T9A Version 3 Rules Suggestions (long term future)

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

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    I know WHFB players would hate it, but I'd really like to see the 4th ed 40k vehicle rules added to T9A. Armour values by facing and damage tables rather than HP. I miss those.
    I would approve it just for the satisfaction deriving from stealing something good that GW brainlessly wasted.
    Isn't that more or less what we are doing with the entire idea of continuing in the track of 8th edition ? :P

    (I know T9A is much more than "stealing" Warhammer, but still the parallel is quite funny)
  • SlaveToThePyre wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    I know WHFB players would hate it, but I'd really like to see the 4th ed 40k vehicle rules added to T9A. Armour values by facing and damage tables rather than HP. I miss those.
    I would approve it just for the satisfaction deriving from stealing something good that GW brainlessly wasted.
    Well, I have been saying I'd to do those T9A Siege rules...a variant of the 40k armour rules would easy to implement for that, and it would be stand alone if players really didn't like it.
    My army Wip blogs:
    Knights of Nethys (WDG) | Tanks and such (EoS)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • New

    Ok to keep this thread going as intended with possible v3 suggestions.

    A bunch of stuff in this thread about ways to move the game towards a more "rank and file" infantry focused game, rather than infantry generally only being included as anvils/tar-pits and scoring:
    Multiple infantry blocks

    I'll pick out a couple here.

    @Pellegrim wrote:


    In order to get back to being an actual rank & file game, there are
    two main routes to get there, that have to be implemented across the
    board:
    • Put a meaningfull caps on none infantry units. Example that just came up during an internal discussion: need two (or three) unit of infantry (of at least x points per unit) for each none infantry unit. This way you "earn" your special units. Someone relayed Kings of War uses this method also. What I like about this variant is that is relatively easy to implement; what I like less is that it is a cap, and not a stimulus through rules/ stats. Nonetheless we are working on a variant here and will probably try it out soon (incl. a new Discipline system).
    Or

    Tone down
    monsters, beasts, large cavalry (perhaps also large infantry). The fact
    that many of these units have greater mobility, lose fewer attacks per
    lost wound, have high anti-infantry capabilties, really puts infantry in
    the kicking corner. The best thing about the route of toning those down
    is that it rewards choice and doesn't implement hard caps. It requires
    balancing on a really fine line. Toning down also means some current
    "hard counters" can go away. It also means infantry can ease down on
    having 4 - 8 special rules to compensate the fact they are infantry. Or a
    combination of the two. Personally I think this route is best.


    Berti wrote:


    First step would be to make single models follow the rnf movement rules.
    One reform. Else just wheels etc. Makes them a tad slower and harder to avoid sight of infantry.

    Points as noted in that thread that this isn't necessarily a direction everyone would like.
    (I personally would though!)

    Product Search Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | My T9A Quickstarter Written Battle Reports Thread | | My Miniature Painting Gallery | | My T9A Painting Blog
  • New

    And I would go opposite side :P

    need two (or three) unit of infantry (of at least x points per unit) for each none infantry unit.
    That would kill some armies.
    And I love MonsterMash and cavalry armies :(
    You know that this would propably end with spam of cheapest infantry units?

    This should be most important: reward players to do what you want, not punish them for doing opposite.
    Also one infantry unit isn't equal other infantry unit. So are armies. That's really bad idea.
    Orc & Goblins - coming soon

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!

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

  • New

    Right now there is a place for infantry, as is for monsters or cavalry or all kinds of "fantasy" elements like griphon riders, or minotaurs and so on - that is what I like about the game, and what made me start playing 30 years ago, and kept me since. There are enough games around that are more historic based, even GW had rules out that would cover medieval warfare instead of fantastic warfare. So if I wanted that, I would not need to change this game, I could simply play another one.
    I would not enjoy a game where slow infantry units walk towards each other , supported by the occasional wizard, while artillery batteries fire at the enemy until we finally clash. I don't even see infantry as being useless if not as anvils. To weaken everything but inf would make the game boring, to force weird restricting movement rules on single models would make movement unintuitive, and boring, and I'm not so sure that there is a greater amount of people asking for those changes.
    We should keep in mind that usually those who are not satisfied are expressing themselves way more often than those who like the game, wanting something changed is an incentive to post, while enjoying things as they are doesn't create the need to be heard.
    So if of all the people in this forum, 5 or 6 ask for a more infantry based game, they might just not be the majority.
  • New

    I would love it if medium armour could come in, the heavy and plate armour went up a pip, being mounted - at least on soft skinned beasts like horses no longer gave that gratingly illogical +1 AS and to compensate, “light” cavalry gained “hard target” to represent the fact they offer a fidgety and dispersed target.

    Light armoured cavalry in close combat would be the only losers - and frankly, they should be.
    Member of North Herts Wargamers

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

    The +1 Armour for cavalry is supposed to represent the mount soaking up a few of the hits instead of the rider.
    Although it could be more logical to give it +1 HP or +1 Res.

    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
  • New

    I'll drop something here:

    How come catapults ignore soft and hard cover? How is a catapult able to aim and calculate the ditance of the shot if they're not able to see the target properly? I don't know whether removing that whole rules is senseful, but at least behind hard cover sshould be a must. or reduce the modifier of the cover by 1.

    On the same terms, shouldn't the catapult have some kind of error range?

    Goblin Lunatic

    Translation - ES

  • New

    Arturiki wrote:

    I'll drop something here:

    How come catapults ignore soft and hard cover? How is a catapult able to aim and calculate the ditance of the shot if they're not able to see the target properly? I don't know whether removing that whole rules is senseful, but at least behind hard cover sshould be a must. or reduce the modifier of the cover by 1.

    On the same terms, shouldn't the catapult have some kind of error range?

    Well, on the one hand, if you can see the target or have reliable intel on where they are, an indirect fire weapon can fire OVER (say) castle walls or a forest and land a big rock on top of them.

    On the other hand, "aiming at the right spot" should be tricky if you can't really see them.

    Making it so a unit with spotters can ignore intervening terrain and units would make sense.

    Background Team

  • New

    i Linda liked the "by 1" modifier to the terrain, since the crew needs to aim. Obviously the projectile will fly over any terrain, that shouldn't be an issue.

    Maybe I'm just "salty" because my iron orcs are behind a forest with no foes to charge at all and the ID catapults have an easy target.

    But objectively, I think the modifier is not that bad or some aim thing could be nice. But that's the rule and balance team to decide.

    Goblin Lunatic

    Translation - ES

  • New

    rolan wrote:

    Right now there is a place for infantry, as is for monsters or cavalry or all kinds of "fantasy" elements like griphon riders, or minotaurs and so on - that is what I like about the game, and what made me start playing 30 years ago, and kept me since. There are enough games around that are more historic based, even GW had rules out that would cover medieval warfare instead of fantastic warfare. So if I wanted that, I would not need to change this game, I could simply play another one.
    I would not enjoy a game where slow infantry units walk towards each other , supported by the occasional wizard, while artillery batteries fire at the enemy until we finally clash. I don't even see infantry as being useless if not as anvils. To weaken everything but inf would make the game boring, to force weird restricting movement rules on single models would make movement unintuitive, and boring, and I'm not so sure that there is a greater amount of people asking for those changes.
    We should keep in mind that usually those who are not satisfied are expressing themselves way more often than those who like the game, wanting something changed is an incentive to post, while enjoying things as they are doesn't create the need to be heard.
    So if of all the people in this forum, 5 or 6 ask for a more infantry based game, they might just not be the majority.
    I get your point, but we are not asking for the whole game to become 4000 points of infantry and 500 points of shooting/magic. My opinion is that its a rank and flank game. so roughly 50% of points should be into ranks and the other 50% into getting flanks.
    I don't want a skirmish game I want a rank and flank game. The first word there is rank. For me that's indicative that at least 50% of your points should be into ranks. The rest can be into getting flanks.
  • New

    we almost have that anyways, right Now many armies are 25-30% rank and file, especially as most skirmishers and large units are removed from core, another 30-35% are support Tools like artillery, single model units or large beasts. The rest is characters.
    So If rank and file is forced to 50% there will only about 10% space for those support tools as characters will be even more important to give your army an edge.
    When i See an army on the table right now it already looks like 50% rank and file troops, more of those would be a big push towards slow moving Blocks slugging forward.