Switch Theme:

So, this 9th Age thing...  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

I don't see a problem with Pacific this thread to announce the 9A QS release. It's clearly on topic.

Even if it's too late for me and my group.

 Red Viper wrote:
9th age being based on 8th edition ruined it for me.

I think 7th edition has the best ruleset, just some books (Daemons, VC, Dark Elves) kinda ruined it.

I think 9th Age is great for the guys that liked 8th. But 8th Edition killed Warhammer Fantasy in my group long before the End Times did.


Were you in my gaming group? We had the exact same experience with WFB.

   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see a problem with Pacific this thread to announce the 9A QS release. It's clearly on topic.

Even if it's too late for me and my group.

 Red Viper wrote:
9th age being based on 8th edition ruined it for me.

I think 7th edition has the best ruleset, just some books (Daemons, VC, Dark Elves) kinda ruined it.

I think 9th Age is great for the guys that liked 8th. But 8th Edition killed Warhammer Fantasy in my group long before the End Times did.


Were you in my gaming group? We had the exact same experience with WFB.


While "on topic" it may not be on time-frame since it adressed something that in this time-frime it's likely to have been resolved. Not that I'm against the post, just saying that it would have been better for him to give the news its own thread either here or (more conveniently) in the news and rumors forum (since it's news).
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

It's not like anybody really cares about 9A here, so it'd be a waste to post it in N&R.

   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's not like anybody really cares about 9A here, so it'd be a waste to post it in N&R.

Don't be mean.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

It's not to be mean per se, rather it's observation that 9A has such little volume here, it's barely a single inactive thread under legacy WFB.

   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 JohnHwangDD wrote:
It's not to be mean per se, rather it's observation that 9A has such little volume here, it's barely a single inactive thread under legacy WFB.


Why would anyone talk about 9th age here when it was developed in a forum of its own? Just like infinity, bolt action, KoW and many others. It's not as dakka had a massive fantasy community by any means.

Dakka serves just to remind the occasional passer-by that there such a thing as 9th age.

   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

There are also two 9th Ages now.

Some of us stopped at 1.1, the rest moved on to whatever it is now, 1.3, 1.4?

The reason for this was that for legal reasons 1.2 diversified significantly from Old Warhammer. Those who want 9th Age to be WHFB - fixed play 1.1, those who want to move onto the new ruleset or the new universe and fluff play the current edition.

1.1 pretty much fixed 8th edition and is the best edition of HFB out there. 1.3 is likely a better game, but isnt really the game it was.

Most 1.1 player names the factions, units and spells back to what they were, or the closest approximation so it has the full Old Hammer vibe.
I like this as it means I have an easy port to 8th, and for that matter earlier editions, though I would only really consider 6th.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 Orlanth wrote:
.

Most 1.1 player names the factions, units and spells back to what they were, or the closest approximation so it has the full Old Hammer vibe.
I like this as it means I have an easy port to 8th, and for that matter earlier editions, though I would only really consider 6th.


You know we tried to go back to 6th edition.... and at least for our group it was just not worth it. Fixed charge distance with no pre-measuring (unlike KoW) was a big , fear, the magic system.... just too many things. I happened to be in Barcelona a couple weeks ago where a few guys did a 6th edition tournament (12 people) and it seems all except 2-3 will keep 6th for the time being.

Good for them, for us it was a very good reminder of what nostalgia does to your brain.

   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

6th is popular mainly due to Tuomas Pirinen's fixes and Ravening Hordes, which is a one size fits all balance that came out fairly fair.

I actually preferred 8th as it favoured big units inherently, which is done right IMHO.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

I did make the post, as Jouso says I don't think it's a bad thing to let people know that work continues on the game and it exists out there as an alternative to KoW/AoS, even though it has almost no discussion on Dakka. I did try a 'post your 9th age projects' thread but it didn't get much pick-up (although I haven't posted anything there either so didn't really help with that!)

9th Age is pretty active as far as gaming communities go. Certainly, the forum and player groups are terrifically well organised.

Certainly, for me, the rules are the best they have been for some time (I wasn't aware there was a schism over such things), but then that's what happens when you have a great deal of playtesting and you aren't compromised by commercial considerations. My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play, but hopefully there will continue to be a number of players who just enjoy the game and go to the tournaments to enjoy to play.

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 Pacific wrote:
My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play,


But that's the entire reason that 9A exists!

9A was adopted by the competitive crowd as a reaction to AoS being very deliberately released as a non-points narrative game without any competitive support whatsoever.

   
Made in gb
Joined the Military for Authentic Experience





On an Express Elevator to Hell!!

It might be but I hope not the only reason!

I like it as I want to be able to play a game of wheeling units, flank charges and grinding blocks of fantasy infantry, which now only this game and KoW caters for..

Epic 30K&40K! A new players guide, contributors welcome https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/751316.page
Small but perfectly formed! A Great Crusade Epic 6mm project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/694411.page

 
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play,


But that's the entire reason that 9A exists!

9A was adopted by the competitive crowd as a reaction to AoS being very deliberately released as a non-points narrative game without any competitive support whatsoever.


No way. 9A was released as a rank-and-file, regiment game with the old granularity of WHFB unlike streamlined, back-to-basics, free-movement AoS (without silly in-game actions too)

It just tuns out that a lot (but not all) of the original founders were tournament players and that it makes for a decent tournament game, but hop over to the T9A forums and you'll see plenty of narrative action: campaign systems, homemade armies, custom scenarios, a special character generator, even a 9th age based Mordheim.

   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play,


But that's the entire reason that 9A exists!

9A was adopted by the competitive crowd as a reaction to AoS being very deliberately released as a non-points narrative game without any competitive support whatsoever.


Stop fearing that.

Yes ultra-competitive has its own negative associations, but for a ruleset that is just fine. Ultra-competitive play has the connotations you don't like because GW were, and likely still are incompetent when it comes to game balance. Privateer Press however are not. Warmachine was designed from the get go to cater forultra-competitive play. Every unit was balanced as if if would be chosen by a mini-maxer and every rule was looked at asd if it were to be read by a rules lawyer. The end result is a balanced game.

Now Warmachine has its competitive feel, and even some negativity encouraged from their page 5 bs. But you do not need to be a dick to play, and it works just well when played casually, and a casual player has a better time of it because they have all the tools to win in most cases.

Warhammer doesn't have that, and efforts to instill an air of fairness through 'comp' still didn't inherently balance the game.

As a player who is first and foremost a collector, secondly a casual gamer and only competitive in that I like to give my opponent a challenge I always wanted my Warhammer ruleset to be written with an anal retentive obsession for points balance, and 'that guys' annoying pedantry for rules wording built into every publication so that those psychologies would primarily exist there and not in the game community. I might as well have wished for the moon.

Look at this way, as a collector want a collection, so I want the models that are cool, but I also want to play them. GW isn't really set up for that. Warhammer has this problem, 40K even worse. I will therefore use a 40K example as it is clearer. I love me my Saim Hann jetbike army, and nowadays so do many other people. But I collected Saim Hann because of jetbike models, not jetbike rules, I collected them when Shining Spears were 50pts each and sucked horribly, ad now they are good I field them as is, and refuse to add scatter lasers to every bike because not only is it unfair, it doesn't really reflect the fluff IMHO.
Warhammer Fantasy didn't have enough of a range to have the extreme mismatches of 40K, but I still prefer not to take halberd armed troops with shields, always liked second rank of knights to look right even though for most of the life of the game it gave me only +1 combat res for over 100pts that was removable after the first wound taken. My Empire knights back in the day had two ranks of four, because it looked right, and even at the end the artwork showed them being used that way.

9th Age fixes this, knights are fairly priced for what they do, and taking two ranks of knights actually works. The emphasis on making rules that make sense and mini-maxing the points values inherently has meant that I have invested in units, and whole armies that I didn't do before. I by an 8th edition army book with each army so I can play formal WHFB and as a fluff source, but I have bought more Warhammer in the time since 9th Age came than I have since the late 90's, and in real terms prices my current purchases for just the last few months dwarfs all that.
9th Age and its emphasis on the ultra-competitive ply has made my casual collectors units shine and has enabled play for people at every level.

Game rules should be written with the mindset of a mini-maxing rules lawyer dick, so that play best avoids that dynamic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/28 13:01:22


n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

jouso wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play,


But that's the entire reason that 9A exists!

9A was adopted by the competitive crowd as a reaction to AoS being very deliberately released as a non-points narrative game without any competitive support whatsoever.


No way. 9A was released as a rank-and-file, regiment game with the old granularity of WHFB unlike streamlined, back-to-basics, free-movement AoS (without silly in-game actions too)

It just tuns out that a lot (but not all) of the original founders were tournament players and that it makes for a decent tournament game, but hop over to the T9A forums and you'll see plenty of narrative action: campaign systems, homemade armies, custom scenarios, a special character generator, even a 9th age based Mordheim.


The only reason 9A got traction is because ETC chose that as the replacement for WFB 8E, as opposed to KoW or AoS, which then spilled over into other European play. 9A was developed as a tournament game, for ETC "balanced" competitive play.

   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

I dont think that is strictly true. There were a lot of different groups wanting to make 8.5 after End Times. Most of those designers and would be designers folded into the 9th Age project in one form or another.

There was a need for
- continuency
- fixed rules

The latter being long ongoing, GW abandoning the game meant that outsiders could claim the games abandoned canon unofficially make 'canon' fixes to the rules. Continuity was a natural consequence of a population of gamers who had major investments in WHFB and considered themselves abandoned by GW. Remember 9th Age began pretty as soon as End Times ended, there was an immediate need for continuency and an invested player base. Some went to KoW but most stuck with Oldhammer and then jumped onto 9th Age when exposed to it.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in ca
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot






 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'd agree with playing 6E over 7E, much less 8E / 9A.


I'm curious; I started playing WHFB in 7th and felt that most of the problematic changes (random Winds of Magic, too-big spells, pre-measuring/random charges/auto-hitting cannons, free Stubborn on all large units, difficulty of flank disruption, too-big special characters) came in 8th, but I hear a lot of older veterans saying they'd prefer 6th to 7th. What were the big changes in the 6th-7th transition that make you say that?


6E dialed WFB down from Herohammer, to something where troops mattered. 6E was still "new" and exploratory to most players. 6E wasn't overladen with specials, and the power levels were a lot flatter, esp if playing Ravening Hordes. In 7E, the Army Books added a lot of chrome, and things got out of control.


Funny story about 7th WHFB, I worked at GW around that time. You had to have a store army (painted) for all 3 systems. I had my Tau painted in a nice winter grey/white/blue digi cam paint. I didn't have a LOTR or fantasy army so I made a Nazgul army for lotr, but for fantasy I wanted to do chaos. The manager was like wait 6 months, there is a new chaos army book coming out. So I did a small warriors army, but that army book was 7th Ed Daemons. Yeh well, it broke the game, it really did. I felt bad after a while playing it.

I've always wanted to give 6th a try. I know 5th was herohammer, but 6th I head good things about. That was the lizardmen and brits starter box wasn't it?
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

WFB 5E was Lizardmen vs Brets, IIRC
WFB 6E was Orcs vs Empire.

I was looking into how to get into WFB cheaply at the tail of 5E, and was thinging... oh, maybe an Imperial Dragon, supported by a handful of footmen. But my friends said, wait, there's a new edition coming, maybe wait for that... WFB 6E came out, and I was glad I didn't go that route.

   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 JohnHwangDD wrote:
jouso wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 Pacific wrote:
My concern is that it might devolve into an ultra-competitive, razor-edge type tournament play,


But that's the entire reason that 9A exists!

9A was adopted by the competitive crowd as a reaction to AoS being very deliberately released as a non-points narrative game without any competitive support whatsoever.


No way. 9A was released as a rank-and-file, regiment game with the old granularity of WHFB unlike streamlined, back-to-basics, free-movement AoS (without silly in-game actions too)

It just tuns out that a lot (but not all) of the original founders were tournament players and that it makes for a decent tournament game, but hop over to the T9A forums and you'll see plenty of narrative action: campaign systems, homemade armies, custom scenarios, a special character generator, even a 9th age based Mordheim.


The only reason 9A got traction is because ETC chose that as the replacement for WFB 8E, as opposed to KoW or AoS, which then spilled over into other European play. 9A was developed as a tournament game, for ETC "balanced" competitive play.


The ETC chose T9A basically because of the initial 6? (I think) writers something like half of them were ETC players/captains. It also helped that the whole Swedish comp group also joined in.

So of course it got traction on the tournament scene because the core writers were behind the two most popular comp systems in Europe.

But that was for the initial alpha version, back when it was little more than a thicker comp. By October (T9A was started in August) when they started recruiting armybook writers (3-4 per army) the group had already grown to 50-60 people with all kinds of gaming background.

   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

 FabricatorGeneralMike wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'd agree with playing 6E over 7E, much less 8E / 9A.


I'm curious; I started playing WHFB in 7th and felt that most of the problematic changes (random Winds of Magic, too-big spells, pre-measuring/random charges/auto-hitting cannons, free Stubborn on all large units, difficulty of flank disruption, too-big special characters) came in 8th, but I hear a lot of older veterans saying they'd prefer 6th to 7th. What were the big changes in the 6th-7th transition that make you say that?


6E dialed WFB down from Herohammer, to something where troops mattered. 6E was still "new" and exploratory to most players. 6E wasn't overladen with specials, and the power levels were a lot flatter, esp if playing Ravening Hordes. In 7E, the Army Books added a lot of chrome, and things got out of control.


Funny story about 7th WHFB, I worked at GW around that time. You had to have a store army (painted) for all 3 systems. I had my Tau painted in a nice winter grey/white/blue digi cam paint. I didn't have a LOTR or fantasy army so I made a Nazgul army for lotr, but for fantasy I wanted to do chaos. The manager was like wait 6 months, there is a new chaos army book coming out. So I did a small warriors army, but that army book was 7th Ed Daemons. Yeh well, it broke the game, it really did. I felt bad after a while playing it.

I've always wanted to give 6th a try. I know 5th was herohammer, but 6th I head good things about. That was the lizardmen and brits starter box wasn't it?


If you're at all curious about 6th and want to discuss it/look for people to potentially try it with:

www.classichammer.com

And yeah, one of the posters on that forum was AT the Spanish 6th Ed. tourney. We also have a fledgeling 6th Ed. club going in my area of Indiana. Nothing massive, but it's a start.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

Classichammer needs boards for 7th and 8th.

It might help to encourage hybridising the rules editions.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

The idea of going back to "classic" 6E is kind of interesting, but the Army Books escalation is what kinda killed the whole thing.

If we were 6E/RH, that'd be great. As opposed to 8E's push for hordes and hyper-randomness for randomness' sake.

   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Orlanth wrote:Classichammer needs boards for 7th and 8th.

It might help to encourage hybridising the rules editions.


We already are discussing hybridized rules. There are a few instances that we've unanimously decided to adopt the 7th ed. variant of the rules: Power Dice rules, Insane courage, thinking there may have been another. I guess it'd be just as simple to subtract the rules changes that 7th added that we didn't like: Swarm crumble, multiple combats fought in one player turn by the same unit, BSB in addition to the SB, rather than being one or the other. Still debating whether ranks should be 4 or 5.

JohnHwangDD wrote:The idea of going back to "classic" 6E is kind of interesting, but the Army Books escalation is what kinda killed the whole thing.

If we were 6E/RH, that'd be great. As opposed to 8E's push for hordes and hyper-randomness for randomness' sake.


6E/RH is definitely the most balanced the game has ever been. Part of the admittedly sparse debate on CH is exactly what part of what books went off the rails. If there was a consensus, I'm sure we'd be more than happy to sticky it to the "house rules" thread on the site.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

Ranks should be 5, but follow a doubling sequence:
2 ranks = +1
4 ranks = +2
8 ranks = +3
But only if the unit has *more* frontage than depth. If you want that +3, you'd need to be at least 9 wide (72 model minimum)

   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Ranks should be 5, but follow a doubling sequence:
2 ranks = +1
4 ranks = +2
8 ranks = +3
But only if the unit has *more* frontage than depth. If you want that +3, you'd need to be at least 9 wide (72 model minimum)


Minimum rank size of 5 for infantry.
That is way too restrictive, however I do agree that frontage should match or exceed depth to gain steadfast.

Minimum rank size of 4 for cavalry.

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Honestly, I am not exactly sure if 4 man fronts are balanced, moreso for cav. Granted, it'd make my Minotaur army easier to get bonus, but maybe that's the point.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

TBH, Tony, you need to create a Classichammer thread, so we can move that discussion over.

   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Message received, discontinuing any discussion of it...

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: