The current state of T9A.... I'm worried

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

We have just released T9A: Quick Starter Edition. Check it out now in the news or on the Rules page!

  • The current state of T9A.... I'm worried

    Sorry for being late to comment and working on homebrews. Right now I'm a bit in an unusual situation. I really wish I could do more for the project, but even that is slowly ending.

    Because right now my fear is becoming real; I'm losing my faith in T9A. It's like the team is getting too much obsessed with balancing and restrictions that certain parts that made me join wargaming is getting botched. I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project and if that will go on I'll consider to stop my support for the project. I've talked about the project many times irl with others to gain support, but while there are wargamers who want to support it, they still feel the project is not a worthy successor and some even accused the team of being in favor of tournament players and showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy.

    I can defend the project many times, but right now I almost reached my limit. Better to improve and make version 2.0 a true successor or I fear that T9A will forever be known as a wannabe impostor. And the worst of all; Tom Kirby will have the last laugh.
  • Limeblossom wrote:

    I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project
    Can you elaborate what exactly got removed by T9A and how it could be re-introduced?

    Regarding magic: I don't like the current magic either, but I didn't like the magic before much better anyway. What would you expect from an exciting magic phase? Do you want the "will he roll a double-six for his purple sun" back or the "I'll just throw fireballs around" magic phase? Or did you expect the T9A to actually improve magic, but failed up until now? I think it would be important for T9A to understand the reasons for your distress (and that of other players).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • Personally,

    This game is evolving (rules wise) to something that is what I always wanted from the game and at the same time something still feels like it's missing.

    For me, I miss the large super spells, mostly because they made the moment exciting and unpredictable and grand. With the current mistcasts in place, I would love magic to come back to a place that's (almost) like that. And a move back to more magic lores, I mean I know why they changed but I personally loved the huge variance in lores.

    I think customization isn't a problem with list building with anyone in my circle. I mean there are so many options and good builds like there was never before. There still needs tweeks here and there sure. Like monsters that shoot still suck or how some weapons work... I'm looking at you Lance's (not giving IN bonuses bonuses on the charge). But I've had to think and strategize far more than 8th or 7th. Maybe less than 6th when there was no pre-measuring.

    Just my thoughts.
  • Limeblossom wrote:

    accused the team of being in favor of tournament players
    This is a fact. They are massively in favour of tournament plays for 2 reasons:
    • The ETC (or Elephant Training Centre - I like to think that the ETC is where the team train the Elephant in the Room).
    • Tournament play is documented.
    The problem is that the team have decided to place all their faith in recorded results and statistics and are largely ignoring intuition and understanding of the game. This isn't just their fault as it's a society thing at the moment (at least it is in the UK). I bet that most people would be agree that eating lots of chocolate is bad for you, but could you prove it?


    This makes it very hard for casual players to suggest changes because the team look at the data and think - they're doing ok, we won't change this. KoE's play style is case in point. If you want more detail, hop over to the KoE forums.

    Limeblossom wrote:

    showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy.
    I don't agree with this. Compare WH 1st ed to WH 8th ed, most people wouldn't know they were the same game if you took the titles away. People came to this project for a LIVE game. This will mean changes, and the vast majority of the changes have made the game better.

    I agree that magic is an issue at the moment. The idea that you can fight without a wizard in a magical world is ludicrous! This should be an option for some factions (e.g. dwarfs), but not across the entire game. It's a fantasy game, wizards should be 1+. But this has just undergone a big change (which felt rushed) and I am confident that the team will make it good.

    Limeblossom wrote:

    I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project
    I honestly don't think that you are the only one. This is an issue that the team need to address. Devastating charge should be an option on units and you should be allowed to have one unit with and one without.

    How is this any different to 2 wizards following the same Path with different spells? or 2 characters with different magic items? or 2 units where one has a magic banner and one doesn't? Stop treating us all like idiots and let us make decisions and choose options.

    This has killed a lot of my fun building lists. I used to make lists on battlescribe for fun - now its more of a chore that I have to get done to play the game.

    EDIT: I hope this all comes back with the individual army books.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • I never understand why people criticise developers for being "obsessed with balancing." Why would you want to play an unbalanced game?

    Equally, what is the obsession with "customisation"? If you have two options, but one is rubbish/overpriced/not useful at all, do you really have two options or is it just a false choice?

    Being "in favour of tournament players" - presumably at the expense of non-tournament players - and "showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy", are also meaningless and void to me. Why does good for tournament players = bad for non-tournament players? What is Fantasy's legacy, and how is this being ignored? What would be a true successor?
  • Limeblossom wrote:

    Sorry for being late to comment and working on homebrews. Right now I'm a bit in an unusual situation. I really wish I could do more for the project, but even that is slowly ending.

    Because right now my fear is becoming real; I'm losing my faith in T9A. It's like the team is getting too much obsessed with balancing and restrictions that certain parts that made me join wargaming is getting botched. I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project and if that will go on I'll consider to stop my support for the project. I've talked about the project many times irl with others to gain support, but while there are wargamers who want to support it, they still feel the project is not a worthy successor and some even accused the team of being in favor of tournament players and showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy.

    I can defend the project many times, but right now I almost reached my limit. Better to improve and make version 2.0 a true successor or I fear that T9A will forever be known as a wannabe impostor. And the worst of all; Tom Kirby will have the last laugh.
    They are probably trying to do things in the correct order. Yes the game seems more simple now than old Warhammer, but they have to finish the base game (rules, armies, lore etc.) before they can start adding new stuff.

    You would never expect Blizzard to start making broodwar before they were even finished designing starcraft would you?

    I want more items, spells and special characters and all that but it will have to come in due time after the basis of the game has become rock solid.
  • Clockwork wrote:

    I never understand why people criticise developers for being "obsessed with balancing." Why would you want to play an unbalanced game?

    Equally, what is the obsession with "customisation"? If you have two options, but one is rubbish/overpriced/not useful at all, do you really have two options or is it just a false choice?
    I cannot agree more. Some people seem to have the misconception that balance and fun are inversely connected. As if a game system naturally became more fun, the less balanced it is. I believe AoS has quite clearly shown it's possible to create a game system that's completely unbalanced and still incredibly boring to play.

    What's the point in having 100 magic items if 10 of them is obviously superior? Of course, people can choose to willingly handicap themselves by taking the sub-par ones, but why should people have to handicap themselves to get some variety? Where's the fun in that?

    The ideal would of course be to have 100 items that all have their uses and will be roughly equally often included in peoples armies. This is of course very hard to do, but if the choice is between 10 no-brainers and 90 sub-par items or simply 20 items, all worthwhile ones. I'd argue that it's the latter option where people will experience more actual customization.
  • Zywus wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    I never understand why people criticise developers for being "obsessed with balancing." Why would you want to play an unbalanced game?

    Equally, what is the obsession with "customisation"? If you have two options, but one is rubbish/overpriced/not useful at all, do you really have two options or is it just a false choice?
    I cannot agree more. Some people seem to have the misconception that balance and fun are inversely connected. As if a game system naturally became more fun, the less balanced it is. I believe AoS has quite clearly shown it's possible to create a game system that's completely unbalanced and still incredibly boring to play.
    What's the point in having 100 magic items if 10 of them is obviously superior? Of course, people can choose to willingly handicap themselves by taking the sub-par ones, but why should people have to handicap themselves to get some variety? Where's the fun in that?

    The ideal would of course be to have 100 items that all have their uses and will be roughly equally often included in peoples armies. This is of course very hard to do, but if the choice is between 10 no-brainers and 90 sub-par items or simply 20 items, all worthwhile ones. I'd argue that it's the latter option where people will experience more actual customization.
    The "misconception" arises from the fact that in focussing on balance, options, spell lores, etc were removed, Thus narrowing choices.
    As players had only the WFB background to work with, this meant flavour and character were removed with them.
    It is expected/hoped that as the T9A background is fleshed out, this will become less of an issue.

    Your argument comes from one end of the sliding scale of players - those who play the game with a preference for the mechanics/tactics of it. Sub-optimal options are considered pointless and such players fail to see the fun aspect of having many options for magic items, spells, weaponry, etc if most of these are not the 'best' option for a given character.

    The other end of this scale are those players who play more for the role play aspect of the game. The fun lies in creating stories and characters in a fantasy world brimming with possibilities and variety, it does not matter that the characters or units don't have the best gear, indeed it may be important that they don't - it matters that they have the spells and gear most fitting to that character. So you see, the argument that these are "false choices" is only true from the point of view of the competitive player.
    What matters to the roleplayer is the option to build your character or army as you see fit, thus removal of options in the quest for balance = removal of 'fun'.

    WFB started as a roleplaying game, it evolved over time into a roleplaying wargame and in time developed a competitive tournament scene.

    T9A should, indeed indeed must meet the needs of both of these kinds of players if it is to survive and thrive (this has been argued eloquently elsewhere in the forums, though I cannot currently recall by whom, so I won't go into it here).

    Most players are somewhere nearer the middle of the scale, enjoying a bit of both.

    The need for a balanced game is clear, and the intention behind streamlining is also understood: the fat was trimmed to make a solid core ruleset which can form the foundation upon which character can be built up once more. Issues with communication and rather jarring direction changes have caused some issues but I'm fairly confident that we're on the right track. It will just take time.

    I would like to see the return of a greater range of customisation in the the new Army Books, as it offers much to the roleplayer and does no harm to the competitive player.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    "You see only what the Tuatha De' allow you to see" - Queen Maeb
    Albiann - The Misted Isles, Homebrew Celtic Faction for T9A
    Full Army Book
  • QuothTheRaven wrote:

    Zywus wrote:

    Clockwork wrote:

    I never understand why people criticise developers for being "obsessed with balancing." Why would you want to play an unbalanced game?

    Equally, what is the obsession with "customisation"? If you have two options, but one is rubbish/overpriced/not useful at all, do you really have two options or is it just a false choice?
    I cannot agree more. Some people seem to have the misconception that balance and fun are inversely connected. As if a game system naturally became more fun, the less balanced it is. I believe AoS has quite clearly shown it's possible to create a game system that's completely unbalanced and still incredibly boring to play.What's the point in having 100 magic items if 10 of them is obviously superior? Of course, people can choose to willingly handicap themselves by taking the sub-par ones, but why should people have to handicap themselves to get some variety? Where's the fun in that?

    The ideal would of course be to have 100 items that all have their uses and will be roughly equally often included in peoples armies. This is of course very hard to do, but if the choice is between 10 no-brainers and 90 sub-par items or simply 20 items, all worthwhile ones. I'd argue that it's the latter option where people will experience more actual customization.
    The "misconception" arises from the fact that in focussing on balance, options, spell lores, etc were removed, Thus narrowing choices.As players had only the WFB background to work with, this meant flavour and character were removed with them.
    It is expected/hoped that as the T9A background is fleshed out, this will become less of an issue.

    Your argument comes from one end of the sliding scale of players - those who play the game with a preference for the mechanics/tactics of it. Sub-optimal options are considered pointless and such players fail to see the fun aspect of having many options for magic items, spells, weaponry, etc if most of these are not the 'best' option for a given character.

    The other end of this scale are those players who play more for the role play aspect of the game. The fun lies in creating stories and characters in a fantasy world brimming with possibilities and variety, it does not matter that the characters or units don't have the best gear, indeed it may be important that they don't - it matters that they have the spells and gear most fitting to that character. So you see, the argument that these are "false choices" is only true from the point of view of the competitive player.
    What matters to the roleplayer is the option to build your character or army as you see fit, thus removal of options in the quest for balance = removal of 'fun'.
    But that is a misconception IMO. You can have many options without any of them being a false choice, it's just harder to balance.

    Or rather, the misconception seems to be that as a narrative player you should want sub-optimal choices. When in actual fact, the narrative player should want there to be many choices, but preferably still none of them being sub-optimal.

    I personally used sub-optimal unit's many times in WHFB, simply because those were the models I owned or liked the look of the most. It really wasn't much point in using Black Knights without barding, but I did, since the metal Perry black knightw were amongst my favourite models of all time, and I didn't feel like fielding a boring looking black/purple painted unit of 5th ed bretonnia plastics, like so many of the VC players of the time. I never liked the thought that people should be penalized for using certain models however.

    The big problem with 'false choices' is that they sometimes aren't even choices. Someone might find their lovingly painted unit be sub-par due to the weapons or armour the models happened to be modelled with, without the owner making a active choice to arm them with this. In this way 'false choices' does cause harm to narrative and competetive players both (in a properly made system there should be little difference between the armies of either playertype.) Such as the aforementioned black knights.

    The solution here would either be trying to find a balanced points system to accurately represent how much barding is worth, or (my prefered solution) to do away with the minutiae of having barding be a in-game choice and simply give the black knights a armour value regardless of what models are used. Although the latter might be straying too close to KoW for some peoples taste.
  • Zywus wrote:

    QuothTheRaven wrote:

    The "misconception" arises from the fact that in focussing on balance, options, spell lores, etc were removed, Thus narrowing choices.As players had only the WFB background to work with, this meant flavour and character were removed with them.It is expected/hoped that as the T9A background is fleshed out, this will become less of an issue.

    Your argument comes from one end of the sliding scale of players - those who play the game with a preference for the mechanics/tactics of it. Sub-optimal options are considered pointless and such players fail to see the fun aspect of having many options for magic items, spells, weaponry, etc if most of these are not the 'best' option for a given character.

    The other end of this scale are those players who play more for the role play aspect of the game. The fun lies in creating stories and characters in a fantasy world brimming with possibilities and variety, it does not matter that the characters or units don't have the best gear, indeed it may be important that they don't - it matters that they have the spells and gear most fitting to that character. So you see, the argument that these are "false choices" is only true from the point of view of the competitive player.
    What matters to the roleplayer is the option to build your character or army as you see fit, thus removal of options in the quest for balance = removal of 'fun'.
    But that is a misconception IMO. You can have many options without any of them being a false choice, it's just harder to balance.
    Which is consistent with my point: what are being decried as "false choices" are not false at all.


    Or rather, the misconception seems to be that as a narrative player you should want sub-optimal choices. When in actual fact, the narrative player should want there to be many choices, but preferably still none of them being sub-optimal.

    Agreed. I don't think anyone's actively appealing for poor choices, just to retain the choices at all would be preferable.


    I personally used sub-optimal unit's many times in WHFB, simply because those were the models I owned or liked the look of the most. It really wasn't much point in using Black Knights without barding, but I did, since the metal Perry black knightw were amongst my favourite models of all time, and I didn't feel like fielding a boring looking black/purple painted unit of 5th ed bretonnia plastics, like so many of the VC players of the time. I never liked the thought that people should be penalized for using certain models however.

    That's more to do with WYSIWYG than it is do do with having options available to the player. I'm not going to get into WYSIWYG as that's a whole other can of worms, suffice to say I think it's an awful concept.


    The big problem with 'false choices' is that they sometimes aren't even choices.

    I don't follow. Surely the definition of a false choice is that it is no choice at all? Are you referring to all choices that are sub-optimal as 'false choices'?


    Someone might find their lovingly painted unit be sub-par due to the weapons or armour the models happened to be modelled with, without the owner making a active choice to arm them with this. In this way 'false choices' does cause harm to narrative and competetive players both (in a properly made system there should be little difference between the armies of either playertype.) Such as the aforementioned black knights.

    Again, that's WYSIWYG.


    The solution here would either be trying to find a balanced points system to accurately represent how much barding is worth,

    That is how the old system of having options for units worked. In theory it's also how the new auto-include format works, it just forces you to have the option and includes it in the model points cost. Herein lies the problem: not all players want that prescribed build, nor to have to pay for options they don't want or need.


    or (my prefered solution) to do away with the minutiae of having barding be a in-game choice and simply give the black knights a armour value regardless of what models are used. Although the latter might be straying too close to KoW for some peoples taste.

    Definitely. Cookie-cutter units are anathema to roleplaying or narrative gameplay, even to competitive gameplay: why should a unit be forced into a single configuration, restricting it's role on the battlefield? You should be able to kit out your units in different variants to face different challenges and perform different roles.

    Replies in blue.

    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, we seem to be making similar points. Where we differ is that you are assuming that WYSIWYG is being enforced.
    In general, it is not: except in some closed-list games or in tournaments.
    In tournaments, I would expect that lists are known to the opponent and where there are different options on identical looking units, it is not unreasonable that these be represented by a token of some kind. (Urgh, no more, I don't want to get into WYSIWYG)

    Those two non-standard scenarios represent a very small fraction of games played and it is not reasonable to encumber all players with restrictions designed for minority situations such as those.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    "You see only what the Tuatha De' allow you to see" - Queen Maeb
    Albiann - The Misted Isles, Homebrew Celtic Faction for T9A
    Full Army Book
  • Limeblossom wrote:

    Sorry for being late to comment and working on homebrews. Right now I'm a bit in an unusual situation. I really wish I could do more for the project, but even that is slowly ending.

    Because right now my fear is becoming real; I'm losing my faith in T9A. It's like the team is getting too much obsessed with balancing and restrictions that certain parts that made me join wargaming is getting botched. I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project and if that will go on I'll consider to stop my support for the project. I've talked about the project many times irl with others to gain support, but while there are wargamers who want to support it, they still feel the project is not a worthy successor and some even accused the team of being in favor of tournament players and showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy.

    I can defend the project many times, but right now I almost reached my limit. Better to improve and make version 2.0 a true successor or I fear that T9A will forever be known as a wannabe impostor. And the worst of all; Tom Kirby will have the last laugh.
    yea I'm also worried on the fact that we get stuff that we didn't asked for....
    • The Empire endures and Karl Franz is the Emperor. To say anything else is heresy!
  • QuothTheRaven wrote:

    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, we seem to be making similar points. Where we differ is that you are assuming that WYSIWYG is being enforced.
    In general, it is not: except in some closed-list games or in tournaments.
    Its not so much a tournament thing than something for the game designers to keep an eye on because of comments like these: Simplifying and Streamlining - Fey Arrows
  • I think a large issue comes from we have different players who want entirely different things from this game.

    Some of those people are straight up going to be disappointed.

    Am I happy with the direction this game is going in?

    If you asked me that right after 1.2 was released I'd say "Hard No."

    If you asked me that now? I'd say 'Well, mostly, but with some strong qualifiers'



    My biggest issue with the game direction is how we insist on tying ourselves to the ideas of the past. If we are going to stand on our own, and we should, we really need to stop thinking with the old mindset. And unfortunately a lot of us still are.

    Conceptual Design Team

  • Limeblossom wrote:

    Sorry for being late to comment and working on homebrews. Right now I'm a bit in an unusual situation. I really wish I could do more for the project, but even that is slowly ending.

    Because right now my fear is becoming real; I'm losing my faith in T9A. It's like the team is getting too much obsessed with balancing and restrictions that certain parts that made me join wargaming is getting botched. I loved Fantasy for it's customizations, awesome and mattering magic and possibilities. Right now I see all that being removed from the project and if that will go on I'll consider to stop my support for the project. I've talked about the project many times irl with others to gain support, but while there are wargamers who want to support it, they still feel the project is not a worthy successor and some even accused the team of being in favor of tournament players and showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy.

    I can defend the project many times, but right now I almost reached my limit. Better to improve and make version 2.0 a true successor or I fear that T9A will forever be known as a wannabe impostor. And the worst of all; Tom Kirby will have the last laugh.
    While I am sorry you are feeling this way, I can certainly say that the game is exceeding all of my expectations as a casual player.

    Regarding balance: I almost quit WHFB due to the utter lack of balance and the horrible magic system (my first game ever involved my ogre firebelly jumping down a hole on the first spell due to a 2 dice fireball miscast, and my second game ever involved a nurgle demon prince flying straight into my character bunker and 6 dicing purple sun. Rot in hell, 8th Ed.) So the fact that the outcome of the game is based more on my decision making and less on luck and who has the most overpowered army really appeals to me.

    Regarding customization and magic: I can see where you are coming from. However, you do not have the whole picture. Magic is going to be worked on, so it should be better than ever (and not stupidly OP. See above). The new armies are going to have a lot of interesting options. Will new units have a million options? No, but I get why. Mistakes happen regarding who has what, and it is nice to be able to hear what a unit is and know what it is going to do without worrying about whether or not a specific upgrade will completely change that. And it isn't like customization is gone: characters have tons of options. I personally like that units have defined roles, but again, that is just my personal opinion.

    The new stuff that they are working on is really exciting. I really want to make a WoDG army (which is not something I ever thought I would say. I despised everything about them in WHFB, and I do mean EVERYTHING.), and that is all because of how cool the new book is.

    As to "showing disdain for Fantasy's legacy"? First off, what is "Fantasy's legacy"? Is it broken armies with overpowered garbage meant to make people buy more of certain models? Is it a magic phase that could completely destroy one player's ability to have fun with the game? Is it a million options that were never taken because only certain options were ever worth it? If yes, then good, I am glad those are being shown disdain.

    If "Fantasy's legacy" is an engaging rank-and-file, dice based fantasy wargame with magic, shooting, and close combat featuring a variety of fantastical races, each with their own unique feel, then I fail to see how T9A isn't living up to that.


    I'm really excited about v2.0. I think it is going to make for a really fun game, and I can't wait to play it. If you are starting to feel burnt out, then maybe take a break. Come back a little later and see how everything looks. There is a lot of doom and gloom going about, and it is easy to lose sight of the parts of the game that excite you. You may find that a little bit of a break helps you out.