Return of the Warhammer Old World by GW?

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

    • Klexe wrote:

      Breaking it was not the intention. It would be a hot fix for a bigger problem and would "stop the bleading" and not breaking it is a good thing. As for a fully break and rework it would take much more time and thought aka Version 3.0
      At least from my side, I am talking about something at the 3.0 level.

      I think even then the dichotomy is hard to find a way out of.

      So I think one has to pick one.

      (I would advocate for cavalry not front charging infantry in general, all other things equal, and then build the core rules that ameliorates the dichotomy, e.g. more punishing flank charges in some form).
      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
      Empire of Dannstahl HERE
      Adjustments to 2.0 HERE

    • Klexe wrote:

      or you could INCREASE static cr^^...
      Hehe yes, I edited my post. :D

      But you would have to increase the static CR by a lot if you want to keep the actual killyness like in the 8th WHF or t9a for instance because autobreaks happen so easily.

      I just had my first t9a game today, at least I tried to, and well removing 23 from 35 speardwarfs in one go was just a so shocking and frustrating sight (reminded me of the shock I had with the 8th WHF edition), knowing that counting the CR was completely unimportant (once the most important thing in close combats) I just was counting how many ranks I had left and how many my opponent had because this was the one and only thing that was important.

      When I saw I had 1 rank too less for being steadfast I even spared rolling the 13 attacks I had left because it was an autobreak anyway and the whole moment just robbed me of any motivation today to go on this game... 1st try for a t9a game was just a pure blast... chilling howl aura and my whole small arms shooting does nothing anymore I really pay quite a lot of points for as DH turn 1 because I do not manage to dispel it with 5 dice... turn 2 the whispers of the veil on the speardwarfs which I also do not dispel with 5 dice against a 14 and they melt like goblins... I thought I play dwarfs... and that the magic is oh so super balanced and not so dominating as in the 8th WHF anymore... I was wrong... so I simply quitted the game at the beginning of my turn 2 before I even made a further movement... I had no motivation to go on anymore and was super frustrated... seeing what happens to 35 dwarfs, knowing that my king's guard and deep watch are just 20 strong... lol... seeing how all the chariots and heroes on chariots and monsters dance around because they are light troops or move like light troops in fact yeah nice... why have I chosen t9a instead of 40k again!?!

      There was a reason why most tournaments back then had restrictions for single models, number of chariots, monsters, artillery pieces and so on.
      ETC 2007 - 1st place Team Germany - Orc Speed Freaks - Warhammer 40k
      ETC 2008 - 2nd place Team Germany - Orc Speed Freaks - Warhammer 40k
      ETC 2009 - 4th place Team Germany - Witchhunters - Warhammer 40k

    • DanT wrote:

      Klexe wrote:

      Breaking it was not the intention. It would be a hot fix for a bigger problem and would "stop the bleading" and not breaking it is a good thing. As for a fully break and rework it would take much more time and thought aka Version 3.0
      At least from my side, I am talking about something at the 3.0 level.
      I think even then the dichotomy is hard to find a way out of.

      So I think one has to pick one.

      (I would advocate for cavalry not front charging infantry in general, all other things equal, and then build the core rules that ameliorates the dichotomy, e.g. more punishing flank charges in some form).
      Just reducing armor of cavalry horses to Zero.
      Add shock value rule which is front 50% effectiv, flank 100% and rear 300% and then add a variable

      the lower armor already buffs small armies fire and nerf front faceing fighting.

      shock rule should impact the enemy unit and reduce number of enemies/wounds doesnt matter if the enemy breaks or holds (crumble is a very good effect here)
      Add to shock" enemy suffered by flank charges from a unit which shock are under the effect of fear, even if they are immuen to it"
      Rear= cant hit back at all
      =>buffs manvoering and movement while discourage front facing

      high risk high reward
      no 2+armor save unti at all anymore. best case 3+

      rework cowboys

      AND the BEST THING

      Would fully fix KoE problem of running away the whole game while tanking any range dmg because the 2+armor unit is gone.

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/

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

    • Reconquer Designs wrote:

      And ever since the old world was mentioned I DEFINITELY didn’t want this to just be Warhammer-legally-safe because, well as soon as real Warhammer comes out I’ll for sure just ditch this if it’s only a place holder for Warhammer fans
      Well, I wonder if the WHFB fans of old are still willing to pay GW prices when GW starts selling the Old World...

      Even if T9A is just a placeholder, this placeholder is free. And we've gotten used to free rules and non-GW model prices.

      If GW releases the old world, but refuses to let me use my old models and instead insists I buy new models at current GW prices, I'm not sure I'd buy in.

      And I strongly doubt that this new game will be allowing players to play for free...even if those players already have WHFB armies..

    • DanT wrote:

      @Phosphorus
      *shrug*


      But it is nothing other than my own personal preferences/taste.
      Is there (really) EVER anything other then personal preferences/tastes I wonder ? :)
      On the surface, we might argue with (seemingly) objective and reasonable arguments. (which in the end boil down to subjective tastes anyways).
      The next best to objective (bland) argument concerning that (and mayhaps other issues) : does it help in a way , that players field more heavy cav. (x-of? )
      Nevertheless, I am sure that my short analysis is sound ---although one might argue that (many units of ) heavy cav, in pre 8th. ed was too strong/no-brainer.
      Veteran of the Chaff Wars

    • Chronocide wrote:

      Then how does GW sustain their new game?
      Well, maybe like with 40k... every couple of months a new supplement book, campaign book, Grand tournament rules mission book, FAQ & errata compilation book or simply a new armybook because they now print a new army book every year and when there are armybooks out for all the army they start again with new ones and new campaign books and so on and when you want to play competetive you of course need all of them because in every one of them are rules you want or at least need. :P

      Ah yes and of course with every supplement, campaign book etc. changing the entire META so that all the players simply need to adapt their armies to the actual best shyt and thus will be "forced" to buy unit X 3 times in max numbers! Until the next update just 3 months later when forbids or nerfs this build entirely but introduces a new one, tada! :D
      ETC 2007 - 1st place Team Germany - Orc Speed Freaks - Warhammer 40k
      ETC 2008 - 2nd place Team Germany - Orc Speed Freaks - Warhammer 40k
      ETC 2009 - 4th place Team Germany - Witchhunters - Warhammer 40k

    • Chronocide wrote:

      Reconquer Designs wrote:

      And ever since the old world was mentioned I DEFINITELY didn’t want this to just be Warhammer-legally-safe because, well as soon as real Warhammer comes out I’ll for sure just ditch this if it’s only a place holder for Warhammer fans
      Well, I wonder if the WHFB fans of old are still willing to pay GW prices when GW starts selling the Old World...
      Even if T9A is just a placeholder, this placeholder is free. And we've gotten used to free rules and non-GW model prices.

      If GW releases the old world, but refuses to let me use my old models and instead insists I buy new models at current GW prices, I'm not sure I'd buy in.

      And I strongly doubt that this new game will be allowing players to play for free...even if those players already have WHFB armies..
      I will never really play at their stores anyway.
      All other tournaments will most likely allow it

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/

    • New

      DanT wrote:

      A key problem is that there is a basic dichotomy that no edition of legacy or t9a ever really found a 3rd way to:
      with basic units according to the core rules, should cavalry be such that going in the front of infantry blocks is a good idea or not?

      If yes, infantry suffer greatly.
      If no, cavalry becomes high skill and relies on players' ability to use the movement advantage.

      Its a hard one to solve... and thats before one gets anywhere near the details of any of the factions themselves...

      I feel like there are alternatives that logically present themselves, but the alternatives narrow and fade away when people field all-cavalry armies.


      Like, arguably currently the answer is often "no, but they should be happy going in frontally against non-infantry". That feels like a meaningful nuance that works reasonably well for cavalry units that meet those criteria.

      Or perhaps one could vary that with a different rock/paper/scissors issue: Cavalry beats infantry X frontally, loses to infantry Y, infantry X beats infantry Y frontally but as previously established, loses to Cavalry.



      Then again I guess, from the perspective of making an all-knights army work, the design would be that second one reversed: Cavalry A can beat infantry head-on, Cavalry B cannot, but Cavalry A is only good at beating infantry head-on and gets whupped by both Cavalry B and any other non-infantry units other armies might field.


      But that's in a vacuum. When changing a stat by 1 point is incredibly contentious, how on earth can you make larger scale changes?


      Maybe in a new edition. I think evidence indicates that trying to make changes in LABs is not popular.

      Background Team

    • New

      Hombre de Mundo wrote:

      FWIW, I do agree with you that off/def 2 for Tegu feels wrong from an immersion POW, as it puts them on the level of Skeleton warriors and KoE peasants. But I don't think it fundamentally changes much to the point where I'd say "this doesn't feel like the same faction anymore". And I have to ask what the point of a book update is if these changes are deemed to have such great repercussions. And if we're looking at WHFB as a continuation of WHFB (which is fair), then is it not expected that books would be updated in a similar fashion to how WHFB books were updated?
      People only ever complain about the nerfs, mind you.
      When suddenly all elves got given « Always Strike First » you didn’t have people complaining about their army « suddenly felt completely different »


      Klexe wrote:

      Tbh I must play the wrong army. I hat the way how Cavalry works in 9th age.

      But I don't really want to play an other army.
      I identify myself with a human knight. I love paladins as fluff and will always choose the army with paladins.

      Playing Wdg and sub them with my KoE models...well doesn't work really as I don't have any 25mm figures....

      Also it feels a bit weird. I like to have correct models.


      So I am stuck in playing the army I want to play but hating it's playstyle
      Maybe you can convince yourself that the Imperial Inquisitor is a Paladin ? ^^

      And play Empire


      Klexe wrote:

      And play all barbiaran horsemen core
      or Makhar ?

      Shane wrote:

      GW going from 5th to 6th in fantasy congruently with 2nd to 3rd in 40k was the single biggest transition they saw in about 20 years. They retired all active books, reworked the core mechanics of the game and launched two effectively brand new games, complete with compendiums of factions, one included in the system’s rulebook (3rd Ed 40k) the other as a free booklet.

      Acting like that was at all usual behaviour is disingenuous. It represented the single greatest shakeup in the company. It was a bigger change than the cancelling of the Fantasy line.
      Except you ignored the first part of my argument that was about how the united Chaos army got divided into three (that was from 6th to 7th) and about how Beastmen went from full Skirmish to ranked regiments (also from 6th to 7th)

      Shane wrote:

      As for Dogs of War, I played them in both 7th and 8th edition (they saw a vast improvement in 8th due to the expanded magical items section and a variety of rules changes). They were as supported in 7th as several armies
      but got removed from all army books as part of the Rare choices, and they were an integral part of my Chaos army

      Shane wrote:

      fundamentally alters the way the force plays on the board, from teleporters for Chaos that effectively give them back their lateral movement and special deployment that they were specifically designed to have lost, to giant jellyfish troop transports,
      well you don’t have to play them, right ?
      they’re just an option in the army

      the fact that the floating jellyfish got inserted into the DE army book did not alter the way i play my DE army…

      Shane wrote:

      Why are ID Slaves the single most re-worked, re-designed and hot-fixed part of the book?…… Is the resistance solely because that would be pivoting the unit’s direction back more closely to what Warhammer had?
      Well or maybe it’s just that there was a fun concept that the team wanted to try to make the unit cool and in the end it just took too much text ?
      I think you’re overthinking this.
      Some people complain that the rules are bland, and when we come up with a fun concept then you complain about it too.
      And we’ve seen much worse and more verbose rules in WHFB editions in the past.


      Klexe wrote:

      Table makes no sense from a real fight. People hugging on side of the table are immune to flank charges from this side... Dafaq?
      Well……… You need a table to play, right ?
      I mean even in Age of Empires you can just build up your castle in a corner and be immune to attacks from that side…
      Maybe model your table so that the sides represent cliffs or an ocean shore ?


      Klexe wrote:

      even flank charging is not good enough.
      Yes, that is true.
      In v8 they introduce the idea that you can’t break ranks unless you have at least two full ranks, and i never found how to make that work

      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 East Africa

    • New

      Jaq Draco wrote:

      I just had my first t9a game today, at least I tried to, and well removing 23 from 35 speardwarfs in one go was just a so shocking and frustrating sight (reminded me of the shock I had with the 8th WHF edition), knowing that counting the CR was completely unimportant (once the most important thing in close combats) I just was counting how many ranks I had left and how many my opponent had because this was the one and only thing that was important.

      When I saw I had 1 rank too less for being steadfast I even spared rolling the 13 attacks I had left because it was an autobreak anyway and the whole moment just robbed me of any motivation today to go on this game... 1st try for a t9a game was just a pure blast... chilling howl aura and my whole small arms shooting does nothing anymore I really pay quite a lot of points for as DH turn 1 because I do not manage to dispel it with 5 dice... turn 2 the whispers of the veil on the speardwarfs which I also do not dispel with 5 dice against a 14 and they melt like goblins... I thought I play dwarfs... and that the magic is oh so super balanced and not so dominating as in the 8th WHF anymore... I was wrong... so I simply quitted the game at the beginning of my turn 2 before I even made a further movement... I had no motivation to go on anymore and was super frustrated... seeing what happens to 35 dwarfs, knowing that my king's guard and deep watch are just 20 strong... lol... seeing how all the chariots and heroes on chariots and monsters dance around because they are light troops or move like light troops in fact yeah nice... why have I chosen t9a instead of 40k again!?!
      Well !

      Sounds a lot like my experience when trying my first few games.
      I think this looks like more like « beginner’s mistakes ».
      Yes, you did not expect that your dwarves could crumble like that.
      No, you did not do enough to prevent that charge to happen.
      Etc.

      T9A focuses much more on astute unit placement, reliance on chaff and redirectors, etc. than WHFB ever did.
      It’s a really tough game to learn.
      But such situations like you just described do not seem to happen during every game to most other players…

      I think you should give it a new try by using EoW rules or just reducing the size and complexity of your first games : try 2000-3000 pts with 50 % Core, max 25 % for Characters, no « lord » level character (no better magic than 1 Wizard Adept) nor big monsters an other « advanced » units such as the various buff wagons.
      Just a few units of Standard size Infantry, Cavalry, Beasts, and see how it goes.

      And don’t forget to measure, since you have the right to do it. Measure, measure, measure.

      It’s not just T9A, mind you. I was a hardcore 6th ed/7th ed player and never played 8th ed much, so there are still many things that i need to just get used to.

      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 East Africa

    • New

      Reconquer Designs wrote:

      Lol well I’ll be buying their books, and im sure plenty of people will buy their models. Im not against giving them money, I just like realistic looking models
      That is some great low-key shade and I’m here for it.
      T9A mission statement: HERE

      "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred the Great C890's AD/CE

    • New

      MASTERWIRED wrote:

      Reconquer Designs wrote:

      Well for starters all heavy cavalry can cause terror, that would be realistic
      Something like Terror (When Charging Infantry)
      Hmm, you’d then have to have some differentiation between trained and untrained infantry in the rules. There’s no way a formed regiment of spearmen or a block of Iron orcs are going to run from a cavalry charge for example.
      T9A mission statement: HERE

      "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred the Great C890's AD/CE

    • New

      Ghiznuk wrote:

      Hombre de Mundo wrote:

      FWIW, I do agree with you that off/def 2 for Tegu feels wrong from an immersion POW, as it puts them on the level of Skeleton warriors and KoE peasants. But I don't think it fundamentally changes much to the point where I'd say "this doesn't feel like the same faction anymore". And I have to ask what the point of a book update is if these changes are deemed to have such great repercussions. And if we're looking at WHFB as a continuation of WHFB (which is fair), then is it not expected that books would be updated in a similar fashion to how WHFB books were updated?
      People only ever complain about the nerfs, mind you.When suddenly all elves got given « Always Strike First » you didn’t have people complaining about their army « suddenly felt completely different »


      Klexe wrote:

      Tbh I must play the wrong army. I hat the way how Cavalry works in 9th age.

      But I don't really want to play an other army.
      I identify myself with a human knight. I love paladins as fluff and will always choose the army with paladins.

      Playing Wdg and sub them with my KoE models...well doesn't work really as I don't have any 25mm figures....

      Also it feels a bit weird. I like to have correct models.


      So I am stuck in playing the army I want to play but hating it's playstyle
      Maybe you can convince yourself that the Imperial Inquisitor is a Paladin ? ^^
      And play Empire


      Klexe wrote:

      And play all barbiaran horsemen core
      or Makhar ?

      Shane wrote:

      GW going from 5th to 6th in fantasy congruently with 2nd to 3rd in 40k was the single biggest transition they saw in about 20 years. They retired all active books, reworked the core mechanics of the game and launched two effectively brand new games, complete with compendiums of factions, one included in the system’s rulebook (3rd Ed 40k) the other as a free booklet.

      Acting like that was at all usual behaviour is disingenuous. It represented the single greatest shakeup in the company. It was a bigger change than the cancelling of the Fantasy line.
      Except you ignored the first part of my argument that was about how the united Chaos army got divided into three (that was from 6th to 7th) and about how Beastmen went from full Skirmish to ranked regiments (also from 6th to 7th)

      Shane wrote:

      As for Dogs of War, I played them in both 7th and 8th edition (they saw a vast improvement in 8th due to the expanded magical items section and a variety of rules changes). They were as supported in 7th as several armies
      but got removed from all army books as part of the Rare choices, and they were an integral part of my Chaos army

      Shane wrote:

      fundamentally alters the way the force plays on the board, from teleporters for Chaos that effectively give them back their lateral movement and special deployment that they were specifically designed to have lost, to giant jellyfish troop transports,
      well you don’t have to play them, right ?they’re just an option in the army

      the fact that the floating jellyfish got inserted into the DE army book did not alter the way i play my DE army…

      Shane wrote:

      Why are ID Slaves the single most re-worked, re-designed and hot-fixed part of the book?…… Is the resistance solely because that would be pivoting the unit’s direction back more closely to what Warhammer had?
      Well or maybe it’s just that there was a fun concept that the team wanted to try to make the unit cool and in the end it just took too much text ?I think you’re overthinking this.
      Some people complain that the rules are bland, and when we come up with a fun concept then you complain about it too.
      And we’ve seen much worse and more verbose rules in WHFB editions in the past.


      Klexe wrote:

      Table makes no sense from a real fight. People hugging on side of the table are immune to flank charges from this side... Dafaq?
      Well……… You need a table to play, right ?I mean even in Age of Empires you can just build up your castle in a corner and be immune to attacks from that side…
      Maybe model your table so that the sides represent cliffs or an ocean shore ?


      Klexe wrote:

      even flank charging is not good enough.
      Yes, that is true.In v8 they introduce the idea that you can’t break ranks unless you have at least two full ranks, and i never found how to make that work
      I played EoS and it suited me way better. I also have an EoS army

      Mmh perhaps I give it a try again. I find the EoS griffons mage so cheap it is disgusting lol.
      Apprentice on griffons?? Haha

                      

      Product-Search

      KoE Community Support

      Lord of the Hobby

      Follow my games here: the-ninth-age.com/community/in…%C3%BCnchen-und-umgebung/

    • New

      @Nemeroth I did actually think about that, a rule called “disciplined”. However this would be in addition to the existence of fearless, some
      Units can be fearless, others can be given Disciplined, I would still force a test against terror but it would be at discipline 10 and follow the same rules for any leadership rolls like for BSB or whatever special rules a book has