WDG book 2.0 discussion

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

  • Ielthan wrote:

    The level of entitlement is astonishing, 0 gratitude whatsoever. Neither are you presenting any solutions or ideas of your own, it's just whining based on 0 testing. I imagine wotdg were sitting at the bottom of the table in 1.3 tournament results, getting smashed left right and centre by noobs of all kinds, oh wait, that isn't even slightly true, so what is it you think is so underpowered? You say there are so few builds possible, so tell me what the netlist for this book is? This is nothing but the tantrums of children, not the diligent feedback of people actually interested in helping their ACS.
    Your contribution to this thread so far:
    - 1 post full of insults, deleted by mods.
    - A couple whine posts about us ungrateful whiners.

    I'm calling the mods to watch over this thread. @Grimbold Blackhammer @Stunt
    From the creators of Ironfists: Internally Balanced, now in theaters War Banner of Ryma: Opens New Playstyles.
  • Kaitin wrote:

    Yeah, if you like 8th edition book, that's just because it was powerful, right. Definitely not because of number of possible builds, there was just one.Oh, wait...
    Chariot spam
    Blasted boeing
    Trollwave
    Festus boeing
    Double hellcannon
    Flying circus
    Slaanesh vanguard
    There are way more ways to play now! Monster mash, infantry spam, heavy magic, eh... What?

    But you know better, sure.
    There are way more ways to play now and actually be competitive. That is the goal of T9A and not to have 10 possible builds, but on tournaments every Warrior list is identical.
    Army Design Team. Making Warriors great again.
  • Ielthan wrote:

    One thing that did surprise me was that basic warriors couldn't take favours, what was the reasoning for this? Would like to see it be an option but core go up to 25%
    So Chosen can have the spotlight. In last WDG and WOC editions Chosen were mostly left at home. Which is wrong as they are the poster child of the army.
    We want Chosens (on foot or mounted) to be present in majority of WDG lists.
    Army Design Team. Making Warriors great again.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Kaitin wrote:

    Yeah, if you like 8th edition book, that's just because it was powerful, right. Definitely not because of number of possible builds, there was just one.Oh, wait...
    Chariot spam
    Blasted boeing
    Trollwave
    Festus boeing
    Double hellcannon
    Flying circus
    Slaanesh vanguard
    There are way more ways to play now! Monster mash, infantry spam, heavy magic, eh... What?

    But you know better, sure.
    There are way more ways to play now and actually be competitive. That is the goal of T9A and not to have 10 possible builds, but on tournaments every Warrior list is identical.
    Yes, there are more ways to play in general, but not for this army, sadly.
    And it looks like it is going to continue in 2.0. I want to be wrong, but now it looks like I'm going to continue playing demons in T9A, there is not enough list building potential in this armybook - it is too heavily restricted, like 1.3 version.
  • Qwerty wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    The level of entitlement is astonishing, 0 gratitude whatsoever. Neither are you presenting any solutions or ideas of your own, it's just whining based on 0 testing. I imagine wotdg were sitting at the bottom of the table in 1.3 tournament results, getting smashed left right and centre by noobs of all kinds, oh wait, that isn't even slightly true, so what is it you think is so underpowered? You say there are so few builds possible, so tell me what the netlist for this book is? This is nothing but the tantrums of children, not the diligent feedback of people actually interested in helping their ACS.
    Your contribution to this thread so far:- 1 post full of insults, deleted by mods.
    - A couple whine posts about us ungrateful whiners.

    I'm calling the mods to watch over this thread. @Grimbold Blackhammer @Stunt
    I've actually given feedback on the army, given a suggestion on something I'd like to see, asked the design team a reasonable and polite question, and given numerous arguments backed up with facts.

    What has your contribution to the entire 9th age forum been? All you've done is trash the work of others (that you get for free), insult anyone who disagrees with you, and haven't supported 1 jot of your complaining with empirical fact. Yeah call the mods, I feel fine.
  • Looking at the new book:

    Looks
    It looks amazing, the art quality, typesetting etc. everything is really on point and can rival any commercial product that I know of. Huge kudos to art and layout teams.

    Stories/Bacground
    So far I have just read the first one + the ascension ladder and I really liked them. Good quality writing (apart from a single use of 'awesome' which didn't suit my personal taste) so that is also cool.

    Unit names
    Dear god they are bland and generic. We really have a bunch of good writers and ideas on forum please change them because warrior and chosen are sprinkled like candy on things that could have much better names.

    Rules
    I am not a WoTG player but I play a lot against the army - while the book seems reasonably strong in terms of balance there is something bland about the unit entries (it might be the naming though because it is extremely generic). I see quite a lot of potential builds but all are variations of I dump here and run at you till you die which makes game quite unfun for both parties. ASAW aside (as we all know the pools were horribly designed) each army needs something (even if it is suboptimal in most cases) that plays differently to it's main style of play. Hell cannons were one of such things and if you really want that hard to remove long range shooting from WoTG you could at least make them spit fire at moderate range or something similar

    Balance team work
    What can I say, we have this nice bunch of overly cautious people who like to restrict things and roam free to remove any sign of interesting stuff out there. Their focus on WoTG is really visible, there are a lot of restrictions for the sake of restrictions. Just would the sky really fall if:
    • You could field unridden chimera
    • Hell maw was a separate entry and hell cannon would breathe fire
    • Parts of army had vanguard
    • Mages had access to thaumaturgy
    • Warriors and barbs had marks (even weaker version such as suggested somewhere above sins of flesh vs sins of soul/mind)
    • You could field 15 chosen in a unit
    I seriously doubt that it would be that problematic

    Summary
    The book could have been stellar but it is not. It would probably still score decently on tournaments but I doubt it would be much fun to play with or against. Probably if we didn't have so much of trigger happy balance people the book would probably be much more interesting. The same goes with rigid ASAW or rather AW enforcement as AS is yet to be seen in many areas.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner

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

  • Krokz wrote:

    Kaitin wrote:

    Yeah, if you like 8th edition book, that's just because it was powerful, right. Definitely not because of number of possible builds, there was just one.Oh, wait...
    Chariot spam
    Blasted boeing
    Trollwave
    Festus boeing
    Double hellcannon
    Flying circus
    Slaanesh vanguard
    There are way more ways to play now! Monster mash, infantry spam, heavy magic, eh... What?

    But you know better, sure.
    There are way more ways to play now and actually be competitive. That is the goal of T9A and not to have 10 possible builds, but on tournaments every Warrior list is identical.
    Can you add some examples of lists that could be competitive with the current book from the WoDG team perspective? Just to put the focus on them.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    One thing that did surprise me was that basic warriors couldn't take favours, what was the reasoning for this? Would like to see it be an option but core go up to 25%
    So Chosen can have the spotlight. In last WDG and WOC editions Chosen were mostly left at home. Which is wrong as they are the poster child of the army.We want Chosens (on foot or mounted) to be present in majority of WDG lists.
    Fair enough, I liked the change to 2hp 3 attacks, really separates them from other elite infantry, makes each one seem like a hero. Though I agree with the above that 15 model units size wouldn't be the end of the world, and would be in line with the 30hp unit size of other top elite infantry. Would a weaker version of favours for core be totally out of the question? Would help with immersion a lot if people could do proper mono God lists.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    One thing that did surprise me was that basic warriors couldn't take favours, what was the reasoning for this? Would like to see it be an option but core go up to 25%
    So Chosen can have the spotlight. In last WDG and WOC editions Chosen were mostly left at home. Which is wrong as they are the poster child of the army.We want Chosens (on foot or mounted) to be present in majority of WDG lists.
    I really wish they didn’t take the “nerf the other options to make chosen seem better” route. Could have made them unique in a multitude of ways and kept marks on core warriors. IMO this just contributes to the communities overwhelming opinion that the new book is “bland and one diamentional” (play style specifically, as the art + fluff has been very well received from what I have seen). Though it does sound like the rules team had 1 hand tied behind their back in regards to the room they were given to implement new things.
  • Ielthan wrote:

    Krokz wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    One thing that did surprise me was that basic warriors couldn't take favours, what was the reasoning for this? Would like to see it be an option but core go up to 25%
    So Chosen can have the spotlight. In last WDG and WOC editions Chosen were mostly left at home. Which is wrong as they are the poster child of the army.We want Chosens (on foot or mounted) to be present in majority of WDG lists.
    Fair enough, I liked the change to 2hp 3 attacks, really separates them from other elite infantry, makes each one seem like a hero. Though I agree with the above that 15 model units size wouldn't be the end of the world, and would be in line with the 30hp unit size of other top elite infantry. Would a weaker version of favours for core be totally out of the question? Would help with immersion a lot if people could do proper mono God lists.
    Yes. Why would you want to make Warriors stronger? It would come with higher prices and max unit size 20 or lower. Do players want that?
    Doing anything with Favors on the Warriors themselves requires a book overhaul.
    Army Design Team. Making Warriors great again.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    Krokz wrote:

    Ielthan wrote:

    One thing that did surprise me was that basic warriors couldn't take favours, what was the reasoning for this? Would like to see it be an option but core go up to 25%
    So Chosen can have the spotlight. In last WDG and WOC editions Chosen were mostly left at home. Which is wrong as they are the poster child of the army.We want Chosens (on foot or mounted) to be present in majority of WDG lists.
    Fair enough, I liked the change to 2hp 3 attacks, really separates them from other elite infantry, makes each one seem like a hero. Though I agree with the above that 15 model units size wouldn't be the end of the world, and would be in line with the 30hp unit size of other top elite infantry. Would a weaker version of favours for core be totally out of the question? Would help with immersion a lot if people could do proper mono God lists.
    Yes. Why would you want to make Warriors stronger? It would come with higher prices and max unit size 20 or lower. Do players want that?Doing anything with Favors on the Warriors themselves requires a book overhaul.
    I do not think that adding well priced option to a unit automatically means that you have to overhaul the book or that the unit becomes stronger because of that (after all you pay for the options). And even if you do that is exactly what FAB was so it is a missed opportunity.

    I think that a lot of people high up in T9A do not understand the difference between fun and balance and that there are times when they do not go hand in hand.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • Adam wrote:

    I think that a lot of people high up in T9A do not understand the difference between fun and balance and that there are times when they do not go hand in hand.
    Probably because we don’t consider fun on only one side of the table as being fun.
  • tiny wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I think that a lot of people high up in T9A do not understand the difference between fun and balance and that there are times when they do not go hand in hand.
    Probably because we don’t consider fun on only one side of the table as being fun.
    You can have balance without any fun and you can have fun for both sides even tough game is not perfectly balanced. Right now WoTG doesn't seem to be fun for any party involved.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • Adam wrote:

    tiny wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    I think that a lot of people high up in T9A do not understand the difference between fun and balance and that there are times when they do not go hand in hand.
    Probably because we don’t consider fun on only one side of the table as being fun.
    You can have balance without any fun and you can have fun for both sides even tough game is not perfectly balanced. Right now WoTG doesn't seem to be fun for any party involved.
    Is that so?

    How many unfun games have you suffered?
  • Enekruti wrote:

    Can you add some examples of lists that could be competitive with the current book from the WoDG team perspective? Just to put the focus on them.
    All the three main play styles must have competitive lists when book is released. Pricing must take care of that, its why we went public beta playtesting.

    But in regards to the past. I have not seen so many different WDG lists on tournaments than I did in 1.3
    I for one think that it is hard for players to adept to "every option in the book must be usable". If you come from Warhammer game where 1/10 of the book always stands out as "this is brokenly auto include" then coming to T9A feels like "everything sucks".
    Army Design Team. Making Warriors great again.
  • @tiny so it seems to me. None the less players feedback will tell the whole story. As for now the army doesn't really have tools to dictate strong movement phase nor has the tools to force enemy so what is left is mostly pushing your units forward until one of the parties is dead. Doesn't sound like lots of fun. But I really hope that I am wrong and somehow the army would be really interesting.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • Adam wrote:

    Krokz wrote:

    Yes. Why would you want to make Warriors stronger? It would come with higher prices and max unit size 20 or lower. Do players want that?Doing anything with Favors on the Warriors themselves requires a book overhaul.
    I do not think that adding well priced option to a unit automatically means that you have to overhaul the book or that the unit becomes stronger because of that (after all you pay for the options). .
    ?
    If you give current Warriors an option for Favors their max unit size can easily go beyond 1000 points which is unaceptable for design and balance. Would also mean that average player would have harder time to field tons of Warrior models he has at home.

    Its why we are asking community if you are happy with current number of models WDG field or you want more/less elite to have less/more models on the table in average 4500 game.
    Yet I haven't saw a single answear.
    Army Design Team. Making Warriors great again.
  • Adam wrote:

    I think that a lot of people high up in T9A do not understand the difference between fun and balance and that there are times when they do not go hand in hand.
    Well, there are many factors involved to be sure:
    1. Armies should feel distinct and unique in terms of playstyles - ASAW
    2. The world needs to be consistent to deepen the immersion - Background
    3. Players have a fair chance of winning, regardless of faction - Balance
    4. Accessible for old & new players - Models
    5. Long-term sustainability - Avoiding IP conflicts
    6. Playability - Simplification vs. Innovation

    'Fun' is a tricky thing to define. For some, this means winning a very close tactical battle through careful strategy and understanding of the rules.

    For others, it's feeling that the army has wonderful unique tools and seeing powerful effects, like magic, shake the battlefield.

    And there are those who just want to see two beautifully lined up armies of rank-and-file battle cinematically.
  • Ielthan wrote:

    Yeah a couple of snobs like the entire tournament community, that ensured all of those lists were comped to hell. You're delusional if you think those weren't abusive lists, or just so bad at the game that you weren't able to tell the difference.
    Erm actually if you looked at the last 8th Ed ETC comp, WoC wasn't the most harshly comped one... It's likely to be a contest between HE and DoC that received the worst comps. WoC was probably about the 5th most comped army in that edition, with even DE and arguably VC having harsher comps than WoC. 5th out of 16 places them in the above-average level but not exactly as abusive as what other armies could bring when un-comped.