PDA

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



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

Noodle!
21-05-2016, 09:08
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.
I think this is my issue that I touched on. I feel like your reaction to 9th is going to be highly dependent on what kind of community you had coming in from 8th. I'd probably be overjoyed with happiness with 9th if the people around me only played those kinds of lists.
Seems the majority of players are those kinds of people though.

edit: but I still think 9th age is good, just to be clear. I just like 8th better, it's a bit wilder and has more variation.

Kingrick
21-05-2016, 16:46
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.

I was a WoC player and we aren't all that bad! :(

the one thing I will say is, will there be some issues? most likely, but there is a suggestion forums for T9A, so my recommendation to people is to not just go to other forums and point out the flaws, but to go directly to T9A forums and point out the flaws there. The community is actually quite open there. This issue with goblins not being able to have multiples of different units such as archers/spearmen has come up, and I would expect that T9A creators have noticed and will be making a plan to change it. I have friends who play O&G and I would love to see a goblin horde across the table, they are one of my favourite armies.

Lord Dan
21-05-2016, 17:49
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.

All of this overlooks the fundamental fact that T9A has taken great strides to make every unit in the game viable. Granted, there are still options that are stronger than others, but there aren't any in the game that are downright terrible. As Ludaman rightly pointed out, this is what makes list creation so much more freeing in T9A, and why you see such a variety of different lists out there even in competitive play. No one can agree on a single "power build" for any given army because there's no single correct choice anymore.

For instance, if you were to tell me before a tournament that I wasn't permitted to take the strongest choice in each of my hero, core, special, and rare sections, I would still genuinely feel like I could win that tournament. That never could have happened in 8th edition.

In fact, I might have to try that out sometime...

theunwantedbeing
21-05-2016, 18:41
All of this overlooks the fundamental fact that T9A has taken great strides to make every unit in the game viable. Granted, there are still options that are stronger than others, but there aren't any in the game that are downright terrible. As Ludaman rightly pointed out, this is what makes list creation so much more freeing in T9A, and why you see such a variety of different lists out there even in competitive play. No one can agree on a single "power build" for any given army because there's no single correct choice anymore.

Unit balance is much better in T9A, however 8th edition was a lot less restrictive on what you could actually field.

Lord Dan
21-05-2016, 18:53
Unit balance is much better in T9A, however 8th edition was a lot less restrictive on what you could actually field.

It's not really free choice if you don't want to take those other things.

That's my point here: I'd rather be limited to 4 copies of any core unit I want than be able to take an unlimited number of the only core unit worth taking. That's what leads to real list variety and a true lack of restriction.

Spiney Norman
21-05-2016, 19:14
It's not really free choice if you don't want to take those other things.

That's my point here: I'd rather be limited to 4 copies of any core unit I want than be able to take an unlimited number of the only core unit worth taking. That's what leads to real list variety and a true lack of restriction.

It does hurt people who want to theme their lists though, for example in my Night goblin list I don't want to be forced into taking common goblins or wolf riders or whatever because I'm banned from more than 4 units of nighties, the character limit would be a huge problem for goblin armies too, being limited to only 3 night goblin big bosses would sting because they're usually the only way a unit of night goblins can force through some actual damage.

Diversity is only a good thing where it makes sense.

I think the biggest 'deal-breaker' for me is the loss of all the wfb special characters, most of the armies I played in wfb were centred around an iconic special character: Skarsnik, Wurrzag, Khalida, Kroq-gar etc, I think it was a mistake to cut off that aspect entirely.

WarsmithGarathor94
21-05-2016, 19:42
The fact is to limit the amount of times a unit can be taken do sent really provide variety. For example what if i want to field a army of nothing but khorne warriors and knights with characters in support heck the team was too lazy to allow warriors and daemons to combine

Kingrick
21-05-2016, 20:22
The fact is to limit the amount of times a unit can be taken do sent really provide variety. For example what if i want to field a army of nothing but khorne warriors and knights with characters in support heck the team was too lazy to allow warriors and daemons to combine

I really wouldn't call the effort they have made lazy. They released 16 armies so people can continue using their old miniatures, there is talk about mono-mark chaos armies coming in the future, maybe then you can combine your khorne warriors with them.

Teurastaja
21-05-2016, 21:16
The fact is to limit the amount of times a unit can be taken do sent really provide variety. For example what if i want to field a army of nothing but khorne warriors and knights with characters in support heck the team was too lazy to allow warriors and daemons to combine

Yes, after releasing 16 playtested army books they were too lazy to allow, playtest and balance combinations of those armies. Truly ridiculous! :)

Lord Dan
21-05-2016, 21:25
It does hurt people who want to theme their lists though, for example in my Night goblin list I don't want to be forced into taking common goblins or wolf riders or whatever because I'm banned from more than 4 units of nighties, the character limit would be a huge problem for goblin armies too, being limited to only 3 night goblin big bosses would sting because they're usually the only way a unit of night goblins can force through some actual damage.

Diversity is only a good thing where it makes sense.
Well, sure, there's a trade off. For that one guy who runs themed, 4+ Night Goblin unit armies there are many more who run a dozen core chariots or a bow gunline. T9A is geared toward competitive play with the knowledge that casual players tend to alter rules for games at home, anyway.

Unless you're arguing that someone is bringing a themed, 4+ Night Goblin unit army to a tournament, in which case I'd argue that his sacrifice is worth preventing that aforementioned chariot/gunline spam.



I think the biggest 'deal-breaker' for me is the loss of all the wfb special characters, most of the armies I played in wfb were centred around an iconic special character: Skarsnik, Wurrzag, Khalida, Kroq-gar etc, I think it was a mistake to cut off that aspect entirely.
GW can claim IP infringement on all of their names and background, so of course we couldn't use them. I'm sorry you find that to be a deal breaker, but it certainly wasn't a mistake.

theunwantedbeing
21-05-2016, 22:04
Well, sure, there's a trade off. For that one guy who runs themed, 4+ Night Goblin unit armies there are many more who run a dozen core chariots or a bow gunline.

Yeah!
In 8th edition chariot spam and goblin bow gunlines were abusive and unfair, so had to be stopped.
Not by making chariots and goblins with bows the same power ever everything else of course that would be daft, we're just going to leave them exactly as they are and slap a duplicate restriction on them.

:eyebrows:

Not that most chariots are even core anyway.

logan054
21-05-2016, 22:11
Yes, after releasing 16 playtested army books they were too lazy to allow, playtest and balance combinations of those armies. Truly ridiculous! :)

Food for thought, why is a crusher cheap on a hero than a lord when the hero gains a wound from it? Makes no sense, it's not like a jugger lord gives any other bonus.

Obviously it hasn't all been playtested that we'll.

Ronin[XiC]
21-05-2016, 22:34
Better than ANYTHING GW has ever done.

And mistakes or imbalances WILL be fixed in the future.

The lord hero point cost for mojnts is perfectly fine for OG... not sure about Chaos Warriors.

Asmodios
21-05-2016, 22:53
Yeah!
In 8th edition chariot spam and goblin bow gunlines were abusive and unfair, so had to be stopped.
Not by making chariots and goblins with bows the same power ever everything else of course that would be daft, we're just going to leave them exactly as they are and slap a duplicate restriction on them.

:eyebrows:
IMO its the best way to balance them. If you were to weaken them to the point where they only become effective in large numbers you have thus pushed people into a meta of spamming certain units to gain utility out of them. The only other way would be to add an increasing cost curve so that the price per unit increases as you take more of them, This run into the same issue as people would either A)not build that list B) only take the units up till the unit cost begins to curve. Both those option will be seen as "attacking theme players".

As an all goblin player I'm still allowed to field a massive amount of goblins (i also use goblins to fill in after my front rank of gnashers so I'm still fielding a stupid amount of goblins) so its really not much of an issue. If you have a way you would balance it they are having a discussion on the 9th forums and are open to suggestions so you should really let them know what would work best. Im sure if your idea is really good we will see it implemented in the next edition.

Spiney Norman
22-05-2016, 00:04
GW can claim IP infringement on all of their names and background, so of course we couldn't use them. I'm sorry you find that to be a deal breaker, but it certainly wasn't a mistake.

That's not a reason, it would have been just as easy to rename the special characters as it was to rename the armies like 9A has done, Khalida becomes 'Queen Neferti' or something suitably Egyptian-sounding, the sylvan elves could have an enormous woodland King/avatar of their hunting god that was called something other than 'orion'. The fact is there is no way to use most of these models in 9th age because there is no way to give a night goblin boss a squig unless he is riding it, there is no way to mount a slann on a stegadon and there is nothing in the sylvan elf list that can be sensibly represented by the Orion model even if I wanted to.

Asmodios
22-05-2016, 00:15
That's not a reason, it would have been just as easy to rename the special characters as it was to rename the armies like 9A has done, Khalida becomes 'Queen Neferti' or something suitably Egyptian-sounding, the sylvan elves could have an enormous woodland King/avatar of their hunting god that was called something other than 'orion'. The fact is there is no way to use most of these models in 9th age because there is no way to give a night goblin boss a squig unless he is riding it, there is no way to mount a slann on a stegadon and there is nothing in the sylvan elf list that can be sensibly represented by the Orion model even if I wanted to.
Me and my friends have been using special characters with large bases for unit fillers for a long time. Some people might not like it but i think it adds some cool character to a block of troops. Also isn't this also an issue in AOS as well because most of the heroes of the old world died along with it? I could be wrong but don't very few characters carry over from 8th to AOS?

Folomo
22-05-2016, 00:48
That's not a reason, it would have been just as easy to rename the special characters as it was to rename the armies like 9A has done, Khalida becomes 'Queen Neferti' or something suitably Egyptian-sounding, the sylvan elves could have an enormous woodland King/avatar of their hunting god that was called something other than 'orion'. The fact is there is no way to use most of these models in 9th age because there is no way to give a night goblin boss a squig unless he is riding it, there is no way to mount a slann on a stegadon and there is nothing in the sylvan elf list that can be sensibly represented by the Orion model even if I wanted to.

If I remember right, the idea is to include them after the factions were initially balanced (v1.0). Trying to add them at the beginning, specially those that tend to change how armies play, would really have encumbered the whole effort of making a good and well balanced books :)

Holier Than Thou
22-05-2016, 02:16
The fact is to limit the amount of times a unit can be taken do sent really provide variety. For example what if i want to field a army of nothing but khorne warriors and knights with characters in support heck the team was too lazy to allow warriors and daemons to combine

Regardless of whether or not you're a fan of T9A, describing their efforts as lazy is ridiculous, especially considering you seem to be a big fan of Age of Sigmar, probably the laziest release of a game there has ever been.

BoronYeltsin
22-05-2016, 09:01
I took a look at T9A and generally liked what I saw, aside from some areas where I think they've swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

That said, I probably won't ever get to actually play it since my only local GS is a Games Workshop and fan-made stuff is banned. Also, no one I've approached about it is willing to give it a shot at one of our homes - they hear the words 'fan made ruleset' and immediately shut down.

Noodle!
22-05-2016, 09:28
The biggest thing that keeps me from T9A though is a lack of my beloved Chaos Ogres. I know you can have regular Ogres with marks, but I mean as companions to my Warriors.

logan054
22-05-2016, 10:57
;7631549']Better than ANYTHING GW has ever done.

And mistakes or imbalances WILL be fixed in the future.

The lord hero point cost for mojnts is perfectly fine for OG... not sure about Chaos Warriors.

So better than Warhammer quest, epic, bloodbowl, battlefleet gothic? It's a derivative of GW's work (Warhammer). That's incredibly disrespectful to guys who work the 9th age is heavily based on.

Be serious now, it's not like the 9th age has created a system from scratch.

Arrahed
22-05-2016, 11:28
So better than Warhammer quest, epic, bloodbowl, battlefleet gothic? It's a derivative of GW's work (Warhammer). That's incredibly disrespectful to guys who work the 9th age is heavily based on.

Be serious now, it's not like the 9th age has created a system from scratch.

I am pretty sure that was in reference to WFB not all the other games GW released. Other games are hardly comparable.
And its not like GW didn't have the same starting point as the T9A team. GW's starting point was even better because they wouldn't have had to rewrite everything from scratch because they already hold the IP of the rule texts.

Giladisb
22-05-2016, 14:53
That's not a reason, it would have been just as easy to rename the special characters as it was to rename the armies like 9A has done, Khalida becomes 'Queen Neferti' or something suitably Egyptian-sounding, the sylvan elves could have an enormous woodland King/avatar of their hunting god that was called something other than 'orion'. The fact is there is no way to use most of these models in 9th age because there is no way to give a night goblin boss a squig unless he is riding it, there is no way to mount a slann on a stegadon and there is nothing in the sylvan elf list that can be sensibly represented by the Orion model even if I wanted to.

Legendary Characters is one of the features of the game we are looking to introduce in the future.



I took a look at T9A and generally liked what I saw, aside from some areas where I think they've swung the pendulum too far in the opposite direction.

That said, I probably won't ever get to actually play it since my only local GS is a Games Workshop and fan-made stuff is banned. Also, no one I've approached about it is willing to give it a shot at one of our homes - they hear the words 'fan made ruleset' and immediately shut down.

Well it should be easier then if you do not call it "fan made". The 9th Age is an organisation and a closest thing there is to a company with a difference we do not make money out of our work. So you can freely say Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age rules set are the official rules of the 9th Age project.

logan054
22-05-2016, 15:31
I am pretty sure that was in reference to WFB not all the other games GW released. Other games are hardly comparable.
And its not like GW didn't have the same starting point as the T9A team. GW's starting point was even better because they wouldn't have had to rewrite everything from scratch because they already hold the IP of the rule texts.

It's a very bold and subjective statement. 9th age isn't based on the best edition of Warhammer, 6th overrall was the best for myself.

As a chaos player, HoC was the best and funnest chaos book that had plenty of character (same with VC). I think like AoS, 9th age suffers from being geared towards a certain mindset. The older editions are better because either mindset could enjoy the game.

As for being comparable, of course the other table top games are, I can rate them by enjoyment. It's like saying I can't compare pc with console gaming because they aren't similar enough.

Teurastaja
22-05-2016, 16:02
As for being comparable, of course the other table top games are, I can rate them by enjoyment. It's like saying I can't compare pc with console gaming because they aren't similar enough.

So how can you compare 9th Age to Battlefleet Gothic? Is BFG better because there are no space ships in the 9th Age?

Kingrick
22-05-2016, 16:23
It's a very bold and subjective statement. 9th age isn't based on the best edition of Warhammer, 6th overrall was the best for myself.

As a chaos player, HoC was the best and funnest chaos book that had plenty of character (same with VC). I think like AoS, 9th age suffers from being geared towards a certain mindset. The older editions are better because either mindset could enjoy the game.

As for being comparable, of course the other table top games are, I can rate them by enjoyment. It's like saying I can't compare pc with console gaming because they aren't similar enough.


I think the benefit to being a narrative player as opposed to a competitive player is you can make a narrative out of any game you play, I don't think the fact that 9th age is trying to balance the game should hurt people who don't care about competition.

Arrahed
22-05-2016, 17:23
It's a very bold and subjective statement. 9th age isn't based on the best edition of Warhammer, 6th overrall was the best for myself.

Now I am confused. Isn't that disrespectful towards the people who made editions 1 to 5?
T9A is arguably a more robust game than every WFB edition ever released (except Ravening Hordes maybe but if T9A is not flavorful enough for you, I doubt Ravening Hordes is for you.).



As a chaos player, HoC was the best and funnest chaos book that had plenty of character (same with VC).

With the first part I can agree. Splitting Chaos was a bad move in my opinion.


I think like AoS, 9th age suffers from being geared towards a certain mindset. The older editions are better because either mindset could enjoy the game.

I disagree. I read this over and over again. Their is simply no proof for that being true. T9A was designed as a balanced game that doesn't fall apart as soon as it is played competitively. I would argue that this makes it suitable for a wider range of mindsets than a game that breaks easily.



As for being comparable, of course the other table top games are, I can rate them by enjoyment. It's like saying I can't compare pc with console gaming because they aren't similar enough.
In that case I would like to argue that that Monopoly is a better game than AoS. Look at how many copies of monopoly were sold and you can play it with space ships (Star Wars edition), elves and orcs (LotR Edition) and probably with street names from your local city (*cityXYZ edition).

Vazalaar
22-05-2016, 17:30
I think the benefit to being a narrative player as opposed to a competitive player is you can make a narrative out of any game you play, I don't think the fact that 9th age is trying to balance the game should hurt people who don't care about competition.

Hmm, I don't completely agree. I.e The Warriors of the Dark Gods has imo lost a lot of flavour/immersion - the removal of the Eye of the Gods table and changes to the Mutalith Vortex beasts done because of the minimizing/removal of random elements does affect players that don't think balance is the most important thing for a fantasy table top wargame. Thus for me 8th edition + house rules/extra fan made stuff (Warhammer Armies Projects) does everything what 9th Age does, but imo with a bigger "fun" factor.

Chaos is fickle and imo as a Chaos player I do think this should be reflected in the armylist. Now it just feels bland.

BoronYeltsin
22-05-2016, 17:41
Well it should be easier then if you do not call it "fan made". The 9th Age is an organisation and a closest thing there is to a company with a difference we do not make money out of our work. So you can freely say Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age rules set are the official rules of the 9th Age project.

But that is the best description for it though.

None of the people working on it (as far as I know) are professional game designers or are being paid to produce the game, that one IP lawyer notwithstanding. They are however, one and all, fans of WHFB, probably the most dedicated fans there are, given the amount of effort they're putting into the project.

It's a fan-made modification to the 8th edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles ruleset. There's no shame in saying so, and it shouldn't be taken in a derogatory manner.

If I did tell my group what you suggest, that the rules are the 'official rules of the 9th Age project', they might go as far as read about it on the internet, but then they'd find out that it's a fan project and we'd be back to where we started, only my group would be slightly less likely to listen to what I have to say because they would think that I had lied to them.

What I'd really like is some kind of official approval from GW about it, but of course I know this will never happen. But if by some miracle it did, I can guarantee that my group would look at it with far greater interest.

Spiney Norman
22-05-2016, 17:46
So how can you compare 9th Age to Battlefleet Gothic? Is BFG better because there are no space ships in the 9th Age?

He didn't, that was Ronin[XiC]


;7631549']Better than ANYTHING GW has ever done.

better than 'anything' GW has ever done... really :rolleyes:

Arrahed
22-05-2016, 17:50
What I'd really like is some kind of official approval from GW about it, but of course I know this will never happen. But if by some miracle it did, I can guarantee that my group would look at it with far greater interest.
I find that to be very strange attitude towards a hobby. It sounds like it is more important that a product is from a certain brand than whether is is actually good.
I have absolutely no trouble understanding that some people prefer 8th edition over T9A or AoS over 8th Edition but saying the quality of a product is secondary to the label printed on the box is completely alien to me.

Ludaman
22-05-2016, 17:58
But that is the best description for it though.

None of the people working on it (as far as I know) are professional game designers or are being paid to produce the game, that one IP lawyer notwithstanding. They are however, one and all, fans of WHFB, probably the most dedicated fans there are, given the amount of effort they're putting into the project.

It's a fan-made modification to the 8th edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles ruleset. There's no shame in saying so, and it shouldn't be taken in a derogatory manner.

If I did tell my group what you suggest, that the rules are the 'official rules of the 9th Age project', they might go as far as read about it on the internet, but then they'd find out that it's a fan project and we'd be back to where we started, only my group would be slightly less likely to listen to what I have to say because they would think that I had lied to them.

What I'd really like is some kind of official approval from GW about it, but of course I know this will never happen. But if by some miracle it did, I can guarantee that my group would look at it with far greater interest.

I'd argue that the games designers over at GW are hardly professionals themselves. When your hiring practices are based around "attitude" and "love of the hobby" I'd say most editions of Warhammer have been "Fan-made".

But hey, you could always tell your friends about what the ETC and Swiss comp are, tell them how a core-group of those gentlemen put together the Ninth-Age and then rounded up a team of volunteers to work on each army, and then you could tell them how those volunteers put in more hours than most put into their jobs over a 6 month period leading up to the release of the 1st edition.

Or you could keep playing "End Times" 8th, one of the most insanely unbalanced, random, hack-jobs of game ever made :).

But I do understand, I have quite a few friends that are the worst kind of stubborn-nerd-snob.

Ronin[XiC]
22-05-2016, 18:08
Well I actually do think 9th is more fun than BFG, Epic, Mordheim etc. Doesnt mean those games are fun too. They're still quite a mess in most rules and stuff.

9th is definately the best edition of Warhammer Fantasy and by far better done than all the others.

Kingrick
22-05-2016, 18:34
Hmm, I don't completely agree. I.e The Warriors of the Dark Gods has imo lost a lot of flavour/immersion - the removal of the Eye of the Gods table and changes to the Mutalith Vortex beasts done because of the minimizing/removal of random elements does affect players that don't think balance is the most important thing for a fantasy table top wargame. Thus for me 8th edition + house rules/extra fan made stuff (Warhammer Armies Projects) does everything what 9th Age does, but imo with a bigger "fun" factor.

Chaos is fickle and imo as a Chaos player I do think this should be reflected in the armylist. Now it just feels bland.

fair enough, I can understand that. I started playing warhammer at quite a young age in 5th edition because my older siblings played it, and at that time at the start of the game the chaos player rolled 2d6 and got that many cards handed to him, all of which had different random effects you could use at the start or later. I remember thinking that was pretty cool. Little things can really add character to the army.

Vazalaar
22-05-2016, 18:40
;7631778']Well I actually do think 9th is more fun than BFG, Epic, Mordheim etc. Doesnt mean those games are fun too. They're still quite a mess in most rules and stuff.

9th is definately the best edition of Warhammer Fantasy and by far better done than all the others.

Yes, in your opinion. Which is perfectly fine. But imo, 8th Edition with a couple of minor changes is the best edition of Warhammer and for me and the group I play with 9th edition is a modification of 8th which took a direction we don't like. Thus for us 9th Age feels a step backwards... .
For others 6th/7th was the best edition and so on.

Lord Dan
22-05-2016, 18:50
Yes, in your opinion. Which is perfectly fine. But imo, 8th Edition with a couple of minor changes is the best edition of Warhammer and for me and the group I play with 9th edition is a modification of 8th which took a direction we don't like. Thus for us 9th Age feels a step backwards... .
For others 6th/7th was the best edition and so on.

I'm curious: if GW had published The 9th Age exactly as it's written, would your gaming group play that or 8th edition with some modifications?

Vazalaar
22-05-2016, 20:38
I'm curious: if GW had published The 9th Age exactly as it's written, would your gaming group play that or 8th edition with some modifications?

A very good question, which deserves a honest answer. ;)

I assume it would have been the same as when we switched from 6th to 7th to 8th.

So, yes I am almost 100% certain that we would switch to a "GW" 9th Age. We will still have our complaints, but we would play it. I know it seems unlogical... but now we don't have this urge to switch from 8th to 9th Age, maybe because we also experiment more with house rules and fan made rules now 8th edition is no longer supported (i.e I am working on some rules for Silver Tower: Mistweaver Saih, so our Elves player can use it as a special character).

We only play 1 - 2 evenings a month, so most of our hobby time is painting (be it GW or historicals).

I am a huge fan of GW miniatures, thus if GW would have released 9th Age rules as their 9th edition with a new starterset with the rumoured new Bretonnian miniatures. I would have been ecstatic.

There is no logical explanation for it, but I don't think that I am the only one.

logan054
22-05-2016, 21:26
;7631778']Well I actually do think 9th is more fun than BFG, Epic, Mordheim etc. Doesnt mean those games are fun too. They're still quite a mess in most rules and stuff.

9th is definately the best edition of Warhammer Fantasy and by far better done than all the others.

I always found 6th ed the most fun edition of warhammer, then again I play chaos. 8th however was the worse edition of warhammer I played which 9th age is based on. As for the best game produced by GW, it has to be blood bowl, as you haven't mentioned it I'm guessing you agree.

Which version of epic are you talking about? the latest version isn't even close to the original.


I'm curious: if GW had published The 9th Age exactly as it's written, would your gaming group play that or 8th edition with some modifications?

GW wouldn't produce it, if they did, like many other editions I would however play it as it's the official edition which makes getting pickup games easier. Like every other edition, I would still voice what I don't like, have a grumble and get on with gaming. 9th Age however isn't an official edition of warhammer, regardless of how professional it is, it's still a fan made product, like most fan made products, I'll be less likely to play it if doesn't do something I wanted to happen as a fan. The chaos book really puts me off. This isn't any different than with GW, when the WoC book came out I played far less warhammer, I use to play weekly, after, maybe a few times a year.



Now I am confused. Isn't that disrespectful towards the people who made editions 1 to 5?
T9A is arguably a more robust game than every WFB edition ever released (except Ravening Hordes maybe but if T9A is not flavorful enough for you, I doubt Ravening Hordes is for you.).

So your attempt at making a point revolves around turning my words against me, lol. remind me, who created warhammer? Remind me, when did Rick Priestley leave GW? wasn't he still working for GW past 5th ed ;) What's ravening hordes got to do with anything (the free get you by list), I liked the Horde of chaos list.


With the first part I can agree. Splitting Chaos was a bad move in my opinion.

Which never resulted in a more balanced game.


I disagree. I read this over and over again. Their is simply no proof for that being true. T9A was designed as a balanced game that doesn't fall apart as soon as it is played competitively. I would argue that this makes it suitable for a wider range of mindsets than a game that breaks easily.

What I mean is (I was at the pub while posting it enjoying a beer or 10), they game is focused to one a extreme, as someone in the middle, I read the list for my chosen army and just see it as a bland, dull list. it's too streamlined to make anything interesting. When I play the army, while technically fine something is missing, its generally how I feel about the 9th age. I dunno, its like when your wife a women who on paper seems perfect, something is just off, i really can't think of a better way to explain it. I think maybe this is down to be so concentrated on the balance something has been lost.


In that case I would like to argue that that Monopoly is a better game than AoS. Look at how many copies of monopoly were sold and you can play it with space ships (Star Wars edition), elves and orcs (LotR Edition) and probably with street names from your local city (*cityXYZ edition).

Having this discussion is a better game than AoS, what's your point?


So how can you compare 9th Age to Battlefleet Gothic? Is BFG better because there are no space ships in the 9th Age?

I didn't, someone else said the 9th age was better than anything GW produced. I have simply pointed out other games that they have produced ;) I do however compared 40k to fantasy alot, I chose warhammer because i prefer it. Those are very diferent games, that doesn't mean I can't say "I like using battlebarges and thunderhawks over empire state troops and griffon's.


On a side note, I really think the 9th age would benefit greatly from input from someone like Rick Priestly, I'd throw some money at that through a kickstarter.

Giladisb
22-05-2016, 21:27
But that is the best description for it though.

None of the people working on it (as far as I know) are professional game designers or are being paid to produce the game, that one IP lawyer notwithstanding. They are however, one and all, fans of WHFB, probably the most dedicated fans there are, given the amount of effort they're putting into the project.

It's a fan-made modification to the 8th edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles ruleset. There's no shame in saying so, and it shouldn't be taken in a derogatory manner.

If I did tell my group what you suggest, that the rules are the 'official rules of the 9th Age project', they might go as far as read about it on the internet, but then they'd find out that it's a fan project and we'd be back to where we started, only my group would be slightly less likely to listen to what I have to say because they would think that I had lied to them.

What I'd really like is some kind of official approval from GW about it, but of course I know this will never happen. But if by some miracle it did, I can guarantee that my group would look at it with far greater interest.

As Ludaman has already said the professions of the people which had been part of the GW Development team in the past have been all over the place. I will not say it 100% because I do not have the actually info on all who worked for the team, but as far as I can remember not a single one of them was a games designer, for a matter of fact I don't even know if there is any place we you actually study to become a tabletop game designer. So only thing that made them "professional" was that they were paid for their work.


The problem isn't shame it is a legal matter. The 9th Age is a spiritual successor of the type of late 80-s tabletop wargames of which Warhammer was the largest modern equivalent, but we are not and cannot be a fan-made modification of 8th edition Warhammer and we have gone to great lengths to ensure that.


So if you want to play a game that is part of wider family of games like old Warhammer, 9th Age is there to provide that, but we are not Warhammer. :)

Katastrophe
22-05-2016, 23:06
But that is the best description for it though.

None of the people working on it (as far as I know) are professional game designers or are being paid to produce the game, that one IP lawyer notwithstanding. They are however, one and all, fans of WHFB, probably the most dedicated fans there are, given the amount of effort they're putting into the project.

It's a fan-made modification to the 8th edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles ruleset. There's no shame in saying so, and it shouldn't be taken in a derogatory manner.

If I did tell my group what you suggest, that the rules are the 'official rules of the 9th Age project', they might go as far as read about it on the internet, but then they'd find out that it's a fan project and we'd be back to where we started, only my group would be slightly less likely to listen to what I have to say because they would think that I had lied to them.

What I'd really like is some kind of official approval from GW about it, but of course I know this will never happen. But if by some miracle it did, I can guarantee that my group would look at it with far greater interest.

What kinda people are these. I've never met any person that only played official games. If you have a full set of rules, for free that's being supported, what difference does it matter if it's from a "company". That's truly some stupidiotic thinking.

Theatralic
23-05-2016, 00:37
Now that it has reached 1.0 I think I am gonna dive in and decide after some Games if its for me.

So far I like a lot of Thigs I have seen, some not so much...but that has been the same with every Iteration of Rules and Armybooks. I have to say that 8th was my favorite Edition so far. I am more of a casual Player and the aesthetics of an painted, ranked up Army on the Field are very important to mee. With 6th and especially 7th Edition Armies in my Meta stopped looking like proper Armies IMO, but thats personal Taste I guess.
Thats why I am not the biggest Fan of Unit Caps. I and many of my Friends have huge Units and I want to see that Stuff on the Table...but nothing stops us to come up with Modifications of the T9A Rules for Bigger Games. I have to admit that I feared a bit that with all the streamlining things could start to feel sterile, that Fear isn`t gone entirely. There is something to be said for a bit of whackiness and to me there was allways a bit of inherent Humor in WHFB that even GW itself lost over Time. On the other Hand I can allready see that in every Book I have read so far, nearly every Unit felt viable and fun to use without shooting yourself in the Foot for not using the same cookie cutter build, I commend that.

Interestingly I had reservations for a long Time since some of my Mates where Preaching...a lot...telling me that this was "objectively" the "best Version of the Game ever"..."balance>everything else", usually that kind of Hobby holy Gospel makes me run in the opposite direction. I have spent enough Time on the Oldhammer Forum and on Oldhammer Blogs to realize that there is more than one way to approach Fantasy Battles and Gaming. On the other Hand that movement can be rather Preachy itself: "If Armylists, Pointcosts and Balancing are important to you, you are wrong in the Head" (Being hyperbolic here). For me the truth lies somewhere in the Middle between those two extremes. If I can bring together the Balancing from for example T9A and the Flavor from Oldhammer for my personal Gaming experience there still might be hope for my favorite Game and Hobby.

BoronYeltsin
23-05-2016, 06:09
I find that to be very strange attitude towards a hobby. It sounds like it is more important that a product is from a certain brand than whether is is actually good.
I have absolutely no trouble understanding that some people prefer 8th edition over T9A or AoS over 8th Edition but saying the quality of a product is secondary to the label printed on the box is completely alien to me.

Oh I agree, it's a pretty nonsensical stance to take. That said, their only exposure to tabletop wargaming is a Games Workshop, so that tends to colour their perception a fair bit.

I'll keep trying though, maybe one day I can have a game.

Yowzo
23-05-2016, 08:15
I always found 6th ed the most fun edition of warhammer, then again I play chaos.

Careful with that. A lot of people on our group used to think that, too. But then during the whole AoS fiasco we tried to go back to 6th edition and honestly it sucked big time.

Try it over a few games just to see if it's not the nostalgia of your 15 years younger self talking.

Arrahed
23-05-2016, 09:27
So your attempt at making a point revolves around turning my words against me, lol. remind me, who created warhammer? Remind me, when did Rick Priestley leave GW? wasn't he still working for GW past 5th ed ;) What's ravening hordes got to do with anything (the free get you by list), I liked the Horde of chaos list.

I was trying to say that I don't find it disrespectful to say something is better than something someone else made. Even if it is derived from the work it is compared to. I phrased that badly.





Which never resulted in a more balanced game.

I agree. Unfortunately it could be very difficult if not impossible to recombine three armies to one decently balanced book without making any previously legal army completely invalid. I believe keeping as many 8th edition armies playable in T9A as possible was a priority. Personally, I hope we will see at least a combined warriors/demons list in the future. If you have good ideas regarding that, I am sure the T9A team is open to suggestions.



Having this discussion is a better game than AoS, what's your point?

No point. That comment from me was not constructive. Sorry about that.

Horace35
23-05-2016, 09:38
I'm curious: if GW had published The 9th Age exactly as it's written, would your gaming group play that or 8th edition with some modifications?

That is a very interesting question and also one which is not quite as simple as GW fanboyism. I would certainly be more likely to play (GW) 9th, but I think for me personally that would also be due to model and book support which would be provided by GW.

Getting some nice print books is actually something I think would be really good for T9A, I am old fashioned and like a nice hard copy of the rules to hand.

I honestly don't know if I would have made the change, probably not immediately but possibly in the future once all my armies were done. I very much doubt a GW 9th would have looked remotely like T9A though

ewar
23-05-2016, 13:26
For me the truth lies somewhere in the Middle between those two extremes. If I can bring together the Balancing from for example T9A and the Flavor from Oldhammer for my personal Gaming experience there still might be hope for my favorite Game and Hobby.

Never a truer word said.

War games players have an infuriating talent for classifying people into stupid, arbitrary categories. I have never met anyone who sits just in one of those categories - some of the best hobbyists I've ever seen were at GTs to show off their models. Some of the worst WAAC behaviour in supposedly casual games.

I myself enjoy balanced games, where I still choose units for fun over their pure competitiveness. I'm open to playing in the most cut throat tournaments as well as setting up ultra fluffy one sided narrative scenarios. Basically, I'm happy just playing toy soldiers and throwing dice about using a game system which I feel has fun and challenging gameplay.

Spiney Norman
23-05-2016, 18:05
I'm curious: if GW had published The 9th Age exactly as it's written, would your gaming group play that or 8th edition with some modifications?

Haha, what a question, I expect it would be something similar to the transition from 7th to 8th, to begin with around half of the club embraces the new edition without looking back while the other half grumble about the rule changes and swear they'll only ever stick with the old edition, then once club events and campaign kick off using the new system everyone switches over and that's that.

The difference is that if 9A was an official GW edition I would have little choice but to use it because I'd struggle to find opponents willing to play the old edition and all our wfb club campaigns would use it, as an unofficial fan supplement the boot is on the other foot and nobody wants to touch it. While I'm not the biggest fan of 9A, that's not the main reason why I don't play it, it's the lack of opponent availability.

Kyriakin
23-05-2016, 18:49
The "official" issue is a very real one and the primary reason why the hold-offs I know won't touch T9A.

For such people, GW passively endorsing it (without actually making any contributions to it) would take the project's legitimacy from 0% to 100% - just like that.

It's illogical and unfair that some GW interns quickly knocking-off some warscrolls with little care is seen as more "legitimate" than the Herculean work that went into T9A, but that's the lie of the land.

Lord Dan
23-05-2016, 20:56
The difference is that if 9A was an official GW edition I would have little choice but to use it because I'd struggle to find opponents willing to play the old edition and all our wfb club campaigns would use it, as an unofficial fan supplement the boot is on the other foot and nobody wants to touch it. While I'm not the biggest fan of 9A, that's not the main reason why I don't play it, it's the lack of opponent availability.

It's funny, because that's one of the reasons I am playing it. Everyone here in playing T9A (my gaming group has about 20 people in it), and I'm a lot more likely to get a pick up game of it somewhere than I would be of, say, Warhammer 6th edition, which would be the only other game I might even entertain playing.

GrandmasterWang
24-05-2016, 05:27
If T9A was written by GW then the unit names would be warhammer ones and special characters would have been in.

If T9A was released by GW as is.... then i would certainly stick with 8th thinking.... wth GW... why did you kill off all my special characters, butcher my known lore and rename all my units... (sounds pretty similar to what GW actually did)

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

NagashLover
24-05-2016, 07:51
Myself and those in my area, probably about 60 or so, have zero plans of trying it. We have watched it and applaud the work but don't see it as any better than what we currently use. Of those 60 in the area only about 14 of us still plays Fantasy (been like that for years actually).

Don't care for the fluff, like some of the artwork and also dislike some of the changes made to certain units. We'll stick with playing previous editions as well as our own fanmade ruleset.

MasterSplinter
24-05-2016, 13:15
I am still eager to play a game of the 9th age. I just hadnīt had enough time untill now to fully comprehend the rule changes and to process them. Other than that i hadnīt played a game of 8th also, and if, iīd rather try the 9th age out the next time i have a game.
Iīm not really up to date, but what i would really like to see with the 9th age is the implemantation for new releases "various different companies" produce. Or is that even possible? Also iīd like to know if there is a way / a way planned to play with miniature armys on round bases but with rigid formation rules.

Yowzo
24-05-2016, 13:24
I am still eager to play a game of the 9th age. I just hadnīt had enough time untill now to fully comprehend the rule changes and to process them. Other than that i hadnīt played a game of 8th also, and if, iīd rather try the 9th age out the next time i have a game.
Iīm not really up to date, but what i would really like to see with the 9th age is the implemantation for new releases "various different companies" produce. Or is that even possible?

It will happen. Eventually once the whole scene gels and the armybooks are all reasonably balanced to each other it will be time to add new stuff (including special characters).

Regarding rule changes, Oncebitten did a very interesting recap of rule changes in his channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODOEUA6swVg

logan054
26-05-2016, 17:46
fair enough, I can understand that. I started playing warhammer at quite a young age in 5th edition because my older siblings played it, and at that time at the start of the game the chaos player rolled 2d6 and got that many cards handed to him, all of which had different random effects you could use at the start or later. I remember thinking that was pretty cool. Little things can really add character to the army.

The old chaos reward deck was a lot of fun back in the day, your heroes having a little fight, a unit getting a random mutation before the battle. They tried replicating this with the eye if the gods table and it never really worked.

WoC was a lot easier to balance before every unit had a mark, I think one unit having a banner with the mark was a lot better giving you your "chosen" unit.

Universal marks on every unit has really been the bane of balancing, when it was just a character, you could be a little more creative.

Noodle!
28-05-2016, 09:15
I love marks, for me it added better flavor for a mono-god army.

logan054
28-05-2016, 15:15
I love marks, for me it added better flavor for a mono-god army.

Never said I didn't like marks, it's just an compared to a book with marks on every model, previous books achieved alot more flavour with less troops, and without marks on every model.

6th did a pretty good job with adding flavour to mono-god armies, 7th and onwards failed miserably. The books became more and more bland. The 9th age book is version is based on the blandest version of the chaos book to date.

Lord Dan
28-05-2016, 15:29
The 9th age book is version is based on the blandest version of the chaos book to date.
For years and years I remember thinking that Goldeneye was the greatest game ever made. Even a decade after it'd come out I was still standing by my claim that it couldn't be rivaled. Then one day I sat down with some friends around an old N64, fired up the game, and within 15 minutes we'd shut the thing off. Sometimes the memory of a thing is a lot better than the thing itself, and in this case I think 6th edition is much the same.

Have you played 6th edition recently? You want to talk about uninspired armies, go take a look at the 6th edition Chaos book. There were like, 8 total unit choices, everything in the book was terrible and overpriced, the marks were absurdly simplistic, and you didn't have the magic phase like you have in 8th or T9A to cover any of the army's glaring weaknesses. So go play some 6th edition and then come back and tell us with a straight face about how "bland" both 8th edition and T9A are by comparison.

logan054
28-05-2016, 15:47
I see someone is getting a little defensive ;) the 6th chaos army was split between two books, it had a little more than 8 units. Mortals wasn't an army, it was sub army.

No rose tinted glasses, I don't believe I said anything about it being the most balanced edition. I wasn't even talking about the core rules. When have I said anything about the core rules of the game? Don't believe I did!

I said I don't like a book and a few things in the core rules. Kind like every person who's played every edition of Warhammer. Ger over it

Lord Dan
28-05-2016, 16:16
I see someone is getting a little defensive ;)
Ugh.


Mortals wasn't an army, it was sub army.
...so? You're the one comparing 8th edition to 6th edition.


No rose tinted glasses, I don't believe I said anything about it being the most balanced edition. I wasn't even talking about the core rules. When have I said anything about the core rules of the game? Don't believe I did! I said I don't like a book and a few things in the core rules. Kind like every person who's played every edition of Warhammer. Ger over it
I'm not talking about balance, either, I'm talking about the nebulous concept of "blandness" you've been referring to. 6th edition was quite possibly the blandest time for WoC players (due to limited choices, lack of magic support, weak units, boring marks, etc.), and for reasons that you've yet to articulate you're hailing it at the army's golden age.

logan054
28-05-2016, 16:24
..so? You're the one comparing 8th edition to 6th edition.

I'm comparing a book that felt represented chaos better. Then again I don't think a pure mortal list does that.


I'm not talking about balance, either, I'm talking about the nebulous concept of "blandness" you've been referring to. 6th edition was quite possibly the blandest time for WoC players (due to limited choices, lack of magic support, weak units, boring marks, etc.), and for reasons that you've yet to articulate you're hailing it at the army's golden age.

The 7th warrior and onwards list has been bland, it has continued to be a walk forward and hammer list. Very little has changed since then.

The older lists had more options, you could actually make chaos lists with a much more diverse choice of units. It was little things like flying units (which even the 5th ed chaos warriors had) which meant you could play a little more tactically.

I can't say I ever heard a single person the old chaos book bland. Maybe thats just you. Are you honestly saying it's blander than the Wd list?

Lord Dan
28-05-2016, 17:48
The 7th warrior and onwards list has been bland, it has continued to be a walk forward and hammer list. Very little has changed since then.
It was always a walk forward and hammer list. Always. And, frankly, that's the natural side-effect of having armywide M4 and no shooting in your army.


The older lists had more options, you could actually make chaos lists with a much more diverse choice of units. It was little things like flying units (which even the 5th ed chaos warriors had) which meant you could play a little more tactically.

I can't say I ever heard a single person the old chaos book bland. Maybe thats just you. Are you honestly saying it's blander than the Wd list?
This is where I vehemently disagree. You admitted yourself that the old list only had a handful of options, so I can't understand why you're simultaneously claiming that it had a more "diverse" choice of units. The only thing I can think of is that you're comparing 9th Age WDG to 5th edition when Chaos was lumped together in a beasty, daemonic, mortal-y ball.

Kingrick
28-05-2016, 18:28
which unit in 5th edition warriors had flying? I don't recall one, unless we are referring to the monsters you could take. One thing that bothered me about the 6th edition book is you lost all the daemon cavalry, no more plague riders or jugger riders etc, and all the really cool special characters!

and as for the 5th edition chaos, Ijust want to point out, even though they were all in one book, they were still separate armies. If you played warriors you had to have 75% warriors, and the rest could be allies. Which most other armies could have allies anyways, so it wasn't unique to chaos. 6th changed that.

theunwantedbeing
29-05-2016, 00:45
I'm not talking about balance, either, I'm talking about the nebulous concept of "blandness" you've been referring to. 6th edition was quite possibly the blandest time for WoC players (due to limited choices, lack of magic support, weak units, boring marks, etc.), and for reasons that you've yet to articulate you're hailing it at the army's golden age.

T9A Warriors.
Forced infantry core choices for no reason, there's a 0-4 core duplicate limit in place that stops you spamming knights or chariots but that wasn't used.
The marks have all been nerfed so they haven't got much of an effect.
The above combined with the stat nerf means warriors are now more like heavy infantry versions of marauders than a separate entity.
In nerfing the abusive item combinations of 8th edition many of the non abusive yet interesting item combinations are now impossible or just gone.
You've got extra limitations like not being able to take monster armies

So it's hardly surprising that T9As warrior list feels bland to a lot of people.


6th ed was the golden age simply as it let you combine all 3 lists.

Kingrick
29-05-2016, 15:32
T9A Warriors.
Forced infantry core choices for no reason, there's a 0-4 core duplicate limit in place that stops you spamming knights or chariots but that wasn't used.
The marks have all been nerfed so they haven't got much of an effect.
The above combined with the stat nerf means warriors are now more like heavy infantry versions of marauders than a separate entity.
In nerfing the abusive item combinations of 8th edition many of the non abusive yet interesting item combinations are now impossible or just gone.
You've got extra limitations like not being able to take monster armies

So it's hardly surprising that T9As warrior list feels bland to a lot of people.


6th ed was the golden age simply as it let you combine all 3 lists.

in 6th edition warriors only had one attack and heavy armour, unless they were upgraded but only one unit could be. There was no daemonic cavalry until storm of chaos (maybe slaanesh ones in a white dwarf?). I did love the 6th warriors, but they had a few things taken away as well from their previous book. I think you exaggerate a lot of these so-called issues with 9th age. I have had chaos since 5th edition and I feel that 9th age has done a decent job representing them.

snyggejygge
29-05-2016, 18:17
Want balanced warhammer games, play 6th edition using Ravening Hordes, want diverse chaos as it should be, but lose out balance, play 4th or 5th edition. T9A doesn't deliver when it comes to chaos, even the KoW list deliver more... & keeps balance!
I've tried T9A & agree with Logan, they want chaos to look very different from my vision of chaos (being an oldie myself having played since 4th edition, thats my view of chaos, which GW destroyed in 7th, remedied with end times, but then came Aos)

logan054
29-05-2016, 22:28
which unit in 5th edition warriors had flying? I don't recall one, unless we are referring to the monsters you could take. One thing that bothered me about the 6th edition book is you lost all the daemon cavalry, no more plague riders or jugger riders etc, and all the really cool special characters!

and as for the 5th edition chaos, Ijust want to point out, even though they were all in one book, they were still separate armies. If you played warriors you had to have 75% warriors, and the rest could be allies. Which most other armies could have allies anyways, so it wasn't unique to chaos. 6th changed that.

Obviously I am talking about harpies. The summoned greater daemon rules are pretty unique to chaps back in 5the

All 6th did was allow you to do what you could already do in 4th ed.

theunwantedbeing
29-05-2016, 23:46
in 6th edition warriors only had one attack and heavy armour, unless they were upgraded but only one unit could be. There was no daemonic cavalry until storm of chaos (maybe slaanesh ones in a white dwarf?). I did love the 6th warriors, but they had a few things taken away as well from their previous book. I think you exaggerate a lot of these so-called issues with 9th age. I have had chaos since 5th edition and I feel that 9th age has done a decent job representing them.

Yes 6th ed chaos warrior units sucked for the most part, that wasn't the thing people liked about 6th, it was the customisation of being able to essentially pick and choose whatever you wanted from all 3 flavours of Chaos.

I don't feel I'm exaggerating the issues I pointed out for T9A's version of Warriors of Chaos but feel free to pick apart any comments I've made if you feel I've misrepresented and I'll post any counter arguments I am able to come up with (assuming I can, who knows?).

I don't feel T9A has done a decent job representing them at all.
It's clear we have different views on how best to represent them, personally I want to see more of an overhaul.
I'de like to see the list look more like the following....


Core
Warriors, Knights, Chariots
Maurauders*, Marauder Horsemen*, Warhounds*
Special
Chosen Warriors, Chosen Knights, Daemonic Chariots, Warshrine
Trolls, Ogres, Dragon Ogres*, Spawn, Forsaken, Harpies
Rare
Shaggoths*, Chimaera*, Giants, The Vortex beasts,
Hellcannon*, Daemonic Cavalry

*can't have a mark

Kingrick
30-05-2016, 04:26
Yes 6th ed chaos warrior units sucked for the most part, that wasn't the thing people liked about 6th, it was the customisation of being able to essentially pick and choose whatever you wanted from all 3 flavours of Chaos.

I don't feel I'm exaggerating the issues I pointed out for T9A's version of Warriors of Chaos but feel free to pick apart any comments I've made if you feel I've misrepresented and I'll post any counter arguments I am able to come up with (assuming I can, who knows?).

I don't feel T9A has done a decent job representing them at all.
It's clear we have different views on how best to represent them, personally I want to see more of an overhaul.
I'de like to see the list look more like the following....


*can't have a mark

Well, I could go through your posts, and try to prove my point, then you would probably come back with a counter argument, and then I would try to defend my original point, and we could have a good ol' discussion back and forth for a while, and then ultimately come to the conclusion that we just tend to disagree on a lot of things about T9A. So I am going to say lets not bother with that. All I will say is it seems like quite a few of your posts about T9A (not even Warriors) seems to nitpick at things that I don't find to be a dealbreaker or a big deal. But if those things really bother you, that is fine I won't point it out again. I guess it just felt like for some reason you have quite a bit of disdain towards T9A, and I don't know why.

Malagor
30-05-2016, 13:15
To me it seems that armies that were already a bit boring did well in 9th Age, armies like Beastmen or Dwarfs.
But then we got more colorful armies like O&G, Bretonnia and Warriors of Chaos that suffer greatly(skaven might be included in this, I haven't checked their book).
If you are already black and white, going up to 16 colors is a step up but if you got 256 colors and go down to 16 colors you are gonna suffer.
Already gone over O&G and Bretonnia so no need to mention their failings with those books again but since I had a 9th Age match last week where I faced WoC in it, Gaze of the Gods really ?
Eye of the Gods were both a boon and a curse for WoC since it forces you to challenge even when you don't want to and if you won there was a slim chance that it would go badly but atleast there was mostly boons for the champion/character should he win.
Now, reroll to hit and to wound until next magic phase, how more dull can you get ? Granted after O&G book the question to that is "very".
Before there was some excitement as my opponent rolled on that table since I didn't want him to get a good result but he did and as I smiled when gets +1 to BS and how he smiles when he gets +1 in S or more attacks or most results really, now it's just boredom, even my opponent didn't care about winning the challenge, it was just a total bother now.

Arrahed
30-05-2016, 15:27
To me it seems that armies that were already a bit boring did well in 9th Age, armies like Beastmen or Dwarfs.
But then we got more colorful armies like O&G, Bretonnia and Warriors of Chaos that suffer greatly(skaven might be included in this, I haven't checked their book).
If you are already black and white, going up to 16 colors is a step up but if you got 256 colors and go down to 16 colors you are gonna suffer.
Already gone over O&G and Bretonnia so no need to mention their failings with those books again but since I had a 9th Age match last week where I faced WoC in it, Gaze of the Gods really ?
Eye of the Gods were both a boon and a curse for WoC since it forces you to challenge even when you don't want to and if you won there was a slim chance that it would go badly but atleast there was mostly boons for the champion/character should he win.
Now, reroll to hit and to wound until next magic phase, how more dull can you get ? Granted after O&G book the question to that is "very".
Before there was some excitement as my opponent rolled on that table since I didn't want him to get a good result but he did and as I smiled when gets +1 to BS and how he smiles when he gets +1 in S or more attacks or most results really, now it's just boredom, even my opponent didn't care about winning the challenge, it was just a total bother now.
In what way do you feel that Bretonnia/Kingdom of Equitaine suffered greatly? KoE is certainly not perfect yet and I might even agree that it needs more work than other army books do. Which is not really surprising because Bretonnia skipped two full WFB release cycles. Is there any specific rule you are missing?

I cannot say that I agree with the your view of O&G and Chaos Warriors but I understand which rules you are disagreeing with.

Asmodios
30-05-2016, 15:32
To me it seems that armies that were already a bit boring did well in 9th Age, armies like Beastmen or Dwarfs.
But then we got more colorful armies like O&G, Bretonnia and Warriors of Chaos that suffer greatly(skaven might be included in this, I haven't checked their book).
If you are already black and white, going up to 16 colors is a step up but if you got 256 colors and go down to 16 colors you are gonna suffer.
Already gone over O&G and Bretonnia so no need to mention their failings with those books again but since I had a 9th Age match last week where I faced WoC in it, Gaze of the Gods really ?
Eye of the Gods were both a boon and a curse for WoC since it forces you to challenge even when you don't want to and if you won there was a slim chance that it would go badly but atleast there was mostly boons for the champion/character should he win.
Now, reroll to hit and to wound until next magic phase, how more dull can you get ? Granted after O&G book the question to that is "very".
Before there was some excitement as my opponent rolled on that table since I didn't want him to get a good result but he did and as I smiled when gets +1 to BS and how he smiles when he gets +1 in S or more attacks or most results really, now it's just boredom, even my opponent didn't care about winning the challenge, it was just a total bother now.
I find it particularly funny that you wouldn't care about winning or losing a challenge simply because there's no eye of the gods. I guess challenges were useless for every army except of chaos for years and simply a bother to deal with because a high elf champion wouldn't randomly turn into a demon prince. As an O&G player this is the most fun edition on warhammer that I have ever played. Previously all the goblins had was a special rule that messed up your plan a 6th of the time.... But now I have a large army book that has a plethora of different and interesting unit choices to actually pick from without auto conceding a game. Put this with rules that actually effect leadership if not in large numbers and you have a unique force every time you hit the table. So now us who enjoy 9th get to see different and interesting army lists ever game and still have the randomness of fanatics, manglers, squig hoppers (never saw them fielded pre 9th), Giants (never saw them fielded pre 9th), different races of goblins actually being fielded and more. I guess it's personal preferance if you want random for the sake of random or if you want a bit of randomness but with the real uniqueness coming out in the actual list. To me just having random stuff happen for no reason didn't add anything to the game, actually losing or winning a game for no more of a reson then your main block squabbling 2 turns straight was the opposite of fun.

also total war warhammer must really suck because your O&G army dosent try to fight itself ever 60 seconds and instead they measure animosity by your army turning on itself if you don't present it with enough battles over a space of time.

Ronin[XiC]
30-05-2016, 15:41
O&G are a lot more fun in 9th than in 8th or 7th or even 6th. More options and everything is useful = a lot more fun than 90% bad stuff I wouldnt use.

+ removing animosity is all about creating fun for you and your opponent.

theunwantedbeing
30-05-2016, 18:34
Previously all the goblins had was a special rule that messed up your plan a 6th of the time.... But now I have a large army book that has a plethora of different and interesting unit choices to actually pick from without auto conceding a game. Put this with rules that actually effect leadership if not in large numbers and you have a unique force every time you hit the table.
What units made you auto-concede?
Also unruly does 3 things
1. -1 leadership to tests to restrain pursuit (when would you want to restrain?)
2. -1 leadership to frenzy tests (so, savage orcs only)
3. 3D6 pick the lowest 2 for panic tests when in horde formation (handy I guess, but you'll already re-roll panic on ld9 or 10 anyway in most cases)

So if you hated Animosity it's no wonder you adore a rule that replaces it and does nothing but make panic harder to fail.


So now us who enjoy 9th get to see different and interesting army lists ever game and still have the randomness of fanatics, manglers, squig hoppers (never saw them fielded pre 9th), Giants (never saw them fielded pre 9th), different races of goblins actually being fielded and more.
Squig hoppers were rare because they were expensive metal figures, same for squig herds. They're still fairly pricey now.
Giants were rare? I saw at least one in most Orc&Goblin armies.
I can't see anyone taking the other goblins over Night goblins, Fantatics and Nets are still much better than anything the other goblins have.


to me just having random stuff happen for no reason didn't add anything to the game, actually losing or winning a game for no more of a reson then your main block squabbling 2 turns straight was the opposite of fun.
When you failed your animosity test you were forced to charge the nearest enemy most of the time, which in 8th needed you to be at least 16" away from an enemy.
So that happening for 2 turns would have real difficulty costing you the game.


I've never understood the animosity so many Orc&Goblin players have towards Animosity.
My own army has tonnes of troops that suffer stupidity and I've never bothered to make use of a BsB to let them re-roll (why would that help at all?), sure it's made games much more difficult a bunch of times but it's also provided a lot of silliness that helped make the game more enjoyable.

Ronin[XiC]
30-05-2016, 20:01
No idea how this didnt happen to you, but I lost dozends of games thanks to a failed animosity test.

Asmodios
30-05-2016, 20:36
;7633961']No idea how this didnt happen to you, but I lost dozends of games thanks to a failed animosity test.
Yup I had plenty of games lost by animosity and it wasn't fun for me or my opponent when it happens. Lore wise too I think unruly better shows orks and goblins lore in small points battles. Animosity usually takes place if there's nobody else offering a good fight or in a massive army made up of tons of different tribe that would be enemy's long before they were placed in an army together.

What I find funny is non of the people that loved animosity wanted similar random fluffy things for other armies like
1) if an empire army is fighting a chaos army every turn each unit must roll a d6 if a 1 is rolled the unit had given into chaos and control is given to the chaos player
2) all skaven characters roll a d6 if a 1 is rolled the character was stabbed in the back by its own unit and is killed
3) if a slann miscasts and double 1s are rolled both armies are entirely destroyed
all these would be equally as "fun" and "fluffy" but would have players in an uproar over how it would be a completely random element deciding a game. Also a lot of the people in the threads complaining about the loss of animosity say they enjoy AOS.... Which got rid of animosity.

Vazalaar
30-05-2016, 20:47
Yup I had plenty of games lost by animosity and it wasn't fun for me or my opponent when it happens. Lore wise too I think unruly better shows orks and goblins lore in small points battles. Animosity usually takes place if there's nobody else offering a good fight or in a massive army made up of tons of different tribe that would be enemy's long before they were placed in an army together.

What I find funny is non of the people that loved animosity wanted similar random fluffy things for other armies like
1) if an empire army is fighting a chaos army every turn each unit must roll a d6 if a 1 is rolled the unit had given into chaos and control is given to the chaos player
2) all skaven characters roll a d6 if a 1 is rolled the character was stabbed in the back by its own unit and is killed
3) if a slann miscasts and double 1s are rolled both armies are entirely destroyed
all these would be equally as "fun" and "fluffy" but would have players in an uproar over how it would be a completely random element deciding a game. Also a lot of the people in the threads complaining about the loss of animosity say they enjoy AOS.... Which got rid of animosity.

I can only say, that I as a Chaos player want my random tables back!

About animosity, I wouldn't be suprised that the majority of O&G players, didn't mind it and thought it was fluffy and typical for their army.. To me it seems that animosity and a couple of other changes are only integrated/removed in 9th Age because x amount of die hard tournament players wanted it.

Asmodios
30-05-2016, 21:21
I can only say, that I as a Chaos player want my random tables back!

About animosity, I wouldn't be suprised that the majority of O&G players, didn't mind it and thought it was fluffy and typical for their army.. To me it seems that animosity and a couple of other changes are only integrated/removed in 9th Age because x amount of die hard tournament players wanted it.
thats a great generalization. Me and the other ork player in my group aren't tournament players and we both hated animosity. It's not really fluffy for my cowardly bow goblins to go charging into mounted chaos warriors. Or for his savage orks to to not move twords the dwarf gun line for reasons. Like I said if you really love animosity add a random fluffy rule for all the other armies. Skaven on a roll of 1 kill the character that rolled it. For chaos the eye of the gods should have equal parts harmful mutations that show the fickel nature of chaos as well as your own champions looking to kill a wounded lord mid fight. It would all fit the lore but make terrible game rules

Vazalaar
30-05-2016, 21:40
thats a great generalization. Me and the other ork player in my group aren't tournament players and we both hated animosity. It's not really fluffy for my cowardly bow goblins to go charging into mounted chaos warriors. Or for his savage orks to to not move twords the dwarf gun line for reasons. Like I said if you really love animosity add a random fluffy rule for all the other armies. Skaven on a roll of 1 kill the character that rolled it. For chaos the eye of the gods should have equal parts harmful mutations that show the fickel nature of chaos as well as your own champions looking to kill a wounded lord mid fight. It would all fit the lore but make terrible game rules

Lol, I guess we have just a different opinion about what is fluffy for Orcs and Goblins. I think that Animosity is one of the key elements of O&G.. .

One of the better fanmade books:

Warhammer: Grom (http://www.randyelliottart.com/PDFs/WHGROM-Coleman-Elliott.pdf)


About the Creators
Written by Kevin Coleman. Kevin has been collecting Goblins since the late ‘80s and has written for the Citadel Journal and White Dwarf magazine. A few years ago, Kevin wrote the Dwarfs of Chaos Indy GT army book, an unofficial supplement accepted into various tournaments and Warhammer games across the world.

Illustrated by Randy Elliott. Randy has been an avid Warhammer Orcs and Goblins player since 3rd edition. He also happens to have spent a number of years working in comics and painting fantasy images for CCGs.

And behold animosity is still in.

Asmodios
30-05-2016, 21:48
Lol, I guess we have just a different opinion about what is fluffy for Orcs and Goblins. I think that Animosity is one of the key elements of O&G.. .

One of the better fanmade books:

Warhammer: Grom (http://www.randyelliottart.com/PDFs/WHGROM-Coleman-Elliott.pdf)


And behold animosity is still in.
If all you are concerned about is purely just fluff shouldn't you be pushing for shaven and chaos lords to be fighting for power mid battle? As fluff goes those two armies are just as prone to kill each other mid battle as o&g. The reason why nobody is pushing for those rules is that it would kill the army on the table top and wouldn't be a very fun to play or play against after the second or third time it cost you a game.

theunwantedbeing
30-05-2016, 22:12
If all you are concerned about is purely just fluff shouldn't you be pushing for shaven and chaos lords to be fighting for power mid battle? As fluff goes those two armies are just as prone to kill each other mid battle as o&g. The reason why nobody is pushing for those rules is that it would kill the army on the table top and wouldn't be a very fun to play or play against after the second or third time it cost you a game.

If you look at the Skaven rules for T9A all the bad effects for their special rules are there still.
If you look at the Orc&Goblin rules for T9A......they all seem to have been removed.

Asmodios
30-05-2016, 22:21
If you look at the Skaven rules for T9A all the bad effects for their special rules are there still.
If you look at the Orc&Goblin rules for T9A......they all seem to have been removed.
Why are you not pushing for chaos and shaven fighting mid battle? like i said its fluffy and if you really want the army to be unique why not add it those armies again. I think you never said something nice about 9th age like lord dan suggested in another thread btw, you should give it a try.

snyggejygge
31-05-2016, 05:01
Why don't you accept that T9A isnt appealing to every ones tastes. People want different things out of a game like warhammer, not every one want the kind of game that the T9A has been developed into. I myself rather play 5th edition for lols & KoW for a balanced tournament game. I dont try to convince you people that KoW is the superior game (which it is imo), why do you have to convince everybody that doesn't like T9A?
Lets agree to disagree.

Asmodios
31-05-2016, 07:40
Why don't you accept that T9A isnt appealing to every ones tastes. People want different things out of a game like warhammer, not every one want the kind of game that the T9A has been developed into. I myself rather play 5th edition for lols & KoW for a balanced tournament game. I dont try to convince you people that KoW is the superior game (which it is imo), why do you have to convince everybody that doesn't like T9A?
Lets agree to disagree.
There is a difference between having a conversation about why you like or dislike a game and just acting like a child.

example) "I don't like 9th age because of the changes to eye of the gods and animosity" reply "I don't think the change was bad" reply "i do it ruins the flavor" reply "why didn't you push for more flavorful random rules for all armies" reply "because xy or z" and so on is a good conversation of why you like something or don't and is constructive to both groups involved and is the entire purpose of a discussion based forum.

you then have thewantedbeing that has been in every 9th age thread complaining about everything from rules to the amount of lines used to display a special rule in the book. Because if the 9th age team had simply used his method they could have fit that rule on 5 lines of text instead of 6 and because of the layout the game was lazily designed and trash. Not to mention consistantly calling a volunteer project lazy is just rude. These guys aren't getting paid $40 an hour to make these books and calling them lazy because of the design choice they took on book layout and rule changes is just rude. You won't find me in one of the fan sections for AOS saying that the designer of an AOS comp is lazy because I don't like the lettering he chose for his pdf. My personal favorite complaint is when the discussion was raised if people would play the 9th age had GW released it. His only contribution is that he wouldnt because all the lore and names had been changed. He obviously knew that if GW had released it the names would not have needed to be changed or the lore, but he decided to try his best to trash the game over some stupid vendetta he has against the 9th age.

theunwantedbeing
31-05-2016, 13:53
example:
"I don't like 9th age because of the changes to eye of the gods and animosity"
reply "I don't think the change was bad"
reply "I do it ruins the flavour"
reply "Why didn't you push for more flavourful random rules for all armies"
reply "Because x,y or z"
and so on is a good conversation of why you like something or don't and is constructive to both groups involved and is the entire purpose of a discussion based forum.
Formatting.


you then have thewantedbeing that has been in every 9th age thread complaining about everything from rules to the amount of lines used to display a special rule in the book. Because if the 9th age team had simply used his method they could have fit that rule on 5 lines of text instead of 6 and because of the layout the game was lazily designed and trash.
I said the layout was sloppy, due to the split rules across lines, other users have trashed 9th age for other reasons.
I also said I didn't like how they'de not split the rules between rider and mount, specifically because I don't like seeing (rider only) a whole bunch of times.
I then proposed a way to do it, showing how it doesn't take up more space in most cases and takes up less.


My personal favorite complaint is when the discussion was raised if people would play the 9th age had GW released it. His only contribution is that he wouldnt because all the lore and names had been changed.
Got a link for that?

Asmodios
31-05-2016, 15:12
Formatting.


I said the layout was sloppy, due to the split rules across lines, other users have trashed 9th age for other reasons.
I also said I didn't like how they'de not split the rules between rider and mount, specifically because I don't like seeing (rider only) a whole bunch of times.
I then proposed a way to do it, showing how it doesn't take up more space in most cases and takes up less.


Got a link for that?
1) You specifically called the work on the book lazy because you didn't like the lazy
2) I don't have a link or the desire to sift through dozens of ridiculous complaints, but it was either posted by you or grandmasterwang

like I posted with my example that you blew off there's a difference between not liking a game because of a part of its rules and just trashing on it just to trash on it. Multiple posters have picked up on your nothing but negative and really ridiculous posts and it's the reason why you were asked (and you continue to dodge) to say 1 good thing about 9th. You are so committed to trashing it that you wouldn't say one nice thing.

heres an example I don't like AOS because of the rules..... But I think it was really smart to offer free rules. I also think AOS does a good job of addressing the barrier to entry that kept so many people from playing, I can really dislike a system but still be honest enough to recognize what I feel is good about it. I also don't go into the AOS posts and call some of the fan rules sets lazy because of the layout they chose to write it in.

theunwantedbeing
31-05-2016, 15:34
1) You specifically called the work on the book lazy because you didn't like the lazy
2) I don't have a link or the desire to sift through dozens of ridiculous complaints, but it was either posted by you or grandmasterwang
1. I called it sloppy because of the reasons I gave.
I'll state the reasoning again if you want?
2. It's probably best not to make claims about things people have said if you can't be sure where they said it or whether it was even that person that said it.


like I posted with my example that you blew off there's a difference between not liking a game because of a part of its rules and just trashing on it just to trash on it. Multiple posters have picked up on your nothing but negative and really ridiculous posts and it's the reason why you were asked (and you continue to dodge) to say 1 good thing about 9th. You are so committed to trashing it that you wouldn't say one nice thing.
What question are you wanting a reply from?

Asmodios
31-05-2016, 16:23
1. I called it sloppy because of the reasons I gave.
I'll state the reasoning again if you want?
2. It's probably best not to make claims about things people have said if you can't be sure where they said it or whether it was even that person that said it.


What question are you wanting a reply from?
The question i have posed to you multiple times is if you could say one positive thing about 9th age. You always ignore it like you did in my last post so I'm just going to assume that you are a hater that literally doesn't have one thing you like about 9th but continue to stalk ever post about it complaining about everything from the layout of rules on lines to the cost of units you never intend on playing a game with.

I guess what i really don't get is the hate for a fan made system. I got some of the over the top hate AOS got especially when i got asked to leave a store my group had been playing at for a long time because we were playing 8th instead of AOS. This type of destruction of an old gaming system and something you have invested thousands of dollars in is bound to get some over the top hate of internet forums. On the other hand 9th is a fan made system that doesn't stop you from playing the game of your choice. You won't be kicked out of a store for playing AOS or 8th instead of 9th. Nobody spent thousands of dollars on 9th age models and they completely changed the rules. Yet you find the need to derail a thread showing off their incredible work on a fan made book because of the style they decided to use to write the special rules in (the real killer was the ridiculous examples with skinks getting impact hits). Like i said, you want see posters stalking post about the fan made comps for AOS or other various 8th comp packs trashing on them with nothing good to say. If you really hate 9th age so much just don't play it and stop investing so much time reading all the content they release.

So if you want don't want to come across as someone hating on 9th for no real reason just post something you think they did right between every 20 or so negative posts.

Tiberius Frost
31-05-2016, 16:40
Yep, our gaming group has completely switched to 9th Age and it's great! We just ran the first T9A tournament last weekend here in NZ.

The best part is that all the units in each army are now usable, there aren't any hopeless unit choices that you'd simply never take which has been a problem with GW army books pretty much forever.

We've got lots of people getting back into the game now that the community has decided on a ruleset, we lost a lot of players after GW discontinued warhammer.

I'll admit that the worst part of 9th Age is the oodles and oodles of rules, but if you played 8th ed WHF then it's not too hard to pick up. I guess you either want a game with lots of rules or you don't, and there'spros and cons either way.

At any rate, it's getting people excited to play the game so that's a good thing in my books. Looking forward to many more games.

theunwantedbeing
31-05-2016, 16:58
The question i have posed to you multiple times is if you could say one positive thing about 9th age.
Can I say one positive thing about T9A?
Yes, I could.

Question answered!


I guess what i really don't get is the hate for a fan made system.
I don't hate T9A.
What if I brought out some fan-rules?
Would you automatically adore them and think they were brilliant?


Yet you find the need to derail a thread showing off their incredible work on a fan made book because of the style they decided to use to write the special rules in (the real killer was the ridiculous examples with skinks getting impact hits).
If it's such a ridiculous example,
how come the Skink riders of the Taurosaur have the Impact hits(D6+1) special rule?

Asmodios
31-05-2016, 17:24
Can I say one positive thing about T9A?
Yes, I could.

Question answered!


I don't hate T9A.
What if I brought out some fan-rules?
Would you automatically adore them and think they were brilliant?


If it's such a ridiculous example,
how come the Skink riders of the Taurosaur have the Impact hits(D6+1) special rule?
See but you will not say one nice thing about 9th.... for some reason it would cause such anguish to you that you continually go around it. So until you post 1 thing you like about it most people are just going to see your posts as nothing but a hater and not take them seriously. If you want people to take advice or criticism seriously you don't want to come off as a hater for no good reason. But you clearly have some sort of vendetta against the 9th age so you will never say one positive thing and people will continue to ignore any point you make, even if it could be a valid good point.

You do hate the 9th age. Like i said nobody expects you to adore the rules. Lots of people have said they don't intend on playing left it at that and moved on. The people that did that are not haters. I don't adore the fan made versions of AOS because i don't like the foundation of rules its based on..... Im not a hater because i don't spend hours reading through the fan based games i don't like just to go into the AOS discussions of those fan based rules to bash them. Actually the fan based rules for AOS that i have read tend to be far better then actual AOS books in my opinion and i commend the guys that took the time and effort to increase the playability of AOS competitively.

IT is a ridiculous example. I have a lizardmen army and some other guys in my group and not a single person thought that every skink crew member gets impact hits. I have never seen it brought up on the forums and lots of people have posted about the wording of rules throughout the beta. You are looking for issues if you thought the skink crew got impact hits and even if you did you could have looked up in 30 seconds that it doesn't.

Yowzo
31-05-2016, 17:49
What units made you auto-concede?
Also unruly does 3 things
1. -1 leadership to tests to restrain pursuit (when would you want to restrain?)

A lot of times actually. Any half-decent players will position its units so that a pursuit or overrun will expose your flank.


Squig hoppers were rare because they were expensive metal figures, same for squig herds. They're still fairly pricey now.
Giants were rare? I saw at least one in most Orc&Goblin armies.
I can't see anyone taking the other goblins over Night goblins, Fantatics and Nets are still much better than anything the other goblins have.

Everyone has squig hoppers because prior to 8th edition they were good enough. No one brought them in 8th because striking at Ini made them crap overnight (except against dwarves, but I don't like list tailoring). If you don't have the models you proxy or convert so price or availability is hardly an issue.

And yes, giants had exactly the same going on about them. Everyone had the model because once upon a time they were good (if random). In 8th edition they were only good as a paperweight (or against steam tanks and TK monsters provided you rolled hit with club).

Ronin[XiC]
31-05-2016, 18:42
You really couldn't come up with a situation where a restrain would be useful? And you really want to talk about balanec and stuff? That's like asking a Football player why some teams practice a forced offside...

snirr
31-05-2016, 22:13
I played some games with the T9A rules over the past few days. It's a really nice tournament game. Well balanced, lots of different choices. I will play a tournament next weekend and am really looking forward to it because of the rules.

For casual games I switched a long time ago to systems with much less special rules, the one part T9A doesn't do any better than 8th Edition Warhammer.

theunwantedbeing
01-06-2016, 19:54
A lot of times actually. Any half-decent players will position its units so that a pursuit or overrun will expose your flank.
You've taken that out of context.
The point was that the effects of Unruly are not a common occurrence.

Which they aren't unless you're prone to getting baited into obvious traps a lot by merely half-decent players.


Everyone has squig hoppers because prior to 8th edition they were good enough. No one brought them in 8th because striking at Ini made them crap overnight (except against dwarves, but I don't like list tailoring). If you don't have the models you proxy or convert so price or availability is hardly an issue.
Price is an issue for those who don't want to proxy forever.
Those who bought the models used them, those who didn't intend to buy the models tended not to bother using proxies with any regularity.
In3 didn't make them crap, you'de fight at the same time as most enemy infantry at worst, you'de strike before great weapon armed troops and a lot of monsters as well.
I can see why they'de get bumped to in4 though.


And yes, giants had exactly the same going on about them. Everyone had the model because once upon a time they were good (if random). In 8th edition they were only good as a paperweight (or against steam tanks and TK monsters provided you rolled hit with club).
Giants didn't get a bump to in4, so clearly their own in3 was good enough.
I guess in3 for a giant happens at a different step to in3 for squigs?

They had a number of uses even in 8th.
You'de average D6 St6 hits vs most infantry, plus a further D6 St6 hits from stomp which made them powerful flankers.
People didn't just try to gun them down because they were expensive, they were potentially very dangerous if they reached combat.


;7634232']You really couldn't come up with a situation where a restrain would be useful? And you really want to talk about balanec and stuff? That's like asking a Football player why some teams practice a forced offside...
I'de of thought asking somebody who plays Football is exactly the right person to ask about a rule within the game of Football....that they play, because they're a football player.
But that's just me, what do I know?

You're clearly the expert on knowing what things that are like each other.
Or maybe that's not knowing what things that are like each other, those two are essentially the same thing aren't they Ronin[XiC]?

:eyebrows:

Asmodios
01-06-2016, 21:00
Got to love it.... Once again the unwanted being ducks out and never says one nice thing about 9th but comes out of nowhere to let players around the world know that giants and squig hoppers where on the table if you owned them. Even though some people in this thread owned them or had friends who owned them and they never got fielded. Even playing some games with full proxies, forget the fact that nobody bothered to proxy these units..... In the unwanted beings universe these were staples of every O&G player and always made it to the field. Remember that if you play 9th and you have seen more units fielded... you are wrong. All of these units were fielded in 8th and 9th has done nothing for list diversity.

so just curious have you thought about sharing the 1 thing you like about 9th with us yet?

eron12
02-06-2016, 02:41
I don't think I ever saw squigs of any sort (herds, hoppers, or character mounts) in eighth, but I saw giants fielded quite a bit. People have different experiences and hostility will not win converts. I would expect this drink the kool aid or get out attitude from GW, but not froma fan community, even the ETC.

Asmodios
02-06-2016, 06:15
I don't think I ever saw squigs of any sort (herds, hoppers, or character mounts) in eighth, but I saw giants fielded quite a bit. People have different experiences and hostility will not win converts. I would expect this drink the kool aid or get out attitude from GW, but not froma fan community, even the ETC.
It's not drink the cool aid or get out. Heck if you don't like the system thats fine, KOW is the most popular system in my area and I can understand why. Its fast to pick up, fast to play and has very clear defined rules. If someone wants to point out something like that for not playing 9th age or some things 9th can improve on thats fine.

But when you do nothing but derail every 9th age thread with nothing but complaining (and often about stupid things like how it takes the 9th age 6 lines of text to explain a special rule and that your method could pop rules out in just 5 lines) it just shows he's a hater. That's why I leave open my very reasonable request of just writing one good thing about 9th age. Obviously there's some very personal hate for the 9th age behind this one poster that would keep him from mentioning just 1 good quality of 9th. Heck I'm definately no fan of AOS but I'm willing to admit even I can find a few good things that I listed in this thread earlier. I also don't go to ever AOS post to derail it... Especially for fan made comps of AOS I have no intent of playing.

theunwantedbeing
02-06-2016, 12:10
That's why I leave open my very reasonable request of just writing one good thing about 9th age.

Is the same very reasonable request where you:
...call me a hater
...claim I've made stupid comments
...claim I'm ignoring your request despite consistently ignoring any questions I pose to you
...claim you'de never do any of the things you're accusing me of

:rolleyes:
I guess I'll have to answer it seeing as you've been so very reasonable about it.
Link to where theunwantedbeing says a nice thing about the 9th age (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0)


I did say I liked the map somebody had drawn, does that count?
What about saying I'm looking forward to the other elf lists?
Or saying that they've clearly put a lot of hard work and effort into it all?

Those comments were before you starting saying "all you do is be negative" so perhaps they don't count.

Ronin[XiC]
02-06-2016, 13:04
Okay, ignored for being a Hater. Thanks. You made yourself quite clear.


Aaanyways.

Do you guys have any idea what will come next? Like which book with pictures and Lore and stuff.

Asmodios
02-06-2016, 15:09
Glad theunwantedbeing displayed that he's just a hater so we can actually get around to opinions and constructive criticism and anyone wanting a serious discussion can just ignore him.

@ronin
i did see a rough release schedual posted somewhere but will have to look for it later. Apparently after the initial army books are finished they are also going to tackle special character as well as a revised rule set made for quick small point battles.

Ronin[XiC]
02-06-2016, 15:32
Getting the smaller Battles right is probably of utmost importance. It def. Is the way to get new players into the System.

Thanks

Folomo
02-06-2016, 17:35
;7634675']Getting the smaller Battles right is probably of utmost importance. It def. Is the way to get new players into the System.

Thanks

I know that a "Starter ruleset" is being currently worked on.
Haven't heard anything about Warbands rules (<1500) though.

Yowzo
02-06-2016, 19:31
You've taken that out of context.
The point was that the effects of Unruly are not a common occurrence.

Not out of context. You said something rather out of touch with actual tabletop reality.

As long as there is chaff (and everyone brings multiples of it) there will be an incentive to restrain pursuit. It's warhammer 101.


Price is an issue for those who don't want to proxy forever.

Again: 99% of O&G players do have the models. If you don't spend, you look for a cheaper alternative (look how creative people were with unreleased models like hierotitan or expensive models with good rules like Morghast). Fact is: long time players with access to models did not use them outside of themed soft lists.


Giants didn't get a bump to in4, so clearly their own in3 was good enough.
I guess in3 for a giant happens at a different step to in3 for squigs?

No, giants "just" got slashed their cost by a good 1/3, which makes them useable at what they do best: kill low-I monsters. That's why I3 is much less of an issue with them.

Slam a giant into infantry or cavalry and you may well make a dent, but in the end you'll have a very dead giant.

Asmodios
02-06-2016, 20:16
;7634675']Getting the smaller Battles right is probably of utmost importance. It def. Is the way to get new players into the System.

Thanks
Im really looking forward to it. My younger brother is slow building ogres and i have a few army projects for 9th i want to slow build at the same time and a small points rules set would be great. To be fair i haven't yet played a 9th game under 2250 so i have no clue how balanced it is at lower points. But we used to do small points 8th and it wasn't too bad, so i assume it wouldn't be terrible, just not "optimized".

theunwantedbeing
02-06-2016, 21:03
Not out of context. You said something rather out of touch with actual tabletop reality.

:eyebrows:
The context of the original post, not just the bit you quoted is that Unruly is much less obtrusive than Animosity.
You quoted a portion of this and have attacked that portion as if it was the entire point being made.
That is called taking something out of context.

dragonbreath
26-05-2018, 15:39
I do believe the death of the Old World at the hands of GW has made everyone a little bit (sensitive, nutty, unreasonable). You choose your adjective, certainly don't want to argue about it. I would be happy to play 9th Age, 8th edition, 5th edition, any edition with house rules, if the people I was playing with were good folks. My problem is that there might not be more than a dozen players within 400 km of where I live. I get the animosity toward GW because from the very start, quite a few years ago for me, when I had the disposable income and time to play with friends and family, I always disliked the way GW seemed way more intent on selling models than making an enjoyable experience for their customers. Keep in mind, I must not hold this against them too much even if I don't like it, because I just finished gathering a horde of Ultramarines. I did this because the closest players are 40k players, and hopefully at least a few are not knuckleheads. Browsing the forums it seems like there are still some pretty great and very creative folks playing fantasy war games, but it seems like a lot of folks have retreated to their safe spaces, too, which seems...sad. I don't really blame them either the way some people turn a discussion about toy soldiers into a slapfight because one guy likes AoS and another doesn't like ONE RULE in the new edition of T9A.

So to answer the OP, yes I would like to play T9A, if time and distance weren't an issue, and it isn't apparently near as popular in the US as in Europe.

However, when a player like me who, looking for a little guidance, has to travel an hour minimum to find any kind of war game, much less fantasy massed battle, posts a query asking about a new game by Para Bellum called Conquest and what folks are thinking about it, and gets 0 replies after 70+ views it makes me wonder if Warseer is less a community than a ghost town. I have to admit, when I am finally coming to a point where I will have a little time for this hobby, this makes me a little sad.

Kisanis
29-05-2018, 23:37
@dragonbreath

Its hard setting up a community. If you're on T9A forums you can see my attempts at building/rebuilding a 9th community is going through. Not sure too much about Montana but I do know that regardless of what you do it takes time, and salesmanship to get the ball rolling.

Keep plodding away at it! Free rules, great balance, and rule of cool models is what draws me into the T9A hobby!