• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

9th Age Skink Hunters v.0.10.1

Haemoglobin
Ripperdactyl

Haemoglobin

9th Age Army Support
Messages
458
Likes Received
141
Trophy Points
43
Quick question

I've noticed that the Skink hunters now have a minimum unitsize of 12 instead of 10 with a minimum cost of 90 points (102 with shields). What would the reasoning behind this be? I was under the impression that they were already a tad expensive at 80 (90 with shields). In reality nobody really would take units of 12 because they needed to be cheap to make them effective redirectors. This change basically just made our redirectors more expensive for little gain (2 T2 wounds, 2 poison shots). Units of 12 with shields will pretty much never be used at all so you might aswell just remove the option :P

Could anyone explain the point of view of the writers?

Thanks!
 
:(. When you just glued and painted 26 skinks with javs and shields.. :O

I have 1 more pack of them, guess I better wait untill our LM 9th age book gets released...
 
I have the same issue man. 3x 10 Skink Skirmishers with shields and 3 heavily customised movement trays that are unitspecific :(
 
Yes
They were in fact, considered too powerful as it was. Pretty much every army build that was winning anything In tourneys had tons of them.
So they had to be nerfed according to others understanding of the potency of the unit.
There were arguments against, but lots of other army books comitee members and Rule teams, thought this unit too good.
 
i'm not too angry because of this nerf, but this hostile behaviour around our army pisses me off. In T9A forum there are even players of other armies crying for nerfs in our sections: that's disgusting in my opinion.
They're bad generals since they cannot deal with skinks (not even the ranked ones without shields, or so it seems) and they're bad players since they prefer crying about other armies other than developing tactics for their own.

So, to answer your question, the only point of view to explain is "since these idiots cannot find a way around this (not OP at all) unit we should nerf it, so other armies can smash the SA in close combat. We all know that 70% of the players out there don't know what "think" means and they prefer going forward, charging and repeat until victory, so we have to act properly to satisfy their needs".

IMO obviously. Please notice that i'm not against the rules team, but against these "players" who are actually tournament addicted and just want to have their OP army because they would never win anything using an army which requires a good general to work.

And even if i'm tempted I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks, I WILL NOT read the other armybooks....

Sorry if i sound aggressive, unpolite or whatever, but i'm just done with this kind of people who have only seen buffs to their stupid armies through the editions and now feel to have the right to keep the status quo when balance starts to put their armies on similar power levels with the others.
 
To be honest I don't think that the unit is too strong, but the ability to take so many of them. Wouldn't it have been an option to limit the use of them? 0-3 units of Skink Skirmishers for instance? I know that the price increase was deserved, but the 12 min models+ price increase does make it a big nerf. And the most annoying thing: rebuilding movement trays to 12 D:
 
@Rettile I get were your frustration comes at, but the other option we had were far worse than what we got. Persoanlly I think the SA Committee handled this one very decent. The end result was a "Nerf", but not a heavy one, just one that prevent too abusive tactics from occurring.
I never had a problem with the skinks, thought them good, but not over the top, so I see where you're coming from.

And yes some people are way overreacting, but they are also being warned, not to over reacting in this manner. ;)
 
Not to mention we are talking about t2 models with 6/5+ as that is mostly negated by magic missiles. They are easy to remove, easy to kill and absolutely worthless in cc. They are strong against monsters with no saves (limited range of models) and warmachines (If you let a unit get close enough ofc) Yes they are strong redirectors but thats about it. And what would keep players from spamming small brave units? Playing something like skink clouds is hard, easily countered and has a hard time getting big wins. Nerfs like these do feel like some doesn't like his deathstars not getting into combat with our, relatively speaking, softer combat blocks.
 
Rettile said:
i'm not too angry because of this nerf, but this hostile behaviour around our army pisses me off. In T9A forum there are even players of other armies crying for nerfs in our sections: that's disgusting in my opinion.
They're bad generals since they cannot deal with skinks (not even the ranked ones without shields, or so it seems) and they're bad players since they prefer crying about other armies other than developing tactics for their own.

.
Click to expand...

Ignore them. It's annoying as hell, but they're not worth it. I'll keep my eye on comments and if I see anything out of the line I'll take action. If things gets too heated I'll tell people to cool off.
 
The Sauric Ace said:
@Rettile I get were your frustration comes at, but the other option we had were far worse than what we got. Persoanlly I think the SA Committee handled this one very decent. The end result was a "Nerf", but not a heavy one, just one that prevent too abusive tactics from occurring.
I never had a problem with the skinks, thought them good, but not over the top, so I see where you're coming from.

And yes some people are way overreacting, but they are also being warned, not to over reacting in this manner. ;)
Click to expand...

Yep mate, in fact my frustration isn't directed towards the rules team or the ABC, just towards this kind of people. And i don't think it's a huge nerf, but this focus on our army makes me really angry.

I'm doing my best to keep calmer on T9A forum, but since we're among friends here I hope you'll forgive me if i let my cold blood go hot.
You're right @Pinktaco , i'll just ignore them or express my opinion in a smooth way as i'm doing (there, not here LOL)
 
Haha it's quite alright. Several of the outsiders currently residing on our subforum are there solely because herpa derp we have ONE build that overperform. It's unfortunate because the rest of the update is being completely overshadowed. HAVE NOBODY MENTIONED THE NEW PREDATORY ROAR!? D:
 
I like the new roar. Takes out the punch of chargiing units :p i just hate the fact i have to redo all my skink.skirmishers
 
Haemoglobin said:
Could anyone explain the point of view of the writers?
Click to expand...
trust me...its a big issue internally :P

The Army book guys are struggling to not overnerf the skinks, but are forced to from outside factors.

This is an attempt of incremental adjustment, with the hopes of getting closer to "the right place" where everyone is happy.
that place is right next to wonderland :D

I think the dust will settle when a couple more tournaments have been held.

But hey guy, for now try to consume the feeling of being "that overpowered army" :D havent been Saurians for quite a while!
 
The issue is that in a vacuum the nerf to skinks look extremely harsh when they keep coming. Truth of the matter is that half the current armies are overperforming compared to what is desired. The committees are just afraid to take the first real step. If more armies nerfed their overperforming units it wouldn't look so bad in the grand scheme of things. But when it's nerfs here and there is becomes much more painful.

The RT have deemed the KoE (bretonnnia) an suitable powerlevel and been they have a hard time accepting that.

I'll be conducting a survey including ALL army book committees for all books to understand how they perceive balance. I fear that the ABC members don't quite have the same vision as the RT.

For instance despite that the KoE members have been told NOT to propose anymore buffs they went ahead and asked to receive +1I to all units with jousting, despite the fact that they were told they were already at the desired powerlevel.

Do not that this doesn't mean internal balance shouldn't be fixed just because external balance is perfect.

This is also why I hope that next time (and there will be a next time) they won't merge skink hunters and braves. I'd rather take a price increase on braves, make AHW hand weapons and shield +1pts or whatever. We'll see though.

In a perfect world skink clouds will not:
  • Be the prefered SA core choice
  • Be too dominating external balance wise
Finally while our skinks are being hit (hard) so will many other armies. Nerfs are never fun when it's yours only army, but sadly that's the only route for a more balanced game. The alternative solution would be to buff the weaker armies, but that would lead to an endless cycle of buffs also called an arms race or power creep. Therefore the RT have decided that the KoE, BH and OK are what the ABCs should aim for and not for instance WotDG (chaos warriors).
 
Personally I do hope that the minimum size goes back to 10... I don't see myself using Skink Hunters at all with a base size of 12, due to modelling and price issues. I feel that the nerf barely hits Skink Cloud lists (which are the intended target) but does hurt lists that only had 2-3 units of Skink Hunters + a solid block as core.
 
I think the issue is that it's only half a solution. You can still very easily fit in 8 units of skink redirectors with little effort. I actually start to feel that capping skink hunters and braves at 0-3 each would've been preferable - so a total of 6 units.

At any rate the ABC will highly likely have to do something with skink braves. They're a steal as it is. I realize that in big combat blocks they have bad stats, but currently you can take 20 models for the same price as 10 skirmishers (with shields). It doesn't quite make sense IMO.
 
yep, i'm starting to agree aswell regarding the 0-3/0-3 thing. I still don't like it (because of skrox darts, not because of skirmishers), but maybe this is the best solution.
If they merge braves and hunters they'll destroy the cloud and we'll need another core option
 
Yes 0-3 on both units would be good imo. Just raise the price to gain AHW on braves by +1pts.
 
I agree with the 0-3 option for both units. And what would the chances be of having skink hunters at a minimum of 10 models again? :P
 
so I feel i should weigh in on this as i was seriously considering giving 9th Age a try. Please give them the feedback that making the minimum unit size 12 for skink skirmishers will deter new players because a lot of us have fancy movement trays for units of 10. Also my units of skink skirmishers are all painted different colors. I dont really want to bother making new trays for a game i am trying out. Kings of War seems to be the way most players in my area are going but there is a group of us that want to try out 9th Age as well. Not trying to be whiny, just want to give honest feedback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top