Not Warhammer?

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.

  • @JimMorr how would that work with shooting modifiers for movement? Would the movement modifiers just be deleted? Would we have to keep track of whether the unit moved in the previous turn?

    Also if the opponent gets to react to a shooting units move before the unit gets to fire, it might be pretty hard to line up shoots. Especially against fast units. For example, i move my crossbowmen into a favorable position to fire upon an enemy unit at the beginning of my next turn. The enemy unit gets a chance to try to move out of my firing arc before i get to fire. Trying to shoot fast cavalry could be very difficult.
  • @Korvain - that are minor details. If the whole movement phase was delayed you could keep track who shot without modifiers to prevent such unit from moving. Just like you keep track now who moved to calculate modifiers. Such game designs tend however to force players to play passive: you have to move your archers into opponents range and get shots. Which may be close to real life but may badly affect game with just six turns: everyone will 'camp' until very last turn.

    Maybe better solution and quite unique one was making the random part of charge move at the beginning of combat phase. You can keep all shooting modifiers and get shooting before the charge. Seems a minor change but changes whole game design. You need core as backbone of your army which enemy hardhitters cannot break without magic/shooting support. You need monsters or light cavalry to deal with enemy supporting units. You need your own hardhitters and shooters/magic to break enemy core...
    Homebrew: Hetmanate of Ukray_____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!
  • JimMorr wrote:

    @Korvain - that are minor details. If the whole movement phase was delayed you could keep track who shot without modifiers to prevent such unit from moving. Just like you keep track now who moved to calculate modifiers. Such game designs tend however to force players to play passive: you have to move your archers into opponents range and get shots. Which may be close to real life but may badly affect game with just six turns: everyone will 'camp' until very last turn.

    Maybe better solution and quite unique one was making the random part of charge move at the beginning of combat phase. You can keep all shooting modifiers and get shooting before the charge. Seems a minor change but changes whole game design. You need core as backbone of your army which enemy hardhitters cannot break without magic/shooting support. You need monsters or light cavalry to deal with enemy supporting units. You need your own hardhitters and shooters/magic to break enemy core...
    im not sure id be willing to endorse the idea in the first paragraph. Having moved a unit is represented on the battlefield, obviously as the unit is in a new position. So its easy to recall what shooting unit moved when you get into the shooting phase. Taking a penalty to fire in an earlier phase so you can move in a later phase would not be represented on the table. I can easily see myself forgetting what units i took a penalty with to be able to move later and i can see opponents, claiming, "wait, you didnt take a penalty with those guys when you shot. They can't move." So i feel that could be rather klunky.

    The second part is interesting. I'd be interested to see you flesh it out more.
  • HJFudge wrote:

    My only take away from reading this entire thread:

    Whats with all the hate on D&D 4th edition? It's my favorite edition of D&D! Though to be honest my favorite tabletop RPG is 13th age, but I find them to be quite similar where it counts.
    The D&D4E hate comes from a very basic place: It no longer played like D&D compared to even 3E, much less previous editions.

    It was a classic example of too much change, far too quickly. Had they released the exact same game as "Dungeon Adventure Game" (or some better name created by an actual professional) it would have done better. Trying to tie it to D&D when it clearly WASN'T D&D doomed it to fail.

    9th Age could easily fall into the same trap, moving too far off the expectations of the majority of its player base. It could be a really great game, far better than WFB, but if it no longer appeals to WFB fans its tie-ins TO WFB - and reliance on the WFB fan base - will boomerang against it.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    HJFudge wrote:

    My only take away from reading this entire thread:

    Whats with all the hate on D&D 4th edition? It's my favorite edition of D&D! Though to be honest my favorite tabletop RPG is 13th age, but I find them to be quite similar where it counts.
    The D&D4E hate comes from a very basic place: It no longer played like D&D compared to even 3E, much less previous editions.
    It was a classic example of too much change, far too quickly. Had they released the exact same game as "Dungeon Adventure Game" (or something created by an actual professional) it would have done better. Trying to tie it to D&D when it clearly WASN'T D&D doomed it to fail.
    Did...did it fail though? I honestly dont know. Im looking at like 10 D&D 4th edition books on my shelf. Also all the DnD miniatures I bought so I could play and look cool on the grid mat I also bought. It also was one of my longest running campaigns (2 and a half years) that I eventually had to split into two groups of 7 players each cause there was too much interest. But thats Anecdotal Evidence I guess.

    And again, it played exactly like DnD did before except I had a grid and minis (but that may also have been cause I was a grown up and could afford such tools, in comparison to my days playing 2e and 3e with my buddies at my moms house)

    Conceptual Design Team

  • It failed the test of sales and longevity, which is why the 4->5E transition (6 years) happened faster than the 1->2E (after 15 years), 2->3E (11 years, and 3->4E (8 years) transitions did. It's telling that Pathfinder matched D&D 4E's sales figures pretty darn well (judging by a lack of hard data, but lots of 'soft' claims by various sales agencies that one outsold the other being evenly matched), effectively extending 3E's reign through the entire 4E era and now into the 5E era (15 years and still going strong).

    It's also worth noting that until Pathfinder, D&D had no serious competition in the Fantasy RPG genre. Their closest competitor was WFRPG... and it wasn't all that close.

    Although to be fair, the 1->2E transition came about only because of Gygax's divorce where his wife somehow got the rights to 1E; and the 2-3E transition was primarily due to the purchase of TSR by WOTC. The 4E transition was Hasbro sticking their finger into the pot... only it turned into a fist (use your imagination).

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Vulcan ().

  • Vulcan wrote:

    It failed the test of sales and longevity, which is why the 4->5E transition (6 years) happened faster than the 1->2E (after 15 years), 2->3E (11 years, and 3->4E (8 years) transitions did.

    Although to be fair, the 1->2E transition came about only because of Gygax's divorce where his wife somehow got the rights to 1E; and the 2-3E transition was primarily due to the purchase of TSR by WOTC. The 4E transition was Hasbro sticking their finger into the pot... only it turned into a fist.
    Maybe so.

    I still liked it better than I did 3e and better than 5e. But tastes may vary!

    Conceptual Design Team

  • HJFudge wrote:

    Vulcan wrote:

    HJFudge wrote:

    My only take away from reading this entire thread:

    Whats with all the hate on D&D 4th edition? It's my favorite edition of D&D! Though to be honest my favorite tabletop RPG is 13th age, but I find them to be quite similar where it counts.
    The D&D4E hate comes from a very basic place: It no longer played like D&D compared to even 3E, much less previous editions.It was a classic example of too much change, far too quickly. Had they released the exact same game as "Dungeon Adventure Game" (or something created by an actual professional) it would have done better. Trying to tie it to D&D when it clearly WASN'T D&D doomed it to fail.
    Did...did it fail though? I honestly dont know. Im looking at like 10 D&D 4th edition books on my shelf. Also all the DnD miniatures I bought so I could play and look cool on the grid mat I also bought. It also was one of my longest running campaigns (2 and a half years) that I eventually had to split into two groups of 7 players each cause there was too much interest. But thats Anecdotal Evidence I guess.
    And again, it played exactly like DnD did before except I had a grid and minis (but that may also have been cause I was a grown up and could afford such tools, in comparison to my days playing 2e and 3e with my buddies at my moms house)
    Well, i can equally well look at the full 1st ed. AD+D collection on my shelf, the substantial 2nd edition 'additions' to that (1st and 2nd were close enough that you could use material with minimal adaptations across them), and the 40+ 3rd edition books on shelves below those. Then there's the lonely 4th edition PHB with no other materials. Also anecdotal, but i bet that represents a lot more longtime players than not.

    Or you could look to the way the editions were received and WotC's corporate actions. 3rd edition was the best selling RPG ever. 4th edition prompted WotC to re-release 1st edition modules for an 'old D+D' movement that was returning to 1st and 2nd edition instead of adopting the new edition, and prompted the creation of Pathfinder to continue the 3e legacy. (Pathfinder outsold 4th, according to a number of industry watchers). Then 5th edition made a very powerful attempt to reconnect with older edition players and 'go back to its roots'. (And 5th ate into Paizo's market share as it brought players back in).

    Based on all that, I'd say WotC thinks 4th edition failed and surrendered their dominance of the hobby.

    see:
    thealexandrian.net/wordpress/2…inder-vs-4th-edition-grrr
    icv2.com/articles/games/view/18504/top-5-rpgs-q3-2010

    (The second is only two years after the launch of 4th - Paizo went from almost nothing to equalling behemoth WotC in sales in just 2 years.)

    It's of course hard to know for sure, because WotC doesn't release sales figures, but industry watchers think 4th edition got only a couple years in before starting to tank, and Paizo quickly captured much of the 3e player market, and started outperforming it in sales by 2011. Current guesses think 5th edition and Pathfinder are either near equal in sales, or 5th edition has pulled ahead, but its hard to tell because Paizo has an active .pdf market and WotC dislikes .pdf sourcebooks - LGS data thus suggests 5th edition has pulled ahead (more physical product sales), but that doesn't measure the internet market.

    edit:
    2013: 4th edition falls behind Pathfinder and FFG's Star Wars RPG
    greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/…ehind-pathfinder-and.html
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Squirrelloid ().

  • Vulcan wrote:

    It failed the test of sales and longevity, which is why the 4->5E transition (6 years) happened faster than the 1->2E (after 15 years), 2->3E (11 years, and 3->4E (8 years) transitions did.

    Although to be fair, the 1->2E transition came about only because of Gygax's divorce where his wife somehow got the rights to 1E; and the 2-3E transition was primarily due to the purchase of TSR by WOTC. The 4E transition was Hasbro sticking their finger into the pot... only it turned into a fist.
    In fairness, 2nd edition was failing and running out of steam, which led directly to the WotC acquisition and 2nd->3e transition. Pathfinder proves 3e still had life in it if you were willing to do another revision (many people call it 3.75), as its still going strong, and even absent that it probably could have made it another year or two.

    The problem from a business standpoint is that it doesn't matter how good the system is, you have to get people to buy new books to keep the business going. So even great systems need to have their production life cycle brought to an end after the market is exhausted.

    That said, my impression of 4e is it only had 3-4 years of viable shelf life, with the last few years being a desperate attempt to revive a dying game. It was not a good system, and players abandoned it in droves.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • HJFudge wrote:

    Vulcan wrote:

    It failed the test of sales and longevity, which is why the 4->5E transition (6 years) happened faster than the 1->2E (after 15 years), 2->3E (11 years, and 3->4E (8 years) transitions did.

    Although to be fair, the 1->2E transition came about only because of Gygax's divorce where his wife somehow got the rights to 1E; and the 2-3E transition was primarily due to the purchase of TSR by WOTC. The 4E transition was Hasbro sticking their finger into the pot... only it turned into a fist.
    Maybe so.
    I still liked it better than I did 3e and better than 5e. But tastes may vary!
    You guys all jumped on my post while I was editing it... I need to type faster! :oops:

    Now THIS point I'll never argue, HJFudge. To each their own. The very things I like best about 3.x may be what you hate, and vice versa. That doesn't make either of them bad per se, just different.
  • Digger614 wrote:

    Well, should this thread be renamed "D&D through the Ages"? I'm not sure what we are doing here any more. @ferny can figure it out. This thread seems to have run it's course.
    Wut, me? I'd better get reading then!

    Edit: I played DnD 3 and 3.5. I think that might be the first time I've told the internet I'm into roleplay - now look what you made me do @Digger614 ;)
    Join us on Ulthuan.net