Rule team's explanation of changes needed

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.

  • Rule team's explanation of changes needed

    With the version 0.7 rules update, a lot of changes were made. Some were good, some were bad, and some were just baffling. It would be really nice to have a community update that discusses the thoughts behind the changes.

    It appears that there are a lot of people that are unhappy with the changes. I think you will get better feedback if people know why certain changes were made, or what direction you are trying to move certain units when you make these changes.
  • The Army Support staff will be doing that for each of the armies in the dedicated sub-forums as soon as they get feedback from the Rules Team. We just ask everyone to be patient as it isn't easy to provide feedback for 16 armies.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • I'm really rather irritated right now. I just play tested last night with the squad and of course as soon as I kinko rules and magic etc. . . a new ".7 beta" hits. . .

    Why was this needed? This was asinine and a tiki taka approach to something that is just going to get redone at the end of the month. IF you keep changing the way books are balanced what's the point of play testing a metric that's constantly moving? It's superfluous as that point.

    It would also help if the exec team didn't arbitrarily just throw out random nerfs and bonuses without thinking things through. While taking away EoN's AP on bows made the EoL in me warm and fuzzy it was hilariously unjustified decision and, makes the unscrupulous changes within the EoL look like child's play -and this is just a couple armies examples.
    I type on mobile so my spelling mistakes can hide that English is my native tongue. :write: :HE: :KoE:

    Evershade Gaming on YouTube
    youtube.com/channel/UCKjjkWnXanizMuTh5obkxpA

    theforgottenturtle.com An Awesome Painting Blog
  • And to the above post...this is a beta rule set. Its going to change. Its supposed to change. Until the final version, sometime in december? I think?

    Change is good. Find out what works and what doesn't. If something is wildly unpopular, don't worry! Its beta, it'll get changed! This isn't GW, where the only version you see is the only version you will get to play.

    If that's not your thing, complaining about it is honestly just wasting your time and everyone else's. Wait for the finished version, then play. If the issue is just that you don't like certain rules in the current version, then keep playing, keep giving feedback, and wait for the changes, or use it as an opportunity to try a new style of play with your army that works better with the current rules.
    Classic Ogres for the win! My Blog
  • It is, however, kind of disruptive to change everything so frequently: it's hard to get the hang out of things, and usually early impressions are not correct, so letting things stay still for some time helps gathering more definitive and valid results.

    In this case, however, I believe the problem is within the roadmap the 9th age team decided on some time ago. Because they wanted to appeal to the ETC scene in order to be considered for next year tournament (because this is literally an once in a lifetime chance, if ETC decides on a different ruleset, I doubt they'll take a second look at other non-comercial rulesets), the dates are incredibly tight and packed.

    And well, there is always the issue of Hype.
  • Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:


    It would also help if the exec team didn't arbitrarily just throw out random nerfs and bonuses without thinking things through. While taking away EoN's AP on bows made the EoL in me warm and fuzzy it was hilariously unjustified decision and, makes the unscrupulous changes within the EoL look like child's play -and this is just a couple armies examples.

    I have to agree with it. Some armies are well represented in the forum and it seems to me in the executive committee of 9th age. EoL are a good example.

    This is reflected in the decisions that are made concerning the rules.
  • Harlequin wrote:

    Trains_Get_Robbed wrote:

    It would also help if the exec team didn't arbitrarily just throw out random nerfs and bonuses without thinking things through. While taking away EoN's AP on bows made the EoL in me warm and fuzzy it was hilariously unjustified decision and, makes the unscrupulous changes within the EoL look like child's play -and this is just a couple armies examples.
    I have to agree with it. Some armies are well represented in the forum and it seems to me in the executive committee of 9th age. EoL are a good example.

    This is reflected in the decisions that are made concerning the rules.

    While I can understand the feeling of frustration, I can only but ask to have faith on the committee. It's bound to exist a certain degree of bias (positive and negative) regardless of who writes the rules, but accusing the group as a whole of bias toward certain armies so early in the development phases of the game is unfair, and can only undermine the morale and posibilities of 9th age as a game.
    Post whatever you feel is wrong, argue if you must, but let's give the committee a confidence vote in that they are being as impartial as they can. If that's not the case, and they are really biased toward certain armies, it will be clear in a couple months, once the books are out and we've got some time to playtest them.

    Right now, when the project is so young and barely 5-6 people have had to shoulder the bulk of the project, I'd advice against undermining the authority of the committee based on accusations of bias: That's exactly what people have said would happen to fan projects like this one, and it's already a tough enough task to keep a crumbling comunity together.
    This is not GW. These guys have been quite diligent in general at addressing people's issues, and from my point of view have been fairly approachable.

    When I saw the roster for the Army Book commitee, I was very happy with the people that had been chosen. For example, in the EoL team, the people that was selected are those who have demonstrated, in my view, most restraint and understanding of the game, as well as willing to cooperate and understand other's armies position. The DH committee, as well, has very diverging points of view, which is great. I do believe these people will do their best to keep their respective armies balanced and interesting.

    Balancing the desires of the people with a tight, competitive ruleset is not an easy task, specially when we all have a skewed idea of how WHFB should work. There are many variables in such a complex game, and balancing them can usually require lots of fine tuning.
    There is also the issue of balancing different skill levels: some things tend to be much better in the context of a battle between veterans, or when abused, while looking underwhelming from the point of view of less experienced gamers.
    And then there is the issue of match-ups: as is, WHFB is a game of both unit march-ups and even playstyles match-ups. From a competitive point of view, the first is not bad: tactics are built around the idea of countering and counter-countering threats. But the second is not good: some playstyles may be slightly better against others, but there should exist a good chance for both armies to attain victory regardless of playstyle (except for obvious gimmicky playstyles). This is specially a problem for extreme playstyles, which tend to be quite polarized in this aspect.

    As such, nerfs to some units or even playstyles may come as unwarranted due to being considered as weak. But in the grand scheme of things, it may be better to push those playstyles to a more mixed approach than to allow those imbalances, as to avoid those that are very polarized (either due to learning curve, high end power or extreme match-ups) in favor of a softer middle ground. In the end, that's what playtest is for: if a playstyle considered too powerful or polarized is shown to be less problematic in game than they were on paper, that can be addressed. I cannot, in good faith, say that we really have a good, overall idea of how the game works at this point, given the large amount of changes.

    I'm not a committee member, I'm just a normal user. At some point, I thought about applying, but work and life don't leave enough time to dedicate myself to this initiative as much as I would like to. As such, and given that the people working on this project have shown good sense previously, and given their history as competitive players, I give them that confidence vote, and reserve my judgement until I can really formulate a position, which will require time and experience. This is a first step we all, as a comunity, need to agree on if we want this non-profit project reach all the gaming scene out there, and to avoid this already slipping community to not disappear.

    So, I reiterate this: The project is just starting. Committee members have been just chosen. Do not assume bias so early in the project. Playtest the changes, maybe there is a sense behind them. Contrast your results to those of other people (that's what a community is for, right?) and if something doesn't feel fine to you, do expose your point, respecting that some other people may disagree with you. In the end, the committee members, specially those from the respective army books, are the ones to love the most their armies, and are the ones that will realize first if such bias exists.

    Cheers.
  • ASF wrote:

    It would be quite nice if it would be an established procedure if, for every change proposed in the final version, the responsible committee member quickly made a thread in this subforum which simply consisted of "discuss this change" along with a popularity poll.
    It would be more easier than that:

    Write patchnotes (which are at the end of the PDFs at the moment) with a compilation of the changes and the thoughts behind those changes.

    Would raise transparency and acceptance.
  • Would be nice if there was lots of transparency, and also for the armybook committees to talk to their subforums about what changes they are thinking of, to cultivate and involve in community discussions about designing the armybooks, and also to know when to go with and go against what the subforum members overall want for their armybook.
    “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.”
    Matsuo Bashō
  • That will be done through Army Support staff. They will convey ideas and feedback from the community to the AB team and provide return information to the public.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • Harlequin wrote:

    It would be more easier than that: Write patchnotes (which are at the end of the PDFs at the moment) with a compilation of the changes and the thoughts behind those changes.
    That is a good suggestion and I agree with it. However it does not preclude my suggestion. The commitee member responsible for a change could write their reasoning in the patchnotes and they could also form the habit of creating an individual thread for each change along with a popularity poll. I am very much in favor of frequent polling and I do not think this project can move in the right direction without it. In fact it would be a particularly wise move to create a polling subforum and to put in place a team member who's dedicated job is to manage the polling threads.
  • Such excessive polling serves little purpose as it would complety bog down the process waiting for the sufficient (we would have to agree what number that would be) number of votes to be cast.

    What is far better, if such level of transparency is introduced, is if each person elaborates why he would support a possible change or oppose it. Data gathered in such a way is far more benefitial to the team than a poll, though it serves the same purpose.

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • I must respectfully disagree. Polling cannot slow down a process. Polling is like talking except with numbers. Talking about a process does not slow it down. I see polling as a tool to gather feedback and I see feedback as equally worthwhile whether it consists of typing letters in a post or clicking numbers in a box. A figure of authority who shuns numeric feedback is tantamount to a figure of authority who shuns written feedback. I respectfully advise that you give it more consideration.
  • I mean you can set up polls but each vote must be acompanied with an explanation.

    Once again I ask what would be a sufficient sample size to consider the result of a poll valid?

    Background Team

    Rules Team

    Conceptual Design

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
  • Giladis wrote:

    I mean you can set up polls but each vote must be acccompanied with an explanation.

    Once again I ask what would be a sufficient sample size to consider the result of a poll valid?
    Probably going to be dependent on the size of each army community.

    For the game rules themselves obviously one can not make every poll invalid without every vote, so a certain percentage, or minimum count of votes overall, is going to be required. Those are probably going to have to be dependent on the total size of the community, or the size of the regular, active, involved, or significant individuals of this community.
    “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.”
    Matsuo Bashō
  • Problem is, there are a lot of things that are popular with players that aren't exactly good for the game. And, I think if we're all honest with ourselves, we're all a little biased towards the armies we like to play. Go through each of the army subforums, and you'll find topics about things that changed that were only overpowered if you didn't understand how the army worked...in other words, "I didn't think they were overpowered when I used them in my army." And then again, with polls, anyone can vote. Whether or not they've played with and against that unit or that rule extensively, or just read about it on the internet, or just found out about it when they opened that poll. That's definitely not the credentials I would like for game design.

    So having a few people making the decisions, hopefully selected for their impartiality and dedication to making a better game, is, in my opinion, better for the future of the game. And for sure, transparency in the process is great, and should be encouraged and required. And I'm sure we're all eager to discuss any changes that are being considered, and getting opinions isn't a bad thing, but at the end of the day, what matters and what should matter is how it actually impacts the game, shown through gameplay feedback, and not an opinion poll on here.
    Classic Ogres for the win! My Blog
  • SuperZombie wrote:

    Problem is, there are a lot of things that are popular with players that aren't exactly good for the game. And, I think if we're all honest with ourselves, we're all a little biased towards the armies we like to play. Go through each of the army subforums, and you'll find topics about things that changed that were only overpowered if you didn't understand how the army worked...in other words, "I didn't think they were overpowered when I used them in my army." And then again, with polls, anyone can vote. Whether or not they've played with and against that unit or that rule extensively, or just read about it on the internet, or just found out about it when they opened that poll. That's definitely not the credentials I would like for game design.

    So having a few people making the decisions, hopefully selected for their impartiality and dedication to making a better game, is, in my opinion, better for the future of the game. And for sure, transparency in the process is great, and should be encouraged and required. And I'm sure we're all eager to discuss any changes that are being considered, and getting opinions isn't a bad thing, but at the end of the day, what matters and what should matter is how it actually impacts the game, shown through gameplay feedback, and not an opinion poll on here.
    The problem I see with the 9th Age and the more recent warhammer editions is actually too much nerfing. Instead of countering powerful units or combinations of certain factions by introducing other stuff for another army, the MO is to just nerf everything and make everything somewhat bland and not that different.
    “Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.”
    Matsuo Bashō
  • The situation you describe is what leads to bland, unoriginal armies. The idea that I need to take X unit to be competitive, or, conversly, I need to take Y unit to beat X unit, means that armies tend to be pretty similar.

    As has been said elsewhere, its a lot easier to take the few units that were OP, and reduce them, than it is to bring everything else up to their level. And I think you see that in these unfinished lists. There's a lot of units that weren't taken that are now pretty decent options. And it is all a little bland right now because we're all using slightly improved Ravening Hordes lists. Wait for the 1.0 releases of army lists and I bet there will be a lot more flavor to them.
    Classic Ogres for the win! My Blog