WDG book 2.0 discussion

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

The website will be under maintenance this weekend (May 25st - May 27th), starting around 18:00 CET
During this time, the forum will be unavailable and downloading the rules will not be possible.
Though we will proceed as fast as possible, we are not sure yet how long the forum will remain out of reach. We might push info on Twitter if it takes more time than expected.

  • Adicto wrote:

    I don't think T9A can afford another year of bad mood and hostility. The project has earned a really bad reputation outside the ETC bubble and the handful european countries that support it actively. More importantly, AoS 2nd edition arrives this June.
    This is the sort of unfounded, off the cuff, no forethought, non-constructive, needlessly critical, brain fart that I fear may lead to T9A staff members finding it hard to differentiate between more constructive critique of the project and the by default negative tone of feedback on this forum. I feel that this has already begun to some extent and who can blame them? Perhaps it is one contributing reason as to why this latest release has not seen more change...We try to say we don't like something and in part the reaction is 'well they never do.' As a community project, even if not staff members, we have more responsibility then you may yet have considered.
  • WastelandWarrior wrote:

    Please make wretched ones servicable before the 21st so I can buy these as something more than ornaments while the Mierce 2 for 1 is on!!!
    Won't happen, since the next patch will be beginning of Fall/End of Summer.


    @Growth of the game, welp, in Austria we still have a "Core", but that one is vastly different than it was in the old times. Also I mainly hear only negative feedback, most of them which is combined to the actual balance than anything else...

    Greetings,
    Kathal

    PS: And of course the changes. People just want to play and not relearn the rules every other month. Sure, this is a "BETA" but lets be honest, have you heard from anybody that they played 1.3 since the "Beta" is out? 1.3 is dead and was dead the moment 0.200.0 got published.
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    ETC 2016 - ID
    ETC 2017 - WDG
  • Shane wrote:

    2.0 is going to be a lot different than 0-1.3 though. As the core identity of armies is re-worked and a handful of folks take a crack at deconstructing legacy concepts and re-imagining them it’s going to cause concern at least, so if anyone in this project thinks things have been “bad” before, they’re not prepared.
    Core identity of classical fantasy armies that are not copyrighted will not be changed. That is a majority of T9A armies.


    Kathal wrote:

    PS: And of course the changes. People just want to play and not relearn the rules every other month. Sure, this is a "BETA" but lets be honest, have you heard from anybody that they played 1.3 since the "Beta" is out? 1.3 is dead and was dead the moment 0.200.0 got published.
    And yet we still get a Regeneration to Fortitude change after 3 years, its like wtf and completely normal people are mad.
    Army Design Team. :WDG: :EoS: :OK: :KoE:
  • Kathal wrote:




    @Growth of the game, welp, in Austria we still have a "Core", but that one is vastly different than it was in the old times. Also I mainly hear only negative feedback, most of them which is combined to the actual balance than anything else...

    Not quite sure what you mean here, could you elaborate please?


    PS: And of course the changes. People just want to play and not relearn the rules every other month. Sure, this is a "BETA" but lets be honest, have you heard from anybody that they played 1.3 since the "Beta" is out? 1.3 is dead and was dead the moment 0.200.0 got published.
    Yes. Stability is close. We are nearly there.
    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 :)
  • Kathal wrote:

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    Please make wretched ones servicable before the 21st so I can buy these as something more than ornaments while the Mierce 2 for 1 is on!!!
    Won't happen, since the next patch will be beginning of Fall/End of Summer.
    yeah I know, just posting rubbish for the sake of it really while bored in the office. I'm well aware my input isn't valued and I'm actually totally fine with that, democracy is a poor idea, just a shame the king doesnt deign to buff all the gimp units ;) . They are nice models though....
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army
  • TTGH wrote:

    Adicto wrote:

    I don't think T9A can afford another year of bad mood and hostility. The project has earned a really bad reputation outside the ETC bubble and the handful european countries that support it actively. More importantly, AoS 2nd edition arrives this June.
    This is the sort of unfounded, off the cuff, no forethought, non-constructive, needlessly critical, brain fart [...]


    ??? What exactly triggered you? I did not give my opinion or judgement about the good or bad qualities of T9A. No criticism in my post, so no reason to overreact like that, sir.
    "They say an end can be a start. Feels like I've been buried yet I'm still alive." - If I Ever Feel Better (Phoenix)
  • Yes and no.
    We also want to know what people like, that is also valuable feedback.


    Unqualified very sweeping statements are also not useful constructive criticism.
    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
    Negative ones:
    - This isn't Warhammer Fantasy anymore.
    - Too much versions and changes.
    - Too small armies.
    - Rebasing units.
    - Units disappearing.
    - Too much cut on fluffyness.

    Usually people I know that left was either after ragequit (rebasing armies, units disappearing) or getting aloof over time due to less motivation to play (too much versions, not WHF, cut on fluffyness).

    There are good things, mostly:
    - Closer power gap between armies.
    - Less game nukes.

    As I can see the ones that left usually were the ones more focused on the artistic side or the WHF background than into actually playing an average match.
    However some competitive players left after some big nerf to their armies.
    One big example is WDG, many of us stopped to play it and the ones that only had it as an army bougth another one or left.

    Until 2.0 seeing WDG was a rare thing and only in team tournaments focusing on getting good matches.
    They also thank that my monolust was a good match for them so I tabled quite enough WDG players considering their low number.
    Testing WDG 2.04

    VC for tournaments.
  • AOS is completely different game than 9th age. Kings of War and forthcoming Oathmark are direct competitors for this game.

    Sure it could get more people playing it but I'd say the experience is better with new armies released for AOS.

    Games workshop is moving more and more to the direction where converting isn't that big part of the hobby anymore. 40k doesn't have options in books that they won't sell and people can buy from the store. Even weapon options are absent from books that aren't on the shelves.

    9th age on the other hand offer endless opportunities to go grazy with modelling.
    All things wargaming. My super entertaining hobby blog where anything wargaming related can happen.

    "I heard a television interviewer once suggest that the use of dice made battlegaming on par with Snakes and Ladders and such like games of change. Well, he was being just stupid, or trying to take a rise out of his guest. It is in fact the imponderable which does give reality to 'Battle' and, as we shall see, does cause the players to make proper allowance for the unlikely or even seemingly impossible, which, as we read, did happen surprisingly frequently in the annals of war."
    -Charles Grant
  • @Feynn Thanks :)

    Can I follow up on a couple of these please?

    Feynn wrote:


    - Too small armies.
    Is this the 5000->4500 change or something else?


    - Too much cut on fluffyness.
    Can I get you to elaborate a bit on this please? What do you mean by this? Is this because 9th age fluff is slow to be released? Because we don't follow GW fluff? The fluffiness of the mechanics? Something else?

    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 :)
  • jirga wrote:

    AOS is completely different game than 9th age. Kings of War and forthcoming Oathmark are direct competitors for this game.

    Sure it could get more people playing it but I'd say the experience is better with new armies released for AOS.

    Games workshop is moving more and more to the direction where converting isn't that big part of the hobby anymore. 40k doesn't have options in books that they won't sell and people can buy from the store. Even weapon options are absent from books that aren't on the shelves.

    9th age on the other hand offer endless opportunities to go grazy with modelling.
    Let's not forget, that many old models there were moved out of army-lists en-mase in an august. In comparison to that level of change, 9th age managed to preserve much more.
  • If I remember correctly is that 500 points cut plus higher models cost.
    But the second sometimes proved to be miss perception other times not.

    Fluff is a mix between not following WHF bg, cutting on units in WDG particular case and cutting on historical rules like VS making itself exploding, animosity, ecc.

    Other because their army changed radically their ways to be played (gunlines discouraged, full avoid the same, ecc).

    Of course some armies suffered this more than other so there isn't a full accord between players.
    Testing WDG 2.04

    VC for tournaments.
  • Feynn wrote:

    If I remember correctly is that 500 points cut plus higher models cost.
    But the second sometimes proved to be miss perception other times not.

    Fluff is a mix between not following WHF bg, cutting on units in WDG particular case and cutting on historical rules like VS making itself exploding, animosity, ecc.

    Other because their army changed radically their ways to be played (gunlines discouraged, full avoid the same, ecc).

    Of course some armies suffered this more than other so there isn't a full accord between players.
    Thanks :)
    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 :)
  • When it come to "fluffiness" of the rules i personally have only a few grievances (I had much more, but they were addressed in 0.203):
    2 units feels absolutely bland:

    Forsworn - this guys absolutely don't correspond with the idea of somebody that managed to break through natural selection process, managing to rise among others exiled. In book they described as ogre sized humanoids ridden with tons of mutations, who fight with terrifying cruelty.
    Citation from the book:
    "There are those who rise, and those who fall, butthe Fallen may rise again with a new master. TheForsworn have spit in the eye of fate, and nowthey climb above the exiled masses. Warriors maysneer behind their back, but the Father gives powerto those with the might to take it

    They serve father chaos - a supreme being among dark gods.
    What do we see in book - big, clumsy parody on chosen.
    I am not asking them to be superior to chosen or absolutely on par with them, but they deserve something that could make them something better than poor man's chosen.


    Forsaken One - just exact copy of wretched ones but bigger. Is that all? All one can say about a twice scarred champion who failed ascension. That he is now wretched one but slightly bigger? Why in the book that thing required the help of Exalted Herald to be tamed, when in the game this poor sod and just glass cannon, but all glass and without cannon?

    Not asking even to improve this stats because answer will be - it will cause powercreep, but at least can anyone give him something like an additional rule, that will be able to distinct him from wretched ones?
  • Sadly, I agree. The fluff on the iredeemables and fallen members of the WotDG cast is the most interesting, yet least developed design-wise. I'll still play em, in conjunction with the Hell-Forged, or solo, but they deserve more than a points adjustment.

    I always figured getting our book first meant being the sacrificial lamb, but never thought that a halfway state would satisfy desigers enough to go on to other books. Look at the HBE getting their ASAW reconsidered and swapped at this very moment, what a luxury. And their "hard" weaknesses being treated relatively softly. They'll have a rich, well attended/pampered & heralded book, in their turn. I only hope that WotDG can be polished off before then.

    Don't mean to be a nancy poster though. The game goes on.
  • jirga wrote:

    Prices are quite horrible with this army though. Even with 8k points I couldn't find excuse to pay 145 for veil walker for my sorcerer. :D
    My group is trying out some 2250pt games, partially to get ready for a tourney, and partially to intro new players to the game on a more reasonable scale.

    Warriors build very strange their.

    Adicto wrote:

    Shane wrote:

    2.0 is going to be a lot different than 0-1.3 though. As the core identity of armies is re-worked and a handful of folks take a crack at deconstructing legacy concepts and re-imagining them it’s going to cause concern at least, so if anyone in this project thinks things have been “bad” before, they’re not prepared.


    Hopefully narrative concepts, 9th Scroll community projects and a real and inclusive fluff is developed and released before then.
    I don't think T9A can afford another year of bad mood and hostility. The project has earned a really bad reputation outside the ETC bubble and the handful european countries that support it actively. More importantly, AoS 2nd edition arrives this June.
    What 9th manages to get out this year is going to be huge. A rulebook that is guaranteed stable and can be held in hand will go a LONG way. As will a compilation of the new background.

    One of the unique issues of T9A is that when I am getting new players in, I am handing them a few editions of old Warhammer army books, because otherwise i’ve got nothing show them.

    I was hoping to have a Warriors book in physical form as well, to go along with the other two, as the sales pitch of “X army is still under development, but eventually it will be like THIS” is a lot better than the above system, but it sounds like that’s not really going to be worth it. The pitch of “eventually your army will have a book like this. Why aren’t I using it? Oh, it’s obsolete, they’re only good for a few months” is worse than handing them decades of old Warhammer books for fluff.

    Feynn wrote:

    I get either good and bad feedback about T9A, but it's true that many players that were usual in WHF now are casual or left the game.
    This always happens in each game, but the main problem is that I never see new faces and playing in Madrid we should have higher chances to get new players than little cities.
    Hopefully 2.0 is going to be a stable, working system, because that will make or break the game.

    Previously the project coasted along by being “updated Warhammer 8th for this year’s tournaments”, now it’s got to take the next big step, so best of luck to everyone involve
  • Feynn wrote:

    However some competitive players left after some big nerf to their armies.

    One big example is WDG, many of us stopped to play it and the ones that only had it as an army bougth another one or left.
    I have to say I never understood this. Some people who spent hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) and countless hours building a plastic army quit the game because their toys lost an attack or special rule?
    I'm not saying that to target anybody, but I just don't get why would people give up on such an investment for nerfs. It's not like from one day to the next they loose every game because of these changes. Some of their units might not be "playable" anymore, but to completely stop playing I feel like it's a bit extreme.

    As for tournament players I thought it was all about taking the best out of a book, so it shouldn't be a problem for them to come up with a new optimized list.

    But I agree that the project should stabilize as soon as possible, more and more people are getting angry/tired of the changes (or the absence of it sometime). I hope the community will hold on until the end of the year but I'm not sure...
  • Shane wrote:

    Previously the project coasted along by being “updated Warhammer 8th for this year’s tournaments”, now it’s got to take the next big step, so best of luck to everyone involve
    That wont please all players.

    I'm not against the game being stable, specially in core rule book, but I think that WDG still has a long way until it gets an acceptable internal balance.

    There are (imo) too many voices and opinions that go in a perpetual tug-of-war plus too much conservatism that cripples bold initiatives and designs.

    Finally my real complain isn't really about points, deployed units (End of times Chaos could go with just 4-5 units), internal balance or designed units by themselves. It's instead that WDG is still a one trick pony because the boldest news were crippled enough to force it to remain a one dimensional one trick pony codex.
    That doesn't mean WDG can't be good or win tournaments, against right matches it is a roller that flattens everything in it's way.

    To sustain my words just see what units we have to compensate our lack of shooting:

    - Exalted Herald (Sorcerer Immortal), nerfed this last version.
    - Hell Maw, nerfed this last version.
    - Shrine, overcosted. It's cost seems the one of a unit that can get all it's facets to shine each game regardless the opponent. Versatility has a price, but it shouldn't be the combined cost of every rule by itself.
    - Flayers with Skinning Lash. Overcosted enough that they can't enter a sane list.
    - Irredeemable units, overcosted.

    This are our main tools in order to compensate our lack of shooting, EH was great and now is a little less great due to nerf, same with Hell Maw. Everything else was finely designed but bound to obliviousness due to another team pricing them too high.

    At the end it seems that the only way WDG is wanted to play is a boring "all forward" army that shouts "Hulk smash!" all the way while dying (unlike our big green friend).
    And it's hard not to get disappointed when you see good ideas destroyed by other team without any given real reason.

    Special mention to Lust Favour wich open a new way to play.


    Aegitru wrote:

    As for tournament players I thought it was all about taking the best out of a book, so it shouldn't be a problem for them to come up with a new optimized list.
    Some armies tackle nerfs better than others, the more versatile an army is the more tools it has to deal with a nerfed unit.

    When WDG was nerfed I had less problems making stronger combat lists of almost every other army without loosing all advantages from other armies. It isn't changed now, my DL monoLust can tackle almost every target my WDG lists can plus a few other ones. Only hard focused Divination lists counter better my DL list than the WDG.

    And this doesn't mean at all that my WDG list is this bad, but it is... less versatile and more fragile, easier to counter and thus "weaker".
    Testing WDG 2.04

    VC for tournaments.