9th Age Your overall perception of 9th age

[PestilenceoftheGods]

I just found out about 9th age being it's own rule set (I just assumed it was slang for AoS) and have skimmed through some of the rule boom and it really hasn't changed all that much.

What I personally can't stand are the army books and I'm curious how folks who have played the game feel about it. With unit caps are lizards going back to skink clouds and are saurus even worth taking? Why is light armor 20 pts? Why do clanrats (to jump armies) cost one point less than orcs and is Skavens tactic going back to slave bombs? Seems more like 8th ed rules with 7th ed armies and more restrictions. Like if Skyrim was still called an open world but all you could do was fast travel to and explore the cities. Thoughts?

 

[Raptor_00]

9th Age isn't my cup of tea personally.
It's very much the massed fantasy battle of 7th and 8th. The idea behind it is to have those massive troop formations in the game, so there is going to be a return to those type of armies. While I'm not totally up on the rules and inner workings of 9th Age it seems, to me at least, that the game was designed around keeping the previous editions armies competitive, so they are very similar to what was out in 8th. Most everyone playing 9th came from 8th so the armies they have are those Skink screens and slave bombs.

If you like huge forces with lots of movement 9th Age is the superior game for you. It's designed by the people that play it and as such you have the possibility to put in your input. And that's an amazing feat right there to take all that info and design a non-profit game around it.

If you like the smaller scale of AoS, then that's your superior game. It's all a matter of your personal tastes. Personally, I prefer to have about 30-40 models on the table, not 30-40 in a single unit. But having the option there if I ever want it is pretty damn cool if you ask me.
Besides, companies have been putting out 9th Age armies on Indiegogo (I'm looking at you TMS with your awesome Undying Dynasties).

Your questions on points, all I can assume is it's for some type of inner balancing between armies. How good/bad those point costs are I don't know. Somethings are always going to be high, some low. It's the nature of balance in games like this where things are inherently unbalanced.

 

[n810]

... Meh.

 

[Pinktaco]

a part of the executive board I'm obviously biased

T9A started out as "the 9th edition of Warhammer fantasy battles", however, it has grown so much in size so it's moving more into being a fully substainable game on its own right.
It'll have rules, scenarios, campaigns, fluff/background and printed books.

We just did a test run of one of the first books, although it's not recommened to buy this version right now. We're setting ourselves up to do various changes, which will be reflected in the BRB, Army books and magic rules. I'm very excited about this even though I understand and accept that not everyone will be happy about it.

The reason I'm excited is because we're about to start a new of updating our books, which (unlike our previous updates) will be driven by community and background. The magic as well will be driven by our background/fluff so that they with the army. In other words the available magic paths to each army will be available because there's a reason to it and not solely because of balancing reasons.

Some images:

Also various miniature companies are supporting us with suitable miniatures, such as Avatars of War and Shieldwolf Miniatures (shieldwolf btw recently sponsored miniatures to a tournament I organized, which was really great!). Other new companies such as Tabletop Miniature Solutions recently succesfully kickstarted their full blown Undead Dynasties (Tomb Kings) army and Lost Kingdoms had succes with their Infernal Dwarf (Chaos Dwarfs) campaign.

I hope for all fantasy wargamers that these new companies are succesful in their endevour, because fantasy wargaming is NOT an easy market to get into. Unfortunately it's been shrinking and we really need these guys to continue producing awesome fantasy miniatures

 

[Killer Angel]

Impressive artwork!

I'm not into 9th age, even if (sooner or later) i will give it a try.
I'm happy to hear about success of the Chaos Dwarfs: it's good to see old armies coming back and it's really appealing to me...

 

[Pinktaco]

That's completely fair. The project is in it for the long run so no rush. The more you wait the more it'll be "complete".

 

[talocofxhotl]

I've been keeping an eye on the 9th Ed as well as the army books that Matthias Ellson(sp?) is putting out - http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.co.uk/ but I have to say, whilst each has their own merits, neither really do it for me.

9th age is a bit bland for my liking. In removing themselves from the warhammer fluff they have lost a huge part of what interested me. The armies seem to have lost a lot of what made them unique it's like when GW removed most of the magic items and gave everyone a big common list. It may have made it easier to balance and simpler to regulate but it homogenised the armies too much. Whilst there's no denying it's visually gorgeous and well managed there is not enough of a 'wow' factor to make armies stand out from each other. I feel it was made for tournaments.

The warhammer armies project seems to be adding stuff to armies with no basis in fluff just whilst not necessarily addressing the issues the rules and armies had (there is an animated hag tree for beastmen and some giant ram-headed beast I can't remember it turned me off).

As I haven't found anything that satisfies me I started remaking the BRB and all army books myself ages ago. It's a side project that often goes neglected for long periods of time but it's getting there. I've basically used 8th rules as a base but tweaked them with bits from older editions such as guess range for cannons and magic lores not all having a stupid save or die aoe spell etc. There are some changes that I put in because I thought they made logical sense or would make the game a bit more tactical but I haven't playtested them yet so I may end up reverting back to other options. I've also read a lot of forums and book reviews and battle reports (and on occasion done some maths) to work out what units needed buffing/nerfing/redesigning.

I started re-doing the army books with Lizardmen (naturally) and tried to incorporate everything from 8th Ed (not end times) and reintroduce things from older editons that were supported by the fluff (skink fast cav, old special characters, sacred spawnings etc) which I knew from older editions, WD articles or fluff. Ive also tried to make each army have specific strengths and weaknesses (e.g lizardmen magic and monsters are amazing but long range or high strength shooting almost non-existent). I'm not changing any fluff and rarely adding a new unit to an existing army. In some cases units (ones added in 8th just to sell big flashy model kits) have been removed or at least reworked into something more fitting the army fluff.

I've applied this approach to all the armies and tried to put appropriate stats to units (Elves are going to have comparable Ws and Bs to each other and will be higher than humans, Dwarf Ld overall will be superior to O+G, Ogres have hgih Str and Tough but lower Ws and I than Skaven) as well as giving each army a unique theme option (Lizardmen have sacred spawnings and sacred hosts, Wood Elves have kindreds and tree aspects, High Elves have honours, Skaven have clans etc).

So far I've done the majority of the Lizardmen, Bretonnia, Empire, High Elf, Dark Elf, Wood Elf and Beastmen, with Dwarf, Skaven, Tomb Kings and Ogre Kingdoms not far off. Special Characters, Magic Items and points will be the last things I put in but one day they'll all be complete!

 

[n810]

Have you seen 8.1 and 8.5 editions project ?

 

[talocofxhotl]

Hadn't seen them but a quick looks seems like they're just very minor updates from 8th Ed army books basically adding FAQ and errata to what existed?

 

[n810]

Yea the 8.1 is just integrating FAQ and Errata question that GW never answered an integrating them into the books,
mostly these are from tournament rulings.

8.5 goes a little further and does a little bit of army balancing, like nerfing cannon accuracy.

I think they are now at the point of making books for some of the less official armies, like chaos dwarfs, and WD armies.

 

[Lawot]

My gaming group and I started playing The Ninth Age from the start. None of us were interested in Age of Sigmar, but we had some pretty serious gripes with the design of 7th and 8th edition Warhammer, so a new system that could address those things was pretty appealing. When we sat down with one of the late Beta versions of the rules and went over what the major changes were from 8th edition, our reaction was, "90% of these address the issues that we've talked about over and over with Warhammer."

It's true the T9A came out of tournament organizations, and that it is balance- and tournament-focused. But part of my definition of a "fun" game is one in which there's a real rock-paper-scissors relationship between different units, so that armies can be balanced against each other. It isn't fun for me when I've got one super-build that I have to use, or else I lose. Every time I've played a T9A game (we don't play that often, so it's still new to us in many ways), my opponents and I have left with a feeling of, "this is the most fun we've had playing Warhammer in a long time." (Sorry T9A - I know it's not Warhammer)

It's also true that there's been a dumbing-down of character, and that's been frustrating. But T9A is also very much still in development, and is in the midst of taking steps to re-introduce more a more unique feel to each army. And when considering GW's rich world of background, remember that their fluff said that Lizardmen armies were built on massive formations of Saurus Warriors, formidable creatures who were almost the equal of Chaos Warriors (!). Could you field an army of Saurus Warriors against Chaos Warriors and fight it to a draw in close combat? The armies had "character", in theory, but if you can't play them in a way that is in-character, then what's the point? For myself, I got tired of fielding Saurus and Temple Guard only to see them be killed by magic, be killed by shooting and be killed in close combat - the thing they're designed for!
So on the one hand, I'd love it if T9A came up with rich backstories for the armies, and then created them accordingly. But on the other, I'll be satisfied if they come up with playable armies, and then create stories that explain them, and then shape the armies to better fit their character - which is, as far as I can tell, exactly what they're doing.

Finally, I would agree with the assessment of @Raptor_00 . T9A is about armies, large formations of infantry and squadrons of cavalry supported by characters, war machines and monsters. If it's a smaller-scale, skirmish game you're looking for, or a game more focused on heroic characters, then there are definitely better options. Myself, I'm in it for the larger-scale strategic thinking that comes with simulating a battlefield. So T9A is for me.