Pinned HE General and News - Discussion

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

  • Karkadons of Ryma, why didn’t I think of it! It’s genius! We have to make it count towards core as well as ancient allies.

    But it’s not fair for EoS now so we need to give them Kunfu Panda monstrous infantry, because they don’t have that unit type in their bland army list. I think these Pandas need war dances like sylvan elves. They would fill empires gap by being lightly armored, highly skilled shock infantry.


    Kung Fu Pandas 150+55 (3-12)
    Adv5 M12 Dis8
    HP3 Def6 Res4 Arm1
    A3 Off5 St4 AP2 Agi4

    Way of the grasshopper: Aegis 3+
    Way of the swooping Crane: +1S +1Agi
    Way of the Tiger: LR, Battlefocus
    Way of the Monkey: +1A, Distracting

    I think they would be good new unit choice for EoS. I Will send pictures of my Kung Fu Panda Unit to prove my point.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • Not helpful.

    There have been good arguments for and against drake rider units, but I think the bottom line comes down to this:
    -drakes can't be made of tissue paper; they're gonna be at least somewhat resilient.
    -drakes are of the blood of dragons; they have to have some punch.
    -drakes can't be ridden by citizen militia; they're gonna have to have an elite profile.

    Such a unit would cost us, left and right, arms and legs and dangly bits... Are we ready to axe enough of our existing roster to get them? What would we not miss? This army has a dedicated fandom from the legacy whence it spawned, spanning beautifully modelled and painted collections. Would having this unit be worth the uproar?

    I surely don't know. I guess we'd need the balancing gurus to put their heads together and come up with some realistic drafts of what to drop in order to make this unit fit, and make a poll of it.
    "You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
    Phae's Pointy-Ear Blog: Elves in a Corner
  • I don't think holding the progress of T9A Fantasy Battles ransom for the sake of models from a bygone game and model range is a good idea.

    Yes we know T9A is following up on from where WHFB left. But that should not mean every decision has to be made with old GW product line.

    Would people rage quit because they cannot use their models in a model agnostic system where (as long as the base size is correct) you can use any model for anything literally.

    If they quit, is there another continuously developing system where they can use said models? Let me know if there is another game system where you can use the exact same models for a high elf army.

    Not intended to be snarky at anything or anyone but asking for improvement while accepting no change is bit of an oxymoron.

    PS: I had every single he Codex entry from 8th Ed, some of which never saw table even during 8th Ed. They're all sold now, I'm embracing the opportunity the model agnostic system offers.
  • CariadocThorne wrote:

    @Aenarion43

    Sort of, but at the same time, no.

    Do that with un-needed entries by all means, but it's not a justification to add monstrous cavalry, it's a way to make sure the army us fully functional without them.

    Every book, or at least most books, SHOULD be missing a unit type or two. If Dwarves get cavalry, SE get warmachines, HE get monstrous units, VC and WDG get archers... Armies start losing their identity. What you don't have is as much a part of an army's identity as anything else.
    Large Infantry (this I would 100% keep off limits), non-flying Gigantic (again, also off limits). Off the top of my head. I'm sure if I keep trying and looking I can come up with random (and irrelevant) corner cases. Honestly, the reason I mentioned "monstrous cavalry" for those two is simply because. . . that's what they are. Eagles could, honestly, be turned into a standard cavalry type. But a Young Dragon? Nah. Too big, especially if we are keeping the 50x100 base. Though if, as @Masamune88 once suggested, we go for a 50x50 to be able to use the old Tyrion model for people, that's another story.

    Honestly, every army could probably have every unit TYPE and SIZE in various combinations and still feel different by design. That being said, I agree that you are right in "armies should be missing some". I'm simply NOT willing to trade something for nothing. Full Stop. End of Story. Things don't get cut simply because people are lazy or its easy. So then we can either:
    1) Do the thing likely to work out better: reduce our cluttered character section in exchange for taking things OUT of characters and putting something new into other parts of the book
    2) Follow through with what seems a terrible idea: keep everything in characters and simply have units that are terrible even when giving a rebate of points because of the opportunity cost and downsides (e.g. Eagle Mounted characters).

    I'd be fine with making "Drakes" a standard size cavalry with unique rules. I simply defaulted to: "Young Dragon and eagle mounted characters are Monstrous Cavalry, so KEEP them that way". The problem is simply that we have a ridiculously cluttered character section. So either we work to declutter it while trading in something for something. . . or we simply go into LAB accepting that our Character section will always have a plethora of useless crud (cough EAGLE MOUNTS).

    PS. And yes, an Eagle Mount is literally something that would need to GIVE BACK points for me to ever consider it. Otherwise, having a Res4, 3+/6++, 3HP solo flyer with terrible combat output is a joke.

    PPS. @jaith1, so do you actually have an argument to present, or are you simply being facetious to gain fake internet points from strangers? Because that sort of toxic behavior is what this sub is famed for, and doesn't actually DO anything beyond make your opinion easy to discount because you cannot support it.
  • matrim wrote:

    I don't think holding the progress of T9A Fantasy Battles ransom for the sake of models from a bygone game and model range is a good idea.

    Yes we know T9A is following up on from where WHFB left. But that should not mean every decision has to be made with old GW product line.

    Would people rage quit because they cannot use their models in a model agnostic system where (as long as the base size is correct) you can use any model for anything literally.

    If they quit, is there another continuously developing system where they can use said models? Let me know if there is another game system where you can use the exact same models for a high elf army.

    Not intended to be snarky at anything or anyone but asking for improvement while accepting no change is bit of an oxymoron.

    PS: I had every single he Codex entry from 8th Ed, some of which never saw table even during 8th Ed. They're all sold now, I'm embracing the opportunity the model agnostic system offers.
    It is a good idea to cater to that model range. One of the big reasons this game exists is because there is an existing community of gamers with exactly that model range filling out their collections. This game is literally a game by those gamers for those gamers.

    It also probably why big units of reaver chariots and eagles are so unpopular, no one wants to paint up the models for this game alone. So, I do think people would quit if enough of their models became invalidated, yes.

    I recommend you go apply as game designer for a certain company. High Elf Monstrous Cavalry is exactly what a certain company needs to keep both the 10-year-old customers happy AND the 60-year-old shareholders rich. It’s a win-win for everybody, I don’t understand people either.
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • How much are people willing to pay for s5 t5 a4 off 5 deff 5 2+/3+ Flying MC (with an elite elf on top) unit of 3 models? 700pts? 800pts? 900pts? 1000pts?

    You guys do realize you just want 3 4 griffon/young dragon commanders outside of hero slot right? Because that is what a drake rider unit will look like?

    Also I hope the people who want such a unit will agree that they will go into the ancient allies as well if they are ever introduced.

    Otherwise you will see 2 dragon 1 griffon 2x3 drake rider lists. Which is both stupid and most likely be broken.
    I am the fat Turk that infiltrated the Norwegian Druid Caste.

    I would have been better than you if I could roll a 4 on 2D6.

    To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of ELVES.

    Sylvan Elves
    Dread Elves
    Beast Herds
    Daemonic Legions
    Warriors of the Dark Gods
    Storm Cast Eternals (WAIT WHAT?)
  • Drake riders are a unit we just don't need, the whole flying circus that came with the 8th ed book has created more problems for balance than its worth. If it were upto me I think phoenixes would bite the dust too.

    Interesting discussion regarding catering for models as gw is releasing new high elves (or whatever giant scale comic book version of them their current designers come up with...teclis already has some kind of farming implement on his head), I wonder if that will create any new potential unit entries or simply be updates for previous stuff.
  • Feaynnewedd wrote:

    I don't get why people are so in love with this idea. Are there good minis for that? Do you think we really need them to have a fun army? Or just because you'd think it'd be badass? What is so great about young dragon monstrous cavalry that HBE absolutely need it?
    Not trolling, I seriously don't know and since it comes up at least every two months, I'd like to be brought up to speed.
    I'll comment on this.

    First, many HE players have been waiting a decade or more to field them. This has been part of the cannon during GW management and certainly sparked interest in the community (I know for me the image of dragon/drake riding units has always been an appeal, and they exist in my personal cannon, even if there aren't yet rules).

    Second, we were "teased" with the possibility of their release but (for better or worse) got Phoenixes instead, which personally I find a worse trade from a thematic point of view. The old White Dwarf War of the Beard Drake riders are also a fan favorite.

    Third, there was a draft of them presented original to the T9A team (I know, since I was one of those presenting it) and we were told "not now, but a good idea for future expansion since we're not adding new units now" (and right before new units were added).

    Do we need them? No.

    Should we get them? Yes.

    The fact that it's brought up every two months however is a strong indicator as to how long some players have been waiting for their appearance.

    This is an easy win for the new update, IMO -- the rules have already been drafted and could easily be updated to fit the current version.

    Kind regards,

    Axiem
  • Phaeoron wrote:

    Not helpful.

    There have been good arguments for and against drake rider units, but I think the bottom line comes down to this:
    -drakes can't be made of tissue paper; they're gonna be at least somewhat resilient.
    -drakes are of the blood of dragons; they have to have some punch.
    -drakes can't be ridden by citizen militia; they're gonna have to have an elite profile.

    Such a unit would cost us, left and right, arms and legs and dangly bits... Are we ready to axe enough of our existing roster to get them? What would we not miss? This army has a dedicated fandom from the legacy whence it spawned, spanning beautifully modelled and painted collections. Would having this unit be worth the uproar?

    I surely don't know. I guess we'd need the balancing gurus to put their heads together and come up with some realistic drafts of what to drop in order to make this unit fit, and make a poll of it.
    I don't see why a new unit would have to axe other stuff in the roster. ...HBE book is not bloated like other books. Except for maybe the character section.
    Trimming useless options is never really a big problem.


    LegioIgnatum wrote:

    How much are people willing to pay for s5 t5 a4 off 5 deff 5 2+/3+ Flying MC (with an elite elf on top) unit of 3 models? 700pts? 800pts? 900pts? 1000pts?
    the stats are not set in stone. Any LAB will tell you that the stats can get tweaked all throughout beta - like they have done with bloat flies in DL.

    LegioIgnatum wrote:

    You guys do realize you just want 3 4 griffon/young dragon commanders outside of hero slot right? Because that is what a drake rider unit will look like?
    the 3/4 griffon/young dragon commanders are arguably more powerful than a unit of Monster Cav.
    ....I hope the rest of you guys realize this. Like really realize this. A unit has to wheel and turn, if flanked it loses alot of attacks, etc... . A character gets to spin 360 and move all willy nilly around the tabletop, ton of attacks in a small base area. There is a reason they are are called "cowboys"



    This is what I imagine everytime I see a character cowboy on the tabletop.

    LegioIgnatum wrote:

    Also I hope the people who want such a unit will agree that they will go into the ancient allies as well if they are ever introduced.
    Of course. The entire proposal was that they are a redundant choice to the Pheonix.

    LegioIgnatum wrote:

    Otherwise you will see 2 dragon 1 griffon 2x3 drake rider lists. Which is both stupid and most likely be broken.
    Not enough points in ancient allies for that. Nor will they allow that. Not even sure that would make it into an Auxiliary book.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Peacemaker ().

  • @Axiem @Peacemaker

    The War of the Beard Drake Riders from that sub-2005 WD are available in our book in the form of young dragon commanders. Drakeriders are the equivalent of a KoRyma (2A) on a young dragon for 540 points (9th age pts) per piece, while Qcav Ydragon commander is 460 points with dragon armor/shield lance (3A+1A).

    As we all know those drake riders were never official rules, and 9th age is trying to water down the power level of things, a good thing imo. And despite all that, you blatantly have a superior choice to drake riders in Qcav Young Dragon Commanders...

    So in a QCav list:
    x3 Young Dragon Commanders = (460x3) = 1380 points. Which leaves 375 points left in AA, and 870 points left in characters (4500 points). That’s an OotFH Master Mage on a ydragon easily.

    What are your demands for this drakerider unit? Because you actually have something very viable available with those x3-4 S4 Ap1 above... probably even fit in another OotFH ydragon if you drop a commander.

    So what are your demands for this drake rider unit? Do you seriously hope to field them with a MotCT and x3 SGR!?
    The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.
  • jaith1 wrote:

    @Axiem @Peacemaker
    What are your demands for this drakerider unit?

    I have no "demands" for a unit. By the way, not sure I'm reading too much into it, but when you're repeating such language multiple times without variation you seem very angry in typing this -- not sure if that's your intent, but it comes off aggressive.

    If we're talking about what I'd personally like to see, another choice in Ancient Allies besides Phoenix would be a good place to start. This would give meaningful options when considering between Phoenix / Drakes. Given the over-abundance of mount options, I would recommend (as I have elsewhere) transitioning Young Dragons to square bases and I would be fine if they moved to Ancient Allies at exactly the same points, even more points.

    From a gameplay standpoint, I'm honestly not fussed regarding power-level -- again, I'm not looking for them to fill some massively missing role in the book that only they can fill, but simply their inclusion in the roster as an option.

    What do I think would be reasonable in a power/balance basis?

    High Prince
    - Dragon
    - Ancient Dragon
    - Griffon/Giant Eagle

    Commander
    - Dragon
    - Griffon/Giant Eagle

    Mage
    - Dragon (master only)
    - Ancient Dragon (master only)

    Ancient Allies
    - Frost Phoenix
    - Fire Phoenix
    - Young Dragon Mage (Flaming Sword / Fireball bounds)
    - Young Dragon Ryma


    Happy to discuss limits of 0-1 // 0-2, but honestly if you get the points right, you wouldn't need to put those in place.

    Kind regards,

    Axiem