The current (old) state of T9A....

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat's Up, Ninth Agers!!! New issue of the Behind the Scenes blog! More rules sneak peeks, a glimpse at the future layout of army entries, and a duel between characters with the new rules.

  • Throgg wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    Bugman wrote:

    Gw Devs also had to ensure each release pushed new models for sales, T9A has none of that :)
    ugh, this again. This is not true. There is an equal chance that a new model had terrible rules as good ones. Just everyone remembers the units which has good rules (skullcrushers) and forgets the ones with bad ones (the whole Lizardmen release).The sad truth is that GW did not understand their game and could not balance anything right.
    to be fair, GW had difficulty as they couldn't collect statistics on performance so well and couldn't tweak and adjust after release so easily. When people pay so much for army books it is hard to just replace content.
    Much of the fault must rest with the people who provided "feedback" on their social media and made the whole thing toxic. Too many people complaining and nothing else.
    na, I guess , sometimes after 6th ed. they just gave up to SERIOUSLY think about balancing the game/armies. I don´t say that they didn´t tried it to a certain degree afterwards...but is it hadn`t a very high priority ...it was more or less: "well, given...more or less.should do...and we have to push the sales for our minis...gamers shouldn`t think too much about balance , it is a fun game ....so nothing for tournament-nazis in the first place...don´t think, enjoy ! "....or something like that
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • Clockwork wrote:

    Bugman wrote:

    Gw Devs also had to ensure each release pushed new models for sales, T9A has none of that :)
    ugh, this again. This is not true. There is an equal chance that a new model had terrible rules as good ones. Just everyone remembers the units which has good rules (skullcrushers) and forgets the ones with bad ones (the whole Lizardmen release).
    The sad truth is that GW did not understand their game and could not balance anything right.
    unfortunately it was true, not saying they always succeeded mind
    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

    Assistant Head of PR

    Bugmans Brewery Owner (DH)

  • On that topic, i also think GW stoped caring about balance or didnt expect all units and armies to be in the same power level. Eventually they focused on making big eye-catching "miniatures", sometimes they felt very forced, so people would buy them.

    I remember on old rulebooks stating on certain rules: if there comes a moment in the game where 2 rules contradict each other or its not clear how to rule it, use common sense!...really?
    It was very common to see such a case in the movement phase. If you were in a tournament you had to call to the arbiter and hope he rules in your favor, if youre in a casual game but with a no-friendly player or some1 you didnt know well...things could take hours.

    Im glad the rules team has taken the issue of making movement and other rules as clear and straightforward as possible, given the complexity of this game with all the troop types and rules involved.


    As for the background, it is just normal that many people dont take all the hard work into account. Many have their brain set on the old lore due to habits or because they loved them.
    When we get new books with new lore for each faction people may take it more seriously. I always found people like to read the lore of their specific heroes or units. Not that much the general lore.
    "If you kill one man, you're a murderer,
    if you kill 10, youre a monster...
    if its 100 youre a hero,
    if you kill 10.000 you're a conqueror!"
  • GW ultimately thought of the rules as a vehicle to tell a story. The assumption was that people would put the story and models first and the competition second. Warhammer was a social experience, designed to let you use your miniatures collection. The thought was also that you, as a player, cannot relegate the responsibillity of having fun onto the ruleset, but must carry that equally with your opponent, you know, talk to each other.
    As such, warhammer was designed perfectly.

    However, some players wanted the game to be competetive, and for that purpose, the game was imperfect(though not so imperfect as to scare away competitve gamers).
    The game was not designed to just meet someone and have a battle without at least trying to agree on some stuff first. But, these people where very loud and complained a lot. And GW grew to loathe that part of the player base.

    For the competetive gamer, 9th is much better.
    For the story driven game, 9th is not better. The same, except that there are more immersion breaking exceptions to rules, and rules that work counter intuitively.

    Cheers
  • Kristian wrote:

    For the competetive gamer, 9th is much better.

    For the story driven game, 9th is not better. The same, except that there are more immersion breaking exceptions to rules, and rules that work counter intuitively.
    At the moment, T9A is far, far better balanced than WH and well adapted to competition indeed.

    For stories, WH still has the lead because of the volume published including many special characters.
    T9A background has the benefit of being much more consistent.
    T9A will have all it takes to make good stories only when
    - much more background will be published, including detailed characters,
    - and the link with real world legends will be clearly established. Example: if players are told that for KoE, the Round Table is the inspiration and what is not found in T9A should be searched in various Round Table legends. I wish to see such équivalences made explicitely as much as possible for other factions. Then, T9A would get depth instantaneously.

    Social Media Team

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



    However, some players wanted the game to be competetive, and for that purpose, the game was imperfect(though not so imperfect as to scare away competitve gamers).
    The game was not designed to just meet someone and have a battle without at least trying to agree on some stuff first. But, these people where very loud and complained a lot. And GW grew to loathe that part of the player base.
    Hmm, almost all players I meet and played with, all were (like me9 more or less ALSO competitive....for sure, you can play all games in a friendly, not-TOO-competitive , atmosphere (like chess, monopoly etc.)...but in the end, nearly all game are designed in a way, that in the end there is some kind of a winner.
    And there was always the problem: what is "friendly"...easy-going...non-competitive? people have very different views about that.
    So I am used to, that games are fairly balanced ..and that it isn`t my (and my opponents) task, to make the gaming balanced and fair.
    When I bought the game the first time, at least there was no warning on it

    "Caution, game is not too balanced, players have too agree and be sensible to enjoy our game. Best not used in a competitive way !"

    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • Phosphorus wrote:

    Kristian wrote:

    However, some players wanted the game to be competetive, and for that purpose, the game was imperfect(though not so imperfect as to scare away competitve gamers).
    The game was not designed to just meet someone and have a battle without at least trying to agree on some stuff first. But, these people where very loud and complained a lot. And GW grew to loathe that part of the player base.
    Hmm, almost all players I meet and played with, all were (like me9 more or less ALSO competitive....for sure, you can play all games in a friendly, not-TOO-competitive , atmosphere (like chess, monopoly etc.)...but in the end, nearly all game are designed in a way, that in the end there is some kind of a winner.And there was always the problem: what is "friendly"...easy-going...non-competitive? people have very different views about that.
    So I am used to, that games are fairly balanced ..and that it isn`t my (and my opponents) task, to make the gaming balanced and fair.
    When I bought the game the first time, at least there was no warning on it

    "Caution, game is not too balanced, players have too agree and be sensible to enjoy our game. Best not used in a competitive way !"

    The only rulebook I have at hand, is the 3rd ed. One. It certainly states that theres is a difference between normal and competetive play. I also think that all the rulebooks after that, had some kind of caveat, that players had to engage and make the rules work, in situations not covered by the rules.
    White dwarf had oodles of articles on the subject as well.
    The designers themselves would also look rather puzzled when confronted with balance issues.
    I get that it can be cumbersome to have to set expectations before each game, never the less that was the premise of a warhammer game.
  • Kristian wrote:

    Phosphorus wrote:

    Kristian wrote:

    However, some players wanted the game to be competetive, and for that purpose, the game was imperfect(though not so imperfect as to scare away competitve gamers).
    The game was not designed to just meet someone and have a battle without at least trying to agree on some stuff first. But, these people where very loud and complained a lot. And GW grew to loathe that part of the player base.
    Hmm, almost all players I meet and played with, all were (like me9 more or less ALSO competitive....for sure, you can play all games in a friendly, not-TOO-competitive , atmosphere (like chess, monopoly etc.)...but in the end, nearly all game are designed in a way, that in the end there is some kind of a winner.And there was always the problem: what is "friendly"...easy-going...non-competitive? people have very different views about that.So I am used to, that games are fairly balanced ..and that it isn`t my (and my opponents) task, to make the gaming balanced and fair.
    When I bought the game the first time, at least there was no warning on it

    "Caution, game is not too balanced, players have too agree and be sensible to enjoy our game. Best not used in a competitive way !"
    The only rulebook I have at hand, is the 3rd ed. One. It certainly states that theres is a difference between normal and competetive play. I also think that all the rulebooks after that, had some kind of caveat, that players had to engage and make the rules work, in situations not covered by the rules.White dwarf had oodles of articles on the subject as well.
    The designers themselves would also look rather puzzled when confronted with balance issues.
    I get that it can be cumbersome to have to set expectations before each game, never the less that was the premise of a warhammer game.
    well, on my first box (4th ed.) there wasn`t such a "warning" on it . And as far as I can see, even until today , the AOS Box has no such warning. Or how many gamers do you think har read WD before they bought the game?
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • WHF started as a way to resolve mass-combat-situations that happened during a RPG-session. In first ed. there were passages mentioning the transfer of rpg characters to the board game.
    They tried to cater the needs of tournament players starting with 4th or 5th, but even then providing a fun game was more important then providing a balanced game. Tournament players always found a solution for a balanced tournament rule, btw.
    9th age must be aware that fun rules are an important part of this game, If everything is balanced but boring we will loose players.
  • rolan wrote:

    WHF started as a way to resolve mass-combat-situations that happened during a RPG-session. In first ed. there were passages mentioning the transfer of rpg characters to the board game.
    They tried to cater the needs of tournament players starting with 4th or 5th, but even then providing a fun game was more important then providing a balanced game. Tournament players always found a solution for a balanced tournament rule, btw.
    9th age must be aware that fun rules are an important part of this game, If everything is balanced but boring we will loose players.
    100 percent right about that last part. I've been trying to explain this to people.
  • New

    rolan wrote:

    WHF started as a way to resolve mass-combat-situations that happened during a RPG-session. In first ed. there were passages mentioning the transfer of rpg characters to the board game.
    They tried to cater the needs of tournament players starting with 4th or 5th, but even then providing a fun game was more important then providing a balanced game. Tournament players always found a solution for a balanced tournament rule, btw.
    9th age must be aware that fun rules are an important part of this game, If everything is balanced but boring we will loose players.
    you are totally right with the rpg-"legacy" , an important fact to understand the way WHF went btw. where it came from. And also what they at first tried with Age of Sigmar (you know, the no-points way).

    Alas , to the second part: who says that balanced rules and "fun" contradict each other? And no, I say: "tournament" players never found the "grail" for balanced game-play. (and who´s to say, that only "tournament" players wanted balance ?? ). They tried hard, but given within the frameworj (core rules and armybooks) more or less failed ! And I claim there was no chance to do that in a really satisfying way. (and that is the big chance of T9 to achieve that ...at least to a level unseen before :)).

    We could as well turn this around: if (maybe) the game becomes to "boring/sterile" etc because of the balancing, what should players stop to adapt accordingly and create some home rules/additional rules to make the game more "fun" (besides....what exactly is "fun" ? Isn`t that very subjective?)...cause you know: if the game isn`t balanced enough, we will loose players .

    So, what is fun to you? A bunch of (fancy) special rules ? Does e.g. every army /race desperatley needs an armywide special rule in order to be..."funny/interessting" ?
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars

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

  • New

    Phosphorus wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    WHF started as a way to resolve mass-combat-situations that happened during a RPG-session. In first ed. there were passages mentioning the transfer of rpg characters to the board game.
    They tried to cater the needs of tournament players starting with 4th or 5th, but even then providing a fun game was more important then providing a balanced game. Tournament players always found a solution for a balanced tournament rule, btw.
    9th age must be aware that fun rules are an important part of this game, If everything is balanced but boring we will loose players.
    you are totally right with the rpg-"legacy" , an important fact to understand the way WHF went bztw. were it came from. And also what they at first tried with Age of Sigmar (you no, the no-points way).
    Alas , to the second part: who says that balanced rules and "fun" contradict each other? And no, I say: "tournament" players never found the "grail" for balanced game-play. (and who´s to say, that only "tournament" players wanted balance ?? ). They tried hard, but given within the frameworj (core rules and armybooks) more or less failed ! And I claim there was no chance to do that in a really satisfying way. (and that is the big chance of T9 to achieve that ...at least to a level unseen before :)).

    We could as well turn this around: if (maybe) the game becomes to "boring/sterile" etc because of the balancing, what should players stop to adapt accordingly and create some home rules/additional rules to make the game more "fun" (besides....what exactly is "fun" ? Isn`t that very subjective?)...cause you know: if the game isn`t balanced enough, we will loose players .

    So, what is fun to you? A bunch of (fancy) special rules ? Does e.g. every army /race desperatley needs an armywide special rule in order to be..."funny/interessting" ?
    well, yes, Army wide special rules are an important part of what distuinguishes one army from another, and differences are a big part of what makes the game interesting.
    About players making fancy rules at home to have more fun (even more as they do now): this is where we would start loosing players. Because:
    it does function to have a special tournament rule set that is different to the normal game (all players know the normal rules, and everybody knows the tournament rules in advance, decides weather he wants to play this rule set - and returns to his normal rules at home with his friends), because everybody knows the same rules, and accepts a well known balancing change.
    If you tell people to spice up the "very dull but balanced" standard rules with fun-to-use house rules, everybody would use his own rule set, so hundreds of different versions would be used at home, splitting the players in hundreds of groups with different gaming experiences. That would be a major mistake for the game.
  • New

    rolan wrote:

    well, yes, Army wide special rules are an important part of what distuinguishes one army from another, and differences are a big part of what makes the game interesting.About players making fancy rules at home to have more fun (even more as they do now): this is where we would start loosing players. Because:
    it does function to have a special tournament rule set that is different to the normal game (all players know the normal rules, and everybody knows the tournament rules in advance, decides weather he wants to play this rule set - and returns to his normal rules at home with his friends), because everybody knows the same rules, and accepts a well known balancing change.
    If you tell people to spice up the "very dull but balanced" standard rules with fun-to-use house rules, everybody would use his own rule set, so hundreds of different versions would be used at home, splitting the players in hundreds of groups with different gaming experiences. That would be a major mistake for the game.
    Sorry, but before the introduction of army wide special rules in 8th. ed. (mainly), did we had less "fun" ? Did we really lacked something? Do we really need them to distinguish the armies? I am not totally against them...for sure they add some colour, but on the other hand tend to create (balancing) "problems" (the stupidity of First strike was widly seen as that...as beeing stupid..and (highly) unfair).

    Are e.g. Highborn Elves "colorless" without the army wide special rules Lightning reflexes ?

    And where do you see a problem with such house-rules? The casual-gamers for sure wouldn`t have them (because they agreed about them for ther local group/club I guess. New players can easily learn them from their mates /read them.
    You are refering to tournaments? Cause that seems to trouble you...well, there were a lot of local tournament rules and versions back then and you had to read them before (IF you wanted to take part). So, where would be the problems reading the additional "spiced" up rules for such an tournament?
    Besides: yeah..I went to tournaments back then, were "colorfull" special rules were used and gave the bgames a spiced up feeling (does anyone remember the famous Duzi-tournaments in Wesel and their fancy ideas /scenarios? Great gaming , that was ! )
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • New

    I think that the rules of the game should create an interresting game that is both fun to play and providing many possibilities to build your army. Balancing is a lot easier if there are less rules to deal with and less different units to think about, so creating a perfectly balanced rule book tends to make the game more boring. I'm not saying that this is the case now, but a couple of decisions seem to go on that direction.
    It is a lot harder to balance the game with many different rules and units, but it is worth the extra time it takes in the end.
    And army-wide special rules weren't an idea of 8th ed., cold-blooded, demonic, undead, impact hits for ogres, lance formation, strength in numbers, animosity, eternal hatred, ... all those and more were around in 5th or 6th edition already, 8th just added a couple more. And a lot of those rules did provide a mayor part of the army character.
    @Phosphorus
    You seemed to advice a very balanced, boring rule book, forcing the gamers to make their own rules if they want to play fun games. That would not help to keep the community together.
    Of course everybody uses house rules sometimes, but the important partr of an "official " rule is that I can go where ever I want to and find people playing the same game.
    At tournaments, I read the special rules they use there month before, so I can adapt to them, and if I don't like the setting at a tournament I simply don't play there.
  • New

    rolan wrote:

    I think that the rules of the game should create an interresting game that is both fun to play and providing many possibilities to build your army. Balancing is a lot easier if there are less rules to deal with and less different units to think about, so creating a perfectly balanced rule book tends to make the game more boring. I'm not saying that this is the case now, but a couple of decisions seem to go on that direction.


    It is a lot harder to balance the game with many different rules and units, but it is worth the extra time it takes in the end.

    At tournaments, I read the special rules they use there month before, so I can adapt to them, and if I don't like the setting at a tournament I simply don't play there.
    Well, "balanced" can mean many things.

    There is internal balance and external. It would be great if at least all units (and spells, magic items, other upgrades) in an army book are viable choice to start with.
    But there can for instance also be a risk/reward balance. Units that are better in some situations than other.

    Perhaps I don't really get what you mean, but how does unbalance add to the game enjoyment?
    What kind of balance are you talking about in that case?

    What tournaments and special rules are concerned: it's not as much fun for everyone either. As a new player I haven't yet been in a single tournament where you play 4500 points and standard objectives. It sometimes feel like wanting to play chess - but you can only play without rooks. Or on a 10x10 board. Or with a special rule that knights can't jump over other pieces.
  • New

    Teowulff wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    I think that the rules of the game should create an interresting game that is both fun to play and providing many possibilities to build your army. Balancing is a lot easier if there are less rules to deal with and less different units to think about, so creating a perfectly balanced rule book tends to make the game more boring. I'm not saying that this is the case now, but a couple of decisions seem to go on that direction.


    It is a lot harder to balance the game with many different rules and units, but it is worth the extra time it takes in the end.

    At tournaments, I read the special rules they use there month before, so I can adapt to them, and if I don't like the setting at a tournament I simply don't play there.
    Well, "balanced" can mean many things.
    There is internal balance and external. It would be great if at least all units (and spells, magic items, other upgrades) in an army book are viable choice to start with.
    But there can for instance also be a risk/reward balance. Units that are better in some situations than other.

    Perhaps I don't really get what you mean, but how does unbalance add to the game enjoyment?
    What kind of balance are you talking about in that case?

    What tournaments and special rules are concerned: it's not as much fun for everyone either. As a new player I haven't yet been in a single tournament where you play 4500 points and standard objectives. It sometimes feel like wanting to play chess - but you can only play without rooks. Or on a 10x10 board. Or with a special rule that knights can't jump over other pieces.
    I never said that I wanted an unbalanced game. I said that the balancing process shouldn't take the easy road of making everything as equal in stats and rules as possible just because that would be the easiest way to achieve balance. I advice to take the long road and leave the armies, their stats and their rules as diverse as possible and balance the game without levelling everything to the dame bottom line. If that means there are some imbalances that cannot be resolved immidiatly, so be it - we will get an idea eventually.
    And I think we all agree that 9th age is already far better balanced that warhammer ever was, so no need for hasty nerfs and streamlinings.
  • New

    SuperHappyTime wrote:

    Baranovich wrote:

    Why do I bring this up and bring up console gaming and fast food??? Because I believe that some really are not appreciating the level of labor and effort that went into bringing this game to life. In particular things like the ARTWORK, MAPS, and LORE. It is one thing for a group of gamers to collaborate and crunch the numbers and bring a new rules set to a classic genre. And that alone is a gigantic task.


    BUT, when it comes to the people who are actually doing HAND-DRAWN, HAND-PAINTED original artwork for this game? And not getting paid for it? People making hand-drawn maps for this game? And not getting paid for it? No, those things show a genuine love for the spirit of the game itself. For someone with artistic talent to actually sit down and draw a battle scene for the cover of the rulebook, with no pay for it. That's real. That's genuine. You can't fake that.
    The players may have been demanding jerkfaces, but those of us who wanted to help were shoved out because the Team was afraid of copyright issues. The Fluff and Background Forum is a desolate wasteland. I still have the most replied thread there (so sad). There are a number of maps presented, good ones too. But all suggestions we made were met with "You'll see" and "We have a professional working on it". We had no option but to ask for stuff.
    Sorry, but the fault here falls on the T9A Team. They didn't utilize the greatest resource they had at the time of launch and it's dwindled off.

    What is a jerkface ?
    Also what is that "Laissez les bons temps rouler!", that means nothing.

    Clockwork wrote:

    Bugman wrote:

    Gw Devs also had to ensure each release pushed new models for sales, T9A has none of that :)
    ugh, this again. This is not true. There is an equal chance that a new model had terrible rules as good ones. Just everyone remembers the units which has good rules (skullcrushers) and forgets the ones with bad ones (the whole Lizardmen release).
    The sad truth is that GW did not understand their game and could not balance anything right.

    That sad truth is not close to reality which is that GW's board of directors did not gave a damn about the rules of their games after 6th edition and their crash at the stoch exchange. It was all about money money money (especially with the gold cow 40K) and focus on copyright protection for WHFB (which later became the #1 reason for the birth of AoS). Anyway regarding rules development, 7th and 8th but also 40K were the proof there were no team work behind their product and they didn't even playtest their stuff.
    Then we had the official confirmation from Rick Priestey himself :

    << I should add that we always used to maintain a games design department that was fairly heavy weight – smart guys, some of them rebarbative, bloody-minded and mildly dangerous types (dangerous to themselves on occasion). I won’t say who it was… but one of our staff once ran back into the burning building he’d just been rescued from by the fire brigade to recover his ‘stash’ from the flames! The design team has been run down over the years – the guys who work there now are just not doing the same sort of work and they’re not the same sort of people. Probably for the best :) >>

    Note : it was just before AoS release. And it doesn't concern Forgeworld.
    Anyway i understand that habits have hard time but it's no longer necessary to complain and even talk about GW, they killed their game with a total disregard for us; we are no longer their victims customers.
    " 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
  • New

    Kristian wrote:

    GW ultimately thought of the rules as a vehicle to tell a story. The assumption was that people would put the story and models first and the competition second. Warhammer was a social experience, designed to let you use your miniatures collection. The thought was also that you, as a player, cannot relegate the responsibillity of having fun onto the ruleset, but must carry that equally with your opponent, you know, talk to each other.
    As such, warhammer was designed perfectly.
    From my point of view you are seriously confusing stuff here. While some of it is certainly true, the conclusions don't hold.

    A game is not a perfect game, in any sense, if the players need to carry some of the "groundwork" of making the game even work. Rules that contain loopholes, unintended side effects, etc. do not qualify for something like "well they are not made for tournaments". They are bad rules! Full stop. No exception. The fact that people make the effort to correct that mistake by good sportsmanship is only a testament to the players (and maybe, towards the rest of the game which works as intended), but not towards the rules in question.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • New

    DarkSky wrote:

    Kristian wrote:

    GW ultimately thought of the rules as a vehicle to tell a story. The assumption was that people would put the story and models first and the competition second. Warhammer was a social experience, designed to let you use your miniatures collection. The thought was also that you, as a player, cannot relegate the responsibillity of having fun onto the ruleset, but must carry that equally with your opponent, you know, talk to each other.
    As such, warhammer was designed perfectly.
    From my point of view you are seriously confusing stuff here. While some of it is certainly true, the conclusions don't hold.
    A game is not a perfect game, in any sense, if the players need to carry some of the "groundwork" of making the game even work. Rules that contain loopholes, unintended side effects, etc. do not qualify for something like "well they are not made for tournaments". They are bad rules! Full stop. No exception. The fact that people make the effort to correct that mistake by good sportsmanship is only a testament to the players (and maybe, towards the rest of the game which works as intended), but not towards the rules in question.
    I disagree. Carrying the weight of making the system work is inherently on the shoulders of those persons who participate in that system. Let me use economics as an example to illustrate my point. Capitalism can work as an economic system. It promotes entrepreneurship, competition, etc. But why does it have problems, such as the fact that in my own beloved United States of America, almost 1 in 4 children grow up in poverty and 3% of the American population controls 60% of the country's wealth--in the wealthiest country on earth? Simple answer: selfishness. Likewise, socialism can work. It promotes economic equality, communal responsibility, etc. But why have the grand socialist experiments largely failed, and why do they generally result in disillusioned populations and the need for social reform? Simple answer: selfishness.
    Applying this principle to a war game may seem a little heavy-handed, but the truth remains that ANY system CAN work--NO system DOES work, because people's selfishness gets in the way and mucks up everything for everyone. Why do we even need to be concerned at all about loopholes in the rules? Because we know (unfortunately) that people will exploit loopholes in the rules... Maybe balance is more about changing the culture of the game than it is working to balance the game itself?

    Granted, I'm an idealist, so there it is.
    "I know my own soul, how feeble and puny it is: I know the magnitude of this ministry, and the great difficulty of the work; for more stormy billows vex the soul of the priest than the gales which disturb the sea." --John Chrysostom

    Force Organization Theory

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

  • New

    Swordthain wrote:

    Why do we even need to be concerned at all about loopholes in the rules?
    Can't agree here and I don't think your analogy towards economic systems is valid.

    Regarding the rules of a game: Let's say there is a rule that is questionable. A lot of players regard it as "gamey" or even a "loophole". It's still written there! Any argument about that rule will end at that point, because I don't know the intent of the rules writers. Your assumption is that players participate in the system and need to make it work. That is true for the players to follow the rules, it's not true for the players to need to interpret the rules.

    Offtopic regarding economy: These rules do not fail at all because of selfishness. Free Market Economy is based on selfishness. The reason why it doesn't work (and it's even debatable, that your example even qualifies for "doesn't work"), is because players in the system brake the rules.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct