The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.
Hey I like the layout a lot, and I enjoy the previews of upcoming changes and the reasoning behind them. So kudos to that!
Not saying I agree with a lot of the reasoning though. In fact, Im kinda very worried about the magic changes now. But the scroll itself is a cool feature just sayin
Conceptual Design Team
I liked the new changes a lot! I know it will take some time for us to get used to it but the way where 9th Age is heading looks promising! Finally we will see unique armies!
Awesome work @blonde beer, many thanks to those who helped you doing this" Des chercheurs qui cherchent, on en trouve. Des chercheurs qui trouvent, on en cherche " Charles de Gaulle
" Si l'on bâtissait la maison du bonheur, la plus grande pièce en serait la salle d'attente " Jules Renard
" Plus j'aime l'humanité en général, moins j'aime les gens en particulier " Fedor Dostoïevski
" Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr
i like the list building chart changes, i think it was needed, the old system simply wasn't sufficient. I think this is a great step in the right direction, only time, and the official b release will tell if it works out.
The magic i am uncertain on, it's going to depend on how the traits work, some armies like undead paid extra points I their models for the ability to heal through the attribute. A general reduction in redundancy is a good thing, and something parts of the community has discussed for a while.“You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW
Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
Really enjoyed reading the RT rationale behind the upcoming changes:
The Ninth Scroll: The Informative Official Rumor-mill
Personally, I'm keen to see magic Paths become more distinctive in flavor, but I'm sure some spells are going to be mourned along the way. The army composition percentages should keep the Balancing Board from getting bored.
Also, I think there is a typo for the cost of the Daemon Prince, shouldn't it be 200 points with fly and plate-armor included?
(just kidding people, breathe...)Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank!
I like the rough style, don't correct anything in there.
I'm in total exaltation, like a child on christmas...
The army composition remember me that of 40k, before gw become crazy and insane....
Any unit in a section based on what they do on the field. In that far time 40k were really more balanced than whf... great hopes for future!
Now i want to read all
I cant resist full days
Both changes (magic paths and army creation) sound awesome!
Well explained by the way!!!
Quick Starter Team
Awsome Scroll to read ! Nicely designed and written ! (Even with some typos). I enjoyed reading it.
About the rule, i'm pretty hyped by the new separation system, but kinda worried by the Magic changes.
Welp, this certainly does not fill me with hope for the next update...
Axing half of the Paths of Magic and making the remaining more one-dimensional, stating that not seeing armies without magic is a bad thing (should we also wish to see armies with no shooting, no melee or no movement perhaps? I don't see why using a phase of the game is seen as a negative?), exhanging attributes and signatures for traits I don't understand either as it only removes choice.
EDIT: It also seems like yet another spit in the face to Master Wizards as they are now even less useful than they were before, since their paths become more one-trick ponies instead of useful toolboxes.
I feel that players should be trusted with complex magic systems, not having options removed and their spell-selection hand-held.
The army-selection seems... interesting. Does this mean that the idiotic "Core Tax" will go away?
Not really a fan of having unlimited (well up to slightly less than 65%). I feel that no category other than Core should be allowed over 50%, but I guess that's a matter of taste.
I like the Hobby section, that was well done.I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.
Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
Yeah, I loved the variaty of lores and liked that many armies had their own lores. So I have to wait if it is a good change or not. The possibility that armybooks will have their own % system seems interesting in a positive way.
I realized long ago that the paths have different names but most paths don't really differ.
Perfect summary of my longterm-feeling:
"All path have 2-4 combat augments/hexes, usually some offensive, some defensive. Most paths have some universal damage dealing spells... Then maybe some unique utility spell on top of that. So the basic frame is pretty much the same of all paths, the difference lies only in minor details. This gives players a false sense of choices, but in the end it doesn't matter so much what you choose."
Quick Starter Team
My main concern with paths of magic changes: Now I will be forced to take more wizards.
Let me explain. Having redundant spells in different paths of magic was a GOOD thing. Redundancy in systems makes things more reliable. In the case of spells, it means I dont have to take 3 paths to have 3 different types of spells, I can take one path that emphasizes a style but allows for diversity within the path itself.
If I wanted to take path of fire, for example, the current spells have an obvious emphasis on damage but also allow for a defensive spell option, spell 6 Smouldering Ember. So I didnt need two different paths, I could simply take one and have a fall back defensive spell usually (assuming I didnt get unlucky and not roll it). Same deal with nature. I didnt have to take an offensive path and a defensive path, I could get a mostly defensive path and have a couple offensive spells in there (Dwellers and Master of Earth). These paths were something I could take and have options within the path.
The new pyromancy option means I have all damage spells. Theres no defense. So if I wanna take ANY defense, even if I just want one available as an option, I need to take one additional wizard. And trust me, Im going to want offense and defense both as will most seriously competitive players...especially in a tournament environment where you must choose your path ahead of time.
So if your goal was to reduce the amount of points people spent on magic...well...you just forced people to spend more.
Note: This is with only seeing the one example provided, and only based on previewed content. If I am wrong and the rest of the paths are quite balanced/interesting/diverse, well mea culpa. But based on the preview and reasoning, it doesnt seem to be the case.
Conceptual Design Team
Wow, great work! I'm really excited about the upcoming changes, sounds very reasonable.
Scared about Necromancy... excited about army formation...