Issue 6 - 2.0 BRB and WDG Background + Rules Spoilers

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Salutations Sons & Daughters of the Ninth Age!

    We hope you are all enjoying this fine Spring in the very best war-gaming tradition - by staying indoors and preventing direct sunlight from exploding those FineCast models.

    This episode, we've decided to test out a more 'condensed' format - but do not be deceived by first appearances - there are a LOT of spoilers in here for those keen to peer into the looking glass for a glimpse of what's coming in 2.0.

    So, what's been happening behind the curtains you may ask?

    First up, we have a few words from @Just_Flo, an unsung hero who often shoulders the rather Sisyphean task of single-handedly uploading entire countries' worth of tourney results: for the Data Analysis Team to model and compare. His domain is Tournament Support & his team's importance in game balancing cannot be overstated.

    Tournament Support
    Hey guys!

    Although not many people are aware of it, there exists a Tournament Support Team in the project. I am @Just_Flo - the Head of Tournament Support (or in short TouS).

    But what do we do exactly?

    While the obvious answer is to help Tournament Organizers (in short TO) out when they have questions and/or problems, we do a lot of other things:

    Helping promote events by the TOs via the different channels available to us
    Creating tools and documents for the TOs in different areas. This includes both player-related things like Scenarios and Maps, and organizer-related documents, such as evaluation sheets, scoring sheets, and, in the future, a Tourney Promotion Reader
    Participating in the tournaments ourselves helps us establish contacts between the different player-bases, the TOs and our team, so that we have a good information channel for all parties involved.
    Collecting data from the different Tournaments, so that the Data and Analysis (D&A) team can do their magic with the numbers. This includes not only raw end results but also, when available, army vs army statistics and army lists, to be able to provide more specifics for the Data Team which in return can help the PRO teams do their job.

    As you can see, we do lots of different things which are not always obvious to outsiders. However, the combination of a rather small team (we are currently just @Maelstorm, @Endy and myself) combined with the rather large volume of work (lots of different things are being done at the same time) means we are always looking for new members.

    The requirements to join the team are rather small, you should have free time to help the team, be able to write and read google doc files (you just need a google account for this) and check some other platforms regularly (to help communication with the different player groups as well as the different Tournament Organizers). If you have an education in Data Analysis or Latex/InDesign you are also welcome, but you might be better in the Layout or Data and Analysis Team in that case.

    Also, there is a key area where we need your help. Currently, we are still lacking tournament results from countries where we lack contacts. We currently know and use the following websites, which post tournaments and their results:

    www.tabletopturniere.de - www.tourneykeeper.com - www.warscore.net - etc-spain.com/foro/index.php - www.the-ninth-age.com - www.ranking.wfb-pol.org

    If you know of any other website posting results (or want to join our team), please let us know!

    @Just_Flo, Head of Tournament Support


    Next up we have @SirMC2015 & @Archeron who have recently reassembled our frontline Playtesting Team and have their work cut out for them stress-testing all sorts of wonderfully inventive ideas from the Design Teams.

    Playtesting Team
    Hello 9th Age,

    The Playtesters are back in action after a rather long hiccups!

    On behalf of the Playtester team, allow me to introduce myself, @SirMC2015, "Head of Playtesting" and my "Assistant Head of Playtesting", @Archeron, to everyone. We are the guys who are testing unfinished work for the game designers and balancers and testing out what works and what does not.

    We have a great group working with us to test rules ideas, unit drafts or even whole army books to provide the ADT, RT and BLT with quality feedback. The team is a mix of players from several different countries, from Germany, Belgian, Spain and the United Kingdom to the other side of the pond, the USA.

    Without running the risk of leaking possible new rules or even units, we simply cannot really give much insight in our current "to-do" list. However, several reworked units are currently on our testing schedules, especially WDG units to help the designers reach a functional and balanced array of units while preserving the unique approaches. Furthermore, we are also testing some of the possible 2.0 BRB changes, to see if they work as intended or if they break the game in any fashion.

    By providing the designers with high quality feedback in a rather short time frame, we can make a real difference for the game so that YOU do not need to deal with problematic units, special rules or in general rules after release.

    If you are interested in playtesting unrefined rules and slightly imbalanced models, feel free to send us an application to become a playtester. However, joining the team is not commitment free, we expect around 4 games a month (the more the better), the capability &skill to play different armies and especially different play styles. If you are still interested, contact us.

    We'll see you all on the Battlefield Soon!

    @SirMC2015, Head of Playtesting


    And now, for the main course, we have a well-roasted spoiler, fresh from the RT's kitchen!

    A Peek at 2.0 Rules Changes

    2.0 BRB Spoiler
    As readers of last week’s BTS-Blog post will know by now, several key stats such as Movement vs. March are undergoing changes based on improving the depth of game design, while reducing rules complexity. To read more about the Movement change, check the last BTS Issue: Issue 5 - Communication flow, 2.0 BRB and even more info!

    In 2.0 a second key stat will also undergo a similar split following the same principles:

    Weapon Skill -> Split into "Offensive Skill" & "Defensive Skill" + changes to the "To-Hit" table
    Note: Those are already the final names for those two stats.


    These are rather big changes, however, lets start with the Weapon Skill split.

    Currently there is only a single Weapon Skill value, in future, every model will have at least two values (don't forget the Mounts here). One, as the name already indicates represents the Offensive attacking skills of the model and the other one represents the ability to parry or evade attacks.

    As many are with no doubt already aware, the game has a rather similar mechanic in place right now, which is used with Characters on Ridden Monsters. Case in point: The HbE Prince on his Ancient Dragon. Here the Prince retains his WS7 when attacking, but is limited to the Dragon’s WS6 while defending.

    The biggest advantage of separating Weapon Skill into Offensive Skill and Defensive Skill are the design opportunities for more cost-effective glass cannons, anvils, bruisers, tar-pits, or in general for a more distinct role. In effect, rewarding excellent generalship and understanding of unit roles. This is because certain units could, hypothetically, be designed to better perform their roles more effectively by trading off one for another. For instance, Flaggellants could, theoretically, have lower Defensive Skill for improved Offensive Skill without drastically going up in price, while Deep Watch might become much more resilient if they had Chosen-level Defensive Skill at the cost of reduced Offensive Skill.

    However, as already indicated with the title, it is not the only change done here.

    Along with split, there will also be a new To-Hit Table which introduces greater granularity to Offensive/Defensive Skill, beyond the current 3’s or 4’s to hit which dominate 90% of close combat between units, and which is why Weapon Skill is often regarded by designers as a rather ‘weak’ stat compared to Toughness or Strength. However, while there are buffs to the WS, it will now be a "semi soft" stat, since actually boosting it to the relevance of Strength would far exceed the working frame of the 2.0 BRB update.

    Offensive Skill - Defensive SkillNeeding To-Hit Roll
    4 or more2+
    1 or more3+
    0 to -34+
    -4 or less5+
    -8 or less6+


    Compiled into a more visual expression it looks like this, note the differences to the current "To-Hit Table":

    From left to right:
    Old/Current Table - "To-Hit" changes - new Table



    As you can see from the above the table, the numbers start to become most divergent towards the extreme ends of the spectrum. Combined with the Weapon Skill Split and potential design space (e.g. creating units with a great offensive weapon skill but lack on the defensive parts or the other way around) effects and spells, which affect either Weapon Skills, rise a lot in value. This combined with make rules like fear a lot more interesting when combined with a highly skilled Vampire Lord, or certain spells like "The Rot Within" against low WS units like Savage Orcs more effective.

    Please keep in mind, that those weapon skill changing effects like Fear, Parry, Fencer's Swords or spells (as with everything else) might get an update with the 2.0 update to reflect this change and not make it broken in some fashion.


    For the 2.0 update do not expect any changes to the Weapon Skill for the armies, not undergoing a redesign currently (so every army but WDG and DL). However, what you can expect is for the new books being designed, especially for the Demonic Legions, are units that take advantage of this ‘design window’.

    As you can see, while this is a very fundamental change, it will open a lot of different design windows for the different armies, especially for their Army Strength and Weaknesses.


    Lastly, it's time to share some more glorious spoilers from the upcoming WotDG FAB (DL will need to wait until the next BTS-Blog post for theirs, sorry)

    Warriors of the Dark Gods: Army-Wide Special Rules
    WDG Background and Rules Spoiler

    Army Wide Special Rules have always been the great differentiator between the factions in the 9th Age, from Primal Instinct & Drunkard in Beast Herds to Safety in Numbers & Callous in the Vermin Swarm. Without these, many competitive & unique army builds such as the Skink Cloud (SA), Peasant Army (KoE), or The Village Idiot (EoS) simply wouldn’t work.

    Until now, the Warriors of the Dark Gods have essentially had 2 ‘default’ Army Wide Special Rules:
    • Gaze of the Gods: A rule which forces characters to issue & accept challenge, and offers a temporary combat boost if they slay their opponent (or a monster). This is a generally unpopular rule as it often means certain death for Sorcerers on foot, allows opponents to always select the best option in response to the inevitable challenge, and forces players to purchase champions.
    • Mark of True Chaos: The ‘free’ Mark which allows a very useful reroll to panic tests, and enables players to field a larger unit of core warriors due to its reduced cost.
    In the new book, both rules will be eliminated and replaced by background-driven Special Rules, and a Unique Armory.

    Before diving into the exact mechanics however, it’s important to understand the design & background context:

    Warriors of the Dark Gods are an elite army of powerful individuals, but have weak collective cohesion. While combat units can be brave on their own, a brilliant general leading them into battle is not their strong suit, confidence is. This is also represented by their Army Strength and Weakness where the "Leadership Bubble" aspect is rated as a "Weakness".

    This is in keeping with the faction’s background which prizes personal ambition (embodied in the Path of Ascension) over military organization & hierarchy. The infamous stories of small bands of roving Warriors causing wholesale destruction reflects their raw fighting ability as opposed to martial efficiency.

    Such power and confidence stem in part from their armor, forged by daemons who are typically found near areas of extreme magic concentration – most notably the Wasteland. This armor is more than just protection, it’s a constant reminder of the terrible pact signed between mortal and god, a manifestation of immortal ambition, and a sign that the one who wears it is no common foe.

    Therefore, Followers fight with extreme confidence, certain of their combat abilities. If a comrade falls to arrows, it is because they were weak, while a terrifying monster does not sow fear or panic, but rather an opportunity to prove oneself worthy of immortality. As a result, Followers tend to fight in a very blunt & direct manner, without feint or ruse – it’s forward to victory, until…

    Those inevitable occasions where Followers do lose combat. This comes as a massive shattering of illusions, as they are confronted with the sudden likelihood of certain death with no hope of an afterlife. Thus, the army is expected to be played in a very hard, yet brittle manner.

    Those who fail on the gods are deemed Outcasts and are shunned by their peers. Their doom is to suffer terribly along the pitiless Path of the Fallen, where the bright dream of immortality fades to a mere flickering mirage, and progression is a bloody, brutal affair - ostracised and deprived of divine blessings.

    Follower Special Rule
    Display Spoiler
    Models with this special rule can make up to 2 Supporting Attacks. Ignore this rule if models are normally allowed more than 2 Supporting Attacks. Units with one or more models with this special rule cannot add either Standard Bearer or Full Ranks to its Combat Score.

    For those players, who are playing T9A for a little bit longer, they will see a direct link to the old "Inspire Greatness" rule. It was basically a special rule, that if you have a non Barbarian Character model in the unit you were able to do 2 supporting attacks instead of one.

    Looking at the damage output, for a unit of 12 (6x2) it can result in a 25% damage increase for units of Warriors & Chosen, but comes at the expense of regular static combat resolution benefits through standards & supporting ranks. This mechanic represents a band of elite models who fight as collective juggernaut, but lack the systematic training of formation rank & file.

    In terms of playstyle, this makes smaller units that focus on high damage output very attractive:

    Currently in 1.3
    6x2 Warriors with Halberds & Standard Bearer
    5x6 Heavy Infantry with Halberds & Standard Bearer
    Warriors win combat 11 (10 wounds + banner) to 5.66 (1.66 wounds + 3 supporting ranks + banner)

    Followers in 2.0
    6x2 Warriors with Halberds & Standard Bearer
    5x6 Heavy Infantry with Halberds & Standard Bearer
    Warriors win combat 12.5 (12.5 wounds) to 4.66 (1.66 wounds + 2 supporting ranks + banner)

    As can be seen above, the grinding aspect of the army is now a true strength.


    Outcast Special Rule
    Display Spoiler
    Only Characters with Outcast can join units with one or more models with Outcast, and Characters with Outcast can only join units where all models have Outcast. Models with Follower and without Outcast cannot receive Inspiring presence and Hold your ground from models with Outcast. A unit with more than half Outcast models and with at least one Full Rank gains Stubborn in the first Round of Combat.

    From reading this, we can see that it is difficult, though still possible, to field an all-Outcast, army.

    Outcasts are Followers who belong exclusively to the Path of the Fallen, and therefore know first-hand the price of failure. Naturally, they fight all the harder & more brutally because of this. Since the Dark Gods have already turned their back on them, it will take desperate acts to redeem themselves worthy of immortality.

    In terms of functionality, such units will generally serve as either shock troops like Fallen, super-heavy anvils such as Once Chosen, or desperate tar-pit such as Fallen Beasts. Stubborn is a particularly powerful ability when combined with Daemon-forged plate, which is why it is limited to just the first round of combat.


    Daemon-Forged Plate
    Display Spoiler
    Armour Type: Plate Armour. Bearer gains Immune to Psychology. While engaged in a challenge, bearer gains +1 Leadership. If more than half of a unit’s models have this armour, the unit must re-roll failed Break Test.

    Although listed as a Strength, it’s important to remember that Immune to Psychology is a double edged sword. On the one hand, not having to worry about things like Panic or Fear tests is wonderful, on the other hand the inability to chose "flee" as a charge reaction is a real drawback if a mistake in the movement phase happened.

    For this reason, there are two rules that offset such extreme brittleness. The first is the +1 to leadership bonus during challenges, essential for those moments when mounted solo characters fail their key attacks and get crushed by combat resolution with their ‘below average’ leadership – background-wise this represents a moment of supreme opportunity for progression and failure seems unimaginable.

    The second rule is unique to the faction: re-rolling break tests – which combined with ItP makes it possible to field an army without the ubiquitous BSB found in most factions (and often prohibitively expensive in an elite army like WotDG). Bright gaudy banners and charismatic leaders do not impress Warriors of the Dark Gods in the slightest. This also ties in with the strength 'grinding' and 'Leadership Independence', otherwise the army would be too vulnerable in a direct matchup against front-load damage factions or again dependent on the BSB, which goes against the ASAW.


    As the above rules show, the new WotDG, especially armies with a high number of Daemon-Forged Armours, will be a far less a General/BSB dependent army than it is currently, with greater reliability overall. While the armies gets especially less reliant on the BSB since you are immune to Panic and Fear tests, the BSB is still very useful in other aspects. Units without the Daemon-Forged Plate do not have those juicy LD rules, and even if you have it, it still doesn't help you for March tests or other LD tests.

    However, please do not forget, that "Bubble Leadership" aspect is a Weakness. This means, that the maximum Leadership of the Characters will be lower than it is now. This doesn't make the Characters "cowards", but just represents that their Leadership skills are lacking and/or that the other people in the army are rather strong willed persons and thus act on their own more often than not.

    It is likely that MSU builds will be very popular, which is in keeping with the faction background, while larger units will see tradeoffs in efficiency.

    However, as always please remember these spoilers are subject to change & amendment based on playtesting & balance. What has been presented here is the alpha engine, and not necessarily the final product. The same is also true for the names, they for sure will change as soon as the Background Team starts doing it's magic (though, some working names MIGHT stick).


    We hope this shines a little more light on what's going on behind the scenes, remember to comment below should you have any burning questions you'd like us to try to address in future posts.

    To finish up, we have a request for our audience. We are currently trying out different ways of presenting information. This includes both the layout as well as the style of writing. This time, we have chosen to take a more "serious" approach and used a more formatting heavy approach to present the information. It would be great feedback for us, if you could tell us, which layout & style you prefer. At the bottom you will be able to "vote" for the different approaches, if you do not want to give a replay by simply giving a "Like" next to the respective comment style (because @Kathal NEEDS those likes to pay rent! - darn, he debunked me ).

    BTS-Blog Team
    Signing off.
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    ETC 2016 - ID
    ETC 2017 - WDG
    ETC 2018 - ID

    8,186 times read

Comments 67

  • WCB -

    Far too many changes. I understand the IP issue but don't try and fix what isn't broken. Why split WS? The new tables just look confusing. Maybe because I'm tired (shift work) when reading this, but your wheeling article just confused me totally and I gave up reading it.

  • Maxl -

    I have a Bad Feeling on how my beloved warriors will Change. From this point of view and my poor information status i'm worried how this changes will end.
    Cheers
    Max

  • LeVil1 -

    I've only one word to say : all this sound GREAT !

  • Lagi -

    " "Offensive Skill" & "Defensive Skill"
    Note: Those are already the final names for those two stats. "

    Does anyone think about abbreviation from thous names?
    OS DS OD OS OS DS OS DS DS- it really hard to quickly distinguish between them !

  • Beltar -

    Sorry, but I don't like split of WS, because based on published information it has no sense. If you want to have offensive unit, give it more attacks or high S, or if you want defensive unit, give it higher T or some saves. There is no need to complicate stat line with split of WS.
    Maybe it is good reason connected to much bigger changes in game system, but why you are confusing us with this non-sense WS change?

  • jarnalyrkar -

    I'm introducing myself, and some friends to ninth age, having played some very amateurish whfb 8th before. Should I wait for BRB 2.0 before actually learning the game (as to avoid having to relearn lots of rules), or should I just go ahead in it's current state? I don't suppose there's an estimate as to when the new rulebook will be out?

    • Kathal -

      If you just started, you should check out the Quick Starter from T9A. It will teach you the most important rules from T9A. If you like it, than you can consider switching to the full game, even though there will be changes with 2.0. However, even IF you were just an amateurish player, transition from 8th Edition to T9A should be rather easy, since both games have many things in common.

    • jarnalyrkar -

      Okay, thanks :)

  • Korpacz -

    One more comment - I think splitting WS is a mistake for 3 reasons, (1) creates a lot of unnecessary complication. people still have a hard time remembering their unit stats from 1.3, let alone the confusion new players will face. (2) This is not something anyone (as far as I've heard) has EVER complained about so don't mess with it. You can make the game your own and different from GW without having to break every last bone. heh (3) did I mention, it adds unnecessary rules no one asked for? Keep at it guys, try work towards a ground zero, and then, and only then, once the game is in a stable spot, start looking breaking and remaking game mechanics.

  • Korpacz -

    Also, I should point out, I like the follower rule, attack with extra support. But that example is laughable. Comparing warriors with halberds against empire heavy infantry is a joke, you might as well have them fight warhounds to prove how good they are. Those empire heavy infantry 99/100 times will be supported by arcane engines and have warrior priest. It's just a bad comparison is my point. But I like the rule.

    • Kathal -

      We have to start somewhere. If we would have used HE/DE Spearelves, OnG 'Eadbashers, DL Slaughterer or any other CORE combat unit in the game doesn't really matter. The reason, why we went with this exact example was, that it is the most visible one and by far the easiest to understand.

      Sure, it is highly likely that those Heavy Infantry guys get some form of support, but than again, they are paying those points out of the Core budget and if we add also more stuff for the respective points, it gets messy REALLY fast.

    • Korpacz -

      I can understand, you have to do something. I think showing a comparison against a tough unit like black orcs or ogres would have been better than pitting them against a fluff cake. heh

  • Korpacz -

    Dunno how I feel about this. I started at the beginning of 8th because I liked ranked up blocks of mean looking infantry. I don't think I'm a fan of pushing the entire army towards MSU. I totally agree, WDG characters are prohibitively expensive, especially for what they bring (just more S6 attacks). Paying 700-800pts for a mage with full kit is ridiculous. Here's a thought... rather than making the army playable WITHOUT characters... why not just fix the characters?

    • Kathal -

      Why not both?

      Just from a background view both should be viable, hence, you need support for both of them. ITP and reroll break tests are good for both the Characters (since they can better act alone) as for the units (again, better at acting alone).

    • Korpacz -

      The issue is that characters are too expensive for what they bring to the table. A 750pt lord character on foot is never worth it. Put him on a mount or a dragon and you're paying like 1,300pts for a guy on a dragon. It's totally silly.

  • Gingasmite -

    Interested to see where you chaps take the WDG stuff. Happy to go with a new themey direction, but I'm going to hold off on modelling and purchases until the rules are out.

    The weapon skill split worries me as it feels like a potentially needless complication to an already very complicated ruleset.

    Does making it more accurate or adjustable make it more fun?

    I struggle to keep our casual group into the game with relatively minor changes, but this kind of complication might be a step too far from what they're used to.

    Keen to hear more about the plans in future updates.

  • LeffeDaOne -

    "It is likely that MSU builds will be very popular, which is in keeping with the faction background, while larger units will see tradeoffs in efficiency."

    This crushed my spirit totally. I'm sorry, but I am not pleased at all. I tend to see positives in the changing of the game, but when I have to shelve my models because I can't play with anything (or against anything) else then Multiple Small Units, this devastates me. Coupled with Daemon-Forged and making BSB's a non-include really takes the edge off. I hate to be harsh, but I don't like this.

    • Kathal -

      Please keep in mind, that the final balance is always determined with points. I honestly see currently no problem to have both, strong small units and still good Hordes of Warriors. It is just, that from a background perspective the smaller unit approach makes more sense.

      The "trade-off in efficiency" is the loss of rank boni which you do not get. However, at the same time you get more attacks to compensate this fact. Hence, there is already a trade, where both ends are getting buffs in some fashions.

      Regarding the BSB, not everybody will be running around with a Daemon-Forged Plate, so he will still be very useful, if you dip in that part of the book.

    • LeffeDaOne -

      I feel that this fluff-reason seems very out of place. These "warriors" are so undisciplined in combat, that they are worse at keeping formation then units with Frenzy, yet so disciplined that they do not mindlessly run in a different direction, just because 5 elves on horses stood in the way at an angle? This is a really strange brew of Light Troops without the movement benefits or benefiting from banners. I don't like it, not one bit.

      To continue my agressive route of negativity, pricing will probably not go down, because the number of attacks will somehow be concidered a good reason to drive up price. How many points per wound will a warrior be? Having fantastic WS, S, A, T and AS is all well and good, but the points I pay for that can go away real quick with a single S3 arrow. Hordes will probably be terribly overpriced because they will be concidered too killy, ignoring the fact that they will never fight anything at all worth their points in redirect-land. Maybe I'm being too blunt here, but I've yet to see a pattern of moving in a direction I would want. My opinion doesn't matter ofcourse, as long as it is not a majority opinion.

      Regarding units without Daemon-Forged, that is just a matter of taste and personally, I won't include a BSB when the things that I find important don't need one. Also, Warhounds, Trolls, Chimeras etc never really benefited from a BSB anyways due to range.

      As allways, I'll wait and see what happens. I got no choice after all. Perhaps I'm wrong too.

    • Sergio -

      I totaly agree with you. I Wonder why the staff dont make a pool to let the Players chose, is This a community or not ?

    • Odoamar -

      Also we don't know what happened with Hold Your Ground rule.
      In some armies bsb is auto include in others not wroth for points, especially when opponent gain 200VP for killed guy.

      We have to w8 for total shape of 2.0 version and wdg book.

  • Danrakh -

    Also I don't like idea of possible hitting on 6+ in close combat only because of WS difference, especially given the fact, that high WS usually goes with small frontage and some other defenses (Characters). Herohammer alert!

    • Kathal -

      Please don't forget, that you need +8WS to get hit on 6+, so you need DWS 10 and the opponent needs to have OWS 2 or less to have this case. There are only two things in the game currently, which offer this, the Scourge of Wrath and the Fencer's Blade (which will get for sure a rework), and a few WS 9 cases.

      So no, there is no "Herohammer alert" needed, since getting hit on 6+ is so rare.

    • Odoamar -

      And failed Fear test.

      Problematic combination can be if 5WS unit have Fear, but it also is not common.

  • Danrakh -

    I like the idea of WDG being fearless but in the same time less disciplined. This is quite brilliant way to present unique race flavour directly via rules.
    But in the same time I really hope this Daemon Forged armour + Follower combo will not be spamable.

  • Wesser -

    Daemon-Forged armour and Follower present a pretty extensive rules pack and several situational/one-turn components and rules that "break" the main rules (like more than one supporting attacks). A bit too dense for my taste especially if combined with marks and any synergy tools

    • Kathal -

      Don't forget, that several units will lose the Mark option and thus reduces the complexity of those units.

      However, I have to agree, that the Daemon-Forge Plate is currently a little bit stacked, but that is the result of the Alpha Design :/

  • carbruner -

    This stuff is great!! you got me all hyped!! :D

  • Decreto_deJusticia -

    Why is the redesign of DE?

    • Kathal -

      What do you mean exactly? Do you mean when? I cannot answer this question, since I do not know when the work continues on that book (same is true for the ID book).

    • Decreto_deJusticia -

      YEs,sorry, When? At first In April Now nobody knows...

  • Maxuli -

    Oh, this WDG tidbit gives me great hope for the other books as well. The main rulebook changes are of course welcome as well.

  • JimMorr -

    Correct me: worshippers and followers were planned. Do fallen replace worshippers?

  • Sklodo -

    Looks very interesting and very powerful in right combinations. I like it. Especially emphasis on being fluff friendly.

  • blaesus -

    Great work guys. I am sceptic about 7 gods idea but rules look great!.
    In case of WS change - I love it! My question - Would it change rules for Hand weapon and shield. e.g. "+1 Armour save, +2Deffensive skill

  • Aemir -

    Just checked WoDG changes... in 1.3 ten model packs of Chosen are quite imba for their point costs. Inspiring presense was removed as too imba for damage. And Devs want to make it come back - will there at least be a dramatic point cost increase? (WoDG are my 2nd army).

    • Kathal -

      First and foremost, IG got removed due to the armies ASAW and not because it was imba. In fact, it was the only reason why you could play Infantry back than, but it was still not that competitive.

      Regarding points, there is a completely overhaul of the book, so why should points stay the same?

  • Zamo -

    I like how it looks. Split WS can help a lot balancing, adjusting units, costs, and customization of units giving them a better defined role if they are supposed to be deffensive or offensive. It could work pretty nice.

    • Beefwales -

      Over complicating and the doubtful balance it will make will not be worth it in the end. nobody complained about the ws system as is and the game is becoming less and less fun with each change to try and make it more balanced.

  • Sergio -

    I dont like the new wdg special ruls. Wdg are supposed to be an hard infantry army, not a msu army without banners or ranks.

    • Kathal -

      Depends on who you ask to be honest. A lot of players started the army cause of the Hero Hammer + Monster.Mash aspect, other started them cause of their awesome Cavalry, others cause of the Monstrous units you were able to field. Sure, players also started to play WDG cause of their Infantry, but just catering to a single group of WDG players would be a big mistake. However, you will still be able to play that Infantry based playstyle with the new book, as with the other iconic playstyles from the army.

    • BoozySquid -

      The RT poll had 78% of voters say that WotDG should be Infantry based. The infantry based playstyle should be our strongest and most natural playstyle.

    • Sergio -

      Sorry it doesnt feel natural to play wdg in msu just like some elves skirmisher units

  • WastelandWarrior -

    So if I get it right, all existing books will have their offensive skill and defensive skill as the same, existing value? and the same for the move / march? while the new books will get the split values? Sounds OK

    As to the WDG stuff it all looks interesting, some of it I like more than other bits but making our characters lower Ld than our existing pretty average value is going to hurt badly. I'm also not a fan of what looks like invalidating banners totally and almost making bsb unnecessary. I like my standard bearer models and bsb conversion and would like to keep using them in competitive lists for more than unit fillers.

    I await seeing the full book and full brb before criticizing too heavily or getting too excited but these are my initial impressions.

    • Kathal -

      Regarding the first part, yes, only WDG and DL will fully use the new stats, all the other books have to wait for their update.

      Regarding the rest, wait and see is the only thing I can suggest. Standard Bearers and BSBs will be still useful in the new book, they just won't be auto includes anymore.

    • Peacemaker -

      Well, won't all books get some minor updates once 2.0 is released?
      ....there will be rules conflicts like separating strength and AP, or moving common items into the individual army books, or lightenong reflexes with the new WS

    • tiny -

      Facelift yes, real redesign no.

  • JimMorr -

    Balance is gonna go to hell for transition period. But I like it.

    • Kathal -

      That is why we have already started with the transition period ^^

      Yes, there will be problems at the beginning, but they should not be a large scale problem at all, since most BRB changes do not affect the actual overall power level from armies. So I'm a little bit optimistic, that it won't come to that mess ^^

    • JimMorr -

      If I were you I would make a poll which armies to update to full AB next...

    • Kathal -

      This is not my decision to make ^^

      However, to be honest, it would be unfair towards armies, which do not have as many players rallying for them, which would than result, that those armies would be the last ones. To make things even worse, those armies could have fundamental issues which wouldn't get addressed for a rather long time period.

    • JimMorr -

      You're 100% right... But sometimes you need to balance fair decisions with popular ones.

    • Peacemaker -

      I think future army books need to be done in groups. The elf books together. EoS, KoE together. O&G and Beastmen. Dwarf books. Etc...

  • Aemir -

    I have one big question - "Why?". Dramastic changes won't bring more new followers than loss of enraged leavers. The thing that bring followers is slow evolving, not the revolution. V 1.2 made several clubs to forget 9th Age and go to AoS, I don't want that to happen again...

    • Kathal -

      The team wants to improve and develop the game further and just wants to provide us with the best (currently) possible core rules, before the rules freeze will happen.

      We do understand, that there are players and clubs, which just wish for a permanent rules freeze with the current rules. However, the wish for progress before the freeze is bigger than the fear of losing players because of those changes.

      Yes, it is a delicate dance, but the teams are working hard to create the best possible mass fantasy tabletop game.

    • Beligua -

      i really dislike the fact that we dont benefit from ranks or Banners anymore. Against Hordes where we will be stuck in all the attacks wont help keep us in CC. Exept we have the other rule which lets us re roll break tests but still its a real big setback. If only some really crazy CC goons get this rule ok thats would make at least sense but if its wiedly spread ..then good night. Hope is still up that the ARMYBOOK Team doesnt ruin it.

    • Korpacz -

      The dramatic changes in 1.3 almost killed the community here as well. Really hoping the game gets to a point where small tweaks and adjustments are made rather than large sweeping changes.

  • SkargitCrookfang -

    Psyched

  • Kathal -

    VOTES on how to write the BTS-Blog in future