PDA

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



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

ewar
02-05-2016, 08:22
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.

Whaaaat? The ridden monster rules are 100x better than 8th - they are basically the same as the ET rules. I ram a wood elf dragon lord yesterday in two games absolutely fine. Before ridden monsters were pointless due to the warmachine rules.

You just can't stack 2+ saves and 4+ ward saves on dragon lords. Although personally I think the Force Shield should be 4+ for the cost.

Regarding the core tax, everyone should remember this only applies to some units and only those where there is a similar function in special. It's actually pretty sensible as if you can fill your min core requirement with units that you would have taken from special anyway, it renders those special choices unattractive. The WDG chariots is a good example. If you fill up your core with chariots that then frees you to take other special choices (or double down on it). Or you go a different route and take special chariots which are cheaper but take other core choices.

Harosyn
02-05-2016, 10:20
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.
Our game club will be trying out the T9A this summer , it gets so hot outside where we are that you have to spend your free time inside during the summer.

Holier Than Thou
02-05-2016, 10:39
Whaaaat? The ridden monster rules are 100x better than 8th - they are basically the same as the ET rules. I ram a wood elf dragon lord yesterday in two games absolutely fine. Before ridden monsters were pointless due to the warmachine rules.


Maybe I'm reading something wrong but I couldn't disagree more.

Ridden Monsters can only use their own Innate Defence, none of the rider's armour or Ward Save matters. You also use the Monster's Toughness and Wounds. Let's take my Vampire Lord on Colossal Zombie Dragon being shot at by an Empire Great Cannon. We're looking at close to 600 points being shot at by 100 points and it's got, what?

A 50/50 chance of being hit, a 3+ Armour Save that the cannon (and the majority of Warmachines) are strong enough to either ignore or at least make pretty worthless. So no save against the cannon but Toughness 6 so the cannon needs, oh, a 2+ to wound and will do a minimum, minimum, of half the Dragon's wounds but could potentially take all but one wound away.

As far as I can see Ridden Monsters are more worthless in 9th Age than they have ever been.

Drakkar du Chaos
02-05-2016, 11:00
Maybe I'm reading something wrong but I couldn't disagree more.

Ridden Monsters can only use their own Innate Defence, none of the rider's armour or Ward Save matters. You also use the Monster's Toughness and Wounds. Let's take my Vampire Lord on Colossal Zombie Dragon being shot at by an Empire Great Cannon. We're looking at close to 600 points being shot at by 100 points and it's got, what?

A 50/50 chance of being hit, a 3+ Armour Save that the cannon (and the majority of Warmachines) are strong enough to either ignore or at least make pretty worthless. So no save against the cannon but Toughness 6 so the cannon needs, oh, a 2+ to wound and will do a minimum, minimum, of half the Dragon's wounds but could potentially take all but one wound away.

As far as I can see Ridden Monsters are more worthless in 9th Age than they have ever been.

Instead of making random statements just play the game please.
Ridden Monsters are such a joke that we have recently a WoC player bringing a Chaos Dragon in a tournament and performing quite well.
T9A meta isn't 8th meta.

Holier Than Thou
02-05-2016, 11:18
Instead of making random statements just play the game please.
Ridden Monsters are such a joke that we have recently a WoC player bringing a Chaos Dragon in a tournament and performing quite well.
T9A meta isn't 8th meta.

It's not exactly a random statement though, is it? It's an observation based on what the rules say. In the same way I can see I wouldn't enjoy playing Age of Sigmar from reading the rules, I'm not going to waste my time playing the 9th Age with my friends when it, in my opinion, isn't as good as 8th. That's not to say they haven't done a good job, they have. I just don't think it's quite there yet.

Drakkar du Chaos
02-05-2016, 11:36
It's not exactly a random statement though, is it? It's an observation based on what the rules say. In the same way I can see I wouldn't enjoy playing Age of Sigmar from reading the rules, I'm not going to waste my time playing the 9th Age with my friends when it, in my opinion, isn't as good as 8th. That's not to say they haven't done a good job, they have. I just don't think it's quite there yet.

And what i'm saying is that random observation of T9A rules with the 8th meta in mind is wrong :

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/9799-thoughts-on-cannons/

Even Dwarfs thinks Cannons aren't auto-include choice anymore : combined profile for Monstrous Beasts like Manticore, the limited use of Cannons against anything but single big targets without Ward Save, there's a lot of reasons.
Like i said right now the Chaos Dragon is finally playable unlike with 8th, but also it's a good idea to play in tournaments double Shaggoth as WoC (a monster without ward save), these are FACT, not an "observation".

ewar
02-05-2016, 14:16
Yes there is much more to it than you're thinking Holier Than Thou. Cannons can no longer one shot both the rider and mount. Other cannons, like skaven WLC are changed, ogre cannons aren't as insanely reliable add before etc lots of changes together combine to make ridden monsters useful.

Although in fact I still find them worse than medium monsters such changed to monstrous beast mounts (griffons, manticore etc as they are now the best IMO).

But the system really benefits from being played rather than read, as there are lots of subtle changes.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 15:58
Ridden Monsters can only use their own Innate Defence, none of the rider's armour or Ward Save matters. You also use the Monster's Toughness and Wounds. Let's take my Vampire Lord on Colossal Zombie Dragon being shot at by an Empire Great Cannon. We're looking at close to 600 points being shot at by 100 points and it's got, what?

A few points:

1. There are ways to give ward saves to your mounts. Off the top of my head I know there's a shield that grants both rider and mount a 5++ against shooting.
2. Mounts are cheaper than they were in 8th.
3. Cannons only do D3+1 wound now, not D6, and there isn't a ridden monster in the game with fewer than 5 wounds. No one is one-shotting your Dragon off the board anymore, and even a pair of cannons would need some pretty miraculous luck to bring one down in a single turn. I can't stress the importance of this enough, as people who run flying monsters competently know that there is generally just one turn of shooting that you need to be able to withstand before you get yourself into combat.

theunwantedbeing
02-05-2016, 16:35
A few points:

1. There are ways to give ward saves to your mounts. Off the top of my head I know there's a shield that grants both rider and mount a 5++ against shooting.
2. Mounts are cheaper than they were in 8th.
3. Cannons only do D3+1 wound now, not D6, and there isn't a ridden monster in the game with fewer than 5 wounds. No one is one-shotting your Dragon off the board anymore, and even a pair of cannons would need some pretty miraculous luck to bring one down in a single turn. I can't stress the importance of this enough, as people who run flying monsters competently know that there is generally just one turn of shooting that you need to be able to withstand before you get yourself into combat.

A few counter-points.
1. Yes but that's not a huge chance for success and the rider can't use a ward save to stop the damage to themselves in most cases.
Also, why should the rider have to buy a ward save to protect his mount?

2. It's a 20-30% drop in price for the most part

3. D3+2 if the monster can fly, which most mounts can.
As for that no ridden monster with less than 5 wounds claim......
Griffon, Hippogriff, Manticore, Wyvern, and a few others that don't fly all have just 4 wounds.
Only things like Dragons(that fly) get 6 wounds and those are invariably 250pts or more.

One turn of shooting before they hit combat yes, but if they reach combat on 1 wound that doesn't exactly give them good survival odds.
Equally, after that second turn....they'll be able to be shot at again, unless your games only last 2 turns, but any competent player would know that, right?

Also not being one shotted isn't much of a consolation if you've lost all but 1-2 wounds in a single hit.
Even if your model is 50-100pts cheaper than it would have been in 8th edition.

Doubling the wound counts for monsters would have been a much better solution.

Urgat
02-05-2016, 16:55
Regarding the core tax, everyone should remember this only applies to some units and only those where there is a similar function in special. It's actually pretty sensible as if you can fill your min core requirement with units that you would have taken from special anyway, it renders those special choices unattractive.

So to make chameleon skinks attractive, the solution... is to make regular skinks unattractive? THAT is bad game design however you look at it.


Ridden Monsters are such a joke that we have recently a WoC player bringing a Chaos Dragon in a tournament and performing quite well.

I have no opinion to share on the subject, i'll just point out that I've seen ridden monsters preforming quite well in tournament reports for as long as I've played Warhammer. It's nothing new or specific to 9th age, so it cannot be used to prove that ridden monsters are better or worse.

Holier Than Thou
02-05-2016, 16:55
A few points:

1. There are ways to give ward saves to your mounts. Off the top of my head I know there's a shield that grants both rider and mount a 5++ against shooting.
2. Mounts are cheaper than they were in 8th.
3. Cannons only do D3+1 wound now, not D6, and there isn't a ridden monster in the game with fewer than 5 wounds. No one is one-shotting your Dragon off the board anymore, and even a pair of cannons would need some pretty miraculous luck to bring one down in a single turn. I can't stress the importance of this enough, as people who run flying monsters competently know that there is generally just one turn of shooting that you need to be able to withstand before you get yourself into combat.

Theunwantedbeing has covered a lot of this but I'll add to/repeat what he said.

The Ward Save item you are referring to cost 70 points the last time I looked for a 1 in 3 chance to save. No thanks.

The Colossal Zombie Dragon I mentioned is actually 35 points MORE expensive than it was in 8th.

Cannons do D3 + 2 wounds to flyers, so like I said, a minimum of half it's wounds. And as Theunwantedbeing said, if he gets into combat with a single wound left he's not much of a threat for the rest of the game.

2 cannons, at less than 1/3 of the price, only need to both hit to GUARANTEE they kill it and are so cheap it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to fit them into a list as they would still be effective against everything, ESPECIALLY Ridden Monsters.

Malagor
02-05-2016, 16:59
1. There are ways to give ward saves to your mounts. Off the top of my head I know there's a shield that grants both rider and mount a 5++ against shooting.
Yes for 70pts. Bad point.

2. Mounts are cheaper than they were in 8th.
Not all, Zombie dragon(the 8e version) is 50pts more expensive then the 8e book and still horrible. Carnosaur is overall a bit "better"(as in not really since the oldblood on top is now tied to the damn thing rather then a rider) but more expensive. Chaos Dragon is alot cheaper thankfully but that one was overpriced as was all monster mounts in 8e but that one stood at as really bad.

3. Cannons only do D3+1 wound now, not D6, and there isn't a ridden monster in the game with fewer than 5 wounds. No one is one-shotting your Dragon off the board anymore, and even a pair of cannons would need some pretty miraculous luck to bring one down in a single turn. I can't stress the importance of this enough, as people who run flying monsters competently know that there is generally just one turn of shooting that you need to be able to withstand before you get yourself into combat.
Well a cannon and a stone-thrower will do the trick just fine. 2 cannons works well to.

This is pretty much gonna be a repeat of what I said on 9th Age forum but here it goes.
In 8e, in my meta(there is no such thing as 8e meta or 9th age meta since it's all depends on community) you generally saw ridden monsters if there was no cannons around, I don't think we were alone with this. Even with cannons I sometimes brought one or maybe even two(big fan of double carnosaurs) and it worked fairly well there as well since atleast in my case, I brought other monsters as well so to force the opponent to spread his fire out.
But the monster was never really the thing with it, it was always the general, he was kitted out to kick some butt and the monster was just a delivery system, a very cool delivery system.
So if my monster survived long enough to transport my general into CC, my general had a ward save so he was fine, things got fun but the monster was still never that good.
A good opponent knew how to handle a monster and once in close-combat the monster tended to die.

But general was fine, he is now on the ground, foot-slogging it but still fine and still badass. In 9th however that is not the case.
Monster dies, he dies and the monsters have the same flaws in CC as they did back in 8e which is that 6s wound no matter what and monsters generally don't have that good of a save. They got better WS now but WS isn't that big of a deal.
So if there is a cannon on the field and he does d3+2 wounds and it's easy to roll a 5-6 then you are down to 1 wound, are you gonna send that into close-combat ? Well you kinda have to since it's easy to shoot it down but in close-combat it will die just as easily, just as they did in 8e. But to sound like a broken record, your general dies with it, no reason for it. There is nothing to randomize anymore so even stone-throwers(that do D3+2 wounds against flyers as well) are a huge threat to them.
Before, a unit of archers, you might get alot of hits randomized over to your general, who had better armor save and a ward save so you got very slim chance of taking a wound. So those 5 hits(usually more) didn't seem that bad since atleast the monster wouldn't take them all(and it's usually 6s to wound anyway). In 9th Age he does take them all and he only got his armor save unless you take a item that isn't so good and is so overpriced that it's not even funny.
They fixed cannons but for some reason they nerfed the ridden monsters as well, essentially fixing nothing, same problem is still there.
If this is the route their are going then yes they need way more wounds then they have now(and don't even dare raise the point cost on them), essentially ET or Warmahordes route.
Most of them are one of a kind anyway so they won't get spammed.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 18:51
I'm not going to argue rules with you. They're not my strong suit, and I'll leave it to those who actually wrote the rules to explain their reasoning behind pricing. Overall, the biggest concern I have is that you seem to be looking at 9th Age items and statlines and comparing them to your experiences within an 8th edition meta. Regardless of what you seem to see on paper, I can tell you from experience (as a cannon-toting EoS player, no less) that ridden monsters are a hell of a lot more scary in 9th Age than they ever were in 8th edition.

Drakkar du Chaos
02-05-2016, 19:13
I'm not going to argue rules with you. They're not my strong suit, and I'll leave it to those who actually wrote the rules to explain their reasoning behind pricing. Overall, the biggest concern I have is that you seem to be looking at 9th Age items and statlines and comparing them to your experiences within an 8th edition meta. Regardless of what you seem to see on paper, I can tell you from experience (as a cannon-toting EoS player, no less) that ridden monsters are a hell of a lot more scary in 9th Age than they ever were in 8th edition.

Exactly this.

theunwantedbeing
02-05-2016, 19:32
Exactly this.

I find it's easier to read if you get rid of the text you don't need as opposed to bolding part of it.


Overall, the biggest concern I have is that you seem to be looking at 9th Age items and statlines and comparing them to your experiences within an 8th edition meta.

So how is the Meta for 9th Age different to 8th edition?
We can still spend 500+pts on a lord on Dragon who gets swatted from across the board by 250pts of Cannons.

Arrahed
02-05-2016, 19:38
I find it's easier to read if you get rid of the text you don't need as opposed to bolding part of it.



So how is the Meta for 9th Age different to 8th edition?
We can still spend 500+pts on a lord on Dragon who gets swatted from across the board by 250pts of Cannons.
You will rarely face more than one cannon since they went from 'universal tool of mass destruction' to 'counter to monsters'.
The dragon lord might be the ideal prey of the cannon but since they are no longer universally useful, you won't face as many as before. Also, cannons can not one-shot a dragon.

Holier Than Thou
02-05-2016, 19:43
I find it's easier to read if you get rid of the text you don't need as opposed to bolding part of it.



So how is the Meta for 9th Age different to 8th edition?
We can still spend 500+pts on a lord on Dragon who gets swatted from across the board by 250pts of Cannons.

This. I don't see how there is any difference between a 500+ Ridden Monster getting shot to death by 200 points of cannons in 8th and a 500+ Ridden Monster getting shot to death by 200 points of cannons in 9th. Nothing I've read in the rules suggest there is any difference and unfortunately you basically saying "It just does." amounts to the same kind of argument the AOS fans used to say about WAAC players suddenly becoming beacons of sportsmanship because of the lack of points.

Folomo
02-05-2016, 19:53
Cannons have changed significantly. Before they where a counter to almost anything and there was no way to protect your monsters from them aside from an obstacle (since they could bounce shoots trough buildings and models). Thus almost all lists that could take them, had them.
Now they are less an answer to everything, far more specialized.
So armies take them a lot less.
In fact, most empire armies I have seen have between 0 and 1 cannon.

Vazalaar
02-05-2016, 19:59
You will rarely face more than one cannon since they went from 'universal tool of mass destruction' to 'counter to monsters'.
The dragon lord might be the ideal prey of the cannon but since they are no longer universally useful, you won't face as many as before. Also, cannons can not one-shot a dragon.

As mainly an Empire player who mostly uses 1-2 cannons I never felt that my cannons were universal tools of mass destruction... . Maybe I roll to easly misfire or roll bad on the multiple wounds roll, but I never found them as impressive as you read on the internet.

I can't remember if I ever killed my opponents Black dragon with a cannon... .

Edit: Talking about 8th edition.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 20:20
So how is the Meta for 9th Age different to 8th edition?
That's a fair question.

Within the context of our discussion, the single biggest change is that people don't run cannons like they used to. This is partly due to army building restrictions; Empire and Dwarf players are capped on their artillery now to 3 total, 2 of which can be cannons, and with all four options now being viable I know many are opting for a more versatile spread than to sink 2/3 your artillery options into weapons that are basically useless against some builds. Secondary objectives play into this, as well, as gunlines not only underperform compared to their 8th edition cousins, they are outplayed if they can't manage to completely massacre their opponent (and as a result, you don't see gunlines anymore). To Folomo's point, however, they're just not as strong as they used to be. Not only do they do D3+1 wounds against the vast majority of things (and, of course, roll to hit now), but the cannonball's strength is actually halved for each successive model you kill. This actually comes up more often than you'd think, as it means they're a lot less useful at thinning out units of Knights and Ogres than they once were, making their utility a lot more specialized.

In short, when list building players need to stop assuming that every army they face is going to have 2 cannons across the board from them, because that's really just not a thing anymore.

The bearded one
02-05-2016, 22:17
.. don't you also first need to roll to hit on ballistic skill with cannons in 9th? That sure didly does bring down the odds of a quick monsterkill.

theunwantedbeing
02-05-2016, 22:19
That's a fair question.

Within the context of our discussion, the single biggest change is that people don't run cannons like they used to. This is partly due to army building restrictions; Empire and Dwarf players are capped on their artillery now to 3 total, 2 of which can be cannons, and with all four options now being viable I know many are opting for a more versatile spread than to sink 2/3 your artillery options into weapons that are basically useless against some builds.

OH!
Field Artillery is the unit choice, while the type is essentially a unit upgrade.
It's much more like the old slot system from 6th & 7th edition which did tend to limit the number of cannons.


Not only do they do D3+1 wounds against the vast majority of things (and, of course, roll to hit now), but the cannonball's strength is actually halved for each successive model you kill. This actually comes up more often than you'd think, as it means they're a lot less useful at thinning out units of Knights and Ogres than they once were, making their utility a lot more specialized.

The AP rules are wrong I think.
It says AP(+X) adds, while AP(X) is instead of whatever modifier you have from strength.
But that doesn't appear to have ever been used in the lists as they're all listed as AP(X) even though that value is usually far less than the value from the weapons strength.

Anywho, it it's really correct it makes knights tough to crack even with a St6 Dwarf cannon, unless you add the AP value in which case knights don't get much of a save.
Ogres, less so as D3+1 is still an average of 3 wounds which kills an ogre outright, even at St5 you're still wounding on a 3+ and you'll likely only hit 2-3 models, rolling enough wounds to kill each time isn't that unlikely. It's the same odds for survival as the old D6 damage used to be as that was a 2/3rd chance to kill and carry on.

Vs infantry St5 is almost always plenty and multiple wounds is meaningless.
Plus due to the new template rules you can hit 7+ models pretty easily which puts its damage output comparable to things like the volley gun options as it's not suffering the long range penalties those are due to its vastly superior range.
Obviously those averages are much less than the catapults but equally the hits are of a higher average strength, plus more likely to happen as the catapults scatter.


Personally, I don't see a lot of point in not taking 2 cannons just because of their versatility.
Massive range, can slaughter infantry easily enough and you've got the added bonus of being able to swat bigger things that the other options will have real trouble with.

On a slight tangent.
Seems you can take six bolt throwers for armies with them which feels excessive and the Dwarves had theirs taken away.
How strange.

Malagor
02-05-2016, 22:25
.. don't you also first need to roll to hit on ballistic skill with cannons in 9th? That sure didly does bring down the odds of a quick monsterkill.
Unless you are a dwarf of course.

Drakkar du Chaos
02-05-2016, 22:28
.. don't you also first need to roll to hit on ballistic skill with cannons in 9th? That sure didly does bring down the odds of a quick monsterkill.

Yes but you get +1 against Large Target and ignore Cover.

@theunwantedbeing

No you don't "slaughter infantry" with cannons : catapults, volley guns, flame throwers are much better choices.
Overall the best war-machine regarding cost/efficiency is currently the bolt thrower.
All in all cannons are less commons and overkill than 8th so we're back to the start of this discussion : non-ward-save-monsters are much more playable than before... and combined-profile-monsters really good.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 22:38
OH!
Field Artillery is the unit choice, while the type is essentially a unit upgrade.
It's much more like the old slot system from 6th & 7th edition which did tend to limit the number of cannons.
Yes, precisely.



The AP rules are wrong I think.
It says AP(+X) adds, while AP(X) is instead of whatever modifier you have from strength.
But that doesn't appear to have ever been used in the lists as they're all listed as AP(X) even though that value is usually far less than the value from the weapons strength.
The AP(6) is redundant for the S10 hit, but is there to ensure the target is still being deprived an armor save even if the S is reduced down to, say, 3.

As Drakkar mentioned, however, your analysis of cannons being good for taking down infantry/knights seems to be overlooking the fact that the S of the weapon is halved for each model it hits. Yes, it ignores armor, but if you fire down a rank of 5 knights you're only S3 by the time you hit the 3rd knight, so there's no more laser-blasting whole ranks and files of models like there used to be.

Urgat
02-05-2016, 22:40
Cannons have changed significantly. Before they where a counter to almost anything and there was no way to protect your monsters from them aside from an obstacle (since they could bounce shoots trough buildings and models). Thus almost all lists that could take them, had them.
Now they are less an answer to everything, far more specialized.
So armies take them a lot less.
In fact, most empire armies I have seen have between 0 and 1 cannon.


Yeah, I heard that's why Napoleon didn't have any cannons, the seventh coalition didn't field dragons.
I thought they didn't want to make a rock-paper-scisors kind of game? This illustrates all that I find wrong with their philosophy. They nerf a choice to make another one more viable, but it also impacts its utility in most other cases. But while the 9th Age players try to defend monsters as being more viable because of that nerf, they still insist that canons are anti-monster tools.
I'm sorry but it's contradictory and makes no sense.

theunwantedbeing
02-05-2016, 22:57
As Drakkar mentioned, however, your analysis of cannons being good for taking down infantry/knights seems to be overlooking the fact that the S of the weapon is halved for each model it hits. Yes, it ignores armor, but if you fire down a rank of 5 knights you're only S3 by the time you hit the 3rd knight, so there's no more laser-blasting whole ranks and files of models like there used to be.

The rules don't say you keep halving.

Lord Malorne
02-05-2016, 23:00
I guess the whole cannon thing is only relevant if you can field them, in my area there is a high elf, skaven, wood elf and vampire player so... ;)

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 23:15
But while the 9th Age players try to defend monsters as being more viable because of that nerf, they still insist that canons are anti-monster tools.
I'm sorry but it's contradictory and makes no sense.
Cannons are good at hunting monsters, enemy artillery, and not much else, therefore people aren't taking as many as they can in all-comers lists. As a result, people are able to take more monsters than they might have in 8th. You seem to be automatically assuming that, in turn, people would be taking more cannons due to the "influx" of monsters, but that's not the case: there's still the hard decision about whether you're worried about monsters, or you're worried about all the other stuff in your opponent's army. As there aren't any unit-deleting spells anymore and people can't rely on the magic phase to cut out swathes of the opponent's army, anti-infantry shooting weapons are becoming more and more important.


The rules don't say you keep halving.
You're correct, I was mistaken on the matter.

Drakkar du Chaos
02-05-2016, 23:17
Yeah, I heard that's why Napoleon didn't have any cannons, the seventh coalition didn't field dragons.
I thought they didn't want to make a rock-paper-scisors kind of game? This illustrates all that I find wrong with their philosophy. They nerf a choice to make another one more viable, but it also impacts its utility in most other cases. But while the 9th Age players try to defend monsters as being more viable because of that nerf, they still insist that canons are anti-monster tools.
I'm sorry but it's contradictory and makes no sense.

It's because you're trying hard to not understand.
It's a balanced game, that's all.

Malagor
02-05-2016, 23:23
As there aren't any unit-deleting spells anymore

Not exactly true Lord Dan. They are a bit friendlier as in that the first roll can often be ignored(usually saving a character) but other then that, there are still some spells that are very powerful.
Dwellers below, transmutation of gold, devouring darkness and others, they can still wreck a unit like before.

Asmodios
02-05-2016, 23:27
Yeah, I heard that's why Napoleon didn't have any cannons, the seventh coalition didn't field dragons.
I thought they didn't want to make a rock-paper-scisors kind of game? This illustrates all that I find wrong with their philosophy. They nerf a choice to make another one more viable, but it also impacts its utility in most other cases. But while the 9th Age players try to defend monsters as being more viable because of that nerf, they still insist that canons are anti-monster tools.
I'm sorry but it's contradictory and makes no sense.
First off all games no matter how complicated come down to a rock/ paper/ scissors format at the end of the day. What i find the 9th age does well is that (unlike 8th) scissors don't beat rock and paper. Because all the units are more balanced you are seeing greater list diversity and because there is greater list diversity putting all your eggs (points) in one basket is a quick way to lose. Because cannons are not as reliable and you cannot remove entire blocks of infantry with one spell alone you are not seeing as many of them. They are still monster destroyer (even though not as good) but because they don't also kill everything else in droves you will be hampering yourself just taking cannons. What i like about 9th now is that i have played around 15 games and every list i have played against (including my repeat friends) has been very different. Its no longer as easy to predict what each army will bring and thus its harder to build a tailored list for each army. I know everyone has different views on games, this is just my opinion of 9th. If my friends and I didn't think 9th was better balanced then 8th we would have just kept playing 8th.

Asmodios
02-05-2016, 23:29
Not exactly true Lord Dan. They are a bit friendlier as in that the first roll can often be ignored(usually saving a character) but other then that, there are still some spells that are very powerful.
Dwellers below, transmutation of gold, devouring darkness and others, they can still wreck a unit like before.
The increased punishments for high value spells and the fact that Irresistible spells can still be scrolled has lead to most people taking utility spells over the big bad ones (at least in my local meta).

Malagor
02-05-2016, 23:34
The increased punishments for high value spells and the fact that Irresistible spells can still be scrolled has lead to most people taking utility spells over the big bad ones (at least in my local meta).
That's very true but that's not what Dan was saying however, he said that they didn't exist anymore, they do and are just as powerful as before.

Asmodios
02-05-2016, 23:37
That's very true but that's not what Dan was saying however, he said that they didn't exist anymore, they do and are just as powerful as before.
Thats true but I'm assuming he was talking about no more Dark elves erasing entire armies turn 1 or 2 with purple sun spam. I think the magic phase is my favorite change in 9th. Small spells making that little change to combat resolution that win you the game instead of taking nothing but your 6th spell and spamming it with max dice every chance you get.

Edit: Also dispelling is very interesting now because of the dangers of just "throwing all your dice at it"

Folomo
02-05-2016, 23:42
People mentioned cannons are taken less than in 8th, when not taking as many as you could was foolish.
They are still used, just not to the abusive level of 8th.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 23:49
Yes, you'll have to forgive the unintentional hyperbole on my part, Malagor. I didn't truly mean there "aren't" unit-deleting spells, only that there are fewer of them and they pose far less a realistic threat than they did in 8th.


Thats true but I'm assuming he was talking about no more Dark elves erasing entire armies turn 1 or 2 with purple sun spam. I think the magic phase is my favorite change in 9th. Small spells making that little change to combat resolution that win you the game instead of taking nothing but your 6th spell and spamming it with max dice every chance you get.

Edit: Also dispelling is very interesting now because of the dangers of just "throwing all your dice at it"
All of this. Not to mention the hard dice cap, restrictions on casting modifiers, and changes to IF make them harder to cast in the first place.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 23:50
It's difficult to take that seriously that after people point out stuff like cannons are hardly taken anymore and core units that are less powerful than special equivalents are more expensive on purpose, because somehow the people who write rules prefer players to field specials than core units. It's not because you keep saying "it's more balanced" that it's true. More and more exemples are presented that show just the opposite to me.
Have you played a game of 9th Age yet, Urgat?

Asmodios
02-05-2016, 23:54
Also you can go without Magic Caster and still be competitive.
With the last update WDG lists see more Wrath Priest played in tournaments, that's a good thing to finally have a viable alternative to Wizards for those who dislike Magic randomness or just like themed fluff lists :p
My buddy has always loved wrath and played a similar list this weekens. Its nice seeing flavorful armies like this and them actually being viable.

Lord Dan
02-05-2016, 23:57
Heck i played 2 armies with 0 magic already and they were viable.
Which is one of the single biggest changes between 8th Edition and The 9th Age, in my opinion.

Lord Malorne
03-05-2016, 00:00
I was harping on abut 9th age to a friend recently having only skimmed it myself, he seemed happy to hear things like vampire bloodlines where back and steadfast was addressed, hoping to organise a game in the near future.

Urgat
03-05-2016, 00:01
People mentioned cannons are taken less than in 8th, when not taking as many as you could was foolish.
They are still used, just not to the abusive level of 8th.

Ok, let's say it's still useful against monsters for argument's sake. If your opponent doesn't take any big monster thingy, I understand the cannon is then pretty useless? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I can't really think of any other choice that wouldn't have any use besides one type of unit. It seemes to me it went from one extreme to the other.


Have you played a game of 9th yet?

No, and I won't, because besides that, there's a lot of other things in the main rules themselves that really put me off. I'm not discussing why I would or would not play 9th Age, I don't think most people give a damn if I want to play it or not. I just want to point out things that I think are ill-thought , that are beyond just a matter of tastes. I think taking a choice and making it so situationnal is not good. Cannons should be interesting to take beyond just an anti-monster role, because there's a very clear possibility your opponent won't take monsters, and then they're just wasted points. At least as far as I understand from the discussions in this topic go.


I get that you hate the game
This is a misunderstanding, I don't hate the 9th Age rules. It is not for me, but I understand the appeal, and I think it's a fine work.


and thats fine but i don't understand why you think theres no list diversity.
I didn't say that, I'm just talking about the couple examples presented earlier.


You saying "cannons are hardly taken anymore" like that means less diversity..... cannons are hardly taken because other things are actually worth taking instead and that means more monsters are on the board and so on and so on
Ok, how to explain myself w/o sounding like I'm being crtitical for the heck of it... Let's take this cannon vs monster thing. You're explaining that now that we hardly see cannons anymore, we see more monsters. What I want to point out is that it's not more diversity, it's just swapping one thing for another. We see more monsters, we see less cannons. It's just the same, just inverted. What I want to say is that it'd me better if they founf a way to make both choices interesting to take, whataver the opponent's list is. If I remember correctly, 9th Age enforces open lists (one of the many things I don't like about it). The way cannons are now anti-monster tools (the way I understand it, at least, from what people say), is that you'll just tailor your list to take them if your opponent plans on fielding monsters, otherwise you won't take them. I don't thin that's a desirable goal.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 00:03
Which is one of the single biggest changes between 8th Edition and The 9th Age, in my opinion.
Yup you are not forced to take a lvl 4 and i love it. The magic phase is great now and people are having to put a lot of thought into it which is a really nice change.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 00:08
Ok, let's say it's still useful against monsters for argument's sake. If your opponent doesn't take any big monster thingy, I understand the cannon is then pretty useless? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? I can't really think of any other choice that wouldn't have any use besides one type of unit. It seemes to me it went from one extreme to the other.



No, and I won't, because besides that, there's a lot of other things in the main rules themselves that really put me off. I'm not discussing why I would or would not play 9th Age, I don't think most people give a damn if I want to play it or not. I just want to point out things that I think are ill-thought , that are beyond just a matter of tastes. I think taking a choice and making it so situationnal is not good. Cannons should be interesting to take beyond just an anti-monster role, because there's a very clear possibility your opponent won't take monsters, and then they're just wasted points. At least as far as I understand from the discussions in this topic go.
Thats the point your missing though..... cannons are situational.... everything is situational. There is not 1 optimized thing that you "need" to bring to every game and that creates tons of list diversity and different strategy. Just cause your playing a pick up game against dwarfs doesn't mean you should auto skip on monster heavy list because he might skip on cannons.... Or he could bring two? So now you start thinking about a good mix of units so that you can face off against more types of lists. Not knowing what your king up against by just hearing the army name is a huge advantage 9th has over 8th imo.

Urgat
03-05-2016, 00:11
I didn't finish my previous post (I quote and edit as I go), please check it all so you can understand my point of view.

Lord Dan
03-05-2016, 00:19
No, and I won't, because besides that, there's a lot of other things in the main rules themselves that really put me off.
Then, with all due respect, I can't have a serious discussion with you regarding meta issues, rules imbalance, and list construction. We can sit here arguing round and round all day about whether or not something makes sense, however, just as mathhammer has its limits, so too does game theory.

For instance your assumption that a decrease in cannons leading to an increase in monsters somehow creates an equally unenjoyable gaming experience is a false equivalence - having Hydras and Manticores and the like openly roaming the fields again creates far more enjoyable, thorough, and thought-provoking games than having laser-cannons sniping away at your cowering heroes and hill-clinging monsters.

But you couldn't know this because you haven't - and apparently won't - give it a try.

ewar
03-05-2016, 00:22
It's difficult to take that seriously that after people point out stuff like cannons are hardly taken anymore and core units that are less powerful than special equivalents are more expensive on purpose, because somehow the people who write rules prefer players to field specials than core units. It's not because you keep saying "it's more balanced" that it's true. More and more exemples are presented that show just the opposite to me.


Ok, how to explain myself w/o sounding like I'm being crtitical for the heck of it... Let's take this cannon vs monster thing. You're explaining that now that we hardly see cannons anymore, we see more monsters. What I want to point out is that it's not more diversity, it's just swapping one thing for another. We see more monsters, we see less cannons. It's just the same, just inverted. What I want to say is that it'd me better if they founf a way to make both choices interesting to take, whataver the opponent's list is. If I remember correctly, 9th Age enforces open lists (one of the many things I don't like about it). The way cannons are now anti-monster tools (the way I understand it, at least, from what people say), is that you'll just tailor your list to take them if your opponent plans on fielding monsters, otherwise you won't take them. I don't thin that's a desirable goal.

OK. Let me put it like this: in 9th age you will see some armies with monsters, ridden monsters, ridden monstrous beasts, monstrous cavalry, cavalry (both medium and heavy), characters on chariots (yay for the combined profile!), all kinds of infantry and warmachines.

Your worry that getting rid of cannons just swaps one set of spam for another deeply misunderstands the meta in 9th Age. Cannons are now a tool which some armies have access to but which are not universally useful like they were before. Now, an Empire player will generally bring one cannon because if they run into any kind of monster or heavy armour it will be handy. Will they run two, or even three cannons? Very unlikely. This in turn has the effect of making monsters more viable - many players will now bring single support monsters, because, why not? You don't have to just run monster spam like before if you wanted a successful list using monsters.

Yes, sometimes your monster will get a cannon ball to the face. But many times he won't and he'll make a valid contribution to the game. This is the thing (along with the magic phase) that I LOVE about 9th - I am looking at sooooo many different ways to run my existing armies that I just can't get enough games in to try out all my ideas. It's really, really fun experimenting again.

I played two games with a new style of list for me being entirely MSU - my one rule was everything had to have free reform or fly. It was a blast to play with, my dragon lord and eagle riding mages did ok and my skirmishing dryads did what they used to do in the 6th ed book (run around causing problems and dying a bit easily). My opponents had maxed out their repeater bolt throwers (3 now, not 4) but my stuff took some damage but still got into the fight. Fantastic.

Also don't get hung up on the core pricing issue - it only affects a handful of units and whatever you think is the case, it has balanced the armies given the 25% minimum core restrictions. Lizardmen players still run core skinks AND chameleons, or they run core saurus and chameleons. Hell, I've seen some lists spamming core snake swarms (who the hell ever thought that would happen??).

Urgat
03-05-2016, 00:31
Then, with all due respect, I can't have a serious discussion with you regarding meta issues, rules imbalance, and list construction.

Ok, let's forget about the cannons, and focus on the skinks. Do I need to play the game to be baffled by the decision of making an inferior choice more expensive than the special choice just because it is a core choice?


OK. Let me put it like this: in 9th age you will see some armies with monsters, ridden monsters, ridden monstrous beasts, monstrous cavalry, cavalry (both medium and heavy), characters on chariots (yay for the combined profile!), all kinds of infantry and warmachines.

Your worry that getting rid of cannons just swaps one set of spam for another deeply misunderstands the meta in 9th Age. Cannons are now a tool which some armies have access to but which are not universally useful like they were before. Now, an Empire player will generally bring one cannon because if they run into any kind of monster or heavy armour it will be handy. Will they run two, or even three cannons? Very unlikely. This in turn has the effect of making monsters more viable - many players will now bring single support monsters, because, why not? You don't have to just run monster spam like before if you wanted a successful list using monsters.
Fair enough. I can easily accept it if you present it like that.


Also don't get hung up on the core pricing issue - it only affects a handful of units and whatever you think is the case, it has balanced the armies given the 25% minimum core restrictions. Lizardmen players still run core skinks AND chameleons, or they run core saurus and chameleons.
It's difficult not to hung up on that cost thing to me, though, because there's no logic to me in that decision. I have to assume that those who run both skink kinds do so because they want many of these, and they have to swallow it up and accept they'll pay a premium for the regular skinks because they don't have a choice.

Malagor
03-05-2016, 00:31
Well in my meta, things haven't changed since 8e.
People generally bring what they tend to bring in 8e(some variation of course due to unit limits and point costs). So seeing 2 cannons and a stone thrower(or organ gun) or several stone throwers is common.
Only ones that seen big difference in lists are the wood elves due to dryads being good again only for the 9th Age team to nerf them again.
Haven't faced wood elves since then.

ewar
03-05-2016, 00:48
It's difficult not to hung up on that cost thing to me, though, because there's no logic to me in that decision. I have to assume that those who run both skink kinds do so because they want many of these, and they have to swallow it up and accept they'll pay a premium for the regular skinks because they don't have a choice.

Think of it like this: some armies have access to specialist units in core that other armies only get in special or rare. They tend to pay an additional penalty tax for maximising the number of those types of units they can run. Applies to LM skirmish skinks, as well as chariot based armies. That's just the way it is and it (IME) has the effect of discouraging very spammy armies without banning them (so players, if they really want to deploy 8 chaos chariots) can still do so. Personally I much prefer this approach to making every army too vanilla or just outright banning some unit choice combinations.


Well in my meta, things haven't changed since 8e.
People generally bring what they tend to bring in 8e(some variation of course due to unit limits and point costs). So seeing 2 cannons and a stone thrower(or organ gun) or several stone throwers is common.
Only ones that seen big difference in lists are the wood elves due to dryads being good again only for the 9th Age team to nerf them again.
Haven't faced wood elves since then.

If your group is playing 9th regularly then this will definitely evolve over time - just take a look at the list building section of the armies. Was your group primarily a 'fluff oriented' group before? Because if so, I could see how it would have less of an effect i.e. if people were running a lot of core infantry then they won't need to change their lists to include scoring units, whereas many gamers who ran more competitive 8th ed lists needed to change to adapt to the secondary objectives (which are now critical).

Malagor
03-05-2016, 00:59
Nope, my group was "fun oriented" hence the outcry over IC, animosity, Coven Throne and more. Mostly older people who only got like time for 1 match a week so when they do they want to have fun so most of the time we play 8e, it's not as balanced but it just has that wacky fun that we want but occasionally some 9th age games.

Vazalaar
03-05-2016, 06:12
Nope, my group was "fun oriented" hence the outcry over IC, animosity, Coven Throne and more. Mostly older people who only got like time for 1 match a week so when they do they want to have fun so most of the time we play 8e, it's not as balanced but it just has that wacky fun that we want but occasionally some 9th age games.

Yeah, I think this is it. It seems 9th Age balance approach is purely based on WAC tournament players, which exploit everything the can find. Our group exists out 4 players, which results in the following armies, 2x Empire, 1x DE (he is now building End Times elf army, thus mix WE, HE, DE), 2x WoC and 1x Lizardmen.
While we play mostly between 2000 and 4000 points, I have never seen cannon spawn.. . Never, or DE purple sun spawing. We play to win, but the most import thing thing is to have fun. So when I play 8th, it was always a fun and balanced game.... .

So for me a lot of changes like core tax, cannon, expensive shield, removal of Animosity, IC and etc.. seems unneeded or a step back.

Lord Malorne
03-05-2016, 06:26
True, but the rules have to be strong and built with tournament play in mind primarily, there is always room for casual games no matter what rules system you follow, but the core rules have to be with competitive play in mind or you would just be having the reverse complaints.

MagicAngle
03-05-2016, 06:35
I feel like there's been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over a few 'fluffy' things that T9A has removed, with not a lot of discussion of all the new fluffy rules that it has introduced. Off the top of my head - empire lords gettting command abilities, pistoliers getting a neat pistol attack on the charge, skaven getting the ability to target their own troops with templates whenever it so pleases them, vampers getting bloodlines back, wight kings getting a "necromancer bodyguard" ability, etc, etc, etc. For me, every dip into a 9th age army list is a delightful experience of little nuggets of character.

Add to that the new viability of a multitude of builds for the armies and for me T9A feels fluffier then ever. The main drawback is, of course, the lack of Warhammer IP (& special characters) but at this point I'm so steeped in Warhammer lore that I can look past the 'official' 9th age names and use the classic WHFB names as before.

In short, great job T9A team!

Urgat
03-05-2016, 06:42
Think of it like this: some armies have access to specialist units in core that other armies only get in special or rare. They tend to pay an additional penalty tax for maximising the number of those types of units they can run. Applies to LM skirmish skinks, as well as chariot based armies. That's just the way it is and it (IME) has the effect of discouraging very spammy armies without banning them (so players, if they really want to deploy 8 chaos chariots) can still do so. Personally I much prefer this approach to making every army too vanilla or just outright banning some unit choice combinations.

I get what you mean, but I'm afraid on this I can't be convinced. It might work for what you're talking about, but the player who just wants to take a unit of skinks, or one chariot, or whatever else is the target of that "concept", is punished for the others. To take Valazaar's post a couple posts above this one, I think 9th Age aims at WAAC players indeed... by targeting them. Looking at every instance where they can min-max, abuse or whatever, and try and prevent them. This here, from what you say, is the case, at least. I'll accept the mechanic works in that regard (it's a meta thing, as Dan said I don't know the meta so I have no say on this), but it feels it's at the expense of the other players. A fluff LM player will drink the cool-aid and pay the extra cost for the skinks sure if his theme requires lambda skinks (after all, that's what I do by choosing not-naked common gobs over night gobs in 8th, it's nothing new), because his own focus will be more on how his army looks like than on how effective it is, but this seems unfair to me, and goes opposite to the intended goal for that particular player, to boot.

Imho they (the 9th Age peeps) are going the GW way, being lazy, instead of trying and balance things so they work together, they just make some choices more interesting than others. They've just shifted the paradigm.

Holier Than Thou
03-05-2016, 07:44
Your worry that getting rid of cannons just swaps one set of spam for another deeply misunderstands the meta in 9th Age. Cannons are now a tool which some armies have access to but which are not universally useful like they were before. Now, an Empire player will generally bring one cannon because if they run into any kind of monster or heavy armour it will be handy. Will they run two, or even three cannons? Very unlikely. This in turn has the effect of making monsters more viable - many players will now bring single support monsters, because, why not? You don't have to just run monster spam like before if you wanted a successful list using monsters.

Yes, sometimes your monster will get a cannon ball to the face. But many times he won't.

The issue is if I want to field my Ridden Monster I have to commit upwards of 500 points to it, closer to 600. If my opponent wants to field a cannon for Monster insurance he needs to commit 100 points, or 200 for a much better chance of destroying a monster in a single turn. These cannons aren't useless against everything else either so it's not a wasted expense if his opponent hasn't brought a monster.

That's the problem for me, there will always be units that are excellent against other units but when paper is 1/6 the cost of rock that's just wrong. I'm not saying it wasn't a problem in 8th, it was. I just hoped it was something 9th would address. Instead, in my opinion, they've made it worse.

Yowzo
03-05-2016, 08:05
3. D3+2 if the monster can fly, which most mounts can.
As for that no ridden monster with less than 5 wounds claim......
Griffon, Hippogriff, Manticore, Wyvern, and a few others that don't fly all have just 4 wounds.
Only things like Dragons(that fly) get 6 wounds and those are invariably 250pts or more.
.

Those are not ridden monsters in T9A, they're MB so they get any ward save you purchase for the rider.

ewar
03-05-2016, 08:36
I just hoped it was something 9th would address. Instead, in my opinion, they've made it worse.

OK well I'm not sure there is much any of us here can do to convince you that, regardless of what your reading of the rules would indicate, cannons are indeed less common in the game than they once were.

I would recommend watching, if not attending, some kind of organised ninth age event and look at the army lists and you will see that your view is factually incorrect.

Arrahed
03-05-2016, 08:41
I get what you mean, but I'm afraid on this I can't be convinced. It might work for what you're talking about, but the player who just wants to take a unit of skinks, or one chariot, or whatever else is the target of that "concept", is punished for the others. To take Valazaar's post a couple posts above this one, I think 9th Age aims at WAAC players indeed... by targeting them. Looking at every instance where they can min-max, abuse or whatever, and try and prevent them. This here, from what you say, is the case, at least. I'll accept the mechanic works in that regard (it's a meta thing, as Dan said I don't know the meta so I have no say on this), but it feels it's at the expense of the other players. A fluff LM player will drink the cool-aid and pay the extra cost for the skinks sure if his theme requires lambda skinks (after all, that's what I do by choosing not-naked common gobs over night gobs in 8th, it's nothing new), because his own focus will be more on how his army looks like than on how effective it is, but this seems unfair to me, and goes opposite to the intended goal for that particular player, to boot.

Imho they (the 9th Age peeps) are going the GW way, being lazy, instead of trying and balance things so they work together, they just make some choices more interesting than others. They've just shifted the paradigm.

Why do you bring up the derogatory term WAAC? Accounting for them is super simple: don't play against them. Problem solved. Instead the term is very often used on these forums to label people who prefer a balanced game. It was used by AOS fans to dismiss critics who preferred WFB over AOS and now it is used to by WFB fans who criticize T9A.

IIRC the point costs are adjusted in a way that the most variety of builds is viable. The point cost do not necessarily reflect the power of the unit exactly. Does it really matter that a unit costs 5 points more than you think it is worth?
If you want a fluff explanation: you have a certain amount of elite troops available. Those are well trained soldiers that are ready for battle whenever you need them. If you used your facilities to train different elite troops, you have to invest resources to train your common soldiers to fulfill that role. Since your training capacities are not designed to do so, they are more expensive.

ewar
03-05-2016, 08:47
I get what you mean, but I'm afraid on this I can't be convinced. It might work for what you're talking about, but the player who just wants to take a unit of skinks, or one chariot, or whatever else is the target of that "concept", is punished for the others. To take Valazaar's post a couple posts above this one, I think 9th Age aims at WAAC players indeed... by targeting them. Looking at every instance where they can min-max, abuse or whatever, and try and prevent them. This here, from what you say, is the case, at least. I'll accept the mechanic works in that regard (it's a meta thing, as Dan said I don't know the meta so I have no say on this), but it feels it's at the expense of the other players. A fluff LM player will drink the cool-aid and pay the extra cost for the skinks sure if his theme requires lambda skinks (after all, that's what I do by choosing not-naked common gobs over night gobs in 8th, it's nothing new), because his own focus will be more on how his army looks like than on how effective it is, but this seems unfair to me, and goes opposite to the intended goal for that particular player, to boot.

Imho they (the 9th Age peeps) are going the GW way, being lazy, instead of trying and balance things so they work together, they just make some choices more interesting than others. They've just shifted the paradigm.

Apologies for the double post but I can't be arsed to multi quote on my phone.

I think calling them lazy is honestly just a bit rude. They are a group of amateurs who have committed literally hundreds of man hours, probably thousands, into developing a game they are giving out for free. Can you imagine how hard it is to get good balance across 16 armies with an evolving set of core rules?

They've done an incredible job. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on this. If you're not a competitive gamer then knowing your fluff build is still possible AND now also stands a good chance of being balanced against most others? How is that a bad situation to be in?

Some fluff builds also happened to be the most op builds. Yes a southlands list was a thing but also anyone who'd played against skink cloud frequently knew what a chore it could be. IMO they've kept both parties in the game with these kind of compromises.

Also, as someone else pointed out above, T9A has (I think, haven't counted) added more fluff rules to armies than they took away. I know my tomb kings have access to THREE different army structures, one of which is the freaking terracotta army, how great is that? My wood elves have viable forest spirit lists and character kindred back etc.

It is patently untrue that the game is designed for 'WAAC' types - each book has been developed by the fans and it really shows. Remember the Mat Ward 7th Ed OnG book written by a guy who admitted he wasn't really into them? None of that here.

Yowzo
03-05-2016, 09:05
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)

The way I see it, if you put small units of animosity-ridden units between your main blocks you're actually increasing the chance for a 1-1 result.

The only way that it worked for me was to just plain limit the number of units with animosity on the table. Big block of SOBUs and a gobbo bunker plus the mandatory wolf riders trying to chaff and block whatever is it that may threaten mangler squigs and whatnot.

Hell, I've even go as far as to march wolf riders through forests so that I lose one and they're not subject to animosity anymore. At the tail end of 8th I dismissed wolf rider units altogether and changed them for goblin chiefs who were every bit as capable but did not charge head-one whenever they felt like it.

You're right about O&G magic being largely ineffective, but at least with gobbo shamans you could at least pull one or two spell through (thanks to mushrooms, but that also required multiple casters because a bad mushroom could ruin your magic phase otherwise). Their buffs weren't much, but at least they were something. When ET hit it was fun to run multiple gobbo shamans with lore of undeath though, an amazing gimmick.

Holier Than Thou
03-05-2016, 10:16
OK well I'm not sure there is much any of us here can do to convince you that, regardless of what your reading of the rules would indicate, cannons are indeed less common in the game than they once were.

I would recommend watching, if not attending, some kind of organised ninth age event and look at the army lists and you will see that your view is factually incorrect.

Common or not, they can still effectively destroy/cripple 6 times their points cost quite easily. That's wrong in my opinion.

I think a simple solution would be to change cannons to something like strength 10 with Heroic Killing Blow. They will reliably do 1 wound on big monsters but will have a 1/6 chance of killing them outright (a dragon SHOULD be able to shrug off a single cannon shot with ease unless, through sheer luck, the cannonball finds that 1 chink in it's armour). Vs infantry they are strength 10 on the first hit then lose 2 points of strength for each subsequent hit so can again, wreak havoc on the more squishy stuff.

Just my opinion.

Drakkar du Chaos
03-05-2016, 10:29
Common or not, they can still effectively destroy/cripple 6 times their points cost quite easily. That's wrong in my opinion.

I think a simple solution would be to change cannons to something like strength 10 with Heroic Killing Blow. They will reliably do 1 wound on big monsters but will have a 1/6 chance of killing them outright (a dragon SHOULD be able to shrug off a single cannon shot with ease unless, through sheer luck, the cannonball finds that 1 chink in it's armour). Vs infantry they are strength 10 on the first hit then lose 2 points of strength for each subsequent hit so can again, wreak havoc on the more squishy stuff.

Just my opinion.

So you want nerf cannons because they can (with some luck) be efficient if they manage to shoot at a monster without a Ward Save ?

I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that, you're asking for unneeded nerfs.
Currently players do not use double cannons that much, because if they do they struggle against armies without monsters (or armies with monsters with efficient ward save).
Cannons are currently in a perfect spot : not auto include because they are very useful against the right target but meh against others, usefulness against 10% of the meta doesn't make something broken when it's crap against the other 90%.

If your meta is "cannon heavy" because people want to play like they used to play with 8th, just play a solid list countering that for few games, wreck them, and they'll switch to other choices in no times when they'll understand that double cannon isn't a solution to everything like it used to be... balanced game.

Malagor
03-05-2016, 11:44
Ok now several times it has been stated that cannons were good against everything in 8e but not so in 9th Age, this is quite false.
What was the main target for cannons in 8e ?
Was it infantry ? No, they were actually quite worthless against infantry-heavy lists due to sheer number and killing at best maybe 5 guys per shot isn't something to cheer for.
Was it cavalry ? Nope, despite being the best counter to cannons, cavalry was never a good target for cannons since at best you would kill 2 horses and they would still be coming at you.
Was it beasts ? Yes because killing 1 warhound per shot is gonna make a world of difference(sarcasm).
Was it MI ? Now we are talking. Much better target overall despite them able to stop a cannonball. Generally you will lose 1 MI per shot and wound the guy behind him but still worth it.
Was it MC ? Even more so then MI I found since they tend to be well-armored. While usually only in units of 3(sometimes 2), you will only kill one per shot but that kill hurts the unit.
Was it other war machines ? Starting to get close, due to high T against shooting, cannons tend to fire on other cannons or other machines if there weren't any.....
Was it monsters ? Jackpot, primary target. Cannons kept the monster spam in check. For that alone they were good to have with you always since most armies had monsters.
Now I look at 9th Age and what do I see ? Well cannons doing the exact same job as before. Still good at killing MI(even got the same chance of killing a model as in 8e), still good at MCs, excellent at monster and other high T targets but meh against anything else.
You might not kill a dragon in 1 shot(but wound them enough that they will become worthless) or some monsters but then again, it was the same in 8e. It was impossible to bring down a Stonehorn in 1 shot in 8e, a chimera generally required 2-3 cannonballs to bring down and so on.
So overall, cannons hasn't changed, their targets hasn't changed.

ewar
03-05-2016, 11:53
This is getting a bit silly :)

You can say that you think cannons haven't changed (they have - don't forget the army selection changes play a big part in this!) and you'd be right to say their targets haven't changed.

Where you are wrong is that overall subtle changes to books and core rules have meant they are no longer as useful as they were before.

The honest REAL effect of this in the meta is that monsters are now a bit more viable as you're not just throwing away those pints against 1/3 of the armies in the game.

I'm not theory hammering this - you can evidence it yourself by downloading the open army lists from a whole range of tournaments. Seriously, just go and look, it will put this argument to bed.

Malagor
03-05-2016, 12:11
I don't give a crap about what people bring to tournaments, I didn't in 8e, I won't in 9th Age.
I have set foot in the army list forum once during my time on warseer and that was when I first joined, that's it.
I don't care what other people bring and neither should anyone.
There is no such thing as 9th Age meta same as there is no 8e meta since it all depends on the group you play with, I said this before and sad that people are still harping on this.
I will not base a game based on opponents I will never face but I will base it on the only thing that counts for me(as it does for everyone else), the meta that you are in.
So stop telling people to look at tournament lists, they mean nothing overall, they never meant anything and unless you are a hardcore tourney player, they never will.

Arrahed
03-05-2016, 12:28
I don't give a crap about what people bring to tournaments, I didn't in 8e, I won't in 9th Age.
I have set foot in the army list forum once during my time on warseer and that was when I first joined, that's it.
I don't care what other people bring and neither should anyone.
There is no such thing as 9th Age meta same as there is no 8e meta since it all depends on the group you play with, I said this before and sad that people are still harping on this.
I will not base a game based on opponents I will never face but I will base it on the only thing that counts for me(as it does for everyone else), the meta that you are in.
So stop telling people to look at tournament lists, they mean nothing overall, they never meant anything and unless you are a hardcore tourney player, they never will.
To be honest I am not sure what you are complaining about. Your are saying that it is not relevant which units other players use. At the same time you say it is relevant what some potential players might use even though neither them nor yourself are actually playing that game.

I agree that no one needs to care what some people do at a tournament half way around the world. But I would argue that is even more fruitless to complain that some non existing players field too many non existing cannons so there is no point in fielding non existing monsters.

Holier Than Thou
03-05-2016, 12:43
Forget the meta, is there any other example of something that can potentially destroy almost 6 times it's own points value in one turn with no risk to itself. Not some wizard that could possibly kill himself and his unit with a miscast for a powerful spell, just 100 points of cannon with enough range to target anywhere on the board.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that a certain amount of points should require a similar amount of points to deal with it.

ewar
03-05-2016, 12:45
I don't give a crap about what people bring to tournaments, I didn't in 8e, I won't in 9th Age.
I have set foot in the army list forum once during my time on warseer and that was when I first joined, that's it.
I don't care what other people bring and neither should anyone.
There is no such thing as 9th Age meta same as there is no 8e meta since it all depends on the group you play with, I said this before and sad that people are still harping on this.
I will not base a game based on opponents I will never face but I will base it on the only thing that counts for me(as it does for everyone else), the meta that you are in.
So stop telling people to look at tournament lists, they mean nothing overall, they never meant anything and unless you are a hardcore tourney player, they never will.

Overreact much? :) There was no personal attack on you or the way you game, I was just trying to answer one of your points.

I responded because you said cannons and their targets haven't changed, when this is not true. As there is no comp any more, T9A tournament lists are actually not a bad proxy for what people in general just field in normal games. Alternatively there is a big range of lists by race on the 9th Age forum. I know in my group (which is made up of some tournament players, some fluff players) lists will evolve over time as the impact of new rules is understood more fully.

Your group may well stay perfectly static, frozen in a kind of gaming amber. But I honestly doubt that army lists will not change over time if you're playing 9th, it's just a natural way games evolve.

finaglista
03-05-2016, 12:47
As i can see there are people that are saying how bad 9 age is or what they are missing in it if you compare it to 8ed... and then here are otheres that are saying the opposit... and same goes for AoS...
If i may, i would like to say this, i was playing 8ed and i really liked it, but there were some problems that i really couldn't ignore and i was hopping they will be changed:
1.) Some book were not updatede for years: Beastmen, Bretonnia, some were just bad from the begining Tomb Kings, some where total OP: DoC, WoC...
2.) I love magic, but damn i was mad when my Vampire lord died when i roll 6/6 on two dices, or when Elfe Wiz in Fas Cav come to my flank and cast vortex...
3.) Does any one remeber how OP was shooting if you didn't use AC(3xCannon 2xSteam tank) or some of the units
4.) Can you play any unit in 8ed competitive, do you remember that we were always looking at almost the same lists?
5.) Was it possible to play without AC if you go to a tournament and then again each city had his own AC, that you hate...
And so on and so on...
So now i am playing 9 age and damn, i playing Vampires with units that i couln't in 8ed, Varghoulf, black coach... I couldn't do anything with my Tomb kings if they didn't get bonus like +200 or +300 points and take a look at them now, damn they can charge from reserves, or Orcs&Gobos, damn i hated when i put Black Orc in the unit so i get D6 hits instead of faling Animosity but then again when some other unit fall Animosity on 1/1 they couldn't move if if Black Orc was in the unit or not... now i can play Orcs&Gobos with MSU and i love it...
But at the end anyone should play what they want and if that is AoS so be it ;)

ewar
03-05-2016, 12:49
Forget the meta, is there any other example of something that can potentially destroy almost 6 times it's own points value in one turn with no risk to itself. Not some wizard that could possibly kill himself and his unit with a miscast for a powerful spell, just 100 points of cannon with enough range to target anywhere on the board.

I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that a certain amount of points should require a similar amount of points to deal with it.

That's not really how Warhammer (or any TTG game I play) works. Cannons are good against monsters (not as good as they were though, so not sure why this seems to be such an issue for you) but not very good against other things. They shouldn't cost 500 points themselves as they are relatively easily countered (my wood elves can shoot them off the table turn 1 before they have even fired).

Cannons are in a good place now (and I never thought I'd say that about a warhammer edition! I have hated playing against them for as long as I can remember :shifty:)

Folomo
03-05-2016, 12:57
You can also look at the 9th age list for the different races on their respective subforums. These are not tournament lists and they are really really diverse. At least in the UD forum there are clearly different lists for each poster, and they work well for them. There is no auto-included now, which IME really opens up lists. For example:

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/8963-desert-hammers-strikes-back/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11828-undying-dynasties-vs-dwarven-holds-2000-pts-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11580-return-of-the-bone-train/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/8967-sphinx-brutality/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11381-sands-or-light/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10240-help-a-pharaoh-out/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10579-2500pts-undying-dynasties-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10526-2-5k-team-event-list-few-hours-before-submitting/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10343-my-0-99-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10395-2500-mi-heavy-list/


I think a simple solution would be to change cannons to something like strength 10 with Heroic Killing Blow.
You really don't want to go that way. That is exactly what the Necrosphinx had in 8th and was considered utter c%"p. 1/6 chance to autokill a monster and 5/6 of not doing anything relevant will always leave one player frustrated.

Arrahed
03-05-2016, 13:03
That's not really how Warhammer (or any TTG game I play) works. Cannons are good against monsters (not as good as they were though, so not sure why this seems to be such an issue for you) but not very good against other things. They shouldn't cost 500 points themselves as they are relatively easily countered (my wood elves can shoot them off the table turn 1 before they have even fired).

Cannons are in a good place now (and I never thought I'd say that about a warhammer edition! I have hated playing against them for as long as I can remember :shifty:)

I agree.

The modified deployment rules also makes a huge difference. If your strategy depends on going first you can most of the time enforce that by putting down your entire army at once. Your opponent will have a superior starting position but you can move once without worrying about cannons.
It works the other way around, too. If your opponent puts down everything at once, you can deploy your critical units in a way that protects them from the cannons. There is no more True Line of Sight so you can hide even monsters behind hills or impassable terrain.

Yowzo
03-05-2016, 13:10
Forget the meta, is there any other example of something that can potentially destroy almost 6 times it's own points value in one turn with no risk to itself.

Skinks with poisoned shots, gutter runners with poison shots.

Those things are/were as much a bane to monsters than cannons.

Malagor
03-05-2016, 13:33
At the same time you say it is relevant what some potential players might use even though neither them nor yourself are actually playing that game.
Oh for crying out loud, have you read any of my posts ?
Because this "nor yourself are actually playing that game." clearly shows that you haven't.
It's considered highly rude not to read other people's posts and then make statements such as that.

And I'm not telling people what to use or what not to use but when people say that "oh no one brings cannons anymore so go ahead and put your general on a dragon, he will do fine" and a new player heeds that advice and it turns his/her meta do use cannons, maybe even a few of them then that player might get a bit pissed.
It is important to state and to counter when people make statements such as those because things are different all over the world and you can't apply the same statement to every gaming community.
If it was "well I don't bring cannons" or "sometimes I might bring 1" then that's fine, quite clearly a personal statement on how he plays which is also fine. Or "only 1 in my group has access to cannons so I don't find them to be that bad" is another good statement to make.
But making claims like "no one brings cannons" or "hardly anyone brings them" needs to be countered otherwise some poor player might think that it applies to everyone when it's not.
I even knew what I was getting into but I still essentially lost my over 700pts general in round 1 since Ogres still got very good, cheap and very fighty cannons. 1 of them knocked 5 wounds away with 1 shot(the other hit but failed to wound) and I spent the rest of the match running and hiding(since CC was out of the question), trying to heal(but failed) before being taken out by a ogre crossbow in round 3 and that was the end of my general(I would have been killed by bombardiers if the hunter didn't do it) and also the end of the army.
And before someone says "well you have to deploy them differently", the hill was in the middle of the table and I only had 2 forests on my side and it's pretty damn hard to hide a huge dragon regardsless especially when there are cannons that can move. And it's not even about the ironblaster, any cannon could have done this just as easily(a dwarven one could have done it even better).


I agree that no one needs to care what some people do at a tournament half way around the world. But I would argue that is even more fruitless to complain that some non existing players field too many non existing cannons so there is no point in fielding non existing monsters.
Odd argument, one that I never made to begin with.
Again you should read my posts before making such statements.

Arrahed
03-05-2016, 13:58
Oh for crying out loud, have you read any of my posts ?
Because this "nor yourself are actually playing that game." clearly shows that you haven't.
It's considered highly rude not to read other people's posts and then make statements such as that.

And I'm not telling people what to use or what not to use but when people say that "oh no one brings cannons anymore so go ahead and put your general on a dragon, he will do fine" and a new player heeds that advice and it turns his/her meta do use cannons, maybe even a few of them then that player might get a bit pissed.
It is important to state and to counter when people make statements such as those because things are different all over the world and you can't apply the same statement to every gaming community.
If it was "well I don't bring cannons" or "sometimes I might bring 1" then that's fine, quite clearly a personal statement on how he plays which is also fine. Or "only 1 in my group has access to cannons so I don't find them to be that bad" is another good statement to make.
But making claims like "no one brings cannons" or "hardly anyone brings them" needs to be countered otherwise some poor player might think that it applies to everyone when it's not.
I even knew what I was getting into but I still essentially lost my over 700pts general in round 1 since Ogres still got very good, cheap and very fighty cannons. 1 of them knocked 5 wounds away with 1 shot(the other hit but failed to wound) and I spent the rest of the match running and hiding(since CC was out of the question), trying to heal(but failed) before being taken out by a ogre crossbow in round 3 and that was the end of my general(I would have been killed by bombardiers if the hunter didn't do it) and also the end of the army.
And before someone says "well you have to deploy them differently", the hill was in the middle of the table and I only had 2 forests on my side and it's pretty damn hard to hide a huge dragon regardsless especially when there are cannons that can move. And it's not even about the ironblaster, any cannon could have done this just as easily(a dwarven one could have done it even better).


Odd argument, one that I never made to begin with.
Again you should read my posts before making such statements.
I reread the last two pages of this thread and I have to admit that my memory must have mixed up some of your posts with post from different persons. Sorry about that. I somehow thought your position was that you don't play T9A and Monster/Cannons were one of the reasons for that.

Drakkar du Chaos
03-05-2016, 14:27
For those who want a "8th > T9A" list of general rules changes :

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/The_9th_Age

Didn't checked the content but it's a start.

Urgat
03-05-2016, 14:50
Why do you bring up the derogatory term WAAC?


It is patently untrue that the game is designed for 'WAAC' types
There is no point discussing if you misunderstand what I wrote, really... I've carefully worded my post so it was clear I didn't reffer to 9th Age players when I talked about WAAC players, but you still react that way. So, well, nevermind, this discussion is just too bothersome to carry on.

Holier Than Thou
03-05-2016, 14:52
That's not really how Warhammer (or any TTG game I play) works. Cannons are good against monsters (not as good as they were though, so not sure why this seems to be such an issue for you) but not very good against other things. They shouldn't cost 500 points themselves as they are relatively easily countered (my wood elves can shoot them off the table turn 1 before they have even fired).

I don't want cannons to be 500 points. I just don't want them to be able to reliably destroy 500 points without that player having to invest a similar amount of points to do so. I'm glad your Wood Elves can shoot them off the table turn 1, unfortunately as a Vampire Counts player I don't have that luxury.



You really don't want to go that way. That is exactly what the Necrosphinx had in 8th and was considered utter c%"p. 1/6 chance to autokill a monster and 5/6 of not doing anything relevant will always leave one player frustrated.

What I meant was Strength 10 so generally wounding on a 2+ but only causing one wound per hit so reliable damage, however on the odd chance of rolling a 6 it kills outright. So not useless 5/6 of the time.

ewar
03-05-2016, 15:40
There is no point discussing if you misunderstand what I wrote, really... I've carefully worded my post so it was clear I didn't reffer to 9th Age players when I talked about WAAC players, but you still react that way. So, well, nevermind, this discussion is just too bothersome to carry on.

:confused:

I'm sorry Urgat, now you've just completely lost me... also I don't get why some on here are being so combative?? Nobody is criticising you.


To take Valazaar's post a couple posts above this one, I think 9th Age aims at WAAC players indeed... by targeting them. Looking at every instance where they can min-max, abuse or whatever, and try and prevent them.

I think it's a fair response by players (like me) who are not WAAC types to try and be crystal clear that wanting a balanced game is not the same as wanting to play in a WAAC style.

Does the T9A team look for ways to prevent abusive builds? Yes of course they do, that's how you get a balanced game. In this instance hundreds of players do their best to break it and then it get's tweaked. This is why there are no 'fun' items like banner of the world dragon left in the game, which may have been conceived of as a fluffy choice right up until some poor daemon or wood elf player came up against it.

theunwantedbeing
03-05-2016, 16:08
I don't want cannons to be 500 points. I just don't want them to be able to reliably destroy 500 points without that player having to invest a similar amount of points to do so. I'm glad your Wood Elves can shoot them off the table turn 1, unfortunately as a Vampire Counts player I don't have that luxury.
Unhelpful counter argument!
But they can't reliably destroy 500pts, they have to roll to hit, not fail to wound and then do loads of wounds and he probably will have an item that negates the hit or gives him a ward save, plus you'de need two as they can't one shot the guy. He could even just hide behind a building or a hill and be completely safe. Anyway cannons already cost about 500pts if you take into account the extra stuff needed to protect them for the at most 2 turns they get to shoot before they die.


What I meant was Strength 10 so generally wounding on a 2+ but only causing one wound per hit so reliable damage, however on the odd chance of rolling a 6 it kills outright. So not useless 5/6 of the time.
The problem there is it gives a chance to auto-kill, and 9th age is trying very hard to avoid anything like that.
Equally, it makes the cannon very random because sometimes it'll kill outright and other times it'll do nothing at all and randomness isn't liked by 9th age.

Also, because cannons are now a 0-2 option you can't make them too rubbish or nobody would take them, right now they're completely perfect because we only have one empire player in the group who can take them and he never takes more than 1 (he only has the one cannon model but that's not important), we don't spam monsters either (we don't own enough to spam them of course and the big ones are all 0-1 per army) so obviously the rules are doing a perfect job balancing things.

:cool:

Urgat
03-05-2016, 16:27
I think it's a fair response by players (like me) who are not WAAC types to try and be crystal clear that wanting a balanced game is not the same as wanting to play in a WAAC style.

As I said, I don't want to carry on, I'll just reword what I said so there's no misunderstanding, and then I'm done:
I meant that they wrote the rules to avoid WAAC mentality. That means it's not a WAAC set of rules, so the people who like the rules probably don't have a WAAC mentality to begin with, as, as much as I understand, the rules are written, to avoid min-max and stuff like that. Is that clearer? Balance all over the board is obviously the opposite to rules that allow the min-max mentality WAAC players have, so I never suggested they meant the same, quite the opposite. I can't do better than that I'm afraid.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 16:50
It seems to me that some people want a 500 point monster to only be killed by a 500 point and greater unit. Or essentially you to not be able to kill units of greater cost with specialized units of a lower cost. I personally would find this to be a very boring game, the fun of a game is recognizing the greatest threats to your army and countering them with the tools available. Just like how a cheap unit of fast calv are the bane of expensive war machines and war machines are the bane of expensive monsters but.... Monsters are the bane of infantry and infantry are the bane of.... And we'll I guess you see where this is going. If your local meta is spamming cannons build a fun army that can toast it a few weeks in a row so they think twice before loading up on cannons. It's even fluffy because there cannons have killed your armies supply of monsters so you can't bring them for a while longer.

ewar
03-05-2016, 18:06
As I said, I don't want to carry on, I'll just reword what I said so there's no misunderstanding, and then I'm done:
I meant that they wrote the rules to avoid WAAC mentality. That means it's not a WAAC set of rules, so the people who like the rules probably don't have a WAAC mentality to begin with, as, as much as I understand, the rules are written, to avoid min-max and stuff like that. Is that clearer? Balance all over the board is obviously the opposite to rules that allow the min-max mentality WAAC players have, so I never suggested they meant the same, quite the opposite. I can't do better than that I'm afraid.

Very clear, thank you :)

theunwantedbeing
03-05-2016, 19:42
It seems to me that some people want a 500 point monster to only be killed by a 500 point and greater unit.

In a single phase/turn.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 20:23
In a single phase/turn.
But on average it won't kill a 500pt monster per turn. You have to roll to hit (could misfire and lose the gun). Then you have to roll to wound. Then if they have a hero built for protection you have to get past the ward. Then you have to pray to the dice gods for a 5 or 6. Statistically you won't be removing 500 points a turn and thats not even taking into account terrain, fast calv, enemy war machines and ambushers (depend on the army) killing those war machines off before they can take out those monsters or those monsters can get get to the safety of cc. I have had expensive enemy units run into my goblins absolutely flub attacks and get run down from static combat rez... So do we need a rule saying my goblins can't remove a unit of greater point value in a turn if luck goes my way? When i bring trolls and some infantry unit thats half the cost but has flaming attacks wipes them out should that be banned? Yeah it sucks when that big bad unit you brought gets killed but thats the nature of any strategy game when you come up against your hard counter, you deal with it the best you can and except you might not get your points worth out of that one unit this game.

Lord Malorne
03-05-2016, 21:07
You can also look at the 9th age list for the different races on their respective subforums. These are not tournament lists and they are really really diverse. At least in the UD forum there are clearly different lists for each poster, and they work well for them. There is no auto-included now, which IME really opens up lists. For example:

http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/8963-desert-hammers-strikes-back/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11828-undying-dynasties-vs-dwarven-holds-2000-pts-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11580-return-of-the-bone-train/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/8967-sphinx-brutality/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/11381-sands-or-light/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10240-help-a-pharaoh-out/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10579-2500pts-undying-dynasties-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10526-2-5k-team-event-list-few-hours-before-submitting/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10343-my-0-99-list/
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/10395-2500-mi-heavy-list/



Thise links are access denied :(

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 21:08
Thise links are access denied :(
I could pull them up maybe you have to have a 9th age log in

Folomo
03-05-2016, 21:18
:(
Will post the lists as soon as I get home then.

theunwantedbeing
03-05-2016, 21:29
But on average it won't kill a 500pt monster per turn. You have to roll to hit (could misfire and lose the gun). Then you have to roll to wound. Then if they have a hero built for protection you have to get past the ward. Then you have to pray to the dice gods for a 5 or 6. Statistically you won't be removing 500 points a turn and thats not even taking into account terrain, fast calv, enemy war machines and ambushers (depend on the army) killing those war machines off before they can take out those monsters or those monsters can get get to the safety of cc.

Yes on average a single cannon won't kill a 500pt monster per turn, but it has the ability to.

Lets run the actual figures.
3+ to hit at 0-30" away.
A misfire won't kill the cannon unless it's three single wound effects (more for some other armies), a dwarf cannon will always work.
Rolling to wound is a 2+ roll as no monster is toughness 9.
If they have a hero for protection and that hero took an item specifically to fend off cannons grants at best a 4+ save (once, Gemstone amulet)
Average wound multiplier is 3 (4 if it flies) D3+1 (D3+2)
So....
At short range it's a 28% chance to do 2-4 wounds (3-5 if flying)
At long range it's a 21% chance to do 2-4 wounds (3-5 if flying)

That's if he's taken a 4+ ward which he can only use once.
If he has the Lucky Shield then that negates the first hit, you'll know he has it because lists are open not hidden so you can easily screw him out of that.
If he has the absurdly expensive Force Shield then the odds are 37% and 28% that he'll suffer wounds.
If he hasn't taken any ward save for the mount then it's a 55% and 42% chance for wounds.

Terrain?
Cannons ignore cover, so you can only be out of line of sight as a defence.
Fast cavalry killing the enemy machine? Only works if the enemy war machine is undefended, he has points spare to defend his machines as they cost way less than the monster mount does.
Your own war machines may work of course, but that's just a may work and not will definitely work.

CC isn't necessarily a safe place for the monsters.
You have to be fighting something very weak to be sure you're not going to have any real risk of suffering wounds, also you can't avoid an enemy that decides to flank you.
Equally if you win the combat, it needs to be in the enemy turn or you're stuck able to be shot at again.


So in short, while it won't on average kill a ridden monster, it does in my opinion have an unreasonably high chance to cripple it.
Two of them have an even greater chance, and not merely because you have two shots per turn but also because you can make it that much harder for the enemy to be in a position where you can't shoot at it.

Drakkar du Chaos
03-05-2016, 21:45
So in short, while it won't on average kill a ridden monster, it does in my opinion have an unreasonably high chance to cripple it.
Two of them have an even greater chance, and not merely because you have two shots per turn but also because you can make it that much harder for the enemy to be in a position where you can't shoot at it.

I'm not going to bother with your maths because the most important part is the conclusion :

- we never said T9A cannons were useless, we said they were less effective than 8th for removing ridden monsters off the table and you cannot hope to one shot a good ridden monster build anymore without a lot of luck with your double cannons.
- we also said that because T9A warmachines are a little more balanced than just "cannons moar cannons", combined profile for most mounted characters means more ward save so less sniping with canons = shooty armies are taking less canons = less pressure on monsters = meta more ridden monster friendly

T9A isn't a revolution (yet), it's just trying to be the most balanced (8th edition) game as possible with less changes as possible in the rules.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 21:50
Yes on average a single cannon won't kill a 500pt monster per turn, but it has the ability to.

Lets run the actual figures.
3+ to hit at 0-30" away.
A misfire won't kill the cannon unless it's three single wound effects (more for some other armies), a dwarf cannon will always work.
Rolling to wound is a 2+ roll as no monster is toughness 9.
If they have a hero for protection and that hero took an item specifically to fend off cannons grants at best a 4+ save (once, Gemstone amulet)
Average wound multiplier is 3 (4 if it flies) D3+1 (D3+2)
So....
At short range it's a 28% chance to do 2-4 wounds (3-5 if flying)
At long range it's a 21% chance to do 2-4 wounds (3-5 if flying)

That's if he's taken a 4+ ward which he can only use once.
If he has the Lucky Shield then that negates the first hit, you'll know he has it because lists are open not hidden so you can easily screw him out of that.
If he has the absurdly expensive Force Shield then the odds are 37% and 28% that he'll suffer wounds.
If he hasn't taken any ward save for the mount then it's a 55% and 42% chance for wounds.

Terrain?
Cannons ignore cover, so you can only be out of line of sight as a defence.
Fast cavalry killing the enemy machine? Only works if the enemy war machine is undefended, he has points spare to defend his machines as they cost way less than the monster mount does.
Your own war machines may work of course, but that's just a may work and not will definitely work.

CC isn't necessarily a safe place for the monsters.
You have to be fighting something very weak to be sure you're not going to have any real risk of suffering wounds, also you can't avoid an enemy that decides to flank you.
Equally if you win the combat, it needs to be in the enemy turn or you're stuck able to be shot at again.


So in short, while it won't on average kill a ridden monster, it does in my opinion have an unreasonably high chance to cripple it.
Two of them have an even greater chance, and not merely because you have two shots per turn but also because you can make it that much harder for the enemy to be in a position where you can't shoot at it.
So with your math and the addition of terrain you are in the low 20% category to cause wounds. Lets take the average of a 500 point monster and a 100 point cannon. With 20% chance to cause 2-4 wounds its going to take 100 points 5 turns to reliably hurt the big bad 500 point unit. Thats not even factoring in units dedicated with the sole purpose of defending the war machines, the lack of mobility for objectives during the game and that a player using terrain to cross the board shouldn't be getting shot at for 5 turns. The added effect that in 9th you can now guarantee a first turn or out deploy with the second turn if they drop the entire army first. So you are giving up mobility, a big chunk of points and all for an increased chance to hurt a type of unit that you might or might not actually end up fighting. Im guessing I'm just failing to see the big issues with canons and this coming from a guy who's second army is a monster mash lizard men (to be honest i haven't fielded them yet in 9th just because theres so many interesting lists and builds i can't get enough of my gobs atm).

Lord Malorne
03-05-2016, 21:55
I really can't get why people are so hung up about cannons one shotting monsters, its really not a big deal and I think its much better for the game that they cannot, as I said earlier in regards to my meta, I am sure there will be a lot of games where either army cannot take canons anyway.

theunwantedbeing
03-05-2016, 22:24
So with your math and the addition of terrain you are in the low 20% category to cause wounds.
I must be missing something with how terrain works.
The only time you'll get in the low 20% for wounds is long range when they're toting a 4+ ward save.


The added effect that in 9th you can now guarantee a first turn or out deploy with the second turn if they drop the entire army first.
I don't see any advantage in doing that personally.


Im guessing I'm just failing to see the big issues with canons and this coming from a guy who's second army is a monster mash lizard men (to be honest i haven't fielded them yet in 9th just because theres so many interesting lists and builds i can't get enough of my gobs atm).
And I'm likely missing something as well.

Asmodios
03-05-2016, 23:12
I must be missing something with how terrain works.
The only time you'll get in the low 20% for wounds is long range when they're toting a 4+ ward save.


I don't see any advantage in doing that personally.


And I'm likely missing something as well.
1)Terrain is going to reduce the number of times your cannon will be able to shoot per game if you are obscuring line of sight thus reducing or eliminating turns of fire
"Figure 9 a) Models cannot shoot, Line of Sight is blocked.
b) Models can shoot (enemy within Line of Sight), Hard Cover since more than half of the enemy unit’s Footprint is obscuredby Impassable Terrain.
c) Models can shoot (enemy within Line of Sight), no Cover since less than half of the enemy unit’s Footprint is obscured byImpassable Terrain. "
You have to read the rules section on hight to see how this works as well as soft and hard cover modifiers to reduce enemy damage output.
2) With the new deployment options you can now guarantee the first turn so to guarantee your monsters get to proper mid field cover before taking fire. If they drop all first you can now locate your entire army for every ideal match up
3) my point is as someone who plays monster heavy lists i just don't see the issue with cannons. You can easily negate their damage and the funniest thing is mixing it up occasionally against cannon heavy armies and running a list that has no ideal targets for the cannon. For instance one game i ran goblin gun line and my buddy that usually runs super expensive chaos units with plenty of ideal targets tossed me a curve ball. He took tons of marauders and took a unit that could ambush and caught me with my pants down. Now every time i make a list i have to think of the possibility that my opponent will do something similar and because of this have limited my shooting (my eggs are in lots of different baskets now).

theunwantedbeing
04-05-2016, 00:31
1)Terrain is going to reduce the number of times your cannon will be able to shoot per game if you are obscuring line of sight thus reducing or eliminating turns of fire
Obscuring terrain exists that blocks line of sight.
Obscuring terrain is any of the following : Hills, Impassible Terrain, Buildings

When deploying you'll have at least three of the above terrain types.
And 2D3 more terrain pieces with each piece having a 1/6 chance being another Obscuring terrain feature. (specifically a hill)
Which is an average of 0-1 more hills so there's a reasonable chance of there being 4 pieces that fully block line of sight.
Terrain pieces have to be 6" apart and randomly distributed from the centre of each quarter of the board.

Potentially you could get a number of hiding spots out of it but it largely depends on the actual deployment.
Ideally some images of 9th age boards either before or after army deployment would help.


2) With the new deployment options you can now guarantee the first turn so to guarantee your monsters get to proper mid field cover before taking fire. If they drop all first you can now locate your entire army for every ideal match up
I can't see any way to guarantee you get the first turn except by having way more deploys than your opponent has.
Equally I don't see any real advantage to deploying your entire army in a single go, especially not if you've got a cannon(or two) and the other guy has a big expensive monster for you to shoot it at.


3) my point is as someone who plays monster heavy lists i just don't see the issue with cannons.
Understandable, target saturation makes things look a lot less scary to the individual model.
A single ridden monster is going to have issues with the one cannon though, and definite trouble against two of them.


You can easily negate their damage and the funniest thing is mixing it up occasionally against cannon heavy armies and running a list that has no ideal targets for the cannon.
Easily negate the damage by
1. Hiding
2. Not taking any monsters
3. Face an army that hasn't got any cannons

I guess at this point we need to see some boards after the terrain has been set up.

Asmodios
04-05-2016, 00:53
Obscuring terrain exists that blocks line of sight.
Obscuring terrain is any of the following : Hills, Impassible Terrain, Buildings

When deploying you'll have at least three of the above terrain types.
And 2D3 more terrain pieces with each piece having a 1/6 chance being another Obscuring terrain feature. (specifically a hill)
Which is an average of 0-1 more hills so there's a reasonable chance of there being 4 pieces that fully block line of sight.
Terrain pieces have to be 6" apart and randomly distributed from the centre of each quarter of the board.

Potentially you could get a number of hiding spots out of it but it largely depends on the actual deployment.
Ideally some images of 9th age boards either before or after army deployment would help.


I can't see any way to guarantee you get the first turn except by having way more deploys than your opponent has.
Equally I don't see any real advantage to deploying your entire army in a single go, especially not if you've got a cannon(or two) and the other guy has a big expensive monster for you to shoot it at.


Understandable, target saturation makes things look a lot less scary to the individual model.
A single ridden monster is going to have issues with the one cannon though, and definite trouble against two of them.


Easily negate the damage by
1. Hiding
2. Not taking any monsters
3. Face an army that hasn't got any cannons

I guess at this point we need to see some boards after the terrain has been set up.
Deployment works differently then it did in 8th. You can now deploy your entire army at once and this gives you a +1 for each unit your opponent has left. So you are guaranteed a first turn by just immediately dropping your entire army at once and raking up the +1 modifier.

Using the new terrain rules in ever game i have played there has been plenty of objects to obscure LOS and give soft/hard cover against shooting that does not ignore it. I guess if your gaming club is playing with little or no objects on the board cannon would be a big issue, but if thats the case i would suggest increasing the amount with your group.

I see the options as
1) use cover to move up the board strategically taking as little fire as possible
2) use a variation of lists (made easier by things being more balanced) to make consistent opponents have to guess what your list will hold each week
3) use ambushers and out flankers to put pressure on cannons.
4) Except that sometimes that big bad unit is going to get shredded (it just happens). Have a game plan in place for if it goes down quick.
5) Put a dedicated war machine hunting hero in your army (my buddy did this with his DE and it really did the trick)

Yowzo
04-05-2016, 10:13
5) Put a dedicated war machine hunting hero in your army (my buddy did this with his DE and it really did the trick)

Exacty. Put the cheapest fighting hero, usually with just mundane equipment on the fastest mount available.

In a pinch it also doubles as a slightly overpriced redirector.

theunwantedbeing
04-05-2016, 11:00
Deployment works differently then it did in 8th.
You can now deploy your entire army at once and this gives you a +1 for each unit your opponent has left.
So you are guaranteed a first turn by just immediately dropping your entire army at once and raking up the +1 modifier.
Okay I misread that rule.
So if you have a monster, drop the entire army in one go to be sure you get to go first.

The downside being that the enemy can now just deploy at a point where the monster now can't do anything unless it comes out of cover.
Or failing that just deploy your cannons so that the enemy has no chance of being in cover.


Using the new terrain rules in ever game i have played there has been plenty of objects to obscure LOS and give soft/hard cover against shooting that does not ignore it. I guess if your gaming club is playing with little or no objects on the board cannon would be a big issue, but if thats the case i would suggest increasing the amount with your group.
Plenty is subjective.
The rules state a minimum of 3 and then it's 2D3 random extra's which has fairly low odds of more obscuring terrain.
That's 6-10 terrain pieces, 3 of which are guaranteed to be obscuring, distributed completely randomly.
You need to win that deploy first roll off (which has 50/50 odds) to get the full benefit of any terrain.

Cannons ignore any hard or soft cover modifiers.


I see the options as
1) use cover to move up the board strategically taking as little fire as possible
2) use a variation of lists (made easier by things being more balanced) to make consistent opponents have to guess what your list will hold each week
3) use ambushers and out flankers to put pressure on cannons.
4) Except that sometimes that big bad unit is going to get shredded (it just happens). Have a game plan in place for if it goes down quick.
5) Put a dedicated war machine hunting hero in your army (my buddy did this with his DE and it really did the trick)

1. Depends entirely on the random arrangement of the scenery.
2. Yeah he can't die if he's not being used. Equally he cant get shot at if the enemy didn't bother to bring any cannons.
Neither of which does anything when you did use the monster and the enemy has a cannon.
3. Ambushers arrive no earlier than turn 2 and cannot charge until turn 3. They can shoot of course but this is by no means a guarantee of success.
Using out flankers after dropping your army on turn 1 makes it trivially easy for the enemy to avoid them and the enemy will have more spare points to counter.
4. Accept is the word. What would that plan be exactly?
5. Oh so to keep my 500pt ridden monster alive I need to spend another 150+pts on a hero to go kill the 100-150pts of cannon.

Show us all a typical game board set up please, then we can all see exactly why you think terrain is so great.

Vazalaar
04-05-2016, 11:28
Some things I find strange.

My main armies are Empire and WoC, so those can I compare the best.

I don’t understand why Eye of the Gods changed so drastically. It is very simplified. Killed a character in a challenge or killed a monster… wel now you can re-roll to hit and to wound until next magic phase… BORING. The Eye of the Gods table was great, fun and immersive. But I assume changing in a spawn or Daemon prince is to game changing for 9th Age… …, but to me it seems just things that make an evening of playing Warhammer great.

Also I find the Once Chosen, really bleak in comparison with the uniqueness of Blightkings (Equipment choices), Wrathmongers (impact hits…) and etc.. I would have preferred something like that for Lust and Change.

I also dislike the fact that certain gifts and etc may not be used.. I.e Waste Hardened you can use, but not when you character is mounted on a Manticore… . Same as Soul Reaper.. it’s fine with a combined profile, but not with a ridden monster profile.. Such things imo break immersion.. .

About the Wrath Priest, he seems pretty weak. I mean compared with a EoS preacher, he costs a lot more and the stat difference is +1 WS and -1 BS. While the EoS Preacher is more versatile.

This brings me to EoS, when compared with my 8th Edition Empire army, the EoS armylist feels so much stronger. It has everything… .
The characters are a lot better, versatile.. .I.e 8th Edition General, hmm I can take a Runefang, but with only three attacks.. . In EoS, you can do the same, but when doing so you get an extra attack.. .in general I think EoS received a lot of goodies, but almost no drawbacks.

Isn’t the Inquisitor overpowered? For 60 pts, you get heavy armour, decent stat line, ITP, Lethal Strike, Multiple Wounds (D3), Magic Resistance (2), Specializations, and a variety of upgrades to make him more versatile. Just incredible.

As a 8th Edition WoC and Empire player it really feels that in 9th Age my WoC army was hit with the nerf and simplyfing stick and my Empire army with the glorious gift stick.

Arrahed
04-05-2016, 12:06
Some things I find strange.

My main armies are Empire and WoC, so those can I compare the best.

I don’t understand why Eye of the Gods changed so drastically. It is very simplified. Killed a character in a challenge or killed a monster… wel now you can re-roll to hit and to wound until next magic phase… BORING. The Eye of the Gods table was great, fun and immersive. But I assume changing in a spawn or Daemon prince is to game changing for 9th Age… …, but to me it seems just things that make an evening of playing Warhammer great.

Also I find the Once Chosen, really bleak in comparison with the uniqueness of Blightkings (Equipment choices), Wrathmongers (impact hits…) and etc.. I would have preferred something like that for Lust and Change.

I also dislike the fact that certain gifts and etc may not be used.. I.e Waste Hardened you can use, but not when you character is mounted on a Manticore… . Same as Soul Reaper.. it’s fine with a combined profile, but not with a ridden monster profile.. Such things imo break immersion.. .

About the Wrath Priest, he seems pretty weak. I mean compared with a EoS preacher, he costs a lot more and the stat difference is +1 WS and -1 BS. While the EoS Preacher is more versatile.

This brings me to EoS, when compared with my 8th Edition Empire army, the EoS armylist feels so much stronger. It has everything… .
The characters are a lot better, versatile.. .I.e 8th Edition General, hmm I can take a Runefang, but with only three attacks.. . In EoS, you can do the same, but when doing so you get an extra attack.. .in general I think EoS received a lot of goodies, but almost no drawbacks.

Isn’t the Inquisitor overpowered? For 60 pts, you get heavy armour, decent stat line, ITP, Lethal Strike, Multiple Wounds (D3), Magic Resistance (2), Specializations, and a variety of upgrades to make him more versatile. Just incredible.

As a 8th Edition WoC and Empire player it really feels that in 9th Age my WoC army was hit with the nerf and simplyfing stick and my Empire army with the glorious gift stick.
I am not an expert on those two factions but maybe I can contribute a little bit.
The Inquisitor is awesome but keep in mind that he only has 2 Attacks. Lethal Strike is not super useful with only 2 Attacks. He is however the prime candidate for the stat-switching item.

Generally, you should not compare point cost across different factions. That will make you very unhappy very quickly. It looks really unfair if different armies pay less for what is literally the same as your favorite unit. My impression is that point costs are only a very rough approximation of the power level of a unit. The actual point value seems to be adjusted to ensure internal balance to make sure every unit in a faction is a viable choice. That can easily result in different point values of equivalent units in different armies without messing up external balance.

Yowzo
04-05-2016, 12:39
I also dislike the fact that certain gifts and etc may not be used.. I.e Waste Hardened you can use, but not when you character is mounted on a Manticore… . Same as Soul Reaper.. it’s fine with a combined profile, but not with a ridden monster profile.. Such things imo break immersion.. .

Those limitations are in place to avoid broken combos.

It's Ok for a character on foot to have a 1+/4+. Having that on a flying stomping monster is a totally different thing.

Likewise, it's not the same for a 3 or 4W guy to go about recovering the odd wound here and there, but for a big monster it can be gamebreaking.

Remember the old nurgle flying DP of doom? Either you had multiple cannons or it roflstomped all over your army. That's the kind of extreme matchups T9A tries to avoid.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 13:15
@Vazalaar

The job of RT/BB was to nerf WoC external balance and the job of ABC was to grant to WoC a better internal balance... i think both of these goals are fulfilled but clearly the army lack some flavor now, also some components like Gaze are just crap for various reasons (balance/randomness/simplification/etc...).

The most important point as a WDG player is that we have a lot of different playstyles avalaible and competitive now, i hope the next updates will bring more flavor, logic and remove the silly drawbacks in this book.
As for power level perhaps WDG is below average now, we shall see in the next months.

Folomo
04-05-2016, 13:25
As promised, the firsts ~10 UD lists from the dedicated forum:



Death Cult Hierarch (Hierophant), Level 4 (Path of Sands), Soul Conduit, Skull Spitter, Backlash Scroll

Nomarch (General), Dragon Mantle, Lucky Charm, Hero's Sword, Heavy Armor, Shield
Tomb Harbinger, Battle Standard, Mithril Mail, Talisman of Greater Shielding, Paired Weapons
Nomarch, Sandstorm Cloak, Hardened Shield, Potion of Swiftness, Horse, Heavy Armor, Lance, Aspen Bow
Nomarch, Charm of Cursed Iron, Dragonscale Helm, Gemstone Amulet, Chariot, Heavy Armor, Shield, Lance, Aspen Bow

38 Skeletons, Spears, Standard + Champion
22 Skeleton Archers, Standard + Champion
10 Skeleton Cavalry, Light Armor, light Lances, Full Command, War Standard
4 Chariot, Standard + Champion

2 Scarab Swarms
5 Great Vultures
Sand Scorpion
Sand Scorpion

Colossus, Scales of Destiny
Charnel Catapult
Charnel Catapult




PHARAOH, general, heavy armour, shield, king's slayer, dragonscale helm, sprouth of rebirth, speed potion [300]
HIERARCH, level 4 sands, book of the deads, soul conduit [300]

HARBINGER, hero's sword, mithril mail, lucky charm [115]
ACOLYTE, hierophant, level 1 sands, dispel scroll, gemstone amulet [115]

28 ARCHERS, full command, [198]
7 CHARIOTS, banner, musician, speed banner [320]
5 CAVALRY [65]
5 CAVALRY [65]

3 VULTURES [75]
38 NECROGUARDS, helberds, full command, rending banner [529]

COLOSSUS, giant bow [205]
COLOSSUS, giant bow [205]




Lords
Pharaoh, Vanquisher Eternal, Glittering Cuirass, Dragonfire Gem - 250 pts

Heroes,
Death Cult Acolyte, Path of Sand, Level 2 wizard, Book of Arcane Power, Hierophant - 125 pts
Death Cult Acolyte, Path of Death, Level 2 Wizard, Ring of Fire - 115 pts

Core
3 Skeleton Chariots /w free reform - 135 pts
3 Skeleton Chariots /w free reform - 135 pts
5 Skeleton Cavalry /w bows - 65 pts
5 Skeleton Cavalry /w bows - 65 pts
19 skeleton archers /w musician - 124 pts

Special
Battlesphinx /w Breath Weapon - 245 pts
Battlesphinx /w Breath Weapon - 245 pts
24 Necropolis Guard /w FC, paired weapons and Rending Standard - 323 pts
3 Sand Stalkers /w Underground Ambush - 170 pts




Pharaoh on Chariot: General, Shield, Great Aspen Bow, Scourge of Kings, Glittering Cuirass, Potion of Strength 308
Hierarch: lvl4, Sands, Soul Conduit, Arcane Power, Ring of Fire 325

Acolyte: lvl2, Sands, Dispel Scroll 125
Harbinger on Chariot: BSB, Bow, Strider Standard, Lucky Shield 198 (never leave home without your strider banner, bruh)
Architect: Skeletal Horse 65

10 Chariots: FCG, Speedbanner 435
5 Skeleton Cavalry: Bows 65
5 Skeleton Cavalry: Bows 65
17 Skeleton Archers: Standard, Musician 122

Battlesphinx: (ID +4) 245
2x Sand Scorpion 170
3 Vultures: 80

2x Catapult 180
Casket of Phatep 115




PHARAOH, general, royal sphinx, razor blade, dragonscale helm, seed of rebirth, sandstorm cloack, heavy armour, shield, necromantic aura [500]

ACOLYTE, hierophant, lvl2 sands, sceptre of power [105]
ACOLYTE, lvl2 sands, dispel scroll [125]

30 ARCHERS, full command [210]
30 ARCHERS, full command [210]
40 SKELETONS, shields, banner [210]

BATTLESPHINX, 4+ armour, breath weapon [270]
BATTLESPHINX, 4+ armour, breath weapon [270]

DREADSPHINX, 4+ armour [300]
DREADSPHINX, 4+ armour [300]




Level 4, Hierophant, Path of Sands, Book of the Dead- 250

Level 2, Path of Sands, Scroll- 125
Architect, Hardened Shield- 55

21 Archers, Full Command, Gleaming Pennant- 161
3 Chariots, Light Troops- 135
3 Chariots, Light Troops- 135
5 Horsemen, Bows- 65
5 Horsemen, Bows- 65
5 Horsemen, Bows- 65

8 Shabti, Full Command, AHW- 365
10 Shabti, Full Command, Halberds, Flaming Banner- 519
3 Stalkers, Champion, UGA- 180
Scorpion- 85

Casket- 115
2 Catapults- 180




Heirarch, Sands, Heirophant, Book of the Dead, Soul conduit, Cloak of Sands 330

Acolyte, Light, Dispel Scroll 100
Harbinger, Dragonfire Gem, Armor of Eternities, Shield, BSB 138

3 Chariots 135
3 Chariots 135
10 archers 60
10 archers 60
28 archers, FC 198
5 horsemen, light lance 70
5 horsemen, light lance 70

Sphinx, 4+ 245
Sphinx, 4+ 245
21 Necroguards, Paired Weapons, FC, Icon of the Relentless Company 257
3 stalkers, UA 170
3 stalkers, UA 170

Casket 115




LORDS
1 x Death Cult Hierarch (General) (Hierophant) (Path Of The Sands) Soul Conduit, Additional Magic Level, Book Of The Dead, Ark Of Ages, Necromantic Aura, Obsidian Rock (515pts)

HEROES
1 x Tomb Harbinger Battle Standard Bearer, Aspen Bow (98pts)
1 x Tomb Architect (50pts)

CORE
27 x Skeleton Archers Champion, Musician, Standard Bearer (192pts)
40 x Skeletons Champion, Musician, Standard Bearer, Veteran Standard, Icon Of The Relentless Company (225pts)
5 x Skeleton Cavalry Aspen Bows (75pts)
5 x Skeleton Cavalry Aspen Bows (75pts)
5 x Skeleton Cavalry (65pts)

SPECIAL
1 x Battle Sphinx, Innate Defence (4+) (245pts)
5 x Tomb Cataphracts, Champion, Standard Bearer, Rending Banner (340pts)

RARE
1 x Dread Sphinx, Innate Defence (4+) (300pts)
1 x Colossus, Paired Weapons (205pts)
1 x Casket Of Phatep (115pts)




Terracotta Legion:
Pharaoh(190), TC(15), Destroyer of eternities(55), Bluffers Helm(35), potion of swiftness(5), dragonfiregem(5), Heavy armor(12). 317

Tomb Architect(50), TC(15). 65
Tomb Architect(50), TC(15). 65
Harbringer(70), TC(15), BSB(25), armour of destiny(35), icon of the relentless company(15),Great weapon. 166
Hierach(170), lvl4(30), TC(15), book of the dead(50), soul conduit. 300

30x Skeletons, fc, TC. 250
15x Archers, fc, TC. 165
3x Chariots, fc, TC. 210

28x Necro Guards, TC, Add. Hw, FC, holy icon. 440
Colossus, great weapon. 205
6x Ushabti, halberds, musician, banner. 301




Hierarch, lvl 4 sand, book of arcane power

Acolyte, lvl 2 death, Book of knowledge

29 archers, FC, discipline banner
5 cav
5 cav
3 Chariots, LT
3 Chariots, LT

3 Vultures
3 Vultures
3 Stalkers, UA
3 Stalkers, UA
3 Cataphracts, UA, St
3 Cataphracts, UA, St
9 Bowshabties, Mu, St, gleaming icon

Casket
2x Reapers, AHW




Lords:
Heirarch lvl 4 w/ Dispel Scroll, Soul Conduit, Path of Sands

Heroes:
Acolyte lvl 2 w/ Book of Arcane Lore, Path of Sands
Architect w/ Ring of Fire

Core:
3 Chariots w/ Standard
3 Chariots w/ Standard
15 Skeleton Archers
15 Skeleton Archers
15 Skeleton Archers
5 Skeletal Calvary

Special:
Battle Sphinx w/ Breath
Battle Sphinx w/ Breath
8 Shabties w/ Standard, Paired Weapons
3 Great Vultures
3 Great Vultures

Rare:
4 Winged Reapers w/ Paired Weapons
Casket of Phatep




Death cult Hierarch, Book of the dead (250) -Hierophant, General "on archers block"

Tomb Harbinger, Heavy armour, lucky shield, dragonfire gem, sandstorm cloak, amuut (172) "on shabtis"
Tomb architect (50) "on archers block"


29 Skeleton archers, mus, std (194)
5 Skeleton cavalry, bow (75)
2x5 Skeleton cavalry (2x65)
2x3 skeleton chariots, std (2x145)...............CORE: 689

10 Shabtis, halberd, std (494)
4 Sand stalkers, underground ambush (220)

Casket of phatep (115)
2x3 winged reapers, paired weapons, autonomous (2x255)

Vazalaar
04-05-2016, 13:33
I am not an expert on those two factions but maybe I can contribute a little bit.
The Inquisitor is awesome but keep in mind that he only has 2 Attacks. Lethal Strike is not super useful with only 2 Attacks. He is however the prime candidate for the stat-switching item.

Generally, you should not compare point cost across different factions. That will make you very unhappy very quickly. It looks really unfair if different armies pay less for what is literally the same as your favorite unit. My impression is that point costs are only a very rough approximation of the power level of a unit. The actual point value seems to be adjusted to ensure internal balance to make sure every unit in a faction is a viable choice. That can easily result in different point values of equivalent units in different armies without messing up external balance.

Hmm, it also about immersion. I don't think it is wrong to look and compare directly with other characters and units from another book.

I.e The Wrath Priest, which I assume is somekind of priest devoted to the Dark Gods (This is somekind of Warrior Priest of Khorne), but his stats are only +1 WS and -1 BS compared with the EoS Preacher. But he costs 35 points more. Ok, he gots Magic resistance 2, but i.e the Inquisitor has also magic resistance 2, the same statline except +1 BS as the Wrath Priest but only costs 60 points. On top of that he receive heavy armour, Lethal Strike, Multiple wounds (2) and the option to have full plate, shield, horse and missible weapons... and a free specialization, that again give bonusses.. that super character costs 60 points!

BTW the Empire characters always had few attacks. General, Captain only 3 attacks, Archlector, Witch Hunter, Warrior Priest only 2 attacks and only the Grandmaster had 4 attacks. Thus combat characters with low attacks was something specific for the Empire... .

Sorry, it just seems wrong that a priest, who has no magic, can only dispel who is devoted to the Blood God, the god of War has the same stats as measly Empire Warrior Priest... .

I.e Runefang was a great weapon, but it was limited because a general had only 3 attacks. How does 9th Age solve this, well if you want the Sonnstahl, take the Imperial prince upgrade and for 90 points you get the Sonnstahl and +1 attack. The extra attack costs only 5 points as the magic item Sonnstahl when bought without the upgrade costs 85 points... Come on, this is saying hmm, I like the Runefang, but it is a shame that my general only has 3 attacks.. let us create something to give him +1 attack.. .

My main is Empire and EoS is just a boosted version of it. Everything seems better and with more choice. While my second army WoC, got nerfed a lot and simplified.. Loss of Eye of the Gods table, Mark of Khorne is weaker, Chosen losed their roll at the Eye of the God table, but received frenzy back.., Once Chosen is really simplified version of Blightkings, skullreapers and Wrathmongers.. .
A lot of flavour is gone for Warriors of the Dark Gods. It seems all so streamlined.

I would glady use the EoS armylist in 8th edition, as my army would be double as effective with more flavour choices, cool stuff, but when taking the Warriors of the Dark Gods it loses a lot of flavour in comparison with WoC... .



Those limitations are in place to avoid broken combos.

It's Ok for a character on foot to have a 1+/4+. Having that on a flying stomping monster is a totally different thing.

Likewise, it's not the same for a 3 or 4W guy to go about recovering the odd wound here and there, but for a big monster it can be gamebreaking.

Remember the old nurgle flying DP of doom? Either you had multiple cannons or it roflstomped all over your army. That's the kind of extreme matchups T9A tries to avoid.

That depends on your meta. I understand that for tournamemts and pick up games this is necessary, but where I play such things just didn't happen.

Also, now with the nerf on cannons, why couldn't they keep the rules for ridden monsters as in 8th? I don't see the benefit of changing it. Now they created artificial boundries... like you can take that item, oh no, you can't take it anymore because you use a monster as a mount... but your buddy on foot can take it... It are immersion breakers. Or take the 70 point shield for only a 5+ ward save. How unreal is that?

I think if you play in a casual group that consits out the same people that play to win, but not at all cost or min/max the rules I am starting to think that 9th punishes you.. .


Edit:
@Drakkar du Chaos: Hmm, I found the Eye of the Gods table fantastic. It made me go monster/character hunting with my characters. Which sometimes resulted in +1 BS.. which was really meh, but so be it. The gifts of Chaos are random, you can ask for certain things, but the gods give what they give. Chaos Warriors live for the favour of their gods and the Eye of the God table reflected this wonderfull as the Chaos gods are FICKLE, but now we get reroll to hit and to wound for a round. WOW, that is so great:shifty:, Meanwhile we have an inquisitor that is flavourful and very strong.. .

Edit 2:
Did you feel WoC in 8th was weak or had limited armybuilds? That is not how I experienced it. I am now working on a Pure Khorne army and even that army doesn't feel very limited in playstyle.

Holier Than Thou
04-05-2016, 13:41
Skinks with poisoned shots, gutter runners with poison shots.

Those things are/were as much a bane to monsters than cannons.

Both need to get within potential charge range to use them, putting them at risk. Both also would still allow the monster it's armour save.


It seems to me that some people want a 500 point monster to only be killed by a 500 point and greater unit. Or essentially you to not be able to kill units of greater cost with specialized units of a lower cost.

Not at all, but it should be difficult for a unit of much lower cost to kill or cripple the more powerful unit, relying on a little bit of luck or clever play. Not point, shoot and have a 50/50 chance of hitting, with every hit taking a minimum of half the monster's wounds, potentially leaving it with only 1 wound. And they're not too shabby if there's no monsters in the opponents army as they can do reliable damage to anything. There is no risk to spending 100 or even 200 points on them. Set up in backfield, there will always be a target for them, maybe not an ideal target but they will have no difficulty making their points back.


But on average it won't kill a 500pt monster per turn. You have to roll to hit (could misfire and lose the gun). Then you have to roll to wound. Then if they have a hero built for protection you have to get past the ward.

Most items that could help are either very expensive for a low chance of survival or one use only, not very helpful.


So do we need a rule saying my goblins can't remove a unit of greater point value in a turn if luck goes my way?

No, because like I said, luck should play a large part in overcoming a huge difference in points.


When i bring trolls and some infantry unit thats half the cost but has flaming attacks wipes them out should that be banned?

If it's a close combat unit you can try and avoid them, if it's on a ranged unit then it's a bit more difficult. A unit of 8 Empire archers with that banner (100 points, same as the cannon) will get 16 shots, needing 3s to hit if at half range, again you should be able to try and keep them at long range so needing 4s to hit. Say an average of 8 shots get through, they now need 5s to wound, an average of 1 wound, 33% of a single trolls wounds, for a full unit (that doesn't even get close to the cost of my Ridden Monster), it's 4% of the unit's total wounds. Hardly the same.



I see the options as
1) use cover to move up the board strategically taking as little fire as possible

Easier said than done when only obscuring terrain will help.


2) use a variation of lists (made easier by things being more balanced) to make consistent opponents have to guess what your list will hold each week

So to make my Lord viable, I shouldn't take him. Wow, how viable.


3) use ambushers and out flankers to put pressure on cannons.

Turn 3 charge at the earliest for those that have them. I play Vampire Counts, which of my units have these options again?


4) Except that sometimes that big bad unit is going to get shredded (it just happens). Have a game plan in place for if it goes down quick.

Yeah, my Lord is my General. When he goes poof, my army goes poof. My game plan then is to thank my opponent for the game and pack up.


5) Put a dedicated war machine hunting hero in your army (my buddy did this with his DE and it really did the trick)

So i need to spend another 80 points, minimum, on a pretty-much suicidal attempt to get at the war machine, again facing the same danger except this time 1 shot can kill him? Great.

Wouldn't it just be easier to limit cannons to doing a single, very reliable​, wound against large creatures with a small chance to do more, while still being just as effective against everything else? Maybe not heroic killing blow, maybe on a roll of a 6 to wound it does 3 wounds?

As it stands the argument seems to be "Ridden Monsters are viable because your opponent might not take cannons." Again, I'm not saying it wasn't a problem in 8th but as the 9th Age was starting from the ground up I really hoped it would fix such problems. Based on the evidence of what's written in the rules, not on the chance of your opponent not​ fielding cannons, they haven't.

Folomo
04-05-2016, 13:41
Just wanted to mention that someone though he could take the magic helmet that forced reroll on successful wounds on his wyrm mounted warboss. The monster alone basically wiped almost alone a Wood Elf army because the elves arrows couldn't wound it thanks to reroling 6s to wound.
A small change, but turned a game that looked pretty interesting into a one sided deal.

Yowzo
04-05-2016, 13:45
That depends on your meta. I understand that for tournamemts and pick up games this is necessary, but where I play such things just didn't happen.

It didn't on regular group games either, but whenever we went to a tournament it did.

It's as easy as just forgetting that restriction is there. A guy on our group uses his crossbow skellies from storm of chaos in his VC army. So far the 9th age police has failed to show up.

Vazalaar
04-05-2016, 13:47
Just wanted to mention that someone though he could take the magic helmet that forced reroll on successful wounds on his wyrm mounted warboss. The monster alone basically wiped almost alone a Wood Elf army because the elves arrows couldn't wound it thanks to reroling 6s to wound.
A small change, but turned a game that looked pretty interesting into a one sided deal.

Which in 8th edition, that Wyrm mounted Warboss couldn't do the same, because of the seperate profile, even if a forced re-roll to succesful woudns.. . Also Glade guard could take arrow upgrades, which they can't anymore in 9th Age.. ... Sorry, my initial excitement of a couple of days ago with version 1.00 is fading when you really start to compare the armybooks and so called solutions in comparison with 8th.


It didn't on regular group games either, but whenever we went to a tournament it did.

It's as easy as just forgetting that restriction is there. A guy on our group uses his crossbow skellies from storm of chaos in his VC army. So far the 9th age police has failed to show up.

So, 9th Age is essential a super comp pack, because if you don't encounter such things in the meta you play. 9th Age just results in a lot of loss for certain armies. Not EoS, but certainly Warriors of the Dark Gods is a huge step backwards in comparison with what we had before.. .

Holier Than Thou
04-05-2016, 13:55
As promised, the firsts ~10 UD lists from the dedicated forum:

One Ridden Monster there as far as I can see and it looks like the person who made the list isn't the best person to copy as he has wasted 75 points on items that have no effect on him as he is on a Ridden monster (Sprout of Rebirth, Dragonscale Helmet, Heavy Armour and a Shield). Not really helping the argument that they are viable.

Yowzo
04-05-2016, 14:03
So, 9th Age is essential a super comp pack, because if you don't encounter such things in the meta you play. 9th Age just results in a lot of loss for certain armies. Not EoS, but certainly Warriors of the Dark Gods is a huge step backwards in comparison with what we had before.. .

Loss? 9th age has brought dozens of units back to the table. Viable as in you-really-want-to-use them.

The win/loss ratio is absurd.


Which in 8th edition, that Wyrm mounted Warboss couldn't do the same, because of the seperate profile,

Which is why no one took a warboss on wyvern seriously back in 8th edition. Separate profile meant both rider and wyvern ate a cannonball each. So instead of D3+2 they got 2D6 wounds.

In any case that wyvern warboss folomo says is an illegal build. The wyvern is a large target so it cannot take the re-roll to wound helm (here's another case of a step backwards)

Vazalaar
04-05-2016, 14:05
I really would like to know how many members of the 9th Age Rules Review team play EoS and how many WDG. :cool: ;)


Loss? 9th age has brought dozens of units back to the table. Viable as in you-really-want-to-use them.

The win/loss ratio is absurd.



Which is why no one took a warboss on wyvern seriously back in 8th edition. Separate profile meant both rider and wyvern ate a cannonball each. So instead of D3+2 they got 2D6 wounds.

In any case that wyvern warboss folomo says is an illegal build. The wyvern is a large target so it cannot take the re-roll to wound helm (here's another case of a step backwards)

Yes, it is a loss, because if you are not a min-max player, you were already using all the units in the armybook! As I said with WDG I lose a lot of flavour for no gain in comparison with 8th edition. While with EoS a gain a lot of flavour and options with no loss.

Also I don't know what cannon trauma you all developed during 8th, but I am an Empire player and really my cannons weren't at all impressive. Certainly not the lasers of doom you all think they were.

Yowzo
04-05-2016, 14:07
One Ridden Monster there as far as I can see and it looks like the person who made the list isn't the best person to copy as he has wasted 75 points on items that have no effect on him as he is on a Ridden monster (Sprout of Rebirth, Dragonscale Helmet, Heavy Armour and a Shield). Not really helping the argument that they are viable.

The Royal Sphinx is not a ridden monster, but rather a monstrous beast like young dragons, griffins, etc. so yeah, it can get armour and ward save from the rider magic items.

theunwantedbeing
04-05-2016, 14:16
One Ridden Monster there as far as I can see and it looks like the person who made the list isn't the best person to copy as he has wasted 75 points on items that have no effect on him as he is on a Ridden monster (Sprout of Rebirth, Dragonscale Helmet, Heavy Armour and a Shield). Not really helping the argument that they are viable.

I made this mistake earlier.
A Sphinx isn't a Ridden Monster, it's a Monstrous Beast so the riders saves will protect it.

Undying Legion don't appear to have any Ridden Monsters.

Still, it's a little odd that it seems to be such an unpopular choice.

veterannoob
04-05-2016, 14:27
When I get back to the US next month the plan is to try a couple 9th Age games out so maybe get those not playing KoW or AoS a chance to play. The story I've been told is that it retains the Warhammer FB feel but fixes a lot of the perceived complaints, at least around the tournament scene if not wider play. I'm more than willing to give it a try I just hope that like in some other games (not just miniwargames) it doesn't sacrifice the feel and whimsy for streamlining. Will do whatever dwarfs are now (Dwarven Holds?) and I'm an infantry player so I don't mind if warmachines got nerfed. Cannons def needed a balance against monsters so I like the D3+2 compromise.

Do the army sizes line up? So, would a 2400 pt. 8th ed look about the same in 9th Age?

Folomo
04-05-2016, 14:32
I really would like to know how many members of the 9th Age Rules Review team play EoS and how many WDG. :cool: ;)



Yes, it is a loss, because if you are not a min-max player, you were already using all the units in the armybook! As I said with WDG I lose a lot of flavour for no gain in comparison with 8th edition. While with EoS a gain a lot of flavour and options with no loss.

Also I don't know what cannon trauma you all developed during 8th, but I am an Empire player and really my cannons weren't at all impressive. Certainly not the lasers of doom you all think they were.
If your group uses all models independent on how highly effective or ineffective they are, then your group probably won't gain much by the finer balance T9A has over 8th.
At least around here, it has made a lot of models hit the tables that were too unused before, like the mentioned Warboss on Wyrm. It is a pretty nice models, and it was a shame that every time it appeared on the battefield the monster melted and left an unmounted Warboss. Which was the main reason people mantained them on their shelves I suspect :(
Similarly, some models that appeared every game now appear less commonly. For example, in every Empire Army I remember seens 1 or 2 steam tanks. Which IMO was weird considering they where supposed to be a limited number of them. Now I see them in every other list, which seems considerably more reasonable.

About cannons, I think my main grief with them was the immersion-breaking ability it had. Buildings where one of the only terrains capable of blocking LoS in 8th, and the cannon ability to hit models though a building (without any momentum lost) really broke any immersion I had on the games.


A Sphinx isn't a Ridden Monster, it's a Monstrous Beast so the riders saves will protect it.
...
Still, it's a little odd that it seems to be such an unpopular choice.
The main problem IMO is that you can have a Pharaoh on a Royal Sphinx or a normal Sphinx and a Pharaoh.
The main advantage of the royal sphinx is a bigger IP radius (18"), slightly better offensive and the situational ability to pass UW 6" away. But the cost for these benefits is high.
So internally it competes with other decent choices, which don't require having all the investment on a single model.
So you take it if you like it, but it is no powerchoice.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 14:44
I really would like to know how many members of the 9th Age Rules Review team play EoS and how many WDG. :cool: ;)



Yes, it is a loss, because if you are not a min-max player, you were already using all the units in the armybook! As I said with WDG I lose a lot of flavour for no gain in comparison with 8th edition. While with EoS a gain a lot of flavour and options with no loss.

Also I don't know what cannon trauma you all developed during 8th, but I am an Empire player and really my cannons weren't at all impressive. Certainly not the lasers of doom you all think they were.


Hey i agree with you dude, in my previous post i was just explaining the reasons of "why WoC/WDG lost flavor and power level with the transition 8th>T9A".

WDG is perhaps the army with the best internal balance (i didn't said perfect, i said best) and currently do not have any broken build regarding external balance.
I hope the next months will prove that WDG deserve some love and that the next updates will help bring the flavor back (AWSR, armoury, magic items), the latest updates were focused on units and marks balance.

Like i said multiple times : T9A is clearly not perfect right now but it improves with each updates and is already better balanced than 8th... and it's a community project, not GW edition "i am waiting since 10 years for my bretonnia update" or "i hope matt ward isn't in charge of my book" or "this rules is just here to sell more models" :rolleyes:

Folomo
04-05-2016, 14:45
Will do whatever dwarfs are now (Dwarven Holds?) and I'm an infantry player so I don't mind if warmachines got nerfed. Cannons def needed a balance against monsters so I like the D3+2 compromise.

Do the army sizes line up? So, would a 2400 pt. 8th ed look about the same in 9th Age?

Some undercosted units in 8th are now more expensive and the overcosted ones are cheaper, but the size remains more or less the same.
If you are interested in Dwarfs, I recommend seeing the 1.0 written and video reviews for them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWPIeBgVt48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRRVvCstQew
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.php?entry/464-dwarven-holds-v1-0-review/

Holier Than Thou
04-05-2016, 14:56
The Royal Sphinx is not a ridden monster, but rather a monstrous beast like young dragons, griffins, etc. so yeah, it can get armour and ward save from the rider magic items.

My mistake. Still doesn't help with the argument that Ridden Monsters are viable.

Ludaman
04-05-2016, 15:06
My main issue with "The ninth Age" is that it kept many of the worst aspects of 8th edition.

8th edition was essentially a patch on top of the core mechanics of 6th/7th that allowed large units of infantry to be a viable game option.

At the time 8th came out I thought this was awesome, but as time went on I realized that the leadership/break test mechanic no longer worked. When the exceptions to the rule becomes more common than the rule itself, I.E. When taking a leadership test with unmodified leadership, and then re-rolling the test if you fail far outweighs the times in a game you take the leadership test as normal, there is a problem with the core mechanic.

Obviously no one wanted to see a return to the "I charge, I win" cavalry and monster mechanics of 6th/7th, but 8th swung the needle so far in the opposite direction that non-monstrous cavalry became pretty ineffective. 9th has only increased this imbalance with buffs to spears and shields for infantry that were designed to help balance great-weapons/halberds so they were no longer no-brainer choices.

The final gripe I have with "The 9th Age" I made quite public. When the game was launched they wanted lots of community involvement, they asked forum members what new units they wanted to see for each army. Former Bretonnian players voted to add Balistas and Crossbowmen, allowing a peasant based army to field a more "low-tech, 14th century" style army with decent shooting. Both were added to the list and were effective choices... At first. Each update after they made the cut nerfed the power of the ballista (costs about double a goblin bolt-thrower, and is only more effective against flyers), and in the last update before the official release of 1.0 they restricted crossbows from being included if you include any Knights of the realm, effectively removing them from the list unless you play a very specific type of army.

I was pretty upset with that last decision (of course me buying some amazing new Perry crossbows had something to do with it). I confronted the RT about their decision to Nerf/remove the units that players wanted and voted for. I was told that "The RT is a small group of guys that created the 9th age, it is our project not yours and we decided we didn't like crossbows because it made Bretonnia too much like the Empire, so we removed access to them, you're lucky we kept them at all."

That's fine I guess, they are building and organizing the game, but when you open a project and one of your biggest draws is community involvement, and you cut the community and its wishes out literally a month before release, it certainly rubs me the wrong way.

TLDR: I think the 9th age missed a major opportunity to fix issues with the core rules, and I'm not a fan of how the Rules Team makes executive decisions that go against the wishes of the community. Hence I'm not playing this game and instead have been enjoying KoW as my main massed battle game.

Lord Dan
04-05-2016, 15:10
Also I don't know what cannon trauma you all developed during 8th, but I am an Empire player and really my cannons weren't at all impressive. Certainly not the lasers of doom you all think they were.

Then I would respectfully submit that you were probably playing them wrong. Most cannon-related shooting had devolved to "10 inches off the back of the base..." which, barring the occasional misfire and roll of "1" to wound, resulted in as close to laser-efficiency as anything I've seen in a tabletop game.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 15:26
@Ludaman

If the community had the final say about the rules, in less than 2 update HE would be more broken than DE were in 7th Edition.
Or T9A would be impossible to balance and become an endless succession of power creep updates.

Ludaman
04-05-2016, 15:27
@Ludaman

If the community had the final say about the rules, in less than 2 update HE would be more broken than DE were in 7th Edition.
Or T9A would be impossible to balance and become an endless succession of power creep updates.

Of course. WS 2 ballistic skill 3 human's with crossbows though? Yeah. Game-breaking ;)

My point wasn't about rules, or points, or balance. It was that every army was allowed 2 new units, and an arbitrary decision removed one of Bretonnia's in the 11th hour. It was unprofessional and based on bias, and the entire thing rubbed me the wrong way.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 15:31
Of course. WS 2 ballistic skill 3 human's with crossbows though? Yeah. Game-breaking ;)

My point wasn't about rules, or points, or balance. It was that every army was allowed 2 new units, and an arbitrary decision removed one of Bretonnia's in the 11th hour. It was unprofessional and based on bias, and the entire thing rubbed me the wrong way.

You can still play them yes or not ?
Give WDG crossbows units if i don't play horsemens, i would happily take them.

EDIT : about your edit yes it's frustrating but it's like that, aiming for balanced game means sometimes unpopular decisions. If crossbows aren't played in the future i'm pretty sure RT/BB will lift the restriction at some point.

Ludaman
04-05-2016, 15:33
You can still play them yes or not ?
Give WDG crossbows units if i don't play horsemens, i would happily take them.

That's not the same.

If the large player base of Warriors of Chaos had voted for a Priest of Khorne as their new unit, and 1 month before release they made it so you couldn't use one if you fielded Chaos Warriors because they felt it was "too much like a warrior priest from the empire", that would be the same.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-05-2016, 15:34
That's not the same.

If the large player base of Warriors of Chaos had voted for a Priest of Khorne as their new unit, and 1 month before release they made it so you couldn't use one if you fielded Chaos Warriors because they felt it was "too much like a warrior priest from the empire", that would be the same.

I have edited my post, didn't see yours before posting.

Also i would point again heavily on that nothing is set in the stone, WDG had some ubernerfed choices like Chimeras/DP/Manticore with the last updates, if it appears it was too much nerfs/restrictions they are going in the next update to be buffed or suffers less restrictions until these choices are as viable as the others. The same goes for every armies.

Ludaman
04-05-2016, 15:38
Just saw your edit: We'll see what happens, but for now, I'm not quite sold. I'll give it another look after the next release in September.

Vazalaar
04-05-2016, 16:32
Which is why no one took a warboss on wyvern seriously back in 8th edition. Separate profile meant both rider and wyvern ate a cannonball each. So instead of D3+2 they got 2D6 wounds.


Lol, see that is what happens when you only play in a small group, we probably house ruled it long ago, as we always randomized cannon shots in the same way as other shooting with shooting at ridden monsters... so 5-6 rider, 1-4 monster... . :)


Then I would respectfully submit that you were probably playing them wrong. Most cannon-related shooting had devolved to "10 inches off the back of the base..." which, barring the occasional misfire and roll of "1" to wound, resulted in as close to laser-efficiency as anything I've seen in a tabletop game.

Well, than maybe I roll lots of misfire, as my cannons barerly earn their points back.

Anyway to me it seems that some army received everything in 9th Age (EoS) and some lost a lot for no reason.

Asmodios
04-05-2016, 16:54
Okay I misread that rule.
So if you have a monster, drop the entire army in one go to be sure you get to go first.

The downside being that the enemy can now just deploy at a point where the monster now can't do anything unless it comes out of cover.
Or failing that just deploy your cannons so that the enemy has no chance of being in cover.


Plenty is subjective.
The rules state a minimum of 3 and then it's 2D3 random extra's which has fairly low odds of more obscuring terrain.
That's 6-10 terrain pieces, 3 of which are guaranteed to be obscuring, distributed completely randomly.
You need to win that deploy first roll off (which has 50/50 odds) to get the full benefit of any terrain.

Cannons ignore any hard or soft cover modifiers.



1. Depends entirely on the random arrangement of the scenery.
2. Yeah he can't die if he's not being used. Equally he cant get shot at if the enemy didn't bother to bring any cannons.
Neither of which does anything when you did use the monster and the enemy has a cannon.
3. Ambushers arrive no earlier than turn 2 and cannot charge until turn 3. They can shoot of course but this is by no means a guarantee of success.
Using out flankers after dropping your army on turn 1 makes it trivially easy for the enemy to avoid them and the enemy will have more spare points to counter.
4. Accept is the word. What would that plan be exactly?
5. Oh so to keep my 500pt ridden monster alive I need to spend another 150+pts on a hero to go kill the 100-150pts of cannon.

Show us all a typical game board set up please, then we can all see exactly why you think terrain is so great.
There was another poster that had about the same concerns as you so this post should deal with both.
1) yes scenery is random so some games it will work great in your favor and other times it won't. This means that people taking any list with 1 singular focus are not going to be able to consistently get the results they want and are more likely to change up lists. I won't be able to take a picture of a 9th age board for a week or 2 when i play my next game but you can always play around and see how it would get set up
2) You seem to be saying (and I'm apologizing if i have read this wrong) that in your local meta (what like 5-10 people) you always bring a super nasty lord on a beast to every game so your opponents know what you are going to bring and they stack up the hard counter to your list every single week. Yes my best piece of advice would be to throw them a curve ball and switch it up one week. When people know your list before you ever show up you are at a huge disadvantage. Its why i don't bring trolls to all of my games. I like the models, i Like the rules, I like the unit but if i bring them every game like i used to all of a sudden everyone has a big block of archers or another unit with fire and they get massacred. When people don't know if you are bringing them they tend to be better when you do break them out.
3. Once again situational but if you spend the first 2 turns moving up field obscured by cover while ambushers arrive it could destroy your opponents game plan.
4. Sorry i was an econ and math major not an english major. Depending on the army and how you have it set up would determine your plan if you lose your monster but if your entire game plan falls apart if one unit dies then i would re evaluate my game plan or take extra steps to protect that one unit at all cost.
5. You have to spend money to make money. It would be like me complaining that i have to spend 200 points on a bunker to put my wizards in. If that monster is central to your game plan you need to bring as much as you can to protect it i.e.. wards, flankers, war machine hunters, ambushers and more.

I know the strangest piece of advice on paper is the "don't bring your big bad dragon to protect him". But you want your opponent having to guess what you will bring each week (if you play the same people over and over). Im not saying to never bring it I'm saying to bring an army that counters the ones your opponents use on you each week. Soon they will be bringing stuff to counter your new lists and then bust out your favorite units again and watch the shock and awww set in because they thought you were don't with that dragon because they hadn't seen it on the table in a month and they thought they didn't need cannons anymore.

GrandmasterWang
04-05-2016, 19:07
Slight detour...

Why is the Royal Sphinx a monstrous beast and not a monster?

What differentiates making a creature a monster or monstrous beast?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Ludaman
04-05-2016, 19:09
Slight detour...

Why is the Royal Sphinx a monstrous beast and not a monster?

What differentiates making a creature a monster or monstrous beast?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Monsters are for the big bade, like dragons. They will have separate profiles just like in Warhammer eighth. Monstrous beasts are for medium sized creatures they combine profiles with their rider similar to how a Pegasus or eagle worked in 8th.

Hope that helps.

GrandmasterWang
04-05-2016, 19:13
Monsters are for the big bade, like dragons. They will have separate profiles just like in Warhammer eighth. Monstrous beasts are for medium sized creatures they combine profiles with their rider similar to how a Pegasus or eagle worked in 8th.

Hope that helps.
Yeah that's what i'm not quite understanding though. The sphinx model is larger than the high elf dragon (and oop dragons like Malekith's), so why is it a beast and no longer a monster?

Thanks for the swift response.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

logan054
04-05-2016, 19:55
Also I find the Once Chosen, really bleak in comparison with the uniqueness of Blightkings (Equipment choices), Wrathmongers (impact hits…) and etc.. I would have preferred something like that for Lust and Change.

I really don't understand what the concept of these guys is. It's basically, warriors had to many units, lets slap 4 different units into one and hope for the best. Complete lack of flavour in this units with a concept that I've never seen explained. I can't imagine anyone is ever going to use the Wrath ones.


About the Wrath Priest, he seems pretty weak. I mean compared with a EoS preacher, he costs a lot more and the stat difference is +1 WS and -1 BS. While the EoS Preacher is more versatile.

I think it again suffers from them trying to streamline things, if I remember correctly, the Aether Icon makes the choice pointless.


As a 8th Edition WoC and Empire player it really feels that in 9th Age my WoC army was hit with the nerf and simplyfing stick and my Empire army with the glorious gift stick.

Pretty much how I see it, then again I don't think the game is designed for me, each to his own.

Icarus81
04-05-2016, 20:08
I may try it, but like many others stated armies lots a lot of what made them interesting. WoC just doesn't feel the same anymore. Parry is largely useless for elite units - not a single tzeentch warrior with a shield should be fielded.

Lord Malorne
04-05-2016, 20:27
I don't feel WoC have been good since 6.5 so tastes differ x)

Icarus81
04-05-2016, 20:40
I don't feel WoC have been good since 6.5 so tastes differ x)

Well, I should say what I enjoyed about WoC in 8th. Otherwise, yes, warriors lead by a LoC (or your preference) was the best.

Holier Than Thou
04-05-2016, 20:43
Yeah that's what i'm not quite understanding though. The sphinx model is larger than the high elf dragon (and oop dragons like Malekith's), so why is it a beast and no longer a monster?

Thanks for the swift response.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

That's why I thought it was a monster as well, it's HUGE!!!

Kyriakin
04-05-2016, 21:05
No way, 9th Age is for haters who can't face reality.

There is a winky face here ----> ;)<---- There is a winky face here

2DSick
04-05-2016, 21:29
good winky face. Strong defensive banter. Like it! hehe

Lord Dan
04-05-2016, 21:42
no way, 9th age is for haters who can't face reality.
burn the non-believer.

theunwantedbeing
04-05-2016, 21:43
2) You seem to be saying (and I'm apologizing if i have read this wrong) that in your local meta (what like 5-10 people) you always bring a super nasty lord on a beast to every game so your opponents know what you are going to bring and they stack up the hard counter to your list every single week.
No apologies necessary, it was expected that you'de read it wrong :chrome:

The point is whether or not I bring a ridden monster for my opponent to shoot at, they are always going to bring a cannon because nobody fields only infantry blocks as their army.
There is always something worth firing that 100pt cannon at.
eg.
Chariots, War Machines, Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Cavalry, Monstrous Beasts, Knights

Holier Than Thou
04-05-2016, 21:44
There was another poster that had about the same concerns as you so this post should deal with both.
1) yes scenery is random so some games it will work great in your favor and other times it won't. This means that people taking any list with 1 singular focus are not going to be able to consistently get the results they want and are more likely to change up lists. I won't be able to take a picture of a 9th age board for a week or 2 when i play my next game but you can always play around and see how it would get set up
2) You seem to be saying (and I'm apologizing if i have read this wrong) that in your local meta (what like 5-10 people) you always bring a super nasty lord on a beast to every game so your opponents know what you are going to bring and they stack up the hard counter to your list every single week. Yes my best piece of advice would be to throw them a curve ball and switch it up one week. When people know your list before you ever show up you are at a huge disadvantage. Its why i don't bring trolls to all of my games. I like the models, i Like the rules, I like the unit but if i bring them every game like i used to all of a sudden everyone has a big block of archers or another unit with fire and they get massacred. When people don't know if you are bringing them they tend to be better when you do break them out.
3. Once again situational but if you spend the first 2 turns moving up field obscured by cover while ambushers arrive it could destroy your opponents game plan.
4. Sorry i was an econ and math major not an english major. Depending on the army and how you have it set up would determine your plan if you lose your monster but if your entire game plan falls apart if one unit dies then i would re evaluate my game plan or take extra steps to protect that one unit at all cost.
5. You have to spend money to make money. It would be like me complaining that i have to spend 200 points on a bunker to put my wizards in. If that monster is central to your game plan you need to bring as much as you can to protect it i.e.. wards, flankers, war machine hunters, ambushers and more.

I know the strangest piece of advice on paper is the "don't bring your big bad dragon to protect him". But you want your opponent having to guess what you will bring each week (if you play the same people over and over). Im not saying to never bring it I'm saying to bring an army that counters the ones your opponents use on you each week. Soon they will be bringing stuff to counter your new lists and then bust out your favorite units again and watch the shock and awww set in because they thought you were don't with that dragon because they hadn't seen it on the table in a month and they thought they didn't need cannons anymore.

I think I might be the other poster you mentioned, if so, this post doesn't address any of the points I made.

veterannoob
04-05-2016, 23:33
No way, 9th Age is for haters who can't face reality.

There is a winky face here ----> ;)<---- There is a winky face here
heh, fortunately for you then we are in a place where everyone celebrates and supports the hobby and wants their fellow posters to enjoy the hobby and be happy about it as much as possible. :angel:

Waagh Rider
05-05-2016, 00:09
Haven't tried it and don't intend to, because:

1. Too much has changed and too much new to learn. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

2. Removal of Warhammer's wacky randomness and sheer WAAAGHness. If I want a wargame with minimal chance factors I'll stick to KoW.

3. Too many arbitrary changes that seem entirely based on the whims and niggles of those tournament players who I'd cross the road to avoid playing anyway.

4. Not really a going concern - I know everyone says they'll have some sort of miniatures support etc and it's a 'Living ruleset' but I can't see it surviving very long.

5. It's not a hobby. I like buying Mantic's new shiny figures and new shiny books etc. I want to see the company expand and thrive and sell me new and better products. 9th Age provides nothing like this.

6. I'm lazy. I will buy books off the shelf in my local gamestore and get a thrill. I won't print out hundreds of pages of PDFs thanks...

ewar
05-05-2016, 00:16
5. It's not a hobby. I like buying Mantic's new shiny figures and new shiny books etc. I want to see the company expand and thrive and sell me new and better products. 9th Age provides nothing like this.

Now this I just don't get - T9A couldn't be more of a hobby. Is it the Hobby (tm)? No (thank god). You can create armies from any miniature range you like, there are literally thousands of possibilities. If you can't see the hobby aspect in this then it just boggles my mind.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the rules, saying 'it is not a hobby' is pretty dumb.

Lord Dan
05-05-2016, 00:24
1. Too much has changed and too much new to learn. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
It was broke.

And seriously, there's like, maybe a combined 3 pages worth of changes? You'd need to read more to play AoS.


2. Removal of Warhammer's wacky randomness and sheer WAAAGHness. If I want a wargame with minimal chance factors I'll stick to KoW.
There's still plenty of that in there, it's just been toned down to make armies more competitive. You clearly don't care about that, but the thousands in the tournament community now playing the game certainly do.


3. Too many arbitrary changes that seem entirely based on the whims and niggles of those tournament players who I'd cross the road to avoid playing anyway.
Such as? Moreover, I thought you hadn't even read through all the rules because there was "too much"?


4. Not really a going concern - I know everyone says they'll have some sort of miniatures support etc and it's a 'Living ruleset' but I can't see it surviving very long.
I've seen our internal site traffic numbers. Do you want to bet on that?


5. It's not a hobby. I like buying Mantic's new shiny figures and new shiny books etc. I want to see the company expand and thrive and sell me new and better products. 9th Age provides nothing like this.
No, it provides you a free platform with which to use any models from any manufacturers.


6. I'm lazy. I will buy books off the shelf in my local gamestore and get a thrill. I won't print out hundreds of pages of PDFs thanks...
There are full-sized books coming, but let me just say: wow. WOW.

MagicAngle
05-05-2016, 02:04
Seriously, though, I feel like there's a fair few folks kicking T9A based on what they believe the rules to be, versus what they actually are.

Any argument that they've taken away the randomness of the game doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny. They have just dialed it back a single notch from 'laughably random' to 'very random indeed'. I still have gaming friends who wont touch T9A due to their perception that the whole thing is little more than an expensive game of Yahtzee

Ludaman
05-05-2016, 02:19
Lol, can't tell if @Waagh Rider was trolling or not.

One thing I will say is this: "The Ninth Age" will be successful. It already is, the forums are packed, the team behind it is very hard-working (Including our pal Dan), they have the support of the ETC, and now a fair few miniature companies. I can see them growing over the next few years, certainly not dying.

However if they really want to continue to grow I think they're going to need to take an even harder whack at the core rules.

8th edition was like a 25 year old car, parts had been overhauled, some replaced, duck-tape applied in other places, the engine at its core was pretty good, but all the fixes and add-ons were weighing it down.

I hope after the first couple seasons of ETC they'll be willing to look at rebuilding certain aspects of the game from the ground up.

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 02:40
In the end people are going to play whatever their group gets into though. If you don't have a constant presence only the areas with someone actively pushing it will pick it up. It's no different from any other game.

9th Age will also need a 'How do I start collecting and playing' guide to get fresh blood.

Asmodios
05-05-2016, 06:32
No apologies necessary, it was expected that you'de read it wrong :chrome:

The point is whether or not I bring a ridden monster for my opponent to shoot at, they are always going to bring a cannon because nobody fields only infantry blocks as their army.
There is always something worth firing that 100pt cannon at.
eg.
Chariots, War Machines, Monstrous Infantry, Monstrous Cavalry, Monstrous Beasts, Knights
Yes there will always be something to aim at as long as you field an army :p I personally don't find them op and they are not nearly as bad as they were in 8th (hitting both rider and mount). But if you really hate artillery that much it might not be the game for you. personally I'm really enjoying 9th and it has exceeded my groups initial expectations and I have a feeling we will be enjoying it for a long time. Different strokes for different folks but I won't try to sell you a game you don't like I'm just not experiencing the same issues with it.

Yowzo
05-05-2016, 07:46
Yeah that's what i'm not quite understanding though. The sphinx model is larger than the high elf dragon (and oop dragons like Malekith's), so why is it a beast and no longer a monster?

Thanks for the swift response.

To make it work better in-game, basically that. For example high elves can choose between a young dragon (MB) and a proper dragon (monster) both on the same base. They can also take an ancient dragon, which uses a terrorgheist base.

Yowzo
05-05-2016, 07:58
Seriously, though, I feel like there's a fair few folks kicking T9A based on what they believe the rules to be, versus what they actually are.

Pretty much this.

At times it's better to say "I don't like it just because".

It's OK. I haven't tried (and probably never will) guildball or dreadball because I'm still having fun with blood bowl. Frostgrave is nice and all, but we played a grand total of 3 games before going back to mordheim.

Familiarity and all that.

Just like the this is not an official I'd rather just give money to a manufacturer. Shows a rather curious understanding of reality.

theunwantedbeing
05-05-2016, 09:27
I personally don't find them op and they are not nearly as bad as they were in 8th (hitting both rider and mount).

:eyebrows: ....but they still hit both the rider and the mount!

Holier Than Thou
05-05-2016, 10:52
Yes there will always be something to aim at as long as you field an army :p I personally don't find them op and they are not nearly as bad as they were in 8th (hitting both rider and mount).

Because now the rider is ignored for all intents and purposes.

Malagor
05-05-2016, 11:37
What would be cool based on the rules is that they change the fluff about ridden monsters.
Instead of this badass taming a mighty monster and then riding it into glorious battle, an example for everyone to follow like in 8e.
But in 9th Age, the lord is not popular, infact he is quite hated so they knock him out, find a monster, knock that out, tie the lord onto it and then sends the monster towards the nearest enemy position, knowing they will get two birds in one stone, a dead monster and a terrible lord.

Folomo
05-05-2016, 12:45
XD, great reason. Specially true in the case of Highborn elves I suspect. :p

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 14:02
Seriously, though, I feel like there's a fair few folks kicking T9A based on what they believe the rules to be, versus what they actually are.

Any argument that they've taken away the randomness of the game doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny. They have just dialed it back a single notch from 'laughably random' to 'very random indeed'. I still have gaming friends who wont touch T9A due to their perception that the whole thing is little more than an expensive game of Yahtzee

They took the Mutalith - something laughably random, but so rewarding when it landed and turned it into a really boring support monster. Just as you might declare a long charge in the hopes of invoking a flee so too might you like to have some things that are a little bit more random with a potentially bigger payoff. I can see what they were trying to do with it since WoC no longer has ITP from Slaanesh, but it's just meh.

The same applies to the Eye of the Gods table. Something that really defined the army as a whole. Now i'm still forced to challenge, but all I get out of it is some really minor re-rolls when i'm probably hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s when it would come into effect. Gone is the sense of my champion ascending into daemonhood or stumbling into spawndom. Meh.

And it's not just random stuff. They made parry all but useless for my 30 or so sword and board tzeentch warriors.

It doesn't make it bad. It just makes it a little less exciting and dampens my trajectory to try it out.

Arrahed
05-05-2016, 14:16
They took the Mutalith - something laughably random, but so rewarding when it landed and turned it into a really boring support monster. Just as you might declare a long charge in the hopes of invoking a flee so too might you like to have some things that are a little bit more random with a potentially bigger payoff. I can see what they were trying to do with it since WoC no longer has ITP from Slaanesh, but it's just meh.

The same applies to the Eye of the Gods table. Something that really defined the army as a whole. Now i'm still forced to challenge, but all I get out of it is some really minor re-rolls when i'm probably hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s when it would come into effect. Gone is the sense of my champion ascending into daemonhood or stumbling into spawndom. Meh.

And it's not just random stuff. They made parry all but useless for my 30 or so sword and board tzeentch warriors.

It doesn't make it bad. It just makes it a little less exciting and dampens my trajectory to try it out.

I really like the new parry rules. It makes sword&board an excellent choice for weaker units without making elite units disproportionally stronger. Besides that, fewer dice rolls are always good.
And I say that as an elves player. Parry is a bane to all elves.

Folomo
05-05-2016, 14:48
And it's not just random stuff. They made parry all but useless for my 30 or so sword and board tzeentch warriors.

It doesn't make it bad. It just makes it a little less exciting and dampens my trajectory to try it out.

3+ AS troops is not good?
I would kill for that 😋

Shields now benefit elite and basic troops, but for different reasons.

Elite troops have higher AS, so adding a shield makes them far better.

Basic troops on the other hand tend to have low AS, so the +1 AS is pretty much useless, but the parry makes shields useful for them.

Vazalaar
05-05-2016, 14:59
Hey i agree with you dude, in my previous post i was just explaining the reasons of "why WoC/WDG lost flavor and power level with the transition 8th>T9A".

WDG is perhaps the army with the best internal balance (i didn't said perfect, i said best) and currently do not have any broken build regarding external balance.
I hope the next months will prove that WDG deserve some love and that the next updates will help bring the flavor back (AWSR, armoury, magic items), the latest updates were focused on units and marks balance.

Like i said multiple times : T9A is clearly not perfect right now but it improves with each updates and is already better balanced than 8th... and it's a community project, not GW edition "i am waiting since 10 years for my bretonnia update" or "i hope matt ward isn't in charge of my book" or "this rules is just here to sell more models" :rolleyes:


I really don't understand what the concept of these guys is. It's basically, warriors had to many units, lets slap 4 different units into one and hope for the best. Complete lack of flavour in this units with a concept that I've never seen explained. I can't imagine anyone is ever going to use the Wrath ones.



I think it again suffers from them trying to streamline things, if I remember correctly, the Aether Icon makes the choice pointless.



Pretty much how I see it, then again I don't think the game is designed for me, each to his own.


They took the Mutalith - something laughably random, but so rewarding when it landed and turned it into a really boring support monster. Just as you might declare a long charge in the hopes of invoking a flee so too might you like to have some things that are a little bit more random with a potentially bigger payoff. I can see what they were trying to do with it since WoC no longer has ITP from Slaanesh, but it's just meh.

The same applies to the Eye of the Gods table. Something that really defined the army as a whole. Now i'm still forced to challenge, but all I get out of it is some really minor re-rolls when i'm probably hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s when it would come into effect. Gone is the sense of my champion ascending into daemonhood or stumbling into spawndom. Meh.

And it's not just random stuff. They made parry all but useless for my 30 or so sword and board tzeentch warriors.

It doesn't make it bad. It just makes it a little less exciting and dampens my trajectory to try it out.

Exactly.

I have no idea what happened with WDG, but they made the armylist uninteresting. I don't understand the changes to the marks, changing the eye of the gods table to something super boring, the simplifying of i.e the Blightkings.. I previously already mentioned my issues with WDG, but what I really find strange and just bad design is that many other books have received lots of great additions. As mentioned before the EoS is wonderful, it is the Old Empire army boosted to the extreme, Highborn Elves received nice honours, basic infantry can upgrade to heavy armour, acces to poison arrows! (ok it's only grey watchers, but compared with 8th edition it is a huge buff.), Sylvan Elves received again Kindreds and aspects of nature..., Vampire Covenant received nice and interesting bloodlines.. .

I don't know what happened with the guys who did the WDG, but compared with the other armylists they did a very poor job. Instead of making WoC more interesting, they made one of the most interesting and diverse fantasy armies bland.

Edit:

To me 9th Age is very hyped, but in the core it isn't better than Warhammer Armies Projects, Warhammer 8.5, WFB Reworked & Rebalanced (Furion), Warhammer CE and other fan made additions. It's different, but it ain't better.

Asmodios
05-05-2016, 15:27
:eyebrows: ....but they still hit both the rider and the mount!
Opps worded that wrong. What I meant is now that the mounts get the ward save of the riders they are much more survivable

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 15:28
3+ AS troops is not good?
I would kill for that 

Shields now benefit elite and basic troops, but for different reasons.

Elite troops have higher AS, so adding a shield makes them far better.

Basic troops on the other hand tend to have low AS, so the +1 AS is pretty much useless, but the parry makes shields useful for them.

I don't see how -- out of 100 attacks marauders did worse against S3 attacks and just as good against higher strength. This would apply for any WS from 2 to 6 for either of these units.

And to rub salt in the wound I can't even boost the warriors to 2+ armor with Metal magic (alchemy)! Why would I ever want sword and board warriors that aren't nurgle?

Oh and against S6...warriors get absolutely crushed...250 pts vs 451.



Marauders (WS4)




Wo Lost
Pts Lost


S3
17
100


S4
28
166


S5
42
250







Warriors (WS5)




Wo Lost
Pts Lost


S3
6
72


S4
13
163


S5
22
288

theunwantedbeing
05-05-2016, 15:41
I really like the new parry rules. It makes sword&board an excellent choice for weaker units without making elite units disproportionally stronger. Besides that, fewer dice rolls are always good.
And I say that as an elves player. Parry is a bane to all elves.

:wtf:
fewer dice roll are always good?
The whole bleein' game relies on rolling dice!

Parry gets applied before modifiers so elves still hit you on a 3+, hardly an issue for elves.
It's quite useless for anyone with a decent weaponskill though.

I prefer it to the 8th ed rule, only because the 8th ed parry was stupid.
Other complaints...
Great weapons still don't get to strike at your initiative value on the charge
There's no reason for flail users to be +1 to hit
Spears got lethal strike and armour piercing that work even when the enemy hasn't charged, lances get no such benefits
Morning Stars are gone

It's clearly written by people who just want to buff or nerf certain things and have zero real regard for if it makes sense or not.

Yowzo
05-05-2016, 15:52
To me 9th Age is very hyped, but in the core it isn't better than Warhammer Armies Projects, Warhammer 8.5, WFB Reworked & Rebalanced (Furion), Warhammer CE and other fan made additions. It's different, but it ain't better.

It's hyped because it operates on a scale several orders of magnitude bigger than those other projects you mention.

- There must be something like a good 100 people working in the project on some capacity or another (not even GW could pay for a workforce that big)
- It's a true international project, whereas the others are relatively confined to one are
- It has community pull. There have been several tournaments already beyond the 100 player mark, with more coming.
- It's going places: several miniature manufacturers are already working on providing miniature support

Is it the end all be all of wargaming? Of course not. Not even warhammer at its prime was. But if someone told me 5 years ago that I'd be playing a fan ruleset I'd have had a good laugh.

Oh and btw Furion is currently playing 9th age. He asked to be the one to write the Dogs of War book a few months back, don't know what came out of that.

Ludaman
05-05-2016, 15:56
:wtf:
fewer dice roll are always good?
The whole bleein' game relies on rolling dice!

Parry gets applied before modifiers so elves still hit you on a 3+, hardly an issue for elves.
It's quite useless for anyone with a decent weaponskill though.

I prefer it to the 8th ed rule, only because the 8th ed parry was stupid.
Other complaints...
Great weapons still don't get to strike at your initiative value on the charge
There's no reason for flail users to be +1 to hit
Spears got lethal strike and armour piercing that work even when the enemy hasn't charged, lances get no such benefits
Morning Stars are gone

It's clearly written by people who just want to buff or nerf certain things and have zero real regard for if it makes sense or not.

Look I have my complaints as well, but If you really look through all of the army lists you can tell that this is a far better balanced edition than anything that's come before it.

The decisions regarding weapon rules are clearly laid out in some of the blog posts and designer notes. I'd suggest reading them for a better understanding of how they came to these decisions.

veterannoob
05-05-2016, 15:59
Seriously, though, I feel like there's a fair few folks kicking T9A based on what they believe the rules to be, versus what they actually are.

Any argument that they've taken away the randomness of the game doesn't hold up to a lot of scrutiny. They have just dialed it back a single notch from 'laughably random' to 'very random indeed'. I still have gaming friends who wont touch T9A due to their perception that the whole thing is little more than an expensive game of Yahtzee

Yeah, unfortunately that happens with a lot of games. It's a shame. At least YouTube battle reports gives you an opportunity to watch some games without having to spend any money or travel to watch a game (local or larger event).

theunwantedbeing
05-05-2016, 16:13
The decisions regarding weapon rules are clearly laid out in some of the blog posts and designer notes. I'd suggest reading them for a better understanding of how they came to these decisions.

They'll just be rubbish excuses like
Unit X was too good, so we nerfed their stuff and
Unit Y was rubbish, so we buffed their stuff

I will read them if somebody can provide the links though.

Arrahed
05-05-2016, 16:23
:wtf:
fewer dice roll are always good?
The whole bleein' game relies on rolling dice!

Parry gets applied before modifiers so elves still hit you on a 3+, hardly an issue for elves.
It's quite useless for anyone with a decent weaponskill though.

I prefer it to the 8th ed rule, only because the 8th ed parry was stupid.
Other complaints...
Great weapons still don't get to strike at your initiative value on the charge
There's no reason for flail users to be +1 to hit
Spears got lethal strike and armour piercing that work even when the enemy hasn't charged, lances get no such benefits
Morning Stars are gone

It's clearly written by people who just want to buff or nerf certain things and have zero real regard for if it makes sense or not.

Do you think it is good to
1. Roll to hit
2. Maybe reroll to hit.
3. Roll to Wound.
4. Wait, was that a 1? Let me reroll that.
5. Roll to save.
6. Sweet, I can reroll that failed roll.
7. Damn, failed again. Last chance: Parry.
(A lot of this is still possible in T9A. Only the parry is removed. And rerolls are fewer in general but not totally gone.)

Sure, its fun to roll dice but that is just insane if you can get the same success probability with 2-3 dice rolls.
Elves are still hit by the parry rule. Elves hit on 2+ with higher weaponskill but on 3+ if the opponent has parry.

Kisanis
05-05-2016, 16:30
T9A is not for everyone.

If you like "buckets o dice" it is not for you.

If you like "all the random" it is not for you. (And I have 40k orks, Skaven, and dabbled in 7th OnG)

If you want the support of a big company telling you what to buy, pushing the latest model, and forcing you to buy only model X; it is not for you.

The ninth age is open source.
It is a free fantasy mass battle ruleset that takes what WHFB started, and takes it in a way they felt appeals to a broader spectrum of the competitive subset - without going KoW level (which I also enjoy for different reasons).

T9A is not always perfect. But what I like is that I can find out why the opinion was arrived at.

Its like the court system. Theres a wealth of detail and notes. I may not always like the decision, or agree with it, but I can respect it and move on.

GW on the other hand has been nothing but arbitrary the entire time i've played.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Holier Than Thou
05-05-2016, 16:40
Opps worded that wrong. What I meant is now that the mounts get the ward save of the riders they are much more survivable

But they don't in the majority of cases. The Force Shield (70 points for a 5+ ward only vs shooting? No thanks.), Lucky Shield (one use only to ignore 1st hit, easily negated) and the Gemstone Amulet (one use only 4+ ward) are the only defensive items the mount benefits from.

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 16:42
They'll just be rubbish excuses like
Unit X was too good, so we nerfed their stuff and
Unit Y was rubbish, so we buffed their stuff

I will read them if somebody can provide the links though.

Oddly enough you're mostly right.
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.php?entry-list/40-rules-team/

One about weapons:
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.php?entry/128-version-0-10-sneak-peek-2-and-tournament-data/

theunwantedbeing
05-05-2016, 16:47
Do you think it is good to
1. Roll to hit
2. Maybe reroll to hit.
3. Roll to Wound.
4. Wait, was that a 1? Let me reroll that.
5. Roll to save.
6. Sweet, I can reroll that failed roll.
7. Damn, failed again. Last chance: Parry.

2,4 and 6 are fairly uncommon
7 is just any ward you might have
You can even split up wards and regen saves to make it 8 steps and it doesn't cause me any issues, functionally it makes way more sense if regen has to be a save of some sort.

So I'de say it's fine to potentially have 8 steps to roll dice as most of the time you only have 3. (hit, wound, save)

@Icarus81, thankyou for the links!

Asmodios
05-05-2016, 16:49
But they don't in the majority of cases. The Force Shield (70 points for a 5+ ward only vs shooting? No thanks.), Lucky Shield (one use only to ignore 1st hit, easily negated) and the Gemstone Amulet (one use only 4+ ward) are the only defensive items the mount benefits from.
That is a big deal. You now have the ability to protect that monster (even if expensive). What i find most interesting is people that are defending staying with 8th and not switching to 9th because they feel cannons are a major issue while cannons were 10x worse in 8th. At the end of the day if you feel its really imbalanced and you don't like it then simply don't play it. You can stay with GW and play AOS, switch to KOW or hope that 8th can maintain a decent sized community. These options don't really appeal to me or my group so i will be playing 9th. My local meta hasn't experienced any real issues with cannons and like many other posters mentioned i haven't seen more then 1 fielded at a time.

TimLeeson
05-05-2016, 16:53
I certainly wish the T9A creators well and glad to see it's successful but it doesn't really look like my sort of thing. Id like a mass combat fantasy game but it would have to avoid all the cliches and "stock races" like elves, dwarves, orcs, undead entirely and have more interesting/weirder stuff and dedicated plastic kits for it to be appealing to me. Perhaps if T9A introduces some non-humanoid factions and creates models for them I'd be give it another look but I never liked WHFB or KoW for the reasons I just stated either.

Holier Than Thou
05-05-2016, 16:56
That is a big deal. You now have the ability to protect that monster (even if expensive). What i find most interesting is people that are defending staying with 8th and not switching to 9th because they feel cannons are a major issue while cannons were 10x worse in 8th. At the end of the day if you feel its really imbalanced and you don't like it then simply don't play it. You can stay with GW and play AOS, switch to KOW or hope that 8th can maintain a decent sized community. These options don't really appeal to me or my group so i will be playing 9th. My local meta hasn't experienced any real issues with cannons and like many other posters mentioned i haven't seen more then 1 fielded at a time.

As I've said several times, I'm not trying to say cannons weren't an issue in 8th. They were.

My point is, the 9th Age had an opportunity to fix them and also fix Ridden Monsters. In my opinion they haven't, they've made them worse.

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 17:08
If you want the support of a big company telling you what to buy, pushing the latest model, and forcing you to buy only model X; it is not for you.


What i find most interesting is people that are defending staying with 8th and not switching to 9th because they feel cannons are a major issue while cannons were 10x worse in 8th.

I feel like these are both fairly disingenuous statements. Cannons were becoming less of an issue with combined profiles. Add with that some slightly cheaper monsters and i'd have had no issues with them. Part of a hobby is also looking forward to what is new. 9th could certainly fold in new units, but they're going to be relying on other manufacturers to do so. And it will be the one willing to put out new concepts - GW. GW also never forced me to buy anything.

Ludaman
05-05-2016, 17:08
I certainly wish the T9A creators well and glad to see it's successful but it doesn't really look like my sort of thing. Id like a mass combat fantasy game but it would have to avoid all the cliches and "stock races" like elves, dwarves, orcs, undead entirely and have more interesting/weirder stuff and dedicated plastic kits for it to be appealing to me. Perhaps if T9A introduces some non-humanoid factions and creates models for them I'd be give it another look but I never liked WHFB or KoW for the reasons I just stated either.

I'm actually quite curious what kind of races you'd be interested in... Wrath of kings kind of stuff? Werewolves riding on the back of land-squids?

Asmodios
05-05-2016, 17:08
As I've said several times, I'm not trying to say cannons weren't an issue in 8th. They were.

My point is, the 9th Age had an opportunity to fix them and also fix Ridden Monsters. In my opinion they haven't, they've made them worse.
Well i have actually seen them taken (not sure the last time i saw a ridden monster in 8th) and they preformed well in those games. I really don't think they are worse but i guess if you really feel they are bad there will be no convincing you that they aren't. Either way like i said simply don't play it if its not to your taste. But in my area 8th is dead, KOW is big but its just not my game (I'm like the rules it just doesn't get me excited to play), and not only is AOS dead (last time i saw AOS models being played they were being proxies for a 40k game) i think the rules are terrible. On the other hand i like the 9th rules and the community here is picking up more players on a weekly basis.

Folomo
05-05-2016, 17:13
Maybe the Oceanborn are to your liking?

Malagor
05-05-2016, 17:15
Werewolves riding on the back of land-squids?
That sounds awesome :eek:
Think we got a recipe for a new hit game.

Vazalaar
05-05-2016, 18:15
It's hyped because it operates on a scale several orders of magnitude bigger than those other projects you mention.

- There must be something like a good 100 people working in the project on some capacity or another (not even GW could pay for a workforce that big)
- It's a true international project, whereas the others are relatively confined to one are
- It has community pull. There have been several tournaments already beyond the 100 player mark, with more coming.
- It's going places: several miniature manufacturers are already working on providing miniature support

Is it the end all be all of wargaming? Of course not. Not even warhammer at its prime was. But if someone told me 5 years ago that I'd be playing a fan ruleset I'd have had a good laugh.

Oh and btw Furion is currently playing 9th age. He asked to be the one to write the Dogs of War book a few months back, don't know what came out of that.

- 100 man working on it, doesn't mean that it is better than a small group or even one guy (Warhammer armies projects (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.be/)) working on it. Cleary all 100 aren't on the same level, as otherwise EoS wouldn't be so boosted and WDG wouldn't be so nerfed. More isn't always better. Otherwise 9th Age would the ultimate game as no other game has so many "developers", as none other tabletop game fanmade or professional has so many "workers".
- And mostly focussed on former 8th edition players that played with the ETC/Swedisch comp pack. Thus while it is international, it still seems very focused on one segment of players.
- Is the majority of Wargamers really tournamemt players? I don't think so, otherwise tabletopgamers are truely very small in numbers.
- Sorry, from all those companies only Shieldwolf is something I consider a A+ level company. Those UD mini's Kanadian company showed are not very good and very pricey. The other mini is the Daemon prince, which is fine, but nothing that is mindblowing. I do think Shieldwolf will be great for fantasy, but I see that much wider than 9th Age alone.

I remember that Furion when he finished his DoW book (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DcPz0zAHPjYzFEenBOY1hRVWM/view?pref=2&pli=1) that he offered it also to 9th Age. I don't know what happened after it as Furion hasn't posted in months about his project.

Also, I really think the whole community thing is blown out of proportion, when KoE version 0.9.x was released, there was quite a strong discussion about it in the KoE subforum. One member of the highest commitee (also forget which one, as there are so many.. .) basically said we changed it, because our opinion matters more. Btw the discussion was with Ludaman.


Do you think it is good to
1. Roll to hit
2. Maybe reroll to hit.
3. Roll to Wound.
4. Wait, was that a 1? Let me reroll that.
5. Roll to save.
6. Sweet, I can reroll that failed roll.
7. Damn, failed again. Last chance: Parry.
(A lot of this is still possible in T9A. Only the parry is removed. And rerolls are fewer in general but not totally gone.)

Sure, its fun to roll dice but that is just insane if you can get the same success probability with 2-3 dice rolls.
Elves are still hit by the parry rule. Elves hit on 2+ with higher weaponskill but on 3+ if the opponent has parry.

The rerolls are not so common if you don't play Elves.

My main opponent plays Dark Elves and he reguraly takes a horde of Witch Elves and the altar, you can't reroll more than that unit. ;) But I certainly don't find it problematic, cumbersome of bad for the game experience.

I am not a fan of the change to the parry rule. I think the parry rule was one of the better 8th edition rules. The 9th Age parry rule I dislike, as it means that a infantry model with a lower WS has more benefits from using a shield than a infantry model with a higher WS. Which army suffers the most from the parry change? Aha, again WDG, not only they killed all the flavour of the WDG book, they also changed the universal rules that benefited elite infantry with hand weapon and shield.

I played for years Empire, but since the Start Collecting box, Slaves to Darkness I started a WoC 8th edition army (the irony) and I have repeated it many times, the differences in flavour/rules between EoS and WDG is insane.


That is a big deal. You now have the ability to protect that monster (even if expensive). What i find most interesting is people that are defending staying with 8th and not switching to 9th because they feel cannons are a major issue while cannons were 10x worse in 8th. At the end of the day if you feel its really imbalanced and you don't like it then simply don't play it. You can stay with GW and play AOS, switch to KOW or hope that 8th can maintain a decent sized community. These options don't really appeal to me or my group so i will be playing 9th. My local meta hasn't experienced any real issues with cannons and like many other posters mentioned i haven't seen more then 1 fielded at a time.

Owow? It is not 9th Age or GW(AoS) or KoW. The 9th Age players are only a fraction of the past Warhammer community. Lots of them are still playing 8th and probably a big group are playing their own house ruled version of it and than we have the other fanmade versions I mentioned a couple of posts back.

It is GW, KoW, a dozen of other professional tabletop games and than the fanmade versions of 8th edition, which 9th Age is one of them. I do think that 9th Age is without the biggest of the fanmade modifcations.

I am curious what the Warseer fantasy players are playing right now, so I will start a poll.

Vazalaar
05-05-2016, 18:27
Lol :D

As it seems I have no idea how to create a poll. Maybe someone who knows how to do it can make a new thread?

I was thinking about the following choices and I would limit it to only one choice. Thus the fantasy game you play the most.


Warhammer 8th (official or with fan made / house rule modifications other than 9th Age)
Fantasy Battles 9th Age
Oldhammer
Kings of War (2nd edition)
Age of Sigmar
Age of Sigmar with comp system
Frostgrave
Mordheim
Dragon Rampant
Hail Caesar – Fantasy rules (fan made modification)
LotR and it’s mass ranked brother
Other

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 18:40
Lol :D

As it seems I have no idea how to create a poll. Maybe someone who knows how to do it can make a new thread?


Done, but I had to pull frostgrave and mordheim since it limits to 10. I also put it to pick their primary system since people tend to play lots of different ones occasionally.

Vazalaar
05-05-2016, 18:46
Done, but I had to pull frostgrave and mordheim since it limits to 10. I also put it to pick their primary system since people tend to play lots of different ones occasionally.

Thank you!:)

Asmodios
05-05-2016, 19:25
- Owow? It is not 9th Age or GW(AoS) or KoW. The 9th Age players are only a fraction of the past Warhammer community. Lots of them are still playing 8th and probably a big group are playing their own house ruled version of it and than we have the other fanmade versions I mentioned a couple of posts back.

It is GW, KoW, a dozen of other professional tabletop games and than the fanmade versions of 8th edition, which 9th Age is one of them. I do think that 9th Age is without the biggest of the fanmade modifcations.

I am curious what the Warseer fantasy players are playing right now, so I will start a poll.
in my area 8th is dead. The tournament scene switched to KOW and you are about as likely to find a game of 8th as you are a game of AOS. 8th also has 0% chance to grow imo because 1) it is no longer supported 2) GW is actively supporting AOS. Yeah i guess there are technically hundreds of tabletop games i could play but mass battle fantasy is limited to 8th (already explained is dead) people pushing AOS guys around on movement trays (that lasted about a day where i live) KOW (is very big in my area and i would play it if 9th hadn't rolled around but i enjoy 9th more) and 9th (not sure what other fan adjusted versions of 8th have the capacity 9th age has and i have never seen another version played)... also i have seen 1 game of saga (i think thats what it was called) played a few months back so i guess i could technically look into that. Based on the MWG poll posted in another thread a few days back 9th has the biggest audience and its been out of beta for about a week so the future looks good with 9th and i will play it as long as its supported. I also can't wait to see what shield wolf produces for 9th.

Drakkar du Chaos
05-05-2016, 20:54
Maybe the Oceanborn are to your liking?

mrglglglgl

Yowzo
05-05-2016, 21:18
- 100 man working on it, doesn't mean that it is better than a small group or even one guy (Warhammer armies projects (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.be/)) working on it. Cleary all 100 aren't on the same level, as otherwise EoS wouldn't be so boosted and WDG wouldn't be so nerfed. More isn't always better. Otherwise 9th Age would the ultimate game as no other game has so many "developers", as none other tabletop game fanmade or professional has so many "workers".

In a sense it is. There's a whole department that analyses tournament results to get feedback from under and overperforming armies, units and builds so that points and rules are adapted accordingly.

But since this is a game there can be no absolute answer to what's best. I merely pointed out the huge staff to show that 9th age will live on. Unlike other fan products (like Furion's re-write) it's not just one case of real life away from dropping into oblivion.


- And mostly focussed on former 8th edition players that played with the ETC/Swedisch comp pack. Thus while it is international, it still seems very focused on one segment of players.

Well of course it aims to keep 8th edition players playing something more resembling 8th edition than AoS. Some used to play SweComp, others came from ETC, and others came from somewhere else.



- Is the majority of Wargamers really tournamemt players? I don't think so, otherwise tabletopgamers are truely very small in numbers.

Most 9th age players are not tournament players, and most 9th age players don't participate in internet discussions. Out of our 30-something group only about half of us go to tournaments (and then again half that move around to tournaments say more than 1h away from home). Out of those 30, I think 3 of us are registered at 9th age forum, and maybe 5 (including us) on any other forum.


- Sorry, from all those companies only Shieldwolf is something I consider a A+ level company. Those UD mini's Kanadian company showed are not very good and very pricey. The other mini is the Daemon prince, which is fine, but nothing that is mindblowing. I do think Shieldwolf will be great for fantasy, but I see that much wider than 9th Age alone.

Those are the names so far, there are some big names waiting to drop.


Also, I really think the whole community thing is blown out of proportion, when KoE version 0.9.x was released, there was quite a strong discussion about it in the KoE subforum. One member of the highest commitee (also forget which one, as there are so many.. .) basically said we changed it, because our opinion matters more. Btw the discussion was with Ludaman.

Can you imagine what it would be like to write an armybook between 50 people (nevermind 100 or 200) when everyone thinks they're right and they just had the greatest idea ever? And then coordinate 16 teams each numbering 50+ to have a semblance of balance? The fact that the 9th age staff is drawn from the community doesn't mean that it is made by the community.

That would be totally unworkable.

veterannoob
05-05-2016, 21:36
Good post, Yowzo. Especially about numbers of forum members. Certainly different all over the place.

Vazalaar
05-05-2016, 21:37
Most 9th age players are not tournament players, and most 9th age players don't participate in internet discussions. Out of our 30-something group only about half of us go to tournaments (and then again half that move around to tournaments say more than 1h away from home). Out of those 30, I think 3 of us are registered at 9th age forum, and maybe 5 (including us) on any other forum.

Well, this works in both ways. My group exists out of 4 people and I am the only one that is registered on a forum dedicate to our hobby and none of us have ever participated in a tournamemt or played in a club or flgs. I don't doubt that people that are registered on forums are the minority of our hobby.



Those are the names so far, there are some big names waiting to drop.

Ooh that is exciting! As regardless of the ruleset used great fantasy miniatures are always welcome. I do hope it is in heroic scale as for fantasy I find it a fitting style.



Can you imagine what it would be like to write an armybook between 50 people (nevermind 100 or 200) when everyone thinks they're right and they just had the greatest idea ever? And then coordinate 16 teams each numbering 50+ to have a semblance of balance? The fact that the 9th age staff is drawn from the community doesn't mean that it is made by the community.

That would be totally unworkable.

Well, I will bring up WDG for the last time. I really can't understand how everything in EoS and in lesser regard the Elves Honours, Kindreds, Aspects, Saurian Totems and Vampire Bloodlines all made the cut, but WDG was streamlined to oblivion.. . Cleary someone at the 9th Age top has a WoC trauma. ;)

logan054
05-05-2016, 22:16
Well, I will bring up WDG for the last time. I really can't understand how everything in EoS and in lesser regard the Elves Honours, Kindreds, Aspects, Saurian Totems and Vampire Bloodlines all made the cut, but WDG was streamlined to oblivion.. . Cleary someone at the 9th Age top has a WoC trauma. ;)

Never heard that about the sweedish comp team....

TimLeeson
05-05-2016, 22:31
I'm actually quite curious what kind of races you'd be interested in... Wrath of kings kind of stuff? Werewolves riding on the back of land-squids?

Mostly stuff that floats, sometimes slithery creatures. Notthing that walks on legs. Many of the weirder creatures in japanese folklore are appealing. I also like elemental creatures which can be non-humanoid (allthough sadly most people laways give them arms and legs), and to a lesser extent, plant based creatures, and non-cthulhu/deep one lovecraft monsters fit fantasy well (Robert E Howards Conan setting was basicly that)

Giladisb
05-05-2016, 22:40
- There must be something like a good 100 people working in the project on some capacity or another (not even GW could pay for a workforce that big)


256 staff members in different departments. :shifty:

Just keeping up to date on all aspects of the project in order to manage it is almost a half-time job. Heaven knows how many hours I have spent working on the 9th Age since September, but my educate guess is around 1500.

Ludaman
05-05-2016, 22:59
Regarding WDG: before the .99 version they were largely considered to be the best Armybook, tied with Saurians and Dread Elves. The Nerf bat was swung mightily it seems, although I haven't played a game with or against them so I really don't know.

Regarding my conversation with A Rules Team member in the KoE forums. I never had a problem with the Nerf bat being swung (because I know that after each tournament season we're going to get closer to internal and external balance), what I had a problem with was the Balance Board, The Rules Team, and The ABC asking the community what they wanted added to the list, then once those things were added (crossbowmen) , a specific RT member made a call to remove that unit as a choice unless you fielded no Realm Knights.

Basically I just threw a sh%%-fit because The 9th Age was advertised as a community driven project, and a single RT member vetoed a community decision that had been made and agreed upon by the RT months previous. I over-reacted a little bit and quit in a huff (haven't really been active in the forums over there since other than to share miniature-related stuff with fellow members).

All that being said, Lord Dan did remind me that it's still pretty early in the design process, so I'm open to see what happens in September when we get updated lists that reflect the results of the current ETC season (basically if WDG suck, they'll get better come September, and if EoS is as uber-powerful as they appear, they'll get kicked down a peg or two).

Spiney Norman
05-05-2016, 23:16
I get what you mean, but I'm afraid on this I can't be convinced. It might work for what you're talking about, but the player who just wants to take a unit of skinks, or one chariot, or whatever else is the target of that "concept", is punished for the others. To take Valazaar's post a couple posts above this one, I think 9th Age aims at WAAC players indeed... by targeting them. Looking at every instance where they can min-max, abuse or whatever, and try and prevent them. This here, from what you say, is the case, at least. I'll accept the mechanic works in that regard (it's a meta thing, as Dan said I don't know the meta so I have no say on this), but it feels it's at the expense of the other players. A fluff LM player will drink the cool-aid and pay the extra cost for the skinks sure if his theme requires lambda skinks (after all, that's what I do by choosing not-naked common gobs over night gobs in 8th, it's nothing new), because his own focus will be more on how his army looks like than on how effective it is, but this seems unfair to me, and goes opposite to the intended goal for that particular player, to boot.

Imho they (the 9th Age peeps) are going the GW way, being lazy, instead of trying and balance things so they work together, they just make some choices more interesting than others. They've just shifted the paradigm.

I feel pretty much the same, the fact that someone even came up with the idea of a 'core tax' says a lot to me about the design philosophy and demonstrates a very heavy-handed 'rail-roading' approach to encourage players to build their armies how the designer thinks they should be built and lead to most armies just being 'cookie-cutter' because the 'right way' to build them is so obvious. To look at an army list and say 'wait, core units need to be worse value than special units, we'd better deliberately overcosted the core units' demonstrates a bizarre lack of imagination to me. There has to be a better way than that, surely.

I mean I've read all of ewars posts on the subject and I still don't have the foggiest idea how you can possibly arrive at the decision to arbitrarily overcost core units...

Icarus81
05-05-2016, 23:30
All that being said, Lord Dan did remind me that it's still pretty early in the design process, so I'm open to see what happens in September when we get updated lists that reflect the results of the current ETC season (basically if WDG suck, they'll get better come September, and if EoS is as uber-powerful as they appear, they'll get kicked down a peg or two).

Yea i'm not tossing it out yet, but if AoS points does it for me then it will probably be a lot longer before I take a peek.

logan054
05-05-2016, 23:38
From what I recall, the books are only designed with a few play styles in mind. If your army doesn't fit into that, you’re out of luck. I was waiting to see how they intended on making a jugger lord viable, it hasn't happened. I think last I checked, a lord was paying more than a hero and getting very little benefit from it.

I don't really like the changes to killing blow, I'm not even sure why it was changed. I can't ever recall it being mentioned as serious balance issue in other editions.

theunwantedbeing
05-05-2016, 23:54
Just keeping up to date on all aspects of the project in order to manage it is almost a half-time job. Heaven knows how many hours I have spent working on the 9th Age since September, but my educate guess is around 1500.
You spent 6-7 hours every single day working on 9th age?


I don't really like the changes to killing blow, I'm not even sure why it was changed. I can't ever recall it being mentioned as serious balance issue in other editions.

Presumably one of the people who gets the final word on the decisions has had their general killed by the rule one too many times so figured it would be better if it only did a single wound. On the plus side, they did at least make an effort with changing the name of it even if it now doesn't do what the name says it does.

Giladisb
06-05-2016, 00:33
You spent 6-7 hours every single day working on 9th age?

More or less, yes. It varied between 4-12h, depending how close to individual releases we were. That said I am not the most active member of the Executive Board.

Now that 1.0 is out we are slowing things down considerably to avoid burnout. The last few days before the 30th were quite exhausing.

Folomo
06-05-2016, 00:38
I have to say I really love the new LS, and I use a KB heavy army.
Previously it was too much random and too limited in use. Too many characters where mounted on monstrous things to be relevant. And aside from characters, cav was really the only other target.

theunwantedbeing
06-05-2016, 08:58
More or less, yes. It varied between 4-12h, depending how close to individual releases we were. That said I am not the most active member of the Executive Board.

Was that mostly playtesting or was there time spent doing other things like looking for abusive combinations or spellchecking and so on?


I have to say I really love the new LS, and I use a KB heavy army.
....yeah that's not the endorsement of the rule that you think it is.

Yowzo
06-05-2016, 09:18
....yeah that's not the endorsement of the rule that you think it is.

Old killing blow was very unidimensional. Great against a very limited range of targets (basically everything that was on a horse, and especially tough mounted characters).

Now it's universally more useful (removes both AS and regen) but removing the other extreme (only one wound).

Before it was a very niche thing to have, now it's useful far more often (90% of games you'll face something with either a high AS or regen).

ewar
06-05-2016, 09:23
I mean I've read all of ewars posts on the subject and I still don't have the foggiest idea how you can possibly arrive at the decision to arbitrarily overcost core units...

It's not arbitrary. Can you give examples of which ones specifically you're thinking of? Because it doesn't apply at all in some books where this little to no overlap between special and rare (Sylvan Elves for example).


I don't really like the changes to killing blow, I'm not even sure why it was changed. I can't ever recall it being mentioned as serious balance issue in other editions.

Because before, troops with killing blow could kill cavalry with no armour save but had zero effect on monstrous cav or anyone who happened to sit on a monstrous beast instead of a horse. It was a daft distinction and for someone like me paying a lot for tomb guard to have them steam rolled by 1+ save crushers felt a bit stupid. Now everyone who has lethal strike can use it in all situations. I can't see why anyone would have an issue with this change?? Feels a bit like criticising change just for the sake of it at this point.


Presumably one of the people who gets the final word on the decisions has had their general killed by the rule one too many times so figured it would be better if it only did a single wound. On the plus side, they did at least make an effort with changing the name of it even if it now doesn't do what the name says it does.

Presumably you have an infantile need to belittle strangers without any basis? Honestly, just try and be polite even if you disagree with the rule. By the way, you haven't actually explained any reason why you think the change was unnecessary as honestly I think it works pretty great now.

Yowzo
06-05-2016, 09:24
Well, I will bring up WDG for the last time. I really can't understand how everything in EoS and in lesser regard the Elves Honours, Kindreds, Aspects, Saurian Totems and Vampire Bloodlines all made the cut, but WDG was streamlined to oblivion.. . Cleary someone at the 9th Age top has a WoC trauma. ;)

By virtue of how 9th age operates there must be quite a few people to get a majority. You chaos players must be atoning for past sins :)

Or maybe the WoC team is just not up to the task who knows. Still 15/16 is a very good ratio and I keep seeing chaos players using their armies (even those who own multiple armies).

2DSick
06-05-2016, 09:29
Posted in wrong thread #edit

ewar
06-05-2016, 09:29
I keep seeing chaos players using their armies (even those who own multiple armies).

Yeah, I played against two WoDG armies at the last tournament I went to and you know what? Felt exactly like playing against WoC except the daemon prince was really strong rather than absolutely insanely strong. Both were fun, close games.

Vazalaar, rather than writing them off from a reading of the book, play 5 games with a range of lists and see how you get on. At least if you hate them then, it'll be an informed decision.

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 10:59
Yeah, I played against two WoDG armies at the last tournament I went to and you know what? Felt exactly like playing against WoC except the daemon prince was really strong rather than absolutely insanely strong. Both were fun, close games.

Vazalaar, rather than writing them off from a reading of the book play 5 games with a range of lists and see how you get on. At least if you hate them then, it'll be an informed decision.

? Why would I play it. It's not the overal power balance that bugs me. It is the fact that they killed of all the flavour. I don't need to be a tier army. I don't mind losing infact, my lose ratio is way bigger than my win ratio. I don't like WDG, because the killed of the flavour. The simplyfing of the eye of the gods table, the changes to the marks, the changes to the Mutalith, the streamlining of the Blightkings, skullreapers, wrathmongers in something bland.

They managed to kill of the flavour and the immersion of the armylist. I don't care if the armylist is underpowered or not. I care about how it represents the background. They made the armylist as boring as hell.. . For tournament players that want to mimize the risk and the randomness that's maybe fine..., but as a hobbiest for most, this armylist does nothing for me.

They ruined it.

Anyway, I don't think I am the only one that dislikes the direction that the 9th Age took.

About Killing Blow.

At Warhammer armies project, their 9th edition they kept killing blow as it was, but against monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry and monsters it results in 1 wound with no armour save. Much better solution.

Malagor
06-05-2016, 11:08
Now it's universally more useful (removes both AS and regen) but removing the other extreme (only one wound).

KB removed regen as well you know.
Personally I don't like LS mainly because of how easy it is to get. Before it was a fairly rare skill to have and generally reserved for rather expensive units, now every trash trooper with a spear is all of the sudden a killer of knights and as a bretonnia player that's the last thing I want.
But it's common practice to kick on Bretonnia players.

ewar
06-05-2016, 11:18
@Vazalaar: I didn't mention power anywhere, I was saying that when I have played against them the fluff and feel of WoC was very much there and that maybe you should try it before condemning it so vociferously.

Honestly - the changes made were not done so to insult you personally, so no need to get so twisted up about it.

@Malagor: I think this is a perfect example of why someone will complain no matter what you do! For decades spears in warhammer have been completely crap. Now they are really useful against cavalry (something I think I have seen asked for since about 1998 probably...). I'm a bret player as well and it doesn't bother me in the slightest - have you seen the changes to the Brets? Such awesome possibilities now that the knights actually have some different variety rather than all being exactly the same except for their weapon.

Kisanis
06-05-2016, 11:23
? Why would I play it. It's not the overal power balance that bugs me. It is the fact that they killed of all the flavour. I don't need to be a tier army. I don't mind losing infact, my lose ratio is way bigger than my win ratio. I don't like WDG, because the killed of the flavour. The simplyfing of the eye of the gods table, the changes to the marks, the changes to the Mutalith, the streamlining of the Blightkings, skullreapers, wrathmongers in something bland.

They managed to kill of the flavour and the immersion of the armylist. I don't care if the armylist is underpowered or not. I care about how it represents the background. They made the armylist as boring as hell.. . For tournament players that want to mimize the risk and the randomness that's maybe fine..., but as a hobbiest for most, this armylist does nothing for me.

They ruined it.

Anyway, I don't think I am the only one that dislikes the direction that the 9th Age took.

About Killing Blow.

At Warhammer armies project, their 9th edition they kept killing blow as it was, but against monstrous infantry, monstrous cavalry and monsters it results in 1 wound with no armour save. Much better solution.
So you're admittedly ignorant on the topic?

"I don't care how the game plays, I care about how it reads"

Is what you're saying. The game is ruined because a few rules were tweaked to try and achieve balance issues.

And you know its ruined because... you just know.

This thread is as bad as when AoS first dropped.

Hate on it all you want, but please play a game first so its not just emotional conjecture!

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Giladisb
06-05-2016, 11:23
Was that mostly playtesting or was there time spent doing other things like looking for abusive combinations or spellchecking and so on?


I wish it had been playtesting. Due to all the other work I barely managed more than 30 test games myself in the period. But thankfully there were hundreds of players doing the testing as well as our own dedicated playtesters team.

The time goes on managing the entire thing. Coordination between different departments, HR stuff, decision making unrelated to the rules, contacts with miniature makers, running the site... all sorts of stuff, very little related to rules and balance for me. But there are other people dedicated to those tasks.

Though being member of the Background and Arts Team behind the developing of the 9th Age setting is very time consuming, at least an hour each day just to keep up with the developing discussions on certain things. Just to give you a picture on the volume of work in the B&A section, since September we have produced over 10000 posts which is more than 2/3 of racial subforums. The volume and scope of the work is such that when we will be able to show everything at some point in the future it will rival the WHFB setting in scale and surpass it in quality.

theunwantedbeing
06-05-2016, 11:47
Presumably you have an infantile need to belittle strangers without any basis? Honestly, just try and be polite even if you disagree with the rule. By the way, you haven't actually explained any reason why you think the change was unnecessary as honestly I think it works pretty great now.

What was wrong with Killing Blow?
Characters have to be extra careful around them because a bit of bad luck and they die.
Cavalry and Infantry models with high saves were at risk due to the armour negating effects of the rule.

Anything larger wasn't particularly troubled.
I never saw anything wrong with that.

Skullcrushers were a tough unit for everyone, purely because they had that 1+ save, it was also why they cost almost 80pts each and it could be argued they were undercosted even at that amount. That and most armies had no killing blow at all so they didn't even have the rule to complain that it didn't help them.
Anecdote time - my Executioners had Killing blow and were fine with it not doing anything to Skullcrushers and they were just as expensive as your tomb guard were, plus more squishy and vastly more difficult to bring back to life. :rolleyes:

Is there a reason why Tomb Guard (now Necropolis Guard) were given Poison?
Also is there a reason why the 9th age group haven't given Undead or Undead Constructs immunity to poison? (or at least a 2+ ward vs it)

Folomo
06-05-2016, 11:48
What was wrong with Killing Blow?
KB removed regen as well you know.

Expect it only worked on infantry and cavalry. :(
How many of those had regen in 8th? Not many compared to monsters and monstruos infantry.


Characters have to be extra careful around them because a bit of bad luck and they die.
Unless they where mounted on a chariots, pegasus or anything else.


Anecdote time - my Executioners had Killing blow and were fine with it not doing anything to Skullcrushers and they were just as expensive as your tomb guard were, plus more squishy and vastly more difficult to bring back to life.
Hitting with Strength 6 and at I6 is a TON of difference. The TG also require a 150 pt character to be WS5. In this specific case, the Executiones where just the better option, with the better tools to deal with those 1+ AS hard hitting models.

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 12:23
Firstly, I don't hate 9th Age at all. I think it has some good idea's and some bad idea's. I also think it isn't a improvement of 8th edition or better than another fan made project.

About spears: Furion gave spears +2 initiative and fight in extra ranks (always). Which in our group make spear infantry (state troops) more viable. 9th Age gives armour piercing (1) and lethal strike against cavalry, chariots and monstrous cavalry when they are charged in the front. Was such a drastic change really needed? To me +2 initiative and fight in extra ranks (always) much fairer.

About parry: I really dislike this change, it benefits units with low weapon skill and does nothing when weapon skill is equal or when you have a higher weapon skill.
Thus EoS heavy infantry fight each other, both have WS 3. One is armed with a spear the other one with hand weapon and shield. The parry rule is wasted. Because both have the same weapon skill, they both hit on 4+.
The same EoS swordsmen, which is upgraded with seasoned soldier, thus now WS 4 fights a common goblin with hand weapon and shield. The seasoned swordsmen can only hit the common goblin on a 4+ and this while the goblin has only WS 2. Again the parry rule is wasted on the swordsmen.. . But the common goblin thanks to the parry save is -1 to hit... It's an unfair mechanism.

While with 8th edition parry save. Everyone with hand weapon and shield received a 6+ parry save (ward save).

And there is even more. Hmm that big block of seasoned swordsmen with weaponskill 4, hmm let's cast Shadow Miasma (boosted version) and try to reduce their weaponskill with D3 WS. Oh no, they are equiped with shields. The spell is useless... .

Killing Blow: yes, let us weaken that special rule and make it so that almost all armies can have lots of leathal strike.. Wow.. . Instead of keeping KB as it was, but with the extra that against MC, Chariots and etc.. it does 1 wound with no AS or Regeneration allowed. Good fix, and you keep the uniqueness of KB.

Again 9th Age is not a revolution, it is good, but so was 8th Edition and lots of other fan made modifications of Warhammer.

Spiney Norman
06-05-2016, 12:36
It's not arbitrary. Can you give examples of which ones specifically you're thinking of? Because it doesn't apply at all in some books where this little to no overlap between special and rare (Sylvan Elves for example).

It's arbitrary precisely because it doesn't affect all armies equally.

Look at it this way, chaos warriors are deliberately overcosted in their book, glade guard are not, since all players have to take a certain amount of core troops chaos warrior players are heavily penalised vs wood elf players because their core units are overcosted relative to, not only their own army list, but the core selections of other armies in the game.

This brings up something else that is bothering me about unit costing, some units are X pts for the first 10 models then +y pts for each additional model thereafter where y is not equal to X/10. I don't mind this kind of costing formula, Forgeworld uses it to good effect in their Horus heresy game to encourage players to play fluffy-sized units, but in order to work it needs to be consistently applied across all units. This is especially bizarre in a game like 9A where you hardly need to encourage players to field units of more than 10 models (a unit that small is either chaff or a waste of points any way) so you're really just giving some armies a benefit (or penalty) for playing the game like everyone has to anyway. This lack of internal consistency does seem to be an issue right across the game.

Arrahed
06-05-2016, 12:55
It's arbitrary precisely because it doesn't affect all armies equally.

Look at it this way, chaos warriors are deliberately overcosted in their book, glade guard are not, since all players have to take a certain amount of core troops chaos warrior players are heavily penalised vs wood elf players because their core units are overcosted relative to, not only their own army list, but the core selections of other armies in the game.

This brings up something else that is bothering me about unit costing, some units are X pts for the first 10 models then +y pts for each additional model thereafter where y is not equal to X/10. I don't mind this kind of costing formula, Forgeworld uses it to good effect in their Horus heresy game to encourage players to play fluffy-sized units, but in order to work it needs to be consistently applied across all units. This is especially bizarre in a game like 9A where you hardly need to encourage players to field units of more than 10 models (a unit that small is either chaff or a waste of points any way) so you're really just giving some armies a benefit (or penalty) for playing the game like everyone has to anyway. This lack of internal consistency does seem to be an issue right across the game.
How do you know Chaos Warriors are overcosted when compared to Glade Guard or other Core units? I believe the only way to find that out is doing very extensive play testing. If you haven't done that, your statement is nothing more than a wild guess.

The second point is very easy to answer. Imagine a redirector unit. For example 5 Goblin Wolf Riders. Their most powerful use is to block charges of the opponent. For that purpose is doesn't matter how many models the unit consists off. So these first 5 Riders who should cost 40 pts get charged an additional 20 points for their ability to effectively redirect charges. If you want to add more models to the unit, their redirecting ability does not increase so you only pay the price for the actual models now.

Malagor
06-05-2016, 12:57
@Malagor: I think this is a perfect example of why someone will complain no matter what you do! For decades spears in warhammer have been completely crap. Now they are really useful against cavalry (something I think I have seen asked for since about 1998 probably...). I'm a bret player as well and it doesn't bother me in the slightest - have you seen the changes to the Brets? Such awesome possibilities now that the knights actually have some different variety rather than all being exactly the same except for their weapon.
I would have been totally fine with them just getting AP but LS is too much, it should be a unit ability, not a weapon ability.
Spear is a good weapon against cavalry but it was never the weapon against them. Spears was the most common weapon on the battlefield and yet cavalry existed and thrived so they were quite obviously not that bothered with them. Pikes however was a different story.
Now a 4pts goblin is fricken slayer of cavalry because he got a pointy stick and that's dumb.
And yes I have read the bretonnia book(you really need to stop asking dude) and first thing I see is that my beautiful damsel that before knights would sacrifice their lives to save, is now insignificant. She can be beheaded, impaled on a spike and other horrible things and the knights that are sworn to protect her and her kind with their lives couldn't give a damn.
And then we got other stupid things like the removal of battle-hardened peasants which was awesome, the removal of crossbow peasants which Ludaman already covered and I for one thought the 9th Age's team handling of his complaint was disgraceful.
Grails knights are now capped at 8 models as if they were OP with the 6e book, make the cap at 9 so they atleast can have 3 full ranks. And before someone points out that they are T4 now, I know they are, they should have been that from the start since they were overpriced in the 6e book for what they were so some houserules I have seen was T4 or 2 wounds without touching the points and they got balanced for their points then and that was with unlimited size. 1 more won't break them and it will make them look better on the table.
Knights Forlorn is a odd unit and I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one that is scratching my head over these guys. I supported a unit of dismounted knights which is what we got but I think I wasn't the only one that wanted a purpose to go along with it.
White Lions atleast excel at killing monsters so they atleast got a purpose, Knights Forlorn are just a exact copy of questing knights but on foot. White Lions are only 2 pts more then Knights Forlorn and yet they are superior in every way. Right now Knight Forlorn screams lazy design to me.
The foot knights in the Bretonnia book for unoffical army books(got issues with that book as well but damn it is beautiful) are better then the Knights forlorn and that book has been there for quite some time. Knights Forlorn even had a special rule when they first showed up, something about them being in CC with a unit that Bretonnia never had(odd one) that they would remove stubborn or something from the opponent(was a while ago so I could be wrong) but as I said, the unit for this to work on never existed so it was a pointless rule but atleast it was something, they had some purpose rather then just be there with a great weapon.
I never liked the 9th Age Bretonnia book but I had hoped that it was just a beta thing and that they would get better with time(Bretonnia was the first ones to get hit with serious nerfs) but they never did. Instead options were being removed from them with every update despite them suffering in the tournaments(which is the only measurment they go by sadly) from what I read and their true hard-hitter(Grail Knights) were being nerfed with each update. Hell even the hippogriff once had barding as a option but nope, not anymore.

Spiney Norman
06-05-2016, 13:41
How do you know Chaos Warriors are overcosted when compared to Glade Guard or other Core units? I believe the only way to find that out is doing very extensive play testing. If you haven't done that, your statement is nothing more than a wild guess.

The second point is very easy to answer. Imagine a redirector unit. For example 5 Goblin Wolf Riders. There most powerful use is to block charges of the opponent. For that purpose is doesn't matter how many models the unit consists off. So these first 5 Riders who should cost 40 pts get charged an additional 20 points for their ability to effectively redirect charges. If you want to add more models to the unit, their redirecting ability does not increase so you only pay the price for the actual models now.

They're overcosted compared to chaos chosen (based on a unit of 20 chaos warriors - realistically the absolute minimum size for a viable unit - costing the same as an equivalent size unit of chosen with superior stats and weapon options). Once you get up to the more common 25-30 strong units chosen actually become cheaper than chaos warriors.

I suppose you could argue that chosen are under-costed, but that just creates a very similar, and equally concerning, problem. At the very least the internal balance of 9A chaos warriors is shot to hell, and it's frankly bizarre that for a project which prizes balance above all else to have made such a pigs breakfast of the points costing.

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 13:50
They're overcosted compared to chaos chosen (based on a unit of 20 chaos warriors - realistically the absolute minimum size for a viable unit - costing the same as an equivalent size unit of chosen with superior stats and weapon options). Once you get up to the more common 25-30 strong units chosen actually become cheaper than chaos warriors.

I suppose you could argue that chosen are under-costed, but that just creates a very similar, and equally concerning, problem. At the very least the internal balance of 9A chaos warriors is shot to hell, and it's frankly bizarre that for a project which prizes balance above all else to have made such a pigs breakfast of the points costing.

Exactly, on top of that they also removed or simplified a lot of things, which imo killed the flavour that I have with 8th edition/End Times WoC.

ewar
06-05-2016, 13:56
Each time I come back to this thread I think of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ) and wonder if I have the energy to bother responding :)



What was wrong with Killing Blow? As stated, it was extremely situational. Now it is almost as good against characters (still negates their armour) but now is useable against every unit type without having a stack of exceptions.


Which in our group make spear infantry (state troops) more viable. I think we've already established that your group is apparently quite unrepresentative of most groups, haven't we? In Warhammer strength is king and this is just as applicable in 9th as it is in 8th and 7th and 6th. Adding another 5-10 S3 attacks is completely irrelevant and would not in any way tempt me to switch to spears on my skeleton horsemen or choose eternal guard over glade guard.

Making them a genuine threat to cavalry and monstrous cavalry? Yeah, that will tempt me.


It's arbitrary precisely because it doesn't affect all armies equally.

Look at it this way, chaos warriors are deliberately overcosted in their book, glade guard are not, since all players have to take a certain amount of core troops chaos warrior players are heavily penalised vs wood elf players because their core units are overcosted relative to, not only their own army list, but the core selections of other armies in the game.

That is just patently untrue or WoC would be dominating Wood Elves (they are not). You are speaking from a completely theoretical standpoint - try to understand - there is no such thing as overcosted or undercosted between books. They stand completely independently. All the books now sit within quite a close (but not perfect) power curve and are judged on that basis - where does the book as a whole sit in this range?

Their internal balance is how units are costed between entries within the same book. If you played the game, you would understand that almost all units are now viable in some form or list for every given book - just refer back to the UD lists posted by Folomo earlier, 10 lists and all very different. That is unheard of for Tomb Kings.


This brings up something else that is bothering me about unit costing, some units are X pts for the first 10 models then +y pts for each additional model thereafter where y is not equal to X/10. I don't mind this kind of costing formula, Forgeworld uses it to good effect in their Horus heresy game to encourage players to play fluffy-sized units, but in order to work it needs to be consistently applied across all units. This is especially bizarre in a game like 9A where you hardly need to encourage players to field units of more than 10 models (a unit that small is either chaff or a waste of points any way) so you're really just giving some armies a benefit (or penalty) for playing the game like everyone has to anyway. This lack of internal consistency does seem to be an issue right across the game.

I don't get why you think it doesn't apply to T9A? Each army book has this to a greater or lesser degree depending on how the size of a given unit impacts the overall cost. The DE units for example pay a significant premium for making the jump from 20 to 30 models, the HBE units do not (but they have lower caps).

Again - stop just reading and complaining. Play the damned game or don't, but criticising it from a base of zero knowledge is exactly what you accuse others of when they whine about AOS.


Now a 4pts goblin is fricken slayer of cavalry because he got a pointy stick and that's dumb. Unless you are a goblin player who would basically have no chance to outmaneuver or even damage a bus of knights to the face. Do you have to think more now? Yes. How awful. Perhaps flank that giant block of spears instead of just rushing into the front. Seriously, how can this even be a discussion point?!




And yes I have read the bretonnia book(you really need to stop asking dude) and first thing I see is that my beautiful damsel that before knights would sacrifice their lives to save, is now insignificant. She can be beheaded, impaled on a spike and other horrible things and the knights that are sworn to protect her and her kind with their lives couldn't give a damn.

Are you kidding me? Would you prefer it if Brets had an identical rule but it was called Our Lady's Honour - knights never take panic checks after the death of a damsel as they are so inspired to avenge her death. Please please try and demonstrate a little common sense. The rule has an effect in game which means damsels don't cause panic (overall, a good thing I would say!?) - just come up with whatever fluff reason you think you need to get over it. Or don't, but moaning about a rule you apparently have never played is surely the definition of a waste of time?


I for one thought the 9th Age's team handling of his complaint was disgraceful.

Yes, let's dial up our entitlement to 11 and thrash around on the floor like tantruming toddler in the super market. These guys are doing all this for free, off their own backs, you get that right? They are not going to be perfect every time, they're only bloody human. Just express your view of this to them politely and move on.


Grails knights are now capped at 8 models as if they were OP with the 6e book, make the cap at 9 so they atleast can have 3 full ranks. And before someone points out that they are T4 now, I know they are, they should have been that from the start since they were overpriced in the 6e book for what they were so some houserules I have seen was T4 or 2 wounds without touching the points and they got balanced for their points then and that was with unlimited size. 1 more won't break them and it will make them look better on the table.

This. Is. Not. 8th. Edition.

When you have played a whole bunch of games with a unit of 8 grail knights against a broad range of different opponents and armies, and have actual experience to back up your claims then you can make an educated comment. I have not followed the Bret developments over time, but as this is just v1.0, there is still scope for it to change. I would hazard that this 8 model cap is not arbitrary and was brought in for a specific reason.

Maybe go on the bret forum and find out why?

ewar
06-05-2016, 14:04
They're overcosted compared to chaos chosen (based on a unit of 20 chaos warriors - realistically the absolute minimum size for a viable unit - costing the same as an equivalent size unit of chosen with superior stats and weapon options). Once you get up to the more common 25-30 strong units chosen actually become cheaper than chaos warriors.

I suppose you could argue that chosen are under-costed, but that just creates a very similar, and equally concerning, problem. At the very least the internal balance of 9A chaos warriors is shot to hell, and it's frankly bizarre that for a project which prizes balance above all else to have made such a pigs breakfast of the points costing.

Apologies for the double post!

But I find the hubris of you thinking you know best from just reading the book absolutely astonishing. These lists were not written in half an hour at the whim of some random person in Croatia. They are the product of hundreds of games and thousands of hours of discussion and refinement.

But of course, if only they'd just gone to Spiney he could have done a better job in 2 minutes and then it wouldn't have been a pigs breakfast. Seriously? :rolleyes:

p.s. I should add that I also find it baffling that you are happy to play AOS by just eye balling unit balance and here you have the gall to moan about points differences equating to fractions of a percent. How do those views reconcile?!

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 14:04
I don't think my group is so different in comparison with other casual groups. Which imo are the majority of tabletop wargamers.

You started this thread wondering why all the WHFB fans didn't jump on board of the 9th Age hype train. We posted our reasons, explained them and etc.. you aren't convinced.. but it seems that the majority here is also not convinced about 9th Age being the replacement of WHFB or the must play game if you are fan of Warhammer.


Apologies for the double post!

But I find the hubris of you thinking you know best from just reading the book absolutely astonishing. These lists were not written in half an hour at the whim of some random person in Croatia. They are the product of hundreds of games and thousands of hours of discussion and refinement.

But of course, if only they'd just gone to Spiney he could have done a better job in 2 minutes and then it wouldn't have been a pigs breakfast. Seriously? :rolleyes:

p.s. I should add that I also find it baffling that you are happy to play AOS by just eye balling unit balance and here you have the gall to moan about points differences equating to fractions of a percent. How do those views reconcile?!

Well, let us disagree than, because somethings are really ackward and you don't need to play the game to notice that.

Do you think that Warhammer I first played the army before collecting it? Nope, before GW made armybooks so costly I bought them all and after reading the armybook I decided to start the army or not. I did the same with 9th Age and I can honestly say WDG will not give me the same fun/enjoyment as 8th edition/End Times WoC is giving me.

It just a bad armylist, no matter how you try to defend it.

Edit:

If you don't like

the removal of anomosity
the removal of insane courage
don't like the change to the parry rule
don't like the change to Killing Blow,
don't like how ridden monsters work
don't like the change to spears (while being an empire player)
don't like what they did with some armylists
....



Why would you prefer 9th Age? I think most of us read the 9th Age rules, but concluded that it isn't for us and that isn't better than 8th.

Arrahed
06-05-2016, 14:19
They're overcosted compared to chaos chosen (based on a unit of 20 chaos warriors - realistically the absolute minimum size for a viable unit - costing the same as an equivalent size unit of chosen with superior stats and weapon options). Once you get up to the more common 25-30 strong units chosen actually become cheaper than chaos warriors.

I suppose you could argue that chosen are under-costed, but that just creates a very similar, and equally concerning, problem. At the very least the internal balance of 9A chaos warriors is shot to hell, and it's frankly bizarre that for a project which prizes balance above all else to have made such a pigs breakfast of the points costing.

Again, how do you know that? Did you test your hypothesis? Weren't you at the forefront of arguing that points are not able to provide balance because things are so much more complicated? Why do you now argue that slightly cheaper Chosen ruin the balance of the game?

Arrahed
06-05-2016, 14:27
I don't think my group is so different in comparison with other casual groups. Which imo are the majority of tabletop wargamers.

You started this thread wondering why all the WHFB fans didn't jump on board of the 9th Age hype train. We posted our reasons, explained them and etc.. you aren't convinced.. but it seems that the majority here is also not convinced about 9th Age being the replacement of WHFB or the must play game if you are fan of Warhammer.



Well, let us disagree than, because somethings are really ackward and you don't need to play the game to notice that.

Do you think that Warhammer I first played the army before collecting it? Nope, before GW made armybooks so costly I bought them all and after reading the armybook I decided to start the army or not. I did the same with 9th Age and I can honestly say WDG will not give me the same fun/enjoyment as 8th edition/End Times WoC is giving me.

It just a bad armylist, no matter how you try to defend it.

Edit:

If you don't like

the removal of anomosity
the removal of insane courage
don't like the change to the parry rule
don't like the change to Killing Blow,
don't like how ridden monsters work
don't like the change to spears (while being an empire player)
don't like what they did with some armylists
....



Why would you prefer 9th Age? I think most of us read the 9th Age rules, but concluded that it isn't for us and that isn't better than 8th.
There is a difference between 'I don't like what they did with some armylists', which is perfectly fine, and 'It just a bad armylist, no matter how you try to defend it.'.
Also, because that comes up so often. Animosity wasn't removed. It is now called 'Unruly' and is a different implementation of the same idea.

Denny
06-05-2016, 14:28
Each time I come back to this thread I think of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6qQSll7InQ) and wonder if I have the energy to bother responding :)

I suspect a lot of AoS fans think of the same thing every time they log onto Warseer. ;)

Mikosan
06-05-2016, 14:33
The irony of this thread and some of the arguments on both sides is fascinating to read. Seems so similar, I hope it is not lost on some of the folks with strong feelings here no matter which side your on:angel:

To the point I have not tried 9th age, hence I will not comment on how it plays or it's problems(see how easy it is,Lol). Initially it didn't appeal to me but as time goes on I mind it less and less actually. None of the problems people seem to have are deal breakers as far as i'm concerned but I play AoS so....:) The main thing stopping me is nobody in my group picked it up and I am having too much fun with AoS to spearhead another new game change. I don't get to play as often as I'd like already so maybe one day, but it is not this day!

snyggejygge
06-05-2016, 14:33
I tried it & at first I liked it, then I tried Kings of War & I must say I Think that game system is so much better than warharmmer ever was, smoother, easier, less focus on listbuilding 6 more on tactics, so now me & the Group I play with have moved away from warhammer (including 9th age)

veterannoob
06-05-2016, 15:01
I suspect a lot of AoS fans think of the same thing every time they log onto Warseer. ;)
Yeah that irony wasn't lost on me either, a few pages ago.;) but it's nice to see some diversifying. Haven't tried 9th just yet but you have to give kudos to those who brought this admirable project about.

ewar
06-05-2016, 15:05
I don't think my group is so different in comparison with other casual groups. Which imo are the majority of tabletop wargamers.

You started this thread wondering why all the WHFB fans didn't jump on board of the 9th Age hype train. We posted our reasons, explained them and etc.. you aren't convinced.. but it seems that the majority here is also not convinced about 9th Age being the replacement of WHFB or the must play game if you are fan of Warhammer.



Well, let us disagree than, because somethings are really ackward and you don't need to play the game to notice that.

Do you think that Warhammer I first played the army before collecting it? Nope, before GW made armybooks so costly I bought them all and after reading the armybook I decided to start the army or not. I did the same with 9th Age and I can honestly say WDG will not give me the same fun/enjoyment as 8th edition/End Times WoC is giving me.

It just a bad armylist, no matter how you try to defend it.

Edit:

If you don't like

the removal of anomosity
the removal of insane courage
don't like the change to the parry rule
don't like the change to Killing Blow,
don't like how ridden monsters work
don't like the change to spears (while being an empire player)
don't like what they did with some armylists
....



Why would you prefer 9th Age? I think most of us read the 9th Age rules, but concluded that it isn't for us and that isn't better than 8th.

I have never come across a casual group that used spearmen in 8th - even the most fluff bunny of players in my group realised that HW&S was just better, ALL the time. You're absolutely right I started this thread to find out people's opinions and the first 10 pages or so was basically 'yes I like it because XXX' or 'No, not really for me because XXX'.

Now, we have Spiney saying the points costing is a 'pigs breakfast', Unwantedbeing saying the changes made were because the designers had bad experiences in 8th etc. The laundry list of minutiae that you have pulled together is stuff you didn't say bothered you back at the beginning - but as is the case with internet discussions things get more entrenched because it's difficult to get nuance in conversation.

If spears having AP1 instead of +2 initiative is a deal breaker for you - that's fine. Personally, I think that is a stupid thing to get hung up on as the effect on the way the game actually plays is quite minimal except that it makes spearmen dangerous for cavalry to frontally charge.

I had no idea KB was such a big deal for people... of course, it rarely had an effect on the game, but then who am I to judge if that is also a deal breaker?

Ridden monsters now are almost the same as in ET, but with fewer wounds and saves, but better off than in 8th edition. I mean, I also had no idea so many people would feel strongly about cannons being nerfed (considering they were universally vilified before), but hey, who am I to say who's right or wrong?

Do you see where I'm going with this? There has been 10 pages of people who don't play the game scouring the rule book for incredibly minor changes and then decrying them as the worst thing to happen to gaming since... whatever was the last worst thing to happen. If it's not for you, fair play, say your peace and move along. There are some here who are saying (me included) that these minutiae are silly things to get hung up on and that maybe just trying a few games would give a better perspective.

I don't play AOS, I have never played AOS and have no intention to play AOS (I don't need another skirmish game in my life). If someone asks me why, I say I don't want to play a skirmish game like that and the background doesn't appeal to me. I don't write 20 posts about every single tiny aspect of the changes is the worst thing ever, it doesn't benefit anyone.

Folomo
06-05-2016, 15:40
For those interested in knowing a bit more about the Rule Team and how they work, I recommend this week Warhammer Weekly video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTkU6Jsatv8

theunwantedbeing
06-05-2016, 15:51
I have never come across a casual group that used spearmen in 8th - even the most fluff bunny of players in my group realised that HW&S was just better, ALL the time.
Because the parry ward save was as effective as the extra attacks you'de get or the extra points required to buy spears simply wasn't worth it.
It was nothing to do with a lack of damage as spears did more damage than HW&S due to more attacks.


Theunwantedbeing saying the changes made were because the designers had bad experiences in 8th etc.
HW&S troops do hardly any damage and get rolled by cavalry just like spears did and they didn't get a massive damage boost vs anything.
Looks like somebody had a bad experience if their "solution" is to add armour piercing and killing blow.


If spears having AP1 instead of +2 initiative is a deal breaker for you - that's fine. Personally, I think that is a stupid thing to get hung up on as the effect on the way the game actually plays is quite minimal except that it makes spearmen dangerous for cavalry to frontally charge.
All that's happened is spears are now the no brainer choice because they're clearly superior.

ewar
06-05-2016, 16:01
All that's happened is spears are now the no brainer choice because they're clearly superior.


GAH except if you played the game you would know that that is not what is seen in practice because the options in the books are priced appropriately. Weak troops often opt for HW&S because the parry effect is very pronounced if you have poor WS. FFS, I feel like I might have made this point more than a few times by now :rolleyes:

Spiney Norman
06-05-2016, 16:06
Apologies for the double post!

But I find the hubris of you thinking you know best from just reading the book absolutely astonishing. These lists were not written in half an hour at the whim of some random person in Croatia. They are the product of hundreds of games and thousands of hours of discussion and refinement.

But of course, if only they'd just gone to Spiney he could have done a better job in 2 minutes and then it wouldn't have been a pigs breakfast. Seriously? :rolleyes:

p.s. I should add that I also find it baffling that you are happy to play AOS by just eye balling unit balance and here you have the gall to moan about points differences equating to fractions of a percent. How do those views reconcile?!

Just wow, I think if we're getting to the personal insults stage we should just let this lie. Instead of trying to explain the logic behind decision that appear, at least on the surface, to be strange it's better just to accuse me of 'hubris' and tell me I have no right to criticise. I also never suggested that I could do a better job, I would never be so presumptuous as to hand down my own fan-made warhammer and expect other people to use is.

I also don't "think I know best", all I really wanted to know was why a unit of 30 chaos warriors costs more points than a unit of 30 chaos chosen despite being objectively inferior in every respect. I guess that my tiny AoS-oppressed brain is too small to grasp the magnificence of 9th Age.

Folomo
06-05-2016, 16:06
Interestingly, from the list I posted HW&S was preferred to spears.
I know that a pool of 10 list is not much, but it shows that the option is not a auto-included as one may expect by reading the rules.

Icarus81
06-05-2016, 16:11
Do you see where I'm going with this? There has been 10 pages of people who don't play the game scouring the rule book for incredibly minor changes and then decrying them as the worst thing to happen to gaming since... whatever was the last worst thing to happen. If it's not for you, fair play, say your peace and move along. There are some here who are saying (me included) that these minutiae are silly things to get hung up on and that maybe just trying a few games would give a better perspective.

I think the problem that they're railing against is that you seem to think these changes are minor when for them and myself it makes the game seemingly boring and un-compelling or in some cases out of balance. Some people enjoy list building and I used to sit and think about my list and wonder - what will happen if I come up against an army with a lot of KB. How will I handle it? It was a challenge to overcome. I would either try to find a counter or worry about it on the table and try to neutralize the unit tactically.

The spears seem to create a rock paper scissors environment, which is contrary to other changes. If I may suggest perhaps spears only gain such a benefit when charged? Otherwise the rules seem to slide towards a historical style game with spells. Everything has been toned down and it doesn't feel "Warhammer" to me. And if that's the goal then that is fine, but you're going to lose people who enjoy both a competitive game and a sense of a narrative and identity within the races.

If you can't engage detractors in a meaningful way then you're not going to grow outside the circle that has been built. Then again my perspective is that minor point changes and curbing some of the sharper edges like warlocks and some spells would have made 8th pretty solid.

Holier Than Thou
06-05-2016, 16:16
I have never come across a casual group that used spearmen in 8th - even the most fluff bunny of players in my group realised that HW&S was just better, ALL the time.


I present a fluffy army (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?415576-The-Immortal-Host), including spears.



I don't play AOS, I have never played AOS and have no intention to play AOS (I don't need another skirmish game in my life). If someone asks me why, I say I don't want to play a skirmish game like that and the background doesn't appeal to me. I don't write 20 posts about every single tiny aspect of the changes is the worst thing ever, it doesn't benefit anyone.

So you are allowed to state you have no intention of playing AOS because of your reasons, but if we state we have no intention of playing 9th Age at the moment and explain why, bearing in mind the 9th Age is heralded as a community developed game and hoping our concerns will be addressed, then that's no good? We have to play 5 or 10 games first so that we can realise what fools we're being?

Folomo
06-05-2016, 16:17
I think the problem that they're railing against is that you seem to think these changes are minor when for them and myself it makes the game seemingly boring and un-compelling or in some cases out of balance. Some people enjoy list building and I used to sit and think about my list and wonder - what will happen if I come up against an army with a lot of KB. How will I handle it? It was a challenge to overcome. I would either try to find a counter or worry about it on the table and try to neutralize the unit tactically.

The spears seem to create a rock paper scissors environment, which is contrary to other changes. If I may suggest perhaps spears only gain such a benefit when charged? Otherwise the rules seem to slide towards a historical style game with spells. Everything has been toned down and it doesn't feel "Warhammer" to me. And if that's the goal then that is fine, but you're going to lose people who enjoy both a competitive game and a sense of a narrative and identity within the races.

If you can't engage detractors in a meaningful way then you're not going to grow outside the circle that has been built. Then again my perspective is that minor point changes and curbing some of the sharper edges like warlocks and some spells would have made 8th pretty solid.

Just want to post the Spear rule here for an easier discussion:

Wielder has Fight in Extra Rank when using this weapon. Attacks made with a Spear has
Armour Piercing (1). Attacks made with Spears gain Lethal Strike when directed against
Cavalry, Monstrous Cavalry and Chariots Engaged to the front.
If you don't use cavalry or chariots, nothing to fear from them.
If you do, as long as your use the extra mobility of the cavalry to get a flank charge, then it is no problem again. Charging head first into a wall of spears on the other hand is a big problem with cavalry.
Kind of makes sense IMO and induces tactical decision on the board too.



If you can't engage detractors in a meaningful way then you're not going to grow outside the circle that has been built. Then again my perspective is that minor point changes and curbing some of the sharper edges like warlocks and some spells would have made 8th pretty solid.
This is a slippery slope. What one considers too good, another may consider just right. Its really hard to get an objective view on this, and you will end up with unsatisfied people no matter what you do.
IME, Daemon prince and chariot spam list where considerably more boring to face than Brolocks.
Point change may sound nice, but IMO some things simply don't work well in 8th, and point change probably wouldn't solve it :(

Arrahed
06-05-2016, 16:22
I think the problem that they're railing against is that you seem to think these changes are minor when for them and myself it makes the game seemingly boring and un-compelling or in some cases out of balance. Some people enjoy list building and I used to sit and think about my list and wonder - what will happen if I come up against an army with a lot of KB. How will I handle it? It was a challenge to overcome. I would either try to find a counter or worry about it on the table and try to neutralize the unit tactically.

The spears seem to create a rock paper scissors environment, which is contrary to other changes. If I may suggest perhaps spears only gain such a benefit when charged? Otherwise the rules seem to slide towards a historical style game with spells. Everything has been toned down and it doesn't feel "Warhammer" to me. And if that's the goal then that is fine, but you're going to lose people who enjoy both a competitive game and a sense of a narrative and identity within the races.

If you can't engage detractors in a meaningful way then you're not going to grow outside the circle that has been built. Then again my perspective is that minor point changes and curbing some of the sharper edges like warlocks and some spells would have made 8th pretty solid.

If you enjoy list building, T9A is probably the game for you. Because every unit is now a viable choice there many, many more lists you can try and just as many lists you need your army to be prepared for.

Icarus81
06-05-2016, 16:29
This is a slippery slope. What one considers too good, another may consider just right. Its really hard to get an objective view on this, and you will end up with unsatisfied people no matter what you do.

Oh, I don't disagree. You can't make everyone happy fur sure. This exercise, I hope, is good perspective for players. I'm fully expecting the new AoS rules to be absolutely trashed on day 1. I know GW won't get it perfect right away, but hopefully they stay connected and the community doesn't take a collective dump on everything. Competition is good.

Denny
06-05-2016, 16:43
Oh, I don't disagree. You can't make everyone happy fur sure. This exercise, I hope, is good perspective for players. I'm fully expecting the new AoS rules to be absolutely trashed on day 1. I know GW won't get it perfect right away, but hopefully they stay connected and the community doesn't take a collective dump on everything. Competition is good.

Agreed. The biggest takeaway should be gamers want different things and it is impossible to please everyone.
This isn't to say that GW couldn't write better rules (because they could), but anytime someone pipes up complaining about 'how hard is it to produced a balance list and rules that make sense?' I feel like saying 'It is actually impossible . . . because there will never be a consensus on what is balance or on what rules make sense'.

Asmodios
06-05-2016, 16:55
All that's happened is spears are now the no brainer choice because they're clearly superior.
I have to disagree with this point. I am very torn between shield and spears on my goblins. Against foot soldiers shields are the no brainer because of the combat resolution (especially with nets) that i gain as well as the longevity of the unit. Against calv obviously i want to the spear and also while cupeled with green tide i can pump out a lot of wounds against T3 opponents. The issue in with making up my mind is i am seeing tons of different lists for all food slogging ambushers to completely mounted forces. It might just be me but i have spent way to much time thinking about whether of not to take spears or HW shield =p

ewar
06-05-2016, 17:04
Just wow, I think if we're getting to the personal insults stage we should just let this lie. Instead of trying to explain the logic behind decision that appear, at least on the surface, to be strange it's better just to accuse me of 'hubris' and tell me I have no right to criticise. I also never suggested that I could do a better job, I would never be so presumptuous as to hand down my own fan-made warhammer and expect other people to use is.

I also don't "think I know best", all I really wanted to know was why a unit of 30 chaos warriors costs more points than a unit of 30 chaos chosen despite being objectively inferior in every respect. I guess that my tiny AoS-oppressed brain is too small to grasp the magnificence of 9th Age.

Haha, how is that a personal insult?? You gave a forthright view that the costing was a 'pigs breakfast', which to make such a statement you must obviously consider the costs they have used to be wrong. Me telling you that it is hubristic to say something like that, having never played it, is not insulting, it is part of normal discourse. I honestly wonder how people on the internet get by in real life with skin as thin as rice paper.

I have not in any way derided AOS (and I have never done, as a game system, to each their own). My question does still stand though - why would you really care about fractional differences in costing when balance is (by inference) not a priority in your gaming?? (genuine question)


I present a fluffy army (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?415576-The-Immortal-Host), including spears.



So you are allowed to state you have no intention of playing AOS because of your reasons, but if we state we have no intention of playing 9th Age at the moment and explain why, bearing in mind the 9th Age is heralded as a community developed game and hoping our concerns will be addressed, then that's no good? We have to play 5 or 10 games first so that we can realise what fools we're being?

Yes, you are of course right, I must have meant that when I said "I have never" that I really meant "NOBODY has EVER fielded a spear unit". Come on, at least make an effort to read my posts?

As for AOS, I gave that example precisely and stated explicitly that tearing down the minutiae of that game system to argue over every little thing is a fruitless exercise. Your comment, ironically, proving exactly that.:shifty:

Spiney Norman
06-05-2016, 17:18
Haha, how is that a personal insult??

Hubris: "excessive pride or self-confidence, arrogance", you're right, not even vaguely insulting...

"Pig's breakfast" was maybe too colourful a metaphor, but it's not like I was attacking you (or anyone else) personally, and I stand by the assertion that costing chaos chosen at less points than chaos warriors makes no sense at all.

I have also been told countless times on various threads related to AoS that you can get a feel for the game by reading the rule book to decide whether you like it or not so deriding my opinion on the basis that I haven't played it enough is somewhat disengenuous, especially since I've played the last three editions of wfb exhaustively.


Yes, you are of course right, I must have meant that when I said "I have never" that I really meant "NOBODY has EVER fielded a spear unit". Come on, at least make an effort to read my posts?

In fairness you made a hyperbolic generalisation that was demonstrably wrong, spears is still the best armament for saurus warriors in 8th edition and plenty of dark elf armies I've fought fielded spears on their core infantry instead of sword and board to make better use of their ASF rule and magical cc buffs. If you're talking about Empire State troops you might have a point, but there were a multitude of factors that made 8E spears worth considering for some armies, and for the record I regularly ran two blocks of 50 night goblins with spears (and still do).

Holier Than Thou
06-05-2016, 18:15
Yes, you are of course right, I must have meant that when I said "I have never" that I really meant "NOBODY has EVER fielded a spear unit". Come on, at least make an effort to read my posts?

As for AOS, I gave that example precisely and stated explicitly that tearing down the minutiae of that game system to argue over every little thing is a fruitless exercise. Your comment, ironically, proving exactly that.:shifty:

The point is, although your group doesn't use spears, some people do. So when I point out that cannons ruin my Ridden Monster, you telling me that people rarely take cannons "in the meta" doesn't hold any weight. Just because your group uses less cannons, that doesn't mean nobody else does so saying Ridden Monsters are viable now based on that is extremely inaccurate.

veterannoob
06-05-2016, 18:46
If you enjoy list building, T9A is probably the game for you. Because every unit is now a viable choice there many, many more lists you can try and just as many lists you need your army to be prepared for.

I find this interesting (in a good way) that both AoS and T9A now present every unit or Hero is a realistically viable choice. This makes me feel better about trying T9A:) 8th (in the usual my own experience everywhere I encountered it) eventually had that problem where if you wanted to dabble in competitive Warhammer certain optimization was required to some degree. This of course can happen with any game but at least for AoS the meta, for lack of a better term, keeps changing with a steady flow so far of new releases And the combination of unit/hero synergies and playing scenarios keeps us on our toes to avoid the RPS problem. I'm pleased to see Here it sounds like the 9th addressed a wide set of issues commonly arising in 8th and seeks out as much balancing as can be expected to create this desired dynamic. Of course I'll be coming with what I was used to in 8th and AoS now but it seems there are so many more appealing options when creating an army and transitioning from 8th.
Thumbs up, guys!;)

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 20:51
I have never come across a casual group that used spearmen in 8th - even the most fluff bunny of players in my group realised that HW&S was just better, ALL the time. You're absolutely right I started this thread to find out people's opinions and the first 10 pages or so was basically 'yes I like it because XXX' or 'No, not really for me because XXX'.
......
If spears having AP1 instead of +2 initiative is a deal breaker for you - that's fine. Personally, I think that is a stupid thing to get hung up on as the effect on the way the game actually plays is quite minimal except that it makes spearmen dangerous for cavalry to frontally charge.
....
I had no idea KB was such a big deal for people... of course, it rarely had an effect on the game, but then who am I to judge if that is also a deal breaker?
....
Do you see where I'm going with this? There has been 10 pages of people who don't play the game scouring the rule book for incredibly minor changes and then decrying them as the worst thing to happen to gaming since... whatever was the last worst thing to happen. If it's not for you, fair play, say your peace and move along. There are some here who are saying (me included) that these minutiae are silly things to get hung up on and that maybe just trying a few games would give a better perspective.


The above sounds a bit unfair!

Firstly, I use spears as an Empire player. One reason is that they rank up much easier than those halberdiers. ;) Secondly, for VC spear armed skeletons looks so much greater in horde than handweapon equiped skeletons. See, for me that's important. Not if the unit is to cheap to expensive or to strong or to weak. I.e In all those years that I play Empire I have never fielded knights as I don't like the pony look. The decision I made to use units is a follow. 1) Do I like the mini's, if yes, do I like the fluff and special rules. If yes than I will use it. My decision certainly isn't influenced by the points or their theoretical damage output! What matters is the immersion and fluff. I do think that with WDG they killed the flavour and immersion.

Oh, AP(1) for spears is fine and a good rule! It is the lethal strike against cavalry that bugs me and is an unnecessary change.

KB is a deal breaker, as I mentioned a couple posts ago, last wednesday I played a 2000 WoC: Khorne/Nurge force with no magic vs 2000 DE (with level 4). The Dark Elves player has also a unit of 24 Executioners. A couple of the units I had was Gutrot Spume (my general), 2 units of 5 Blightkings and Skarr Bloodwrath... do you think I used those units against the executioners? Nope, because I was scared of their Killing Blow. The DE player also had Tullaris Deathbringer in a horde of spearmen (Aha, again a unit equiped with spears. I killed Tullaris with Gutrot in a challenge, but I certainly feared it's killing blow on a 5+! But now lethal strikes is not something to fear..except when you are riding a horse... but that was also true in 8th.

Anyway, I thought we already had this discussion a couple of months ago! So I looked it up and it seems I was right.


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

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

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

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

Back then, you seemed to agree with my complaints about the Parry save. It is not now that I started with checking out 9th Age. As I said I am following the 9th Age since it started on the Warhammer.org forum! So I am quite entitled to say that I don't like the direction they took!

Also when we in this thread raised that we dislike the removal of Insane courage, you dismissed it! Even when we said that we found it memorable.

Well, now I remember that we already had this discusison in january 2016. Direct quote from you!



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


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

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

Here is my post of 04/01/2016 about Parry.

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

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


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

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


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

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

And here (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?414891-9th-Age-Tactics&p=7588550&viewfull=1#post7588550) Ayin made a great post about the new Parry rule.

Which I answered this:

@Ayin,

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

Lol, but that didn't last long.

Anyway his answer


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

Oh btw Malagor was also posting in that thread, giving info about his 9th Age playtests, so saying he should play the game first seems a bit strange :P

Teurastaja
06-05-2016, 21:16
This thread gets worse and worse. I admire ewar for his patience.

ewar
06-05-2016, 21:32
Anyway, I thought we already had this discussion a couple of months ago! So I looked it up and it seems I was right. Also when we in this thread raised that we dislike the removal of Insane courage, you dismissed it! Even when we said that we found it memorable.

Oh my god are we really going to have to do this? Because I think YOU need to check your facts - I have never said I agreed with every single rule change in T9A. I don't know why you're going through my post history - I haven't even claimed that the current parry is the best it could be (but please feel free to point out to me where I did say that of course!). In this very thread in post 90 I said this:


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.

You're now so desperate to show how terrible 9th is, apparently, that we're completely twisting the facts? :confused:

Come on Vazalaar, you've been around here a while and I've found your posts to be well thought out and reasonable, I think this kind of thing is pretty far beneath you. My position is that rules mechanics are not what a game is about - IMO whether a parry gives you a 6+ ward or reduces the chance of your opponent to hit doesn't really matter - you judge it by it's impact on the way the game plays. Shields protect you more? Fine. Spears are dangerous for horses to run into face first? Fine. I mean, judging by the length of your list of deal breakers, the switch from 7th to 8th ed must have driven you pretty crazy.


But now lethal strikes is not something to fear..except when you are riding a horse... but that was also true in 8th.

Also, you're still getting the rule wrong, lethal strike applies against everything, not just horses. Plus, if you'd tried to play that game in 9th (haha, sorry I couldn't resist) you would know that Executioners have multiple wound 2 against all infantry, cavalry and war beasts on top of having lethal strike. How crazy is that!? The game would result would have been the same. Honestly - I'm starting to quite enjoy this - I don't mind admitting I was a bit aggravated earlier but now I've taken a breather I can be positive again :D


The point is, although your group doesn't use spears, some people do. So when I point out that cannons ruin my Ridden Monster, you telling me that people rarely take cannons "in the meta" doesn't hold any weight. Just because your group uses less cannons, that doesn't mean nobody else does so saying Ridden Monsters are viable now based on that is extremely inaccurate.

I honestly don't know how on earth to discuss this with you. I told you cannons are now worse than they were before, so your ridden monster is inherently stronger. Spears are now better than they were before, so surely you'd be happy about this considering you ran them before anyway? These are factual statements irrespective of whether your meta is made up of red-eyed tournament psychopaths or Fuzzy Bear. How is this difficult to understand?

Lord Dan
06-05-2016, 21:38
Just because your group uses less cannons, that doesn't mean nobody else does so saying Ridden Monsters are viable now based on that is extremely inaccurate.
That was just one reason many of us are finding monsters more viable. For cannon-specific reasoning, armies are now limited to two each, they hit less often, and they average fewer wounds. By extension, in some metas (such as my own) people are taking fewer than two cannons, as a result. Furthermore, monsters are also cheaper (almost) across the board meaning the opportunity cost isn't as high as it once was.

ScruffMan
06-05-2016, 21:43
Heh, there was always going to be a bit of a backlash against T9A at some point, especially considering the amount of good feeling it has had towards it (and rightly so) for being a community driven scheme. Also especially considering it's wargamers we're talking about here. Also, also especially the amount of negativity there has been towards AoS over the past year.


Sucks, I know but that's the internet innit?

Edit - not to say that the criticisms are or are not justifiable, I've no idea but I think it's something that T9A designers and players are going to have to get used to.

ewar
06-05-2016, 21:49
I have also been told countless times on various threads related to AoS that you can get a feel for the game by reading the rule book to decide whether you like it or not so deriding my opinion on the basis that I haven't played it enough is somewhat disengenuous, especially since I've played the last three editions of wfb exhaustively.

You may well have been, but not by me, so saying I'm being disingenuous is completely wrong. You may have missed the 100 or so posts in this thread by various people saying that experienced warhammer players should really play the game instead of reading it, because that's the only way to get a feel for the impact of many small rule changes. Which is exactly my point across the last however many pages.