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.

For someone that plays at home and not at tournaments, is there any real reason to use the 9th age rules/lore over just sticking with classic WFB rulesets?

Not a knock against the 9th age rules themselves, and I understand they changed all the names to avoid the copyright issues with GW, but as there as several other fan movements for various style WFB updates or continuations and they seem to have been left untouched by GW, so currently don't see a reason to move from WF, a world I'm already familiar with, to the 9th age.

I understand that some people will want a game that gets balanced/updated, and so the 9th age suits, but I play once or twice a year at most (I think I managed to play a record total of three games last year!) and at home, so never been in a position to worry about things being balanced or updated, as no rule set has ever been used enough for it to become an issue here!

I'm not really a rules or a game person, I'm more in to the painting and collecting side of the hobby, but always work towards rules, as it is nice to be able to play games if the opportunity ever arises.

I've been happily playing AoS at home since release, but I'm not enjoying the way the game is heading right now and had been thinking about putting together a couple of the WFB armies I never gotten around to doing back in the day, when I spotted there was a 9th age tournament being set up somewhat locally to me. It surprised me as I didn't think there was a big enough scene for some of the larger GW supported games, let alone fans of legacy games. Whilst I'm not planning on ever attending the tournament, it's not something I'd so no to in the future and again, if the option to get out the house and play a game arises, I'd want to be able too.

So really what I'm asking, is there anything more to the 9th age other than it being a reskin, if you exclude the need for updates.

I don't see a reason to move on from WFB, I tried 9th, not the game i like. I don't like what they did to a few of the races, and I got sick of the book chase years ago. We still play 6th locally, no one seems to be interested in other editions or games at the moment.

9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

I like the more grounded version of 6th, where it's not a super compeitive game, and your units are the most important part of the army, with characters and magic to help (unless you want to heavily invest in the magic phase at the expense of your other phases). It's the same reason I like Warmaster so much.

Me and my group are very happy playing 8th Fantasy and see no point in switching. If we did switch it would probably be Kings of War as that has a following here.

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

I like the more grounded version of 6th, where it's not a super compeitive game, and your units are the most important part of the army, with characters and magic to help (unless you want to heavily invest in the magic phase at the expense of your other phases). It's the same reason I like Warmaster so much.

What a bummer...

Yeah early days of 6th ed is where it's at IMHO - before the army books got out of hand.

With 6 th Edition or 7th and Ravening Hordes, you can't go wrong.

If you like to try out Warhammer CE, a fan made System, with rules for a lot of units not available in 6th, just pm me and I will do my best to get you started with CE

I will echo the love for 6th, but caveat with a need to understand what you want out of the game. If you're looking for something balanced enough to be fair across the board yet able to be narrative at the same time, I'd go 6th with Ravening Hordes. The books are really where that edition went wrong, and even then the core is strong enough that the problem books aren't auto-pilot instawin.

However, if you're looking for something with massive amounts of murder death kill, you may want to stick with 8th.



9th is largely becoming its own thing now, pulling a sham over the people who supported it by latching on to a dying 8th to secure players before pulling the rug out from under them and hitting them with what is essentially a different game system.

 Just Tony wrote:
I will echo the love for 6th, but caveat with a need to understand what you want out of the game. If you're looking for something balanced enough to be fair across the board yet able to be narrative at the same time, I'd go 6th with Ravening Hordes. The books are really where that edition went wrong, and even then the core is strong enough that the problem books aren't auto-pilot instawin.

If I remember correctly, you've talked about the big problem armies being Bretonnians and Wood Elves, and how they're "solved" by using the trial lists in the Chronicles/Annuals.

I've also seen some people talk about underpowered factions like Dark Elves and Daemons, and how the City Garrison and Storm of Chaos versions are better.

Dunno how to solve Beasts of Chaos though.

Brets and Wood Elves aren't insta kill, they are just different to deal with. A giant flank exposed on all knights in bretonnian army with absolute crap foot soldiers. Multi unit Pegasus knights with a lord on a pegasus is broken, and should never have been allowed, but people that use RAF probably aren't looking to have another game with their opponent. Wood elves can be wrecked easy enough, fire deals with their big stuff and magic nullifies the ward save on the tree spirits. the base elves are low toughness and a.s., a tunnelling team or a couple scouts and fliers and they are running for the hills

Dark Elves with the errata are pretty decent, they win regularly around here, Daemons with SoC rules are one of the most powerful lists imo.

Every army seems balanced enough with a couple little tweaks. I have played all of them besides Beasts of Chaos, which I have picked at with some units in my regular chaos army. What was your issue with them Infinite?

Chaos' problem in general is the mixed books approach. Because of the mixed book thing, Mortal units that never should have been Core were made Core, leaving you facing the most elite of armies no matter what. Tzeentch daemons also were no push over as their domination of the magic phase meant that you had to close the gap FAST, and then it wasn't exactly a walk in the park from there. Beasts were balanced for the most part, but suffered from the stupid idea of mixing Gors and Ungors.


The books I actually think are the problems are Wood Elves and Hordes of Chaos, and Dwarfs 6.5 makes the list as well but slightly.

Bretonnians are just something I think the Chronicles book did better.

How do you find wood elves a problem? I am genuinely confused by that, for shooting, high elves curse of arrow attraction and having repeaters does a lot more accurate shooting while having a ton of other things like cavalry and super powerful magic.

Hordes of chaos with the poofing daemons makes it hilarious against terrible rollers. I've seen a bloodthirster poof right off the table first turn from failing his stability test. While Tzeentch daemons are annoying, they're pretty weak in combat, I run a primarily Tzeentch army for my chaos since everyone and their mother runs khorne around here. Chosen should be special for sure. like an upgrade to special if you use them, warriors and knights, would make the core building a lot more expensive points wise.

I know you prefer the not so dark bretonnia, I prefer having the trebuchets back up to the knights and bowmen, they're a pretty restricted army as it is, they need something lol

Tomb Kings with the casket is more of a threat to most games I find, it scares people into saving a bunch of dispel dice for it, and having a ton of casting with them, they get a lot of dual weapon firing and extra movement on top of reraising, especially against low dispel armies.

Skaven magic, warpfire and gun line is a pain to deal with, dice dependant, but it can wreck your opponent pretty quick. Since the main flavor is the mad scientist/drug addicted craft-time warriors to me, I really enjoy running them and facing them

Empire with a steam tank...just ouch, added into a gunline, it's not fun to play against with the 1+ armour save knights being core as well lol

Dwarf concentrated fire on your cool stuff sucks haha.

Wood Elves army book back then had a bad internal balance. There were units like wardancers, dryads and the treeman that were just so obviously better choices than, let's say eternal guard, that most people picked the same choices all over.

Some magic items were hilariously cheap in what they could do (like the hail of arrows which dealt 3d6 hits s4 once a game...VERY useful, if not TOO useful..).

I also considered Chaos to be hard to play against, but rather Tzeentch or an undivided list than against Khorne. (Oh dear, you have to charge my 55 points wolf rider jocks because of frenzy? I will place them right here for you to attack, and next round I will fire 4 spear chuckas in your flank and kill your 300 points unit in one shooting phase.

@OP
9th Age is ETC comp 8th edition revised to avoid copyright problems and slowly turning into it's own game with own background (Chaos made the start).

So if one liked the ETC-comp version of 8th T9A is the game to chose

For others there is Fluffhammer, which is just an balance Errata for 8th (and focus on more background driven armies), WarhammerCE that focus on 7th edition, Warhammer Armies which is more like a mix from 6th - 8th.

for 6th edition, there were several comp systems out there and using one is recommended same with all Errata and additional supplements


If one liked the "army" aspect of the game more than the individual/skirmish/hero aspect, Kings of War would be worth a try

 brr-icy wrote:
How do you find wood elves a problem? I am genuinely confused by that, for shooting, high elves curse of arrow attraction and having repeaters does a lot more accurate shooting while having a ton of other things like cavalry and super powerful magic.

The nasty Wood Elves list ist not about shooting but about highly mobile melee units with a little bit of shooting

So they run away the whole game with picking out some easy to kill units/war machines and than run combined attacks in the last round against some point heavy units to turn the game around and win (I can't recall a complete list, but minimum core filled with glade riders, elite with hawks, eagles and heros on great eagle)

Nothing special by itself but an army boring to play against and that mostly does small victories anyway

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

Other than the random charge distance the other two issues aren't there anymore (not to the extent of 8th, at least). You see a few big units, but it's mostly MSU, MMU at the moment.

For the OP if you're not interested in an active tournament community or balance (crazy spells, OP builds like the nurgle DP or blender vampire lord, unit caps, etc.) you don't really need to switch. 8th was good enough for 2015, and it surely is still a solid game system.

9th brings basically a more level playing field, where more units (and armies) are actually playable without compromising on your chances to win.

You lose out on special characters and all that, but you can easily port them for campaigns, special games, etc.

 kodos wrote:

The nasty Wood Elves list ist not about shooting but about highly mobile melee units with a little bit of shooting

So they run away the whole game with picking out some easy to kill units/war machines and than run combined attacks in the last round against some point heavy units to turn the game around and win (I can't recall a complete list, but minimum core filled with glade riders, elite with hawks, eagles and heros on great eagle)

Nothing special by itself but an army boring to play against and that mostly does small victories anyway

Oh, so a super cheese list like SAD or RAF? Nowadays if you run those, you end up with no opponents lol. A variety list is more fun to play and face than cheese any day. Probably why I don't find them cheesy, i usually run one unit of gr, two gg, a dryad block or two for cores. 1 hawk unit, a treekin unit, a wardancer unit, couple eagles, wildriders, a treeman, and a mix of heros, mostly stag mounted. more variety, has nothing to do with not wanting to paint 500 glade riders or warhawks

jouso wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

Other than the random charge distance the other two issues aren't there anymore (not to the extent of 8th, at least). You see a few big units, but it's mostly MSU, MMU at the moment.

For the OP if you're not interested in an active tournament community or balance (crazy spells, OP builds like the nurgle DP or blender vampire lord, unit caps, etc.) you don't really need to switch. 8th was good enough for 2015, and it surely is still a solid game system.

9th brings basically a more level playing field, where more units (and armies) are actually playable without compromising on your chances to win.

You lose out on special characters and all that, but you can easily port them for campaigns, special games, etc.

Huh! Okay, count me interested then. Was this an intended change on the part of the design team and community? Or has the various iterations of the rules just made MMU/MSU better? And what sized units are we talking about. In my mind I tend to think of blocks of 20 for regular infantry, 15 for elite infantry, 40 for bad infantry, 10 for heavy cavalry, and 5 for light cavalry.

No, it's basically the late 8th ETC/T9A meta thing. 8th maintained the steadfast whales slapping bellies in the middle of the field while people six-diced Purple Sun on you right until the last End Times battle played out. To say anything else is revisionist history.

 infinite_array wrote:

jouso wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

Other than the random charge distance the other two issues aren't there anymore (not to the extent of 8th, at least). You see a few big units, but it's mostly MSU, MMU at the moment.

For the OP if you're not interested in an active tournament community or balance (crazy spells, OP builds like the nurgle DP or blender vampire lord, unit caps, etc.) you don't really need to switch. 8th was good enough for 2015, and it surely is still a solid game system.

9th brings basically a more level playing field, where more units (and armies) are actually playable without compromising on your chances to win.

You lose out on special characters and all that, but you can easily port them for campaigns, special games, etc.

Huh! Okay, count me interested then. Was this an intended change on the part of the design team and community? Or has the various iterations of the rules just made MMU/MSU better? And what sized units are we talking about. In my mind I tend to think of blocks of 20 for regular infantry, 15 for elite infantry, 40 for bad infantry, 10 for heavy cavalry, and 5 for light cavalry.

Mostly deliberate design choice:
- having ranked units in your flanks disrupt steadfast
- missions being part of the core rules means you need multiple scoring units
- horde rule now just needs 8 rather than 10 front, and comes with the downside of losing rank bonus
- unit caps

And of course the meta has followed.

You will still see a few big-ish units (bret peasants, skeletons, etc.) and there are a few deathstar builds (ogres with lots of characters) but flexibility is what wins games now. Lots of units supporting each other.

It's just not optimal to take a couple enormous units and call it a day.

The list I took to my last game against Lizards was:
My list
Warboss on boar
Orc shaman on foot
Gobbo bsb
Gobbo hero
Gobbo shaman
20 common orcs
34 forest gobbos
30 night gobbos w/2 fanatics
10 savage boar boyz
10 squig herd
24 squig herd
15 black orcs
3 bases of snotlings
2 doom divers
1 aracnarock

Opponent
Slann
Scat vet on foot
Skink priest
Skink hero
26 saurus
15 saurus
2x15 temple guard
3 Pteradons
3 Ripperdactyls
5 Ripperdactyls
1 Carno

Cheers all. The 9th age caught my eye due to the local(ish) tournament appearing, but from other comments I've seen on the tournament since making this post, sounds like it's less of a tournament and more just a regular game, just played in a public location. If it had been any more than that, I'd considered 'future-proofing' any army I do paint, on the off chance I did ever fancy dipping in to more 'serious' gaming.

brr-icy wrote:I don't see a reason to move on from WFB, I tried 9th, not the game i like. I don't like what they did to a few of the races, and I got sick of the book chase years ago. We still play 6th locally, no one seems to be interested in other editions or games at the moment.

Yeah, the book chase is the one thing I hated about WFB when it was current and AoS is heading in the same direction now. AoS was promised we would see books for all the remaining factions, yet there are parts of the community demanding that GW refresh books that are less than a year old. Its daft and it's one of the main reasons I stopped playing larger scale fantasy games in the first place. 6th Ed is probably the edition that I gravitate to the most- though its also the one edition I never actually played when it was current. But it's the era of fantasy that I liked the most, the models are great and the size of the armies were still at the stage where is there are large enough to look cool, but small enough to not be crazy big with insane model counts of the later editions. I'd stick with 6mm fantasy games if I wanted to paint all my units at 100+ models!

The other edition I'm toying with is 8th, which is the edition I ditched (due to the size of the units/steadfast etc) but its pros are that it's a gorgeous edition to collect (I'm a sucker for hardback books!), has some of the best campaign books (I love blood in the bad lands) and has the warhammer armies project, which has a ton of army books of forces that were never dealt with by GW or expanded on but I'd absolutely wanted to collect! (Albion, Vampire coast)

I've no problem with house ruling but don't like making up rules myself and wouldn't get very far trying to add those missing armies to 6th myself.

Also in 8th defence when it came out I was living in a dingy 1 & 1/2 bedroom flat, with barely any room for a decent table, let alone storing huge armies. I'm in a much better place now with room to spare, so bigger units are no longer a storage/gaming issue!

infinite_array wrote:9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

I like the more grounded version of 6th, where it's not a super compeitive game, and your units are the most important part of the army, with characters and magic to help (unless you want to heavily invest in the magic phase at the expense of your other phases). It's the same reason I like Warmaster so much.

ultra-competitive- well I think that's the decision made for me. I can't stand competitive gaming, I want to play narrative based games only. It's why, until recently, I've enjoyed AoS as I can just chuck a few models down and roll a few dice and play a small narrative/story based skirmish game. I've no issue with people that enjoy the competitive side, but personally think it defeats the point of playing a fantasy game in the first place!

Yeah it's the huge units that put me off 8th when it was current. Just the thought of 3 or more 100+ goblin units was enough to drive old players off, let alone new ones. I'm tempted to get back into 8th now, as per my reasons above, but I really don't want to end up hating it again due to the huge units- I'd easily stick to smaller scale gaming for those huge units!

Gangland wrote:Me and my group are very happy playing 8th Fantasy and see no point in switching. If we did switch it would probably be Kings of War as that has a following here.

Thankfully, I dictate which game we play at home, as it's down to me to provide all the rules and do all the painting, so I'm not stuck with playing with what a local scene wants to stick with! I can go with what ever I like the most! (which I'm fine with!) I had dabbled with KoW before (I also play small scale games and KoW work just as well at small scale) but there are issues with the game, outside of the rules that I just don't want to have to deal with.

Cryptek of Awesome wrote:
Yeah early days of 6th ed is where it's at IMHO - before the army books got out of hand.

Moscha wrote:With 6 th Edition or 7th and Ravening Hordes, you can't go wrong.

If you like to try out Warhammer CE, a fan made System, with rules for a lot of units not available in 6th, just pm me and I will do my best to get you started with CE

I've heard this mentioned a couple of times now though, I have the RH book and isn't it just a get you by listings, missing a lot of the more interesting units? Not that should bother me too much, as we are happy to use the larger monsters/characters as narrative based objectives or as 'decorations' if it helps keep the game, simple and fast.

Just Tony wrote:I will echo the love for 6th, but caveat with a need to understand what you want out of the game. If you're looking for something balanced enough to be fair across the board yet able to be narrative at the same time, I'd go 6th with Ravening Hordes. The books are really where that edition went wrong, and even then the core is strong enough that the problem books aren't auto-pilot instawin.

However, if you're looking for something with massive amounts of murder death kill, you may want to stick with 8th.



9th is largely becoming its own thing now, pulling a sham over the people who supported it by latching on to a dying 8th to secure players before pulling the rug out from under them and hitting them with what is essentially a different game system.

Pretty much hit the nail on the head- we want to play narrative based games, something cinematic over something that feels like a game. Balance needs to be fair enough that we don't need to worry about it at, some imbalance is fine (after all, who ever heard of a fair war! and there is nothing like seeing the underdogs try their luck!) but we don't want to deal with it at all if we can help it!

My interest in 8th over 6th is just that there is a ton of great collectable books for it (some of my favourite GW have put out) and that the warhammer armies projects have a lot of armies done or on the way I've always wanted to do but lack of rules or time back then were not possible.

kodos wrote:@OP
9th Age is ETC comp 8th edition revised to avoid copyright problems and slowly turning into it's own game with own background (Chaos made the start).

So if one liked the ETC-comp version of 8th T9A is the game to chose

For others there is Fluffhammer, which is just an balance Errata for 8th (and focus on more background driven armies), WarhammerCE that focus on 7th edition, Warhammer Armies which is more like a mix from 6th - 8th.

for 6th edition, there were several comp systems out there and using one is recommended same with all Errata and additional supplements

If one liked the "army" aspect of the game more than the individual/skirmish/hero aspect, Kings of War would be worth a try

Your the 2nd person to mention the comp level of 9th age, so it really doesn't sound like it will interest me (as a purely narrative gamer that just wants to chuck a couple dice around from time to time)

jouso wrote:

For the OP if you're not interested in an active tournament community or balance (crazy spells, OP builds like the nurgle DP or blender vampire lord, unit caps, etc.) you don't really need to switch. 8th was good enough for 2015, and it surely is still a solid game system.

9th brings basically a more level playing field, where more units (and armies) are actually playable without compromising on your chances to win.

You lose out on special characters and all that, but you can easily port them for campaigns, special games, etc.

Yeap, definitely sounding liking I'm better off sticking with WFB rules I have over 9th age. I'm not too worried about a level playing field over just having a bit of fun on the tabletop with some narrative driven stories.




A couple of people have mentioned fluffhammer: I found a German site but many of the pages and pictures seem to be broken, is this the same thing as mentioned here or something else entirely? http://www.fluffhammer.de
It could just be my browser translator is mucking up the page.

 Mallo wrote:

A couple of people have mentioned fluffhammer: I found a German site but many of the pages and pictures seem to be broken, is this the same thing as mentioned here or something else entirely? http://www.fluffhammer.de
It could just be my browser translator is mucking up the page.

that is the correct website and for me (chrome) it works fine

9th removed a lot of the fun, "out there" things that Warhammer had, and streamlined it. It removed much of the randomness, too since it's mostly for competitive, tournament play. Sure, some say "but Livewaaaagh, it's still a dice game, so there's randomness". I don't quite buy that, personally.

Version 1.1 was the best 9th age version for me and many of the people I play with. Too bad they went faaaaar from that after.

I say stick with whatever edition of WHFB you liekd the most and play it. The rules are still good and if there's something you don't like, just house-rule it. Many people I've met play 8th but with small changes - whether that is different rules for cannons, cavalry or even point-limit on independant units ( to avoid the boring death stars).

Whatever you do, just have fun!

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:
9th removed a lot of the fun, "out there" things that Warhammer had, and streamlined it. It removed much of the randomness, too since it's mostly for competitive, tournament play. Sure, some say "but Livewaaaagh, it's still a dice game, so there's randomness". I don't quite buy that, personally.

There was too much randomness and that didn't translate into fun. Now you are very unlikely to get boned by miscasting a spell unless you put a lot of power dice into it.
It made sense, d6 damage become d3+1 making cannon more reliable, but you had to roll to hit with them. Frankly I liked that.
Many things were toned down a tad but by and large 1.1 is fairly balanced. There are issues but they are few and far between.
Some clangers through, Chaos Chosen are cheaper than Chaos Warriors, though I think that is just a misprint rather than a rules error.

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

Version 1.1 was the best 9th age version for me and many of the people I play with. Too bad they went faaaaar from that after.

I agree entirely and while I collect 8th army books, and 6th as and when I build my armies primarily for T9A 1.1, with all the units renamed back. Though I do also play 8th and 6th, though 6th only for much smaller armies.
There are a number of people here on Dakka who have turned back the clock to 1.1, and a following is growing as the best post 8th project. This will continue as Age of Sigmar gains traction and the current T9A loses following which it is slowly doing.

It is not vocally accepted on the T9A forums to go back editions, but this is likely due to copyright fears, despite denials, 1.1 material is removed and it is stressed that it is not formally available (lengths which to me prove that this is actually over potential copyright), but if you ask for it it will be quietly provided to you.

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

I say stick with whatever edition of WHFB you liekd the most and play it. The rules are still good and if there's something you don't like, just house-rule it. Many people I've met play 8th but with small changes - whether that is different rules for cannons, cavalry or even point-limit on independant units ( to avoid the boring death stars).

Agree with this too. There are many who only play 6th, some only play 8th, but again its becoming more common for WHFB players to be set up for multiple editions. Versatility is the way forward.
EEFL is accumulating grognards who get fairly salty at anyone who doesn't prefer 8th, been on the receiving end of vitriol for surprisingly little reason only recently, as have others, and the 6th fanboi community can be even more toxic than this. One thing I will say for the T9A community, they are sympathetic to other Warhammer legacy gamers for the most part.

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

Whatever you do, just have fun!

Cant argue with that.

 Orlanth wrote:
.

It is not vocally accepted on the T9A forums to go back editions, but this is likely due to copyright fears, despite denials, 1.1 material is removed and it is stressed that it is not formally available (lengths which to me prove that this is actually over potential copyright), but if you ask for it it will be quietly provided to you.

I'd go back to 1.1 in a heartbeat, but I play a couple tournaments a year and there's a few people in my club who are very much into the large crowd team events, so it doesn't justify keeping multiple game systems/editions for what's essentially the same thing.

We have ported a few special rules and characters to 2.0 for the narrative/campaign games though, and it works mighty fine (90% of the time keep the stats and rules, double the points and it's done).

jouso wrote:

I'd go back to 1.1 in a heartbeat,

I flatly refused to move on from it. T9A devs don't have any authority to enforce a meta. Ultimately its a fancier and better organised mod community for WHFB, or at least was at that stage. Only GW and those they licence can 'cement' canon, and they abandoned the role.
1.0 and 1.1 were WHFB fixed, more or less.
Everything after that was post WHFB.
All you need to do to warhammerise 1.1 is to rename units and spells and port in 8th edition special characters, other than that everything you can take for 8th is in 1.1, plus one or two neded extra for army lists without as much attention. Which mostly means Beastmen and Bretonnians. there is no DoW but every other mainstream WHFB faction is covered in the modern game.

 Orlanth wrote:

jouso wrote:

I'd go back to 1.1 in a heartbeat,

I flatly refused to move on from it. T9A devs don't have any authority to enforce a meta. Ultimately its a fancier and better organised mod community for WHFB, or at least was at that stage. Only GW and those they licence can 'cement' canon, and they abandoned the role.
1.0 and 1.1 were WHFB fixed, more or less.
Everything after that was post WHFB.
.

Like someone somewhere said. Lawyers happened.

I'm happy enough with 2.0 to stay, things like the card-based magic system are superior IMHO to 2d6 and the lost options can just be tacked on almost seamlessly.

That said 1.1 or just staying with 8th are perfectly good options. As long as you stay rank and flank

kodos wrote:
that is the correct website and for me (chrome) it works fine

Cheers, probably my browser then. Chrome wrecks my desktop, so I'll take a gander at the page on my laptop tonight, cheers.

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:
I say stick with whatever edition of WHFB you liekd the most and play it. The rules are still good and if there's something you don't like, just house-rule it. Many people I've met play 8th but with small changes - whether that is different rules for cannons, cavalry or even point-limit on independant units ( to avoid the boring death stars).

Whatever you do, just have fun!

Yeah, exactly what I've always enjoyed doing, even if gets me flak online. I was quite happy still using the AoS1 rules and house ruling what I needed for skirmish that wasn't included, but it drew some rather poor comments from the 'it must be official' crowd on facebook. I don't see the need to stick to AoS when I could be playing both sets of games anyway!

Having fun is the main reason to enjoy this hobby! Just a shame so many people forget that and take it oh so seriously!

Orlanth wrote:

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

Version 1.1 was the best 9th age version for me and many of the people I play with. Too bad they went faaaaar from that after.

I agree entirely and while I collect 8th army books, and 6th as and when I build my armies primarily for T9A 1.1, with all the units renamed back. Though I do also play 8th and 6th, though 6th only for much smaller armies.
There are a number of people here on Dakka who have turned back the clock to 1.1, and a following is growing as the best post 8th project. This will continue as Age of Sigmar gains traction and the current T9A loses following which it is slowly doing.

It is not vocally accepted on the T9A forums to go back editions, but this is likely due to copyright fears, despite denials, 1.1 material is removed and it is stressed that it is not formally available (lengths which to me prove that this is actually over potential copyright), but if you ask for it it will be quietly provided to you.

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

I say stick with whatever edition of WHFB you liekd the most and play it. The rules are still good and if there's something you don't like, just house-rule it. Many people I've met play 8th but with small changes - whether that is different rules for cannons, cavalry or even point-limit on independant units ( to avoid the boring death stars).

Agree with this too. There are many who only play 6th, some only play 8th, but again its becoming more common for WHFB players to be set up for multiple editions. Versatility is the way forward.
EEFL is accumulating grognards who get fairly salty at anyone who doesn't prefer 8th, been on the receiving end of vitriol for surprisingly little reason only recently, as have others, and the 6th fanboi community can be even more toxic than this. One thing I will say for the T9A community, they are sympathetic to other Warhammer legacy gamers for the most part.

Thats the good thing about WFB, with all the editions and changes out there, you only need a few minor changes across an army to make it work for other editions. Hell, even using the same exact army set up can at least get you playing. I've never understood the hate people give to anything not their edition- I get if you don't like an edition for what ever reason, but to actively give out over it seems a pointless part of the hobby. It's one of the sad things I've seen return to AoS since the start of this year. I don't think I'd ever turn down a game, even if it wasn't my 'active edition'.

 Orlanth wrote:

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

Version 1.1 was the best 9th age version for me and many of the people I play with. Too bad they went faaaaar from that after.

I agree entirely and while I collect 8th army books, and 6th as and when I build my armies primarily for T9A 1.1, with all the units renamed back. Though I do also play 8th and 6th, though 6th only for much smaller armies.
There are a number of people here on Dakka who have turned back the clock to 1.1, and a following is growing as the best post 8th project. This will continue as Age of Sigmar gains traction and the current T9A loses following which it is slowly doing.

It is not vocally accepted on the T9A forums to go back editions, but this is likely due to copyright fears, despite denials, 1.1 material is removed and it is stressed that it is not formally available (lengths which to me prove that this is actually over potential copyright), but if you ask for it it will be quietly provided to you.

Does this about cover it?
https://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/20215-link-for-full-rule-pack-version-1-1/

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

I like the more grounded version of 6th, where it's not a super compeitive game, and your units are the most important part of the army, with characters and magic to help (unless you want to heavily invest in the magic phase at the expense of your other phases). It's the same reason I like Warmaster so much.

God I miss warmaster so badly...

 Gangland wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

LiveWaaaaagh wrote:

Version 1.1 was the best 9th age version for me and many of the people I play with. Too bad they went faaaaar from that after.

I agree entirely and while I collect 8th army books, and 6th as and when I build my armies primarily for T9A 1.1, with all the units renamed back. Though I do also play 8th and 6th, though 6th only for much smaller armies.
There are a number of people here on Dakka who have turned back the clock to 1.1, and a following is growing as the best post 8th project. This will continue as Age of Sigmar gains traction and the current T9A loses following which it is slowly doing.

It is not vocally accepted on the T9A forums to go back editions, but this is likely due to copyright fears, despite denials, 1.1 material is removed and it is stressed that it is not formally available (lengths which to me prove that this is actually over potential copyright), but if you ask for it it will be quietly provided to you.

Does this about cover it?
https://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/20215-link-for-full-rule-pack-version-1-1/

Yep thats them. like i said you can find it on backpages by individual forum members. Just enough cover.
I have my own copies on my HDD and a hardcopy. The army books are well presented, they just have zero fluff which suits me fine. you have to retrofit the fluff to what is around the rules. It is entirely obvious what fits with what Warhammer subfaction. I printed out mine and placed thmer in permanent A4 folders as a stack of army books. i now readthem far more than my actual 8th army books. and my default lists to mark the boundaries of my collections are based on 1.1 not 8th.

Just incase they do have to disappear I suggest you download them all. the further it is disseminated the easier it will be to recover. If all else fails forum members can in the future get copies from us.

 auticus wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
9th Age is a continuation of the ETC side of 8th Edition, so it's ultra-competitive. They're developing the world and backstories of the factions, but it's still built on a system that I'm not a fan of - random charge distances, 40-man units and crazy magic.

I like the more grounded version of 6th, where it's not a super compeitive game, and your units are the most important part of the army, with characters and magic to help (unless you want to heavily invest in the magic phase at the expense of your other phases). It's the same reason I like Warmaster so much.

God I miss warmaster so badly...

My biggest beef with Warmaster was that it didn't add anything, it was just smaller WFB with Epic rules. Epic at least represented the battle differently, with unit types that simply weren't present in 40K. Until recently, that is. Had Dragons and the like been exclusive to Warmaster, I think it would have went over better.