ?

    So yeah i don't get his point ... The hereditary synergize well with both

    The joke is real.
    it matters when designing a well balanced book.
  • @Peacemaker not really.

    How the book interact with hereditary is important.
    But everything doesn't need to work with the hereditary, otherwise it would mean that the hereditary is a must have.
    This is not want we want.

    Playing with the hereditary is an option to consider during list build.

    You can't say that the hereditary doesn't work well with phoenixes or ryma, it perfectly works with them.
    As i said before why would you risk to roll a dice if you have the option to BE 100% CERTAIN to avoid a wound.
    It's not bad internal balance or whatever, it's just a bad play, nothing else.

    Hereditary doesn't have to interract well with Wardens because it's too strong. Overall the spell synergize pretty with the rest lf the army.
  • Aglion wrote:

    But everything doesn't need to work with the hereditary, otherwise it would mean that the hereditary is a must have.
    It depends on the effect of the spell.

    If the spell effect is so powerful that you have to include so much restrictions that it is only playable in a certain way, your design is flawed in the first place (in my opinion).

    Just look at our echantment section:

    ItemETC_2018 pick rate in %
    Nova Flare7.14
    Sliver of Blazing Dawn28.57
    Elu Heartwood21.43
    Gleaming Robe7.14
    Protection of Dorac14.29
    Star Metal Alloy7.14
    Daemon Bane0
    Navigator's Banner50
    Banner of Becalming35.71
    War Banner of Ryma7.14
    Book of Meladys35.71
    Ring of the Pearl Throne0
    Diadem of Protection7.14
    Alchemyst Crystal0
    Glittering Lacquer0




    I will say it over and over again: You can't have only 70+ point items across the board.

    In addition, I don't agree with many prices in the first place (just wanted to mention it for the record :) ).

    The point is:

    You want to avoid too many restrictions and instead create as much synergy as possible.

    I already know the reaction to this; therefore again: as possible = as long as it doesn't destroy internal and external balance.

    Synergy between different units/options creates more fun and excitement; the same way talents/perks in RPGs work (more or less :) ).
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • @Aglion
    I've just been a little busy so was responding on my phone quickly and hoping someone else would explain it. lol


    First, I didn't say the hereditary has to synergize with everything in the book. But it does have to synergize with most or at least compliment or just fit. Like Aegon just posted:

    Aegon wrote:

    If the spell effect is so powerful that you have to include so much restrictions that it is only playable in a certain way, your design is flawed in the first place (in my opinion).
    Currently, Having the hereditary not affect flame wardens is ok. It's one entry, we have alternate options like swordmasters and lionguard. Not affecting Dragon prince is ok because it is just a 6+ aegis save and like you mentioned, if one is really worried about losing a dragon prince then you use the hereditary. So that's ok.
    Doesn't really work with characters except for dragon/ancient dragon because pretty much every character is going to be taking an special save.
    Doesn't work on the pheonix - you mentioned "that no one takes the frost phenoix so this doesn't matter". ....that statement is not what game design is about.

    One other point I'd like to make is that we pay alot of points for an Aegis save.

    A really good thread to read/watch is the MTG thread about game design. Its like 15min powerpoint video from Wizards of the coast. Worth the time to look over. It pretty much explains how you want games to be fun, challenging, deep but easy, etc...


    A great example of a hereditary spell that synergizes with the army yet also has redundancy is the Dread Elf spell. It gives re-roll to wound. Now alot of dread elf units have killer instinct which is re-roll 1's to wound. But there are enough units and various builds through the cult system that allows this to work well.

    To make the HBE spell similar would be making it something like gives +1 aegis save. Or Target may re-roll a failed Save(anytype).
    Or have it so that the spell ignores 1 wound, all saves allowed. None of this 2 wounds for infantry, 1 wound for monster, viel tokens, etc..... Just one wound. Make it cheapish to cast.
    There, not auto include because it is only 1 wound ...lots of people would rather use their magic dice to cast a magic missile or an offensive combat buff.
  • I posted a possible solution a while ago:

    Aegon wrote:

    @SirMC2015:

    How about changing the veil token mechanic:

    What if our hereditary spell grants us D3+1 Shield Token, which can be given to any unit within 18" of the caster (directly after casting of course and will last until your next magic phase).

    These Shield Token work in the same way our current spell works with spent veil token.

    I think we could keep the shield character of the spell and create counterplay potential as your opponent will know which units are currently protected.

    With that in mind we could reduce the CV and still keep our veil token for the next magic phase.

    Balancing option: max 1/2 shield token per unit/phase.

    What do you think?
    I think it would be an improvement in comparison to our current version (more balance, less CV, more counterplay for the enemy).
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    @Aglion
    I've just been a little busy so was responding on my phone quickly and hoping someone else would explain it. lol


    First, I didn't say the hereditary has to synergize with everything in the book. But it does have to synergize with most or at least compliment or just fit. Like Aegon just posted:

    Aegon wrote:

    If the spell effect is so powerful that you have to include so much restrictions that it is only playable in a certain way, your design is flawed in the first place (in my opinion).
    Currently, Having the hereditary not affect flame wardens is ok. It's one entry, we have alternate options like swordmasters and lionguard. Not affecting Dragon prince is ok because it is just a 6+ aegis save and like you mentioned, if one is really worried about losing a dragon prince then you use the hereditary. So that's ok.Doesn't really work with characters except for dragon/ancient dragon because pretty much every character is going to be taking an special save.
    Doesn't work on the pheonix - you mentioned "that no one takes the frost phenoix so this doesn't matter". ....that statement is not what game design is about.

    One other point I'd like to make is that we pay alot of points for an Aegis save.

    A really good thread to read/watch is the MTG thread about game design. Its like 15min powerpoint video from Wizards of the coast. Worth the time to look over. It pretty much explains how you want games to be fun, challenging, deep but easy, etc...


    A great example of a hereditary spell that synergizes with the army yet also has redundancy is the Dread Elf spell. It gives re-roll to wound. Now alot of dread elf units have killer instinct which is re-roll 1's to wound. But there are enough units and various builds through the cult system that allows this to work well.

    To make the HBE spell similar would be making it something like gives +1 aegis save. Or Target may re-roll a failed Save(anytype).
    Or have it so that the spell ignores 1 wound, all saves allowed. None of this 2 wounds for infantry, 1 wound for monster, viel tokens, etc..... Just one wound. Make it cheapish to cast.
    There, not auto include because it is only 1 wound ...lots of people would rather use their magic dice to cast a magic missile or an offensive combat buff.

    Having it prevent 1 wound (no exceptions) misses the fact that the "doubly good on infantry" rule has a really good reason for being there.

    It's more effective on Infantry because Infantry take more wounds from stuff, and the HBE community generally want their Infantry to be good - the DE Racial works *better* on Infantry, actually, as they're more likely to be having trouble wounding and also have more dice to throw around.

    So switching it to, essentially, 1 temporary health point?

    Pushes in the wrong direction. Same reason I dislike Gates of the Netherworld for VC; it pushes you away from infantry and towards big monsters and chariots (etcetera).


    Personally, I think I'd make the HBE "Hereditary spell" a choice between Summer Growth and maybe two-three other spells (ALA the EoS "Hereditary Spell"), because Summer Growth is good but not broken, and every mage having access to a select handful of powerful spells really sells "no, really, MASTERS of Magic!" flavourwise without being actually OP.
  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    So switching it to, essentially, 1 temporary health point?
    Most of my suggestions when in this context are not full suggestions but more like an example or a brainatorm idea. I always expect the rules team to work with it.

    Lots of better suggestions than my 1 temporary health point. Like you suggested - summer growth or EoS hereditary would be much better.
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    So switching it to, essentially, 1 temporary health point?
    Most of my suggestions when in this context are not full suggestions but more like an example or a brainatorm idea. I always expect the rules team to work with it.
    Lots of better suggestions than my 1 temporary health point. Like you suggested - summer growth or EoS hereditary would be much better.

    Do NOT expect the Rules Team to catch things like that. Details like that (in particular, pushing for what the community want) are ACS and ADT work. Which means the community needs to actually think about what they ask for and make sure it's actually a good solution.

    Because generally speaking, the RT? Will NOT dig through a bunch of wishlisting and half-baked ideas looking for gold.

    If you want to actually see it? Try to pitch ideas that could see print as-is. I mean it's fine to have some wild spitballing - but if you actually want to see it implemented? It needs to be moderate, reasonable, and have the seal of "has community backing". (and even then, it can be shot down; there are a LOT of ways for something to get killed in development)

    And all of these details are important, because with the seal of community approval, ACS have almost no ability to push for it, but if it's wild wishlisting they ALSO have almost no ability to push for it.


    That's why I leaped in with an alternative that could possibly (it's not certain - I could see the RT nixing that one, but I could also see them approving) be approved.
  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    If you want to actually see it? Try to pitch ideas that could see print as-is. I mean it's fine to have some wild spitballing - but if you actually want to see it implemented? It needs to be moderate, reasonable, and have the seal of "has community backing". (and even then, it can be shot down; there are a LOT of ways for something to get killed in development)
    that's impossible for a full army book redoo! Its ok for these minor beta tweaks.

    why is it impossible when talking about full army book review? Because of synergies, conflicting rules, internal balance, external balance, etc...

    Like my idea of having martial discipline become Parry. The rule doesn't do much but when designing a book you throw in other synergies to make it work.

    If army design teams, or rules teams want a full fledged book proposals just to make 1 hereditary spell work - its not gonna happen.
    takes too much time for 1 person to write an entire well balanced book. And have it maybe accepted. Which without internal knowledge of how other army books are going, the book proposal could be too similar to another planned book. And on top of all that, the book could be great but some guy who makes the decision goes "I just don't like it", and rejected.


    your description of how the suggestions get looked at is different than how it was explained to me.
    I was told that ACS sifts though the proposals on the forum and gathers them up. Then passes them on to Rules people for them to take those brainstorm ideas, tweak them, rewrite them, maybe only use 1 part of it.


    having people on the forum submit an entire rule that can be copy pasted doesn't work.

    Edit: I had this exact same debate when T9A asked for full magic proposals. They wanted to be able to copy paste 1 proposal. ...I mentioned back then that that approach won't work, they'd have to get people to sift through all the proposals and cherry pick the best ideas and then put it all together.
    ....took alot of work but it created a pretty good magic phase rules system.
    ...it was also more formal than try to grab ideas from a 700page elf thread.

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

  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    If you want to actually see it? Try to pitch ideas that could see print as-is. I mean it's fine to have some wild spitballing - but if you actually want to see it implemented? It needs to be moderate, reasonable, and have the seal of "has community backing". (and even then, it can be shot down; there are a LOT of ways for something to get killed in development)
    that's impossible for a full army book redoo! Its ok for these minor beta tweaks.
    why is it impossible when talking about full army book review? Because of synergies, conflicting rules, internal balance, external balance, etc...

    Like my idea of having martial discipline become Parry. The rule doesn't do much but when designing a book you throw in other synergies to make it work.

    If army design teams, or rules teams want a full fledged book proposals just to make 1 hereditary spell work - its not gonna happen.
    takes too much time for 1 person to write an entire well balanced book. And have it maybe accepted. Which without internal knowledge of how other army books are going, the book proposal could be too similar to another planned book. And on top of all that, the book could be great but some guy who makes the decision goes "I just don't like it", and rejected.


    your description of how the suggestions get looked at is different than how it was explained to me.
    I was told that ACS sifts though the proposals on the forum and gathers them up. Then passes them on to Rules people for them to take those brainstorm ideas, tweak them, rewrite them, maybe only use 1 part of it.


    having people on the forum submit an entire rule that can be copy pasted doesn't work.

    Edit: I had this exact same debate when T9A asked for full magic proposals. They wanted to be able to copy paste 1 proposal. ...I mentioned back then that that approach won't work, they'd have to get people to sift through all the proposals and cherry pick the best ideas and then put it all together.
    ....took alot of work but it created a pretty good magic phase rules system.
    ...it was also more formal than try to grab ideas from a 700page elf thread.

    No.

    Moderate and Reasonable is required, end of story. Wild wishlisting is unhelpful, period. Every such post decreases overall community influence, pretty much forever. (Other things can raise it back, but wishlists presented as serious requests, or shameless requests for outright power creep, just increase the strength of the "ignore the community, they can never be satisfied" arguments).

    And the more unfocused the community is, the more their voice simply *can't* be listened to.



    I was told that ACS sifts though the proposals on the forum and gathers them up. Then passes them on to Rules people for them to take those brainstorm ideas, tweak them, rewrite them, maybe only use 1 part of it.

    ADT does their own brainstorming. They might use an idea presented by ACS (either from the ACS member themselves or from the community), but this is by no means the bulk of work done and, here's a key detail: people don't tend to want to iron out the kinks from someone else's faulty idea. I mean, they might, if the solution seems obvious - but it's more likely an idea will just be discarded if it has flaws.


    So if you want to help, try to give *good* suggestions.
  • New

    @WhammeWhamme:

    I think you exaggerate a bit :) .

    I agree that pure wishlisting isn't very productive.

    But that isn't the case here, not even close.

    On the other hand your "moderate and reasonable" approach can lead to blandness or uselessness as well.

    But the ideas from the RT/BLT are never flawed, right?

    If there is a problem it is based on either the inability of the playerbase to conceive the design; or the GW origin.

    Just take a look at the pick-rate of our Special Equipment category as an example.

    How about working together to fix this instead of shouting from your ivory tower that the community only want overpowered stuff and doesn't know anything about this game.

    It may sound harsh, but this "the RT/BLT is always right" mantra annoys me greatly.

    If you think that a certain suggestion is pure wishlisting, name it and explain why you think it is too much.

    That way we can create a common ground on what is the desired power level for all ;) .
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • New

    Aegon wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme:

    I think you exaggerate a bit :) .

    I agree that pure wishlisting isn't very productive.

    But that isn't the case here, not even close.

    On the other hand your "moderate and reasonable" approach can lead to blandness or uselessness as well.

    But the ideas from the RT/BLT are never flawed, right?

    If there is a problem it is based on either the inability of the playerbase to conceive the design; or the GW origin.

    Just take a look at the pick-rate of our Special Equipment category as an example.

    How about working together to fix this instead of shouting from your ivory tower that the community only want overpowered stuff and doesn't know anything about this game.

    It may sound harsh, but this "the RT/BLT is always right" mantra annoys me greatly.

    If you think that a certain suggestion is pure wishlisting, name it and explain why you think it is too much.

    That way we can create a common ground on what is the desired power level for all ;) .

    Dude. I am miles away from thinking the BLT and RT are always right. I personally think the BLT should be dissolved entirely, because it's fundamentally structurally unsuited to the needs of the project (like, the people on it are doing their best and are good people - but the entire concept is IMO, not a good starting point), and there are a number of RT decisions that I think were wrong.

    Nor am I someone who says that "the community only wants overpowered stuff" - but I've had to deal with people who do say that, and giving them ammunition makes it harder to win arguments against them.



    Bluntly: It doesn't matter if you're right and the RT or BLT are wrong. My advice isn't about "being right", it's about being effective in getting your ideas published. Many good ideas don't get implemented for reasons unrelated to their quality, and that's just the facts of life.




    Also, the idea I was specifically zeroing in on here wasn't because of wishlisting - it was me trying to be laser focused on "please don't criticize the part of the current HBE hereditary spell that makes it work better on Infantry. That particular clause is actually important because it was an example of the ACS actually managing to get a community request implemented, and if the community then complains about it, it undercuts the idea of ever listening to the community at all."