9th Age Saurian ancients - 0.99 Discussion

I thought so. Thanks for the confirmation.

OUCH... I hadn't even thought about that. This is getting better all the time. I didn't mind the change to the Carno until you made this connection.

 

I play Dual Carno 90% of my games so the loss of MW and PF really annoyed me I like the idea of having a Warlord on one, but I don't like the idea of being so meh in CC.

It looks good on paper but I am pretty sure it will disappoint me on the table. WS 3 really hurts the damage output of the Carno and at only 4 wounds. I can't count the number of times where the reroll 1s to hit combined with a big MW roll has saved my butt. And they really do need it.

 

It all seems a little bland next to 8th edition. Everything is so streamlined now that there seems to be an eradication of even the faintest hints of flavour, creativity and uniqueness.

Bulls-eye!

Balance can be always be created through an increase or decrease in points cost. A loss of choice/options is unacceptable.

 

I don't play Carnos very often, but I can definitely understand your frustrations.

I do like the fact that the Saurian Warlord can ride a baby Carno. At least that is a small improvement mixed in with all the disappointments.

 

It really shakes things up, and i am not ahppy about it for mostly the same reasons people have already mentioned. the thing i will be trying out is a 2K lis without a Slann(heresy, i know). I think that the only really vaible thing to do right now is filling out your core with Saurus warriors, i have never liked the Skrox, and Skink warriors are just terribad without poison. Putting in a Skink High priest into a big unit of Sauri gives them Hatred, which is good, and it gives you a cheap core of your army that should be pretty good. THis gives you room for a lot of 14 man skink skirmisher units, which you will need due to the lower LD. A Scarvet will do the BSBing in my list. Will post it pretty soon in the army list section.

 

Let’s first preface with this:

For external balance, there is a very important point to keep in mind when reading the updated books. The target power level of all books was NOT the average of the previous v0.11 version. ALL armies (with very few exceptions) have seen the power level of their best units tuned down... Remember: while your army is less powerful overall (at least compared to the best build in v0.11), most other armies are also weaker.

Nerfs were coming to everyone, and SA were a notable overperformer, so let’s not be under any delusions here. As a recommendation for the future, the 9th RT really should have come out with this in an official capacity before the sneak peeks began, in order to set everyone's expectations

I’ve written elsewhere about my feelings on the Skink poison nerf, and that still stands – but let’s dig into some of the major changes in a little more detail.

Skink Braves – combat poison as standard is welcome, and from my reading of the unit you can get a relatively cheap Skirmishing scoring unit. Not terrible as a bunker. But consider the following:

· Who in their right mind is going to swap one point of armour save (and Parry!), for a BS3 S3 shot?
· What exactly am I paying 6 points per model for? S3 WS2 poison attack, on a T2 5+ AS Skink?
· For 75 points, you get 10 Skirmishing Skinks, losing Poison completely. What role is this unit supposed to have? Jungle Swarms are superior chaff (same number of wounds, same attacks but with Poison, Unbreakable – a whopping 20 points cheaper which is critical for chaff). For a wizard bunker, you’d just take the same number of ranked Skinks and save yourself the extra points (ultimately, both kinds of units are going to be hiding at the back of the board so want the minimum investment).

The mixed Caiman unit remains a decent configuration. It loses out on some utility now that Poison Javelins are gone, but the cheaper combat poison is some compensation that probably balances out at the lower targeted power-level. I would still prefer that the rules for allocating attacks are streamlined – the existing rules are vulnerable to a lot of justified criticism. Just give the Caimans Distracting and Hard Target when they are in a unit of Skinks, we don’t need half a page for this.

Conclusion: What is this unit supposed to do? Expect mixed-Caiman units in a supporting combat role, and minimum sized units as bunkers. Please simplify mixed unit rules.


Saurus – Increase in base cost, and for some reason they are still paying 2 points per model for Spears. That’s 14 points per model for what should be the line combat unit, which is still a meager WS3 I2 except you now pay more points for the pleasure. Compare this to the infamous Feral Orc Eadbasher who pays one point for Spears. One point! Over the Saurus they have: Weapon Skill 4 (hits more often), Strength 5 (!) in the first round of combat (wounds more easily), and a whopping -3AS. But it is the Saurus who pays more for less. Yes, the Saurus is more defensive - but this should be reflected in the points costings. If anything, these points values should be reversed with Saurus paying 1 for spears and FOE 2.

Crocodile Warrior got cheaper and might be better, but we need a clarification on whether the AP reduction counts towards Strength. If it doesn’t, I’m not sure that 15ppm is justified.

Conclusion: When your combat options are limited between WS2 S3 Skinks at 5 points, or WS3 I2 Saurus at three times the cost... most people are going to take Caimans. Overcosted & underpowered for what they do, compared to other armies' Core combat blocks.

Skink Hunters: 50 points for 2 BS3 Poison shots, or 65 points for 2 BS4 Poison shots with Scout and Hard Target? I assume that Camo Skinks went up by 5 to make it more of a contest... but it’s really not.

Conclusion: This unit is going to be impossible to balance in it's current form, you might as well get rid of the non-Camo variety.

Taurosaur: The big loser, suffering a triple-threat nerf. Base cost up to 200 across the board, loses MW and Engine nerf. Despite that, I think it’s now in a decent spot. 160 for a Skink mount was a huge oversight, and the price increases are justified to reduce monster spam. MW on impact hits was also borderline broken. But now that you’re looking at 240+ for the Ancient, I’m thinking that you’ll see just one of these in lists going forwards (either as an Engine, or a Skink Spear mount). The loss of 6++ in combat is just a further blow to Saurus, though.

Conclusion: The Taurosaur is now in a better state, forcing a difficult decision instead of just filling up on them. Engine may be slightly underpowered, but seems to be broadly in line with other books’ monster buff wagons.

Skink High Priest: Who the hell is going to pay 55 points (Palaquin + Plaque) to give a Skink unit Hatred? Nobody. You want your vulnerable level 3 either hiding in a bunker at the back, or hiding in the back of a big Saurus unit. You most definitely do not want it in a T2 “combat” unit, giving re-rolls to hit to models with 1 S3 WS2 poison attack. Just... no.

Conclusion: The Tetto’ekko models can go back on the shelves.

Skink Captains: BS nerf is fine, although it does make me wonder how SA are expected to deal with multiple wound models at range now (and monsters in particular), outside of magic. The double-nerf to flying mounts (increased cost, reduced Toughness) is a blow to the cowboy role, though. Probably wholly justified May still have a role as Egg delivery systems, or chaff alternatives to Pterodactyls. .

Conclusion: RIP Skink Flying Cowboys, Dec 2015-Mar 2016.

Raptor Riders: The decreased starting cost does not go nearly far enough when you are paying a whopping 35 points per model afterwards. Bare in mind that these guys will lose models before attacking, and then will miss a lot. They are in an awkward spot where they have all the weaknesses that cavalry as a unit type have (can't charge big blocks due to Steadfast/Step up, dependent on charge bonuses), and all the weaknesses of Saurus combat stats (low Initiative, meaning that they lose models before attacking, and low Weapon Skill, meaning they are easy to hit and don't hit often), and on top of that they bring a bunch of their own, being some of the slowest Movement cavalry around (less chance of getting the charge or into position), suffer from Stupidity (can't operate independently as easy for flank charges), and are expensive (compounding the issue of being cavalry, and of Saurus combat stats). Consider that for the price of 10, you can get an Ancient Taurosaur with a Spear that will win out every time.

Conclusion: Either cut the cost further and leave as is, raise Initiative to 4 and/or Armour to 1+ and price accordingly, or redesign with a USR (initiative bonus on the charge?).

Temple Guard: I recognise that all special infantry have seen a price increase in order to discourage big units, but I still don’t agree with it for Temple Guard. The reason that you take big units of Temple Guard is the classic Saurus combat problem: everyone hits before them, so you take more models to soak up the casualties. This deficiency is bad enough for Saurus, but the justification there should be that they are at least cheap enough to bring in bulk, and they are Core soldiers with non-elite stats. With Temple Guard, you now pay even more just to ensure they have the models left to deliver on those “elite” stats. Yes, the price increase is marginal - but consider that you can get Saurus in Core for slightly less points (meaning more bodies, or more goodies elsewhere), and it becomes a problem of internal balancing.

Conclusion: If you want 15ppm Saurus combat units, then at least take them in Core and use your special points to get Poison Skinks. But really, take Caimans instead.

Things that are less contentious:

• Born Predator: Well, I guess I’ll be taking mundane Halberds on all Saurus characters now. That’s cool, I’ll just spend 100 points on magical armour instead.
• Stygiosaur: The biggest winner imo. Good price point, and the Hatred buff is very welcome. Competition in Rare, with expensive Taurosaurs and Spinebacks moved there, will be fierce however.
• Spineback: Well deserved nerfs.
• Carnosaur: Losing MW wounds on the baby one is justified, but the Alpha has been hit hard with the nerf bat. I'm not sure what the point of a WS3 Lord level monster mount is, but I guess I'll spend these hero points on Taurosaur's instead.

 

There are a couple of things I'm hearing that I'd like to get in summary form to pass on to the T9A teams, as well as some points I'd like to raise...I'll start there:
Just regarding the sense that one person created all this - it's partially true, in that the Armybook Committee was down to one available person when the clock was running out. However, it's the Rules Team that decides this stuff, taking into account feedback and counterproposals from the ABC. There's also the Army Supports, that's me and The Sauric Ace, who try to gather community feedback and add that into the process, as well. So, while much of the initiative came down to one person, especially during the counterproposal phase, it's not as if it's designed that way - and I think Mr. Phat mentioned that there's work going on to make sure things don't go that way again.

...and on that note, you can reach out to @The Sauric Ace and I with thoughts and suggestions. I've tried to start conversations about units in need of changes, etc., and summarize what we come up with on the T9A forum, but real life has gotten more complicated for me lately, and I haven't been as active here as I'd like to be. Please feel free to tag us in posts about T9A, as that will help us keep tabs on the community conversation.

And last point, T9A is actually trying to achieve multiple competitive builds for every army, avoiding unplayable units and auto-include options. So here's what I'll ask of you: put together lists that you think could be competitive. Please try to come up with a couple of different strategies. What you can come up with, and where you find the difficult decisions and the easy ones, may say a lot about how well-designed this v0.99 is.

Now I don't have time to finish this, again, but definitely want to summarize the major themes of feedback here. Please keep on thinking through the implications of these rules, and keep sharing what you come up with!

 

Unfortunately that no longer gives your saurian warriors hatred, a Skink High Priest with both palaquin and plaque upgrade at 65pts only gives hatred to skink models in his unit. Once again a move designed to force us to use skinks as our main combat blocks, the only way for you to get hatred on your core saurian warriors is to put a BSB with the standard of Mixoatl in that unit, not a bad move but once you add up the points you are looking at around 715pts for that one unit which is still moving very slowly across a large board.

Actually Chosen in WotDG received a price decrease even though they were the same points as saurian warriors with spears, our basic core fighters compared to the most elite infantry in the game. So Temple Guard received an increase of 2 pts, and chosen a decrease of 1 pt, and there shouldn't be a single player out there that would say chosen are in any way inferior to temple guards, quite the opposite in fact and using those spare points you can trick chosen out in a huge variety of ways.

Everything else you said I absolutely agree with, great write up on some of the units.

 

I've had clarification of this rule by Pinktaco on the pth age forum. The reduction does not count towards Strength.

 

I just wanted to say that you're a good man for taking this on. In fact, I do respect the efforts that T9A team are making. The effort to create a balanced set of books, and one that deliberately tries to reduce the power level to avoid an arms race, is commendable, and certainly a thankless task. I tried to avoid unnecessary winging in my post and to get straight to the facts, so I apologies if it comes across as harsh criticism. That's not the way that it's intended (the formatting was used to highlight key points, for anyone who just wanted a TLDR), and I did try to balance it with some of the points I think are right to make.

Unfortunately, it's usually the case that a good change rarely musters comment...

In point of fact, I feel terribly sorry for the member who was left to do this update pretty much single handedly. They must feel like the poor GW staff with some of the vitriol, and no doubt want to keep their head down until the dust settles.

I'm inclined to give Chosen the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that a) they are really expensive for infantry, and b) they face stiff competition from a number of great options, including Warriors (which aren't much worse, and are Core, and are rarely seen in any case). That being said, Temple Guard now have the same problem.

Also, I was basing my comparison on the fact that Dread Elves Special went up (drastically, in some places).

Welp, there's 30 points saved then.

 

As I pointed out months ago: The 9th Age people are doing too much at once. I know they are committed to piece together a quality product, but they are losing public support daily due to the large scope they wanted to produce with version 1.0. As I previously stated, if they want the WHFB community to follow their lead, they need to gain trust with the 9th Age first edition; effectively it needs to be Games-Workshop's 8th Edition with all FAQ's and clarifications implemented into the rules and changes to units ONLY where they are really needed (simple, small nerf to obviously overpowered units and simplifications to confusing rules). This way you start everyone with a familiar base and then, slowly, change armies (maybe 2 armies overhauled every 4 months) in addition to minor clarifications that eventually leads up to a basic rules update. I know the movement gained a lot of momentum last fall, but I'm afraid that the game has changed too much for many people to consider The 9th Age an updated WHFB; it's a whole new ballgame.

I'm still bitter that my favorite GT is hosting 9th Age events rather than 8th Ed. I really wanted to attend this year.

 

I'd be curious to know if support for 9th Age has been waning, growing or remaining steady. What do you base this on?

This would have been a solid strategy to employ. I feel that 9th Age is continually undergoing massive changes at the unit level, army level and game level. I've become overwhelmed by it (especially now that that changes have been largely questionable and negative) to the point where I'm disenchanted by the game.

That sucks. 8th edition is pretty solid and pretty much has it all with the exception of a thriving player base. I wish people weren't so quick to abandon it.

 

I base it off nothing tangible, only the plethora of negative reactions I've seen on several sites over the last 2-3 months. I know you see more complaints than compliments on the internet at a 100:1 ratio, so my observation could be effectively baseless.

An observation/opinion that is currently quite prevalent. You get a few dozen smart/experienced people in a room and they can produce a great framework in hours and make an awesome product in a week that has broad appeal; however, let them continually stew alone for months, and they'll produce the greatest activity ever that has little appeal, it often boils out of the pot somewhere along the way. This is mainly due to designers instinctively designing something great for themselves; what is great for everybody is often different. GW had this issue at times too.

 

Also do bare in mind that, since Lawot and I are tasked with checking up with the less "factual" reports any suggestion or critique is welcome. Your comments are as presented completely valid, at least the way I'll collect data, to be represented to the committee. The more reasonable these critiques are, the more I hope we can persuade the RT to allow for some interesting changes next time.

 

What I've observed (prior to this release) is indifference towards the game. 9th Age traffic on this site has been very slow (greatly overshadowed by AoS) and only picked up with the 0.99 release. Admittedly a fair proportion of 9th Age traffic has shifted to the actual 9th Age forum, but still, even that isn't overly active considering it represents the majority of players from around the world. It's something that had concerned me when I was very much pro 9th Age before they botched everything up. I feel outside of the tournament scene it will see very little play. In a way, my observations seem to be in line up pretty closely with yours.

That's a good point. This beta phase has been all over the place. I've seen certain units changed time and time again throughout the past couple of months. I'm not speaking of merely points adjustments, but major rules that completely alter the function of said units. The 1.0 release should be a more stable platform, but even then I fear that things might be altered too frequently. Time will tell I guess, but if things don't look better by April I'll personally leave 9th Age behind for good.

 

I have a statement:

I personally understand all of your frustrations, and I would like for you who have a user on the 9th forum make your statement there also.
But please be gentle as I know you to be, Gundizalbo (the editor of the book) was on his own and truly did his best.

I am now actively working towards making sure that the finals Ver. 1 book will be of quality and dignity to you guys
(....forgive me sounding all politician all of a sudden..)
While I realize that a lot of you are looking towards other system-providers
I urge you to wait around 9th until then.

The final version will be solid, and it will not change in patches of rapid succesion like it has until now.
It will be stable, and it will be good.

I just dont want you guys to dislike it before you have seen the final form (*DBZ music playing*).

 

Mr Phat, i think you know we all trust you and many of us still have some faith in T9A

BUT

There's something that isn't working. T9A started like a community driven project, and now they let A SINGLE PERSON update an armybook. I'm not attacking the maker of the book, but T9A staff in general: this seems like a coup d'etat (please notice i'm joking but not too much).
We all knew SA were going to be nerfed, but these changes are too much and - more important - totally senseless.
I haven't read the other armybooks, so i'm not complaining about powerlevel:
- we have the supreme predators in our army list... but they're not born predator. Probably there's a carnosaur school somewhere in the lustrian jungles...
- our supreme casters and leaders are a waste of points;
- our "army powers" are usable very rarely (few units have them, some are unusable, the others lose the armypowers with some weapon combinations... what?!);
- our historical core has been changed because... because... ah, right: i'm still waiting for a valid reason! LOL;
- i could go on, but i'm tired.

Yep, this situation is exhausting.
I still have faith in T9A, but i hope that the next update will be based not on this version, but on the previous, because THIS is not my army, and I want to play my army.
If i wanted a streamlined and generally balanced game with a different army - let's be honest - i'd play Kings of War. If i'm in T9A is because i want to play my army, with its fluff and my models

 

I'm not sure what type of changes the 9th Age team are willing to make between now and April. I think they have already done considerable damage with the way they flip flop about changing rules. I do commend you for not giving up on it and continually working to try to fix things. I'm still planning on giving the 1.0 version a read through before I fully decide for myself but I would be lying if I said I wasn't highly skeptical. Oddly enough, one of my greatest reasons for having little faith that things will be improved for April is something you had said in reference to the most recent changes (and I appreciate the honesty)...

 

@NIGHTBRINGER

Things has actually changed since I said that (and im not leading you on here).

A clear statement has been sent from liz'players, and its being picked up.
While not all nerfs are going back, I can promise the "1guy 1book" wont happen again. People dropped out, it was as simple as that. "Next time it will be different"- John Hammond (joking).

@Rettile
I am actively making it a mission to clean up the book for april, and am applying to make it right for the final release.

If tge next book falls short I will have failed.

 

Sry for the quick response, am on the phone on the move!