Topic: The 9th Age?

[KevinC]

Here is a great summary in terms of rules. This is one reason I like 8th the best: 8th is truly the hardest for players to break compared to other editions. These big four things prevent a lot of non-sense:

1. 2D6 magic dice

2. Random charge distant

4. Pass a LD test in order to avoid march blocking

3. More ranks = steadfast

Many players hate those 4 things. Do you know why? because it makes it so much harder to exploit the game.

[Syn Ace]

Yeah I loved those changes. And Step Up.

[The Real Rick Salamone]

8th allowed reform and movement with a leadership roll, and getting out of a frenzy charge with a passed leadership roll. I enjoy these changes too.


EEFL!
EEFL.freeforums.net

[The Peacemaker]

8th Edition is what got me into fantasy.
The reasons many list that they love about 7th and 6th edition are the reasons I didn't like it.

When I tried getting into the game (the starter kit with Empire and orks) a few problems that made it not fun for me were:
1) only front rank fights - rolling 5 dice means your varience is huge, so many times nothing happens. And nothing happening is boring. + it led to all kinds of shenanigans.
2) no steadfast - no matter the game system many people agree that big units with no casualties getting run down was kinda ridiculous. Even in 40k my group made a house rule that the unit had to be under half strength or you had to outnumber them in order to run a unit down.

8th brought in steadfast and step up which fixed both of my previous hangups.
Random charge range and pre measuring aren't really big deals. I just listened to a podcast where the guys mentioned that pre-measuring and random charge fixed the arguing over 1/16th of an inch ranges.
Some complain that random charge took away from tactics. I would argue that it increased tactics. You were not guaranteed 16" charges. Not being 100% sure of a charge is actually more tactful because you have to compensate and have contingency plans for if you do not make it.
And that was about it. those 2 reasons made me dislike the game.


Magic... I learned that you can never really get magic right in this type of game. There is literally nothing realistic to base it off of so its just pure fantasy.
I liked 8th edition magic because you had the cheap spells and you had the unit killing spells.

Mechanics wise.... well I think we all agree that having your characters dies from unit killing spells just wasn't fun. And the purple sun down the lines was stupid. Those are things that should have been errata.

A personal thing that I hated about the 2d6 power dice. I rolled 2's and 3's for total power dice several turns in a row. Pretty much all my fun games with Empire I just bring a level 1 or 2 wizard.

Even the current 9th age rules have tone magic down and increased the effects of miscasts that many people just aren't bothering with magic.


Oh I wanted to comment on hordes.
Hordes are cool. Plain and simple. The only reason I ever hear people complain about them is because they would have to buy more models.
And bus formation was viable in 8th edition when we had the 7th edition books. Once Ogre Kingdomes came out though it really changed the meta.

And thats another point. It was really just GW's blatant buffing and nerfing units in army books just to sell the new models. I think we all agree that ya we get it, its a business. But they went too far with alot of units. Even fun game weren't fun without some comp.
They wanted to push sales to the competitive gamer so they made new units good. But they didn't realize that you don't have to make the new units OP for competitive gamers to use them. Making a unit just SLIGHTLY better makes the competitive guys buy them. But making them OP drives away anyone playing fun games.

Anyway, I'm just rambling now.

[grimgorgoroth]

Most of us here have moved to 9th Age. And we are very happy.

 We are a community of Wargames Fantasy which has been constantly playing for around three years. I, myself have been playing since 5th and I enjoyed 8th very much while it was alive.

We play at a Cultural Center that me and a mate run. We saw how our favorite game fell to pieces with age of Sigmar.

We thought we were in turmoil and that soon they (GW) would change the game and go back to what it really was: square bases, ranks and flanks. But we were drifting aimlessly, like a surviving hero but with no army, wandering around and watching other games, other systems.

I know I can be tedious, but it also affected us here in Chile and I imagine as you read, more than a few felt the same elsewhere in the world.

But anyway, I still remember when our friend Paul took the ninth age book printed explaining that
this could be our future. It’s the same as warhammer but as if it were the 9th edition that GW never did.
 
Much debate followed as a community, some reluctantly accepted the challenge to test the new system. Most of us loved it after one game.   Others simply stopped playing the game, others remained frozen in 8th edition..

We were up to date of what was really happening in the world of Warhammer, probing worldwide forums and reviewing pages. Every Saturday when we would meet at our club we tried to decide

What would happen to our community, this club that began as a group of friends and neighbors?
We gradually began to gather people from different regions and cities, we did not know how overnight we would transform into the main 9th Age group of the country.

Always bearing of what was most important: Brotherhood and a game of gentlemen that has been maintained.
Helping, rectifying errors, holding tournaments, even lending miniatures to the other player.

All worth it with a cold beer with your mates after (sometimes during LOL) the game to discuss the match ...

We are proud to have this space where we can discuss army lists, talk about strategies and ALL the fraternity that comes with this game.

This wonderful game called IX age

[Warlord]

These big four things prevent a lot of non-sense:
1. 2D6 magic dice
2. Random charge distant
4. Pass a LD test in order to avoid march blocking
3. More ranks = steadfast
Many players hate those 4 things. Do you know why? because it makes it so much harder to exploit the game.

Instead they introduced a bunch of new things that exploit the game. I am sure someone could create an alternative list of 4 new things that broke the game. I have a few in mind.
 
None of what you have mentioned make it a better game. Rather they simply describe why YOU like it better.

Seriously guys, can we please stop talking in absolutes. It is your preference, and it does not mean it is correct for everyone.

[Syn Ace]

Seriously guys, can we please stop talking in absolutes.

8th was absolutely the best. Absolutely. I'm absolutely certain. 

[KevinC]

Seriously guys, can we please stop talking in absolutes. It is your preference, and it does not mean it is correct for everyone.

 I'm really not trying to be a wise guy, but did you notice the post was by me, KevinC? The forum displays the author on the left side of the post. That *should* obviously mean everything I write is my own opinion, unless I state an actual fact. George Washington was the first president of the United States, for example.

It should go without saying that every person in the world does not think 8th edition is the best. But I do think that it is the best, that is why I write it.

 

[boda317]

I have to agree with KevinC. while i love 8th edition others can like what they want. me personally, since 8th died, i have tried kings of war, age of sigmar, 9th edition, wraith of kings, and a few others but i keep going back to 8th. And in my opinion 9th age, while a cool concept, isn't warhammer and doesn't feel like it seeing as no intellectual property is there! i want my men fight for nordland! not generic city #4

[Minsc]

KevinC, being slightly humble goes a long way, especially on the internet when you can't always tell someones mood or intention just by reading what they type.

For instance, there's a world of difference between:
"8th is the best edition" and "I think 8th is the best edition".

Besides, you when you say something like this:

8th is truly the hardest for players to break compared to other editions.

It doesn't sound like just your opinion, but it sounds like you're stating it like it's a non-disputable fact.

And in my opinion 9th age, while a cool concept, isn't warhammer and doesn't feel like it seeing as no intellectual property is there! i want my men fight for nordland! not generic city #4

So paint them with Nordlands colours and say they fight for Nordland - what's stopping you?
Call your Heavy Infantry with Spears "spearmen" and call your Imperial Guard with greatweapons "greatswords", etc.

[The Peacemaker]

I have to agree with KevinC. while i love 8th edition others can like what they want. me personally, since 8th died, i have tried kings of war, age of sigmar, 9th edition, wraith of kings, and a few others but i keep going back to 8th. And in my opinion 9th age, while a cool concept, isn't warhammer and doesn't feel like it seeing as no intellectual property is there! i want my men fight for nordland! not generic city #4

Once the fluff and background is written for 9th age it should be pretty enticing. And its non-profit IP so its never going to go away.

The fluff is also based on historical fantasy so it has the same feel of the old world we like.

[Xathrodox86]

After reading some of the posts here, I have to agree with many of the statements. 8th edition in itself probably wasn't THAT bad (not as bad as 5th) but its main problems lay with herohammer (OP characters from some armybooks), too powerful magic (Purple Sun spam anyone?) and horde mentality (no, I don't think that a company's pathetic attempt at cashgrab is anything but disgusting). If not for some armybooks, like High Elves, Skaven and the Undead, 8th could be very, very good. Hmmm I think that I'm going to give one more chance and organise a game with my pal. We'll see, maybe I'm just a no-fun-allowed guy after all.

[Warlord]

Seriously guys, can we please stop talking in absolutes. It is your preference, and it does not mean it is correct for everyone.

 I'm really not trying to be a wise guy, but did you notice the post was by me, KevinC? The forum displays the author on the left side of the post. That *should* obviously mean everything I write is my own opinion, unless I state an actual fact. George Washington was the first president of the United States, for example.

It should go without saying that every person in the world does not think 8th edition is the best. But I do think that it is the best, that is why I write it.

Perhaps if you are planning to be a wise guy though, get the quotations correct.

I can see who posted it. I hardly think me asking you to speak in a less confrontational and absolute way is a difficult ask.

[S.O.F]

These big four things prevent a lot of non-sense:
1. 2D6 magic dice
2. Random charge distant
4. Pass a LD test in order to avoid march blocking
3. More ranks = steadfast
Many players hate those 4 things. Do you know why? because it makes it so much harder to exploit the game.

Instead they introduced a bunch of new things that exploit the game. I am sure someone could create an alternative list of 4 new things that broke the game. I have a few in mind.
 

Yes very much this. The core problem with GW major edition changes was that though they would fix a number of glaring issues with the previous edition cycle they tended to go too far and break things that under previous incarnations were not broken. Ultimately individual preferences toward unaltered or house ruled variants are skewed toward which fixed things one cares most for and which broken things one is most tolerant of.

- 6th edition armies books were terrible in terms of background and dropping lots of units from the previous editions (i.e. Empire Steam Tanks, the War Alter, Halflings, Forest Goblin Spider Riders, most of the classic special characters, etc.). 7th edition books were better. 8th edition books - awesome! This part of the hobby is extremely important me, hence I can't get excited about the 9th Age.

Now this point does make me curious, certainly the loss of some units (Forest Goblins from OnG and War Wagons from Empire) were a bit sad but by 2004 one could field just about anything else: Steam Tank had a WD then annual article, Halflings/Dwarfs/Ogres could be included as DoW, Kislev allied units and if one desired Special Characters were updated for the edition and found in WD and then annuals.

I mean, at least from an Imperial player perspective one could play a far more comprehensive list under the 6th edition rules then one ever could under the 8th with the only exception being that Special Characters were limited to opponents permission (which as an aside is how I feel they should have always stayed).

Also I having a feeling that the note on the background being terrible for the 6th is again the very subjective but understandable personal preference as to presentation of the setting. Warhammer, at least in it classic run of fully developed wargame, rather than the very RPG with battle options the first two editions, has oscillated between two sorts of settings: the 3rd/WHFRP/6th/sorta 7th of a gritty but real and grounded feel Fantasy setting, the one more about the 'everyman' who just lives in the world, and deals with it fantastic nature and then there is the 4th/5th/8th/some 7th which was more interested in the more epic components of fantasy, monsters and magic as well as epic heroes and cataclysmic confrontation. Invariably I think beyond rules these two thematic differences between how to present the world and setting matter a great deal in how a person perceives their preferred edition, and I would wager this is often just as important to many as the strength and weakness of the core rules for said edition. 

[Midaski]

Whatever edition one mentions you have to face the fact GW never got it totally right, and now they never will.   

Given their track record since the 'suits' took over from the hobbyists, I cannot help the feeling that is an improvement.

There were things about 6th I loved and things I hated.
There were things about 7th I loved and things I hated.
There were things about 8th I loved and things I hated.

See the pattern.   

GW are never going to fix those editions.

Whether it is Revised 8th or New 9th it is probably better that the systems are back in the hands of hobbyists.

I haven't had more than a cursory glance at 9th Age yet - I decided to give them time to work through it, and then see what they have come up with when the dust has settled and it is as complete as it can be with full rules and Army Books.

If I start playing the new 9th, I take the point about IP and using non-Warhammer names and terms, but it will still be Warhammer to me - I'll be using my Warhammer armies .............

......... and given GW's drive to reduce cost, will they keep the lawyers on retainers when they are no longer interested in the Olde World 

[KevinC]

KevinC, being slightly humble goes a long way, especially on the internet when you can't always tell someones mood or intention just by reading what they type.

For instance, there's a world of difference between:
"8th is the best edition" and "I think 8th is the best edition".

Besides, you when you say something like this:

8th is truly the hardest for players to break compared to other editions.

It doesn't sound like just your opinion, but it sounds like you're stating it like it's a non-disputable fact.

And in my opinion 9th age, while a cool concept, isn't warhammer and doesn't feel like it seeing as no intellectual property is there! i want my men fight for nordland! not generic city #4

So paint them with Nordlands colours and say they fight for Nordland - what's stopping you?
Call your Heavy Infantry with Spears "spearmen" and call your Imperial Guard with greatweapons "greatswords", etc.

For the record, Warlord cut out the part where I state "I like," normally I would not care, but it seems to be so important here. Here is my full post (it's at the top of the page):

"Here is a great summary in terms of rules. This is one reason I like 8th the best: 8th is truly the hardest for players to break compared to other editions. These big four things prevent a lot of non-sense:

1. 2D6 magic dice

2. Random charge distant

4. Pass a LD test in order to avoid march blocking

3. More ranks = steadfast

Many players hate those 4 things. Do you know why? because it makes it so much harder to exploit the game."


Lastly, I won't address this matter again here, but I don't understand this notion that I need to be more humble. Of course I'm stating my opinion. That goes without saying. It's not about me being humble or not. If you read my opinion and think "this guy is an ego maniac" it's probably because YOU have the ego.

You guys can 100% disagree with every word I write and I'm totally fine with that. But the notion that I'm presenting my, obvious, opinion as fact is nothing but crazy talk to me. Ignore my posts if you can't tell fact from opinion.

[warhammerlord_soth]

Enough please. This has gone far enough. Back to the subject....

Verstuurd vanaf mijn SM-G900F met Tapatalk

[KevinC]

- 6th edition armies books were terrible in terms of background and dropping lots of units from the previous editions (i.e. Empire Steam Tanks, the War Alter, Halflings, Forest Goblin Spider Riders, most of the classic special characters, etc.). 7th edition books were better. 8th edition books - awesome! This part of the hobby is extremely important me, hence I can't get excited about the 9th Age.

Now this point does make me curious, certainly the loss of some units (Forest Goblins from OnG and War Wagons from Empire) were a bit sad but by 2004 one could field just about anything else: Steam Tank had a WD then annual article, Halflings/Dwarfs/Ogres could be included as DoW, Kislev allied units and if one desired Special Characters were updated for the edition and found in WD and then annuals.

I mean, at least from an Imperial player perspective one could play a far more comprehensive list under the 6th edition rules then one ever could under the 8th with the only exception being that Special Characters were limited to opponents permission (which as an aside is how I feel they should have always stayed).

Also I having a feeling that the note on the background being terrible for the 6th is again the very subjective but understandable personal preference as to presentation of the setting. Warhammer, at least in it classic run of fully developed wargame, rather than the very RPG with battle options the first two editions, has oscillated between two sorts of settings: the 3rd/WHFRP/6th/sorta 7th of a gritty but real and grounded feel Fantasy setting, the one more about the 'everyman' who just lives in the world, and deals with it fantastic nature and then there is the 4th/5th/8th/some 7th which was more interested in the more epic components of fantasy, monsters and magic as well as epic heroes and cataclysmic confrontation. Invariably I think beyond rules these two thematic differences between how to present the world and setting matter a great deal in how a person perceives their preferred edition, and I would wager this is often just as important to many as the strength and weakness of the core rules for said edition.

SOF, good points. Where I'm coming from is at a comparative level. The 4th/5th editions army book I was used to were totally awesome. Then 6th edition army books come out with lots of units dropped and little background compared to the original Warhammer army books. 7th and 8th edition army books did correct this by adding more fluff, bringing back older units, and even creating new units for many of the army books.

I'm curious, SOF, what are the army book elements that made 6th edition Empire play better than 8th edition Empire?

[grimgorgoroth]

Taken from the 9th age forum

Since this is a community project, let's make a sound analysis of differences between rules in The 9th Age and the last version of WFB.

There is big demand for such a summary.

Example:

Deployment
Alternating deployment has been made more complex/ strategic: you can choose to drop any amount of models on your go, and you get to add the number of drops your opponent makes after that to your start roll

Rallying
fleeing units that are at 25% or less of their starting nr's rally at half the leadership value, rounded up, instead of snake eyes.

Line of sight
Line of sight uses a tier system similar to 7th, rather than true line of sight.

Always Strikes First
Changed to Lightning Reflexes, which only provided +1 to hit and striking at initiative with great weapons.

Move-or-fire
Handheld weapons that used to have this rule now have Unwieldy: suffers an additional -1 to hit when moved.

Killing Blow
Now Lethal Strike. Rather than killing a small model instantly (barring ward saves), it just ignores armor and regen on a single wound.

Close combat weapons
Many have changed. Spears now have AP(1), FiER when charged too and Lethal Strike(cavalry, monstrous cavalry and charriots, but upfront only). Additional hand weapons grant +1 to initiative. Flails cause the wielder to offer +1 to hit to his opponents.

Cannons
Uses ballistic skill now

Victory Points
You give half of Victory points to opponent if you have 25% or less wounds left on a unit/model at end of the game.

Unit's
More balanced out, cost per model of minimum amount may differ from additional models

Ridden Monsters
New rules from combined profiles

Challenges
Maximum overkill is +3

Characters protection in unit's
Characters automatically dodge shooting damage id they are the same troop type

Charging
If the unit has champion it will automatically roll a minimum of 4 for charge as to before of no minimum distance rolled

Losing Combat
When unit is broken in combat it just loses the "standard" but not the model+standard
Insane courage has been removed: unit;s now autoflee if they can't roll a rally

Combat: tie
If combat is drawn, player with musician will win but no break test is needed compared to player with musician winning by 1

Combat reform
Can no longer combat reform but can only combat pivot as to can do both before

Make Way
"Make Way" can only be applicable for characters in the front rank and not in base to base contact with enemy models whilst it use to be characters in any rank not in base to base contact with enemy models.

Templates
Linear templates can hit more than 1 model/rank.
Tear shaped template is not used anymore

Monster Handlers
Monster&handlers rule no longer applies, despite the actual models.

Fear
Fear now causes -1 Ld
Armywide fear for daemons, undead and ogres has been removed.

Allocating attacks
attacks in CC can always be allocated to R&F models, even if the front rank is all lords.

Magic
Very different ..
Lore (=Path) Attributes are separate spells in their own right that are cast automatically when a spell is succesfully cast.
Overwhelming Power can be dispelled.

New type of shooting ability
Volley Fire weapons ignore cover provided by intervening models, and shoot with the whole unit if stationary.

Parry changed
Parry makes the attacker hit on 4+ (at best) before applying other modifiers (such as Lightning Reflexes or Spells).

Flammable
Flammable no longer double wounds but reroll failed to wound rolls

[Syn Ace]

Eh some of those are ok, some seems like they're fixing some things that didn't need to be fixed. That hitting more than 1 model per rank with a linear template sounds like it'll be back to arguing -- "See it hits these ones as well" "No, no, you're wrong." "No, I'm not." "Yes, you're obviously wrong..."

[Minsc]

Eh some of those are ok, some seems like they're fixing some things that didn't need to be fixed. That hitting more than 1 model per rank with a linear template sounds like it'll be back to arguing -- "See it hits these ones as well" "No, no, you're wrong." "No, I'm not." "Yes, you're obviously wrong..."

Taken from one of the examples in the 9th Age rulebook:



What's to argue about? Worst case scenario: roll a D6.

[grimgorgoroth]

They made the old purple sun a line template. Kill a lot of dudes but not the whole unit

[GamesPoet]

The problem with staying with 8th is that it's a game that's stopped evolving, and where the general community isn't big enough to change/update the rules. You can always make houserules, but that's about it.

I'm not a fan of EEFL (I wasn't a fan of 8th Edition), but they seem to be making an effort to evolve as well.

Just keep playing and don't worry what others do. I intend to carry on with my campaign as long as my players are happy to. If they stopped playing Warhammer (and I only ask for a game or two from them per year!) I'd just look for other players, or another way to proceed. If people want to they can say I am reenacting the Warhammer hobby!

[GamesPoet]

Most of us here have moved to 9th Age. And we are very happy.

Glad you're happy.   At the same time, how is the concept of "most of us here" being measured?

[Syn Ace]

Eh some of those are ok, some seems like they're fixing some things that didn't need to be fixed. That hitting more than 1 model per rank with a linear template sounds like it'll be back to arguing -- "See it hits these ones as well" "No, no, you're wrong." "No, I'm not." "Yes, you're obviously wrong..."

Taken from one of the examples in the 9th Age rulebook:



What's to argue about? Worst case scenario: roll a D6.

Yep, that's what I was afraid of.