Opinions and Brainstorming on T9A Scenarios and Tournament Specific Rules

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • Opinions and Brainstorming on T9A Scenarios and Tournament Specific Rules

      Creating this as a space for players and TOs to interact regarding what each would like to see in Player Packs regarding Scenarios and Tournament Specific rules.

      Many GTs have a long history of making tweaks to the Scenarios and how the game is played to allow their tournament to stand out.

      Now that the game has become more balanced, do we still need this? Does it add or subtract to the flavor of the game?
    • Ah yes, from what I recall from Euro play, was that the more comped the tounry, the less fluff it was. Comped tournies allowed player skill to shine through. Though, comping the rule mechanics (banning congas) sometimes hurts the players more attuned to the the game mechanics, which helps the less versed players. This never happened in Europe, but I heard about it here and everybody overseas were shocked.

      Out-of-the-box 8th ed tournies were IMO silly (I still played the odd one just for the lolz), as anybody could just bring anything which was broken by the bad game design, push it forward while spamming 6 dice Dwellers FTW. But I'm preaching to the choir on this lol!

      Now I'd hope to place faith in the 9th Age game itself and use their rules packs. Any deviation from this would almost be an insult to their game designers, as they tried to their hardest to design a good game.

      Though, I admit deviations will exist. Out of the box 9th is like regular football. Odd scenerios and scoring/objectives/scoring units would like Flag or Touch football... not the real thing, but something a little lighter.
      2012 ETC Eire - WDG
      2013 ETC Eire - VC
      2014 ETC Wales - DE
      2015 ETC USA - WDG
      2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2019 ETC USA - VC

      The post was edited 1 time, last by eggsPR ().

    • Truckeye wrote:

      I am curious as to the announcement of them releasing "official rules" for tourneys. What the motivation and use of that will be. It makes sense for a Masters type qualifying system (though not entirely necessary).
      Amen brother. Super excited for this!
      2012 ETC Eire - WDG
      2013 ETC Eire - VC
      2014 ETC Wales - DE
      2015 ETC USA - WDG
      2016 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2017 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2018 ETC USA (c) - VC
      2019 ETC USA - VC
    • Alright, here's my opinion. Take it with grain of salt. And pepper. Mmmm.. and some rosemary, maybe some paprika or oregano... Huh. Guess I'm hungry.

      I think Scoring units should be handled exactly as they are in the rule book. This actually hurts me a bit with having limited options as a Mono-Pest Demons and Vermin Swarm player, but "in theory" the army books that lack strong scoring units have design strengths elsewhere.

      In regards to tournaments creating their own scenarios, I am totally fine with this. As mentioned earlier, some events have long histories of their own "gimmicks". Brawler Bash (which is the largest event in North Carolina) typically uses scenario cards where each player chooses what their objects and benefits will be before each game. Siege at the Tower (the longest running tournament in Ohio) gives everyone a free Giant in the last two rounds. These things made the tournaments distinctive and enjoyable for me.

      If different tournaments in different regions have their own scenarios, will this lead to a difference in their respective Metas? More than likely. Is this a bad thing? I have no idea. I would think that having different units be popular in different areas would allow for out of the box thinking and create interesting match-ups when those regions start to interact.

      Would having everyone play the exact same scenarios in every event make it easier to compare player ability across regions? Yes. Would it help stabilize the meta? Yes.

      On the surface, the reason for the Masters is to determine who is the best tournament player in the Country (whether this includes sports and paint is a WHOLE other issue). However, the point of tournaments is to bring players together together and have fun. "Fun" means a lot of different things to different people, so we're not going to reach a country-wide consensus there (fun=win for some and fun=drink for others). The big question is whether my fun takes away from your fun. I.e. does a tournament having a different scoring system ruin your fun?

      Personally I like the idea of several different kinds of tournaments in a region and players can pick the kinds they like. This would of course include out-of-the-box T9A but leave room for those that want to do something more creative.

      Anywho, that enough text wall for me. Sorry for going on so long and hope there's a couple things to think about in there. I'm interested to know other people's opinions on the matter, and am always open to changing mine given a good argument or a dump truck of money 8o
    • I honestly think we are approaching this 'US Masters' event incorrectly. First of all, I hate the name for this. One because it's a carryover from a former WFB organization that is now supporting Kings of War. Two, we are excluded a whole corlagrmate of potential gamers who might be interested in such an event. Is there any way we can rename the title of this sub-forum from "US Masters" to "North American Championship"? We need something that would allow us to include lads from Canada to join in on the fun! (Maybe even change from UNited States to North America?)

      Onto the topic of structure, the United States and Canada are huge (we can fit Europe into our bellies "Austin Powers: Fat Bstard quote"). Instead of looking at tournaments as a means to of who should be invited to a singles event, how about we borrow the template the lads over in Europe are using (ETC) and create a team concept event of our own? We can use states/provinces/ cities as players borders. We should use the results from regional tournaments to assist us in forming teams that can compete for the championship.

      Such an event might be better suited to draw out more gamers from more regions. This is just a thought. I actually like the idea of a team competition because it adds another layer of strategy as oppose to another singles event.
    • No reason we cant do both. Strength in Numbers is already trying the ETC concept, though in a limited way and there are a couple others trying that format as well. Bragging Rights GT, Midwest Club Challenge, and ATC was also trying to be the ETC, but Im told its doubles now and I think KoW.
      US Masters Representative for the Midwest
      Beast Herds Army Support (retired)

    • I agree with @jbusta post #6. I really like the different flavors of the events. I want each to have their own draw. I have used bonus cards in the past that players can purchase or Mulligans purchased in an effort to raise prize support and give flavor to the hum-drum of ordinary tournament play. I like the way Tuite uses the multiple choice cards. I think that the basis of scoring across the board, however, should be set in stone. I mean, that we should use the scoring from the rules, ie; 3-17. We should also incorporate the secondary objectives and their scoring of -3, 0, & 3, however, we should be able to set up our own Secondary Objectives that will be used. (some of the book ones are too bland). The specialty scenarios of each event, the TO's Twist, should be whatever they want, however as a Circuit Rule, these twists can only generate bonus Victory Points up to an across the board fixed total. Example: scenario 1 generates a bonus of 250 VPs and not Battle Points. I think that we should also figure out what points cap to assign to these. I really don't want to see the battle point numbers changed as those are what we the TS and DA teams are using in order to develop META reporting for the Powers That Be. It throws it off if an event uses the 20-0 battle point system and/or gives battle points as bonuses.

      It doesn't matter to me what the name is. The Masters is a carry over and that can be good and/or bad. I think maybe once things get established, then we can brainstorm name changes. I understand that for some regions, adding Canadian players or Mexican players is pretty easy/helpful, but I'm on the fence about keeping it strictly within the borders. Logistically that's probably easier too. Maybe use out of country events as "out of region"? Same goes for ETC events. I don't mind the occasional team event, but to constantly count on that is a drag. Keep the main focus of qualifiers as Singles. Logistics also plays a huge part in that as well. Scoring of teams into personal scores could be tedious as well; plus Team events will discourage some players who don't belong to a club or is in a region where these games just aren't played yet. No practice events usually means that they will skip it, hurting us in the long run. The Final Event can be a team event since multiple players from each region are invited, so I'm cool with that. Make it each region sends 2 teams of 4. Easier for 4 players to practice than getting all 8, IMO.
      I agree with @Gym Shortsshorts regarding scheduling. However, I believe that will begin to get better now that we are all getting to know each other and setting the groundworks for the Circuit. Public Calendars can be set up that will assist that, especially once we get all the qualifiers set up.

      Another suggestion is that we include 1 day events in as qualifiers as well. Of course we will eventually have to decide on a minimum player count in order to qualify, but I, personally, would like them. It is easier for me to drive Friday night to Ohio from VA, play all day Saturday, and then bring home the trophy on Sunday so that I can get back to work Monday. Again with the logistics. LOL

      Regions....do we want to redraw/rename regions? Should be redraw based on available venue locations and/or stores willing/able to assist? Should regions be limited to a certain mileage or travel time radius? Should they be based on number of players in a centralized area based on the map?

      haha...I'm going to be the wordiest VP ever!
      B. "MF’ing" Jones - Member of the CGL .

      DL/ADT - TT

      Campaign Design-Broken Isles

      Freelance Design

      PT Team-Mid Atlantic USA

      CGL 2018 Worst Player Winner

      CGL 2019 3rd Place

    • Many ages ago I was involved in the planing of a couple of the Mid-Atlantic tournaments (Brawler Bash and Grail Quest) and both focused a LOT on being different. Brawler with an alternate scoring system and GQ with whatever crazy permutation Ben came up with that year. Those things made them appealing, so I'm adamantly against a specific set of scenarios for ALL tournaments.

      An alternative might be a framework of sorts. A tournament can play with whatever scenarios their heart desires as long as:
      1. Scoring units are kept consistent with the main rule book
      2. No units are moved form the categories in their army book
      3. Each scenario uses one of the deployments from the main rule book
      4. Each scenario uses at least one or two secondary objectives from the main rule book
      *Disclaimer: all these are off the top of my head and may or may not be worth a damn*

      In this way BiTS can still have monster phone booths and Brawlers can still have Dwarf Seeker lords riding carnosaurs, but the standard army you'd bring to any tournament can count on certain things as staples for construction as well.

      Anyway, that's my two cents


      The post was edited 1 time, last by HappyCan303 ().