Switch Theme:

How is T9A doing?  [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 es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




Slipspace wrote:
As an example of this, there was a situation with the UD (Tomb Kings) book in 1.2 where the chariots were given a rule that gave them +1 Strength per rank for their impact hits, but also had a rule that meant they never counted as having ranks. This is the sort of error GW was really good at making. Now, mistakes happen, which is fine, but I remember this being pointed out but instead of fixing things quickly there was a whole back-and-forth about procedures and the correct way to fix things which resulted in an obviously incorrect rule being in place far longer than it should have been.


UD chariots had (and have) the option of being light troops (never counting as having ranks but able to reform at will) or not (having a rank bonus and being a scoring unit). So obviously you would choose light chariots for the basic 3-unit and not-light for the units you intend to have a rank bonus. It was a free option either way.

Those are precisely the kind of adjustments where T9A absolutely excels. Whenever there's a RAI vs RAW argument, the rules writers themselves answer back and fix the wording (not that this was the case).

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




jouso wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
As an example of this, there was a situation with the UD (Tomb Kings) book in 1.2 where the chariots were given a rule that gave them +1 Strength per rank for their impact hits, but also had a rule that meant they never counted as having ranks. This is the sort of error GW was really good at making. Now, mistakes happen, which is fine, but I remember this being pointed out but instead of fixing things quickly there was a whole back-and-forth about procedures and the correct way to fix things which resulted in an obviously incorrect rule being in place far longer than it should have been.


UD chariots had (and have) the option of being light troops (never counting as having ranks but able to reform at will) or not (having a rank bonus and being a scoring unit). So obviously you would choose light chariots for the basic 3-unit and not-light for the units you intend to have a rank bonus. It was a free option either way.

Those are precisely the kind of adjustments where T9A absolutely excels. Whenever there's a RAI vs RAW argument, the rules writers themselves answer back and fix the wording (not that this was the case).



Nope, I'm looking at the v1.2 book for them and they just are Light Troops, with no option not to be. The point I was making was more of a general one though about the way the process worked (or didn't). Suffice to say I disagree with your assessment that T9A "excels" at these sort of things. I think it could, but my experience was it was for too resistant to change despite the advantages it should have had.
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




Slipspace wrote:
jouso wrote:
Slipspace wrote:
As an example of this, there was a situation with the UD (Tomb Kings) book in 1.2 where the chariots were given a rule that gave them +1 Strength per rank for their impact hits, but also had a rule that meant they never counted as having ranks. This is the sort of error GW was really good at making. Now, mistakes happen, which is fine, but I remember this being pointed out but instead of fixing things quickly there was a whole back-and-forth about procedures and the correct way to fix things which resulted in an obviously incorrect rule being in place far longer than it should have been.


UD chariots had (and have) the option of being light troops (never counting as having ranks but able to reform at will) or not (having a rank bonus and being a scoring unit). So obviously you would choose light chariots for the basic 3-unit and not-light for the units you intend to have a rank bonus. It was a free option either way.

Those are precisely the kind of adjustments where T9A absolutely excels. Whenever there's a RAI vs RAW argument, the rules writers themselves answer back and fix the wording (not that this was the case).



Nope, I'm looking at the v1.2 book for them and they just are Light Troops, with no option not to be. The point I was making was more of a general one though about the way the process worked (or didn't). Suffice to say I disagree with your assessment that T9A "excels" at these sort of things. I think it could, but my experience was it was for too resistant to change despite the advantages it should have had.


That was fixed on 1.3 and in any case everything replied by the relevant staff member on the Q&A forum is considered an official FAQ, if there is a RAW not matching RAI problem it's the only thing you need (and will be incorporated in the book later on).

   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

jouso wrote:
if there is a RAW not matching RAI problem it's the only thing you need (and will be incorporated in the book later on).


"later on" is the right word for it

For the 2.0 Beta test I looked at the Wood Elves stuff and there are some errors/mistakes that cannot be solved for now because there is no re-design slot left and no faction will get an extra design slot no matter if there is an obvious RAW/RAI mistake or not.
So it takes time until the first Beta stage is done when everyone get 5 Hotfix Slots but for major changes you have to wait for the next re-design phase in a year.

T9A always claims that they cannot be better than a company because of people doing it in their free time, but they have build up a bureaucracy that consumes most of the free time and makes it impossible to fix mistakes.

They are true the successor of Warhammer, if a rule is wrong in the ArmyBook you have to wait for a new BRB or Armybook, which ever is first, to get it fixed (It is not that bad for now as their game Editions only lastet 1 year at best,)

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in es
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 kodos wrote:
jouso wrote:
if there is a RAW not matching RAI problem it's the only thing you need (and will be incorporated in the book later on).


"later on" is the right word for it

For the 2.0 Beta test I looked at the Wood Elves stuff and there are some errors/mistakes that cannot be solved for now because there is no re-design slot left and no faction will get an extra design slot no matter if there is an obvious RAW/RAI mistake or not.


If it needs redesign a redesign slot then it's not a RAW/RAI issue, it's something deeper (that's why it's a redesign and not an errata).

   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk




Palmer, AK

Around here no one plays it. At least on our facebook group no one's calling out for games/opponents. I've seen some INTEREST in getting "back into 9th" but no one actually trying to get games in.

And in the store unless you play 40k/Warmahordes/Malifaux/AoS then don't expect to get a pickup game of anything in.

I don't think that 9th is dead, but they've definitely suffered a setback, and one of their own making from the sound of things. The bureaucracy of 9th is what always kept me from playing it. Heaven forbid you voice a contrary opinion on the forums, if you're not outright banned you're certainly likely to have a new a**hole torn you and that kind of rampant fanboiism is just off-putting and doesn't help the hobby at all.

I also didn't like the rampant nerfs they issued to the game; everything from warmachines to WoC statlines and unit caps.

Loved what they did with the individual weapons and have worked on adopting most/all of those rules into my games of 8th edition.

Hated what they did with magic. It's one thing to not have the "obligatory lvl4 wizard" in your lists; but they've nerfed magic so hard that nowadays its more like magic itself is just straight up optional and not even needed. If you hate magic so much play/fix/"balance" warhammer historical; magic is a huge draw to myself and others and something that should be an important enough part of the game (it gets it's own phase for crying out loud).

I don't begrudge those that want to play it; I know that it helped a lot of the armies out there (I play Beastmen amongst others so I know...I know) but at what cost?

I'm waiting for 2.0 to hit the shelves; I'll look at the rules for sure, but chances are that's ALL that I'll do.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/18 21:30:11


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

 badguyshaveallthefun wrote:
Hated what they did with magic. It's one thing to not have the "obligatory lvl4 wizard" in your lists; but they've nerfed magic so hard that nowadays its more like magic itself is just straight up optional and not even needed. If you hate magic so much play/fix/"balance" warhammer historical; magic is a huge draw to myself and others and something that should be an important enough part of the game (it gets it's own phase for crying out loud).


What about Monsters? Did those get a nerf?

Because to me, Warhammer Fantasy is about having a uber-Wizard *and* a Dragon on each side, precisely because those things are *not* Historical.

To me, it feels like T9A is about the worst, most fiddly bits of 5E block movement, minus the "sizzle" of 5E's monsters & magic.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/18 22:39:34


   
Made in us
Poxed Plague Monk




Palmer, AK

What I meant by my comment in case I wasn't clear is that if T9A guys are so adamantly against magic (seeing as it's their goto argument when talking about 8th edition and how hard they nerfed magic in T9A) then maybe they adopted the wrong version of Warhammer as their base; they should have just started with Warhammer historical and left magic out.

I for one am a huge fan of the magic. And the monsters. It wouldn't be Warhammer without them. Cannons needed...something to happen to them in order to make monsters more appealing. Not sure if they did a good job or not. I was always of the opinion that a scatter die and a d3 for the intial shot-placement could have helped make cannons not so "laser guided" but never tested it out to see if it could work.

I still play 8th, I love it despite its weaknesses.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/18 23:32:19


 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

For creating a new game, 8th was the worst point to start at.
But than they just promised a more balanced 8th edition to get the ETC so needed to stick with it.

And I never liked Magic in 8th and preferred the 6th/7th Edition were it was good but optional
but for 9th I don't see magic as optional now as it is needed (some factions need it more than others), but you need that lvl 4 wizard if you want to make it worth.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 07:23:09


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

PURPLE SUN!!! Yass...

   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Having now looked at the 2.0 book for a little bit I think T9A has got itself in a bit of a mess by sticking to certain parts of 8th while completely overhauling others, and not always for the best.

For example, there are some problem rules that are a legacy of 8th edition: mismatching bases and buildings spring to mind. These still cause problems and complications now but instead of embracing the fact this is supposed to be a new game with new rules and simply doing away with them, it feels as though this is simply not an option and we must stick with these things because...well, because 8th had them. There's a similar problem with war machines on round bases. They're the only thing in the game that uses round bases, which seems to be a holdover from a convention that sprung up in the ETC in 8th edition. Again, this just causes problems and it would be a simple solution to state they have to be mounted on square bases but there's a strange reticence to do it.

Then there's things like the to wound chart. It doesn't exist, instead being written out longhand. The names of stats have changed to avoid IP issues but I think that's just pulling the game further away from its roots.

The forums are, IMO, not conducive to actual reasoned debate and discussion. Criticism tends to be ignored or met with a stock response of "wait unit the Beta is finished". Note that for a long time the stock response to criticism was "wait until 2.0 arrives" but now it's here they've had to come up with something else. I can see T9A becoming gradually less and less relevant if it continues down this path, which is a shame because I think the early ideas had a lot of merit and there's clearly been a lot of hard work put into the game. I think much of that effort has been misdirected.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

IMO, it's really too bad that T9A didn't take a solid look at 6E and 7E for inspiration to fix the things that were obviously wrong with 8E. Like the round bases.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 kodos wrote:
For creating a new game, 8th was the worst point to start at.
But than they just promised a more balanced 8th edition to get the ETC so needed to stick with it.

And I never liked Magic in 8th and preferred the 6th/7th Edition were it was good but optional
but for 9th I don't see magic as optional now as it is needed (some factions need it more than others), but you need that lvl 4 wizard if you want to make it worth.

What made 6/7 better? I only played 8th.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Clousseau




The beginning of 6th had the best balance pretty much ever with Ravening Hordes.

The mechanics were fairly sound as well with the exception of fear/auto break being so abusive.

8th edition you had to have a level 4 wizard or not bother playing and monsters were useless along with laser guided cannons. 8th also started the trend of terrain starting to do little in games with being able to see through forests and shoot cannons through them.

Steadfast was a good idea that was taken to broken extremes with min/maxing and creating the two mega blobs meeting in the center of the table to smack bellies.

8th also removed the weight of being outflanked that previous editions had, with steadfast units able to just walk up the field and lol at anything flank charging them due to them keeping their steadfast.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






SoCal, USA!

In addition, 7th had fewer USRs to memorize, and 6th had fewer still. The reduction in total rules volume makes 6th (using Ravening Hordes lists) faster to play, and more likely to be played correctly. 8th was basically a return to the complexity of 5th.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/19 18:34:09


   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

6th/7th in general was more streamlined and army books were not so much over the top
end of 7th stuff was already different in more towards 8th
some armies had weaker books of course, but there was a reason why the Warhammer was the top tournament game back than

8th kept stuff a lot of people did't liked of 7th and added back stuff no one liked in 5th

T9A now is a perfect game if you liked 8th edition
those that liked a previous one more will never be comfortable with those rules

the other problem is, that they want to make a new game but need to keep the basics of 8th for whatever reason (so armies will always have those units they had back in 8th) also meaning that new mechanics must look different but "feel" the same.


@Warmachines
Using round bases and adding a lot of complicated game situations just because someone could get half an inch of range advantage by turning a square bases is just stupid and kills of the "not only a tournament game" argument instantly

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

pm713 wrote:
 kodos wrote:
For creating a new game, 8th was the worst point to start at.
But than they just promised a more balanced 8th edition to get the ETC so needed to stick with it.

And I never liked Magic in 8th and preferred the 6th/7th Edition were it was good but optional
but for 9th I don't see magic as optional now as it is needed (some factions need it more than others), but you need that lvl 4 wizard if you want to make it worth.

What made 6/7 better? I only played 8th.


Quite a bit was touched on as why 6th/7th was better.

7th had some main rules that I thought did the game no favors, and the army books from the beginning were showing the book creep that Warhammer is famous for. By the time we got halfway, the books were simply out of control.

6th started out revamping the system from 5th, and coming up with a better way of organizing forces. They took percentages out entirely and focused on the slot system. Some bemoan that you can break the slot system by only taking the required min sized units at your points level, but savvy players knew that if someone decided to overload on their Specials, Rares, and Characters that almost any decent Core heavy army could still keep them at bay, if not win.

And that was the beauty of it. All through 6th, your standard bog simple foot troop unit had a chance. Blender Lords in 6th could kill about 6 models if they wound up rolling perfectly, which we know doesn't happen. Monster mounts also were not as game breaking.

The magic phase was supplementary. There were spells that could potentially have high output, but those were outliers. Typically 2Dd against one unit was the most egregious offensive spell. There were spells that had some open ended random, but for the most part that was the high end.

The only real issues I had with 6th were the ways that certain armies were able to abuse the composition/organization charts, with the modularity of Chaos. There were also some flat out imbalanced lists, but even those weren't unbeatable.

There were a few rules from 7th that my club wound up keeping for 6th: A wizard could only use dice they themselves generated, or dice from the community pool, a natural roll of two 1's passed any psychology test, and we're on the fence about needing 5 man front to have rank bonus.


But yeah, if you were looking for streamlined balanced play, 6th with RH was the way to go.

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.

I preferred elements of 8th, supporting ranks especially. Steadfast was too much though and needed toning down. Deeper ranks should grant you an extra dice as per cold blooded, you get a better chance to pass morale, but if the odds are stacked against you.

Win button spells are also a problem, T9A didnt fix everything, but it mostly fixed. I am happy with earlier editions of those rules.

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 fr
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 kodos wrote:


T9A now is a perfect game if you liked 8th edition
those that liked a previous one more will never be comfortable with those rules



And that was the point. The people who wrote T9A for the most part were reasonably happy 8th edition players who did not like that the official Warhammer did away with ranked units.

They've dabbled on stuff from earlier editions (mostly unit entries rather than core rules) but for the most part kept the 8th edition rules tweaked to avoid some of 8th worst offenders (unit caps and progressive unit cost to avoid enormous units, toned down superspells, no laser-guided cannon, no re-rollable ld10 for everyone, etc.)

There are some examples of people who never played 8th and came back to T9A, but the bulk of the players are those who carried on through 8th, and that's why there's little interest to go back to fixed distance charges, no premeasuring and dead models in the front rank not fighting back.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 08:10:42


 
   
Made in gb
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Nottingham

I think the rules for 8th ed did a lot of damage to it's popularity. Created buy-in barriers and encouraged bigger units, bigger armies, bigger games, bigger $$$, which was ofc snowballing from 7th, though it wasn't as bad then. 3rd-6th ed were my WHFB golden days and I'll always be happy to throw dice at them if the opponents appear but....

I think I'm finally in a place now where I'm comfortable to let WHFB go...

Found my new Fantasy home (and very lucky to be a demo rep): https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/749167.page
www.facebook.com/parabellumwargames
www.para-bellum.com

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 10:34:00


PLOG: Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

The source of my Conquest : Www.facebook.com/ParaBellumWarGames



 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




8th was the correct version to use as a basis. Apart from the inertia of being the most recent edition, I think 8th was mostly sound from a mechanical point of view, with the broken aspects being specific issues with certain units/spells, etc.

For example, 8th got rid of a lot of the really gamey redirect shenanigans with small units of chaff and reduced the power of skirmishers while trying to improve infantry to be useful again. The magic phase was also changed to allow for more diversity in what and how many magic users you needed to take to protect yourself and achieve something in the magic phase.

The real issues with 8th, IMO, were mainly around specific things rather than the core rules. Magic was fine as a mechanic, but Dwellers, Purple Sun and the like were just too powerful, for example. Monsters were probably the only mechanical issue I had with the rules, as Thunderstomp was too powerful and allowed monsters to win combat single-handed when I would have preferred to have seen them more as support. Even then, a lot of the earlier monsters were like this and it was only later things got out of hand.
   
Made in gb
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Nottingham

I can't entirely agree. Hordes combined with step-up, steadfast and an unrealistic method for disrupting ranks. A magic phase dependant on 2D6 meaning your 100s of points to in magic could just not be usable for a turn or alternatively wipe out half an army...

8th was the problem. As far as I'm concerned anyway.

PLOG: Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

The source of my Conquest : Www.facebook.com/ParaBellumWarGames



 
   
Made in at
Second Story Man





Austria

8th was the "go big or go home" edition
forcing "spam" of any kind

the main rules were not worse than the previous ones, but everything was made to be bigger

using 8th as basis was a good idea to make an ETC replacement ruleset to keep those players
it was a bad idea to use it as a base for a new game

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in fr
Inspiring Icon Bearer




Davidian wrote:I can't entirely agree. Hordes combined with step-up, steadfast and an unrealistic method for disrupting ranks. A magic phase dependant on 2D6 meaning your 100s of points to in magic could just not be usable for a turn or alternatively wipe out half an army...

8th was the problem. As far as I'm concerned anyway.


Which is why T9A toned down magic first, and now has made it more reliable that the old 2D6.

As far as hordes, there are hard caps and progressive pricing so MSU has been the dominant playstyle for a while now.

kodos wrote:8th was the "go big or go home" edition
forcing "spam" of any kind


I don't know when you started playing Warhammer but spamming has been here since forever. Every book had its broken/undercosted unit and it was spammed to death, and then you filled other slots with the bare minimum.


   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

I agree that T9A was for fans of 8th, or continuency players in general who migrated to 8th because GW did.

The right call was made by basing T9A 1.0 on 8th then gradually move away.

T9A 2.0 doesn't look much like Warhammer and if it were introduced at the outset would be yet another set of fan rules, by going through 1.0 and following T9A inherited the Warhammer playerbase. A smart move in my opinion.

T9A no longer supports earlier editions, but 'support' doesn't mean much anyway. For those who want a fixed game of Warhammer play 1.0 or 1.1, or go back to 6th and houserule elements of 7th and 8th by agreement.

The trouble with returning to 6th is that despite the better balance it misses many of the toys of later editions brought out after GW's massive investment in manufacturing technologies about a decade ago. You couldn't make a Mortis Engine back then, and a Mortis Engine and similar items are frankly too awesome to leave behind.
Hence while playing 6th has its advantages, I think it should include caveats, some rules pasted in by mutual agreement and later army book editions added.
However how do you agree on that?

That is why I have T9A 1.1 on pdf and printout, have bought all the 8th edition army books I ca find (though some are 7th - Skaven and Beastmen), and am buying up all the 6th edition army books I can find also, which includes the Bretonnians.
This way I can host the rulesets.
After what I have read of it, I will be unlikely to bother with 2.0



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 15:16:43


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 at
Second Story Man





Austria

I won't suggest to play stock 6th when upgrades are already available

there is WarhammerCE, based on 7th edition with the new units available
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans/page13
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733156.page

there also is a Warhammer Armies project out there which includes all the fancy factions

jouso wrote:

I don't know when you started playing Warhammer but spamming has been here since forever. Every book had its broken/undercosted unit and it was spammed to death, and then you filled other slots with the bare minimum.

I play since end of 4th
and spam was there in 5th, got driven back in 6th and started rising again in 7th.
before 8th it was more of an army book issue while the core rules of 8th made it worth/possible to take "more of the same" (who ever thought that having 50% characters again was a good idea)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/22 20:52:29


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise 
   
Made in fr
Inspiring Icon Bearer




 kodos wrote:
I won't suggest to play stock 6th when upgrades are already available

there is WarhammerCE, based on 7th edition with the new units available
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?373349-Warhammer-CE-the-definitive-rule-set-for-WFB-veterans/page13
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/733156.page


Honestly if I'd ever had to go back to fixed charge distance I'd rather go over to KoW which at least allows pre-measuring.

IMHO that and step up were the single best changes from 7th to 8th.
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





Monticello, IN

Orlanth wrote:The trouble with returning to 6th is that despite the better balance it misses many of the toys of later editions brought out after GW's massive investment in manufacturing technologies about a decade ago. You couldn't make a Mortis Engine back then, and a Mortis Engine and similar items are frankly too awesome to leave behind.
Hence while playing 6th has its advantages, I think it should include caveats, some rules pasted in by mutual agreement and later army book editions added.
However how do you agree on that?

That is why I have T9A 1.1 on pdf and printout, have bought all the 8th edition army books I ca find (though some are 7th - Skaven and Beastmen), and am buying up all the 6th edition army books I can find also, which includes the Bretonnians.
This way I can host the rulesets.
After what I have read of it, I will be unlikely to bother with 2.0


The great thing about 6th being a dead system is that it's easy enough to look at the rules that exist for other units that mirror or vaguely resemble those newer units, and port them over. The Classichammer community is pretty open to attaching new things to whatever edition they prefer, the problem is what your idea of "fair" or "balanced" is. Dwarfs 6.0 and Dwarfs 6.5 are good examples of that. If you look at Dwarfs 6.5 and think "Yeah, they got it pretty fair", then you will have a discord with me, since I thought they were fairly imbalanced. Now take that discord and apply it to committee rules writing. You'd about have to have a 3rd party do it for you.

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 ca
Grumpy Longbeard





Canada

jouso wrote:

I don't know when you started playing Warhammer but spamming has been here since forever. Every book had its broken/undercosted unit and it was spammed to death, and then you filled other slots with the bare minimum.

It seems to be an unfortunate staple of GW. KoW promotes balanced armies by making a game that's balanced and requires versatility.

Nightstalkers Dwarfs
GASLANDS!
Holy Roman Empire  
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Nottingham

I wonder how it's going now? I've not been bothered one bit by it and I'm now looking forward to Conquest releasing next year.

Been a while and in my area it's dead. The UK south FB group is desolate. The 2 main tournament organisers have moved on and I only know of 2 people who still make efforts to find games.

With this in the horizon (www.para-bellum.com) T9A isn't even an afterthought.

How's it near you?

PLOG: Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings

The source of my Conquest : Www.facebook.com/ParaBellumWarGames



 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: