Maybe it is the best topic to post it, if no just move it . Recently I had a discussion on a mostly historical forum regarding T9A. Historical wargamers live in a more abstract world (closer to KoW), however many of them have been starting hobby with 4th/5th WFB. They say that it would be difficult for them to come back to T9A even if they keep their armies of old for nostalgia reasons, for they can't imagine painting all missing models (well finding a fitting models for 4th era is another challenge). The point is: the entrance barrier is intimidating for guys who possess hundreds of painted napoleonic-era figs! I have a feeling that T9A might be a bit oversized focusing on 2500 points as a standard...
Ran an event at 2k and honestly the games had the same feel but just resolved more quickly.
There were a number of good posts about store owner reactions to t9a. It seems like giving store owners incentive to promote t9a could help introduce new players. Putting some rulebooks in stores would do this to some extent maybe, but I think what would really make t9a attractive is if it brought players into the store.
If you look at the most successful tabletop franchises, they all have events which bring people into the store on a weekly basis. These events have some connection to the larger community, whether as tournament qualifiers or as factors influencing the plot of an rpg. Players gain some advantage from each session (leveling their character, etc.), and so have incentive to keep coming back.
If t9a had some sort of organized play bringing people into stores consistently, it would probably generate larger profit and receive more local support. I think campaign centric play would be a great basis for organized play. The results of the years campaigns would affect some event in the plot of t9a world, etc. Fan organizers would be given account privileges and upload results, etc.
This would also give t9a a reason to participate in gaming conventions where hosting a full GT is generally impractical. Play at conventions could have some special effect on plot events. This could be another avenue to give the rules exposure. Skirmish scale results could also contribute to the plot and serve to lower the entry barrier to the hobby.
With this kind of organization model, it would also be less necessary to rush periods of rules changes to reach a final version so that printed versions weren't invalidated. Changes could be smaller and designed to avoid invalidating peoples model collections. Changes could also be more careful (no need to quadruple nerf problem units) with more time to gather data and make informed decisions.
The 1.2 changes are good given the time frame you set. Bunch more improvements in core rules, achieves environment with larger cariwty of unit types. Due to the scope of the changes a numbet were somewhat haphazard, with lots of units invalidated or left in awkward positions. Based on the date for collecting issues from the forums, I'm pretty sure your time table won't permit many of these issues to be fixed before rules are frozen for years. This is kind of a big shame.
I don't think you guys need to be in such a rush. T9a isn't going to die out anytime soon. The project doesn't really have competitors in its niche. Sure there are some other rulesets, but without people working on them and some sort of community connection they don't have much pull. T9a has a large team of extremely dedicated people. Even if people complain about your decisions and some leave you will have more than enough of a community to build on once your mechanisms for bringing in new peeps are in place.
The problem with low points is some armies just cant compete.
Last Saturday I played my UD list in 2400 (new points) and to be honest one game I lasted until turn 4 before getting tabled. And I'm a decent player and I was playing guys at my level maybe a little bit lower skill level. Each game was not about winning, but could I score any points what so ever before getting tabled.
Things like poor core units that couldn't compete with other book choices, plus being forced to take a mage with evocation (a truly useless lore, except for the one build) cost me so many point I could get enough pressure to brake the enemy. Not very fun to play.
So with this experience low point could have the opposite effect when trying to convince others to play.
I don't play UD but have the same experience from other armies.
I find the core tax concept obstructing and truly without merit. "Core" units should be a strategic choice representing the strength of that specific army.
The concept of having to buy and paint lots of model of little value just to fill a tax is, to my opinion, an unecessary entry barrier.
My 5 cents,
The post was edited 1 time, last by Windelov ().
Since my post was added here I'm wondering:
Are alternate methods for getting rules exposure under consideration? I'm definitely on board to help with something like this.
Also if so, is the time table for freezing the rules set in stone?
Are alternate methods for getting rules exposure under consideration? I'm definitely on board to help with something like this.
A bit of unrelated question, but since it was mentioned, is there at least a vague idea if the DH book will be in the second, third of fourth batch of the full book reworking?Northern Dwarfs Armybook in the Homebrew Section.Furthermore, I consider that
Northern Dwarfs ADT
The King in the North
CarthageNorther Dwarfs Armybook must be destroyedmade official! - Vitnar Ironbeard
When 2.0 hits, we should settle down for some years. Timing on 2.0 is iffy at the moment but probably towards the summer 2017.
tiny's post towards the top of the page has quote with some of my ideas.
The campaign rules would use the same mechanics as avalon hill's diplomacy for moving armies around the map. There would be very asymmetric rules for how factions generate new armies, lose armies, move them, benefit from victories, and some influencing battlefield terrain. The idea is to create very characterful play linked to the background, and to have this going on in stores frequently to attract new players and store owner support. Skirmish rules would take some research into other systems to write but are an integral part of bringing players into the hobby because they drastically lower entry barriers.
I don't really see having a few books on the shelf as being enough to attract younger generations of players to spend hundreds of dollars/euro buying, and hundreds of hours building/painting an army to start playing. This is especially true given the esoteric nature of the ruleset (relative to newer game systems), and the fact that the community is just the GT scene which i imagine would be very unforgiving to newer players.
No one in their early 20s used to smartphone, xbox games, and d&d 5th ed who is thinking about getting into more involved tabletop systems even knows about the ETC, much less cares about how balanced the 2017 season is. I mean we care, we think it is cool... because it is. The thing is to keep the scene vibrant and even better, to grow the scene and share the awesome high levels of the hobby, it is most effective to work on content that gets new players involved and keeps them involved.
None of these things require printed rules. I think organized play in stores is more effective at attracting players. This is a smartphone generation, everyone knows how to get the newest ruleset in about 30 seconds. still, if physical product is important, why not use objects that facilitate playing the game? Number tracking dice/container as was proposed in other thread, measuring tools, background related books, or materials related to the yearly plot developments, maps tools to play campaigns, etc. These also have the advantage of getting nowhere near gw IP, a primary concern. Especially if you say, create a kind of die for a new magic mechanic.
Using these kind of things as opposed to printed rules also preserves one of the main advantages of a community driven non for profit game. The rules can always get better, don't have to be altered to help get product out, and can do so at whatever pace is practical for devs and does not interfere with player ability to use models. I think a lot of recent dissent comes from the fact that t9a is starting to act like a company, adopting blanket policies about rules and applying them unequivocally in a rush to finish the product and get it on the shelves.
Its just not necessary. There are safer things than rules to use as in store products, and more effective ways to persue new players anyways. I don't think grumbling about rules changes should be considered at all. There's a lot of room for improvement. getting new players is more important than keeping old players perfectly content. I'm fine with my sylvan elves being in a discombobulated state for several years if it means a better final version. and discontent peeps will probably return eventually because there is nothing else like this, with time its inevitably going to be the best ruleset of its kind. I also suspect that if you gave yourselves several years, things would never have to get so discombobulated because changes could be gradual.
I'm less cool with the game being rushed onto shelves in a business like manner that leaves many things out of whack, and lots of potential unfulfilled. I'm probably not willing to dedicate hundreds of hours working on such a venture even if i play it occasionally as something to do with friends.
The main problems are with the BRB imo. If those are fixed things are easier to balance (ex: disallow marching and shooting, maybe even marching and casting on standard mages, makes it much easier to balance skirmish shooters, fast cav, avoidance generally without needing to make units inherently weak, extremely expensive, or given bunches of special rules).
There's also fundamental inconsistencies in the ruleset: combat resolution being a practically binary result in a game who's primary advantage over more static systems like chess is breadth and specificity in options for force allocation. The inability of the die roll to represent the full range of stats is another big problem. Discrepancies in effectiveness of basic and elite units are greatly exaggerated with a die range smaller than stat range. Since both damage and effect on combat results are not equally fluid as choice of force allocation, you will then need all sorts of special rules for each army to keep units within effective ranges for doing damage or contributing to combat resolution etc. In the end avoiding these issues leaves the game with unnecessary rules, makes many things harder to balance, and limits range and maybe depth of gameplay even with extra rules.
Working through issues like these takes time and testing, and probably makes anyone concerned primarily with their standing in the next tournament rather aggravated. otoh it would make for a game with more depth and less clutter in the long run, which is also better for attracting new players. I mean, this is ostensibly what t9a offers over other systems. Its also probably fun to test these things out even when they aren't quite working yet. If players could adopt the mindset of playing as a means of helping create a better more accessible game they would be less inclined to give grief to the devs also.
*edit: this process also takes us further from possible IP problems
The post was edited 1 time, last by syntropic ().
Well Dwarf grumbling is like 80% of our forum traffic, we should do them last, just to keep our regular post counts up.
The post was edited 1 time, last by Emperor_Zoron: No cursing! ().
if this is truly a thread on how to convince doubters..that job would be much easier if the army's were balanced. as it is now I see no balance whatsoever. I play several armies (undead/skaven/chaos). There is no way the undead can match dark elves. Also another of my regular play team has wood elf's and the fact that they can only have 25% archers makes them a joke compared to other elves. The lists need to be balanced before you will attract new players, I would have thought a lot of players are old 8th edition players and are somewhat used to armies not being equal, having said that It was only some armies that were op in 8th. all it needed was skaven and bretonians brought up and high elves brought down to balance. 9th age just does not feel anywhere close to being balanced imho. I have since stopped trying to get new people involved as it is still a game very much influx, I will wait till the rules are a bit more settled and then see if the balance problem is still there, or have to house rule it to get a balanced game. That being said I would prefer a game that was slightly imbalanced where each army had a set feel to it than a completely balanced list where it doesn't matter what army you take as they all operate the same.
just my 2 pence worth.