Announcement KoE LAB guidelines!

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

  • I dont really get the hate against t9a fluff and books (and names). Like if you want warhammer fantasy games and fluff go play 1-8th edition. Whatever you want - there is lots of edditions for you. This is a fanbased game, which both needs and is legally bound to do something else than GW. Also alot of guys are using alot of their freetime on this project. If you want more influence, join them. Im sure they can use more voulentiers.
    I personally really appriciate whats being done. This game makes so more sense to me, than 8th with OP new books and purple suns ever did.
    Personally I hope that GW creates an old world, that makes t9a abbundend. Not because I dont like t9a, but because we need more players, and we need a commercial game for that. I however remain sceptical, and I will play t9a untill I feel there is a game that can do what this does - balanced fair games with reguarly updates to the army books, that keep things externally and internally ballanced.

    So if you want the fluff and names from the GW era, then go play the GW games. T9a cannot use the GW stuff. Personally im just glad that this reminds me so much of the old brets. And I hope, that even though it cannot be the same, I hope the voulentiers remember that most t9a players are old GW players, and their armies were bought, because they were bretonnian.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    RobertRabbit wrote:

    @Klexe those “flying Corps” lists you wrote on the other thread… the terminology is somewhat different… “feudal knights” etc.

    What have I missed?
    You really have to remember that this is not Bretonnia. And the whole point of the LAB is to rewrite the faction to fit this game’s world and lore. So forget everything you knew about Bretonnia and get ready for something that makes sense here ;) new names, new background, new mechanics, new rules, new stats. New and exciting
    That's what killed VS for me as an army and with DE i am still on the edge if i dismiss them or not. I will not judge anything from the KoE Lab until i can read all of it, but i really hope its way less nonsense in the background than the DE&VS one.
    Please do feel free to provide usable information as to what you would want.
    The same distinct feeling i expect from a faction i had chosen to play 17 years ago. Because the rules are not the most important part i started playing this game 18 years ago (first army was skaven btw).

    I want a story about a kingdom of humans that honor chivalry above anything, composed of mainly (90%+) human entries. Anything non-human should be super marginal at best. I want them to be trained and excel in that what they do. They all should pray to a female higher being, that guides our troops and lead them to win. Our female, deeply trusted and respected female wizards should be worshiped and be direct messengers of this female higher being.
    I don't care if they treat their servants, farmers like crap or not. But i don't want them to be part of a organized force. Using them should only be part of a "better then dying" emergency solution then a integrate plan.
    I don't want any high fantasy unicorn knights or anything else besides horses, pegasi and griffons.


    Honeym wrote:

    I dont really get the hate against t9a fluff and books (and names). Like if you want warhammer fantasy games and fluff go play 1-8th edition. Whatever you want - there is lots of edditions for you. This is a fanbased game, which both needs and is legally bound to do something else than GW. Also alot of guys are using alot of their freetime on this project. If you want more influence, join them. Im sure they can use more voulentiers.
    I personally really appriciate whats being done. This game makes so more sense to me, than 8th with OP new books and purple suns ever did.
    Personally I hope that GW creates an old world, that makes t9a abbundend. Not because I dont like t9a, but because we need more players, and we need a commercial game for that. I however remain sceptical, and I will play t9a untill I feel there is a game that can do what this does - balanced fair games with reguarly updates to the army books, that keep things externally and internally ballanced.

    So if you want the fluff and names from the GW era, then go play the GW games. T9a cannot use the GW stuff. Personally im just glad that this reminds me so much of the old brets. And I hope, that even though it cannot be the same, I hope the voulentiers remember that most t9a players are old GW players, and their armies were bought, because they were bretonnian.
    Well, how can you not get it after explaining the reason by yourself? You are contradicting yourself on a maximum level.

    People came to 9th Age because warhammer ended with the 8th edition. AoS is not even nearly a replacement since its not even the same game-format (R&F vs skirmisher).
    Except for maybe some powergamers who chose their army for rules only, most of us (like yourself as you wrote) because we like the armyflair, fun and fluff.

    Now not only the rules (what many of us could live with) but also the background chances drastically. And if that changes into a direction that dont fit their idea of the army, they stop playing them. The least thing that helps are comments like "ignore it and write your own fluff". You don't do that in games. Did you ever start a rpg game, doesn't like the story and just changed anything while playing? No. You just stop playing because the story sucks.

    I play the 9th Age. The 9th Age crew creates a background for an army, like a story for the game(rules). And if i don't like the story, i don't play the game. Its not a battle-royal shooter were you don't give a damn about the story and just play to kill something.
  • Honestly it's a cheap excuse do not include Hippogriff Knights because would screw with the usefulness of Pegasus Knights

    Hippogriff mount is TOWERING and can not join units, then you can decide between use a single Hippogriff on a character that with only 4 wounds and the increased size ( increased size not wanted )........ or use a unit of hippogriff knights to have more HP for the same points and more dices to roll.

    If you prefer a character in a pegasus mount because is more easy to protect, you will use always Pegasus Knights.

    But ok, do the book to the taste of a few, too many of us desire Hippogriff Knight unit and we receive........Niaids and a not needed Fey Courtier (Witchcraft)...... It's more easy make that your opponent fail a shooting attack that waste dices on something that you can do without magic ....Witchcraft spells are uselless , druidism and divination do same and better...... but I see too many developers tooooooo much happy with this inclusion....... we are so used to having enough junk units in the book that for a few more I don't think it will affect my health
  • Marcos24 wrote:

    Well your nonsense is someone else’s treasure! Besides the old world is coming and you’ll have your nostalgia back ;)
    That may be true. But i think you see what you get from changing the BG on specific points too drastically. I don't recall that kind of negative response to the ID BG what the DE and VS BG gets. Maybe because the ID guys did a good job in preventing a overhaul of the army-feeling just for the heck of changing it.

    Put a "not a leader" sign for any BG reason on the ID prophet profile and see what you get for doing that. That would be as unnecessary and unasked as the "not a leader" sign on the only available master-wizard in an elven-army because the new BG says "we are to stupid to train our own master wizards and we don't trust the immigrants"
  • Thurvack wrote:

    Honestly it's a cheap excuse do not include Hippogriff Knights because would screw with the usefulness of Pegasus Knights

    Hippogriff mount is TOWERING and can not join units, then you can decide between use a single Hippogriff on a character that with only 4 wounds and the increased size ( increased size not wanted )........ or use a unit of hippogriff knights to have more HP for the same points and more dices to roll.

    If you prefer a character in a pegasus mount because is more easy to protect, you will use always Pegasus Knights.

    But ok, do the book to the taste of a few, too many of us desire Hippogriff Knight unit and we receive........Niaids and a not needed Fey Courtier (Witchcraft)...... It's more easy make that your opponent fail a shooting attack that waste dices on something that you can do without magic ....Witchcraft spells are uselless , druidism and divination do same and better...... but I see too many developers tooooooo much happy with this inclusion....... we are so used to having enough junk units in the book that for a few more I don't think it will affect my health
    I agree with you but Koe Lab has done their decision and we must accept it now. (unfortunately).
  • Personal oppinion incoming:
    I am almost 100% sure the incoming old world will have Hippo Knights. Why? Because it is done by a company that needs to sell models and Total war hype is real, they want to monetize on it.
    We are developing a game that does not have a need to power creep (to sell models) and reset itself every couple of years.

    This does not mean you can't use various hippo models on the market to represent a unit that will be in the new KoE LAB.
    T9A is model agnostic, it is our rule that we do not make up unit entries to cover a single model manufacturer.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Personal oppinion incoming:
    I am almost 100% sure the incoming old world will have Hippo Knights. Why? Because it is done by a company that needs to sell models and Total war hype is real, they want to monetize on it.
    We are developing a game that does not have a need to power creep (to sell models) and reset itself every couple of years.

    This does not mean you can't use various hippo models on the market to represent a unit that will be in the new KoE LAB.
    T9A is model agnostic, it is our rule that we do not make up unit entries to cover a single model manufacturer.
    Couldn’t have put it better myself. Plus I find the claim that T9As KoE background deviates “too much” from the legacy absolutely laughable frankly.
    Mental Health First Aider (MHFA England)

    "Remember what punishments befell us in this world when we did not cherish learning, nor transmit it to others" - Alfred The Great


    Have a goosy gander at my models!
  • Zwei wrote:

    The same distinct feeling i expect from a faction i had chosen to play 17 years ago. Because the rules are not the most important part i started playing this game 18 years ago (first army was skaven btw).
    I want a story about a kingdom of humans that honor chivalry above anything, composed of mainly (90%+) human entries. Anything non-human should be super marginal at best. I want them to be trained and excel in that what they do. They all should pray to a female higher being, that guides our troops and lead them to win. Our female, deeply trusted and respected female wizards should be worshiped and be direct messengers of this female higher being.
    I don't care if they treat their servants, farmers like crap or not. But i don't want them to be part of a organized force. Using them should only be part of a "better then dying" emergency solution then a integrate plan.
    I don't want any high fantasy unicorn knights or anything else besides horses, pegasi and griffons.

    It's fairly easy to think of what you dislike, but it's a lot more actionable to focus on what you do like. Is there anything throughout the entire history of the project you think was done well and the KoE TT should copy? Anything in Tales of Chivalry that you liked and would like expanded upon? Anything on the main KoE entry?

    Positivity can deliver miracles.

    Zwei wrote:

    Well, how can you not get it after explaining the reason by yourself? You are contradicting yourself on a maximum level.
    People came to 9th Age because warhammer ended with the 8th edition. AoS is not even nearly a replacement since its not even the same game-format (R&F vs skirmisher).
    Except for maybe some powergamers who chose their army for rules only, most of us (like yourself as you wrote) because we like the armyflair, fun and fluff.

    Now not only the rules (what many of us could live with) but also the background chances drastically. And if that changes into a direction that dont fit their idea of the army, they stop playing them. The least thing that helps are comments like "ignore it and write your own fluff". You don't do that in games. Did you ever start a rpg game, doesn't like the story and just changed anything while playing? No. You just stop playing because the story sucks.

    I play the 9th Age. The 9th Age crew creates a background for an army, like a story for the game(rules). And if i don't like the story, i don't play the game. Its not a battle-royal shooter were you don't give a damn about the story and just play to kill something.

    The Ninth Age background has not changed. It is it's own novel creation and has maintained continuity with itself. If the background is the most important thing to you and what you want is WHFB's background, you should go play Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar, you can reasonably complain about how it changed; it's the same game.


    If you're prepared to try and like a background that is not the same as WHFB, then we can talk.

    If you want to make a list of things you didn't like about WHFB and would love to see done differently in a setting, well, that's something usable.

    But T9A isn't creatively and legally distinct from WHFB for reasons that your complaints have any chance of affecting.

    I recommend giving feedback as though you were a visitor from a parallel universe where GW never existed.

    Background Team

  • Zwei wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    Marcos24 wrote:

    RobertRabbit wrote:

    @Klexe those “flying Corps” lists you wrote on the other thread… the terminology is somewhat different… “feudal knights” etc.

    What have I missed?
    You really have to remember that this is not Bretonnia. And the whole point of the LAB is to rewrite the faction to fit this game’s world and lore. So forget everything you knew about Bretonnia and get ready for something that makes sense here ;) new names, new background, new mechanics, new rules, new stats. New and exciting
    That's what killed VS for me as an army and with DE i am still on the edge if i dismiss them or not. I will not judge anything from the KoE Lab until i can read all of it, but i really hope its way less nonsense in the background than the DE&VS one.
    Please do feel free to provide usable information as to what you would want.
    The same distinct feeling i expect from a faction i had chosen to play 17 years ago. Because the rules are not the most important part i started playing this game 18 years ago (first army was skaven btw).
    I want a story about a kingdom of humans that honor chivalry above anything, composed of mainly (90%+) human entries. Anything non-human should be super marginal at best. I want them to be trained and excel in that what they do. They all should pray to a female higher being, that guides our troops and lead them to win. Our female, deeply trusted and respected female wizards should be worshiped and be direct messengers of this female higher being.
    I don't care if they treat their servants, farmers like crap or not. But i don't want them to be part of a organized force. Using them should only be part of a "better then dying" emergency solution then a integrate plan.
    I don't want any high fantasy unicorn knights or anything else besides horses, pegasi and griffons.


    Honeym wrote:

    I dont really get the hate against t9a fluff and books (and names). Like if you want warhammer fantasy games and fluff go play 1-8th edition. Whatever you want - there is lots of edditions for you. This is a fanbased game, which both needs and is legally bound to do something else than GW. Also alot of guys are using alot of their freetime on this project. If you want more influence, join them. Im sure they can use more voulentiers.
    I personally really appriciate whats being done. This game makes so more sense to me, than 8th with OP new books and purple suns ever did.
    Personally I hope that GW creates an old world, that makes t9a abbundend. Not because I dont like t9a, but because we need more players, and we need a commercial game for that. I however remain sceptical, and I will play t9a untill I feel there is a game that can do what this does - balanced fair games with reguarly updates to the army books, that keep things externally and internally ballanced.

    So if you want the fluff and names from the GW era, then go play the GW games. T9a cannot use the GW stuff. Personally im just glad that this reminds me so much of the old brets. And I hope, that even though it cannot be the same, I hope the voulentiers remember that most t9a players are old GW players, and their armies were bought, because they were bretonnian.
    Well, how can you not get it after explaining the reason by yourself? You are contradicting yourself on a maximum level.
    People came to 9th Age because warhammer ended with the 8th edition. AoS is not even nearly a replacement since its not even the same game-format (R&F vs skirmisher).
    Except for maybe some powergamers who chose their army for rules only, most of us (like yourself as you wrote) because we like the armyflair, fun and fluff.

    Now not only the rules (what many of us could live with) but also the background chances drastically. And if that changes into a direction that dont fit their idea of the army, they stop playing them. The least thing that helps are comments like "ignore it and write your own fluff". You don't do that in games. Did you ever start a rpg game, doesn't like the story and just changed anything while playing? No. You just stop playing because the story sucks.

    I play the 9th Age. The 9th Age crew creates a background for an army, like a story for the game(rules). And if i don't like the story, i don't play the game. Its not a battle-royal shooter were you don't give a damn about the story and just play to kill something.
    Well, agree to disagree.
    Yeah you come to t9a because 8th ended. But you can still play 8th if you liked it. That dosent mean that you can hate on 9th because you liked 8th.
    I dont start playing divinity two, and then critic it because its not diablo 2, right?

    And yes - I hope that the voulentiers remember that most 9th players came here from 8th and because of 8th. And the name makes the claim that they resemble each other. But you cannot enter a game and then critic it from a different game system. If you liked the other game system better, then go play it. The rules are still there. As well as the army books. You cant go: If this is not like the bretonnians then I wont be playing. Or well. Yes you can. But I dont think its a valid argument for changing the 9th. If you want something like GW's rules, then make that argument - I liked this because of this and that, and I would like if that found its way into 9th". Not: "this is not like the game I used to play, so I dont like it". Then go play the old game. This is new and there are no cannonical lore that makes backwards claims to what the future should hold.
  • Bretboy84 wrote:

    Thurvack wrote:

    Honestly it's a cheap excuse do not include Hippogriff Knights because would screw with the usefulness of Pegasus Knights

    Hippogriff mount is TOWERING and can not join units, then you can decide between use a single Hippogriff on a character that with only 4 wounds and the increased size ( increased size not wanted )........ or use a unit of hippogriff knights to have more HP for the same points and more dices to roll.

    If you prefer a character in a pegasus mount because is more easy to protect, you will use always Pegasus Knights.

    But ok, do the book to the taste of a few, too many of us desire Hippogriff Knight unit and we receive........Niaids and a not needed Fey Courtier (Witchcraft)...... It's more easy make that your opponent fail a shooting attack that waste dices on something that you can do without magic ....Witchcraft spells are uselless , druidism and divination do same and better...... but I see too many developers tooooooo much happy with this inclusion....... we are so used to having enough junk units in the book that for a few more I don't think it will affect my health
    I agree with you but Koe Lab has done their decision and we must accept it now. (unfortunately).

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    The same distinct feeling i expect from a faction i had chosen to play 17 years ago. Because the rules are not the most important part i started playing this game 18 years ago (first army was skaven btw).
    I want a story about a kingdom of humans that honor chivalry above anything, composed of mainly (90%+) human entries. Anything non-human should be super marginal at best. I want them to be trained and excel in that what they do. They all should pray to a female higher being, that guides our troops and lead them to win. Our female, deeply trusted and respected female wizards should be worshiped and be direct messengers of this female higher being.
    I don't care if they treat their servants, farmers like crap or not. But i don't want them to be part of a organized force. Using them should only be part of a "better then dying" emergency solution then a integrate plan.
    I don't want any high fantasy unicorn knights or anything else besides horses, pegasi and griffons.
    It's fairly easy to think of what you dislike, but it's a lot more actionable to focus on what you do like. Is there anything throughout the entire history of the project you think was done well and the KoE TT should copy? Anything in Tales of Chivalry that you liked and would like expanded upon? Anything on the main KoE entry?

    Positivity can deliver miracles.

    Zwei wrote:

    Well, how can you not get it after explaining the reason by yourself? You are contradicting yourself on a maximum level.
    People came to 9th Age because warhammer ended with the 8th edition. AoS is not even nearly a replacement since its not even the same game-format (R&F vs skirmisher).
    Except for maybe some powergamers who chose their army for rules only, most of us (like yourself as you wrote) because we like the armyflair, fun and fluff.

    Now not only the rules (what many of us could live with) but also the background chances drastically. And if that changes into a direction that dont fit their idea of the army, they stop playing them. The least thing that helps are comments like "ignore it and write your own fluff". You don't do that in games. Did you ever start a rpg game, doesn't like the story and just changed anything while playing? No. You just stop playing because the story sucks.

    I play the 9th Age. The 9th Age crew creates a background for an army, like a story for the game(rules). And if i don't like the story, i don't play the game. Its not a battle-royal shooter were you don't give a damn about the story and just play to kill something.
    The Ninth Age background has not changed. It is it's own novel creation and has maintained continuity with itself. If the background is the most important thing to you and what you want is WHFB's background, you should go play Age of Sigmar. Age of Sigmar, you can reasonably complain about how it changed; it's the same game.


    If you're prepared to try and like a background that is not the same as WHFB, then we can talk.

    If you want to make a list of things you didn't like about WHFB and would love to see done differently in a setting, well, that's something usable.

    But T9A isn't creatively and legally distinct from WHFB for reasons that your complaints have any chance of affecting.

    I recommend giving feedback as though you were a visitor from a parallel universe where GW never existed.
    If that is the stance 9th see itself, i have and will accept it. There are 2 armies left that i love to play. If their - to use your words - new creation is also not to my liking like the DE and VS LAB, i will have to stop playing 9th age since the BG (which is important to me) as we know of is something i can/wll not approve or like.

    Thanks for your answer.
  • @Zwei

    This is a bit of a nuanced issue, and there are internal discussions about it.
    We do try to satisfy the community, but there are also things that can't/won't be changed on a dime.


    I would just like to echo this bit of WW's post:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It's fairly easy to think of what you dislike, but it's a lot more actionable to focus on what you do like. Is there anything throughout the entire history of the project you think was done well and the KoE TT should copy? Anything in Tales of Chivalry that you liked and would like expanded upon? Anything on the main KoE entry?
    We welcome this sort of feedback off everyone, as it is concrete, usable, and can help us to deliver better in future.


    I also encourage everyone to pay attention to the guidelines that come out for other LABs in the future, and read them whilst looking for what isn't there.
    I.e. is there something about this faction that was important to you in the past that perhaps isn't mentioned in the guidelines (for clarity I mean concepts/big picture parts here, not exact detailed mechanics).
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    @Zwei

    This is a bit of a nuanced issue, and there are internal discussions about it.
    We do try to satisfy the community, but there are also things that can't/won't be changed on a dime.


    I would just like to echo this bit of WW's post:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It's fairly easy to think of what you dislike, but it's a lot more actionable to focus on what you do like. Is there anything throughout the entire history of the project you think was done well and the KoE TT should copy? Anything in Tales of Chivalry that you liked and would like expanded upon? Anything on the main KoE entry?
    We welcome this sort of feedback off everyone, as it is concrete, usable, and can help us to deliver better in future.

    I also encourage everyone to pay attention to the guidelines that come out for other LABs in the future, and read them whilst looking for what isn't there.
    I.e. is there something about this faction that was important to you in the past that perhaps isn't mentioned in the guidelines (for clarity I mean concepts/big picture parts here, not exact detailed mechanics).
    Sometimes there are things hidden that you just don't expect to come and therefore don't mention. I for myself would have NEVER even started to imagine a elven army without a wizard-master general possibility. That was in the realm of a "never possible". And still it happened. Same with the upcoming SA LAB. If a cuatl gains the "not a leader" rule like the outcast the army is dead for me. I dont want to hyperbole anything and i accept that there are probably enough ppl who dont care about that, but i do. And for the same reason some ppl like a certain genre or game and others do not, we should accept that even things that seem tiny/big can be seen totally different for others.
  • Zwei wrote:

    Sometimes there are things hidden that you just don't expect to come and therefore don't mention. I for myself would have NEVER even started to imagine a elven army without a wizard-master general possibility. That was in the realm of a "never possible". And still it happened. Same with the upcoming SA LAB. If a cuatl gains the "not a leader" rule like the outcast the army is dead for me. I dont want to hyperbole anything and i accept that there are probably enough ppl who dont care about that, but i do. And for the same reason some ppl like a certain genre or game and others do not, we should accept that even things that seem tiny/big can be seen totally different for others.
    Sure, this is my point, right?

    I'm encouraging everyone to really dig deep and explicitly try to find in themselves those things that it is "inconceivable" might be different.
    It's not easy of course, but I'm hoping with a conscious collective effort we can do a reasonable job :)


    This "not a leader" thing: it seems unclear to me that it is the fluff you have an issue with?
    In the sense that it seems to be the mechanical issue of not being able to take a wizard master general that bothers you?
    And if that was allowed, the fluff wouldn't matter so much to you?
    Have I misunderstood something?
    Like if the warlocks were outcasts but one could take them as a general anyway, would the fluff bother you?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    Sometimes there are things hidden that you just don't expect to come and therefore don't mention. I for myself would have NEVER even started to imagine a elven army without a wizard-master general possibility. That was in the realm of a "never possible". And still it happened. Same with the upcoming SA LAB. If a cuatl gains the "not a leader" rule like the outcast the army is dead for me. I dont want to hyperbole anything and i accept that there are probably enough ppl who dont care about that, but i do. And for the same reason some ppl like a certain genre or game and others do not, we should accept that even things that seem tiny/big can be seen totally different for others.
    Sure, this is my point, right?
    I'm encouraging everyone to really dig deep and explicitly try to find in themselves those things that it is "inconceivable" might be different.
    It's not easy of course, but I'm hoping with a conscious collective effort we can do a reasonable job :)


    This "not a leader" thing: it seems unclear to me that it is the fluff you have an issue with?
    In the sense that it seems to be the mechanical issue of not being able to take a wizard master general that bothers you?
    And if that was allowed, the fluff wouldn't matter so much to you?
    Have I misunderstood something?
    Like if the warlocks were outcasts but one could take them as a general anyway, would the fluff bother you?
    2 different things that bothers me with this rule.

    On the DE its how they treat their wizard-masters in an elven civilization. For me elv + high magic HAS to be together. As part of their way of live and society. Wizard masters are the highest/strongest magic user and those are not existent as an leading/acceptable part of the race?

    SA wise its basically the same as for the DE. If they are THAT untrusted/unreliable that they are not fit to lead an army, then the not-a-general rule is implied in the BG. And that bothers me. Cuatl are the incarnation of magical and spirital leaders. Now they may not be able to lead the armies. For me the cuatl is the central figure i always build and imagined my army around. He has to be the first in command.

    In both cases, i can represent the fluff in the game and that's what i love. It would bother me less if the cuatl is not as powerful as it was then if i cant field him as my general. I want to transmit the BG and Fluff i like onto the board.

    My DE were always led by a wizard master. My SA were always led by a cuatl. Because as (for me) strongly magic bound races they are supposed to be led by those individuals. The DE possibility is gone and maybe the SA will be gone as well. And for anything in this world, if the way you can play a game doesnt spark joy, you dont play it.
  • Zwei wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Sure, this is my point, right?I'm encouraging everyone to really dig deep and explicitly try to find in themselves those things that it is "inconceivable" might be different.
    It's not easy of course, but I'm hoping with a conscious collective effort we can do a reasonable job :)


    This "not a leader" thing: it seems unclear to me that it is the fluff you have an issue with?
    In the sense that it seems to be the mechanical issue of not being able to take a wizard master general that bothers you?
    And if that was allowed, the fluff wouldn't matter so much to you?
    Have I misunderstood something?
    Like if the warlocks were outcasts but one could take them as a general anyway, would the fluff bother you?
    2 different things that bothers me with this rule.
    On the DE its how they treat their wizard-masters in an elven civilization. For me elv + high magic HAS to be together. As part of their way of live and society. Wizard masters are the highest/strongest magic user and those are not existent as an leading/acceptable part of the race?

    SA wise its basically the same as for the DE. If they are THAT untrusted/unreliable that they are not fit to lead an army, then the not-a-general rule is implied in the BG. And that bothers me. Cuatl are the incarnation of magical and spirital leaders. Now they may not be able to lead the armies. For me the cuatl is the central figure i always build and imagined my army around. He has to be the last in command.

    In both cases, i can represent the fluff in the game and that's what i love. It would bother me less if the cuatl is not as powerful as it was then if i cant field him as my general. I want to transmit the BG and Fluff i like onto the board.

    My DE were always led by a wizard master. My SA were always led by a cuatl. Because as (for me) strongly magic bound races they are supposed to be led by those individuals. The DE possibility is gone and maybe the SA will be gone as well. And for anything in this world, if the way you can play a game doesnt spark joy, you dont play it.
    I'm not sure if this answers my question?
    Would warlocks/cuatl being on the fringes of society in the fluff bother you if they didn't mechanically have "not a leader"?


    Regardless, I think you are making a good point here that "leaders are wizards" was part of the identity of these factions previously.
    Have I understood that correctly?
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Zwei wrote:

    SA wise its basically the same as for the DE. If they are THAT untrusted/unreliable that they are not fit to lead an army, then the not-a-general rule is implied in the BG. And that bothers me. Cuatl are the incarnation of magical and spirital leaders. Now they may not be able to lead the armies. For me the cuatl is the central figure i always build and imagined my army around. He has to be the first in command.
    Would you feel the same if the background were that these individuals were not outsiders but simply not great leaders (Dis8) - because they specialise in magic, not leading troops?
  • DanT wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    Sure, this is my point, right?I'm encouraging everyone to really dig deep and explicitly try to find in themselves those things that it is "inconceivable" might be different.
    It's not easy of course, but I'm hoping with a conscious collective effort we can do a reasonable job :)


    This "not a leader" thing: it seems unclear to me that it is the fluff you have an issue with?
    In the sense that it seems to be the mechanical issue of not being able to take a wizard master general that bothers you?
    And if that was allowed, the fluff wouldn't matter so much to you?
    Have I misunderstood something?
    Like if the warlocks were outcasts but one could take them as a general anyway, would the fluff bother you?
    2 different things that bothers me with this rule.On the DE its how they treat their wizard-masters in an elven civilization. For me elv + high magic HAS to be together. As part of their way of live and society. Wizard masters are the highest/strongest magic user and those are not existent as an leading/acceptable part of the race?

    SA wise its basically the same as for the DE. If they are THAT untrusted/unreliable that they are not fit to lead an army, then the not-a-general rule is implied in the BG. And that bothers me. Cuatl are the incarnation of magical and spirital leaders. Now they may not be able to lead the armies. For me the cuatl is the central figure i always build and imagined my army around. He has to be the last in command.

    In both cases, i can represent the fluff in the game and that's what i love. It would bother me less if the cuatl is not as powerful as it was then if i cant field him as my general. I want to transmit the BG and Fluff i like onto the board.

    My DE were always led by a wizard master. My SA were always led by a cuatl. Because as (for me) strongly magic bound races they are supposed to be led by those individuals. The DE possibility is gone and maybe the SA will be gone as well. And for anything in this world, if the way you can play a game doesnt spark joy, you dont play it.
    I'm not sure if this answers my question?Would warlocks/cuatl being on the fringes of society in the fluff bother you if they didn't mechanically have "not a leader"?


    Regardless, I think you are making a good point here that "leaders are wizards" was part of the identity of these factions previously.
    Have I understood that correctly?

    jimmygrill wrote:

    Zwei wrote:

    SA wise its basically the same as for the DE. If they are THAT untrusted/unreliable that they are not fit to lead an army, then the not-a-general rule is implied in the BG. And that bothers me. Cuatl are the incarnation of magical and spirital leaders. Now they may not be able to lead the armies. For me the cuatl is the central figure i always build and imagined my army around. He has to be the first in command.
    Would you feel the same if the background were that these individuals were not outsiders but simply not great leaders (Dis8) - because they specialise in magic, not leading troops?
    Yes. Because it interfers (dont know if thats the right word) with my vision of how those armies (should) work and operate. While i could live with Dis8 and able to be a leader as an elv-wizardmaster, i could not accept anyone above a cuatl in leading an army.
    In this regard a warlord would not have to be inferior, but also should not be better. The cuatl is above ALL armies in an envisioned leader. DH without a king? Ok. Ogre without a GK? Ok. A VC without an vampire? Ok. But that doesnt work for me with a Cuatl. Such a centerpiece he is for me in the SA army.
  • Zwei wrote:

    Yes. Because it interfers (dont know if thats the right word) with my vision of how those armies (should) work and operate. While i could live with Dis8 and able to be a leader as an elv-wizardmaster, i could not accept anyone above a cuatl in leading an army.In this regard a warlord would not have to be inferior, but also should not be better. The cuatl is above ALL armies in an envisioned leader. DH without a king? Ok. Ogre without a GK? Ok. A VC without an vampire? Ok. But that doesnt work for me with a Cuatl. Such a centerpiece he is for me in the SA army.
    Great, thanks for engaging with my questions :thumbup:
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Okay so some people here are unhappy as long as we dont include THEIR opinion. Well this always happen.

    The 9th Age is a community, a big one! With influnces all over the world. Heck i dont agree with my fellow ACS on some points more often then not.

    BUT!!! We have to come to a conclusion which makes everyone happy.

    About hippo knights? Only around like 10% of the community wants them. (i spitball the number but that is the feeling i geat.)
    Around 50% are hard against it.
    Around 40%(my stance) are neutral about it.

    The new LAB has currently for hippo models:
    1. 2 single model entries where you easily can use a hippo (characters included)
    2. 1 unit rank and file entry where you easily can buy units consisting of hippo knights


    it is model agonistic and imo this is the best solution

                    

    Product-Search

    KoE Community Support

    Lord of the Hobby

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