PDA

View Full Version : A poll of Warhammer players - have you tried The 9th Age yet?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

ewar
26-04-2016, 09:16
EDIT as about 20 people have pointed out, the poll isn't working, for reasons which are beyond me. I'm not going to set up a new thread, but feel free to add comments on how you would have voted below. Thanks :)

Myself and my gaming group have been having an absolute blast playing T9A since about December last year. It has completely reinvigorated our war gaming, to the almost complete exclusion of all other games - we're talking all the time about new army lists, character builds, new play styles for our armies and so on. I've found it very reminiscent of the late '90s; with the excitement of a new edition and all the new army books completely jumbling up the old order.

What I find puzzling though is that there are some fans of Warhammer who don't seem to want to try it or play it. I would have thought that if you were a fan of Warhammer pre the Great Catastrophe of 2015, that this would have been the perfect game. I know many have switched to KoW, AoS etc instead.

So, out of interest, I thought I'd ask the community here (who are presumably fans of the Warhammer game as it was) what level of interest has been shown in 9th and whether you liked it/didn't like it?

Now that the beta version is closed and we have a stable edition for at least 6 months, I think it's an ideal time for people who were on the fence to give it a go.

Zywus
26-04-2016, 09:47
I've skimmed through the rules and it's probably better than any of the previous WHFB editions. (the early ones are very different games so maybe a straight comparison is not really valid)

I don't see myself picking it up over KoW though.

IMO, 9th age is for you if you enjoyed WHFB because of the fiddly bits*. KoW is for you if you enjoyed WHFB despite the fiddly bits.


*(things like magic item combos, differences in rules if your character is armed with a sword or a mace, adding/removing single models from a unit and theorizing if you want to run that orc unit 6 or 7 models wide)

I'm among the latter group, but I do wish 9th Age all the best.



Oh, and this poll doesn't work. It seems like the forum can't handle polls at all for some reasons these days.

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 09:51
Can't vote. It says "poll closed".

But sure. 9th age is the main game at our group with a bit of KoW on the side.

Drakkar du Chaos
26-04-2016, 09:52
Create another thread and check "poll date limit" in the options, that's the reason why this one is closed.

Tokamak
26-04-2016, 10:10
I don't intend to. Too much micro-management and too much fixing of what isn't broken.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 10:12
Nope, and I don't intend to. There's plenty of stuff they've done I don't like, I'm not going to make a list but some are just a deal-breaker for me.
I'm content enough with 8th ed, and whatever we don't like we houserule.
There, you have your explanation for one guy who likes the Old World and won't touch 9th age.
Now I'll turn the question back to you: why would I care about 9th age if it's the lore that is important to me? It's not Warhammer lore anymore. You may think the rules superior, but using one's love for the Old World's lore as a reason to play 9th age is beyond me.

veterannoob
26-04-2016, 10:23
If I could vote it would say no and intend to do so eventually when the situation presents itself. Though admittedly I'm having a blast playing AoS now and am not really interested to play 9th.
The local event had 9th Age and AoS and both had the same amount of players I believe, +/- one. It's amazing...they can play in the same room, have nothing but great times and check each other's armies and games out to enjoy them.;)

I would only try 9th with someone I trusted to be a good opponent or with guys from the national tournament scene back home, to ensure I had a good accurate first impression. But if I ever played it at a mixed event I ope my experience would be like that of the recent event.

ewar
26-04-2016, 10:26
Create another thread and check "poll date limit" in the options, that's the reason why this one is closed.

I've done plenty of polls before and this one was no different, entered '0' in poll date limit and its still messed up - I think it's something with the forum?


I don't intend to. Too much micro-management and too much fixing of what isn't broken.

Out of interest, was the micromanagement something that bothered you with previous editions? As that hasn't changed at all. IME, gamers will tend to look at one army book, see some of the changes and say it's not for them, but if you try a couple of games you get a feel for the changes to all armies in context between them and the core rules.

Just saying that it's worth giving it a go as it's free, I don't think I've come across a single player who tried it and didn't like it, despite some doubters. The magic phase for instance is just great now and you see armies running every different type of mage from zero magic through to multiple level 2 or 4 mages.



There, you have your explanation for one guy who likes the Old World and won't touch 9th age.
Now I'll turn the question back to you: why would I care about 9th age if it's the lore that is important to me? It's not Warhammer lore anymore. You may think the rules superior, but using one's love for the Old World's lore as a reason to play 9th age is beyond me.

I adore the old world lore. The fact that the army is badged 'Syvlan Elves' instead of 'Wood Elves' is not really a deal breaker IMO - and I find it baffling that playing with any of 8 different editions of the rules would give you a 'lore reason' to play, but playing with a 9th edition that is basically 8.5 with some altered names would prevent you from doing so? Very strange.

But of course, it's interesting to hear your point of view, it's not one I would have even considered.

Zywus
26-04-2016, 10:30
Now I'll turn the question back to you: why would I care about 9th age if it's the lore that is important to me? It's not Warhammer lore anymore. You may think the rules superior, but using one's love for the Old World's lore as a reason to play 9th age is beyond me.
Not directed to me obviously but I assume players of 9th age in general feels like they are playing battles in the old world.

Just like people felt/feel they were/are still playing battles in the old world, and immersed in the Warhammer lore when they were/are playing battles of house-ruled 8th.
Is there really any principal difference between 9th age and a house-ruled 8th edition?
I think 9th age could indeed be described as a heavily house-ruled 8th ed (in practice if not theory). It's simply a lot more changed than what have usually been the case by fan-made modifications.

Maccwar
26-04-2016, 10:33
IMO, 9th age is for you if you enjoyed WHFB because of the fiddly bits*. KoW is for you if you enjoyed WHFB despite the fiddly bits.

^this.

People have some nice things to say about 9th age but having been a KoW player for some time 8th and games based on it have lost their appeal as they seem bogged down by minutiae in a way that KoW isn't. Of course some people love those little details but I now prefer a more streamlined game which plays quicker and still gives me my ranked fantasy fix.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 10:38
Is there really any principal difference between 9th age and a house-ruled 8th edition?

A huge one: houserules are made and adapted to the tastes of the players who made them. 9th age are houserules that we (my group) didn't chose based on what we like. And as a matter of fact, there's plenty of stuff in there I don't like. Since I'm unlikely to play someone from the other side of the world, I have no need for a set of rules that is accepted worldwide, I only need it to work with my group of players. So I don't need to lock myself with someone else's set of rules, someone who has a different mindset on the game.


I adore the old world lore. The fact that the army is badged 'Syvlan Elves' instead of 'Wood Elves' is not really a deal breaker IMO - and I find it baffling that playing with any of 8 different editions of the rules would give you a 'lore reason' to play, but playing with a 9th edition that is basically 8.5 with some altered names would prevent you from doing so? Very strange.

Fair enough. Then why wouldn't this argument apply to 8th, or AoS, or KoW? Someone can very well play AoS and say his battles are in the Old World. It's not something that works only with 9th Age.

Zywus
26-04-2016, 10:46
A huge one: houserules are made and adapted to the tastes of the players who made them. 9th age are houserules that we (my group) didn't chose based on what we like. And as a matter of fact, there's plenty of stuff in there I don't like. SInce I'm unlikely to play someone from the other side of the world, I have no need for a set of rules that is accepted wordlwide, I only need it to work with my group of players. SO I don't need to lock myself with someone else's set of rules, someone who has a different mindset on the game.
But you could just as easily house-rule 9th age to better suit your taste. You weren't locked to someone (GW) who has a different mindset on the game when you made houserules for 8th edition, so why should you be locked to what the 9th age crew has designed?

If you think out of the box 8th edition is a better base than 9th age, that's of course a valid preference, but to me, it seems like a no-brainer to use 9th age as a base for gaming for anyone who enjoy those rules more than unmodified 8th edition. (For example there seems to be a lot less units that are obviously inferior choices in 9th age, so that's less houseruling needed or less instances of people feeling they've handicapped themselves for bringing models they like the look of but have sub-par rules).

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 10:55
Fair enough. Then why wouldn't this argument apply to 8th, or AoS, or KoW? Someone can very well play AoS and say his battles are in the Old World. It's not something that works only with 9th Age.

I'm the only one in our group that plays with a genuinelly KoW army (basileans) the rest are playing with the same army(ies) that 8th and 9th.

Obviously those battles happen very much in the Old World.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 10:56
But you could just as easily house-rule 9th age to better suit your taste.

Hum, no. With 8th ed, I only need to change what I don't like. With 9th Age, I have to weed out stuff, I have to bring back things they removed that I did like, etc. If I see stuff in 9th Age I like, I can lift it from there.
Also, you're coming from the point of view of someone who is deeply involved in your hobby, as I am. My group consists of players who only ever think about Warhammer when we have a game. Otherwise they don't go on forums or anything. If it wasn't for me, they peobably wouldn't even know AoS has replaced WFB.
According to you, what's more likely to interest something like them:
1) making small changes to a ruleset they've known for years
2) learning the whole thing all over again, because they won't know what changed or not in the first place.

I'll tell you, it's easy: it's number 1), because they already know the rules, but ah yeah, last time we decided that LoS was blocked by minis following said restrictions. And, considering our history of gaming, with all our alternative units, special scenarios and so on, they would just ask me "why don't we just do our own stuff? We're prefectly able". Been there, done that. If I show my brother the list to whatever replaces the Brets in 9th Age and tell him, "now your Brets are those", he'll laugh at me.
Also, my group consists of married people, with kids, who are very busy, the lot of them (and so am I). We hardly ever have the time to even manage a game twice a year now. When we houserule things, it's usually to make it simpler, faster. That's not what 9th Age would give us.
So there you go.
I'm not dissing 9th Age, I'm sure it's great for many people, it's just not for me nor my group.


I'm the only one in our group that plays with a genuinelly KoW army (basileans) the rest are playing with the same army(ies) that 8th and 9th.

Obviously those battles happen very much in the Old World.

Yep, that's what I said. It's not something possible only with 9th Age, so this argument in favour of 9th age doesn't hold.

Zywus
26-04-2016, 11:07
Hum, no. With 8th ed, I only need to change what I don't like. With 9th Age, I have to weed out stuff, I have to bring back things they removed that I did like, etc. If I see stuff in 9th Age I like, I can lift it from there.
Also, you're coming from the point of view of someone who is deeply involved in your hobby, as I am. My group consists of players who only ever think about Warhammer when we have a game. Otherwise they don't go on forums or anything. If it wasn't for me, they peobably wouldn't even know AoS has replaced WFB.
According to you, what's more likely to interest something like them:
1) making small changes to a ruleset they've known for years
2) learning the whole thing all over again, because they won't know what changed or not in the first place.

I'll tell you, it's easy: it's number 1), because they already know the rules, but ah yeah, last time we decided that LoS was blocked by minis following said restrictions. And, considering our history of gaming, with all our alternative units, special scenarios and so on, they would just ask me "why don't we just do our own stuff? We're prefectly able". Been there, done that.
Also, my group consists of married people, with kids, who are very busy, the lot of them (and so am I). We hardly ever have the time to even manage a game twoce a year now. When we houserule things, it's usually to make it simpler, faster. That's not what 9th Age would give us.
So there you go.
I'm not dissing 9th Age, I'm sure it's great, it's just not for me nor my group.
Of course if there's a lot of inertia in your group, that's a obstacle against trying out any new rules system, or even a new WHFB edition for that matter, if GW had gone that route instead of crapping the bed with AoS. (You obviously did manage to transition from 7th ed to 8th ed though (unless of course you started playing during 8th edition), which is arguably a more drastic change from a pure rules-mechanics standpoint than 8th ed to 9th age).

Anyway, you didn't mention any of that in your first post though, implying that you had to choose between 9th age and the Warhammer lore, and that was what I didn't agree with.

Tokamak
26-04-2016, 11:10
I'm just a big End Times fan, GW could've just stuck to End Times forever and have me as a loyal fan.

Out of interest, was the micromanagement something that bothered you with previous editions? As that hasn't changed at all.

I don't mean gameplay wise. I mean rules wise. 9th age inhibits too much.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 11:18
Of course if there's a lot of inertia in your group, that's a obstacle against trying out any new rules system, or even a new WHFB edition for that matter, if GW had gone that route instead of crapping the bed with AoS. (You obviously did manage to transition from 7th ed to 8th ed though (unless of course you started playing during 8th edition), which is arguably a more drastic change from a pure rules-mechanics standpoint than 8th ed to 9th age).
Because I'm the one who decides ultimately, because I'm always the one who gets the BRB, I'm also the one who has to keep all the terrain, etc etc, so I call the decisions, regardless of grumblings. They're usually ok with it anyway, they get nice shiny armybooks and minis (well, not my brother). And people do usually like being in line with the latest "official" stuff, as strange as it is (Or Apple and Samsung would stop churning out new smartphones every year). Here, I'd grumble just as much as them, let alone manage to convince them. No point.


Anyway, you didn't mention any of that in your first post though, implying that you had to choose between 9th age and the Warhammer lore, and that was what I didn't agree with.

I didn't insist on the details, but I did separate the lore reason in a last paragraph of its own.


I'm just a big End Times fan, GW could've just stuck to End Times forever and have me as a loyal fan.

Thanks Tokamak, I forgot that: I don't just play 8th ed, I play 8th ed+SoM+ET(+BitBL when we do sieges).

warhammerscotlandplayer
26-04-2016, 11:19
Poll is closed ya dafty!

I haven't tried and don't intend to

Sotek
26-04-2016, 11:26
Poll is closed and 0 votes. I haven't tried, don't intend to.

Malagor
26-04-2016, 11:27
I would have voted for "I've tried it and like it", it's a good game but it is a bit too serious for casual games I find, a area where 8e is just better suited.
I love the fluffy rules that 8e has and been vocal about that the 9th Age team removed them. A O&G match in 9th can be fun but in 8e they can be hilarious and if I'm just playing a regular match maybe once a week I want to have as much fun as possible(winning isn't everything).
So if I wanted to have a serious tournament with prizes and all that, I would pick 9th Age as the game since it's more balanced overall but if I want to just have a fun match or a tournament that is relaxed then 8e would be my pick any day.
Houseruling 9th Age for fun and casual play seems quite pointless since it would just be like 8e anyway so might as well play 8e(Magic Phase in 9th age is like the only thing I would keep).

Zywus
26-04-2016, 11:35
Because I'm the one who decides ultimately, because I'm always the one who gets the BRB, I'm also the one who has to keep all the terrain, etc etc, so I call the decisions, regardless of grumblings. They're usually ok with it anyway, they get nice shiny armybooks and minis (well, not my brother). And people do usually like being in line with the latest "official" stuff, as strange as it is (Or Apple and Samsung would stop churning out new smartphones every year). Here, I'd grumble just as much as them, let alone manage to convince them. No point.
So, you decide the game system (and supply all the terrain, books etc?) regardless of grumblings? But still you would be unable to convince them to play 9th age, even though it would be a less cumbersome transition for the group than when you made them change from 7th to 8th?

I'm not trying to force you to play 9th age or anything (I don't even do so myself) but it seems you just don't like 9th age (which is fair enough) but for some reason attempts to 'justify' it with other reasons.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 11:43
I haven't played 9th age, which is primarily down to a lack of anyone else locally who wants to try it (for better or worse unofficial rules have a bad rep in my neighbourhood), but also a persistent personal ambivalence, quite honestly if given the opportunity I'd rather play 8th.


Nope, and I don't intend to. There's plenty of stuff they've done I don't like, I'm not going to make a list but some are just a deal-breaker for me.
I'm content enough with 8th ed, and whatever we don't like we houserule.
There, you have your explanation for one guy who likes the Old World and won't touch 9th age.
Now I'll turn the question back to you: why would I care about 9th age if it's the lore that is important to me? It's not Warhammer lore anymore. You may think the rules superior, but using one's love for the Old World's lore as a reason to play 9th age is beyond me.

I completely agree, reading through the army books it feels like 9A sterilised some of the special rules that gave various armies their identity, the removal of animosity and skeletons and daemons no-longer causing fear are the pertinent examples for the armies that I play. Did I find it frustrating on occasions that animosity screwed up my battle plan - well yeah but that's what playing orcs and goblins was all about. It just feels like when the warhammer lore conflicted with someone's vision of the perfect wargame the lore lost out every time.

Then again it's always the case with fan-made rules that unless you are the one making them, the author wanted different things from the rules than you do so using 8th edition with the potential for making my own modifications along the way seems to be working out best for me.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 11:45
So, you decide the game system (and supply all the terrain, books etc?) regardless of grumblings?
Yep. I'm a big man :D "puffs chest out"

But still you would be unable to convince them to play 9th age,
That would take convincing myself first, remember?

even though it would be a less cumbersome transition for the group than when you made them change from 7th to 8th?
It would still be more cumbersome than sticking to 8th, an edition we all love, give or take a few things.

I'm not trying to force you to play 9th age or anything (I don't even do so myself) but it seems you just don't like 9th age (which is fair enough) but for some reason attempts to 'justify' it with other reasons.
Usually, disliking something is because of reasons, you know ;) I've said it from the begining: I don't like 9th Age, I don't like the changes they've done to 8th ed, I didn't make a secret of it. Ok, I may not be clear, so I'll make a full list:
reason 1) I don't like it, because of rules, and because of lore
reason 2) We know what we like and don't like in 8th ed, we don't need someone else to tell us (especially when their opinions differ), and we're actually pretty good at making balanced changes to the rules ourselves (if I may say so). You know, there's actually a couple of my suggestions in the O&G list for 9th Age (how ironic is that? ;) )
reason 3) it would take convincing my friends to switch to it. Because of 1) and 2), I have no inclination to go through the bother.

Did I explain myself better?

As for my opinion about 9th Age as a project:
I was wrong about it: I thought it would bust, and it did not, I think we can all agree it's doing well. I am very impressed at the work they're doing, and I DO think it's great work. I think it's a very solid system, and it works well. My dislike for it is not due to the quality of the ruleset, but of my own tastes and needs. But I think it's a fantastic endeavour, and I wish them the best, because it's clearly a work of love.

duffybear1988
26-04-2016, 11:46
If I'm playing for fun then I play 8th edition with triumph and treachery rules because sometimes crazy mechanics and backstabbing mates over a pint is fun.

If I want a bit more serious and thoughtful game then I play 6th edition because the army books were nice and I get to field my Kislev forces and Dogs of War.

I would try 9th edition if anybody here wanted to.

Yowzo
26-04-2016, 11:57
I don't mean gameplay wise. I mean rules wise. 9th age inhibits too much.


I'm curious, how so?

skeptico
26-04-2016, 12:05
You know, it's interesting. We hear so often that fixing the problems with this or that game would be so easy, what needs to be done is so obvious, why can't GW listen to its fans, etc etc etc. Now here's 9th Age, which gives us a good chance to test all that, and it splits the opinion of the Warhammer community into several factions. Turns out, when gamers revise a ruleset, it reflects their priorities, and not everyone's. Shame some people won't remember that when there's an opportunity to bash GW, tho...

Oddly enough, this discussion suggests there's good sense in GW's supporting three ways to play for AoS with different optional add-on rules, and parity of esteem. It's obviously not nearly enough to get everyone onside with it, but it's still a good idea. The divided reaction to 9th Age shows the limits of designing a game that's the designers' favoured one way to play.

Zywus
26-04-2016, 12:06
That would take convincing myself first, remember?
...//...
Usually, disliking something is because of reasons, you know ;) I've said it from the begining: I don't like 9th Age, I don't like the changes they've done to 8th ed, I didn't make a secret of it.
I guess I might have just have misunderstood you initially.

I got the impression that first you claimed that playing 9th age would mean abandoning the Warhammer lore, and then, that you would not be able to get your gaming group to play it.

I fully understand if someone prefer the 8th edition rules to the 9th age rules (or alternatively, do not prefer 9th age enough to go through the hassle of learning a new game system and getting others to join in).

Urgat
26-04-2016, 12:11
Yeah. You're not the only one, I don't know why, out of my post, everybody focused on the last paragraph. Was it because it was a question to the OP maybe? It was just one part of my post. Anyway, I didn't want to expand in my post because I thought saying I didn't like the rules would be enough, in order to save time and avoid a lenghty discussion. Apparently, dis time, da plan wasn't a good un' :p

Denny
26-04-2016, 12:17
You know, it's interesting. We hear so often that fixing the problems with this or that game would be so easy, what needs to be done is so obvious, why can't GW listen to its fans, etc etc etc. Now here's 9th Age, which gives us a good chance to test all that, and it splits the opinion of the Warhammer community into several factions. Turns out, when gamers revise a ruleset, it reflects their priorities, and not everyone's. Shame some people won't remember that when there's an opportunity to bash GW, tho...

Its easy to agree that the game could be better than what GW put out, and provided we remain vague on the details ('balanced army books/accurate point costs', 'obviously overpowered unit nerfed/obviously underpowered unit boosted', 'army from three editions ago bought up to date') there will always be a consensus. But the devil is the detail, and forums don't generally go into that too much (or if they do disagreements start).

Its a bit like politics. Few will disagree with 'We need to make the NHS work', but once we start involving details to do with taxation, cuts etc the arguments start.

Having said all that good luck to 9th Age; I'm not a massive fan of some of the changes but whatever changes are made someone will dislike them. :)

Kakapo42
26-04-2016, 12:35
Well it still seems to be suffering from the curse of the closed poll, but if I could vote then I would go with 'I haven't tried it and don't intend to'. The short answer to why not is that, well, I don't need to.

A major part of my lack of interest in The 9th Age is that it's too 8th edition. This would be fine if it was just confined to the core rules, since I happen to like the 8th edition core rules, but it seems that when they went to create the individual army rules the templates they used were the 8th edition army books, which are easily my least favourite ones. This is especially painful in the case of the Wood Elf equivalent army list, since I hated the 8th edition Wood Elf book (the First Great Catastrophe of 2014) and adamantly stick with the 6th edition Wood Elf army book even for 8th edition Warhammer.

I find the changed names a bit off-putting as well. I understand why they did it, so that they don't have to face the wrath of the GW legal team, but it still feels weird to me. I don't care about 'Sylvian Elves', I care about Wood Elves. In Athel Loren. With Asrai Archery and Spites and Kindreds and The Lore of Athel Loren. Calling them something else just doesn't feel right to me. It also doesn't help with magic items, since the original names of several magical items were a major influence in me taking or not taking them. The reason I considered the Amaranthine Brooch to be an auto-include, for example, had nothing to do with conferring a 3+ Ward Save and everything to do with it including the word 'amaranth' in its name, which meant I always gave it to my High-born general as a reference to my favourite song (Amaranth by Nightwish).

I found my sweet spot with the 6th edition Wood Elf army book, and it's what I'm happiest using. For a rule-set to rival that it would need to emulate the 6th edition book so closely that it's effectively identical, and at that point I might as well just stick with the 6th edition book anyway. The 6th edition Wood Elf army book, and the 6th, 7th, and 8th edition Warhammer core rules are exactly what I asked for, so that's what I'm sticking with.

ewar
26-04-2016, 13:35
You know, it's interesting. We hear so often that fixing the problems with this or that game would be so easy, what needs to be done is so obvious, why can't GW listen to its fans, etc etc etc. Now here's 9th Age, which gives us a good chance to test all that, and it splits the opinion of the Warhammer community into several factions. Turns out, when gamers revise a ruleset, it reflects their priorities, and not everyone's. Shame some people won't remember that when there's an opportunity to bash GW, tho...

Oddly enough, this discussion suggests there's good sense in GW's supporting three ways to play for AoS with different optional add-on rules, and parity of esteem. It's obviously not nearly enough to get everyone onside with it, but it's still a good idea. The divided reaction to 9th Age shows the limits of designing a game that's the designers' favoured one way to play.

I have no idea why you think you need to white knight GW in this conversation - it is completely irrelevant. Also I think you are completely misrepresenting the way T9A has been developed. They are only at the beginning of the process, which has been handled completely openly through an iterative design process and incorporating feedback from the fans and data from tournaments. Once the core rules are nailed down they will begin doing campaign/narrative stuff as well.

There is no 'divided reaction' - not every game can be all things to all people, that would be a futile exercise. However as a way to evolve warhammer I think T9A is an incredible success (IMO).


Its a bit like politics. Few will disagree with 'We need to make the NHS work', but once we start involving details to do with taxation, cuts etc the arguments start.

Having said all that good luck to 9th Age; I'm not a massive fan of some of the changes but whatever changes are made someone will dislike them. :)

This is true - and you can see it in the intense discussions going on in the 9th age forum. Some people will never understand that their army is the one that needs the nerf :)

However, to use your analogy - GW is more like Jeremy Hunt whilst the T9A team is more like an employee council.


WThis is especially painful in the case of the Wood Elf equivalent army list, since I hated the 8th edition Wood Elf book (the First Great Catastrophe of 2014) and adamantly stick with the 6th edition Wood Elf army book even for 8th edition Warhammer.

I find the changed names a bit off-putting as well. I understand why they did it, so that they don't have to face the wrath of the GW legal team, but it still feels weird to me. I don't care about 'Sylvian Elves', I care about Wood Elves. In Athel Loren. With Asrai Archery and Spites and Kindreds and The Lore of Athel Loren.

As a Sylvans player myself, I have literally no idea where you're coming from with this. The sylvan book brings back so much of what the 6th ed book had (kindreds for characters, usable dryads, a whole range of units that play like they're supposed to rather than forcing us to just run 70 bloody archers just to compete). It's a wonderful effort from the team - I am spending hours coming up with all kinds of lists: wild hunt themed cavalry, monster mash, elf horde, forest spirits etc - just so many options!

There is an entire thread on how to build different shapeshifter characters - just a lot of fun stuff going on - I think it's a real shame if you're missing out on that involvement because you prefer the term 'Wood' over 'Sylvan'.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 13:37
I find the changed names a bit off-putting as well. I understand why they did it, so that they don't have to face the wrath of the GW legal team, but it still feels weird to me.

Am I the only one who thinks it strange that the 9A team would fear GW legal if they called an army 'Wood Elves'? I mean I could maybe understand backing off of 'Bretonnians' or 'skaven' as they're fairly unique terms, but 'Wood Elves" is about as generic fantasy as it comes, in fact I can hardly think of a fantasy setting that didn't include wood elves somewhere. There would be absolutely no grounds for GW being able to defend 'wood elves' as a trade mark. This would have been the case with a majority of the army book titles (Dwarfs, Orcs and Goblins, Vampire Counts, high/dark elves), it seems to me they altered most of the army names because they wanted to emphasise the 'not GWness' of their project.

ewar
26-04-2016, 13:42
Am I the only one who thinks it strange that the 9A team would fear GW legal if they called an army 'Wood Elves'? I mean I could maybe understand backing off of 'Bretonnians' or 'skaven' as they're fairly unique terms, but 'Wood Elves" is about as generic fantasy as it comes, in fact I can hardly think of a fantasy setting that didn't include wood elves somewhere. There would be absolutely no grounds for GW being able to defend 'wood elves' as a trade mark. This would have been the case with a majority of the army book titles (Dwarfs, Orcs and Goblins, Vampire Counts, high/dark elves), it seems to me they altered most of the army names because they wanted to emphasise the 'not GWness' of their project.

Yep, that's absolutely right, they want it to be The 9th Age, not warhammer 8.5. Considering the effort they're going to on art work, book writing etc, seems pretty fair to me. And as a bunch of amateurs I think they've done a bang up job - there are no Nounverb abominations in there!

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 13:45
Yep, that's absolutely right, they want it to be The 9th Age, not warhammer 8.5. Considering the effort they're going to on art work, book writing etc, seems pretty fair to me. And as a bunch of amateurs I think they've done a bang up job - there are no Nounverb abominations in there!

I'm sure they have, and I'd hope you can understand that me saying I'd rather play 8th edition is not a snub on the effort they've gone to but just a statement of personal choice, 9A is certainly the most long-lasting wfb fan-project that I can remember. However you can understand that if the 9A team set out to make their product distinct from warhammer there are going to be some people who say 'this isn't warhammer enough for me'?

skeptico
26-04-2016, 13:50
I have no idea why you think you need to white knight GW in this conversation - it is completely irrelevant. Also I think you are completely misrepresenting the way T9A has been developed. They are only at the beginning of the process, which has been handled completely openly through an iterative design process and incorporating feedback from the fans and data from tournaments. Once the core rules are nailed down they will begin doing campaign/narrative stuff as well.

There is no 'divided reaction' - not every game can be all things to all people, that would be a futile exercise. However as a way to evolve warhammer I think T9A is an incredible success (IMO).

It's not 'white knighting' (urgh) to reflect on how hard it is to keep all WH gamers happy within a single rule set. And of course reflecting on that fact is relevant. You started this whole thread because you are baffled that not everyone would agree with you about the merits of 9th Age. And the whole thread shows that the reaction is divided. For everyone like you who likes it there are others who thing it is anodyne, has focused on balance and predictability at the expense of an interesting, entertaining ruleset, and so on. This thread shows clearly that 9th Age has divided opinion, turns some people off, and reflects a way of gaming that some hobbyists reject. I don't know why you'd start the thread if you weren't prepared to be confronted with those things.

Urgat
26-04-2016, 14:10
in fact I can hardly think of a fantasy setting that didn't include wood elves somewhere.

Warcraft, they got clever with them. But they do have high elves instead.

Oh, amusing side note: the (warhammer) wood elves, in french, have always been called sylvan elves (http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/imageelfessylvains.php). Pretty ironic that the 9th ed folks tried to get away from the GW name but instead took it again, just in another language :p

ewar
26-04-2016, 14:24
I'm sure they have, and I'd hope you can understand that me saying I'd rather play 8th edition is not a snub on the effort they've gone to but just a statement of personal choice, 9A is certainly the most long-lasting wfb fan-project that I can remember. However you can understand that if the 9A team set out to make their product distinct from warhammer there are going to be some people who say 'this isn't warhammer enough for me'?

Absolutely!! The whole point of this exercise was to understand why some people wouldn't want to give it a try and in that regard I consider it an unmitigated success (this thread that is) as some have presented views I just would not have considered.

I do find it odd though that we've had 6 years of people complaining about unbalanced armies, lack of fluff options in books, OP magic etc, and when this all gets fixed some people say it's too bland (not directed at you!). IME I have had more interesting and varied games of 9th than in any previous edition of warhammer, as people are bringing the entire range of units from their books. I mean, when was the last time you saw a big unit of spearmen be taken and actually play like you think a big block of spearmen should?

Apologies if my enthusiasm is annoying :)


It's not 'white knighting' (urgh) to reflect on how hard it is to keep all WH gamers happy within a single rule set. And of course reflecting on that fact is relevant. You started this whole thread because you are baffled that not everyone would agree with you about the merits of 9th Age. And the whole thread shows that the reaction is divided. For everyone like you who likes it there are others who thing it is anodyne, has focused on balance and predictability at the expense of an interesting, entertaining ruleset, and so on. This thread shows clearly that 9th Age has divided opinion, turns some people off, and reflects a way of gaming that some hobbyists reject. I don't know why you'd start the thread if you weren't prepared to be confronted with those things.

It is white knighting when you jump in to defend GW when nobody had attacked them and they had nothing to do with the conversation. Why even bring them into it? They are a complete irrelevance to T9A. I had serious misgivings about the longevity when I heard about the project, but the level of organisation the community has gone to is quite remarkable and now I think it's probably the best thing that could have happened to Warhammer.

Vazalaar
26-04-2016, 14:57
I followed 9th Age from the start. Initially I was very excited, but somewhere on the road they lost me.

I really dislike their Bretonnian book and dislike their quest to remove random elements like insane courage... . In the end they took a direction I didn't like. It's like Urgat perfectly explained.

I play only with the same people two times a month max and we are perfect happy with 8th edition with Furion changes, a couple of our own additions and a bit of Warhammer Armies projects and EEFL additions.

It's perfect. If there are AoS models we like we just make rules for it.

I still follow 9th Age progress, but I certainly don't feel the urge to start playing 9th Age instead of 8th edition.

Also, the name changes don't do it for me.

Treadhead_1st
26-04-2016, 14:58
Haven't tried it - not been intentionally avoiding it, but been out of wargaming a bit and focusing more on Warmachine & Hordes and 40K, whilst thinking about some AoS forces. I might give it a look over, I detested what I read of Kings of War (and I thought the models sucked too) and that had very vocal fans and great reviews so I am a little hesitant, but I'm kinda short on time with the other games, especially if I start learning Infinity and Malifaux too.

Spiney Norman
26-04-2016, 15:06
Absolutely!! The whole point of this exercise was to understand why some people wouldn't want to give it a try and in that regard I consider it an unmitigated success (this thread that is) as some have presented views I just would not have considered.

I do find it odd though that we've had 6 years of people complaining about unbalanced armies, lack of fluff options in books, OP magic etc, and when this all gets fixed some people say it's too bland (not directed at you!). IME I have had more interesting and varied games of 9th than in any previous edition of warhammer, as people are bringing the entire range of units from their books. I mean, when was the last time you saw a big unit of spearmen be taken and actually play like you think a big block of spearmen should?

Apologies if my enthusiasm is annoying :)


Enthusiasm for the hobby is to be encouraged whatever game you play :)
To be honest I don't know enough about medieval warfare to know how a unit of spearmen should operate, but I don't think they march forward for ten minutes, then stand still for ten minutes while the enemy marches forwards, then run towards each other and patiently take it in turns to smack each other over the head :D Lets not kid ourselves, all of the games we play incorporate some degree of abstraction, the amount that we're comfortable with will vary greatly from person to person, for example KoW is a little too abstract for my liking (I like to roll saves and remove my own casualties), but I know a lot of folks on warseer like that game a lot.

I do think its entirely possible that the people who were complaining about warhammer then are not necessarily the same people that are complaining about 9A now, you will always find people who will complain about something, of course there are people who just like complaining for the sake of it and thus complain about everything, we could have some of those in the mix as well.

For what its worth, I still maintain (as I have been doing for nigh on a decade) that the best GW game in terms of its level of abstraction, balance and playability is, and has long been, LotR SBG, if they had re-used those rules for AoS it would have been an absolute triumph.

akai
26-04-2016, 18:50
Have not played 9th Age and do not intend to. Except for Bretonnians (and slightly Beastmen and Skaven) I am fairly content with 8th Edition for regiment-based war game as a whole and just houserule where needed for our groups' games.

The bearded one
26-04-2016, 18:53
One of the guys in my local group is going to a 9th tourney soon and asked me whether I wanted to try a game soon, so I'll get my first taste of 9th in the course of the upcoming week or so. I'm simply happy I can finally get my lizardmen on the table again. Getting 8th edition games has been a lot harder, especially larger ones.

Shudson66
26-04-2016, 19:53
Well the group I play with went with KOW. In fact many of them have already changed their bases to KOW type bases. If people around me decide to give it a try I certainly will, but I don't see this happening. The Local GT decide on KOW and AOS, so that is another factor. I will admit I miss some of the fiddy bit.

Smooth Boy
26-04-2016, 20:03
I haven't had a chance to play it because my army is still on my workbench being built, weirdly enough I started Fantasy again when it was just about to be canned. I've been following the website though and plan on using the rules.

Teurastaja
26-04-2016, 20:34
I tried 9th Age and I love it. I won't go back to playing 8th.
KoW is fun but too simple for my taste. I can play it once in a while but that's it.
People in my group don't attend tournaments. 9th Age is great for casual, relaxed play.

Arrahed
26-04-2016, 20:49
Playing it. Loving it.

dalezzz
26-04-2016, 21:08
There's a few rules changes that I'm not a fan of wich has stopped me trying it upto now , will likely play it at some point though( mind you I said the same about all the other unplaced games sat on my shelf!)

Deadthing
26-04-2016, 21:16
I played WFB a little bit in 4th and 5th edition, then massively from 6th edition into the early half of 8th. I began to lose interest in a major way in the last half of 8th, and my lingering curiosity and hope for an overhaul and renewal was obliterated by AoS.

That said, some friends and I are planning to try out 9th Age in the next month or two, now that the system has stabilized around its 1.0 release. We've just finished comparing notes on the rules, armies, and spell lists. I think it occupies a good spot that is, yes, more fiddly than KoW, but significantly less so than 8th edition. Units that formerly had heaps of special and unique rules (see: Plague Furnace) have been simplified while retaining their essential character. I have high hopes that the game is much better balanced than 8th ever managed to be, with a lot of the weird and extreme edges rounded off.

I actually find the game feels a bit too closely tied to 8th edition, but I understand why that would be the case -- it's a starting point and is designed to make adoption easy for players familiar with WFB 8th. It will be fun to see how it evolves going forward.

liasissodon
26-04-2016, 21:21
Nope and don't intend to. Played 5th through 8th. Had a great time but it's all behind me now. The future is round bases and Stormcast Eternals.

Giladisb
26-04-2016, 21:42
Since I joined the project back in September T9A has been to most played game for me and I am really enjoying it. This weekend I went to a tournament and I can't really remember in my long reffereing career when the lists were so diverse internally, and the rankings were so varied in the end.

Holier Than Thou
26-04-2016, 21:58
I've kept an eye on the rules and the army book for my Vampire Counts, I like some of the ideas but I dislike more so, no, I haven't played it and I probably won't.

stroller
26-04-2016, 22:18
Orcs without animosity? No thanks: you lost me right there. They'll be calling them Orruks next ....

Also, my gaming circle is reasonably happy with 8th. It ain't perfect, but we enjoy it and are comfortable with it. We houserule some stuff, and familiarity breeds content. It might well be a better rule set, but, in terms of our enjoyment, 8th ain't broken, so why go to the effort of learning something different that might or might not be better?

Folomo
26-04-2016, 22:34
Since I joined the project back in September T9A has been to most played game for me and I am really enjoying it. This weekend I went to a tournament and I can't really remember in my long r****** career when the lists were so diverse internally, and the rankings were so varied in the end.

I have to say this is one of the best aspects, seeing so many different list and units that I never saw in 8th. The diversity has been an exciting improvement for all games. There are a ton of my model that didn't see the table before, but I use now.

I am even seeing beastmen and Chaos Dwarf regularly in our club now!
It has been a blast to fight against those armies. Even when the pyromaniac stunties set my army on flames :p

ewar
26-04-2016, 23:13
I've kept an eye on the rules and the army book for my Vampire Counts, I like some of the ideas but I dislike more so, no, I haven't played it and I probably won't.

A good friend of mine is loving the new VC - what are the changes you don't like out of interest? I'd have thought bringing back blood lines and making the core selection a decent choice would have all been good things? I know the damned terrorgheist is still a nightmare for me, even after being toned down!

Kakapo42
26-04-2016, 23:23
As a Sylvans player myself, I have literally no idea where you're coming from with this. The sylvan book brings back so much of what the 6th ed book had (kindreds for characters, usable dryads, a whole range of units that play like they're supposed to rather than forcing us to just run 70 bloody archers just to compete). It's a wonderful effort from the team - I am spending hours coming up with all kinds of lists: wild hunt themed cavalry, monster mash, elf horde, forest spirits etc - just so many options!

There is an entire thread on how to build different shapeshifter characters - just a lot of fun stuff going on - I think it's a real shame if you're missing out on that involvement because you prefer the term 'Wood' over 'Sylvan'.

It might have some elements of the 6th edition book, but it doesn't have enough of them (especially crucial are a lack of a universal move-and-shoot special rule and full Lore of Athel Loren equivalent like the 6th edition book had, as those were two of my favourite things about it). Like I said, I was and still am perfectly happy and totally satisfied with the 6th edition book (and pasthammering it with the 6th, 7th and 8th edition core rules), for another system to come close to that level of enjoyment it would have to be a carbon copy in all but name.

The 6th edition book (and the last three editions of core rules) are my happy place for fantasy gaming. That's why I enjoy using the most. So I don't think I'm really missing out on anything.

Asmodios
26-04-2016, 23:28
Playing all the time and loving it. Every game i play is very close and the lists feel really balanced all around. BTW it says the poll is closed so i couldn't vote.

ewar
27-04-2016, 00:05
It might have some elements of the 6th edition book, but it doesn't have enough of them (especially crucial are a lack of a universal move-and-shoot special rule and full Lore of Athel Loren equivalent like the 6th edition book had, as those were two of my favourite things about it). Like I said, I was and still am perfectly happy and totally satisfied with the 6th edition book (and pasthammering it with the 6th, 7th and 8th edition core rules), for another system to come close to that level of enjoyment it would have to be a carbon copy in all but name.

The 6th edition book (and the last three editions of core rules) are my happy place for fantasy gaming. That's why I enjoy using the most. So I don't think I'm really missing out on anything.

Ah fair enough. If the opportunity arises though, I would honestly give the book a handful of games (I don't know how much you play), as all of our magic arrows have no move and shoot penalties. Only the vanilla, un-upgraded glade guard have regular bow shots and get the move penalty. Lore of Athel Loren is gone, but tree singing is available as a bound spell upgrade for treemen. We also now have access to treekin characters, BSBs, dryad characters that can be tailored and which provide bonuses to forest spirit units and war dancers are back to being awesome and not the door mats they were in 8th.

GreyhawkGuardian
27-04-2016, 01:13
I was really enjoying the idea behind the 9th Age when it first got started. A fan driven effort to provide an alternative to Age of Sigmar? Love it.

But I became less and less impressed as it progressed. The chase for balance started to feel like someone was taking a sandblaster to all of the fluffy, flavorable rules. Orcs and Goblins without animosity? Well, those could be the orcs and goblins of some other setting, but not a Warhammer one, or Warhammer like one. Really, watching how things have developed since AoS came out has kind of been a walk to the two extremes. AoS has no balance at all and 9th Age chases it so much that it comes across as bland to me.

Where's the middle?

Geep
27-04-2016, 01:17
as all of our magic arrows have no move and shoot penalties. Only the vanilla, un-upgraded glade guard have regular bow shots and get the move penalty.
For me, the great thing about the 6th edition rules, that hasn't been captured anywhere else (least in 8th ed), is that it encouraged a fully mobile army. Not only could you advance and fall back while shooting with no penalty, you had reason to- with the short range strength bonus and presence of long range penalty. The designer had an idea of a mobile battleline and executed it perfectly. 9th age beats 8th in this regard (people often point out the 'no to-hit penalty' arrows- which give no reason to close with the enemy), but it's still not quite there.

Folomo
27-04-2016, 01:37
with the short range strength bonus
Isn't this what the black arrow does?
Str 4 in short range is a pretty decent incentive for remaning close to the enemy.

MagicAngle
27-04-2016, 05:29
Gaming group is about to venture into 9th and we're all super-excited about it. I am truly baffled about the charges of blandness that folks are accusing it of. It's just... well-written? Comes as a bit of a shock to the system if you're used to the meandering rulebooks that GW puts out.

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 06:03
For me, the great thing about the 6th edition rules, that hasn't been captured anywhere else (least in 8th ed), is that it encouraged a fully mobile army. Not only could you advance and fall back while shooting with no penalty, you had reason to- with the short range strength bonus and presence of long range penalty. The designer had an idea of a mobile battleline and executed it perfectly. 9th age beats 8th in this regard (people often point out the 'no to-hit penalty' arrows- which give no reason to close with the enemy), but it's still not quite there.
As mentioned before: Black arrows are exactly that. The 'not-to-hit-penalty' arrows are restricted to one rare unit (and characters). They are not really an alternative. The most recent rules version made the Pathfinders who can use these arrows even more into a close range utitlity unit which I find very flavorful.

Removing animosity from O&G doesn't seem to everybody's cup of tea but I love it. I always liked the aestetic of an O&G army but I really don't like letting the dice play the game for me. So I am one happy little Waaarghlord. :)

Urgat
27-04-2016, 07:04
For me, the great thing about the 6th edition rules, that hasn't been captured anywhere else (least in 8th ed), is that it encouraged a fully mobile army. Not only could you advance and fall back while shooting with no penalty, you had reason to- with the short range strength bonus and presence of long range penalty. The designer had an idea of a mobile battleline and executed it perfectly. 9th age beats 8th in this regard (people often point out the 'no to-hit penalty' arrows- which give no reason to close with the enemy), but it's still not quite there.


Yes, yes, it was awesome. For the WE player. For the opponent it was a shore, you know. He wanted to play a WFB battle, and found himself running after a 40K army. Woohoo.


I am truly baffled about the charges of blandness that folks are accusing it of. It's just... well-written? Comes as a bit of a shock to the system if you're used to the meandering rulebooks that GW puts out.

Removing stuff like animosity equals well-written to you? No wonder you're baffled at people's reaction.

veterannoob
27-04-2016, 07:12
Somebody sAid it earlier but the interest for me at the moment isn't there as it has been presented to me as still8th basically and I'm. Basically done with 8th. I'll try it eventually. Doesn't seem like it's going anywhere so I've got time :)

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 07:15
Yes, yes, it was awesome. For the WE player. For the opponent it was a shore, you know. He wanted to play a WFB battle, and found himself running after a 40K army. Woohoo.



Removing stuff like animosity equals well-written to you? No wonder you're baffled at people's reaction.


To me it does. Animosity is a horrible rule for a wargame. It is an awesome rule for an RPG, though. Considering the origins of Warhammer I can see how it found its way into a wargame.
O&G have so many other unique gimmicks. It seems a bit weird to me make that one rule out of many rules of one army out of so many armies the deal breaker.

Urgat
27-04-2016, 07:19
To me it does.
Then as I said I'm not surprised you're baffled...


Animosity is a horrible rule for a wargame. It is an awesome rule for an RPG, though. Considering the origins of Warhammer I can see how it found its way into a wargame.
...because different mindset obviously.


O&G have so many other unique gimmicks. It seems a bit weird to me make that one rule out of many rules of one army out of so many armies the deal breaker.

Sure, go ahead and reduce the reasoning to the one exemple offered.

Holier Than Thou
27-04-2016, 07:19
A good friend of mine is loving the new VC - what are the changes you don't like out of interest? I'd have thought bringing back blood lines and making the core selection a decent choice would have all been good things? I know the damned terrorgheist is still a nightmare for me, even after being toned down!

Off the top of my head, I don't like that there is a cap to how big you can grow your Zombie units (twice their starting size), I don't like that as soon as I put my Vampire Lord on his Zombie Dragon I can forget about defensive upgrades. I haven't checked back since this was suggested so don't know if it's actually made it into the rules but I really didn't like what they were proposing for ethereal units (can't attack in combat phase and enemies can just run through them and the ethereal unit needs a dangerous terrain test or lose wounds, it would make a lot more sense for the people moving through a gaggle of malevolent ethereal beings to be in danger).

GrandmasterWang
27-04-2016, 07:37
Ive been following the 9th age but prefer Chillhammer (8th with mods to make it more chilled)

I support the fan effort of 9th Age but things like removing Insane Courage i see as removing flavour.

Now that things are apparently not changing again for a while in 9th age i might give it another look see.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 07:42
Then as I said I'm not surprised you're baffled...


...because different mindset obviously.
Obviously.
From a game design point of view, there are very good reasons to abandon a rule like that. There is nothing wrong with liking a problematic rule but that doesn't make the rule less problematic.



Sure, go ahead and reduce the reasoning to the one exemple offered.
That remark was not necessarily directed at you. But I worded it poorly so I can see why it looks that way. Sorry for that.

I will explain what I mean: I got the impression (which is most certainly incredibly biased) that almost every time someone is asked why he doesn't like T9A, animosity comes up as the deal breaker. That is what I find weird.
O&G still play like a wild and savage horde. They have still poor leadership and are hard to control in many situations. Removing that one rule has no noticeable impact on the gaming experience to me.

Horace35
27-04-2016, 08:20
Nope, and I don't intend to. There's plenty of stuff they've done I don't like, I'm not going to make a list but some are just a deal-breaker for me.
I'm content enough with 8th ed, and whatever we don't like we houserule.
There, you have your explanation for one guy who likes the Old World and won't touch 9th age.
Now I'll turn the question back to you: why would I care about 9th age if it's the lore that is important to me? It's not Warhammer lore anymore. You may think the rules superior, but using one's love for the Old World's lore as a reason to play 9th age is beyond me.
I think pretty much this. The change is not positive enough to give me any big reason to shift from 8th which I enjoy.

If they had some lovely printed books and were less random is the enemy perhaps I would be tempted

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Horace35
27-04-2016, 08:33
You know, it's interesting. We hear so often that fixing the problems with this or that game would be so easy, what needs to be done is so obvious, why can't GW listen to its fans, etc etc etc. Now here's 9th Age, which gives us a good chance to test all that, and it splits the opinion of the Warhammer community into several factions. Turns out, when gamers revise a ruleset, it reflects their priorities, and not everyone's. Shame some people won't remember that when there's an opportunity to bash GW, tho...

Oddly enough, this discussion suggests there's good sense in GW's supporting three ways to play for AoS with different optional add-on rules, and parity of esteem. It's obviously not nearly enough to get everyone onside with it, but it's still a good idea. The divided reaction to 9th Age shows the limits of designing a game that's the designers' favoured one way to play.
I always thought 8th was one of the better editions they put out. A few broken things here and there which gw couldn't be bothered to fix. I don't seek perfect balance in a game though, u don't mind some things being better value than others as long as it isn't game breaking

You can never please everyone but gw could have better supported the direction they chose to take

Yowzo
27-04-2016, 08:48
I always thought 8th was one of the better editions they put out. A few broken things here and there which gw couldn't be bothered to fix. I don't seek perfect balance in a game though, u don't mind some things being better value than others as long as it isn't game breaking

You can never please everyone but gw could have better supported the direction they chose to take

Which is why 9th age is based on 8th edition. It started up with a big shock but after each armybook was released the field was getting more and more level (leaving aside a few things like the unbreakable MoN DP of doom).

I think 9th age captures this trend, and then some. GW couldn't dream of producing a ruleset this tight that allows so many different builds to be viable.

Horace35
27-04-2016, 09:46
Which is why 9th age is based on 8th edition. It started up with a big shock but after each armybook was released the field was getting more and more level (leaving aside a few things like the unbreakable MoN DP of doom).

I think 9th age captures this trend, and then some. GW couldn't dream of producing a ruleset this tight that allows so many different builds to be viable.

Yes but they have stripped down anything random on top of fixing the glaring errors and shifted the game too far from what I would ideally want to play for my liking. Nice work by the 9A people though, amazing what they have managed to put out. From reading the rules I am just not sure it is for me though

Yowzo
27-04-2016, 09:56
Yes but they have stripped down anything random

IDK. Charge distance is still random. Magic dice and spell generation are still random which were some of the big issues people complained about then going from 7th to 8th. The Skaven bell still rolls on a table, same for Giants.

It's still too random for my KoW-loving friends at least.

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 10:23
IDK. Charge distance is still random. Magic dice and spell generation are still random which were some of the big issues people complained about then going from 7th to 8th. The Skaven bell still rolls on a table, same for Giants.

It's still too random for my KoW-loving friends at least.

I believe 'they removed anything random' sounds much catchier than 'they removed high variance high effect elements'. That is probably why the first sentence is used most of the times by people who don't like T9A very much.

Vazalaar
27-04-2016, 10:25
"Insane courage"

This alone made some games very memorable. 9th Age removed it. I have no idea why, because the chance that you roll snake eyes is so small, but when it happened it made the battle memorable. Atleast in our group.

Anyway 9th Age is good, but not my thing. What we are doing is using stuff from 9th Age that we like and add it to 8th edition. I.e A couple of magic items and spells.

Yowzo
27-04-2016, 10:34
"Insane courage"

This alone made some games very memorable. 9th Age removed it. I have no idea why, because the chance that you roll snake eyes is so small, but when it happened it made the battle memorable. Atleast in our group.

Anyway 9th Age is good, but not my thing. What we are doing is using stuff from 9th Age that we like and add it to 8th edition. I.e A couple of magic items and spells.

Well, you can't appeal to anyone. Still I'm liking, say, 90% of the changes of 9th vs 8th rather than the other way around. Especially the more level playing field between armies.

Just like when our group houseruled that you would get Look out sir against Dwellers you can also implement insane courage back.

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 10:36
I think the argument was that it almost never happens. But when it happens, it completely changes the game. Which is arguably bad game design.
But you can still house rule it. No effort at all.

GrandmasterWang
27-04-2016, 10:49
I think the argument was that it almost never happens. But when it happens, it completely changes the game. Which is arguably bad game design.
But you can still house rule it. No effort at all.
I guess one of the things which stops people fully switching to 9th age is that they can house rule the core 8th edition ruleset/army books for any niggles which they feel detract from the experience. Like you say, no effort at all.

Once all the army books are out i feel 9th will gain a bit more traction.

I really like the wip undying legions book, especially the art. One of the drawbacks however is all of the proxy names for units take me away from the 'Warhammer World'. Meanwhile my 'underpowered' Tomb Kings armybook fills me with 'old world' inspiration.

Horace35
27-04-2016, 10:56
You can..just the same way you can house rule 8th or any edition for that matter. So why bother?

And we can be pedantic about the phrasing of whether or not they removed everything random, but are you suggesting they left a lot of random things in? From the books I read through it seemed a lot of the stuff was missing. Charge distances are significantly less random. Random is turned down to 1

The design team have stated this is the way they are going many times but here is one example



This is against the major axis T9A is designed around. Remove unnecessary randomness. Having a unit slaughtering another one to pieces, winning the combat by 15+ CR, and then a few models staying and fighting, well, is not fun, is not good mechanic, it offers nothing.
There's the opinion that games like this need some extra epicness. Well there are other games for that ^^

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want EVERYTHING to be over the top randomness but some of the changes just seemed over the top to me and that is one aspect which put me off. I need a reason to bother with the switch and at the moment I don't have one

Malagor
27-04-2016, 10:56
"Insane courage"

This alone made some games very memorable. 9th Age removed it. I have no idea why, because the chance that you roll snake eyes is so small, but when it happened it made the battle memorable. Atleast in our group.

It was like that for many people, it created a memorable moment. It represent those moments in history(rare as they are which fits IC perfectly) when a army attacks another and despite heavy losses they didn't rout, instead they held their ground.
But for tournies this is unacceptable. On the 9th Age forum some of the tournies that defend the removal essentially want the game on rails sadly. They admitted that when they play they have a battleplan before the battle even starts and elements that might throw this plan into the dirt should be removed from the game. Thankfully the 9th Age team hasn't removed all of it but IC was one of those elements removed.
Personally I love the IC rule and if you lose a match because of IC then you had a terrible battleplan to begin with, if you can't adapt when a battle changes then you aren't a good general.
Much like 40k and their tactical objectives, it favors those that can adapt to things changing on the battlefield and overall(but not all) it seems tournies don't like to adapt their strategy.

MLP
27-04-2016, 10:57
I think the argument was that it almost never happens. But when it happens, it completely changes the game. Which is arguably bad game design.
But you can still house rule it. No effort at all.

Some see that as good game design. I don't want to play a game where there's no chance of anything unlikely happening. Like others have said that's what makes games memorable, and what is the point in playing a game if it isn't memorable?

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 11:09
You can..just the same way you can house rule 8th or any edition for that matter. So why bother?

And we can be pedantic about the phrasing of whether or not they removed everything random, but are you suggesting they left a lot of random things in? From the books I read through it seemed a lot of the stuff was missing. Charge distances are significantly less random. Random is turned down to 1

The design team have stated this is the way they are going many times but here is one example



Now don't get me wrong, I don't want EVERYTHING to be over the top randomness but some of the changes just seemed over the top to me and that is one aspect which put me off. I need a reason to bother with the switch and at the moment I don't have one
The advantage of using T9A with minor house rules vs. 8th Edition with minor house rules is that you get a well balanced game. If that is not important to you - which is a perfectly valid point of view - than there is indeed no big advantage to use the T9A rules.
There are still a few smaller things like new units: I believe the O&G Great Green Idol was not a part of the 8th edition.

The changes to the charge distances are awesome in my opinion. You can still get these amazing long charges were you risk everything to turn the game around but on the other hand you no longer lose a game because you rolled triple ones with your main cavalry unit.

Vazalaar
27-04-2016, 11:19
Well, while it appears the 9th Age fans try really hard to convince us that 9th Age is fantastic. It does seem to me that old playerbase is very fractured. Some prefer KoW2, some prefer AoS, some prefer Frostgrave/Dragon Rampant, some prefer 9th Age, some just stopped with fantasy and some like me just keep playing 8th with some changes.

Horace35
27-04-2016, 11:24
Yes Vazalaar which is why GW will find it really difficult (impossible) to win back it's old playerbase, if indeed they even wanted to. Otherwise they are going to have to get a lot of new people into AoS

@Arrahed
Yes it is simply a matter of taste :) I see 9A has a decent following and the team are very dedicated which gives it a chance. They put a lot more care into their game than GW have been doing. I hope people enjoy it, maybe I will give it more of a try in the future. It is certainly more likely than AoS

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 11:28
Well, while it appears the 9th Age fans try really hard to convince us that 9th Age is fantastic. It does seem to me that old playerbase is very fractured. Some prefer KoW2, some prefer AoS, some prefer Frostgrave/Dragon Rampant, some prefer 9th Age, some just stopped with fantasy and some like me just keep playing 8th with some changes.
Of course we do. Recruiting new players is essential for a game. I love it and I want it to grow. :)

Also, using one game system does not prevent anyone from using other systems. Many people, me included, play 8th edition as well and are probably willing to try other games. If everyone has a different favorite system it is still possible to play each of them occasionally as long as no one absolutely hates the other games.
While the fractured community makes organizing stuff more complicated it isn't necessarily a disaster.

Vazalaar
27-04-2016, 11:36
While the fractured community makes organizing stuff more complicated it isn't necessarily a disaster.

A fractured community is only a disaster for companies selling the rules/mini's and of those companies GW will suffer the most.

Yowzo
27-04-2016, 11:56
A fractured community is only a disaster for companies selling the rules/mini's and of those companies GW will suffer the most.

Where's the like button when you need it?

For a community effort like 9th age, hanging on to a fraction of the former community is already a sucess.

The fact that it's pulling multiple 100+ people events is just icing.

Evil Hypnotist
27-04-2016, 12:19
All the fantasy players at my club have taken on 9th Age as an alternative for WFB 8th ed. A few of us tried KoW and AoS but didn't really gel with it. While 9th Age isn't our most popular system at the moment we all agree the work done by the community there has been excellent and well worth our time testing it out. I have been to a couple of tournaments and I am having just as much fun as in 8th (even more so with everyone now at a similar level of experience with the ruleset) and I have even invested in a new army! 9th Age Ho!

ewar
27-04-2016, 12:42
Yes Vazalaar which is why GW will find it really difficult (impossible) to win back it's old playerbase, if indeed they even wanted to. Otherwise they are going to have to get a lot of new people into AoS

@Arrahed
Yes it is simply a matter of taste :) I see 9A has a decent following and the team are very dedicated which gives it a chance. They put a lot more care into their game than GW have been doing. I hope people enjoy it, maybe I will give it more of a try in the future. It is certainly more likely than AoS

In my personal experience, I haven't come across anyone who tried who didn't like it (obviously, there are some here like Vazalaar who found it wasn't for them). When you actually play it, it plays exactly like 8th edition did but without one off gaming ending events (purple sun etc), more impactful movement phase and with more varied armies due to the better internal and external balance of the books.

The magic phase is really nice as well - there is actually more variability here than in the past, as no army can generate huge numbers of extra dice so the WoM has a bigger effect. The spell lores are also more evenly balanced, with a broader range of buffs, hexes and damage in each lore whilst still retaining the character of the winds. As a tomb king player, I'm super happy with the new lore of Nehek - it's finally on a level with the BRB lores.

Obviously not everything is perfect, I wish they'd kept insane courage as well and did argue to that effect. However it does not have such a noticeable effect on the game.

Arrahed
27-04-2016, 13:04
A fractured community is only a disaster for companies selling the rules/mini's and of those companies GW will suffer the most.
Agreed. But my sympathy for GW in that regard is very limited. :)

Vazalaar
27-04-2016, 13:17
Don't get me wrong, I think 9th Age is a very impressive project, but our group decided to keep playing 8th and just add some flavour from Furion, 9th Age, EEFL and Warhammer Armies projects. We aren't really focus on balance.

I.e I like the Raging Fire Lore of Fire attribute from 9th Age, but I've modified it a bit to this:

RAGING FIRE
When an enemy unit is the target of a Magic Missile or Direct Damage spell from the Lore of Fire any unit (friendly or enemy) within 3” of the target suffers D3 Strength 4 hits (Flaming Attacks - Hex).


And I've kept the Kindleflame attribute. We will see how it goes.

I will ofcourse keep following 9th Age and I am really looking forward to the other versions they will eventually make. I.e A Mordheim variant.

GuyFawkes
27-04-2016, 14:18
I love 9A. It's because it has the old world feel.

I also play KoW and I'm waiting for them to bring their new world to me like the Black Library did with WHFB.

MagicAngle
27-04-2016, 14:33
By retaining random charge distances (though reducing the randomness a little) they have retained the single most significant piece of randomization introduced in 8th. Given that 7th ed and before had fixed charge ranges, with the interminably miserable 8" dance, I think they've gone a long way toward maintaining the inherent impact of chance in WHFB.

T9A feels significantly less "play by rails" than those older editions of WHFB to me, but I'm yet to get deeply into the system, so maybe my op will change.

Zywus
27-04-2016, 14:56
Obviously not everything is perfect, I wish they'd kept insane courage as well and did argue to that effect. However it does not have such a noticeable effect on the game.It's a bit funny.

I find KoW plays almost exactly how I've always wished Warhammer would feel. Only semi-major thing I dislike is that a 'insane courage' equivalent is included in the game:p; but as you say it normally doesn't have a noticeable effect on the game, although it can swing a battle here and there sometimes.

veterannoob
27-04-2016, 16:47
Then as I said I'm not surprised you're baffled...


...because different mindset obviously.



Sure, go ahead and reduce the reasoning to the one exemple offered.
Besides animosity what other changes did the O&G get?

Vazalaar
27-04-2016, 20:40
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

Asmodios
27-04-2016, 20:59
Besides animosity what other changes did the O&G get?
With the loss of animosity (a rule that never really fit to well lore wise anyway) O&G got some great changes. One of my favorites is that goblins have an inherent -1 leadership now but if run in horde you take leadership tests on 3 dice. This fits the goblin theme of an army much better if you ask me and makes to make tough decisions between rank bonuses late game and leadership advantages. I have played O&G for a long time and never understood animosity on the table. From the lore it seemed more like O&G were more likely to squabble with no opponents around...... not when they are a few feet away from some squishy humans flank. Idol of the great green god is a cool choice now and my mantic greater obsidian golem is in the process of being converted to make one. The different green hide races allow you to take and paint a much more diverse army that can play different every time it touches the field. There are a ton of changes i would suggest taking a flip through the codex it really isn't that long.

Urgat
27-04-2016, 21:10
Besides animosity what other changes did the O&G get?
Don't remember. I have way more beefs with the main rules anyway.

Lars Porsenna
27-04-2016, 21:48
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

I thought the pharaoh models looked pretty good, would consider buying. The Undying legion figures are not-to-interest at all...

Damon.

Drakkar du Chaos
27-04-2016, 22:10
It looks like some people here aren't happy with less randomness in T9A and the fact it's not the "perfect warhammer evar" yet.
I would say that "too much randomness" like insane courage is crap but if you like it nobody is stopping you to house rule there and there.
And also that T9A is a really young system, it's mostly the 8th edition with competitive/balance changes for the ETC this summer but after this he will keep changing and adapting for the best. Sure you can still play 8th edition but without support from GW it will die sooner or latter and so far the only viable initiative from the community to keep alive Fantasy... is T9A (just look at BB, nobody anymore is playing the latest ruleset from GW but a fanmade version).

logan054
27-04-2016, 22:54
I've tried it and wouldn't go out of my way to play it. I'm not overly keen on the changes to warriors of chaos, it's overly streamlined.

Tbh, I think it killed what little desire to play Warhammer.

Spiney Norman
27-04-2016, 23:14
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

Yikes, is he actually going to be selling those? I mean if they were home-sculpts for his own army everyone would be giving him a pat on the back and saying great job, but IMO you need to be at a higher level than that before you presume to sell product to the general public. The Pharoah is probably the best of the bunch, but the crown looks very off, those Roman infantry look really awkward and that horse... well, let's just say that GW (and even Mantic come to think about it) don't really have anything to worry about.

theunwantedbeing
27-04-2016, 23:18
It looks like some people here aren't happy with less randomness in T9A and the fact it's not the "perfect warhammer evar" yet.
I would say that "too much randomness" like insane courage is crap but if you like it nobody is stopping you to house rule there and there.
And also that T9A is a really young system, it's mostly the 8th edition with competitive/balance changes for the ETC this summer but after this he will keep changing and adapting for the best. Sure you can still play 8th edition but without support from GW it will die sooner or latter and so far the only viable initiative from the community to keep alive Fantasy... is T9A (just look at BB, nobody anymore is playing the latest ruleset from GW but a fanmade version).

What's so bad about insane courage?
It's a 1/36 chance to get that double 1 and stick around, it's hardly a common event and it's called INSANE COURAGE.
If you need a double 1 to not run away, you're insane if you don't run away.

Insane Courage was one of the better rules of Fantasy because it did exactly what it said in it's name.


Looking over the changes made by 9th edition to the 8th ed rules, there's a lot of really weird stuff.
Seems like a case of too many cooks as the rules don't feel like they were written by a group who shared the same end goal and was trying to make a unified product.

Asmodios
27-04-2016, 23:40
What's so bad about insane courage?
It's a 1/36 chance to get that double 1 and stick around, it's hardly a common event and it's called INSANE COURAGE.
If you need a double 1 to not run away, you're insane if you don't run away.

Insane Courage was one of the better rules of Fantasy because it did exactly what it said in it's name.


Looking over the changes made by 9th edition to the 8th ed rules, there's a lot of really weird stuff.
Seems like a case of too many cooks as the rules don't feel like they were written by a group who shared the same end goal and was trying to make a unified product.
While i get that it was a fun fluffy rule i can't believe that people are this upset about it (mainly because it might be the easiest house rule to implement). From what i can tell 9th has tried and in my opinion did a good job of removing randomness that had no or little penalty to the user. Insane courage could win you a game while taking 0 skill, same with 6 dicing purple sun or throwing 6 DD at a spell because your opponent is out of dice. Now you know if you stick a sacrificial unit thats going to get slaughtered without support in the middle of a field it won't win you a game 1/36 times. You have to wonder if getting off that big spell is worth taking huge losses to your army. Even though you have 6DD and your opponent got the spell off with a 6 how many do you throw at it? I like the extra level of thought that it adds. Just think of insane courage being equivalent of rolling a needed 2 to stay and that an auto break just means that the unit was decimated to the point that it had no fighting capability left.

Malagor
27-04-2016, 23:52
Again, if you lose a match due to your opponent managed to roll a double 1 in a game then you didn't have much of a plan to begin with.
I have gotten it 5 times during my time in 8e(as stated before, they are memorable), never have they actually matter in the great scheme of things. If I won that match then it was never due to the unit rolling the double 1 since I had already secured a victory on other fronts and if I lost the match then rolling a double 1 made it so that I lost for sure on round 6 rather then round 4.

Asmodios
27-04-2016, 23:56
Again, if you lose a match due to your opponent managed to roll a double 1 in a game then you didn't have much of a plan to begin with.
I have gotten it 5 times during my time in 8e(as stated before, they are memorable), never have they actually matter in the great scheme of things. If I won that match then it was never due to the unit rolling the double 1 since I had already secured a victory on other fronts and if I lost the match then rolling a double 1 made it so that I lost for sure on round 6 rather then round 4.
If it never once lost or won someone a match then why does it matter if it was removed? if it has no bearing on the game then its a useless rule and should be removed anyway.

Malagor
28-04-2016, 00:04
If it never once lost or won someone a match then why does it matter if it was removed? if it has no bearing on the game then its a useless rule and should be removed anyway.
Because it was fun.
There is a reason why I remember how many ICs I have rolled, because they made me laugh, they made my opponent laugh.
Where I'am, if you hear other fantasy players laugh out loud during a match, there is a high chance that it was due to one rolling a IC.
It hardly affect the result of the game but was fun when it happened and that's important.
What isn't fun however is auto-rout which 9th Age sadly has and is one of the bigger flaws with the game.

CountUlrich
28-04-2016, 00:05
I've read the rules but I've never played it. I was a longtime Warhammer fantasy player, and I'm loving Kings of War.

I have absolutely no interest and 9th age. Is 9th age better than 8th Edition was? Absolutely. Is it better than any edition of fantasy ever was? Possibly, though I'm not sure.

So why would such a long time fan and player of Warhammer not want to give 9th a chance? The answer is simple. When GW push me away to other companies, and I finally gave a try to games such as Saga, hail Caesar, Frostgrave, Malifaux, and especially Kings of War well I realized that there are just far better games out there.

9th age maybe better than 8th Edition was, but Kings of war is far better still. I wasn't sure when I first tried out Kings. I played quite a few games before I made the decision. And before I really started spending any money I attended a GT. But I can unabashedly say now that Kings of War is so vastly superior that I will never go back to Warhammer fantasy or 9th Age.

Sent from my SM-G928T using Tapatalk

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 00:50
Because it was fun.
There is a reason why I remember how many ICs I have rolled, because they made me laugh, they made my opponent laugh.
Where I'am, if you hear other fantasy players laugh out loud during a match, there is a high chance that it was due to one rolling a IC.
It hardly affect the result of the game but was fun when it happened and that's important.
What isn't fun however is auto-rout which 9th Age sadly has and is one of the bigger flaws with the game.
There's a place for fun rules that have no effect on a game.... There called house rules. If your looking for a tight set of tournament rules there isn't room for rules like this. Once again I'm failing to see why it bothers you so much if it has no bearing on a game and for the years 8th was out you saw this rule take place only 5 times. Me and my friends do wacky rules when we have a few to many drinks but I'm not going to trash a system that dosent include them when I'm at a tournament. But if your looking for random fun rules AOS has some great ones involving beards and acting like a horse so that's more likely your type of game.

Malagor
28-04-2016, 00:56
Well first of you should read a bit since I said in my first post in this thread that I like 9th Age and I do so I'm not trashing it, I'm pointing a flaw in the game that I think it has, one of several flaws.
But for a casual game or a fun tournament then 8e is more suitable hands down since does just that, makes me and my opponent have fun and 9th Age doesn't provide that same level of amusement.
Yes I can house rule 9th Age but then it would just be like 8e so might as well play that game which I also pointed out in my first post.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 01:05
Well first of you should read a bit since I said in my first post in this thread that I like 9th Age and I do so I'm not trashing it, I'm pointing a flaw in the game that I think it has, one of several flaws.
But for a casual game or a fun tournament then 8e is more suitable hands down since does just that, makes me and my opponent have fun and 9th Age doesn't provide that same level of amusement.
Yes I can house rule 9th Age but then it would just be like 8e so might as well play that game which I also pointed out in my first post.
But couldn't more randomness be removed using 8th edition broken lists like BOTWD and chariot spam warriors? Tossing out purple Suns every turn with little chance to have it hurt your army? I would think that a more balanced game provides more list variation and thus fun for oponents, more so then a 1/36 chance of not fleeing. But I guess that's all subjective, I personally get much more enjoyment from seeing each army playing with a variety of different lists and units.

Zywus
28-04-2016, 04:08
Because it was fun.
There is a reason why I remember how many ICs I have rolled, because they made me laugh, they made my opponent laugh.
Where I'am, if you hear other fantasy players laugh out loud during a match, there is a high chance that it was due to one rolling a IC.
It hardly affect the result of the game but was fun when it happened and that's important.
What isn't fun however is auto-rout which 9th Age sadly has and is one of the bigger flaws with the game.
This is the argument I hear a lot about the 'insane courage' equivalent in KoW too and I get it, but I don't really agree.

I'm not opposed to the fact that bad rolling will sometimes make a unit survive when it shouldn't. It is after all a dice game and indeed, those kind of incidents are memorable and often what's remembered long after the battles.

However. This is actually why I'm opposed to having such a rule. It creates inflation of such moments. Since you roll for it every time a unit breaks, it will often save at least one unit every battle. Oftentimes this doesn't matter much but I'm already getting a bit tired of hearing the KoW anecdotes of a double one turning around a battle. Not because it's random. Every combat decided by throwing dice ultimately is, to varying degree. But to me, it feels unorganic and forced. It feels like manufactured memorable moments. To me it feels similar to those AoS rules telling people to make funny voices and perform skits for bonuses, nor realizing that such things happens on their own accord, and it's then they are truly enjoyable. (Although on a completely different scale of course. Not comparing KoW or 9th Age to AoS. Them's fightin' words :p)

When your big elite killer unit slams into the opponents hapless mooks previously damaged in a hard fought battle, that should now by all rights be slaughtered to a man in a single combat, rolls unimpressive but still mauls them so that you only need a 3 or 4 to break them and then you roll a double one. That's the moments you truly remember! Because then it felt like those underdogs truly were insanely courageous. They held against all odds without the rules throwing them an extra gimmie.

I mostly played WHFB on 5th and 6th edition. There were no 'insane courage' there and sometimes units were so damaged that they couldn't be saved even by a double one. But sometimes they could, and sometimes they were! Those were memorable moments and I still remember them better than most instances of unit's being saved by Insane courage in 7th or 8th edition games.

Vazalaar
28-04-2016, 06:42
I thought the pharaoh models looked pretty good, would consider buying. The Undying legion figures are not-to-interest at all...

Damon.

I don't think the sculpts look good. Let's hope the KoE sculpts will be better.... .


It looks like some people here aren't happy with less randomness in T9A and the fact it's not the "perfect warhammer evar" yet.
I would say that "too much randomness" like insane courage is crap but if you like it nobody is stopping you to house rule there and there.
And also that T9A is a really young system, it's mostly the 8th edition with competitive/balance changes for the ETC this summer but after this he will keep changing and adapting for the best. Sure you can still play 8th edition but without support from GW it will die sooner or latter and so far the only viable initiative from the community to keep alive Fantasy... is T9A (just look at BB, nobody anymore is playing the latest ruleset from GW but a fanmade version).

Lol, What I need from GW is miniatures support. Rules and such the community (9th Age, small home playing groups and etc) can make.

I am perfect happy with 8th edition and making some rules and adding some units is not so hard. It is even fun to do so. What is wrong with just keep playing 8th. 9th Age is done by a group of like minded players. They took Warhammer in a direction I don't like. I don't find it an improvement over 8th at all.

But for some reason you need to like 9th Age, because you liked 8th?

9th Age is an impressive project and extremely well done, but does it give me a more enjoyable time than 8th edition? Nope. Not at all. Our group prefers 8th and we add the stuff we think is fun. I don't understand why we should take 9th Age as base and start adding house rules to make it a game we would like to play.

Also I never felt that the magic phase was broken, infact I feel the opposite, maybe because I don't do tournaments and play casual with the same group of friends.. Our Dark Elf player is now using the End times list, so he can use HE, WE and DE in one list. The only restriction is that he can't use the list of the Eternity king, because HE with the special rules benefits of DE and visa versa is to much.

I am now looking to Warhammer Armies Projects their 9th edition to use some idea's. I.e the huge magic items list.

We are still having a lot of fun and I really don't see a reason to switch to 9th Age.

What this thread is making clear is that a new type of fanboy arrived. The 9th Age fanboy :D

Yowzo
28-04-2016, 06:59
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

Nope. These were the first 9th age minis (coincidentally also for Undying Dynasties)

http://watchfulistudio.com/news-updates/

Scroll down for the Feb 10th post about the Terracotta Warriors release.

I thought they looked cool. And now that shieldwolf are on board I'm eager to know what will they be bringing next.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 07:11
@Vazalaar

I don't care that much if you keep playing 8th or KoW, i'm just stating that T9A is probably the best way to keep Warhammer alive, not 8th or KoW, but do as you please. And regarding Insane Courage it's just a silly argument to not play T9A, there's nothing easier to house rule than that... i think the real problem here is that you are just lazy to learn another ruleset and trying to find random excuses while living in the past... and for those here casual enough to believe that 8th was a balanced game i don't see the point again to convince you, just play what you like until it dies off, i can assure you will find nobody to play with in 5-10 years.

Vazalaar
28-04-2016, 07:19
@Vazalaar

I don't care that much if you keep playing 8th or KoW, i'm just stating that T9A is probably the best way to keep Warhammer alive, not 8th or KoW, but do as you please. And regarding Insane Courage it's just a silly argument to not play T9A, there's nothing easier to house rule than that... i think the real problem here is that you are just lazy to learn another ruleset and trying to find random excuses while living in the past... and for those here casual enough to believe that 8th was a balanced game i don't see the point again to convince you, just play what you like until it dies off, i can assure you will find nobody to play with in 5-10 years.

Lol, to lazy?

Also, I play with the same small group of players for years. 4 people total. We all have childeren, we all work, we all have a wife and etc... We are happy that we can play 2 times a month a game of Warhammer and be assured we are planning to do this until we are very very old..
It is just a group of friends gathering and having a great time and we have chosen to not play 9th Age (the shock!), but keep playing 8th with Furion changes.


Nope. These were the first 9th age minis (coincidentally also for Undying Dynasties)

http://watchfulistudio.com/news-updates/

Scroll down for the Feb 10th post about the Terracotta Warriors release.

I thought they looked cool. And now that shieldwolf are on board I'm eager to know what will they be bringing next.

Oooh those look indeed very good! Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Yes, Shieldwolf is really good and a great thing for any hobbiest that likes fantasy miniatures. It doesn't matter if the mini's are used for 9th Age, KoW, Warhammer, Frostgrave, Dragon Rampant and so on.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 07:35
Lol, to lazy?

Also, I play with the same small group of players for years. 4 people total. We all have childeren, we all work, we all have a wife and etc... We are happy that we can play 2 times a month a game of Warhammer and be assured we are planning to do this until we are very very old..

Exactly what i was saying "lazy and casual players trying to find random excuses to convince themselves", just be honest with yourselves please. Again do as you please in your little universe, i don't care at all, but don't start saying publicly that T9A will not do it because Insane Courage is removed, unit names have changed and you cannot use silly things like broken magic and builds anymore, it's just crap arguments.

ewar
28-04-2016, 08:11
@Vazalaar

I don't care that much if you keep playing 8th or KoW, i'm just stating that T9A is probably the best way to keep Warhammer alive, not 8th or KoW, but do as you please. And regarding Insane Courage it's just a silly argument to not play T9A, there's nothing easier to house rule than that... i think the real problem here is that you are just lazy to learn another ruleset and trying to find random excuses while living in the past... and for those here casual enough to believe that 8th was a balanced game i don't see the point again to convince you, just play what you like until it dies off, i can assure you will find nobody to play with in 5-10 years.

Drakkar I don't think you're doing the 9th Age community any favours by insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you. Seriously, people like different things in their games, 9th is not going to be for everyone.


What this thread is making clear is that a new type of fanboy arrived. The 9th Age fanboy :D

Yeah, it's difficult to strike a balance as obviously any community effort lives or dies by the engagement of it's fans.

Plus, it's just an epically fun game system, so you'd be mad not to play ;)

p.s. this thread was not started as a way to evangelise for the system, I was just genuinely interested to find out why anyone who liked 8th wouldn't like 9th, given the (in substance) miniscule rule changes. From my perspective, it just seems like a no brainer, especially given how long 8th was around - having all the army books revamped is just invigorating for the sake of having new rules (bit like End Times really).

Kakapo42
28-04-2016, 08:11
Exactly what i was saying "lazy and casual players trying to find random excuses to convince themselves", just be honest with yourselves please. Again do as you please in your little universe, i don't care at all, but don't start saying publicly that T9A will not do it because Insane Courage is removed and you cannot use silly things like broken magic and builds anymore, it's just crap arguments.

I'm not sure I see any part of Vazalaar's post that gives clear evidence he (or possibly she, one never can tell on the internet) is lazy. And I can say with good certainty that 9th Age not doing it for someone because of flavourful rule X is an entirely valid point. We're all different, and consequently we all have different tastes and values. Some people like rules like Insane Courage, and that's entirely genuine and an excellent point of view. Other people don't like those sorts of rules, and that's also totally genuine and a great point of view. I myself love The Lore of Athel Loren, Asrai Archery, and a million little other things from the 6th edition Wood Elf book. I didn't enjoy their absence in the 8th edition Wood Elf book, and I don't enjoy their absence in 9th Age. But that's ok, I don't have to play 9th Age, and I don't have to use the 8th edition Wood Elf book. That doesn't mean I harbour any ill-will towards those who do enjoy those things, and I certainly will try my best not to be condescending or insulting towards them. They have their way of having tabletop fun, and I have mine. Neither are wrong, and neither party is wrong, lazy or otherwise bad for enjoying what it does.

Also, having respect for the other person's opinion goes a long way.



p.s. this thread was not started as a way to evangelise for the system, I was just genuinely interested to find out why anyone who liked 8th wouldn't like 9th, given the (in substance) miniscule rule changes. From my perspective, it just seems like a no brainer, especially given how long 8th was around - having all the army books revamped is just invigorating for the sake of having new rules (bit like End Times really).

Well in fairness I wasn't terribly fond of the later developments of 8th edition (ESPECIALLY the ET series) either - 6th, early-mid 7th, or 8th edition core rules with 6th/7th edition army books are where it's at for me. :cool:

Arrahed
28-04-2016, 08:43
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

I like the undead Romans. I have no use for them and they are very pricey but the models are very nice.

aprilmanha
28-04-2016, 08:53
I think I missed the Poll but would add my 2pence

The end of 8th pretty much ended my love affair with the fantasy world, and while I still have 2 warhammer armies of reasonable size, (down from 3) I don't really intend to ever get them out again until I have a good Display cabinet I was to paint and put them in.

No one around here plays any more (8th/9th or AOS) and while other medieval/fantasy games are currently on the up, they generally are either not suitable for old warhammer models (Celts/romans) or are LOTR.

Either way, I don't have any drive to try and drum up the community to play any of the Warhammers again, particularly when there are alot of other games that came in to replace them around here, and it takes no effort to just join in with the latest new hotty game doing the rounds :D .

I've just started X-Wing and really enjoying this new style of game.

dalezzz
28-04-2016, 08:59
Seems like meta is having an impact on people's decisions to try 9th or not to me , balance has been mentioned quite a lot but I and several others have obviously never had any real problems with 8th due to my group not being a load of knobs. I can continue taking spearmen with shields and 3 level 1 wizards for my empire army and 2or 3 big monsters for my beastmen without needing to worry about a lot of the (impressive)work the 9th age team has done , so it does come down to a few minor things

I do like insane courage
I do like animosity
i prefere my steadfast not being cancelled by a flank charge (unless it's a big one maybe)
and so on

nothing major sure but as I don't suffer from any of the problems people seemed to have with 8th , why should I try 9th? ..... Other than the fact it's a new game and I intend to at some point :p

Arrahed
28-04-2016, 09:00
I'm not sure I see any part of Vazalaar's post that gives clear evidence he (or possibly she, one never can tell on the internet) is lazy. And I can say with good certainty that 9th Age not doing it for someone because of flavourful rule X is an entirely valid point. We're all different, and consequently we all have different tastes and values. Some people like rules like Insane Courage, and that's entirely genuine and an excellent point of view. Other people don't like those sorts of rules, and that's also totally genuine and a great point of view. I myself love The Lore of Athel Loren, Asrai Archery, and a million little other things from the 6th edition Wood Elf book. I didn't enjoy their absence in the 8th edition Wood Elf book, and I don't enjoy their absence in 9th Age. But that's ok, I don't have to play 9th Age, and I don't have to use the 8th edition Wood Elf book. That doesn't mean I harbour any ill-will towards those who do enjoy those things, and I certainly will try my best not to be condescending or insulting towards them. They have their way of having tabletop fun, and I have mine. Neither are wrong, and neither party is wrong, lazy or otherwise bad for enjoying what it does.

Also, having respect for the other person's opinion goes a long way.



Well in fairness I wasn't terribly fond of the later developments of 8th edition (ESPECIALLY the ET series) either - 6th, early-mid 7th, or 8th edition core rules with 6th/7th edition army books are where it's at for me. :cool:
Of course it is perfectly fine not to like T9A.
I am however confused about your view on the Wood Elves. It is true that there is no Lore of Athel Loren. There is however a unique bound spell for Sylvan elves that is very thematic. That might not fully make up for a missing lore but it is better than nothing. Personally, I think that there are more than enough lores already. The Lore of Nature is very fluffy for Sylvan Elves and if I am interested in a more competitive/different build rather than a fluffy one, I can choose from many additional lores.
The archers on the other hand work pretty much like they did in 6th edition. The only real difference is that the 'no move and shoot' penalty is optional for core archers. (And limited to 50 core archers but that should not be relevant more almost all lists.) I don't remember how Glade Rider shooting worked in 6th edition so there might be some differences. The elite and rare archers have not penalty for moving and shooting either which is also promoting a hit and run type of play. Maybe my memory betrays me so please tell me if my memory of 6th edition is totally off and there really are big differences.
Obviously the names are different now but I can honestly not understand how that could be problem.

I can see that I must come off as a fanboy and maybe I am one. I strongly disagree with fans being rude to people with different views. Having said that I can live with being viewed as a fanboy. :)

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 09:13
Yes it is fine to not like T9A but saying you don't like it because "don't want to house rule Insane Courage and rewrite the T9A names into GW names in the army books" because "i have a wife and only play 2 times a month" while saying "i play a house ruled version of 8th Edition with Furion and XXXX changes"... that's just a load of ********. Don't want to bother with a different and competitive system of what you were used to play for years ? Fine. But crap excuses are just crap excuses.

It reminds me of the few T9A Bretonnia players not happy with the new book... they didn't get a single update for 15 years and suddenly they RAGE because Ninth Age didn't bring them the perfect "point&click" competitive book in less than 6 months of update ? Entitled people are just sad.

Horace35
28-04-2016, 09:17
Lol why do people have such a hard time understanding that not everyone shares the same opinion or attitude to a game?

And saying that everyone doesn't pick up 9A because of insane courage is simply distorting what people have said. That is ONE EXAMPLE of a general trend in 9A to remove any (most) randomness and has been stated over and over again by the developers.

This sort of game appeals to some sort of players quite clearly (Asmodios for one) and you would think for tournament players. However this is by no means the entire WFB community. Personally I play to win but my general goal is just to have fun. If I lose because of the dice then so be it, it is a dice game after all. The fun is in overcoming unforeseen circumstances for me.

Maybe my attitude is helped because I don't play with lame people who insist on trotting out the most broken build they can find. I have never seen anyone manage to throw out purple sun every turn either.

aprilmanha
28-04-2016, 09:28
I have never seen anyone manage to throw out purple sun every turn either.

It rarely used to go off for me but it was always the Purple Sun of Fun :)

Kakapo42
28-04-2016, 09:32
Of course it is perfectly fine not to like T9A.
I am however confused about your view on the Wood Elves. It is true that there is no Lore of Athel Loren. There is however a unique bound spell for Sylvan elves that is very thematic. That might not fully make up for a missing lore but it is better than nothing. Personally, I think that there are more than enough lores already. The Lore of Nature is very fluffy for Sylvan Elves and if I am interested in a more competitive/different build rather than a fluffy one, I can choose from many additional lores.
The archers on the other hand work pretty much like they did in 6th edition. The only real difference is that the 'no move and shoot' penalty is optional for core archers. (And limited to 50 core archers but that should not be relevant more almost all lists.) I don't remember how Glade Rider shooting worked in 6th edition so there might be some differences. The elite and rare archers have not penalty for moving and shooting either which is also promoting a hit and run type of play. Maybe my memory betrays me so please tell me if my memory of 6th edition is totally off and there really are big differences.
Obviously the names are different now but I can honestly not understand how that could be problem.

I can see that I must come off as a fanboy and maybe I am one. I strongly disagree with fans being rude to people with different views. Having said that I can live with being viewed as a fanboy. :)

One bound spell does not a Lore of Athel Loren (or Lore of Athel Loren subistitute) make. Yes it might be better than nothing, but it's still not as good as a full unique spell lore and, well, the 6th edition Wood Elf book has a full unique spell lore. Not only do I like having a unique spell lore (yes, I'm one of those freaks who likes their army to be a special snowflake).

Yes, there might be similarities, but I keep hearing these similarities and thinking "Yes, but I can do all that with the 6th edition Wood Elf book, that suits my needs already. Why would I need to look elsewhere for what I already have?". And every time I look over the 9th Age rules document I see other little missing things that all add up and get under my skin and... No. Power to you if you like T9A, but it is not for me. The 6th edition Wood Elf army book fits me perfectly, and past-hammering with that is what makes me happiest.

Plus names and descriptions are quite important to me. I won't pay 50 points for light armour that gives a 4+ Ward Save near Woods, but I will gladly pay 50 points for Relarian's Mantle, an armour woven by the oldest and most powerful Branchwraiths of Athel Loren for the first guardian of the sacred trees and gifted only to one chosen by the forest itself. That's just awesome. That and if I base a pun, reference or other word-play off the name of something, then that same pun reference or word play just won't work if the name is different.


Yes it is fine to not like T9A but saying you don't like it because "don't want to house rule Insane Courage and rewrite the T9A names into GW names in the army books" because "i have a wife and only play 2 times a month" while saying "i play a house ruled version of 8th Edition with Furion and XXXX changes"... that's just a load of ********. Don't want to bother with a different and competitive system of what you were used to play for years ? Fine. But crap excuses are just crap excuses.

It reminds me of the few T9A Bretonnia players not happy with the new book... they didn't get a single update for 15 years and suddenly they RAGE because Ninth Age didn't bring them the perfect "point&click" competitive book in less than 6 months of update ? Entitled people are just sad.

I'm... not sure I see how that's a bad excuse. If the person already has a rule-set that they're happy with, then why do they need to change over to another one which would need an entire cycle of tweaking and house-ruling to get it to the same stage? A bird in the hand is worth five in the bush as they say.

And I love the 6th edition Bretonnian army book! It's easily my close second favourite one after the 6th edition Wood Elf book.

Treadhead_1st
28-04-2016, 09:33
Here (http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11363-ud-first-wave-pre-order-signup-s/&postID=263856#post263856) you can see the first miniatures (Undying Dynasties) made for 9th Age.

Sadly, I can't say I am impressed... .

Oof, the prices:

Pharaoh - 10 Euro
Death Cult Hierarch - 10 Euro
9th Legion - 12,50 Euro (3 models)
9th Legion Calvary - 12,50 (1 model)

The Pharoah looks pretty good, but I really don't like the rest of them.

Yowzo
28-04-2016, 09:35
This sort of game appeals to some sort of players quite clearly (Asmodios for one) and you would think for tournament players. However this is by no means the entire WFB community. Personally I play to win but my general goal is just to have fun. If I lose because of the dice then so be it, it is a dice game after all. The fun is in overcoming unforeseen circumstances for me.

This game appeals to those who here happy for the most part with 8th, but would rather keep expanding its scope rather than just keep it frozen.

With updated Bret and Skaven armybook, with new units (not many, but there are a few), with a general levelling of the playing field that makes a lot of units hit the table again (flagellants, beastmen monsters, TK, Brets, empire infantry, rocket batteries, dryads, treemen, slayers) there are no ROFLstomp netlists which means you can take the models that appeal the most and still have a fun game.

Especially that part is why a balanced tournament game also appeals to casual players. You can take non-optimal min-max lists and still have fun. Generalship now counts for far more than list-building and randomness (though still playing a role).

Not trying to question anyone's motives (familiarity and not wanting to learn a new system has been enough for me to keep playing, say, BB instead of Guildball) but I hate it when people see "balanced and tournament-friendly" as something that would drive the casual player back.

I see X-wing mentioned above. It's a lovely game. It's also a hardcore tournament game, with official player support, official FAQs, every new ship wave cards analysed and dissected even before it hits the shelves and whatnot, and yet it's also great to play a silly list just for laughs. It's one game I play with my 9 yr old nephew and one that I will probably teach to my son when he's old enough to understand.

Last week I just gave him a Millenium falcon with all the goodies and I kept throwing barebones TIEs at him. We had a blast. With a tournament-oriented game, but for fun. They are not mutually exclusive.

aprilmanha
28-04-2016, 09:37
I'm... not sure I see how that's a bad excuse. If the person already has a rule-set that they're happy with, then why do they need to change over to another one which would need an entire cycle of tweaking and house-ruling to get it to the same stage? A bird in the hand is worth five in the bush as they say.

And I love the 6th edition Bretonnian army book! It's easily my close second favourite one after the 6th edition Wood Elf book.

Indeed, if you have a close group of friends who you can play 6th ed with then you are a lucky chap!
No reason to update everything if you have it perfect already!

Unfortunately, as the community progress it does kinda leave you behind if tournaments are your cup for tea, but then again if you don't care for playing in them then you don't need to care about them and the changes they have :)

ewar
28-04-2016, 10:10
It rarely used to go off for me but it was always the Purple Sun of Fun :)

Unless, like me, you played Tomb Kings and Lizardmen, and it became the Purple Sun of Getting to the Bar Nice and Early to Beat the Queue :)

Spiney Norman
28-04-2016, 10:15
Unless, like me, you played Tomb Kings and Lizardmen, and it became the Purple Sun of Getting to the Bar Nice and Early to Beat the Queue :)

After the 3rd end times book dropped I took Nagash to a game to give all the new rules a run, because of the stupid end times magic rule Nagash ended up knowing all the spells in the lores of death, light, vampires and nehekhara. I basically used him to summon a wall of zombies across the board and then, just before the battle lines hit, he threw a purple sun through his own zombies right into the face(s) of the glottkin, I'm sure you can imagine how that went down...

Spells that can remove hundreds of points of model(s) in a single successful casting are just bad news for the game.

Yowzo
28-04-2016, 10:23
After the 3rd end times book dropped I took Nagash to a game to give all the new rules a run, because of the stupid end times magic rule Nagash ended up knowing all the spells in the lores of death, light, vampires and nehekhara. I basically used him to summon a wall of zombies across the board and then, just before the battle lines hit, he threw a purple sun through his own zombies right into the face(s) of the glottkin,

I'm still scratching my head that KF Ascendant was I7, a GUO was I4 but the Glottkin were stuck with I1. Even non-flying Skarbrand was I10.

I think that was an inside joke of some sort I never really got.

The worse part about that tactic is that you basically had a second magic phase for free with all the extra dice from dead zombies.

aprilmanha
28-04-2016, 10:38
I usually only got it to cast when playing against Goblins with my High elves so the Mage never killed more then he was worth in my games.

Still I do agree, unless you are playing storm of magic, Super powerful spells are just not good to have in a normal game.

theunwantedbeing
28-04-2016, 11:14
While i get that it was a fun fluffy rule i can't believe that people are this upset about it (mainly because it might be the easiest house rule to implement). From what i can tell 9th has tried and in my opinion did a good job of removing randomness that had no or little penalty to the user. Insane courage could win you a game while taking 0 skill, same with 6 dicing purple sun or throwing 6 DD at a spell because your opponent is out of dice.

Removing randomness?

So why are random charges still in?
How come spell casting modifiers have been docked so casting is more random?
Wizards know a random spell choice, why?
How come the winds of magic is still the same 2D6 roll?
How come miscasts are still on a 2D6 roll?
How come fleeing and pursuing is still a 2D6 roll?
How is making ethereal into a 2+ ward save less random?

And so on.

The whole "removing randomness" is a bad excuse when the real reason is that the people behind 9th edition didn't like it, so they removed it.

There's nothing wrong with removing a rule because you don't like it.
However the issue is that if you give a reason why, and then you've clearly not bothered to apply that same reasoning anywhere else then it doesn't come across as honest, and people don't like dishonesty.

Arrahed
28-04-2016, 11:36
Removing randomness?

So why are random charges still in?
How come spell casting modifiers have been docked so casting is more random?
Wizards know a random spell choice, why?
How come the winds of magic is still the same 2D6 roll?
How come miscasts are still on a 2D6 roll?
How come fleeing and pursuing is still a 2D6 roll?
How is making ethereal into a 2+ ward save less random?

And so on.

The whole "removing randomness" is a bad excuse when the real reason is that the people behind 9th edition didn't like it, so they removed it.

There's nothing wrong with removing a rule because you don't like it.
However the issue is that if you give a reason why, and then you've clearly not bothered to apply that same reasoning anywhere else then it doesn't come across as honest, and people don't like dishonesty.

The reasons why certain random effects were removed and others not was explained numerous times already. Even in this very thread. Please don't accuse people of dishonesty without checking facts first.

Hoffa
28-04-2016, 11:42
Played it loved it.

Yowzo
28-04-2016, 11:43
Removing randomness?

So why are random charges still in?

If your unit has a champion you roll at least a four. So no more snake eyes making you fail an easy charge so less random than 8th.


How come spell casting modifiers have been docked so casting is more random?

Because magic (a few armies' magic capabilities actually) were deemed to be too powerful. Magic generally took a hit so that low-magic and no-magic lists are viable.


Wizards know a random spell choice, why?

See above. No more loremasters (similar sounding path master enables you to choose your spells, but not knowing them all).


How come miscasts are still on a 2D6 roll?

You will notice that now the severity of the miscast depends a lot on how many dice you cast the spell with. Before you were penalised equally if you miscasted on 2 dice than on 6. So in a sense that's also removing randomness. I clearly remember a 5-round tournament (playing with O&G) where on two games my wizard-general miscasted T1 or 2 (one on 2 dice, the other on 3) and was sent to the warp. That basically killed both games.


How is making ethereal into a 2+ ward save less random?

Because ethereal spam could be abusive, and avoiding extreme matchups (read rock-paper-scissors) was one of the key priorities. Now your 300-point monster has a chance (if low) to remove the ethereal roadblock that just charged him, even if it's a rather low chance.


There's nothing wrong with removing a rule because you don't like it.
However the issue is that if you give a reason why, and then you've clearly not bothered to apply that same reasoning anywhere else then it doesn't come across as honest, and people don't like dishonesty.

Removing randomness is one of the tenets of 9th age, but rates far below balance in the priority list.

And let's not forget that 9th age is ultimately based on 8th edition. Some rules will be kept even if it's just because it was like that before.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 12:01
And let's not forget that 9th age is ultimately based on 8th edition. Some rules will be kept even if it's just because it was like that before.

That's the most important point. T9A is based on (very random) 8th Edition because it was convenient for the beginning of the project (more people could be interested in T9A if it's based on the latest edition than if it was based on 4th Edition)... but ultimately, in a future of 3-4 years of development, support and play-testing, i don't think T9A will still be a 8th Edition lookalike anymore.

Urgat
28-04-2016, 12:14
Removing randomness?

So why are random charges still in?
How come spell casting modifiers have been docked so casting is more random?
Wizards know a random spell choice, why?
How come the winds of magic is still the same 2D6 roll?
How come miscasts are still on a 2D6 roll?
How come fleeing and pursuing is still a 2D6 roll?
How is making ethereal into a 2+ ward save less random?

And so on.

You forgot to talk about the to hit/wound/saves charts, or Ld :p
I bet you all this is going to be replaced with fixed averages sometimes in the future.


Removing randomness is one of the tenets of 9th age, but rates far below balance in the priority list.

All the reasons you listed above? I've got an inkling the real reason is "coz we haven't got there yet").

Yowzo
28-04-2016, 12:19
All the reasons you listed above? I've got an inkling the real reason is "coz we haven't got there yet").

Easy, easy, you're thinking about KoW 3.0 now :D

Only regiments allowed, all D6 replaced by coins and all units will have tails/tails profile and 12 attacks.

FUN!

nagash66
28-04-2016, 14:14
I have not tried it and neither do i intend to. Have no interest in a game with no miniature/background support.

While i will not sell my dwarfs out of sentimental value warhammer die with 8th for me.

Arrahed
28-04-2016, 14:18
You forgot to talk about the to hit/wound/saves charts, or Ld :p
I bet you all this is going to be replaced with fixed averages sometimes in the future.



All the reasons you listed above? I've got an inkling the real reason is "coz we haven't got there yet").

Must...resist...troll...bait.....
Lets face it, I can't.

I don't think there was an argument to remove everything random, ever.
There are very good reasons for randomness since its effectively used to smooth over differences in power of units. Without randomness the game would be an elaborate rock-paper-scissors game.
Instead of giving the stronger unit the auto-success because it is stronger, a dice mechanic is employed that makes encounters into a risk vs. reward situation: A very strong unit can engage a very weak unit and can win without much risk involved. But in order to do so a strong unit and therefore a lot of resources were committed to do that. Result: Low risk, low reward.
Matching a weak unit against a strong unit involves a larger risk but since weaker units mean more resources for other tasks, the reward is also larger.

What was removed from the game is not randomness itself but situations were the risk vs reward balance was off or were the reward is so big compared to all other risk vs. reward situations that they become the only relevant decision in a whole game.

Horace35
28-04-2016, 14:39
What was removed from the game is not randomness itself but situations were the risk vs reward balance was off or were the reward is so big compared to all other risk vs. reward situations that they become the only relevant decision in a whole game.

.. in the opinion of the design team who seem to have a VERY low tolerance of anything random. Which is fair enough it is their game and they make the decisions. But a lot of people have different ideas as to what the correct level was (myself being one) and object to the removal of what they deem interesting game mechanics.

It is different strokes for different folks. You can not make people like T9A by insulting their opinions on the rules, just as much as I can not convince ardent T9A supporters the game is too much on rails.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 15:23
I have not tried it and neither do i intend to. Have no interest in a game with no miniature/background support.

While i will not sell my dwarfs out of sentimental value warhammer die with 8th for me.
I think it was shield wolf miniatures that just announced they will be supporting 9th age.... But either way the game just existed beta, maybe give it a few months to tack on some more miniature support.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 15:28
I have not tried it and neither do i intend to. Have no interest in a game with no miniature/background support.

While i will not sell my dwarfs out of sentimental value warhammer die with 8th for me.

The background ? It's coming in the next months for the 16 armies (and every others armies squatted by GW in the past... or created for AoS like Stormcast).
The miniatures ? We have a sub-forum here : http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?board/259-company-showcase/

It will take time but in the long run T9A is not some sort of comp project based on 8th edition, it's more ambitious than that.

Arrahed
28-04-2016, 15:38
.. in the opinion of the design team who seem to have a VERY low tolerance of anything random. Which is fair enough it is their game and they make the decisions. But a lot of people have different ideas as to what the correct level was (myself being one) and object to the removal of what they deem interesting game mechanics.



Do you have a quote of the design team supporting that. You could of course be right but I cannot find anything.




It is different strokes for different folks. You can not make people like T9A by insulting their opinions on the rules, just as much as I can not convince ardent T9A supporters the game is too much on rails.

I don't remember insulting anyone.
I try to advertise T9A. I am very open about that. I also try to correct incorrect statements. I don't see anything insulting about that.

nagash66
28-04-2016, 15:42
The background ? It's coming in the next months for the 16 armies (and every others armies squatted by GW in the past... or created for AoS like Stormcast).
The miniatures ? We have a sub-forum here : http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?board/259-company-showcase/

It will take time but in the long run T9A is not some sort of comp project based on 8th edition, it's more ambitious than that.

I have heard the same from Epic, BFG, BotFA, etc. I have seen such efforts before, and while i wish the best of luck in your endavours, i know where the road leads and ends.

It simply will never be Warhammer, Warhammer was Warhammer and they killed it, no ammount of community work can change that, other then to force GW to go back to Warhammer.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 16:22
It simply will never be Warhammer, Warhammer was Warhammer and they killed it, no ammount of community work can change that, other then to force GW to go back to Warhammer.

You can do both : boycott AoS and play T9A until GW bring back Warhammer. That's why i support the project... maybe i will stick to T9A, for now it's relatively promising, maybe GW will listen to reason, i don't know but i'm not going to live in the past and be depressed each time i'm looking to my expensive miniatures on the shelve "warhammer is dead sigh".

ewar
28-04-2016, 16:22
.. in the opinion of the design team who seem to have a VERY low tolerance of anything random. Which is fair enough it is their game and they make the decisions. But a lot of people have different ideas as to what the correct level was (myself being one) and object to the removal of what they deem interesting game mechanics.

It is different strokes for different folks. You can not make people like T9A by insulting their opinions on the rules, just as much as I can not convince ardent T9A supporters the game is too much on rails.

I don't think that's a fair assessment - there is still lots of random in 9th, especially compared to earlier editions (6th or 7th). What has been toned down are those really extreme outcomes (losing your Slann to a 2 dice casting on turn 1 and taking half the unit with him was a particularly unfun game from memory...) or those outcomes which were disproportionately powerful for the risk (smacking purple sun with IF at a tomb king army for instance).

In some areas they have increased randomness compared to 8th edition - for example there is more variability in the magic phase, which is a disincentive for dumping 800 points into mages. You can't generate anywhere near as many extra PD now for example, which means almost all players now bring a mixture of combat and magic characters.

Hopefully no one is insulting your opinion on the rules, like Arrahed said, we're reliant on friendly advertising to grow the game so it's definitely no in our interests to put people off! (of course there are some direct examples contrary to that on this very thread... but, internet)

Souppilgrim
28-04-2016, 17:01
I got into WHFB at the end of 3rd edition. First set I bought was 4th. I love 9th, absolutely love it. It's what I've wanted from GW for over a decade. Every army and just about every option has had new life breathed into them. My FLGS has had a strong whfb presence since forever. They gave AoS a very honest try, some had the same reaction that they did with Star Wars Episode 1 the Phantom Menace. They came out with stockholm syndrome. Convinced that they liked it for about 2 months. Now everyone hates it, and everyone plays 9th age, with the occasional KoW.

Praznagar
28-04-2016, 18:07
Played 9th Age and found it...ok.
Adds some nice options - takes away some nice option.

More balanced than 8th but less fun overall.
Well I say more balanced but my Str 6 hateful dryads were pretty OP...

I'd rather just play 8th (no ETs) if my opponent demands Warhammer.

Of course when I want a quality fantasy wargame - perhaps with three or more sides I go for Warpack (http://www.warpack.uk) :evilgrin:

Vazalaar
28-04-2016, 20:22
@Ewar, maybe you can try to start a new thread with another attempt for a pol, as I still think it would be very interesting to see the poll results.

From what I can tell from the posts the opinions vary. :)

Maybe add another option. "I think 9th Age is an impressive project, but I prefer 8th with some house rules/modifications"

MLP
28-04-2016, 20:45
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160428/8cdf42ee4daee1bb7a88c84611616fb2.jpg

Current results from a question on Twitter to AoS fans. Some of the comments:

You forgot another big reason. Models.

it was never even an option for me once I'd tried #AgeOfSigmar!

I prefer 'official' rules. Don't mind the odd house rule, but not a full rule set

this right here, AoS was everything I wanted in a war game, 9thage was just going to be super comped 8th

I'd love to try T9A sometime + love that exists. The rules do look daunting, though, in relation to AoS' simplicity.

I am personally done with rank and flank for fantasy gaming, I can scratch that itch with Historical gaming

TBh I was bored with 8th... stuck to 30k for the last 12 months, now dipping in to AOS with Orruks..

About the same here. Played maybe 5 games of 7th and 8th, was about to drop completely. AoS saved Fantasy.

I've played more varied and enjoyable games of AoS in 9 months than of WHFB in the past 9 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Spiney Norman
28-04-2016, 20:55
The whole "removing randomness" is a bad excuse when the real reason is that the people behind 9th edition didn't like it, so they removed it.

agreed, the fact is when people dislike something and can't quite put their finger on why they make up all kinds of stuff like that because they feel they should be able to argue it properly. To be honest I struggle to articulate exactly what it is about 9A that I dislike, what it really comes down to is not being 'warhammer' enough, almost as though it's like a cover version of your favourite song that might be technically brilliant, perhaps even better than the original in some ways, but it just sounds wrong because it's not your favourite song.

Ironically the one concrete thing that I really can't forgive 9A for is killing off the only random roll in the game that really mattered to me - the animosity chart. I just can't get my head around disciplined night goblins, orcs that don't argue are not orcs at all, they took the game's most hilarious, light-hearted, fun-to-use army and made it as dull as the rest of them. Not that 'dull' can't be fun sometimes (I did have four other wfb armies besides my O&G), but I can't help but wonder whether leaving one comic-relief army in the game was really too much to ask.

Drakkar du Chaos
28-04-2016, 20:56
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160428/8cdf42ee4daee1bb7a88c84611616fb2.jpg

Current results from a question on Twitter to AoS fans. Some of the comments:

You forgot another big reason. Models.

it was never even an option for me once I'd tried #AgeOfSigmar!

I prefer 'official' rules. Don't mind the odd house rule, but not a full rule set

this right here, AoS was everything I wanted in a war game, 9thage was just going to be super comped 8th

I'd love to try T9A sometime + love that exists. The rules do look daunting, though, in relation to AoS' simplicity.

I am personally done with rank and flank for fantasy gaming, I can scratch that itch with Historical gaming

TBh I was bored with 8th... stuck to 30k for the last 12 months, now dipping in to AOS with Orruks..

About the same here. Played maybe 5 games of 7th and 8th, was about to drop completely. AoS saved Fantasy.

I've played more varied and enjoyable games of AoS in 9 months than of WHFB in the past 9 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Oriented poll right here... as usual from AoS fanboys...
You should try this one instead :

Q- Do you love Age of Sigmar ?
1- Yes
2- For sure
3- I love it
4- Greatest game evar

And only 100 replies... please stop... i'm dying lol...

MLP
28-04-2016, 21:09
Oriented poll right here... as usual from AoS fanboys...
You should try this one instead :

Q- Do you love Age of Sigmar ?
1- Yes
2- For sure
3- I love it
4- Greatest game evar

And only 100 replies... please stop... i'm dying lol...

Of course it's biased it's a poll directly to AoS fans...

But relating to the op's question I thought it would be interesting to see their opinion.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 21:19
agreed, the fact is when people dislike something and can't quite put their finger on why they make up all kinds of stuff like that because they feel they should be able to argue it properly. To be honest I struggle to articulate exactly what it is about 9A that I dislike, what it really comes down to is not being 'warhammer' enough, almost as though it's like a cover version of your favourite song that might be technically brilliant, perhaps even better than the original in some ways, but it just sounds wrong because it's not your favourite song.

Ironically the one concrete thing that I really can't forgive 9A for is killing off the only random roll in the game that really mattered to me - the animosity chart. I just can't get my head around disciplined night goblins, orcs that don't argue are not orcs at all, they took the game's most hilarious, light-hearted, fun-to-use army and made it as dull as the rest of them. Not that 'dull' can't be fun sometimes (I did have four other wfb armies besides my O&G), but I can't help but wonder whether leaving one comic-relief army in the game was really too much to ask.
I play O&G and i never felt this way. Lore wise a unit of orcs wouldn't be fighting with one another when some dwarfs are sitting 5 feet away with their flank exposed. O&G infighting made more sense when there wasn't anyone to fight not in the middle of a battle a few feet from enemy lines. I never liked the animosity role because i never found it particularly fluffy, don't think you would see 1 out of 6 units fighting each other during a battle in any of the lore i have read. You might see that kind of stuff in the camps before and after battles or when there is nobody else around to fight. Same reason skaven players didn't have to roll a 1 in 6 chance every turn that another rate hadt stabbed the general in the back.

Skargit Crookfang
28-04-2016, 22:10
Play it, work on it, love it.

It's not for everyone (nothing is), but I personally believe it is the best edition of Fantasy ever put out there. Just my opinion.

Urgat
28-04-2016, 22:18
I play O&G and i never felt this way. Lore wise a unit of orcs wouldn't be fighting with one another when some dwarfs are sitting 5 feet away with their flank exposed.

That doesn't happen very much in 8th ed now does it? You need to roll two 1 in a row. And I can tell quite a few stories where it does happen, like in the 4th ed book, or in Grudgebearer, that infighting starts during a battle, for exemple because one orc tried to push past another one to get to a target, or something.
Every other animosity result is the greenskins charging the closest enemy if possible, more or less. Would you argue that this in not in keeping with the lore that orcs would charge an enemy in range regardless of whether it was da plan or not?

Malagor
28-04-2016, 22:32
Animosity is a great rule(and no matter what you roll, it's fluffy) but I remember a thread here when 9th Age removed animosity(another flaw in that game) and I can and still do agree that animosity could have had maybe some positive things as well.
Mean 2 out of the 3 options are quite negative for the player if he happens to have a shaman in that unit. No problem with the first one stopping the shaman from casting spells since he is busy fighting other orcs/goblins but the second one shouldn't stop him.
And maybe added another result on the 6s that is the same as the previous one(move, then charge) but it would give them frenzy if they got into close combat or something(extra frenzy for the savages).
But AoS fans really shouldn't complain about animosity being gone in 9th Age since AoS removed it as well.

Treadhead_1st
28-04-2016, 23:12
I had put myself in the "I haven't tried it but intend to do so" category.

Thanks to some particular posters here, unless there is literally no other choice for fantasy gaming I'm now "I haven't tried it and don't intend to".

I'll stick with 8th Edition, Age of Sigmar and WarmaHordes for my fantasy fix.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 23:14
That doesn't happen very much in 8th ed now does it? You need to roll two 1 in a row. And I can tell quite a few stories where it does happen, like in the 4th ed book, or in Grudgebearer, that infighting starts during a battle, for exemple because one orc tried to push past another one to get to a target, or something.
Every other animosity result is the greenskins charging the closest enemy if possible, more or less. Would you argue that this in not in keeping with the lore that orcs would charge an enemy in range regardless of whether it was da plan or not?
I don't have the rules in front of me ATM and haven't looked at them in a long time do to the 9th age. but something like 2-4 made you throw stones at one another and resulted in not only your unit not moving but any wizards inside also not casting. And if your a gun line goblin army there is literally not a single result on the table that helps you in any way so 1/6 of the time your army isn't doing what you want and i find that percentage incredibly unfluffy and not a very fun rule. Its comical the first few game you play with the army but after a few it just gets old.

Asmodios
28-04-2016, 23:31
Animosity is a great rule(and no matter what you roll, it's fluffy) but I remember a thread here when 9th Age removed animosity(another flaw in that game) and I can and still do agree that animosity could have had maybe some positive things as well.
Mean 2 out of the 3 options are quite negative for the player if he happens to have a shaman in that unit. No problem with the first one stopping the shaman from casting spells since he is busy fighting other orcs/goblins but the second one shouldn't stop him.
And maybe added another result on the 6s that is the same as the previous one(move, then charge) but it would give them frenzy if they got into close combat or something(extra frenzy for the savages).
But AoS fans really shouldn't complain about animosity being gone in 9th Age since AoS removed it as well.
I guess i just found it to go against fluff most of the times animosity occurred. You would get goblins with bows charging a a block of white lions instead of shooting them even though fluff says that goblins fear elves because of their smell, so you would think they wouldn't want to engage. A block of savages not charging a unit 2 or 3 inches away from the because we all know savages hate fighting dwarfs and mould rather sit there. An entire goblin army throwing rocks at each other for 3 turns straight while chaos walks across the board with 0 resistance. I found plenty of random whacky rules with things like fanatics, manglers, squigs, doom divers, and a hole host of units..... Animosity ended a lot of games early and wasn't a fun rule 90% of the time it happened.

Urgat
29-04-2016, 00:01
I don't have the rules in front of me ATM and haven't looked at them in a long time do to the 9th age. but something like 2-4 made you throw stones at one another and resulted in not only your unit not moving but any wizards inside also not casting. And if your a gun line goblin army there is literally not a single result on the table that helps you in any way so 1/6 of the time your army isn't doing what you want and i find that percentage incredibly unfluffy and not a very fun rule. Its comical the first few game you play with the army but after a few it just gets old.

2-4 doesn't make you throw rocks at friendlies, it's 1. 2-4 makes you stand still only if there's no enemy in range, otherwise they charge the enemy. Which is consistent with your "they wouldn't fight if there's an enemy next to them". If you're going to criticize the rule, at the very least, make sure you know it :eyebrows:
You're arguing animosity isn't fluffy and then you're talking about a goblin gunline army? That's pretty amusing. Because yes, if they're kept off a fight, they'll fight among themselves (that's like the whole idea - and note warmachines don't have animosity anyway) and, well, you find me anything akin to a gunline goblin army in the fluff and we'll talk about "fluffyness" again. Goblins don't fight their cowardice by fighting from a distance like pansy elves, they do so by coming in melee in great numbers (they really should have SiN like skavens).
Also, your (and my) goblins are cheap because they have animosity. It's not supposed to be helping you, it's a malus that makes the troops cheaper. If they didn't have animosity, they'd be a pip more expensive.


fluff says that goblins fear elves because of their smell

If you want to pick a bone at a special rule that is unfluffy, pick that one instead. I don't know if it's been reworded in the latest book, or how it's consistent between language, but the fluff says they don't like elves, not that they fear them, they find them unnerving, smelly and arrogant. They should hate the elves as much as they fear them, if you consider the fluff.

Malagor
29-04-2016, 00:06
Is that a different edition you are talking about ?
In 8e it's 2-5 that you will charge the nearest possible enemy and if you can't then you just stand still(shaman can't cast spells nor can the unit shoot).

the gribbly
29-04-2016, 00:49
Haven't tried it but I may at some point. I've read all the existing rules many times over. Looks like a fantastic rules set and a superb effort by the community. And as someone who's been regularly playing 7th I have found myself stealing tidbits for our local scene, so thanks for that T9A.

Anyway as others pointed out the main put off for me/mine is that it's 8th. Better but still 8th..

Asmodios
29-04-2016, 01:13
2-4 doesn't make you throw rocks at friendlies, it's 1. 2-4 makes you stand still only if there's no enemy in range, otherwise they charge the enemy. Which is consistent with your "they wouldn't fight if there's an enemy next to them". If you're going to criticize the rule, at the very least, make sure you know it :eyebrows:
You're arguing animosity isn't fluffy and then you're talking about a goblin gunline army? That's pretty amusing. Because yes, if they're kept off a fight, they'll fight among themselves (that's like the whole idea - and note warmachines don't have animosity anyway) and, well, you find me anything akin to a gunline goblin army in the fluff and we'll talk about "fluffyness" again. Goblins don't fight their cowardice by fighting from a distance like pansy elves, they do so by coming in melee in great numbers (they really should have SiN like skavens).
Also, your (and my) goblins are cheap because they have animosity. It's not supposed to be helping you, it's a malus that makes the troops cheaper. If they didn't have animosity, they'd be a pip more expensive.



If you want to pick a bone at a special rule that is unfluffy, pick that one instead. I don't know if it's been reworded in the latest book, or how it's consistent between language, but the fluff says they don't like elves, not that they fear them, they find them unnerving, smelly and arrogant. They should hate the elves as much as they fear them, if you consider the fluff.
Like i said i didn't have the book in front of me but it doesn't change my complaints at all. First off on a double 1 those savages will just sit there feet away from the dwarfs still not fluffy. If you are just out of charge range you now have a 1/6 chance of your orcs not advancing on the dwarfs that are 50 or so yards away (still don't see that being very fluffy). As for you saying a goblin gun line isn't fluffy it talks about there being countless goblin tribes and them all fighting in unique ways. One of my favorite entries is about a tribe made up of hundreds of chariots that harass marching armies for miles with their bows never engaging in direct combat. I do have my 7th ed codex (not sure where my 8th went) that says "stone throwing machines and bolt throwers are common devices in orc and goblin armies" and considering the doom diver was originally made for scouting purposes it suggests that goblins have enough wit to let their war-machines pepper an approaching force before sending in troops.

But back to my main point i don't find it fluffy for O&G to be fighting among themselves with an army a football fields length away. Especially when my army consists of one band and is not a massive WAAAGH with hundreds of tribes, some of which hate each other other. If i was running an army of thousands of O&G from various tribes then yes animosity might take place, but not as much as the rules have it in the game. If you think that's fluffy then each skaven leader should roll a D6 and on a 1 another skaven stabbed him. Any roll of double 6s for a slann and the game ends because everyone blew up. Empire fighting chaos... better roll a D6 to see if your soldiers were corrupted each turn.

GrandmasterWang
29-04-2016, 02:51
I play O&G and i never felt this way. Lore wise a unit of orcs wouldn't be fighting with one another when some dwarfs are sitting 5 feet away with their flank exposed. O&G infighting made more sense when there wasn't anyone to fight not in the middle of a battle a few feet from enemy lines. I never liked the animosity role because i never found it particularly fluffy, don't think you would see 1 out of 6 units fighting each other during a battle in any of the lore i have read. You might see that kind of stuff in the camps before and after battles or when there is nobody else around to fight. Same reason skaven players didn't have to roll a 1 in 6 chance every turn that another rate hadt stabbed the general in the back.
I remember reading a piece about Azhag's army and problems with his boyz squabbling during a battle with the enemy right in front of them in the very first OnG armybook.... there is no question animosity has been in the lore (including on the battlefield with enemies right there) right from the very start.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Asmodios
29-04-2016, 04:45
I remember reading a piece about Azhag's army and problems with his boyz squabbling during a battle with the enemy right in front of them in the very first OnG armybook.... there is no question animosity has been in the lore (including on the battlefield with enemies right there) right from the very start.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
If you read my above post it happens while having a massive WAAAGH because many of the tribes that make it up have past rivalry's or are fighting it out for supremacy, I couldn't imagine a small army of 100-200 struggling with the same animosity issues as an army of 50000. Even if you like that fluff and imagine your army as massive and made of tons of tribes it still is a poor game rule. Lore wise rolling double 6s on a slann spell should end the game in a giant explosion. Why don't skaven players roll each turn to see if their characters are stabbed in the back? Bring teclis to a 2500 point game.... just remove the other army. O&G have plenty randomness without having your units do whatever you want 1/6 of the time. All of you guys must hate AOS for removing animosity as well.

Horace35
29-04-2016, 05:49
I hate AoS for many wrongs greater than removing animosity

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Yowzo
29-04-2016, 06:25
That doesn't happen very much in 8th ed now does it? You need to roll two 1 in a row.

But when it happens, it absolutely wrecks your gameplan.

Once animosity stopped both my SOBU horde and the bunker with all the wizards (which was running behind it). Stalling the advance for a full turn, plus robbing me of a full magic phase.

It's the same we said before about a 2-dice miscast sending your 400-point wizard to the warp.

And just like insane courage.... just houserule it. Use the animosity table from 8th edition: fixed.

Asmodios
29-04-2016, 07:07
But when it happens, it absolutely wrecks your gameplan.

Once animosity stopped both my SOBU horde and the bunker with all the wizards (which was running behind it). Stalling the advance for a full turn, plus robbing me of a full magic phase.

It's the same we said before about a 2-dice miscast sending your 400-point wizard to the warp.

And just like insane courage.... just houserule it. Use the animosity table from 8th edition: fixed.
exactly we all play a dice game and like randomness. What I don't want is a game design where one bad roll on some insignificant thing (animosity, 2 dice spell, ect) that ruins a what would have been a close fun game. I get tastes for different people but I remember how terrible i felt when my younger brother out played me with his skaven for the first 4 turns of a game and then i crushed him because he sucked his wizard and almost an entire block of storm vermin into the warp casting some small spell on 2 dice spell. Or how my friend told me it was the dullest game he ever played when my 2 big units of goblins with my wizards in them squabbled 3 turns straight and he marched up to me and wiped me out without my army being able to react in any meaningful way.

MLP
29-04-2016, 07:13
But when it happens, it absolutely wrecks your gameplan.

Once animosity stopped both my SOBU horde and the bunker with all the wizards (which was running behind it). Stalling the advance for a full turn, plus robbing me of a full magic phase.

It's the same we said before about a 2-dice miscast sending your 400-point wizard to the warp.

And just like insane courage.... just houserule it. Use the animosity table from 8th edition: fixed.

Well In that case you didn't have enough redundancy in your army to cover something that you know might go wrong.


exactly we all play a dice game and like randomness. What I don't want is a game design where one bad roll on some insignificant thing (animosity, 2 dice spell, ect) that ruins a what would have been a close fun game. I get tastes for different people but I remember how terrible i felt when my younger brother out played me with his skaven for the first 4 turns of a game and then i crushed him because he sucked his wizard and almost an entire block of storm vermin into the warp casting some small spell on 2 dice spell. Or how my friend told me it was the dullest game he ever played when my 2 big units of goblins with my wizards in them squabbled 3 turns straight and he marched up to me and wiped me out without my army being able to react in any meaningful way.

Also the same. You know that miscasting is going to happen occasionally. If it can ruin your plan then your plan is not good enough.

This is the same with a lot of arguments here for things seen as random, it's not bad game design, it's your failure to plan accordingly.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 07:24
Well In that case you didn't have enough redundancy in your army to cover something that you know might go wrong.



Also the same. You know that miscasting is going to happen occasionally. If it can ruin your plan then your plan is not good enough.

This is the same with a lot of arguments here for things seen as random, it's not bad game design, it's your failure to plan accordingly.


Unfortunately, more redundancy is not an option. The more units you have, the more often does animosity mess up your plans because the dreaded double one does not only stop one unit from acting but a second one, too. If you have more units, they are packed more tightly and get punished even harder.

The same goes for wizards. Redundancy does not really work. But magic is more or less optional so playing without magic could be an option. Although, not a very satisfying one.

Yowzo
29-04-2016, 07:33
Well In that case you didn't have enough redundancy in your army to cover something that you know might go wrong.

So how exactly would you go about playing MSU/MMU with the 8ed O&G armybook?

If you wanted to have a chance of winning, that is. Either you went big or your units failed to make an impact thanks to low I. Spread yourself too much and you have your low Ld units outside of general and BSB range (which you can mitigate by putting a warboss on wyvern, but then again bad news if the opponent has cannons).

Which is why in the end anyone wanting to have a chance with O&G went the extremely un-orky way of sitting back and maxing out on lobbas, DD and chukkas.

That's why I like the T9A O&G book, despite (not thanks to) the absence of animosity. You can make a combat list and not feel like you brought a knife to a gunfight.

Horace35
29-04-2016, 07:37
But when it happens, it absolutely wrecks your gameplan.

Once animosity stopped both my SOBU horde and the bunker with all the wizards (which was running behind it). Stalling the advance for a full turn, plus robbing me of a full magic phase.

It's the same we said before about a 2-dice miscast sending your 400-point wizard to the warp.

And just like insane courage.... just houserule it. Use the animosity table from 8th edition: fixed.

There was plenty you could do to mitigate against animosity if it bothered you so badly, if you chose to not spend points doing that and put all of your eggs into a savage orc shaped basket then that is at least partly on you.

I don't think people are quite getting this. The question was have you tried T9A. Several people said it was not their thing because quite a few fluffy (generally random) rules have been removed from the game which has put them off and provided a few examples (there are other beyond this). So why would they bother to play T9A and house rule a load things when they are quite happy with 8th. I understand this is not everyone's point of view. I hope those people enjoy T9A


Unfortunately, more redundancy is not an option. The more units you have, the more often does animosity mess up your plans because the dreaded double one does not only stop one unit from acting but a second one, too. If you have more units, they are packed more tightly and get punished even harder.

The same goes for wizards. Redundancy does not really work. But magic is more or less optional so playing without magic could be an option. Although, not a very satisfying one.

You could not put your wizard in a unit, or one that suffers animosity. Or Black Orcs?

Yowzo
29-04-2016, 07:48
There was plenty you could do to mitigate against animosity if it bothered you so badly, if you chose to not spend points doing that and put all of your eggs into a savage orc shaped basket then that is at least partly on you.

Of course it was. But it was the only thing the O&G 8th edition book was good for.



You could not put your wizard in a unit, or one that suffers animosity. Or Black Orcs?

So it could be shot, or magic missile'd to death. Or put on a very expensive bunker taking points from special for barely any gain. Or yes, you could put a black orc character which was overpriced precisely because of that. Everyone knows it's not optimal, but the alternatives are even worse.

Or you could just live with it and think it was Gork's (or possibly Mork's) plan that you had to lose that battle because of a bad animosity roll. We O&G players have been conditioned to think that for years :D

Horace35
29-04-2016, 07:54
Or you could just live with it and think it was Gork's (or possibly Mork's) plan that you had to lose that battle because of a bad animosity roll. We O&G players have been conditioned to think that for years :D

Yes indeed, that is the way I always rolled with O&G :)

I always just considered them incredibly destructive when things go right or an absolute calamity when things go wrong (which can happen very rapidly). It is just the characteristics of the army as far as I am concerned, if I couldn't tolerate it I would have played someone else :)

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 09:01
Unfortunately, more redundancy is not an option. The more units you have, the more often does animosity mess up your plans because the dreaded double one does not only stop one unit from acting but a second one, too. If you have more units, they are packed more tightly and get punished even harder.
As a non-orc&Goblin player, I am going to point out all the ways you can mitigate or just plain prevent that 1/36 event from ever hurting you in 8th edition.

1. Black Orc Character in the unit with the mage.
Yes this is more expensive but so what? You're not limited on the numbers you can take and a basic black orc hero is 92pts, not that expensive and a handy bodyguard for the mage.
If you only have 3 units he's going to be in one of them anyway, may as well be the one with the mage that you don't want squabbling.

2. More units.
With 3 units, that 1/36 chance will crippled 2/3rds of your army, with a measly 1/3 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.
With 10 units, that 1/36 chance will cripple just 1/5th of the army, with an 8/10 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.

3. Make sure the Mage unit isn't the closest to any of the other Animosty suffering units.
This should be obvious, the 1/36 bad result only harms the nearest unit, so if you're not the nearest then it's impossible for it to hurt you.
Being half an inch further away stops you being the nearest.
Say you have 3 units, the middle one rolls a double 1.
Which unit does it hurt, the one to the right which is 3" away, or the one to the left which is 3.1" away?
The one to the left obviously as it's closer by 0.1".


The same goes for wizards. Redundancy does not really work. But magic is more or less optional so playing without magic could be an option. Although, not a very satisfying one.
It's ONE TURN, a low power dice roll has the same effect.
Also people would generally take at least one level 2 as backup and to ensure the main caster got decent spells, plus goblin mages were all dirt cheap anyway and you could afford multiple lord level mages as a result.

Malagor
29-04-2016, 09:02
I don't think people are quite getting this. The question was have you tried T9A. Several people said it was not their thing because quite a few fluffy (generally random) rules have been removed from the game which has put them off and provided a few examples (there are other beyond this). So why would they bother to play T9A and house rule a load things when they are quite happy with 8th. I understand this is not everyone's point of view. I hope those people enjoy T9A

I don't understand how they can't get it.
I even stated it several times, if I were to house-rule 9th Age with the things I liked in 8e, 9th Age would just be 8e anyway so why even bother to house rule when I can just save myself the trouble and simply play 8e.
But no, people still keep on insisting that people should house rule it.

Drakkar du Chaos
29-04-2016, 09:18
I don't understand how they can't get it.
I even stated it several times, if I were to house-rule 9th Age with the things I liked in 8e, 9th Age would just be 8e anyway so why even bother to house rule when I can just save myself the trouble and simply play 8e.
But no, people still keep on insisting that people should house rule it.

If you think T9A is 8th with Insane Courage and Animosity removed you have really missed the point :rolleyes:

Yowzo
29-04-2016, 09:43
3. Make sure the Mage unit isn't the closest to any of the other Animosty suffering units.
This should be obvious, the 1/36 bad result only harms the nearest unit, so if you're not the nearest then it's impossible for it to hurt you.
Being half an inch further away stops you being the nearest.
Say you have 3 units, the middle one rolls a double 1.
Which unit does it hurt, the one to the right which is 3" away, or the one to the left which is 3.1" away?
The one to the left obviously as it's closer by 0.1".

It the other units you're taking are trolls or black orcs that's not an option, since they're not subject to animosity they can't be target of a 1-result. And remember that even if you take a BO character doesn't help you if it's the other unit that rolls the 1 result.


It's ONE TURN, a low power dice roll has the same effect.
Also people would generally take at least one level 2 as backup and to ensure the main caster got decent spells, plus goblin mages were all dirt cheap anyway and you could afford multiple lord level mages as a result.

Except the problem is all wizards tend to be in the same bunker, so you're losing them all.

Also a "bad" magic phase is not necessarily crippling. You get snake eyes then you have double the dice, so it's a good chance that the one spell you want to cast will go through (barring dispel scrolls).

I actually prefer a 2-1 or 4-2 magic phase to a 7-6 or 6-5 which also happen quite often.

GrandmasterWang
29-04-2016, 09:54
What this thread is making clear is that a new type of fanboy arrived. The 9th Age fanboy :D

Indeed.... and what an interesting subject this new subspecies is :)

For myself the best thing about 9th age is due to it being 8th edition with houserules i can easily bring into my Chillhammer group any new 9th age unit additions i like.

I am somewhat curious as to all the 9th tournament results now the books are finally set in stone for a while. I would hope to see a nice variety of armies and armylists in the top 20.

I find a lot of the 9th age bickering (balance arguments) tiresome and they are a downer for my hobby . Once all the 9th age beta books are more thoroughly playtested with all the upcoming tournaments people will imo be in a better position to suggest buffs/nerfs for various units

obaobaboss
29-04-2016, 10:03
I tried it and it doesn't breath warhammer for me. They didn't took the fluff and flavour of the old world seriously enough (to much changes, that don't go well with "my vision") for me to choose 9th Age when I can still play 8th Edition.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 10:17
It the other units you're taking are trolls or black orcs that's not an option, since they're not subject to animosity they can't be target of a 1-result. And remember that even if you take a BO character doesn't help you if it's the other unit that rolls the 1 result.



Except the problem is all wizards tend to be in the same bunker, so you're losing them all.

Also a "bad" magic phase is not necessarily crippling. You get snake eyes then you have double the dice, so it's a good chance that the one spell you want to cast will go through (barring dispel scrolls).

I actually prefer a 2-1 or 4-2 magic phase to a 7-6 or 6-5 which also happen quite often.

I think the whole mitigation of animosity debate is getting a bit out of hands. Can we simply agree that animosity is a disadvantageous rule for O&G that some consider flavorful while others don't? I think everyone made clear on which side of the debate he stands. :)
But I wouldn't mind continuing the debate in its own thread since I find the possibilities of mitigating animosity worth discussing.

MLP
29-04-2016, 10:21
l find a lot of the 9th age bickering (balance arguments) tiresome and they are a downer for my hobby


Welcome to the world of AoS fans for the past 9 months.

Hopefully in the future we can all enjoy the hobby together without war.

Malagor
29-04-2016, 10:23
If you think T9A is 8th with Insane Courage and Animosity removed you have really missed the point :rolleyes:
Ehmm no, you really should read people's posts before you make such comments and is a good rule for alot people before posting.
I(and others) have stated several times that it's not just IC or animosity. 9th Age has alot of issues for me that I do not like but isn't there in 8e.

Horace35
29-04-2016, 10:24
I think the whole mitigation of animosity debate is getting a bit out of hands. Can we simply agree that animosity is a disadvantageous rule for O&G that some consider flavorful while others don't? I think everyone made clear on which side of the debate he stands. :)
But I wouldn't mind continuing the debate in its own thread since I find the possibilities of mitigating animosity worth discussing.

Wow you mean an actual gaming discussion thread? Intriguing.. :)

Yowzo
29-04-2016, 10:29
But I wouldn't mind continuing the debate in its own thread since I find the possibilities of mitigating animosity worth discussing.

Go open it. WHFB 8th edition is still my 2nd choice for a mini wargame :D

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 10:30
I think the whole mitigation of animosity debate is getting a bit out of hands. Can we simply agree that animosity is a disadvantageous rule for O&G that some consider flavorful while others don't? I think everyone made clear on which side of the debate he stands. :)
But I wouldn't mind continuing the debate in its own thread since I find the possibilities of mitigating animosity worth discussing.

If you want to make a new thread I'll happily chime in with a run down of all the ways to negate it completely.

Tupinamba
29-04-2016, 12:50
I havenīt tried it yet, but intend to and I like a lot what Iīve read of the core rules and the armybooks.

My community will have a 9th Age tournament this weekend, in which I unfortunately will not be able to participate, but things are shaping in the direction of 9th Age becoming our fantasy mass battle system.

Personally, at first KOW was my choice of WHFB successor, but mostly because it has a company behind it and I thought it had better long term prospects. However, Iīm surprised at the level of professionalism of the 9th Age project and itīs wide appeal in the community and am more than happy that my local community sticked together with this system, which rules I actually overall (of course there are always things one doesnīt like, would rather have it another way etc.) prefer to KOW and 8th ed.

infamousme
29-04-2016, 13:41
Am I the only one who thinks it strange that the 9A team would fear GW legal if they called an army 'Wood Elves'? I mean I could maybe understand backing off of 'Bretonnians' or 'skaven' as they're fairly unique terms, but 'Wood Elves" is about as generic fantasy as it comes, in fact I can hardly think of a fantasy setting that didn't include wood elves somewhere. There would be absolutely no grounds for GW being able to defend 'wood elves' as a trade mark. This would have been the case with a majority of the army book titles (Dwarfs, Orcs and Goblins, Vampire Counts, high/dark elves), it seems to me they altered most of the army names because they wanted to emphasise the 'not GWness' of their project.
No you're not. As I read his post i just kept thinking that GW couldnt sue over the use of "wood elves". This made it difficult to pay attention to the rest of his post.

Sent from my LGLS675 using Tapatalk

Folomo
29-04-2016, 13:55
I think the better safe than sorry policy was applied there.
No reason to endanger a project unnecessarily.
Even an unfounded legal problem can be a hard blow. I have seen enough groups "win" unwinnable legal fights just because the amount of effort/time/cost the allegation required makes the defender unable to sustain a legal process and the best way to proceed is simply quitting/making a deal.

Asmodios
29-04-2016, 16:46
As a non-orc&Goblin player, I am going to point out all the ways you can mitigate or just plain prevent that 1/36 event from ever hurting you in 8th edition.

1. Black Orc Character in the unit with the mage.
Yes this is more expensive but so what? You're not limited on the numbers you can take and a basic black orc hero is 92pts, not that expensive and a handy bodyguard for the mage.
If you only have 3 units he's going to be in one of them anyway, may as well be the one with the mage that you don't want squabbling.

2. More units.
With 3 units, that 1/36 chance will crippled 2/3rds of your army, with a measly 1/3 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.
With 10 units, that 1/36 chance will cripple just 1/5th of the army, with an 8/10 chance the mage unit isn't harmed.

3. Make sure the Mage unit isn't the closest to any of the other Animosty suffering units.
This should be obvious, the 1/36 bad result only harms the nearest unit, so if you're not the nearest then it's impossible for it to hurt you.
Being half an inch further away stops you being the nearest.
Say you have 3 units, the middle one rolls a double 1.
Which unit does it hurt, the one to the right which is 3" away, or the one to the left which is 3.1" away?
The one to the left obviously as it's closer by 0.1".


It's ONE TURN, a low power dice roll has the same effect.
Also people would generally take at least one level 2 as backup and to ensure the main caster got decent spells, plus goblin mages were all dirt cheap anyway and you could afford multiple lord level mages as a result.
The issue is i primarily ran an all goblin list/ my buddy ran an all orc list and we had some great games (his orcs were always trying to enslave my goblins).
Option 1 is not an option for goblin players
Option 2 is suicide because tons of small units of goblins just get eaten alive (yes i had several smaller groups made to get eaten alive, but splitting up the army to much and not much can fit in the LD bubble)
Option 3 of course you try but its not just the double 1 result its also when the unit is just within charge range and your gobbos either squabble/ take off and make the charge alone (get slaughtered)/ or continually fail charge which is a big issue if you were rocking bows.

And lastly it was never just 1 turn... any O&G player can tell you, you either don't roll a single animosity all game or you roll 2-3 of them per turn for your army.

the gribbly
29-04-2016, 17:23
While I think mitigating animosity is 'possible' and the concept is somewhat thematic the rule itself can really suck. Not made up for by a single turn (unreliable) surge by a Waaagh. Most other armies don't have a similar random self destructive element which makes animosity too unbalancing. Now if they did it would be more fair.

On that note 9th age ONG's rule is.. better. It lacks the flavor but is still potentially game breaking considering low LD and frenzy/hatred type "pulling". However at least hordes get pseudo cold blooded for panic as a boon to offset.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 18:09
I think the better safe than sorry policy was applied there.
No reason to endanger a project unnecessarily.
Even an unfounded legal problem can be a hard blow. I have seen enough groups "win" unwinnable legal fights just because the amount of effort/time/cost the allegation required makes the defender unable to sustain a legal process and the best way to proceed is simply quitting/making a deal.
Pretty much this.

We have an IP lawyer on our Advisory Board who provided input on what could and could not be the same going forward. On everything. The important thing to remember here is that we had to re-write everything from scratch, so it wasn't a question of what to keep but what to include. In the case of army book names in particular, even with generic wording like "Wood Elves", it was decided that there was no reason to keep them identical if we didn't need to. So, we changed them (though some will note that many of the acronyms, like HE, VC, DE, etc., remain the same).

SuperHappyTime
29-04-2016, 19:05
The important thing to remember here is that we had to re-write everything from scratch, so it wasn't a question of what to keep but what to include.

Mmm... Not sure entirely true on this one.

The fluff, yes. I pretty much laid out how one could set up the world map in the fluff forum's largest post (Just put each of the 16 armies in several of the countries of Europe and base it off the real world). Pretty sure that's the way the fluff team is going with and it's very similar to what GW did when designing the Warhammer world.

The game? Probably not. I think if anyone from GW saved a copy of the game's first release, it's similar enough to WFB to prove they stole the information in it to build the game.

Folomo
29-04-2016, 19:10
But aren't game systems uncopyrighteable?

SuperHappyTime
29-04-2016, 19:17
But aren't game systems uncopyrighteable?

https://company.wizards.com/content/wizards-coast-cryptozoic-entertainment-and-hex-entertainment-settle-intellectual-property

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 19:18
But aren't game systems uncopyrighteable?
Yes. As far as I know game mechanics are not protected by copyright.


EDIT: Its not from a lawyer or anything but the best a quick google search provided: https://www.rpglibrary.org/articles/faqs/copyright.php
It basically says that the text describing a rule can be copyrighted. The rule itself not. That is pretty much in line with what was posted by the T9A designers.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 19:24
The game? Probably not. I think if anyone from GW saved a copy of the game's first release, it's similar enough to WFB to prove they stole the information in it to build the game.
Game "mechanics" are not protectable under copyright law. Specific wordings, names, etc., all are, which is why the project has gone to such great lengths to ensure everything was not only re-written, but re-written in such a way that it did not match anything written in any of GW's army or core rule books. In fact we have an open thread in one of our internal sections in which our team members are going through line by line to ensure that no identical wording exists between any of our books for the first official release and any of GW's books.

Vazalaar
29-04-2016, 19:28
Sorry, but the 9th Age is blowing this out proportion. GW would only go after them if 9th Age would want to make money out of it. Look at Warhammer Armies Projects (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.be/). He uses background from every GW book published, combined with pictures, layout and etc.. and he is doing fine for years.


With the benefit that his armybooks still have the Warhammer feeling.

Anyone who loves Warhammer should take a look at it.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 19:32
Sorry, but the 9th Age is blowing this out proportion. GW would only go after them if 9th Age would want to make money out of it.
Perhaps, but what's the harm in taking precautions? If the project continues to grow as it has, and if GW in any way suspects that people aren't playing their games because they're playing ours, you think for a second that they wouldn't come after us and try to shut us down? Look at the Chapterhouse case - they hired an $800/hour California law firm and will likely spend $5-10 million settling a $20,000 lawsuit.

Skargit Crookfang
29-04-2016, 19:37
Sorry, but the 9th Age is blowing this out proportion. GW would only go after them if 9th Age would want to make money out of it. Look at Warhammer Armies Projects (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.be/). He uses background from every GW book published, combined with pictures, layout and etc.. and he is doing fine for years.


With the benefit that his armybooks still have the Warhammer feeling.

Anyone who loves Warhammer should take a look at it.

Better to be safe than sorry- and, as for lore/fluff, it's coming. It's being reworked with some inspiration from the Old World, for sure, but with its own take. Sure, that may have a great deal of fan-service and re-imagining, but oh well! If one can get over Shimmertarn, one can as easily get over the name changes 9th provides ;)

SuperHappyTime
29-04-2016, 19:47
Game "mechanics" are not protectable under copyright law. Specific wordings, names, etc., all are, which is why the project has gone to such great lengths to ensure everything was not only re-written, but re-written in such a way that it did not match anything written in any of GW's army or core rule books. In fact we have an open thread in one of our internal sections in which our team members are going through line by line to ensure that no identical wording exists between any of our books for the first official release and any of GW's books.

But that's not how IP has been stolen. I can't take a competitor's product, break it down to find it's components, and then produce said chemical selling it as my own. I can make a mass-army based game, with realistic factors and playtest with vigorous notetaking every day of the week. I believe Ludaman had mentioned in a previous thread he was looking to do something like this. That's all well and legal. But I can't legally take the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook and re-write it. That's what I'm saying happened here, and the fact is you said it was re-written.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 19:52
But I can't legally take the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook and re-write it.
Legally speaking, so long as you're not copying anything word for word and so long as you're not infringing on anything protected under the IP (most notably, names), yes you can.

Arrahed
29-04-2016, 19:54
But that's not how IP has been stolen. I can't take a competitor's product, break it down to find it's components, and then produce said chemical selling it as my own. I can make a mass-army based game, with realistic factors and playtest with vigorous notetaking every day of the week. I believe Ludaman had mentioned in a previous thread he was looking to do something like this. That's all well and legal. But I can't legally take the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook and re-write it. That's what I'm saying happened here, and the fact is you said it was re-written.

Apparently you can. Whether you think that this is right is a different question.

Vazalaar
29-04-2016, 19:58
The biggest reason why I don't like AoS is because of the destruction the old world/background fluff/lore. While I am certain 9th Age will do a great job as their whole project is very professional. I am not very interested in their lore/fluff. If the AoS game was based in the old world, than maybe I wouldn't have mind it as a game.

Anyway, most that posted here said that there are things they don't like with 9th Age and prefer Oldhammer or Warhammer 8th edition, mainly because it still is Warhammer or atleast how we remember it.

When 9th Age has it's fluff, background and etc.. it is just a game that vaguely resembles Warhammer, but it ain't an improvent, atleast not for me and others that posted here.

Urgat
29-04-2016, 20:03
Legally speaking, so long as you're not copying anything word for word and so long as you're not infringing on anything protected under the IP (most notably, names), yes you can.

May I remind you Apple almost won a suit against Samsung for copying rectangles with round corners? Plagerism is not legal and, to be honest, I wonder if 9th Age couldn't be legally labelled as such (we all know it is, it's the whole point of the thing).

theunwantedbeing
29-04-2016, 20:09
May I remind you Apple almost won a suit against Samsung for copying rectangles with round corners? Plagerism is not legal and, to be honest, I wonder if 9th Age couldn't be legally labelled as such (we all know it is, it's the whole point of the thing).

It probably could.
A lot of the terms in the game are exactly the same as the ones in 8th edition and they function identically as well, the wording is a little different though.
Plus, it's not as if they're being quiet about it being a direct follow on of 8th edition.

It likely depends how much GW cares at this point.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 20:11
When 9th Age has it's fluff, background and etc.. it is just a game that vaguely resembles Warhammer, but it ain't an improvent, atleast not for me and others that posted here.

It's important to remember that T9A isn't intended to be a copy of Warhammer, it's intended to be a spiritual successor to Warhammer. That the rules themselves are similar to Warhammer is simply because it was a well-established ruleset that many in the gaming community were already familiar with, and the result is an easy transition for people looking to make a move. In my own case I was able to play my first game of T9A with a 15-minute skimming of the new rulebook, which even lists major changes in a different color.

I can appreciate that many people feel it's better to stick with a houseruled version of 8th edition than to switch to T9A. That's great, and I'm glad they have communities willing to agree on houserules. Many don't have this luxury, and for the tournament community in particular a non-unified ruleset creates a particular problem when it comes to nationwide and international rankings.

T9A isn't Warhammer. But it plays a lot like Warhammer, and gives many a unified, familiar ruleset with which to play with the armies they've been building for many years. And frankly, that's all we ever set out to provide.

Lord Dan
29-04-2016, 20:13
May I remind you Apple almost won a suit against Samsung for copying rectangles with round corners?
Yes, because Apple (somehow legally, and quite covertly) actually acquired a design patent on "rectangular phones with rounded corners" and simply waited for another major company to unknowingly violate it.

Spiney Norman
29-04-2016, 21:07
Except the problem is all wizards tend to be in the same bunker, so you're losing them all.

Fair enough, I guess it's up to you how you play, I generally separate my mages to prevent that from happening, I also usually run a goblin warboss with the ruby ring in a different unit entirely so that if things really go south I can usually at least cast something, heck I've even run a warboss with the wizarding hat before (though to be fair that was a SoM game).

Most often I'm running a Savage great shaman in my unit of bigguns (usually infantry) a night goblin L2 in an archer bunker and a Gobba warboss with the ring in a front line Gobba horde, it's very rare that all three of them fail animosity on the same turn.

A good way to prevent important units from holding each other up with the 1 result is to run small chaff units of spider/wolf riders between your blocks so they take the brunt of any 'get em' results (which are extremely rare in any case, if you get more than one per battle you're incredibly unlucky).


Also a "bad" magic phase is not necessarily crippling. You get snake eyes then you have double the dice, so it's a good chance that the one spell you want to cast will go through (barring dispel scrolls).

I actually prefer a 2-1 or 4-2 magic phase to a 7-6 or 6-5 which also happen quite often.

In the case of O&G, especially goblins, their magic is more amusing than actually destructive, little Waaagh is in the running for lamest lore in the game, one wizard taking a turn out is barely noticeable most of the time since they're mostly there for defensive purposes (or carrying the shrunken head) anyway.

Katastrophe
29-04-2016, 21:47
But that's not how IP has been stolen. I can't take a competitor's product, break it down to find it's components, and then produce said chemical selling it as my own. I can make a mass-army based game, with realistic factors and playtest with vigorous notetaking every day of the week. I believe Ludaman had mentioned in a previous thread he was looking to do something like this. That's all well and legal. But I can't legally take the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook and re-write it. That's what I'm saying happened here, and the fact is you said it was re-written.

Actually, yes you can as long as you do not use their language in describing the mechanic, where their language is unique or derived from their unique IP (setting). Generally describing things like movement shooting and and HTH along with other rules is totally legal

Harosyn
29-04-2016, 22:30
If I'm playing for fun then I play 8th edition with triumph and treachery rules because sometimes crazy mechanics and backstabbing mates over a pint is fun.

If I want a bit more serious and thoughtful game then I play 6th edition because the army books were nice and I get to field my Kislev forces and Dogs of War.

I would try 9th edition if anybody here wanted to.
There are websites with updated rules for 8th edition for Dogs of War and Kislev, one is called the Warhammer Armies Project, the other Dogs of War both awesome websites. I'm building a Dogs of War army now so far I have the goblin wolf riders, the Ogres , the Rugluds, the Giants of Albion and the Al Muktar units. I really liked the way GW expanded the fun factor of Warhammer in 6th with all the new options of playing , and the Warhammer Armies Project has updated them for 8th Edition, so more stuff and more fun .

Drakkar du Chaos
30-04-2016, 11:53
But that's not how IP has been stolen. I can't take a competitor's product, break it down to find it's components, and then produce said chemical selling it as my own. I can make a mass-army based game, with realistic factors and playtest with vigorous notetaking every day of the week. I believe Ludaman had mentioned in a previous thread he was looking to do something like this. That's all well and legal. But I can't legally take the Warhammer Fantasy rulebook and re-write it. That's what I'm saying happened here, and the fact is you said it was re-written.

T9A has a full time lawyer in the Team, don't bother about legal issues, they got this covered.

Lord Dan
30-04-2016, 13:06
T9A has a full time lawyer in the Team
A full-time lawyer who works exclusively with IP, copyright, and patent law, to boot.

Vazalaar
30-04-2016, 18:37
The biggest reason why I don't like AoS is because of the destruction the old world/background fluff/lore. While I am certain 9th Age will do a great job as their whole project is very professional. I am not very interested in their lore/fluff. If the AoS game was based in the old world, than maybe I wouldn't have mind it as a game.

Anyway, most that posted here said that there are things they don't like with 9th Age and prefer Oldhammer or Warhammer 8th edition, mainly because it still is Warhammer or atleast how we remember it.

When 9th Age has it's fluff, background and etc.. it is just a game that vaguely resembles Warhammer, but it ain't an improvent, atleast not for me and others that posted here.


Hmmm, I need to change my opinion a bit. I just checked out their latest update and the armylists look very good.

Forwarded it again to my group and I think we will give it another try!

finaglista
30-04-2016, 19:03
I love it, GREAT job.
I can finally play models that i couldn't in 8ed, thank you so much :cool:

Lord Malorne
30-04-2016, 20:23
I'm hearing 9th age is different or a spiritual successor to 8th edition, for those who have played, in what way is that? What exactly are some of the more major changes from 8th edition (or even 7th!).

Katastrophe
30-04-2016, 20:32
I'm hearing 9th age is different or a spiritual successor to 8th edition, for those who have played, in what way is that? What exactly are some of the more major changes from 8th edition (or even 7th!).

Their website actually answers all your questions. Books can be downloaded for FREE and read.

Lord Dan
30-04-2016, 20:35
I'm hearing 9th age is different or a spiritual successor to 8th edition, for those who have played, in what way is that? What exactly are some of the more major changes from 8th edition (or even 7th!).

Well, the biggest is that it isn't Warhammer at all. Its official title is "Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age". We can legally be neither "Warhammer 9th Edition" nor the self-proclaimed successor to Warhammer 8th edition. I've heard several users kicking around the term "spiritual successor", and it has a ring to it.

As far as rules mechanics, you'll find the game plays quite similarly to Warhammer 8th edition. Many of the changes are subtle, such as Steadfast now being breakable, spears gaining AP and Lethal Strike (killing blow) against cavalry, and BSB's no longer auto-deleting. As for bigger changes, you'll find that magic has generally been toned down (lv. 3 and lv. 4 both get +2 to cast now, for instance) and the introduction of secondary objectives can have drastic effects on how games are played out.

Some of the more beloved rules that needed to be removed (Animosity springs to mind) was simply because the rules team was finding them too hard to balance in making all 16 army books roughly the same power level. You certainly won't like all of the changes, but I'm confident you'll like - or at least agree with - many.

Take a look through the rulebook over on T9A's website. You'll find most of the changes are color-coded, so it's pretty easy to spot what's different.

Lord Malorne
30-04-2016, 20:41
I was skimming over the book just now, i'm actually really liking what I am seeing, sad to hear about animosity though! Also glances through the Sylvan elves list, changeling (alter) kindred was a really nice addition and brought back happy memories, at first I was going to just play 8th edition with some friends getting back into the hobby but having only made a cursory examination 9th Age looks rather good.

Skargit Crookfang
30-04-2016, 20:57
So happy to hear the positivity around 9th- it's been a LOAD of fun to work on the project, and I really encourage anyone who has ideas and wants in to stop on by, post and be part of it all. For an internet forum, the site is shockingly civil!

Lord Dan
30-04-2016, 21:41
I was skimming over the book just now, i'm actually really liking what I am seeing, sad to hear about animosity though! Also glances through the Sylvan elves list, changeling (alter) kindred was a really nice addition and brought back happy memories, at first I was going to just play 8th edition with some friends getting back into the hobby but having only made a cursory examination 9th Age looks rather good.
Yeah, I was sad to see Animosity go, too, but then again I was also a fan of the much-hated Intrigue at the Court rule from 6th edition. Some things just needed to change or go for the sake of balance, and while it's not perfect (yet!) it's by far the most-balanced set of fantasy rules I've ever played.

Lord Malorne
30-04-2016, 21:52
Yeah, I was sad to see Animosity go, too, but then again I was also a fan of the much-hated Intrigue at the Court rule from 6th edition. Some things just needed to change or go for the sake of balance, and while it's not perfect (yet!) it's by far the most-balanced set of fantasy rules I've ever played.

The high elf general selection? Heh I remember that.

Folomo
30-04-2016, 23:15
I also want to point out that things from earlier editions where salvaged. For example, Vampires have bloodlines :)
One important difference is that all armies have multiple ways to play them instead of solely one.

The bearded one
30-04-2016, 23:37
I'm learning the 9th edition rules now for a battle tomorrow and when it came to the namechanges to avoid copyright issues I really had to laugh in one or two places. Especially the dawn stone which is now the dusk stone. A+

Ayin
01-05-2016, 01:33
I was skimming over the book just now, i'm actually really liking what I am seeing, sad to hear about animosity though! Also glances through the Sylvan elves list, changeling (alter) kindred was a really nice addition and brought back happy memories, at first I was going to just play 8th edition with some friends getting back into the hobby but having only made a cursory examination 9th Age looks rather good.

Get into 9th. I was planning on just kicking around in 8th for the few games I was planning on playing with my buddies, but 9th has re-invigorated the players I've known who have dropped out of Warhammer, some before 8th edition. Starting to follow it has legitimately been the best decision I've ever made in regards to wargaming.

The bearded one
01-05-2016, 16:15
I just played my first game of 9th and I enjoyed it - if only for the fact I finally got to dust off my lizardmen again, and lead them to victory.

There's a handful things that bug me a little bit here and there, but overall there's some fairly substantial changes I really like - especially the way miscasts are handled. I prefer casting a large number of smaller spells rather than 1-2 bigger ones, so I tend to cast with 2, sometimes 3 dice per spell. In the past I've had cases where a 2-dice fireball blew up half my templeguard, but in this game I had a 2-dice miscast and a 3-dice miscast, and the results were relatively tame, losing only 2-3 templeguard to the two combined. The bigger downside was that I lost a lot of powerdice because of them.

My opponent had an early 4-dice spell miscast (+1 toughness to all nearby units), and his level 2 wizard turned into a level 0 one in the first turn I think.

Vazalaar
01-05-2016, 16:27
I just played my first game of 9th and I enjoyed it - if only for the fact I finally got to dust off my lizardmen again, and lead them to victory.

There's a handful things that bug me a little bit here and there, but overall there's some fairly substantial changes I really like - especially the way miscasts are handled. I prefer casting a large number of smaller spells rather than 1-2 bigger ones, so I tend to cast with 2, sometimes 3 dice per spell. In the past I've had cases where a 2-dice fireball blew up half my templeguard, but in this game I had a 2-dice miscast and a 3-dice miscast, and the results were relatively tame, losing only 2-3 templeguard to the two combined. The bigger downside was that I lost a lot of powerdice because of them.

My opponent had an early 4-dice spell miscast (+1 toughness to all nearby units), and his level 2 wizard turned into a level 0 one in the first turn I think.

Could you give a little bit more info about the small things that bugged you?

In my group we also have one Lizardmen player and maybe we will switch to 9th Age, but currently he uses the 8th edition Lizardmen armybook with Furion changes (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DcPz0zAHPjWHhoTGRjQVA1Zk0/view?pref=2&pli=1). How would you compare the 8th Lizardmen armylist with the 9th Age armylist?

ewar
01-05-2016, 19:11
Could you give a little bit more info about the small things that bugged you?

In my group we also have one Lizardmen player and maybe we will switch to 9th Age, but currently he uses the 8th edition Lizardmen armybook with Furion changes (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DcPz0zAHPjWHhoTGRjQVA1Zk0/view?pref=2&pli=1). How would you compare the 8th Lizardmen armylist with the 9th Age armylist?

I would be very wary of making comparisons - the LM book in 9th is built for an entirely different meta and substantially different game rules. You're comparing apples with oranges.

A better question is whether the battle was fun, balanced or whatever it is that floats your boat.

Vazalaar
01-05-2016, 20:04
I would be very wary of making comparisons - the LM book in 9th is built for an entirely different meta and substantially different game rules. You're comparing apples with oranges.

A better question is whether the battle was fun, balanced or whatever it is that floats your boat.

Why?

I don't think it is wrong to ask how his 9th Age Lizardmen battle felt compared with his Warhammer 8th edition Lizardmen experiences.

ewar
01-05-2016, 20:51
Why?

I don't think it is wrong to ask how his 9th Age Lizardmen battle felt compared with his Warhammer 8th edition Lizardmen experiences.

I didn't say it was wrong, maybe I just misunderstood the meaning of your first post? You asked if he could compare the 8th and 9th books, not how they felt to play, so it seemed reasonable to say that a comparison of rules or power or whatever needs to be in the context of the game, not just the army book.

I'm a LM player myself going back nearly 10 years and the 9th book removed some play styles by taking out skirmishing poison blow pipes from core, so the skink cloud is not really possible in 9th (shooting/avoidance lists have generally been nerfed hard).

Also stegs got moved to rare and an old blood on alpha carnosaur completely rocks now, finally justifying the size of the new model. He literally eats other monsters for breakfast and has a special rule of getting +2" bonus to his charge against flying monsters (making him quicker than a dragon).

The bearded one
01-05-2016, 20:59
To be honest it felt mostly like a regular 8th edition battle, except with a few tweaks in a few rules and a few of the things my army could do - but majoratively in line with before. The leap between 7th and 8th was significantly larger.


A couple of the point cost changes in the 9th edition lizard book seemed very odd (why is a unit of 10 skink skirmishers with poisoned javelins at bs3 100pts, but 10 skink hunters with poisoned blowpipes at bs4 90pts? (with every added skink for the javelins costing 9 points, while only 7 for the blowpipes)) but nothing too drastic overall. The bastiladon's buffs are neater than before, the troglodon finally has a sensible pointcost (i.e. nearly half of what he was in the 8th book), the razordons finally look like a cool, useful option, sadly no more multiwound impact hits for the stegadon, terradons can sensibly get shields, ripperdactlys now function a bit like the miniature monstrous cavalry they ought to be (3+ save). So overall just relatively small stuff.



One of the things that massively bothered me in the 9th ruleset was a seemingly innocuous change, but with a huge impact. In 9th you work out charge reactions before declaring whether you want to redirect the charge - so you first get to see how far the enemy gets to flee before deciding to redirect. And if the second unit you declare to charge also flees you get to choose which one you want to charge. That's too much "getting your cake and eating it too" for my taste, especially because I use a lot of skink units, whose usefulness is in large part determined by their ability to hamper an enemy advance via blocking and fleeing.

I got a couple pictures from the game;
http://i.imgur.com/qRb7bPr.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jScTnkq.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/o0tuhcM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/uVSBf3Y.jpg

ewar
01-05-2016, 21:16
But what it does do is get rid of the double flee tactic which some armies could make ridiculously easy use of to take significant units out of the game. It was a very 'gamey' manoeuvre so I don't think it's any great loss personally. Impossible charges also got taken out of the game.

Drakkar du Chaos
01-05-2016, 21:17
A couple of the point cost changes in the 9th edition lizard book seemed very odd (why is a unit of 10 skink skirmishers with poisoned javelins at bs3 100pts, but 10 skink hunters with poisoned blowpipes at bs4 90pts? (with every added skink for the javelins costing 9 points, while only 7 for the blowpipes)) but nothing too drastic overall.

Core tax...

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/7174-please-explain-core-tax-to-me/&pageNo=1
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/9237-the-core-questions-of-core/&pageNo=1

Lord Malorne
01-05-2016, 21:52
Ah, well i get the why but it does still stick out like a sore thumb. May be worth adding a paragraph as to the why the on army books.

Urgat
01-05-2016, 21:56
Ah, well i get the why

I don't. It's dumb as hell. 9th Age is supposed to be balanced, but there's internal inbalance built in on purpose? Wow.

The bearded one
01-05-2016, 21:59
I don't. It's dumb as hell. 9th Age is supposed to be balanced, but there's internal inbalance built in on purpose? Wow.

Agreed - it seems like an incentive to spend as little on core as possible, actually, and spend all my points on units in the slots where they're actually worth their cost.


9th did retool some units that were just absolutely hilariously mispriced in 8th (troglodon looking at you) but the coretax stands out as.. weird.


I did figure they'd added the clause about getting to chose which of the 2 fleeing units to redirect on to, to avoid double flee obstruction - and that's just fine - but being able to do that after seeing how far they flee seems too much of a neutering for the whole concept of fleeing from a charge. Declaring a flee reaction is a huge gamble on my part already - at least allow me to force a hard choice on my opponent, rather than just letting him take a look and see what's the easiest option for him.



I'm really very happy with the new miscast rules, and I don't really have any other major complaints. Just that working out the flee move before deciding on redirection makes it too easy for the charger. That, and a weird magic item in the magic armour section that's 70 points for a shield with a 5+ ward save against ranged. That one is.. uh.. odd.

Malagor
01-05-2016, 22:22
I'm really very happy with the new miscast rules, and I don't really have any other major complaints. Just that working out the flee move before deciding on redirection makes it too easy for the charger. That, and a weird magic item in the magic armour section that's 70 points for a shield with a 5+ ward save against ranged. That one is.. uh.. odd.
It's for lords on monsters.
Monster mounts are at the moment worthless and will probably never change either, that item is just a further slap to the face for us that liked using monster mounts in 8e.
Almost as if we are being punished for going by rule of cool rather then powerbuild so they decided to really make it suck for us.
I have argued for months now on 9th Age forums about changing the ridden monster rule to either 8e, Warmahordes or End times or at the very least make the monster cheaper but nope, deaf ears.

The bearded one
01-05-2016, 22:36
I think it's funny that 9th is a community project and there's a lot of care and discussion going into all the details and there's nuanced pointcosts and everything, and we're still getting a whole bunch of complaints and perceived gaffs that sound the same like they did when GW published a new ruleset.

Malagor
01-05-2016, 22:51
I think it's funny that 9th is a community project and there's a lot of care and discussion going into all the details and there's nuanced pointcosts and everything, and we're still getting a whole bunch of complaints and perceived gaffs that sound the same like they did when GW published a new ruleset.
Well no product is perfect.
But to me it seems like for every good thing they fixed/added, they added a new problem or removed a good thing.
Vampires got bloodlines now, awesome and terrorgheist got nerfed, I like the OP terrorgheist but I can see why they did so it's ok IMO but then they more or less destroyed the Coven Throne and nerfed the Black Coach for some reason and those two units were even iffy in 8e.
Ogres got a overall buff which I like and like the big names are worth taking now but now we can take chaos marks and while expensive, it just destroy armies to the point that I felt bad for using it as did another OK player in my group.
They nerfed cannons but they also nerfed ridden monsters as if they were a problem in 8e.
These sorta things are all over the place I find.

Drakkar du Chaos
01-05-2016, 22:59
I think it's funny that 9th is a community project and there's a lot of care and discussion going into all the details and there's nuanced pointcosts and everything, and we're still getting a whole bunch of complaints and perceived gaffs that sound the same like they did when GW published a new ruleset.

Because some people think that the design of the army suck, not their skills (GW mentality or wargaming mentality ?) and that if you whine louder than everyone else you'll end up with a better army.
T9A isn't a wonderful and magical land where everyone is happy and everything is perfect, but the project is young, ambitious, and there's a lot of good will from everyone involved.

Now that the phase "let's take the 8th edition and balance it in 6 months" is over, we can playtest for the next 6 months and hope for something bigger and shiny latter this year.

Spiney Norman
01-05-2016, 23:08
Core tax...

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/7174-please-explain-core-tax-to-me/&pageNo=1
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/9237-the-core-questions-of-core/&pageNo=1

Wait, am I reading this right, 9th age core units are deliberately overcosted to make them even more unattractive?

That's funny, GW managed to make most core units unattractive without over-costing them, that seems a very odd and counterproductive way to balance the game. Ideally you want core units to be worth their points but less specialised/effective than special/rare units, not units that are just flat out poor value. All you achieve from that is to ensure that everyone builds their core section as close to the minimum core allowance as possible.

Zywus
01-05-2016, 23:19
That does indeed sound like pretty awful game design.

Ideally, any unit should be equally attractive and any separation of units into special/rare etc. should merely be a way of indicating/controlling armies to be reasonable representations of how they're described in the background.

If the players perceive the inclusion of core units as a 'tax', then that's IMO a failure of the system. Certainly nothing to strive for.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 00:11
I have nothing to do with the rules design part of the project, however from what I'm told it was a way early on to address the issue of the core spam that cropped up with things like core chariots, skink clouds, and glade guard bowlines. Now with a 4 unit cap in core you're seeing the pricing gradually adjust itself back to normal, particularly with the reduced costs for the first "batch" of models in a unit, and it will only improve further after the next 8 months of playtesting and tournament results.

Arrahed
02-05-2016, 06:44
Wait, am I reading this right, 9th age core units are deliberately overcosted to make them even more unattractive?

That's funny, GW managed to make most core units unattractive without over-costing them, that seems a very odd and counterproductive way to balance the game. Ideally you want core units to be worth their points but less specialised/effective than special/rare units, not units that are just flat out poor value. All you achieve from that is to ensure that everyone builds their core section as close to the minimum core allowance as possible.

I agree that core tax is not a particularly good solution to balance a game. But I think only a few armies really have core tax. For example 'Not-Chaos-Warriors' where it is difficult to make units worth taking because they fulfill a unique role. An army that is completely designed around heavily armored super elite close combat units doesn't leave to much room for further specialization. As a result the core troops are simply less cost efficient. I don't really like it but I can see why it is there.
My Sylvan elves have core units with unique roles in the army and therefore no need for core tax. At least I don't see any. O&G have somewhat of the opposite problem. 'Not-Big'uns' are core and so cost efficient that 'Not-Black-Orcs' are rarely taken.

I disagree that GW made core unattractive without over costing it. There is no other way than over costing to make something unattractive. If a weak unit were cheap enough, they would be worth taking.

I imagine that balance without core tax is probably the goal the design team is working towards but the limited time frame made some short cuts here and there necessary. Another example are Highborn elves and Sylvan elves who got all ranged special units moved to rare to avoid abusive avoidance builds. Nobody is really happy about that but balance was needed for the ETC. I believe it was mentioned that the time will be used to find a better solution for the future.