The Savage Arts of Playtrolling

    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!

    • DanT wrote:

      Herminard wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      Ok. I disagree.I think you might find yourself better served by historicals.
      Its not an argument I am making on basis of historical purism. Its an argument I am making on gameplay function.
      Sure. But I think the gameplay you are arguing for is never what this game has been.I think you are arguing for similar gameplay to what is found in historicals.
      So I was trying to save you some time and heartache by recommending you play historicals :P
      Not a good argument. Historical vs Fantasy is aesthetic. His argument is simulationist vs gamist, as should yours be. You are right that more historical style games care about simulation over gameplay, but I don't think he's wrong to call for what he wants in this game. And frankly I agree with him.

      Queen of Pants


      To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

      facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/
    • Taki wrote:

      Not a good argument.
      It was mostly a facetious comment :)

      Historical vs Fantasy is aesthetic. His argument is simulationist vs gamist, as should yours be. You are right that more historical style games care about simulation over gameplay, but I don't think he's wrong to call for what he wants in this game. And frankly I agree with him.
      Sure. I don't think I objected to him calling for what he wants in this game? I might have objected to the presumption that what he wants in the game would necessarily result in a larger audience. (For context: me and Herm talk through other channels quite often, and this is something we have discussed more than once, so my replies here might come across badly/strangely to other people).
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • Well, like I said in that "Realism" thread a while back, I don't think it's something that would make for a "more fun" "game" but rather, is a wholly different animal, likely for different people. As Taki said, likely for people more interested in "simulation" than in a "fun" game.

      I actually think it's fun to think about "realism" in Fantasy, but I fully understand why some people don't and think it's stupid/silly/a waste of time.
    • But regardless of the "simulation" effect, in pure terms of the game, there is still the question of "how to put armies made primarily of combat infantry" on equal footing with other lists (assuming they currently aren't, which seems to be the premise of the discussion if I understood correctly), without toning down such other lists.

      I think @DanT is arguing for a price reduction of combat infantry, and @Herminard for changes in the rules like free command group upgrades to ranked units, or more significant changes like the "giving ground instead of a binary hold vs break decision". Something that tones down the difference between pieces who can threaten without commiting (fast/flying monsters, cowboys, ranged mobile units) and pieces who have to commit to be of any use (besides Scoring).
      'He opened the battered book. Bits of paper and string indicated his many bookmarks.
      "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
      "Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins.'
      Terry Pratchett, Jingo!
    • elendor_f wrote:



      I think @DanT is arguing for a price reduction of combat infantry
      I am most just saying that by my definition, my current ID list is a battleline.
      A discussion of that very matter was why Herm tagged me here.
      I would never have stepped into this cave of my own volition! :P
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      elendor_f wrote:

      I think @DanT is arguing for a price reduction of combat infantry
      I am most just saying that by my definition, my current ID list is a battleline.A discussion of that very matter was why Herm tagged me here.
      I would never have stepped into this cave of my own volition! :P
      Fair enough :D
      The discussion reminded me a bit of when you engaged with the HE community about how to write a list "not castling + bringing elite infantry + playing somewhat aggressive" (or perhaps more accurately, the HE community engaged you on this matter :P ).
      I think that discussion has many common points with this one (army-wide instead of HE specific ofc).
      'He opened the battered book. Bits of paper and string indicated his many bookmarks.
      "In fact, men, the general has this to say about ensuring against defeat when outnumbered, out–weaponed and outpositioned. It is..." he turned the page, "Don't Have a Battle."
      "Sounds like a clever man," said Jenkins.'
      Terry Pratchett, Jingo!
    • Quickstarter lists look interesting from this battle line perspective by the way. Been thinking that those lists might be fun in bigger battles too. :)
      All things wargaming. My super entertaining hobby blog where anything wargaming related can happen.

      "I heard a television interviewer once suggest that the use of dice made battlegaming on par with Snakes and Ladders and such like games of change. Well, he was being just stupid, or trying to take a rise out of his guest. It is in fact the imponderable which does give reality to 'Battle' and, as we shall see, does cause the players to make proper allowance for the unlikely or even seemingly impossible, which, as we read, did happen surprisingly frequently in the annals of war."
      -Charles Grant
    • DanT wrote:

      Taki wrote:

      Not a good argument.
      It was mostly a facetious comment :)

      Historical vs Fantasy is aesthetic. His argument is simulationist vs gamist, as should yours be. You are right that more historical style games care about simulation over gameplay, but I don't think he's wrong to call for what he wants in this game. And frankly I agree with him.
      Sure. I don't think I objected to him calling for what he wants in this game? I might have objected to the presumption that what he wants in the game would necessarily result in a larger audience. (For context: me and Herm talk through other channels quite often, and this is something we have discussed more than once, so my replies here might come across badly/strangely to other people).

      Context is King as always, and I have no problem with the point youre making here, but I just take umbrage to statements like "If you don't like it, go elsewhere" It only makes the project stronger take new views into account

      Queen of Pants


      To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

      facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/
    • Taki wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      Taki wrote:

      Not a good argument.
      It was mostly a facetious comment :)

      Historical vs Fantasy is aesthetic. His argument is simulationist vs gamist, as should yours be. You are right that more historical style games care about simulation over gameplay, but I don't think he's wrong to call for what he wants in this game. And frankly I agree with him.
      Sure. I don't think I objected to him calling for what he wants in this game? I might have objected to the presumption that what he wants in the game would necessarily result in a larger audience. (For context: me and Herm talk through other channels quite often, and this is something we have discussed more than once, so my replies here might come across badly/strangely to other people).

      Context is King as always, and I have no problem with the point youre making here, but I just take umbrage to statements like "If you don't like it, go elsewhere" It only makes the project stronger take new views into account
      "If you don't like it go elsewhere" was not at all my intended meaning.
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • DanT wrote:

      But now you are equating the loss of numbers with the game not being something that you yourself agree it has never been.Quite a curious line of argumentation, no?
      I don't think so.

      It's not about what the game was in the past, it's about what people expected it to become. As quoted earlier, a game "in which two armies clash in an epic battle."

      The word army suggests certain things, even allowing for personal interpretation.

      Historical vs Fantasy is a non-issue here. I've read A LOT of fantasy novels, watched movies, played video-games and armies in fantasy tend to hold more resemblance to historical armies than they do to armies in this game.

      Granted, accurately portraying thousands of soldiers is not practical in a game like this, but that is not the issue.

      I know that my local scene has evaporated specifically because people had an expectation that once T9A started moving away from WHFB, and developing its own identity, it would become more of a game about "armies". Once Beta came out last year, people realised that wasn't happening, and stopped playing. Instead, it kept being a game about a few powerful single models (not just characters), and small elite units killing stuff while the troops either get killed by the enemy's heavy hitters, or march across the battlefield to cheer on their heavy hitters from a scoring position.
    • I can comfortably say that i’ve seen a shift in the armies i’ve been fielding and have had fielded against me toward character-heavy or “blender lords” which was less apparent/necessary previously.

      I feel like the cheap access to effective magic was initially aimed at enabling units of footsloggers to regain relevance through buffs but ultimately missed the mark.

      I wonder if, once we have named characters in FABs, there would be an option to tone down the “base hero/lord” to something which is a smaller step up from a champ. Thereby enabling infantry to rely on something other than static combat res to defeat a lord. This would also enable MMU which would in turn trend more toward a battle line.
      "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
    • First of all. I like the game as it is but I am not a hardcore Player going to tournaments. Maybe a way to better deal with characters would be to give them one of Four roles.

      Leadership
      Unit buff
      Magic
      Fighter

      A character should either be ace in one (discipline 10, wizard Master, blender lord ) or mediocre at two in best cases (discipline 9, apprentice) another thing i really think is a Problem is the General adding his own leadership to All units in his command Ranges instead of granting a bonus to his own unit (could be higher) and all units around.

      Discipline +4 for own unit +3 for units within 12 inches +2 within 18 inches.

      For something like an Elf General Type of guy. Would Grant Spear units within 12 inch discipline 11.

      Would also help with blobbing which is the biggest killer for me to not field too many clunky chunky rank and File units.
    • CariadocThorne wrote:

      DanT wrote:

      But now you are equating the loss of numbers with the game not being something that you yourself agree it has never been.Quite a curious line of argumentation, no?
      I don't think so.
      It's not about what the game was in the past, it's about what people expected it to become. As quoted earlier, a game "in which two armies clash in an epic battle."

      The word army suggests certain things, even allowing for personal interpretation.

      Historical vs Fantasy is a non-issue here. I've read A LOT of fantasy novels, watched movies, played video-games and armies in fantasy tend to hold more resemblance to historical armies than they do to armies in this game.

      Granted, accurately portraying thousands of soldiers is not practical in a game like this, but that is not the issue.

      I know that my local scene has evaporated specifically because people had an expectation that once T9A started moving away from WHFB, and developing its own identity, it would become more of a game about "armies". Once Beta came out last year, people realised that wasn't happening, and stopped playing. Instead, it kept being a game about a few powerful single models (not just characters), and small elite units killing stuff while the troops either get killed by the enemy's heavy hitters, or march across the battlefield to cheer on their heavy hitters from a scoring position.
      Sorry, I'm not quite sure what I am expected to do with this post?

      You agree with Herm about what direction the game should have moved in?
      Ok. That's fine. I haven't actually disagreed with this (I don't think anyway), maybe this is the direction that I personally would like to take the game in.
      And yet, even as we speak, I am being told by the WotDG community that the CL is rubbish because t9a has reduced herohammer, and they want their super characters back and t9a to be more about herohammer again.
      As usual, I seem to be in the middle, being told that I should have taken the game in opposite directions. Goody.

      We've gone gold now. Most of that was done before I was RT. I have stated above that my focus is making FABs that excite people, like DL.

      Am I expected to start writing 3.0, whilst simultaneously trying to make the FABs interesting and trying to engage all of the army communties?
      People want t9a/RT to simultaneously square, triangle, and icosagon the circle, whilst vehemently attacking it if there are any corners.

      ID blog
      Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

      Basic beginners tactics
      No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
    • @DanT
      As always you are damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

      The game does accomodate everyones wishes( less so than the previous iterations). What needs to be done is somehow explain to people that they are allowed to talk to their opponent and figure out how you can both get what you want from a game.

      Making a ruleset that completely lets you ignore the “talk to your opponent/freind about what makes the game great for you both” phase, will result in an extremely narrow appeal.

      Maybe accept that we are not all the same and the game must try to accomodate as many players as possible to stay afloat.
    • I personally would like to see the options of doing both “styles” in the game. I hate coming with “suggestions” by now, but let's see.

      Free command groups for core units.

      Reduce price of core units by a big margin (25% -50% reduction), but move the super-duber strong core choices to special. Some armies will end up with only one or two core picks (Clan warriors, Rat-at-arms and foodpads, etc.) but mainly put the highly mobile options in special, rendering the core of most armies a pure infantry section.

      Lets see, now core is a lot better for the price, and you need a lot more to fill the 20-25% minimum. They have the banners and so forth, that the hobby-fanatics demand.

      But what about combat? Now core will win in a straight up grind vs. an elite regiment for the same price in points, most of the time.

      Let’s look at a tactical perspective a moment, make flanking stack, so if you get charged in both flanks it is not +2 static bonus max but +4, make charging add +1 pr. Side to a maximum of +4.

      @Herminard any thoughts on game impact

      -Cort
    • DanT wrote:


      And yet, even as we speak, I am being told by the WotDG community that the CL is rubbish because t9a has reduced herohammer, and they want their super characters back and t9a to be more about herohammer again.
      As usual, I seem to be in the middle, being told that I should have taken the game in opposite directions. Goody.
      What I read of the "make CL great again" discussion is less aligned to "give more buffs" or "make him hit harder" and more aligned to "drop points" and "why are so many other lords now better than CL when they don't have herohammer as AWSW strength". Seperate points to what we are discussing here.... That is how I read it anyway. :)
      "The combination of lemon and habenero peppers was confusing to me. I will pay for this tomorrow i think." - Rosanjin Scholar, Iron Chef
    • In V5 Magic was too powerful, in V6 if you do not charge you loose, in V7 well...same, V8 nearly perfect t'ill unbalanced army books appeared (like all the version...i remember ravening hordes...was fantastic...#old)

      Now we have a wonderful game to practice and play but still complaining because people can not find their "playstyle". I think people need to focus really on what is enjoyable in this 9th age because there are so many cool stuff such as less randomisation, cool magic phase and limitation (yes it's good).

      There are many ways to lead the game and even if i agree with many things said above, we do not have enough distance to evaluate what is wrong. We all imagine things by reading, but playing is way different.

      For me it is definetly a battleline oriented game, especially when i compare with other popular wargames.

      I remember a long time ago watching an historical game where you need to deal with wind, supply and other stuff. It was really cool but it is more "living a battle experience" than "go into battle crushing your ennemies with magic and charging believing that we won by tactics". Choose the one you like the most :D
    • Herohammer characters are less relevant than they have been for a long time and core units of plebs are stronger than ever. So it looks, at least to me, like we have moved very much into "battleline" territory.

      I for one wouldnt want solo models to disappear entirely in favour of just unwieldy blobs smooshing into each other
      Take a look at my painted army so far. Feel free to share a pic of yours!

      Pics of my ever expanding warriors army

      WastelandWarrior Painting League 2018

      WastelandWarrior Painting League 2019