Pinned The Start of the First T9A Community Survey is here!

    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.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

    • The Start of the First T9A Community Survey is here!

      Hello There!

      The project likes to learn from ages past and one lesson T9A team has learnt is to engage the community more. The team had such a tremendous success with ideas for the magic phases and new magic items for Warriors of the dark gods that the Rules Team (RT) has melded together some great global surveys that they want you, the community to help answer in order to get an understanding of what the community really wants.

      Now it's worth saying right here that the surveys are not binding to the future of the game, but give instead the T9A team a incredible insight into the path they need to take.

      Up first is a survey on what to do with magic items with some very simple questions and statements for you all to answer, so please, take the jump and answer away, and when you finish, spread the word, we need to actively engage as much of the community as we can.

      So what you waiting for, go go go!

      Start the survey here!



      Please discuss everything about the survey in this topic!
    • Oh so it's about the discussion we had last summer on the WDG forum...

      As i said back then : give us less common items (they should be priced in each army books) and more army specific items.
      " 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
    • Glad you guys picked magic items to start off the survey experiments. A bit of an easier catagory as its not really that big a deal if items are in the main rulebook or in the army specific rulebook.

      Although based on the guy above who posted, I think you should have included 'what armies do you play'. As I'm sure magic items affect WotDG alot differently than EoS or the elves.
      ....I don't play WotDG and don't have any opponents who play it either.


      I responded that I liked the current system but I like the idea of everything in the army books and costed appropriately while having 3 times as many options.
      For balance it makes sure that you can't have any wacky combos creep up due to being able to just squeeze in that extra magic item.
    • Axe of Battle is bonker on EoS Inquisitor, crap on WDG Daemon Prince.
      WDG have no use for common heavy armor like a Glittering Cuirass (unlike a OK Khan for example).
      Also having 5 out of 9 army specific items as marked banners is meh (characters and monogod lists avoid those items).

      I want a better external balance so recosting and even forbidding common items depending on each army books seem to be the way to do it.
      It doesn't add complexity anyway, we'll just have to get used to it.
      As for having less common items but more army specific items, i feel it make each army book more unique, more special regarding flavor.
      " 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
    • Neaj wrote:

      Why is the first part so byzantine compared to the second ?
      Because it was constructed to follow survey creation norms and to avoid creating bias withing the question for a particular answer.

      Background Team

      Art Team Coordinator

      Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
    • I just want to stress out that choosing third statement i second question was a bit difficult, because i don't want complexity decreased at all. On the contrary, the more stuff to choose from the better. More magic items, more marks, names and tribes, more magic lores, more characters, more mounts, more units. I understand that this attitude may be opposite to what you guys are trying to do, but or me the worst part of recent versions of rules was cutting army specific magic lores. I am a filthy casual playing in tiny meta and balance is not my priority, but when WFB was killed off we didn't jump on kings of war mainly because of lack of army customization options and nonexistent magic variety. On that note i would like to ask a question : is current ruleset something like ravening hordes was at the start of 6th or was i wrong in thinking that? Don't take anything i said as complaining, i think that the team is making a great job and can't wait for 2.0.
    • Cood wrote:

      I just want to stress out that choosing third statement i second question was a bit difficult, because i don't want complexity decreased at all. On the contrary, the more stuff to choose from the better. More magic items, more marks, names and tribes, more magic lores, more characters, more mounts, more units. I understand that this attitude may be opposite to what you guys are trying to do, but or me the worst part of recent versions of rules was cutting army specific magic lores. I am a filthy casual playing in tiny meta and balance is not my priority, but when WFB was killed off we didn't jump on kings of war mainly because of lack of army customization options and nonexistent magic variety. On that note i would like to ask a question : is current ruleset something like ravening hordes was at the start of 6th or was i wrong in thinking that? Don't take anything i said as complaining, i think that the team is making a great job and can't wait for 2.0.
      I definitely agree with you. I was looking for the options that weren't looking to reduce complexity. It's been reduced enough. We don't need to make this chess. It shouldn't be a solvable equation. Some complexity in the customization options is a good thing.
    • Neaj wrote:

      Can you elaborate upon those norms ?
      I can give a few short pointers but we were helped by a professional to ensure the questions were correctly crafted.

      The question mustn't be biased. The yes and no questions should be avoided if the same goal can be reached by using a different kind of a survey tool. Statements provided to chose from need to be given in an as understandable form as possible depending on the complexity of the matter asked. The rough order of sub-statements from general to specific.

      I am not a professional at this so I hope this is enough.


      Cood wrote:

      is current ruleset something like ravening hordes
      Sort of. We plan to have this game for years to game and we need design space for future work. If we loaded everything from the start we would be pushing ourselves into the corner in a similar way how GW ended towards the end of the 8th edition. As the game matures and the background of the 9th Age Setting becomes further revealed so will the game evolve to capture the essence of it and provide immersion within it. :)

      Background Team

      Art Team Coordinator

      Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
    • setrius wrote:

      I don't know if this is the proper place. I think mages should be have the possibility of get two arcane items. May Be split into common items and Army Items or Arcane Artifacts and Scrolls.

      That is all

      Yeah scrolls shouldn't count toward the limit.
      " 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 think all items only in the army books is the best way for fluff and Amy identity.

      It also removes these weird combinations were 1race takes common items 24/7 and other races ignore this item completely but they cost the same.

      If there are shared items over different armies I don't care.

      It makes sense that some armies have somewhat the same magical weapons as industry Spionage or trade are possible or even steal them in war.

      Could be funny if orks only have stolen magical items from all races all over but still balanced ones.

      But the more the better imo.

      Also splitting items like KoE in 8th is better then now.

      Now we have a dull virtue which we would needed 3 different items in old Warhammer to have the same effect.

      The old Warhammer fantasy rule made it possible to only have half of it or 3/4 of this rule.

      Now we need to buy everything. This makes some weird but cheap characters not possible.
      Go big or go home.

                                   

      Translation Team DE

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

    • I didn't think about this before, but the more I do the better I like the option of not having common magic items at all.

      As said before, for armies with access to Plate Armour, the magic armours are somewhat useless or come with a huge drawback, yet they still cost the same. Also the items all need to be balanced across 16 army books. With Banner of Speed Dwarves march 12'', perhaps not wanted or at least should be more expensive? And so on.

      Give every faction the items specifically for them and balanced for them. Maybe several will have "their" Sword of Strength, but all at different prices?

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
    • DarkSky wrote:

      I didn't think about this before, but the more I do the better I like the option of not having common magic items at all.

      As said before, for armies with access to Plate Armour, the magic armours are somewhat useless or come with a huge drawback, yet they still cost the same. Also the items all need to be balanced across 16 army books. With Banner of Speed Dwarves march 12'', perhaps not wanted or at least should be more expensive? And so on.

      Give every faction the items specifically for them and balanced for them. Maybe several will have "their" Sword of Strength, but all at different prices?

      Yeah agree... regarding the last part (in red) : if "Sword of Strength" become "Sword of Tyrion" in the HBE book but in the WDG book it's named "Sword of Archaon" instead, it's going to become a nightmare for new and even tournament players. So the naming of common items must remain the same and consistent across each army books (the only difference should be pricing and eventually availability).
      " 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
    • Drakkar wrote:

      DarkSky wrote:

      I didn't think about this before, but the more I do the better I like the option of not having common magic items at all.

      As said before, for armies with access to Plate Armour, the magic armours are somewhat useless or come with a huge drawback, yet they still cost the same. Also the items all need to be balanced across 16 army books. With Banner of Speed Dwarves march 12'', perhaps not wanted or at least should be more expensive? And so on.

      Give every faction the items specifically for them and balanced for them. Maybe several will have "their" Sword of Strength, but all at different prices?
      Yeah agree... regarding the last part (in red) : if "Sword of Strength" become "Sword of Tyrion" in the HBE book but in the WDG book it's named "Sword of Archaon" instead, it's going to become a nightmare for new and even tournament players. So the naming of common items must remain the same and consistent across each army books (the only difference should be pricing and eventually availability).
      That is of course a good point and the accessibility should be important.

      Of course there are also arguments for the other side:

      1. Background: If everybody has the item named for them, it can create a better background link. The one would be a fine blade, the other a savage axe, etc.

      2. If you "link" them, you can't take them apart. For example: Sword of Strength is in four army books. Now it proves problematic for Army A and the balance board decides adding +1I is the best fix. You can't do that then. Also the other way around is problematic: Two different items in army books B and C start different but eventually arrive at the same rule set. Do you need to rename them, then?

      Just to make sure: I agree with you and probably would implement it the same way you did, but there are also good reasons to make it differently and if RT decides to go the other route it's probably not out of ignorance (maybe they just want to improve our memory ;) )

      Tool Support Battle Scribe

      Community Engagement


      My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
    • 1.
      If we leave aside DH (runes) and DL (own items except for standards), we have 14 armies with each 9-10 army specific items.
      So that's currently 133 army specific magical items.
      Furthermore, we currently have 58 common magical items.
      So that's in total 133+58=191 magical items

      Assuming, we completely remove common items (not even dublicate each item in several armies), each army could have 191/14=13.6 magical items, if we want to keep the same number of items.
      Concerning that there are 6 categories of items that would be 2-3 items per category.

      That's IMO is much too low.

      Currently, each army has access to 58 + 9-10 items, so about 70.
      Even considering that this would be halved (=35 per army) would mean that there need to be 35x14=490 items!!!

      I possess 10 armies (excluding DL it's 9).
      I would then have to learn/know/check/choose from more than double the number of items!
      I think that people who don't possess more than a few armies, would even have a bigger problem.
      Why should I learn that many items from armies that I don't even possess?! Knowing all the units and their special rules is already massive.

      So my conclusion is, that having only army specific items with NO duplicates is a no-go concerning the complexity of the game.
      We would even reduce the available items per army, so we would have LESS options, MORE complexitiy...for what? A little more balance?! More fluff because of individual names?! Doesn't sound like a good deal to me.

      2.
      So now concerning the idea of taking the common items and putting them into the army books where they are balanced, needed, fitting, fluffy and so on sounds like a much better deal.
      We could almost keep the level of options, keep the level of complexity and increase the level of balance and even the fluff perspective by not giving an army an item that totally doesn't fit.


      3.
      Now concerning individual point costs.
      Having army specific point costs would certainly increase the balance for at least some maybe even more items.

      But IMO that's not enough.

      I just checked the point increase comparing the cheapest and the most expensive character with access to magical items.

      KoE142%
      SE (without Forest Spirits)147%
      EoS162%
      HE167%
      DE168%
      UD188%
      OK189%
      DH192%
      VC250%
      VS273%
      BH367%
      O&G429%
      SE (including Forest Spirits)436%
      ID457%
      WdG458%
      DL525%
      SA625%


      IMO, the higher this increase the less balance we achieve by JUST having army specific point costs for common items.

      There's a difference if a magical weapon is used by a Skink Priest or Cuatl Lord or Skink Captain or Caiman Ancient or Firtborn.
      Or if a arcane item is used by a Skink Priest or Cuatl.

      Or compare a Weaver of Change to a Harbinger of Change.
      Or compare a Daemon Prince to a Barbarian Chief.
      Or an Iron Warlord to a Common Goblin Chief.
      Or a Taurukh Subjugator to a Hobgoblin Chieftain.
      Or a Minotaur Chieftain to a Beast Chieftain.

      So if we want to balance costs of Magical Items really precisely we also have to compare the characters within one army and not only different armies in general.

      Balancing a specific Magical Weapon in my above example would mean, that Weaver of Change, Daemon Prince, Iron Warlord, Taurukh Subjugator and Minotaur should pay a similar point costs while Harbinger of Change, Barbarian Chief, Common Goblin Chief, Hobgoblin Chieftain and Beast Chieftain should pay another but similar point cost.

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • DJWoodelf wrote:

      1.
      If we leave aside DH (runes) and DL (own items except for standards), we have 14 armies with each 9-10 army specific items.
      So that's currently 133 army specific magical items.
      Furthermore, we currently have 58 common magical items.
      So that's in total 133+58=191 magical items

      Assuming, we completely remove common items (not even dublicate each item in several armies), each army could have 191/14=13.6 magical items, if we want to keep the same number of items.
      Concerning that there are 6 categories of items that would be 2-3 items per category.

      That's IMO is much too low.

      Currently, each army has access to 58 + 9-10 items, so about 70.
      Even considering that this would be halved (=35 per army) would mean that there need to be 35x14=490 items!!!

      [...]

      Stop right there... The idea is to have 2 or 3 common items per magic family (weapon, armor, etc...). So we're talking about 12 up to 18 common items in total. Not all of these common items will be available to everyone (because fluff or balance reason). Up to 75% maybe ? Anyway given we lost ~50 common items in total we can add ~4 army specific magical items to each book, it doesn't increase complexity : same total number of magic items. In the end, with this repartition, each army would have access to ~30 items (half common, half specific). That's lower than now... in theory, because in practice we know the combos being used are always the same.
      " 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