BTS Blog - Issue 7 Discussion Thread

    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!

    • nmaier wrote:

      Now, will AP be written in the weapons profile or in each unit's profile? Not clear to me.
      Unit Profile.

      Kristian wrote:

      yes, all arguments used when 3rd ed. 40k hit. They where all proven to be disliked by the community, and as 8th ed hit, reversing it, has been one of the most welcomed and natural changes. But, by all means, feel free to gnore history and give it a whirl.

      More design space? I disagree, you could do the same thing with the exsisting rules or a special rule for the few units who needed it.
      Please keep in mind, that the 40k System is a different system than what we are using here. You only penetrated the armour, if your AP value was the same or lower than the Armour itself (so a 3+AS needed a AP(3) or lower so that the armour stops working).

      It didn't work that well tbh.

      However, we still have the armour MODIFICATION, so you still modify the armour with your AP value and not ignore either the Armour or the AP, just because one exceeds the other.

      Regarding design space, sure, you could always create special rules, which can imitate those design splits. However, do I really want to have a boatload of special rules just to get to the same result which a Characteristic split would do on its own?

      I would rather take the Split so I can simply look it up on the statline and don't need to dig through the BRB to find that annoying special rule, when I'm not exactly sure, on what it does.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

      I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

      [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
    • Pellegrim wrote:

      Cutting out a few special rules while introducing new stats (that lose the intuitive multipliet etc) is reducing complexity? Really?
      For me, yes.

      I hate the current nested special rules and things, which you need to just know about, so having them in the stat line would give me at least an easier time.

      Furthermore, do not forget, that when 1.2 hit a lot of people complained about the reduced complexity (which was and is true), now the teams use this freed up complexity budget to reinvest some parts of it, surely not everything and now people are complaining about this fact?

      I'm sincerely confused about this.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

      I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

      [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
    • People complained IIRC on reduced army specific complexity like removing hidden rule. Not on generic complexity of the game.

      And while nested rules are really abuse on usability the problem should be solved by listing all applicable rules in unit entry not by moving some of them into stat-line. You won'y be able to move them all, like light infantry will remain hidden under skirmisher and Stomp + Towering Presence under Monster.
      StormRider Games
      StormRider Facebook
      _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
      Or my WoT EU clan:
      The Ninth Army
    • Pellegrim wrote:

      Cutting out a few special rules while introducing new stats (that lose the intuitive multipliet etc) is reducing complexity? Really? ?(

      Again it's important to state this is not a personal critique or anything - it's an observation and heads up!
      For me it totally does! Lots of time I spent consulting the rule book or army book to look up some weird special rules...
    • Rellzed wrote:

      Btw, can we hope for some background and art spoilers next time? Right now the game misses some flavour
      Check out the Scroll for these things, you can find them here: the-ninth-age.com/index.php?simple-page/#artwork

      The problem is, that we cannot really showcase the background in a fashion, which would adequate for it. We would need to do a dedicated BTS blog for it, cause everything else would not be enough for it :/

      So while I would love to do stuff like this, it is really hard to find room for it IN the BTS blog, when there is a far greater tool for it in the Scroll.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

      I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

      [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
    • michschreck wrote:

      For me it totally does! Lots of time I spent consulting the rule book or army book to look up some weird special rules...
      This is another example of book design which could be upgraded. I guess most of us use mobile devices to read the rules. If special rule in the unit entry worked as link to special rule listed in the end of each army book or even better as tool-tip then the usability would be much better. Notice it is something most commercial companies will be reluctant to do as they want to sell those rules as separate books. But that are challenges to be solved by book design not rules design.
      StormRider Games
      StormRider Facebook
      _____________Join my closed Facebook group: Åsklander Bar
      Or my WoT EU clan:
      The Ninth Army
    • JimMorr wrote:

      But that are challenges to be solved by book design not rules design.
      Not both?

      Via Rules Design you can help the book design to fix most of them, so that you do not need to bloat up the whole AB just because of a bad rules design.

      With a good book design you can solve this issue too, but doesn't change the problem with a bad rules design AND you inflate the book design unnecessary.

      So if both are good, than you have overall the lowest problems with bloated rules segments.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

      I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

      [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
    • Kathal wrote:

      Pellegrim wrote:

      Cutting out a few special rules while introducing new stats (that lose the intuitive multipliet etc) is reducing complexity? Really?
      For me, yes.
      I hate the current nested special rules and things, which you need to just know about, so having them in the stat line would give me at least an easier time.

      Furthermore, do not forget, that when 1.2 hit a lot of people complained about the reduced complexity (which was and is true), now the teams use this freed up complexity budget to reinvest some parts of it, surely not everything and now people are complaining about this fact?

      I'm sincerely confused about this.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      Was complexity removed? It certainly doesn't feel like it. With each iteration, the game plays slower and slower. As far as I can tell most people are having trouble finishing a game in 3 hours.

      I think the main problem with special rules, is that there are too many of them. The desire to make everything different, has meant a serious special rule inflation. Even for a normal human infantry model.
    • Kathal wrote:

      nmaier wrote:

      Now, will AP be written in the weapons profile or in each unit's profile? Not clear to me.
      Unit Profile.

      Kristian wrote:

      yes, all arguments used when 3rd ed. 40k hit. They where all proven to be disliked by the community, and as 8th ed hit, reversing it, has been one of the most welcomed and natural changes. But, by all means, feel free to gnore history and give it a whirl.

      More design space? I disagree, you could do the same thing with the exsisting rules or a special rule for the few units who needed it.
      Please keep in mind, that the 40k System is a different system than what we are using here. You only penetrated the armour, if your AP value was the same or lower than the Armour itself (so a 3+AS needed a AP(3) or lower so that the armour stops working).
      It didn't work that well tbh.

      However, we still have the armour MODIFICATION, so you still modify the armour with your AP value and not ignore either the Armour or the AP, just because one exceeds the other.

      Regarding design space, sure, you could always create special rules, which can imitate those design splits. However, do I really want to have a boatload of special rules just to get to the same result which a Characteristic split would do on its own?

      I would rather take the Split so I can simply look it up on the statline and don't need to dig through the BRB to find that annoying special rule, when I'm not exactly sure, on what it does.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      please explain how retaining armour modification, but seoerating it from strength is a reduction in complexity or just easier.
    • IMO games take longer because game changes. Previously 9th was pretty similar to 8th and you could play fast with previous knowledge.

      Current changes are made in mind for new players. Someone new to the hobby prefers more varied stats instead of several Special rules with clauses. Its easier to check them since every "new" stat will be on the profile. But of course for us who have already memorised most of current unit stats this new stats are cumbersome. We have to understand that this game cannot evolve, live, with current player base alone. We need new players.

      This is not the sole argument. Just think about it on top of what was pointed in BTS blog.
      Army Design Team.
    • JimMorr wrote:

      If special rule in the unit entry worked as link to special rule listed in the end of each army book or even better as tool-tip then the usability would be much better.
      Hmmm. So a added back pages for the online versions of the document. Not a bad idea. @Eru @fjugin could something like that be accommodated for ease of use on electronic devices?

      Background Team

      Art Team Coordinator

      Team Croatia ETC 2019 Captain ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEROES AND VILLEINS OF THE 9TH AGE
    • I have also heard some fears that this Movement, Weapon Skill and Strength split will affect all units which would mean old players will have problems memorising. Not at all! Majority of units will keep current numbers, like Move 7, March 14. Or Strength 4, AP 1. Looking at the new WDG book, only about a quarter of unit entries is using this split.
      But as it was already said. Some books can get a lot from this where it can affect majority of the book. Like Ogres can get S5 by default but have no Armour Piercing at all.
      Army Design Team.
    • Krokz wrote:

      IMO games take longer because game changes. Previously 9th was pretty similar to 8th and you could play fast with previous knowledge.

      Current changes are made in mind for new players. Someone new to the hobby prefers more varied stats instead of Special rules. Its easier to check them since every "new" stat will be on the profile. But of course for us who have already memorised most of current unit stats this new stats are cumbersome. We have to understand that this game cannot evolve, live, with current player base alone. We need new players.

      This is not the sole argument. Just think about it on top of what was pointed in BTS blog.
      Easier for new players?
      I have a hard time seeing why someone new to the hobby would choose 9th. over Kings of war or dragon rampant.
      The complexity would have to be reduced significantly, along with amount of models needed, to draw in new players. Maybe thats what the starter rules are there for? why mess with the main game then?

      Yes games take longer whenever there is a change of rules, true. This goes beyond that though.
      Sometimes I wonder how many of the creators have actually worked with recruitment of new players on any scale larger than getting freinds to play.

      Anyway, I'm not going to change anyones mind here. I hope 9th age lives for a very long time and that it grows into something stable.
      For me, who bought the whole "spiritual successor to whfb" It has lost a great deal of appeal. And while I know that some do not care, I know at least as many who do, and for whom the changes in 2.0 will most likely be a deal breaker.
    • For me, there is a simply explanation on why the games take longer (at least for me):

      - I have close to double the amount of units in a list in T9A as what I had in 8th.

      In 8th I usually had 7-9 drops with my Warriors, nowadays it is hard for me to write a list, which has not at least 13-14 drops. This increase of units resulted that I need to do more actions and thinking per turn than what I ever did in 8th. The turn got for me more complex overall and thus I need more time due to the increased amount of units I currently play.

      When I look across the lists, it is a returning theme. There are way more units in a list than in 8th, which all result in more actions per turn + an increased time to think everything through. Combined with the rules changes it slows down the game significant.

      Hence, I was kinda happy, that the points got decreased to 4500 from 5k, otherwise I would have another unit + even more options to handle per turn :S

      I especially noticed this when I was playing the old 1.0 WDG Monster.Mash with Double Manti Lord and double EDC. I usually needed for the first 2 turns including deployment 2h, the remaining 4 turns were done in 45mins. Why were the last 4 turns so fast while the first two including deployment took nearly 3 times the amount of time as the last 4? Cause of the amount of drops we had, the importance on the movement phase and in general, the complexity which comes from playing an "all or nothing" concept.

      Greetings,
      Kathal
      "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

      I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

      [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - TBD]
    • Kristian wrote:



      For me, who bought the whole "spiritual successor to whfb" It has lost a great deal of appeal. And while I know that some do not care, I know at least as many who do, and for whom the changes in 2.0 will most likely be a deal breaker.
      unfortunately,that is too bad. Most of those who leave, I have found, were players of multiple game systems anyway or only had a few armies. It's not that big of an investment for them and they can "afford" to walk away. I have found that out in my own region and in my own club. We aren't going to please everybody and I've come to terms with that. It's now the project goal of making the best game we can and let the chips fall where they may. Once there is a finished product then the PR guys will work their magic to get it in front of new players. With the advent of Universal Battles and its growing popularity, then physical model collections aren't necessary anymore. This will have great enfluence on new players that want to try it out with little investments, or that don't have a big gaming club/store near them. It's a process that time will tell.
      B. "Skunk Butt" Jones - Member of the CGL :oldmen:
      • YES! My conquest is complete! I now have every Army and my bias will be for Every L.A.B. to be great!. :thumbsup:

      DL/ADT - TT

      Campaign Design-Broken Isles

      Freelance Design

      Playtester-Mid Atlantic USA

      CGL 2018 Worst Player Winner

    • Giladis wrote:

      JimMorr wrote:

      If special rule in the unit entry worked as link to special rule listed in the end of each army book or even better as tool-tip then the usability would be much better.
      Hmmm. So a added back pages for the online versions of the document. Not a bad idea. @Eru @fjugin could something like that be accommodated for ease of use on electronic devices?
      Definitely an interesting idea. This is doable, but I'll have to think about how to implement it without too much trouble. It might conflict with the automatic alphabetic order implemented so far.

      There are more things higher on the priority list to do for 2.0 though so we may keep this idea for later. A list of rules at the end of books without the hyperlinks first could be a first step.

      We'll think about it!

      Slim Layout Coordinator

      Translation Coordinator

      Translation-Team FR

      I ♥ LaTeX

      Local Moderator (French)


      LaTeX... You fear to go into those complex interactions between packages. The dwarves coded too greedily and too deep. You know what they awoke in the darkness of TeX-dum... shadow and flame.