Playtesting

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

    • "Gondarion" wrote:

      This thread is for listing/describing any playtesting with 9th Age rules. This can include your army list; what happened in the battle; and anyone's impressions. Please restrict replies to discussing the results of battles or posting yourself; we have other threads in this forum to brainstorm cannons et al.
    • "Valkom" wrote:

      Here is a link to my first Bat Rep of the 9th Age: warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=130360

      Go there if you want the full story, but here are the main comments:

      + New magic items and lore of magic: It still need more work, but it was refreshing and interesting to play with those. The Tranquility scepter is great, as are some of the small items.
      + New rules for line of sight: It is far more natural to play with those, doesn’t slow the game like true line of sight, it is great
      +Morghasts cost, those guys are awesome and they needed a nerf, I would probably let them their ability to reduce the number of wounds from resolution, but just at 6’’ and make it so that it doesn’t affect themselves (they are already construct)
      +price update of the demigryph, they are still worth it and it feel ok
      + Miscast table is grat, but does't feel natural. I link the fact that the more dices you use te worst can happen but maybe change it a bit so it is more something like you roll the dices and add the number of power dices used to the result, highest result are worst.

      - We need to think about changing the army list and make them evolve. My opponent keept an 8th edition army, I could have done the same, but to make the game interesting in the long run we need to add new units, refresh the old one and influence the meta
      -Aura spell from the lore of nehek are too easy to cast, 11+ for killing blow at 12’’ for everyone!
      - +1 to cast for the hierophant is also a bit too much. Book of Ahsur combine to this is now a must and make them really powerful in the magic phase, think casket of soul and hierotitan
      - Infantry cost need to be lowered overall, nobody want to use it anymore except from some elite unit and mage bunker
      - Rocket are still really bad, they need strength 4 with so much inaccuracy or to work in a different way. Even at 70 pts it is not worth it.
      - Transformation of Kadon isn’t worth it. It need to be reworked, ether less to cast on other character or simply better
      - Feedback scroll should be 55 pts, right now it is a must take on a character hero level, if we make it 55 pts, at least you have to think about it before you equip your lord level caster with it.

      Overall I’m happy with the way things are going. Next battle, we will playtest a couple of idea that aren’t yet in the rules.

      Dom
    • "jonnyman113" wrote:

      My friend and I got our game in last night but unfortunatly it wasn't much of one. We really didn't get a chance to see a whole lot of the new changes due to his fluffier list and terrible dice rolls. He brought a swedish comp 20 dark elf list and I had about a swedish 17 tomb kings list.

      -First turn he miscast on four dice with his only wizard who was level 2, rolled a four and his wizard was gone. I like the new miscast table but I think just outright losing your wizard is a bit harsh. Maybe keep the roll a 1-3 lose the wizard and 4-6 take a hit and lose power dice.

      -My tomb king was mounted on a sphinx and got killed but the sphinx had four wounds left at the end of the game. Does it give up victory points? Did he get points for killing the general?

      - Weapon skill two tomb king horsemen aren't really all that great but strength five on the charge and a three up armor save is much appreciated!

      -Hydra's could use having the handler attacks again. He had two and they were just kind of meh.

      -The cap on extra generated power dice puts a bit of a hindrance on Tomb King magic but I think it works well for the most part.
    • sco0terkid wrote:

      Buddy and I play-tested 9th Age using Skaven vs Ogre Kingdoms. 2500 points for both sides. It was a pretty standard game. I (Skaven) got slaughtered due to a bad match-up and absolutely horrible dice rolls. Here are the main points we made:

      -The lores need some work (At least the Skaven lores do). As they are now, they are absolutely horrid. Maybe it was just the match-up against Ogres, but out of 10 spells (4 on plague, 6 on ruin), only 1-2 spells were ANY use whatsoever. The other spells were just way too weak in comparison.

      -It kind of goes against the first point, but we just believe that the lores shouldn't really have been touched. If it was really the game-ending spells that people seriously worried about, just give ward/MR saves against them and give LoS; there's no need to completely re-vamp the lores in our opinions.

      -We like the idea of "Power Overwhelming" but it can be pretty unforgiving. We both absolutely disliked the idea that irresistible force isn't a thing anymore, but irresistible dispels were very much a thing. Line of sight issues were interesting (Seeing how all of his models were medium).

      -Mournfang are waaayy too good under the new parry rules.

      -Random movement needs to be sorted out. Pronto.

      - Fear/Terror need to be sorted out. Thought the rules were pointless in 8th edition, and 9th Age hasn't really changed that for me.

      Suggestions for Skaven lore (as they were really the only spells that went off during the game):

      *Lore of Plague*

      @ Infection - Fine
      0: Blessed with Filth - Fine
      1: Pestilence Breath - Fine
      2: Rot and Decay - The -1 movement allowance s extremely random and strange. How about ASL and -1 to hit?
      3: Vermintide - Still a useless spell that no one is going to use. It could see some use if it were along the lines of "d6/2d6 STR 2 hits with no armor saves allowed"
      4: Cloud of Corruption - Fine
      5: Dreaded 13th - Had a little debate whether "Infantry only" included all types of infantry or only non-monstrous infantry. We decided it was to be like the old version because it made sense; we just didn't know if that was the intention or not.
      6: Plague - Fine

      *Lore of Ruin*
      @ Warp Charge - Love it.
      0: Warp Lightning - Fine
      1: Skitterleap - Fine
      2: Howling Vortex - Pretty darn good. May need a drop in range to 24" but so far, fine.
      3: Death Frenzy - Fine
      4: Abyssal Chasm - The range needs a bit of increase. Even if it's an extra 3-5".
      5: Flame Spout - Was the need to get rid of the 3" template that necessary? I say bring it back.
      6: Shock-blades - For the love of the Horned Rat, make this an Augment with at least 6-12" of range. I don't care if the casting cost is raised; this spell will not be used (at least by me) in its current form.

      We didn't really get to test much else. My opponent brought double ironblaster which destroyed all my big toys, and his gutstar mopped up. Will be testing again in the future!
    • "saurus" wrote:

      Played 2 games using Alpha 0.1 rules. (No doubt got some things wrong)


      Game 1: 1,500 points Warriors of Chaos vs. Chaos Dwarfs
      Mission: Blood and Glory
      Result: Warriors of Chaos victory on Turn 4


      Game 2: 2,000 points Warriors of Chaos vs. Chaos Dwarfs
      Mission: Dawn Attack
      Result: Chaos Dwarf victory on Turn 6


      PROS
      - We liked the new magic phase, especially the PDU for the miscasts.
      - New spells do 'feel' more balanced. The direction 9th is heading with the magic phase feels like an improvement from 8th edition.
      - New magic items added flavour to the game. Loved the Fire Pike. Fire Pike on a Bull Centaur Tar'ruk supported by GW wielding Bull Centaurs smash regeneration units hard.
      - New victory point conditions are a good improvement.
      - Bull Centaurs are a big improvement being core. Makes the army feel less stale and provides more room for more aggressive Chaos Dwarf lists.
      - Centaur spear rules on Bull Centaur's with spears are a great addition.


      CONS
      - Some rules need better clarification. For example, does the new Mark of Nurgle also work on shooting? How do the Lore Attributes of spells exactly work in this edition?
      - Removing irresistible force, but keeping irresistible dispel feels like bad game mechanics. I feel that irresistable dispel should have a D3 + DDU bonus, just like irresistible force does for PDU.
      - Wand of Tranquility is too good for 35pts. Auto include item for me at that cost.
      - Mark of Nurgle perhaps nerfed too hard? (I played the Chaos Dwarfs)
      - Chalice of Blood and Darkness is rubbish IMO. It was totally OP in Tamurkhan, but now it's garbage. Would not pay 55 points for it.
      - Hobgoblin Wolf Riders are still rubbish even at Special.
      - Lore of Fire still seems weak. But it probably had to do with poor match ups for that Lore. IE: lots of armour and fire resistance on both sides.


      Thanks for your efforts guys and I hope this helps!


      saurus
    • "Pellegrim" wrote:

      "Valkom" wrote:

      .... Infantry cost need to be lowered overall, nobody want to use it anymore except from some elite unit and mage bunker .....

      Tune down powerlevels of top-stat unit's and infantry becomes viable again; it's more work but gives better results then tuning costs down. This is hard to explain but true nonetheless. In short: the main combat system is based on an averge statline (actually of huge table of samples of frequently fielded unit's) - if you tweak these stats too much (aka if you change the average statline sample), as has happened, you skew the system. This has one major effect: the point difference needed to balance out powerlevels of units with different statlines explodes and becomes incoherrent. I can't stress this enough. This mechanism is not something "I think is true", it is something I can prove with a (big) excel sheet, that cross-calculates combat results of 10+ sample units. The sheet has a "dashboard", in which you can off-set all stats and armour of the basic statline. All other models are derived from the basic stat line. You can tweak the basic statline and get instant graphs of the points of all sample models. Those graphs become "extreme"when you make poor choices. 7th/8th changed the sample of average unit's, thus skewing the system. I believe WFB combat system is not a collection of stats and points, the are supposed to level out in a certain way, somehow - there is a mathematical method to it that defines the ranges of statlines and related costs. For those who state it's boring to have armies / units with the same statlines / army options: this has nothing to do with that, at all. Army specific point discounts / taxes are determined later.

      Sorry to bother you guys again, and this is not meant to be negative, but it's just so typical that see people draw the same conclusion, without identifying the actual problem.

      Happy to help if there is suport for such an excercise. If not I'll shut up once and for all about this ;)
    • "arthain" wrote:

      It is a very interesting excercise, but I don't think combat stats are all. I'd guess ome special rules (like detachment) are extremely difficult of including in such a formula unless subjective valoration, as well as synergy both internal within the unit (a good armour is much better in a W4 model than a W2) and externally with the rest of the army (diminishing returns and synergy)

      I'd love to see some examples of what does that spreadsheet of yours says is the appropriate points cost for certain units, I think an example would helpp us all see what you claim with a more tangible effect
    • "Pellegrim" wrote:

      Ok - here it goes. Let's forget about meta differences between army's for now.

      Say you have a meta of 12 models, each with different stats (variety in WS, S, T, As and Ws), and they are balanced out pointwise (through combat effectiveness). Think troopers, elites, cav and monsters/lords. That our reality for now.

      These 12 models are balanced out by weighing them versus each other (12 x 12 results, resulting points and the averages determining the actual points, since model 3 performs better versus model 7 and 8, but worse versus 3 and 4, etc).

      These 12 models (stats and resulting average points) define the power-level of the meta. These 12 models also have an average amount of points. Say it's 20 points.

      Two thing are of big importance in the playability of this meta.

      1. One must prevent creating models that outperforms the majority of other models, because that will skew the points. The majority of models have to become extremely cheap, or the superior model has to become extremely expensive. Of course this happened in 7th and 8th, and GW tried to compensate by A. powering steadfast as is and B. (very important) making a "6" always wound and an "1" always fail to wound.
      2. One must prevent models abilities and gear to influence basic stat lines in an exuberant way. The stat lines are well balanced, and they should not be distorted to easy. Things that skewed this system here is GW's giving a model +2S, extreme armour saves, extreme abilities and ward saves (to compensate). To-be-hit bonuses/penalties and to-hit bonuses/penalties would have been much more interesting, since they'd allow for more variety without unbalancing the system.

      From here on it's relatively simple. Introduce more powerful models in the meta while disregarding the point-power balance, and the system flips out. A power model is a model that outperforms other models on more than one aspect: very strong and very hard to wound, or very hard to hit and very tough.

      On the other hand, it also means that it should be very possible for an army to have one power house choice (and a few strong unit's), as long as the average power level of the army is average. So this can be done by limiting army composition choices, and it also requires the army to have to chose "weak" models to compensate for the overpowered models (top tier army's have ways to bypass this golden principle).

      A have an excel sheet that sort of proves this, and you can tweak around in the dashboard, and the meta and point distribution changes dynamically. Send me you mail in a PM if you want to play around with is.

      Of course this does not cover all WFB armies. It does not even touch movement, magic or warmachines. But is touches the core of combat.

      Does this make any sense?
    • "arthain" wrote:

      It makes sense, but as I feared, it is uncomprehensive. There still needs lots of info to be entered (like ItP, maneuverability) that as I feared, need to be subjectively measured.

      Nonetheless, I would be glad to have a chance of looking at it, as it is certainly a nice base to work out the rest, as least for reasonably similar units (most infantry, mainly). I sent you a PM with my mail
    • "Pellegrim" wrote:

      It doesn't pretend to throw out all costs, it pretends to restore core balance and define reasonable parameters for S, T, Bs, A, W, Weapons, Armour and Wards. Not sure if the model if actually needed for these changes, but it provides the 'evidence' to back possible desicions. i'll send it to tou later tonight.
    • "Princecharming" wrote:

      Tesed a game with my dark elves and a few questions and points came up...

      Doomfires; drop point cost to 30 ans give em 5+wsv. They really are to expensive now...
      If i do a soulblighr with doomfires, and activate lore of death attribute; do i regain one lost doomfire if i take a wound?

      All other dark elves adjustments u made are fine imo... Still needq a bit more playtesting:)


      Btw , my witches love the KB spell :D
    • "Gondarion" wrote:

      Can we just stick to playtest results here not debate? I'm going to copy/paste whatever playtests I see and add it to this. If mods want to delete off-topic posts and pin the thread that would be good.

      "Agilis" wrote:

      Played a game with the new rules last night; beastmen vs dwarfs. 1500 pts
      The dwarf player took the cheeseyest gunline list possible; Grimm, 30 xbows, 20 Irondrakes, 15 hammerers, 2 gyros, banner of everyone is stubborn - you get the picture.
      I ran a Ghorgon, 5 harpies (are these supposed to be 15pts per model and only 8 points for additional ones btw), 5 ungor raiders, 2 chariots, 8 minos, 40 gors AHW, 6 Centigors, Lvl 2 beasts and Wargor BSB.
      Battle went down to the wire and was a draw in the end. Lots of fun.
      Thoughts on the new rules:

      Centigors - upgraded them with lances and shields for a 126 point unit in total. Got ASF for drunken which gave me re-rolls against the stunties even with I2. The unit felt 'right' overall; not wildrider OP and not Knight Errant underwhelming. Well done!

      Ghorgon - He got to 11 attacks with Bloodgreed at one point and regained 5 wounds during the battle. A house. Maybe undercosted compared to a 235 Doombull? Thunderstomp, d6 impact hits and 7s6 attacks are mean. Take 2.

      Mino's - Didn't really see battle but could also be undercosted @ 49 points per model if AHW makes them Ws4 S5 A6 forces of nature. Still pincushions though, Wyssian's helped them a whole lot.

      Chariots - The worst performer; T4 hurts them and most things are reducing or fully mitigating the 4+ save. I'd rather take Gors when I can get a Giant for 140.

      Gors - Not sure i'd run them with auto AHW when for 8 points in can Nurgle em' up and give them a 5+ parry. Got minced by the hammerers but everything does (s7 on the charge? Who wrote those rules...). They seem right.

      Lore of Beasts - Hated the '6' spell - seems junk for an ulti so I traded it for Wyssian's (suprise surprise) and curse. Winds were bad and I only really Wyssisan'ed things all game. The +1 strength attribute or +1 attack I could see getting way out of hand, especially if multiple spells are cast. That may need a tone down. Not much to report here sorry.

      On magic overall, the changes didn't seem too great (as in too complex or different). We were unsure if a runesmith gives an aided dispel to the passive dwarf anti-magic rules. I miscast on a PDU (4) spell while in combat and due to 20mm vs 25mm bases I killed 8 of his guys and 5 of mine! Thankyou option on roll of 5-6!.

      I wrote out the lists with both new and old rules and 'saved' 188 points to put the changes in perspective. That allowed for the centigors and some more mino's to come in. What beastmen needed pretty badly.

      To sum up - In love with the work that has been done so far. Congratulations for making a great game even better. Keep up the good work; most balanced game i've played in years.
    • "Gondarion" wrote:

      "Dr Benway" wrote:

      +FEED BACK+

      Me and my group have had some more games trying out varying lores. We found none of the lores used (fire,metal, Light, beasts, Nehek) to be over powered. Light's leadership boost on the lore attribute was always put on the general. Nehek worked very well.

      Spearmen and killing blow are perhaps to effective a combination. Any monstrous cav/cav unit will auto loose. Even basic clan rats with spears were wiping out large units. WE feared this could heavily effect the game style with armies becoming more defensive (Large blocks of spear men in front of a gun line). Would an alternative to Killing blow work? something less devastating? It also meant the bretonnian player had large parts of the board he had to avoid and whole units he couldn't do anything about.

      Magic items same as before feedback scroll is very effective. We've also found that wand of tranquillity to be an additional auto include.
    • "Dr Benway" wrote:

      "Gondarion" wrote:

      "Dr Benway" wrote:

      +FEED BACK+

      Me and my group have had some more games trying out varying lores. We found none of the lores used (fire,metal, Light, beasts, Nehek) to be over powered. Light's leadership boost on the lore attribute was always put on the general. Nehek worked very well.

      Spearmen and killing blow are perhaps to effective a combination. Any monstrous cav/cav unit will auto loose. Even basic clan rats with spears were wiping out large units. WE feared this could heavily effect the game style with armies becoming more defensive (Large blocks of spear men in front of a gun line). Would an alternative to Killing blow work? something less devastating? It also meant the bretonnian player had large parts of the board he had to avoid and whole units he couldn't do anything about.

      Magic items same as before feedback scroll is very effective. We've also found that wand of tranquillity to be an additional auto include.

      Apologizes I didn't see the feedback page. I'm happy to send a more detailed report later.

      Marsh
    • "Berndl987" wrote:

      Feedback:

      played a Game of Beastmen vs Warriors of Chaos:

      first of all some rules are unclear and need to be clarified
      1) we both had Chariots of Khorne: do the Impact Hits and the Chariot's mounts attacks benefit from the Mark of Khorne. if yes, then this is overpowered. S6 Impact hits on 80 points Tuskgor Chariots and 120 points Razorgor / Chaos Chariots is just OP for the points value. The game showed that as well btw

      2) does the Cygor -1 to cast debuff stack? with the option of having 3 of them on the table (2 through army list and 1 summoned by #6 Lore of the wild) that is OP, if it stacks.


      to the game:
      it was actually a fun game, 2500 points, we brought roughly:
      WoC: DP of Slaanesh Lvl 4 Shadow, Tzeentch hero on DM BSB, Hero on Horse 1+ rerollable, lvl 2 metal, 18 TzeentchWarriors with Halberds, 3 Crushers, 6 Blightkings, soem chaff and 2 Chaos Chariots
      BM: Lvl 4 Wild, Lvl 4 Beast, Beastlord with 1+ reroll S7 Ramhorn Helm, Doombull 2+AS S8 (great Weapon), BSB naked, Gor Carrier 25-30models, 35-40 Bestigors, 3 Tuskgor Chariots, 2 Razorgor Chariots, 2 solo Razorgors, 2x 5 man Ungor Raiders, 2x Cygor

      It was a victory for the BM btw, it was fun but a bit imbalanced imo :)

      Regarding Feedback on units etc:
      - Khorne Chariots are OP, mentioned that already

      - the shadow lore attribute is extremely good on models like a Daemon Prince, think it is OP

      - Cygors are massively undercosted, a walking Stonethrower / Monster with 5A S6 + Thunderstomp, immune to Magic (2+ ward), 5+ ward save against everything else, the -1 to cast debuff (that is stackable yes/no?) for 175 points? really? ah yea if you hit a solo model with it, it must reroll ward saves as well -> either increase costs or remove some of those special rules

      - the #6 spell of Lore of the Wild is massively OP, the other player cant really stop it from going off, netting the BM another free Cygor (or even better a Ghorgon appearing in the enemies rear). On a very reliable casting value of 16+. Its even permanent, so you cant dispell it (RIP) after it has gone off. That spell had major impact on the game we played and decided it in the BM's favour

      - Crushers are even more killy with new mark of Khorne (Riders get +1S on charge, still retain frenzy). They are too good imo, especially when you bring 2 units, which wasnt the case here though

      - the lore of metal lore attribute is too good as well. the spells there are spammable with 5 of them being castable at 8+ only. you can stack that armour saves really nicely and create uber units. That lore attribute needs a complete rework imo

      - Lore of Shadow is really nice with great utility, its fine imo. Same goes for Lore of Beasts, fine as well. That doesnt include the lore attributes, I think they are too strong for both lores. Spells are fine though. Maybe the #6 Beast spell needs a small buff (increased range might just do the trick imo)

      - the Blightkings didnt see combat, so cant comment on those. with the new nurgle nerf they seem more manageable though. Unit size for those should be limited though

      - both the Bestigor base cost (11pts) and the cost for Chaos marks (1pt) is too low imo, just compare it to other elite units (Temple Guard e.g.). The damage output of those guys is insane when you compare it with their points cost.

      a general note:
      still not a fan of 50% cap on Lords and heroes combined. it makes for very cheesy lists (2 lvl 4s and 2 fighty Lords for lots of armies. Is it really herohammer we want to play?
    • "Herminard" wrote:

      Greetings, had a battle of 2400 ETC style with Kyrre Øverbø.

      DE vs LZ - tried to test out tweaked stuff so I ran;

      Metal Slann

      4 cowboys

      2 blocks of Saurus

      Block of TG

      1+1 Sally.

      He ran

      Lvl 4 Death

      Cauldron BSB

      Block of Spears

      Block of WE

      2 small shades

      4 RBTs

      1 small harpies

      3 Hydras with Breathweapons.

      We just tried to play it quick and dirty and we found it a very nice and bloody 12-8 fight with almost clean table. New Lores seem very nice, the Cowboys were still strong but reasonably priced, spears are more than relevant and saurus loving the 4+5++ and hydras being a little stronger with classic regen back in.

      Q: The metal spell nr1 that reduces strength of shooting by 1. Does it affect hydras breathweapons? In Combat too?

      Q: Are we correct to assume that both Saurus with spears and TG with halberds can opt at the start of new combat to choose between specialized weapon and hw+shield?

      Else we were most pleased. Lore of fire seems irrelevant for me - all other lores look very playable. Not found any clear OP contenders yet.

      Thanks!

      -H-
    • "Pinktaco" wrote:

      Unless I'm reading the rules wrong you made a mistake - current rules only allow for 3x same character. You went with 4 cowboys. :)

      Concerning weapons templeguards only have halbards, but I'm not so sure about saurus warriors. The way the rule is currently written is very messy. It does, however, state that if you have more than one weapon you can switch between them at the start of the combat.