PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Vazalaar
06-05-2016, 23:26
...
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.
...
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
...

Ow, I don't think I ever said that 9th Age is terrible. Only that the WDG armylist is bad and that it removed all the flavourful and immersive rules. I certainly don't dislike 9th Age. I just think it changed things that didn't need changing and that it isn't bette r than Warhammer or other Warhammer fan made modifications.

For me a game is more than a set of rules. It's a combination of the miniatures, background/fluff and the rules. I really liked the Reworked and Rebalanced project that Furion started, I don't know if you ever checked out his changes? Sadly he stopped before he finished the last armylists. I think he was on the right track. While 9th Age took it to far.

About 7th to 8th, my memory is a bit fuzzy about that.;) But I know that when I saw the changes to magic I loved it. I loved the attribute addition. Which infact 9th Age did really well (their spell list). I do think that 8th edition is by far the best edition GW ever did. Much better than 6th and 7th. :)

About Lethal strike, I know that it counts to everything, but with spears it counts only to cavarly when fighting in the front.. .Anyway I don't think spears should give lethal strike to cav. I mean if you stick a halberd to a horse it will be as effective as a spear. Halberd has the top of a spear, but the sides of an axe.. . Anyway giving it +2 initiative and Armour piercing (1) would still make it good.

Furion changed spears to +2 initiative and Fight always with extra rank. For the Empire he than decreased the cost of a spearmen to 3.5 compared to 5 points for a halberdier and 4.5 for a swordsmen. We use Furions modification since autumn 2015 and yes me and the other Empire player do use spearmen.. .

Anyway I missed that executioners received a seperate weapon entry:
Executioner’s Blade: Great Weapon. Lethal Strike. and Multiple Wounds (2, Infantry, War Beast, Cavalry).

Anyway I assume that this was to compensate the weakening of the previous 8th Killing Blow. If 9th Age kept Killing blow the same it was in 8th edition and just added that against MC, Chariots, MI Killing Blow still does 1 wound with no armour save allowed.

So they weakened Killing blow, but Executioners gain multiple wounds (2) to compensate... . I wonder what happened to WDG Once Chosen, as they received nada for the loss of their uniqueness. Blightkings and Skullreapers were streamlined in the generic Once Chosen and Wrathmongers are removed entirely.. . I quite liked those ET units.

You seem to disagree, but when I look at the armybooks. They don't look equal at all in flavour and special rules.

I agree, this thread is going downhill fast, but to me it feels like it happened because some didn't understand that we did't start with 9th Age, while being 8th Warhammer fans.

If anything with the destruction of Warhammer, the playerbase splintered. Some embraced AoS fully, some KoW and than we have the ones that stayed. I am also in that corner as no other fantasy games appeals to me as Warhammer did. Sadly I dont think that 9th Age can fill that need. That's why I stick with a slightly modified 8th.

I wish 9th Age was the perfect game for me. Anyway maybe in a couple of months we will look at it again. But if I may hope, I am still hoping that Forgeworld will relaunch the old world even if it is with limited support.

Thus no hate for 9th Age from me, infact for our house rules I am implementing some things of 9th Age.

Look at this, you can see I used some 9th Age spells.

Pic 1 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3228769/Spells1.jpg) and 2 (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3228769/Spells2.jpg).

GrandmasterWang
07-05-2016, 04:45
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
That's not at all what i got from his post.....


I agree with him on a lot of the flavour stuff even though i am a fan of the 9th age project.

I also prefer 8th edition killing blow(sometimes we mod it to the furion rule also). That is all personal preference though.

TK currently got a draft 9th age book. What is the next army up for this full treatment incl art etc?

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Folomo
07-05-2016, 04:48
Silvan elves.
There have been enough sneak peaks of the art in the FB and news to confirm it.

AverageBoss
07-05-2016, 04:53
9th Age is imo ok. Thus far I prefer Mathias Eliassons "9th Edition" though (and its accompanying Army books)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iaXVibWFOWWlnTTQ/view


http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/ (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/)

GrandmasterWang
07-05-2016, 05:39
9th Age is imo ok. Thus far I prefer Mathias Eliassons "9th Edition" though (and its accompanying Army books)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iaXVibWFOWWlnTTQ/view


http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/ (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/)



Kind of off topic but have you played with any of his armybooks?

Im really impressed with their presentation

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

GrandmasterWang
07-05-2016, 05:39
Silvan elves.
There have been enough sneak peaks of the art in the FB and news to confirm it.
Ooooh. Looking forwards to what they come up with

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Folomo
07-05-2016, 06:14
As a long time TK player I have to say that the army project book seem to fix really few of the problems we had through 8th. May need to create an account to give my input, the army is in dire need of some redesign TBH.

The Necropolis knigth without ambush is totally unexpected for example. :(

AverageBoss
07-05-2016, 06:40
Kind of off topic but have you played with any of his armybooks?

Im really impressed with their presentation

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I have not played with any of his 9th edition books yet. However, the guy has done great work for years. He has some great offshoot books for 8th such as Cathay, and his 8th edition rendition of Bretonians was fantastic.

GrandmasterWang
07-05-2016, 06:56
I have not played with any of his 9th edition books yet. However, the guy has done great work for years. He has some great offshoot books for 8th such as Cathay, and his 8th edition rendition of Bretonians was fantastic.
Sorry i meant his 8th expansion books for factions like Cathay and Nippon. Id love to hear from people who have played them. Thanks for the feedback.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

theunwantedbeing
07-05-2016, 13:24
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.

Less accurate cannons?
They don't really hit all that much less and actually hit more often in a lot of situations that would otherwise have lowered the chance of being hit in 8th.
3+ at short range, 4+ at long range and it stays like that.
In 8th cannons would(effectively) hit on a 3+ in open ground, 4+ if you could only see a bit of the base and a 5+ when they were behind a wall at any range.

Less damage?
Average was 3.5 wounds.
Now it's just 3 wounds normally but higher vs flying targets at 4.

Cheaper monsters?
Monsters are definitely cheaper. (roughly 60pts or so)
However the smaller ones are all slower, lost a wound, terror and the ability to thunderstomp.
Vulnerability to low strength attacks went up a little due to the rider but the entire model dying as one is weakness.
The ridden monsters are also cheaper. (again 60pts or so)
However they're also slower and haven't got any more resilient to low strength attacks (less given the rider can't absorb some of them) and due to a lot of them flying they're actually weaker vs cannons than they ever were.

They also have less ability when sucked into a challenge as the overkill cap is now just 3 down from 5 so they lose fights more, even though they can at least try to score those points.
The smaller monsters do still suffer steadfast issues vs single lines of enemies while the ridden ones do not.

So depending on the local Meta ridden monsters aren't any better off than before.

Abaraxas
07-05-2016, 13:39
No, because me and my group play either the 3rd, 4th or 5th editions.

I never had a WHFB until 7th edition, but that's just the time I finally got into it, I did so with the intention of playing older editions.

red_zebra_ve
08-05-2016, 12:42
I'm playing all the time, I love it

malisteen
08-05-2016, 15:38
Haven't tried it. Would be willing to if someone local was pushing it, but I'm not sufficiently motivated to push it myself. I'm an old school undead player, so I prefer 8th + end times, which lets me field mixed VC/TK armies in the old undead mold. Don't make me choose between my Black Knights and my Skull Catapults! Plus, I love the Undead Legions heroes - Vlad, Arkhan, and in big games Nagash.

Plus, 9th age brings back vampire Bloodlines, and I'm not a fan of them. Always preferred more open ended vampire rules, where it's the soul and disposition of the individual vampire that dictates how the curse will affect them and what powers they will manifest, rather than that of their Sire. I mean, take the iconic Von Carsteins. You've got Konrad, a non-casting blood ragey martial melee guy. You can't make a von carstein vamp like him as long as all the good martial abilities are locked away under the blood dragon heading. And then there's Mannfred, a dedicated necromancer through and through, one of the greatest of his age, and you can't make a Von Carstein vamp like him as long as all the good casting abilities are locked away under the Necrarch category.

So yeah, rather than highly rigid categories (VC/TK) and subcategories (bloodlines) locking you into prescribed themes, I much prefer a messier and more open system like End Times Legions or AoS Grand Alliances that just throws everything together and lets players put together the themes they want on their own.


9th age looks fine, rules wise. Again, I'd be more than happy to play it, if it were what the local scene was pushing. But it's just a bit too prescriptive for my tastes.

Alaska
09-05-2016, 05:01
Finished reading main documents and eight army books. The answer is "no". It just looks like a tweak version of 8th edition with a lot of changes in names and army rules. Probably it might be more balanced in tournament level judging by what people said. Balance has never been an issue in here tho as we don't have tournies around.

Setting-wise, I don't give a damn about backgrounds when it comes to actual gaming so the shift is ok.

Same as mailisteen. I might give it a try if the local scene was pushing it. The local doesn't accept house rules so the chance is unlikely.



9th Age is imo ok. Thus far I prefer Mathias Eliassons "9th Edition" though (and its accompanying Army books)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iaXVibWFOWWlnTTQ/view


(http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/)http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/



His books were amazingly fun. It almost tempted me to play the actual rules several times.

Spiney Norman
09-05-2016, 08:29
9th Age is imo ok. Thus far I prefer Mathias Eliassons "9th Edition" though (and its accompanying Army books)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iaXVibWFOWWlnTTQ/view


http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/ (http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/)




I'd not come across this before but it looks very promising, more of a true warhammer 9th edition since it retains a lot of the character of the warhammer armies, and the work he has put into the look and feel of the documents is pretty awesome. Will watch with interest.

logan054
09-05-2016, 11:47
I'd not come across this before but it looks very promising, more of a true warhammer 9th edition since it retains a lot of the character of the warhammer armies, and the work he has put into the look and feel of the documents is pretty awesome. Will watch with interest.

I'm not entirely sure what to make of that one, I had a skim through it and seemed like a combination of editions, I enjoyed 6th and 7th far more than 8th so it looks like it could be appealing.

Yowzo
09-05-2016, 13:09
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.

No, it's perfectly consistent.

Units that perform equally with min-sized units have such min-sized units charged at a premium, then any further bodies at a discount (goblin wolf riders, barbarian horsemen, etc.).

OTOH, most infantry that needs the bodies are usually priced the other way around. Min-sized at a discount, then further bodies at a premium.

Also regarding your chosen vs warriors comparison, you need to note than chosen pay extra for marks vs basic warriors, so while indeed on paper you can field a chosen unit at roughly the same price as a warrior unit, you almost never see it that way because they pay extra for marks.

If there was some game advantage on it you'd see people maxing out on unmarked chosen units. Since that does not happen it means the price works exactly as it should. Also remember chosen are capped at 25 per unit while warriors can go up to 30.

Vazalaar
09-05-2016, 20:15
No, it's perfectly consistent.

Units that perform equally with min-sized units have such min-sized units charged at a premium, then any further bodies at a discount (goblin wolf riders, barbarian horsemen, etc.).

OTOH, most infantry that needs the bodies are usually priced the other way around. Min-sized at a discount, then further bodies at a premium.

Also regarding your chosen vs warriors comparison, you need to note than chosen pay extra for marks vs basic warriors, so while indeed on paper you can field a chosen unit at roughly the same price as a warrior unit, you almost never see it that way because they pay extra for marks.

If there was some game advantage on it you'd see people maxing out on unmarked chosen units. Since that does not happen it means the price works exactly as it should. Also remember chosen are capped at 25 per unit while warriors can go up to 30.


Wasteland Warrior (Chaos Warrior) 13 points per model + 2 points mark of Wrath (Khorne) = 15 points.
Chosen 12 points per model + 3 points mark of Wrath (but gain an extra bonus!) = 15 points.

Chosen have a better statline and in comparison with the warriors they gain an additional bonus with marks (Chosen of the Gods). I.e for Wrath this means the Chosen becomes frenzy.

Imo it's bad design.

As a WoC player I find the WDG list bland, simplified and unimmersive. Certainly when I compare it with other 9th Age armylists.

Also I find all those max size on units stupid. If some people want to make 50 men Chaos warriors let them.... I wouldn't do that, but if a player thinks that's a great move.. so be it. ;)

theunwantedbeing
09-05-2016, 21:13
Wasteland Warrior (Chaos Warrior) 13 points per model + 2 points mark of Wrath (Khorne) = 15 points.
Chosen 12 points per model + 3 points mark of Wrath (but gain an extra bonus!) = 15 points.

Imo it's bad design.
It's brilliant design and makes perfect sense if you actually play the game.
Just like how only 25 Wasteland Warriors can get a Mark.
:o


Also I find all those max size on units stupid. If some people want to make 50 men Chaos warriors let them.... I wouldn't do that, but if a player thinks that's a great move.. so be it. ;)
If you want big units you take barbarians.
:rolleyes:

ashc
09-05-2016, 21:40
The end of WHFB helped me realise and admit something, and that was that I don't actually like mass ranked fantasy wargames. This revelation surprised me a lot, but once I realised it I was a lot happier focusing on looking at skirmish games. This would be the main reason I have no interest in 9th Age.

Yowzo
09-05-2016, 23:20
Wasteland Warrior (Chaos Warrior) 13 points per model + 2 points mark of Wrath (Khorne) = 15 points.
Chosen 12 points per model + 3 points mark of Wrath (but gain an extra bonus!) = 15 points.

That's not the full story.

Chosen are 12 flat + 3pt mark
Warriors are 11 + 2 mark for the 1st 10 (so 13) and 13 + 2 mark for any add-ons. So chosen are more expensive.

And yes, the list is so bland and limited you can make your tzeentch chosen champions into wizards (which makes absolute sense fluff-wise, but you couldn't before).

Malagor
09-05-2016, 23:26
9th Age is imo ok. Thus far I prefer Mathias Eliassons "9th Edition" though (and its accompanying Army books)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iaXVibWFOWWlnTTQ/view


(http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/)http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/



Oh thanks for that.
I know his armybooks well(amazing work) but didn't notice that he had done a 9e.
Looks great even tho not sure about the charge distance and unit strength thing. Looks great besides that.

GrandmasterWang
10-05-2016, 04:26
It's brilliant design and makes perfect sense if you actually play the game.
Just like how only 25 Wasteland Warriors can get a Mark.
:o


If you want big units you take barbarians.
:rolleyes:
So in 9th Age is it possible to run a horde of marked Chaos Warriors?

I know it's never been optimal but it looks amazing imo.

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 05:42
That's not the full story.

Chosen are 12 flat + 3pt mark
Warriors are 11 + 2 mark for the 1st 10 (so 13) and 13 + 2 mark for any add-ons. So chosen are more expensive.

And yes, the list is so bland and limited you can make your tzeentch chosen champions into wizards (which makes absolute sense fluff-wise, but you couldn't before).

Oh god, wow... what a great thing, but doing so they removed the flavour of Blightkings, Wrathmongers, Skullreapers and so on... .

The lists doesn't interest me and I am not alone.

As a Chaos player, 9th Age managed to make an armylist that doesn't make me want to play my own army... .

Phew, but I guess that is my fault, because the 9th Age rules team is the best. Come on:eyebrows:

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 07:44
YES WE UNDERSTAND.

You don't like itbecause of reasons.

Many people complain about O&G being flavourless in9th because Animosity (worst rule ever) got "removed"

I say you never looked at the full picture:

1) Forrest Goblins! Skirmishers! Hell yeah.
2) three diverse goblin races. We only ever saw Night Goblins and that was a shame. Now all 3 races have a different purpose. What's not to love?
3) Boar Boys are back on the menue. In Core! I have about 20 older metal boar boys and NEVER used them because they were so extremely bad. Now I can use them as core! Or as a freaking strength 7 line breakers when I upgrade them to 'ardboys
4) Giants! Stronger, more stable and 60 points or so cheaper. I loved my giants, but they were way too expensive. Now they still die as easily, but WHEN they hit the enemies line, they easily get their points back
5) Spider Riders and Wolve riders have 2 distinctive uses now. One is super fast and the other is a scouting vanguard flanker.
6) Shamans can use their O&G lores which is fine, but greater shamans can also pick some rulebook lores which gives us loads of extra choice.
7) Goblin Warlords with WAAAAGH ability (a weak one for sure) which can also ride on a freaking ARACHNAROK. Hell yeah!
8) Mounts and upgrades forheroes are priced apropriately. My goblin heroes which get biiig upgrades from their mounts are now still as viable as they used to be before, but it's now fair compared to the Warlords upgrades
9) Fanatics had their rules slimlined and thats soooo good. Yes, they lost their 72" kill range but now I don't have to remind my opponent how strange the rules are.
10) Ork Heroes on Wyvern. HELL YEEEAAAAAH. Now my General is not the only one on a Flyer. So sweet!
11) Ork Boys with CROSSBOWS! Finally i can use my old minis AND have more options.
12) Black Orks are cheaper, stronger and gain Stubborn when another Blackork character is in the unit. They gained so much they're finally useable again.
13) Goblin Wolf Chariots..they didn't change much. 4 models in a unit. Nice... oh wait, they are FAST CAV and can thus reform as many times as before. How sweet.
14) Squig Riders FINALLY useable. Supporting attacks from the mounts! Slow flyers instead of random movement skirmishers clear up sooo many rules questions. The old Riders were never ever used. Never.
15) Squig herdes lost their stupid mixed unit rules.It wassuch a pain inthe butt to keep track of lost models...now everything is slick and easy to understand. They also got M5 which is nice.
16)Doom Diver got nerfed which I like. It was way too accurate and deadly before.
17) Snotling.... yeah.I have 8 bases and NEVER used them in 7th or 8th. Now I can have the SCOUT AND VANGUARD. That's a 40 point scouting unit! I love it. So flavorful.
18) Trolls. 3 different kinds of trolls which are finally all "equal".The strone trolls 4+ Armorsave is great! I also love the fact that a single troll is now a lot more expensive.
19) Arachnarok mostly stayed the same, but the catapult is finally useful. 8th catapult was just broken.. it did absolutely nothing.
20) GREAT IDOL OF ORK. I had that model for quite some time andFINALLY I can use it. How dare you claim O&G lost flavour when 9th added this model. HOW DARE YOU.


So, say again that O&G lost all their flavour. They didn't.

This is probably the best incarnation of O&G since 2th edition 40k.

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 08:28
;7626748']
So, say again that O&G lost all their flavour. They didn't.

This is probably the best incarnation of O&G since 2th edition 40k.

Sorry dude, but making everything moar powerful (and presumably more expensive if it truly is balanced) whilst stripping out the very rule which defined the character of the army is not making it 'better', at least not in my book. 8th ed O&G were just fine, and I don't get your point about the great idol at all, it had FW rules you could use just like every other FW model.

Perhaps the common goblin rules did need a bit of a boost, it doesn't really affect me because I don't like the common gob models at all, and 9th age is never going to solve that problem unless they hire sculptors.

As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate that 9th has 'fixed' a few niggles about 8th, but it's all the stuff that didn't need fixing that they changed anyway, change for the sake of change, which I don't like, stuff like removing animosity ;)

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 08:46
8th O&G wasnt fine. It was super limited because 75% of their units were so bad that not even fluff bunnies used squig hoppers. It's not about making everything powerful, it's about making everything USEABLE.
Animosity wasnt fluffy, it was unfluffy. My O&G want to fight the enemy. The usually don't with that rule. 9th "Unruly" is more fitting to the background than animosity ever was.

FW idol's rule never were an option for they were weak and the majority of people disliked FW Fantasy rules for their extremely unbalanced aproach to everything.

So you don't like GWs MODELS and thus 9th RULES are bad? That's really your argument?



And besides animosity.. what did they actually change you didnt like?

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 08:46
Sorry dude, but making everything moar powerful (and presumably more expensive if it truly is balanced) whilst stripping out the very rule which defined the character of the army is not making it 'better', at least not in my book. 8th ed O&G were just fine, and I don't get your point about the great idol at all, it had FW rules you could use just like every other FW model.

Perhaps the common goblin rules did need a bit of a boost, it doesn't really affect me because I don't like the common gob models at all, and 9th age is never going to solve that problem unless they hire sculptors.

As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate that 9th has 'fixed' a few niggles about 8th, but it's all the stuff that didn't need fixing that they changed anyway, change for the sake of change, which I don't like, stuff like removing animosity ;)
Who said anything about more powerful?
The point was that now all the elements from the O&G background have a fluffy rule representation. Most certainly with more to come.

And I will say it again: Animosity was not removed. It was renamed to 'Unruly' and changed to be less game breaking. The name was probably changed because of copyright reasons.
It is still a rule representing the savage and undisciplined nature of Orcs. I can honestly not see how O&G were more fluffy and less bland in 8th edition.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 08:49
Sorry dude, but making everything moar powerful (and presumably more expensive if it truly is balanced) whilst stripping out the very rule which defined the character of the army is not making it 'better', at least not in my book. 8th ed O&G were just fine, and I don't get your point about the great idol at all, it had FW rules you could use just like every other FW model.

Perhaps the common goblin rules did need a bit of a boost, it doesn't really affect me because I don't like the common gob models at all, and 9th age is never going to solve that problem unless they hire sculptors.

As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate that 9th has 'fixed' a few niggles about 8th, but it's all the stuff that didn't need fixing that they changed anyway, change for the sake of change, which I don't like, stuff like removing animosity ;)
I really don't think the army lost its flavor just because of animosity. By taking out that one random rule the o&g gained
1) unruly- think this fits the lore very well how goblins are very fearful unless they are bolstered by strong numbers
2) green tide- goblins now have a very fluffy and useful move that can be popped just like waaaargh.
3) 3 goblin races that are similarly but the sligh changes will change the entire way your army operates
4) green idol in now not a fw unit that most likely couldn't be used in tournaments and once again adds a ton of character and modeling option to the army.
5)shady gits are a very cool adition

and the biggest imo 6) all units are worth taking and nothing feels like an auto include. I have changed my list more times then I did all of 8th adition already because I don't feel shoehorned into taking certain units.

its obviously opinion based but I do find it hard to understand people saying o&g lost all their flavor because one rule was taken out when they gained so many cool things in return.

Horace35
10-05-2016, 09:19
"Useable" seems to be a commonly occuring phrase in this thread. Everything was always useable. If you chose not to do so because you wanted to max your list then that is on you. Even if squig hoppers were crappy, they were hardly auto lose if you chose to put them in your list. There are even tournament reports on these very forums of people using them and doing alright. Just shows a lack of imagination.


Sorry dude, but making everything moar powerful (and presumably more expensive if it truly is balanced) whilst stripping out the very rule which defined the character of the army is not making it 'better', at least not in my book. 8th ed O&G were just fine, and I don't get your point about the great idol at all, it had FW rules you could use just like every other FW model.

Perhaps the common goblin rules did need a bit of a boost, it doesn't really affect me because I don't like the common gob models at all, and 9th age is never going to solve that problem unless they hire sculptors.

As I have said elsewhere, I appreciate that 9th has 'fixed' a few niggles about 8th, but it's all the stuff that didn't need fixing that they changed anyway, change for the sake of change, which I don't like, stuff like removing animosity ;)

I agree

Zywus
10-05-2016, 09:26
People shouldn't have to be at a disadvantage just because the visuals and background of Unit B appeals to them more than Unit A.

If that's the case (even if it's entirely possible to win using Unit A) then that's a flaw of the game system. It might be a flaw you can live with and don't care about at all, but it's only an improvement of the game if such discrepancies are lessened or removed.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 09:37
"Useable" seems to be a commonly occuring phrase in this thread. Everything was always useable. If you chose not to do so because you wanted to max your list then that is on you. Even if squig hoppers were crappy, they were hardly auto lose if you chose to put them in your list. There are even tournament reports on these very forums of people using them and doing alright. Just shows a lack of imagination.

So we are at the black and white, casual player vs Min/Max=WaaC=Tournament player point of the discussion again?
Why do the regular players who do like well designed and balanced games and are probably the vast majority of gamers usually get overlooked?

If there is the choice between two games, one offering you to 'have the cake or eat it' and the other one to 'have the cake and eat it', I will take the latter one.

Horace35
10-05-2016, 10:18
You are right this is a circular argument because people have fundamentally different opinions and want different things from the games they play :)

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 10:31
Who said anything about more powerful?
The point was that now all the elements from the O&G background have a fluffy rule representation. Most certainly with more to come.

And I will say it again: Animosity was not removed. It was renamed to 'Unruly' and changed to be less game breaking. The name was probably changed because of copyright reasons.
It is still a rule representing the savage and undisciplined nature of Orcs. I can honestly not see how O&G were more fluffy and less bland in 8th edition.

A random leadership penalty makes no sense in the context of the army's fluff, unruly was a weak replacement that had nothing to do with the O&G background, yes we know they are cowardly, that's why they have a low base leadership, there was no reason to levy an additional situational penalty as well just to reinforce the point and it does nothing to represent the argumentativeness inherent in the greenskin races which animosity typified so well.

And for the record my NG army regularly used two units of 5 squig hoppers (or occasionally one unit of ten led by a squig boss) and a giant in almost every game I played. There was nothing in the 8th edition O&G book that was 'unusable', perhaps a few that were less optimal or less point-and-click, but they were still viable if you put the effort in.


So we are at the black and white, casual player vs Min/Max=WaaC=Tournament player point of the discussion again?
Why do the regular players who do like well designed and balanced games and are probably the vast majority of gamers usually get overlooked?

If there is the choice between two games, one offering you to 'have the cake or eat it' and the other one to 'have the cake and eat it', I will take the latter one.

That's great, if you like 9A there is no reason you shouldn't play it (opponent permitting of course), but particularly in the case of O&G, 9A sacrifices too much to justify the gains it makes for me.


People shouldn't have to be at a disadvantage just because the visuals and background of Unit B appeals to them more than Unit A.

If that's the case (even if it's entirely possible to win using Unit A) then that's a flaw of the game system. It might be a flaw you can live with and don't care about at all, but it's only an improvement of the game if such discrepancies are lessened or removed.

If 9A had just been about tweaking points values (and perhaps some minor modifications to magic) to make 8th work better I would be happier with it, but it's not. There was way too much tinkering of things that should've been left well alone including some pretty foundational army-wide mechanics (like animosity) that were simply swept aside because the team didn't like them.

The Matthias Eliasson stuff linked to further up is much closer to what I would like from a 9th edition, still warhammer, just tweaked in the right places.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 10:38
A random leadership penalty makes no sense in the context of the army's fluff, unruly was a weak replacement that had nothing to do with the O&G background, yes we know they are cowardly, that's why they have a low base leadership, there was no reason to levy an additional situational penalty as well just to reinforce the point and it does nothing to represent the argumentativeness inherent in the greenskin races which animosity typified so well.

Actually it's only aleadership penalty whendoing persue restrains and frenzy tests. They actually got better vs panic tests. Didn't read the rules did you?



And for the record my NG army regularly used two units of 5 squig hoppers (or occasionally one unit of ten led by a squig boss) and a giant in almost every game I played. There was nothing in the 8th edition O&G book that was 'unusable', perhaps a few that were less optimal or less point-and-click, but they were still viable if you put the effort in.


I've hundreds if not a thousend O&G games under my (big) belly. I play fluff, hardcore, relaxed and all that. There was never any point in going Squig Hoppers UNLESS you actively want to cripple your army. They were expensive, unreliable, super squishy and were problematic with their rules. If you love a miniature and don't care about their rules, please never ever comment about a units rule. Everyone else ishappy with more useable units.




That's great, if you like 9A there is no reason you shouldn't play it (opponent permitting of course), but particularly in the case of O&G, 9A sacrifices too much to justify the gains it makes for me.

You don'ts acrifice anything. You do claim that ever so often, butbesides animsoity which got replaced, what exactly did you lose?

mmhh... like seriously... what did you lose? Weak units?

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 10:52
;7626795']
You don'ts acrifice anything. You do claim that ever so often, butbesides animsoity which got replaced, what exactly did you lose?

mmhh... like seriously... what did you lose? Weak units?

My tomb King army lost fear, as did VC and daemons, another fluffy, army-defining special rule simply ditched because the 9A team wanted to change how it worked and couldn't figure out how to balance their unnecessary replacement as an army wide rule. After sterilising the character of two of my armies and not seeing any real changes for my Lizardmen (frustrated by lost opportunities to put spawnings and slann generations back in) I simply lost interest.

I did like the look of the wood elf book as it incorporated a lot of things from 6th edition which I liked, the problem is I would need to pretty much re-buy an entire wood elf army and that is not on the cards for me at the moment (and GW just discontinued a bunch of models I would need for it). That and the effort it would take to generate interest in someome else's homebrew version of warhammer in my local club is not really something I wanted to take on.

At the end of the day 8th edition still works well for us, most 9A gains didn't seem worth the trade-off to me and it doesn't have the local community backing that 8th edition enjoys around here. Maybe one day that will change, we'll have to see.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 11:02
So a single rule. And bye the way, the Tomb King monsters, monstrous infantry/cav and some Characters still have fear.. so not everything is lost.
And your personal army had to be expanded.



That's it? And nothing on O&G?

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 11:07
;7626803']So a single rule. And bye the way, the Tomb King monsters, monstrous infantry/cav and some Characters still have fear.. so not everything is lost.
And your personal army had to be expanded.


That's it? And nothing on O&G?

Who cares if TK monsters cause fear/terror, every monster does that, the hall mark of the army since it has existed has been it's ability to cause fear from all its units, now a human soldier is no more scared of being attacked by his best mates reanimated corpse than he is of a small child...

I'm not sure you actually read my posts, yes I have a problem with O&G, but you did ask for problems "besides animosity", you realise how many units in the O&G army are affected by the loss of animosity right?

Never mind, this is going in circles, something tells me you're going to throw whatever I say back at me so we'll just call it quits shall we?

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 11:16
So you have nothing to complain about O&G besides the "loss" of animosity? Because you just don't give any other reasons to dislike 9th O&G.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 11:37
Who cares if TK monsters cause fear/terror, every monster does that, the hall mark of the army since it has existed has been it's ability to cause fear from all its units, now a human soldier is no more scared of being attacked by his best mates reanimated corpse than he is of a small child...
Before the change the human soldier was no more scared of a *'insert any fear causing monster that can rip a man apart' than he was of a skeleton that gets knocked over by a stiff breeze. It is different for sure but in no way less fluffy.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 11:56
A 7 feet strong Chosen of Khorne is def. more scary than a slow moving skele... but nooooooooo.

Malagor
10-05-2016, 12:01
The fear on undead is not a fear of the deadliness of it, it's the concept of it.
People in the Warhammer world wasn't scared of a skeleton because it was suppose to be a killing machine, never in the fluff have they actually been useful in that way.
What does making them scary enemies however is that they never stop, never quit, never get tired and never flee. Kill 10 of them and 10 more will bounce right back up. Lose a comrade in arms and the next minute he will get up and start attacking you.
It's a war of attrition with the undead, a war a regular human can't win, most races can't win it.
That's why they had fear as a army rule.
And also, Squig Hoppers are freaking awesome man, I always bring those guys.

Alaska
10-05-2016, 12:02
;7626759']8th O&G wasnt fine. It was super limited because 75% of their units were so bad that not even fluff bunnies used squig hoppers. It's not about making everything powerful, it's about making everything USEABLE.

So people who used 75% of UNUSEABLE must be a NUT to use such unusable units. And the players who lost to that person must be a SUPERNUT or something.



;7626795']I've hundreds if not a thousend O&G games under my (big) belly. I play fluff, hardcore, relaxed and all that. There was never any point in going Squig Hoppers UNLESS you actively want to cripple your army.
O&G has been my main army since 6th edition. And I must confess, I crippled my army many times according to your statement. They won games sometimes but whatever.



;7626759']
what did they actually change you didnt like?
Animosity is one of my favorite rule as it brought a blast of fun moments since I entered this hobby. Yes, I can live without it. There's nothing I peculiarly don't like in T9A list. I am just content with 8th(playing 6th with friends a lot more tho) so I don't need unnecessary house rules.

Sorry for interrupting. Just saying because you say like T9A is a necessary treatment which is an optional thing.

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 12:19
The fear on undead is not a fear of the deadliness of it, it's the concept of it.
People in the Warhammer world wasn't scared of a skeleton because it was suppose to be a killing machine, never in the fluff have they actually been useful in that way.
What does making them scary enemies however is that they never stop, never quit, never get tired and never flee. Kill 10 of them and 10 more will bounce right back up. Lose a comrade in arms and the next minute he will get up and start attacking you.
It's a war of attrition with the undead, a war a regular human can't win, most races can't win it.
That's why they had fear as a army rule.
And also, Squig Hoppers are freaking awesome man, I always bring those guys.

+1000

It makes you wonder why they don't hang plastic Khorne champions in the house of horrors at your local fairground...

If your afraid of a Khorne Champion because he's bigger than you and better at fighting than you and he's going to kill you then a human warrior is going to fear almost everything in the warhammer world that is bigger than a goblin.

Most empire spearmen haven't spent their lives watching horror flicks or playing zombie-apocalypse video games so the concept of a corpse that keeps moving and trying to kill you would be absolutely horrifying.

Likewise with daemons, if you read the novels from wfb/40k when daemons show up they are usually accompanied by some kind of dark super-natural aura which makes people terrified/throw up/run away/start screaming/all of the above.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 12:21
The fear on undead is not a fear of the deadliness of it, it's the concept of it.
People in the Warhammer world wasn't scared of a skeleton because it was suppose to be a killing machine, never in the fluff have they actually been useful in that way.
What does making them scary enemies however is that they never stop, never quit, never get tired and never flee. Kill 10 of them and 10 more will bounce right back up. Lose a comrade in arms and the next minute he will get up and start attacking you.
It's a war of attrition with the undead, a war a regular human can't win, most races can't win it.
That's why they had fear as a army rule.
And also, Squig Hoppers are freaking awesome man, I always bring those guys.
That was GW's justification for the rule. But since neither walking dead nor 7' chaos warriors are real, it is difficult to find a universally agreeable characterization of what causes fear and what not. Its up to the player's imagination.
As a game mechanic it comes down to a balancing issue. From a fluff perspective it is easily explainable that a specific human/Elve/Orc/regiment/whatever is less afraid of one thing than it is of another.
A human living in a town with an 'undead problem' might either be used to it because there are some zombies walking around every other day or the sight of an undead might trigger some traumatic childhood memory of his mother turning into a zombie snack.

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2016, 12:27
;7626808']So you have nothing to complain about O&G besides the "loss" of animosity? Because you just don't give any other reasons to dislike 9th O&G.

Animosity is gone
Doom Diver misfire chart is gone
Spear chukka's are 100% reliable
Giants can't fall over
Waagghhhs don't function as interestingly
Boar boyz can have Lances
There's no limit on regular orcs wearing heavy armour and getting crossbows
Iron orcs can have Plate Armour
Catapults have an option to re-roll misfires now
Scouting spider riders but not wolf riders for some reason
Goblins no longer fear elves
Snotlings can scout and vanguard for no reason



On the topic of fear.
Anyone afraid of Spiders? Mice? Moths? That sort of thing?
Are you also afraid of cows, horses, cars, trucks and such?
Fear works in much the same way.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 12:28
Yeah, fluff reasons are nice... so what did change for you? Skeles are still scary in the fluff... So nothing is different.


Animosity is gone
Replaced, not gone. Just call "Unruly" Animosity and nothing is different.


Doom Diver misfire chart is gone
Spear chukka's are 100% reliable
Giants can't fall over
True I give you that. Giants falling over has always been a big hazzle to resolve. That template was so stupidly shaped.. I'm glad it got removed. Giants can still jump and bellow and stomp and smash and swing and all that.


Waagghhhs don't function as interestingly
They don't? We got two different kinds now. The goblin one is 100% fluffy for the goblins to attack in bigger numbers. The Orcs one is all about charging into combat.. howis that "not asinterestingly" compared to +combat rez?


Boar boyz can have Lances
so? Thats bad how?


There's no limit on regular orcs wearing heavy armour and getting crossbows

so? Most People will still only play a single Crossbow unit. Options = bad?


Iron orcs can have Plate Armour

So? Have you looked at the minis? They are PACKED with thick armor. It also helps them find a role in the army. They are now drastically different to eadbashers and Feral Orcs. The stable unit Orcs have always lacked


Catapults have an option to re-roll misfires now

So?


Scouting spider riders but not wolf riders for some reason
Spiders are better at hidingin tress than wolfs? It also helps making the unit more different.


Goblins no longer fear elves
true

Snotlings can scout and vanguard for no reason
And that awesome! They are not part of the regular army and thus just run a bit eralier towards the enemy. It also helps the unit be a bit more interesting and useful.


So= O&G lost missfire chances on their artillery and the elf fear on Goblins BUT got loads of additional differentiations between units.

Malagor
10-05-2016, 12:48
That was GW's justification for the rule. But since neither walking dead nor 7' chaos warriors are real, it is difficult to find a universally agreeable characterization of what causes fear and what not. Its up to the player's imagination.
As a game mechanic it comes down to a balancing issue. From a fluff perspective it is easily explainable that a specific human/Elve/Orc/regiment/whatever is less afraid of one thing than it is of another.
A human living in a town with an 'undead problem' might either be used to it because there are some zombies walking around every other day or the sight of an undead might trigger some traumatic childhood memory of his mother turning into a zombie snack.
The idea of a endless and unstoppable enemy isn't new and indeed cause fear.
Persian Immortals is a nice example. While they were the elite so they could actually fight well, they also had a huge psychological impact on their opponent.
There was always 10000 of them. One died, another took his place, kill 10 and 10 more took their place giving the impression of them being "immortal" since the unit strength never went down.
While elite armies would eventually grind them down or make them run away, the average army would find them to be a fearful opponent since their army would rout before they could grind them down.
The undead horde in warhammer of course isn't 10000 strong, they are alot bigger then that and with the reasons that I pointed out before, if you don't think this would make the average soldier in a Empire or Bretonnia army go "oh ****" and maybe even soil his armor(which was quite common as well) then true there is a level of imagination, a severe lack of imagination.
Fear of death is a very common reason to be afraid(you don't have to look far to see that) and with undead, you not only see death coming towards you, you see what will happen to you after death.

Horace35
10-05-2016, 12:58
;7626748']
1) Forrest Goblins! Skirmishers! Hell yeah.
2) three diverse goblin races. We only ever saw Night Goblins and that was a shame. Now all 3 races have a different purpose. What's not to love?
3) Boar Boys are back on the menue. In Core! I have about 20 older metal boar boys and NEVER used them because they were so extremely bad. Now I can use them as core! Or as a freaking strength 7 line breakers when I upgrade them to 'ardboys
4) Giants! Stronger, more stable and 60 points or so cheaper. I loved my giants, but they were way too expensive. Now they still die as easily, but WHEN they hit the enemies line, they easily get their points back
5) Spider Riders and Wolve riders have 2 distinctive uses now. One is super fast and the other is a scouting vanguard flanker.
6) Shamans can use their O&G lores which is fine, but greater shamans can also pick some rulebook lores which gives us loads of extra choice.
7) Goblin Warlords with WAAAAGH ability (a weak one for sure) which can also ride on a freaking ARACHNAROK. Hell yeah!
8) Mounts and upgrades forheroes are priced apropriately. My goblin heroes which get biiig upgrades from their mounts are now still as viable as they used to be before, but it's now fair compared to the Warlords upgrades
9) Fanatics had their rules slimlined and thats soooo good. Yes, they lost their 72" kill range but now I don't have to remind my opponent how strange the rules are.
10) Ork Heroes on Wyvern. HELL YEEEAAAAAH. Now my General is not the only one on a Flyer. So sweet!
11) Ork Boys with CROSSBOWS! Finally i can use my old minis AND have more options.
12) Black Orks are cheaper, stronger and gain Stubborn when another Blackork character is in the unit. They gained so much they're finally useable again.
13) Goblin Wolf Chariots..they didn't change much. 4 models in a unit. Nice... oh wait, they are FAST CAV and can thus reform as many times as before. How sweet.
14) Squig Riders FINALLY useable. Supporting attacks from the mounts! Slow flyers instead of random movement skirmishers clear up sooo many rules questions. The old Riders were never ever used. Never.
15) Squig herdes lost their stupid mixed unit rules.It wassuch a pain inthe butt to keep track of lost models...now everything is slick and easy to understand. They also got M5 which is nice.
16)Doom Diver got nerfed which I like. It was way too accurate and deadly before.
17) Snotling.... yeah.I have 8 bases and NEVER used them in 7th or 8th. Now I can have the SCOUT AND VANGUARD. That's a 40 point scouting unit! I love it. So flavorful.
18) Trolls. 3 different kinds of trolls which are finally all "equal".The strone trolls 4+ Armorsave is great! I also love the fact that a single troll is now a lot more expensive.
19) Arachnarok mostly stayed the same, but the catapult is finally useful. 8th catapult was just broken.. it did absolutely nothing.
20) GREAT IDOL OF ORK. I had that model for quite some time andFINALLY I can use it. How dare you claim O&G lost flavour when 9th added this model. HOW DARE YOU.




So?

Easy to do isn't it without really addressing any of the points

Most of the changes go against how the army has always played. They are generally unfluffy and out of character with the O&G everyone knows and loves.

If you like the new character of the army great go and play it. Lots of people do not like this and prefer 8th. It is a different opinion.

logan054
10-05-2016, 12:59
The fear on undead is not a fear of the deadliness of it, it's the concept of it.
People in the Warhammer world wasn't scared of a skeleton because it was suppose to be a killing machine, never in the fluff have they actually been useful in that way.
What does making them scary enemies however is that they never stop, never quit, never get tired and never flee. Kill 10 of them and 10 more will bounce right back up. Lose a comrade in arms and the next minute he will get up and start attacking you.
It's a war of attrition with the undead, a war a regular human can't win, most races can't win it.
That's why they had fear as a army rule.
And also, Squig Hoppers are freaking awesome man, I always bring those guys.

I'd probably say that while a chaos warrior is intimidating rather than scary, I certainly agree with what you, I don't think people are really understanding why models had the fear or terror rule to begin with. I think HW+SH is one of the main rules changes I don't like, I think people really are expecting a lot from a 1pts model upgrade. I did find the warrior changes rather odd, I would of thought the price would be more expensive for the first 10 rather than additional models which are generally expensive round counters.

I look at the MoW and then a Elf and wonder how many points those models are paying for the statline, it cant be a lot.

I had a look at the orc bok quickly, I don't see anything that even remotely represents animosity.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 13:02
The idea of a endless and unstoppable enemy isn't new and indeed cause fear.
Persian Immortals is a nice example. While they were the elite so they could actually fight well, they also had a huge psychological impact on their opponent.
There was always 10000 of them. One died, another took his place, kill 10 and 10 more took their place giving the impression of them being "immortal" since the unit strength never went down.
While elite armies would eventually grind them down or make them run away, the average army would find them to be a fearful opponent since their army would rout before they could grind them down.
The undead horde in warhammer of course isn't 10000 strong, they are alot bigger then that and with the reasons that I pointed out before, if you don't think this would make the average soldier in a Empire or Bretonnia army go "oh ****" and maybe even soil his armor(which was quite common as well) then true there is a level of imagination, a severe lack of imagination.
Fear of death is a very common reason to be afraid(you don't have to look far to see that) and with undead, you not only see death coming towards you, you see what will happen to you after death.

I don't want to argue that undead are not something to be afraid of. I am sure I would seriously considering going back home if I had to face them.
However, if everything that scares a warrior is supposed to have the 'fear' special rule, it should be given to every charging heavy cavalry unit as well.

My point is: not everything that is terrifying to face on the battlefield should have the fear special rule. I am sure almost everything I would face on the battlefield would scare the *** out of me.

I believe the T9A team wanted fear to have more impact. As a consequence, to restore balance, the number of units causing fear was revised.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 13:15
Giving more options and doubling the useable units = going against how the army hasalways played? Yes? That's the point. The army was super limited before. You can do twice as many tings now because twice as many units have their own niche.

Not sure what you call unfluffy. That BO are big strong bruisers? That snotlings are quick and agile but super fragile? That Spiders can scout? That Ork Boar Boys can now be the core ofyour army, making it possible to go super aggressive! Great Idol of Gork has been in the fluff for ages. More Waaaaghs than ever before. Differences between Goblin Races are not present.


That's all against the fluff? Yeah right.

Folomo
10-05-2016, 13:46
The fear on undead is not a fear of the deadliness of it, it's the concept of it.
People in the Warhammer world wasn't scared of a skeleton because it was suppose to be a killing machine, never in the fluff have they actually been useful in that way.
What does making them scary enemies however is that they never stop, never quit, never get tired and never flee. Kill 10 of them and 10 more will bounce right back up. Lose a comrade in arms and the next minute he will get up and start attacking you.

What you are mentioning here are Vampire Count undeads, who resurrect enemy troops and any corpse they fing around.
Tomb Kings don't do that.
Please don't mix both, I really dislike when people think that VC and TK are the same army with just a few unit swaps. They work thematically different. VC are about a Vampire with a ton of corpses bound by his own will. TK are about an army of soldiers loyal ready to serve their Liege even beyond death.
Different armies, diffenert tones.

Malagor
10-05-2016, 14:11
What you are mentioning here are Vampire Count undeads, who resurrect enemy troops and any corpse they fing around.
Tomb Kings don't do that.
Please don't mix both, I really dislike when people think that VC and TK are the same army with just a few unit swaps. They work thematically different. VC are about a Vampire with a ton of corpses bound by his own will. TK are about an army of soldiers loyal ready to serve their Liege even beyond death.
Different armies, diffenert tones.
Who also resurrect their fallen warriors should they go down. They don't resurrect their enemies but they still bring back their own.

veterannoob
10-05-2016, 14:18
Haven't had much luck trying to set up a game to try 9th Age when I get back home next month. Maybe someone will play it as the Friday night game session at the AoS & KoW tournament in June since there's a 9th Age event in the line-up now. I'm actually liking this move by events into a more Con style so you can do more than one game.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 14:42
Who cares if TK monsters cause fear/terror, every monster does that, the hall mark of the army since it has existed has been it's ability to cause fear from all its units, now a human soldier is no more scared of being attacked by his best mates reanimated corpse than he is of a small child...

I'm not sure you actually read my posts, yes I have a problem with O&G, but you did ask for problems "besides animosity", you realise how many units in the O&G army are affected by the loss of animosity right?

Never mind, this is going in circles, something tells me you're going to throw whatever I say back at me so we'll just call it quits shall we?
Never understood why skellitons and zombies caused fear. I mean they live in a world where they are constantly fighting minature hulks, gigantic demons, evil super soldiers, mini Godzillas, Giants, ogres and a whole bunch of stuff that I would rather fight 100 zombies before fighting.

Just me personally :p

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2016, 14:44
Never understood why skellitons and zombies caused fear. I mean they live in a world where they are constantly fighting minature hulks, gigantic demons, evil super soldiers, mini Godzillas, Giants, ogres and a whole bunch of stuff that I would rather fight 100 zombies before fighting.

Just me personally :p

It's interesting that the people who do like 9th age appear to also be the type of person who thinks fear on skeletons doesn't make any sense.

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 14:50
Yeah, your scientific proof is overwhelming.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 14:51
It's interesting that the people who do like 9th age appear to also be the type of person who thinks fear on skeletons doesn't make any sense.
I don't think that anyone actually said that. The point was that everything is on the battlefield is scary to some degree. The question is at what level of scariness it should be represented by the fear special rule. T9A seems to use a different threshold than GW did.
A unit can be scary fluffwise but not have the fear special rule.

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2016, 15:32
I don't think that anyone actually said that.
I did, you quoted it!
The point is there seems to be a view that fear doesn't fit the undead, for the reasons you pointed out.
A view that is generally only shared by the people who like the way 9th age has turned out.

Also....
THE BIG'UN UPGRADE HAS GONE FROM ORCS!!!!

Sure Eadbashers exist, but they don't get the same options as regular orcs and they're 0-1.
No bow option.
No Heavy armour and crossbows option.
Mounted Eadbashers get heavy armour, why not the foot ones?

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 15:46
I did, you quoted it!
The point is there seems to be a view that fear doesn't fit the undead, for the reasons you pointed out.
A view that is generally only shared by the people who like the way 9th age has turned out.

So you just made a random statement without any data to back it up?




Also....
THE BIG'UN UPGRADE HAS GONE FROM ORCS!!!!

Sure Eadbashers exist, but they don't get the same options as regular orcs and they're 0-1.
No bow option.
No Heavy armour and crossbows option.
Mounted Eadbashers get heavy armour, why not the foot ones?
I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. What is the next point? T9A removed Black Orcs? Sure there are Iron Orcs but their rules are not 100 % identical so it doesn't count.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 16:02
It's interesting that the people who do like 9th age appear to also be the type of person who thinks fear on skeletons doesn't make any sense.
This has nothing to do with me liking 9th age (on a side note you seem to be very defensive against anything posted by 9th age supporters). My friends and I had discussed this long before AOS or 9th ever released. Everything you fight will envoke fear to a certain degree. But I think zombie or a skeleton would be the top of my list for things to fight against in the warhammer world. It takes a few pounds to shatter a human bone not covered in flesh, but how the heck to you fight a chaos warrior armored in full plate that's been in more battles then years I have been alive? What do you do against a 9 foot tall lizard soldier that knows nothing but war. My group for a long time has laughed at the fact that zombies and skellitons caused fear....... But your right this opinion must make no sense to anyone that isn't pro AOS because it's just crazy.

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 16:19
This has nothing to do with me liking 9th age (on a side note you seem to be very defensive against anything posted by 9th age supporters). My friends and I had discussed this long before AOS or 9th ever released. Everything you fight will envoke fear to a certain degree. But I think zombie or a skeleton would be the top of my list for things to fight against in the warhammer world. It takes a few pounds to shatter a human bone not covered in flesh, but how the heck to you fight a chaos warrior armored in full plate that's been in more battles then years I have been alive? What do you do against a 9 foot tall lizard soldier that knows nothing but war. My group for a long time has laughed at the fact that zombies and skellitons caused fear....... But your right this opinion must make no sense to anyone that isn't pro AOS because it's just crazy.

Until you encounter one..

Malagor explained it nicely why undead causes fear. It's not one tiny skeleton, it's the masses that just won't stay death. It's your raised father, mother, brother, friend, brother in arms corpse that you are fighting.... .

I will give 9th Age a pass. After the next update (september) I will check it out again.

It will be interesting to watch how long the hype for 9th Age will keep its momentum.

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2016, 16:32
This has nothing to do with me liking 9th age (on a side note you seem to be very defensive against anything posted by 9th age supporters).
And you seem angry (along with a few other people) about me pointing out a correlation between liking 9th edition and not thinking skeletons and such should cause fear.


But your right this opinion must make no sense to anyone that isn't pro AOS because it's just crazy.
You're*
All I'm saying is that people who like 9th age also seem to be of the opinion that skeletons and such shouldn't cause fear.
Going off your group it would seem to be completely accurate, provided you're telling the truth.


It might be a handy yardstick for finding 9th people who haven't played 9th age yet who might want to.
Do you think skeletons are scary?
If no, have you tried 9th age as we think you might enjoy it.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 16:42
Until you encounter one..

Malagor explained it nicely why undead causes fear. It's not one tiny skeleton, it's the masses that just won't stay death. It's your raised father, mother, brother, friend, brother in arms corpse that you are fighting.... .

I will give 9th Age a pass. After the next update (september) I will check it out again.

It will be interesting to watch how long the hype for 9th Age will keep its momentum.
Ever looked at a whfb picture.... You are never fighting just one opponent and the armies are always massive. All the same rules apply. I would rather my group of 100 men fight 200 zombies over 50 chaos warriors. They live in a would where they have colleges for magic, people that go around hunting people corrupted by dark gods, dragons come and burn down while city's. The reson undead are "scary" in lore is because of their magical nature, they are not of this world. Skellitons are very of the world in whfb. The empire has had an undead problem for a long time and I can't imagine the people in the provinces that deal with the undead on a regular basis are really that scared of zombies (on relative comparison of other things in the world of fantasy they could fight). On least scary I think I put it 1.goblin (not including squigs) 2. Skeleton/zombie (not including mounted vampires) 3. Skinks as long as they weren't concealed deep in a jungle.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 16:44
And you seem angry (along with a few other people) about me pointing out a correlation between liking 9th edition and not thinking skeletons and such should cause fear.


You're*
All I'm saying is that people who like 9th age also seem to be of the opinion that skeletons and such shouldn't cause fear.
Going off your group it would seem to be completely accurate, provided you're telling the truth.


It might be a handy yardstick for finding 9th people who haven't played 9th age yet who might want to.
Do you think skeletons are scary?
If no, have you tried 9th age as we think you might enjoy it.
Some of the friends I discussed this with do not play anymore and have not started again because of 9th. Not thinking skeletons are that scary and enjoying 9th have nothing to do with one another. I'm sure you can find plenty of players that would agree

Souppilgrim
10-05-2016, 16:45
I think it's a great testament to 9th age O&G book that the only thing people are complaining about is that it has TOO much internal and external balance.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 16:53
And you seem angry (along with a few other people) about me pointing out a correlation between liking 9th edition and not thinking skeletons and such should cause fear.


You're*
All I'm saying is that people who like 9th age also seem to be of the opinion that skeletons and such shouldn't cause fear.
Going off your group it would seem to be completely accurate, provided you're telling the truth.


It might be a handy yardstick for finding 9th people who haven't played 9th age yet who might want to.
Do you think skeletons are scary?
If no, have you tried 9th age as we think you might enjoy it.

You are simply making stuff up now.
Who is angry?
Who doesn't think skeletons should cause fear? I believe there are two persons contributing to this thread who think that skeletons do not qualify for the fear special rule. Where do you see any correlation?

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 16:55
Ever looked at a whfb picture.... You are never fighting just one opponent and the armies are always massive. All the same rules apply. I would rather my group of 100 men fight 200 zombies over 50 chaos warriors. They live in a would where they have colleges for magic, people that go around hunting people corrupted by dark gods, dragons come and burn down while city's. The reson undead are "scary" in lore is because of their magical nature, they are not of this world. Skellitons are very of the world in whfb. The empire has had an undead problem for a long time and I can't imagine the people in the provinces that deal with the undead on a regular basis are really that scared of zombies (on relative comparison of other things in the world of fantasy they could fight). On least scary I think I put it 1.goblin (not including squigs) 2. Skeleton/zombie (not including mounted vampires) 3. Skinks as long as they weren't concealed deep in a jungle.

I don't agree. Anyway removing fear of undead is not my biggest issue with 9th Age.

Overall when checking out the 9th Age armylists/rules. I don't have the urge to collect/paint/play a new army or my own armies. I prefer 8th edition and other fan made stuff instead of 9th Age.

To quote a post from the 9th Age forum:

T9A is designed for competitive players so, in that context, anything that steals the control from the player is undesirable and consequently avoided if possible.

theunwantedbeing
10-05-2016, 16:57
Who is angry?
Who doesn't think skeletons should cause fear? I believe there are two persons contributing to this thread who think that skeletons do not qualify for the fear special rule. Where do you see any correlation?

Are you Angry?
Do you like 9th age?
Do you think skeletons should cause fear?

Soundwave
10-05-2016, 17:02
Yes. Loving all the books and rules. I haven't played version 1 yet...but will be soon. What I am really liking is the level playing field/fresh start for all the armies at once. It has the ravening hordes feel to it.
I am not to concerned about certain rules missing or being added or any balance factors at all really. Been so use to the shifting power levels of G.W's version for so long. This is by far more stable than any previous edition.
Really excited to see where the team will head in the fluffy directions with campaigns and such. So much room for endless possibilities.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 17:05
Are you Angry?
Do you like 9th age?
Do you think skeletons should cause fear?
No
Yes
I don't care. Considering the effects of T9A's fear special rule I would argue that skeletons should not have that special rule. You can of course count that as a 'Yes' to your question if you like.

Folomo
10-05-2016, 17:09
There was a discussion about how intimidating a zombie would be, and most people considered them more or less goofy. Typical raiders where considered far more threatening/fear causing. Pretty sure a Crazy Flail-wielding Barbarian will causa far more fear. Just imagine a mongolian horde or French knights racing toward you compared to a Walking dead horde shuffling. Pretty sure we all know which one will make people break and flee.


It's your raised father, mother, brother, friend, brother in arms corpse that you are fighting....

Why should the mother of trained soldiers be doing in a fight??
Seems like an unlikely coincidence. Or a "your mama" joke :p

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 17:39
There was a discussion about how intimidating a zombie would be, and most people considered them more or less goofy. Typical raiders where considered far more threatening/fear causing. Pretty sure a Crazy Flail-wielding Barbarian will causa far more fear. Just imagine a mongolian horde or French knights racing toward you compared to a Walking dead horde shuffling. Pretty sure we all know which one will make people break and flee.


Why should the mother of trained soldiers be doing in a fight??
Seems like an unlikely coincidence. Or a "your mama" joke :p

Ask a medieval french knight what they would think of a skeleton.. .

Come on, are you seriously saying that an undead is less terrifying than an armoured human opponent?

Laughable, but I assume fanboys will go to extreme lengths to defend their favorite game system.. .

Ronin[XiC]
10-05-2016, 17:44
We're not talking about a "armoured human opponent" but THIS

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c6/c4/a0/c6c4a0324a0d21de035d14c12f6825b2.jpg [40k but it's close enough]
7+ feet tall

or this

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/0/0a/Ork.png/revision/latest?cb=20140321004017
Probably 8+ feet tall

Maybe even this

http://www.daarken.com/personalconcepts/templeguard.jpg

ever afraid of a shark? what about a landshark?

Those shouldnt cause fear.. but this one should? http://brighton-hove.dbprimary.com/brighton-hove/primary/fairlight/arenas/ourselves/web/skeleton1.png

logan054
10-05-2016, 17:50
I can't imagine the people in the provinces that deal with the undead on a regular basis are really that scared of zombies (on relative comparison of other things in the world of fantasy they could fight). On least scary I think I put it 1.goblin (not including squigs) 2. Skeleton/zombie (not including mounted vampires) 3. Skinks as long as they weren't concealed deep in a jungle.

I think the people who created the rules and setting would disagree with you on that, I really can't see how a walking corpse wouldn't scare the crap out of anyone. I think the leadership value is a good measure how scared they are things, you're not automatically scared of them, if you have a pretty inspiring leader around, you tend to hold your ground. If not, you're probably going to crap yourself. As annoying as the old auto break rule for fear was, it did make a lot of sense. you've just watched your mates get butchered by a bunch of walking corpse, I think it's safe to say, it doesn't matter how inspiring that leader is, its every man for himself.

The game also has rules that represent people who aren't so easily scared, it's called immune to psychology.

I think one of the problems with the 9th age is a lot of things don't make sense. In a lot of cases they have just completely ignored the universal points system that the game was originally based on and carried on the trend of using special rules to improve units. http://realmofzhu.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/oldhammer-universal-points-system.html

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 18:19
Ask a medieval french knight what they would think of a skeleton.. .

Come on, are you seriously saying that an undead is less terrifying than an armoured human opponent?

Laughable, but I assume fanboys will go to extreme lengths to defend their favorite game system.. .

Why the dismissive tone? It should be possible to disagree with someone without being condescending.
You might find it laughable but if a bretonian unit of armored knights is charging me, I run. If a shambling skeleton is coming towards me, no so much.

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 18:28
I don't think that anyone actually said that. The point was that everything is on the battlefield is scary to some degree. The question is at what level of scariness it should be represented by the fear special rule. T9A seems to use a different threshold than GW did.
A unit can be scary fluffwise but not have the fear special rule.

The point is that undead and daemons take your regular garden variety fear to another level, it's not your average garden variety 'I might die in this battle because the other guys are really good at fighting', it's a super-natural sense of dread caused by a primal reaction to the sheer 'wrongness' of the aura of dark magic or chaos energy that surrounds all undead and daemons.

It's the reason undead and daemons could be summoned via sorcerous pacts in the storm of magic supplement when no other army could be, a skeleton or daemon is not just another bloke with a sword that happens to look a bit freaky, they're literally saturated in evil magic.


I think it's a great testament to 9th age O&G book that the only thing people are complaining about is that it has TOO much internal and external balance.

I don't think you've been reading the thread properly, the reasons why I dislike the 9A O&G book has nothing to do with any kind of balance, internal or external.

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 18:34
Why the dismissive tone? It should be possible to disagree with someone without being condescending.
You might find it laughable but if a bretonian unit of armored knights is charging me, I run. If a shambling skeleton is coming towards me, no so much.

How can you discuss/argue with someone who says that he wouldn't be scared of an undead creature? It's nonsense and seems to me the brave talk behind a computer thing syndrome.. .

To me it seems that you all just seem to defend 9th Age no matter what and can't accept that the majority here doesn't think 9th Age is the next big thing for fantasy wargaming.

Edit: Dead people stink, certainly the ones that are already dead for a couple of days, slowy rotting and swelling, their skin blackens. I know nobody who feels comfortable around such things and I am talking about people that regulary find dead people (Medics, police and etc...) How do you think you would feel if that dead rotting swollen corpse starts moving and attacks you... . But hey, a charging knight is much more scary. Lol. I would know who I would prefer to fight.. ;)

Spiney Norman
10-05-2016, 18:42
How can you discuss/argue with someone who says that he wouldn't be scared of an undead creature? It's nonsense and seems to me the brave talk behind a computer thing syndrome.. .

To me it seems that you all just seem to defend 9th Age no matter what and can't accept that the majority here doesn't think 9th Age is the next big thing for fantasy wargaming.

I think that's probably inevitable, the reality is that while there are some people that exclusively look for rules in a game most people give some consideration for the models they play with, even if they have an eye on the game rules as well. 9A's major weakness is that rules is all its got, esp since it doesn't really 'feel' like warhammer any more. And however much you bleat about using other manufacturers models the reality is those models were designed for a different game, and if you love those particular models so much you might as well go and play the game they were designed for.

At the end of the day it's not like 9A really has much to commend it as a game above 8th ed wfb, let alone any other miniatures game, at least that's how I see it. 9A is one more game in a vast sea of similar games, but alone among them it doesn't have its own miniature range to make it stand out.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 18:43
How can you discuss/argue with someone who says that he wouldn't be scared of an undead creature? It's nonsense and seems to me the brave talk behind a computer thing syndrome.. .

To me it seems that you all just seem to defend 9th Age no matter what and can't accept that the majority here doesn't think 9th Age is the next big thing for fantasy wargaming.

In my opinion the smart thing is to stop arguing if I think someone is not worth arguing with. If I start insulting people who disagree with me it will rather look like I am the one who is out of arguments who cannot be argued with.

I stated several times that of course I would be scared of a walking corpse. I believe you are the one arguing that this http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140321004017 (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/0/0a/Ork.png/revision/latest?cb=20140321004017) would not scare you. If you say so, I believe you. But how is any point of this discussion laughable. (Besides the fact that we are arguing about which made up monster is more scary.)

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 18:53
In my opinion the smart thing is to stop arguing if I think someone is not worth arguing with. If I start insulting people who disagree with me it will rather look like I am the one who is out of arguments who cannot be argued with.

I stated several times that of course I would be scared of a walking corpse. I believe you are the one arguing that this http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20140321004017 (http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammerfb/images/0/0a/Ork.png/revision/latest?cb=20140321004017) would not scare you. If you say so, I believe you. But how is any point of this discussion laughable. (Besides the fact that we are arguing about which made up monster is more scary.)

Ofcourse a big orc or a big chaos warrior would scare me, I mean if I encounter a big grizzly bear I would also be very, very scared. But it are still living creatures that can die. But something undead, that should be dead, but still walks... that goes against all logic. That is a lot more scary, that is a whole other level of scarriness... .

Edit: Anyway, I don't agree with removing fear from undead. You can add that to the big list of things I don't think are an improvement in comparison with 8th.

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 18:55
I think that's probably inevitable, the reality is that while there are some people that exclusively look for rules in a game most people give some consideration for the models they play with, even if they have an eye on the game rules as well. 9A's major weakness is that rules is all its got, esp since it doesn't really 'feel' like warhammer any more. And however much you bleat about using other manufacturers models the reality is those models were designed for a different game, and if you love those particular models so much you might as well go and play the game they were designed for.

At the end of the day it's not like 9A really has much to commend it as a game above 8th ed wfb, let alone any other miniatures game, at least that's how I see it. 9A is one more game in a vast sea of similar games, but alone among them it doesn't have its own miniature range to make it stand out.

Are you saying that it bothers you that nobody is telling you which models you should use to play a game? Is it really more important to you to do what the manufacturer of a model tells you to do with it instead of playing the game you like better?

I will make the same point again: "When it comes to gaming, have the cake and eat it, too." Buy the models you like to play the game you like. As soon as you payed for your models, you don't owe the manufacturer anything anymore. Whether that game is AoS, 8th Edition WFB or T9A doesn't matter.

Yowzo
10-05-2016, 19:01
The point is that undead and daemons take your regular garden variety fear to another level, it's not your average garden variety 'I might die in this battle because the other guys are really good at fighting', it's a super-natural sense of dread caused by a primal reaction to the sheer 'wrongness' of the aura of dark magic or chaos energy that surrounds all undead and daemons.

Which is cool and that but then again what happens if your own army has a Death wizard as well?

That lesser undead (or, say, ogres) do not cause fear anymore than a big hulking orc or warrior of chaos is perfectly justified in fluff terms. After the first battle they're just bags of bones to practise your smashing skills on, and there's always veterans of past battles to goad the new recruits into something resembling an orderly battle line.

However the explanation for removal is a rules one, not fluff.

Fear was basically useless in 8th edition. In the age of re-rollable ld9-10 it was useless unless you built a ld-bomb list with lore of death around it.... And then again it was mostly terror rather than fear that made it.

Problem is, that gimmick list pretty much was wasted points against the lot of ItP across the board lists.

It was too binary and rock-paper-scissors.

In T9A fear is much more powerful, so it doesn't make sense in a core unit costing 4-5-6 points. You would have to raise their points for it, and then they would be overcosted against a good bunch of armies who just don't care about leadership.

IIRC the Pharaoh and Vampires are the only infantry characters that cause fear. So there's a defining trait other armies don't have. Just not in their core units.

It's a necessary sacrifice to make fear worth having. Otherwise it's like 8th edition. Most times you just don't even care to roll for it.

Yowzo
10-05-2016, 19:08
I think that's probably inevitable, the reality is that while there are some people that exclusively look for rules in a game most people give some consideration for the models they play with, even if they have an eye on the game rules as well. 9A's major weakness is that rules is all its got, esp since it doesn't really 'feel' like warhammer any more.

Well that's the first time I've heard that. If there's one criticism I've heard about 9th is that it's too much 8th for some people's taste.

OTOH if I'd got an euro for everytime I heard from a 1st time 9th age player "it feels just like warhammer" I'd probably be able to afford the new fat wyvern.

Folomo
10-05-2016, 19:09
How can you discuss/argue with someone who says that he wouldn't be scared of an undead creature? It's nonsense and seems to me the brave talk behind a computer thing syndrome.. .

To me it seems that you all just seem to defend 9th Age no matter what and can't accept that the majority here doesn't think 9th Age is the next big thing for fantasy wargaming.

Edit: Dead people stink, certainly the ones that are already dead for a couple of days, slowy rotting and swelling, their skin blackens. I know nobody who feels comfortable around such things and I am talking about people that regulary find dead people (Medics, police and etc...) How do you think you would feel if that dead rotting swollen corpse starts moving and attacks you... . But hey, a charging knight is much more scary. Lol. I would know who I would prefer to fight.. ;)


I didn't say a walking corpse doesn't cause any fear. But between the primal aberrations of the old world (and by that I mean the towering warriors corrupted by dark gods, Hulking Aztec Humanoid reptiles and other "common things" capable of breaking a man in half and toss his corpse without much problem), a walking corpse seems considerably less frightening.
Maybe too many current shows use zombies today and I have grown desensitized?
Dunno, just I think there is a far bigger chance I would cr@p my pants and drop my weapon against one of those things than a zombie/skeleton.
Just my opinion, not trying to impose it on anyone.

GrandmasterWang
10-05-2016, 19:43
Why are goblin chariots fast cavalry now? I read that before but was wondering the reasoning.

Goblins are still movement 4 right? So why are squig herds with handlers now movement 5?

Crossbow orcs being part of the official 9th age armybook is a good thing imo. I remember Ruglugs armored orcs.

Orc hero wyvern riders and goblin generals being able to ride Aracknarok's is also a good thing and flexibility/diversity is good. Of course I had already made that possible in Chillhammer years ago but it's nice to see the 9th age development team copied me [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Arrahed
10-05-2016, 19:53
Why are goblin chariots fast cavalry now? I read that before but was wondering the reasoning.

Probably to give them a distinct role. Otherwise they would be very similar to Boar Chariots



Goblins are still movement 4 right? So why are squig herds with handlers now movement 5?

You want a fluff reason? Maybe Goblins are actually quite fast but are undisciplined and have trouble moving in formation. A squig herd does not have that problem. :)



Crossbow orcs being part of the official 9th age armybook is a good thing imo. I remember Ruglugs armored orcs.

Agree.



Orc hero wyvern riders and goblin generals being able to ride Aracknarok's is also a good thing and flexibility/diversity is good. Of course I had already made that possible in Chillhammer years ago but it's nice to see the 9th age development team copied me [emoji6]

Agree. Maybe you should try to sue them ;)

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 20:19
Ask a medieval french knight what they would think of a skeleton.. .

Come on, are you seriously saying that an undead is less terrifying than an armoured human opponent?

Laughable, but I assume fanboys will go to extreme lengths to defend their favorite game system.. .
Yes a medieval French night from earth would crap his pants if he saw a walking skeleton. But on a world where undead and humans have been fighting for hundreds of years I really don't see the fear aspect. What makes the undead so scary to the average human is the unreal nature, but we don't live in a world with dragons, demons and wizards and yes undead. once they lose the "omg the dead are walking" initial suprise I don't see the fear. I assume every empire force that has fought undead has a bunch of vets saying " don't worry about the skeletons and zombies they are slow and week.... If you see a flying skeleton dragon, run". I don't see why this makes me a "fanboy" of 9th because I have held this beliefs sense around 7th when I really started playing.

Vazalaar
10-05-2016, 22:25
Yes a medieval French night from earth would crap his pants if he saw a walking skeleton. But on a world where undead and humans have been fighting for hundreds of years I really don't see the fear aspect. What makes the undead so scary to the average human is the unreal nature, but we don't live in a world with dragons, demons and wizards and yes undead. once they lose the "omg the dead are walking" initial suprise I don't see the fear. I assume every empire force that has fought undead has a bunch of vets saying " don't worry about the skeletons and zombies they are slow and week.... If you see a flying skeleton dragon, run". I don't see why this makes me a "fanboy" of 9th because I have held this beliefs sense around 7th when I really started playing.

Someone already pointed this out, but this is "I assume every empire force that has fought undead has a bunch of vets saying " don't worry about the skeletons and zombies they are slow and week...." represented by the Leadership value and for some with the special rule ITP and not by removing fear from Undead, because x amount of Empire soldiers fought lots of battles around Sylvania... .

Edit: With your logic, the Bretonnians could say, don't fear that Treeman Ancient, just use your torch.. . or even better a bright wizard shouldn't fear it. ;)

And for more imposing things like a zombie dragon or other monsters. There is the Terror special rule..

9th Age added this rule to Fear: All enemy units in base contact with one or more models with this special rule suffer a *1 Leadership modifier. I would have added this only to the terror special rule instead. Thus imo Undead could have kept their fear special rule. But monsters keep the -1 LD benefit, because it is moved to terror.

I know that when you have terror, you also have the fear special rule. But I would just have boosted terror and kept fear as it was.

Imo, I found fear fine as it was in 8th, only terror could have used some improving.

Asmodios
10-05-2016, 23:00
Someone already pointed this out, but this is "I assume every empire force that has fought undead has a bunch of vets saying " don't worry about the skeletons and zombies they are slow and week...." represented by the Leadership value and for some with the special rule ITP and not by removing fear from Undead, because x amount of Empire soldiers fought lots of battles around Sylvania... .

Edit: With your logic, the Bretonnians could say, don't fear that Treeman Ancient, just use your torch.. . or even better a bright wizard shouldn't fear it. ;)

And for more imposing things like a zombie dragon or other monsters. There is the Terror special rule..

9th Age added this rule to Fear: All enemy units in base contact with one or more models with this special rule suffer a *1 Leadership modifier. I would have added this only to the terror special rule instead. Thus imo Undead could have kept their fear special rule. But monsters keep the -1 LD benefit, because it is moved to terror.

I know that when you have terror, you also have the fear special rule. But I would just have boosted terror and kept fear as it was.

Imo, I found fear fine as it was in 8th, only terror could have used some improving.
Even if you lit a treeman ancient on fire it wouldn't instantly die and would still be able to crush you before you got close enough to kill it. If you can manage a brisk jog it's not like a zombie will catch you if you have to run away for some reason. One is a massive tree that can crush you with almost no effort, the other is a super slow moving corpse that is weaker then you. I know it's all opinion based but if I was mounted knight in full plate I wouldn't fear a skeleton at all (given I'm from a world where this is kinda run of he mill stuff) that 300 pound Orc or that giant tree that if I somehow manage to kill might just fall on me.... I would be very scared.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 01:01
Well that's the first time I've heard that. If there's one criticism I've heard about 9th is that it's too much 8th for some people's taste.

OTOH if I'd got an euro for everytime I heard from a 1st time 9th age player "it feels just like warhammer" I'd probably be able to afford the new fat wyvern.

Orcs that never argue and undead and daemons are just another day at the office? Yeah that's not the warhammer I know and love, but each to their own I guess. In fairness it would probably be less of a problem for me if I didn't have a significant vested interest in those two armies.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 01:36
Orcs that never argue and undead and daemons are just another day at the office? Yeah that's not the warhammer I know and love, but each to their own I guess. In fairness it would probably be less of a problem for me if I didn't have a significant vested interest in those two armies.

For the record I play those 3 armies (plus HE, and a bit of empire on the side).

O&G is an absolute blast to play. An all-forest goblin army? bring it on. Wyverns giants and boar boyz being viable options again? Again no problem. You don't feel like bringing a snotling to a troll-fight if you deviate from the 2 optimal builds. I've seen more boar boyz and black orcs in these last months than over the whole 8th edition.

TK have risen from rock-bottom, barely playable book only saved by some special character gimmicks to a solid mid-tier army with several workable lists. Constructs smashing face as they should, good old our-arrows-will-block-the-sun massed archers backed by warmachines, and so on. Lore of Nehek no longer feels like a a hierophant tax and despite there being a couple doofus (necrosphinx and hierotitan, basically) again you can bring almost anything and just have fun with it. Plus there are interesting variations on the core list (terracotta, barrows and mason's menagerie). That skeletons no longer cause fear barely registers compared to all this.

And as per Daemons, honestly I haven't really touched them much over the last months. Mostly been playing the above armies plus HE and VC.

The fact alone that you can go to a tournament and watch 10 O&G players fielding 10 absolutely different lists to me is the greatest achievement of 9th age. But sure, since animosity is no longer a random table and goes by a different name it doesn't matter.

AverageBoss
11-05-2016, 04:07
Orcs that never argue and undead and daemons are just another day at the office? Yeah that's not the warhammer I know and love, but each to their own I guess. In fairness it would probably be less of a problem for me if I didn't have a significant vested interest in those two armies.

Don't know if you saw them, but the 9e guy I listed earlier has the first drafts up for his 9e Orcs, TKs, and VCs (Warriors next week with demons later this month or next).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5ibXR3V2c5X29tdEk/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iczV2OUV0dlpHOHM/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iZ0lMMHprRThBdXc/view

Models introduced during End Times will be added in a later release.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 09:55
Don't know if you saw them, but the 9e guy I listed earlier has the first drafts up for his 9e Orcs, TKs, and VCs (Warriors next week with demons later this month or next).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5ibXR3V2c5X29tdEk/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iczV2OUV0dlpHOHM/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iZ0lMMHprRThBdXc/view

Models introduced during End Times will be added in a later release.

Those look really good, he's fixed the two biggest failings of the 8E TK book (improved access to marching and ways to mitigate crumbling) and without being to tempted to tinker with anything that made them awesome.

I like how he has included all the Forgeworld O&G units in the army list as well, I actually have both the giant troll hag and the squig Gobba and love to use them.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 10:30
I don't mind criticism of T9A, that's how we improve it every day, but random people on some obscure board which claim they will never play a game and then keep spam how stupid that game is ?

Now that was uncalled for. Spiney has been here over at warseer for ages. I have enjoyed many of his posts and points of view for years. He's been a very valuable member and a good part of why warseer was for me the meeting hub for all things fantasy battles.

If you complain about name-calling and trolling maybe you should look yourself in the mirror once in a while.

You're not doing T9A any favours by behaving this way.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 10:45
Now that was uncalled for. Spiney has been here over at warseer for ages. I have enjoyed many of his posts and points of view for years. He's been a very valuable member and a good part of why warseer was for me the meeting hub for all things fantasy battles.

Oh you probably weren't here these 12 last months then :rolleyes:

Also FYI Warseer is a dying board : 90 members registered right now, 15 in this fantasy sub-forum. As we are speaking they are 200+ users right now on the T9A board, 7000 members and almost 300,000 posts... say a lot about something which didn't existed 12 months ago.

Holier Than Thou
11-05-2016, 10:56
I don't mind criticism of T9A, that's how we improve it every day, but random people on some obscure board which claim they will never play a game and then keep spam how stupid that game is ? Just play your game, we have nothing to prove about ours.

Random people? Isn't that what to expect from an online forum? And from what I've seen, you really do seem to mind criticism as anyone who has expressed a dislike of ANYTHING to do with T9A, no matter how valid their reasoning, has been either dismissed or insulted by you.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 11:04
Random people? Isn't that what to expect from an online forum? And from what I've seen, you really do seem to mind criticism as anyone who has expressed a dislike of ANYTHING to do with T9A, no matter how valid their reasoning, has been either dismissed or insulted by you.

Yep like i said i don't mind criticism but i mind the (lack of) logic behind the criticism.

Other than that, to respond the previous post, i do not represent T9A so i do the hell i want to do in the limits of correctness... which is hard given the amount of crap we have to read in that kind of discussion... still i didn't tried to insult anyone yet, you would notice that quite easily if i wanted to, my grasp of english don't allow me to be very subtle when i'm pissed.

Holier Than Thou
11-05-2016, 11:26
Yep like i said i don't mind criticism but i mind the (lack of) logic behind the criticism.

Other than that, to respond the previous post, i do not represent T9A so i do the hell i want to do in the limits of correctness... which is hard given the amount of crap we have to read in that kind of discussion... still i didn't tried to insult anyone yet, you would notice that quite easily if i wanted to, my grasp of english don't allow me to be very subtle when i'm pissed.

Most of the people who have posted what problems they have with T9A have done so explaining why they don't like particular things, they have justified their reasoning and logic and basically been told "just play the game". I and, from reading a lot of the posts, most people WOULD like the 9th Age to succeed and would like to play it, just not in it's current form which is why we're sharing what we have problems with.

Oh, and I don't see how you can possibly dispute that your message to Spiney was anything but insulting regardless of a shaky grasp of English.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 11:39
I don't mind criticism of T9A, that's how we improve it every day, but random people on some obscure board which claim they will never play a game and then keep spam how stupid that game is ? Just play your game, we have nothing to prove about ours.

If you're not interested in the views of 'random people on some obscure board' then might I suggest not creating a poll on said obscure board asking people for their opinions on the game. There was no disclaimer in the OP that stipulated only positive opinions could contribute.

Ronin[XiC]
11-05-2016, 11:44
That's not his point.

His point was/is, that "your" criticism towards 9th is based upon reading the rules once and disliking stuff without testing it.

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 11:45
If you're not interested in the views of 'random people on some obscure board' then might I suggest not creating a poll on said obscure board asking people for their opinions on the game. There was no disclaimer in the OP that stipulated only positive opinions could contribute.
Can I note that I find this post quite ironic considering who the author is and how most discussions about AoS developed? :)
If this is considered spam, please delete my post.

Zywus
11-05-2016, 11:51
Can I note that I find this post quite ironic considering who the author is and how most discussions about AoS developed? :)
If this is considered spam, please delete my post.
It's weird how the argument's change once the shoe is on the other foot. :p
(Applicable to both Spiney and Drakkar I guess)

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 12:00
@Ronin @Arrahed @Zywus

You're all totally right.

@Spiney

I spoke for myself here. Not on T9A behalf. Shouldn't have used "we" in your quote.

ScruffMan
11-05-2016, 12:09
Can I note that I find this post quite ironic considering who the author is and how most discussions about AoS developed? :)
If this is considered spam, please delete my post.
There's some irony indeed but there is no one (or at least none I have seen) just being consistently insulting to the game and it's players with no content other than the insult. I'll agree some AoS players (including myself) got a bit defensive over this certain type of negativity and told more reasonable types to button it too at times. Sorry about that.

That's an apology to the more reasonable types by the way, the arses can still do one. :P

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 12:27
There's some irony indeed but there is no one (or at least none I have seen) just being consistently insulting to the game and it's players with no content other than the insult. I'll agree some AoS players (including myself) got a bit defensive over this certain type of negativity and told more reasonable types to button it too at times. Sorry about that.

That's an apology to the more reasonable types by the way, the arses can still do one. :P

There is apparently a lot of truth in 'walking a mile in someone else's shoes'. Although I still don't like AoS, I can see now how a lot of the frustration that resulted in some awkward posts on both sides developed during the last year.
It can be surprisingly challenging to remain calm when you feel something you like is criticized unwarrantedly. Of course this works the other way around as well. :)

But considering that we are on page 31 of this discussion it remained amazingly civil so far. :)

logan054
11-05-2016, 12:34
;7627453']That's not his point.

His point was/is, that "your" criticism towards 9th is based upon reading the rules once and disliking stuff without testing it.

I'm pretty sure that's how the 9th Age got started when AoS dropped. I'm pretty confident a large number of people playing/designing the 9th age didn't really try AoS.

I think people can like or dislike things based on reading, especially given how similar it is to 8th. Yes it has tweaks, it's still using the same basic engine. Something that Warhammer has been using for 30years.

with the chaos book, GW have done a great job making the army book increasingly more bland since 7th ed. I don't think the answer is to streamline it further, consider chaos was once one of the more characterful books. A lot of the other books in the 9th age did a much better job of retaining the character of the armies they are based on, vampires did a nice job of restoring some lost character.

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 12:40
I'm pretty sure that's how the 9th Age got started when AoS dropped. I'm pretty confident a large number of people playing/designing the 9th age didn't really try AoS.


Maybe you're right. But I think their is some validity to reading the AoS rules and deciding that it is not worth trying to you because you are not interested in a skirmish game. That is not necessarily the same thing as saying that you don't want to play something like T9A because you miss animosity.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 13:04
with the chaos book, GW have done a great job making the army book increasingly more bland since 7th ed. I don't think the answer is to streamline it further, consider chaos was once one of the more characterful books. A lot of the other books in the 9th age did a much better job of retaining the character of the armies they are based on, vampires did a nice job of restoring some lost character.

About GW the 6th edition split of Chaos is where problems started. Since then WoC book have been worst with each further edition, with only power creep on unbalanced stuff to allow him to compete in the meta.

As for T9A and WDG i agree totally the book is right now too bland, especially when looking to others armies such as VC, SE or O&G. It's simply because in the design process WoC had to be nerfed more than others book and his internal balance had to be fixed big time. 8th WoC internal/external balance was a joke so a tremendous lot of work have been put into that, now it's still not perfect but most of the stuff is playable and not broken.

Again about WoC/WDG flavor in T9A, the team in charge of this book acknowledge themselves they didn't have the time to work (or have more important things to fix) on flavor and AWSR :
You have to remember that T9A (the whole project) had a deadline for first half of 2016 and had to propose a "balanced 8th edition" for ETC 2016 and couldn't do every thing in the same time. WDG have suffered from that "better safe than sorry" policy but hey, it's not a definitive version but just the 1.0 :p

So now that WoC/WDG internal balance is "mostly" fixed and the book isn't broken we can actually think about "after ETC" : how to fix stuff actually underperforming and bring flavor back while looking to internal and external balance.

Holier Than Thou
11-05-2016, 13:14
Maybe you're right. But I think their is some validity to reading the AoS rules and deciding that it is not worth trying to you because you are not interested in a skirmish game. That is not necessarily the same thing as saying that you don't want to play something like T9A because you miss animosity.

Possibly, but I like 40k (although we haven't played it in a while). I don't have anything against skirmish games. The fact Age of Sigmar is a skirmish game is not the reason I don't want to play it. The reason I don't want to play it is, from reading the rules, I don't think it's a good game.

In the same way I can see, from reading the rules, there are things I don't like in T9A. I don't need to play it to know I don't like them.

I find it quite hypocritical that it seems to be widely accepted that it's ok for me to not like one game without playing it but not another.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 13:24
Possibly, but I like 40k (although we haven't played it in a while). I don't have anything against skirmish games. The fact Age of Sigmar is a skirmish game is not the reason I don't want to play it. The reason I don't want to play it is, from reading the rules, I don't think it's a good game.

In the same way I can see, from reading the rules, there are things I don't like in T9A. I don't need to play it to know I don't like them.

I find it quite hypocritical that it seems to be widely accepted that it's ok for me to not like one game without playing it but not another.

One of these two games have 4 pages of rules made in a week end by a team "we don't care about the rules and the community".
The other one is a intensive rework of thousands of pages of rules made by a team "we care about the rules and value community feedback to some degree".

Right from the beginning these games have nothing in common and it's much harder to judge T9A on his cover unlike AoS which just stink of bad work and laziness.

Still you could just say "it's not my cup of tea" and move on instead of making this thread a pamphlet "why Holier Than Thou will never play T9A". We already get that the first time.

Horace35
11-05-2016, 13:24
Maybe you're right. But I think their is some validity to reading the AoS rules and deciding that it is not worth trying to you because you are not interested in a skirmish game. That is not necessarily the same thing as saying that you don't want to play something like T9A because you miss animosity.

It is not just animosity that is just a good example of the many changes that people dislike, many discussed in this very thread.

It is not quite the same as AoS because that is a bigger departure from the game I want to play with a garbage background (in my opinion)

However having read through the rules there are too many changes (especially to areas I actually like) for me to want to play T9A over 8th (which I like minus a few things which we generally house rule).

Some people in this thread just can not accept that others find T9A not as good a game as 8th. People did say it is not their cup of tea right at the start but it seems this is not an acceptable positon

Holier Than Thou
11-05-2016, 14:08
One of these two games have 4 pages of rules made in a week end by a team "we don't care about the rules and the community".
The other one is a intensive rework of thousands of pages of rules made by a team "we care about the rules and value community feedback to some degree".

Right from the beginning these games have nothing in common and it's much harder to judge T9A on his cover unlike AoS which just stink of bad work and laziness.

Still you could just say "it's not my cup of tea" and move on instead of making this thread a pamphlet "why Holier Than Thou will never play T9A". We already get that the first time.

The length of the rules don't matter, the quality does. If Age of Sigmar had 1000 pages of rules of it's current quality, it would still be a crap game (in my opinion). However, with regards to your comment about T9A valuing community feedback. Someone already posted the response they got from the rules team about Brettonian Crossbow foot soldiers and it basically amounted to "We know a lot of people wanted these but we decided we didn't so jog on." And in my time on the 9th forum I haven't seen a single suggestion someone has made be implemented or even discussed unless it was put forward by a small select group of posters.

You really should read people's posts before you come in all guns blazing. Right from the start I have said I don't want to play it IN IT'S CURRENT FORM but I do hope they succeed and fix the problems I and many other people seem to have with it. As it stands, I don't think it's better than 8th edition but hopefully it will be eventually, at which point I will probably start playing it.

Since you don't represent T9A maybe you should stop trying to fight their battles because you make a very poor ambassador and are more likely to put new players off with your unnecessarily combative attitude.

logan054
11-05-2016, 14:19
Maybe you're right. But I think their is some validity to reading the AoS rules and deciding that it is not worth trying to you because you are not interested in a skirmish game. That is not necessarily the same thing as saying that you don't want to play something like T9A because you miss animosity.

Good thing no one has said they don't want to play because of animosity, more that certain aspects have either been overly streamlined, removing some of the character that made warhammer standout, yes some of those rules can be annoying, they did make for fun games. It;s also tried to maintain the scale of 8th, I think this was a mistake, the scale of 6th was far better, I think something between would of been a better goal.


About GW the 6th edition split of Chaos is where problems started. Since then WoC book have been worst with each further edition, with only power creep on unbalanced stuff to allow him to compete in the meta.

As for T9A and WDG i agree totally the book is right now too bland, especially when looking to others armies such as VC, SE or O&G. It's simply because in the design process WoC had to be nerfed more than others book and his internal balance had to be fixed big time. 8th WoC internal/external balance was a joke so a tremendous lot of work have been put into that, now it's still not perfect but most of the stuff is playable and not broken.

Again about WoC/WDG flavor in T9A, the team in charge of this book acknowledge themselves they didn't have the time to work (or have more important things to fix) on flavor and AWSR :
You have to remember that T9A (the whole project) had a deadline for first half of 2016 and had to propose a "balanced 8th edition" for ETC 2016 and couldn't do every thing in the same time. WDG have suffered from that "better safe than sorry" policy but hey, it's not a definitive version but just the 1.0 :p

So now that WoC/WDG internal balance is "mostly" fixed and the book isn't broken we can actually think about "after ETC" : how to fix stuff actually underperforming and bring flavor back while looking to internal and external balance.

I totally agree, splitting the chaos army never resulted in a more balanced game, all 3 armies have struggled to present balanced and character armies, Warriors just became this dull, walk forward and bash people, 3 editions later (if you include T9A) this hasn't changed sadly. I think the 4th ed book, without marks on every unit presented so more character than what the WDG army has. I agree that the external balance has been a joke, the problem is the team spent more time trying to push ideas above the required power level rather than bringing it right down.

As great as it that the internal balanced is fixed, its at the level of blandness of the WD list. I think they had a great opportunity here to make one of the more boring armies fun to play, they failed, I'm sure those that are aren't interested in anything outside the gaming wont really care. They will still be using the same army they had in 8th anyway.

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 14:29
I find it quite hypocritical that it seems to be widely accepted that it's ok for me to not like one game without playing it but not another.
Doing so offers the opposing side obviously a pretty big 'attack vector'. I just wanted to say that it their is a difference between not liking a game as a whole and disliking a special rule while about 90% of the game mechanics remained unchanged. (I don't want to imply that n everyone here who currently doesn't like T9A does so just because of one special rule.)

Just for the record: I played about 10 AoS games so far. I didn't like it. Some with Azyr Comp. Some without.

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 14:37
Good thing no one has said they don't want to play because of animosity, more that certain aspects have either been overly streamlined, removing some of the character that made warhammer standout, yes some of those rules can be annoying, they did make for fun games. It;s also tried to maintain the scale of 8th, I think this was a mistake, the scale of 6th was far better, I think something between would of been a better goal.

T9A has a scaling system that adjusts the army building restrictions to smaller or larger games. I admit it is still quite simplistic but I believe there is a group working on simplified introductory rules and rule adjustments for smaller games.



I totally agree, splitting the chaos army never resulted in a more balanced game, all 3 armies have struggled to present balanced and character armies, Warriors just became this dull, walk forward and bash people, 3 editions later (if you include T9A) this hasn't changed sadly. I think the 4th ed book, without marks on every unit presented so more character than what the WDG army has. I agree that the external balance has been a joke, the problem is the team spent more time trying to push ideas above the required power level rather than bringing it right down.


As great as it that the internal balanced is fixed, its at the level of blandness of the WD list. I think they had a great opportunity here to make one of the more boring armies fun to play, they failed, I'm sure those that are aren't interested in anything outside the gaming wont really care. They will still be using the same army they had in 8th anyway.
I wish they had never separated Chaos Warriors and Demons. Beast herds represent a different flavor of Chaos. I like them as unique army. I really hope T9A will introduce a unified Chaos book at some point.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 15:16
As great as it that the internal balanced is fixed, its at the level of blandness of the WD list. I think they had a great opportunity here to make one of the more boring armies fun to play, they failed, I'm sure those that are aren't interested in anything outside the gaming wont really care. They will still be using the same army they had in 8th anyway.

Three months ago i would have agree 100% with what you're saying. Now things are different : i understood that we cannot have everything (flavor, logic and balance) in such a short amount of time, some concessions have to be made for the sake of balance (for now because ETC 2016)... it's really a tremendous amount of work to make every players happy with such a complex game, it's hard but we need to avoid being too anxious/hasty about our own expectations :rolleyes:

So for now i'm pretty happy i'm able to play a lot of different playstyles with my army and i regularly propose stuff with the hopes we'll continue to improve WDG and have a more perfect game with the next updates.



I wish they had never separated Chaos Warriors and Demons. Beast herds represent a different flavor of Chaos. I like them as unique army. I really hope T9A will introduce a unified Chaos book at some point.

Yep i started WHFB with Chaos still being a big and cool "3 armies in 1" so i have a lot of love for that; so i would like T9A to work on that but that's just wishlisting : too soon and too much work so DL/BH/WDG will probably remain separated books for the sake of balance. Also it appears that (take this with a lot of salt, i dunno if it's still the case) the team in charge of BH (Beastmens) wanted to go away from the relation with Chaos in the new fluff so it makes that idea (3 armies in 1) even less likely.

Still nothing is stopping us (players) to make a house ruled army list with the three books.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 15:19
Since you don't represent T9A maybe you should stop trying to fight their battles because you make a very poor ambassador and are more likely to put new players off with your unnecessarily combative attitude.

Fight their battles ? Ambassador ?
I have no idea what you're talking about. If you think i'm here with the objective to won Holier Than Thou 's heart and make Holier Than Thou play T9A, you are sorely mistaking :rolleyes:

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 15:54
Now that was uncalled for. Spiney has been here over at warseer for ages. I have enjoyed many of his posts and points of view for years. He's been a very valuable member and a good part of why warseer was for me the meeting hub for all things fantasy battles.

If you complain about name-calling and trolling maybe you should look yourself in the mirror once in a while.

You're not doing T9A any favours by behaving this way.
Very well said. People like Drakkar making fanboyish posts like his last one do more harm than good for the 9th Age cause.





@Spiney
For someone so invested in AoS you seems a little vocal... did you have any expectations about T9A ? Don't AoS float your boat anymore and you're searching for a better system ? Or are you here just to talk sh1t too ?

I don't mind criticism of T9A, that's how we improve it every day, but random people on some obscure board which claim they will never play a game and then keep spam how stupid that game is ? Just play your game, we have nothing to prove about ours.

You sure post like you have a desperate need to prove something......



Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 16:11
Some people in this thread just can not accept that others find T9A not as good a game as 8th. People did say it is not their cup of tea right at the start but it seems this is not an acceptable positon

When someone says it's not their cup of tea and point out to removal of fear or the restructuring of animosity it reads like I don't like this BMW because my Cuban cigars don't fit in the ashtray.

Which is, well, OK if you're so fond of smoking but really you're losing out on all the rest.

Just saying "I'm happy with 8th edition and I just don't like to chance" sounds more sincere.

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 16:13
I think you are a bit too harsh on Drakkar. I agree that not all of his posts were constructive and helpful. On the other hand, if I reread the last few pages of this thread, he is really not the one I would consider being particularly rude or provocative.

logan054
11-05-2016, 16:14
T9A has a scaling system that adjusts the army building restrictions to smaller or larger games. I admit it is still quite simplistic but I believe there is a group working on simplified introductory rules and rule adjustments for smaller games.

That's not exactly what I meant, I was more meaning the model count at 2000pts being much higher than previously, I can remember the days when chaos warriors actually scared people, if look back then, you had a lot less ranged attacks.


I wish they had never separated Chaos Warriors and Demons. Beast herds represent a different flavor of Chaos. I like them as unique army. I really hope T9A will introduce a unified Chaos book at some point.

I have to admit I never really cared either way about beast herds being separate, I don't think daemons being separated ever lead to an improved gaming experience. Since it happened, both armies have been trying to fill in the gaps the split left, warriors have just done a terrible job at it, without daemons, you end up with a army of hammers.



Three months ago i would have agree 100% with what you're saying. Now things are different : i understood that we cannot have everything (flavor, logic and balance) in such a short amount of time, some concessions have to be made for the sake of balance (for now because ETC 2016)... it's really a tremendous amount of work to make every players happy with such a complex game, it's hard but we need to avoid being too anxious/hasty about our own expectations :rolleyes:

So for now i'm pretty happy i'm able to play a lot of different playstyles with my army and i regularly propose stuff with the hopes we'll continue to improve WDG and have a more perfect game with the next updates.

While that's great it's still only the play styles that existed at the end of 8th. The problem is other design teams managed to do it (even HE did), I'm sure oncebitten said something about having a fluff guy on the team really helped with designing the book. From what I've seen, that wasn't the case with the warriors books, hence why you had ideas like MoW+1 strength being thrown around and being nerfed because it was too strong (imagine that :rolleyes:).


Yep i started WHFB with Chaos still being a big and cool "3 armies in 1" so i have a lot of love for that; so i would like T9A to work on that but that's just wishlisting : too soon and too much work so DL/BH/WDG will probably remain separated books for the sake of balance. Also it appears that (take this with a lot of salt, i dunno if it's still the case) the team in charge of BH (Beastmens) wanted to go away from the relation with Chaos in the new fluff so it makes that idea (3 armies in 1) even less likely.

Still nothing is stopping us (players) to make a house ruled army list with the three books.

If people are going to start house ruling stuff, why bother with T9A in first place? people may as well just house rule 8th ed with a few of the bits they like from the T9A (or other games). As for a combined chaos, forgeworld provided a pretty good framework for this in the great chaos host list. I think it would be a pretty good frame work for using a more classic hordes of chaos list (with obvious tweaking).

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 16:28
I hope the 3 Chaos forces keep their seperate army books. Now with all the new units added over the past several years they each imo have enough to fit their own book.

I mean if you were to combine them now and not remove things you would have in core marauders, warriors, gor, ungor and 4 gods worth of lessor daemons as a minimum and that is just infantry.

I feel that each of the units i listed is different enough to merit its own unit entry.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

logan054
11-05-2016, 16:45
I mean if you were to combine them now and not remove things you would have in core marauders, warriors, gor, ungor and 4 gods worth of lessor daemons as a minimum and that is just infantry.

That's not how it worked before the end times.

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 16:46
That's not how it worked before the end times.
Sorry i dont quite understand what you mean?

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 16:53
double post

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 16:54
If people are going to start house ruling stuff, why bother with T9A in first place?

It's your game, do what you want.

But at least our group figured out that an 8th/9th hybrid with the stuff we liked from both rulesets would end up swinging 90%+ over 9th age (which considering both rulesets already have something like 90% commonality is basically peanuts) so we might as well play 9th age straight out of the book.

Problem with house rules is exactly the same as with fan rules: the appeal to authority. If we had houseruled that BotWD would only provide a 3+ or 4+ save, or that it would not work against magic weapons the HE players would have thought we're ganging up against them. If we had houseruled that the WoC DP would have daemonic instability instead of unbreakable it'd be the same for the WoC players. And since different groups have different tolerances you end up with people playing slightly different rules each place.

Which you probably remember was the case with 8th edition tournaments. Each one had at least 2 pages (some 2, 3 or 10 times that) of comp, and each it was slightly different from the other.

9th age removes that. All factions are almost equally balanced and broken builds are preemptively nerfed straight out of the book. You can't complain about everyone in the group being against you and instead you rant on how the designers of book X suck or everyone else in the rules team is against army Y and have completely missed the spirit, exactly the same way we used to complain about Ward or Cruddace back in the day :D

The feeling that you won't be penalised (or at least not as much as back in 8th edition) for bringing or not bringing certain lists is enough to make us forget about the quirks, and is something even our non-tournament gamers appreciate.

Horace35
11-05-2016, 16:54
When someone says it's not their cup of tea and point out to removal of fear or the restructuring of animosity it reads like I don't like this BMW because my Cuban cigars don't fit in the ashtray.

Which is, well, OK if you're so fond of smoking but really you're losing out on all the rest.

Just saying "I'm happy with 8th edition and I just don't like to chance" sounds more sincere.

If the modification of the rules is so minor what is the point in the first place?!

Fact is they have changed LOTS of rules. You seem fixated on this animosity thing which is one example someone has provided. I don't mind change, I may even get on board with T9A in the future if it comes back from the tournament ultra balance philosophy (it won't that is it's core value) but I don't do change for the sake of change. What they have done to a lot of things is unnecessary in my opinion and against my tastes. Sure they have added some good stuff but not enough to make me believe that it is better than 8th.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:05
If the modification of the rules is so minor what is the point in the first place?!


Because there are a lot of minor changes over the same basic skeleton.

- They haven't changed the way combat worked, but they have tweaked some weapons.
- They haven't changed the way magic dice are generated but there are hard caps on dice generation
- They haven't changed the way miscasts happen but now the severity of the miscast depends on how many dice you cast on.

And so on.

As I said on board I am onboard with maybe 80% of the changes, 15% I don't mind either way and maybe 5% I actively dislike. What's more, some of the things I thought I did not mind I have ended up liking how they work in-game, like the way casting bonus work now and how it has made low and no-magic lists viable.

Everything has been changed for a reason, it's not change for change sake.

To me that's a very solid effort. Leagues ahead of the rushed, poorly thought-out GW offerings of late.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 17:09
When someone says it's not their cup of tea and point out to removal of fear or the restructuring of animosity it reads like I don't like this BMW because my Cuban cigars don't fit in the ashtray.

Which is, well, OK if you're so fond of smoking but really you're losing out on all the rest.

Just saying "I'm happy with 8th edition and I just don't like to chance" sounds more sincere.

From my perspective I don't see any real improvement over the game I am playing now (8th edition), I'll grant you there isn't much I can identify that is markedly worse other than the personality transplant experienced by O&G and TK, but I need something a little more "9A not much worse than 8th edition" to convince me to jump ship. If I am going to go through the upheaval of overhauling my army for a completely different meta (which I would need to learn for starters) with all the buying and painting of new models that will entail I need a good reason for doing so, which 9A just doesn't provide.

Incidentally the massive exaggeration of how bad things were in 8th by 9A proponents doesn't really do your position any credit, 8th edition was (and imho still is) the best edition of warhammer to date. There seem to have been a lot of small, unnecessary changes to the game which reveal the personal prejudices of the 9A team, which while not technically negative from my perspective, do feel a bit like change for the sake of change.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:14
From my perspective I don't see any real improvement over the game I am playing now (8th edition), I'll grant you there isn't much I can identify that is markedly worse other than the personality transplant experienced by O&G and TK, but I need something a little more "9A not much worse than 8th edition" to convince me to jump ship. If I am going to go through the upheaval of overhauling my army for a completely different meta (which I would need to learn for starters) with all the buying and painting of new models that will entail I need a good reason for doing so, which 9A just doesn't provide.

Incidentally the massive exaggeration of how bad things were in 8th by 9A proponents doesn't really do your position any credit, 8th edition was (and imho still is) the best edition of warhammer to date.
You don't have to. Your 8th edition TK army will play better in T9A than in 8th.

No purchasing needed.

The whole thing about 9th age is to make collections viable. Not just whatever you fielded in 8th edition: All of them.

You have ushabti? Congrats, they're awesome on 9th age. Do you have sphinxes, tomb guard, sepulchral stalkers? Right they're awesome too.

No rebasing needed :D

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 17:22
You don't have to. Your 8th edition TK army will play better in T9A than in 8th.

No purchasing needed.

The whole thing about 9th age is to make collections viable. Not just whatever you fielded in 8th edition: All of them.

You have ushabti? Congrats, they're awesome on 9th age. Do you have sphinxes, tomb guard, sepulchral stalkers? Right they're awesome too.

No rebasing needed :D

Well apart from where it's randomly not legal any more ;)

Apparently hordes of archers, which were pretty much the stock of 8th ed armies are not a permitted in 9th age. Apparently TG can't have more than 40 models either, I guess someone decided that an arrow storm wasn't a proper strategy.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:26
Well apart from where it's randomly not legal any more ;)

Apparently hordes of archers, which were pretty much the stock of 8th ed armies are not a permitted in 9th age. Apparently TG can't be horded either, I guess someone decided that an arrow storm wasn't a proper strategy.
If you have more than 120 yes, I regret to inform you that you can just field 120 of the little buggers :D

veterannoob
11-05-2016, 17:27
You don't have to. Your 8th edition TK army will play better in T9A than in 8th.

No purchasing needed.

The whole thing about 9th age is to make collections viable. Not just whatever you fielded in 8th edition: All of them.

You have ushabti? Congrats, they're awesome on 9th age. Do you have sphinxes, tomb guard, sepulchral stalkers? Right they're awesome too.

No rebasing needed :D


You just happen to name the coolest models in the TK range, and IMO some of the best models in 8th?? Conspiracy?;) Aftually it would actually be great to see these back in play more often. Played against Ushabti last week in AoS but I can see TK players being delighted with 9th so both opponents can see this killer range on the tabletop without quite so many downsides for the poor deadites. One was at the 9th Age tournament last month.

I do think that's well put, aiming to make all collections viable. Thumbs up.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2016, 17:31
The whole thing about 9th age is to make collections viable. Not just whatever you fielded in 8th edition: All of them.

Indeed!
So long as you weren't fielding anything larger than the new arbitrary unit size limits, or were fielding more of something than you can field now.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 17:31
If you have more than 120 yes, I regret to inform you that you can just field 120 of the little buggers :D

Curious, my reading of the army book suggests they cap out at 30, so the standard units of 50+ which were the staple of 8th are no longer allowed correct?

I admit that a unit of 120 archers would probably be larger than I'd be looking to field, even with Khalida, which raises the interesting question of why all the special characters got culled...

logan054
11-05-2016, 17:32
Sorry i dont quite understand what you mean?

Your core was dictated by your general. You chaos lord could not use beastmen and/or daemons as core.

Some bright spark decided you could make more money if you split chaos into 3 armies. People like to pretend it improved balance, it didn't.

Most of the "new" units already existed in previous editions. Most of them are just new models with updated rules.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:34
Curious, my reading of the army book suggests they cap out at 30, so the standard units of 50+ which were the staple of 8th are no longer allowed correct?
Precisely. So maxing out on them makes 4x30 (which I've seen some gunline lists taking)

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:38
Indeed!
So long as you weren't fielding anything larger than the new arbitrary unit size limits, or were fielding more of something than you can field now.
Do you really think they're arbitrary?

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 17:39
Precisely. So maxing out on them makes 4x30 (which I've seen some gunline lists taking)

That's a little unfortunate, I preferred my archery units to have enough models to double up as combat blocks as well.


Do you really think they're arbitrary?

No, I think they're the 9A team's way of railroading players into playing the way the team think is best, but I'm sure you're going to refute that ;)

What's the crack with special characters as well, were they just deemed too hard to balance?

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 17:41
What's the crack with special characters as well, were they just deemed too hard to balance?

not enough time for balance
+
the fluff changed
=
we'll see about that later

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 17:47
Your core was dictated by your general. You chaos lord could not use beastmen and/or daemons as core.

Some bright spark decided you could make more money if you split chaos into 3 armies. People like to pretend it improved balance, it didn't.

Most of the "new" units already existed in previous editions. Most of them are just new models with updated rules.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I just think that currently there are too many units across the 3 Chaos books to be crammed back into 1 book. 2 books is a possibility though, but i like the 3 books and feel each army is different enough and has enough units to warrant its own book. Of course can always still combine the 3 books to create a combined army using Tamurkhan or End Times like you said.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 17:48
That's a little unfortunate, I preferred my archery units to have enough models to double up as combat blocks as well.



No, I think they're the 9A team's way of railroading players into playing the way the team think is best, but I'm sure you're going to refute that ;)

What's the crack with special characters as well, were they just deemed too hard to balance?
That's the problem. Everyone loved to take them in enormous units (apparently the opponents, especially elves didn't) so now they're split. If you want a big block you need to go HW or spear skellies (capped at 60).

Special characters will come later on, on campaign books.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 17:53
not enough time for balance
+
the fluff changed
=
we'll see about that later

Would it not have been better to take the extra time and do it properly? Or was there some kind of deadline?

One of the strengths of 8th edition was the special characters, I actually converted a model for every TK special character that didn't have a model, and some of them were the cornerstone of particular strategies (like Khalida for example).

logan054
11-05-2016, 18:02
Thanks for clarifying what you meant. I just think that currently there are too many units across the 3 Chaos books to be crammed back into 1 book. 2 books is a possibility though, but i like the 3 books and feel each army is different enough and has enough units to warrant its own book. Of course can always still combine the 3 books to create a combined army using Tamurkhan or End Times like you said.

I'd personally go with beasts in one, daemons and warriors in the other. I'd drop a few of the units that aren't needed to keep the count down.

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 18:03
I'm pretty sure special characters are gone due to copyright issues. I remember reading that on the 9th age forums somewhere.

Flavourful special characters are one of the reasons i love 8th so much :)

I think 9th will eventually have its own unique special characters (eventually) which is better than them giving the Undying Legions Settramen and Wiz Khalifa if you smell what i'm cooking 😀

No unit caps is actually one of the reasons i prefer 8th. Is a unit of 40 skeleton archers so bad for the tomb kings? They look great on the tabletop.

I use Ushabti, Stalkers, Tomb Guard and sphinxes in 8th Edition/Chillhammer. I actually historically dominate with Stalkers (never once lost to EBTS) it's kind of freaky. I hear all the time that they are weak in 8th but my opponents would always joke i should have to play 100 points each for them due to my ridiculous luck with them. I think maybe only 1 game of 30 they didnt make more than their points back :)

The only Chillhammer adjustment to the listed TK units we made was giving Ushabti light armor (they are wearing it!) to give them a very minor (but fluffy) buff to a 4+ armor save.

I applaud the 9th age effort i really do but its the sum of all the little things i dont agree with (opinions and all that) which stop me getting excited about it.....

Just one example of a 'tournament gameplay over theme' niggle....

Boarboys having access to lances. Tiny thing but they add up. The models dont have lances (they have spears/hand weapons) and lore wise it doesn't make much sense to me. It also detracts from armies such as Bretonnia etc imo. Sure a lance is better than a spear on the charge which is i'm sure why they are an option (to make orcs more 'competitive') but for me it just dilutes the unique identity of the Orcs and their crudeness.

Anyway horses for courses and all that.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

GrandmasterWang
11-05-2016, 18:06
I'd personally go with beasts in one, daemons and warriors in the other. I'd drop a few of the units that aren't needed to keep the count down.
Yeah if they had to go down to 2 books i agree with you completely. Warriors already have some Daemons included anyway (slaanesh marauder riders, steeds, skullcrushers etc). Beastmen are more unique and have a seperate identity. It is precisely because i want no units dropped at all that i want 3 books kept.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Vazalaar
11-05-2016, 18:07
Would it not have been better to take the extra time and do it properly? Or was there some kind of deadline?

One of the strengths of 8th edition was the special characters, I actually converted a model for every TK special character that didn't have a model, and some of them were the cornerstone of particular strategies (like Khalida for example).

European Team Championship 2016.

9th Age is one of the main games for it. 9th Age was selected as the fantasy game for 2016. For the continuation of 9TA, it is important that ETC 2016 is a big succes. At the end of this summer there will be a new vote (each country that participated in ETC 2015 - 2016 have a vote) for ETC 2017.

The nominees for 2016 were:

Warhammer Fantasy Battles: 8th Edition (8th)
Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age (9th)
Warhammer: Age of Sigmar (AoS)
Kings of War: 2nd Edition (KoW)


I assume that the nominees for 2017 wil be.

Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age (9th)
Warhammer: Age of Sigmar (AoS)
Kings of War: 2nd Edition (KoW)

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 18:08
Would it not have been better to take the extra time and do it properly? Or was there some kind of deadline?

One of the strengths of 8th edition was the special characters, I actually converted a model for every TK special character that didn't have a model, and some of them were the cornerstone of particular strategies (like Khalida for example).
There was a deadline: ETC 2016 if I'm not mistaken.

The model count caps are implemented for balancing reasons. If you don't plan some kind of abusive build, you will not even notice the caps.

Drakkar du Chaos
11-05-2016, 18:14
Would it not have been better to take the extra time and do it properly? Or was there some kind of deadline?

One of the strengths of 8th edition was the special characters, I actually converted a model for every TK special character that didn't have a model, and some of them were the cornerstone of particular strategies (like Khalida for example).

Yeah lack of time was the main issue : with T9A being the official game system for the ETC tournament this summer, the team couldn't afford to lose time on Special Characters and decided to focus on balancing the armies without them.

IMO in term of design regarding Warhammer, Special Characters are like "ice on the cake" : if your cake isn't finished (balance process), you do not add the ice.
So i'm perfectly fine T9A doesn't have Special Characters (for now).

logan054
11-05-2016, 18:16
Yeah if they had to go down to 2 books i agree with you completely. Warriors already have some Daemons included anyway (slaanesh marauder riders, steeds, skullcrushers etc). Beastmen are more unique and have a seperate identity. It is precisely because i want no units dropped at all that i want 3 books kept.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

I meant things like chosen (they are unit upgrade turned into a separate unit to try and fill out the book. A certain 40k model would also be on my list, it shouldn't even be in the book.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 18:19
I'm pretty sure special characters are gone due to copyright issues. I remember reading that on the 9th age forums somewhere.

Flavourful special characters are one of the reasons i love 8th so much :)

That's not really a reason, all they had to do was change the names of the characters and in some cases their mounts and wargear, in a lot of situations they could've incorporated special character configurations into the regular profiles, like allowing the cuatl Lord to ride a stegosaurus rather than actually putting a Lord mazdamundi-a-like character in or letting a goblin general on foot take a big squig to account for Skarsnik etc.



Boarboys having access to lances. Tiny thing but they add up. The models dont have lances (they have spears/hand weapons) and lore wise it doesn't make much sense to me. It also detracts from armies such as Bretonnia etc imo. Sure a lance is better than a spear on the charge which is i'm sure why they are an option (to make orcs more 'competitive') but for me it just dilutes the unique identity of the Orcs and their crudeness.

Anyway horses for courses and all that.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

That does seem a bit weird, especially since they kept an equivalent of the choppers rule (for a +3 str), so presumably boar boy bigguns are str 7 on the charge... that does seem a little excessive, but apparently a lot of the 9A guys thought boar boys weren't so good in 8th.

Vladyhell
11-05-2016, 19:40
Orcs with lances just seems really weird and wrong to me.

Souppilgrim
11-05-2016, 19:41
9th age overwhelming improves the TK army, and you are upset you cant take a stupid unit of like 60+ archers? You can even take more archers than that, but you have to have them in the same unit? Even though it leads to really cheesy builds? Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2016, 19:41
That does seem a bit weird, especially since they kept an equivalent of the choppers rule (for a +3 str), so presumably boar boy bigguns are str 7 on the charge... that does seem a little excessive, but apparently a lot of the 9A guys thought boar boys weren't so good in 8th.

Yeah Boar riders can be St7 on the charge and have 2+ saves.
It's very odd to consider that a unit of orcs could look anything like that.

Boar chariots are always getting st7 attacks on the charge from the riders as they come equipped with lances.
You can at least give your Orc Characters lances so there's some level of parity, they're St8 on the charge.

It does feel like they were just giving them options they never had before for the sake of it.
Especially as I'm not aware of any models of fully armoured orc boar riders that have lances....

That said, the Empire lot gave their knightly orders an attack stat of 2, the Bretonnian lot never did that to their knights (nor did anyone else for that matter, even the High Elves dropped their dragon princes down to 1 attack with a costly +1 attack on the charge upgrade).

Souppilgrim
11-05-2016, 19:42
Orcs with lances just seems really weird and wrong to me.

Orcs are study enough to handle a bigger stick than a spear.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 20:00
Boar chariots are always getting st7 attacks on the charge from the riders as they come equipped with lances.
You can at least give your Orc Characters lances so there's some level of parity, they're St8 on the charge.

I'm sorry, what??? Does anyone on the 9A team actually understand how a lance works?
Presuming to use a lance from a chariot isn't just wrong for orcs it's wrong for the weapon, period. Even armies which use lances (high elves) never had access to them for their charioteers, they were a weapon used exclusively by heavy cavalry.

That a lance was more efficient at skewering the enemy really had nothing to do with its size or weight over a spear... oh dear

Arrahed
11-05-2016, 20:09
Is it just me or did we finally reach the point were we go entry by entry through the Army books, compare them directly to the 8th edition equivalent and point at every difference as being a major design flaw that completely ruins the feel of Warhammer?

Ronin[XiC]
11-05-2016, 20:11
Talking about realism on a ORC BOAR CHARIOT. And you play AoS? The game were people wield two handed weapons in one hand while the other hand uses another one hand weapon.

A Lance for Orks is a bigger Stick than a regular spear. Is that not enough justification for you?

If you go and google "lance" you see lots of quite crude and primitive.. spears.

Malagor
11-05-2016, 20:34
the Bretonnian lot never did that to their knights
That's because no one on the main team(the ones that actually decide things) plays Bretonnia, I think there was one in the past but he appeared to have been overruled on everything and quit.
The army team for Bretonnia have been quite frustrated overall and were quite open about their frustation in the past about the main team saying no to any major changes to Bretonnia but these days it seems they have been told to keep a positive spin on everything.
Bretonnia is one of those books that sadly bland and boring, even more so then the 6e book.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2016, 20:39
I'm sorry, what??? Does anyone on the 9A team actually understand how a lance works?
Presuming to use a lance from a chariot isn't just wrong for orcs it's wrong for the weapon, period. Even armies which use lances (high elves) never had access to them for their charioteers, they were a weapon used exclusively by heavy cavalry.

That a lance was more efficient at skewering the enemy really had nothing to do with its size or weight over a spear... oh dear

It seems two chariots got lances.
Boar Chariots and Dark Elf Cold one Chariots.
Everyone else is stuck with spears (or whatever non-spear weapon they were armed with normally).

Saurus cavalry got a free lance upgrade as well.
Wood elves didn't get lance upgrades, what they got was spears that have armour piercing (1).
Their heavy cav do throw out 3 attacks each on the charge so I can see why they'de err against a free lance upgrade.

There's certainly some sort of trend going on behind the decision.
It does feel a bit odd though.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 20:54
I'm sorry, what??? Does anyone on the 9A team actually understand how a lance works?
Presuming to use a lance from a chariot isn't just wrong for orcs it's wrong for the weapon, period. Even armies which use lances (high elves) never had access to them for their charioteers, they were a weapon used exclusively by heavy cavalry.

That a lance was more efficient at skewering the enemy really had nothing to do with its size or weight over a spear... oh dear

Are you really discussing weapon physics on a game where chariots have impact hits? So +2S on the charge lances are an unholy abomination but +1S on the charge spears (which just about every chariot in 8th edition had) isn't?

Let's have a honest discussion at least.

Yowzo
11-05-2016, 20:56
Yeah Boar riders can be St7 on the charge and have 2+ saves.
It's very odd to consider that a unit of orcs could look anything like that.

Well, it's a unit of very elite orcs that costs double what a basic core boar boy (which come with spear as standard, btw).

I don't know if you've been much around greenskin players but for the most part they've been clamoring for a heavier cavalry to offset low I and low survivability of 8th edition boar boyz (T4 3+ just doesn't cut it). Maybe someone will use those oversized new AoS boar riders for them, even (if they can fit them on the base, that is)

Vazalaar
11-05-2016, 21:20
That's because no one on the main team(the ones that actually decide things) plays Bretonnia, I think there was one in the past but he appeared to have been overruled on everything and quit.
The army team for Bretonnia have been quite frustrated overall and were quite open about their frustation in the past about the main team saying no to any major changes to Bretonnia but these days it seems they have been told to keep a positive spin on everything.
Bretonnia is one of those books that sadly bland and boring, even more so then the 6e book.

One of the top guys (executive or advisory boards ((so many titles 9th Age forum members have ;)) his main army was Empire.

15-20 pages back I talked about the inconsistency between army books. The answer I got from the 9th Age supporters was, you shouldn't compare armybooks... .

EoS received a lot of stuff, just look at the EoS inquisitor and the WDG Wrath Priest... .

I.e I love the EoS Reiter unit, it's the unit I always wanted for my Empire army, but when I compare my second army WoC with the 9th Age. I have the :wtf: feeling. They were hit with the nerf and kill the flavour stick.. .

Their armylist are just weird and I am convinced that they are influenced by personal preferences and not balace as they claim.

I.e EoS Knightly order knight has 2 base attacks, while a Knight of the order of the Sun Griffon only has 1 attack. They cleary wanted their knights better, thus hupsa 2 attacks..., but they did realize that giving two base attack to the Demigryph knights was to much.. so they only received one attack.... even when they are also knights from a knightly order.. .

It is just weird.

While KoE players their knights didn't really received an upgrade... as they didn't want EoS to be a click and charge army... . Currently EoS can have a much stronger pure cavalry army than KoE.

Edit:
About strength 7 cavalry on the charge, previously (8th edition) this was Blood Knights only thing.. ...

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 22:45
Are you really discussing weapon physics on a game where chariots have impact hits? So +2S on the charge lances are an unholy abomination but +1S on the charge spears (which just about every chariot in 8th edition had) isn't?

Let's have a honest discussion at least.

I don't think I used the words 'unholy abomination' anywhere, shall we dial down the rhetoric. There is no conceivable way you could properly couch a lance whilst riding in a chariot, at least none that I can see.

Giving orcs lances as an upgrade is fair enough, maybe it feels a bit odd, but at least if you want to use your models out-of-the-box you can choose to not upgrade them, and I'm sure plenty of folk will put the effort in to convert suitably orcy looking lances to take advantage of the new option, but the lizardmen treatment is rather more awkward. The lance is not an upgrade for them, it is standard kit, this is not only problematic for those of us who were/are running hand weapons on our Saurus cavalry in 8th edition, but also means the spears which actually come *in the kit* are useless unless you are happy with perpetual proxying because the unit cannot even be armed with spears (or light lances).

These are exactly the annoying kinds of little niggles that were completely unnecessary, neither Saurus cavalry no boar boys needed lances to work properly and it wasn't particularly fluffy to add them in.

The 9A lizardmen book is really odd actually, considering all the work they did with the wood elf and vampire counts to put kindreds and bloodlines back in, there was so much that could have a been done with lizards to improve their flavour by adding slann generations and sacred spawnings back into the mix that was just passed over. Aside from adding a Kroxigor hero in and the peculiar removal of weapon options on the Saurus cavalry not much has changed at all.



Wood elves didn't get lance upgrades, what they got was spears that have armour piercing (1).
Their heavy cav do throw out 3 attacks each on the charge so I can see why they'de err against a free lance upgrade.

So in other words, no change for wild riders ;) trust me, I've seen 8 th ed wild riders in action, they did not need to get any better.

Lars Porsenna
11-05-2016, 22:56
There is no conceivable way you could properly couch a lance whilst riding in a chariot, at least none that I can see.


I don't think I agree. To couch a lance all you're doing is holding it one-handed with the rear part of the haft clutched beneath the arm and held tight to the body. Whether you are standing or sitting shouldn't make a difference...in fact most medieval knights were virtually standing in their saddles already. Besides, what is the difference between a couched lance and a couched spear, other than length of the weapon?

Damon.

Ludaman
11-05-2016, 23:12
I don't think I agree. To couch a lance all you're doing is holding it one-handed with the rear part of the haft clutched beneath the arm and held tight to the body. Whether you are standing or sitting shouldn't make a difference...in fact most medieval knights were virtually standing in their saddles already. Besides, what is the difference between a couched lance and a couched spear, other than length of the weapon?

Damon.

You'll fall out of the chariot. That's the problem.

Knights were only able to couch the Lance once the stirrup was invented. Lean forward, heels pressed back against the stirrup, Lance couched, Kaboom, dead bad guy.

Lance couched, heels resting firmly on your chariots floor, Kaboom, you tumble out the back as the bad guy laughs at you.

Spears were usually held over the shoulder and thrown or jabbed downward as you rode past, usually leaving the spear in the guy.

Spiney Norman
11-05-2016, 23:23
You'll fall out of the chariot. That's the problem.

Knights were only able to couch the Lance once the stirrup was invented. Lean forward, heels pressed back against the stirrup, Lance couched, Kaboom, dead bad guy.

Lance couched, heels resting firmly on your chariots floor, Kaboom, you tumble out the back as the bad guy laughs at you.

Spears were usually held over the shoulder and thrown or jabbed downward as you rode past, usually leaving the spear in the guy.

That is pretty much how I would imagine it going down yeah, lack of stirrups might also be a problem for Saurus cavalry and boar boys.

Ludaman
11-05-2016, 23:29
That is pretty much how I would imagine it going down yeah, lack of stirrups might also be a problem for Saurus cavalry and boar boys.

Exactly, especially considering that a Lance is literally just a spear with a hand guard...

Malagor
11-05-2016, 23:31
Well the saurus cavalry I always imagined that they would use their claws to cling on to the cold one.
Boar boys however, not so much. Infact I always pictured them well like in the model, holding on to the fur for dear life, the orc way.

theunwantedbeing
11-05-2016, 23:46
I don't think I used the words 'unholy abomination' anywhere, shall we dial down the rhetoric. There is no conceivable way you could properly couch a lance whilst riding in a chariot, at least none that I can see.

I know I'm agreeing that lances don't feel right but there is a nice easy way to couch a lance on a chariot.

--->------------ Lance
--v-- notch in your chariot
It slots in as long as the > part is in front of the notch, it cannot slide backwards.

As for securing yourself to your mount without using stirrups.
A loop of rope under the mount (or around it's neck) and then attached to your lance somehow works fine.

Ludaman
11-05-2016, 23:54
I know I'm agreeing that lances don't feel right but there is a nice easy way to couch a lance on a chariot.

--->------------ Lance
--v-- notch in your chariot
It slots in as long as the > part is in front of the notch, it cannot slide backwards.

There's also the issue of your horse team being directly in front of your chariot, meaning your Lance has to swing out of the left or right side of your chariot. Without the proper angle you're better off stabbing the guy with a spear held overhead... Maybe the reason why historically lances were never used couched from the back of a chariot. (Ignoring the fact that chariots were basically never, ever used the way they are in warhammer.)

GrandmasterWang
12-05-2016, 03:26
Orcs are study enough to handle a bigger stick than a spear.
So are Ogres.... doesnt mean i want to see lance wielding mournfang cavalry.

Yowzo
12-05-2016, 04:57
I don't think I used the words 'unholy abomination' anywhere, shall we dial down the rhetoric. There is no conceivable way you could properly couch a lance whilst riding in a chariot, at least none that I can

Again: those chariots apparently smash the enemy head-on (with the horses/whatever beast of pull you use). Are you really going to argue trivialities about lance/spear (leaving aside the fact that T9A has renamed the mounted spear as "light lance").

If we're getting this nitpicky either spears should not provide a S bonus on the charge (or not any more than any hand weapon would).


Giving orcs lances as an upgrade is fair enough, maybe it feels a bit odd, but at least if you want to use your models out-of-the-box you can choose to not upgrade them, and I'm sure plenty of folk will put the effort in to convert suitably orcy looking lances to take advantage of the new option, but the lizardmen treatment is rather more awkward. The lance is not an upgrade for them, it is standard kit, this is not only problematic for those of us who were/are running hand weapons on our Saurus cavalry in 8th edition, but also means the spears which actually come *in the kit* are useless unless you are happy with perpetual proxying because the unit cannot even be armed with spears (or light lances).

Easy answer: there are no official models anymore. Just like there's no Tomb Guard with AHW or Barrow Guard with halberd (unless you go back many years) or skeletons with halberd. Most people are just happy to think any long pointed thing on a mounted model is a lance.


These are exactly the annoying kinds of little niggles that were completely unnecessary, neither Saurus cavalry no boar boys needed lances to work properly and it wasn't particularly fluffy to add them in.

In your opinion. Of all the criticism I've heard about either lizzies or O&G (again) you're the first to mention lances.

But then again, if you think boar boyz were good in 8th edition that pretty much says it all.

Yowzo
12-05-2016, 05:03
There's also the issue of your horse team being directly in front of your chariot, meaning your Lance has to swing out of the left or right side of your chariot. Without the proper angle you're better off stabbing the guy with a spear held overhead... Maybe the reason why historically lances were never used couched from the back of a chariot. (Ignoring the fact that chariots were basically never, ever used the way they are in warhammer.)

Which is the same that would happen to, say, a Prince wielding a lance atop a Star Dragon (and just about every character mounted on a big thing).

But it works that way, because in warhammer it has always worked that way.

Chariots in warhammer work all kinds of wrong whichever way you want to slice it so complaining about spear/lance really sounds like scraping the barrel. I think Mantic had a cleveer dig at that when they make their chariots pushing a big spiky thing instead of pulling a big spiky thing (which surely would end up up the boar's bottom once they hit anything, momentum and all that).

Ludaman
12-05-2016, 05:15
Hey I'm not criticizing anyone I just jumped in to spout some knowledge about lances. Any criticism I have about the Ninth Age has nothing to do with the rules effecting the character of an army one way or the other. In my opinion the character of the Army is based on the miniatures on the table, and their overall strength or weakness when compared to other miniatures on the table

Dosiere
12-05-2016, 05:51
If we really want to argue about what is physically possible or historically accurate, we may as well all stop playing fantasy games. I did always wonder how my general swings his sword from the top of a giant griffon scything down diminutive goblins thirty feet away, but obviously that's not the point.

I think what we're really seeing is the effect of mechanically appropriate rules done in a inelegant or simplistic way, and people not being happy with it, rather than the end effect itself. They wanted x unit to hit harder on the charge, and went with the most simple mechanic already available in the core rules to do so. Make sense, but it's also weird to think of them as "lances" For some units.

This is exactly why there is special rules bloat though, since every unit ends up with its own special snowflake rules to accomplish something in the name of fluff and flavor. Had they added a special rule for Orc boar chariots like "brutal charge" that added an extra +1 strength on the charge for the Orc riders of the chariot, maybe it would have felt better, more fluffy, etc... But the you have piles of special rules which is not really good either.

Hopefully there's a middle ground somewhere that makes everyone happy, but I'm doubting it.

Urgat
12-05-2016, 07:24
Hopefully there's a middle ground somewhere that makes everyone happy, but I'm doubting it.

In many cases, such as the present case (lances, and reconciling fluff and wishes for harder-hitting boars or whatever), it's simple. You take that "brutal charge" thing you just made up, it already exists, it's called devastatng charge. Let's say it's now brutal charge. Devastating charge becomes +2 on charge.
You remove spear on cavalry and lances from the rules. You give "brutal charge" to everything that needs it, devastating charge to everything that needs it etc. In the fluff blurb in the unit's bestiary entry, you explain the why (lance, big mass of muscle and metal, whatever). Either give them by default, or as a paid upgrade as usual. Weeeh, you even save space in the main rules.

Spiney Norman
12-05-2016, 07:24
If we're getting this nitpicky either spears should not provide a S bonus on the charge (or not any more than any hand weapon would).

I'd say giving spears a strength bonus and lances a greater strength bonus is a reasonable way to approximate how they should function, the momentum of a charging mount is certainly going to make a spear more effective than a hand weapon for example. The principle difference between a spear (or light lance as 9A calls them) and a lance is essentially how they're used rather than what they actually are, both are effectively a pole with a spike on the end after all. Spears were held above the head and stabbed down when the charge hit while lances were couched in place with the rider braced against the stirrups and as a result could deliver a blow with much greater force.



In your opinion. Of all the criticism I've heard about either lizzies or O&G (again) you're the first to mention lances.

But then again, if you think boar boyz were good in 8th edition that pretty much says it all.

like I said, just one of many little things that feels like it hasn't really been thought through properly and just quickly signed off because someone thought unit X needed a bit of a buff.


In many cases, such as the present case (lances, and reconciling fluff and wishes for harder-hitting boars or whatever), it's simple. You take that "brutal charge" thing you just made up, it already exists, it's called devastatng charge. Let's say it's now brutal charge. Devastating charge becomes +2 on charge.
You remove spear on cavalry and lances from the rules. You give "brutal charge" to everything that needs it, devastating charge to everything that needs it etc. In the fluff blurb in the unit's bestiary entry, you explain the why (lance, big mass of muscle and metal, whatever). Either give them by default, or as a paid upgrade as usual. Weeeh, you even save space in the main rules.

Devastating charge adds +1 attack on the charge, not +1 strength, at least in 8 th it does

But quite apart from that they already have an equivalent of the choppas rule which gives them +1S In the first round (which was a neat rule which effectively already turned a BBs spear into a lance in 8th ed anyway), doubling the strength of a basic Boarboy on the charge seems really excessive.

Arrahed
12-05-2016, 07:37
I am sure the culture that brought you repeating crossbows and ballistas will be able to come up with some kind of device that absorbs the recoil of the lance thrust.
I am just as confident that a giant green beast can take the hit somehow as well. And even if he doesn't, he will get thrown of the chariot right into the enemy formation and can start punching them. Surely an Orc would love that.

Lizard Raptor riders can no longer get spears. If your models have long pointy things in their hand, their will be no doubt that these are lances. If you prefer accurately modeled units, you have the opportunity to come up with something cool.
I play WYSIWLA* instead of WYSIWYG anyway.


*(What you see is what looks awesome) :)

Urgat
12-05-2016, 09:15
Devastating charge adds +1 attack on the charge, not +1 strength, at least in 8 th it does

But quite apart from that they already have an equivalent of the choppas rule which gives them +1S In the first round (which was a neat rule which effectively already turned a BBs spear into a lance in 8th ed anyway), doubling the strength of a basic Boarboy on the charge seems really excessive.

Sorry about devastating charge, I've never seen it ingame so no surprise if I'm wrong, and I agree the choppa rule was way sufficient imho; the point I wanted to make is about the general idea that it's easy to make a rule that can be used in various situations though, so it's not a big deal. GW did that a lot with, say, poison or regen actually. Regen covers a lot of reasons to ignore wounds besides plain, troll-like flesh regeneration.

theunwantedbeing
12-05-2016, 09:33
So are Ogres.... doesnt mean i want to see lance wielding mournfang cavalry.

Don't worry, they weren't given lances as an option.
The Rock Auroch rider though, he can have a lance, although it's a little pointless as he has to pay to exchange his powerful ranged weapon for it


But then again, if you think boar boyz were good in 8th edition that pretty much says it all.

Lets do a comparison!
8th edition
20pts/model
A St5 mount on the charge, St5 rider on the charge.
Toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save.

Compared to 9th age
17pts/model for the first 5, 16pts/model afterwards.
St4 mount on the charge, St5 rider on the charge.
Toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save.

So....
In 9th age boar boys are 3-4pts/model cheaper but the boars do lose a point of strength on the charge and there's no animosity to deal with.
Save save though, so clearly survivability didn't need boosting did it?

Ronin[XiC]
12-05-2016, 10:45
Well they also have access to lances if you need the Punch and are CORE which is super important.

Asmodios
12-05-2016, 14:21
;7627918']Well they also have access to lances if you need the Punch and are CORE which is super important.
Yeah an all mounted Orc force sounds really cool. This is the problem though I have way to many projects going on in 9th because I'm purchasing tons of units that I never needed or wanted in 8th. Too much painting and modeling and little bit of time to do it in. Better just keep focusing on my goblins and lust Demons before I start on an Orc force as well.

Horace35
12-05-2016, 14:23
Yeah an all mounted Orc force sounds really cool. This is the problem though I have way to many projects going on in 9th because I'm purchasing tons of units that I never needed or wanted in 8th. Too much painting and modeling and little bit of time to do it in. Better just keep focusing on my goblins and lust Demons before I start on an Orc force as well.

Wheres the fun in that though?! Better to start another project off and add more and more things to an already intimidating paint pile :)

Asmodios
12-05-2016, 14:38
Wheres the fun in that though?! Better to start another project off and add more and more things to an already intimidating paint pile :)
Stop I have a ton of lizardmen, more goblins to finish then I can count and I just went all in starting a lust force.... I don't have time for orcs but now I want to:cries:

Ayin
12-05-2016, 18:16
Yeah an all mounted Orc force sounds really cool. This is the problem though I have way to many projects going on in 9th because I'm purchasing tons of units that I never needed or wanted in 8th.

I have the opposite problem. So many units that I didn't use in 8th (and sometimes even 7th) that i want to get them all up and running now!


Stop I have a ton of lizardmen, more goblins to finish then I can count and I just went all in starting a lust force.... I don't have time for orcs but now I want to:cries:

A good friend of mine who's getting his Lizardmen back up and running for use as Saurian Ancients in 9th recently found out that A) Chaos Dwarves were a thing, B) Infernal Dwarves ARE a thing, and C) there are awesome models for them by several companies.

He's not paralyzed with indecision as to whether he should undertake ONE massive project, or start on a second, NEW massive project and THEN do the first one. :)

Yowzo
12-05-2016, 18:20
The principle difference between a spear (or light lance as 9A calls them) and a lance is essentially how they're used rather than what they actually are, both are effectively a pole with a spike on the end after all. Spears were held above the head and stabbed down when the charge hit while lances were couched in place with the rider braced against the stirrups and as a result could deliver a blow with much greater force.

I'd love to see a boar boy with no stirrups hold his spear above the head and stab down.

The latest lances (19th century uhlans, hussars, etc.) barely had any handguard at all, if they had any. Though in any case lances had been secondary to cavalry sabres (which did indeed benefit from the charge momentum, and were top-heavy precisely for that reason).

Yowzo
12-05-2016, 18:35
Lets do a comparison!
8th edition
20pts/model
A St5 mount on the charge, St5 rider on the charge.
Toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save.

Compared to 9th age
17pts/model for the first 5, 16pts/model afterwards.
St4 mount on the charge, St5 rider on the charge.
Toughness 4 and a 3+ armour save.

So....
In 9th age boar boys are 3-4pts/model cheaper but the boars do lose a point of strength on the charge and there's no animosity to deal with.
Save save though, so clearly survivability didn't need boosting did it?

3-4 points is a good 20% cheaper... and they're core (and you can even take them without shields which means 14 points for T4 4+ unit.

At the basic end, they're cheap objective grabbers and are still punchy enough to be able to clear redirectors in a sort of counter-chaff role.

At the same cost at 8th edition you can either take naked big'uns (special, but not limited to just one unit) or max out upgrades on regular boar boyz.

For 20 points you have a naked unit of savage big'un boar boyz. Each sporting 2 S6 attacks on the charge + S4 pig, and of course you can really max out and get S7 on the charge T2 2+ boar boyz. They cost a pretty penny though.

Asmodios
12-05-2016, 18:38
I have the opposite problem. So many units that I didn't use in 8th (and sometimes even 7th) that i want to get them all up and running now!



A good friend of mine who's getting his Lizardmen back up and running for use as Saurian Ancients in 9th recently found out that A) Chaos Dwarves were a thing, B) Infernal Dwarves ARE a thing, and C) there are awesome models for them by several companies.

He's not paralyzed with indecision as to whether he should undertake ONE massive project, or start on a second, NEW massive project and THEN do the first one. :)
Each person in my group has the same issue and is starting at least one whole new army. Especially now that we can look at all different companies ranges and pick and choose what fits which unit.

Ayin
12-05-2016, 19:30
Lizard Raptor riders can no longer get spears. If your models have long pointy things in their hand, their will be no doubt that these are lances. If you prefer accurately modeled units, you have the opportunity to come up with something cool.


This is partly correct.

No cavalry models can be armed with "spears" in 9th. The options are either Lances or Light Lances, Spears are reserved for Infantry. The Saurian Cavalry have normal Lances, which is a change from the Light Lances (and in Warhammer Fantasy Cavalry Spears) they had previously, but there's no need to change previous models (though i am a big proponent of magnetizing weapon arms onto models, as magnets are cheap and easy to acquire and use).

Folomo
12-05-2016, 19:34
This is partly correct.

No cavalry models can be armed with "spears" in 9th. The options are either Lances or Light Lances, Spears are reserved for Infantry. The Saurian Cavalry have normal Lances, which is a change from the Light Lances (and in Warhammer Fantasy Cavalry Spears) they had previously, but there's no need to change previous models (though i am a big proponent of magnetizing weapon arms onto models, as magnets are cheap and easy to acquire and use).
I have to agree with the last suggestion. The current plethora of ways to use the same model makes magnets a really good option now that different weapon options are actually a real choice.

Arrahed
12-05-2016, 19:50
This is partly correct.

No cavalry models can be armed with "spears" in 9th. The options are either Lances or Light Lances, Spears are reserved for Infantry. The Saurian Cavalry have normal Lances, which is a change from the Light Lances (and in Warhammer Fantasy Cavalry Spears) they had previously, but there's no need to change previous models (though i am a big proponent of magnetizing weapon arms onto models, as magnets are cheap and easy to acquire and use).

Which still means that Raptor Riders cannot get spears.:p
Writing that they can no longer get light lances which are equivalent to 8th edition's spears for cavalry models sounded a little to complicated to me. :)

Ayin
12-05-2016, 20:30
I have to agree with the last suggestion. The current plethora of ways to use the same model makes magnets a really good option now that different weapon options are actually a real choice.

Totally. My Warriors are magnetized to switch in seconds between HW&S and Paired Weapons, and once I get the bits I'm going to do the same for Great Weapons. I wish I'd been on top of this before I converted my Chosen with Halberds so I'd done them the same way, as being able to give them any weapon option would be amazing. Just make sure the magnets are all the same side around and everything works seamlessly. I'm doing up Saurian Warriors right now for a friend and they're super easy.

the gribbly
14-05-2016, 16:37
So I posted awhile back about 9th age and compared it to 8th. I've since bitten the bullet and played some games and I feel I should update my opinion.

As someone who preferred oldhammer to 8th and was only last week playing 7th I must admit the rules for 9th age are simply BRILLIANT.
5 stars.
Hands down the best fantasy gaming I've had in years. Maybe ever.

To anyone who has not tried this game I highly recommend doing so.
It is not 8th and it is not WHF. Its the perfect evolution of.

Delve the rules without preconception and consider the interactions and the impact of each. Then just play the game and you'll see its the most well devised system to date.

Anyway fantastic job guys keep it up.

AverageBoss
14-05-2016, 22:18
Because I have already been talking about 9E here, thought I would throw out that the 1st version of 9E WoC is up.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iWjU3Z3NTV1NiWTQ/view

As well as a few updates to the core rules.

http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/2016/05/warhammer-9th-ed-1042-out-now.html

logan054
14-05-2016, 22:34
Because I have already been talking about 9E here, thought I would throw out that the 1st version of 9E WoC is up.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iWjU3Z3NTV1NiWTQ/view

As well as a few updates to the core rules.

http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/2016/05/warhammer-9th-ed-1042-out-now.html

While I like a lot of his stuff, I wasn't very keen on this version of the book. Core chaos knights is just silly.

AverageBoss
14-05-2016, 22:39
Its were they used to be prior to 7e actually.

No more silly than core Inner Circle Knights or Silver Helms imo.

Vazalaar
14-05-2016, 22:55
While I like a lot of his stuff, I wasn't very keen on this version of the book. Core chaos knights is just silly.

There are a couple of things I don't like.

I only talk about his 8th edition armybook, as I prefer still old 8th above his 9th edition.


The removal of Chaos armour for Sorcerors.
The change to Blightkings, Skullreapers and Wrathmongers. I prefer their End Times rules and stats.
The -1 to initiative for warriors.


If anything it shows that it is not easy to modify WoC ;)

logan054
14-05-2016, 22:56
Back in 6th they had one attack and heavy armour. One unit could be upgraded to Chosen. Like chosen warriors, they got moved to special. You could argue that chosen should be core as well.

Traditional chaos warriors have had the same I value as elves, no idea why they are I4. Skullcrushers are essentially chosen khorne knights, I don't see why they got an I drop and moved to special.

No idea why the skullreapers and similar units got nerfed, they aren't even thst good to begin with.

Things like the daemon sword still aren't worth taking.

Core chariots that can be turned into gorebeast...

I like a lot of what I've seen on the site, it just needs tweaking, skin wolves wouldn't go amiss
;)

AverageBoss
14-05-2016, 23:34
Chosen are the elites of Warriors (more elite than normal warriors anyways). Nowadays Chaos Knights are just regular (as regular as can be for chaos anyways) Warriors on a barded steed. They are also 3x the cost of the warriors, so I think that avoids any auto take problems. So I actually agree with knights being core and Chosen (plus chosen cav) being special.

Skullreapers and such still need work, agreed on that.

The Gorebeast is not the Gorebeast from 8e. It does not get the T and W boost that made that one so nasty. It just swaps the steeds S4 attacks for S5 attacks at a higher WS and lower I.

It is the 1st draft though and he does take all feedback under consideration.

logan054
14-05-2016, 23:56
I dunno, I'd be a little concerned with how balanced core knights are given the statline. The list itself is more comparable with the archoans horde list from SoC which had those knights in special.

16pts for chaos warriors seems overpriced to me, this might be my 8th ed brain talking.

I'm really not sure why the I value has been dropped, just like with the 9th age, it's not a change that really needed to happen. They've been essentially units of empire heroes since 4th ed with one wound (bar 6th ed).

It's kind of a shame he didn't include some of the AoS stuff like the slaughter priest.

Juggers are still overpriced for lords. For a lord, it's only marginally better than a barded steed. An issued repeated with the 9th age.

Sadly skullreapers don't work, they are just too easy to kill with single models (well thst type of infantry don't work because of the price per rank). Realistically, they need a new troop type that puts them between infantry and Mi.

Chariots again aren't core in archoans horde list which is the comparable one.

AverageBoss
15-05-2016, 00:58
16 points for Warriors is a typo they are supposed to be 15.

Don't know why they dropped to I4, might just have to wait to see what he does with the rest of the armies. He also dropped Wight Kings and TK heroes to T4 W2.

Skullreapers are not as bad off in 9e as they were in 8th, as there are no support attacks. The only advantage MI would give them is immunity to KB.

I know he wants to rewrite the Tzeentch lore, but that will be down the road.

As far a scheduling goes, it looks like he wants to get a draft of all the armies out first (making tweaks too the core rules when needed). Then he will go back and add named characters and missing End Times units. Then he will be tweaking the armies as needed. He might then add some AoS stuff.

Vazalaar
15-05-2016, 07:45
About Archoans Horde, I found this list (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3228769/WHFB%20-%20Army%20Archaons%20Horde%208.5.pdf) from the facebook group Warhammer 8.5. Seems quite interesting. The Warhammer 8.5 community has two versions of armybooks. Version 8.1 are the old 8th Edition armybooks with integraded FAQ! and 8.5 is with additions.



Welcome to the Archaons Horde Army Book for Warhammer 8.5. Warhammer 8.5 and its sister project
Warhammer 8.1 is a project by and for fans of Warhammer Fantasy; the mass combat tabletop wargame
produced by Games Workshop.
Warhammer 8.1 is Warhammer Fantasy 8th edition, as released by Games Workshop with the Errata and
FAQs incorporated into it. For those who want to play Warhammer as it was originally printed with the
official Games Workshop FAQs this is what you will want to play as the Errata has been incorporated
into the text of the book and the FAQs are located after the rules. The only change that you will see is the
updated format of how things are presented. For the most part, a single page is used to describe the
background and rules of each unit with a photo of the unit in question that has been painted up by
gamers. This saves time of having to flick between pages to get all the rules and allows time to admire the
background and miniatures.
Warhammer 8.5 is a fan made update to Warhammer Fantasy that incorporates often requested rule
changes or points adjustments to the rules and associated army books. The main differentiations of the
Warhammer 8.5 Project to others like the Ninth Age or Kings of War is that there are not a lot of new
rules to learn. Each erratum update to each rulebook from 8th ed to 8.5 is listed on two pages in the form
of GW style errata to add into a printed Army/Rulebook folded up as a single double sided page. These
changes are also incorporated into the text of the 8.5 versions of the Army/rulebooks to speed play.
In addition to the Rules and Army books being digitalised, alongside the 8.1 & 8.5 releases are
supplements like Warhammer Civil War, Storm of Magic, Regiments of Renown, Warhammer Skirmish
as well as other supplements meant to expand the types of games you can play. With rules for games
involving 200pts or half a dozen models right on up to 5,000 pt games with hundreds of models on each
side, there is a wealth of variety. These supplements can be played either using the 8th ed rules, or the
Warhammer 8.5 rules.
Alongside the supplements that can be played with either 8th or 8.5, ‘Back of the Book’ Armylists are also
being released; from Dogs of War, to Slayer Armies and even Gnoblar Armies. All updated to 8th and 8.5
from their original White Dwarf or Supplements from where they originally appeared.
To keep up to date with the Warhammer 8.5 community, join the FaceBook group at;
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1483795728606274/

Edit:

Here is their Warhammer 8.1 Battle bible (https://www.dropbox.com/s/lkt83lhu04lfa4c/WHFB%20-%20BattleBible%208.1%20Ed.pdf?dl=0). The 8th edition rulebook with integrated erreta/FaQ and such.. .

Yowzo
15-05-2016, 09:20
If anything it shows that it is not easy to modify WoC ;)

Chaos and HE players are.... Let's say special and leave it at that :D

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2016, 10:14
I dunno, I'd be a little concerned with how balanced core knights are given the statline. The list itself is more comparable with the archoans horde list from SoC which had those knights in special.
Priced correctly for their stats, it doesn't matter what slot they go in.
Core knights give more options for list builds anyway.


I'm really not sure why the I value has been dropped, just like with the 9th age, it's not a change that really needed to happen. They've been essentially units of empire heroes since 4th ed with one wound (bar 6th ed).
Indeed, I guess they're just seen as "big humans" rather than a sort of fantasy space marine empowered by magic.


Chariots again aren't core in archoans horde list which is the comparable one.
It gives more list build options, plus who doesn't like an all chariot force?


I think his option list is superior to the 9th age version.

Yowzo
15-05-2016, 11:11
It gives more list build options, plus who doesn't like an all chariot force?


I think his option list is superior to the 9th age version.

Just pointing out that in 9th age you can have core chariots if you take a chaos lord on chariot as general.

Vazalaar
15-05-2016, 11:31
Logan054, Averageboss, Theunwantedbeing and others what do you think of the changes furion did to the 8th WoC armybook (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DcPz0zAHPjdW9zY29hR3RUd0k/view). I.e You have the option to have one knight or chosen unit when you take Leader of the Damned.

Leader of the Damned:
Chaos Sorceror Lord Chaos Lord only, +1 Leadership and field one unit of Knight of Chosen as a core choice.

The Furion WoC armybook is the one I use in my group.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2016, 12:29
I don't particularly like it.
+1 leadership is fine, but to make a single chosen or knight unit core just strikes me as if they were just looking for a way to patch the rules.
Why just those two units?
Why just those two characters?

That said, I'm not familiar with the rest of the Furion changes to the core rules or other armies so my opinion might change if/when I do learn of them.

I'de probably have just changed the rule to say
50pts
+1 leadership. A single unit in the army may be taken without counting towards it's slot allowance/percentage

It lets a Daemon Prince take it, but I don't see that as an issue.
It's 50pts anyway so no hero can take it, no need to specify.
Plus it gives more options of what to take without being a "here, you can have this unit you really want as core instead"

I'de put knights in core.

GrandmasterWang
15-05-2016, 13:36
Just pointing out that in 9th age you can have core chariots if you take a chaos lord on chariot as general.
Not a big 9th fan but i do like this particular change rather than chariots as core by default.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

logan054
15-05-2016, 15:38
Priced correctly for their stats, it doesn't matter what slot they go in.
Core knights give more options for list builds anyway.

Then you'd probably end up with all the all knight chaos armies like we had back in 6th/early 7th. I doubt you'd ever see chaos warriors in lists.


Indeed, I guess they're just seen as "big humans" rather than a sort of fantasy space marine empowered by magic.

I think Elf players just don't warriors having the same I value as elves. I don't think I've ever seen valid reason from a balance prospective that justifies the change, its usually "I don't like it so I'm changing it".


It gives more list build options, plus who doesn't like an all chariot force?

Or people just take chariots as core and ignore the other choices. Realistally a M4 T4 4+ save model isn't all that hard to kill before it can have any real impact on the game, especially when it starts to clock in a 20+ points a model. It never seemed an so much of an issue in 6th. That's probably because generally used much smaller armies and when i was playing, I had a bucket of dispel dice from all the MoK.


Logan054, Averageboss, Theunwantedbeing and others what do you think of the changes furion did to the 8th WoC armybook (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_DcPz0zAHPjdW9zY29hR3RUd0k/view). I.e You have the option to have one knight or chosen unit when you take Leader of the Damned.

Leader of the Damned:
Chaos Sorceror Lord Chaos Lord only, +1 Leadership and field one unit of Knight of Chosen as a core choice.

The Furion WoC armybook is the one I use in my group.

Well, the Banner of rage is a little OTT. All models can never lose frenzy and then gain another attack... so that's 4 attacks per model at S5 I5... It's also lacking the Khorne end times book. Chaos lords seem way over priced tbh. If he was worried about 3++ save models, he should of changed the MoT. if I'm perfectly honest I'm not a fan of the marks from the last couple of Books and GW has seemed to struggle with getting Nurgle right, its either rubbish or too good.

theunwantedbeing
15-05-2016, 16:32
Then you'd probably end up with all the all knight chaos armies like we had back in 6th/early 7th. I doubt you'd ever see chaos warriors in lists.

Looking at 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th age costings for warriors and knights, knights are better value often by a significant margin in virtually all cases, even 9th age.

The closest is probably 8th edition where warriors are 14pts and knights are 40pts.
This is also in part due to the rules not favouring the faster unit with the higher save quite so much as before (warriors were laughably bad in 6th & 7th).
Even so, once you start buying any amount of upgrades the warriors quickly start being unable to be used in viable units at the same cost as a viable knight unit (they fulfil different roles of course, the knights are just a bit more versatile due to the speed and better save).

If knights go in core, they need to be expensive.
9th age messed up badly with balancing on points, it's no wonder they put the knights in special.

185pts for 5 Knights of Wrath.
1+ save, 2 St6 attacks each that hit on a 3+ at worst, plus a st4 mount.
The knights are paying 20pts for their mark on that unit of 5.

185pts buys 15 regular warriors and a standard bearer.
3+ save, 2 st4 attacks each.
Command? 10-30pts extra
Halberds? 45pts extra and your save goes down a point in combat
A Mark? 15-45pts extra

So not only are the knights hitting harder, they're paying less for their upgrades and they don't really need to bother with most of them to begin with.
If you want the daemon weapon for st5 all the time then it's 20pts extra, warriors pay more than twice that to get +1 strength on their attacks and their save goes down as a result.


Cost them appropriately and knights are fine in core.
8th edition got closest and knights weren't a core unit in that edition.

Yowzo
16-05-2016, 15:25
Looking at 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th age costings for warriors and knights, knights are better value often by a significant margin in virtually all cases, even 9th age.
(...)
185pts for 5 Knights of Wrath.
1+ save, 2 St6 attacks each that hit on a 3+ at worst, plus a st4 mount.
The knights are paying 20pts for their mark on that unit of 5.

185pts buys 15 regular warriors and a standard bearer.
3+ save, 2 st4 attacks each.
Command? 10-30pts extra
Halberds? 45pts extra and your save goes down a point in combat
A Mark? 15-45pts extra

So not only are the knights hitting harder, they're paying less for their upgrades and they don't really need to bother with most of them to begin with.

Yes, the knights hit harder but all those attacks are spread over just 5 wounds.

Anything that ignores armour, has some sort of armour piercing or killing blow will go through those 5 wounds with ease.

Comparing infantry vs cavalry is always a tough cookie (ask any Bret player and you'll see what I mean).

Back to 9th age, apparently they're releasing the full wood elves armybook tomorrow (the big one, the one with pictures, background, etc.)

Never been much of a WE player but I'm curious to see if they'll keep the same quality as the UD/TK one (which was a very solid effort, one I wouldn't have felt cheated if I had paid 30 euro for a hardcover)

Souppilgrim
17-05-2016, 17:38
I've always felt that I5 didnt fit chaos warriors, as they are big lumbering men. Yes they are skilled so a 4I fits. They shouldn't be as quick as elves at all. I5 also makes them too immune to test or dies spells.

peukestas
17-05-2016, 18:03
I'm out of the hobby due to work+studies at the same time. But when I come back I'll be playing 9th age for sure! :D:cool:

Teurastaja
17-05-2016, 21:03
http://goo.gl/pB2gqi Sylvan Elves army book is finally out. I'll leave it here so you guys can complain some more ;)

AverageBoss
18-05-2016, 04:02
And the 1st draft of Demons is out for 9E.

http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/2016/05/ravening-hordes-daemons-of-chaos-out-now.html

GrandmasterWang
18-05-2016, 04:05
http://goo.gl/pB2gqi Sylvan Elves army book is finally out. I'll leave it here so you guys can complain some more ;)
Cool thanks for the link. Just downloaded. Loving the cover and the index art.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

logan054
18-05-2016, 08:04
I've always felt that I5 didnt fit chaos warriors, as they are big lumbering men. Yes they are skilled so a 4I fits. They shouldn't be as quick as elves at all. I5 also makes them too immune to test or dies spells.

You could say the same about empire heroes. Traditional they've always gas similar stats to human heroes. If you go back a few editions chaos warriors use to be faster than elves.

I

Max_Killfactor
19-05-2016, 13:50
I haven't tried and don't intend to.

I've read the rules and some of the individual books (dread elves and infernal dwarves)

I commend the effort. I just wish GW had blown up the world during 7th edition, which was my favorite. I think it would have been a much better starting point for a fan made edition. I never liked 8th's mechanics.

KoW is everything that my group always wished Fantasy was. A near perfect game for us. 2k KoW battles are about the same size as 2.5k 8th edition and they take nearly half the time. Despite playing WHFB for years, hardly a game went by when we didn't have to look at the rulebook. For KoW, we rarely had to after about 5 games.

It doesn't have the variety that WHFB has, but it has more than you'd expect at a glance. The subtle differences between a statline are a much bigger deal than in WHFB. The magic artifacts also add a lot of customization to your units. The characters aren't nearly as customizable as in 8th/9th, but the units are. You can give them nearly any special rule.

I think 9th is great for those that liked 8th. But KoW is better for anyone who wants a streamlined rank and file fantasy wargame.

Seelenhaendler
19-05-2016, 18:23
I just wish GW had blown up the world during 7th edition, which was my favorite. I think it would have been a much better starting point for a fan made edition. I never liked 8th's mechanics.


Have you tried Warhammer CE (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans)yet?

KoW is a great game but for me its not a WFB alternative. It lacks too much flavor and its too streamlined for my taste. Especially the lack of interactivity is a real drawback. WFB is not ideal either but compared to KoW where you could literally walk away from the table during your opponents turn, WFB involves both players in the majority of phases (close combat, magic and charge responses during the movement phase for example).

9th is a great effort but as you said: it is at least 6 years too late...

Ludaman
19-05-2016, 20:34
I've mentioned something to the same effect. I think 8th was a rather bloated system that gets bogged down with re-rolls, special rules, etc.

However, I'm starting to realize what they did was probably the best idea. Most people don't like change. GW canceled Warhammer Fantasy while they were playing 8th, they just want to keep playing 8th, so here it is: 8th edition with a massive balance patch and a streamlining (sort-of) of the rules. The enormous amount of people that are now following it are proof of the quality of the idea.

My hope now is that after a couple successful ETC seasons they'll start to reevaluate the core Rulebook and come back with a better overall game design rather than a patch on GW's unwieldy 8th edition. Either way I've decided to give it a chance, I even have a game scheduled this Saturday with a local fellow I met in the ninth age forums: KoE vs. UD, check out my plog this weekend for some nifty pics.

TLDR: while the game's not perfect, The 9th age team did the right thing by putting their effort into attracting the largest community possible.

Panzer MkIV
19-05-2016, 21:47
The Dwarven Holds army list isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

They gutted the 2 most important assets in the Dwarf list:

- Runic Standards: no more access to Stubborn, Vanguard or the ability to stack runes. The less said about the pitiful number (3!), the better.

- Reliable Artillery: Warmachines already took a hit with 9th age and none of the runes availlable make it more likely to avoid a misfire or hit an opponent. However, dwarven cannons do get a rune that gives them +1 str "slow clap" :wtf:

I can go on how they, arbitrarily, made Irondrakes and the Organ gun Special :cheese:, Bolt Throwers Rare or the pathetic range of the Flame cannon (max 21")
Following the design process for this army list was the equivalent of watching mud getting hurled at a wall, hoping something sticks.

It's the most dissapointing Dwarf army list I laid my eyes on since 5th edition.

Ayin
19-05-2016, 21:58
- Runic Standards: no more access to Stubborn, Vanguard or the ability to stack runes. The less said about the pitiful number (3!), the better.


I don't feel like going through all of this, but:

"Runic Standard of Swiftness
(25 pts)
The bearer’s unit gains Vanguard."

And the Runic Standards can be taken by Dwarven Holds in addition to the rulebook standards available, meaning that DH have more options for magical standards than any list in the game.

Panzer MkIV
19-05-2016, 22:21
I don't feel like going through all of this, but:

"Runic Standard of Swiftness
(25 pts)
The bearer’s unit gains Vanguard."

And the Runic Standards can be taken by Dwarven Holds in addition to the rulebook standards available, meaning that DH have more options for magical standards than any list in the game.

Can I take it multiple times? Can I stack it with the other banners?

No

Giladisb
19-05-2016, 22:36
My hope now is that after a couple successful ETC seasons they'll start to reevaluate the core Rulebook and come back with a better overall game design rather than a patch on GW's unwieldy 8th edition. Either way I've decided to give it a chance, I even have a game scheduled this Saturday with a local fellow I met in the ninth age forums: KoE vs. UD, check out my plog this weekend for some nifty pics.


The intention is over the years to evolve the game, but it is a long term thing.

Ayin
19-05-2016, 23:41
Can I take it multiple times? Can I stack it with the other banners?

No

Okay. That doesn't negate the fact that you complained there was no more access to Vanguard when there obviously is.


Additionally, no one can stack banners, so Dwarven Holds not being able to do something no other army can do doesn't seem silly at all. They would need some kind of reason for why they both need more banner options than any other army, and why their banners need to be stackable. I doubt you can explain one that's not just 'because they could!', which clearly doesn't matter, as they can now do a lot of things they couldn't before.

Panzer MkIV
20-05-2016, 00:29
Okay. That doesn't negate the fact that you complained there was no more access to Vanguard when there obviously is.


Additionally, no one can stack banners, so Dwarven Holds not being able to do something no other army can do doesn't seem silly at all. They would need some kind of reason for why they both need more banner options than any other army, and why their banners need to be stackable. I doubt you can explain one that's not just 'because they could!', which clearly doesn't matter, as they can now do a lot of things they couldn't before.

Have you even played Dwarfs? Dwarfs are still the slowest army in Warhammer and the ability to take multiple Vanguard runes or the Strollaz rune before that allowed them to be a viable offensive army. That's gone now.

I suppose you're going to rebuke me by pointing to the new bound spell: Rune of Resolve. Pure bound spells are not a viable magic fase. They only work when supporting a full fledged Wizard and that's something Dwarfs don't have. I tried a pure blessing based army with my Empire and it didn't work.

You say "because they could" isn't a legitimate reason and I disagree:

Brettonia have the Lance Formation, the Oath of Fealty, a much improved Blessing and access to Virtues "because they could".

Warriors of Chaos still have access to various Marks "because they could".

The Empire still has the Detachment system "because they could".

In what way are Dwarfs different from the samples mentioned above?

And what about the rest of my grievances with the list, at least the ones that I mentioned?

Ludaman
20-05-2016, 02:06
Have you even played Dwarfs? Dwarfs are still the slowest army in Warhammer and the ability to take multiple Vanguard runes or the Strollaz rune before that allowed them to be a viable offensive army. That's gone now.

I suppose you're going to rebuke me by pointing to the new bound spell: Rune of Resolve. Pure bound spells are not a viable magic fase. They only work when supporting a full fledged Wizard and that's something Dwarfs don't have. I tried a pure blessing based army with my Empire and it didn't work.

You say "because they could" isn't a legitimate reason and I disagree:

Brettonia have the Lance Formation, the Oath of Fealty, a much improved Blessing and access to Virtues "because they could".

Warriors of Chaos still have access to various Marks "because they could".

The Empire still has the Detachment system "because they could".

In what way are Dwarfs different from the samples mentioned above?

And what about the rest of my grievances with the list, at least the ones that I mentioned?

Try playing AGAINST the 9th age Dwarves with Kingdom of Equitaine (Bretonnia) it's terrifying. You know they march triple right?

Panzer MkIV
20-05-2016, 02:37
Try playing AGAINST the 9th age Dwarves with Kingdom of Equitaine (Bretonnia) it's terrifying. You know they march triple right?

What kind of Dwarf army do you play against: offensive or defensive? What does he/she take and what do you take?

Triple march is not as handy as the mentioned runes and Dwarfs can now be march blocked, as unlikely as it seems. There's a very good reason why the Relentless rule was implemented in 6th edition.

Asmodios
20-05-2016, 03:10
What kind of Dwarf army do you play against: offensive or defensive? What does he/she take and what do you take?

Triple march is not as handy as the mentioned runes and Dwarfs can now be march blocked, as unlikely as it seems. There's a very good reason why the Relentless rule was implemented in 6th edition.
I haven't read the DH rule book yet but there is a long thread on the 9th age forum by a lot of people who feel that the dwarfs are too powerful in this addition. This is the first time I have seen them being called under powered. I will have to give the book a read now.

Ayin
20-05-2016, 03:19
Have you even played Dwarfs? Dwarfs are still the slowest army in Warhammer and the ability to take multiple Vanguard runes or the Strollaz rune before that allowed them to be a viable offensive army. That's gone now.

I suppose you're going to rebuke me by pointing to the new bound spell: Rune of Resolve. Pure bound spells are not a viable magic fase. They only work when supporting a full fledged Wizard and that's something Dwarfs don't have. I tried a pure blessing based army with my Empire and it didn't work.



I'd likely "rebuke" you by pointing out the fact that all dwarf units march 9" now, that it's easy to give your army center (two or three main combat units) Swiftstride, that you've got one of the best chaff pieces in the game in the form of a single 20mm model, still have Gyros, blimps with impact hits, access to the +1Movement banner from the core rulebook (which of course gives DH units greater benefit than any other) plus their own Vanguard banner, but somehow I feel it's not going to be worth my time getting into it.

Also, pure bound spells can be a very viable magic phase, as my two most common opponents are Dwarven Holds and Beastherds I'm pretty used to it by now.

Ayin
20-05-2016, 03:26
I haven't read the DH rule book yet but there is a long thread on the 9th age forum by a lot of people who feel that the dwarfs are too powerful in this addition. This is the first time I have seen them being called under powered. I will have to give the book a read now.

Since Dwarves CAN be march blocked (same as anyone else, though admittedly with a base Ld of 9 and an army center of Ld10)and their charge is still 3+2D6 (or 3D6 if the army brings a Throne instead of Shield Bearers), some Dwarf players feel that it's not enough, and that the reduction in power of artillery means the army is under-powered.

Since Dwarves DO move as fast or faster than most other infantry in the game, can be swiftstride, are hard to marchblock, have good chaff and anti-chaff and GOOD magic support, some opponents of Dwarfs feel that the army is too powerful.


Being in a position where some of the vocal members of your community feel that the army is no-good, and some of the most vocal opponents feel it is too good is a good place to be, as it means there's a good chance the army is right in the middle and plays well if you know how to use it, and is hard to counter if you aren't familiar with it. The Dwarfs increased movement but still limited charges, combined with their army design, mean that they have a real option for an offensively-defensive list (where they quickly close the gap to your army and force the charge), and gives them a real option for non-static gunlines that I honestly don't remember every seeing consistently (ie not just for fun) on the table since at least before 6th.

WarsmithGarathor94
20-05-2016, 09:17
One thing I am curious about the WoC book is will we be getting rules for mixing daemons and mortals together in the same army list?
Also considering I just started my WoC for AoS and plan to use them in 9th age top I take it round bases are fine?

Giladisb
20-05-2016, 15:07
One thing I am curious about the WoC book is will we be getting rules for mixing daemons and mortals together in the same army list?
Also considering I just started my WoC for AoS and plan to use them in 9th age top I take it round bases are fine?

There are some considerations for themed mixed armies in the future.

Round bases are not compatible with 9th Age due to most models needing sharp corners to determine Line of Sight.

Zywus
20-05-2016, 15:32
If you base on 25mm round bases rrather then the 32mm rounds supplied, you can use conversion trays to field chaos warriors etc. in ranked units.

Unlike many conversion trays on the market, these ones have the cutouts placed right next to each other, meaning that you get (almost) the exact correct footprint for the unit

http://www.back2base-ix.com/25mm-conversion-tray.html

http://ironheartartisans.com/shop/round-base-to-square-movement-tray/

AverageBoss
20-05-2016, 16:49
1st draft of 9E Bretonians (that's 3 army books in the past week) for those of you interested:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Redi9cZJ5iRDM2amEzQVZ4ZGc/view

His expected update order is now:



Skaven
Beastmen
Albion
Amazons
Araby
Cathay
Chaos Dwarfs
Cult of Ulric
Dogs of War
Estalia
Halflings
Hobgoblins
Kingdoms of Ind
Kislev
Nippon
Norse
Pirates of Sartosa


And then the 2nd drafts starting with Empire.

WarsmithGarathor94
20-05-2016, 17:25
Well no way I'm ever trying 9th age then rules for it are okay bit it seems extremely boring :|

Folomo
20-05-2016, 17:35
IME, if you liked 8th edition then T9A is even more interesting, mostly because you see a lot of different armies for every faction (instead of only 1-2 with slight differences) :)
I know a lot of people who are using the models they like now or try different playstyles with their army depending on their mood.

WarsmithGarathor94
20-05-2016, 17:55
IME, if you liked 8th edition then T9A is even more interesting, mostly because you see a lot of different armies for every faction (instead of only 1-2 with slight differences) :)
I know a lot of people who are using the models they like now or try different playstyles with their army depending on their mood.

8th was ok but for me with 9th they have moved a few thinks I enjoyed like the eye of the gods table for example

Tokamak
20-05-2016, 19:31
IME, if you liked 8th edition then T9A is even more interesting, mostly because you see a lot of different armies for every faction (instead of only 1-2 with slight differences) :)

That's what I hate about it. Really restrictive army building.

Lord Dan
20-05-2016, 20:56
That's what I hate about it. Really restrictive army building.

In T9A? The opposite couldn't be more true.

Lord Dan
20-05-2016, 20:56
That's what I hate about it. Really restrictive army building.

In T9A? The opposite couldn't be more true.

theunwantedbeing
20-05-2016, 22:04
In T9A? The opposite couldn't be more true.

T9A does have a number of limitations on army construction.

Heroes and Lords have a greater percentage of points allowed (technically less but I never used the boosted 50% allowances)
However they are now restricted to 0-3 duplicate choices which in the case of heroes can be quite restrictive.

Core choices, same 25% minimum allowance but now there is a 0-4 duplicate restriction that 8th didn't have.
This can become problematic where unit options have been combined into a single choice.

Special and Rare choices are generally less restrictive, you potentially get more points for special choices.
However there are instances like for core choices where unit options have been condensed into one unit choice.

Artillery options have been condensed into single unit options as well, coupled with limitations on how many you can have of each type.

Monsters get restrictions in most lists, often meaning you have to choose between two of a monster or one and a mount for your general, who often has to be a specific type to be able to ride the monster you really want.

Character restrictions vary quite wildly, some have a tonne of options and others have very few.
Some options like a spear on foot is often completely unavailable, despite a spear actually having a use for an infantry model now.
Often the unlock-able unit upgrades are stuck on a lord choice and there's no similar hero option to provide an alternative or even a lesser character option for certain mount types.

There are certainly a lot of options you used to have in 8th edition that T9A now doesn't allow.

Noodle!
20-05-2016, 22:11
Tried it once now, I don't dislike it. I think it's a worthy competitor to 8th. I still prefer 8th. For some reason I feel there's more "flavor" to the possible lists in 8th.
Should be noted though that I never played in a competitive environment, so 8th for others might've looked very different than 8th did for me. 9th for me feels far more boxed in.

Still good fun, I'd definitely play it if someone for some reason didn't want to play 8th.

dalezzz
20-05-2016, 22:11
T9A does have a number of limitations on army construction.

Heroes and Lords have a greater percentage of points allowed (technically less but I never used the boosted 50% allowances)
However they are now restricted to 0-3 duplicate choices which in the case of heroes can be quite restrictive.


See its rules like this that annoy folk ,what does it even achieve? Goblin Armys are weaker .....thats literally it and just makes me think of those whiny posts from high elf and woc players about how they couldn't kill the little green fellas fast enough

Malagor
20-05-2016, 23:28
See its rules like this that annoy folk ,what does it even achieve? Goblin Armys are weaker .....thats literally it and just makes me think of those whiny posts from high elf and woc players about how they couldn't kill the little green fellas fast enough
ah yes, those lovely posts.
And then they complain about the O&G player having steadfast and they didn't(Hint, armies that tend to win, usually don't use steadfast), well they got their wish granted in 9th Age as well.
Most fun is after a HE vs WoC match, the whining goes up to 9000 then.

theunwantedbeing
21-05-2016, 00:01
See its rules like this that annoy folk ,what does it even achieve?

It stops character spam.
To a point at least, armies with a lot more character choices can take more.

Goblins don't suffer too much.
Goblin Lords are still absurdly cheap, same with the heroes so you can take the maximum of 6 very cheaply, plus up to 6 other mages.
Which is super handy as you can put 2-3 of them in each of your up to 4 goblin infantry blocks you can field.

Ludaman
21-05-2016, 02:50
Overall I feel like the lists allow for a lot more diversity rather than the same 2 or 3 cookie-cutter lists from each army we used to have. However certain armies received last-second restrictions aimed to stop units/characters/combos seen as overpowered before version 1.0 dropped and now those armies have to wait till September for fixes.