WDG book 2.0 discussion

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.

  • Ielthan wrote:

    Just to give a bit of context to the "vitriolic unconstructive" complaints:

    Qwerty wrote:

    Gifts:
    • Original: 14 gifts. 100/50/25 pts allowance.
    • v1.3: 8 gifts. 1 Gift per character (2 if daemon prince).
    • v2.0: 5 gifts. 1 Gift per character. Only chosen lords can take gifts.
    Marks:
    • Original: 4 normal marks (15 units +3 characters), 4 daemon marks (1 character).
    • v1.3: 4 normal marks (14 units +4 characters), 4 chosen marks (2 units), 4 daemon marks (1 character).
    • v2.0: 7 Favours (3 units +1 character)
    Magic Paths/Lores:
    • Original: 3 Lores.
    • v1.3: 0.
    • V2.0: 0.


    Those are just the army-specific customisation options. Factor in all the other deleted stuff, and all of a sudden the lachrymose complaints seem to have a solid basis.
    No idea what you're talking about regarding lores/paths, there are still 3 available.
    In original there were 3 lores in the book only for Dark Gods armys. Every army have had there own lore witch matched with playstyle and bg. Out of streamlining reasons this were removed.

    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.
    In 1.3 in germany Choosen are the most played unit. Put wrath on them and go. Nearly no list was without min 1 unit of choosen. Also in 8 edition there were many many builds with choosen.

    Krokz wrote:

    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".
    In 8 edition i went on tournaments with 20 and more warriors players and not one list was like the other one. In 1.3 there are only Wrath spam. Lord on deamonic mount or crusher , Crusher bus or as many choosen /EDC i can put in..... makes two builds and the third was Lord on lusthorse. Maybe only germany but here in 7/8 edition variances of lists were much more bigger then in 1.3.
    Hopefully in 2.0 it will change but don´t think so.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • 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.

    Feel like this should be pinned to every page.


    izakko wrote:


    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.
    I was referring to the specific lists he mentioned, none of those were getting through any decent comp system without some major drawbacks. I don't disagree with you otherwise, the last UK masters of 8th was like the showcase of how broken the system had become. Although really you thought VC had one of the hardest comps at ETC?
  • Dunno about others but running forward while getting chaffed shoot and outmanouver in a desperate try to get to CC as soon as posible doesnt seems a fun and engaging playstile for me.

    Mi opponent would probably feel very good herding mi army as cattle however, so ill Guess thats fun for someone.

    Just not the Warriors of No Gods Player.

    But apparently mi distinc playstile is being soehorned into run forward, and probably get crushed by front loaded damage, armor pen and special rules trumping mi expensive HIGH profile.

    Aldo one of our mighty caracteres (the doomlord) has like, no agi (Well 3) so powerfull Warriors mi inexistente dark Gods.

    Because grinding power only works when bot are trying yo do It.
  • Krokz wrote:

    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.
    I have answered but it seems it was lost in the echo.

    and the answer was nothing of the two. If the price remain this WDG should have better stats or more opion, if the price decrease the stats should stay like now and not go down.

    the problem with this army right now are fondamently two: board controll and opponent shooting.

    board controll can be solved via magic or change in some units rules, opponent shooting is more challenging because we can not have access to defense buff, so it became obvious that there are 3 ways to solve this: movement, static stats or bodies.

    Infantry movement can not be changed, a warrior can not go at 5/10 or choosen will loose "snowflake" status, so or we augment march mouvment via cheaper banner (make it 20 points) or don't see what other solution there is

    static stats are fattible, leaving warriors and barbarian like now, choosen knights can go at R5 or AS 1, wreached beast can go at R5 a and so on. (expecially Wreached beast like now are useless and thats a pity because if they where usefull board controll can in part be solved)

    Bodies is the simple solution. leave things like now, lower the price of all the choice in the book and bring choosen to max 15. that will be the simplyest solution.

    If it was in my power, i prefear a rework on the unit entry, there are many things that could be done, but I don't know how much could be changed douring beta.

    Playtester

    DL-Comunity Support

    Master of the Coins

  • Ielthan wrote:

    What has your contribution to the entire 9th age forum been?
    You can check my first impressions HERE, and my 2 cents at the feedback thread HERE.

    Ielthan wrote:

    insult anyone who disagrees with you
    False. I have never received a warning for verbal abuse, can you say the same?

    Ielthan wrote:

    haven't supported 1 jot of your complaining with empirical fact
    Dude, I just posted a list of all the lost customisation since 8th edition. Rage is clouding your sight. To be honest, I'm starting to think that you are mistaking me for somebody else... Many others made the same complaints and you didn't attack them. Perhaps you are mad at me because I expressed my concerns about the opness of the new HBE banners? Let me check your history... HBE player, what a delicious coincidence.
  • Krokz wrote:

    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.
    And it is unacceptable because someone set an arbitrary rule that it is. Not because the sky would fall over. Also lesser marks could be cheap enough so you do not cross the magical 1000 pts. line.

    Still with all due respect M4 infantry deathstar with no stubborn and no ranged capabilities is extremely far from broken and more likely than not a fluff choice. But I can bet that the community would be far happier with having such fluff choice than without it.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • Skinch wrote:

    Dunno about others but running forward while getting chaffed shoot and outmanouver in a desperate try to get to CC as soon as posible doesnt seems a fun and engaging playstile for me.

    Mi opponent would probably feel very good herding mi army as cattle however, so ill Guess thats fun for someone.

    Just not the Warriors of No Gods Player.

    But apparently mi distinc playstile is being soehorned into run forward, and probably get crushed by front loaded damage, armor pen and special rules trumping mi expensive HIGH profile.

    Aldo one of our mighty caracteres (the doomlord) has like, no agi (Well 3) so powerfull Warriors mi inexistente dark Gods.

    Because grinding power only works when bot are trying yo do It.
    uh....in an army with no shooting vs an army with shooting isn't running forward to engage always going to happen? I mean what's the alternative? I mean wotdg are a superior combat army, if the enemy doesn't use shooting and chaff the alternative is just fight you straight up and lose? This argument doesn't really make sense other than you want your enemy to play to your strengths, which obviously won't happen. I mean if you don't like the playstyle of run forward ajd smash i can say with absolute certainty in any edition of the game this is not the army for you. Like in fact any other army would be a better choice lol. In terms of other armies having better combat potential across the board, that just isn't true. There's not many other non monster characters in the game wanting to go near a kitted out chosen lord, hes an absolute beast, especially with burning portent.

    To be honest the scenario you're describing is just you getting outplayed.
  • Krokz wrote:

    @IoRi78
    You presume army is underpowered, I presume it is balanced until proven otherwise.
    If tournaments show the army is underpowered then we surely have more design space as we get more room to fiddle.
    krokz I have tested it and you know. My tests says is underpower, as many other PT have indicated, but if we have to wait tournament resoult to prove it (and i don't think is a good way to prove something because there are many external things that influence a tournament resoult over aimed games made for test) so be it.

    W&S.

    but sincerly I don't think we have the luxury to wait right now as an overall game comunity IMHO.

    Playtester

    DL-Comunity Support

    Master of the Coins

  • Qwerty wrote:

    tunasandwichify wrote:

    Chosen Lord has gifts, pretty much the same as what 1.3 had
    Those are chosen lord upgrades with fancy names. No one else can take gifts, hence the gifts system is no more.

    tunasandwichify wrote:

    Which is why you should playtest and give us feedback to help mitigate that
    I won't, just like I won't play dwarven holds or undead dynasties. The army simply does not interest me, but I'm just 1 guy. There are plenty of players willing to playtest things 24/7.
    This alone explains why you're not worth listening to. Just wants to trash things without trying to help at all. And yes you have repeatedly insulted people on the HBE forum and mods have had to give soft reminders.

    You listing changes isnt data, you haven't dissected those at all, the reasoning behind them or their impact. The fact you are literally unwilling to even try it means frankly from the design team's perspective, why should they even care what you think? You don't seem to understand that the shallowness of your criticism doesn't provide anyone any insight at all, and you just look at surface, there is literally no depth or analysis. You dont understand that you voicing your opinions isnt equatable to the data provided by e.g. @Aegon who was so effective in proving his arguments on the HBE forum you hate so much. It's just whining.


    I'm not going to address your comments anymore, frankly I've wasted enough time on you. I get the very strong impression that you have no understanding of a creative process or any kind of academic discipline or diligence.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Stubborn people will play 2.0 as 1.3 or 8th, and complain. Good players will adept.
    Worse argument ever. I doubt those who defend balance and playability after changes have played a single competitive game.

    Krokz wrote:

    @IoRi78
    You presume army is underpowered, I presume it is balanced until proven otherwise.
    If tournaments show the army is underpowered then we surely have more design space as we get more room to fiddle.
    So play it yourself. You dont trust us, do it yourself and test it. But not against ultra friendly lists. Go to an OK or HE friend and tell him "I want you to beat my *** the hardest you can". You will feel it the way we do.

    BTW how long until the next tournament? Months? Why do we deserve this lack of attention?

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Skie ().

  • Although I am quite sure that most (if not all) of the people who work in this project are constant tournament players, that is not the issue here.

    It is quite normal for people to try to adapt their old builds in a new enviroment and then move on to explore the new possibilities. Let's call it an interest to see how your build aged. And it is not only normal, it is also understandable and probably desirable. If an army plays completely different to its previous incarnations after an update, that means that the feel of the army has probably changed way too much (at least on the tabletop). I thought that we didn't want the armies to feel that different.
  • Yaginaka wrote:

    quite sure that most (if not all) of the people who work in this project are constant tournament players
    That’s surely wrong. Unless you define constant tournament players as “has visited a tournament once”.
  • tiny wrote:

    Yaginaka wrote:

    quite sure that most (if not all) of the people who work in this project are constant tournament players
    That’s surely wrong. Unless you define constant tournament players as “has visited a tournament once”.
    And i believe he is partly right. Cause for sure most guys here play several tournaments a year.
    Maybe not constantly 1-2 tournaments a months. But for sure not only once in their life.
  • Ielthan wrote:

    And yes you have repeatedly insulted people on the HBE forum and mods have had to give soft reminders.
    Still no quotes. Prove your accusations or shut up.

    Ielthan wrote:

    You listing changes isnt data, you haven't dissected those at all, the reasoning behind them or their impact. The fact you are literally unwilling to even try it means frankly from the design team's perspective, why should they even care what you think? You don't seem to understand that the shallowness of your criticism doesn't provide anyone any insight at all, and you just look at surface, there is literally no depth or analysis.
    Gifts, marks and lores were removed for the sake of streamlining and simplicity. Nothing to be dissected about that. They just looked at those things and thought "too complicated. DELETE", and that's basically it. Not a balance issue, you see, but of course you know that.
  • Yaginaka wrote:

    I'd like to see a game developed not only by the feedback the tournaments are giving.
    It is. I said that knowing (as much as objective) external power level helps us know which direction we can go with design. Design that takes all feedback into consideration.
    Point I was making is that we have a lot more room for changes the community want if the army is underpowered.
    Army Design Team. :WDG: :EoS: :OK: :KoE:
  • Exalted Champion wrote:

    tiny wrote:

    Yaginaka wrote:

    quite sure that most (if not all) of the people who work in this project are constant tournament players
    That’s surely wrong. Unless you define constant tournament players as “has visited a tournament once”.
    And i believe he is partly right. Cause for sure most guys here play several tournaments a year.Maybe not constantly 1-2 tournaments a months. But for sure not only once in their life.
    But there is quite a difference between top level ETC player with 200 games a year and staff members who visit 1-2 tournaments a year.

    A constant tournament player is surely the former but hardly the later.