General impressions about the 9th Age and expectations for its developments: a very long and heartfelt post.

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

  • Ferox wrote:

    What a great post. I agree with some of the problems. I got several issues as a new player.

    1. Moral. i just hate how ure 1000 point unit can crumble and flee getting overrun in turn 2, there is tons of ways that can happen and not so many sollutions to save it. Exept be a better player to prevent gettin into that situation.

    2. I need some inspiration on how to play and BUILD youre army, i can see lots of list online but i have a hard time how can i use my army best. I would love some quality youtube videos,

    3. Some armies seems kinda mono build. There is some units who is autoinclude, and i think that stinks.

    I dont want to be a competiv gamer i just want the few games i get to play be 100% fun.
    1. If you do not want to risk big losses on one roll do not play big units

    2. Read battle reports, I am not sure which army you play but there are tons of battle reports on the forum that you can read and learn how to use the army

    3. Not really, most of the armies have multiple competitive builds. The only army currently with really low internal balance seems to be VS.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HE, VC, OK and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    3. Not really, most of the armies have multiple competitive builds. The only army currently with really low internal balance seems to be VS.
    Consider this in a wider context, not just within the this game played in a competitive manner.

    I still think we're forcing unnecessary asymmetry in the game by limiting factions. Distinct armies is of value yes, but why does this have to be obtained through limiting what factions can do, when players will make choices between units nonetheless?
  • I partially agree with the assertion of "too much everything". More than half of a normal unit being wiped out in a single round of close combat being a normal part of the game is probably not good. The damage many units deal out is out of wack with the defensive capabilities of most units. Most magic missiles and other damage spells have been toned down appropriately, and shooting seems to be in a pretty good place. Close combat remains a place where only glass cannons or tar pits are any good, and the amount of buffs you can layer on many units makes them ridiculous. Some augments and hexes are just super powerful, and certain armies have problems with being able to stack lots of different buffs on their units in addition to magic. :)

    Theo
  • It would do well to cap magical buffs to one per unit. Having 3 magical spells layered onto one unit is a bit silly, humans would pop like grapes.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4uqqEMaAbH4fZ5debcBiWA

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • I agree with most of your thoughts..and long have I mentioned and tried to describe what I think is "GW´s poisioned legacy". And altough I also think that t) age is the best edition of thegamewhichisnottobementioned I feel that some "poison" trickled in here.

    SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    1) TOO MUCH of everything. In my personal opinion, as a former 6th edition player, there are too big unit sizes, too many attacks and wounds, too many circumstance rules, too many units in the average army list, too many dices rolled. This is because the 9th Age bears the heritage of an edition that was created to sell a non-sense amount of models: the consequence is that armies, lists and rules give the greatest effects in great numbers, which is something that doesn't help with our urgency to spread the game towards dummies and beginners and to promote virtuous but small and fragile miniature companies.


    Absolutely agree


    1.1 - The "unit size" issue is a personal one and I perfectly understand that it might not be very popular. In my opinion, allowing and encouraging the deployment of 50 or 60 models in a single unit, which still looks like the best choice (although improvements have been made with minimum-sized units), has some shortcomings:
    -does not encourage newcomers;
    -makes it very hard to collect a whole new army, fosters second-hand armies and goes against the interest of small companies;
    -gives a wrong impression about the scale of the game. I've been asked by an outsider if 50 Orcs were meant to represent 50 actual Orcs, while in 6th and 7th edition it looked more obvious that 20 models were not actually representing 20 soldiers. Veterans coming from older editions of Warhammer or historical games find it hard to appreciate a game in which a single entry has a 8x6" footprint and would prefer a less cumbersome game.
    In my opinion, smaller units wouldn't make the game less exciting, the "slaughter" and "mass" factors wouldn't suffer from such a reduction, and newcomers would find it simpler to pass from the Quickstarter size to the normal one. 40 models would be the maximum possible size and would be an option only for rats, goblins and similar scum; 30 models would be the maximum size for the average levy soldier unit or orc-sized creatures; 20-25 models would be the cap for elite infantry units.


    Agree ...and I might add:


    It is not only supporting attacks (which are fine for your average (ore) infantry units) , it is also the that casualties are taken from the back , so that every model in the front rank can always attack (and supporting attacks in addition) ...more attacks = more casualties = need more models per unit (in order to remain steadfast)


    More attacks = more casulaties = static combat results like rank bonus etc. has less impact.

    Again, not that much dramatic when two average (core) inf. or even cav. units clash...but when certain elite units , thanks to some buffs /special rules /states run wild , I see a problem


    E.g. a unit of Imperial Guard (EoS) is for itself not that much problematic ...but when buffed with Hatred (warrior priest) , Battle Focus (Death warrant) , Distracting (Arcane Engine) or Lightning Reflexes (Arcan Engine) , strike with an additional rank (order), Ap -1 (Rending Banner) and perhaps another buff spell can be (most of the time) a real nightmare ...


    one might encounter that a core /(inf.) unit , like your heavy inf. unit, can be buffed the same way and that it of cause has worse states then the special (elite) unit , which is reflected in the price of the unit.


    But here comes in the synergy effect. A unit with better states benefits more from the same buffs.



    Another problematic legacy is that strength above 3 automatically reduces armor (something introduced in 4th. ed ) and which of cause hurts especially (and again) core infantry more the other units (which is why a good Resilence value is much more better) - Armor 6 is ...no armor at all by and large (where str. 4 is rather the average ...especially with all those elite units) , when back in 3th. ed. it was more or less a ward save (Ap was rare and and seldome more then 1-2) .



    Demons once had a "mere" armor save of 5+..(vs. mundane attacks only...but then again, magical attacks were very seldome, so onyl character with magical weapons had them) which was changed to a ward save (but then again, magical attacks negated that).

    And when armor became less and less effective /was negated (especially ligh armor/shield combo) , ward saves popped up more and more...for which we now have divine attacks as an reaction
    :S


    Another reaction to the AP creep was the introduction of "plate armor" ...once there was light armor and heavy armor...hell, a dwarf with heavy armor and shield (and Ws 4 + , Res. 4) was a though cracker ...most of the times 50% of the wounds were negated .



    In order to make shields usefull again, parry was introduced (which would be not neccessary, since you had your quasi 6+ ward save with your armor save 6+) ...but the next problematics arouse...for some units that seemed too strong, hence paired weapons negated parry (once paired weapons gave you just an additional attack, which was something ..doubling your attacks !)..for dwarfs instead it seemed unfair/not enough...and thus they were granted a "special" rule, that handweapon /shield grants a ward save :S ...which exactly it granted once (more or less).

    Veteran of the Chaff Wars

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

  • So, do I have (possible) ideas what could be done?
    That of cause is a fickle thing to do (I fear there would be the need of a reset of the armies ..like in 6th. ed. with Ravening Hordes ..a tuning down of states and unit and army special rules)).

    Steadfast: I do love hat rule as I feel it would be still necessary...but perhaps change it in a way that certain units are steadfast as long as they have a full rank and aren`t below 25% of their starting unit strength .

    Reduce (drastically )the amount of AP causing things (see 3th. ed. as example, where veven two-handed weapons just granted Ap -1 and handguns only granted AP if in short range).

    Mayhaps get rid of supporting attacks (could be allowed as special rules for certain units).

    Get rid of plate armor, reduce special ward saves
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • Phosphorus wrote:

    Steadfast: I do love hat rule as I feel it would be still necessary...but perhaps change it in a way that certain units are steadfast as long as they have a full rank and aren`t below 25% of their starting unit strength .

    In my opinion it would be enough to say that the Steadfast rule works only in a turn in which one or more of the units involved in combat performed a charge move: this way, the Steadfast rule would last 1 turn most of the time and would also gain something in flavour, since it would represent the toughness of a unit in front of the pressure of a charge.
  • Big agree on AP and saves. Its just poor design to allow power creep in that area. A 6+ save in itself has pretty much been rendered useless and since we are only working with a limited scale using D6s, the effective loss of 1/6 of that scale is a huge glaring flaw of game design. The same line of reasoning on why a broader scale based game would be objectively better (using d8s for example) to better achieve fine-tuning of balance.
  • Goatrek wrote:

    Big agree on AP and saves. Its just poor design to allow power creep in that area. A 6+ save in itself has pretty much been rendered useless and since we are only working with a limited scale using D6s, the effective loss of 1/6 of that scale is a huge glaring flaw of game design. The same line of reasoning on why a broader scale based game would be objectively better (using d8s for example) to better achieve fine-tuning of balance.
    well, you could work with 2d6 dices :D (with a range between 2-12). But as I said, the basic rules were sound till 4th. ed. , at least concerning armor saves /weapon choices with d6 ´s . 4th. ed. (incl. especially with the army books , which started the power dreep circle) started the mess...but it was 8th. ed. which made d6 absurde (the amout of dices) and made thus static combat res. absurd /pointless too a deal. (what is a +3 rank bonus...when that big thing roflstomps while inflicting 10 wounds and more)
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    I think that there should be a list of actions that the reactive player should be allowed to do in his turn, such as special counter-charges, extra-turn chaff moves, magic stuff, and so on.
    Yeah I agree with this. The reactive player should have moves that s/he can make.

    Examples:

    - reactive movement: spring an ambush from a set of predetermined positions, having taken a photo on his phone at the beginning to prove where the ambushing troops are.

    - reactive shooting: "go to ground" option when being shot at

    - reactive magic: allow opponent to cast a lot of spells, and then play a mana-burn card that hurts their caster in proportion to number of spells cast



    SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    2.2 - Measuring everything demands an expenditure of time that should not be understimated. It is quite annoying for me to see that every move is made with the stick on the table, on the edge of every millimeter, to avoid enemy charges. It is a fact that the game works with this system and that all the rules are designed with this mechanics in mind, but if I'm allowed to express my personal feeling, I find these same mechanics poor in depth. There must be a half-way solution about measuring:

    - I think the solution to this is to move units using preset sticks like in xwing. Measure shooting only when you declare it, and no other measurement allowed. End most of the aura spam because it's just annoying and time consuming.
  • Now that a lone monster counts as having a rank, it gets rid of one of the Steadfast quirks that annoyed me the most in “The Nottingham Game” - a line of 5 Goblins were “Steadfast” against a Bloodthirster. We used to houserule steadfast that you needed not only more full ranks than the largest enemy unit in the combat, but that any unit needed at least two full ranks to be Steadfast. (Because the reason you were steadfast was because you had a weight of numbers behind you that prevented you scarpering)

    A line of 5 surviving peasants who have just had 10 of their mates slaughtered should not be steadfast compared with a line of 4 Chaos Knights that are only a man down due to a DT on the way in...
    Member of North Herts Wargamers

    “As a Rocks player, I find Scissors to be nicely balanced but Paper is overpowered...”
  • Phosphorus wrote:

    I agree with most of your thoughts..and long have I mentioned and tried to describe what I think is "GW´s poisioned legacy". And altough I also think that t) age is the best edition of thegamewhichisnottobementioned I feel that some "poison" trickled in here.

    SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    1) TOO MUCH of everything. In my personal opinion, as a former 6th edition player, there are too big unit sizes, too many attacks and wounds, too many circumstance rules, too many units in the average army list, too many dices rolled. This is because the 9th Age bears the heritage of an edition that was created to sell a non-sense amount of models: the consequence is that armies, lists and rules give the greatest effects in great numbers, which is something that doesn't help with our urgency to spread the game towards dummies and beginners and to promote virtuous but small and fragile miniature companies.


    Absolutely agree


    1.1 - The "unit size" issue is a personal one and I perfectly understand that it might not be very popular. In my opinion, allowing and encouraging the deployment of 50 or 60 models in a single unit, which still looks like the best choice (although improvements have been made with minimum-sized units), has some shortcomings:
    -does not encourage newcomers;
    -makes it very hard to collect a whole new army, fosters second-hand armies and goes against the interest of small companies;
    -gives a wrong impression about the scale of the game. I've been asked by an outsider if 50 Orcs were meant to represent 50 actual Orcs, while in 6th and 7th edition it looked more obvious that 20 models were not actually representing 20 soldiers. Veterans coming from older editions of Warhammer or historical games find it hard to appreciate a game in which a single entry has a 8x6" footprint and would prefer a less cumbersome game.
    In my opinion, smaller units wouldn't make the game less exciting, the "slaughter" and "mass" factors wouldn't suffer from such a reduction, and newcomers would find it simpler to pass from the Quickstarter size to the normal one. 40 models would be the maximum possible size and would be an option only for rats, goblins and similar scum; 30 models would be the maximum size for the average levy soldier unit or orc-sized creatures; 20-25 models would be the cap for elite infantry units.


    Agree ...and I might add:


    It is not only supporting attacks (which are fine for your average (ore) infantry units) , it is also the that casualties are taken from the back , so that every model in the front rank can always attack (and supporting attacks in addition) ...more attacks = more casualties = need more models per unit (in order to remain steadfast)


    More attacks = more casulaties = static combat results like rank bonus etc. has less impact.

    Again, not that much dramatic when two average (core) inf. or even cav. units clash...but when certain elite units , thanks to some buffs /special rules /states run wild , I see a problem


    E.g. a unit of Imperial Guard (EoS) is for itself not that much problematic ...but when buffed with Hatred (warrior priest) , Battle Focus (Death warrant) , Distracting (Arcane Engine) or Lightning Reflexes (Arcan Engine) , strike with an additional rank (order), Ap -1 (Rending Banner) and perhaps another buff spell can be (most of the time) a real nightmare ...


    one might encounter that a core /(inf.) unit , like your heavy inf. unit, can be buffed the same way and that it of cause has worse states then the special (elite) unit , which is reflected in the price of the unit.


    But here comes in the synergy effect. A unit with better states benefits more from the same buffs.



    Another problematic legacy is that strength above 3 automatically reduces armor (something introduced in 4th. ed ) and which of cause hurts especially (and again) core infantry more the other units (which is why a good Resilence value is much more better) - Armor 6 is ...no armor at all by and large (where str. 4 is rather the average ...especially with all those elite units) , when back in 3th. ed. it was more or less a ward save (Ap was rare and and seldome more then 1-2) .



    Demons once had a "mere" armor save of 5+..(vs. mundane attacks only...but then again, magical attacks were very seldome, so onyl character with magical weapons had them) which was changed to a ward save (but then again, magical attacks negated that).

    And when armor became less and less effective /was negated (especially ligh armor/shield combo) , ward saves popped up more and more...for which we now have divine attacks as an reaction
    :S


    Another reaction to the AP creep was the introduction of "plate armor" ...once there was light armor and heavy armor...hell, a dwarf with heavy armor and shield (and Ws 4 + , Res. 4) was a though cracker ...most of the times 50% of the wounds were negated .



    In order to make shields usefull again, parry was introduced (which would be not neccessary, since you had your quasi 6+ ward save with your armor save 6+) ...but the next problematics arouse...for some units that seemed too strong, hence paired weapons negated parry (once paired weapons gave you just an additional attack, which was something ..doubling your attacks !)..for dwarfs instead it seemed unfair/not enough...and thus they were granted a "special" rule, that handweapon /shield grants a ward save :S ...which exactly it granted once (more or less).


    Completely agree, refreshing to see some posts of what Ive been feeling about the game. I find the most glaring problems in the game right now are AP, and buff stacks. Magic is fairly well thought out, but lets be honest...its pretty much common place to force through 2 spells a round, and more, in certain armies. The balance swing that comes with this to high output units is game breaking.

    I really feel the game would be so much more tactical if ap was severly limited. No longer could high output units run rough shod over an army. This drives away players, not bring them in.
  • That's a good point. Both AP and supporting attacks make static resolution less important; as a consequence, players deploy big units both to make more wounds and to grant the unit to be steadfast.

    I think we need to redesign AP, steadfast rule and supporting attacks in order to:
    -improve the tactical relevance of static resolution, which should benefit or suffer also from more tactical factors (uphill position, downhill charge, dead general, safe flanks, fresh units...);
    -diminish just a little the gap between élite and core units;
    -make the game work even without blocks of 50 models, just so it would be easier for a newcomer to start an army and play a complete game.
  • Just go to any tournament, you will see them huge blocks of goblins etc.

    Since basically all attacks and damage have been multiplied by 2 during the transition from WH7 to 8, why not to just also multiply the Rank bonus and Standard bonus to Combat Resolution ? just like we already multiplied the same bonus for Flank and Rear attack.

    Then people would think more about adopting Extended Formation vs Ranked, if the difference is not to lose +3 but +6.

    Russian Translation Coordinator

    Translation-Team FR

    Public Relations

    Linguistic Team

    GHAÂAÂAÂARN ! — The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young
    First T9A player in West Africa
  • As a general rule, large blobs aren't very good except as tar pits.

    Making better targets for Area Attack, the majority of models serving as nothing but ablative wounds, and the most of the time a unit of 50 models costing more than two units of 25 models from the same statblock.

    Outside of specific armies having specific rules to make specific units more viable in bulk, you're putting too many eggs in one basket.