Enough Self Entitlement

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.

  • oh nice, you gus already had 5-10 testgames with diffrent lists vs diffrent armies? thats great! tell us how you did come to your very solid opinion based on all these games!

    Oh you didnt? You just read your Armybooks and some of the new rules and feel like your army is worse than before? You dont like all the changes? Okay... then this is of course time to leave and hate the project! well based and profundtly argumented statements i read there!

    honestly? give it some time..., i dont like all the changes either, no reason to behave like a grade schooler! Its not like the game really changed, just the phenotyp is a little diffrent and you have to rethink some of the stuff. try not to let emotions dictate you!

    althou i have to agree, some staff members do not give the best of explanations, but on an international forum with a lot non native english people, this is just normal and some stuff simply shouldnt be taken to serious. by both sides ^^
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    DJWoodelf wrote:

    Just imagine GW wouldnt have stopped warhammer but released a 9th edition.

    Does ANYONE here believe that there would have been NO BIG changes!? :drunk:
    We will never know, but I am quite certain GW will certainly not backed down on special rules or unit options. ;) And I like special rules and unit / equipment options. I assume you also, atleast that's the impression when I saw your equipment rules!
    GW turned warhammer from a game into another way to sell miniatures whilst making you feel good about the game. When the game has to be changed and the unit made extra snazzy in order to fit a new miniature in (and I know this having been a play tester) you know they don't have the game at heart

    JeroBeam wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    Sure meant as rhetoric question. But when I compare 1.1 and 1.2, it now is in a worse state then before.I don't believe you want to destroy the game, but I belive you wanted too much at once, and maybe some things that weren't thought about
    Every little change was thought about, chewed over, rethought, rewrittten. Nothing was done off the hoof or a Friday afternoon job

    Remember, 1.2 was about not about balancing army books, it was about shoe horning them into the new rules developed in the core book.

    1.2 is not the end, just a stepping stone
    http://www.bugmansbrewery.com - The largest most informative Fantasy Dwarf website on the net, covering every dwarfers needs from forum to tactics, balls to ships!

    Advisory Board

    Head of Public Relations

    Bugmans Brewery Owner (Dwarven Holds)

  • Beardling wrote:

    oh nice, you gus already had 5-10 testgames with diffrent lists vs diffrent armies? thats great! tell us how you did come to your very solid opinion based on all these games!

    Oh you didnt? You just read your Armybooks and some of the new rules and feel like your army is worse than before? You dont like all the changes? Okay... then this is of course time to leave and hate the project! well based and profundtly argumented statements i read there!

    honestly? give it some time..., i dont like all the changes either, no reason to behave like a grade schooler! Its not like the game really changed, just the phenotyp is a little diffrent and you have to rethink some of the stuff. try not to let emotions dictate you!

    althou i have to agree, some staff members do not give the best of explanations, but on an international forum with a lot non native english people, this is just normal and some stuff simply shouldnt be taken to serious. by both sides ^^
    I don't need five or ten test games to tell that something is way less fluffy. In fact, I don't give a rat's behind about balance. Why would testing me more about how I dislike that assassin's can't hide? How would testing show me more about how we don't have a plague lore anymore, or ruin?
    Aspera tum positis mitescent saecula bellis;
    cana Fides, et Vesta, Remo cum fratre Quirinus,
    iura dabunt; dirae ferro et compagibus artis
    claudentur Belli portae; Furor impius intus,
    295saeva sedens super arma, et centum vinctus aenis
    post tergum nodis, fremet horridus ore cruento.”
  • Eldan wrote:


    I don't need five or ten test games to tell that something is way less fluffy. In fact, I don't give a rat's behind about balance. Why would testing me more about how I dislike that assassin's can't hide? How would testing show me more about how we don't have a plague lore anymore, or ruin?
    Can't hide is an odd one I will give you that

    Plague and ruin? No race has lore specific magic any more. Maybe a step away from the shadow cast by GW
    http://www.bugmansbrewery.com - The largest most informative Fantasy Dwarf website on the net, covering every dwarfers needs from forum to tactics, balls to ships!

    Advisory Board

    Head of Public Relations

    Bugmans Brewery Owner (Dwarven Holds)

  • Vazalaar wrote:

    DJWoodelf wrote:

    Just imagine GW wouldnt have stopped warhammer but released a 9th edition.

    Does ANYONE here believe that there would have been NO BIG changes!? :drunk:
    We will never know, but I am quite certain GW will certainly not backed down on special rules or unit options. ;) And I like special rules and unit / equipment options. I assume you also, atleast that's the impression when I saw your equipment rules!
    I you talk about my homebrew stuff:
    I don't think that is something for the standard ruleset, but something for an advanced ruleset. But before thinking about focussing on advanced stuff we need the beginners ruleset and maybe even the fixed standard ruleset V2.0.
    Nervertheless, I see a difference between visible options (e.g. equipment, formation) and invisible one that nobody can separate if you have several units.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • T9A gives the community an option, a choice.

    Yes, we maybe wrong in the direction the game is leading, and yes, it may also be the right direction. The truth is, there is no right or wrong choice. There is only choice.

    A player choosing this game over another or vice versa isn't a right or wrong choice. It's a person's decision. In comparison, the development team choosing to change the game the way they have as opposed to in another way, or not at all, is the development teams choice. Is it right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Its the choice made. Is the game one you will chose to play? Again, it is choice.

    Yes, feedback is vital. Yes it is important. But there is a line between feedback and expecting to get your way.
    As a business owner, it is essential to me to listen to the feedback from my staff and my customers. Whether good or bad. But it is my choice whether I chose to make changes based on them, and not the place of those giving feedback to expect that I have to.

    Similar concept. Although this game is for the community, it ISNT the community's. Its just driven by it.

    Although this game is inspired by many concepts and designs of another gaming system, it is not that gaming system. Version 1.0 was a PLASTER to an issue. Never a set thing, but a bridge to carry us over. Well now we are on the other side of that bridge, and I am sure there will be other bridges to come. But we chose to make the crossing over. regardless of what was on the other side. Is the grass greener? Well that is for every individual to decide for themselves.

    I used terms in my original post refering to "self-entitlement" and "throwing a tantrum". I used these terms in referal to the fact that it seems the moment anyone doesn't like something in these forums, they throw themselves to the keys and complain about it until they are black and blue in the face, expecting to get a positive result from it. Expecting to pack a tantrum and get a positive reaction from it, that is self entitlement. Not having patience when something changes, waiting to watch the dst settles and see the actual result of things, and expecting to get what you want all the time, that is self entitlement.

    Take a look around guys and gals, there's people complaining in every forum after this. The catch is, they have been finding things to complain about that they don't like from day one. That, is called toxicity.
    The Beast Herds have heard the Call. The Blood Hunt is coming to Play.
    Run and Hide, Run and Hide. For come the Break of Day,
    Blood will run as we catch our Prey.....

    anempirefallen.blogspot.com
    facebook.com/anempirefallen

    T9A Armies: Beast Herds, Empire of Sonnstahl, Warriors of the Dark Gods, Dread Elves, Orcs & Goblins
  • An Empire Fallen wrote:

    I used terms in my original post refering to "self-entitlement" and "throwing a tantrum". I used these terms in referal to the fact that it seems the moment anyone doesn't like something in these forums, they throw themselves to the keys and complain about it until they are black and blue in the face, expecting to get a positive result from it. Expecting to pack a tantrum and get a positive reaction from it, that is self entitlement. Not having patience when something changes, waiting to watch the dst settles and see the actual result of things, and expecting to get what you want all the time, that is self entitlement.

    Take a look around guys and gals, there's people complaining in every forum after this. The catch is, they have been finding things to complain about that they don't like from day one. That, is called toxicity.
    That is a bit overstated; there has been plenty of constructive criticism regarding 1.2. Painting with such a broad brush is not helpful.
    "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

    -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
  • Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.
    Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.
    Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.
    Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.
    Perhaps you don't understand, the people who play this game are clients to the game, the term doesn't strictly have to do with monetary exchange. The people playing this game are clients because they use the goods and services on offer here. Honestly your argument is purposely ignoring my point to be pedantic.

    As to your statement that the founding members started from scratch, that's a lie. They started with an existing rules set that they cleaned up (and in my opinion could have done a better job). And while the polls may have been respected, I don't believe they were understood, either that or they were poorly executed; simply the reaction of the client base/community to what was given to it, based on the polls that they took, should be truth enough. Simply put, armies which should be legal, aren't. Promises made about comp, unit limits, and available army styles were not kept. And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.

    I have no faith anymore.

    Queen of Pants


    To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

    facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/
  • If you lose your faith now, it means you might never had it ;)
    Still, noone is treating the community as clients. Whatever meaning you give to this word, it does not apply for this project.
    Also, let's keep it calm. You may disagree, I might make mistakes, but calling someone a liar is a good reason for things to get out of hand.
    I'm not offended at all, I'm saying this is a general guideline we should all keep here

    Army Design Team

    Rules Clarification

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Vulcan wrote:

    After all, the game IS based on GW's work.
    Can we please stop accusing the project of copyright infringement?
    T9A is not based on WHFB. It is inspired by WHFB. That's not just splitting hairs. That difference is the difference between doing something illegal and doing something acceptable and encouraged.
    Okay, I get it, in the strictly LEGAL sense, T9A is NOT 'based on' WFB even though it uses a lot of the same mechanics, because you've been rewriting all the fluff (the only part of WFB that is properly covered by copyright law). Roger, message received Dan, Gil, and the rest.

    Even though in the normal, non-legal sense you know, I know, and you'd better believe GW knows T9A is heavily 'inspired by' WFB. And because of that inspiration, T9A will be vulnerable as soon as ANYONE (not just the T9A writers) tries to make money printing books.

    Probably an outcome to be avoided, yes?

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    Deliberately? Of course not. It's just their vision of 'better' does not overlap with a hefty chunk of the vision of the fanbase.

    I'm not trying to be a jerk here, really I'm not. (Although I know I fail and wind up being one anyway far too often. It's a failing from having a volcanic temper... ;)) But there is a simple truth anyone trying to market a product - whether for profit or not - has to remember: if you alienate too many of your customers, you're out of business.

    One only has to look at the "New Coke" debacle to see that. In blind taste tests, more people actually preferred the taste of new Coke to original Coke. But when they went to market it failed horribly because it wasn't the same anymore. People bought Cokes because they tasted like Coke, a taste that took them back to fond memories of their past.

    Not dissimilar to the way WFB enjoyed their hobby in the past, yes?

    You can do all the market research you like, but if the customers reject your product when it hits the market because it's not what they wanted, you're in big trouble even if your new product is a genuine improvement over the old.
  • Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.
    Perhaps you don't understand, the people who play this game are clients to the game, the term doesn't strictly have to do with monetary exchange. The people playing this game are clients because they use the goods and services on offer here. Honestly your argument is purposely ignoring my point to be pedantic.
    As to your statement that the founding members started from scratch, that's a lie. They started with an existing rules set that they cleaned up (and in my opinion could have done a better job). And while the polls may have been respected, I don't believe they were understood, either that or they were poorly executed; simply the reaction of the client base/community to what was given to it, based on the polls that they took, should be truth enough. Simply put, armies which should be legal, aren't. Promises made about comp, unit limits, and available army styles were not kept. And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.

    I have no faith anymore.
    Since you have already made up your mind regardless of what any one says, maybe it's better if you log out and leave it be instead of continuing to spread negativity around.
    Rules Questions?

    ETC 2016 - Referee
    ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
    ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
    ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
  • An Empire Fallen wrote:

    T9A gives the community an option, a choice.

    Yes, we maybe wrong in the direction the game is leading, and yes, it may also be the right direction. The truth is, there is no right or wrong choice. There is only choice.

    A player choosing this game over another or vice versa isn't a right or wrong choice. It's a person's decision. In comparison, the development team choosing to change the game the way they have as opposed to in another way, or not at all, is the development teams choice. Is it right or wrong? It doesn't matter. Its the choice made. Is the game one you will chose to play? Again, it is choice.

    Yes, feedback is vital. Yes it is important. But there is a line between feedback and expecting to get your way.
    As a business owner, it is essential to me to listen to the feedback from my staff and my customers. Whether good or bad. But it is my choice whether I chose to make changes based on them, and not the place of those giving feedback to expect that I have to.

    Similar concept. Although this game is for the community, it ISNT the community's. Its just driven by it.

    Although this game is inspired by many concepts and designs of another gaming system, it is not that gaming system. Version 1.0 was a PLASTER to an issue. Never a set thing, but a bridge to carry us over. Well now we are on the other side of that bridge, and I am sure there will be other bridges to come. But we chose to make the crossing over. regardless of what was on the other side. Is the grass greener? Well that is for every individual to decide for themselves.

    I used terms in my original post refering to "self-entitlement" and "throwing a tantrum". I used these terms in referal to the fact that it seems the moment anyone doesn't like something in these forums, they throw themselves to the keys and complain about it until they are black and blue in the face, expecting to get a positive result from it. Expecting to pack a tantrum and get a positive reaction from it, that is self entitlement. Not having patience when something changes, waiting to watch the dst settles and see the actual result of things, and expecting to get what you want all the time, that is self entitlement.

    Take a look around guys and gals, there's people complaining in every forum after this. The catch is, they have been finding things to complain about that they don't like from day one. That, is called toxicity.
    Is being spectacularly condescending your hobby or are you a professional?
    Aspera tum positis mitescent saecula bellis;
    cana Fides, et Vesta, Remo cum fratre Quirinus,
    iura dabunt; dirae ferro et compagibus artis
    claudentur Belli portae; Furor impius intus,
    295saeva sedens super arma, et centum vinctus aenis
    post tergum nodis, fremet horridus ore cruento.”
  • i agree here, these wordings give completely false impression of what this project is and was all the time... I know lots of people are angry but pls think before you post. A lot of stuff is either wrong or is using the worng terms to express certain things. that will lead to missunderstandings and misinterpretation of what you want to tell. Especially regarding GW IP / warhammer and the whole customer or client thing. Everyone here is a Member of this community!
  • Taki wrote:

    And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.
    They have been looked at and thoroughly discussed. It was just decided that some of the conclusions need further consideration before implementations and we did not overwhelm the community in one go. :)

    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:
  • Lagerlof wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    Do you guys really think that the design team and the relevant boards try to destroy the game or make it worse than before?
    no I just don't think they understand their client base of its needs.
    The 9th age has no clients, and does not treat anyone like this.Besides, it does not work like this. Noone hired the 9th age staff with a specific order.Th 9th age founding members started this project from scratch, making clear its goals from the very first moment. In the process, the community has been an important part of this, and the poll results were respected.
    Perhaps you don't understand, the people who play this game are clients to the game, the term doesn't strictly have to do with monetary exchange. The people playing this game are clients because they use the goods and services on offer here. Honestly your argument is purposely ignoring my point to be pedantic.As to your statement that the founding members started from scratch, that's a lie. They started with an existing rules set that they cleaned up (and in my opinion could have done a better job). And while the polls may have been respected, I don't believe they were understood, either that or they were poorly executed; simply the reaction of the client base/community to what was given to it, based on the polls that they took, should be truth enough. Simply put, armies which should be legal, aren't. Promises made about comp, unit limits, and available army styles were not kept. And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.

    I have no faith anymore.
    Since you have already made up your mind regardless of what any one says, maybe it's better if you log out and leave it be instead of continuing to spread negativity around.
    Don't blame me when none of you ahve come up with a reasonable response. The reason I persist is ethics, I feel it's inappropriate not to say something

    Giladis wrote:

    Taki wrote:

    And finally, issues that have been needing redress since before this game existed (magic, S being too good, the various problems with weapons and armor, steadfast being too good, cavalry not working properly, huge charge ranges, etc I could go on and on) were not even looked at, let alone fixed.
    They have been looked at and thoroughly discussed. It was just decided that some of the conclusions need further consideration before implementations and we did not overwhelm the community in one go. :)
    Gil, I love you man, but every other place the rules team is saying core rules are done. I want to believe you, but I keep hearing otherwise. I want so bad to be wrong, but i don't really have faith.

    Queen of Pants


    To plagiarize Cato the Elder "And further WYSIWYG must be destroyed"

    facebook.com/FirebrandProductions/