Is T9A slowly getting... better?

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.

  • For the most part I like the changes that 9th have brought. As an elf player I really enjoy some of the simple weapon updates like volley fire and improved spears (lethal strike & AP).

    Just a few questions...

    Wondering why volley fire is only 3 ranks deep in the beta rules. Were people complaining about deep ranks of s3 bows and longbows? Isn't firing in ranks one of the few advantages a bow has over a crossbow or a gun?

    Seems like a lot of effort is being made to change things that didn't need to be fixed. Cover Volley is a cool concept but what was wrong with the old sea guard steady aim rule?

    Impact hits are still D6? Of all the change happening I would have thought this would be D3+2 or something similar more dependable. Chariots still a risky choice.

    No more storm pennant option on the Sky Sloop?

    My first 2.0 beta match will be next weekend. I'm sure I'll have some more feedback after.
  • I don't get the argument that because the game is more balanced then the game become boring or only for top player or that epic moments are gone.

    For example with the Sylvan Elves i can create a list like that :
    Wild Hunter Lord
    Wild Hunter BsB
    Druid on Unicorn kitted for cc
    2 Unit of 12 Wild Huntsmen (or 3 of 7 i think)
    Core filled how you prefer, i would do 3 blocks of spears but that's not the only way.

    Now tell me that this is a boring list and that you can't get epic moments or that there isn't enough variance.

    Playing against my friends i have created a lot of funny lists like Sylvan Elves full CC without shooting and sylvan spirits, 3 elk lord cowboys plus two unit of Wild Hunsmen, 3 wizards adepts on Eagle King in a unit of Eagles, Units of more than one Eagle and some others.
    And all of these list had a chance to win if i played them correctly, maybe not in a top tournament but who cares ?

    Imho the fact that all choices are equally viable means that i can create my fluffy army and still be reasonably competitive, i have an easy example for that : i play Sylvan Elves without Sylvan Spirits(Dryads,Thicket Beasts,Treemans) and i'm doing just fine, maybe not as good as i could do, but i'm having fun so were's the problem ?

    Also on the lack of "epic moments" : basically any kind of strange dice roll can create a story if you have some imagination, maybe comes from having played a lot of roleplaying games but whenever there was some critical success or failure we felt bound to describe the action in the most funny/epic way possible and that's also possible in 9th age.
    There are a lot of situation were a dice roll can create epic situations, like : combat between lord of similar power,casting rolls(have you ever killed your mage on dragon with a triple 6 on 3 dice ? Well i have, twice),charge rolls,panic test and break tests that unlike everyone seems to believe are not always stubborn/steadfast Di10 + reroll, we can also arrive to break test with Di 2/3 (happened to me) or see panic roll at Di7 that create a chain flee reaction of half army (also happened), also do you know that the chances of not passing an Ld9 + reroll discipline test are nearly the same as rolling snake eyes ?
  • Eldan wrote:

    I dont' see an improvement. Just comparing the current rules with the beta, we lost:

    Volatile, the defining special rule of our army.
    Dark Shard Brew, oen of the few things that made playing The SWARM as a swarm actually viable

    House-specific vermin lordss

    Broodmaster Tyrants

    The Sounding the Bell table

    Cauldron of Blight

    Swiftstride and Thundrous Charge on Vermin Hulks


    That's just the continuation of the trend. This is one update. Every update has looked like that, or worse. We've lost at least some content every update of the game and everythign is getting more and more streamlined, sterile and joyless.

    The trend has been strongly downwards with every book.
    Yeah for VS the development hasn't been good, I agree. When I started T9A I had a large VS army and a small-ish EoS army. Since then I've almost only focused on EoS because the VS has just lost so much flavour whereas EoS has been treated very well.
  • Caraxes wrote:

    It's a tough one. I am not putting all my eggs in the t9a and like many of us play multiple rule systems.

    What I dislike is that t9a is starting to feel like AOS but with balance at the tourney level. There are less rock paper scissors situations.
    Interesting. We are getting a lot of flak at the moment for some things being too rock paper scissors. Like elves. Or pyro&alchemy paths. Some unit designs. And various other things. Lose-lose again :(

    Kristian wrote:

    @DanT

    Yes more high variance/high impact things. Like the double 1’s for a break test means you stay. It shouldn’t be reliable, just occasionally throw a spanner in the works.

    This is another marmite one. There are many (non-tournament) players on this very forum who are glad that this is gone (see some of the many threads on the topic). This one literally divides the player base strongly, whatever we do someone gets upset with us.

    For years tournament players ranted against “useless” items and how they took up space. Now we have generic enchantments that may well all be useful to someone, but none of the wackier stuff. Again I’m not talking high impact(unless perhaps some unlikely thing happens). It could be something not cost effective.
    Again, why is this anything to do with tournament players? You are simply asking for weird and wacky designs. I do not disagree with this. But it has nothing to do with tournament players or cost-effectiveness. It means we either need more imagination amongst designers, more acceptance amongst the reviewers, or both. Hopefully we will see this as we get into the FABs properly.


    I’ve never experienced the game being over 15 mins in. This is because I’ve never been a good enough player/intelligent enough to realize I was actually beaten after 15 mins. I’d wager the majority of players are like this. Warhammer was designed for guys like me, but still included elements that attracted very competetive players and a huge tournament scene grew from that game. In spite of that scene complaining at length about the unplayabillity of the game and its imbalanced nature.
    You really never had an uncomped game of WFB 8th edition that was basically pointless because of a turn 1 or 2 casting of a super spell? Or ridiculous artillery phase?

    Or a game that was a non-game just because one side had brought some ridiculous sized units that the other army couldn't play against? I'm astonished. I played in GWs, local clubs, and tournaments, and found complaints and examples of these games at every level. If you never had these experiences, I can understand why you see t9a as catering to tournament players, but let me assure you that there are many casual players with these complaints.

    9th age is designed to please the top players. Claiming that balance/high level of control/large skill impact is equally important to mediocre players might be true in some cases, but so far these types of players in my community is going back to 8th or early 9th.
    Again, I think you are not recognising the complicated and heterogeneous nature of the community. I know casual players who like the direction of the game who definitely aren't concerned about large skill impact.




    Also I miss templates. Mostly because they are a visual aid that lets me see a representation of a rules effect on the board.

    You have yet to comment on the hidden rule. Am I getting my point across here regarding a rule that brings a concept to life?
    It didn't seem coherent with your complaints about epic moments and variance, so I was dealing with one thing at a time :)

    It seems to me that this is a different class of thing, about evocative mechanics, and is much more in line with your comments about templates than it is with the variance and "epic moments" comments.
    For what its worth, I wouldn't personally have removed hidden (it was done before my time), and I personally think we should have much more of these evocative rules that bring the background to the tabletop. There is a potential design change in the next WotDG release which I think is a great example of such rules, fingers crossed it makes it to the public version.




    Kristian wrote:

    N3okorrales wrote:

    removing templates was literaly the best thing that could ever happen to us. huge step for the removal of the " arguing " phase.
    I’d argue that the arguing phase was something only one type of player had.
    I think you have met some of the bad apples of your tournament scene (assuming that this is what you are referring to).
    I have played on top tables internationally and had no issues with templates. And I've played at my local GW club night and had issues with them. Equating template use with tournament players is just nonsense I'm afraid.

    The removal of templates is very much a "marmite" change, and strongly splits the playerbase, but there are tournament and casual players on both sides.
    For me personally, I can see both sides. It has saved a lot of faff and micromanagement, and yes arguments. But at the same time I appreciated the "emotive tactility" (we used to talk about this a lot when I was part time GW staff) of the templates: i.e. that it was an intrinsically fun and physical thing to put a template on the table even if the result was that nothing died.

    I think the boat has sailed on templates, but I do think the project should think about how intrinsically fun actions (i.e. actions where the enjoyment doesn't come from the in-game result of the action or the cognitive challenge of the game) can be put into the FABs.

    I think we have a couple of mediocre instances of this already, which heartens me (wasteland torch, closing hellmaw gates), but I would like us to get much better at this.


    General point @Kristian : I think you have a dichotomy in your head that just isn't true. There are many axes that split the player base, including variance, level of realism/historical accuracy, complexity/micromanagement vs simplicity and focus on larger scale, and many others. I have met tournament and casual players from both ends of every axis that I have noticed amongst the player base. "Balance" (whatever that means; another one that gets used all the time and we get accused of that no 2 people are working with the exact same definition of) can be very good for casual players, because they can take the fluffy units/ones they like without being handicapped. Conversely, tournament players would just take the filth anyway, so it can have less of an effect on them. Ironically, I think some tournament players still haven't adapted to the level of balance in 9th age cos they were so used to cookie cooker/net lists that dominated in legacy systems.

    But perhaps I am flogging a dead horse here. It is possible that we will never deliver what you want. For my part, I want the FABs to be more intrinsically fun and built with multiple skill levels and player types in mind. I hope if we do this well the game might be a little more to your tastes, but I cannot see the future.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire
  • In my community 9th is slowly dicreasing. From a poll of around 30 players now we are only 10 (most of the others now play AOS). And the 10 remaining are sure we will be jumping ship in the near future. Why is that?

    - Too many changes in short periods of time. Some of them with no logic at all.

    - Changes in army composition and bases. One got mad when build an army with 12 medusa and rules were changed to decreased the allowed number.

    - No flavour at all. And we are not refearing to the background (we don't care about it). We are refering to the aesthetics. Now it is impossible to now what you are playing against. Since the only important thing is base sizes you are unable to identify units. Today was reading in the DL forum a member of the staff stating that is ok to use a chariot as a monster. If that's the main idea of the people creating the game, we should play with rectangles of papers and not with miniatures.
  • kangram wrote:

    In my community 9th is slowly dicreasing. From a poll of around 30 players now we are only 10 (most of the others now play AOS). And the 10 remaining are sure we will be jumping ship in the near future. Why is that?

    - Too many changes in short periods of time. Some of them with no logic at all.
    Gold before the end of the year, maybe that will placate some of them.


    - No flavour at all. And we are not refearing to the background (we don't care about it). We are refering to the aesthetics. Now it is impossible to now what you are playing against. Since the only important thing is base sizes you are unable to identify units.
    We are not a model company. Nor do we wish to tell players what models they can and can't use.

    This is down to the individual players what they consider aesthetically pleasing and appropriate.
    I don't see how a volunteer project can operate otherwise.

    But, if everyone in your group agrees on this, I don't understand the problem? You guys just agree amongst yourselves what appropriate models are for different entries and then you will all understand what you are playing against? Or have I misunderstood?

    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire
  • 9th age is DIY wargaming.

    No company is going to ride in and solve problems for you. They're not going to show up and throw demo events for you and your local group. They're not going to sit there and say "This model is used for this rule/unit"

    It is upto us to do that.
    Most of my wargaming experience is playing at friends houses - Extremely beer and pretzels. I started playing in stores for the first time last year (in about 15 years) purely to grow this hobby.

    I am running a 10+ one day tournament in November. Never run one before, but no one is going to do it for me. So I do it.
    I want to run demo games at local conventions next year - So I'm working on the QS, putting together a demo kit, and getting ready to go do that too. (Including printing my own material, business cards, and banners - all at a cost to myself).

    Its upto us to build this game up.

    I really do think this is the best time for the hobby. We have a tone of viable choices, gorgeous models from small indy companies (and still some cool ones from the bigger co's of GW/Mantic/Warlord). Rules are free and we're allowed to participate and interact with the game design as a community.

    We spent the last 2.5 years stripping the game down to it's core mechanics and finding the issues with legacy that reverberated throughout. We lost some good with the bad. However, I sincerely beleive that going forward, we're putting it back together again. I think the FAB process will unveil more creativity, more interesting designs, and a lot of inspiring fluff.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • Caraxes wrote:

    N3okorrales wrote:

    i guess those 30+ units of saurian warriors/temple guard are considered msu now...LOL.
    Maybe the NZ meta, but I have never seen it. SA skinks were the last army I saw from SA, about a year ago.
    go check the saurian ancients tournament lists. Your island have 5milion people your meta is probably the smallest in the entire world.
    Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds- elf hero on foot 2016
  • @DanT There is no false dichotomy here. 9th Age is definitely a tournament centered game. Even 9th Age admits to that. @Kristian makes excellent points in this respect. A cannonball that does D6 damage allow for much cooler stories then D3+1. A template hit allows for muuuuch better stories then "hit with 16 hits". Dan please don't deny the obvious, it doesnt help 9th Age at all. Highlights the benefits and forte's.

    One of the biggest pro-fluff benefits of the 9th Age imo, is the number of entries in the army books. Wow. I mean the Dwarf book was not hard to improve, but look at the playable options compared to 8th. This obviously allows for more options. Same for most factions.

    There is another very obvious but rather unheard downside of top balance. There are no obvious weak choices. Such weak choices that you used to be able to field, and immediately drew respect from your opponent. We have to nuance this a little, cause one can still take bad lists, but overall it's much harder.

    Not unimportant, there are more unit caps. This def. limits the fluff. No full gyro lists, no blocks of 40 scouting Bugmans Rangers. Obvious limmit to stories.

    I'd say the improvements that 9th offers are larger then the downsides / limitations. So I'm relatively happy, if not all army books receive the WotDG treatment. Which I hope they dont.

    Lastly, I think many 9th Age players that say they are more fluffy then competitive do not realise this is only true in the current tight meta of mostly tournament players. Cause many of the real fluffy player never boarded on the 9th Age vessel.

    So ... more wacky shait!
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • @DanT
    I’ve never played a game of uncomped 8th ed no. Mostly because I play almost exclusively with freinds who can recognize what will and what won’t ruin a game in listbuilding. So a sort of self comp. The tournaments I’ve been to and the ones I’ve organized myself have all been comped. I’ve never considered a game over after the first turn, because there are other reasons for playing than winning.

    When I said a certain type of player I did not mean tournament players. I am a tournament player and a narrative player the two does not exclude each other.
    Some people just can’t conduct themselves with dignity when playing toy soldiers. Has nothing to do with being a top player at all.

    And I think you are right that all gamers are different and want different things, hence why the whole “getting better” is highly subjective. And the important part here is whether to expect the game will grow bigger og will lose players. I think the later and as you say, its a lose/lose situation.

    Anyway, I hope we get hidden back
  • DanT wrote:

    kangram wrote:

    In my community 9th is slowly dicreasing. From a poll of around 30 players now we are only 10 (most of the others now play AOS). And the 10 remaining are sure we will be jumping ship in the near future. Why is that?

    - Too many changes in short periods of time. Some of them with no logic at all.
    Gold before the end of the year, maybe that will placate some of them.


    - No flavour at all. And we are not refearing to the background (we don't care about it). We are refering to the aesthetics. Now it is impossible to now what you are playing against. Since the only important thing is base sizes you are unable to identify units.
    We are not a model company. Nor do we wish to tell players what models they can and can't use.

    This is down to the individual players what they consider aesthetically pleasing and appropriate.
    I don't see how a volunteer project can operate otherwise.

    But, if everyone in your group agrees on this, I don't understand the problem? You guys just agree amongst yourselves what appropriate models are for different entries and then you will all understand what you are playing against? Or have I misunderstood?


    that only solve if we play among ourselves, but if we want to go to tournaments outside our area is extremely frustating. Things not represent anything with the stupid base rule. i've seen a chess piece on top of a base using it as a chariot. Why this is ok and not using paper cuts?

    Another problem is the complexity: rulebook is extremely complex for someone to start playing. So the community will never grow.

    But it doesn't matter it seems that people are not willing to see the reality. The day ETC changes the game of its 8-team tornament, it's going to be the final nail on the coffin if things don't change.

    I'm a DL player but I don't care about the new AB. I don't like the idea do, I will stop playing it because what you have creates is not the army I used to play.
  • kangram wrote:

    that only solve if we play among ourselves, but if we want to go to tournaments outside our area is extremely frustating. Things not represent anything with the stupid base rule. i've seen a chess piece on top of a base using it as a chariot. Why this is ok and not using paper cuts?
    Another problem is the complexity: rulebook is extremely complex for someone to start playing. So the community will never grow.


    Don't you think that also strictly limit the range of minis and requiring a full army painted to play will also restrict the growt of the community ?
    A
    bout the book complexity we have a quickstarter coming that present the main rules of the game in 15 pages, also you can explain the game by yourself to new recruit, i have a couple of friends that never ever gave a full read to the rulebook because i explained to them the rules while playing.

    But it doesn't matter it seems that people are not willing to see the reality. The day ETC changes the game of its 8-team tornament, it's going to be the final nail on the coffin if things don't change.

    I'm a DL player but I don't care about the new AB. I don't like the idea do, I will stop playing it because what you have creates is not the army I used to play.
    Well you can't exactly blame 9th age for wanting to take his own direction, especially without even seeing the new book.
  • kangram wrote:

    I have seen the new book (it was leaked).

    Without showing miniatures the game is not apealing to anybody. Most of us started wargaming because we saw a bunch of miniatures used. There is a difference between restrict the miniatured and not to give any kind of indication. It's ok for you to use a human miniature the represent VS or OG or SA?
    And were do you draw the line ?
    Representing an army of Higborn Elves with Gondor minis it's ok or not ?
    Representing Orc&Goblins with a tribe of wild humans it's ok or not ?
    Using humans instead of skeleton and zombies to represent a VC army of mind dominated humans by a lamia countess it's ok or not ?
    Do you think that similar examples won't attract new player ?

    Also would you negate to some people the possibility of playing just because they don't have the time/money to create an army that satisfy your criteria ?
    Maybe a new player could be more willing to try the game if he can start with a paper printed army and slowly grow his army opposed to have to make a blind investment.