Taking the Game Too Seriously, and Ruining the Fun

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

The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

  • JimMorr wrote:

    In most tabletop games when you touch a unit you have to perform its move. You can measure distance only after you declare your target. Battlefield is covered in Fog of War and guessed are part of it...
    Well then good that T9A is not like most other games.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    JimMorr wrote:

    In most tabletop games when you touch a unit you have to perform its move. You can measure distance only after you declare your target. Battlefield is covered in Fog of War and guessed are part of it...
    Well then good that T9A is not like most other games.
    Not saying which is better. Just pointing out why from outside we are viewed as 'taking game too serious'. :)
  • Pre-measuring, and what follows it - pre-agreements, is the thing that removed most heated and awful arguments that were present in WFB in 7th and earlier editions, so this is the part I actually like. Of course, positioning just outside shooting range of an opponent is not very realistic, but IMO in this case gains are bigger than loses.
  • DeBelial wrote:

    Pre-measuring, and what follows it - pre-agreements, is the thing that removed most heated and awful arguments that were present in WFB in 7th and earlier editions, so this is the part I actually like. Of course, positioning just outside shooting range of an opponent is not very realistic, but IMO in this case gains are bigger than loses.
    Exactly, when I recall my 6ed games where people either rolled for fun and played nicely or had pre-measured body parts, multiple lists (in case of closed list) and cheated in bazillion other ways that are possible in a game with incomplete information.

    Right now we are playing game with complete information which roots out most ways to cheat and less cheating means less arguments.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    Right now we are playing game with complete information which roots out most ways to cheat and less cheating means less arguments.
    You see? A lot of things that were considered cheating are now official rules. We are now four years along this path. A completely new meta-gaming based on this complete information has been developed. E.g. ultimate chaffing on furion-level. What was supposed to streamline the game and reduce cheating has led to creation of completely different game. Today T9A is closer to a board game with fixed hexagonal fields than to 'a tabletop wargame'. Was it intended? I doubt it... such things just happen. Does it separate us from oldhammer fans? Yes, a lot. Is it a problem? Well, the game is great... :)
  • JimMorr wrote:

    You see? A lot of things that were considered cheating are now official rules
    Let me disagree. It was different - because if you wanted to play fair you were at disadvantage against people who didin't. Now the field is equal and since there is very little benefit that is to be reaped by cheating and it is much easier detected there are less cheaters.

    Also premeasuring with random charges is vastly different beast to premeasuring with fixed charges.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • JimMorr wrote:

    Not saying which is better. Just pointing out why from outside we are viewed as 'taking game too serious'. :)
    I think it is the characterisation of pre-measuring as "taking game too seriously" that is false.

    It is different of course, no-one will disagree with that. It results in different feels/skills being prioritised.
    But I don't see any correlation with "taking game too seriously".

    I personally find it leads to a much more chilled vibe in games, and much less WAAC behaviour.

    It is possibly less simulationist than guess ranges, but even then I think this argument is non-trivial:
    If you are good at guessing ranges, then the "fog of war" bit means little anyway, and e.g. random charges seem much more simulationist to me.

    Ultimately, a lot of it comes own to the values/views that players themselves bring to the game.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • I dislike pre-measuring, but I also feel that the game must be built around a lack of pre-measuring.

    Like if the idea is to ban pre-measuring and still have players able to guess ranges with reasonable certainty, then all ranges should be in fractions of the total table size. Like for a game designed for a 4'x6' (48"x72") table , you'd probably have ranges in multiples of 6". For examples, 12" range, 24" range, 48" range and so forth.

    Old 40k was like this (like 4th ed). Just about all models moved 6". Common rapid fire weapons shot 24" once, or twice at 12". Your heavy weapons were likely either 36" or 48". These ranges are pretty easy to guess if the table is a pre-set size. Rules didn't really work if the table wasn't a precise size.

    The newer 40k allows pre-measuring, but it also designs the maps to accommodate varied table sizes. Like instead of having the deployment zone 12" from the table edge, the zone is 24" from the opponent's deployment zone and 12" from the center of the table, meaning that if your table were not a 4'x6' table, and instead was a 5' round table, the deployment zones would still work.

    And because the newer 40k allows pre-measuring, almost every unit has different ranges for their weapons with very little consistency of multiples.
    My army Wip blogs:
    Knights of Nethys (WDG) | Tanks and such (EoS)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • DanT wrote:

    But I don't see any correlation with "taking game too seriously".
    This is how we are viewed, because such a statement is always someones biased opinion :) .

    If a T9A player spends 5 minutes checking all LOS angles, marking ranges and performs a few test moves only to backtrack the move and try other options an oldhammer player who expected him to charge with his WAAGH!!! goblin horde gets a bit irritated.

    We need to be aware of those differences when approaching new players. We can convince oldhammer fans to join T9A. But they have to be warned that it is not a Warhammer 9th edition and the game is about something else.
  • JimMorr wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    But I don't see any correlation with "taking game too seriously".
    This is how we are viewed, because such a statement is always someones biased opinion :) .
    If a T9A player spends 5 minutes checking all LOS angles, marking ranges and performs a few test moves only to backtrack the move and try other options an oldhammer player who expected him to charge with his WAAGH!!! goblin horde gets a bit irritated.

    We need to be aware of those differences when approaching new players. We can convince oldhammer fans to join T9A. But they have to be warned that it is not a Warhammer 9th edition and the game is about something else.
    I can't say anything without it being an opinion....lol

    I do think there is a fun difference between "allowing premeasuring" and "encouraging excessive premeasuring."

    I wouldn't want to put a specific limit on this, but if it gets to the point where I'm starting to think a turn timer is reasonable, then it's left the realm of fun for me.
    My army Wip blogs:
    Knights of Nethys (WDG) | Tanks and such (EoS)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • JimMorr wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    But I don't see any correlation with "taking game too seriously".

    If a T9A player spends 5 minutes checking all LOS angles, marking ranges and performs a few test moves only to backtrack the move and try other options
    This annoys the piss out of me even as a T9A player, lol
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • Being a good player can mean two very different things;

    1) A good player being someone who knows the rules inside out, knows tactics and list nuances to help him win games. Ie a perfect player for tournaments.

    2) A good player being one who can help make the game an enjoyable experience for both parties. Engaging with the opponent in conversation, reminding them if they're about to miss their shooting phase, realising that measuring and remeasuring might be sapping their enjoyment and picking up the pace where necesary. It might sacrifice a few wins, but you'll make more friends and attract more new players that way. And if both players are 'tourney-minded' then play a more competitive game that both will enjoy.

    As with so many things in life, we must remember, it ain't all about you!
    I SHALL VSE THE BEST OF PARTS - I SHALL VSE THE BEST OF SKILLS - I SHALL NOT SHIRK OF TIME NOR STRENGTH,
    I SHALL NOT SHIRK OF RUNE NOR WIT - THIS SHALL LAST BEYOND MY TIME, THAT HONOVR BE REMEMBERED MINE.
    The Maker's Oath, a dwarven proverb
  • Chronocide wrote:

    I do think there is a fun difference between "allowing premeasuring" and "encouraging excessive premeasuring."
    I agree with this. There's a huge difference between premeasuring the important stuff that you need to make decisions - Like the distance between 2 units to determine if I want to charge or not - and measuring every single distance just because you can.

    I don't think T9A encourages excessive premeasuring myself but we might not agree on what 'excessive' entails.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • Thunderforge wrote:

    Being a good player can mean two very different things;

    1) A good player being someone who knows the rules inside out, knows tactics and list nuances to help him win games. Ie a perfect player for tournaments.

    2) A good player being one who can help make the game an enjoyable experience for both parties. Engaging with the opponent in conversation, reminding them if they're about to miss their shooting phase, realising that measuring and remeasuring might be sapping their enjoyment and picking up the pace where necesary. It might sacrifice a few wins, but you'll make more friends and attract more new players that way. And if both players are 'tourney-minded' then play a more competitive game that both will enjoy.

    As with so many things in life, we must remember, it ain't all about you!
    I'm in the second group with pretty much every game I play. But that's why I lean away from tournaments.


    Sir_Sully wrote:

    Chronocide wrote:

    I do think there is a fun difference between "allowing premeasuring" and "encouraging excessive premeasuring."
    I agree with this. There's a huge difference between premeasuring the important stuff that you need to make decisions - Like the distance between 2 units to determine if I want to charge or not - and measuring every single distance just because you can.
    I don't think T9A encourages excessive premeasuring myself but we might not agree on what 'excessive' entails.
    T9A doesn't, no. No games I've played specifically encourage excessive premeasuring.

    But I think some players don't see a difference being "always allowed to premeasure" and "being encouraged to excessively premeasure."

    And it's probably a learned behavior rooting to how they were treated when they didn't premeasure enough.

    There's this funny American Dad episode about Jenga that covers excessive premeasuring pretty well. Let's see, can't find it in english, but it's here:
    My army Wip blogs:
    Knights of Nethys (WDG) | Tanks and such (EoS)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • JimMorr wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    But I don't see any correlation with "taking game too seriously".
    This is how we are viewed, because such a statement is always someones biased opinion :) .
    If a T9A player spends 5 minutes checking all LOS angles, marking ranges and performs a few test moves only to backtrack the move and try other options an oldhammer player who expected him to charge with his WAAGH!!! goblin horde gets a bit irritated.

    This happened in oldhammer too, just in different ways.
    If the players want such different things from the game, it doesn't matter which version they are playing.

    Comp was a big thing in oldhammer: if players didn't agree things in advance, they could easily bring armies suited for two entirely different games. This is FAR less of an issue in t9a.


    So as with everything, it is about having a conversation with your opponent and knowing what you both want from the game.
    In this respect, any perceived difference between t9a and oldhammer is mostly prejudice from not having/seeing all of the information.




    We need to be aware of those differences when approaching new players. We can convince oldhammer fans to join T9A. But they have to be warned that it is not a Warhammer 9th edition and the game is about something else.


    No. They just need to find other t9a players that want the same as them, just like they needed to find oldhammer players who wanted the same as them.


    Chronocide wrote:

    I do think there is a fun difference between "allowing premeasuring" and "encouraging excessive premeasuring."

    I wouldn't want to put a specific limit on this, but if it gets to the point where I'm starting to think a turn timer is reasonable, then it's left the realm of fun for me.
    A lot of this comes down to how much players are prepared to agree to save time. Excessive premeasuring generally occurs if players don't trust each other to not "gotcha!" each other.




    The other time it occurs is when there are very complicated situations, but often in these cases the arguments from not premeasuring would take up much more time!



    Thunderforge wrote:

    2) A good player being one who can help make the game an enjoyable experience for both parties. Engaging with the opponent in conversation, reminding them if they're about to miss their shooting phase...

    I do this even in tournaments.
    And, here's the best bit: doing 2) makes you better at 1), because it means you aren't winning because of silly opposing errors, but because you were genuinely better...
    Always remind your opponent about spells, attributes, buffs, whatever... because otherwise it isn't a real victory anyway :D


    If I have an important charge, I always ask my opponent if they measured it in their turn and if so what the number was. If they say yes, I will just use their measurement as my charge roll regardless of what the distance on the table is. Simpler, faster, and easier for everyone.

    Equally, when my opponent is trying to move a unit out of my arc, I will actively try to help them and agree it if its clearly possible.

    However, some players stay silent during their opponents movement phase, no matter what the opponent says, or how clear their intention is, cos they want to win from some millimetre misperception (what I call a "gotcha!").
    This isn't new to pre-measuring, it just manifests slightly differently in pre-measuring than in non-premeasuring.
    If both players trust each other and are prepared to agree things, premeasuring takes very little time.
    If they don't... well you'd have problems under any system :P
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:


    However, some players stay silent during their opponents movement phase, no matter what the opponent says, or how clear their intention is, cos they want to win from some millimetre misperception (what I call a "gotcha!").
    This isn't new to pre-measuring, it just manifests slightly differently in pre-measuring than in non-premeasuring.
    If both players trust each other and are prepared to agree things, premeasuring takes very little time.
    If they don't... well you'd have problems under any system :P
    It's tricky because there's a certain level of "gotcha!" that I think is something I'd want+expect from the game, and on another level, I find it "gotcha!" very irritating.

    Like I'd enjoy hidden lists. I might even take it a step or two further, and still have fun. And there's definitely some "gotcha!" in there.

    But like if you move in a way that seems like an obvious mistake, I'd tell you and let you take it back. I might even give unsolicited suggestions on your turn. Or I might ask questions about your army to help remind you of rules you may be forgetting.
    My army Wip blogs:
    Knights of Nethys (WDG) | Tanks and such (EoS)

    Friend me on Pokemon Go: 4753 8292 4177
  • Parmineo wrote:

    Here in Western Canada this has become a much talked about topic.

    In Saskatchewan and Alberta there are a lot of us playing. However, the game is not easy to pick up for the casual player and we have definitely seen the end of beer and pretzel games. Mega-Battles with teams is non-existent and the game has come down to an exercise in list building.
    I welcome the increase of fluff and background for all the factions - this I do believe will add more to the game and hobby.
    List builds will not be focused on the standard boring and hard as nails tournament lists but hopefully expand to be more thematic.
    There is no doubt that this is a tournament oriented game - that is fine and understandable and I personally luv tournaments.
    Yet we cannot ignore the need to have our hobby grow or there will be no one to play against one day.
    That is our struggle here - what do we do about it:
    1 - We hold constant Game Days, as we call them, wherein everyone is invited and most everyone can get in 2-3 battles
    2 - We have a very active league with loads of communication with an online forum and a Whatsapp Chat line and a FB page.
    3 - I run small 2000pt tournaments to encourage fringe and marginal players to get involved. Lord of the Night XXII is coming up and I have been running them for over 15 yrs.

    This is great game and awesome hobby but I do fear that it may become elitist without the encouragement of beer & pretzel gaming, campaigns and mega-battles.

    That being said I am gearing up for the big event in June in Calgary lol

    raveninghordes.forumakers.com/

    WastelandWarrior wrote:

    mega games are still as doable as ever and sometimes happen.

    Campaigns was always more of a thing i talked about and occasionally started and then it fell to bits with any edition of wargame.

    Tourney games to me seem pretty beer and pretzel style too, i mean there is always beer and i tend to play pretty fast and just go with the flow rather than too much agonising!
    I'm new to the convo, so addressing this - I think fun is totally doable!

    Tournament wise, I truly believe over 95% of the battles I've had in tourneys (in the UK) are with well spirited, fun people. I started out as a garage gamer and have absolutely caught the bug for tournaments. Not because of the type of game it is, but the social side of things. Plenty of people that I have met and would now deem as a friend and really look forward to seeing each time i go to a tourney. Lots of tournies I go to, there is a day before where people practice and catch up and have the types of "beer & pretzel" game you are talking about. I think I play a bit more "serious" when playing the tournament itself - but I still have had very few games where my opponent or I don't have fun with the game. In fact, one of my most fun games was in a tournament against an O&G player where My dragon was killing his units left right and centre, then his general came in to slay the dragon and my general went in to slay his general to win the game. In terms of immersion, we were right there and loving the stories that came out of it. I think this is down to the players to take it as such.

    In terms of mega battles, they are great and as a shamless plug - here are two that we have done in the last year or so. Absolutely possible with what T9A has developed...




    In terms of campaigns and fun, The Fight for Avras was hugely popular and "attended" by t9a players with over 50 (easily) getting involved within the initial 3 months it was running. I think it only takes a few more people to start the ball rolling to this become more popular and will eventually become a genuine way to engage people to "have fun" with the game in a more fluffy sense.

    Once again, here is a taster of what it sparked from our point of view...




    SmithF wrote:

    I've played in tournaments in at least six different countries, in three different versions of the legacy game and then T9A.

    The proportion of bad sports in the GW game was way higher than what we encounter now in T9A.
    And by that, I mean that in my current game scene we have ZERO players that "Take the game too seriously and ruin the fun". That's out of roughly 60-80 people that frequent tournaments in Belgium. (Mind you, around 30 of these are what you'd call hardcore T9A fans, the others being more occasional players)

    My personal theory about why this happened is that the End Times and subsequent shift to AoS weeded out the bad players. They moved on to other games (Warmachine/Malifaux/AoS), and what remained was such a small pool of players that you couldn't afford to be a bad sport, really.

    After that initial change, it was up to the remaining players to establish the "norm" when it comes to gaming etiquette. As a result, there have been practically no arguments since T9A, and our tournaments are free from toxic behaviors.

    I've noticed that all it takes for the competitive scene to become toxic is a single group of players that play super competitively and lack the social skills to maneuver the "complex" social situation of a wargame: the objective of the game is to win, but the goal is for both players to have fun.

    As a side note, I think that the clarity of T9A rules helps a lot in avoiding weird situations. A lot of frustration comes from players getting surprised by an occult rule/FAQ that prevents them from completing their battle plan as they had imagined. Communication helps prevent that, and I often find myself explaining to my opponents pre-emptively why their maneuver won't work: not winning on a technicality means there's less of a "bad aftertaste" for your opponent.
    I wholeheartedly agree with this post too. I think there is a big core of people that play the game in a certain manner and even go as far as not condoning "negative" behavior, and certainly not encouraging it. I must admit, I have never been a part of any other games' community or scene, but have heard some really terrible things that would not be accepted within a tourney that i have attended thus far...
    Find me now on Twitter @luckysixesPTG
    Visit our Youtube channel and latest project for book reviews, video battle reports and much much more!

    Proxy Table Gaming Youtube Channel
    The Many Adventures of Lucky-Sixes
    THE QUICK-STARTER WORLD CUP
  • Grouchy Badger wrote:

    "Is 9th Age striving to be a tournament style game, or a game that everyone can play?"
    IMO the underlying assumption to this question is completely false and therefore the whole argument invalid. First off, a balanced game (something we discuss a lot) is more helpful for casuals. It means you do not have to talk to your opponent before making a list on "how casual will the game be". Oh the horror discussions from playing WHFB 8th casually. So you take out all your Peg Lords from DE list, then the opponent is offended by your Doomfire Warlocks. Then you take those out, then he's offended by the Light Troops Supreme Sorceress. Then you take those out, and he's offended because you took Alchemy as magic. And vice versa.

    Second: Everybody can play a competitive game. A competitive game just needs to have enuogh "skill expression", so that better players can consistently be better. There are games very high on this (chess) and less so (MtG). But you can still play chess very easily, your level won't be as high, but it doesn't matter.

    Third: Not everybody can play T9A and it was never targeted as such. Obviously you need a lot of space, you need a lot of miniatures, you need a lot of time and you need to memorize tons of rules. This is the exact opposite of an "everybody" game, especially in a time where youngsters cannot read anything longer than an instagram post. But, it should definitely be an "everybody" game for the niche (you could label it as "fantasy gamer nerd"), and I think it is.

    Sir_Sully wrote:

    This wasn't done to make the game more fun, but to make it more competative
    What is and isn't fun is different to people. More competitive is not on the same axis as fun/unfun. Taking out random elements makes usually makes a game more competitive, because too much random blots out skill expression. Alas, handling randomness to a certain degree and doing proper risk management is also an expression of (statistical) skill. Changing a game "for fun" is quite hard, as you don't know whether people would actually agree with you, whether this is fun at all.

    Sometimes I get the feeling what posters claim as "fun" is the big-random-stuff or stuff like animosity rules in WHFB Orcs. My advise would be calling them "whacky" instead of "fun", because I know nobody from my play group who thought these rules are "fun". And it is certainly true: T9A removed events with random outliers (e.g. D3+1 instead of D6 wounds on cannons; completely random magical terrain) and whacky rules.

    JimMorr wrote:

    do a hundred other unnatural things that are result of tournament optimized rules.
    I have a problem with the part of the statement: "Unnatural".
    The whole gaming experience is unnatural, as it is only a model. Which part you find as "acceptable approximation" and which are "too gamey" are completely self-chosen. Claiming that one's game is "right" and the other "unnatural" is not really adult behaviour.

    JimMorr wrote:

    If a T9A player spends 5 minutes checking all LOS angles, marking ranges and performs a few test moves only to backtrack the move and try other options
    Funny, how people in WHFB did the exact same thing. It can be greatly reduced when talking to one another and just saying "I want to be out of charge LOS" and then saying "ok, put it there, don't care about some millimeters, we treat it as such". Of course that only works if both players actually want the other player to enjoy the game and feel responsible for it, too.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • DarkSky wrote:

    especially in a time where youngsters cannot read anything longer than an instagram post. But, it should definitely be an "everybody" game for the niche (you could label it as "fantasy gamer nerd"), and I think it is.
    I think this is quite disingenuous. As I know a lot of kids are into D&D these days, and that is NOT an easy to remember game rules-wise.

    Lord of the Hobby

    The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
  • We have a small gaming group, that plays each week in my gaming room.
    We play 9th age and Kings of War.

    Our experience is, that Kings of War is way easier to "get into it" because there are not so many special rules, less things you can do etc.
    It is another game of course. Easy to learn, easy to play, even with young gamers, but a lot less depth.
    But very little tensions because the rules are also very clear.


    Before we played all iterations of warhammer back to 6th edition. And 9th age is way better to play. It has not less rules, if anything it has more special rules than ever before (or we forgot some of them after time), but the rules are written without anti fun loopholes.

    Of course there are some of Anti Fun rules left but this depends a lot on the prefered access and way to play.
    But with 9th age most of the frictions that could occure on the table were solved by clear rules and pre measurment.

    We also use the "I want to achieve this" approach in the movement phase, check if it´s possible. Of course sometimes we also check lines of sight and distances when it is necessary but I have seen games where the oponent fills half the table with markers and angle signs and need 10 minutes lot of game time for simple movement that would need some seconds if he told me, I want my unit to be more than 15" away and with this unit in front". This is often the reason why some games are over after 1,5 hours and some take 3 hours.