.205 Warriors of the Dark Gods

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.

Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

And on December 24th, Father Chaos brought us... A brand new army book for Daemon Legions!

  • New

    umbranar wrote:

    Again we seem to go on list data to fix prices.
    It is obvious that the book, especially compared with the DL rework, was not done right and is missing crucial uniek mechanics.

    As long as this book is about "Warriors and some monsters" it will feels lackluster.

    Jelle89 wrote:

    Make Chariots core again to get rid of the 30 warriors GW brick.

    Core Chariots if the General is on chariot < done.

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    warriors should be the desired core choice in this book IMHO.The GW warrior brick should not, that’s one of the problems that needs tackling.

    Warriors of Chaos are our iconic unit but they shouldn't be our "desired core choice".
    A good design is not forced upon the players, our desired core choice is diversity.
    The people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who do.
  • New

    gw warriors attack last
    Which means that u take.losses before attacks.

    Halberd allows u to attack at your agi.

    Moreover S6 against parry is quite useless.
    S6 against infantry or cores or weak stuff is useless, and.there are still chances to lose models before attacking.

    Anyway as long as core is those units, horsemen or warriors are the only choices for core. U cant blame warriors bricks.

    Why would i waste points for a 20warriors marked since marks are averagely bad?

    Would u mark warriors if marks were free? I would. Spending? Brick all life
  • New

    Shukran wrote:

    gw warriors attack last
    Which means that u take.losses before attacks.

    Halberd allows u to attack at your agi.

    Moreover S6 against parry is quite useless.
    S6 against infantry or cores or weak stuff is useless, and.there are still chances to lose models before attacking.

    Anyway as long as core is those units, horsemen or warriors are the only choices for core. U cant blame warriors bricks.

    Why would i waste points for a 20warriors marked since marks are averagely bad?

    Would u mark warriors if marks were free? I would. Spending? Brick all life
    Problem with Halberds - you will still have big chances to hit last and with 3+/2+ rolls. Against any res 4 with parry (which I encounter often) it is going down to 4+/3+. With GW you will certainly take casualties, but usually brick of 30 warriors don't care if it looses 3-6 models, because anything in contact with you usually going to die at your initiative step.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • New

    Joel Elijah wrote:

    umbranar wrote:

    Again we seem to go on list data to fix prices.
    It is obvious that the book, especially compared with the DL rework, was not done right and is missing crucial uniek mechanics.
    As long as this book is about "Warriors and some monsters" it will feels lackluster.

    Jelle89 wrote:

    Make Chariots core again to get rid of the 30 warriors GW brick.
    Core Chariots if the General is on chariot < done.

    Mahlzeit wrote:

    warriors should be the desired core choice in this book IMHO.The GW warrior brick should not, that’s one of the problems that needs tackling.
    Warriors of Chaos are our iconic unit but they shouldn't be our "desired core choice".
    A good design is not forced upon the players, our desired core choice is diversity.
    perhaps 1-2 chariots in core when the general is on chariot, too - counting against the max chariot Limit of the army (chariot unit entry).

    I think warriors should be the desired choice, actually. Not because they’re OP as hell, hulking monsters with a 1+ armour save, but because they’re downright solid for their price and offer things other units in our book can’t. Which is kind of the case now, but the points spent per unit are too high right now, especially with favours and the intended game size of 4500 points.

    Some better effects for marks could help, or distribute marks differently between core and special choices.
    Moreover, I consider that the Seven Sins should be destroyed as an army background.
  • New

    Feynn wrote:

    This would be the change I would make:

    - Barbarians: unlike other I'm sure their only problem is price. Once they are cheap enough they'll have ways to be played.
    - Fallen: for each Doomlord allow for one unit to lose light troops, gain scoring, max size up to 20-25. Cheaper base price.
    - Warriors: as they are or (to favour MMU) cheaper bodies up to 20, more expensive up to 30.
    - Barbarian Horsemen: allow min. sized units in core. cheaper extra bodies.
    - Warhounds: allow min. sized units in core or allow exanche release the hounds with lightroops. (if lightroops is accepted) cheaper extra bodies plus poison attacks upgrade.

    And with this I think we could make some different configurations from core without any need to nerf warriors into dust. And other than some points change I would really made another significant change:

    - Hellmaw: improve their portals range and/or survability, i'll elaborate later since I'm working now.
    Do you see cheaper Barbarians having other uses than cheap bunker if becoming cheaper? Right now it seems they are taken in small units (15-19) naked or just with shields as bunkers. Do you think cheaper Barbarians could make it viable to play them with Great Weapons and in that case, only in large units or also in medium/small ones?

    I quite like your idea of adjusting points on the Warriors to tweak the relative desirability of different unit sizes. It seems people are in general happy with the design on Warriors and that people think they are well balanced for their price when taken as the efficient big GW (zealot) block. So probably no need to do large general point changes. Some seem to enjoy taking Warriors in the big block, and that should probably stay as an option, but it would be a shame if it is strictly better than all other configurations (which seem to be the case), since we will never see Shields or Paired Weapons on them. It would be wonderfull if players could play both medium (around 20) and large (25+) sized units, and if depending on the situation, both Shields, Paired Weapons and Great Weapons/Halberds would be good choices. Bringing down the price of medium sized units and maybe highen the price of large ones slightly would be an interesting experiment (they could always get general point adjustments later).

    What do you think about the favours on Warriors? Do you see at least several of them playable at the right price (so with minor adjustments maybe)?
  • New

    Marks with warriors:
    Sloth - exorbirant price, but overall even better with GW warriors because Res5 means that less of them going to die before initiative step 0.
    Greed - above average option that makes them quite versatile.
    Gluttony - with double zealot banner and Paired Weapon sounds like a quite interesting variant, but I haven't had enough games to test it.

    Wrath - feels kinda meh, as well as Lust and Envy.

    Pride can be actually extremely potent but only in one configuration - Herald with divination attribute, 30GW warriors, BSB Entropy lord on war dais. Big squad that rolls 4 dice during break tests (and all other tests too) with ability to reroll them. It is like a tripple reroll which is insane.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • New

    Auto2 wrote:

    marotta wrote:

    Do you think cheaper Barbarians could make it viable to play them with Great Weapons and in that case, only in large units or also in medium/small ones?
    Well obviously great weapons on barbarians are going to be better on larger units.
    Do we want to see very large (max size) barbarian units with great weapons?
    Medium GW barb squad is relatively decent suicide bomb squad. Usually good for only one medium engagement with enemy chaff.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • New

    Auto2 wrote:

    marotta wrote:

    Do you think cheaper Barbarians could make it viable to play them with Great Weapons and in that case, only in large units or also in medium/small ones?
    Well obviously great weapons on barbarians are going to be better on larger units.
    Do we want to see very large (max size) barbarian units with great weapons?
    If not the Great Weapons seem like a redundant choice. And yes, big units have the advantage of more wounds to sacrifice without losing damage output, but they also cost more, so near a perfectly balanced utopia, at least medium sized units (around 20) with GW could be a choice also (that may be more risky but also with a potentially larger upside??).
  • New

    every unit in the game has an optimal unit size. It is usually min or max size, dont sweat it, its fine. If anything must be changed, only fix broken and unused units, don't mess around with units that get used
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2018

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019
  • New

    I know that I am probably already have a bad reputation for bringing examples from DH book but look at their core warriors:
    Min size - 10.
    Max size - 40.
    Usually people use them in squads from 20 to 30. Almost never min. or max. size unless you are trying to achieve something unconventional with them.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • New

    May I correct you....there are a lot of spammed 10 man warrior units with shields and throwing weapons. An Abdomination that should not be possible. Min Size of dwarfen core warriors should at least be 15 if not even 20 models per unit.

    I think dwarfen book is not the best to compare to the warrior situation. Either you take min sized MSU approach or a core unit where all the charakters go in.


    In my opinion a reason of the problem is buried in the line formation rule. This rule alone makes all those high quality elite units increrase their output a lot when put into 8 wide at least 3 deep formations just for beeing big enough. In my opinion this makes it impossible to balance these elite units for different unit sizes....nobody will take units of 18 or 20. Damage output is increased by 25-30% just for going 8 wide 3 deep. How should this ever be balanced with medium sized units?

    Without line formation rule, there would be a lot more unit sizes be viable to be fielded.
  • New

    berti wrote:

    May I correct you....there are a lot of spammed 10 man warrior units with shields and throwing weapons. An Abdomination that should not be possible. Min Size of dwarfen core warriors should at least be 15 if not even 20 models per unit.

    I think dwarfen book is not the best to compare to the warrior situation. Either you take min sized MSU approach or a core unit where all the charakters go in.


    In my opinion a reason of the problem is buried in the line formation rule. This rule alone makes all those high quality elite units increrase their output a lot when put into 8 wide at least 3 deep formations just for beeing big enough. In my opinion this makes it impossible to balance these elite units for different unit sizes....nobody will take units of 18 or 20. Damage output is increased by 25-30% just for going 8 wide 3 deep. How should this ever be balanced with medium sized units?

    Without line formation rule, there would be a lot more unit sizes be viable to be fielded.
    This abomination does not exist in my meta fortunatelly. People just don't find it interesting to play warriors like that. Nobody trying to play deathstars either, unless you consider 2 heroes in a squad of 30 greybeards as deathstar.
    DH - main
    WODG - secondary
    OK - passion project for the future
  • New

    After several games with wdg, I will say the following:

    The marks are simply bad. Bad and BORED. And this is a serious problem, since this should be fun, like a game that is. Hardly anyone will pay to use them.
    Fix the marks, make the complicated ones easier (Gluttony, wrath, sloth).
    Remove the inconveniences for the love of God! We are approaching gold and this is still unresolved ... it is very sad ... Not only do we pay a high price, but they are really bad! What's going on here? I really do not understand it.

    Gifts of the gods: At least give us one for each God! Or what's wrong here?



    Chosen Lord: Make us something when you share the same mark with the unit it's included in ... it's really easy.

    Or for example: If CL is the general of the army, at the beginning of the battle, roll a dice:

    1-2 - Craving of battle: the unit in which the cl is included, gains 1D6 inches of movement before starting to move normally.
    3-4 -Craving of blood: the unit in which the cl is included, gains maximized roll in each charge roll.
    5-6 - Honoring the Gods: If the unit wins a fight, the cl gains +1 discipline for the remainder of the battle (only the unit of the bearer can benefit from this improvement).

    Warriors: Fix the marks, make them cheap, in short, make them attractive! And people will use them as an alternative to the 30 gw brick.

    Barbarians: To be used, give them special rule..ambush(max 15-20 m/u)

    Warrior knights:Why can not we have a weapon that gives us +1 strength? This would make us unique in our way ...
    Or some type of flail ... +2 force if we charge,or +1 if we receive a charge..and them,keep +1 S
  • New

    its a shame marks are rubbish but I cant see them changing. Our book is done (save for a few extra nerfs to herald, FDA & warrior brick and a few discounts on the unattractive units, would be my guess) and it will be the worst one, as all first army books always are. Sad but true.

    That said, I dont mind our book as it is, it has lots of sub par choices but it has some nice stuff. It would be awesome if all entries were equally viable, but lets be realistic here, that is a very lofty goal and there is much work to be done on all the other 15 books
    Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

    Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2018

    WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019
  • New

    marotta wrote:

    but they also cost more, so near a perfectly balanced utopia, at least medium sized units (around 20) with GW could be a choice also (that may be more risky but also with a potentially larger upside??).
    So we know what this looks like because we have done this experiment with wasteland warriors.

    Do people take wasteland warrior w/great weapon units in medium size or max size?

    The risk of being wiped out before you can even strike with great weapons pushes max unit sizes.