Search Results

Search results 1-20 of 228.

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.

  • I read the blog post from a facebook page and came here expecting the community to be in DEFCON 3, or even 2. Instead I find the situation well under control from a moderation perspective, with discussion open and thoughtful responses. Perhaps a bit dismissive, but not unexpected when there are serious concerns about the credibility of the post's author. The funny thing, I think, is that the author really hasn't said anything new at all. We've all been griping about these same things for years T…

  • In this case, I can see a fly move representing everyone getting out of the way and then closing ranks again once it passes through. Love it.

  • HBE vs VS Feedback

    Ozariig - - Quick Starter Edition

    Post

    @windsower1 I completely agree with you that FBT9A is a list-building game. The question is when should list-building be introduced to a new player. I would argue that the goal of QST9A is Approachability, namely: Quote from Ozariig: “Approachability is the difficulty threshold where new players are willing to pick up the game and build the necessary skills to play it well. ” We can take a bit of inspiration from deck-building games in this regard. Most (if not all?) deck-building games include …

  • Echoing what @The Beninator said, I don't think that unit stats, core taxes, FBT9A minimum unit sizes, points costs, or relative power levels really matter at this point in the discussion though, right? At least, we don't have enough information about the bigger picture with other factions (for the purpose of external balance), so we have to assume that those things will shake out as a result of the balancing and playtesting stages. And since QST9A is a different game from FBT9A, we also have to…

  • After a bit of reflection, I think the discussion on what is iconic is deeply revealing of the current state of the DH fluff. Why are Seekers iconic? Grimnir, Gotrek & Felix, Ungrim Ironfist, Karak Kadrin, the Slayers Oath, and heck, even the orange spikey mohawks... none of these things are part of T9A. Seekers do have some cool special rules though, so I suppose they are iconic by virtue of doing something different from any other unit in T9A. They fight with big weapons and no armour and they…

  • Sonnstahl and Equitaine

    Ozariig - - Background & Stories

    Post

    Just a couple of historical tidbits to fan the discussion: Longbows were not obsolete in the 16th century. I've read (though I can't find the source) that a dwindling supply of yew in Europe may have contributed as much to the decline of the longbow as any perceived inferiority to the gunpowder small arms of the time. Heavy cavalry in plate armor was also not obsolete in the 16th century. It just got thicker and heavier over time so as to be impervious to muskets of greater power. Feudalism was …

  • I'm currently working through my spreadsheet of available models and manufacturers for DH, but every time I take another look I find another manufacturer with a line of dwarf models I guess that's a good problem to have! I just want to take a moment to point out that the visual distinctions between Kings and Thanes, Warriors and Greybeards, Marksmen and Rangers, etc. is largely arbitrary. Sometimes you can differentiate them using equipment (chainmail vs. plate), and sometimes it's just down to …

  • @Kanadian I really appreciate you taking the time to respond! $90 USD (~$2.60/model) with rulebook and dice is pretty much perfect, as far as I'm concerned. Certainly better than any other options available at the moment. I don't play UD but I'll happily be pledging at that price when you launch!

  • It's a bit of a shame that we're stuck with the old UD QS list models. That ties us down a lot when it comes to considering design philosophy in my favourite two dimensions: price and cool factor. I'll comment on price anyways, because that's where most of my UD analysis has gone. Last I checked, this list costs $132 USD ($3/model) if you assemble it piece-wise from TMS, and $121 USD if you assemble it piece-wise from Mantic ($2.75/model). This list costs ~$180 USD (~$4/model) if you assemble it…

  • What I like about the WDG QS list as shown is that the models for the units selected are widely available. A person could go all GW, mostly MoM (minus chariot), mostly AoW (minus chariot), or all historicals. It's pretty easy to find direct analogues to these units without much guidance, which I can hardly say for the rest of the WDG book. I think that the price is still a bit on the high side ($133 USD if you go all GW, down to $95 if you hunt for deals from other manufacturers) but all told it…

  • The list as given is perhaps slightly less newbie friendly than the one preceding it, requiring three boxes of units (though with a fair number of extras) plus a character in a blister pack. I made a buying guide for the old SE QS list that only needed two boxes of units and a blister pack, coming to around 90 USD. Adding in a box of Dryads brings up the price by almost 50%. I made my case earlier that I thought Forest Spirits would be a more newbie friendly choice, for three reasons: 1. Bulk di…

  • My initial cost impressions: I see how the list mirrors what was in the TMS QS kickstarter last year. In the kickstarter, the KoE models alone were priced at $90 USD. This price struck me and others as a bit high, but was already heavily discounted from the TMS webstore (two boxes of Knights of the Realm, a box of Knights of the Grail, a Damsel, and a Lord would come to around $200 USD). @Kanadian cancelled the kickstarter and said he would look into making the armies cheaper. Poked around the m…

  • Good game design VS T9A

    Ozariig - - General Discussion

    Post

    Here's the Extra Credits video I was talking about, along with a very relevant quote: youtube.com/watch?v=EitZRLt2G3w Quote from Video @2:30: “Without this device [the grenade launcher or "Noob Tube"], Call of Duty would not be the massive success it is today. You'd instead have a small community of veterans just churning through new players at an alarming rate, just crushing each noob who dared to show his face in multiplayer. All those new players would quickly get discouraged and quit, never …

  • Good game design VS T9A

    Ozariig - - General Discussion

    Post

    Exactly. The Fast Cavalry example demonstrates that they have been designed to be exploited by skilled players, which shows that we're on the right track. Not everything has to be designed for everybody. We just need to make sure that we aren't designing everything for skilled players, to the exclusion of lower levels of play.

  • Good game design VS T9A

    Ozariig - - General Discussion

    Post

    @jimmygrill The answer is that a good design for a competitive game takes all levels of play into account. There are units or options designed to target specific levels of play, which means that the meta-game naturally shifts as players gain the skills necessary to take advantage of them. There was a good Extra Credits video on this topic, I'll see if I can find it. Without specific examples off the top of my head, I can tell you that M:TG, Hearthstone, and CoD all follow this approach. The down…

  • Good game design VS T9A

    Ozariig - - General Discussion

    Post

    Sutor, ne ultra crepidam. True, he's not wrong. Better balance is better for everyone, and a successful tournament player (who is a glorified playtester) provides excellent perspective as such. What you don't want is for a playtester to set the direction for the game. Knowing your audience, long term vision, and an appreciation for game design philosophy should be a prerequisite for that, and that's clearly asking too much. Relying too much on playtesters is just letting the inmates run the asyl…

  • Good game design VS T9A

    Ozariig - - General Discussion

    Post

    Quote from Furion: “ Oh, and y'all philosophical disputes quoting a post by MTG from 1999 are laughable. Maybe when taking another dump I'll fancy an answer. But the very essence that this outdated and non-related piece of info makes the pillar of your argument gives high probability that you don't know what you're talking about. ” Because the newest philosophy is the rightest philosophy. Got it.

  • For my follow up, I'd like to talk a little bit about a couple of different approaches that designers can take to add complexity. I want to talk about Design for Cause and Design for Effect. Quote from Lewis Pulsipher: “[...] when you design for cause, you find the factors that caused something to occur, and design those factors into your game so that it’s likely to occur. When you design for effect, you design the game so that the effect, the result, is a recognizable representation of history.…

  • With no mention to the feedback on the formatting for the fluff unit entries in the WDG book, I'm going to have to assume that it was either impractical to implement at this stage or that it directly contradicts the chosen direction for FABs. Because this is a matter of newbie-friendliness though, I think it's important to mention my concerns again in the hopes that it will be addressed in some way or another, whether in the FABs themselves or in supplementary material. Folks, it's very, very di…

  • youtube.com/watch?v=B8McutvNwtI Branding (or in this case, jargon to refer to a game mechanic) makes a BIG difference. It's a fluff thing, but it's probably more important than you give it credit for.