Issue 8 - Loads of new 2.0 content: Profiles, Troop types and New Layouts

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.

  • Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's Up, Ninth Agers!!!
    In honor of a certain member's victory over in the US(1)

    It's summer time, and that means cooking up some burned offerings on the old BTS-BBQ.

    In this BTS edition we have a several choice items on the menu:
    • 2.0 Changes: Aim shot attribute
    • 2.0 Changes: Model Classifications (Troop Types)
    • 2.0 Changes: Model/Unit Profile & Layout
    • 2.0 Mock Duel: Sparkly Elf vs. Thug of the Dork Godz


    As you can see, this time we will focus fully on the core rulebook changes. Things are getting more ready and even the magic items and magic phase start to be at a point where we may see some appearances in upcoming BTS publications...who knows :whistling:

    In the previous BTS issues we have covered most of the character profile changes that will be introduced as part of the new rulebook version. Changes that aim to bring more depth of design to the new rulebook rules, which should also help to better represent specific unit flavours in the future redesigns. And today we are bringing you the last update on attributes: Aim Shot.

    Aim Shot Attribute

    In the current unit profiles all units have an attribute for ballistic skill, regardless of whether the unit is equiped with any ranged weapon. And when this is used, it is a very unintuitive value that requires mental calculations to finally determine what your roll to-hit will be. As the ballistic skill starts with a fixed value, that reduces design possibilities for units that have access to multiple ranged weapons and requires additional rules (i.e. multishot penalty) to balance certain weapons.

    Finally there is also the immersion point: Should units be equally skilled in firing any kind of ranged weapon? Certainly someone skilled in the use of pistols would not necessarily be skilled in using a bow. The skill should be related to the weapon used isn't it?

    So this is exactly what is happening in the upcoming update! Ballistic skill will be removed from the unit profile. Instead, when a model has access to ranged equipment, an aim shot(*) value will be indicated next to the option with the to-hit roll i.e. Bow(3+).
    (*)Note: "Aim Shot" naming is WIP could be updated in the final 2.0 rules release

    This will not only help reduce complexity in mental calculations to determine the to-hit value, but also allows to simplify the game by removing lexicon]Multiple shots[/lexicon] to-hit penalty and simply increase by one the Aim shot value with that weapon. For example, a skink chief may be equiped with javelin (3+) or blowpipe (4+).

    Other than this, the rest of the shooting modifiers are expected to remain affecting the final roll needed to hit: i.e. A unit with Bow(3+) will be hitting on 5+ if shooting at long range and the unit has moved this turn.

    For all practical purposes shooting will function as it does under 1.3 except that unnecessary complexity is removed, lowering the entry barrier for newer players without any loss in depth and strategy for veteran generals.

    For ease of use, at the end of the book there will be a quick reference table that will allow you to check what the aim score value is for your unit. Find below is a WIP representation of this:

    Model Classifications (former Troop Types)

    While some of the profile changes have helped remove some mental calculations by introducing a straight stat value, it is also recognised that the overall split of Movement, Weapon Skill and Strength-AP link will indroduce a slight added complexity to the game, as there will be more values to remember. Though acknowledged, it still felt the right thing to do to improve the game, as long as complexity can be reduced somewhere else. Troop types is one of such areas:

    In the current rulebook, the troop types section requires 5 pages of explanation, covering 11 different troop types, each with its own rules and exceptions, and even needs a summary tab at the end to wrap up all the concepts.

    In 2.0 definition of troop types are being redesigned into not more than one page and a half, making the rules much clearer, adding more flavour into it and making it more sexy!

    How is that even possible?
    In the new rulebook version, former troop types will become Model Classifications with two attributes: Size and Type

    • Size: Models can be of Standard, Large or Gigantic size and this will affect how Line of Sight (LoS) interacts in the new rulebook version (more on this on a future blog!). In addition, each size will now also define:
      • the models required to form full ranks
      • the number of supporting attacks
      • the number of dice for Dangerous terrain tests
      • Model special rules linked to the size
    • Type: Models can be of [lexicon]Infantry[/lexicon], Beast, [lexicon]Cavalry[/lexicon] or Construct type, with each type having related [lexicon]special rules[/lexicon] (i.e. [lexicon]Cavalry[/lexicon] has [lexicon]Swiftstride[/lexicon])
    Often times an image is worth more than a thousand words. This is one of such cases:
    *Note that rules names are not final and some of those will be explained in future blog (i.e. Head Over Shoulders, which by the way it is to be renamed to "A Head Taller" or similar)

    Based on the above, you can clearly associate that Ogres will become Large + Infantry and, therefore, will retain Stomp and form ranks with 3 models.

    An expert eye may also realise soon of the new design possibilities that this opens up. A Giant could become Gigantic + Infantry while a Rock Auroch would be Gigantic + Beast, making a clear distinction not only in Model classification rules (i.e. swiftstride), but also in immersion.

    Long gone will be the times where a Dwarven Steam Copter had to become "Cavalry"; the new Movement split attributes and Model Classification will allow to properly represent the model as a Standard + Construct with a higher March rate than Advance rate.

    A win-win

    How about character mounted combined profile?
    Easy.
    A couple of paragraphs will explain how this works:
    • Model Size, Type and Base size is determined by the mount
    • Ofensive characteristics: Rider and mount will each use their offensive characteristics (Offensive Skill, Strength, etc.)
    • Global Characteristics: Relate anything that is affecting all model parts of the model, and that is not defensive things that should not transfer between rider and gigantic mount.
    • Defensive characteristics: Defensive characteristics relate to the defensive skill, resistance, armour save, etc. of the model. If both the Character and the mount have a certain Global or Defensive Characteristic, the value of the Mount will be used, as per current rules.
    • Puny rider rule will ensure Rider's armour and defensive traits do not transfer to the model when mounting a Gigantic mount
    • How about Special rules? Each special rule that applies is described in the related Offensive, Deffensive and Global characteristics section.
    Very intuitive!

    Global traits: They are not only limited to things affecting dicipline and movement. They are basically anything that is affecting all model parts of the model, and that is not defensive things that should not transfer between rider and gigantic mount.
    For example: scoring, hold your ground, magic reistance, front rank, fear, engineer. These are all global rules that has little to do with either discipline or movement.

    Oh, wait...this is the first time we talk about the Profile split into Ofensive, Defensive and Global characteristics, right? Then there is a lot more we have to talk about today...


    Model/Unit Profile & layout

    As many of you may have realised of by this stage, the number of additional profile characteristics have required a review of the unit entry layout profiles.

    In the same spirit of improving the game, the layout tem have not just limited themselves to find an acceptable layout, but also have gone the extra mile to find a composition that facilitates quick identification not only of the attributes, but also of the special rules.
    The layout examples we are showing you below are still in WIP, but we were so excited with them that we couldn't wait showing you.

    Expect some little improvements here and there between this version and the version you will see in the release of 2.0. So please, treat the below layout and special rules names as WIP. Also, bear in mind that the profiles, points and rules ARE NO INDICATION of what it may end up being in 2.0. Any image displayed in this section is purely for the purposes of showcasing the Layout

    The new layout profile will have updated attribute profile names and 3 clearly identified sections:

    For ease of reference, the table below provides a summary of the new characteristic names:
    Display Spoiler


    New Attribute NameOld Attribute NameTraitDescription
    Advance Rate (Ad)MovementGlobalMovement charactreristic used for Advance move and Charge.
    Same use as in 1.3
    March Rate (Ma)Movement * 2GlobalUsed for March move distance. i.e. 16" March Rate
    Replaces old mechanic of 2xM (or 3xM for Dwarves).
    Makes rules like "cannot march" now obsolete, value is in profile
    Discipline (Di)LeadershipGlobalSame use as in 1.3
    Defensive Skill (Df)Weapon Skill (split)DefenseUsed as the weapon skill value when your unit is receiving an attack.
    Split of Weapon skill
    Resistance (Re)ToughnessDefenseSame use as in 1.3
    Armour Save (AS)Armour Save
    (not in profile)
    DefenseBase armour value is now represented in profile
    Special Saves (Sp)Special Saves
    (not in profile)
    DefenseSame use as in 1.3
    In profile, only non-conditional Ward/Regen saves will be listed.
    Rest in special rules
    Health Points (HP)WoundsDefense Same use as in 1.3
    Offensive Skill (Of)Weapon Skill (split)OffenseUsed as the weapon skill value when your unit is attacking.
    Split of Weapon skill
    Strength (St)StrengthOffenseSame use as in 1.3
    Now it does not increase Armour Penetration
    Armour Penetration (AP)Armour Piercing (split)
    (not in profile)
    OffenseSame use as in 1.3
    Now not affected by Strength anymore, AP becomes an attribute on its own
    Attack Value (At)AttacksOffenseSame use as in 1.3
    Agility (Ag)InitiativeOffenseSame use as in 1.3
    Not in profile (Aim Shot)Ballistic Skill-Ballistic skill disappears.
    Aim shot value defined per each weapon as the value needed to hit i.e. Bow (3+)
    Normal shooting to-hit modifiers apply, except Multiple shots which is removed





    Each Unit entry will be composed of 3 areas: Header, Traits and Unit Options:
    1. Unit Header:
      • Here you will find the unit name, army categories, points size, scoring icon, Model classification (Size and Type), base size and unit army-building restrictions that may apply
    2. Traits (Attributes and Special Rule):
      • Profile attributes will be split into 3 Traits: Global, Defense-related traits and Offense-related traits
        • Global Traits: Attributes and special rules related not only to movement and leadership, but also to anything that is affecting all model parts of the model, and that is not defensive things that should not transfer between rider and gigantic mount.
        • Defense Traits: Attributes and special rules related to a units defense, those are the ones you will look at when your units are being attacked. And now the profile will directly include the base Armour and Special Saves!
        • Offense Traits: Attributes and special rules related to each model parts attacks. When a unit has multiple parts that may attack (i.e. a chariot) you will find one line with each set of attributes and the model part name on the left-side and the related model part special rules on the right. No more doubts on which special rules affect which model part, all that will now be crystal clear straight from the profile
      • [lexicon]Special rules[/lexicon] will no longer be listed at the bottom, but instead on within the related Global / Defense / Offense section, on the right.
      • This should make it much easier for you to identify which [lexicon]special rules[/lexicon] affect which roles/actions, specially for those army books you may be less familiar with!
    3. [lexicon]Unit[/lexicon] options:
      • Small changes here, only visual improvements. This section will continue to list the optional upgrads for a unit, like command group or different equipment options, as well as unit-specific special rules descriptions. It is in this section where you will find the Aim Shot value, next to each ranged weapon option
    Without further ado, this is a WIP sample of the new layout!
    • Single profile:

    • Combined profile:


    As you can see, despite the split into 3 profile sections, the layout team have managed to make the design more compact, the special rules clearly identify the profile area and rolls it will affect, and it overall feels more elegant (or should I say sexy!?). And in case anyone is still doubting on whether is better or not, here you can see the same Razortusk Chariot entry in current 1.3 rulebook...


    See, a really high elf never lies ;)


    Mock Duel - Sparkly Elf vs. Thug of the Dork Godz
    by Tins

    As a way of tying the 2.0 changes in stats & the new charts together, I thought it might be fun to have a little character duel between the WotDG @Kathal & HbE @Calcathin using characters in the low-points range.Alas, one failed to submit an entry, and the other broke the points budget (and rules) so that left it up to me to create both characters - my apologies to both factions for the sub-optimal builds. The goal is informative entertainment here.Note, the equipment is from 1.3, but there will be some very exciting changes coming there in 2.0 as well...The duel can be read in two style: Narrative or Mechanics, both in spoiler form.

    Narrative Duel:
    Display Spoiler

    The Commander reached out to the rigging as the clipper came amidships the woefully outclassed longboat. Without hesitation he leapt over the rail down to the deck far below, despite being clad in full mail. Upon hearing the heavy landing sternwards, two brutish Åsklander oarsmen rose to intercede but were dispatched before their hands had even reached their holstered axes.

    “Come you prancing fop!” roared their Chief from the tiller. He was a wreck of a human, scarred & bloated with scurvy & weeping boils. His armor seemed to be made of antiquated plates of rust, while in his hands he carried a colossal two-handed maul, stained with elven blood

    As the Commander ventured to attack, he was almost overcome by the putrid stench of the unwashed filth, but with a focus born of generations, he mastered himself and crushed his father’s venture-gift for luck. The shard shattered into dozens of painful splinters, but with agony also came the razor-sharp clarity that lies just beyond the limits of mortal ken. This duel would be brief - he knew it in his bones.

    The Åsklander Chief heaved, swinging his weapon high over his shoulder, but that was more than enough time for the Commander to make three agile slashes against the man’s neck, groin, and hamstring.

    It was to no avail however. Incredibly the oaf had managed to avoid becoming emasculated, and the crumbling plates had turned away the deathblow to the jugular, merely leaving him crippled in one bleeding leg.

    “My turn!” boomed the Chief and the maul came down like the fury of the Ancestors themselves, splintering the deck in a thunderous crash and lodging itself in the timbers under its own ponderous weight. To one side, the unharmed Commander cocked his head slightly and smiled sardonically “To err is to be human indeed” he mused aloud as he closed the distance for the coup de grâce.

    But instead of shying from the deathblow, the barbarian released his weapon and wrapped both arms around the stunned elf in a grotesque embrace, bearing the two of them down to the shattered deck under his considerable bulk. With their arms locked together, the stinking mouth opened wide and a torrent of putrid bile erupted onto the hapless Commander. His last shocked thoughts as his eyes melted under the acid were of the strangely sweet scent of burning flesh, the musical bubbling of dissolving steel, and the sucking sound of his own organs as the air rushed inside.


    Mechanics Duel:
    Vomit Barbarian Chief (v1.3 profile)
    Barbarian Chief;Mark of Pestilence; Necrotic Miasma Gift; Great Weapon (+2 Strength, +2 Armor Penetration)Bronze Breastplate; Lucky Stone. 253pts

    Ginsu Seppuku Elf
    Commander; Halberd (+1 Strength, +1 Armor Penetration), Mithril Mail; Shard of Cenyrn. 256pts


    Round 1 starts and order of all attacks is determined by looking at the Agility in offense profiles and related rules. In this duel, the barbarian chief will attack first with Agility 10 Necrotic Miasma, followed by the Elf commander Agility 7 attacks. The Barbarian chief will swing with his Great Weapon at Agility 0 and declares the use of the Breath weapon at Base Agility 4 (5-1) - except we reversed it: artistic license!

    Display Spoiler

    • Necrotic miasma, at Agility 10, causes a Strength 1 AP6 attack. We check at the Defense profile of the elf to determine the rolls. Defensive skill is ignored, as the miasma causes an auto-hit, therefore only Resilience 3 applies. The hit requires a roll of 6 to wound and fails (Roll:5)

    • The High Elf commander attacks go next, at Agility 7. His offensive weapon skill is compared to the Defensive weapon skill of the Barbarian chief. Additionally, the Lightning Reflexes rule next to the Offensive traits of the elf indicates the model has a +1 to hit. In the same way, the Mark of pestilence from the Barbarian chief in the Defensive traits indicates a -1 to hit penalty. As a result, the elf hits on 3s. He rolls poorly (2,1,2) and decides to use his Shard of Cenyrn to gain re-rolls (3,5,1), causing two hits. Comparing Strength with the Halberd bonus (+1S) vs Resistance, the elf manages two successful rolls to wound. The barbarian chief has a 5+ Armour save in his defensive trait, and the elf has a total of AP2 (profile + Halberd). The chief, however, has activated the Bronze Breastplate for a 1-turn 1+ AS. The Chief manages one save (4,1) and the lucky shield saves the fail with a re-roll (5); however, shard of Cenyrn forces a re-roll on the successful armour save, which is failed (2).
    vs
    • At Agility 4 (5-1) the Barbarian activates his Breath Weapon, rolling 9 hits of Strength 3 AP6 which successfully wound the elf 4 times (1,5,3,3,1,4,2,6,5). The High Elf commander dies after losing his 3 Health Points lost.
    • The barbarian chief would then strike at Agility 0 with his Great weapon. However, the elf commander is already dead. (In the narrative we considered it as if he was striking at normal initiative because it made it flow better, having first the hit miss to only then grab the commander by the neck and devastating him with a breath of putrefaction.)


    We hope you have enjoyed this BTS blog issue, and as a little present, we will include below for your enjoyment some more snapshots of full layout pages.

    Just remember that is only layout we are displaying here, rules, profile and costs do not necessarily reflect what will land in 2.0.
    Also remember that this is still WIP Layout, and various little improvements could be expected before the 2.0 release.Enjoy and see you in the next publication! And leave us your comments about the layout HERE

    Layout full-page: Characters:

    Layout full-page: Special units

    Layout full-page: More Special units:


    We would like to very specifically acknowledge the contribution of the Layout team into this publication, for the really good work done by the team in the last months, so that it was ready to be shared to all of you in this BTS publication.

    Please join us in giving the Layout team a big "Thank You!"

    Do you feel you have a skillset that could help produce and improve our rulebooks layout? Do you want to be part of producing something that will be enjoyed by all T9A players around the wold? If the answer to those questions is yes, and you would like to join T9A Layout team, please send a PM to @Shlagrabak and @Eru

    You can leave us your feedback on the 2.0 rules changes and new layouts here: BTS Blog - Issue 8 Discussion Thread.
    We want to hear from you!

    (1) @Warboss Tooth just won Buckeyes Battles. He usually start his content videos with a characteristic (and loud ) "Huuuuuuu-What's going on, Youtube?!".ase
    Always a Highborn Elf, here or somewhere else
    The HbE Hotfix- My view

    7,514 times read

Comments 60

  • Vulgarsty -

    Love the replacement of bs with an aim value. V neat. However whilst i am already on board with the new stats i think they would still work best in one line rather than 3. If they mudt be 3 then i think offensive seems more natural to come before defensive

  • Calcathin -

    @Rhaen Yes, you would just go with the multiple shots which anyway was the superior option (statistically speakin) in most situations.
    @zulu you are right, but at the same time is a way of showing that 2.0 will not suddenly change all the profiles. The tool to allow splitting it will be there for new armybooks and units being redesigned, but the rest of the units are not expected to change for 2.0; only when the respective book is redesigned. That is done to keep control on the scope of the changes and not just opening everything up

  • Arturius -

    A big THANK YOU to the Layout Team ! :)

  • Rhaen -

    So with to-hit baked into ranged weapons and the penalty from multishot going away, does that mean that taking single shots is now useless even in the very rare situation where it would avoid having to hit on 7's?

  • zulu -

    It is strange that you used an example where the difference in the split offensive/defensive attributes doesn't come into play (both these characters have the same offense defence).
    If this split will rarely effect combat I think it is an unnecessary complication. It seems like the game mechanic stays the same but we get 4 new attributes to remember?

  • Thurvack -

    Please, all the cavalry with horse with Thunderous Charge, Impact Hits(1), and a little drop in point cost..........

  • LoeC -

    The cavalry must have the rule " always hit at 4+". Easiest, faster, remembered and have sense because doesn´t matter the deffensive skill vs this type of kicks. Please somebody support this little change and make it arrive to the leadders ;) Please. Pd: Even disappear the mounts attacks and just Trampled/stomp. Is the perfect agile change.

  • PukiMan -

    The term Advance is fine as it is a Military action, still trying to get my head around how the combat goes though with th split Defensive and Offensive skills. Wouldnt it be better to provide an example with out any modifiers. Are we still consulting tables for Offence and Defence...,,then to hit..Could you provide a simpler scenario. I am very happy with the change to shooting. I think it makes it a lot simpler. Good job keep up the good work and the consultation.

  • eledh666 -

    Mmmm... it looks like these changes are redundant. I mean, they will be like they currently are but in a more difficult way: by splitting into more attributes. I like the idea of offensive and defensive attributes, I like the idea of separating Str from AP. However, the examples showed above make me think that we have the same behaviour but using more attributes. If these changes will be present, I hope that in the first version there will be a different behaviour for most troops and I expect that we will not have the same behaviour but with more attributes: I do not like the idea to keep things as they were in a more difficult way and make big changes on any new sub-version. Changes are promising, but they need to be reflected in the first version.

    • Rhaen -

      While not entirely sure what you mean by "behavior", the changes were made to increase the possibilities for making different types of kits for units, you can now have a unit that is defensive through high defensive weapon skill without making them stronger offensively etc...

  • zerocool -

    looking good. Only a minor remark: Naming. Some names are cool some need to be revisited. I mean terrain walker instead of strider? C mon guys ! Sides that congrats on your hard work !

  • Hombre de Mundo -

    I will add to the characteristics naming issue raised already:

    Advance Rate is not a good name. When you get the question: "what does that mean?", you explain it by saying "it's how far they move". Then it should just be called Move or Movement. Attack Value is also a bit silly. Why add "value"? "Attacks" describes the characteristic perfectly.

    I'm also a bit concerned with offensive and defensive skill. While it gives units the ability to be stronger in attacking than defending (which is nice, don't get me wrong), how often will these differ? Same with March Rate, how often will that be something other than Movement*2? Because if it's like two units in each army then it's just another Characteristic you've added that we will rarely use but oftentimes will need to double check because we want to make sure the dice rolls are correct, for an effect that is easily solved with special rules for the affected units only (eg +1 to hit, +1 to march).

    Other than that, I also want to say that most of these changes do look good, especially the shooting one. Keep it up!

  • Klingsoer -

    I don´t understand these changes. They make a complicated game even more unnecessary complicated (remembering 4 more stats and try to remember whether they are diferent or relevant or not) and brings seldom something relevant to the game. In my area only the die hard tournament players are left - all fluff gamers have abandoned ship and they won´t come back for more (in my eyes) useless complexity which is not relevant to the game. In my view all these changes are motivated primarily "to be different" and not to be "better for the game" - if for IP sake the Names had to be changed, for gods sake change them and call it a day.

  • Phosphorus -

    Hmmm, I am a little bit disapointed on how AP (Armor Penetration) is handled. As far as I see not much has changed. Str. 4 models seem to have AP 1 ..and Models with Str. 5 have AP 2 (just like before, Str. 4/5 would reduce As -1/-2.
    Same thing with weapons...Greatweapons seem to grant Str +2 and AP 2.

  • Sander -

    Looks very good! Like the layouts, unit type simplification and the way BS is now handled. Keep up your very good work!

  • Casp -

    I am globally happy with all this changes, but i agree with some comment; the name change are not really the best you can do i think.
    I will copy paste here what i say in the staff coffe:

    Splitting characteristic was already a choice that add a lot of complexity at least in appearance into the game, and will be welcome codly by a lot of player without any doubt.

    So maybe you could try to make an effort in the characteristic name, to not add more complexity/change that needed ?

    AR/MR Di HP DS To AS Ag/Av Os ST/Ap

    Look really complex in my opinion. too much A , S, maybe D.

    If you addition all change together: Name and abreviation change, Order change, and charac split. It become really confusing.

    You could:
    -Change only name if its absolutly needed,
    -Choose name in one word if possible
    -Do not choose two name with the first same letter to get a one letter abreviation if possible

    It would reduce the impact of this characteristic change...
    And it will be more easy to say and by consequence more easy to learn.
    Visual memory works better, and auditive too if its short and distinct.

    For exemple just to try get less same first letter, and less change name when not needed,
    this would seems more familiar and more easy to learn:
    M/R= move/run
    L= Leadership
    W: wounds
    Ds: Defensive skill
    T: Toughness
    As: Armour save
    I/A: ini+attacks
    Os: Offensive skill
    S/Ap: Strengh + armour piercing

  • Calcathin -

    @Teowulf will be based on the Longbow aim shot value of the character

  • Teowulff -

    How is Aim Shot supposed to work with magic bows? Like HbE's Great Bow of Elu: will everyone wielding it have the same Aim Shot value?
    Or will every character able to take magic bows get the addition "may take magic bows (2+)", for example, where a prince gets 0+, a commander 1+ and a champion 2+?

    • Wargo -

      I think it will work for each ranged weapon type: Bow(+2) it will work on mundane and magic bows

  • Odoamar -

    Barbarian can't use Lucky Shield, he used Lucky Stone :) little mistake but everyone know how it should work.

  • Bogeyman -

    Glade to see some changes but a little concerned about the "aim shot" value. How do they intend to make it work with the characters ? Playing SE, does my Forest Lord will have a aim shoot of -2 due to his previous BS9 ??
    Anyways, good job guys, I'm really excited :D

  • Calcathin -

    @Beerbeard:
    - 25mm wide & Horde: can not disclose yet more details on rewording of the horde rule, but it will not be an issue with 25mm
    - Memorizing stats & Cards: we are working on the Quick reference sheet still, so I can't give you more details yet. Printing profile and making them as cards will now be more feasible due to how it looks&feels now as well as it being more compact. Not sure if official cards are in the short-term pipeline (don't think so) but wouldn't completely rule it out. We'll see.
    - Related to Bow values, have you seen the quick reference sheet for shooting values? it has all there quite easily reachable
    - Will come back to you on swarms, it was discussed but can't remember now

  • matrim -

    I like it. It will take a bit to get used to but in general BRAVO.
    I am happy with the way split profile has been written:
    Move charge etc - look at global
    cc - use defense line when being attacked and offence line when attacking.
    Not that confusing just different but fresh.
    thanks

  • Mahlzeit -

    The changes are manifold, and therefore will be a big deal to remember. Before, we had a simple and pretty self-explanatory statline that made it clear very swiftly how one stat does affect the other. You compared WS against each other, then Strength against toughness, and so forth. Now there's like 4 new stats that no one's ever heard of and instead of making the game easier and run more smoothly, it'll increase the amount of time needed to get accustomed with it.

    Other than that, the layout seems tidier, but in direct comparison I'd say you could've removed a few empty paragraphs from the old armybook pages and call it a day.

    So far, the changes seem forced to attract a new playerbase rather than keeping the old one. There is no need to do most of this since there is no IP on the statline promoted by GW. And even if so, people are still buying models from GW because it's the best quality out there and T9A has given them the opportunity to play Warhammer. -Ish.

    Keen on seeing the new rules, don't see the necessity for the changes. It's actually not that hard for new players to learn using the statline we currently have.

  • JFB324 -

    Good job, but some things need an answear.

  • red_zebra_ve -

    hmmmm, starting to redesign my Excel sheets!

  • beerbeard -

    A few questions:

    1) How will 25mm bases be dealt with? Your chart doesn't deal with Horde width. Will that be a special rule?
    2) As it is now you have to memorize a single stat line to play quickly. Although I agree in concept with the new layout, memorizing it for a large army book is going to be challenging, especially for my old, drug addled mind. Maybe cards for units can be part of the system?
    3) Similarly, I can picture having 3 units each armed with a "Bow" and each having a different to hit number. See above for age and lost brain cell issues. Maybe change the entries in the chart to be "Goblin Bow," "Orc Bow," and "Heroic Bow."
    4) Swarms?

    I do like it. I'm fine with complexity, I don't play AoS or KoW for a reason. Maybe take a look at Fantasy Flight games for hints on how to handle making complex systems user friendly. Unit cards would go a long way, imho.

    Good work! Can't wait to see what else is coming.

  • Astadriel -

    Looks great ! Can't wait to upgrade my homebrew book unit stats as soon as the template is made available !

  • AlexHall -

    The change on ranged to-hit value is great. Well done!

    Love the unit size and type changes, bravo. That was messy and now it's elegant. Thank you.

    It's not all roses, though. Is there some reason you've got to monkey with the characteristic names? How is "advance rate" any better than "movement" or "agility" any better than "Initiative"? If the reason are legal I totally get it. If not, given so many changes, why make what appear to be superfluous ones? At the same time, who cares? They do the same things...

    That said, I do like the layout. Looks handy! It remains to be seen how that translates to army building applications. I think for all practical purposes, your new structure will get pressed into a single line again and the players will not benefit. I rarely, if ever, refer to the book for stats during a game. It's a good change but will rarely be utilized.

    Overall excited for the 2.0 roll out! Keep the good news coming!

    • Trillium -

      People who came to T9A after fall of WHFB do care.
      T9A's selling point was that its "WHFB with serial numbers sawed off". Don't get me wrong, T9A is awesome on its own, but that's less important than a clear selling point in the long run.
      Now that they are slowly losing resemblance to WHFB, what will be their selling point?
      Fluff? Nah, its generic and bland on purpose. Models? No, while they have agreements with producers they make none of their own, and even those producers currently still make generic stuff, mostly. Balance and streamlining? Can't compete with KoW in that, simply by virtue of design model.

      T9A gotta keep as much outward resemblance to WHFB as possible. Otherwise it will become lost.

    • AlexHall -

      I came from WHFB since 6th ed. Why don't I care?

      "T9A's selling point was..." Perhaps it was but now that we're here; why should it remain so? Do you think a good long run selling point is an appeal to the few remaining players of an old yet beloved game? Also, speak for yourself on fluff. I'm enjoying what they've put out so far. KoW's is more vanilla, given its age. AoS is bonkers.

      I can name a few selling point against obvious competitors like KoW and AoS; customization and tactical depth. Given these changes, it still feels like WHFB when compared to either of these competitors so that remains a selling point but maybe less so soon.

  • Trains_Get_Robbed -

    I wish that you'd keep the system the same for thecti hit rolls.

    Having everything being a + to hit system now that shooting is or using a a chart is much easier than having to go back and forth between the two systems for close combat and shooting.

    My only complaint. That and that they're are far too many numbers that could be simplified with a simple /. Of and Def WS for example.

  • Trillium -

    I don't know why on Earth you consider that layout more elegant. It may seem more elegenat from developer perspective, but sure ain't from user one.
    Old unit profile is one line, that tells you most important things you needed to know.
    What we have now is another table. Even AoS managed to pack it all into one line, and you sure can do better than AoS (anyone can).

    Have you considered getting rid of Df and making ALL penalties to hit chance special rules?

  • al_s-t -

    Personally not a fan of the new troop types, don't see why that needed to change. And yeh some of the names are quite weak but accept this is a WIP