Enough Self Entitlement

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

Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!

  • An Empire Fallen wrote:

    galadros wrote:

    All of my thumbs are up for this post, @An Empire Fallen.
    Thanks @galadros, I am glad there is one person on the forums I didn't p!ss off :D
    I pre-emptively shared your original post on a facebook group that we use for our local 9th Agers, just in case some of them were going to react poorly to V1.2. With respect to all the other play groups out there, I am very pleased to say that my group is level-headed enough that this didn't phase them. Most reaction to your words were, "Yeah, of course!" Shortly followed by a chorus of "Why would anyone criticize a rule change without even having the chance to try it?" As such, we allow ourselves the opportunity to explore these changed without much jaded bias.
  • If people doesnt like 1.2 i think the best would be if the write one well articulated post about what the problem is and then leave the forum or at least don't repeat it forever.


    I know many people are upset but the vast majority of negative posts are coming from the same ca 10 people, posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.

    Very annoying to read. :(
  • Davian wrote:

    I know many people are upset but the vast majority of negative posts are coming from the same ca 10 people, posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.
    Are you sure about that? Seems to me like this is the biggest outcry any release has ever gotten, it's not just contained in the respective sub forums but literally all over.

    I don't know what to think about 1.2 yet as I haven't had time to play it and judging from the comments that is a requirement.
    However, I don't like the direction this update is taking.

    Personally I feel like every release is a step in the wrong direction, and I was hoping that this would be the turning point.
    I don't feel betrayed or entitled to anything, I'm just disappointed that T9A (which has to be the most promising of all the alternatives that came out of the end days) isn't taking the direction I wish it would. And yes, this is personal, not much anyone can do about that but me.
    Still think that many of the posts about 1.2 might stem a lot more from disappointment than entitlement and that can be hard to tell for the person writing it, even more so for someone reading it.

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Still have some faith and will wait for the next major release to see what direction it's taking but I have to say that I'm running kinda low on hope atm.
  • qew wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    I know many people are upset but the vast majority of negative posts are coming from the same ca 10 people, posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.
    Are you sure about that? Seems to me like this is the biggest outcry any release has ever gotten, it's not just contained in the respective sub forums but literally all over.
    I don't know what to think about 1.2 yet as I haven't had time to play it and judging from the comments that is a requirement.
    However, I don't like the direction this update is taking.

    Personally I feel like every release is a step in the wrong direction, and I was hoping that this would be the turning point.
    I don't feel betrayed or entitled to anything, I'm just disappointed that T9A (which has to be the most promising of all the alternatives that came out of the end days) isn't taking the direction I wish it would. And yes, this is personal, not much anyone can do about that but me.
    Still think that many of the posts about 1.2 might stem a lot more from disappointment than entitlement and that can be hard to tell for the person writing it, even more so for someone reading it.

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Still have some faith and will wait for the next major release to see what direction it's taking but I have to say that I'm running kinda low on hope atm.
    The bolded part is so true! I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells and etc.., but than again balance is never been so important for me.
  • qew wrote:

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Oh come on guys! @Vazalaar seriously?? You really and honestly believe that T9A wants to be anything like AoS?? Either you haven't been reading the posts about the direction of the game, or you're being hyperbolic.

    If you missed it, there is a discussion of the direction of the game here where @fjugin gave some very good information about where the game is going in the next year:

    Initial Impressions of 1.2

    But I know that you have seen this thread @Vazalaar because you have been posting in it. So your comment about the "bolded part is so true!" is just silly. I know balance is not that high on your list of important things; ok, that's fine as everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    But how in the world do you think that our 117 page rule book for 1.2 (compared to the 4 page AoS rule book) is "looking like AoS all over again"?

    If your complaint is limited to: "I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells", then this complaint has been addressed in the post linked above. We haven't finished the individual army books yet. We are working on them, but we need the time to do it properly.

    Assist. Head of Legal Team

  • Digger614 wrote:

    qew wrote:

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Oh come on guys! @Vazalaar seriously?? You really and honestly believe that T9A wants to be anything like AoS?? Either you haven't been reading the posts about the direction of the game, or you're being hyperbolic.
    He's not saying it's like AoS in the rules or anything. What he's saying is, that AoS had different ideas of what the game would look like than him, and this has different ideas what the game should look like than him, so they share that in common.

    Which is a fair point.
    we are small but we are many
    we are many we are small
    we were here before you rose
    we will be here when you fall

    we have eyes and we have nerveses
    We have tails we have teeth
    You will get what you deserveses
    When we rise from underneath
  • @Digger614 I think you interpreted it wrongly. I am not comparing it with the game AoS, but I am talking about the feeling like @qew said when you realize that how you would like the game to evolve is different than the people that are making the game. That feeling is the same as I had with AoS. GW thought that it was the right way for Warhammer and now you and other 9th Age team members think the way of 1.2 is the right way. To me it is not. I can't understand that losing flavourful rules as Hidden, merging unit options, removing specific army lores are for the better. To me it just seems streamlining for the greater good of tournament games for which I couldn't care less.

    That's what I meant with
    "The bolded part is so true! I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells and etc.., but than again balance is never been so important for me."

    Edit: Exactly @Eldan!
  • Eldan wrote:

    Digger614 wrote:

    qew wrote:

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Oh come on guys! @Vazalaar seriously?? You really and honestly believe that T9A wants to be anything like AoS?? Either you haven't been reading the posts about the direction of the game, or you're being hyperbolic.
    He's not saying it's like AoS in the rules or anything. What he's saying is, that AoS had different ideas of what the game would look like than him, and this has different ideas what the game should look like than him, so they share that in common.
    Which is a fair point.
    No he's definitely saying T9A is exactly the same as AoS.
    You have to read between the lines to get what he's actually saying.

    Digger is head of legal, I think he knows how to read.
    Clearly it's you who aren't head of legal or even a staff member that failed to understand.

    Remember folks, this is the internet and anything you say can and will be taken out of context, misread and taken as offensive for no reason at all.
    Also apologies for all the swearing in the above sentences, I didn't actually write any but its easy to misread and see lots of it.
    The comment about your mother stands of course, since it's true.

    1.2 rocks and is amazing!
  • Davian wrote:

    If people doesnt like 1.2 i think the best would be if the write one well articulated post about what the problem is and then leave the forum or at least don't repeat it forever.

    I know many people are upset but the vast majority of negative posts are coming from the same ca 10 people, posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.

    Very annoying to read. :(

    Then don't read them anymore... we can't please everyone :)
    " Des chercheurs qui cherchent, on en trouve. Des chercheurs qui trouvent, on en cherche " Charles de Gaulle
    " Si l'on bâtissait la maison du bonheur, la plus grande pièce en serait la salle d'attente " Jules Renard
    " Plus j'aime l'humanité en général, moins j'aime les gens en particulier " Fedor Dostoïevski
    " Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    @Digger614 I think you interpreted it wrongly. I am not comparing it with the game AoS, but I am talking about the feeling like @qew said when you realize that how you would like the game to evolve is different than the people that are making the game. That feeling is the same as I had with AoS. GW thought that it was the right way for Warhammer and now you and other 9th Age team members think the way of 1.2 is the right way. To me it is not. I can't understand that losing flavourful rules as Hidden, merging unit options, removing specific army lores are for the better. To me it just seems streamlining for the greater good of tournament games for which I couldn't care less.

    That's what I meant with
    "The bolded part is so true! I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells and etc.., but than again balance is never been so important for me."

    Edit: Exactly @Eldan!
    Yeah, I don't think any of us would be here if this rule-set was actually anything like AoS ;)
  • AoS started as a fun, fast, simple, non competitive game. Now it has included rules for competitive and narrative battles(and they're very interesting btw).
    I don't see the slightest similarity with T9A.
    And in all honesty, I like both, for various reasons.

    Army Design Team

    Rules Team Support

    Lexicon Team

    Oceanborn

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    AoS started as a fun, fast, simple, non competitive game. Now it has included rules for competitive and narrative battles(and they're very interesting btw).
    I don't see the slightest similarity with T9A.
    And in all honesty, I like both, for various reasons.
    Indeed, I never implied I was talking about the rules. It was about the feeling when AoS hit and you realized.. hmm that was not what I expected to be the follow up of 8th Edition.

    Ofcourse it's not the same as 1.1 going to 1.2, but the direction chosen is now clear with 1.2 is andfor me it is a step backwards because of the reasons I described in post 85 and 87.

    Abou AoS, I think our group will eventually try it out, but only when we see a new faction that we want to collect and play... . (The Sylvaneth and Ironjawz came close).
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    @Digger614 I think you interpreted it wrongly. I am not comparing it with the game AoS, but I am talking about the feeling like @qew said when you realize that how you would like the game to evolve is different than the people that are making the game. That feeling is the same as I had with AoS. GW thought that it was the right way for Warhammer and now you and other 9th Age team members think the way of 1.2 is the right way. To me it is not. I can't understand that losing flavourful rules as Hidden, merging unit options, removing specific army lores are for the better. To me it just seems streamlining for the greater good of tournament games for which I couldn't care less.
    OK, let's take these in turn. You are not saying we are like AoS, but using the analogy that we "are looking like AoS all over again", to make your point that T9A is headed in a direction you don't want. But really, the analogy is extreme 8Ed ----> AoS is like 1.1 ----> 1.2. :rolleyes:

    But lets move on, your statement, "now you and other 9th Age team members think the way of 1.2 is the right way." I've said it before, I don't write rules, I'm not involved in the rules writing process. So, your statement about my personal opinion is inaccurate (in fact, I make reference to the "hidden" rule myself in that link I posted ...). There are things I'm not happy about with 1.2, but the necessity to change from 1.1 was necessary.

    I did specifically contemplate that you understood the above and your issue was exactly what you said, "I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells." That is why I put in link that addressed that issue (copied for you here).

    digger614 wrote:

    Well, there does seem to be lots of discussions going on. I would like to comment on @fjugins post at #1,072. If you guys are not listening (or are not paying careful attention) please read his post again as it provides some very useful insight into where the game is going in the next year(s). Seriously, read it carefully as there is some good stuff in there. Now, onto the general comments:

    1.2 was all about resetting the starting point of the BRB. The army books are currently ... bland (that's a nice way to describe them). The current state of the game has some (many?) frustrated. Think about the hours of time that was poured into 0.?? versions to finally arrive at 1.0 and then 1.1. This has some saying "forget it; I'm not doing that again." I can totally appreciate that. I'm not a tournament player. I like fluffy games. I can't keep up with the changes myself and it's a pain in the a$$ to learn new rules or to lose really cool rules IMO like hidden. HOWEVER, read @fjugin post again and you will get the answers about why and where. Why were the BRB and paths of magic documents "simplified"? Complexity. There is a set level of complexity that the game will have. Now some will argue that the game should become more and more and more complex. That is their opinion and they are entitled to it. However, most people really liked the level of complexity that was contained in 1.1. So, in anticipation of the INCREASING of the complexity and fluffiness and character and uniqueness of the army books, some of the complexity was removed from the BRB and paths of magic. This will not result in an overall decrease in complexity, it will result in a shift in where the complexity resides (e.g., from the BRB and paths of magic to the individual army books). This decision was taken because the community wanted more character and flavor for the individual armies (BTW I strongly support more flavor for each army).

    So, this currently leaves us with a REDUCED complexity for the game currently until the individual army books can be redone. WDG army book is currently being rewritten right now. It will add complexity back into the game bringing it substantially back to 1.1 (or so; maybe more, IDK).

    The changes to 1.2 were necessary for the reasons stated in my news post. The upper management felt very bad that this would put a burden on the community to learn new rules. But this was not a decision taken lightly. It really was taken as a necessity to ensure that we would continue to be here for years to come. Make no mistake that the ExB wants stability and we are working as hard as we can right now to achieve that. 1.2 is the basis for long term stability. There may be additional changes in the BRB in the coming months as I've said I don't write the rules, in fact, I only go to those thread when summoned to answer specific questions - actually I think the rules actually cringe when they see me post because it always means more work for them ... I'm digressing here, anyway IDK what is happening in the coming months. But if there are additional changes, they are made with the rewrite of the army books specifically in mind. We don't want a stripped down version of the game. So, please don't think that is what is coming.

    Oh and yes, KoE is in sore need of rewriting. Believe me, we all know that. I think that army book is going to need some very, very special attention and love. It will be one of the more difficult army books to get right. But we certainly will give it as much time and resources as it deserves to be a truly fantastic book.
    But I believe you know all this already, so I don't understand the point of your posts now.

    Assist. Head of Legal Team

  • Vazalaar wrote:

    qew wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    I know many people are upset but the vast majority of negative posts are coming from the same ca 10 people, posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.
    Are you sure about that? Seems to me like this is the biggest outcry any release has ever gotten, it's not just contained in the respective sub forums but literally all over.I don't know what to think about 1.2 yet as I haven't had time to play it and judging from the comments that is a requirement.
    However, I don't like the direction this update is taking.

    Personally I feel like every release is a step in the wrong direction, and I was hoping that this would be the turning point.
    I don't feel betrayed or entitled to anything, I'm just disappointed that T9A (which has to be the most promising of all the alternatives that came out of the end days) isn't taking the direction I wish it would. And yes, this is personal, not much anyone can do about that but me.
    Still think that many of the posts about 1.2 might stem a lot more from disappointment than entitlement and that can be hard to tell for the person writing it, even more so for someone reading it.

    To me this is looking like AoS all over again, someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have.
    Still have some faith and will wait for the next major release to see what direction it's taking but I have to say that I'm running kinda low on hope atm.
    The bolded part is so true! I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells and etc.., but than again balance is never been so important for me.
    @Digger614 :rolleyes:

    I qouted @qew post, because I agreed with it. That's it. Than I explained why I am not happy with 1.2 For the bolded part maybe I should have only bolded this part "someone has a clearly different vision of this game than I have." of the sentence to avoide confusion as that is essential it.

    Than you start rambling about that I think AoS and 9th Age are the same. Saying that 9th Age has a 117 page rulebook and AoS only 4 pages etc... :huh: .

    While it's quite simple.. it's this for me "The bolded part is so true! I would love more units, more special rules, options and flavour to each unit, more magic items, more spells and etc.., but than again balance is never been so important for me."

    The 1.2 update removed options, merged units, removed army specific paths, removed a unit (Brigands) + no reason given why the unit was removed at all.
    Than after the storm of disappointed the 9th Age team come with a promise that there will be more options, units and etc.. with the full books. Hah, we will see about that somewhere in 2018 for KoE.. .

    Anyway please don't quote me anymore, just put me on ignore.
  • Drakkar du Chaos wrote:

    Davian wrote:

    the vast majority of negative posts ... posting the same opinion in several threads all over the forum, drowning out other players and thus creating an echo chamber.


    Very annoying to read. :(
    Then don't read them anymore... we can't please everyone :)
    Actually we do read them. Not only me, but quite a few other T9A team members.
    Not that we like that. But we need feedback and someone leaving without telling why is far worse than someone giving a negative feedback.
    Also, we do not wish to cherry-pick and sort out the "good" T9A yes-men from the "bad" nay-sayers. Everyone is welcome to stay and to speak up. Even if we like better to read thank you...

    Social Media Team

    UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

    - druchii.net contribution: The 9th Age - Dread Elves