Logic of the army

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    yrtomin wrote:

    What unit are we talking about?
    Those are the changes that come to mind atm:-Telepathic Link's range halved, rendering it almost completely useless without a 50pt Discipline,
    -Raptor Spirit nerf, while it was still below Raptors and Alpha Carnos in pick rate,
    -Mounted Taurosaur's discipline being set to "C", making it unplayable (-2 with Priest, -1 with Captain),
    -Mounted Rhamphodon's +1 AS removal, so he lost completely against Alpha Pteradon since this was his only advantage,
    -Ancient's Pack Leader (+1 WS for unit) removal, Ancient vanished for a looong time,
    -Both Spearback (+1AP on Short OR +1hit +1wound vs Flying) and Salamander (regular flamethrower OR catapult with low S high AP) alternative upgrades removal - I admit one of these was insanely powerful but situational,..
    In the case of weapon beast, they also lost the skirmisher rule, and therefore the "hard target" rule. Also in the particular case of the Spearback, due to the Quick To Fire changes, it also lost the chance to stand and shoot under any circunstance. And on top of this, they have been becoming more expensive update after update, 10 p, the 5 p, etc etc
  • filosoraptor wrote:

    In the case of weapon beast, they also lost the skirmisher rule, and therefore the "hard target" rule. Also in the particular case of the Spearback, due to the Quick To Fire changes, it also lost the chance to stand and shoot under any circunstance. And on top of this, they have been becoming more expensive update after update, 10 p, the 5 p, etc etc
    Thank you. I actually forgot about skirmish they once had.


    I'm almost sure Guerilla is nerfed in every single patch: consistent point increase, blowpipe strength decrease (lmao), flamethrower changes/buffs that didn't affect salamanders, salamander range nerf, decrease of max models of weapon beasts (long ago), qtf+s&s as you mentioned which resulted in an overall nerf (gimmick lost its value and just became tiresome to play with) and so on.
    I'm exceptionally sad because that's my favorite play-style by far. :love:
  • I think from 1.1, 95% rules/point changes (not so much in points, but in mechanics and rules) we have been loosing and loosing... and the few gains we had where in exchange of something. Im not going one by one... but @Dancaarkiiel and some more have already made a list of things lost...

    we might do one of things gained... but I dont think I would exchange that for the things we lost 90% times.
    Remember you have 15% DISCOUNT in Resin Warfare catalogue with the code: WARGAMESADICTOS

    WARGAMES ADICTOS
    Youtube --> Wargames Adictos
    Facebook --> Wargames Adictos
    Instagram --> @WargamesAdictos
  • Pinktaco wrote:

    @DanT

    I don't see an issue in anything you have written. We're discussing a topic relevant to the OP, from my understanding.
    So feel free to continue.

    You say you aren't amused. Well..
    Realistically the book currently being worked on isnt done before the end of the year.
    So far everything has pointed to a 1-book/year process. I believe the team aims for more, but in truth I don't believe we'll see more than 2 beta books/year, and that's if everything goes as planned.
    I think I'D, DE and KoE are all lined up.
    So I wouldn't hold my breath for anything besides those until 2021.
    Personally I don't think the SA army is next in line, but I can always hope. If the teams can crank out 2 books/year we're talking about up to 6 years from 2021, so who knows what will happen.

    We always dream and hope the team can eventually produce 3-4 books/year, but this being a voluntary project I don't think the manpower is there.

    FYI the 5-7 year remake was a joke, but I'm also being realistic for the worst outcome ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Let me try to make some strictly factual statements, so I cannot upset anyone:
    • WotDG have been golded this year.
    • ID and DE have been started this year under the new process.
    • We still have 40% of 2019 left.


    Ok, fine, I also feel the need to make some further statements, let us hope the mods don't object:
    I don't think it is an unreasonable extrapolation to thus consider 3-4 books being started each year. With 12 left to start, that means 3-4 years for all of the books to be started. For any given book there is then a ~50% chance of it being started in the next 18-24 months.

    *Shrugs* but we just have to see how the new process pans out.
    I know that there are currently bottlenecks internally related to layout and design type issues, which may slow things down, but that can't be solved without people with the right skills volunteering.

    Jokes are funny, sure... but I think the amount of (mostly unreasonable) barbs directed at the project/staff, many of which are based on false information, deliberate distortions or half truths (not saying any of these apply to your comment necessarily), kinda kills the humour for me.

    Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    I'll digress a little bit. Is it even possible to make an exception to this whole design process for an entry there's something wrong with?
    I'm talking about one and only Thyro - if the most he can get is a price decrease, I'm not sure if we'll see him ever again until total book redesign.
    The only people that know the answer to that for sure are current RT. You would have to ask them, or get someone else to ask them.

    My prediction (and it is only a prediction/guess, and should be given no more weight than that) is no.
    I advocated for a handful of limited redesigns last September, but the consensus was against it.

    Now the position is even less favourable:
    Consider that we are in a freeze, that no two players agree on the list of "highest priority" redesigns (and probably all think their own army needs the most) and that the project is trying to get to the point where 4 LABs are running simultaneously.
    Doing any redesigns in this environment opens the door to significant arguments, backlash and disappointment, all whilst consuming project resources and taking focus away from the project's priorities.

    Maybe you don't care and want redesigns anyway. Maybe I even agree with you.
    But either way, one should recognise that this is a non-trivial decision and is not a choice without "cons".

    Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    filosoraptor wrote:

    In the case of weapon beast, they also lost the skirmisher rule, and therefore the "hard target" rule. Also in the particular case of the Spearback, due to the Quick To Fire changes, it also lost the chance to stand and shoot under any circunstance. And on top of this, they have been becoming more expensive update after update, 10 p, the 5 p, etc etc
    Thank you. I actually forgot about skirmish they once had.

    I'm almost sure Guerilla is nerfed in every single patch: consistent point increase, blowpipe strength decrease (lmao), flamethrower changes/buffs that didn't affect salamanders, salamander range nerf, decrease of max models of weapon beasts (long ago), qtf+s&s as you mentioned which resulted in an overall nerf (gimmick lost its value and just became tiresome to play with) and so on.
    I'm exceptionally sad because that's my favorite play-style by far. :love:
    Here's the thing, I don't think SA got any nerfs in their last update.
    Meaning that it is more than 12months since SA got any nerfs.
    If your argument is "stop nerfing SA", I think that ship has sailed.

    The project has said that there will be an update in Autumn, probably exclusively prices, and this will be driven by the data.
    So if SA are doing badly, they will get buffs.

    Zamo wrote:

    I think from 1.1, 95% rules/point changes (not so much in points, but in mechanics and rules) we have been loosing and loosing... and the few gains we had where in exchange of something. Im not going one by one... but @Dancaarkiiel and some more have already made a list of things lost...

    we might do one of things gained... but I dont think I would exchange that for the things we lost 90% times.
    Here's the thing... so has everyone else.
    T9a went through a difficult and complicated gestation period.

    You should consider 2.0 as the first real version of t9a, satisfying what founders/exb intend it to be.
    I would advise letting go of history, legacy and everything else.
    Just start with 2.0 as the game that t9a wants to be, if you like it you like it, if you don't you don't.

    To my recollection, SA have received no nerfs for more than 12months.
    And if they are underperforming, they can expect price decreases in the Autumn update.
    When their LAB is done, they will become a true t9a faction, that is coherent and reflects the background.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    To my recollection, SA have received no nerfs for more than 12months.
    And if they are underperforming, they can expect price decreases in the Autumn update.
    When their LAB is done, they will become a true t9a faction, that is coherent and reflects the background.
    That I 100% agree...

    I guess its just a shame that with current 9th age human resources books cant be updated/reviwed for issues to solve more often...

    Its a shame...but staff is not limitless.

    Although, this said, before these lasts 8-12 months, from 2-2,5 years... Im afraid directly or undirectly SA army has suffered more nerfs or undeserved nerfs than gains we got. Kinda thats the feeling I have and the feeling I see with more SA players and community. But I dont talk for everybody of course.

    What I can say is that now that I recently changed to WDGS after being playing only Lizardmen/SA for my hole life... I have so much more fun making lists and playing with wdgs... and that kinda annoys me a bit when my favorite army is SA.
    Remember you have 15% DISCOUNT in Resin Warfare catalogue with the code: WARGAMESADICTOS

    WARGAMES ADICTOS
    Youtube --> Wargames Adictos
    Facebook --> Wargames Adictos
    Instagram --> @WargamesAdictos
  • Zamo wrote:

    Although, this said, before these lasts 8-12 months, from 2-2,5 years... Im afraid directly or undirectly SA army has suffered more nerfs or undeserved nerfs than gains we got.
    I've seen this claim for many armies.

    Partly, my point is that I think this is a bad and strange choice of metric.
    The game and project has evolved soo much over that time.
    There are no meaningful benchmarks, and those that are meaningful are only instantaneously meaningful.

    I think now that t9a is gold, everyone should turn around, forget everything, then turn back to t9a and see it as a new game.
    I might make a general discussion post about this, because I think there are a lot of expectations, misconceptions and historical/legacy angst that serve no purpose other than to reduce players enjoyment.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Dancaarkiiel wrote:

    yrtomin wrote:

    What unit are we talking about?
    Those are the changes that come to mind atm:-Telepathic Link's range halved, rendering it almost completely useless without a 50pt Discipline,
    -Raptor Spirit nerf, while it was still below Raptors and Alpha Carnos in pick rate,
    -Mounted Taurosaur's discipline being set to "C", making it unplayable (-2 with Priest, -1 with Captain),
    -Mounted Rhamphodon's +1 AS removal, so he lost completely against Alpha Pteradon since this was his only advantage,
    -Ancient's Pack Leader (+1 WS for unit) removal, Ancient vanished for a looong time,
    -Both Spearback (+1AP on Short OR +1hit +1wound vs Flying) and Salamander (regular flamethrower OR catapult with low S high AP) alternative upgrades removal - I admit one of these was insanely powerful but situational,
    -Stygiosaur's Primordial/Primal Roar (one use only, Hatred) removal, also the only Conclave in the game that isn't actually Conclave,
    -And last but not least, infamous Thyro - both his upgrades were removed and replaced with Channel1 or 2D6 swarm attacks. Also a supposed blocker that has Disci6 w/o Fearless which means he has to be babysit 24/7 by both general AND bsb.

    I do understand some reasons for those changes:
    Too strong i.e. spearbacks upgrade vs Flying,
    Didn't go well with Army's "ASAW" i.e. Roar and 1st turn damage,
    Streamlining/making rules easier i.e. Thyro,
    But the rest is complete sorcery to me. Instead of completely removing these flavorful options (regardless how powerful or weak they were) they could be improved and fixed: Spearbacks get +1 to hit or wound only, Roar grants rerolling 1s and 2s for the rest of the CC supporting Grinding advantage, Thyro gets auras only w/o spells and so on. Instead they are just deleted and bam, unit doesn't even play anymore. Magic's gone.

    edit
    Didn't realise we had proper background except for those enigmatic "Imperial Letters" :P
    It actually makes more sense now, especially for Thyro. Still, it feels inconsistent and imo gameplay>background.
    other nerfs:
    Cuatl 5 to 4 lp, dis 9 to 8
    Warlord dis 9 to 8, arm 3 to 2
    Blowpipes s3 to 2
    Weapon Beasts s5 to 4

    If i remember right..
  • dragonravioli wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    I know that there are currently bottlenecks internally related to layout and design type issues, which may slow things down, but that can't be solved without people with the right skills volunteering.
    How you know that those are "bottlenecks"?
    You don't "solve" bottlenecks.
    Sure, I'm not au fait with the jargon, maybe I am using technical terms incorrectly.

    There are publications that t9a wants to put out that primarily haven't arrived due to a lack of layout/design/similar staff.
    Or at least, this sentence was correct a few months ago when I was staff.
    I believe a similar statement is made in one of the recent news posts, so maybe check there.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • @DanT
    You did, however, state that the comment wasn't amusing :)
    I've been with the project since day one and been on the internal forum a long time, so I'll tell you what:
    If the team can have ID and DE as public beta books before the end of the year I'll be extrelemy pleased. Personally I suspect 1 book by Q4 this year and another Q1/Q2 next year.
    My main concern isn't with the staff and what they produce, I'm just realistic about this being a project made by volunteers. 4 books released as public beta books and fully released finished within a reasonable time frame, while ALSO releasing yearly updates and potentially maintaining other project require an absolute massive amount of staff, that can consistently work on the project while no other teams create bottlenecks, no internal issues between staff members and many other things that can cause a delay.

    All of the above is said with respect to the teams and staff members who I fully trust can produce great work. I very much would love to see the staff of T9A product 4 fully fledged books each year and should it actually happen I'll be extremely pleased and probably busy painting up new armies lol.
  • To be fair, I was involved with the ADT a while back and appreciate all their effort. I know how hard and timeconsuming it is to start with an idea and end up with a rule that gets through the whole playtesting and other internal processing.

    Even though I (and many others) see that the current book needs work, I have no doubt that eventually this will be resolved. It might take some time but as we all know this is a volunteer project so yeah life happens.

    Don't worry guys, play the game, provide feedback and when the time comes for the SA book the ADT folk can take it into account.
  • Giladis wrote:

    @Pinktaco both should be ready ruleswise. Text wise very likely. Visually I wouldn't count on both.

    Take what I have said with a grain of salt. This is if nothing extraordinary happens.

    So both books should be released as public beta books before the end of this year, without the artwork?

    I'll take what you say with a truckload of salt, but as I said - if the books are delivered on time and can continue to do so for years it is very great to be a T9A player. If not, I'll just continue to play just the same ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    @Giladis
    Would it perhaps be an idea to better inform the community, both on this forum and on social media, regarding both the progress of the book(s) and other things related to creating the FABS? I've seen close to no news for ages on the dashboard and same with FB. I'm sure people are dying to read *anything* about the books. It doesn't have to be massive, just regular updates to keep the community briefly informed and hyped :)
    From what I can see under the news tap, there hasn't been a single dedicated newspost regarding any of the armies :(
  • @Pinktaco I reckon 1 book by the end of the year. We stil operate under requirement that new designs need to be supported with background and artwork.


    As far as news are concerned that is ACS and PR domain. What I know is that next batch of ID news is on the horizon while DE news will probably happen at some point after ETC when the team is finalised and work starts in earnest.

    Advisory Board

    Background Team

    DE LAB TT

    THE SAUCY QUILL INN