Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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

  • New

    Adam wrote:

    @WhammeWhamme so just to clarify - a wealthy craftsman race who can buy any necessary supplies and has skills to create their own armor at best wears armor that is equal to rusted skeleton armors and you find that logical?

    @Giladis I'd like to understand why, while you want to differentiate elven races all 3 in combat are still berserkers wearing nearly no protection and killing everything that touches them instead of displaying a wider spectrum of behavior (for example HBE being more defensive, SE more evasive and DE more offensive)

    Also why army that is composed of rivaling cults and blood thirsty madmen has characters that synergize with units while army that is viewed as disciplined (AWSR is even named martial discipline) cannot have any character synergies - which would represent disciplined troops operating under watchful eye of the leader.

    "At best" they wear armour that gives a 6+ Aegis, which is literally uniquely good (no other armour made by any race in the Ninth Age has that capability baked in), and/or they layer up their armour (very historically accurate) for a 4+ (3+ against shooting) AS, which is once again better protection than anyone else has.

    If you're talking about "rusted skeleton" quality (Light Armour?), you're talking about the "at worst" armour of the HBE.

    And historical armies fielded plenty of troops with armour that was worse than the absolute best their society could make. It's kinda the norm, actually: armour is expensive, but human beings breed themselves into existence without the Lord having to pay a cent. A society that can afford to armour every soldier is a society that can and probably should instead spend that wealth on having more population density, because in peace time that armour needs polishing but that unarmoured soldier can go out and work, thereby enriching the nation.

    Indeed, a race of wealthy merchants seems like exactly the kind of race that would make their grunts pay for their own armour (and point and laugh at the impoverished sods who can only afford the most basic of protections).


    cptcosmic wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Well, you can't buy WDG's plate; it comes from a demonic compact.
    Buying whatever it is Iron Orcs wear would probably be unhelpful for people who aren't base S5; Orcs are superhumanly strong and thus capable of just slapping on more layers.
    Brotherhood of the Dragon almost certainly come from within the EoS and don't make their own gear.
    and who says HBE cant make their own lightweight field plates or enhanced by minor magic?

    or better define what light, heavy and plate armor is or to which category does armor types belong and which of these HBE are wearing. e.g. is RL plate the equivalent to 9th age plate? because there is also quite a difference in weight and mobility if you compare early plate armor to modern field plates or a mix of armor types to achieve the same protection. "modern" plate weights just ~15KG, has moveable joints and you can run, jump or swim in it...

    Sure. We could have written that the HBE can make lightweight full plate and have a custom of giving a custom-made suit to every able-bodied citizen on their day of majority, thus making it so every single HBE unit has Plate Armour. Totally a thing we could have done.

    We also could have said that they were an ancient race, tallier and hardier than mere humans, and given them S4 and R4 base, with 5's on characters.

    Heck, let's keep going. Clearly they're all superior warriors. A2 too, that seems good. A3 and W2 on the elites.


    Oh look, now they're WDG.



    The background doesn't rule out the idea of HBE having heavier armour access than they currently do. Nor does it mandate it. The precise level to which their available armoursmithing manifests in rules terms is largely left to the RT and ADTs.

  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    At least not yet. It has been under discussion that one of the shooting strengths would be exchanged for it thus the Grey Watchers rules.
    Good idea!

    Lemme think .. we have small and medium arms fire as strengths .. now if we make our Citizen Archers S4 AP1 or better, we lose small arms fire and keep medium arms fire, isn't that right? :D
    Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Sure. We could have written that the HBE can make lightweight full plate and have a custom of giving a custom-made suit to every able-bodied citizen on their day of majority, thus making it so every single HBE unit has Plate Armour. Totally a thing we could have done.

    I dont think anyone said to have plate armor on everything but heavy armor on spears or plate armor on some special choices / characters in exchange for less RPS is not unreasonable if, whoever has the power, finally does the right step and exchanges some of the army strengths to armor :D

  • New

    Shino wrote:

    apart from being able to afford best armour I ponder how a dying race can field more than 15 models in a unit.

    If they are supposed to be less numerous than orcs, then it also should be seen on the battlefield
    You understand that dying race is from Warhammer fluff not T9A fluff?
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner

  • New

    The problem with ASAW, is not ASAW itself. It's how it is implemented.

    There is no clear definition what marks "weak" and "strong" and also in comparison with other ASAW.
    Strength in armour is more valuable as LD bubble for example if you already have LD independence.

    This could be "balanced" if LD bubble would get more value. For example removing items, so other armies that don't have it as a strength can't get LD10.
    If not, why not give armies like HbE the option for plate armour. It's the same after all.

    Defending it by "not in line with background" is just a false assumption how to interpret the own created background.
    If the background would be in line, better coordinated and better "balanced" with other parts of the background, we wouldn't have this discussion here.

    Long story short: I am all for background and ASAW, just not the way "you can't have that because...", it's putting limitations before a design is started.
    BGT should work together with ADT and BLT to define ASAW, to align intended background with design/units/entries and balance of the ASAW created by BLT defining what is "weak" LD and what is "strong" LD for example.

    In the meantime the PRO structure is getting looked at and I know @Giladis will be open for discussion about this subject and how these teams would work together in the future.

    Army Design Team Coordinator

    Army Design Team


    "Great things in business are never done by one person.
    They're done by a team of people."

    – Steve Jobs

  • New

    Aegon wrote:

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    Think carefully on this. Take it from SE, dropping Princes Di to 9 hurts a lot more than you think, and SE have more units with Di9 and/or Fearless (We have LD independence and ignore morale as our strengths), so losing that extra pip of Di would hurt HE even more than it hurt SE.
    We need to include panic tests in our Martial Discipline rule. It would be the first time I wouldn't complain about this rule (hint: I dislike the current version).
    So more LD9 units to represent our LD-independence strength + panic-included-Martial Discipline and I would be fine if we would get armour as a new strength.
    I doubt you would get more Di9 units AND panic included in Martial Discipline, not with only one Leadership oriented strength. You might get a couple of elite units bumped up to Di9 to help represent LD-independence, but that would be it. As I said, SE have 2 LD strengths and we only have a little more Di9 than HE, and some Fearless. If HE dropped a LD strength, you'd only have one. You'd only have Di8 mages, Di9 princes, most units Di8, a couple of Di9 Elites and the current Martial Discipline, Not worth it IMO. v

  • New

    nolamik123 wrote:



    People are kinda missing the point here: yes, that's what EoS make. That doesn't at all begin to justify anyone else having figured it out (it took serious metallurgical and industrial knowledge people, plus centuries of practice making worse armour building up to it).

    It's a lot easier to approximate that level of protection if you sacrifice mobility (normally a bad idea) by just making really thick/heavy armour with less-well-articulated joints, a technique that IMO works rather well for the races with superhuman strength and stamina, either outright (Iron Orcs) or simply for their size (Dwarves, who are at least as strong as a human while being about two thirds their height).

    Conversely, Elves have sub-human stamina. (Resilience cap of 3). Armour is tiring, they tire more easily than most, thus need lightweight armour or else fall over tired and get stabbed in eye socket. Makes all the sense.

  • New

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    I doubt you would get more Di9 units AND panic included in Martial Discipline, not with only one Leadership oriented strength. You might get a couple of elite units bumped up to Di9 to help represent LD-independence, but that would be it. As I said, SE have 2 LD strengths and we only have a little more Di9 than HE, and some Fearless. If HE dropped a LD strength, you'd only have one. You'd only have Di8 mages, Di9 princes, most units Di8, a couple of Di9 Elites and the current Martial Discipline, Not worth it IMO. v
    At least the Divination Attribute would be finally worth it ;) .

    "The Conclave" is still not useful as always, but it would be a start :) .

    Another issue:

    In your opinion, how is the Small Arms Fire represented in our army?

    I would drop that too, in favour for a more combat oriented strength.
    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:

    how is the Small Arms Fire represented in our army?
    Access to Aim (3+) on multiple units with bow/longbow, multiple units in the army having access to bow/longbow. Being able to build a functional army that in a solid part depends on those units.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Conversely, Elves have sub-human stamina. (Resilience cap of 3). Armour is tiring, they tire more easily than most, thus need lightweight armour or else fall over tired and get stabbed in eye socket. Makes all the sense.
    That is hilarious ;) .

    I hope that isn't the new elven fluff :D .
    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:

    Another issue:
    In your opinion, how is the Small Arms Fire represented in our army?
    I would drop that too, in favour for a more combat oriented strength.
    Yup.

    Very important question: who is going to decide which of our light/medium fire strenghths we are going to lose in exchange for Grey Watchers like special avoid/save effects?


    Giladis wrote:

    Aegon wrote:

    how is the Small Arms Fire represented in our army?
    Access to Aim (3+) on multiple units with bow/longbow, multiple units in the army having access to bow/longbow. Being able to build a functional army that in a solid part depends on those units.
    You mean: that is our Small Arms Fire strength?

    How is medium arms fire defined, then (also as compared to heavy arms fire)?
    Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..

  • New

    Giladis wrote:

    Aegon wrote:

    how is the Small Arms Fire represented in our army?
    Access to Aim (3+) on multiple units with bow/longbow, multiple units in the army having access to bow/longbow. Being able to build a functional army that in a solid part depends on those units.
    Do you really want to make the point that I'am dependend on my Citizen Archers, Grey Watchers, Elein Reavers and my SeaGuard, because of their shooting potential?

    I mean c'mon, you really want to push that argument, don't you? :D
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"

  • New

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Conversely, Elves have sub-human stamina.
    your vision of elven lore is sub-human :P

    Giladis wrote:

    Access to Aim (3+) on multiple units with bow/longbow, multiple units in the army having access to bow/longbow.

    access to 3+ S3 bows on multiple units is not a strength if it can be outperformed or matched by quantity of 4+ bows, is taxed and share the same cap with 2+ S4 AP1 magical flaming bows.

    and how do reavers and seaguard fall into the category? reavers dont even have bows stock and seaguard melee stats/equipment count towards shooting cap (and that is not even counting the seaguard special rules which are overpriced, too situational and you have no control over what you can shoot with it which also eats up all the shooting cap)