PDA

View Full Version : 9th Age Tactics



ewar
08-11-2015, 22:29
I have spent this weekend reading the 9th Age rules from start to finish and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THEM. I haven't played a game with them yet, but I am certain they are going to be a brilliant evolution of 8th ed Warhammer.

Seriously, if:
- you love Warhmmer;
- have some armies you haven't played with in a while; and
- you haven't already been here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/)to download the rules and army books, you should absolutely do so now. Seriously, don't wait... clicky clicky.

Right, now we're all on the same page, I thought this might be a good place to begin the revival of the Warhammer we all know and love. I think there is a massive amount to get our teeth into, with some subtle but important core rule changes as well as huge developments and balances in the books. I'm not going to go too much into my armies, but I have a couple of thoughts on the big news:

Magic

The obvious one. Multiple low level wizards now viable (maybe even optimal?). I've noticed level 3s also tend to be significantly cheaper than a level 4 now as well, so a level 3 and 2 combo could be a nice way to spread your access to some different magic lores. Talking of which there is probably an entire thread to devote to the new lores... will need to save that for another day. General toning down of power in exchange for a bit more predictability. Really nice changes.

Core rules

No more double flee shenanigans (yes, we all did it, but it was pretty gamey). Cleared up all the nonsense around uncompleteable charges. Clearer special rules, I especially like Holy Attacks (forces re-roll of ward saves). They've made Fear useful but not OP, taken it away from RnF undead now but made unstable better. My TK now have the ability to march like vampires!

New weapon rules for spears (fantastic), combined profiles for ridden monsters also look very interesting... open up some new lord builds for sure. ASF changes also look interesting, much more streamlined without all the re-rolls. Nice changes to cannons to make them less accurate, might be a bit too much with a reduction in damage but I'd much prefer them to be UP than OP.

Streamlining all the various multiple shot warmachines to use a single 'volley gun' rule - God this was long overdue. Tidying up of special rules in general has been done really well. Oh, and I nearly forgot the new deployment tactics - going to take some thinking on that one as well!

Overall conclusion

A really incredible piece of work and easily the best fan version of Warhammer I've read in the last 3 months. I hadn't really given this much thought until the 0.9 beta came out a couple of days ago and I have been blown away with the quality. Yes, the dorky renaming conventions are annoying, but if that's what they've been told to do to protect themselves then fair play. I really think that this version makes a huge range of different units viable, I can see proper combined arms becoming a thing again. I've signed up to a 60+ person 9th age tournament in February, so going to have to get some major practice in before then!

Question is - what army do I take??? Just too much choice at the moment.

Anyway - would love to hear other thoughts from anyone who's read/played the ruleset.

Vulgarsty
08-11-2015, 23:09
I'm going treemen - yes you could do treemen in 8th, but the lack of full command for dryads and treekin/Branchwraithe BsB, was a silly (or even spiteful) omission that made that list unworkable in general play as you couldn't ever play blood or Glory

Giladisb
09-11-2015, 02:29
Yes, the dorky renaming conventions are annoying, but if that's what they've been told to do to protect themselves then fair play.

Don't worry, apart from the Undying Dynasties aka Tomb Kings army book all the other army books just have placeholder unit names. The Background and Art team is hard at working creating the setting (very familiary, but original work not derived from GW) and making unit names which fit the units is currently on the agenda.

So if you could tell me if the UD names also fall into the "dorky" :D category or not, because this the first AB that has been updated with the new names. By the end of this week six more books will follow.


Anyway I am glad you like it :)


Cheers

Soundwave
09-11-2015, 08:31
Still reading, reading. So far though it is great. Alot of changes yes but it is just more so clarity than ultra drastic change. All the junk that made the game seem bent or broken doesn't seem to be around as much like stubborn isn't everywhere anymore. No third eye, the chaos warriors daemon prince "unstable " now.
Reading through the warriors book at the moment and I really like the changes. Khorne is good again and so is Slannesh.
The brutes may be a touch over the top but nothing to worry about.
Don't forget as well if you see something not right or hard to fathom it is not like we will be stuck with it for 8 to 10 year's it seems like this will be the most capable living rules set available anywhere and problems will be corrected quickly.

Ayin
09-11-2015, 20:39
Still reading, reading. So far though it is great. Alot of changes yes but it is just more so clarity than ultra drastic change. All the junk that made the game seem bent or broken doesn't seem to be around as much like stubborn isn't everywhere anymore. No third eye, the chaos warriors daemon prince "unstable " now.
Reading through the warriors book at the moment and I really like the changes. Khorne is good again and so is Slannesh.
The brutes may be a touch over the top but nothing to worry about.


(I'm doing this from memory so I apologize if I'm off on something below.)

Basic and reasonable changes (DP being Unstable) and simplifying seems about right. I like the toning of Warriors Initiative down to 4 (really like it).

What are your thoughts on the Mark of Khorne? I like the core concept (+1S on first round of combat, no parries on first round of combat) as it seems VERY characterful, but I'm not sure how I like it combined with other options. Chosen of Khorne with +1S and MoK for +2 on first round (S6 base) seem like such a strange choice, I don't even know exactly what I'd give them, though 2xHW and shield (love the point system for the shield) seems a good choice (and combined with the Lord's ability to allow all supporting models to fight with full attacks, that could be a unit that could put out absolutely spectacular damage for minimal numbers with 3 S6 attacks/model). Knights and Skullcrushers in a similar position, with +1S on the first turn I don't know if I'd bother giving them Ensorcelled weapons for the cost, but Lances seems like overkill as well.

The Slaanesh Fast Cav have a crazy special rule. It really struck me as being nuts when I first read it.

The Marauder character is a mess. Same special rule as the Warrior Lord (models in supporting ranks can make more than 1 attack each), but Marauders have NO ability to gain multiple attacks, so that ability is completely useless. The ACTUAL reason to take that character is so that you can BUY the gift that allows Marauder units (Marauders, Marauder Cav, Slaanesh unique Marauder Cav) to buy magic standards. I think pretty clearly the purchased ability should be the included one (and the useless one removed), as currently you need to pay points for the character so that you can pay points for an ability that does nothing but allow you to pay points for your unit.

russellmoo
09-11-2015, 23:37
I just read the ninth age rules, they are excellent. It makes me wonder why the community didn't just step up sooner and write their own rules.

A little nervous about my skaven but everything else looks solid.

Skargit Crookfang
10-11-2015, 14:06
A few things to keep in mind:
Flank and rear bonuses are devastating.
Steadfast is a lot easier to break.
The -1ld from fear hurts.
Monsters count as having ranks
Parry is now a -1 to hit
Spears have kb against cav from the front
Kb has changed (no armour save)

There are some devastating new combos out there. But nothing that can't be mitigated.

A strong movement phase is beyond necessary in 9th age

Soundwave
10-11-2015, 14:56
@ Ayin I like the way the MOK works now. +1 strength until a combat is lost, not just for the first round. Mix with the +1str from the chosen of the dark gods and yes str 6 chosen/brutes. Excellent for additional hand weapons that also confer +1 initiative now.
The Barbarian character is looking pretty solid for the points, mainly for the extra leadership. The sea ambush skill for 40 points would be great for a sneaky surprise with a big block of the aka barbarians, who are cheap again YAY!
So onto the inspire greatness rule. I like it and find it FULL of character. It is one of those things where you can gamble on the fact you may cause more casualty bonus to forgo your rank bonus.(being chaos having more than 2 ranks toward some final combats is rare anyway.) Having it on the barbarian character could pay of if sounds situational at best but the lore of lust has Frenzied hysteria spell for extra attacks on the barbarians with say flails as well as there is an option for additional hand weapons at the cost of the light armour.
Couple of things to note I am seeing a lot more armour piercing and a lot more armour, elven warriors with a 4+ save for example.

ewar
10-11-2015, 20:19
I think I'm most excited about trying out ridden monsters again. Tomb king on sphinx, Glade Lord on forest dragon etc.

My only concern with these rules is the wounds not stacking. No ward saves or decent armour means these guys will get chipped down pretty quickly, even with a high toughness (just look at how uncompetitive war sphinxes were in uncomped tomb kings).

It means every ridden monster character will tool up with a giant blade and ots and nothing else. Might get a bit one dimensional after a while. Though I agree no decent armour and wards is the right approach.

Giladisb
10-11-2015, 21:13
I think I'm most excited about trying out ridden monsters again. Tomb king on sphinx, Glade Lord on forest dragon etc.

My only concern with these rules is the wounds not stacking. No ward saves or decent armour means these guys will get chipped down pretty quickly, even with a high toughness (just look at how uncompetitive war sphinxes were in uncomped tomb kings).

It means every ridden monster character will tool up with a giant blade and ots and nothing else. Might get a bit one dimensional after a while. Though I agree no decent armour and wards is the right approach.


Then it is a good thing you can get 3+/4++ on the Sphinx ridden by the Pharaoh ;)

ewar
10-11-2015, 22:40
So if you could tell me if the UD names also fall into the "dorky" :D category or not, because this the first AB that has been updated with the new names. By the end of this week six more books will follow.

Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude :)

The Undying Dynasties names are fine, they're easy to tell what things are. I guess it's just hard moving away from 20+ years of names for particular units.


Then it is a good thing you can get 3+/4++ on the Sphinx ridden by the Pharaoh ;)

How? I can't see how that is possible from the book. Actually I didn't realise the mount version of the sphinx is so much worse than the Warsphinx - why only T6? You pay 180 points for +1 wound, +1T and 4 S5 attacks. Plus I think you lose the ability to have a decent save (as I can't see where you're getting a 4++ from) as the ridden monster core rules state you must use the monsters save.

Any thoughts on why this appears such a poor upgrade choice?

Giladisb
10-11-2015, 23:34
Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude :)

I thought you were funny.





How? I can't see how that is possible from the book. Actually I didn't realise the mount version of the sphinx is so much worse than the Warsphinx - why only T6? You pay 180 points for +1 wound, +1T and 4 S5 attacks. Plus I think you lose the ability to have a decent save (as I can't see where you're getting a 4++ from) as the ridden monster core rules state you must use the monsters save.

Any thoughts on why this appears such a poor upgrade choice?

Because it isn't a Ridden Monster ;)


We really thought a lot how to make it playable (which it wasn't in the 8th ed.), but not overpowered, and the solution was to take the same rout as the HE Griffon or OnG Wyvern.

Soundwave
11-11-2015, 00:05
On the topic of monsters, i like the monstrous rank rule. (Counts as one rank) no longer will they be held up by one rank of guys.
There is a shield in the common magic items for 70pnts that I think grants a 5++ to the "model" so I am assuming for a monter/rider team.

ewar
11-11-2015, 00:24
Because it isn't a Ridden Monster ;)


We really thought a lot how to make it playable (which it wasn't in the 8th ed.), but not overpowered, and the solution was to take the same rout as the HE Griffon or OnG Wyvern.

Aha, sorry I missed that it was a monstrous beast now! Hmmm... will need play testing, but at least it looks like a reasonable choice whereas before it was a non-starter. Good work!

Is there a risk that these monstrous beasts that are really monsters will be hugely better than stuff like a dragon? Having T6 5W and a 4++ is massively better than a regular dragons stats - will be interesting to see what people start to run. Either way I really like that there are realistic options to a level 4 now. A tooled up combat lord and 2 level 2s looks like a realistic possibility now, so great work.


On the topic of monsters, i like the monstrous rank rule. (Counts as one rank) no longer will they be held up by one rank of guys.
There is a shield in the common magic items for 70pnts that I think grants a 5++ to the "model" so I am assuming for a monter/rider team.

Yeah I was wondering the same, but the ridden monster rules don't allow the riders saves to be used... not sure what the intent is here (i.e. does this override those rules?), but there doesn't seem to be any other reason to take it.

There are too many new army books to look through, I'm like a kid in a candy store :)

Soundwave
11-11-2015, 00:34
I think as it stipulates "wearer's model" as opposed to just the wearer. For 70pnts and only vs shooting I think this is the intent.
Ridden monster rules do say can not use save, regen etc yet there is a clause to allow for certain things to happen.

Kayosiv
11-11-2015, 02:04
The 70 point 5+ ward save from ranged is specifically meant to be used when riding a monster.

And Ewar, we've had our disagreements in the past (I believe mostly about the Banner of the World Dragon) but I am delighted to see you so excited about 9th Age.

It has taken over 100 volunteers many months to craft these books and rules and they are far from perfect, but they are improving all the time and the best way to do that is for people to play games and post feedback on the 9th age forums. Every little bit helps.

ewar
11-11-2015, 08:34
Haha yes that's right. However since my high elf playing friend has taken to running only the botwd cav star backed up with frosty and star dragon my views have changed slightly! It might also have something to do with playing wood elves... that is a seriously challenging match up :)

Ot: I'm loving the new treeman rules, they seem to be good value now. Also as a TK and WE player I love the change to flammable, not quite as brutal any more thank god.

One other thing I noticed was the flaming banner now gives you the choice of flaming attacks. Seems like a strange decision to me, where is the downside? Before you had to balance the chance of running into a dragonhelm/fireborn. With this change, is there much incentive to take fire wards?

JRadau
12-11-2015, 06:49
I am interested in seeing how monsters and monstrous beasts that can be mounted will compare. Currently I actually see a dragon as a lot weaker than a manticore. I don't really see a reason to take it - simply because the Manticore profits from better armour of the rider a potential ward save. I'll definately try out the Manticore more now though :)

Soundwave
12-11-2015, 11:46
I am interested in seeing how monsters and monstrous beasts that can be mounted will compare. Currently I actually see a dragon as a lot weaker than a manticore. I don't really see a reason to take it - simply because the Manticore profits from better armour of the rider a potential ward save. I'll definately try out the Manticore more now though :)

Oh, that passed me by. I thought the manticora" was not very good until this was pointed out. Excellent. The dragon does seem a little weak now maybe an extra wound or two would have been better, but hey baby steps.
I am really liking the streamlining in certain area's . The options are also subtle and effective across most units now as well. Just all the things in the right places and it feels "right". Play testing Sunday.
The weapons master rule is pretty kick ass. High priestess of lust and other heroes of lust have acess to this as well. Great option.
Just for clarity with the unit no longer engaged in a combat are over runs and pivots done in the active players turn now?

Horus38
18-11-2015, 14:01
Just shared the 9th page with my group, really exciting stuff and an extremely comprehensive polishing of the game!

thegoss84
18-11-2015, 23:30
I haven't been able to play any games of 9th yet, but I am (and have been for the past couple of months) completely excited about the game.
A huge shout out to the rules team and army book guys for doing such a great job.

HappyCan303
20-11-2015, 16:45
So I looked for this on the actual 9th age site but didn't see an answer so I thought I ask here since not only are the usually brilliant minds of Warseer here but some of the actual designers.

The Corpse Ca... er Cadaver Wagon has the war platform rule specifically for Zombies, and is a really characterful take on the unit. But the Wagon is on a 50mm by 100mm base so it can never join a 20mm by 20mm Zombie unit. Did I miss something or does someone just enjoy taunting a portion of the undead players around?

Giladisb
20-11-2015, 19:04
Thanks for pointing that out.

Malagor
28-11-2015, 01:15
Hmm one thing I noticed. While it is nice that monster mounts are a bit better but it seems strange that armor of destiny gives 4+ ward save to both the bearer and the mount but talisman of supreme shielding only gives it to the guy on the monster.
Shouldn't it be the other way around ?

tmarichards
29-11-2015, 11:27
The only way to get a ward save on a ridden monster is from the Force Shield, unless I've missed anything every other common ward save item only buffs the wearer; according to the rules for ridden monsters that explicitly does not then affect the mount.

Malagor
29-11-2015, 12:35
Oh I completely misread, thought it said that if the item has the term "wearer" then it affects both.
Shame, makes monster mounts still a very poor choice.
Would argue that the End Times way of doing them is the real way of making them worth-while.
That and a points review to make sure that they are priced correctly.

ewar
30-11-2015, 10:53
Not a poor choice, just not as competitive as a monstrous beast mount (especially those mounts which were formerly monsters, like griffons and the royal warsphinx for tomb kings). I don't think the ET way was right, as it would mean giving a fighty hero +5 or +6 attacks with a powerful magic weapon, which was way OTT. I think to balance the lack of ward save, they need to allow the adding of the mount and riders wounds characteristics.

Let's face it, any hero with a 1+ re rollable save (so, ummm, all of them...) and at least S6 or 7, will completely wreck a guy mounted on a dragon. T6 5w and 3+ save just isn't survivable enough for the cost. That's the problem. On the flipside you can splash out on the most expensive sword and enchanted items as you save 50 points on taking a 4++.

As to specific tactics, I am really looking forward to my gaming group getting together on 2nd Jan (the earliest we can play unfortunately) to have some practice games of 9th. I am going to run 9 wardancers led by a wardancer lord with ogre blade, obsidian null stone and divine icon (re roll ward saves). He has an innate 4++, MR3 gives the wardancer unit a 3++ against magic spells and he has 5 (or 6 depending on dances) WS9, I9, S6 -4AS attacks with +1 to hit. He is pretty awesome I think, for 260 points. Obvious drawback is being on foot, but with flyers generally slower now and being skirmishers, I think it's a nice build. Especially as you set up to take the charge, go for 3++ in round 1 for survivability and then switch to +1A for round 2. I ran the numbers and most stuff will die in round 2 before he get's hit enough. Quite the glass cannon and he needs to avoid getting bogged down against RnF, as T3 with a single save still suffers badly.

Need to double check whether they can take a magic banner, as could go banner of speed for M6 too.

Malagor
30-11-2015, 12:12
Well one of the things that drew me to Fantasy was the classic picture of Karl Franz on Deathclaw fighting a Orc warboss on a wyvern. That's such a awesome image and one of the cool things about fantasy and yet no one brings them.
Not saying that the ET system is the best system but it was a step in the right direction. ET made alot of people in my area go "well if this is how 9e will be then maybe I will start bringing a character on monster" and that was good.
Monsters in general isn't that hard to kill, not with ranged attack, not with melee attacks(9th age looks the same in that regard) but with 8e, even if you kill the monster, you still have to deal with the guy on top.
Here they just die right off, cannons are even more of a threat since the character on top has no ward save to protect him unlike in 8e. And no, 70pts item for a 5+ ward save against that is not good, it's horrible. 4+ ward maybe but for 5+, nah overpriced and worthless.
IMO, keep the armor save for the monster but allow ward save no matter the item

And your WE suggestion reminded me to check and see if I will continue to hate WE in 9th age :p

m1acca1551
05-12-2015, 01:33
Have read through and I'm thoroughly impressed, some really fantastic work here. It has actually got me back dragging old miniatures out again and considering possibilities. This alone is a great thing as since AoS stabbed WFB in the back I essentially abandoned WFB all together.

Ayin
18-12-2015, 05:27
Reading through the Empire list now that I've got a handle on the Warriors list (my other Warhammer army and the one I actually cared for a lot more, until 8th) and I'm all over the place on it. Lots of neat ideas, lots of things removed, lots of things I thought would be obvious that aren't done, and lots of things that are done that I never thought necessary.

Pistoliers are an awesome concept, combining them with Outriders saves a lot of space. Giving them access to light lances and heavy armour really helps fill the army out, and between that, changes to spears (in general) and changes to the skirmishing troops, and options to vet the Core, they have pretty much completely covered the Dogs of War general in me (as in, there's really no more need for me to run back and forth between DoW and Empire, as I can put all my stuff in one army, with the exception of Ogres).

The Pistoliers getting the shoot-while-charging rule back is wonderful, but confusedly seems to stack with light lances, meaning they make a single S5 attack. Certainly weird.

It also seems that the Orders that Captains and Generals are able to give should be different, or at least, the Captain should be able to issue, say, two of the four and the general any of the four.

Still, the rules as a whole are great and provide a great deal of options. If I want to run my Dogs of War styled force using this list, I can include:

-a BS4 XBow unit with Light Armour
-A USEFUL unit of Pikes/Spears (which I can upgrade to Vets, make use of the 5+ save, or keep cheap, covering all options)
-Units of useful Light and Medium cavalry
-Skirmishing units of Duelists (skirmishers with a pistol)

That pretty much covers the whole thing (with the exception of the Ogres).

In Dark Trees
28-12-2015, 15:14
I see a lot of things I like in both the general Ninth Age rules and the rules for Beast Herds. The adjustments made to certain weapons--spears, hand weapons, and additional hand weapons--are all worthwhile and should have been considered a long time ago. And the "Pack Tactics" rule for Beastmen is a nice mechanic for representing their predatory, feral approach to warfare. I really like the option for arming Gors with throwing weapons. I'm not sure how effective it would be, but its wonderfully characterful. Moving Chaos Spawn out of the now-competitive Rare section and into Special was a very necessary reform. My only concern is that Minotaurs are still quite expensive, given their fragility. I'd be leery of putting them on the table, at their present cost.

This is all very promising.

Folomo
28-12-2015, 15:29
The good thing of 9th Age, is that if the Minotaurs are overcosted and few people use them, expect a price drop after a few months. Love living rulebooks.

Malagor
28-12-2015, 18:42
Minotaurs in 8e was over-priced but they packed so much punch that most people feared if they ever got in a fight with them hence they saw quite alot of playtime
Now they are almost 20 pts cheaper then before for the same stats but at the expense of bloodgreed.
So we still got a hard hitting and fast unit and that is cheaper and beastmen now have access to what was lore of life.
Minotaurs with Wildform on them made most opponents cringe, now you can make them T8, give them regen and heal them back up again when they take wounds.
So no, minotaurs are not fragile anymore.

Played a 9th Age match with my beasts the other day.
Didn't go for minotaurs that day since I wanted my beastigors to have some playtime as well and really, lore of nature(lore of life) is a wonderful lore for beastmen.
Killed 4 beastigors ? oh well, summer growth and they are back again. Opponent's troops are S6 ? No worries, make beastigors T8.
Cyclops taking wounds due to misfire ? it's ok, you can heal him too with the lore attribute.

Ayin
29-12-2015, 06:57
I'm getting so happy with the Warriors book. I'm struggling to make an army, and that's great. Everytime I think I have something figured out, I consider another option, another unit, even a weapons swap and consider the possibilities that would give me, and I'm not even close to including half the options in the book so far.

A well made book should have a lot of variety in play, and this one really offers that. The first thing I decided to do was try and build my old BSB, and I can with great ease (hero, MoK/MoW, Daemonic Mount w Barding, BSB) giving me an easy to reach 1+ T5 3W for only a few more points than it previously cost...but if I do that, I lose out on the (fighting) characters abilities to allow the supporting rank an additional attack (which immediately makes Warriors better, and along with MoK/MoW change really increases the interest in larger ranked units on not just Infantry, but Knights as well). I'm not even losing out on something i had before, just an option I could be taking advantage of and that's making me reconsider heavily.

If I take the BSB on foot, he immediately becomes pretty vulnerable (2W T4), so the unit would have to put out real hurt to shelter him from the majority of damage by doing wounds first...but with the Chaos drop of Initiative across the board (which is GREAT), my I4 Warriors wouldn't have an impact on enemy units much of the time (elves especially), and those units could target and kill the BSB before the unit makes their attacks, and without him, they lose the rule, and thus he didn't really give them any bonus, so he should have been mounted up for protection...but then I don't get the rule.

The solution seems to be 2xHW, as it adds not only the extra attack (which I WON'T be able to use for the second rank, which would send it back to being a useless investment, except that...) but the extra Initiative. Unfortunately then we're back to warriors not being killy enough...unless I switch them to Chosen. MoK/MoW on Chosen adding the second bonus of +1S makes that 2xHW an amazing choice, AND Chosen get the additional Initiative on their profile, meaning they make 3A/each on the front rank, 2/A each on the second, WS6, +1 to Hit, S5. A normal 6 wide unit puts on (including the guy who loses his spot for the BSB) 28 attacks that are almost always gonna hit on 2+ at 5. A PERFECT unit for what I want to use them for!

Though I could just keep them with Halberds for S6 to go after tougher units...their I5 (as they lose the +1I from the 2xHW) would be enough to go before bascially anything T4/3+, so they would still protect the BSB...and the upgrade wouldn't be wasted on the second rank...but it is +1pt/model more expensive...or I could strip the weapons off of them and use them with HW&S, that would save me a lot of points AND they'd still be putting out two S5 attacks a piece and be rocking the 3+ save in CC...

Of course, if I make the Warriors into Chosen, I might not be able to fit my other Special choices into the list. I could combine my 2x5 Knights into 1 unit and save some points...



So yeah. My head is a-swirl with options. Even simple things open up more variations, something that CERTAINLY wasn't the case with the 8th ed book, where the overall best choice was clearly available, half the book sucked, and making the best force you could out of what you liked was extremely cookie-cutter (not that i didn't love and do well with my all Khorne list, but at no point were any weapons other than Halberds even in the running, or turning the unit to Chosen).

In Dark Trees
30-12-2015, 17:55
Minotaurs in 8e was over-priced but they packed so much punch that most people feared if they ever got in a fight with them hence they saw quite alot of playtime
Now they are almost 20 pts cheaper then before for the same stats but at the expense of bloodgreed.
So we still got a hard hitting and fast unit and that is cheaper and beastmen now have access to what was lore of life.
Minotaurs with Wildform on them made most opponents cringe, now you can make them T8, give them regen and heal them back up again when they take wounds.
So no, minotaurs are not fragile anymore.

Played a 9th Age match with my beasts the other day.
Didn't go for minotaurs that day since I wanted my beastigors to have some playtime as well and really, lore of nature(lore of life) is a wonderful lore for beastmen.
Killed 4 beastigors ? oh well, summer growth and they are back again. Opponent's troops are S6 ? No worries, make beastigors T8.
Cyclops taking wounds due to misfire ? it's ok, you can heal him too with the lore attribute.

Malagor, thanks for your thoughtful response. I hadn't thought about the viability of Minotaurs in the context of an updated rule system and magic environment. Anyway, I was wondering about your thoughts on the Cyclops. I may be being dense but I can't find an explanation of the Ward-Breaker Attacks.

Malagor
30-12-2015, 18:42
The cyclops(cygor, I still call it that) is still over-priced I think so(only had 1 game so far). Granted 75 pts cheaper then before and trying to kill him with magic is pointless since he got a 2+ ward save against that.
But the main problem is that he is a stone thrower so he doesn't hit his target that often. During my match he misfired twice(yes you roll on the misfire table now so no more simply lose a wound), first round he just took a wound and the other round he couldn't fire that turn or the next. So half the game he did nothing and 200pts for that is just too much.
No one is hardly gonna cast magic on him anyway and if they did it would be to debuff him(for some reason) and his MR won't help there.
And Ward-breaker Attacks is a universal rule which means that the opponent has to re-roll successful ward saves against his ranged and melee attacks.

Ayin
31-12-2015, 22:49
The Corpse Ca... er Cadaver Wagon has the war platform rule specifically for Zombies, and is a really characterful take on the unit. But the Wagon is on a 50mm by 100mm base so it can never join a 20mm by 20mm Zombie unit. Did I miss something or does someone just enjoy taunting a portion of the undead players around?

Doubtless the game designers for 9th just didn't think of it. With a 20mm based army they likely expected the cart to just have been on a 40mm wide base.

El_Commi
02-01-2016, 10:49
We've been playing a lot of 8th atm. But we're planning on shifdting to 9th in the next few months/weeks so I'm quite excited to see how it goes. My group has Warriors of Chaos (He has some Demons too that he got during end times), High Elf, Lizard, VC, Skaven and the rare Beastman/Empire players. So we've a good spread.

One concern I have though is that some of us (The WoC player mainly) picked up some demons for a themed army khorne army. Is there an allowance for this in 9th? Would suck to tell him he cant use half his stuff.

What of End Times units? I understand things like Nagash/Mortachs don't exist (Though they can be made as generic vampires) - but what of the wrathmongers and things like the Khorgorath? (Yes we got the AoS box..)
Are stormcast planned?

Will I ever be able to field my Sylvanian levy again!? (6th Ed. Vampire Counts could field Empire spearmen/archers if they took a Von Carstein general.)

Malagor
02-01-2016, 18:31
Stormcast has been planned one day but will probably be a long while.
As for Undead Legion and Legion of Chaos, well if you guys want to allow him to merge the armies then go ahead.
My group has given that allowance as well to me.

Ayin
03-01-2016, 00:47
We've been playing a lot of 8th atm. But we're planning on shifdting to 9th in the next few months/weeks so I'm quite excited to see how it goes. My group has Warriors of Chaos (He has some Demons too that he got during end times), High Elf, Lizard, VC, Skaven and the rare Beastman/Empire players. So we've a good spread.

Sounds awesome! Being able to try out several different factions will give you guys a good view of the changes.



One concern I have though is that some of us (The WoC player mainly) picked up some demons for a themed army khorne army. Is there an allowance for this in 9th? Would suck to tell him he cant use half his stuff.

The issue here is that the game is currently in the process of finalizing the CORE rules and basic Army Books and only slowly introducing newly created units (and those intentionally under-powered just to be on the safe side, like the Khorne Priest).




What of End Times units? I understand things like Nagash/Mortachs don't exist (Though they can be made as generic vampires) - but what of the wrathmongers and things like the Khorgorath? (Yes we got the AoS box..)
Are stormcast planned?

The WoC army have units known as Once Chosen (previously known as Brutes) that are larger than normal scale Chaos Warriors on 40mm bases that represent units such as the dual Khorne and dual Nurgle 40mm Infantry released during the End Times. Wrathmongers are specifically Once Chosen with the Mark of Wrath(/Khorne), Chosen of the Gods, and either Flails or dual Hand Weapons. As you can see, it's extremely easy to simply build those models, as the unit option for them is included. As for the khorgorath, likely it would fit in various monsters roles.

I have no idea about Stormcast. The game currently is about making a playable, fully functional and competitive(balanced) version of Warhammer Fantasy. I am sure given time they will include things from the AoS range, but it's doubtfully a priority. More importantly to the game designers seems to be including options that players wanted but couldn't previously have (Tomb Kings riding Sphinx, the aforementioned Khorne priests, ect).




Will I ever be able to field my Sylvanian levy again!? (6th Ed. Vampire Counts could field Empire spearmen/archers if they took a Von Carstein general.)

And in the Storm of Chaos, you could in fact make a Sylvanian/Von Carstein army that was even more characterful. As it stands, the furthest book along, Undying Dynasties, includes two optional army builds similar to the optional army builds from 6th (bloodline specific armies and Necromancer army), so I don't doubt a few will appear. Additionally, Vampire Counts has seen the reintroduction of the Bloodlines, making playing a force like that much more possible than it has been since 7th...did what it did to Vampires.

El_Commi
03-01-2016, 10:57
Sounds awesome! Being able to try out several different factions will give you guys a good view of the changes.



The issue here is that the game is currently in the process of finalizing the CORE rules and basic Army Books and only slowly introducing newly created units (and those intentionally under-powered just to be on the safe side, like the Khorne Priest).




The WoC army have units known as Once Chosen (previously known as Brutes) that are larger than normal scale Chaos Warriors on 40mm bases that represent units such as the dual Khorne and dual Nurgle 40mm Infantry released during the End Times. Wrathmongers are specifically Once Chosen with the Mark of Wrath(/Khorne), Chosen of the Gods, and either Flails or dual Hand Weapons. As you can see, it's extremely easy to simply build those models, as the unit option for them is included. As for the khorgorath, likely it would fit in various monsters roles.

I have no idea about Stormcast. The game currently is about making a playable, fully functional and competitive(balanced) version of Warhammer Fantasy. I am sure given time they will include things from the AoS range, but it's doubtfully a priority. More importantly to the game designers seems to be including options that players wanted but couldn't previously have (Tomb Kings riding Sphinx, the aforementioned Khorne priests, ect).




And in the Storm of Chaos, you could in fact make a Sylvanian/Von Carstein army that was even more characterful. As it stands, the furthest book along, Undying Dynasties, includes two optional army builds similar to the optional army builds from 6th (bloodline specific armies and Necromancer army), so I don't doubt a few will appear. Additionally, Vampire Counts has seen the reintroduction of the Bloodlines, making playing a force like that much more possible than it has been since 7th...did what it did to Vampires.

Thanks for the replies. Glad to know most of his AoS stuff is usable. (Even if we need to rebase them). I'm not too fussed on the Stormcast, I was considering selling them but I'd likely not get anywhere near enough. So I've been holding them over in the hopes that I could use them in agame some day :p

I love the reintroduction of the Bloodlines so I'm quite happy about that. I still miss my Sylvanian levy though. With End Times my plan was to field Empire bowmen, but as Skeleton archers. I'd love to actually get my 6th ed. army back properly :p
All in all Im really excited to try a game, I'm flat out all Janurary, so our first game is pegged for Feburary sometime, hopefully the army books will have finalised a little :p
I'm looking forwrad to Helfs not being so ridiculous!

Ayin
03-01-2016, 11:35
Yeah, I used to rock the Blood Dragon (with skeleton bowmen and lance formatin) and Necrarch (with Zombie Dragon rare choice) themed armies in 6th and had fun playing against the Carstein list in Storm of Chaos (with the Human units and the Undead Greatswords/Whites in Plate with Regen), so I was very excited to see Bloodlines.

As a former HE player I've been pretty happy with their book (and the ability for Spears to take Heavy Armour, because the Light Armour HE models are certainly a think of the distant past, along with the Light Armour Silver Helms), the changes to their overall special rule are great, capturing the elite glass-cannon nature of the force (and the Initiative modifiers of armies like Warriors really made it easy to remove ASF and it's silliness).


I'm going to run a unit of Wrath(Khorne) Chosen using the Khorne Warriors from the AoS starter with mods. The problem is that I can't figure out what gear to give them! Best of luck to your friend.

Malagor
03-01-2016, 13:01
I'm of a half-mind to go to that 8e forum and take a look at their stormcast list and convert it over to 9th Age.
Shouldn't be too much trouble due to how similar they are.

El_Commi
03-01-2016, 13:26
I'm of a half-mind to go to that 8e forum and take a look at their stormcast list and convert it over to 9th Age.
Shouldn't be too much trouble due to how similar they are.

That would be interesting. The only problem would be base sizes I think.

On a related note. I love how Base sizes are mentioned in the army listings. Makes things a lot easier.

Malagor
03-01-2016, 14:00
That would be interesting. The only problem would be base sizes I think.

On a related note. I love how Base sizes are mentioned in the army listings. Makes things a lot easier.
Well I saw it mentioned on 9th Age forum that 40mm bases would fit nicely for them seeing as most people see them as multi-wound models like Ogres.

Vazalaar
03-01-2016, 14:10
What do you think of the latest change to parry?

Folomo
04-01-2016, 01:51
Thanks for the replies. Glad to know most of his AoS stuff is usable. (Even if we need to rebase them). I'm not too fussed on the Stormcast, I was considering selling them but I'd likely not get anywhere near enough. So I've been holding them over in the hopes that I could use them in agame some day :p

I love the reintroduction of the Bloodlines so I'm quite happy about that. I still miss my Sylvanian levy though. With End Times my plan was to field Empire bowmen, but as Skeleton archers. I'd love to actually get my 6th ed. army back properly :p
All in all Im really excited to try a game, I'm flat out all Janurary, so our first game is pegged for Feburary sometime, hopefully the army books will have finalised a little :p
I'm looking forwrad to Helfs not being so ridiculous!
You could always use a Barrow themed TK armies.
Pharaoh as the leader, some necromancers (wizards), skeleton archers and warriors, heavy cavalry in core and Barrow Guards in special.
Phantasmal scarab swarms instead of spirit hosts.
What else did the army neeed?


What do you think of the latest change to parry?

Necesary TBH. -1 to hit was too much. There where some nasty combos out there. And almost all infantry that could use it was doing so. Too auto-included for the open-mindness of 9th age.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 05:11
Necesary TBH. -1 to hit was too much. There where some nasty combos out there. And almost all infantry that could use it was doing so. Too auto-included for the open-mindness of 9th age.

Agreed. As they are now, I'm still debating between Shields and 2xHW for my Wrath/Khorne Chosen. The loss of a second bonus to shields beyond the +1 to saves balances out pretty nicely with the cost savings and the second rank not getting the bonus of the third attack from 2xHW makes it very tempting.



Well I saw it mentioned on 9th Age forum that 40mm bases would fit nicely for them seeing as most people see them as multi-wound models like Ogres.

40MM is exactly what they should (and will) be, the same size as the Once Chosen(former Brutes) for the Chaos book, the non-Monstrous large Infantry models released during End Times.

Malagor
04-01-2016, 12:53
Well I had a look at the 8e Stormcast list and as expected. Essentially a heavily-armored Chaos warrior Ogre daemon army. 3+ armor and 5+ ward save and hates chaos.
Multi-wound, good WS, good BS but expensive and can't take brb items.
Will do a few more games for 9th Age so I can get a good grasp of all the rules before I attempt a port.

ewar
04-01-2016, 13:44
I've been playing some more and I have a few concerns with the latest version. The building rules need clarification. I dislike the move to magic casters being +1 or +2, the aided casting and dispel made for interesting strategic choices, I have no idea why they scrapped it.

Parry is ok as is, but honestly it's quite convoluted. I don't really see this as any kind of benefit compared to the simple 6+ ward of 8th ed. Change to scout deployment is massive, basically renders scouts pretty pointless, no more vanguard blocking, they will normally just deploy 6" in front of your line.

I'm fairly disappointed with the most recent version, definitely not as fun as the 0.9 beta.

From a strategic perspective, I need some serious practice with the new LOS rules, as I kept making blunders thinking units could see a target but were actually obscured by the footprint of a low hill. Need to get my 6th/7th ed mindset back a bit on those.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 13:58
The move behind the reduction of bonus for wizards was to make non-wizard armies more viable. One of the main premises in 9th age is to not have auto-included, and with the previous rules the wizard were a mandatory choice. While I don't like it personally, I understand the reason they did it.
I have at least two friends who really hate magic and disliked being forced into using a wizard. Now both are quite interested in the new changes and may be the main reason they come back to fantasy.

The scout change I think was made to make scouts and vanguarding units more balanced. Currently scout just was a massive problem for vanguarding units. But I too preferred the previous version, mostly because I had scouting vanguarding models XD.

I have to get accustomed to LOS too, now that I can't see through my chariots or between the legs of my monsters with my archers for example. But I think not needing to bend over and take a laser pointer to see if you could see a model or not is good for the game in general. Makes it feel less cheesy if someone models a miniature in a big rock or hunched.

ewar
04-01-2016, 14:07
But they're changing things much too quickly to see if the meta actually moves. Spells were already reduced in power, mages were priced differently and combat characters were all more competitively priced.

I now look at my wood elves and think that actually magic is now no longer worth the 400 point investment. I get a better return from running more eagle captains. I don't think they waited long enough to see if giving non mages access to the dispel scroll changed things, plus the dispelling banner. I think those changed would already have made non magic armies more viable.

I also don't think it should be a priority to change the game to allow some armies to miss out whole phases without consequence. You want to run an army with zero magic? OK, but that has to have consequences.

I love the idea of ninth age (and have been very vocal in supporting it) but I worry now that they are changing too much, too quickly. I'm trying to recruit all the lapsed WFB players I know into this - they're not ETC team players! The further they move away from 8th ed, the harder and harder this becomes to sell. I really don't want them to sabotage the project this way.

ewar
04-01-2016, 14:16
Regarding scout and vanguard, I think they were already very well balanced. I've never heard anyone say fast cav vanguard wasn't a competitive choice! Now, it is far and away the better option.

Scouts won't get anywhere near enemy lines being 18" away. I mean, I don't think I've ever someone say scout deployment needed changing. This seems like change for changes sake. Using them as a counter to vanguard was at least a strategic choice, but that is now gone.

Another niggle which we've had to houserule back in are insane courage, removing that is silly. It only ever made for fun games - hell, I can remember games from years and years ago which were turned on an insane courage roll.

Malagor
04-01-2016, 14:38
But but, it's random, we can't have that. :rolleyes:
That's my main complaint, they are trying to kill off as much random elements as they can even if it was good random elements.
If they keep this up they will have another kings of war on their hands and I can't imagine that was the goal.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 14:44
I've been playing some more and I have a few concerns with the latest version. The building rules need clarification. I dislike the move to magic casters being +1 or +2, the aided casting and dispel made for interesting strategic choices, I have no idea why they scrapped it.

I REALLY liked the idea of Aided Cast & Dispell, as well as many other changes to magic that have been removed (combined Channel, ect) as I felt it made the Magic system really interesting, but in the end I can completely understand that more important is to make many different play styles viable, and simplicity is often the best place to start.

Let the game complete it's solid foundation, adn in future some of these very interesting ideas may well reappear.



Parry is ok as is, but honestly it's quite convoluted. I don't really see this as any kind of benefit compared to the simple 6+ ward of 8th ed.

Why do you find it convoluted? The difference between this and the 6++ is that it can be used by units who have a Ward save. For simple explanation, in 8th ed the Empire Luminark (for example, there were many other ways to grant Ward Saves) had no effect on Swordsmen in combat.



Change to scout deployment is massive, basically renders scouts pretty pointless, no more vanguard blocking, they will normally just deploy 6" in front of your line.

Alternatively it could just as easily be said that changing the Scout deployment makes Vanguard useful.



The scout change I think was made to make scouts and vanguarding units more balanced. Currently scout just was a massive problem for vanguarding units. But I too preferred the previous version, mostly because I had scouting vanguarding models XD.

Ha! And yes, the option of Vanguard is something that seems to be hoped to encourage Dwarf combat armies ("different play styles"), and everyone being able to shut that down (or going into a series of games knowing that your strategy just isn't going to work 1/2 to 1/3 of the time) with ease sends them right back to being the stationary line. Since most agree that it would be nice to see Dwarves moving around the board, getting into combats and leaving some of the Warmachines at home, this needs to be considered.

Also...I have Vanguarding units and not Scouts, so down with Scouts!



From a strategic perspective, I need some serious practice with the new LOS rules, as I kept making blunders thinking units could see a target but were actually obscured by the footprint of a low hill. Need to get my 6th/7th ed mindset back a bit on those.

Yeah, that's gonna take some time for me as well, but not as long as it took to get used to the 8th system.



I have to get accustomed to LOS too, now that I can't see through my chariots or between the legs of my monsters with my archers for example.

This exactly, but I far prefer it 9th's way to the "shooting between my friends legs" system.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 14:48
But they're changing things much too quickly to see if the meta actually moves.
This is why there is going to be a long test time without rules changes now in Jan/Feb. :)


I now look at my wood elves and think that actually magic is now no longer worth the 400 point investment. I get a better return from running more eagle captains. I don't think they waited long enough to see if giving non mages access to the dispel scroll changed things, plus the dispelling banner. I think those changed would already have made non magic armies more viable.
So now you have to actually ponder if two lvl 4 wizards are a good choice or not? That sounds like they did a good enough job. Maybe scaling down to a single wizard may be enough? 200 points doesn't seems like a massive investment and probably will net you similar results. Less reliably (less spell/lore choices. No secondary wizard in case of catastrophe), but the fact that almost every WE list included double lvl 4 was something a bit limiting IME.
TBH, I still include a 4 lvls of wizards in almost all list and I have yet to include a combat lord in my lists yet. They definitely need to give them a bit of love. But the disparity is slightly lesser now at least.


I also don't think it should be a priority to change the game to allow some armies to miss out whole phases without consequence. You want to run an army with zero magic? OK, but that has to have consequences.
Would you be fine if there was a minimum amount of shooty/CC units required on all list?
How do you think WoC would react if there was a mechanic that forced you to spend 300 points in archers for example?
Or a minimum of 2 units of 30+ models close combat infantry for wood elves?
Because that is how some players feel when they are told they have to include a lvl 4 with a dispel scroll in all their lists. And they are also forced to use magic if they have a lvl 4.
If they didn't, there was a decent chance they had forfeited the game, specially against some magic heavy armies.
Not a real choice TBH, unless by consequences you mean basically losing the game :S.


Another niggle which we've had to houserule back in are insane courage, removing that is silly. It only ever made for fun games - hell, I can remember games from years and years ago which were turned on an insane courage roll.
They did? Damn, I missed that. A game last week change a lot based on a single model holding against a unit of chariots thanks to insane courage. I will suggest this gets back into the rules for sure.


But the best part, none of these rules are set in stone like the old games. If there is something missing or some rule isn't helping the game, enough feedback will change it back. :)

Ayin
04-01-2016, 14:54
Well I had a look at the 8e Stormcast list and as expected. Essentially a heavily-armored Chaos warrior Ogre daemon army. 3+ armor and 5+ ward save and hates chaos.
Multi-wound, good WS, good BS but expensive and can't take brb items.
Will do a few more games for 9th Age so I can get a good grasp of all the rules before I attempt a port.

As they stand, in a game predicated on attempting to create a strong foundation of balance, I doubt an army of super-men who have to be the best transfer to 9th very well. If I was to make an army of Once Chosen few would enjoy the game.

The other actual HUGE issue I see with porting them is that they will, without a doubt be the most expensive Core in the game (as they are, again, Once Chosen with extra powers), and then they will need to fit into 9th, meaning that the Core Tax will have to apply to them, which leaves Core underwhelming compared to Special (compare Chaos Warriors to Chosen, for example). This will result in Stormcast who cost 10% more than their stats would technically account for, and as the most expensive Core, this is a HUGE cost/model. Attempts to 'point them appropriately' will likely just see them the equivalent of other armies Special choices.

With time and a LOT of playtesting they can likely be made to work.




I also don't think it should be a priority to change the game to allow some armies to miss out whole phases without consequence. You want to run an army with zero magic? OK, but that has to have consequences.

There is consequence. The difference is that taking a Hero level Mage gives one a reasonable chance of competing, meaning that every army doesn't need to be built starting with a Level 4 and figuring the rest out from there.



I love the idea of ninth age (and have been very vocal in supporting it) but I worry now that they are changing too much, too quickly. I'm trying to recruit all the lapsed WFB players I know into this - they're not ETC team players! The further they move away from 8th ed, the harder and harder this becomes to sell. I really don't want them to sabotage the project this way.

Then you should be happy that Aided Casting and Dispelling, Combined Channeling is gone? The current rules for Magic aren't significantly MORE different from 8th than the previous ones.



Another niggle which we've had to houserule back in are insane courage, removing that is silly. It only ever made for fun games - hell, I can remember games from years and years ago which were turned on an insane courage roll.

I can completely understand why Insane Courage was removed, and it fits along side the significant reduction in Stubborn and the lessening of the reliability of Steadfast. Players want to know they will be rewarded for setting up good charges and beneficial combat situations. I liked Steadfast, it was a lot of fun...I've also seen how diasspointed players can be when they've set up a perfect situation and then lose because the opponent rolled the "nothing you did mattered" dice result, and can understand why that would be taken out.

ewar
04-01-2016, 15:29
I can completely understand why Insane Courage was removed, and it fits along side the significant reduction in Stubborn and the lessening of the reliability of Steadfast. Players want to know they will be rewarded for setting up good charges and beneficial combat situations. I liked Steadfast, it was a lot of fun...I've also seen how diasspointed players can be when they've set up a perfect situation and then lose because the opponent rolled the "nothing you did mattered" dice result, and can understand why that would be taken out.

That is patently not true. Not all randomness is bad just because it is random. Insane courage is a great mechanic, it was brought in because very few things in the game should be guaranteed - it makes for interesting and dramatic games. If your opponent is testing on snake eyes, you've already done a huge amount of damage to them, the very rare occasions this has an impact on the game is a good thing. Like I said, it makes for memorable games, rather than setting up the umpteenth front and flank charge, winning by 9 and auto breaking your opponent.

Don't get me wrong, I like ninth a lot, but there are some valid criticisms here. I really want it to be a success, and to do that the team behind it need to make sure that it is not 100% focussed on a very narrow ETC playing demographic. I want this to be adopted by a big chunk of the UK tournament scene, but recruiting players into this is going to be the systems biggest challenge.

Adding in aided casting/dispel and a subtle change to channelling is something every single person who played 8th could immediately understand and get on board with. Hell, I played with some interesting 3x level 2 lists which gave me access to multiple lores and would give me +3 or +4, it was a fantastic change. Now they scrapped that and 'new' players look at their level 4 and say, hang on, he's gone up in price, spells have gone down in power and now he only gets +2 to cast? That is a big change (mentally more than anything) for a system which has been used since 6th was introduced (1999?).

@Folomo I honestly don't think magic was as dominant as you're saying (even towards the end of 8th) but especially in ninth with the repointing of combat characters. In my most recent game I ran 2 x level 2s vs a HE loremaster and magic had very little impact on the game, except my opponent dimensional cascaded using 5 dice to cast a boosted version (which he needed to do with only +1 to cast and changed spells).

Honestly, it didn't feel like either of us got value out of the points invested. I would have been better off taking an Avatar of Nature I think. I don't want to go back to the 6th ed system of all or nothing, and this feels like we're headed that way. Except now you don't even need the scroll caddy.

As for partaking in every phase, I'm not saying you need a mandatory requirement, however WoC were compensated for their lack of shooting by being good in close combat. I think they need to leave the core rules alone and give armies interesting options in the books. Just look at the DE book to see how they have lost most of their competitive builds and are now basically a ranked infantry list.

I don't think every army should be equally competitive in every phase, but if you choose to forgo magic and come up against magic heavy, it should hurt. Same as if I run a static gunline and come up against all cav it will hurt. That's what I mean by consequences, it's a difficult balance to strike.

I hope they have the sense to make changes and then bed them in for a significant period of time (a month or two is not long enough IMO, unless correcting absolutely glaring errors). We were told the 21 Dec update would be minor army book tweaks but then actually major changes were made. Anyway, I'm rambling, I should probably go and put all this on the ninth age forum :)

Ayin
04-01-2016, 15:31
That is patently not true.

Exactly what in my post is "patently not true"?

Malagor
04-01-2016, 15:31
As they stand, in a game predicated on attempting to create a strong foundation of balance, I doubt an army of super-men who have to be the best transfer to 9th very well. If I was to make an army of Once Chosen few would enjoy the game.

The other actual HUGE issue I see with porting them is that they will, without a doubt be the most expensive Core in the game (as they are, again, Once Chosen with extra powers), and then they will need to fit into 9th, meaning that the Core Tax will have to apply to them, which leaves Core underwhelming compared to Special (compare Chaos Warriors to Chosen, for example). This will result in Stormcast who cost 10% more than their stats would technically account for, and as the most expensive Core, this is a HUGE cost/model. Attempts to 'point them appropriately' will likely just see them the equivalent of other armies Special choices.

With time and a LOT of playtesting they can likely be made to work.

Of course we already have such armies however. WoC are suppose to be the best, Bretonnia is suppose to be the best and so on.
In the list I downloaded Flagellants was added to core along with arch lectors to lords and warrior priests to rare.
So you got a mix of infantry(and yes stormcasts are infantry so no stomps or anything like that).
And yes, their core would be expensive if you decide to go for the stormcast liberators as core(you can have Flagellants as well as I said) but well what else are you suppose to do ?
You can't make them cheap throwaway units since the models themselves are expensive so you have to price them accordingly hence tough and good in a fight but expensive. So yes, their core will be more expensive then most armies special or even rare, just like OK but they will make up for it with skills.
When 9th Age adds them(as they said they would once everything is overall settled). it will be the same, expensive but very elite army but I like what they did over at EEFL forum since they created a nice theme for the army.

ewar
04-01-2016, 15:34
Exactly what in my post is "patently not true"?

Sorry I should have been clearer, you called it the 'nothing you did mattered' result. Which, IMO, is patently not true as you have hammered your opponent into at least a -8 or worse result. Making players consider the outside chance that the opponent rolls snake eyes adds to the game in my view. Making someone auto flee is not good, it's going too far the other way.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 15:45
I think the main problem for Stormcast would be models. Most armies have at least 10-12 different units/models aside from characters.
Stormcast have considerably less.

There are:
- Prosecutors with 2 weapon options,
- Paladins with 3 weapon options,
- Liberators with 1 weapon option,
- Judicators, with 1 weapon option,
- Celestial prime as a "monster"

Not enough to make different viable armies TBH. They would need some sort of additional model range to make them diverse. Their character range (Knights and Lords) is quite good, but the core/special/rare section looks pretty empty. They would probably have
- 2 core choices (Liberators and Judicators),
- 2 special choices (Prosecutors and Paladins) and
- 1 rare choice (Celestial prime)

Ayin
04-01-2016, 15:46
Of course we already have such armies however. WoC are suppose to be the best, Bretonnia is suppose to be the best and so on.

And Elves are the best, and Orcs is da best, and so on...but Stormcast are LITERALLY the best. They are multi-wound Chaos Warrior-Ogre-Daemons. That's their deal. It's not a perception put forward by the narrative in their own army books, it's their stats.



In the list I downloaded Flagellants was added to core along with arch lectors to lords and warrior priests to rare.

This is a neat idea. Not sure how Warrior Priests would fit into Rare though.

The obvious argument for why this wouldn't end up working is the history of the Gnoblar. In an army built around one specific big model type with limited numbers/model count (Ogres), the interest in fielding more numerous and obviously inferior choices that aren't representative of the faction is very low. I doubt many would rush to play Stormcast so that they can field Flagellants.



And yes, their core would be expensive if you decide to go for the stormcast liberators as core(you can have Flagellants as well as I said) but well what else are you suppose to do ?

Exactly. What else? So you are left with Stormcast models as Core, who will need to A) be better than other Cores, and thus be very expensive, and also need to have the 10% Core Tax applied to them, making them, by percentage, even more expensive, leaving them likely to match up poorly with other armies Elites, and leaving Stormcast players unsatisfied. For an example, take a look at Warriors players over at 9th. The Core Warriors simply don't match up to Chosen point for point, despite Chosen being nearly identical in Cost, and Chosen perform poorly matched up against other Elite armies Special choices. The obvious solution is to drop the price on Chosen, but that can't be done, because it would actually put them UNDER the cost of the Core Warriors. It's a fine balancing act, and these are models that start off at 15ish points and end at 22 or so. When applied to units composed of models which are 50ish pts each, it's going to be rough.

Not that it can't be done of course. The Chaos issue will work itself out (though Chaos Warriors will likely NEVER be the best choice for Core in the Chaos army), it will just take a lot of adjustment to theirs and other army books.

ewar
04-01-2016, 15:49
looks pretty empty.

Just like the cold, dead eyes of the poor sap forced to sculpt them :)

I won't lie, I'm not a fan of them being ported into ninth. Adding an elite army of super armoured dudes, slightly different to chaos, but probably a little bit better does not fill me with joy.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 15:53
Sorry I should have been clearer, you called it the 'nothing you did mattered' result. Which, IMO, is patently not true as you have hammered your opponent into at least a -8 or worse result.

And yet, despite that hammering, "nothing they did mattered" as their opponent rolled snake eyes.

I think I may just be misunderstanding you.



I think the main problem for Stormcast would be models. Most armies have 10-12 different units/models aside from characters.
Stormcast have considerably less.

There are:
- Prosecutors with 2 weapon options,
- Paladins with 3 weapon options,
- Liberators with 1 weapon option,
- Judicators, with 1 weapon option,
- Celestal prime as a "monster"

Not enough to make different viable armies TBH. They would need some sort of additional model range to make them diverse. Their character range is quite good, but the core/special/rare section looks pretty empty.

The army would be composed of one or two units as Core, two units as Special, and one unit as Rare, similar to Ogre Kingdoms, and the addition of more "Goblar" units wouldn't change that, despite technically expanding the range.


Unfortunately recently in 9th developement the rules for Brutes were dropped and simply thrown in with Monstrous Infantry. This isn't actually a bad thing for the game, it's much smoother and easier without the weird little unit type made up that fits exactly one unit in one army in the game, but it would have been PERFECT for Sigmarines, allowing them a lower cost/unit.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 15:59
Expect ogres have
- 3 core options (2 ignoring gnobblars)
- 6 special choices (5 ignoring gnobblars)
- 5 rare models

14 (12) options for ogres vs 5 for Stormcast.
Those are quite a lot more models.

So while gnobblars do add some spice to ogre list, you have a ton of options without them. More than double the number of options.

Vazalaar
04-01-2016, 16:22
Hmm, I thought the 8th ed. parry, giving a simple 6+ Ward save was better and imo more elegant. Ok, it sucks for models that already have a ward save, but those are imo more rare. Now parry means that you need to hit on a 4+, before modifiers are applied. Thus a WS 5 model will only hit a WS 3 model with shield on a 4+. Imo it's a boost for WS 2 and 3 models, but a nerf for WS 5 models. Why would a WS 3 model be better with a shield than a WS 5 model?

About the Stormcast army. I made a very wip, untested and unbalanced armylist for Stormcast in 8th edition. Link is in my signature.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 16:53
The Ogres have:

Core: Two units (though it's honestly just one, as there are no special rules one unit has that the other does not, just weapon/armour upgrades)
-Ogres and Iron Guts

Special: Six units
-Leadbelchers
-Maneaters
-Mournfang Cavalry
-Sabre Tusks
-Gorger (single model unit)
-Yhetis (100% forgot these existed!)

Rare: Five units (The dual kits really help extend this range.)
-Ironblaster/Scraplauncher
-Thundertusk/Stonehorn
-Giant

For a total of 13 units (not counting Gnoblars right now). However, two of those in Core four of those in Rare are actually (effectively) dual kit units which serve similar functions, and one is a generic multi-army unit. With that considered, it's closer to 9.


The Stormcast have:

Core: One unit
-Liberators

Special: Three units
-Judicators (two unit builds, take place of Leadbelchers)
-Paladin Protectors (three unit builds, take place of Maneaters)
-Prosecutors (take place of Mornfang Cav)

Rare: One unit
-Celestant Prime

For a total of 5 units, however the Stormcast could flesh this out easily by including:

Gryph Hounds as Special choices in place of Sabre Tusks (in much the same way that Tusks were connected to Hunters previously)
Knight Venerator as Special/Rare choice of ranged single model
Knight Azeros as Special/Rare choice of ranged single model

For a total of 8 units. Include a generic multi-army monster to counter the Giant (say, a Griffon) and they are much closer together than they originally appear.


Obviously Ogres DO have a wildly bigger line, but armies entirely composed of Chaos Warriors have six units (one being dual kit) and still see play. The point being, Stormcast aren't so far off as they first appear, and at +/-50pts/model in the army and up it's still possible to see a fair amount of variation in armies, especially at the 1000-1500pt range (and with 35% allowed Lords/50% allowed heroes, a lot will likely be taken up by those choices when a Knight Vexillor as BSB and Lord Castellant as Lvl4 mage)

Ayin
04-01-2016, 17:03
Hmm, I thought the 8th ed. parry, giving a simple 6+ Ward save was better and imo more elegant. Ok, it sucks for models that already have a ward save, but those are imo more rare.

As are WS5 models with shields and without another source of Ward Save.


Now parry means that you need to hit on a 4+, before modifiers are applied. Thus a WS 5 model will only hit a WS 3 model with shield on a 4+. Imo it's a boost for WS 2 and 3 models, but a nerf for WS 5 models. Why would a WS 3 model be better with a shield than a WS 5 model?


It IS a boost for low(er) WS models. Significantly more skilled models are able to defend themselves just as well (hit on 4's) without such items (hit on 4's due to high WS), leaving them free to wield more devastating weapons. That's the end result of that mechanic in action.

And to be clear, when we are talking about high WS models that naturally occur (ie without being modified by characters/spells) we are looking at what again? Ironbreakers, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Chosen...and what else? (Seriously, I have forgotten any other examples?) Of those, the only unit that is STUCK with shields (and only shields) are Ironbreakers (who have the Dwarven Shield Wall special rule included in their entry to make up for any specific loss), and Chaos functions perfectly fine with Shields as stands. So which units exactly are examples of this being an issue?

Malagor
04-01-2016, 17:16
Well I got only myself to blame for the poor choice of words. I shouldn't have used the word "port" but rather add in.
People are a bit too focused on Stormcasts by themselves which I can admit doesn't make for a very diverse army even with the various weapon options.
What the eefl guys did wasn't just to add the angels(which is what people over at 9th age mentioned them as) but also the ones that worship said angels.
So there is plenty of room to expand. Sure it might be like OK but as a OK owner, few actually complain over the fact that our army will have mostly ogres.

Vazalaar
04-01-2016, 18:10
As are WS5 models with shields and without another source of Ward Save.



It IS a boost for low(er) WS models. Significantly more skilled models are able to defend themselves just as well (hit on 4's) without such items (hit on 4's due to high WS), leaving them free to wield more devastating weapons. That's the end result of that mechanic in action.

And to be clear, when we are talking about high WS models that naturally occur (ie without being modified by characters/spells) we are looking at what again? Ironbreakers, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Chosen...and what else? (Seriously, I have forgotten any other examples?) Of those, the only unit that is STUCK with shields (and only shields) are Ironbreakers (who have the Dwarven Shield Wall special rule included in their entry to make up for any specific loss), and Chaos functions perfectly fine with Shields as stands. So which units exactly are examples of this being an issue?


Well, as an Empire player I love the Empire of Sonnstahl list. I love the customizability! My favorite is the Reiter unit. It's the unit I always wanted for the Empire.

But it makes no sense to me that Heavy Infantry (WS 3) with shield and Imperial Guard (WS 4) with shield will each hit and be hit on 4+ ... while if it was the 8th ed. parry rule, the Imperial Guard would hit on 3+. The same problem occurs with Veteran Heavy Infantry (WS 4) would still hit and be hit on 4+ when fighting against non veteran Heavy Infantry (WS 3)... .


Edit: or that you need to roll 4+ to hit against i.e goblins with their pathetic WS 2.... . It makes goblins with shields as good as a common human with shield.. It breaks the immersion. Both are rolling 4+ to hit.... :shifty:

To me it is an unnecessary change. The old parry rule was better.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 18:28
Yeah, most OK players are fine with armies not prominently featuring Gnoblars (I'd suggest one of the big reasons for this is that part of the draw of the army is the small model count), which is partly why I don't think adding in a unit or two of massed Infantry that aren't Stormcast into the Stormcast list is going to be the solution (that and people are going to want to play Stormcast armies to play Stormcast, not to play not-Stormcast models that are available in other armies).

Like I said, I only think the Stormcast army is limited at larger points as far as unit options are concerned. At small and medium sized games, their cost/model ratio will mean it's impossible to cover every option or include every unit. Mostly i worry about their Core only including one unit (the Liberators) as any designer is likely going to want to keep their ranged units as Special choices so that they share the same space as their more Elite CC options, otherwise armies will likely only be composed of shooting Core and fighting Special (which will be inherently better point for point than their fighting Core, as with Warriors of Chaos), but actually, looking at it now with four different weapon options and shields, they are MUCH better off than Ogres are.

Just off the top of my head, with totally approximated numbers:


5 Liberators (200pts)
+ Shields
+ Weapon Options
+Champion
=240pts

(So, with a ranged unit in special being more than that)

5 Judicators
+weapon
+champion
+champion weapon
=260pts

(and with the Special CC unit being comparably priced but with more expensive upgrades)
5 Paladins
+weapon
+champion
+champion weapon
=275pts


(and with their only non-ground unit being more expensive still)
3 Prosecutors
+weapon
=195

(lead by a BSB)
Knight Vexillor
=200

and with a caster or combat hero in there, maybe a Knight Venator or his brother model to go with the flyers, and that's 1500 (maybe a magic banner or something fit in as well) with something like (+)21 models.


That's an army that's going to be VERY unforgiving points-to-rules wise.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 18:36
You have to remember that most elite units (the ones who don't gain a big advantage with the current parry rule) also have far better base armor. So a +1 to armor makes a far bigger impact on them that on no AS or AS 6+ unit.

Going from a 4+ AS to a 3+ is a far far bigger change that from no AS to 6+ or from 6+ to 5+.

So elite models get great AS and cheap models get hit on 4+. Both benefit from the rule similarly instead of one getting almost no benefit and the other a bigger one.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 18:44
Well, as an Empire player I love the Empire of Sonnstahl list. I love the customizability! My favorite is the Reiter unit. It's the unit I always wanted for the Empire.

As a guy with four units of Pistoliers and whose Dogs of War army featured three or four units of light cavalry, I entirely understand. It's not just the customization, its the knowledge that those units are useful.


But it makes no sense to me that Heavy Infantry (WS 3) with shield and Imperial Guard (WS 4) with shield will each hit and be hit on 4+ ... while if it was the 8th ed. parry rule, the Imperial Guard would hit on 3+.

They will hit each other on 4+, however keep in mind that as per the 9th Age design rules, the Heavy Infantry are paying about 10% more points for their statline than the Special choice unit due to the Core Tax design system, effectively they ARE paying more to gain more ability from the same equipment, or alternatively they are paying the cost of WS4 despite not hitting units with WS3 or less any easier.

I realize that might be confusing, but it's the total interplay of the design that creates the balance, even if a single mechanic or stat may seem off.



Edit: or that you need to roll 4+ to hit against i.e goblins with their pathetic WS 2.... . It makes goblins with shields as good as a common human with shield.. It breaks the immersion. Both are rolling 4+ to hit.... :shifty:

That's true, but both of those units hit other, non S&HW units (of WS 3 and lower) on different numbers. If your concern is that there ARE no other units with WS2-3(or 4, ie non-elite) that do not carry HW&S, then that issue is one of balance between weapon options. With Spears giving fight in extra ranks (regardless of if one charges with them or not, don't overlook this change), armour piercing (1) AND Lethal Strike against Cav/Mon Cav/Chariots, I'd say they are VASTLY better than they were in previous editions and will see more play than before.

Also remember that Ogre Ironfists are NOT shields so they won't see that benefit (a WS3 base army), and that Vampires and Tomb Kings both have abilities to innately raise their units WS, meaning their semi-elite units (or Core) will likely be armed with weapons that increase killing power as well.




To me it is an unnecessary change. The old parry rule was better.

The problem is, the old Parry rule had a huge amount of redundancy and didn't work either. Anything that granted a Ward Save (MoT notwithstanding) made it useless and making it stack with Ward simply wasn't an option, as well anything intended to counteract Ward saves had the odd effect of negating the effect of shields. As a comunity, we tend to overlook these problems because it was apparent so early on and any force that could just moved on to any weapon that added a Strength bonus.

Malagor
04-01-2016, 18:45
Actually eefl puts Liberators at 55pts per model.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 18:47
You have to remember that most elite units (the ones who don't gain a big advantage with the current parry rule) also have far better base armor. So a +1 to armor makes a far bigger impact on them that on no AS or AS 6+ unit.

Going from a 4+ AS to a 3+ is a far far bigger change that from no AS to 6+ or from 6+ to 5+.

So elite models get great AS and cheap models get hit on 4+. Both benefit from the rule similarly instead of one getting almost no benefit and the other a bigger one.

This is also true. A 6+ AS is trash, absolutely useless, no one should ever pay for it. Armour basically STARTS at 5+, where it's often considered a non-issue (as it means that, most of the time, the weakest level of attacks will fail to kill 1/6 of what it wounds), and matters at 4+ and better. A light armoured (or no armoured!!!) unit going to a 5+ (or 6+) is of extremely little importance. On the other hand, a unit going from 4+ to 3+ will actually see a change in it's surviveability.

Again, it's the same rule, but Elite units benefit more from one part of it, and Core units pay more for the other part of it.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 19:02
Actually eefl puts Liberators at 55pts per model.

It's very possible, keep on loading whatever buffs are needed to make sure they're the bestest ever and that's a reasonable number (Ogre Bull+Chaos Warrior stats + other bonuses). I'd personally try and stat them to a lower level to try and keep their cost down as they're going to be the baseline for the rest of the army, and that army needs to be playable, both as and against.

In 9th, Once Chosen (40mm monstrous infantry Chaos Warriors), who I feel it's fair to say are awfully close to the mark for Sigmarines, come in at 105pts for the base 3, and +35pts/model after that.

WS5, BS3, S4, T4, W3, I4, A3, Ld8

From there granting them their their Chosen Mark (for their innate special abilities) is +12pts/model, with Shields being +3 (or 2xHW being +4) and other weapons being up to +8 for Great Weapons. Basic Shield Liberator unit of 5 (ie Once Chosen unit) would come out to (105+36+9)+((35+12+3)x2)=350pts, or roughly 70pts/model. From there they would get a Core Tax applied and end up 75 to 80pts/model, roughly 400pts/unit without command, magic banner, ect (and only being armed with a Shield and no special weapons options).

It's fair to say that they would likely have to be significantly below the above Once Chosen if the army was going to be remotely playable. If they were instead just given powers equivalent to the basic Marks of Chaos (not the Chosen ones) they would save 7pts/model to 365, which is closer to where they would likely need to be, but still too expensive in my estimation.

Folomo
04-01-2016, 19:21
It depends a lot the stats you assign to the units.
For example, if you give them 2 wounds and attacks instead of 3 price can be far more manageable and give more space to grow the army.

Vazalaar
04-01-2016, 19:47
As a guy with four units of Pistoliers and whose Dogs of War army featured three or four units of light cavalry, I entirely understand. It's not just the customization, its the knowledge that those units are useful.

I will certainly make a Reiter unit with a heavy armour, shield and light lance. The Perry WotR Light cavalry box is perfect for this.:D

For me the biggest issue with the new parry rule is immersion. Now less trained (lower WS) units will benefit more from a shield, than a better trained warrior. This imo feels a bit ackward. I imagine that a cowardly goblin will just try to hide behind its shield, while a well trained Imperial Guard will use his shield to attack and to defend. I mean actual use it instead of cowardly hiding behind it. ;) But game wise the goblins gains much more from a shield than a trained warrior.

Ayin
04-01-2016, 23:33
It depends a lot the stats you assign to the units.
For example, if you give them 2 wounds and attacks instead of 3 price can be far more manageable and give more space to grow the army.

This is entirely true, and why I am hoping that they will bring back the Brute rule given to the Warriors Brutes (now Once Chosen), who are NOT monstrous infantry (so no stomps), make ranks 4 wide, but get more than one attack in their supporting rank. This would allow the army to be even fieldable in medium sized games. Trying to make them Chaos Warrior(+) Ogres really hurts that chance.


I will certainly make a Reiter unit with a heavy armour, shield and light lance. The Perry WotR Light cavalry box is perfect for this.:D

Excellent. I actually really want to put "Heavy" armour on my Pistoliers, just to represent the demi-plate they have (which covers nearly or as much as Greatswords!)


For me the biggest issue with the new parry rule is immersion. Now less trained (lower WS) units will benefit more from a shield, than a better trained warrior.

Consider the issue as a whole of the rules, outside of this single part.

Now less trained warriors (who are also less equipped, as less trained warriors are significantly more likely to have lighter armour and worse protection) will rely on shields as protection (as most early warrior groups did) while more trained (and better equipped) warriors rely on their armour to provide equal or greater protection, and use this surety to allow them to wield significantly more devastating weapons.

Historically, as armour improved, shields went away, because warriors often either needed both hands to wield weapons capable of breaching their foes armour, or were more sure of the protection offered by their own gear. The English Huscarls were armoured by a coat of maille that was likely longer than the rank and file troopers and because of this, though they carried shields, they fought most often with two handed axes in place the shield and spear of their fellows. The greater protection of their hauberks allowed them to use more devastating weapons.

Similarly, there is little reason for Empire Greatswords to fight with shields and less devastating hand weapons. The combination of their greater protection and better skill frees them to use much more devastating weapons and plays much more to the themeatics of the game and it's historical basis, even if mechanically they would be better off having shields.


For a unit to be both elite and better armoured (ESPECIALLY in full plate) and still choose to use a shield would be considerably more rare, and as such the option, while it may be mechanically better in some specific way and matchup on the tabletop, is not pushed heavily (though still available for those who wish to use it). Specific Fantastic iconic units with such armaments that exist (Ironbreakers) benefit from additional special rules either from their unit or faction that makes this build viable.

Balance and feel are really created through the combination of many factors in the game. Charging no longer giving units the ability to go first was seen as immersion breaking/unrealistic, but it allowed armies with higher Initiatives (like Elves) to be able to fight up to the potential they should have from the background, even though, when looked at singly, it means a single elf with hand weapons strikes before a Brettonian Knight's lance can hit him.

Vazalaar
05-01-2016, 08:16
@Ayin,

Enyojable read! I now look different against the new parry rule, it even makes sense now:D.

Ayin
05-01-2016, 20:24
Don't get me wrong, I ALSO actually really liked the rule previously where everyone benefited from the using a shield with the same rules (-1 to hit) as I felt it made great sense and liked the idea a lot, but when i considered it mechanically (after reading the opinions and stat break downs of those who were directly involved in the process) I saw that it just wasn't going to work.

The current system DOES seem strange, it works oddly and, mechanically, it doesn't make sense that less skilled troops are MORE skilled at shield fighting, but due to the mechanical basis of Warhammer (specifically the WS system of max 2+/5+ with 5+ coming at ((enemyWSx2)+1)=5+) and the limitations of a dice with 6 sides, I can't argue that this isn't the best mechanical solution, and upon considering it as a whole, I find that, for me, it also works to encourage the thematic concept that I prefer.


I should also note that I am STILL not sure on whether I want to give my 9th Age Chosen unit HW+S or 2xHW, so to me the argument isn't about the top level guys not getting enough bonus, but about whether or not the bottom level guys are getting to high of a bonus.

ewar
06-01-2016, 11:18
I should also note that I am STILL not sure on whether I want to give my 9th Age Chosen unit HW+S or 2xHW, so to me the argument isn't about the top level guys not getting enough bonus, but about whether or not the bottom level guys are getting to high of a bonus.

Not sure I get this, isn't the extra hand weapon going to be better in almost every circumstance? You will rarely benefit from parry, the extra pip of armour isn't huge, and if you run mark of khorne you'll be getting decent force multipliers with their strength boost.

I think the current parry rule would tend to make the HW&S choice a little redundant for elites (not dissimilar to how it has always been right?)

Folomo
06-01-2016, 13:59
Not sure I get this, isn't the extra hand weapon going to be better in almost every circumstance? You will rarely benefit from parry, the extra pip of armour isn't huge, and if you run mark of khorne you'll be getting decent force multipliers with their strength boost.

I think the current parry rule would tend to make the HW&S choice a little redundant for elites (not dissimilar to how it has always been right?)

IME, the difference between AS 3+ and 4+ is pretty big IME.
And while the AHW is good, only the first row of models benefit from it.
The mark will probably define what weapon is better, but there has been no mention of a decision on it yet.

Ayin
06-01-2016, 14:22
Not sure I get this, isn't the extra hand weapon going to be better in almost every circumstance? You will rarely benefit from parry, the extra pip of armour isn't huge, and if you run mark of khorne you'll be getting decent force multipliers with their strength boost.

I think the current parry rule would tend to make the HW&S choice a little redundant for elites (not dissimilar to how it has always been right?)

It's interesting, because the rank and file Khorne Warriors will still underperform with 2xHW. The extra attack will be wasted on the second rank (which the base two attacks will NOT be if accompanied by a character) and the extra point of Initiative, bringing them up to 5 (as Chaos got an across the board drop by 1, which I fully support), is not extremely helpful. In that case (and considering you are ALREADY going to be giving your unit Shields more often than not), simply leaving them with the shields saves some real points (2pts/model), hardly drops their effectiveness as much as it did:

(with 2 ranks of 6)
-the unit starts off with 18 attacks

-24 if given 2xHW

-24 if the unit is accompanied by a character (but not included in attacks)

-30 if given 2xHW and the unit is accompanied by a character

-24 in 8th with 2xHW

So, in 9th, the unit with 2xHW has the same number of attacks it had in 8th (because of Frenzy), which was never considered to be a great option. It's clearly better now, with +1 to hit, but perhaps not significantly so.


With Chosen, the +1S from the Mark REALLY makes non-strength modifying weapons an option. Chosen are FAR more likely to be fielded with Character support than Warriors, meaning they will much more often benefit from the second supporting attack, bringing them (in our above example) to the 24 number to start with. From 18 to 24 (a 30% jump?) is a lot more impactful than from 24 to 30. In exchange, the unit gets the increased protection from Shields in combat, giving it a 3+ save which has the potential of really saving a few models (and expensive models they are!).

The question I suppose comes down to: will going from 24 to 30 attacks and from I5 to I6 give your unit more protection from counter attacks than staying at 24 and going from a 4+ to a 3+ save? An additional question is can you rely on your unit to protect your character from counter-attacks through it's killing power.

I'd argue that against armies where you wouldn't have stuck first without the I6, the 2xHW are the better choice, and against armies where you would have anyways, the extra armour is an equally good choice. The 2xHW is probably the better choice overall, but it should be, because you're paying extra points for it.


Also, instead of the 36pts for the 2xHW, 25pts gives the unit the Banner of Fury, giving them their Frenzy back and replacing any lost attacks. Or you could give the unit with 2xHW the Fury Banner (36 attacks S5 hit on 2+ attacks...).

ewar
06-01-2016, 14:23
Don't forget there is a lot of AP in the game now, with all spears getting it and almost whole factions coming with it (DE, WE etc) so personally I think I'd almost always go for AHW, especially in conjunction with any strength boosting magic etc. You're also not then 'paying' for wasted parry rule in many situations.

But I haven't played WoC in 15 years so don't take my words as gospel :)


EDIT
@Ayin

I would always go for mode damage over moderately improved protection. If you're being hit with S5 AP, or S6 your warriors have 6+ save (HW&S) to no save, but instead likely strike first/at same time with more damage.

Yes, the % increase from 24 to 30 isn't as much. But in this game IME more damage is always better in any situation, even if the incremental growth isn't as strong. So I would add Fury to them to go to 36 attacks personally and then look at any other ways to add attacks/strength.

You might lose more models in round 1, but if your first round of attacks is so completely devastating that the enemy either flees in first round or is wiped out by your second round attacks then those points were well worth it and your unit will likely have lost fewer models than being in a longer, more protracted combat with a better save.

Ayin
06-01-2016, 14:38
IME, the difference between AS 3+ and 4+ is pretty big IME.
And while the AHW is good, only the first row of models benefit from it.
The mark will probably define what weapon is better, but there has been no mention of a decision on it yet.

In regards to Chosen,

- Wrath(Khorne) will do better with 2xHW and Halberds, depending on if you are planning on going against T3 Infantry or T4/Cavalry.
- Change(Tzeentch) will do better with whatever weapon is statistically the best on unmodified Chaos models (so likely Halberds)
- Pestilence(Nurgle) is the rare chance to run Great Weapons, as the loss of Initiative and the striking last that opens them up for harm is well countered by the +1T and the 1WS of attacking models (essentially you can shrug off more damage and hit back harder because of it), alternatively giving them Shields makes them a wall (but does nothing to help their killing power, as their Mark doesn't help here either, unlike Wrath)
-Lust(Slaanesh) will do better with whatever weapon is statistically the best on unmodified Chaos models (so likely Halberds), with Great Weapons being less effective as the S6 is unlikely to


In regards to normal Warriors, Halberds will probably remain the preferred weapons, but the drop of Initiative from 5 to 4 makes Great Weapons a much more attractive option (as you lose less to field them).

Ayin
06-01-2016, 14:54
Don't forget there is a lot of AP in the game now, with all spears getting it and almost whole factions coming with it (DE, WE etc) so personally I think I'd almost always go for AHW, especially in conjunction with any strength boosting magic etc. You're also not then 'paying' for wasted parry rule in many situations.

But I haven't played WoC in 15 years so don't take my words as gospel :)


No worries! I have basically NO experience with 9th yet so I'm just excitedly theory-hammering away and then re-guessing my second guesses! I'm legitimately more excited reading these army rules than I have been since 6th edition, so if my responses are rambling or even end up countering the point I was trying to make, it's because I'm just as lost and learning as everyone else!


The addition of AP to Spears (which are mostly possess by S3 armies) to me is a good reason to look towards additional protection. Knowing you're going to kill, say, 20 goblins, skaven, skeletons or humans out of 45/50 means you know you're going to be taking attacks back, and especially if those are higher number (because spears) AP attacks back, you are going to want to conserve as many of your troops as possible for later rounds and other combats. Winning instead by 16 kills and hopefully losing one less model will not give your opponent any less modifier to break (but it could allow them to remain Steadfast).



EDIT
@Ayin

I would always go for mode damage over moderately improved protection. If you're being hit with S5 AP, or S6 your warriors have 6+ save (HW&S) to no save, but instead likely strike first/at same time with more damage.

Yes, the % increase from 24 to 30 isn't as much. But in this game IME more damage is always better in any situation, even if the incremental growth isn't as strong. So I would add Fury to them to go to 36 attacks personally and then look at any other ways to add attacks/strength.

You might lose more models in round 1, but if your first round of attacks is so completely devastating that the enemy either flees in first round or is wiped out by your second round attacks then those points were well worth it and your unit will likely have lost fewer models than being in a longer, more protracted combat with a better save.


MOST of the time I agree to go with damage over protection, which we see when Core Dwarves are allowed Greatweapons, or when in 8th Halberds were the default better choice for Empire troops over HW&S, even including the HW&S troops better WS, but I think there MAY be a tipping point, where 2-4 more kills will not put a unit in a better position but 1-2 saved models could be huge. I think this is especially going to be true when the unit is very small, with Chosen run in units of 12, for example, for the maximum damage to cost ratio (as Chosen actually don't stack up very well point for point with other armies elite combat units).

Malagor
07-01-2016, 00:57
Played a 3000pts game with Ogre Khans vs Wood Elves today.
Overall, the OK book is another keeper, I loved the big names.
My Great Khan was a war collector so he got a plate armor and weapon master(but with a magic weapon this matter much), my great shaman was rottenjaw which is a wonderful name, poison attack is always great and having the ability to give your unit this for 1 round is quite powerful even tho I used it on my 11 ogre block of Tribesmen with heavy armor and iron fist(awesome, love ironfists) but sadly didnt cause a single poison wound despite so many attacks.
BSB got headhunter but he never wounded anything.

Overall the army worked well and just like before even tho I do miss Ogre charge, it added a bit of excitement to the charge.
Also I still hate Wood Elves, I hate them soo much.

Ayin
07-01-2016, 03:43
Did you struggle from having (I assume) comparatively few units and not a lot of chaff or cavalry style units to catch the Wood Elves? I always wonder how Ogres vs WE is going to go, whether the M6 and wide frontage allows OK players to run them down or whether having so much concentrated in so few units means the WE can just dance around them.

Malagor
07-01-2016, 12:57
Well the wood elf player played it differently.
In 8e yes, if you faced wood elves you would get the dance of death which made for very boring games and huge amount of BS and yes, Ogres had problems with the dance of death.
In 8e, if I was lucky I could catch a unit and pulverize it but most of the time I would get shoot at with poison arrows and getting flanked by wild rider who would butcher everything.
But he was playing aggressive, with dryads, Avatar of Nature, forest guardians, wild huntsmen(of course) so very melee based.
Now when I saw that list, I thought "sweet, I got this then, puny elves is no match for big bad ogres in close combat and I might actually win against wood elves." but nope, I was wrong, so very very wrong.
Dryads are brutal but not over the top, you can deal with them even with their S5 attacks and I was happy to see them but wild riders(or wild huntsmen) are still BS.
Yes they are still a glass-cannon but as I'm also a Bretonnia player and we would kill to have that kind of charge power. We have to take huge units in order to do what 5 of these guys do.
And it's just so weird because I have read the explanation of why they are nerfing Bretonnia so hard and that it's because they don't want them to destroy units on the charge anymore and yet they got a cheaper and faster unit that does exactly that still remaining in the game.
I don't know but maybe change is so that they do need support(like Bretonnia) in order to pull it off. Everyone else with cavalry has learned to do that so it seemed off when the 8e book hit that they can wreck units without any support and that they can still can even tho the team have stated that they want to move away from it.
For 30 pts they are still too cheap for what they do.

Other then that he got lucky with his magic phase and I didn't so it was a uphill battle just from that.

ewar
07-01-2016, 15:40
As a wood elf player in have to say I think you're overstating good they are. Yes they hit like a tonne of bricks, but they are also t3 with virtually no save. I lost a unit of 7 in my last game to bring rear charged by a single dragon prince! Even the most derisory shooting can really hurt them, plus they lost vanguard and other fast cav rules (but kept free reform).

They're a good unit, but nowhere near as dominating as you're saying. I think the s5 dryads are much more heinous. 40 of those with hatred and a 5++, maybe with life or beasts buffs... Not much in the game can deal with that.

Malagor
07-01-2016, 15:56
Well my opponent had 35 I think and I could deal with that. They went toe to toe with my tribesmen for 4 rounds and I was winning every combat but as I said, due to good magic phase for him and bad for me, he could heal them up.
I take the dryads any day over the huntsmen, easily.

Skargit Crookfang
07-01-2016, 17:17
Okay, fair warning, this may be long...rambly.. and a tad all over the place, you have been warned.

I've been playing loads of 9th Age since the project began. Even more than I've ever played WHFB... I love the project that much. Honestly, despite my love of Goblins, I've barely touched my little greenies in this edition. Which is a tad sad, I suppose, as I've been working as Army Support for O&G intermittently. The reason? my goblins just don't feel the way I want them to in 9th. But that isn't a bad thing... in fact, 9th has made a variety of previously lousy combinations (Orc heavy, all SO...etc.) extremely viable. I'm a minor casualty in all of this, and I am fine with it.

The two armies I've been focusing on are as follows (with basic lists given):
Daemon Legions
Great Deceiver
Harbinger of Wrath BSB
Harbinger of Lust on steed with Whip gift

Block of Bloodshedders (always with the Speed Banner)
Small block of Horrors

Doombringers (juggers)
Seeker Cav.
Daemon Engine
Charmers of Lust

It's a very, very fast army.


Warriors of the Dark Gods
Disc Lord
Disc Sorcerer Lord
Mounted BSB of Chnage

3 Chariots of Lust
2 Barb Cav units

2 Knights units

Chimera
Crushers
Hellstriders

Again, very fast... not a rank to be seen...

I've had good outcomes with my Demons and positively fantastic outcomes with my Warriors. I, personally, believe that tactical play has begun to reign supreme in this edition. While it's completely fine to line up and have a go at one another, the MSU style of play is not nearly as cursed or under powered as it had begun to become in some segments of 8th.

Some reasons for this:

Objectives (primary and secondary)
Greater emphasis on flank and rear charges
More tactical magic phase (smaller spells feel more worthwhile than before)
Lore of Change feels much, much more deadly now. (Hellfire replacing Warpflame <3)
Auto-include has gone the way of the dodo for many (not all) lists
Massed infantry can be systematically picked apart - maneuverability is the key to this game


All in all, I really recommend trying this game out with a fresh set of eyes. By that, I mean I would really encourage you to try lists (or whole armies) you have never touched on before. The balancing and overall changes have massively changed the complexion of the game; while the rules are not different enough to call it a whole new game, the changes in the army lists, and minor rules changes (including deployment!) have altered the landscape, and the old faithfuls now feel a tad rusty.

I'll add more to this when I think of something else I would like to convey, and I will be having bat reps (hopefully with full videos!) coming in the near future.

As always, if anyone's in the Halifax area, send me a message- we're allowed by a CERTAIN COMPANY'S STORE to play Ninth Age, as long as we use GW minis... and, hell, I have a home setup anyways with loads of terrain.

All the best!

Ayin
07-01-2016, 19:24
But he was playing aggressive, with dryads, Avatar of Nature, forest guardians, wild huntsmen(of course) so very melee based.

It's good to see a different type of list. And also to see some Dryads! There's a unit to add to the list that I'm glad wasn't left to flounder in the state it was in during 8th.


As a wood elf player in have to say I think you're overstating good they are. Yes they hit like a tonne of bricks, but they are also t3 with virtually no save. I lost a unit of 7 in my last game to bring rear charged by a single dragon prince! Even the most derisory shooting can really hurt them, plus they lost vanguard and other fast cav rules (but kept free reform).


T3 5++ with a 5+ armour?

Malagor
07-01-2016, 20:19
T3 5++ with a 5+ armour?
4+ armor actually, they can buy a shield which everyone does.

Ayin
07-01-2016, 21:42
4+ armor actually, they can buy a shield which everyone does.

Makes sense. So volume of BS fire to wipe them.


Which of course Ogres are going to somewhat struggle with (though not nearly as much as Warriors!)

Malagor
07-01-2016, 21:55
Makes sense. So volume of BS fire to wipe them.


Which of course Ogres are going to somewhat struggle with (though not nearly as much as Warriors!)
Well I will admit that I did do a bit of a target miss with my 8 leadbelchers.
He had a shapeshifter and since I didn't know what the hell that was but he sounded nasty, I figured I should focus my first round on trying to bring him down with the leadbelchers, didn't do that well.
Second round I fired on 1 of his units of huntsmen, hit poorly, wounded even more so, he passed his ward saves. They then took a full on charge to the front fron huntsmen, he killed like 3 of my leadbelchers, I killed two of his, he won, I ran, I got run over.
Maybe if I had tried to shoot at the huntsmen I might have destroyed one of them but I heard that they had been nerfed and the shapeshifter sounded nasty so the natural conclusion is to go after the new thing but huntsmen are still insane and the shapeshifter didn't do much overall.

Ayin
07-01-2016, 22:53
Live and learn I guess. It sounds like I'm still going to have a heck of time trying to fight them with my Warriors, especially as I refuse to not field infantry.

Malagor
07-01-2016, 23:08
Chaos warriors might if they got a shield. They got the armor, WS and with the parry rule you will remove their +1 to hit so they might actually annoy the huntsmen and even win the combat, removing their frenzy and start the grind in which the huntsmen will lose.
Only trick is to get them to charge your front and doubt anyone would be that foolish.
Ogres don't have that luxury of being that scary, big as they are.

Ayin
07-01-2016, 23:35
Pretty sure the current Parry rule is that the best a model can hit a S&HW armed troop on (using WS) is 4+, BEFORE modifiers. If I'm wrong feel free to correct me.

If they charge the FRONT of a warrior block i'm not concerned at the outcome. I'm hitting on 3's (with Mark of Wrath) and wounding on 2's with enough attacks from even a single rank (12) that the charge seems like it would at best mutually wreck us both. It's that exposed flank that's a problem. With Hounds being my main flak and them having both great movement and great firepower I don't see those doing much (and my own fast cav would likely just be free points to them), and without anything to threaten to shoot back with... It's gonna be a tough battle.

Maybe it'll give me an excuse to put that 40 man unit of Warriors with two characters on the board and just see what happens...

Malagor
07-01-2016, 23:47
Ah yes, true. It does say before any modifier. So they will be hitting you on 3's no matter what.

ewar
08-01-2016, 00:36
Huntsmen are 4+/6++, so the ward save is next to useless unless you invest in a character with at least MR2.

As for ogres, yes that was a definite mistake in target priority - huntsmen should be number 1 target for leadbelchers for sure. Still, live and learn! :)

Ayin
08-01-2016, 00:47
Ah yes, true. It does say before any modifier. So they will be hitting you on 3's no matter what.

Yeah, 3's as they're WS5 themselves. At I6 they're going first as well (even with 2xHW on warriors) Against Chosen with 2xHW they're going at the same time, 3 attacks each, Riders hit on 3's, chosen on 2's, Riders wound on 3's, chosen on 2's, Chosen get 6+, riders get 6++, so mutual destruction, but of course the riders choose who they fight, which is what makes the problem against minimal shooting armies.


Have you thought of including any Scraplings (Gnoblars) in your army? A unit with shortbows might be helpful to cripple those glass cannon units and protect a flank with Steadfast and such.

Malagor
08-01-2016, 00:57
Don't actually own any gnoblars. Rather just put more tribesmen on the field since they are one of the more pleasant changes to the OK army in 9th Age.

Ayin
08-01-2016, 01:16
Ha! Yeah, I don't actually think I know ANY Ogre players who still own (or ever did own) Gnoblars. They want to play OGRES. That's why they PLAY Ogres.

Back when I was considering starting OK I wanted to include Gnoblars because I figured they offered real tactical benefits (cheap, ranks, ect) until I realized how badly they actually worked in the army. Now that there's real work to try and make them useful, maybe players will take a second look at them, but I still wouldn't be shocked if they're mostly ignored (all they really do is make Ogres a MORE O&G force, with bigger Orcs and smaller Goblins).

Malagor
08-01-2016, 01:26
Well my first OK army(I had to sell that army since I needed the money but always regretted it so I started them up again later once things had settled down on the money front) I usually had a unit of 10 gnoblar trappers since they were cheap and a annoying roadblock for horde armies.
But they are really are a beginners trap. If it's your first time facing a OK army, the trappers will probably get you. If you faced them before, they are no threat.
In 9th age and in this match against the woodies, it wouldn't have helped since the only terrain we had was buildings and forests and woodies are forest striders it doesn't matter if I make the forests dangerous terrain since they just ignore it, infact, the woodies made all the forests dangerous terrain for me.

Ayin
08-01-2016, 01:48
Yeah, the trappers are very gimmick, and after reading the 9th Age ones they aren't any less so, just different.

Malagor
21-01-2016, 15:15
Had another match yesterday, 3000pts with my beastmen lead by a minotaur vs a terracotta undying dynasty army.
It was a very close fight but the undead barely managed to take the victory in the end. A fun and even match.
The Jabberslythe again prove to be useful for his points, he is cheap, he flies and not a complete disaster in melee.
My Cyclops actually did alright as well this time, didn't misfire once and even managed to take out a sphinx, awesome.
My drunken giant however didn't survive round 1.
Star of the monsters however was the Ghorgon, unlike my first match he actually managed to get into close combat this time and that he regains a wound every time he does a wound with his lethal strike makes him a solid choice.
Other then that my minotaurs didn't do that well since I couldn't get my spells that I wanted on them but the minotaur lord is still good even tho I would argue that a beastlord is a better choice for a general then a minotaur.
If not for the LD boost but due to his ability to improve the ambushing. And it's not like the beastlord is horrible in close combat, in fact it's quite opposite.
Longhorns with Halberds are great.
A unit of 3 chariots are great, their charge power is awesome and the fact that they can ignore forests is awesome.
Totems still didn't work.

As for the terracotta army, the prospect of facing T4 skeletons were scary at first and -1 to crumble but being more expensive and the inability to raise them up again(atleast not in decent numbers) is a nice balance.
Especially if you like me managed to shut down his magic phase over and over again, leaving his skeletons to the brutal grind that beastmen do alot better then them.

Ayin
21-01-2016, 15:52
Very interesting to hear about a game played against one of the first "Appendix" armies in the Terracotta legion of the Undying Dynasties.

What is it about the Totems you're not a fan of?

Malagor
21-01-2016, 15:57
Well they cost points and being bound spells they are not that good. You don't want to waste power dices(especially when having such lovely lores as nature or wilderness) and yet you can't one-dice them.
Should you focus on getting them off then well the opponent can dispel them so easily.
Just not worth it right now.

ewar
22-01-2016, 17:09
Right, I'm going to the Cardiff 9th Age tourney in the middle of Feb and have been coming up with lists for my sylvan elves. Does anyone want to comment? I am completely restricted on core (with the point drops I can barely reach 25% with the models I have so that is inflexible). Anyway, would appreciate any and all comments. I have practice games next weekend against Highborn and Dark elves, will come back with thoughts after that.

Game Size 2400
Total Remaining 2399

Lord Avatar of Nature 225 320
Avatar upgrade 70
Aspect of the clinging vine 25

Lord Treefather Ancient 225 395
Level 3 mage Wilderness 135
Dispel scroll 35

Hero Chieftain 70 108
BSB 25
Great weapon 8
Longbow 2
Perforating shot 3

Core 10 Sylvan Archers 90 120
Musician 10
Black arrows 20

Core 10 Sylvan Archers 90 120
Musician 10
Black arrows 20

Core 10 Sylvan Archers 90 120
Musician 10
Black arrows 20

Core 10 Sylvan Archers 90 120
Musician 10
Black arrows 20

Core 7 Heath Riders 126 126

Special 10 Blade Dancers 140 140

Special 10 Wild Hunstmen 300 330
Shields 30

Special Great eagle 50 50

Special Great eagle 50 50

Rare 9 Pathfinders 180 180

Rare Treefather 220 220

Malagor
22-01-2016, 23:36
Bloody huntsman I say :p

ewar
23-01-2016, 09:11
Bloody huntsman I say :p

Haha just think, it's only one unit. Might split into 2 of 5 if 10 is too unwieldy

tmarichards
23-01-2016, 18:14
I think you may be using an outdated version of the list; Black Arrows are now 3pts per model.

Overall it looks pretty reasonable, there are a few changes I would suggest though. The biggest is with regards to the Treefather Ancient who I would swap out for a level 4 on foot. You still get the magic capability and those points become much easier to hide. Realistically the Ancient will not add a great deal in terms of combat power, and is very expensive.

If you do go for the level 4 on foot, combining 2 units of archers would give you a reasonable bunker as well as a Ld 10 bubble.

10 Huntsmen in one unit quite a lot of points in one place that is very fragile and frenzied, and won't add that much value over 2 units of 5 or a smaller unit of 7 because of the frontage. Depending on how well they work for you they could instead become a 3rd Treefather especially if there are a lot of magic missiles and shooting heavy lists floating around.

Hail Shot on the BSB is nice if you can find the extra points, but I wouldn't give him anything else unless you have <13pts spare.

doyouevenrealisebro?
23-01-2016, 18:19
I think it's a good list. Loving the triple tree man. My only comment would be to maybe split up the huntsmen into 2 units since it gives you more maneuvaribility. But this might give you a lack of a juicy combat block.

ewar
26-01-2016, 00:34
I think you may be using an outdated version of the list; Black Arrows are now 3pts per model.

Overall it looks pretty reasonable, there are a few changes I would suggest though. The biggest is with regards to the Treefather Ancient who I would swap out for a level 4 on foot. You still get the magic capability and those points become much easier to hide. Realistically the Ancient will not add a great deal in terms of combat power, and is very expensive.

If you do go for the level 4 on foot, combining 2 units of archers would give you a reasonable bunker as well as a Ld 10 bubble.

10 Huntsmen in one unit quite a lot of points in one place that is very fragile and frenzied, and won't add that much value over 2 units of 5 or a smaller unit of 7 because of the frontage. Depending on how well they work for you they could instead become a 3rd Treefather especially if there are a lot of magic missiles and shooting heavy lists floating around.

Hail Shot on the BSB is nice if you can find the extra points, but I wouldn't give him anything else unless you have <13pts spare.

Wow, bit of a blast from the past - are you back into WFB with the release of 9th age. I thought you had switched to the dark side of WMH?

You raise lots of good points. I know the Ancient is objectively a bit worse than a level 4 but my thinking behind choosing him is: slightly more interesting to play with, better looking and he presents a good alternative target to the opposition to draw some fire away from the Avatar (who plays a pretty key combat role in this list). Plus, having 3 strangle roots is actually quite a fearsome shooting attack from the triple treemen. I've been pondering running Nature instead as the 'forest' spell synergises nicely with this. 3D6+6 S5 shots which are all generally going to hit on 2s and 3s is nothing to be sniffed at.

Plus, overall, I've found in my games of 9th that a pure level 4 is actually quite a poor return on points. Diminished spell power, less PD generation, generally harder to cast spells and increased magic defence abilities mean that actually I've found magic to be ok, but quite underwhelming.

Regarding the 20 man bunker - do you have much success with this? I've found going as MSU as possible for the multiple flees or just presenting lots of inconsequential targets to be a bit better. When I ran a bunker for my level 4 and BSB I found something would always get through and get all those points.

EDIT: good spot on the arrows, I didn't see that they'd bumped up in price when the unit cost came down. Have switched out all musicians at the moment (bit of a loss, will consider it more).


I think it's a good list. Loving the triple tree man. My only comment would be to maybe split up the huntsmen into 2 units since it gives you more maneuvaribility. But this might give you a lack of a juicy combat block.

Thanks for the feedback. Yes, I have always run them as 2x5 for the mobility. But as this list has quite a lot of units on the table, I thought it may be more practical to run one of 10 (to absorb a couple of casualties). Plan is then to shoot, shoot, shoot, block enemy units with the treemen and counter charge with Huntsmen and Blade Dancers.

noneshallpass!
26-01-2016, 12:22
I agree on the points made regarding the Wild Huntsmen and the Ancient, but I do like your list.

In relativly cheap units of fives, Wild Huntsmen can be used to go in and soften a target before the big trees go in. This might be easier to pull off than the countercharge.

If you find the Ancient more interesting, I'd say that carries some weight. Under the current rules, I think the Sylvan Elves can afford to make such a choice. At the moment, multiple level 2's seems quite good compared to one level 4. I spread mine out between units of 10 Archers and Sentinels.

I enjoy the Wood Elves at the moment. Haven't had such ability to advance and attack since 7th.

ewar
26-01-2016, 15:27
Thanks for the comments - have revised the list somewhat, at the moment still keeping the huntsmen in 10, but will run 7 wide in the front to maximise their damage output.

EDIT I put a load of rubbish in here, turns out the 'Pathmaster' rule isn't the same as the old 'Loremaster' :)

Ayin
27-01-2016, 01:08
Reform them as necessary to get that frontage, and remember to switch it up on deployment as well!