T9A Version 3 Rules Suggestions (long term future)

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 available! You can read all about it in the news.

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • T9A Version 3 Rules Suggestions (long term future)

    Whilst browsing the forums I've come across things quite a few times where rules suggestions have come up, often but not always relating to a single army or unit, but the suggestion won't work due to it needing to make a change to the Core version 2.0 rules, which are of course frozen (& with good reasons I understand!).

    Also a few times people have said "well we should put that somewhere as a suggestion for a future "version 3.0" (or whatever it is called) when the core rules are eventually updated - even though it is clearly doing to be many years down the road.

    However I've done a few searches, and I could not find any such thread for these kinds of ideas to get "parked". So I thought I would make this one! please merge/delete or whatever is appropriate and direct me to the right place on the forums if this DOES already exist and I just couldn't find it :)

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog
  • The recent example that made me think of this, was in an OnG thread about Goblin design principles.

    Suggested was a special rule that made certain or all OnG units better or worse at certain Discipline tests than others. Now, whilst this can be made with such a special rule, it wouldn't really be needed if there were two stats for different types of tests, as they are perceived to be about different things in some ways.

    the-ninth-age.com/community/in…ostID=1301019#post1301019

    So the suggestion here was:

    Split the Discipline stat into two stats: Discipline & Bravery (or Courage)

    Bravery/Courage would be used for: Break test, Panic test (Fear test maybe?)
    Discipline would be used for: March test, Restrain pursuit test, Frenzy tests (all others except, basically).


    The suggestion was for OnG that Orcs would have slightly better Bravery/Courage stat, but worse Discipline.

    But obviously to be worth changing the core rules, this stat split would have to be useful for more than just OnG of course. I'm not very familiar with all of the T9A factions and units, but I could think of quite a few that could potentially benefit in flavour from such a stat split:

    Elves could have really excellent Discipline, higher than their Courage.
    Dwarves could have great Courage but only average Discipline.
    Warriors of the Dark Gods & Daemon Legions might also vary depending on their god alignment perhaps?
    Undead would not need a Courage stat perhaps, but could still vary in Discipline across units.

    Anyway, just some ideas.

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog
  • Several big ideas:
    1. Implement a Magic System which automatically scales with size. See a full (quite radical) proposal here: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/2017/01/19/magic-by-points/
    2. Make strengths and weaknesses in defense departments equally valid. Right now there are tons of "auto-hits" (most magical missiles, Grind Attacks, Impact Hits, …) but almost no "auto-wounds" and basically none "needs to hit, but then automatically wounds". This is most likely only, because the ToHit roll happens first, but it makes a Strength in "avoiding hits" much less worth than a strength in "avoid wounds".
    3. Major streamlining of how things work:
      • Everything should stack (like AP, MR, etc.)
      • All tables should look the same (no difference between Off/Def and Str/Res)
      • Reductions to special saves should work the same as AP, not reroll/complete negation
      • For everything allow 0% or 100% probabilities (see #7)
    4. Completely rework the Discipline. There is a whole thread about this, here is my idea: Leadership Reworked
    5. Alternative to #2, just get rid of all Discipline, Overrun and stuff, and instead use combat result to cause additional wounds and auto-break/delete units if combat was won hard enough.
    6. Switch from D6 to D10 system. Goal: Get rid of dozens of [lexicon]special rules[/lexicon] which are necessary, because our current (hard) stats only allow for one low and one high value (e.g. basically all Inf has Res/Str 3 or 4, all large inf has Res/Str 4/5, Monsters have Res 5 or 6, most Inf has Adv 4/5). By getting into more separation here, units can actually be differentiated by basic stats instead of 3+ [lexicon]special rules[/lexicon] stacked on them. This also allows for a wider variance of [lexicon]Spells[/lexicon] (+2 Str would be okay, not completely dominating each and every combat).
    7. Allow ToHit and ToWound to reach auto-succeed and auto-fail territory. (If you have problems with that, you can try the following. Treat all four dice rolls as saves roll. Save to dodge, save to resist, save to armour, special save. You can already auto-fail an [lexicon]armour save[/lexicon] and auto-fail a special save, why not the others?)
    8. Get rid of round bases, convert all round bases into rectangles/squares.
    9. Get rid of Agility and work it into Off/Def, redesign Great Weapons.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • thanks for starting this useful collection.

    rework Armour Saves so they don't require cumbersome and unintuitive calculations. for example,
    instead of: in order to Save, the defender must roll equal or higher than 7-Arm+AP,
    option A: in order to Save, the defender must pass an Arm-AP characteristics test,
    option B: in order to Pierce, the attacker must roll higher than Arm-AP.


  • 1)Redo shoot artillery please.
    Im EoS player, and cannons one of my most powerful tool to fight. And it hit at 4-5+.
    Even with an engineer, the situation is no better.

    What i suggest:
    To engineers and their analogs to give the chance to improve shooting, by means of adding the "Аccuracy" rules, or the possibility of special rerol "to hit." I belive Elfs, Dwarfs, OnG agree with me.

    2) The imperial army is in a kind of stagnation - if you want to win, take rosters from the ETC. For all the roster, I saw 2 basic examples (with very rare exceptions).
    I think, at 9age we can make some...experiments.
    What if from the choice of the general, the prices / ratios of unit points will change?
    For example, if a priest is chosen as the general, the price of flagellants / infantrymen is reduced, but the artillery / elite warriors are increased. I think the idea is clear.
  • Another one that cropped up from an OnG thread here:

    the-ninth-age.com/community/in…ciples-for-lab/&pageNo=19

    Rename the "Feigned Flight" special rule to what it actually is: "Shoot after Rallying" (or something along those lines).

    Perhaps add an additional actual Feigned Flight rule though, whereby you'd auto-rally or bonus to rally after voluntarily fleeing.

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Remy77077 ().

  • piteglio wrote:

    thanks for starting this useful collection.

    rework Armour Saves so they don't require cumbersome and unintuitive calculations. for example,
    instead of: in order to Save, the defender must roll equal or higher than 7-Arm+AP,
    option A: in order to Save, the defender must pass an Arm-AP characteristics test,
    option B: in order to Pierce, the attacker must roll higher than Arm-AP.
    (Not meant to be a discussion thread, but I had to say this!) I really like Option B a lot! Simplifies things too, as why is the defender suddenly rolling armour saves?
    I never figured out why WFB had this. I guess it was seen as flavoursome.. but... it's meh to me and needless complexity and switching of who's rolling dice.

    To keep this on-thread:

    Attacker should roll to pierce armour (maybe some special saves, although it's unclear to me what some of those represent) before rolling to wound. Changes some things but I think it's better flavour & more intuitive too.


    Also I know this is somewhat underway in T9A updates anyway without a change to the main rules, and AP is now not always tied to Str it is possible to change enough stats so that the "armour creep" introduced in WFB is reversed/negated.
    eg: 3+ Armour should be the maximum you generally see on normal troops, but 1AP or 2AP should be rare (and perhaps only tied to weapon options vs certain targets). Add more HP to units to increase their survivability rather than armour in some cases where still needed - eg: Heavy Cavalry.

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog
  • offtopic - i like piercing rolls too, that's why they are implemented in The Breach (as you can see from the TTS-screenshot battle report on my facebook). i personally see new T9A-inspired games to provide good testbeds for possible 3.0 changes. a man must dream! : )


  • Please, redesign secondary objectives.

    +3/-3 it's too much, specially when sometimes it depends on a single dice roll (you don't kill the last 3 models in a unit with a 2D6 S4, there is a single model behind a hill and take the objective in the last turn, you cannot march with this unit even rerolling disciple test and you don't reach the obcjetive, a single spell wipe out your entire unit during the last turn...)

    There's a lot of games 5 minutes before ending the score is a 12-8 and it ends 16-4, 17-3 five minutes later. We eliminated the "finisher spells as Purple Sun... and now you can get even more points in a single spell.

    My proposal:

    To give +1, +2 and +3 for the secondary objectives.

    Hold the ground: +1 for each turn you get the objective, -1 for each turn your opponent does, to a maximun of +3. It's a even game, then you probably get -1, 0 or +1 points, not the -3, +3 it's usually distributed.

    Are you smashing your opponent? Then you will get your deserved +3 points.

    Breakthrought, spoils of war, banners... All could be redesigned following the same way. Maybe the 2 objectives scenario doesn't, but it could be worked out lately.
  • Please, reduce game's duration.

    Uproot every single "the devil is in the detail" rule or gimmicky mechanic. Make it depth, not complicate.
    Keep rules-consulting time way lower than now.

    I'd like to learn to play this game. But right now if I don't commit myself to a 4 hours game (standard 4500), and at the end of it still have the mental toughness to learn from my mistakes, I practically learn close to zero.

    Reduced playing time means you can actually learn something even if you are not someone who plays 12 hours per week, and maybe organise a tournament with the same amount of time spent for a current 4500 single game.

    It would be such a blast.
    Full Book Layout - Overall Completion Status
  • Grahf wrote:

    Please, reduce game's duration.

    Reduced playing time means you can actually learn something even if you are not someone who plays 12 hours per week, and maybe organise a tournament with the same amount of time spent for a current 4500 single game.
    A tournament in 2-3 hours seems to much to ask for - but I think a ruleset for 1500 points on half a board would stand a good chance to get quite popular. A skirmish or warband edition, so to speak.
    + :WDG_bw: :HE: :SA: + This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Round bases for Monsters and other larger single model units
    To actually make proper use of the round base rules a portion of the community so desperately demanded we keep. Or we remove them from the game entirely.

    Duel changes
    So they're either gone entirely or are actually used for the purpose of having two mighty characters clash in spectacular fashion instead of being denial tools for units fighting lone characters.

    BSB loses re-roll for Break Tests
    Nerfs deathstars and removes the need for units that can do 20+ wounds per turn in combat since breaking an enemy becomes far more likely as a result. Also removes a lot of inevitably pointless dice rolling of tests you'll only fail less than 1% of the time.

    Fixed range charges
    Like the above, removes a lot of usually meaningless dice rolling.

    Change Flee/Pursue rolls to Adv+2D6

    Random Movement removed
    Replaced with just giving units a random advance/march stat value, to make the entire rule much simpler and less unreasonable.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Round bases for Monsters and other larger single model units
    To actually make proper use of the round base rules a portion of the community so desperately demanded we keep. Or we remove them from the game entirely.

    this, of course.today more than ever : D


  • my list:
    1. weapon, AP and armor interaction, basically:
    -less AP, AP3+ should be extinct except a few special cases like cannons
    -less armor, anything over 3+ should be extinct
    -no last striking and less bonuses from weapons
    2. better scaling OS / DS table
    3. BSB banners does not count towards magic point allowance but can only take one banner

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

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Duel changes
    So they're either gone entirely or are actually used for the purpose of having two mighty characters clash in spectacular fashion instead of being denial tools for units fighting lone characters.
    I would vote for this one as well. Currently the duel rules feel like a crutch. Ugly, but necessary to reign in mobile and/or flying chars.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    DE Community Support


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • Unit formations - limit to never have more ranks than files.

    This one from Unofficial WFB 9th Ed that caught my interest as a unique take on some of the issues that block formations can cause - eg. thin but deep units 'gaming' the system to prevent attacks at them and/or making the wheeling rules confusing. Or rules for "Line Formation" that don't make much game sense but are likely an attempt to counteract these issues.


    A unit consists of 1 or more models that are arranged in base contact with each other in formations of squares and rectangles. All models in a unit must face the same direction. In addition, all models in the unit must be arranged in a formation that consists of one or more horizontal lines, called ranks, and a number of vertical lines, called files. This is why we often refer to basic warriors as 'rank and file' troops.

    A unit may not have more ranks than they have files, e.g. if the unit is 5 models wide, it may at most have 5 ranks. The exception to this is if the unit is too wide to pass in between terrain or units; in these situations, the unit may temporary reform into a formation with more ranks than files for as long as it takes to pass the terrain or unit. After this, it must return to a legal formation again as soon as possible.
    As far as possible there must be the same number of models in each rank. Where this is not possible it must be the rear rank that has fewer models, and models should always be placed as centrally as possible. Once formed into a unit, the models move and fight as a single entity for the rest of the battle.
    Like many of the rules there, it's not particularly well written, however I do think there's some mileage in limiting the formations of many units in this manner & should be considered in future.


    Related:

    Wheeling - measure the longest edge always

    (Not necessary if using the above unit formation rules!)
    The wheeling rules in T9A FB and even in the QS appear to have quite a lot of complexity and complications, of which I think many arise due to the ability of units to be longer (deeper) than they are wide.

    An alternative solution to the current rules for Wheeling though, could be to always just measure the wheel distance on the "longest edge" of the unit. So if a long but thin unit wheels forward, you'd measure the sideways movement of the back corner, rather than the front corner.

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog
  • These were my 2cents the-ninth-age.com/community/in…velopments-a-ve/&pageNo=1

    In my opinion, to sum up, I hope that there will be:
    -different leadership mechanics, more like those from KoW, just so some events (such as the General's death, for example, or too many combats for the same unit) affect the unit's leadership for the rest of the game;
    -the inversion of the roles of hammers and anvils between hordes and busses, so that we don't see the busses having anvil roles and the hordes having hammer roles, which is against logic;
    -more tactical effects, such as high grounds, covered flanks and so on, to make Core units more useful against Special units provided that some tactical bonuses are triggered;
    -a medium-sized army chart for matches with 3000-3500 points, to make it easier for newcomers to get in touch with veterans.