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.

Apologies if this is not the right place for such a thread (and, Mods, please move it if that's the case), but I thought I would get a discussion going about the community-created 9th Age system (link is in my sig), which has essentially revamped WHFB 8th edition with new rules and new army books.

What do you think of the quality of the project? Is it an improvement on 8th edition? If so, where has it improved and, if not, what areas has it failed to pick up on? How do the army lists compare to 8th edition? If you've played 9th Age, how does your enjoyment of it relate to 8th edition, or even Age of Sigmar?

Personally, I've had a few games with the system so far and am enjoying it, though it's early days to say whether or not I prefer it to 8th. Often it is easier to get a game of 8th anyway, which is totally fine with me. I'm liking the new army books, their simplicity and the extra customisation options most seem to give you, though the loss of SCs and many items/rules is sad (though that's always the case with new army books). Rules-wise, I think they've been too harsh on Magic and not quite harsh enough on Steadfast, though the unit size restrictions imposed by the army books does help as well. I'm still on the fence about Ridden Monster rules; some are good but others aren't, and are a bit silly and need clarifying. Otherwise, I think the buffs to non-infantry unit types are good, as are most of the other rules they've bought in. There's some big ones like cannons needing to roll to hit, and some other, minor ones, which I'd never have thought of yet work so well, such as spears gaining Armour Piercing.

So, provided such a discussion is fine, let's get one going! What are your thoughts?

Honestly, I don't think this is the place for such a thread. This is about Age of Sigmar, and 9th Age is just the opposite: holding to the past of Warhammer.

But I'm sure many will disagree with me and welcome such a thread, so let's people speak for themselves

Yeah, I did think about sticking it in the GW Specialist section, but I guess we'll see

Proposed Rules is typically where threads like this get moved to.

It's not really proposed rules though, as the rules have already been made into their own game system you can simply download and use. Sure, they're taking suggestions and amending it, but there's a system you can go and use now.

Not a big fan. I felt like they tried too hard in some places and not enough in others.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Not a big fan. I felt like they tried too hard in some places and not enough in others.

Yeah, I'd partly agree with that. What areas do you feel they didn't try hard enough in?

Handling megadeath spells.

Admittedly, my knowledge of the system is dated, but I thought the "one of a kind" was a bit lazy. Rather than consider what made the Skull Cannon abusive, they just 1 only'd it.

I also don't think they really spent much time considering the end of times units that people invested in before warhammer imploded.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Handling megadeath spells.

Admittedly, my knowledge of the system is dated, but I thought the "one of a kind" was a bit lazy. Rather than consider what made the Skull Cannon abusive, they just 1 only'd it.

I also don't think they really spent much time considering the end of times units that people invested in before warhammer imploded.

What made the skull cannon bent was the fact that for 270 points you could have 2. If it was 1 only, then it'd be a powerful tool, but not gamebreaking, In 8th, it gave you 2 chances at a 1/6 chance of totalyl removing a monster. Which isn't entirely the skull cannon's fault. Monsters are part of the problem due to being underpowered.

As for 9th, the fact is, if you read the rules for cannons, they roll to hit as normal, albeit ignoring penalties from cover. AND, they still maintain the 1/6 chance of misfiring. Which is a lot better.

With regards for ET units not being included. Good, that entire thing was an abomination. Whether it's the Stormfiends with the Ratling cannons, or Khaine lists, each book threw internal balance out of the window even more and sped up the power creep to the point that there were 3 army lists worth playing if you wanted to win, UL, Skaven, or Khaine.

Meanwhile, to go back on topic, 9th is a solid ruleset overall, and I've not yet found one thing I dislike about it.

Glad you have some opinions, it's nice that they don't invalidate mine. I liked end times. It got people in my store really hyped, and we loved the fact things were progressing and changing. What came next was unsatisfactory.

I was answering questions directly as they were posed to me.

In 8th, it gave you 2 chances at a 1/6 chance of totalyl removing a monster. Which isn't entirely the skull cannon's fault. Monsters are part of the problem due to being underpowered.

Exactly what I'm talking about when I said lazy. Why bother fixing the power balance between certain unit types when you can just 1 per game stuff.

Edit for clarity: Making cannons miss more still isn't satisfying. Now TWO people can be completely bummed on their units perfomance. The unit that gets cannon balled off on a 6 is put off, as is the cannon owner when he misses or whiffs or misfires every shot.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Handling megadeath spells.

Really? Personally, I feel that's one area they've sort of panicked and nerfed because it's something that's generally believed to be broken. The spells gotten much less powerful, you can still take Ward/MR saves against the ones that are still fairly powerful (which admittedly makes sense), and they've reduced the amount of power dice you can use, as well as limiting the effects of channeling. Whilst some of these changes are good, all of them at the same time aren't necessary and I feel it's upset the balance of power somewhat, with large horde units not being equally nerfed (though as I said, the unit caps do help).

As for cannons, I like what they've done there. I wouldn't say it's a "lazy" change. Yes, it's an "easy" one, but it's still a good one. That was the infuriating thing about cannons; there were so many easy fixes. Why should cannons not roll to hit like most other weapons? You still have to aim a cannon at something, just as you would a bow. Sure, it is a bit all or nothing, but I think the ignoring cover helps to mitigate loads of misses and, conversely, the reduction in wounds it causes helps to mitigate those one-shot situations.

And the duplicates change. Yes, I can see how that could be a "lazy" change. In a perfect world, you'd be able to take as many duplicates of the same unit as you like, because no one unit would be any better than any other. Ultimately though, that is nigh impossible to achieve. It's much easier to limit the number of really powerful units you can take, hence mitigating the effect they have on the battle. Yes, it is a lazy change, but an understandably lazy one. It does annoy me that most war machines in army lists seem to be divided into some sort of "Light/Heavy Artillery", with the actual war machine parts being an upgrade, therefore further limiting you; I think two different types of Heavy Artillery (or whatever) should not count as a duplicate.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Exactly what I'm talking about when I said lazy. Why bother fixing the power balance between certain unit types when you can just 1 per game stuff. .

The imbalance of cannons came from the fact that they literally never missed. The ability to miss is the balancing factor. It is not lazy. Rather the opposite. They put the work in to bring war machines in line, and balanced out cannons themselves. But, if you read the actual cannon rules for 9th, and the current demons book, you'd have seen that by now you have to A) take a khorne general to have access to a cannon. And B) Cannot remove things in one round.

Yeah, cannons were stupidly accurate. Plus, I think I'm right in saying that they can no longer snipe out characters in units, as they count as a template weapon and template weapons need to target a unit with5 or less RnF models before they can allocate hits onto specific models

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, cannons were stupidly accurate. Plus, I think I'm right in saying that they can no longer snipe out characters in units, as they count as a template weapon and template weapons need to target a unit with5 or less RnF models before they can allocate hits onto specific models

Yes. Any character sniped out immediately transfers the hit to a R&F model.

All these changes also mean that monsters are actually usable in a competitive setting, as on average, it will take 3 cannon shots to down a 6 wound monster.

I'm still not a huge fan of the new monster rules though and, as I said, they are a bit confusing. Although it kinda makes sense, it seems unfair to me that Monstrous Beasts benefit from a rider's equipment, whereas a Monster doesn't. That means that, in the vast majority of situations, all a Monster will be relying on is its natural toughness of 6ish and at, best, only a 3+ save. And, when the monster dies, the rider goes down with it.

Considering that you're paying more for a Monster, I see very few reasons, outside the cool factor, why you'd take a Ridden Monster. Sure, they're better than they were, but still not great. I much more looking forward to trying out all the cool combinations I can come up with for my IoB Prince on Griffon than I am running my Dreadlord on Black Dragon.

 The Shadow wrote:
I'm still not a huge fan of the new monster rules though and, as I said, they are a bit confusing. Although it kinda makes sense, it seems unfair to me that Monstrous Beasts benefit from a rider's equipment, whereas a Monster doesn't. That means that, in the vast majority of situations, all a Monster will be relying on is its natural toughness of 6ish and at, best, only a 3+ save. And, when the monster dies, the rider goes down with it.

Considering that you're paying more for a Monster, I see very few reasons, outside the cool factor, why you'd take a Ridden Monster. Sure, they're better than they were, but still not great. I much more looking forward to trying out all the cool combinations I can come up with for my IoB Prince on Griffon than I am running my Dreadlord on Black Dragon.

Seeing as how under 9th, they both count as single targets, I'd rather take the mount that statistically has a higher chance of surviving the first 2 cannon shots.

Monstrous beasts are cool and all. But, with cannons now doing D3+1, Monsters still have a major advantage.

 The Shadow wrote:

 Thunderfrog wrote:
Handling megadeath spells.

Really? Personally, I feel that's one area they've sort of panicked and nerfed because it's something that's generally believed to be broken. The spells gotten much less powerful, you can still take Ward/MR saves against the ones that are still fairly powerful (which admittedly makes sense), and they've reduced the amount of power dice you can use, as well as limiting the effects of channeling. Whilst some of these changes are good, all of them at the same time aren't necessary and I feel it's upset the balance of power somewhat, with large horde units not being equally nerfed (though as I said, the unit caps do help).

As for cannons, I like what they've done there. I wouldn't say it's a "lazy" change. Yes, it's an "easy" one, but it's still a good one. That was the infuriating thing about cannons; there were so many easy fixes. Why should cannons not roll to hit like most other weapons? You still have to aim a cannon at something, just as you would a bow. Sure, it is a bit all or nothing, but I think the ignoring cover helps to mitigate loads of misses and, conversely, the reduction in wounds it causes helps to mitigate those one-shot situations.

And the duplicates change. Yes, I can see how that could be a "lazy" change. In a perfect world, you'd be able to take as many duplicates of the same unit as you like, because no one unit would be any better than any other. Ultimately though, that is nigh impossible to achieve. It's much easier to limit the number of really powerful units you can take, hence mitigating the effect they have on the battle. Yes, it is a lazy change, but an understandably lazy one. It does annoy me that most war machines in army lists seem to be divided into some sort of "Light/Heavy Artillery", with the actual war machine parts being an upgrade, therefore further limiting you; I think two different types of Heavy Artillery (or whatever) should not count as a duplicate.

You've convinced me on the War Machines. As per my disclaimer, my information was dated from their first draft. Ignoring cover + d3+1 wounds is a more intuitive solution on the large. I still dislike duplicates, and don't think that will change. I agree about war machines. If you think about it, the ones that cause the most trouble are the ones that are technically chariots or monsters. I always felt like the Helcannons and Skullcannons and such should have been strength 6 instead of 10.

I'm playing Ninth a lot and I am really enjoying the rule set. Magic is less necessary with many people running 2 level 2's instead of the practically necessary level 4 of 8th. ASF has disappeared, which even as an Elf Player i thought that was a stupid rule, why should an Elf Strike before a Bloodthrister who is obviously faster with I9? Cannons are much more manageable (I would honestly say over nerfed, my Treemen never feel threatened unless there are more then 2 cannons around) and with the new changes to basic wargear (New Parry Save, new Spears) previously useless tax core now feel like they can participate in the army other than just filling up minimum requirements.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
I'm playing Ninth a lot and I am really enjoying the rule set. Magic is less necessary with many people running 2 level 2's instead of the practically necessary level 4 of 8th. ASF has disappeared, which even as an Elf Player i thought that was a stupid rule, why should an Elf Strike before a Bloodthrister who is obviously faster with I9? Cannons are much more manageable (I would honestly say over nerfed, my Treemen never feel threatened unless there are more then 2 cannons around) and with the new changes to basic wargear (New Parry Save, new Spears) previously useless tax core now feel like they can participate in the army other than just filling up minimum requirements.

This is true. It brings Dark elves into line, as the warlocks(now reasonably costed), overly good core(Dark Riders), have both been kicked in the tits. The magic is still there, and I can see the mileage in loads of level twos, although, the level 4 vs two level two's is still tilted in the level 4's favour, as aided dispelling is for the aiding models only, so it's +4 vs +3. There's far more mileage in a level 4 and a level 1. The miscast table is my one gripe. It's far more forgiving, which in turn gives players more confidence to force more spells through. I personally would rather see less results on the table, but have each result more severe than the last, in order to force tactical prioritisation of spells.

Yeah, the Miscast table is perhaps the only area of the magic phase that hasn't really made it worse for magic users, which I guess is a good thing.

I think Lvl4s are still better, but, like Alex said, it's no longer an auto-include. I'm looking forward to trying out different configurations, as well as models that I previously couldn't use competitively because they'd prevent me from taking a Lvl4.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, the Miscast table is perhaps the only area of the magic phase that hasn't really made it worse for magic users, which I guess is a good thing.

I think Lvl4s are still better, but, like Alex said, it's no longer an auto-include. I'm looking forward to trying out different configurations, as well as models that I previously couldn't use competitively because they'd prevent me from taking a Lvl4.

It's still mathematically superior to add the aided dispelling to a level 4, as you start at a flat 4, as opposed to a 2.

It's still mandatory with a magic heavy elf army as well as in a competitive setting. Lore of Death is still a killer and you don't want a level 4 having effective free reign with a scroll caddy.

Within the newer rules Aided Dispel and Casting isn't a thing anymore. As such, I can't see any reason to pick up a level 4 when a level 3 can take Arcane Tome to get 4 spells, she has the same bonus to casting and is cheaper. A level 3 and a Level 2 with scroll is the most i ever put into magic now and it's very effective. Level 3 on Lore of the Big Green Gods and the level 2 with power mushrooms on Shadow, very effective.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Within the newer rules Aided Dispel and Casting isn't a thing anymore. As such, I can't see any reason to pick up a level 4 when a level 3 can take Arcane Tome to get 4 spells, she has the same bonus to casting and is cheaper. A level 3 and a Level 2 with scroll is the most i ever put into magic now and it's very effective. Level 3 on Lore of the Big Green Gods and the level 2 with power mushrooms on Shadow, very effective.

It seems intriguing, but without calculating averages on 3-4 dice, I couldn't agree with you. I'd be inclined to take a level 4 and save the 75 points(Arcane tome and Tome of Arcane lore). Although, that's mostly as I play dark elves and I rarely have the points for a second caster on peg.

I can see how it'd work in armies like Skaven, Empire, or OnG though where you have access to cheap casters. But for the most part, armies like WoC, Elves, Ogres, and especially Daemons still hug their level 4s religiously. At least in my experience in an ETC like environment.

Hmm... I'm not sure if I've seen that newest draft of the rules without Aided Casting/Dispel, I'll have to have a look.

And there is something to be said for Lvl3s, especially when you can get them an extra spell or Loremaster. However, it's a question of whether paying for these bonuses is worth it over paying more base points for a Lvl4 and/or freeing more magic item points for protection and/or other arcane items. I guess it largely depends on your army-specific magic items.

Should perhap merge with the previous 9A thread?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/663643.page

 The Shadow wrote:
Hmm... I'm not sure if I've seen that newest draft of the rules without Aided Casting/Dispel, I'll have to have a look.

And there is something to be said for Lvl3s, especially when you can get them an extra spell or Loremaster. However, it's a question of whether paying for these bonuses is worth it over paying more base points for a Lvl4 and/or freeing more magic item points for protection and/or other arcane items. I guess it largely depends on your army-specific magic items.

That's exactly what I'm saying. To say that paying the level 3 cost + 75 points as to paying the level 4 cost to achieve the same effects is just paying more for no apparent reason.

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Hmm... I'm not sure if I've seen that newest draft of the rules without Aided Casting/Dispel, I'll have to have a look.

And there is something to be said for Lvl3s, especially when you can get them an extra spell or Loremaster. However, it's a question of whether paying for these bonuses is worth it over paying more base points for a Lvl4 and/or freeing more magic item points for protection and/or other arcane items. I guess it largely depends on your army-specific magic items.

That's exactly what I'm saying. To say that paying the level 3 cost + 75 points as to paying the level 4 cost to achieve the same effects is just paying more for no apparent reason.

What do you mean by this? A level 4 has no casting bonuses over a level 3 whatsoever, both count as gain a flat +2 to cast, the only bonus the level 4 has is an extra spell. Tome of Arcane Knowledge is 25pts and grants an extra spell, while a 4th wizard level is at least 35. Your paying 10pts less in this circumstance and all you lose out on is carrying an arcane item, and since I am taking a level 2 as well I already have a scroll caddy.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 thedarkavenger wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Hmm... I'm not sure if I've seen that newest draft of the rules without Aided Casting/Dispel, I'll have to have a look.

And there is something to be said for Lvl3s, especially when you can get them an extra spell or Loremaster. However, it's a question of whether paying for these bonuses is worth it over paying more base points for a Lvl4 and/or freeing more magic item points for protection and/or other arcane items. I guess it largely depends on your army-specific magic items.

That's exactly what I'm saying. To say that paying the level 3 cost + 75 points as to paying the level 4 cost to achieve the same effects is just paying more for no apparent reason.

What do you mean by this? A level 4 has no casting bonuses over a level 3 whatsoever, both count as gain a flat +2 to cast, the only bonus the level 4 has is an extra spell. Tome of Arcane Knowledge is 25pts and grants an extra spell, while a 4th wizard level is at least 35. Your paying 10pts less in this circumstance and all you lose out on is carrying an arcane item, and since I am taking a level 2 as well I already have a scroll caddy.

That's a fair shout, I missed that part of the rules. Although, I'd probably still take the level 4, in case of miscasts, as well as taking more magic items.

Yeah, to be fair I missed that too. Is the whole +1/+2 to cast depending on Hero/Lord choice in the newest version of the rules? Pretty sure I read everything highlighted in blue (new stuff) but don't remember any mention of that.