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

Have you answered our survey about your preferred game size?
More details in this news item.

  • The issue is how to balance the needs / wants of the competitive community with the needs / wants of the casual community.

    These are not necessarily diametrically opposed interests. I love fluffy rules. But I also like competitive games. Clear, concise rules go a long way to speeding a game up too and being married with three kids, I need to be able to finish a game in under 4 hours in an evening. But I think everyone enjoys being able to take their time to read and really think through their list building. So, there is no objection to creating army books that are deep and require a lot of thought on what / how to build. The game itself though, should not be so cumbersome / complex that it's hard to finish games in a reasonable time.

    But the RT is focusing on doing exactly this, making the game bit more simplified but at the same time, adding depth with the rules changes. They are trying to ensure that the BRB is not overly complex, but they are trying to add the army flavor into the individual army books. Avoid power creep, but not leave underpowered units behind. Create the environment for each army where they play best according to their army strengths / weaknesses, but allow for customizability even with those "best" play styles.

    They are doing a good job IMO. I think most of the community will be happy to move from 1.3x to the next version of the game because will better achieve the needs / wants for both competitive and casual players. The RT, the BLT, the ADT, the CDS and all the story / art / layout guys have really been working hard on this and the general view of the staff is that we want this version to be a "gift" to the community.
    Come on, we all know that: Nerfs are SO 2016 ...

    Assist. Head of Legal Team

  • I am not sure that the main issue with casual community is rules being too competitive. I would say it is lack of new background materials. For over half a year we have been given nothing but random spoilers of the Dark Gods background. Rules have been freezed but sadly Backgroung followed. Is it really necessary? Are all your Background resources focused on WoDG to the point of not being able to produce from time to time something on races that won't be so heavily reworked and can be spoiled prior to FAB?
  • The Background team has been working on an Background Compendium with some general insides on all factions beyond what will be released with the FABs. The main bottleneck as far as I am aware is the Layout team, although both Art Team as well as Background team are also very busy to keeping up the paste for the different publications we have in the pipeline.
  • Mr.Owl wrote:

    The issue is how to balance the needs / wants of the competitive community with the needs / wants of the casual community.

    These are not necessarily diametrically opposed interests. I love fluffy rules. But I also like competitive games. Clear, concise rules go a long way to speeding a game up too and being married with three kids, I need to be able to finish a game in under 4 hours in an evening. But I think everyone enjoys being able to take their time to read and really think through their list building. So, there is no objection to creating army books that are deep and require a lot of thought on what / how to build. The game itself though, should not be so cumbersome / complex that it's hard to finish games in a reasonable time.

    But the RT is focusing on doing exactly this, making the game bit more simplified but at the same time, adding depth with the rules changes. They are trying to ensure that the BRB is not overly complex, but they are trying to add the army flavor into the individual army books. Avoid power creep, but not leave underpowered units behind. Create the environment for each army where they play best according to their army strengths / weaknesses, but allow for customizability even with those "best" play styles.

    They are doing a good job IMO. I think most of the community will be happy to move from 1.3x to the next version of the game because will better achieve the needs / wants for both competitive and casual players. The RT, the BLT, the ADT, the CDS and all the story / art / layout guys have really been working hard on this and the general view of the staff is that we want this version to be a "gift" to the community.
    I'm a casual player.
    Clear consice rules are a bonus to me.
    When is a rule detrimental? When it is counter intuitive, breaks immersion and sometimes when it is too abstract. Conga lines are a good example of something the rules allow, but breaks immersion.
    In my view, 9th has taken some really good steps towards removing stuff from the rules that creates doubt on how to play stuff. That is great for both fluff gamers and competetive gamers.
    However, the quest for balance has also created a lot of rules that break immersion and feels counter intuitive, while trying to balance things out.
    Waste hardened skin and parry rule are good examples of this.
    Sometimes the quest for balance has removed really cool options from play. I think a good example is a druid on a unicorn. Iconic fantasy unit, but it has the survivabillity of a snowflake in a furnace, so while it is possible to bunker the druid(badly) it sort of takes away from the centerpeiceishness(new word!) of the model. It removes some of the cool, so to speak. I cmpletely understand it from a balance point of view, but hate it from a fluff point of view.
    As a fluff player I do not mind taking bad choices, I often make my army bad by choice. But I hate putting stuff on the table that is either instantly removed or has to spend the whole game behind a hill.

    I agree that it is a dilemma.
    Also some stuff is workable and when you play with freinds like mine I can do whatever I like, but the new minimum size for a lot of units has hurt my abillity to field large parts of my model collection. Now, like I said it can be worked with, but it still sometimes means too much work, so I would rather go without.
    The more the rules affect peoples abillity to field their model collection, the bigger the chance that they will play oldhammer or something else entirely.
  • DarkSky wrote:

    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.

    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.
    Indeed , that hasn`t to do with economics in the first palce..rather with humanity itself right from the start.
    Ask yourself WHY people bent/brake the rules search for loopholes (and I am not talking here about games alone) ?
    Veteran of the Chaff Wars
  • Kristian wrote:

    Mr.Owl wrote:

    The issue is how to balance the needs / wants of the competitive community with the needs / wants of the casual community.

    These are not necessarily diametrically opposed interests. I love fluffy rules. But I also like competitive games. Clear, concise rules go a long way to speeding a game up too and being married with three kids, I need to be able to finish a game in under 4 hours in an evening. But I think everyone enjoys being able to take their time to read and really think through their list building. So, there is no objection to creating army books that are deep and require a lot of thought on what / how to build. The game itself though, should not be so cumbersome / complex that it's hard to finish games in a reasonable time.

    But the RT is focusing on doing exactly this, making the game bit more simplified but at the same time, adding depth with the rules changes. They are trying to ensure that the BRB is not overly complex, but they are trying to add the army flavor into the individual army books. Avoid power creep, but not leave underpowered units behind. Create the environment for each army where they play best according to their army strengths / weaknesses, but allow for customizability even with those "best" play styles.
    I'm a casual player. Clear concise rules are a bonus to me.When is a rule detrimental? When it is counter intuitive, breaks immersion and sometimes when it is too abstract. Conga lines are a good example of something the rules allow, but breaks immersion.


    Sometimes the quest for balance has removed really cool options from play. I think a good example is a druid on a unicorn. Iconic fantasy unit, but it has the survivability of a snowflake in a furnace, so while it is possible to bunker the druid(badly) it sort of takes away from the centerpeiceishness (new word!) of the model. It removes some of the cool, so to speak. I completely understand it from a balance point of view, but hate it from a fluff point of view.As a fluff player I do not mind taking bad choices, I often make my army bad by choice. But I hate putting stuff on the table that is either instantly removed or has to spend the whole game behind a hill.
    Yea I think its different for each player.

    My primary priority would be that all units and mounts should be viable, competitive, one way or another. Even if the mechanic that makes a unit viable is ugly. I'd rather have the extra freedom to compose my army than to have to gimp myself for fluff reasons. I find it very frustrating to have an army book, of which 40% is hardly ever used in a competitive setting. Because the unit is simply subpar or outright weak and/or limited - for its price value.

    The result: gorgeous models, beautifully painted - gathering dust on a shelf. But also very limited actual choices when composing your army. Like HbE - the only prince you see is on either a Ancient Dragon or Lion Chariot. Or SA - no Caiman Ancient, Snake Swarms or Saurian cavalry in any list.
    It gets a bit stale, to be honest. So in a way, balance adds to the enjoyment. Because as a result you will see a much bigger variety in army compositions.
    Playing/painting: HbE, SA & DE ..
  • JimMorr wrote:

    I have already proposed it a few times: add optional rules that won't be part of 'tournament rules' to FABs. Or publish them even as suplements to ABs. It is of course additional work to create them and play-test them to provide at least a basic level of balance but you could introduce community to write those...
    We have an excellent area called HAT for this, where people are free to use their creative minds to come up with some amazing new ideas, rules and the ilk for all armies!
    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)

  • JimMorr wrote:

    Bugman wrote:

    We have an excellent area called HAT for this, where people are free to use their creative minds to come up with some amazing new ideas, rules and the ilk for all armies!
    It is excellent place to 'brew' ideas. Make step further - incorporate best of them into the system.
    Most of the time, brilliant ideas expressed in HAT do not match the tempo of the production team.
    Much better to have a place to hold them until, eventually, PRO can have a look.

    I wish likewise to encourage the investigation by HAT of roleplaying, and possibly of new tabletop games similar to Blood Bowl.
    Not the time now, but when Background Compendum will be released, there will be more opportunities... at a time when the whole team will be busy with 2.0 preparation.

    Social Media Team

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

    Mr.Owl wrote:

    We are in desperate need of layout people. If anyone has experience in this area (or knows someone that does and has the time to help) please let us know.
    It's a thankless, mostly invisible, monotonous work but it needs to be done.
    I wish I had the skills (or the time) for it. No one? Really? Pretty please? :D
    I don't think layouting is all that. The problem I see is the ridiculous amount of prereqs the team posted when looking for people. Many of the desired tools being very expensive proprietary software (from Adobe if I remember correctly).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • JimMorr wrote:

    I have already proposed it a few times: add optional rules that won't be part of 'tournament rules' to FABs. Or publish them even as suplements to ABs. It is of course additional work to create them and play-test them to provide at least a basic level of balance but you could introduce community to write those...
    Part of stuff Iike that might end up in the campaign supplements.

    Executive Board

    Head of the Campaign Team

    Head of PR

    Bunch of different teams

    Blonde Beer is currently on vacation. It might take my a while to reply when tagged or pmd...
  • DarkSky wrote:

    I don't think layouting is all that. The problem I see is the ridiculous amount of prereqs the team posted when looking for people. Many of the desired tools being very expensive proprietary software (from Adobe if I remember correctly
    Ya, too many requirements. Its a big reason I don't volunteer. Second Reason is I hate technical computer stuff.
    Also my skill sets is being able to see cause and effect so its mostly with rules design balance - which everyone and their pet fish has an opinion on amd also thinks they are right. ....and the positions seem to be full from launch of T9A.

    So I just try to post my feedback in clear and constructive posts. And do my best to make the forum a positive place.


    side note about those economic comparisons: Economics is my specialty, I chuckled when reading some of the posts.

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

  • You (the Staff) might want to give a try software like scribus as basic DTP solution for non-commercial project. However anyone with some expertise in DTP will run away and all layouts already prepared in CS will be lost. On the other hand asking anyone with commercial license of CS to do the job for free is a bit like asking if there is a printer in the community who would print rulebooks for the cost of paper. It might be easier to ask community for financial support and hire a DTP specialist...
  • JimMorr wrote:

    You (the Staff) might want to give a try software like scribus as basic DTP solution for non-commercial project. However anyone with some expertise in DTP will run away and all layouts already prepared in CS will be lost. On the other hand asking anyone with commercial license of CS to do the job for free is a bit like asking if there is a printer in the community who would print rulebooks for the cost of paper. It might be easier to ask community for financial support and hire a DTP specialist...
    Legal team has actual lawyers in there working pro bono. I know for sure at least a couple of the artists behind the illustrations are professionals and I assume the IT team are also pros or at least knowledgeable in their field.

    If T9A starts paying members for their work where does it start and stop?

    The choice of software probably was made by whoever was the first person in charge of layout, because of availability and familiarity for that particular person.
  • jouso wrote:

    The choice of software probably was made by whoever was the first person in charge of layout, because of availability and familiarity for that particular person.
    If that would be the case, then it's the fault of the T9A team to let the personal setup of one person dictate the future of layouting. My feedback was generally to be meant as: "The reason for not finding somebody for layout are your crazy prereqs, not the unwillingness of the community" and I think @JimMorr thought of something similar when proposing a solution like Scribus which could help with that.

    Regarding "IT team": Same thing here. There are some ideas by T9A Board around having some applications. But the frame in which they want them to have (technology decisions, etc.) scare away basically every imaginable software developer. I certainly would help, but not if I have to use a tool which has close to zero worldwide distribution.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • Being frank CS compared to Scribus is many times more productive, has much more options, can be used for automation and probably supports distributed development better. It is number one when choosing production software for project of that size. But it requires professionals who will do the job. It is something you can't learn in a day or two even if you'll get access. I've been working in prepress for a year and I know how complicated DTP is. Note that I never actually did true DTP just dealt with people who did it and sometimes corrected a page or two.

    I believe it is more about project requirements regarding quality then software choice. Project aims to deliver high quality products. Production of books is expensive. And DTP is production like printing. Due to the volume of materials we need almost a dedicated DTP agency to deal with products in pipeline. Either we will give up some of the quality or we have to hire an agency. it would be terrible waste if T9A would not be able to deliver materials prepared by rule teams, art or background due to layout bottleneck. After all it is more important what is there then if all the pages get the same margins...