9th Age Alpha Carnosaur build

That sounds good!

 

Nice nice I would love a baby Carno for my Warlord. However I don't think the saltiness will stop untill we are reduced to 8th edition TK

 

this nerfcallers will never be happy, their corrupting touch will attack our units like rust on metal
I'm just kidding, but I hope they understand that SA players won't play T9A with s3/t3/1a saurus warriors, skinks with no poisoned shooting, coatl on par with human wizards and so on. These guys probably want similar stuff, tho

 

I'm not too worried. I think the 9th Age team will listen to feedback but are definitely not bound to every whine or compliant thrown their way. We have a couple of things that need to be toned down and I believe that in the end it will be fair.

 

If the high elves ancient dragon doesn't get nerfed but the carnosaur does I will be a little put out, at the absolute bare minimum their lore attribute needs to not apply to character or large target models, getting essentially a free 1+ ward save on an ancient dragon every turn is just crazy. Not many armies are going to have a counter for him, us especially as his T7 and and 7Ws are already hard to crack, then throw in their ability to heal wounds and provide an awesome 5+ ward save to the model.

 

What is the problem with our army exactly? Honestly I cannot see what it is people hate. If it is ow the army plays in general, well, that is just too bad, we might have a different approach than other armies (I don't know) and that ticks tem off, because they can't use the same tactitcs?

Besides, at the end of the day, you cannot make everyone perfectly happy, there will ALWAYS be someone who complains about something they don't like. that's life for you. I just hope the 9th age people in charge won't take all complaints too seriously, which so far I think they have done pretty well.

 

Well, basically (IMO) many players are jealous because we have many different options and playstyles, with great synergies.
Then we do have something which is too powerful, but very few things, while some players think we're just too OP.
That being said we for sure have a solid and versatile armybook, and maybe some armies don't. Not our fault, tho

 

Well then I would say the problem isn't our army, but the other armies, that need some more synergy

 

Good thing you didn't post this on T9A forum you would have been rediculed by some . Pinktaco is pretty much on the ball here with the things that are too strong. The Godly Engine will probably be nerfed aswell, especially the -2 to cast on a lore. So yea lets hope that the design team doesn't listen to all of the forum whining and applies nerfs and buffs where needed.

 

I agree on the spearbacks, the other things I can't judge because I need more playtest. I have to say tho that the alpha still dies fairly easy and the taurosaur could be fixed with move or fire (if it needs, you're still paying tons of point for that ballista shot).
Caimans are very strong, maybe we should remove the halberd option (so they go last, at least) but making them more expensive or removing the T5 upgrade would discourage their use IMO

 

Exactly... not long ago (8th edition) they were considered by most to be a sub-par choice. I'd hate to see them reduced to that status again. Remove the halberds if need be; the GWs seem more fitting anyways.

 

Fair enough, I can see where some of it is comeing from, even if it may or may not be justified.

Regarding the Alpha, maybe extend the Aplha predator rule, so that it gives +1 WS when fighting large targets, but reduce its base WS to 4. it would still be more, or on par with te majority of other monsters. It would make it easier for infantry and such to tackle, but it would still fill out its role as a monster killer.
With the shard... maybe change it so it is only against shooting. I don't know if some units ignore cover, if they do, it could insted give a soft cover wherever you are, but since some units could ignore it, it would have a bigger counter.
It could also just be like the force shield, and we could have a cheaper version, since we have more monsters and might need it to protect at least one monster. Or it could be stronger in some sense. The fireborn special rule could also be removed if necessary .

 

Agreed on spearbacks, too cheap for effects.

Equal amount of points on saurus heroes will inflict more wounds on elite infantry, in fact every factions big monster is great at killing elite infantry. ever played saurians against an ancient dragon? it rips up every monster we have besides the alpha and our elite infantry are a joke against it, even spearbacks suck against it.

Commander on sky sloop, BS6 bolt thrower that can still do impact hits, also half the price.

Except maybe 30 swordmasters, that would end very poorly for the caimans, very very poorly.

I can make the same statements for almost any other army, of course a maxed out unit will perform well if it didn't it wouldn't be competitive at lower model counts or with less options. But comparing apples to apples there is almost nothing OP of the things you listed when compared to other armies similar choices.

 

OK, I saw and try new changes in 0.99 version of
Saurian Ancients. And I have to say: Ou fuck no. Not again. They are nefr as again. Any good tips how to play Alfa Carno?

 

Alpha is currently pretty unusable.

Regular Carnosaur can be decent though. You can put a Warlord on a regular Carnosaur and with items it gains a 2+ rerollable armor save and a 4+ ward.

 

Trust me, you're not alone in that sentiment.