On Players Disgruntled by 1.2 Going Back to 8th Edition

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

Wondering how the new magic phase feels like? Try it yourself! The Behind The Scenes blog gives you enough to playtest it, including spells of four paths of magic, all hereditary spells and the Dwarven runes!

  • On Players Disgruntled by 1.2 Going Back to 8th Edition

    Just perplexed at one phenomenon seen every now and then since the 1.2 release: People disgruntled with the changes in an of themselves, or of the sheer pace of changes (got to relearn rules all the time) going back to WHFB 8th edition.

    Why 8th edition, I wonder?

    Wouldn't T9A 1.1 be a better point to go back with if one dislikes the new changes that much, seeing as how it was both the most balanced version of Warhammer and complete one in terms of army list options ever seen? It contained all 8th had and more, and though not perfect still seemed to be the version of Warhammer which did get closest to perfection. At least from what I've seen and heard in general, though granted I know very little of such things as Daemons' performance. E.g. the top armies at the 1.1 tournaments I attended were veried, not just an Elf show as during the last 1.2 one, or a DE-VC-DoC idiot run like in 7th. From this perspective, why not choose the polished version of 8th edition (T9A 1.1) instead of the unpolished one?

    Note that this is not an attack on 1.2, neither is it praise: The game largely plays the same and I and my opponents still enjoy it a lot, and that's sufficient for a tabletop simpleton.
  • Karak Norn Clansman wrote:

    Wouldn't T9A 1.1 be a better point to go back
    I think there are 2 reasons for this:

    1)
    8th has all the fluff set out and feels more immersive

    I really think that T9A should have got their fluff out sooner fewer people would have left. I understand why it didn't due to time constraints. The Magic fluff is great but it doesn't give very much on the 16 factions.

    2)
    Playing an out of date version means it's harder to find players

    I know a few people who play 8th and a few who play T9A. I don't know anyone who plays T9A v1.1
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • As one of those players...

    Warhammer was for years the focal point of our game store. I've gone there regularly at least once a month for about 15 years now, and in all that time, Warhammer Fantasy was the game everyone played. If you met a player you hadn't met before, the question was "Which army do you play?" and hte answer was "I play Ogres, oh, and I also have some warmachine stuff" or "Elves and Malifaux".

    Warhammer is what everyone knows well. To play 9th age, I have to get people to read a new book. Some may not want to. For warhammer fantasy, I can walk into the store and find a game any weekend.

    It's also general disillusionment with where 9th age is going. I've had some of those problems since the earliest versions, but I thought I'd wait and see. The general loss of the randomness, small fluffy rules and army building freedom I liked about the game.

    And no, 1.1 already lacked some stuff I liked very much. The very silly magic items of the Skaven. For that matter, secret magic items to surprise an enemy with. Friendly fire with war machines. Truly catastrophic malfunctions and randomness on everything. No legendary characters (my poor Tretch Craventail. And Ikit Claw. And for my friends, Kholek Suneater and Valkia. And Morathi. And Orion.) Tunnel teams. Master Moulders. Small things all over that make things less interesting (why play assassins if they aren't hidden?)

    Honestly, Warhammer 8th has pretty much what we wanted out of the game. THere were some things we were unhappy with, but mainly, we were looking at new rules because we thought interesting new things could come from it, not a rebalancing of the old and some losses along the way. What turned us off 8th was slightly grim outlook of never seeing new armybooks and new units again, of stagnation. Not balance.
    we are small but we are many
    we are many we are small
    we were here before you rose
    we will be here when you fall

    we have eyes and we have nerveses
    We have tails we have teeth
    You will get what you deserveses
    When we rise from underneath
  • Eldan wrote:

    What turned us off 8th was slightly grim outlook of never seeing new armybooks and new units again, of stagnation. Not balance.
    Which is funny, because for me and my friends, it was the exact opposite. I almost quit several times during 8th Ed. because of a lot of the imbalanced garbage. "Oh, you charged your demon prince into my ogre unit and then just threw all of your dice at purple sun? Such fun!" Ugh.

    If 8th Ed. was balanced, my friends and I would still be playing it. The books came out so infrequently that it was never a matter of "oh, I can't wait until my army's next update". It was always "Huh. They updated a book none of us play. Ok, that changes nothing, as usual".


    I'm really hopeful for v1.3. Based on all of the "5 things" threads for all of the different armies, I think that this next update should cure a lot of ails.
  • Well, yeah, that too. We took one look at some of the End Times stuff and said "nope".

    "So, it's a weapon team, except it doesn't malfunction, and instead of 2 wounds and T3, it has an ogre profile, with more wounds and armour? Oh, and it is cheaper, too?"

    Edit: and we changed almost all "entire unit" spells to large templates.
    we are small but we are many
    we are many we are small
    we were here before you rose
    we will be here when you fall

    we have eyes and we have nerveses
    We have tails we have teeth
    You will get what you deserveses
    When we rise from underneath
  • Eldan wrote:

    Sorry, I don't think I'm familiar with 5 thing threads. Where can those be found?
    They were in all of the army specific forums. They asked people what was bugging them most about v1.2, and the five things with the most likes would be looked at.

    For the two I participated in (OK and ID), I think most people said ogres were fine, though they were annoyed that the mammoth hunter was on a single base size, and for ID, people wanted things changed like the shackles of fire rule and the composition limits. Lots of stuff like that. They were really neat threads.

    Edit: Here is the ID one, for example. Our 5 biggest
  • Thank you, folks, that explains it all well.

    As for fluff, yes, it could have been good to get it out sooner, but on the other hand, doesn't virtually everyone play Warhammer in the Warhammer world in their heads whether the rules system is 8th, 5th 3rd editions, Kings of War of 9th Age?

    Would a rushed and thus probably watered-down fluff not just run a high risk to seem awkward and maybe even like a pale imitation of Warhammer, history, Tolkien and similar sources?

    To top Warhammer, you have to have a solid sweeping fluff with lots of intricacies, details and fun bits, especially if the background you are releasing is in the traditional army book format. To do this the fluff work needs to be thorough, and maybe it should be allowed to take its time.


    If T9A on the other hand would be releasing background snippets (and not necessarily on specific units in the army or even things likely to show up in army books) to feed interest and curiosity as a build up for the big fluff releases, it could have worked better, but I personally believe that the current approach nevertheless will give high yields. :)
  • lawgnome wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Sorry, I don't think I'm familiar with 5 thing threads. Where can those be found?
    They were in all of the army specific forums. They asked people what was bugging them most about v1.2, and the five things with the most likes would be looked at.
    For the two I participated in (OK and ID), I think most people said ogres were fine, though they were annoyed that the mammoth hunter was on a single base size, and for ID, people wanted things changed like the shackles of fire rule and the composition limits. Lots of stuff like that. They were really neat threads.

    Edit: Here is the ID one, for example. Our 5 biggest
    Does Vermin Swarm just not have one of those? Because if it does, I can't find it. Maybe it's under some other name.
    we are small but we are many
    we are many we are small
    we were here before you rose
    we will be here when you fall

    we have eyes and we have nerveses
    We have tails we have teeth
    You will get what you deserveses
    When we rise from underneath
  • Eldan wrote:

    lawgnome wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    Sorry, I don't think I'm familiar with 5 thing threads. Where can those be found?
    They were in all of the army specific forums. They asked people what was bugging them most about v1.2, and the five things with the most likes would be looked at.For the two I participated in (OK and ID), I think most people said ogres were fine, though they were annoyed that the mammoth hunter was on a single base size, and for ID, people wanted things changed like the shackles of fire rule and the composition limits. Lots of stuff like that. They were really neat threads.

    Edit: Here is the ID one, for example. Our 5 biggest
    Does Vermin Swarm just not have one of those? Because if it does, I can't find it. Maybe it's under some other name.
    Even got its own subforum; the-ninth-age.com/index.php?bo…1-army-direction-surveys/, which has the VS direction thread in there.
    ✧✧✧ Make Greenskins great again ✧✧✧
  • DiaLogical wrote:

    Even got its own subforum; the-ninth-age.com/index.php?bo…1-army-direction-surveys/
    Two different things, actually. The army direction surveys are for determining strengths and weaknesses of the different armies. The "5 things" threads were for identifying specific things that were really annoying in v1.2 that needed change.

    I'm not sure where the VS version is. I'll see if I can find it, though at this point all of the info from them should have been sent along to the teams working on v1.3.
  • lawgnome wrote:

    DiaLogical wrote:

    Even got its own subforum; the-ninth-age.com/index.php?bo…1-army-direction-surveys/
    Two different things, actually. The army direction surveys are for determining strengths and weaknesses of the different armies. The "5 things" threads were for identifying specific things that were really annoying in v1.2 that needed change.
    I'm not sure where the VS version is. I'll see if I can find it, though at this point all of the info from them should have been sent along to the teams working on v1.3.
    Ah ok, yea misread/understood. I believe this thread (for VS) is what you're referring to then.
    ✧✧✧ Make Greenskins great again ✧✧✧
  • DiaLogical wrote:

    lawgnome wrote:

    DiaLogical wrote:

    Even got its own subforum; the-ninth-age.com/index.php?bo…1-army-direction-surveys/
    Two different things, actually. The army direction surveys are for determining strengths and weaknesses of the different armies. The "5 things" threads were for identifying specific things that were really annoying in v1.2 that needed change.I'm not sure where the VS version is. I'll see if I can find it, though at this point all of the info from them should have been sent along to the teams working on v1.3.
    Ah ok, yea misread/understood. I believe this thread (for VS) is what you're referring to then.
    Yup. That's the one!
  • Karak Norn Clansman wrote:

    Just perplexed at one phenomenon seen every now and then since the 1.2 release: People disgruntled with the changes in an of themselves, or of the sheer pace of changes (got to relearn rules all the time) going back to WHFB 8th edition.

    Why 8th edition, I wonder?

    Wouldn't T9A 1.1 be a better point to go back with if one dislikes the new changes that much, seeing as how it was both the most balanced version of Warhammer and complete one in terms of army list options ever seen? It contained all 8th had and more, and though not perfect still seemed to be the version of Warhammer which did get closest to perfection. At least from what I've seen and heard in general, though granted I know very little of such things as Daemons' performance. E.g. the top armies at the 1.1 tournaments I attended were veried, not just an Elf show as during the last 1.2 one, or a DE-VC-DoC idiot run like in 7th. From this perspective, why not choose the polished version of 8th edition (T9A 1.1) instead of the unpolished one?

    Note that this is not an attack on 1.2, neither is it praise: The game largely plays the same and I and my opponents still enjoy it a lot, and that's sufficient for a tabletop simpleton.
    For me, I know of more people near me willing to play 8th than T9A, I don't see the latest changes really helping that. To be honest, with the attitude towards no making rules for models that I own and insisting I homebrew them, I may as well just tweak 8th with a few bits i like from T9A. Its much easier for me to get a game of 8th with a few tweaks than a fan made rule book, than fan made army books and then home brewed additions.

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

  • Eldan wrote:


    And no, 1.1 already lacked some stuff I liked very much. The very silly magic items of the Skaven. For that matter, secret magic items to surprise an enemy with. Friendly fire with war machines. Truly catastrophic malfunctions and randomness on everything. No legendary characters (my poor Tretch Craventail. And Ikit Claw. And for my friends, Kholek Suneater and Valkia. And Morathi. And Orion.) Tunnel teams. Master Moulders. Small things all over that make things less interesting (why play assassins if they aren't hidden?)

    Honestly, Warhammer 8th has pretty much what we wanted out of the game. THere were some things we were unhappy with, but mainly, we were looking at new rules because we thought interesting new things could come from it, not a rebalancing of the old and some losses along the way. What turned us off 8th was slightly grim outlook of never seeing new armybooks and new units again, of stagnation. Not balance.
    Couldn't agree more. Specially for the Skaven army book, now its all so boring...
  • Personally, I'm not a fan of the 8th ed. And I think T9A 1.2 is better than that, although 1.1 had more colour.

    However, I AM a fan of the 3rd ed, and I do like the design principles in the WHArmies 9 project. I liked the 6th and 7th ed's, but they were a bit clumsy. And I've slowly come to agree that guessing perhaps isn't the best way in managing charge ranges and shooting ranges. I'd like to hear how the WHA9 plays.

    In general, I don't think the 8th ed presented an ideal platform for a new edition of Warhammer, or a platform for an 'independent game'. As I've understood it, the decision to build on the 8th ed was quite ad-hoc. It was tied to the existing (international) player base, and to a degree on the job already done with ETC comps and SwedComp. There's a lot of path-dependence there which is not ideal for good, free-breathing game design.

    So, I for one am not looking back to the 8th edition. 3rd and 6th/7th with Ravening Hordes was good (nod to the WHA9 project), and any edition of T9A is good in that comparison too.
  • Regarding 8ed, well I like it, I must say that, but lets be honest, it was broken:

    1.) If you didn't use AC some armies couldn't do a thing, others were just so fuc... strong that it was NO fun to play against.

    2.) Anyone remember magic in 8ed, like Elves with FastCav moving 18+12 vanguard and doing 6 dice cast on spell that destroy entire unit or army and if 6/6 was rolled it was cast!

    3.) Shooting in 8ed damn, without AC it was worse than in 40K, Skaven, Empire, Dorfs....

    AND SO ON AND SO ON...

    Some say it is hard for new some of the 8ed players to go throu rules, common ... they almost the same, with few very nice changes(see above)...

    Yes, you can't put everything in the list and that is ok, there is not a single game where you could do that even in AoS and 40K you have limitations.

    So, yes we loose some of the fluff(let's see how will new one look like), magic should be better and anti magic not as strong, some units are bad and some to good... but in 8ed everything was so much worse that it is not even funny to compare.
  • I think that at the moment there are 2 issues with T9A.

    1. It is all balanced for ETC
    2. The armies don't feel individual enough


    To elaborate

    1) It is all balanced for ETC

    This means that many armies are designed as a hard counter to another, a rock to your scissors. This is great for ETC and other team tournaments where you can control this (to a certain extent). In these types of tournements most armies are represented relatively evenly some are there more than others but generally its quite even.

    This is a problem for casual players who happen to like a paper army and can only get games against scissors armies. After a number of games it will become clear that winning is impossible for the paper army.

    If you go to a singles tournament with a rock army you could finish top or bottom depending on your matchups. This is why at singles tournaments the representation of armies is less even - it is very easy to see which armies can deal with everything in ONE LIST and which armies can't.

    You might argue (correctly) that this is and / or was the same in 8th ed Warhammer BUT T9A claims to be focused on balance first and foremost. This focus implies (I haven't seen this written by a team member anywhere) that any army can beat any other. This just isn't true for some armies at the moment. The thing is that if you are going to play a game you can't win at you might as well play 8th as you have so much more fluff and options - See point 2.

    2) The armies don't feel individual enough

    I felt that 1.1 leant towards this a bit and 1.2 has taken it further. The more you take away the more similar the armies become. I don't want to play a game which has armies which differ by a few stats. Neither do the people who have stopped playing. Game Workshop were never criticised for not differentiating the different armies enough (maybe a bit with Bretonnia and Empire but not if you played either).

    The loss of many options has really upset a lot of people and I can understand why. I never met anyone who ever had a problem with options - even ones which cant be modelled and even the ones that they personally never took. I always differentiated (e.g. the heavy armour unit has a blue banner and the light armour unit has a red one, the red winged pegasi have devastating charge) AND wrote it down on my army list prior to deployment. I can't understand why this would be a problem for tournament players who must provide an army list to their opponent. Can tournament players not read or write? If this is the case why do they give each other their army lists?

    This was good complex because it added value and for lot of players who have stopped playing have done so because you removed this added value.

    The new army lists were a really good idea on paper. In reality it has made list building less fun and more complicated - especially for armies which have a high core percentage. All I change on my lists now is a few champions / musicians and a couple of magic items. It's too much hassle to go through everything else. As the percentages stand they have actually limited the number of builds and it hasn't really allowed the extra army building options we were told were available because it is too complex.

    This is a good example of bad complexity because it adds much more complexity than value (and I'd actually argue that the old system added more value).

    Conclusion
    I think that T9A has lost a number of players to 8th for a combination of the 2 reasons combined and I fear that you will have a much harder job convincing people to come back than to start the first time. You now have a reputation now of putting balance before fun (options were fun and now we aren't allowed them, army building was fun and now it isn't, randomness was fun but this is evil, magic was fun in 1.1 but in 1.2, why waste points?) As an aside: A Wizard (or equivalent) should be compulsory in a magical fantasy setting - I can't fathom why anyone would say otherwise from a fluff argument - It's another example of putting balance ahead of fun.

    People want balance AND fun but fun is more important. I really fear that T9A is going to be end up perfectly balanced but no fun. I will stay to give you a chance to prove my fears wrong but as you can see a lot of people haven't.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.