Discussion Thread: Poll results about the preferred size of the game.

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Teowulff wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    N3okorrales wrote:

    if u play HBE with 2 fire phoenixes at 4500 at 5000 ull get the third.
    Ancient Allies is 20%, not 25%.You can't fit 3 Fire Phoenixes in a HbE army until 5700pts.
    The Prince of Ryma honour increases it to 25%.
    X/ not sure how I managed to miss that.So the smallest army you can have 3 Phoenixes in would be 4560pts.

    That's very cruel pricing 3 of them at 15pts above the Maximum allowed Ancient Allies amount.
    It would be fair to dock their cost by 5pts just so you can fit 3 in 4500pts, even if it's the absolute limit in my opinion.
    3 fire phoenixes, now thats cruel.
  • I have to admit.

    WHFB 6th edition @ 2000 points was a solid game size - Aside from Comet and dispel scroll spam, I loved 6th (and even 5th).

    1-3 Multiple 20-25 man blocks of infantry, a few 10 man blocks or 5-10 model calv blocks.

    I think there is a lot to making sure the smaller scale (1500-2500) can still be a relatively enjoyable game - it helps build interest in the hobby and remove the massive barrier to entry which was a major issue WHFB 8th had.

    I think once 2.0 comes out the focus of the 'starter' rules should be around that 1500-2500 point range and helping to make sure the game finds balance at that point; especially if they can do it in the 1.5-2.5 hour mark.

    I fully support 4500 as the main focus of efforts... but I think ensuring there is a viable and fair way to play the game at 2k and under is important as well.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    yrtomin wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    That's very cruel pricing 3 of them at 15pts above the Maximum allowed Ancient Allies amount.
    It would be fair to dock their cost by 5pts just so you can fit 3 in 4500pts, even if it's the absolute limit in my opinion.
    3 fire phoenixes, now thats cruel.
    Why?
    Because 2 fire phoenixes are a big enough pain to deal with, 3 would just push it over the edge.
  • kisanis wrote:

    I have to admit.

    WHFB 6th edition @ 2000 points was a solid game size - Aside from Comet and dispel scroll spam, I loved 6th (and even 5th).

    1-3 Multiple 20-25 man blocks of infantry, a few 10 man blocks or 5-10 model calv blocks.

    I think there is a lot to making sure the smaller scale (1500-2500) can still be a relatively enjoyable game - it helps build interest in the hobby and remove the massive barrier to entry which was a major issue WHFB 8th had.

    I think once 2.0 comes out the focus of the 'starter' rules should be around that 1500-2500 point range and helping to make sure the game finds balance at that point; especially if they can do it in the 1.5-2.5 hour mark.

    I fully support 4500 as the main focus of efforts... but I think ensuring there is a viable and fair way to play the game at 2k and under is important as well.
    Do you mean 4000p and under?
    Because 2000p in 9th age would be about 1000p in Warhammer 8th ed, and even less in older editions (infantry got a bit cheaper with the introduction of horde formations IIRC)
    I haz a blog! the-ninth-age.com/blog/index.p…-the-moment-aslo-batreps/.

    Mostly KoE and ID stuff. Now also some Void
  • Discussion Thread: Poll results about the preferred size of the game.

    Petterwass wrote:

    kisanis wrote:

    I have to admit.

    WHFB 6th edition @ 2000 points was a solid game size - Aside from Comet and dispel scroll spam, I loved 6th (and even 5th).

    1-3 Multiple 20-25 man blocks of infantry, a few 10 man blocks or 5-10 model calv blocks.

    I think there is a lot to making sure the smaller scale (1500-2500) can still be a relatively enjoyable game - it helps build interest in the hobby and remove the massive barrier to entry which was a major issue WHFB 8th had.

    I think once 2.0 comes out the focus of the 'starter' rules should be around that 1500-2500 point range and helping to make sure the game finds balance at that point; especially if they can do it in the 1.5-2.5 hour mark.

    I fully support 4500 as the main focus of efforts... but I think ensuring there is a viable and fair way to play the game at 2k and under is important as well.
    Do you mean 4000p and under?
    Because 2000p in 9th age would be about 1000p in Warhammer 8th ed, and even less in older editions (infantry got a bit cheaper with the introduction of horde formations IIRC)
    Both fantasy and 40k bloated in size (physically) as editions went on.

    Whfb 5/6 was a phyiscally smaller game at 2000k than 8th or TNA

    The cheaper infantry got, the bigger the blocks got so hordes could spurr more sales.

    So smaller game means smaller physically and in points.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
  • kisanis wrote:

    I have to admit.

    WHFB 6th edition @ 2000 points was a solid game size - Aside from Comet and dispel scroll spam, I loved 6th (and even 5th).

    1-3 Multiple 20-25 man blocks of infantry, a few 10 man blocks or 5-10 model calv blocks.

    I think there is a lot to making sure the smaller scale (1500-2500) can still be a relatively enjoyable game - it helps build interest in the hobby and remove the massive barrier to entry which was a major issue WHFB 8th had.

    I think once 2.0 comes out the focus of the 'starter' rules should be around that 1500-2500 point range and helping to make sure the game finds balance at that point; especially if they can do it in the 1.5-2.5 hour mark.

    I fully support 4500 as the main focus of efforts... but I think ensuring there is a viable and fair way to play the game at 2k and under is important as well.
    Well said. I think one reason we have been playing 5k locally still is all the cross category restrictions. Bumping up 500 disregards that a bit and units are balanced enough in 9th that balance isn't really an issue with such a small adjustment.

    I absolutely loved 6th too and the army books are still without equal IMO. Another thing to remember though is that the FOC of 6th only allowed 4 special 2 rare meaning much more troops on the table vs the min % like now.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • you mean that 6th edition when bretonia could charge and autowin every single fight, or that edition when black knights with a vampire was unstopable, or that edition when a legen pala with the helm could insta kill chariots, that edition when elves lists were exactly the same? i see..
    Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds- elf hero on foot 2016
  • Yep thats the one. Not everything is about the busted parts. 6th was pretty close to a perfect edition for me in many respects (I like 7th core rules slightly better), IF only they had addressed certain things and not creaped it with 7th edition ABs like VC, DE, DoC for example. Fixes came later but as usual GW knee jerked and swung it too far the other way.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
  • Discussion Thread: Poll results about the preferred size of the game.

    Stygian wrote:

    Yep thats the one. Not everything is about the busted parts. 6th was pretty close to a perfect edition for me in many respects (I like 7th core rules slightly better), IF only they had addressed certain things and not creaped it with 7th edition ABs like VC, DE, DoC for example. Fixes came later but as usual GW knee jerked and swung it too far the other way.
    6th with some houserule tweaks is still one of my favs.

    Every editition GW put out from 3rd onwards was broken though in some way.

    What often determined enjoyment and also nostalgia is how your local group handled it.
    I wasnt part of a super competitive group at the time - so we adjusted as needed. We literally skipped 7th edition for example.

    6th was broken - but for my local group and our playstyles, it was one of the least broken.

    What T9A does is for once actually try to address the brokenness and reduce the pendulum swing of fixing A to smash B to pieces.

    Back to the topic, i think focusing the QS rules to be optimized for the current 1500 point size is the best way to go - that way the starter lists and armies are stepping stones to the 4500 big tourney games, while also providing a second level of game size for quick games.

    Id love to see 4 game per day QS tournaments for example - a tighter, smaller, faster version of T9A.

    Sent from my LG-H831 using Tapatalk
  • kisanis wrote:

    6th with some houserule tweaks is still one of my favs.
    Yes exactly. My group was playing from a modified 7th and it was fantastic. We settled on 7th because it meant less house rules/errata than 6th. The major changes were random charge range, step up, units could march through difficult, missile weapons fired in 2 ranks, ASF/ASL cancel out. Oh and only the combined unit strength of fear-causingmodels was counted. Much less forgiving edition as far as psychology went, guess range weaponry, much less lethal combats, no horde formation, no steadfast, more static res, chargers strike first, etc.
    AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
    Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.