New HbE Book!! Some modification to make our army great Again !

    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!

    • My_Kin wrote:

      Taking it further, there is actually one other big change I would make, and I've written this loads of times before but hell I'll write it again. Split leadership into Courage and Discipline. This would make things sooooo much simpler and making giving each army it's character so much easier.

      Discpline covers marching, formations (bring back columns! shieldwalls, testudos, open formation (adopt skirmish basically)), basically getting your units to do what you want them to.

      Courage covers how brave they are in a fight, so break tests, terror etc.

      You could get rid of soooo many special rules with this, and really give races character and flavour. So e.g. a savage orc would have appalling discipline, but better courage than a normal orc, you don't need any special frenzy type rules. A dwarf hammerer would be outstanding in both. It solves this issue of how do you make elves and dwarves feel elite without having to have ridiculous fighting stats compared to a say an orc bigun. It would also make the game more about manoeuvring and generalship than just list building and spell combos. More a wargame, less a high fantasy warband game.

      EDIT: it's far from a new mechanic, this existed in 3rd edition and was much loved, hell GW even started selling the 3rd ed book at Warhammer world because people still want it.
      The subject was heavily debated during the development of the 2nd edition core rules and eventually it was decided it against it.


      I would need to go and dig through the relevant topics buried somewhere in the archives but if I do not recall falsely the split was not chosen as not to further increase the complexity of the statline as well as the game for little in game difference since overwhelming majority of units would have the same value in both categories or just a minor 1 point difference without making them unplayable in certain aspects of the game.

      Background Team

      Art Team Coordinator

      Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
    • DanT wrote:

      Teowulff wrote:

      IoRi78 wrote:

      the only planned LAB right now are ID (on the work right now) and DE (starting in autumn tentatively).
      That should inherently mean that the 3 elf army differentations/holistic vision written phase should be finished by then (autumn 2019)?
      Yes, at least a draft of it.I believe this was the plan at the point when I left.


      Display Spoiler

      My_Kin wrote:

      I think the problem of CA actually illustrates a much larger problem that's existed since early in the project.

      I actually think when viewed in isolation CA are fine, they're what a basic elf archer should be. The problem is there's just way too much elite stuff around. One of the missions of 9th at the beginning was to make every unit playable, and the approach that seemed to be taken was toning down the crazy stuff from 8th (thumbs up!), but also buffing a lot of basic units (thumbs down!), when in reality I think the overall power level needs to be lower, the power curve compressed if you understand what I mean.

      The issue with CA is that there are armies (e.g. WDG, KoE) against which they're frankly useless, because their core units are simply too tough. It's fine that they struggle vs elite units, but they should at least be able to threaten core units. One decision that really riles me is allowing certain armies to have just 20% core, to me this is just admitting defeat as a designer, core if anything should be higher imo and uniform across the project, and yes it should be equally not so good across armies, elite units can be elite in comparison to core, not buffing core, then having to buff elites to keep competitive, this is the essence of power creep.

      If I was to go further I actually think there is a fundamental misreading of how the new army books should be constructed, this belief that each should be built around a particular playstyle. I really disagree with this, I think actually EVERY army should be to an extent a jack of all trades, capable of multiple strategies, and that allow your skill and creativity as a general to come to the fore, not rock paper scissors, which leads to boring games, where you might know from the beginning it's a bad match up and there's not much you can do.

      Also remember this isn't a video game where one can easily discard one army and pick up another, it takes months or years (or decades...) to build an army, so if it can only do 1 or 2 things, you will bore easily with it (I've been told X-Wing and Armada have suffered this problem, with many players just getting bored and leaving it).

      So while I would hope many would agree with this sentiment, the next question is how do we do this? I believe it lies in force organisation and to an extent game size, I think we need a total ground up rethink.

      I propose that every army should be based around the following model:

      Characters
      Core Infantry
      Core Cavalry
      Guard Infantry
      Guard Cavalry
      Monstrous Support
      Artillery

      The percentages would vary across differing armies, DH and KoE being the obvious ones, and there should be an overall shooting percentage that's also set to each army (e.g SE have higher, WDG have almost none). Whilst this may at first appear more constraining I actually think as a designer as you're not always trying to push a particular playstyle you're actually much more free to make each unit more individual and characterful.

      It also allows for the possibility of narrative scenarios where you can uniformly adjust army comps (e.g. last stand more Guard Units, Green Troops more Core units etc.).

      Now to support such a system I think we must recognise the possibility that the average game size might change (I'm not sure may be fine) and we shouldn't be tied to 4500pts as a concrete parameter.
      (Spoilered for readability)
      Some good thought processes there.
      I am not sure I think your choices are better necessarily, but you have identified some of the choices the project has made about how to proceed and how these might affect individual books.
      However... at this point, implementing everything you are saying would require t9a to be a different game to the one it is intending to be, possibly even require changes to the locked rulebook, and would require all 16 books to be treated simultaneously... again.

      I also don't think your game would be unambiguously better. Just different, with different pros and cons.


      Aside: I think your x-wing analogy doesn't really hold. One of the key criticisms during 1.0 was that every faction could do everything and the differences had been lost, and I understand that the factions were thus differentiated more for 2.0 (I can't say for sure because I have stuck with 1.0 for various reasons).
      I agree it would be a very different game, and for 9th to transition to this would be at best a long term goal, maybe 2 editions of the rulebook away. However it's the wargame I'd like to play tbh, and I think have always wanted to play, I think others would too, including many who don't play 9th currently. It would allow games to much better represent the battles described in most fantasy lores, something GW spectacularly failed at. I disagree that it wouldn't be a better game, however that area is quite subjective.

      Actually at the moment I think the fantasy adaptation of warlord game's Hail Caesar, which is like a more in depth, improved version of Warmaster at 28mm is closer to the game I'd like, and I think the direction Rick Priestly would have wanted WFB to go if he'd been allowed. I heard he actually went to them with this during 6th ed, and they basically put him in a cupboard till he quit. I think 9th could learn a lot from this kind of system, it's very simple to learn as well.

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

    • Giladis wrote:

      My_Kin wrote:

      Taking it further, there is actually one other big change I would make, and I've written this loads of times before but hell I'll write it again. Split leadership into Courage and Discipline. This would make things sooooo much simpler and making giving each army it's character so much easier.

      Discpline covers marching, formations (bring back columns! shieldwalls, testudos, open formation (adopt skirmish basically)), basically getting your units to do what you want them to.

      Courage covers how brave they are in a fight, so break tests, terror etc.

      You could get rid of soooo many special rules with this, and really give races character and flavour. So e.g. a savage orc would have appalling discipline, but better courage than a normal orc, you don't need any special frenzy type rules. A dwarf hammerer would be outstanding in both. It solves this issue of how do you make elves and dwarves feel elite without having to have ridiculous fighting stats compared to a say an orc bigun. It would also make the game more about manoeuvring and generalship than just list building and spell combos. More a wargame, less a high fantasy warband game.

      EDIT: it's far from a new mechanic, this existed in 3rd edition and was much loved, hell GW even started selling the 3rd ed book at Warhammer world because people still want it.
      The subject was heavily debated during the development of the 2nd edition core rules and eventually it was decided it against it.

      I would need to go and dig through the relevant topics buried somewhere in the archives but if I do not recall falsely the split was not chosen as not to further increase the complexity of the statline as well as the game for little in game difference since overwhelming majority of units would have the same value in both categories or just a minor 1 point difference without making them unplayable in certain aspects of the game.
      Hmm I obviously disagree with that decision, I think that the "unplayable" argument held true with the inherited system, but we should re-examine the core mechanics with this new profile as part of the foundation. I think that because it would actually reduce so many special rules and caveats to mechanics that it could actually overall significantly simplify the system. Also if you consider teaching the game to a new person, how do you explain what leadership is? It's so ephemeral atm. If there were formations and a greater emphasis on manoeuvre it could have a great effect on the system, at the moment yes it probably wouldn't be that much. For example I would introduce a discipline test to charge a unit other than the closest (I'd also remove random charges but that's another issue).


      I hope it's looked at again in the next edition.


      p.s. I also think people of certain armies (VS & OnG) need to get over the fact their armies can be unreliable and random (which is where I suspect the unplayable argument comes from), I hated the removal of animosity, I really believe if someone has a problem with orcs being unruly they shouldn't be playing that army. Also bear in mind they would be priced accordingly, they wouldn't be soft stats.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by My_Kin ().

    • My_Kin wrote:

      I agree it would be a very different game, and for 9th to transition to this would be at best a long term goal, maybe 2 editions of the rulebook away. However it's the wargame I'd like to play tbh, and I think have always wanted to play, I think others would too, including many who don't play 9th currently. I disagree that it wouldn't be a better game, however that area is quite subjective.
      Actually at the moment I think the fantasy adaptation of warlord game's Hail Caesar, which is like a more in depth, improved version of Warmaster at 28mm is closer to the game I'd like, and I think the direction Rick Priestly would have wanted WFB to go if he'd been allowed. I heard he actually went to them with this during 6th ed, and they basically put him in a cupboard till he quit. I think 9th could learn a lot from this kind of system, it's very simple to learn as well.
      I like hail caesar and warmaster, so I suspect that me and you have quite similar tastes :)
      (I also really like the GW war of the ring game, its like WFB lite :P )

      But ultimately it is all subjective.
      Some people like AOS, some like bolt action, some like Mordheim, some liked 6th ed WFB, some liked 8th ed WFB...
      The reasons me and you might like some systems, will be the same reasons that others don't like them.

      WFB was a weird case. It was the wrong game for everyone to play. By which I mean, it wasn't optimised for anything or anyone.
      BUT, it was good enough for nearly anyone. The kind of systems you are pointing to would be preferred by certain subsets of the broader t9a playerbase.

      My view is that the current direction of t9a does a reasonable job of filling the conceptual void left by the demise of WFB, whilst also being its own thing.

      However, regardless of my view, I just wanted to be clear that your preferred choice would require significant upheaval... in a time when some communities are growing explicitly because the upheaval as ended... so I suspect it is not a course of action the project will choose.
      (And trying to do so gradually runs the risk of a fundamentally incoherent game, where books released at different points in time are almost designed to play different games).
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      My_Kin wrote:

      I agree it would be a very different game, and for 9th to transition to this would be at best a long term goal, maybe 2 editions of the rulebook away. However it's the wargame I'd like to play tbh, and I think have always wanted to play, I think others would too, including many who don't play 9th currently. I disagree that it wouldn't be a better game, however that area is quite subjective.
      Actually at the moment I think the fantasy adaptation of warlord game's Hail Caesar, which is like a more in depth, improved version of Warmaster at 28mm is closer to the game I'd like, and I think the direction Rick Priestly would have wanted WFB to go if he'd been allowed. I heard he actually went to them with this during 6th ed, and they basically put him in a cupboard till he quit. I think 9th could learn a lot from this kind of system, it's very simple to learn as well.
      I like hail caesar and warmaster, so I suspect that me and you have quite similar tastes :-)(I also really like the GW war of the ring game, its like WFB lite :P )

      But ultimately it is all subjective.
      Some people like AOS, some like bolt action, some like Mordheim, some liked 6th ed WFB, some liked 8th ed WFB...
      The reasons me and you might like some systems, will be the same reasons that others don't like them.

      WFB was a weird case. It was the wrong game for everyone to play. By which I mean, it wasn't optimised for anything or anyone.
      BUT, it was good enough for nearly anyone. The kind of systems you are pointing to would be preferred by certain subsets of the broader t9a playerbase.

      My view is that the current direction of t9a does a reasonable job of filling the conceptual void left by the demise of WFB, whilst also being its own thing.

      However, regardless of my view, I just wanted to be clear that your preferred choice would require significant upheaval... in a time when some communities are growing explicitly because the upheaval as ended... so I suspect it is not a course of action the project will choose.
      (And trying to do so gradually runs the risk of a fundamentally incoherent game, where books released at different points in time are almost designed to play different games).
      I LOVED War of the Ring, if only they'd released it like 4 years earlier and not made such a hash of the balance it could have been a great success. There are some house rules around that fixed a lot of the issues. I think yeah we do have similar taste lol.

      I understand what you're saying, I don't harbour any expectations of this kind of change, certainly not any time soon at least, but I'll keep putting the ideas out there now and again so at least people consider them, and who knows maybe come around to my (or our lol) way of thinking.

      I agree WFB was a weird case, I don't think it was ever really designed with a particular goal in mind, it was very organic and just started as a way to sell more D&D models. That's also why I think we shouldn't be too tied to it, it was never a perfect or even close to perfect product, but it did have some cool ideas and incredible fluff. I know there was such a scramble at the beginning of t9A to hold together the community, but I think once that's done and the fundamentals of the organisation are bit more polished so it has a means to grow more easily, we should look more broadly at what this game can be and what is wants to be. After all relying on nostalgia for the mechanics of WFB will only last so long, if anything I'd argue we should be tapping into Total Warhammer hype, people want a tabletop version of that that GW isn't delivering (and didn't really deliver with 8th edition either). I also think that WFB wasn't so much good enough for nearly everyone but simply the only option for most gamers, there was no KoW or 9th age, GW basically had a monopoly for years, so that choice of what people actually wanted was never really tested.

      Side note: I have a friend who was a redshirt when Total Warhammer was released and he had soooooooo many new customers come in to ask about it, and he had to try and sell them AoS instead....it didn't work lol.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by My_Kin ().

    • a friend thought about the following thing :
      Regarding T9A wanting 3 playstyle possible why not having something more like (now that i think about it) OK with names.
      Giving our general a title empowering not a unit but a playstyle/army.
      Like :

      Master tactician :
      - refo without muso, +1adv, swiftstride, refo after getting charged or things like that

      Champion of the queen :
      - accurate, ap, qtf and so on

      King Duelist :
      - lightning reflexes, other bonuses focused on fight abilities army wide.

      Canreig scholar :
      - RM, dispell/casting bonus ...

      Maybe a cav/monster title

      Any other idea is welcome, i am only trying to think a bit outside the box.

      A lord lead his own army, trained his way. Seems fitting in a way as "prone by exemple". This would also empower 1 thing in the army, leaving little possibility to play anything else than "the army following his leader", reducing problematic of bowline.

      Any thought ?
    • Kopistar wrote:

      a friend thought about the following thing :
      Regarding T9A wanting 3 playstyle possible why not having something more like (now that i think about it) OK with names.
      Giving our general a title empowering not a unit but a playstyle/army.
      Like :

      Master tactician :
      - refo without muso, +1adv, swiftstride, refo after getting charged or things like that

      Champion of the queen :
      - accurate, ap, qtf and so on

      King Duelist :
      - lightning reflexes, other bonuses focused on fight abilities army wide.

      Canreig scholar :
      - RM, dispell/casting bonus ...

      Maybe a cav/monster title

      Any other idea is welcome, i am only trying to think a bit outside the box.

      A lord lead his own army, trained his way. Seems fitting in a way as "prone by exemple". This would also empower 1 thing in the army, leaving little possibility to play anything else than "the army following his leader", reducing problematic of bowline.

      Any thought ?
      Think it's an interesting idea, do you mean something like what DE have or more comprehensive?
    • Kopistar wrote:

      a friend thought about the following thing :
      Regarding T9A wanting 3 playstyle possible why not having something more like (now that i think about it) OK with names.
      Giving our general a title empowering not a unit but a playstyle/army.
      Like :

      Master tactician :
      - refo without muso, +1adv, swiftstride, refo after getting charged or things like that

      Champion of the queen :
      - accurate, ap, qtf and so on

      King Duelist :
      - lightning reflexes, other bonuses focused on fight abilities army wide.

      Canreig scholar :
      - RM, dispell/casting bonus ...

      Maybe a cav/monster title

      Any other idea is welcome, i am only trying to think a bit outside the box.

      A lord lead his own army, trained his way. Seems fitting in a way as "prone by exemple". This would also empower 1 thing in the army, leaving little possibility to play anything else than "the army following his leader", reducing problematic of bowline.

      Any thought ?
      This comment make me think about the great Manga named Kingdom where you can find different type of General. Love the idea :D
    • So here is the battle report i did Saturday with a Friend.
      Size : 4500
      Scenario : Spoils of War
      Deployment : Refused Flank

      Orc & Goblins list :
      --- Characters ---
      440 - Feral Orc Warlord, General, Shady Shanking (50), Pan of Protection Pinchin' (40), Troll Ale Flask (30), War Cry!, Paired Weapons, Bow (4+)
      445 - Feral Orc Shaman, Talisman of the Void (50), Wizard Master, Thaumaturgy
      --- Core ---
      315 - 20x Crossbow Orcs, Musician
      390 - 25x Feral Orcs, Paired Weapons (25), Musician, Standard Bearer, Green Tide
      780 - 30x Feral Orc 'Eadbashers, Spear (30), Musician, Standard Bearer, Green Tide
      --- Special ---
      835 - 30x Iron Orcs, Musician, Standard Bearer, Mikinok's Totem
      150 - Orc Boar Chariot
      150 - Orc Boar Chariot
      133 - 6x Common Goblin Raiders
      207 - 3x Bridge Trolls
      --- Death from Above ---
      190 - Catapults - Splatterer with Orc Overseer
      --- Big 'n Nasty ---
      465 - Great Green Idol, Battle Standard Bearer
      --- Total ---
      4 500

      HBE list :
      --- Characters ---
      595 - Prince (250), General, High Warden of the Flame (105), Warden of the Blue Flame (55), Heavy Armour (15), Highborn Armour (20), Spear (5), Silver of the Blazing Dawn (100), Protection of Dorac (45)
      620 - Commander (150), Battle Standard Bearer (50), Sky Sloop (280), Heavy Armour (10), Highborn Armour (15), Shield (5), Lance (10), Nova Flare (100)
      565 - Mage (225), Master (150), Asfad (90), Pyromancy, Book of Meladys (100)
      --- Core ---
      520 - 25 Citizen Spears (370), Heavy Armour (50), Musician(20), Standard Bearer(20), Navigator's Banner (75)
      304 - 14 Citizen Archers (228), Moonlight Arrows (56), Musicien(20)
      304 - 14 Citizen Archers (228), Moonlight Arrows (56), Musicien(20)
      --- Special ---
      625 - 19 Flame Wardens (510), Musician(20), Standard Bearer(20), War Banner of Ryma (60)
      100 - Giant Eagle (100)
      --- Queen's Bows ---
      511 - 14 Queen's Guard, Musician(20), Standard Bearer(20), Banner of Becalming (70)
      --- Naval Ordnance ---
      180 - Sea Guard Reaper
      180 - Sea Guard Reaper

      Magic :
      O&G : Thaumaturgy H, 2, 5, 6
      HBE : Pyromancy H, 3, 4, 6 (with Asfad i also have 6'' additional range)

      Here is the Reconstitution of the battle. I advise you to keep that open when you are reading the comments
      drive.google.com/file/d/1SYvKV…qqMANs-6/view?usp=sharing

      Deployment :
      My opponent had the choice to start the deployment and he decided to put everything on the table to begin first.
      My game plan was to use a maximum of shoots before the start of the close phase. So i put my mage, my 2CA and 2 SGR behind the aquatic terrain at more than 30'' from his troops (if if he want to rush me, he have to make his troops in range from mine and i possibly has to never move mine (shootings).
      The GE and the commander on Sky sloop (CSS) was disposed behind the house to prevent them for being shooted by the catapult. The GE could be used at late game to chaff at last time, so I planned to let him here 4 turns. The CSS and Flame warden was disposed on the flank to make some pressure and force my opponent to do some choice between rushing straight forward or to move in one of those direction to not be flanked.
      The second purpose of the Flame warden was to take the secondary objective at turn 1. I did some calcs and with the Prince on this unit, i only fear the Iron Orcs Blocs with the Mikinok's Totem (canceling my spear). But you will see that it was finally my biggest mistake... (i feel stupid acting that way afterward... )

      Turn 1 O&G
      Without any surprise he move straight forward with all of his troops. At the magic phase i canceled Wrath of God, and my opponent was able to cast Smite the Unbeliever on my Citizen Spears (-1 Resilience) to prepare a shoot with the catapult. He missed the catapult shoot but succeed to hit the deviation. At 9A S2 0AP i lost only one CS (thank to HBE Armor + HA, without this it was more likely to be 2).

      Turn 1 HBE
      I move my FW straight forward by 9,5'' to take the objective.
      At shooting my CSS did 2 wounds on his boar chariot, the combination from Magic fire and Shoots did 7 wounds on trolls (was a big mistake, see turn 2) and 4 wounds to the Feral Orcs.

      Turn 2 O&G
      My opponent used his single model troll to chaff me (i shouldn't have killed 2, i just free up some extra movement that way... without that mistake he couldn't chaff me this way).
      At his attempt to magic he used all his dice to launch Wrath of God. He did 6 6 6 6 3... destroying he own mage. The spell didn't hit the ground but was well placed enough to not let me escape his aura at the next turn.

      Turn 2 HBE
      I charged his troll (no choice, i couldn't step back, still on his charge range). I also advanced my CS to prepare something in conjunction with the CSS.
      I managed to kill some orcs (killed one OBC with the CSS ranged attack) at ranged.
      The destruction of the OBC make his GR flee.

      Turn 3 O&G
      I got charged by one OBC and the death star IO. Even without the spear the Blue flame Honor + Dorac could still make me survive, but he succeed to hit everything 5/5 on 4+ (he also had LR). Then i missed 3 Aegis save and get killed . Before dying, I managed to do 1 wound to his General. The OBC managed to do 7 impact hit and managed to do 7 wounds as well (thanks to the Great green idol), i missed 5 out of 7 Aegis save, managed to kill 3 IO with the FW and the IO did kill 5 more of my FW. Worst FIGHT EVER (for me) !
      IO then take the second objective token and failed to catch me during the fleeing process.

      During the shooting phase, my opponent did a War Machine incident resulting in not being able to use it during the rest of the game.

      Turn 3 HBE
      I was losing so hard at that point, that i had no choice to try something crazy with my Commander on sloop + my CS and Charged the 30 Feral Orc 'Eadbashers (the illustration is wrong, OE and FO has been inverted)
      During my magic Phase the comet Stroke and killed almost all my backline and 8 of my spearman (the illustration is wrong about that sorry)
      Killing a total of 30 elves 1 SGR and 2 wounds on the last one. OUCH
      During the magic phase i managed to launch the flaming sword spell on my CS.
      My own shoots did nothing that turn (maybe killed 1 or 2 crossbowman)

      The managed to win the close against FO but my opponent was steadfast and managed to not flee.

      Turn 4 o&G
      The rest of my FW got charged and destroyed, his OE got destroyed by the commander and his spear (i used the unique effect that could let me charge again) and the CS (only 5 of them were alive at the end of this fight). He flew and has been catched by the CS. The css reformed himself to be ready to charge the Crossbowman.

      Turn 4 HBE
      I prepared my GE to my Left flank to be ready to do one chaff, my CS rush toward the token (Secondary objective)
      During the magic phase i managed to get one Flaming sword in aura to my whole shooting squad. Thanks to that, i did 2 wounds on the boar chariot and 3 on the OE unit.

      Turn 5 O&G
      My opponent did a big mistake here, he moved his green idol in front of his IO (chafing them) instead of covering the potential escape path i could use for my archers.

      Turn 5 HBE
      I used my GE to chaff is GGI, at that moment, if i could kill the OBC (2 wounds left) none of his unit could reach my backline. Thanks GE.
      I used one of CA to rush at the token for the secondary objective t6 (i was wrong, Spoil of war give you the token only if you have it at the beginning of your turn, not at the the end. So i missed the secondary objective by not moving them sooner. )
      But the 5 CS managed to get it ^^. I also moved a bit my commander to prepare a potential last charge at the last turn.
      During the shooting phase i focus everything to kill the Boar chariot and got it.
      My SGR managed to also kill 4 wolf but he succeed his panic test)

      Turn 6 O&G
      Second big mistake from my opponent. He thought that his General could kill mine or disuad me from charging his unit by putting him in it (after his reformation). He also killed my chaff.

      Turn 6 HBE
      My CA moved to get the objective (but like i stated before this was a mistake)

      I charged his General with my commander on Sloop for the most intense fight of the game. i had 5A at 2+ 3+ lethal strike, divine attacks + 1D6 impact hit from the chariot at S5 + 2 A from birds to remove his last 2 HP. I did it and his troops inflict me a total of 3HP.

      End of the game.
      My opponent got 2422 points (1420 from Flame warden + general) and i got 2754.
      The end result is the 11-9 for me.
      That was a great game and we both had a lot of pleasure playing it.

      Some thought about the modifications of the Book
      My opponent had 80% of attacks with S5, so the HBE armor was useful only against one deviation shoot of the catapult. His crossbowman were always behind tree and at long range, so they did nothing no matter armor or not. The HBE armor was useless on FW too and i had the feeling of playing an overpriced unit in this game.
      So concerning this armor i think that we have to remove it from the FW, this unit was already fine and adding more points to this unit is pretty useless and can be seen as a nerf (the Aegis 4+ is normally good enough).

      Concerning the +2 ap on CA, i didn't had time to use it... The only unit that had armor was the IO and i didn't had the occasion to shoot them so in this battle it is like a also nerfed them by increasing their points ahaha.

      The modification that has the most shine in this game was the option for a commander to take the sloop without the crappy honor... OMG so much time i have waited to play this unit. And i loved it. The fact that he is a flying unit make immune to redirection, he is useful at ranged (4A 1+ S5 AP3 is so awesome to use) and has impact hits. Definitely love this unit.
      Concerning this guy, i had made the choice of trying the nova flare at 100 pts (the modification was +1A) and it was pretty awesome at doing his job. But picking this item make him ultra offensive without real defense and i could have died realy easily by a lot of thing at close or at distance (catapult with broken wings). If i had to test him again i would probably test Start Metal Alloy in conjunction with some defensive item.

      Unfortunately i didn't had the opportunity to test out correctly the High Warden of the Blue Flame (because i got one shotted) nor the Dorac Protection ;( .

      After the game I directly through discussing about the availability of a character on sloop without FO on this thread. And also about the Nova flare at 100 pts. What do you guys think about it ?

      Thanks to all that had the patience of reading this all ;) (sorry for my grammar or my orthograph, not my native language)
    • this book must be changes, in the last big tournament in spanish 0 Hbe playes, if we make a statistics we will see that HbE have mani problems:

      - units have so high price cost
      - objective are so much complicate with HbE

      a last thing:

      6 Knights of the Quest @ 270 Pts
      The Blessing; Questing Oath; Heavy Armour; Shield; Lance Formation
      6 Warhorse @ [0] Pts


      6 Knights of Ryma @ 414 Pts
      Lance; Dragonforged Armour; Shield; Musician
      6 Elven Horse @ [0] Pts

      it's balanced for you?
    • Manticora wrote:

      this book must be changes, in the last big tournament in spanish 0 Hbe playes, if we make a statistics we will see that HbE have mani problems:

      - units have so high price cost
      - objective are so much complicate with HbE

      a last thing:

      6 Knights of the Quest @ 270 Pts
      The Blessing; Questing Oath; Heavy Armour; Shield; Lance Formation
      6 Warhorse @ [0] Pts


      6 Knights of Ryma @ 414 Pts
      Lance; Dragonforged Armour; Shield; Musician
      6 Elven Horse @ [0] Pts

      it's balanced for you?
      that´s like for a salat i pay less then for a Wagyu steak.

      This booth units are trealy different to each other.

      Lets bring it together:

      6 Knights of the Quest:
      - 6+ Aegis 5+ if strength 5 and give away first turn
      - + 1 to hit against models with fear
      - Great weapon can be used as light lance in first turn
      - strike on agi 0
      - 6 Knights = 6 attacks , agi 0 , strength 6 , AP 2 , Off 4, DEf 4 + 6 attacks agi 3, Strength 3, off 3 ,def 4
      . Devasting charge +1 Strength + 1 Ap for horses
      - Res 3
      - AS 2+ in CC 3+
      -Movement 8/16
      -Dis 8




      6 Knights of Ryma
      - Aegis 6 + / 2+ against fire
      - + 1 to hit
      - Strike on agi 6
      - 6 Knights 0 6 Attacks , Agi 6 , Strength 4/6 , AP 1/3 , Off 5 , Def 5 + 6 attacks agi 4 , Strength 3 , Off 3
      - Devasting charge + 1 attack ( Knights)
      - Res 3
      - AS 2+
      - Movement 9/18
      - Discipline Tests, other than Break or Panic Tests,are subject to Minimised Roll.
      - Dis 9

      Lets look now Ryma have better Off , Def , Better rules ( always + 1 to hit against only against Fear for example) , same Aegis save against flaming way better , better movement , on charge more attacks. Way more faster in CC , higher dis and higher ap on charge.

      Only + for Questies are always higher strength.

      And al this + are only for 144 points more.

      I don´t say price is right , i could agree booth units need to be cheaper but difference of points seams okay if not realy good for ryma Knights.

      And that´s why never compare two units with different jobs on each other.

      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
    • KoE vs HBE. The ultimate showdown.
      Who is hated more by the project?
      Find out tonight!
      See it live both here and in the main HBE discussion thread, with guest speaker marcos24 :P
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      KoE vs HBE. The ultimate showdown.
      Who is hated more by the project?
      Find out tonight!
      See it live both here and in the main HBE discussion thread, with guest speaker marcos24 :P
      XD when i read your sentences i had the voice of the commentator on my head and this make me laugh ahaha

      No seriously this is like comparing two disable guys fighting in a wheelchair in an arena surrounded by Mike tysons ahaha
    • Edhelnaur wrote:

      XD when i read your sentences i had the voice of the commentator on my head and this make me laugh ahaha

      I'm glad you took the comment as it was intended :)
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      KoE vs HBE. The ultimate showdown.
      Who is hated more by the project?
      Find out tonight!
      See it live both here and in the main HBE discussion thread, with guest speaker marcos24 :P
      *Tinfoil hat equipped*
      DanT is secretly marcos24, and giving us all a taste of our own medicine
      The change in font size of this post is purely accidental: my phone is stupid, and I am too stupid to fix it.