Jesterhead wrote:Hi Erik,
how come are you thinking of implementing the new AoS units and miniatures? What are you thinking about round bases in a rank and file system?
The most important goal of this project is to try to keep the game alive. We understand that new miniatures and rules are a important part of that.
In the first versions, here we will focus on updating rules for existing stuff.
In later version, we plan on adding AoS minatures, create rules for old minatures (dogs of war). Depending on what type of releases we will see from AoS, we might even look at other miniature manufacturers.
Pellegrim wrote:I think these results can also greatly help The Ninth Age - if they are open for suggestions. It would be a shame if major effort where made - but the results would not match general consensus, if there is such a thing.
Yes, that is indeed what we are want.
The poll might be a little late, and unless it gets hundreds of answers, might not be such good incicator of what thw majority wants.
Anyways, keep us posted on the results.
Pellegrim wrote:Also, we developed a generic model that can quantify any build you insert. It won't surprise you that a hammerer costs between 20 and 21,5 points, depending on how you tax abilities. The model cuts away all meta and special/rare discounts. It is a pretty complex model, but is survived some major tests. It can handle all stat combinations, weighed for gear, abilities, mounts and magic allowance. This allows you to compose an army without any restriction and play a game that was balanced better then any of the previous versions of warhammer. Do I have to proof to say this? Yes. Why? The model calculates points based on large sample of current (non-broken) builds (monsters, infantry and characters) that have been adjusted for meta (army specific) discounts. Then it tests combat results and indicates if the model cost should be adjusted. Feel free to shout out a build and I'll return the weighed costs.
Sound interesting, tell me, what would a chaos knight cost using that?
Pip Hamilton wrote:Just want to chime in to say that I'm really happy to see such a well-organised group taking this project on, and that I particularly like how the rules are typeset in LaTeX! I'm a member of Maelstrom's gaming club and like him I'd love to help out with playtesting if playtesting is required.
I could wishlist a bunch of things I'd love to see put into this version but I don't think that would be useful at this juncture. The only suggestion I have to make right now is a logistical one, and that is that the 9th age should get its own webspace as soon as possible. Hunting for the current ETC comp has always been a bit of a trawl, it would be great if the resources for 9th age were centralised and easily accessible. Great rules are half of what we need, the other half is an easy route for people to start playing and keep playing so that the community stays a healthy size.
I am sorry, but I must disappoint you, we are moving to google docs instead of LaTeX. Reason is all authors can work on the same document at once, and there are some handy commenting tools.
Unfortunately, that means the beautiful layout of LaTeX must go :.(
We are looking into creating a "9th age" webspace
montegue wrote:- I know a *LOT* of dwarf players really miss the Master Rune of Kragg the Grimm. We can't make a big old rune axe, and that sucks. I also know that most dwarf players were deeply disappointed by their in-race Ancestral Heirlooms. Something that adds strength would be nice.
Please remind me (I don't have the old 7th edition dwarf book), which item was Master Rune of Kragg the Grimm?