"So, what was the real problem here? I think is simple. SA was really OP, and BB + RT had the work to balance, to nerf, with less design changes as they can (but in this case was a lot). There is not the time to think into funy rules and diversity. IS THE TIME TO BALANCE. What is going to happend now? In the next step (for version 1.0) there will be only small design changes (and almost all for nerf if needed). And some changes only with points. In September, there will be again design changes for all armies, and then I want to [lexicon]change[/lexicon] [lexicon]born predator[/lexicon], and [lexicon]Totems[/lexicon] for characters, redesing skinks and hunting pack, and maybe add a new [lexicon]unit[/lexicon]. More or less, I have explain all working procedure because this game is design for you. But please, don´t think a lot about this, just try to have fun playing with your favourity models (powerlevel is not the most important thinkg, I have allways play Lizard, and I will allways play Lizards). Now I have to work as BB and ABC and I am goind to look to the front and no more to the back. If you want to know something more, please tag me with @gundizalbo. In any case, I allways read all post of lizardmen (but no post of the past)." This is the disrespectful response by the cheeky skunk that just obliterated our book. Unfortunately I've had to make a new account as I can't remember my old password, but Overlord of Serpents here. To say I am insulted and enraged by this horrible attempt at a Lizardmen book is such an understatement I can't even begin to express. The problem isn't that the Lizardmen were nerfed, the problem is that the very NATURE, the CORE of Lizardmen has been butchered. Core skinks without ranged poison weapons? A level 4 skink priest being more powerful than a damn Slann?! Punishing us for taking Great Weapons or magic weapons on Saurian units?! What on earth is going on over there? It was my understanding that 9th Age was supposed to be the true final edition to warhammer. That they were supposed to balance and rectify 8th edition for tournament and casual play! Instead I'm looking at a game that quite frankly makes Age of Sigmar's Seraphon look much more attractive. It breaks my heart that such dismal changes have been made and from my conversations with other communities it seems the 9th Age writers are going out of their way to kill the flavor of each race and craft them into abominations. I apologize for my rude language, but quite frankly if I were to express my actual outrage it would be vile. I honestly was looking forward to 9th and enjoyed it for quite some time, but now none of the armies are recognizable to their original forms. The balance doesn't matter if you BUTCHER the themes and individuality of the armies these guys were supposed to fix. Don't even get me started on the Dwarfs, monstrous infantry for Sotek's sake. This is a shameful display, and the arrogance/rudeness displayed by this Gundizablo fellow is more disrespectful than anything Games Workshop EVER did to us. Shameful, I hope with all my heart these errors are corrected, though gundizablo seems hell-bent on ensuring our army is alienated. Another divide in the community, wonderful. Forgive my rage, brothers. It is unbecoming of this community, I've said my piece, thank you.
Remember that Gundizablo has to damage control here more than anything else. It's a shame because I sense he's not giving us his personal own feeling about the changes, simply a generic response to the debate. Which o get from his perspective. Now i wouldnt know if Many of these changes was forced upon them, by balance board or RT, but I have a feeling that, in the end, Gundizablo had to make rapid decision or be put in an endless debate, about these changes. :/ Edit: i believe this has been confirmed by himself now. He basically says that many of the changes was made since Bb and RT wanted it that way:http://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?thread/8775-sa-ver-0-99-discussion-here/&pageNo=12
A few things I'd like to address here: The SA army have suffered several blows that basically culminated in what we have now, a mess. Balance wise I can accept it, but there are many inconsistencies and weird,things going on. Before each review the ABC was given a date for the actual review and was tasked with flagging things they wanted to discuss and come up with reasonable arguments based in math, logic and playtest feedback. Unfortunately both the SE and SA army received little to no heads up in this regard (1 day preparation). I'm not sure why, but I'm going to assume the RT was stressed. The reviewed allowed the ABC to discuss their most important concerns (I believe 30 minutes was set away to this) and otherwise the RT/BB would go over the book. If the ABC had flagged things the RT/BB would take it into consideration. After the review the for the SA army one of the ABC members decided to leave the ABC. I don't believe he was present to the skype review meeting, so perhaps he didn't have the time. This was followed by another member going to China for 3 weeks, leaving just 1 ABC member. The remaining ABC member, Gundizalbo, made 10-15 counter proposals based on his own arguments. Normally these counter proposals would be made up by a full team and consisting of reasonable arguments, but it's hard to cover all ground when you're alone. So it was a shitty situation and it's tough to deal with, but that's how it is. I tried to intervene in regards to certain things, but I was told not to since I'm not working with rules. Trust me, seeing these things in the making was downright torture. So what happens now? Our ABC member from China just reported in, so he's back in Sweden and ready. I've talked with this person before on the forum and we often share similar views. We're also in the process of finding a third ABC member and we already have at least one candidate, who I trust as well. But nothing is set in stone. In regards to the project structure we've change certain important things. The ABC will have clear "guidelines" of how to work, which will make their job easier and making it easier for the RT to evaluate the army as well. There have been some talk about asking each AB community what they see as the two biggest issues. Finally the balance board (BB) have been completely restructured. Previously their work was too much alike the RT and we had members who wasn't sure what the 3 BB actually did. Now we have about 20 BB members, most are gathered from each and every single army book, so they work as a representative in a way. We also have a BB member from our playtesters group and data analysis group. These will all have to work together, so that the BB from the data analysis group can, I'm time, inform about overperforming/underperforming armies and the playtesters BB investigate OP/UP builds. Finally the Remaining members will discuss matters. They so so by opening a discussion thread for issue X. This will be based on external balance and not their own army. So just to be clear: ABC deal with internal balance and BB with external. So after X amount of days discussing the issue, they set up a voting thread, where each BB vote. If 2/3 votes that issue X should be taken care of, they'll inform the RT. The RT will in return inform the ABC and they'd be tasked with dealing with this issue. It's a system I have much more confidence in and something I hope will work. It's a bit of a trial at the moment and of it doesn't work we'll have to come up with something else. I wrote the above on my smartphone, so it's a bit messy. Feel free to ask me any questions
Why does the Hellcannon need to be unbreakable? IMO game balance demands that unbreakable should carry a hefty penalty - such as unstable on undead, for example. What made the 8th ed Daemon Prince so obnoxious was that it could use Fly to avoid the very small number of things that could kill it in combat, and jump into something where it would stick until the enemy died and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it. Any other single character would have to worry about losing to static combat res (the great bane of Saurus cowboys). The 8th ed Red Fury Vampire was just as, if not more, killy than a Daemon Prince, and had Unbreakable, but because it was also Unstable then the opponent at least had a weakness to exploit. No weaknesses is bad. The Hellcannon isn't a Daemon Prince, but it's still an incredibly tough monster. Speaking of being obnoxious, it really grinds my gears when someone writes a post that they intend to be disrespectful, and then add an apology to the end recognising that it isn't ok - as if that somehow makes it alright. Bro, this is the internet. There's a preview/edit function for a reason. If you know that what you're about to say will make you sound like a dick, then change it before you hit the 'Post Reply' button. Otherwise, you come across as someone who thinks they're entitled to be a dick, and any meaningful contribution that could have been made is lost. The hyperbole isn't much appreciated, either. This is a game. Chill out. If you've legitimate concerns with the book (as I and others do), then there's a constructive way to provide that feedback (as I and others have). Ultimately, recognise that there's human beings on the other side of the keyboard. If you can't conduct yourself like a decent human being, then maybe you should question whether you're mature enough for the internet first.
I agree with this analysis. The Saurian Ancients no longer feel like Lizardmen. They changed what the army is and how it plays. The Hellcannon has to be unbreakable for the same reason as Lizardmen need to have core skirmishing poison shooting skinks; it is critical to heart of what the Hellcannon is. The Hellcannon has been unbreakable from its inception, when it was released in the Storm of Chaos. It would be the same as asking "why does the Slann have to be a wizard?". Comparing the Daemon Prince to the Hellcannon is like comparing apples to oranges. The Hellcannon is not nearly as potent and most importantly it lumbers around at movement 4 (in the most recent 9th Age update/version) as compared to the Fly(10) that the Deamon Prince enjoyed in 8th edition (I know it was an upgrade, but most people gave the DP flight). So the Hellcannon isn't nearly as maneuverable, not as killy and less defensive as compared to the DP. That makes a huge difference and is the reason why I didn't complain when the DP was stripped of its unbreakable status. Bottom line, the Hellcannon wasn't overpowered in 8th Edition. Most WoC generals didn't even field them. Even the mighty unbreakable DP fell out of favour towards the end of 8th Edition. Furthermore, the Hellcannon has weaknesses even if it is unbreakable... misfires slow movement fairly expensive (though less so in 9th) reliability/control issues (Caged fury in 8th Edition, Frenzy in 9th Age) split focus (move and fire in 8th Edition, fire more weakly in 9th Age when moving) So to answer your question as to why the Hellcannon needs to be unbreakable: Unbreakable has always been a trademark trait of a Hellcannon (fluff, history, tradition, etc.) The Hellcannon was not overpowered to begin with The Hellcannon has plenty of other weaknesses
I personally feel that there is a big difference of tone when someone at the end of a string of harsh comments will say that they are sorry in advance if things came over a bit mean. It is a simple reminder of the fact that we are all just a bunch of lizards on this forum enjoying a game, and that nothing is meant as a personal slight. It is not a message of someone thinking being entitled that he is a dick, it is just the simple message that he accepts you as a fellow lizard, and that things should never be personal on this forum I also really agree with @NIGHTBRINGER on my the Hellcannon should be Unbreakable again, it has a lot of other downsides to compensate for it, and comparing it to a Daemon Prince is not really fair as it is a lot cheaper but as it also does not fly, casts spells and generally deletes units. The problem in 8th is not apparent with the Hellcannon in 9th.
Also, and this might be a weird question, but is the writer of version 0.99 active here on the board, maybe under a different username? Would be interested in his reaction on all this.
I have just been promoted to SA Army support on the 9th Age forums (in the same name). After work I will get some extra threads set up so we can give the ABC some clear and valid statements concerning our book.
Okay, you raise fair points. However, none of the weaknesses you list are things that the opponent can do anything about. Usually, when facing a warmachine, you send some dedicated light/fast hunters after it. But those don't work against a Hellcannon, because it's so tanky. Worse, you can't even get a lucky flank charge to try and force a break test., so it's free to sit at the back of the board and pound your army. The point I was trying to make is that Unbreakable should always come at a cost, because it usually covers a significant weakness. What is the cost to the Hellcannon?
A movement 4 monster can be easily chaffed by the opponent. The fact that the hellcannon is frenzied under the 9th Age rules makes it even more exploitable by a clever opponent. Admittedly, the units typically tasked with war machine hunting will be ineffective against the Hellcannon, but the Hellcannon is far from invincible. Especially now with the loss of its crew and a reduction of its already mediocre amour save. The cost to the Hellcannon is precisely... cost. You're talking about essentially a stone thrower that costs 2-3 times as much as a normal stone thrower. The hellcannon maybe both a warmachine and a monster, but you can only really fully utilize one of those roles over the course of 6 game turns.
Chaffing the thing doesn't stop it from shooting at you. Unless it's Leadership terrible now? To me, the Hellcannon costs 2-3 times that of a typical stone thrower because it's already vastly superior. It has all the innate defence/attack of monster, combined with the ranged threat of the warmachine. The former already helps it do its job as the latter by keeping it alive versus the things that would usually kill a warmachine. Why does it need to be Unbreakable on top? What game purpose does this serve?
No... but it does prevent it from being an effective monster. As far as shooting goes, you would probably get more shots off anyways with the previously mentioned 2-3 stone throwers that make up its cost (even if 1 or 2 of them are taken out). That could be said for anything... Why does a Slann need to be a level 4? Why does a Stegadon need to have impact hits and thunderstomps? Why does a Bloodthirster need to have wings? Why do Hexwraiths need to be ethereal? etc. etc. Ultimately any rule can be removed and balanced through points adjustment, but the hellcannon was not overpowered to begin with so there was no reason to strip it of the rule (and ruin it's fluff/history). The Hellcannon is not a very offensive monster (as far as monsters go), but unbreakable made it extremely reliable as an anvil.
Those things have those attributes because they serve the roles they are intended for. The Slan is a level 4 to be a Mage. The Stegadon has thunderstomp because it is a monster (like all monsters) and impact hits because it fits a niche. The Bloodthirster has wings to get it into combat where it thrives. Hexwraiths have ethereal to hunt their targets. Why should the Hellcannon be a reliable anvil too on top of a war machine and a monster? Wouldn't Stubborn be sufficient?
Just as unbreakable fits a niche. The Stegadon is both a warmachine and monster. Instead of being unbreakable, it benefits from impact hits. That's part of what makes a Stegadon. Same with the Hellcannon and the Unbreakable rule. Because ... of precedent (if 9th Age is going to rip everything else off, why not this?) it is pretty expensive it is not overpowered with Unbreakable rule it is not as offensively capable as other monsters You mention that it is both a warmachine and a monster, but remember that it can only fully function as one or the other. Do you feel that the hellcannon was so overpowered in 8th edition?
"Because it's always been that way" isnt valid in terms of game balance. See: everything that was OP or underpowered with 8th. My point is that Unbreakable is a huge buff, and should have a strong justification behind it (and, preferably, a contrary weakness as well). The Hellcannon currently enjoys the best of both worlds of monster and artillery (albeit at cost). It can still do both those things without Unbreakable. Let's look at this another way. How does an opponent deal with an Unbreakable Hellcannon sat at the back pounding their army each turn?
One balance point i was a little confused about when I first stumbled upon the intended now released update is where the army is supuse to stand, where is its specialities? I mean this much more as a fluff aspect, than game balance, but sometimes they are put together. I know that the staff will try to reconnect a bit with this issue with the April update. So hopefully issues like the mentioned Hellcannon or skirmishers poison and the like, will have its place once again.