I hope people will enter a debate about the most basic substance of the game. What kind of game do we want?
I have watched quite a number of battle reports from the blog section.
I really enjoyed most of them, they are entertaining and you can learn a thing or two about the armies and the whole game.
But something did strike me as remarkable. If you ignore vermin and dwarfs you will find that people don’t play infantry.
I have seen many lists without a single foot soldier and if a unit did make it to the table they are usually skirmishers or some sort of ranged unit.
What I have seen so far:
6 armies had zero infantry
6 armies had one unit
(2 armies don’t have a choice)*
and out of the few infantry units even fewer were not just chaff/mage protection.
Also there was not one army that was infantry heavy. Not one player chose to go and play two regular and one elite unit of infantry or anything similar.
Monsters, monstrous infantry and cavalry clearly dominate the game and are supported by a bit of shooting, magic and chariots.
Who ever can, leaves infantry at home.
Many people wonder whats wrong with dwarfs - I say there is nothing wrong with dwarfs. They have a nice balanced army book. But they are thoroughly misplaced in a game that centers around monsters, monstrous infantry and cavalry.
If this is what people want we should be honest and change towards a large skirmish type of game and basically toss infantry. But this is not the type of game I want to play.
In my opinion 9th age should be the game of large infantry blocks supported by magic and some shooting. This is what hardly any other game offers and this is what I loved about Warhammer.
Quo vadis? Where are you going?
*So who did use any infantry at all? Vampires had zombies, dread elves had witches, ID had a dwarf combat block, Wotdg had a block of wasteland warriors, mummies had tomb guard and there were two large goblin blocks.
On the other hand there were the following armies without any infantry at all: EoS, KoE, O&G, OK, Elves, SA
So to sum up:
I have watched quite a number of battle reports from the blog section.
I really enjoyed most of them, they are entertaining and you can learn a thing or two about the armies and the whole game.
But something did strike me as remarkable. If you ignore vermin and dwarfs you will find that people don’t play infantry.
I have seen many lists without a single foot soldier and if a unit did make it to the table they are usually skirmishers or some sort of ranged unit.
What I have seen so far:
6 armies had zero infantry
6 armies had one unit
(2 armies don’t have a choice)*
and out of the few infantry units even fewer were not just chaff/mage protection.
Also there was not one army that was infantry heavy. Not one player chose to go and play two regular and one elite unit of infantry or anything similar.
Monsters, monstrous infantry and cavalry clearly dominate the game and are supported by a bit of shooting, magic and chariots.
Who ever can, leaves infantry at home.
Many people wonder whats wrong with dwarfs - I say there is nothing wrong with dwarfs. They have a nice balanced army book. But they are thoroughly misplaced in a game that centers around monsters, monstrous infantry and cavalry.
If this is what people want we should be honest and change towards a large skirmish type of game and basically toss infantry. But this is not the type of game I want to play.
In my opinion 9th age should be the game of large infantry blocks supported by magic and some shooting. This is what hardly any other game offers and this is what I loved about Warhammer.
Quo vadis? Where are you going?
*So who did use any infantry at all? Vampires had zombies, dread elves had witches, ID had a dwarf combat block, Wotdg had a block of wasteland warriors, mummies had tomb guard and there were two large goblin blocks.
On the other hand there were the following armies without any infantry at all: EoS, KoE, O&G, OK, Elves, SA
So to sum up: