Pinned DL FAB 2.2 Beta 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!

  • May be its not really that TT&RT are failing us. Recently I began to think - may be we just want different things from the game, have different priorities. For example, I dont know who made the Cultists supplement, couldnt find credits in the pdf. But if it was people at least one or two responsible for DL book as well, if RT spent some time on it, it is a very good example of this schism.
    I couldnt care less about Cultists AB. Partially because of the background, I always prefered not to link daemons to humans at all, but mostly I believe its because of the book's optional/non tournament status. For me it looks much more important to have main ABs polished to their maximum potential so, I can play it at tournament in a lot of various ways. Yes, most of my games are tournament oriented in nature where it is important to have a strict set of rules for both sides to follow and the balance is one of the if not the most important factor for the quality of the game. If I wanna have some warm casual get-together-for-beers game with the new funky rules - I will sit down for some hours and write down the scenario, special rules/items/units for the game and I will have great fun doing so. Actually, very long ago we had this mega game with Warriors against Lizardmen when sorcerers summoned Bloodletters and Crushers from the circle, and when enough blood was spilled, the Bloodthirster appeared. We had a blast for one day, wrote nice looking report about it, got famous, got chicks and returned to our weekly games by standard rules.
    Similiar situation is with big bad character monsters. I'm a big fan of them, they make perfect centerpieces, give my army a lot of fantasy world immersion feel and just look damn cool. I'm not some AoS kid, I dont want my army to consist entirely of big models, but I want many different big models to find their way in my different rosters. But from the way the project handles them, be it dragons, daemons, feldraks - it another way around. And if the thing has wings - its death sentence. Griffons, Manticores, Wyverns, Chimeras - all but extinct. So, I wonder, may be project doesnt see these models as healthy for the game as I do.
    So, if (and only if) my presumtions are true, I just have to admit that the project's view on the game and its future is different from mine. I just have to accept it and move on, take the game I'm given and play it, if not satisfied, vote with my feet. But I cant demand from the project to fullfil my wishes no matter how sound and objectively good I think them to be. Because in the end its their game and their call, not mine.
  • It is ours, Our meaning all of us. But as allways we all want partly different things and so compromises happen.

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations DE Blog: Inside TA. The biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de
  • AlexCat wrote:

    May be its not really that TT&RT are failing us. Recently I began to think - may be we just want different things from the game, have different priorities. For example, I dont know who made the Cultists supplement, couldnt find credits in the pdf.
    A combination of DL and WDG ADT to most part (me not included this time) and yes the Supplement Army Books has a much higher degree of freedom for the TT compared to the old Gold TT work. For the future LAB they seem to work much more like Supplement Army Books so I hope the production both will be faster (less interference and redesigns over and over again) and as such more pure following one groups direction.

    Not saying one or another group is wrong but when you had five different groups trying to influence the work it was sort of set up to get tangled as it was in the beginning of the DL and WDG book.

    ADT (DL/WDG)

    :DL: + :WDG:

    Task2 (DL) Coordinator

    :DL:

    Design coordinator Task (1-2)

    :DL: + :WDG:

    Lord of the Hobby

  • Alexwellace wrote:

    I stopped posting in the Sylvan Elf forum because it felt like the same issues which have been pointed out for almost a year, not secret issues or balance issues but plain easy to fix rules blips like light troop kindred characters not having light troops, weren't being dealt with patch after patch. It's frustrating to see issues that are not news, that were pointed out as soon as they became public, persist and now to potentially be told ''Eh, it's too late to do anything about it now,'' raises my temperature just a little to much.
    Now this I don't have a problem with because the 2.0 update was just an updare. Originally they didn't want to do ANY big changes, but feedback from community said 'why not do a few tweaks?', so they did.
    So I'm not upset at all about the 2.0 updates being a bit lacking.

    But the LAB to getting the same treatment? Not good. Especially when we all knew that WDG and DL were both tough books to redoo that might take longer than usual.

    We already have DL tzeentch players selling their armies because not only was their playstyle nerfed, their units were made useless.

    The RT has gotten quality feedback from great players. All they gotta do is look at the feedback, go play 5 games, and they will totally understand what to adjust. Yes yes, no one wants avoidance back, but where is the duel roles for these lackluster shooty units? Only the hope harvester is duel purpose.
  • AlexCat wrote:

    May be its not really that TT&RT are failing us. Recently I began to think - may be we just want different things from the game, have different priorities. For example, I dont know who made the Cultists supplement, couldnt find credits in the pdf. But if it was people at least one or two responsible for DL book as well, if RT spent some time on it, it is a very good example of this schism.
    I couldnt care less about Cultists AB. Partially because of the background, I always prefered not to link daemons to humans at all, but mostly I believe its because of the book's optional/non tournament status. For me it looks much more important to have main ABs polished to their maximum potential so, I can play it at tournament in a lot of various ways. Yes, most of my games are tournament oriented in nature where it is important to have a strict set of rules for both sides to follow and the balance is one of the if not the most important factor for the quality of the game. If I wanna have some warm casual get-together-for-beers game with the new funky rules - I will sit down for some hours and write down the scenario, special rules/items/units for the game and I will have great fun doing so. Actually, very long ago we had this mega game with Warriors against Lizardmen when sorcerers summoned Bloodletters and Crushers from the circle, and when enough blood was spilled, the Bloodthirster appeared. We had a blast for one day, wrote nice looking report about it, got famous, got chicks and returned to our weekly games by standard rules.
    Similiar situation is with big bad character monsters. I'm a big fan of them, they make perfect centerpieces, give my army a lot of fantasy world immersion feel and just look damn cool. I'm not some AoS kid, I dont want my army to consist entirely of big models, but I want many different big models to find their way in my different rosters. But from the way the project handles them, be it dragons, daemons, feldraks - it another way around. And if the thing has wings - its death sentence. Griffons, Manticores, Wyverns, Chimeras - all but extinct. So, I wonder, may be project doesnt see these models as healthy for the game as I do.
    So, if (and only if) my presumtions are true, I just have to admit that the project's view on the game and its future is different from mine. I just have to accept it and move on, take the game I'm given and play it, if not satisfied, vote with my feet. But I cant demand from the project to fullfil my wishes no matter how sound and objectively good I think them to be. Because in the end its their game and their call, not mine.
    Dang. This sums up how I think so much it's scary. And put better than I could. I love monster models and monster playstyle, it's what brought me to this hobby. I was brought in through elves, then went onto demons, and to be honest I don't like what has been done with either book vis-a-vis their big center piece monsters. Luckily for me, I love what the WotDG book has done, I love the FDA and used him when he was way more expensive, because he feels and plays like a monster that is going to tear everything apart with his bare hands. I even get a better feeling when I play VC, and have a Count sitting atop a Colossal ZD (although even then it is the Lord who is doing all the lifting, and he could do that and more parked on top of a horse), then I do playing a Greater Daemon.

    I don't like the direction the Daemons full army book went. Not at all. That's okay, I'm not blind. Clearly the book was a smashing success, and it's developers deserve mad praise (still dislike the fly daemon on the cover though), they have made a really unique book that people not as stuck in one playstyle as I am, will be unpacking for years. I still personally think the manifestation system being shared between R&F, smaller sized characters, and my beloved GD's means it can never be balanced, and unless the balance team wants the most egregious problem they have ever seen, it has to be balanced with R&F in mind. This system actually feels decent for the non GD entries, it just feels horrible for them. Is your GD Res 6? If not 110 points please and good finding other decent things to spend you 40 points on. Oh there are some things you had in mind? Not for your god, those are for someone else. And they don't even use them lol. Customization under this system feels really bad, and that is a shame because it could have at least made up for GD's not feeling like their old selves.
  • New

    A year. Give another round of beta changes in that time, and let the 2020 post-ETC point's analysis be the final tuneup. I look at DL and my head spins- it's still complex enough with all the WYSIWYG manifestation names spread out across the entries. I'm ok with melting down and recasting at this point if it means the teams can balance their time between their most complex AB and the upcoming ID, DE, and (VS?).

    But I can understand the desire to move on and gild it, as well as managing team morale. But DL really deserves a thorough treatment due to its uniqueness- nothing will compare even in the future I suspect. I like the effort's results to date, and the cultists book is phenomenal.
  • New

    TobiasP wrote:

    Does the release of the new patch mean anything for the update of the DL book (or is that still due for december?)
    Not much it is still in progress, DL is probebly the last book out of the update I just hope the gap between them will not be to great.

    ADT (DL/WDG)

    :DL: + :WDG:

    Task2 (DL) Coordinator

    :DL:

    Design coordinator Task (1-2)

    :DL: + :WDG:

    Lord of the Hobby