Pinned Important News! Freezing the Rules!

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

  • grungimusic wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    lawgnome wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    I disagree on playstyles. Do not be afraid to broaden the metagame. WotDG with some basic short, medium and long range shooting? Why not? Suicide Elves? Why not? TVI EoS? Why not?
    But then what is the difference between the armies? One of the complaints leveled against KoW is that all of the armies feel the same. If you have similar play styles among all of the armies, they lose their identity.
    No need to only find arguments in a "black or white" style. Nobody asked for all playstyles equally good for all armies. But it is also not good to have only one playstyle available per army. I want to make my own decisions about how I play my armies. There should be strength and weaknesses for armies, not forced and forbidden playstyles.
    You can always make the decision to play a different army; it's the uniqueness of the armies that is one of the great strengths of 9th Age imo
    But if I choose my army because it had a lot of different playstyles? How can you decide which one of those is the best for my army? What if I change my mind on how I want to play my army every couple of month?
    And what if I don't want to change my army to play another style? If I want to try different concepts with the same army?
    Because that is what I do. I own 8 different armies and still I change the playstyle of each one after a couple of games because I want to.
    Even unique armies don't have to be played with the same style every single game. That should be left to the players how they play their army. Give them weaknesses, make some aproaches harder to use, even leave something completely out of an army list on very rare occasions, but don't set the playstyle of an army in stone. It will get boring pretty soon.
  • rolan wrote:

    But if I choose my army because it had a lot of different playstyles? How can you decide which one of those is the best for my army? What if I change my mind on how I want to play my army every couple of month?
    And what if I don't want to change my army to play another style? If I want to try different concepts with the same army?
    Because that is what I do. I own 8 different armies and still I change the playstyle of each one after a couple of games because I want to.
    Even unique armies don't have to be played with the same style every single game. That should be left to the players how they play their army. Give them weaknesses, make some aproaches harder to use, even leave something completely out of an army list on very rare occasions, but don't set the playstyle of an army in stone. It will get boring pretty soon.
    The idea, I believe, is to support 3 distinct playstyles for each army, which were voted on by players. That doesn't mean more playstyles won't be viable, but they won't necessarily be optimised by rules/points/categories.

    So experimentation should still be possible, but there should be distinct ways to competitively play each army.

    Executive Board

    Head of Background Team


    Until my last breath, my last drop of blood, my last act in this life, I keep the faith.
  • rolan wrote:

    Give them weaknesses, make some aproaches harder to use...
    ...but don't set the playstyle of an army in stone. It will get boring pretty soon.
    This
    Hermund Vigerust Endressòn Furu - Savage Sage of the Norse - Prophet of Lòki - Idol of #helion# - Propagandist of Emperor TVI:
    Faux-pro player and ETC vagabond. Enjoys the company of deluded nerds and women of unquestionably low morale.

    Step in to the Cave of the Savage Sage

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

  • There are two ways: either allow all armies all playstyles (dwarven goat riders, Kingdoms trebuchet gunlines and so on) or restrict it heavily on all armies. Both ways are OK for me as long as you do not CHANGE playstyle on the flight (KoE becoming horde infantry army with cavalry support for example). Both have serious drawbacks:
    1. With all styles for all armies there is a risk that all armies become too similar as it had been said. If the only difference is just fancy outfit what the point in heaving complex rules and multiple army books? Not a good option.
    2. With restricted playstyle there is an issue with balancing. It becomes very difficult to balance different armies. And as T9A is designed as competitive game for tournaments the balance gets really high focus (much too high for my taste). To be able to handle the balance playstyles get more and more reduced with each version. With 16 different armies each heaving single playstyle available you need to control 256 combinations. If you will allow each army 2 playstyles you'll get 1024 combinations to control. And IMO this is the main reason behind restricting play-styles, because allowing 2-3 playstyles per army wouldn't destroy their identity. Would be impossible to balance though.

    A way out would be splitting army books into two sections: tournament rules and full rules.
  • grungimusic wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    lawgnome wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    I disagree on playstyles. Do not be afraid to broaden the metagame. WotDG with some basic short, medium and long range shooting? Why not? Suicide Elves? Why not? TVI EoS? Why not?
    But then what is the difference between the armies? One of the complaints leveled against KoW is that all of the armies feel the same. If you have similar play styles among all of the armies, they lose their identity.
    No need to only find arguments in a "black or white" style. Nobody asked for all playstyles equally good for all armies. But it is also not good to have only one playstyle available per army. I want to make my own decisions about how I play my armies. There should be strength and weaknesses for armies, not forced and forbidden playstyles.
    You can always make the decision to play a different army; it's the uniqueness of the armies that is one of the great strengths of 9th Age imo
    But what if i don´t want to Play another Army? What is if i don´t have the Money to buy a new Army?
    I don´t want all armys can Play everything and all armies have all Kinds of Units. This would be streamlining , boring and maybe killing the game. Atm we already get removed Options on Units this bring us streamlining and makes army Building , strategy and playing more boring. So easy to bring the Options back and suddenly there are new playstyles opened and more variasnces and so on.

    rolan wrote:

    grungimusic wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    lawgnome wrote:

    Herminard wrote:

    I disagree on playstyles. Do not be afraid to broaden the metagame. WotDG with some basic short, medium and long range shooting? Why not? Suicide Elves? Why not? TVI EoS? Why not?
    But then what is the difference between the armies? One of the complaints leveled against KoW is that all of the armies feel the same. If you have similar play styles among all of the armies, they lose their identity.
    No need to only find arguments in a "black or white" style. Nobody asked for all playstyles equally good for all armies. But it is also not good to have only one playstyle available per army. I want to make my own decisions about how I play my armies. There should be strength and weaknesses for armies, not forced and forbidden playstyles.
    You can always make the decision to play a different army; it's the uniqueness of the armies that is one of the great strengths of 9th Age imo
    But if I choose my army because it had a lot of different playstyles? How can you decide which one of those is the best for my army? What if I change my mind on how I want to play my army every couple of month?And what if I don't want to change my army to play another style? If I want to try different concepts with the same army?
    Because that is what I do. I own 8 different armies and still I change the playstyle of each one after a couple of games because I want to.
    Even unique armies don't have to be played with the same style every single game. That should be left to the players how they play their army. Give them weaknesses, make some aproaches harder to use, even leave something completely out of an army list on very rare occasions, but don't set the playstyle of an army in stone. It will get boring pretty soon.
    I own 5 armies and played them in many different ways. Now mostly for each army they are down to one or two concepts. No trying this or that cause i´m bound to a playstyle. And my armies are different on SA i love MSU on KoE , EoS , WotdG and DL i hate it cause for me it don´t fit this armys. For me through this hard restrictions and removing of Options armies lost many flavour and personal aspects. That´s not there character. I want to Play full cav on KoE and not Peaseant but if sopmeone want to Play Peaseant he should also can do.

    I beleave in the Team that they will bring this unique back but atm it is away.
    Best example personal for me are O&G in old days i wanted to start an O&G armys cause of there unique playstyle. But still playstyle is removed O&G are not interesting for me now anyway.

    Scottish Knight wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    But if I choose my army because it had a lot of different playstyles? How can you decide which one of those is the best for my army? What if I change my mind on how I want to play my army every couple of month?
    And what if I don't want to change my army to play another style? If I want to try different concepts with the same army?
    Because that is what I do. I own 8 different armies and still I change the playstyle of each one after a couple of games because I want to.
    Even unique armies don't have to be played with the same style every single game. That should be left to the players how they play their army. Give them weaknesses, make some aproaches harder to use, even leave something completely out of an army list on very rare occasions, but don't set the playstyle of an army in stone. It will get boring pretty soon.
    The idea, I believe, is to support 3 distinct playstyles for each army, which were voted on by players. That doesn't mean more playstyles won't be viable, but they won't necessarily be optimised by rules/points/categories.
    So experimentation should still be possible, but there should be distinct ways to competitively play each army.
    Most armies i Play are atm has excatly the opposite then what are voted in the polls. It feels like the polls are turned.
    WotdG wanted to Play Infantrie but the synergy for infantrie are removed.
    KoE want to Play Cav list or mnixed. They don´t wanted Gunlines or Hord lists. What KoE got are Hord lists and gunlines are better then before.
    SA want Monster mash. But they getting more and more restricted there.

    And so on.
    Bringer of Chaos , Duke of Bretonia , Slann of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Disease , Lord of the Sea

    WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire

    Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Archeron wrote:

    Most armies i Play are atm has excatly the opposite then what are voted in the polls. It feels like the polls are turned.
    WotdG wanted to Play Infantrie but the synergy for infantrie are removed.
    KoE want to Play Cav list or mnixed. They don´t wanted Gunlines or Hord lists. What KoE got are Hord lists and gunlines are better then before.
    SA want Monster mash. But they getting more and more restricted there.

    And so on.
    We need time to do them properly.

    Executive Board

    Head of Background Team


    Until my last breath, my last drop of blood, my last act in this life, I keep the faith.
  • Scottish Knight wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    Most armies i Play are atm has excatly the opposite then what are voted in the polls. It feels like the polls are turned.
    WotdG wanted to Play Infantrie but the synergy for infantrie are removed.
    KoE want to Play Cav list or mnixed. They don´t wanted Gunlines or Hord lists. What KoE got are Hord lists and gunlines are better then before.
    SA want Monster mash. But they getting more and more restricted there.

    And so on.
    We need time to do them properly.
    Which is why everyone complaining about bland armies that doesn't support their preferred and wanted style of play need to realize that this freeze is a GOOD thing for them too. Sure, you have to deal with an army that's not what you want to play for a while, but I honestly believe that the end result will be so much better than what we have now. (Not that I complain that much about my beloved DE at the moment, just minor issues mostly.)