The 9th Age The 9th Age, 0.2 Alpha version released!

[Mad 'At]

Direct link to 9th Age - Version 0.2 Alpha

This place is always updated with the latest news.

Just thought I would post up a link to this.

The 9th Age is a project run by some of the crew behind the Swedish Comp System, along with a few more sweds. With 8th dead officially they (like many others) felt that they wanted to continue playing it still. They also felt (again like many other) that the time has never been better for making changes to the 8th edition rules and improve them, since it is obvious GW won't.

Here is a link to The Warhammer Forum where a thread is kept for information and feedback:
http://warhammer.org.uk/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=129642

The idea is to have two documents, one for rules changes and one for more army specific changes. The two documents they have up so far are very, very early version. The plan is to have a basic rule-set finished ASAP, based almost exclusively from the thoughts of the group. Later, when a base version is out and gotten some tries, they will open up a lot more to feedback and discussion. At some point the idea is to bring in people from several different communities around the world to be in charge of the documents, so it will be a real community driven game.

Feel free to discuss your thoughts on this here.

 

[Atrophus]

Thanks for letting us know @Mad 'At
I'll definitely be checking that out

 

[Tawg]

While I am not as reserved about the coming AoS game, I rather much like it, I can appreciate this.

I especially like the fact that it'll be done by the same people that organized the Swedish Comp System, because I always enjoyed the restrictions they implemented. It never seemed terribly over-board. And I'm glad someone will be keeping it alive, although I also think if there are individuals terribly devoted to that style of game, it may be a well suited plan to write up their own rules for a new game they would be able share with the people who like a similar style. Like Pathfinder is to 3.X D&D. But Pathfinder had the permission of the Open Gaming License to have much of their core rules be exactly the same, so an attempt at a "New Warhammer" type game would be drastically hindered by much of the IP of GW, but maybe it could work.

Either way, I plan on switching to round bases for most everything, sooo I probably won't be involved in this type of thing terribly :ghost:

 

[Dragonet]

I'll be watching this with great interest, thanks!

 

[Mad 'At]

An Alpha version of 9th age has been released!
Here you can find all the documents:
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/news/index.php?news/7-the-9th-age-version-0-1-alpha/

I quote from fjugin on SWFBR to explain what it is and what lies ahead:

I am happy to announce that the alpha version of the 9th age is finally finished. The release consists of 4 documents, the rulebook, magic lores, a balance patch and the beastmen armybook.

The rulebook is far from completed. We started with the most important parts to update (magic, line of sight, victory points etc), but lots of stuff in need of updating are not included yet (cannons, steadfast, etc). These parts are to be included in future versions, and most of our efforts in the immediate future will be directed towards finishing this document.

Magic lores, basically just an extension of the rulebook, made into a separate document to make it easier to find what you are looking for (rules document was getting very long).

Balance patch, a list of ~10 changes for each armybook, designed to get armies reasonably balanced (with focus on overperforming units). These are to be considered temporary solutions until the armies gets a proper remake. Changes are kept to a minimum and we try to not overcomplicate things.

Beastmen. A single armybook was chosen to showcase what we intend to do to all armybooks.


Why are we releasing an unfinished version of the 9th age? For several reasons, most notably:
- We want to show the community that things are happening and that warhammer is not dead.
- We want feedback. We are not looking at creating a game for ourselves, our ultimate goal is to have the 9th age as a widely accepted version of warhammer. Therefore we need to know if we are on the right track or not. This alpha version should show roughly the direction we are considering.


What happens in the future?
Based on feedback on the alpha version, work on a more complete beta version will begin. The current thinking is to focus on finishing the rulebook and release a complete rulebook as the "beta" version of the 9th age. After this, the work on updating armybooks will begin until all armybooks have gotten a proper update.


Most of the members of the writing team will be at ETC the coming days (I'll be back home aug 11th). While there, we will try to gather feedback and spread the word. Our ability of answering questions on the forums will probably be pretty limited though (not that it have been that great before this either, our focus has been on finishing the alpha version before the ETC). We will do our best to read comments and answer questions, but I can't promise anything.

Want to help? For now, the most helpful thing you can do is help spreading the 9th age. Like our facebook page (not much to see there atm though), post on other forums, do the Twitter thing etc.

So, without further ado, everything can be found on our brand new website
http://www.the-ninth-age.com/news/
/Erik with co-authors

 

[Tawg]

I still like moving to round bases :ghost:

Would you play against a player who had an army with round bases? Assuming they used movement trays or such to represent the "foot print" of units, and perhaps dice for current model count, since they would not fit the same in a given space. I'd probably play given that, but if not then I'm fine without.

 

[Alabaster427]

I've never liked the Swedish comp, but I've never played it either. It just doesn't look fun. But I would be open to check out what changes they might come up with.

 

[logan054]

I'm sure the Warriors of chaos players will be lining up to play this So, why was MoK nerfed exactly?

 

[Mad 'At]

@Tawg: I can only speak for myself here, but I would not have any trouble with it.

@Alabaster427: This is not Swedish comp though, far from it in fact.

@logan054: About the MoK, I do not think they consider it a nerf, since Frenzy is often a major drawback due to the forced overrun. But I'll relay your concern to the creators. Is there anything else you want me to bring up?

 

[logan054]

@Mad 'At the lose of ITP is a rather massive nerf while being completely disconnected with fluff. It's something that's been associated with khorne since before I started playing in 4th ed.

I can't say I'd have any interest in a system that changes these kind of things. I'm pretty sure outside of beastmen (who didn't even need marks and had them for a single edition), many chaos players won't exactly be over the moon about the proposed changes to marks.

 

[Mad 'At]

@logan054: Good point about the ItP, I suggested they give MoK both the choppa rule and ItP.

 

[logan054]

@Mad 'At The problem with what they've done with the MoK is they haven't asked why people take other marks over the MoK? It very strange when you consider that previous to the current book people did actually take it on units, this suggests that part of the issue is actually in relation to price.

You can do plenty of things to make the MoK, be that adjusting the frenzy rule itself (making it harder to bait units out of position), pricing it correctly (because isn't equal in value to the old MoT or MoN), adding god specific items/powersm giving a mono-god buff. I'm not seeing how this is going to make the MoK on mortal units any more attractive than it is now, it's going to be great on Gor with the beastbanner. So thats hatred and S5 most of the time.... yeah.... Guess beastmen will love having something similar to savage Orcs to play with! I'm not sure why beastmen even needed Marks, the problem with that book was that it was very underpowered and out dated.

Despite popular believe, a lot of people do actually collect Khorne armies, just don't attend tournaments with them, I think AoS would certainly indicate that GW feels Khorne is the most popular god outside of the min maxing tournament crowd. Stuff like this isn't going to bring them to tournaments, people don't bring khorne armies regularly because the army doesn't have magical protection outside scroll caddies. Most people who collect the army will be doing so because of the theme.

 

[The Sun King]

They really need somebody who is better at english to proofread

 

[Skittelz1981]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BdUboMHSwUrb4NHIqP4OihW7OL03V91gWrF79Ha0_2I/pub#h.fgyxcxtc2nq2
This is the said 9th age alpha document.


http://www.openhammer.org/OPENHAMMER FANTASY - Rulebook.pdf
This is another valid option

 

[Mad 'At]

@logan054: Given the size and experience of the group if people working on this I do think the have a pretty good idea about MoK is seen so seldom. Personally I think the main reason it was rare was because the other Marks were simply better, which is not the case now. I also think Khorne being popular in the older book has more to do with the meta than anything else. Even if khorne was priced the way it was back then, it would not be used today since the meta has moved away form big meatgrinding units and deathstars. In the early days of 8th there was little redirecting, meaning Khorne could wreak havoc. Today Khorne is barely ever seen at all, it is not just the mono-khorne lists that are missing. And in those types of lists the magic protection is hardly an issue. So marks needed a change to make all of them viable, if this is the right way to do it time will tell.

Also, do remember that the whole 'Balance' document is a temporary fix until all the armybooks have been worked over like the Beastmen one have.

@The Sun King: Might very well be true

@Skittelz1981: That is the WIP document they had prior to this release. The pre Alpha even. Here you find links to all four documents in the latest release.

 

[logan054]

@Mad 'At I still plenty of large meat grinding units about, so, I guess it really depends on the local meta. But here's the thing, if frenzy is fine and needs to tweaking, then if it's priced correctly it should be a viable option as long as each of the mark is unique and offers something very different. Just because the MoT and MoN needed changing, that doesn't instantly mean the MoK actually needed changing. If forced overruns and baiting is also the issue then it's very clearly a issue with the rule itself which needs addressing. removnig a rule that has been part of the army since year dot and actually fits with the fluff should be your last resort, not your first. It's also worth noting that originally it was exactly the same as the daemon rule. I was rather vocal about how much a joke that rule was, who on earth would pay for the old daemon of Khorne rule.

Something else to consider is that out of all the Marks, Khorne is the only one that provides a temporary buff, it's also not something that will be equally useful. For beastmen it's great, for fast moving hard hitting units it great, but again for things like warriors and marauders who will no doubt get involved in longer combats it doesn't seem worth it. The MoS for an offensive mark seems the best, chaos warriors with halberds and MoS seem like a very solid unit. But wait, isn't khorne the offensive mark?

You do have plenty of other options actually if you want to change the Mark. Hatred certainly seems like a good one, it's going to give the unit a similar damage output to frenzy but without the issues of the rule. Killing Blow, I mean, how does the fluff not say Khorne to anyone? it's one of the rules that will provide a bonus every round, that gives the unit a different dynamic to the others and also makes a very nice for a character.

At no point am I suggesting the marks didn't need fixing, but are you honestly telling me any chaos warrior player is going to take the chopper rule over any of the others?

 

[Alabaster427]

@Tawg: I can only speak for myself here, but I would not have any trouble with it.

@Alabaster427: This is not Swedish comp though, far from it in fact.

@logan054: About the MoK, I do not think they consider it a nerf, since Frenzy is often a major drawback due to the forced overrun. But I'll relay your concern to the creators. Is there anything else you want me to bring up?

I understand that, that's why I'm open to see what they have in store.

 

[Alabaster427]

I have only read a few sections and it's worse than 8th.

The Tomb Banshee being removed as both a hero and unit champion for Cairn Wraiths is a bit much. It definitely nerfs them.

The lion standard is silly. Only 5 points to ignore all fear and terror tests?!

Morghast Harbingers should have been left as specials. I also think making them and Archai Undead Constructs was a poor choice.

Standard of Alternate realities is a paradox.

The dispel scroll is basically useless for anything that requires 15+ to cast as it only adds +12 to dispel attempt and you don't get to roll.

Your wizard just dies if you miscast and rolled more than three dice to cast and you get a 2-4 on table (1/6 chance)

Vampire lore attribute can actually heal your enemy!!!

I only read the VC section, Lore of Vampires, magic banners and arcane items, and magic casting section.

 

[Pirate Robot Ninja of Death]

9th Age:

Yeah the VC changes are bad. Morghasts got nerfed **hard** (can only heal 1 wound with Invoc rather than 1+WL, no more bubble -1 crumble). Were they running rampant all over Europe and nobody told us about it, or something? The changes to banshees/wraiths are silly and unnecessary (who actually did wraith walls outside joke lists?). Don't really care about the double TG nerf since I never ran two anyways. We all just got taxed 100 points as our Blenders would never be your level 4 again.

They actually nerfed Tomb Kings. What a joke.

 

[Dragonet]

I'm no rules junkie, but no Banshees?! On the Morghasts, doesn't a Necrotect give Regenerate to Undead Constructs? That opens up all the Regeneration bonuses doesn't it?

 

[logan054]

Well at least they removed the cap on wraiths! I have to agree I'm not exactly impressed with how they are handling armies.

It's seems like they are taking armies back more towards 6th with the new units included. In general it seems like they are trying to combine the two edition.

I'm really not sure for the changes to the lore of vampires, I always thought it was one of the more balanced lores.

 

[Alabaster427]

I still can't get over VC lore attribute healing enemy units/models...

 

[Alabaster427]

Are they planning on changing all of the names and stuff so that they don't get sued into oblivion by GW?

 

[logan054]

I have no idea what they are planning. I do think what are doing won't appeal to as many people as they think. I know on Cotec no one seems that interested. The few that have said the same thing (why are they changing the MoK).

I think the core game changes are going to be fine, the books, not so much. Elves and spears just looks digusting to face. Have fun playing them with your brets!

 

[Mad 'At]

I've copied some posts from this thread here so that we can have a single thread for discussing 9th Age. Feel free to continue discussing Openhammer in the other thread.

@logan054: All I am saying is that the Marks needed to be reworked. If what they have done now doesn’t give balance and/or scare too many WoC players away they will probably change it. These guys are not above realising they have made mistakes. I think the prospect of seeing units of Khorne Warriors with dual hand weapons and Banner of Rage is pretty exciting, so many S5 attacks

@Alabaster427: Dispel scroll you use before making the roll. It adds +12 to your dispel attempt and you may use dice if you like. It also ignore the 3+ limit so you don't fail if you use just 1 die and roll a 2.


Personally I think this all looks really good.

The changes to the magic phase looks very dynamic, it removes the "6-dicing-über-spell-that-wins-me-the-game-but-only-costs-me-a-potentially-harmless-miscast". The mechanic of making miscasts more dangerous the more dice you use is brilliant IMO. It could have been done other ways but in it's simplicity this is perfect.
The clearly defined magic phase sequence and spell casting sequence is a much welcomed bonus, most is pretty intuitive but it is nice to have it written.
I love the aided dispel rules. Along with making the lvl4 upgrade cost 50pts (only beastmen have this change but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a trend) they have made lvl4s much less mandatory. An army with several lvl1s can compete now.

The added LoS rules are quite simple but very good, bye bye true LoS =D

The changes to special rules and weapons overall look good to me. There are a few exception that are a bit strange. But the new parry save and KB on spears should make the core units of several armies much more interesting. Sure, the spears might be an unnecessary nerf to cav at the moment, but up until now, core units have not been able to do anything. At least now your spearmen can be threatening against the right opponent. And besides, it is the cav that chooses combat so the nerf is quite small in the end I think. The changes to KB makes my GG very happy as I now have a way to deal with high armoured monstrous cav.

Nice an simple definition of terrain. I definitely won't miss the "can-this-unit-see-that-unit?" I got all the time as a rule judge at tournaments.

With a few exceptions the new magic items look pretty cool. The Essence of the Freed Mind looks a bit too powerful though. And I can agree that the Lion Standard, Fear did not need that nerf as it is. However, I think it is very likely they will do something about fear in coming updates. And of course, I am a big fan of the changes made to the Wizarding Hat ^^

The new lores look very well made to me. There might still be a few balance issues, and I will miss a few of the spells, but overall it looks a whole lot better than it was. I especially like the format, it is so streamlined and simple. The colour coding for different casting levels is brilliant.

Finally, the balance document. If there is one thing I don't like it is this one. A lot of it looks pretty untested and uncalled for. Thankfully it is only temporary until all the books have been reworked. It was needed though to bring bring down the worst filth.


All in all I am very excited about this. To me it looks like a lot more fun to play than uncomped 8th.