If it ain't broke - don't fix it

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

Wondering how the new magic phase feels like? Try it yourself! The Behind The Scenes blog gives you enough to playtest it, including spells of four paths of magic, all hereditary spells and the Dwarven runes!

  • Monkey wrote:

    May I please ask and/or remind you of one thing: Back in WHFB-days there was the (probably) second-most important rule: If you ever feel something is totally out of place, go ahead and houserule it. Feel free to change things you absolutely dislike to make a better game.

    Why don't we role with this? I'm not saying every group should come up with their own version of the game, that's just plain bullstuff. But after a couple of games, if you feel something is broken, talk to your group and houserule it so everyone (or most everyone at least) can agree and roll with it. Several members of rules and balance and background team have stated that it is impossible to foresee every implication, every list, every possible outcome of rules clashing. Sure, maybe the changes are a bit too drastic alltogether. Maybe they work very well. If you feel bummed about something, houserule it and wait for the official releases and STAY TUNED and in contact with team-members so you can be heard.

    I know this is far from a perfect solution, but I just had the feeling that most people totally forgot about this opportunity. Nobody ever told me to strictly adhere to all the official rules under the threat of capital punishment. And I honestly don't believe this game is going down the drain. Quite the opposite actually, but it will probably take a lot of time to explore and get used to all the changes and find a way make it work.
    This concept is generally called Rule 0, I think.

    I imagine that the reason this isn't in the rulebook is so competitive players can't use it to their advantage. I've seen it done, many times.

    This isn't an issue for friendly games where generally people agree and get on with it and only invoke rule 0 where there is a genuine problem. But then in friendly games you can just play the way you want to when both players agree. There is no need to stick to the rules 100% if both of you are happy.

    For example, I play Monopoly (the board game) with 2 groups, my family and my girlfriends family. Both groups have different house rules which are not in the rulebook and change the game. E.g. No auctions, £400 instead of £200 for landing on Go, different rules for rent while in jail, etc. As far as I know rule 0 isn't stated in the Monopoly rulebook either. As of yet the Monopoly people haven't been around to either house to tell us off! :P

    This is not uncommon and I don't get why people wouldn't do this in a casual setting. There is nothing stopping you.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • There is, and probably always be, a split in the player base between casual and tournament play (and you can probably side random pick up game into this category too). The split comes from people enjoying different aspects of the game and thus giving priority to different changes.
    There is a lot of talk about balance and fun in the game. People want a balanced game, with enough diversity to make for a fun game. They want to see unique stuff, scenarios, rules for siege, etc. And that is good! It shows that there is interest in the project and there is enough support to make all the hard work people put in it worth it. Hell, I'd love to see different force organization charts for pure Orc & pure Goblin armies. Can I realistically expect it now? No.
    A game can certainly be fun without much balance. But I think that we can agree that the more balanced a game is, the more the fun you can get playing. You can have a battle or two which are fun and a few cool stuff happen, but how long before this gets boring? For how long will you keep investing 3 to 4 (or more) hours to set up a game that won't be all that different each time? Instead a balanced game can provide greater excitement since each battle will be won by the player who makes a better standing right then and there, who comes up with the better counter-strategies and manages unexpected situations and turns of events better.
    GW had left us with a very unbalanced game for so long (probably for ever!) that to make a balanced version of Warhammer is a real struggle and I now believe that to get there more than just a few tweaks here and there are needed. There were mechanics that were bad in the game and these needed to be fixed. Since a ruleset is a whole, these changes would probably result in even more, etc. We cannot really expect the problems to be fixed if we are not prepared for quite a lot of change.
    The thing is this. You can get fun out of anything. The greatest problem comes from balancing said anything. When I play really-really casually, with a friend that doesn't even know the rules and just enjoys pushing miniatures on the board, everything is fine really. The game is dice driven so some unexpected and cool stuff are bound to happen. A couple of beers, a pizza. Great! But when I play with my regular opponents, we take things (not a lot maybe!) but a bit more serious and we try to play a good game. As few mistakes as possible and weird things like that. That's is generally the nature of most pick up games and all tournament games. I guess that's quite a big percentage of the games played, so you can't really leave them out. And that's where you need balance. Without balance, it's just a mess.
    From what experience I have from different games, I think (and it seems logical) that the more choices there are, the more difficult balance is to be attained. We already have 16 armies. That is really a lot to work with in of itself! And each has quite a lot of choices too. There are not a lot that can be done for this, Yes, the game would balance more easily with with 5 armies, but then again we don't want that. The guys that work in the T9A project have already said that no model will be unusable. And that is the right decision. But then we, who are not logging the manhours, have to understand that there is a chance that some things (not models) may have to be refrained. I personally think that reducing the Paths to 10 is good. At least for a start. Maybe later more could appear, but let's agree to start somewhere.
    The same goes for some types of play out there. Gunlines and pure avoidance probable are a ***** to balance correctly (and thus to be fun to both play and play against). Along with other things of course, just giving a couple of examples there. I believe (and I think that this is a part of the thinking of the RT, don't know but think) that in order to make it to a better game, we'll have to go through some stages were a few things are taken out so that things can get balanced. After that, maybe some of the things that got away can return. Why wasn't this done from the beginning? Just guessing here, but the amount of work that needed to be done just for changing names, and giving a first playable version did not really leave much space for more. And let's remember (at least as far as I know), that the guys are not professional game developers, so... all the more praise to them.
    Some of the things in 1.2 I think are great, some are positive and some I think that may prove negative or even bad. Let's test and see. The guys have already said that they release this in order for it to be extensively playtested, more than they could ever do themselves. We don't spend the time they do in the project, let's at least give them this much. The hell, we'll just be playing! In the end, let's keep in mind that the decisions will be made by the people who invest so much time and effort. If one can do that, then why not. Else, he can't expect his opinion to have as much weight as someone's who is putting so much to this. Yes, this is a community project, but someone does have to make the calls. If we expect the whole of the community to agree on something, we might as well drop it. It'll never happen. So, please keep cool, try a bit. If you don't like it, state your opinion, clearly and calmly. If you don't even want to try at this stage, keep using the 1.1 and try it out when the game reaches a more stable state. And a game is always that. You can change it, take out things you don't like, put in things you like. Noone will tell you off for it. It is even encouraged.
    Long post is long. Back to the shadows.
  • Sir_Sully wrote:

    raumork wrote:

    Vulcan wrote:

    To be frank, the majority of my local meta is about to walk. And yeah, that's only 20ish players, but it sounds like we're not the only ones with this conflict going on.

    A big part of the problem isn't that the changes are coming too fast, but that such a major change has come SO LATE in the project... and the writers are telling us "This is where we were trying to go all along; this isn't going to be much like WFB when we're through'. This distresses us because we THOUGH we were signing on with a game that WOULD be like WFB. Just with the serial numbers filed off to avoid a lawsuit.
    Yea i thought it was going to be a way to continue playing the game we loved but not just that but a better version of it. More balanced, more fair, and why not, more units, more fluff, more fun.
    But this sounds like we "will delete tons of things and tons of fluff and we will give you a new fluff and game and you will love it because yes", the same that AoS did.

    Some people comes and says " you can always play 8th ed if you want it. Well, not 8th, but in my group playing 1.1 and forgeting about everything new is a strong idea. And they dont have any problem because they are having fun right now.
    The issue is that just "filing off the serial numbers" as you put it WON'T avoid a lawsuit. GW are the sort of company to sue to make a point even if know they'll lose.
    You guys need to understand how the legal system works. GW (probably) cannot win an IP lawsuit against v1.1 but they don't need to win to destroy the project. T9A cannot afford to fight a lawsuit, even if it is in the right. One way to win a court battle is to have a lot more money (you drag the case out and wait until your opponent runs out of money) and GW has a lot more money than us and their legal bills will be cheaper due to in house lawyers.

    If GW can convince a judge to hear the case (and not dismiss it out of hand) then T9A is finished. GW can (and will) string out the case and the legal bills will be far higher than we could afford (even collectively).

    This was all posted and explained somewhere else by someone on the legal team but I can't find it.....

    EDIT: I found it: Its in the Saucy Quill Inn thread. Start reading at the top of page 83.
    Yet the 8.1, 8.5, R&R, and 9th Edition Warhammer projects have not been sued, even though they are 100% based on and copied from WFB.

    And it's interesting that another lawyer (a player, not one of your legal team) was quite clear in another thread: the 1.0 version was PLENTY clear of copyright issues. If GW wants to sue you because your games is based on theirs (and face it, regardless of how much you change the game it IS based on theirs), they will do so regardless of how many changes you make.

    But legal action is not the only way to kill the game, I remind you. There's also alienating so much of the fanbase that no one plays it.
  • The trouble is, it was broke. From a "fair and balanced" perspective. Also, in some cases, from a quality perspective. Lots of spells, but few unique ones. Where they were unique, they were either too weak or too strong.

    Across the 1.1 lores, there were many similar spells. Open up the 1.1 Magic Lore file and check for yourself.
    Several -1 LD spells. Several spells to lower S or T. Several giving ward saves. Template "vortex" spells all being very similar, but testing on a different attribute. Several different movement spells that differed just slightly. etc.

    Heck, Zap! and Bolt of Darkness are the same! The exact same!!

    So losing such spells just loses the name. You can imagine that your DE is using an bolt of evil magic and your orc is using a burst of bad voodoo. What's stopping you? Bad imagination?

    Now, I feel the spell Lores are more unique and distinct. Less copy and paste or "+1 versions" of spells. Great improvement. Being upset over the loss of "Lore of Faction" is understandable, but there's nothing saying those might not return. Chances are though, they will just be copy and paste or "+1 versions" of other spells (because OP Lores like Forge should not come back as they were).

    TL;DR Give the game a try. You can still like potatoes. You can now also like tomatoes, or not, but try the tomatoes first.
  • Vulcan wrote:

    Yet the 8.1, 8.5, R&R, and 9th Edition Warhammer projects have not been sued, even though they are 100% based on and copied from WFB.

    And it's interesting that another lawyer (a player, not one of your legal team) was quite clear in another thread: the 1.0 version was PLENTY clear of copyright issues. If GW wants to sue you because your games is based on theirs (and face it, regardless of how much you change the game it IS based on theirs), they will do so regardless of how many changes you make.

    But legal action is not the only way to kill the game, I remind you. There's also alienating so much of the fanbase that no one plays it.


    Also do you hold it so much against us that we want to err on the safe side?

    The last thing I want to see is thousands of hours of work going down the drain because we missed something and a letter comes to shut us down because of it.


    Does anyone really want to risk that?

    Yes, it costs the community nothing to enjoy this game and we have no payment for our labours beyond the joy of seeing other people playing and enjoying it, but don't think just because it is non-profit and free it does not have value.

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    GILADIS GOES TO AMERICA - ARMY BLOG; ZAGREB GT 2018 - 3rd & 4th February - Singles Tournament
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    No, 9th Age is not based on GW's IP.
    He never said it was.
    Thanks :)

    It was late and I was answering another post where he did, so it just poured from one to another.


    Cheers

    Background Team

    Conceptual Design

    Rules Advisors

    GILADIS GOES TO AMERICA - ARMY BLOG; ZAGREB GT 2018 - 3rd & 4th February - Singles Tournament
  • Yaginaka wrote:

    A game can certainly be fun without much balance. But I think that we can agree that the more balanced a game is, the more the fun you can get playing. You can have a battle or two which are fun and a few cool stuff happen, but how long before this gets boring? For how long will you keep investing 3 to 4 (or more) hours to set up a game that won't be all that different each time? Instead a balanced game can provide greater excitement since each battle will be won by the player who makes a better standing right then and there, who comes up with the better counter-strategies and manages unexpected situations and turns of events better.
    I would take some issue with only one part of your overall post a few lines posts above.

    The assumed split that people tend to envision in their minds when thinking of tournament vs. casual play is that the first "wants to win" while the second "doesn't care who wins".

    This is one of the biggest problems with how the two are perceived.

    In a game that is less balanced, here's what happens: Our group is playing WH 8th Edition let's say. I'm Empire. My friend is Skaven. His army includes the Hellpit Abomination(a monster notoriously known for being way over-powered in the 8th Ed. Skaven army book, as is a great deal of that army book). In fact his Skaven list is one of those lists that in tournament circles people would say, "oh great, one of those lists"....

    .....HOWEVER....HERE at this point is where I think people miss the most important point of what "casual" gaming really is.

    As the Empire player, I know that he's got some things in his Skaven army that are ridiculously powerful. We are both trying to win the game. We are both experienced players. We both understand military strategy and basic military principles, in the most broadest sense of course. So we get how to think about different ways to win. BUT HERE IS THE main difference:

    We try to win "organically", NOT competitively. I realize that to many on these forums, that is going to get a big WTF are you talking about????? I get that. But hear me out.

    Winning organically means you move your army as you would if you were the general down on the battlefield, not as an omnipotent power with a god's-eye view of the battlefield. You play the game to win but from a roleplaying perspective, meaning that you maneuver to win but you do not have a battle fought over "mechanics". There is no conga, there is no ridiculous formation manipulation, there is no mechanical tactic of manipulation. The battle is fought as if you DON'T know everything about your opponent's list. The battle is fought as if you DON'T know the strengths and weaknesses of every unit in your opponent's army.

    I'm 100% serious. Competitive players might read this and kind of chuckle, but I am telling you that our "casual" group's games become very competitive at times. We want to win, make no mistake. But when that Hellpit Abomination with its ridiculous stats and insane special abilities attacks my Empire troops, my reaction to it isn't "ohhhhhh thanks GW for breaking our game, this thing is unfair to fight against". My reaction is, "well YEAH, it makes sense that it's so powerful!" - it's a HELLPIT ABOMINATION after all, a giant, mutated mass of flesh so terrifying and so horrific that its mere sight on the battlefield can make entire units be repelled and run away and vomit in revulsion to it. How can something so horrific and so powerful be presented on a battlefield in a way that's BALANCED? Doesn't make sense to try to balance it! It's not supposed to balanced! That's the whole point!

    MY JOB as a general in a "casual" game of WH or 9th Age is NOT to just give in to it and just go "oh well, I don't care if I win, but hey our models all look really cool, whatever!"....no....as a general in this game I must do my best to keep as much as I can away from the Abomination and somehow figure out a way to win the battle another way. But the OP stats of The Abomination isn't a game problem, it isn't a balance problem, it isn't a failure of balance on GW's part - rather what it is is a nasty monster that as a general of an Empire I have to deal with and somehow not let destroy my army. That's pretty much it!

    Now, all that being said - because our "casual" group of friends aren't hellbent on winning our get-togethers, you don't see the ridiculous and cheesy mechanics and tactics that you see when you are playing more aggressively competitive people. That's because we play it with a realism-based mind, not a mechanics-exploit based mind.

    And I am telling you and everyone in this community, that playing WH and 9th Age this way DOES WORK. The games are amazing actually. But you have to think outside yourself to some extent, and you have to play the game outside yourself to some extent, if that makes sense.
    There are many magic rings in the world Bilbo Baggins, and none of them should be used lightly!

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

  • Baranovich wrote:

    Yaginaka wrote:

    A game can certainly be fun without much balance. But I think that we can agree that the more balanced a game is, the more the fun you can get playing. You can have a battle or two which are fun and a few cool stuff happen, but how long before this gets boring? For how long will you keep investing 3 to 4 (or more) hours to set up a game that won't be all that different each time? Instead a balanced game can provide greater excitement since each battle will be won by the player who makes a better standing right then and there, who comes up with the better counter-strategies and manages unexpected situations and turns of events better.
    I would take some issue with only one part of your overall post a few lines posts above.
    The assumed split that people tend to envision in their minds when thinking of tournament vs. casual play is that the first "wants to win" while the second "doesn't care who wins".

    This is one of the biggest problems with how the two are perceived.

    In a game that is less balanced, here's what happens: Our group is playing WH 8th Edition let's say. I'm Empire. My friend is Skaven. His army includes the Hellpit Abomination(a monster notoriously known for being way over-powered in the 8th Ed. Skaven army book, as is a great deal of that army book). In fact his Skaven list is one of those lists that in tournament circles people would say, "oh great, one of those lists"....

    .....HOWEVER....HERE at this point is where I think people miss the most important point of what "casual" gaming really is.

    As the Empire player, I know that he's got some things in his Skaven army that are ridiculously powerful. We are both trying to win the game. We are both experienced players. We both understand military strategy and basic military principles, in the most broadest sense of course. So we get how to think about different ways to win. BUT HERE IS THE main difference:

    We try to win "organically", NOT competitively. I realize that to many on these forums, that is going to get a big WTF are you talking about????? I get that. But hear me out.

    Winning organically means you move your army as you would if you were the general down on the battlefield, not as an omnipotent power with a god's-eye view of the battlefield. You play the game to win but from a roleplaying perspective, meaning that you maneuver to win but you do not have a battle fought over "mechanics". There is no conga, there is no ridiculous formation manipulation, there is no mechanical tactic of manipulation. The battle is fought as if you DON'T know everything about your opponent's list. The battle is fought as if you DON'T know the strengths and weaknesses of every unit in your opponent's army.

    I'm 100% serious. Competitive players might read this and kind of chuckle, but I am telling you that our "casual" group's games become very competitive at times. We want to win, make no mistake. But when that Hellpit Abomination with its ridiculous stats and insane special abilities attacks my Empire troops, my reaction to it isn't "ohhhhhh thanks GW for breaking our game, this thing is unfair to fight against". My reaction is, "well YEAH, it makes sense that it's so powerful - it's a HELLPIT ABOMINATION after all, a mutated mass of flesh so terrifying and so horrific that its mere sight on the battlefield can make entire units be repelled and vomit in revulsion to it.

    MY JOB as a general in a "casual" game of WH or 9th Age is NOT to just give in to it and just go "oh well, I don't care if I win, but hey our models all look really cool, whatever!"....no....as a general in this game I must do my best to keep as much as I can away from the Abomination and somehow figure out a way to win the battle another way. But the OP stats of The Abomination isn't a game problem, it isn't a balance problem, it isn't a failure of balance on GW's part - rather what it is is a nasty monster that as a general of an Empire I have to deal with and somehow not let destroy my army. That's pretty much it!

    Now, all that being said - because our "casual" group of friends aren't hellbent on winning our get-togethers, you don't see the ridiculous and cheesy mechanics and tactics that you see when you are playing more aggressively competitive people. That's because we play it with a realism-based mind, not a mechanics-exploit based mind.

    And I am telling you and everyone in this community, that playing WH and 9th Age this way DOES WORK. The games are amazing actually. But you have to think outside yourself to some extent, and you have to play the game outside yourself to some extent, if that makes sense.
    I totally agree with that. Especially the "casual doesn't mean not caring who wins" part. However, not exploiting the mechanics doesn't make them disappear. The entire game is still driven by the core mechanincs, which provide the basis for individual "power level", if you wnat to call it so. And here balance comes into play. We need some degree of balance to level the starting ground to AT LEAST "Wow, that's going to be rough, but I can still pull this off!" I am a casual player myself.

    The fact that multiple factors come into play makes the difference here: not only the terrifying big strong monster that you have to deal with somehow (and be it avoiding), but also luck. You can't control your dice-rolls. You can't control your opponents choices. And you can only control your opponents movement to a certain degree. So if the initial impression is "Well, I can only survive this if all the dice rolls go my way" (which was often the case in your specific example), then that is a serious issue that must be adressed.
    In fact, almost every batrep I see (mostly OB360 and LT) include an element of "I have no idea how to deal with this thing. Let's see what I might do here to get away with a bloody nose at worst". And while this is fun and even a fundamental part of the game, it shouldn't be ALWAYS the case. Most lists I have played against and some I have played myself included such choices, but to a very harsh degree. how are Daemons supposed to win a game against an HE-list with 40% of points in a quite mobile unit they can't hurt?

    If I totally missed your point here and you have no clue of what I'm talking about, I'm sorry. Please enlighten me :D
    "There is no escape. No hope. Only hunger and pain." - Marlow
  • Baranovich wrote:

    And I am telling you and everyone in this community, that playing WH and 9th Age this way DOES WORK. The games are amazing actually. But you have to think outside yourself to some extent, and you have to play the game outside yourself to some extent, if that makes sense.
    ^ Certainly, building a narrative around a battle is awesome! Not playing as "the player" trying to win, but as "the militia men" trying to save their lands or whatever is great! Maybe you win, maybe you don't, but you're going to give it your all to keep the foulspawn at bay.

    Rather than have elements of some books under-costed against how they perform though, it is better to have everything at a fair cost - making all choices appealing and viable, and allowing for any number of combinations. Under such conditions, you might have sufficient ways to counter the Abomination, but your opponent might not bring it because they have other good choices. Then, your soldiers are left wondering how to deal with those other threats.
  • Casual certainly doesn't mean that you don't care to win. Hell, I always try to put in a good showing and win if I can.
    The real difference is that a casual game means that you can generally have a talk sit-down with your opponent and work so that the game is more enjoyable. Examples are deciding to both use experimental lists or both use competitive lists. In a tournament you get whatever hand was dealt to you and you can't really argue because your opponent was overly serious in his list building. That's what you signed for. You can always just decide to enter a tourney with any list (60% core, etc), and can even draw against a person who does the exact thing, but this is far from usual. In tournaments you can safely say that you'll see the best people can do with their book. That means that if the books are nicely balanced one to another, you still have your fair chances in the battle. Whoever performs better wins (dice included in performance!). If the game is not balanced, then there is a real limit to how many rabbits you can pull off your hat. If you face an opponent similarly skilled as you, you'll probably get wiped on the floor if your book has a severe power disadvantage.
    The difference of casual games is that you can make some sort of talk with your opponent in order to make things kind of right. In competitive play you are defenseless. That's why balance is essential.