Why I stopped playing T9A

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

  • Why I stopped playing T9A

    First of all thank you to T9A team for making a better version of the game then Games Workshop ever did. 1.1 was not perfect, but boy did I love it. The creation of T9A made me believe in the game again. I have a great amount of respect for the whole team, their effort and vision :)

    Unfortunately, I do not play the game anymore.

    This is an attempt to explain my experience with what went wrong. Because I know that I am not alone. And I hope my experience - if told - can help the ones working on 1.4.

    Time
    This hobby takes up a lot of time. Collecting, painting, list-building, reading and of course playing. Every time major changes are announced it stresses me, because I have to invest even more time into a hobby that already takes up a lot. In my game group Im the only one reading the rules. The others have given up and get confused over what is current and outdated rules. In fact I do not believe there should have been major changes at all. Just minor fixes along the road, to fine tune an already well playing piano.

    I would therefore have applauded the decision to freeze the rules if it had only been made sooner. It should have been made after 1.1.

    Obsolete models and drastic changes to army composition
    I will try to explain what happened to my army:

    Handgunners used to be good when upgraded and with an engineer (Artificer) who gave them orders. So I painted 20 of them. Spend a lot of time and effort in making them look good. Then the order was nerfed because some thought Handgunners with BS 5 was overpowered. Even though they were unwieldy, vulnerable and took up a lot of your battle line. But fair enough, I could understand the notion though I disagreed. But when the ability to give them BS 4 was taken away, Handgunners were reduced to unplayable. Not worth their cost even compared to other EoS Core. And I put 20 Handgunners on the shelf.

    The Volleygun used to be ok. It was still somewhat situational, but put an Engineer next to it and it could be worth the points some times. Since I love the model I bought it and spend hours painting it. Then its toughness was reduced to 4, and archers and magic picked it off before it got a chance to shoot with its limited range. Off to the shelf.

    The Engineer was put on the shelf then. He used to be in my Handgunners, helping both them and the Volleygun. Now he had lost his purpose.

    The Pegasus used to be cool. I bought one, converted it with a Captain as the rider and painted as if my life depended on it. It wasn't near overpowered, but it was fun and sometimes useful. And I loved the model. So epic and what Warhammer always was about for me. Then the Captain was removed in an attempt to streamline the rules. And the Pegasus cost a cost increase. There is absolutely no reason to bring the Pegasus anymore. So it was put on the shelf.

    Same story with the Flaggelants who got their numbers reduced, but I guess you get the picture now.

    I loved the magic lores of old. I painted a Grey Wizard to look like Gandalf because I liked Shadow magic. I painted a Death Wizard in a semi necromantic theme because I like Death Magic. Now I can use four different lores and my Grey Wizard looks a bit off when casting Thaumatogory - a word a cant even pronounce.

    As you can see I paid a lot of money, spend a lot of time and invested a lot of emotion in a number of units which were afterwards changed a lot to the worse. Add to that the units which were never worthwhile in the first place and nearly a third of the units and characters were out of the picture. I believe players in most armies have experienced similar things.

    Making new problems when fixing the old problems

    Apparently it was problem that players could become confused whether or not a unit was upgraded or not. I never understood this - in my games people would just tell each other "These are veteran Swordsmen" or what ever. But fair enough, I get that it could be a minor problem in some situations. But when fixing the problem the Rules Team created a new one. Some units which were only worthwhile in their upgraded version became obsolete - a much bigger problem.

    The same goes for artillery. Since EoS is very vulnerable to monsters, we had to bring cannons. Then people with monsters complained and cannons were nerfed - also against rank and file. So now a cannonball wont plough through rank and file, and if a Steam Tank tries it will have strenght 2! So basically cannons became an unrealistic rock-paper-scissor weapon, instead of the general purpose long range weapon it should be.

    Not listening enough to the forums

    In the EoS community there were a clear understanding of which units and characters that are too strong and which are not good enough. There were people like Greentide which knew our army to the fingertips. And yet with every update we were puzzled over both the changes and the things which did not change. It became apparent that the people making our rules weren't experts in our army. Now I get it, people are busy and have limited time. That is exactly why changes should be minor and rare. So there is time to listen to the players and improve the game we love.


    All in all my game group has given up. I was the last one to be mister positive, try to convince them to play the new rules etc. We havn't given up on The 9th Age. But we have given up on 1.3. If I can give three final pieces of advice it should be:

    - Be more hesitant to implement changes.
    - Listen more to the army sub forums when changing an army.
    - Make 1.4 more like 1.1.
  • Hey Bloody,
    Thank you you for your time and patience and of course your input.

    I know things seem "chaotic", but there is a light at the end. Apologies on the necessary evils. It is a huge task to put together a truly worldwide game. There is a blending of many different play styles, theories, metas, and knee-jerk reactions, not to mention the many legal hurdles of the dreaded catch phrase "intellectual property". It is for that last part that many things had/have to change.

    I feel your concerns. I have played this game for over 20 years and was a part of the GW GamesDay teams for almost a decade. I had many friends and contacts there so parting is bitter sweet. I have so much unopened product, that I seriously could out inventory 2 local stores.

    But alas, we have an opportunity now. Many more model creators to choose from. We also have put together teams to hash out the problems of the past. There is a whole lot of behind the scenes stuff going on to mitigate the problems of the past and the opportunities of the future.
    Oh yes, there will be growing pains. Think of pre 1.3 rules as what GW did with "Ravening Hordes".

    I liked 1.1, too, and really liked back in .11, but in reality it was because it was a revamped version of 8th edition Warhammer and the truth is that 20 years of a system is hard to change. I could stick with playing in my basement with a few friends, but I really enjoy the social atmosphere of events. I don't compete with the hardcore, but I enjoy getting out and seeing the armies, talking trash, drinking a beer or two, and just doing something that isn't "real life" for a bit. To do so, I have to roll with it and change.

    I have a unique opportunity to try and offer ideas and feedback to the design effort which I hope in the end will be of use to everyone. We do get a huge amount of feedback and ideas from the community in both written and verbal methods. The data and charts that are gathered and presented by each army's Community Support teams is sometimes overwhelming. They do a great job. Trying to work out the 100 different ideas for 1 unit is sometimes a daunting process. The Skype meeting after Skype meeting, the chats, the back and forth, and then someone always feels shafted once legal gets their say. LoL.

    The constant push out of revisions was a headache. It was an attempt to keep the community involved, but I think it had a backlash that wasn't intended. It's one of the reasons for hitting the brakes at 1.3. It gives us time to be more thorough before release.

    Contact HR about volunteering to help. In the end, you as a player need to be able to get games in that you enjoy. If that is with 1.1, then continue. Just don't shut us out and keep an eye on us as we evolve. Keep up the feedback, and continue being Mr. Positive.
    B. "Skunk Butt" Jones - Member of the CGL :oldmen:
    • Owner of BH, DL, DE, DH, EoS, HE, KoE, O&G, OK, SA, SE, VS, UD, VC, & WotDG. Yes, it is a sickness.

    Conceptual Design

    Playtester-Mid Atlantic USA

    CGL 2018 Worst Player Winner

  • Dear Bloody MIsfire,
    Thank you for taking the time to explain your disappointments.
    It is always hard to figure out what the community wants, but it would be harder if nobody took the time to tell it as you did.

    We all know what is this disppointment, because it is exaclty what happened to nearly all current T9A players when our beloved Warhammer world was suddenly destroyed and trashed. And no matter how we complained to GW, it never came back.

    Your investment in a model collection is similar to the investment most T9A players have done.
    Your frustration about models shelved after each rule update was a frustration each of us experienced, during each WH update - with the last hit forcing many of us to shelve the whole collection...

    The very reason why so many people spend mad amounts of time on their keyboards on T9A project is because of similar investment, and similar frustration.

    -=-=-
    There are now two major differences compared to WH:

    - shelving models for lack of power is mostly a thing of the past, contrary to the feeling you express.
    Let me explain why: sure, all what you say about handgunners, volleygun, engineer, captasus, flaggies, wizards is true. But it is also true for all the units you face. The loss of power you experience is balanced by the loss of power your enemies experience simultaneously. And that is a good thing: you should be able to remember how frustrating it used to be to face units you could not do anything about, don't you remember?
    Your concern about the money and time you invested in your units is the same experienced by all T9A team members. They will make sure that no unit is worthless. None. This never has been the case for WH, but in T9A, this is a permanent commitment.
    Not to deny your experience, I can even confirm it! But if Empire had been maintained at previous level while other factions were nerved, you would not be any happier.
    Please let me know if, while our beloved Empire lost power, any of your opponents experienced a power increase or absence of power decrease.

    - not being able to voice your concern is also a thing of the past.
    I don't know how many times you wrote to GW. I did. Never got a reply.
    Here, you took the time to write a nice post, and within one hour, a team member replied, and now here I am, with access to the top management, wrriting a thorough reply.
    This is T9A. We're not perfect, but we have actual concern, for each single one of you. If only for selfish reasons, because each of the project members is just one more like you.

    -=-=-
    The power decrease you resent - like everyone - has stopped now.
    Nobody likes his units to lose "oompf", even if the opponent has the same loss.
    This is behind us now. The idea of the current level was to allow the team to increase from a neutral level. Next editions should therefore know hardly any decrease of unit power, and many more (slight) increases

    Edition 1.1 was unanimously appreciated as the best fix one could imagine for WH8. We are proud of it.
    There was a problem, however, which has been explained at length: it was not far enough from WH for us to feel safe from a legal point of view. Imagine, if a lawyer had told us to cease or else? All the investment made so far would just have been lost.
    No choice, we could not remain at 1.1. Even 1.3 is not safe enough, this is why we will move again into 2.0 (there will be no 1.4).

    Will 2.0 be more like 1.1?
    In some aspects, no, as I just explained: there are a few similarities between T9A and WH which are still too strong, for example the to-hit-to-wound sequence, or the magic phase as a whole. We are currently working on finding new mechanisms which should be simple to learn, which would represent better what is done, and would be fun and balanced.
    The old magic lores cannot come back. They were too close to WH. Sure, there were good things about them. They were also bad things, such as game-winning spells. Do you seriously regret that?

    In other aspects, yes. But that will take a bit more time.
    The basic rulebook will be achieved with 2.0. All gaming mechanisms will be smooth, well written with no ambiguity. And these rules will be stable for... years!
    What will look more like 1.1 and WH will be more immersion in every army book.
    We want every unit to tell a story, and to have rules which reflect that story.
    We want people to be passionate about their units.
    This has started.
    It has started for WDG, DL, DE and ID. Only the furst two should be ready for 2.0, but the other ones will follow.
    This is the part of what we had in WH, and which remained a bit in 1.1, which will come back.


    As you are able to write long posts, I trust you to be able to read my own wall of text.
    I would be happy to read from you (or other readers who experience similar feelings) if my reply addresses your concerns, and what misses to do it better.

    -=-=-

    DennisSoedal wrote:

    Dear skipschnit
    Please locate the "Enter/Return" button on your keyboard.
    Edited for him. :hiddenthreat:

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves
  • I understand every issue raised here, but frankly, I can't see much of a better way of addressing them than what the team is currently doing.

    All points but the last one can be fixed with better game balancing, and for that, the rules team needs to keep doing changes.

    If proper internal army balance is achieved, each unit will be viable, and be so generally and not only in very specific compositions (such as the engineer-boosted handgunners you mentioned). Then, one can truly buy and paint models for the sake of collecting them, and be able to rely on being able to put together a viable army from one's collection, rather than buying and painting simply to be able to put a very specific power combo on the table. If the game isn't there yet with regards to handgunners, it'll get there fastest through the rules team keeping doing what they are doing.

    I would rather have a situation where I run the risk that I won't be able to use a specific unit in a specific way, than one where a significant fraction of the entries in my army book are subpar, entries for which I might have significant model collections already. The latter is a situation we might unintentionally end up in if the rules are frozen for long times just to provide stability.

    As for listening to the forums, or more specifically, the army-specific forums for issues relating to that army, I suspect you might be overestimating the relevance of that. The army-specific forum dwellers may have more on-the-ground, hands-on experience than the rules team, but at the same, their perspective is more limited and more biased. Like that old joke about Rock writing to the game developers to complain about how Paper is totally OP and needs a nerf, while Scissors is fine as is. Also, with that limited perspective, many people tend to view proposed changes in isolation, imagining the wider context the change takes place in staying exactly the same regardless of the change, without considering second- and further-order consequences, or consistency towards the game as a whole. For instance, if a particular unit doesn't see much play under the current metagame, the solution might not be to e.g. reduce its points cost or buff it to make it useful in the current meta, since those changes may open up possibilities for entirely new builds becoming viable and the meta as a whole changing, with the unit that just got balanced for the old meta instead being OP in the new. Finally, forum members are probably not a particularly representative sample of the player base as a whole. For instance, when the rules freeze was originally announced, it was objected to by some for the exact opposite reason the OP here does, they wanted faster fixing of things that needed fixing, and maintained that the community is largely fine with the fast pace of changes. The reply from the T9A team was largely "No, the community isn't, you forum enthusiasts may be, but everything we've heard from the largely-silent majority that isn't on the forums suggests that they want a break and a period of stability".

    So to conclude, I see and understand the point the OP is making, but I'm currently not conviced there is, or ever was, a better way. Other than maybe make it clearer to every early adopter of the game that it's a work in progress and that everything's subject to change at an arbitrary schedule. That they are, in effect, beta-testers and should assume such an attitude.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Calisson wrote:



    In some aspects, no, as I just explained: there are a few similarities between T9A and WH which are still too strong, for example the to-hit-to-wound sequence.... We are currently working on finding new mechanisms which should be simple to learn, which would represent better what is done, and would be fun and balanced.
    Apologies, I think I've missed something here. I hadn't realised that other parts of the game (other than the magic phase) will undergo significant changes.
    Have there been announcements about these? And is there a list anywhere of all of the parts of the game that are expected to change with 2.0?
    New rules:
    (1) I will do my best to answer your criticisms, particularly of RT, but don't forget to thank one of the unsung heros who hold this project together: rules clarity team, lectors, website admin, background etc...
    (2) If you tag me and I don't answer you, its because I'm busy, sorry :( . If you still want an answer ~4 days later then tag me again and I will try to do better :)
  • DanT wrote:

    Calisson wrote:

    In some aspects, no, as I just explained: there are a few similarities between T9A and WH which are still too strong, for example the to-hit-to-wound sequence.... We are currently working on finding new mechanisms which should be simple to learn, which would represent better what is done, and would be fun and balanced.
    Apologies, I think I've missed something here. I hadn't realised that other parts of the game (other than the magic phase) will undergo significant changes.Have there been announcements about these? And is there a list anywhere of all of the parts of the game that are expected to change with 2.0?
    Not yet, it might be when it's decided what, and how, it will change.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • DanT wrote:

    Calisson wrote:

    In some aspects, no, as I just explained: there are a few similarities between T9A and WH which are still too strong, for example the to-hit-to-wound sequence.... We are currently working on finding new mechanisms which should be simple to learn, which would represent better what is done, and would be fun and balanced.
    Apologies, I think I've missed something here. I hadn't realised that other parts of the game (other than the magic phase) will undergo significant changes.Have there been announcements about these? And is there a list anywhere of all of the parts of the game that are expected to change with 2.0?

    If this is true, you guys will want to get this public sooner rather than later. The longer this has to fully sink in before the change, the better received the change will be. It might be worth publishing a list of concepts and phases etc., that will be changed for a number of reasons (letting it sink in, suggestions and discussion off the top of my head).

    I'm sure a good lawyer can phrase the caveat to make it clear that while you are not in breach of IP, we are going to change it so that there is no way that it could be interpreted as a breach in isolation or some four letter word.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • We are currently in the review process if the proposed concepts are sufficiently safe or not. The review may suggest all or some concepts need to be further changed but it can also result in reducing the size of the changes if they are not necassary to be changed as much from a legal perspective.

    Outside of the magic phase the focus of changes is to provide the same game feel but with a different visual identity for the mechanics they represent, while at the same time adjusting the mechanic formula without altering the result.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament
  • Bloody MIsfire wrote:

    First of all thank you to T9A team for making a better version of the game then Games Workshop ever did. 1.1 was not perfect, but boy did I love it. The creation of T9A made me believe in the game again. I have a great amount of respect for the whole team, their effort and vision :)

    Unfortunately, I do not play the game anymore.

    This is an attempt to explain my experience with what went wrong. Because I know that I am not alone. And I hope my experience - if told - can help the ones working on 1.4.

    Time
    This hobby takes up a lot of time. Collecting, painting, list-building, reading and of course playing. Every time major changes are announced it stresses me, because I have to invest even more time into a hobby that already takes up a lot. In my game group Im the only one reading the rules. The others have given up and get confused over what is current and outdated rules. In fact I do not believe there should have been major changes at all. Just minor fixes along the road, to fine tune an already well playing piano.

    I would therefore have applauded the decision to freeze the rules if it had only been made sooner. It should have been made after 1.1.

    Obsolete models and drastic changes to army composition
    I will try to explain what happened to my army:

    Handgunners used to be good when upgraded and with an engineer (Artificer) who gave them orders. So I painted 20 of them. Spend a lot of time and effort in making them look good. Then the order was nerfed because some thought Handgunners with BS 5 was overpowered. Even though they were unwieldy, vulnerable and took up a lot of your battle line. But fair enough, I could understand the notion though I disagreed. But when the ability to give them BS 4 was taken away, Handgunners were reduced to unplayable. Not worth their cost even compared to other EoS Core. And I put 20 Handgunners on the shelf.

    The Volleygun used to be ok. It was still somewhat situational, but put an Engineer next to it and it could be worth the points some times. Since I love the model I bought it and spend hours painting it. Then its toughness was reduced to 4, and archers and magic picked it off before it got a chance to shoot with its limited range. Off to the shelf.

    The Engineer was put on the shelf then. He used to be in my Handgunners, helping both them and the Volleygun. Now he had lost his purpose.

    The Pegasus used to be cool. I bought one, converted it with a Captain as the rider and painted as if my life depended on it. It wasn't near overpowered, but it was fun and sometimes useful. And I loved the model. So epic and what Warhammer always was about for me. Then the Captain was removed in an attempt to streamline the rules. And the Pegasus cost a cost increase. There is absolutely no reason to bring the Pegasus anymore. So it was put on the shelf.

    Same story with the Flaggelants who got their numbers reduced, but I guess you get the picture now.

    I loved the magic lores of old. I painted a Grey Wizard to look like Gandalf because I liked Shadow magic. I painted a Death Wizard in a semi necromantic theme because I like Death Magic. Now I can use four different lores and my Grey Wizard looks a bit off when casting Thaumatogory - a word a cant even pronounce.

    As you can see I paid a lot of money, spend a lot of time and invested a lot of emotion in a number of units which were afterwards changed a lot to the worse. Add to that the units which were never worthwhile in the first place and nearly a third of the units and characters were out of the picture. I believe players in most armies have experienced similar things.

    Making new problems when fixing the old problems

    Apparently it was problem that players could become confused whether or not a unit was upgraded or not. I never understood this - in my games people would just tell each other "These are veteran Swordsmen" or what ever. But fair enough, I get that it could be a minor problem in some situations. But when fixing the problem the Rules Team created a new one. Some units which were only worthwhile in their upgraded version became obsolete - a much bigger problem.

    The same goes for artillery. Since EoS is very vulnerable to monsters, we had to bring cannons. Then people with monsters complained and cannons were nerfed - also against rank and file. So now a cannonball wont plough through rank and file, and if a Steam Tank tries it will have strenght 2! So basically cannons became an unrealistic rock-paper-scissor weapon, instead of the general purpose long range weapon it should be.

    Not listening enough to the forums

    In the EoS community there were a clear understanding of which units and characters that are too strong and which are not good enough. There were people like Greentide which knew our army to the fingertips. And yet with every update we were puzzled over both the changes and the things which did not change. It became apparent that the people making our rules weren't experts in our army. Now I get it, people are busy and have limited time. That is exactly why changes should be minor and rare. So there is time to listen to the players and improve the game we love.


    All in all my game group has given up. I was the last one to be mister positive, try to convince them to play the new rules etc. We havn't given up on The 9th Age. But we have given up on 1.3. If I can give three final pieces of advice it should be:

    - Be more hesitant to implement changes.
    - Listen more to the army sub forums when changing an army.
    - Make 1.4 more like 1.1.
    I've talked about this in other posts. I understand your frustrations, but I have to say that I truly believe that you created some of them yourself, as do many gamers.

    Everyone has constraints and limits to how much time they can devote to the hobby. Our gaming group realistically can only meet for maybe five or six weekends a year to play a campaign scenario or a day of individual games. The rest of the time is really about the hobbying aspects and blogging and sharing ideas, etc.

    If you have a small gaming group in which you are the only one who reads the rules, then nothing is stopping you from playing an older version!! Our group is still playing 1.0 and we're having a blast! If you're not playing in an official tournament setting, then why does it always have to matter what the most current rules are? Nobody will put a gun to your head and force you to keep up with each and every new rules change! Play an older, stable version and then just go with it! I don't understand why gamers stress themselves this way. Even better, if there's something in version 1.0 or 1.1 that you don't particularly like, then just adjust the rules to meet your own needs.

    If you're limited on time, then trying to keep up with every new edition is just too discouraging for me, I simply choose to not deal with it.

    As far as "obsolete" miniatures...well....I've talked about this before too. If you have limited time as it is, the LAST thing you should do is build and paint armies based on ONE specific version of the rules!!! Pardon my impatience with this, but that's crazy. Sorry, but it is. To build handgunners for one version of the game because you have a specific build and specific application for them based on the current viability of the unit - you are simply guaranteeing to be frustrated when a new version comes out. The worst part is, is that we all know when new versions are coming out, and there's plenty of notification from the dev. team.

    Gamers ask for the best possible rules set with the best quality and balance, but then when the devs. go ahead and develop the game into newer versions, people quit and wish the rules would stay the same. Well, the devs. can't move forward and stand still at the same time. They are caught in a catch-22. Either way they can't win.

    If you want to have longevity in playing a game, you CAN'T create army builds based only on a current version of the rules, you just can't. You have to pick your favorite factions, and then build up generic armies of Core, specials, rares, and characters that you can plug into ANY version of the game! Otherwise, what happens is what you said - you "wasted your time" building and painting 20 handgunners.

    Well, how about not looking at it like a waste of time and instead figure out a way to make handgunners work with the current version? Or, as I said, just play an older, stable version so that you know that your army builds will never be in danger of becoming non-viable?

    I don't mean to rant about this, but for the life of me I can never figure out how fantasy armies made up of miniatures of such generic types of troops and characters are looked at so rigidly, as in they supposedly "become useless" just because the handgunners now have different stats or now work in a different way. I am sure there are ways to make handgunners work with the current rules, but you're simply deciding and insisting that the only way they were viable was with your specific build that was only usable for a short period of time any way.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

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

  • What Baranovich said.

    What the T9A team has been able to achieve is nothing short of fantastic. It would be so if they were a well-funded gaming company with salaried industry professionals, so the fact that it has been possible with nothing but volunteer effort is truly remarkable. One might even call it a triumph of voluntaryist anarcho-communism.

    Still, one should remember what the T9A project ultimately is, what situation it originally came from, and all the difficulties involved and all the constraints on what it can feasibly do. One should have realistic expectations and act accordingly, or risk the sort of burn-out the group of the OP seems to have suffered.

    Me, I've built and painted up loads of handgunners. In 15-model 5x3 units with standards at that. A flash of inspiration and possible insanity by me. Maybe they won't work as I've envisioned them. Maybe they will, but then rules change happens, and they won't anymore. Maybe I'll instead be lucky and handgunners get a point discount, which doesn't seem unlikely since few people use them and most consider them underpowered. Whatever happens, I won't blame the T9A team or others.
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • I will second what Baranovich said about the supposedly "useless" units. We've been through this in other threads before and it's getting tiresome.

    And no we will not go in the direction of 1.1 for the reasons already stated a while ago. If you like 1.1, you can go play that or 8th ed. in your basement. The door is right over there.
  • Dear all

    Thank you so much for your elaborate replies. I learn a lot from what you write and I have a tremendous respect for all the work you put into this.

    I do however feel misunderstood in some areas. I never complained about my army being too weak compared to other armies. I would not pretend to know the balance between all armies. I complained about the internal balance of my army being altered drastically. Sure EoS is probably just as strong/weak as it ever was. If only you use different EoS models than before. My point was that a lot of models went from ok to bad internally. When the Captasus, Volleygun and Handgunners became extremely ineffective/overpriced. And the Millita with pistols or Electoral Cavalry did not - the internal balance changed a lot. So the players with lots of Handgunners and no Millitia had to paint something else. And worse, not use what they had already painted. If you add to this the fact that some models never worked to begin with - Rockets or Rangers for an example, you understand why EoS armies tend to look similar - and not like the models I have painted :)

    I never painted my models only to use them in a single setup like Baranovich said in a bit emotional response. I painted them because I wanted to use them and fight somewhat balanced battles. Sure I would expect some changes over time. But I never anticipated this level of internal change.

    Some also say that my game group could just switch to 1.1 which is true. But we used to play in tournaments and invite other players in. The enjoyment of playing a supported game, that you can take to tournaments and play with anyone on the globe has a lot of value. So yeah while the solution you propose could work, it would bring less enjoyment. Hence why the others stopped playing.

    Edit:

    I can see some get emotional. Fair enough, we all have invested a lot in this hobby and you can write what you feel. But kindly note that I wrote what I did in an attempt to improve the future direction of the game. Not to annoy you.
  • Regarding your issue with the internal balance of your army, I invite you to read this discussion:
    Concerned about starting T9A.

    Ideally, you have every unit available to your army painted so you can have the greatest flexibility when list building. That's what I'm trying to do anyways.
  • This might sound harsh. I just want to cut to the chase because you are not alone in how you see things.

    Bloody MIsfire wrote:

    Time
    This hobby takes up a lot of time. Collecting, painting, list-building, reading and of course playing. Every time major changes are announced it stresses me, because I have to invest even more time into a hobby that already takes up a lot. In my game group Im the only one reading the rules. The others have given up and get confused over what is current and outdated rules. In fact I do not believe there should have been major changes at all. Just minor fixes along the road, to fine tune an already well playing piano.

    I would therefore have applauded the decision to freeze the rules if it had only been made sooner. It should have been made after 1.1.

    First, you do not have to play the newest release.
    I've noticed this tends to be a mindset with newer ...or rather not-long-term(years) players. You are still in that GW mindset of 'you have to play our newest edition or you can't play in our store'.

    It is a shame that due to copyright, 1.1 can't even be posted in the previous editions download section. You can thank your local GW legal team for that. And its also a shame that 1.30 had to be rushed out due to this, which caused a 1.31 1.32 1.33 and 1.34 to happen




    Obsolete models and drastic changes to army composition
    I will try to explain what happened to my army:

    Handgunners used to be good when upgraded and with an engineer (Artificer) who gave them orders. So I painted 20 of them. Spend a lot of time and effort in making them look good. Then the order was nerfed because some thought Handgunners with BS 5 was overpowered. Even though they were unwieldy, vulnerable and took up a lot of your battle line. But fair enough, I could understand the notion though I disagreed. But when the ability to give them BS 4 was taken away, Handgunners were reduced to unplayable. Not worth their cost even compared to other EoS Core. And I put 20 Handgunners on the shelf.

    The Volleygun used to be ok. It was still somewhat situational, but put an Engineer next to it and it could be worth the points some times. Since I love the model I bought it and spend hours painting it. Then its toughness was reduced to 4, and archers and magic picked it off before it got a chance to shoot with its limited range. Off to the shelf.

    The Engineer was put on the shelf then. He used to be in my Handgunners, helping both them and the Volleygun. Now he had lost his purpose.

    The Pegasus used to be cool. I bought one, converted it with a Captain as the rider and painted as if my life depended on it. It wasn't near overpowered, but it was fun and sometimes useful. And I loved the model. So epic and what Warhammer always was about for me. Then the Captain was removed in an attempt to streamline the rules. And the Pegasus cost a cost increase. There is absolutely no reason to bring the Pegasus anymore. So it was put on the shelf.

    Same story with the Flaggelants who got their numbers reduced, but I guess you get the picture now.

    I loved the magic lores of old. I painted a Grey Wizard to look like Gandalf because I liked Shadow magic. I painted a Death Wizard in a semi necromantic theme because I like Death Magic. Now I can use four different lores and my Grey Wizard looks a bit off when casting Thaumatogory - a word a cant even pronounce.

    As you can see I paid a lot of money, spend a lot of time and invested a lot of emotion in a number of units which were afterwards changed a lot to the worse. Add to that the units which were never worthwhile in the first place and nearly a third of the units and characters were out of the picture. I believe players in most armies have experienced similar things.

    I can say as a veteran hobbyist and tabletop gamer that its all in your mindset. The models are just models. There is the hobby side and there is the gaming side. They are linked for inspiration, but otherwise they are separate.
    I have not met a veteran hobbyist who strictly plays with WYSIWYG. We have all passed that made up barrier. ...its literally just a ploy to sell models. So you can use your models in whatever rules set that they kinda fit. Put handgunners in skirmish mode and use them as the Rangers.
    Also, the imbalance in T9A is nowhere near as bad as previous editions, every unit is at least balanced. So you don't have to leave units on the shelf. You have to learn how to use them to their strengths and weaknesses. Games typically have rock/paper/scissors elements to it, so if your meta is directly countering your army then you gotta switch it up.
    Trying to always find the OP build is fun, but you'll burn through the replay-ability of the game.



    Making new problems when fixing the old problems

    Apparently it was problem that players could become confused whether or not a unit was upgraded or not. I never understood this - in my games people would just tell each other "These are veteran Swordsmen" or what ever. But fair enough, I get that it could be a minor problem in some situations. But when fixing the problem the Rules Team created a new one. Some units which were only worthwhile in their upgraded version became obsolete - a much bigger problem.

    I 100% agree. In fact I am a bit harsher than you on this matter. ....I even suggest that people who can't figure it out might be better of playing a more simpler game like AoS.



    The same goes for artillery. Since EoS is very vulnerable to monsters, we had to bring cannons. Then people with monsters complained and cannons were nerfed - also against rank and file. So now a cannonball wont plough through rank and file, and if a Steam Tank tries it will have strenght 2! So basically cannons became an unrealistic rock-paper-scissor weapon, instead of the general purpose long range weapon it should be.

    Ya, I'm not a fan of the cannon with strength 2. ....but I hate 1 dice 1 hit wonder weapons in general due to variance.


    Not listening enough to the forums

    In the EoS community there were a clear understanding of which units and characters that are too strong and which are not good enough. There were people like Greentide which knew our army to the fingertips. And yet with every update we were puzzled over both the changes and the things which did not change. It became apparent that the people making our rules weren't experts in our army. Now I get it, people are busy and have limited time. That is exactly why changes should be minor and rare. So there is time to listen to the players and improve the game we love.

    True. And we can thank our local GW legal team for having us rush out 1.3.



    All in all my game group has given up. I was the last one to be mister positive, try to convince them to play the new rules etc. We havn't given up on The 9th Age. But we have given up on 1.3. If I can give three final pieces of advice it should be:

    - Be more hesitant to implement changes.
    - Listen more to the army sub forums when changing an army.
    - Make 1.4 more like 1.1.
    I gotta go back to my first point. You don't have to play the updated versions. People still play 6th/7th. I just sold an extra copy of my 8th ed rulebook to a guy who was getting into 8th edition with his brother. I even offered for him to call me up when he gets familiar with the game and I'll play with him.

    If you and your group know the rules for 1.1 then play 1.1
    The a big point of updating rules is simply to keep the game fresh. After 1-2 years of playing the same ruleset it gets played out. Then you upgrade. And if you got a backlog of editions to play through then you are in luck because you don't have to wait around for the next update!
  • Not that hard. You know Wysiwyg is optional right? You have 3 units that are on 20mm bases and 1 unit on 25x50mm base (which you could also use as a special unit I might add). the weapon they physically carry on the miniature is not important.
  • Smythen wrote:

    @Morgan_Treeman I dare you to make all 10 different core choices of EoS
    Which would those 10 be? There are 4 entries, so depending on which options under the entries you count as different choices, I may or may not qualify.

    Heavy Infantry: Have the spearmen and the swordsmen. Halberdiers are in the pipeline.
    State Militia: Have the pistol skirmishers and the unupgraded paired weapons guys. Have some figs meant as Imperial Rangers that could serve as skirmishing militia archers.
    Electoral Cavalry: Have a bunch of knights that could either serve as that, the upgraded Imperial Cavalry, or Knightly Orders.
    Light Infantry: Have both the handgunners and a unit of crossbowmen. The handgunners aren't ready though since I recently rebased them and haven't finished them. Crossbows are so-so since I didn't like the unit I had, so I stuffed it away to make a new one, also in the pipeline.

    Do I win?
    Sunna is not with the big battalions, but with the ones whose parts move with the best coordination.
  • Bloody MIsfire wrote:

    I complained about the internal balance of my army being altered drastically.
    This was bound to happen because of the large changes made in 1.3. Whenever a new release comes the internal balance of units will shift - more so in 1.3 than normally because the team had to make large and rushed changes for reasons already explained.

    Now I don't really know much about EoS's changes as I don't play them, so if handgunners were nerfed it was because they were considered too good for their points cost. The end goal is for all units and options to be equally viable which, I think most people would agree, is a good goal(except for wizards which should be mandatory for most armies).

    So if your handgunners aren't good now, they will be. Build the EoS army you want for fluffy reasons not for rules reasons and the rules will catch you up. And all the practice you get playing with an "underpowered" army will make you a better player.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.