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

[najo]

I feel similar to the other members comments about 9th Age. Many of the rules and their approach doesn't "feel" like Warhammer and there are changes just for changes sake that are unnecessary.

Also, they are missing things with the lore. Tomb Kings are not supposed to have Morghasts for example. Read the fluff and you will see why.

Some of the changes are good, I've said for a long time Killing Blow should ignore armor saves for all unit types. But those changes are obvious. The changes where they are being overly technical or just adding subsystems are messy.

Overall, their approach isn't my cup of tea.

 

[Sception]

The Morghast official rules added them to vamp counts and not tomb kings, but there's nothing fluff-wise that would prevent adding them to tomb kings as well, considering that there are pro-Nagash Tomb Kings. Arkhan most notably and most obviously of them, but he's not alone in that. Obviously Morghasts don't make sense with Settra or Khatep or the like, but there are opposing subfactions within many warhammer factions, this wouldn't be exclusive to tomb kings.

 

[logan054]

@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

I don't actually disagree that needed to reworked, I have tried many times myself to rewrite the book because the internal balance is that shocking, bar the MoS who is to actually say that they needed to be little more than points tweaks with perhaps a few core rules tweaks. I don't really like the MoT and would like to see that changed, the problem is many people do like it, if you are trying to save a game you don't start out by actually doing things that will alienate players. As for the MoK, frenzy and MoK have gone hand in hand since before I even knew what warhammer was, to me, that's a bit like removing the undead rule and replacing it with ITP because you don't like how they are unbreakable.

With how the marks are in 8th ed you can see the balance issues a mile away. So the glittering scales is 25pts, the MoN is 10pts.. yeah, ok, the issue here has nothing to do with the fact that it's under half the price of the equivalent item.

MoT is 10pts, the talisman of Preservation is 15pts, so a mark that's better because it can stack with other wards is cheaper, that's no the issue at all.

I'm really not seeing a massive difference between AoS and the 9th age, both seem intend on making changes that no one has asked for.

 

[najo]

Difference between 9th Age and AoS is AoS is going more casual (to casual for the tournament crowd) and 9th Age is going to Swedish Tourney Style (Alienating a majority of players while they do it). Neither strike the proper balance that would keep most players happy.

 

[najo]

The Morghast official rules added them to vamp counts and not tomb kings, but there's nothing fluff-wise that would prevent adding them to tomb kings as well, considering that there are pro-Nagash Tomb Kings. Arkhan most notably and most obviously of them, but he's not alone in that. Obviously Morghasts don't make sense with Settra or Khatep or the like, but there are opposing subfactions within many warhammer factions, this wouldn't be exclusive to tomb kings.

Morghasts are considered an abomination to the religious beliefs of the Tomb Kings. If the Tomb Kings are united with Nagash then you may as well put the lists together as Undead Legions which would give the Morghasts to the Tomb King army in the appropriate way. Tomb Kings as a separate army shouldn't have access to them.

 

[logan054]

Difference between 9th Age and AoS is AoS is going more casual (to casual for the tournament crowd) and 9th Age is going to Swedish Tourney Style (Alienating a majority of players while they do it). Neither strike the proper balance that would keep most players happy.

I was more meaning the later part of your post. The group they are aiming for is a small percentage of the player group, most players are in the middle.

 

[Sception]

Morghasts are considered an abomination to the religious beliefs of the Tomb Kings. If the Tomb Kings are united with Nagash then you may as well put the lists together as Undead Legions which would give the Morghasts to the Tomb King army in the appropriate way. Tomb Kings as a separate army shouldn't have access to them.

Nagash himself is blasphemous to the tomb kings religion, yet he conquered most of Nehekhara for multiple generations, and there were many kings and priests who actively went along with him, all of whom still exist in the modern era as Nehekharan undead. These figures would absolutely use Nagashii monstrosities like Morghasts, but they would also use tomb guard, not grave guard; chariots, not ghouls; skeletal archers, not zombies; ushabti, not crypt horrors; necropolis knights, not black knights; necrosphynxes, not terrorgheists. They would lead their armies as tomb kings and liche priests, not vampries and necromancers. Equally, there are Non-Nagashii vamp counts that would not use or have access to Morghasts.

Yes, Morghasts are an 'undead legion' type unit, in so far as they make equal sense with pro-Nagash Vampire Count, Tomb King, or mixed armies there of. Remember, Arkhan, the first and most loyal of the mortarchs, the one being privy to more of Nagash's secrets and spells than any other being apart from Nagash himself, that Arkhan, is a Tomb Kings special character. Not a Vampire Counts special character. And I would argue that Morghasts make as much or more sense in an army led by Arkhan than they do in one led by any vampire.

 

[najo]

TK Arkhan is working in secret. The UL Arkhan is no longer a double agent. Question, if Morghasts are fine in either list, then why does the listing of them in the Nagash book say you can take them in Vampire Counts and in Undead Legion armies, but not Tomb Kings. That is what I am referring too.

See, if 9th age is allowing Undead legions, then combining VC with TK solves the issue. TK pre-legion shouldn't have them in their list, its contrary to the authority of the Heirophant, Liche Priests and the mortuary cult and the entire Lore of Nehekhara.

 

[Sception]

TK Arkhan's loyalties are the worst kept secret in all of Nehekhara. Everyone knows who he really is and who he really works for and what he's really up to. He doesn't even try to hide it, he just pays some lip service to Settra so the old goat will go home after they both get tired fighting each other to a stand still every couple centuries. And even apart from Arhkan, there are plenty of traitor lich priests and hierophants who supported Nagash.

And pre-end times vampire counts shouldn't really have access to Morghasts, either. Frankly, no matter which way they go on the morghast issue - none allowed for anybody if they're going for a pre-nagash's return, pre-end-times thing; morghasts for vamps or tomb kings since they're an 'undead legion' unit that thus fits either category equally well in a post-nagash's-return setting; or morghasts for just vamps because their rules added them to vamps and not tomb kings and there's no real reason to mess with that (other than worries about interfaction balance, which are better addressed in other ways, imo) - I see plenty of justification to go with any of those options and likewise no reason to complain about any of them, either.

Far more reason to complain about them messing with the actual rules for morghasts. I mean, as crazy expensive as they are, did the 9th age people really think they needed to be nerfed? THAT's what bothers me.

 

[Dragonet]

Nice lore battle guys! Shame that Morghasts seemed to have been brought out in place of a Colossus/Heirotitan kit, quite the middle finger to our TK pals. The way I read the lore, Morghasts were a massive ret-con and not just part of the story's development in the End Times?

Ultimately I think others are right to suggest a large pinch of salt to make GW's inconsistent lore a bit more palatable! I like the idea of Morghasts, I hope they bring out a few more interesting bits in the coming months in similar vein.

 

[logan054]

A lot of changes seem to ignore the fluff. This is the problem when tournament players write rules. AoS is the problem when fluffy players write the rules. You need a balance of the two to get fun, interesting but fairly balanced rules. The main issue with the swedes is they will continue with 8th's trend of defining everything through special rules. I can remember when chaos was defined through it's stats with a few special rules sprinkled in for fun.

 

[Dragonet]

Certainly knocking everything down in terms of base stats would be responsible for taking away a lot of flavour there; I'd guess it's harder to balance the game with more varying stats? It seems to me that the special rules are finer modifiers in game terms, an effort to inject flavour without unbalancing everything.

 

[logan054]

If you want to balance go back to ravening hordes, get your rules functioning properly and then worry about what special rules you need. WoC have tons of special rules, none of which add flavour, the army is still boring as hell. Do chaos Knights need to cause fear? Do juggers need +1 strength in the charge? Does the EotG rule actually add flavour?

Grave guard/wights with KB makes sense as it represents the cursed blades they have.

Does WE with a million different arrows add flavour or just make them harder to balance? Wasn't the flavour before they are light evasion army?

 

[Dragonet]

Some good points there, the multitude of magic arrows really grinds my gears, I'm not a fan. That goes for Arrows Of Asaph as well, why not call it Formation Shooting or something? I guess a lot of this will depend on taste in the end.

 

[Skittelz1981]

I dont think Tournament rules are even intended to care about fluff. It aims to balance the existing units and placing them accordingly.
The morghasts and mortarchs are an issue only because they belong to end times fluff.

 

[logan054]

When you have a setting for a game, the rules that are writing should be inspired by the setting. The fluff shouldn't override the balance, but the fluff shouldn't just be tossed out and ignored. If you're going to do that you may as well stop calling it warhammer and give your goblins WS5 S5

 

[Dragonet]

There's a balance to be struck, of course, and I'm sure that while no system will please everyone, it's possible to do a decent job with what we've got.

 

[Skittelz1981]

I have a few friends that played 9th age and they were really positive, they play O&G vs Empire or Lizards. I dont know yet, havent read all the rules thouroughly. They say its a mix of Swedish comp + ETC woven into the fabric of 8th ed with some more tweaking.

 

[Skittelz1981]

When you have a setting for a game, the rules that are writing should be inspired by the setting. The fluff shouldn't override the balance, but the fluff shouldn't just be tossed out and ignored. If you're going to do that you may as well stop calling it warhammer and give your goblins WS5 S5

Well, I think most Tournament players care more about balance than fluff. So in the light of what youre saying, you could use 9th Age as a fluffless competitive warhammer game and AoS/8th ed/End times as the fluffy games to play.
We are granted choices here, which is even more fun.

 

[logan054]

Well, I think most Tournament players care more about balance than fluff. So in the light of what youre saying, you could use 9th Age as a fluffless competitive warhammer game and AoS/8th ed/End times as the fluffy games to play.
We are granted choices here, which is even more fun.

Problem with that attitude is you create an even bigger divide for a game that is clearly on its last legs.

That or you could just be a little more honest and stop pretending it's warhammer. Kinda like how the AoS pretends it's warhammer.

the fluff is part of warhammer, anything that ignores it isn't warhammer. its the reason why undead have a undead and unstable rule. It's why entheral units work the way they do. You can't just ignore it because you don't like a certain aspect of something. If you start doing it then your just creating a game that doing nothing more than leeching of the GW up.

 

[Mad 'At]

They have changed MoK and added Morghasts to armies that possibly should not have them. They haven't thrown fluff out the window. The former got replaced by something that also represents Khorne fairly well (maybe not as well but it is not a complete step away). The latter I think happened mainly because people have been pestering them about including End Times stuff. Non of it is any worse than some of the "fluff crimes" GW has made.

You can't have warhammer without fluff, just as logan says. But ultimately it is up to the player. There are plenty of ways to create unfluffy armies in standard 8th, and there are plenty of ways to reduce that unfluffiness by coming up with your own. My Black Orcs Warboss for example, he is always joins up a unit of Night Goblins. Not the fluffiest perhaps but I imagine it is because he like to eat them, hence his name, Togg Gobbo Eater.

9th Age is definitely focused on tournament play (hardly just Swedish though as the etc team is on it too), but that doesn’t mean the fluff is going to be removed. There are plenty of fluffy armies at tournaments, even among the top players.

 

[Skittelz1981]

@logan054 AoS is pretending to be Warhammer?
Seriously, it is time for the people that dislike AoS to stop saying these things. You not agreeing with the current newest release from GW within the Fantasy world of Warhammer really has nothing to do with how real or not it is.
AoS isnt pretending to be Warhammer, it is Warhammer Fantasy. You have no authority on that matter, neither do I but clearly GW has and decided that it be so.

The fact that some fanboys are making a version of 8th ed. based on their already comp-oriented expertise with Swedish comp and ETC rules allows them to craft something slightly less focused on fluff and more on tournamentstyle balanced out ruleswriting. Its your decision to play it or not, dont just bash shit coz you dont agree with it or find a minor thing inappropriate.

AoS is the current fluff, you can naysay all you want but it just sounds ridiculous. It also is the current variant of how the official makers view their game. You can play that within all the liberties that their generic system offers you or you can play 8th edition (which still has some pretty loose interpretations of fluff, just to be coherent rules-wise).
And if you care for more balance, competitivity etc etc, well; then theres fanmade stuff that offers you just that. And no, you will likely not agree with any of it since all remain flawed in their own pursuit of purpose.

 

[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.

I found out that I was mistaken about the VC lore attribute, but because of the way lore attributes now work, I am still against it.

I also found out that you get to roll if you like with a dispel scroll, so I am less upset about that.

Overall, I still don't like.

 

[logan054]

@Skittelz1981 thats the great thing about opinions, you aren't required to like or agree with them.

Nothing in your post has made me rethink my opinion. AoS is not what I consider to be warhammer. What I consider to be warhammer is based on the past 20+ years of playing a game that was sold to me as warhammer. AoS is a new game, it has very little connection with the old.

Regardless, your post is actually little to do with what I was actually saying. It just an excuse to rant about AoS hate. My post was more about the 9th age than that travesty you think is warhammer.

 

[Skittelz1981]

@logan054 , my rant about AoS hate? its more being annoyed with your and other peoples constant bashing. Its the constant belitteling, foulmouthing and making ridiculous claims of AoS not being Warhammer Fantasy that is just extremely boring and tiresome.
Its one thing to disagree/dislike with AoS, but its a totally different thing of doing what you do (and others). It gets real old real fast. Get over it, AoS is Warhammer Fantasy now, no matter what you say or what your opinion now is. Stop bashing it on every occasion that you get, or rather, occasion that you create for yourself.

your post being more about 9th age is an understatement, it was a rant about it as well. It seems like nothing can make you happy lately, which is something you are entitled to. Just stop putting all your negativity about everything for our eyes to read.

Im personally not a big fan of AoS, i preferred 8th ed. yet it still is a fun game in itself, but i dont grip every single post to spew my disgust on a daily basis.