Future of T9A hotfixes

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

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • jacobkjellerup wrote:

    well.
    Jake Corteen won the British Masters with a flying circus KoE list to bring one example.
    They have had viable infantry lists for some time which is very new.

    OK can play monster mash, hero hammer, death star, gun line, balanced as well. I would say that is "a lot" of options, wouldn't you?

    I believe @Ipower just won a major event in the UK with SA guerrilla style list.

    We are probably both biased, you looking for flaws me looking for upsides. Maybe that is the reason for different outlooks on same armies.

    /Jacob - not offended and still not seeing facts, just a different point of view.
    Like I said, OK didn't loose anything, so you just confirmed my post about them.
    KoE flying circus to me is more than 2 units of pegasi (8 models) and 1 character on pegasus, and you won't get more if you equip them.
    Before 1.3, you could field 3 units plus 3 flying characters. Like I said, you don't have to like the option, but it was there, now it is gone.
    So added together, you confirm that OK didn't loose or gain anything, and KoE lost something.
    Just because somebody names his army after a lost option doesn't make the option available.
  • You can easily and viably field a flying circus with KoE. UK master winning list did.


    500 Duke on Hippogryph (General): Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Uther's Conviction
    480 Duke on Hippogryph: Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Ghostly Guard
    365 Paladin on Pegasus: BSB, Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Basalt Infusion
    395 Damsel on Barded Warhorse: Master, Shamanism
    245 6 Knights Aspirant
    245 6 Knights Aspirant
    638 12 Knights of the Realm: Standard, Musician, Banner of the Last Charge
    130 5 Yeomen Outriders: Shields, Light Armour
    799 9 Knights of the Grail: Standard, Musician, Flaming Standard
    360 The Green Knight
    340 3 Pegasus knights

    That list totals 1685/1800 of the flying cap. I'm sure with a little bit of tweaking you can fit another unit of Pegasus. Any list can have a kitted hipoduke, Pegasus BSB, and three Pegasus. How much more flying do you want?

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

  • jacobkjellerup wrote:

    well.
    Jake Corteen won the British Masters with a flying circus KoE list to bring one example.
    They have had viable infantry lists for some time which is very new.

    OK can play monster mash, hero hammer, death star, gun line, balanced as well. I would say that is "a lot" of options, wouldn't you?

    I believe @Ipower just won a major event in the UK with SA guerrilla style list.

    We are probably both biased, you looking for flaws me looking for upsides. Maybe that is the reason for different outlooks on same armies.

    /Jacob - not offended and still not seeing facts, just a different point of view.
    Only a couple of minor events but SA did take the norwegian masters but anyone claiming SA lost anything is off their rocker. First 60 player event of the year is this weekend in the uk. KoE is my bet to take it making it 4/4 1st places for Jake.
  • @rolan

    Depend what you call loosing somehting.

    What do you want, the possibility to make diffrent kind of list ?
    Or the possibility that some playstyle are balanced to be competitive ?

    That each army get only one main playstyle dont bother me. Its logic, there is 16 armie, if each could already get 1 competitive playstyle, and that those 16 playstyle are balanced it would already awesome ! (and one playstyle doseent mean always same list)

    And if you accept to not play at the best competitive level, then the team try to give to all armie 3 playstyle really playable, just try them dont be shy. You will maybe not win turnament, but at least get lot of fun and win some match. ( and i say that, but when i see a full cav EoS win a turnament.. i say damned.. for me the new EoS cavalry EoS was just so bad and expensive.. But as you see, a better player than me succed with it)

    In all army the internal balance become better, and i really think that in final V2.0 there will be no more unit entry totally useless. What could we ask more ?
    So come one, do more game, be more audacious, and test some new idea, you will see that the T9A balance is really not bad, and there is lot of possibility, if you accept to loose some matchup.

    And be aware that meta really change from one country to an other. So realize that what you think is a bad entry, is maybe simply a bad matchup due to your meta. But You will be surprise, to see that the opposite in an other meta.

    So in comparaison to the past, yes we have less options if we count them in the book, but almost all our option are now playable

    And the best ?
    There is still one step for all army book, the FAB, and this step is the one, where the most fluffy and original idea, could be introduce into the army.

    So for me if you look at the globality, T9A just become better step by step, slowly but certainly. No doubt on this.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • Casp wrote:

    @rolan

    Depend what you call loosing somehting.

    What do you want, the possibility to make diffrent kind of list ?
    Or the possibility that some playstyle are balanced to be competitive ?


    Actually I want both.

    That each army get only one main playstyle dont bother me. Its logic, there is 16 armie, if each could already get 1 competitive playstyle, and that those 16 playstyle are balanced it would already awesome ! (and one playstyle doseent mean always same list)


    It would be boring, the armies already had like 3 or 4 possible playstyles, the real task would have been to keep and balance all those.

    And if you accept to not play at the best competitive level, then the team try to give to all armie 3 playstyle really playable, just try them dont be shy. You will maybe not win turnament, but at least get lot of fun and win some match. ( and i say that, but when i see a full cav EoS win a turnament.. i say damned.. for me the new EoS cavalry EoS was just so bad and expensive.. But as you see, a better player than me succed with it)


    I always change My army from tournament to tournament, sometimes I use another faction, sometimes I use a different style with the same faction. And outside tournaments I change and try even more - or better I used to Do so because Now the possibilities are less, even with me using 10 different factions. It is no new idea to Do so, and There used to be more options in paar times.

    In all army the internal balance become better, and i really think that in final V2.0 there will be no more unit entry totally useless. What could we ask more ?
    So come one, do more game, be more audacious, and test some new idea, you will see that the T9A balance is really not bad, and there is lot of possibility, if you accept to loose some matchup.


    I want all the models I brought and paired during the last 32 years to stay usable. I Now that the balance is getting better, but I Don t like the cost 9th age aplys to that balance as the game lost options and units and models. I would like 9th age to add and adjust in order to create balance, instead of nerfing and streamlining and erasing.

    And be aware that meta really change from one country to an other. So realize that what you think is a bad entry, is maybe simply a bad matchup due to your meta. But You will be surprise, to see that the opposite in an other meta.

    Doesn't seem like only people from1 counter complain. And while the meta has a lot of influence, it doesn't change or explain Everything
    .

    So in comparaison to the past, yes we have less options if we count them in the book, but almost all our option are now playable


    I Don t like this easy way to achieve balance. It makes the game predictable and boring compared to what it was and could be.

    And the best ?
    There is still one step for all army book, the FAB, and this step is the one, where the most fluffy and original idea, could be introduce into the army.


    Hopefully you are right and out of all promised steps in that direction the last Chance is really taken.

    So for me if you look at the globality, T9A just become better step by step, slowly but certainly. No doubt on this.


    It became more balanced at a High cost that I Don t like to pay. I am not convinced that it adds up as better. But I hope for that FAB step you mentioned.
  • @rolan

    i agree with you on some point.
    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.
    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.

    Then that all armie could get 3 or 4 playstyle if you accept they are not all equivalent for competitive scene.

    And finally there is an other aspect of the game you have to take in consideration, maybe you are not sensible to the immersive aspect. But personnaly i really prefer the army look into T9A than into 8th edition of warhammer. The restriction make the army get a more fluffly aspect by preventing some spam abuse. The game is an army battle simulation, i like to see army where i can imagine them beeing real.

    I can understand that some people desagree with this, they dont look really deeply about the background aspect; and they prefer let the door open to the most list build possible, taking pleasure to try some original build. But personnaly i am really happy to have look for this originality into the restriction canvas, that make all army looking like real army with some variety, core troops, and no abusive spam.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • mishagi wrote:

    You can easily and viably field a flying circus with KoE. UK master winning list did.

    500 Duke on Hippogryph (General): Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Uther's Conviction
    480 Duke on Hippogryph: Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Ghostly Guard
    365 Paladin on Pegasus: BSB, Questing Vow, Bastard Sword, Shield, Basalt Infusion
    395 Damsel on Barded Warhorse: Master, Shamanism
    245 6 Knights Aspirant
    245 6 Knights Aspirant
    638 12 Knights of the Realm: Standard, Musician, Banner of the Last Charge
    130 5 Yeomen Outriders: Shields, Light Armour
    799 9 Knights of the Grail: Standard, Musician, Flaming Standard
    360 The Green Knight
    340 3 Pegasus knights

    That list totals 1685/1800 of the flying cap. I'm sure with a little bit of tweaking you can fit another unit of Pegasus. Any list can have a kitted hipoduke, Pegasus BSB, and three Pegasus. How much more flying do you want?
    why would you change perfection...?
  • Hmm.

    Back in 8th edition of warhammer there mostly was 1 netlist for competitive play. Some armies had 2....
    So no. Nobody can mean he had so much more options back in 8th edition of warhammer.

    Then 9th age started and first thing that was done was a rework power creep for some month. Seems a lot of people forget about thi´s and take it for playstyled, but in fact the power creep was the reason for some of the "playstyles".
    Took some time for the ones in charge to realize this, and reverse it back. Led to 1.3 that was a balanced thing that allowed more playstyles than ever before. Still some more powerful builds but by far not the huge gaps in power than in 8th edition.

    New 2.0 rules make a step further. And again there were some things that seem to be power creep. The suggestion to bring all other armies to the level would just fire this power creep again, and it would make future adjustments a lot harder, because there is no unlimited power you can give to units, when there are basic troopers that also should be somewhat viable. And no...stapling special rules on every unit and adding additional ones via banners is not the way to make units more viable.

    I use a lot of different armies, and the only playstlye that seems still not to be realy viable outside KoE army is the cavalry approach, because the actual rules are not very cavalry friendly.
  • Casp wrote:

    @rolan

    i agree with you on some point.
    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.
    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.

    Then that all armie could get 3 or 4 playstyle if you accept they are not all equivalent for competitive scene.

    And finally there is an other aspect of the game you have to take in consideration, maybe you are not sensible to the immersive aspect. But personnaly i really prefer the army look into T9A than into 8th edition of warhammer. The restriction make the army get a more fluffly aspect by preventing some spam abuse. The game is an army battle simulation, i like to see army where i can imagine them beeing real.

    I can understand that some people desagree with this, they dont look really deeply about the background aspect; and they prefer let the door open to the most list build possible, taking pleasure to try some original build. But personnaly i am really happy to have look for this originality into the restriction canvas, that make all army looking like real army with some variety, core troops, and no abusive spam.
    Maybe we should stop thinking about how to define whole playstyles and instead focus on interesting units and how to balance them without overall nerfs, and without care about how they could be used to solve the same problem. Than the players themselves could decide how they create their army list.
    And to those "we don't like surprises and want to control everything"-tournament people, it should not matter if the book contains options and units they don't use, since, well, they don't use them.
    But somebody else might...
  • Casp wrote:

    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.

    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    Yes but if we had many more playstyles then meta could take care of balancing instead of BLT mostly. So actually having more playstyles makes balance easier (because you can always field counters for meta dominant things). Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
    Sea Guard homebrew: Sea Guard
  • I really think RT or whoever it is should give up on the play to control how an army is played. People will - and want to - create their own armies. And even in the old, unbalanced GW times, whenever the meta grew to clear, and everybody thought they knew what they would face, somebody showed up with an army that wasn't all that good overall, but could win in that expected meta - and did, shaking up the scene for e while. Now, with the balancing being a lot better, the effect of different, more unpredictable army builds would even be greater, and the games, especially at tournaments, would be more interesting as you would not beforehand know what you have to face just because your opponent is DH or SA.
    As @Adam said, Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups. That means predictable, more boring games. Might be good for team tournaments, but nothing else gains here.
  • Casp wrote:


    i agree with you on some point.
    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.
    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    That quote shows you have NO IDEA what this game is about, and what community wants.

    With that kind of "thinking" you could just make ONE ROSTER for every army, and you don't even need to produce army books. It would be easy to balance...
  • And you know what community wants?

    We are a group of 6´-8 players, and while we share the same hobby we often discuss about a lot of things and the opinions differ sometimes a lot.
    We are neither pure fluff players nor very competitive, but the range is wide. And while one thinks it was totally fine to field a former demon prince in small games, others even field vampires with additional hand weapon and without other magic gear.
    Of course we often make games where we talk about the wished powerlevel, because it is not realy fun to have very different power levels to start the game with. But in the basic imagination of each player there are wide differences. And this is for sure the same in this forum.

    This project aims at some powerlevel that makes most or all units in an army list somewhat viable to be taken. And this can only work, when there are not staples of special rules and additional special rules via banners or other synergies everywhere, because this will make a lot of "low power" units totally worthless.
  • Jarek wrote:

    That quote shows you have NO IDEA what this game is about, and what community wants.

    With that kind of "thinking" you could just make ONE ROSTER for every army, and you don't even need to produce army books. It would be easy to balance...
    So - as you seem to know - what is this game about? And what does the community want?

    Furthermore I would highly appreciate if we could use a little less absolutisms and could not constantly deny competence to our interlocutors. Empathy and constructive argumentation does the trick.


    Regards

    Rata
    "Wyvern's is good fer one thing, eatin' smashin' smellin' and flyin.' They're also good fer lettin' the other boyz know who's boss!"—Azhag the Slaughterer
  • Adam wrote:

    Casp wrote:

    But you have to realize, that 3 playstyle per army mean 48 variations... It just a nightmare to balanced.

    To be balanced at the best competitive level, i think that 16 variations is already a challenge.
    Yes but if we had many more playstyles then meta could take care of balancing instead of BLT mostly. So actually having more playstyles makes balance easier (because you can always field counters for meta dominant things). Lowering playstyles leads to stagnant meta and RPS matchups.
    But then you end up with the 8th Edition situation where you only ever field one type of list anyways, depending on how the meta settles. This approach does not net you more play styles. It makes you play with fewer, because if you show up with the wrong one, you basically lose automatically.
  • @Jarek

    First i am part the community, i do art for T9A i dont decide anything..

    Now maybe you take too literraly what i said.
    Of course we need liberty in our playstyle and listbuilding.

    What i said, it just that we should not ask something impossible to the team.

    And 3 playstyle per army, all balanced at competitive level, seems to me an utopia. (even if it's the goal of the team)
    Get 3 or 4 playstyle , yes, but only if you are adult enough to accept that you will often play with handicap with some playstyle of you army, of course in function of your local meta.

    Actually i read lot of complain on the forum, and i feel like one part of the community is just unrealistic, and each time they see a playstyle with some handicap in comparaison to the meta.
    They just want ask buff to make it competitive and increase powerlevel. Without thinking globaly to all consequence of such buff. in different meta, or for other army playstyle of second or third rank.

    So personnaly i really encourage team to work , on fluff and fun rules, and i relaly hope that FAB will be focus on this, and not listen too much the community complain about powerlevel, to make people take some build, not because they are competitive, but because they are cool.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

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

  • There is NOTHING that makes HbE infantry not viable. A lot of armies can field infantry based lists. Some better some less strong.
    It was not necessary to add some banners to give them special rules on top.
    Taking away or reducing these banners doesn´t take away the playstyle of infantry based army.

    In most cases for competitive play a safer approach than "head on into CC where the oponent can hit back" is more viable.
    But this is true for ALL armies out there. Some have the possibility to bring enough ranged threat to do it, others don´t.
    But an all infantry playstyle is viable for HbE even without the banners. It is more risky than shooting avoidance...but this is true for ALL armies.

    So nothing is taken away. The risk of playing CC was reduced significantly due to these banners.
    And there should not have been any banner be allowed three times in no army out there. If the units getting these multiple banners NEED the boosts they provide something is wrong on the design. If this is the case, then the unit design should be checked, and not some bandaid banner effects be added via multiple banners of the same type.
  • berti wrote:

    There is NOTHING that makes HbE infantry not viable. A lot of armies can field infantry based lists. Some better some less strong.
    It was not necessary to add some banners to give them special rules on top.
    Taking away or reducing these banners doesn´t take away the playstyle of infantry based army.

    In most cases for competitive play a safer approach than "head on into CC where the oponent can hit back" is more viable.
    But this is true for ALL armies out there. Some have the possibility to bring enough ranged threat to do it, others don´t.
    But an all infantry playstyle is viable for HbE even without the banners. It is more risky than shooting avoidance...but this is true for ALL armies.

    So nothing is taken away. The risk of playing CC was reduced significantly due to these banners.
    And there should not have been any banner be allowed three times in no army out there. If the units getting these multiple banners NEED the boosts they provide something is wrong on the design. If this is the case, then the unit design should be checked, and not some bandaid banner effects be added via multiple banners of the same type.
    I beg your pardon, but if your statement was anywhere remotely true, we would see a lot more infantry lists in 1.3.

    That not being the case directly contradicts your statement (part in red).

    What the rest of your post can be shortened to is "Hey, nothing is holding you back from playing infantry lists except from actually being able to win your games!"

    I am not sure about you, but I like having multiple VIABLE options, not just multiple options of which only one or max two is viable.

    For some truly fluff players, that viability may not matter overmuch, but a game system that deliberately ignores such high discrepancy in the level of viability among different units is a game system which has deep issues.

    Part of the problem lies with the core system (or rules if you will), but the rest lies within the respective armybooks.

    What you are virtually advocating is the approach of ignoring non viable options as long as there is at least a single viable list for the book.
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • I just want to point out that if there is a need for serious data before nerfing something, there should also be a need for serious data before buffing something.

    And no, while "not played" is a important data, I don't think it's enough to draw conclusions, especially if data comes from TO: people tend to play with the strongest stuff. Infantry lists could have been totally fine in 1.3 (I don't agree with that statement btw) but surpassed by another playstyle, thus not being played.

    You want data that something is bad? Play with it and report. It sad, but it's the only way. (NOT SAYING THIS WAS NOT DONE! Just pointing out that "not played" alone is not enough, even if it strongly suggests a potential problem).