9th Age What the hell happened to Slann High Magic Loremastery?

[Zarathustra]

Can some one please tell me when it was decided to drop the loremaster function from that discipline and keep wandering deliberations? I mean serious, way to establish a true difference in power I guess... Also, can someone explain whether or not the two disciplines themselves will stack? One to grant you five spells out of High Magic and the other to grant you all the Signature spells. It would appear that the rules as written directly conflict depending on which discipline you purchase first... This could lead to a situation where a player wanted to generate spells from High Magic with the 8 signatures, and would justify it under the notion of an order of precedence, purchasing Wandering Deliberations before the discipline for High Magic spells would enable you to generate at least one spell from high magic, and would not remove the previous spells as those are not generated normally.

 

[DrMad]

You can only take 100pts in disciplines. So you can't take both as they are 80pts and 50pts.
Bugger that lore master is gone...

 

[pendrake]

9th Age magic is all new (what was old is new again ) so nobody has mastered it yet?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

9th Age magic is all new (what was old is new again ) so nobody has mastered it yet?

That's actually the most satisfying answer I have heard yet!

 

[Zarathustra]

The other thing is what happened to Slann spell swapping, I mean it is one of the characteristics that has been part of the Character since the beginning the ability to swap spells with each other.

 

[Rettile]

man, i know it's sad but for now you better accept the fact that our identity isn't so important in T9A (in fact i keep telling and thinking that Lizardmen and Saurian Ancient are two different things, and that it's a bad thing). Maybe things will go better in future. Anyway both the slann and magic are so nerfed now that you're probably ok with a skink caster, and this helps if you need to distract from the actual and IMO frustrating and flat Cuatl. Well, IMO the whole army is quite frustrating and flat actually, but i still have some faith towards the future releases even if i've lost all of my enthusiasm

 

[Zarathustra]

I will be avoiding 9th age I think. AOS getting points, and narrative play are likely going to be enough for me. If I have to accept a murdering of fluff, I prefer the mechanics of AOS, more than I can put up with the blandness of 9th Age.

 

[Haemoglobin]

Fluff was reduced to balance the game for the upcoming ETC event(s). I'm pretty sure that there will be a lot more work going on with fluff and background (including list building to reflect this) for the September update.

A good example would be the new SE book that has just been released, complete with fluff and background art. Not sure when SA would get their turn though considering it take a hell of a lot of effort.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

A good example would be the new SE book that has just been released

I think the art and presentation were pretty good. Although I've decided not to pursue 9th Age, I'm always interested to see what kind of artwork they put forth.

 

[protector]

I can't stand staying stagnant and mired down in old thinking or ways of playing, and for that reason I am T9A all the way. I really don't care what lizardmen were in the past, in 8th edition they certainly were not anything like they were in 5th age when I started playing, so I don't see any reason to get my undies in a bunch over them changing again.

I have preferential play styles of course and I do hope that they continue to lean towards how I like to play them, but just like 8th did not lean that way I will play however I want and find ways to make it work. I like AoS but everyone else I play with hates it, so maybe after we get points for it they will want to play a few games, but far and away T9A has been the game for my meta and will continue to be.

 

[pendrake]

...find ways to make it work. I like AoS but everyone else I play with hates it, so maybe after we get points for it they will want to play a few games,...

What are their reasons for hating 'Age Of Skirmish' ?

Not asking in order to start a debate, I'm just genuinely curious & cataloging reasons. Does your local "everyone" even articulate reasons?

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

What are their reasons for hating 'Age Of Skirmish' ?

Not asking in order to start a debate,

 

[protector]

What are their reasons for hating 'Age Of Skirmish' ?

Not asking in order to start a debate, I'm just genuinely curious & cataloging reasons. Does your local "everyone" even articulate reasons?

They are actually very articulate about their massive dislike for AoS.

Reason 1) List building and competitive optimization is a very large part of the hobby, finding unique builds within the confines of set rules and exploiting your opponent later easily takes up twice as much time during the week as an actual game.

Reason 2) It is literally impossible to have a competitive game within the AoS ruleset as it stands, and all of us hate the idea of house rules, we would rather play with a broken game that is universal than start making house rules (In that sense I agree with them, I can and have created my own games, if that was what I wanted to do then why bother with AoS).

Reason 3) The story behind the armies is very important, we all very much love our factions for very specific reasons, being able to field a Khorne daemon prince right next to my slann is stupid, really really stupid.

Reason 4) The game makes fun of itself with ridiculous rules and units, this goes far beyond the haphazard skaven or goblin fun and ruins actual game play. Any game that goes that far isn't trying to be anything other than something you do while drunk, at the end of the day they want a game where they can be as brutally competitive as possible and still struggle to win or lose.

So there you have it, AoS did in all honesty remove the majority of the hobby from them with just taking away list building (And no, making themed lists and finding synergies is not the same, if it isn't competitive then it isn't worth playing in my meta). And by removing the competitive nature of the game they took away the core reason for playing against each other, we have fun winning against someone trying their hardest, not a pity win because I decided not to even try.

 

[Deusvult]

I think the art and presentation were pretty good. Although I've decided not to pursue 9th Age, I'm always interested to see what kind of artwork they put forth.

I think you are missing out brother. As much as everyone bitches and moans about our book, it is actually fun to play. You just have to change some thinking, the same as any edition change.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I think you are missing out brother. As much as everyone bitches and moans about our book, it is actually fun to play. You just have to change some thinking, the same as any edition change.

I have no doubt that it is fun to play. I personally think that 9th Age is good game, but at the same time I feel that 8th Edition is a better one (at least for me).

I chose not to pursue 9th Age because I view it as a slightly diminished version of 8th. Sure there are things that 9th Age does better than 8th, but overall I think there are more cons than pros. This is purely from my subjective point of view of course.

I weighed the positives and negatives of making the switch and it turned out that 8th was the game for me. In regards to 9th Age these are some of the positives and negatives that I came up with....

Positives:

• Active system
• More forum conversation, debate, interest, etc.
• Ability to negate steadfast
• Improved cannon rules
• Better balanced magic phase
• Improvement of previously under powered (unplayable) units

Negatives:

• Unofficial rule set
• Rules feel much more restrictive and less fun
• Stripped away fluffy rules
• No official (uniform) model support
• Some armies appear to have been treated much more fairly than others (bias?)
• Combined profile Ridden Monster rule
• Diminished state of the Slann
• No more core skink poison skirmishers (this is huge)
• Hellcannon losing it's unbreakable rule
• New unit names (I understand why it had to be done, but still inconvenient)
• They are likely to expand into a Sigmarine army at some point (educated guess)

 

[pendrake]

They are actually very articulate about their massive dislike for AoS.

Reason 1) List building and competitive optimization is a very large part of the hobby, finding unique builds within the confines of set rules and exploiting your opponent later easily takes up twice as much time during the week as an actual game.

Reason 2) It is literally impossible to have a competitive game within the AoS ruleset as it stands, and all of us hate the idea of house rules, we would rather play with a broken game that is universal than start making house rules (In that sense I agree with them, I can and have created my own games, if that was what I wanted to do then why bother with AoS?).

Reason 3) The story behind the armies is very important, we all very much love our factions for very specific reasons, being able to field a Khorne daemon prince right next to my slann is stupid, really really stupid.

Reason 4) The game makes fun of itself with ridiculous rules and units, this goes far beyond the haphazard skaven or goblin fun and ruins actual game play. Any game that goes that far isn't trying to be anything other than something you do while drunk, at the end of the day they want a game where they can be as brutally competitive as possible and still struggle to win or lose.

So there you have it, AoS did in all honesty remove the majority of the hobby from them with just taking away list building (And no, making themed lists and finding synergies is not the same, if it isn't competitive then it isn't worth playing in my meta). And by removing the competitive nature of the game they took away the core reason for playing against each other, we have fun winning against someone trying their hardest, not a pity win because I decided not to even try.

That was interesting. I am kinda surprised that a couple of things were missing. You didn't mention anything about round and oval bases. Also, ranked units (or lack thereof) didn't make the top four — that was a surprise — also the related time sink of moving individual figures. Are those topics insignificant to your folk? ("meta"?)

Your four summarized:

1. Lack of points system & requirement for army roster lists.
2. Lack of gaming company as final rules authority.
3. Destruction of prior fluff and the loss of distinction between factions.
4. Inclusion of nonsense rules, (Bretonni players shouting "for the Lady!" and such...)​

...if those are a fair summary?

So, there is a points system in the works...according to the rumour-mongering webpages. Do you think that will be enough to repair 1 & 2 for your gaming circle?

What if the new points system is so fair and balanced that "...finding unique builds within the confines of set rules and exploiting your opponent later..." is not really possible??

(...because the point values are so objectively fair that 375 points of anything has a 50/50 chance of beating any other creature or group of figures that is 375 points.)

How do you think your "Meta" would react to that, if it happened?

 

[Zarathustra]

I will be honest, the talk of 9th Age, 8th Edition, and AOS, reminds me of how I never really wanted to leave 7th edition. For me, the magic phase in 6th edition was the most balanced it ever was, with it having a proper respectable level of power. I liked a magic heavy army, and I feel 8th Edition and 9th age all restrict that possibility terribly. Perhaps, I could live with 9th Age if the magic generation and magic phase rules were much more like 6th or 7th edition, but as it stands I tend to agree with Nightbringer, it seriously feels like a diminished game...

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

I will be honest, the talk of 9th Age, 8th Edition, and AOS, reminds me of how I never really wanted to leave 7th edition. For me, the magic phase in 6th edition was the most balanced it ever was, with it having a proper respectable level of power. I liked a magic heavy army, and I feel 8th Edition and 9th age all restrict that possibility terribly. Perhaps, I could live with 9th Age if the magic generation and magic phase rules were much more like 6th or 7th edition, but as it stands I tend to agree with Nightbringer, it seriously feels like a diminished game...

I keep hearing such great things about 6th edition. Of all the previous Warhammer editions, 6th seems to garner the greatest praise from the community.

 

[hardyworld]

I believe that's mostly believed because 6th Ed. was the most balanced set of armies they ever made (especially when you compare army books from start to finish). 6th Edition also seemed to be the time when GW really hit its stride with the fluff and models for their Warhammer Fantasy universe, it all really came together to make a great product that was a great leap forward over the 5th Ed. 7th Edition had horrible power creep as the army books were published (but the rules were basically a better defined version of the 6th Ed.). 8th Ed. had a lot more changes implemented into its rules than the previous edition had made, but GW didn't have the power creep problem this time and really did a great job overall with 8th Ed. (while some units may have been 'overpowered' it wasn't like 7th Ed. when whole armies were 'broken'). 8th Ed. was their best edition ever and I'm sad to see that GW stopped making the game, but I'm glad I have their best edition with more expansions than I'll ever need to last me for my lifetime (just wish I could find 8th Ed. opponents these days).

I too have very little interest in 9th Age, the game made too many changes for the sake of 'balance', it may be as bland as Kings of War (my opinion). I think 8th Ed. did much better with its balance between dull things with little randomness and fun things with great randomness. Some of my more memorable moments ever of playing warhammer were when overpowered things randomly won/lost me the game because of a die roll. The 9th Age barely has that element (if at all) and the 8th Ed. didn't have that element too much or too little, they found a great balance. I'll stick with 8th Ed. until GW actually brings Warhammer Fantasy Battle back with a true 9th Ed. that is palatable (I'm not holding my breath).

My greatest disappointment at this stage is the realization that I may never attend a GT again. I haven't been to one in over a year because they are all switching to a mix of AoS, T9A, & KoW. I was never a highly competitive player (just see my GT record below), but those gatherings were always a lot of fun and met a lot of great people (only rarely did I meet someone that I never wanted to play against again). It said a lot for the community as the overwhelming majority of people were very friendly, and I enjoyed that a lot. Maybe I'll switch to going to board game conventions.

Obviously everyone is going to have their own opinion on what fits them best. I'm sure AoS is awesome for a lot of people, and I hope they have fun! I'm confident The 9th Age is fantastic for the right groups, and I hope they have a blast! I'm certain Kings of War is amazing for great gamers, and I hope they help that scene continue to grow! Me: Warhammer Fantasy Battle Eighth Edition for Life.

 

[protector]

That was interesting. I am kinda surprised that a couple of things were missing. You didn't mention anything about round and oval bases. Also, ranked units (or lack thereof) didn't make the top four — that was a surprise — also the related time sink of moving individual figures. Are those topics insignificant to your folk? ("meta"?)

Your four summarized:

1. Lack of points system & requirement for army roster lists.
2. Lack of gaming company as final rules authority.
3. Destruction of prior fluff and the loss of distinction between factions.
4. Inclusion of nonsense rules, (Bretonni players shouting "for the Lady!" and such...)​

...if those are a fair summary?

So, there is a points system in the works...according to the rumour-mongering webpages. Do you think that will be enough to repair 1 & 2 for your gaming circle?

What if the new points system is so fair and balanced that "...finding unique builds within the confines of set rules and exploiting your opponent later..." is not really possible??

(...because the point values are so objectively fair that 375 points of anything has a 50/50 chance of beating any other creature or group of figures that is 375 points.)

How do you think your "Meta" would react to that, if it happened?

That is a fair summary, point 2 is more a gripe against the need for house rules to actually play the game, not really a lack of gaming company though.

Round bases do not make a lick of difference to AoS for us, since there is no distinction in gameplay between round or square no one really give a carp, and if you really wanted ranked units then you are more than welcome to do that as well in AoS so no loss there. I haven't seen an issue with time it takes to move models due to the lack of a balanced points system, why bring 100 skaven slaves in a unit when I can bring all my other cooler things for the same amount of wounds? So no one but me has the model count for that to really be an issue, on that note if I did decide to field all 120 temple guard in a unit it would take a long time to move them.

It is very possible that a balanced point system would remove 1&2, that is what I am hoping for, and in that note to bring the game to a more playable point than it is and allow my meta to have a few games. My meta would FAR and away rather have a overly balanced game than a broken game, case in point we love chess, go, rook, scrabble, etc all games that are 100% balanced and sometimes identical but still fun for decades with no rule changes.