State of 9th age in the US

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

    • JimMorr wrote:

      Well I believe army creating complexity is not an issue. You can use app, you can spend hours designing best builds. It is fun. . Lack of gameplay streamline is a problem. Why to play a 3-4 hour game (4-5 in the beginning) which is decided in 65% cases before even the first miniature is moved? And this is the picture of T9A in outsiders eyes.
      sincerly? (I know i will sound as not polite)

      Git gud.

      That is part of the learning curve of the game. And when you get confy with the rules games lasts from 2.30 h to 3h.

      If people are scared by that maybe is not their game.

      This is not a game for every one, and should not be in my eyes.

      Playtester

      DL-Comunity Support

      Master of the Coins

      The post was edited 1 time, last by IoRi78 ().

    • Giladis wrote:

      kisanis wrote:

      Essentially any 'changes' we make should always be about ADDING to the game - not taking away.
      That is debatable. The project is looking at introducing new stuff for each army in the future but not as pure add ons but as replacements for something that already exists in the book but does not fit the setting as well as the new thing while allowing the players to use their model collections. The analysis of the lead designers has been there are already to many units in the game and that some faction would need to be condensed to conform to the T9A wanted norms.
      Therefore I would not hold my breath for what Aenarion is suggesting. Stuff being added in form of not tournament applicable auxiliary documents - sure - stuff just grafted onto the army books - highly unlikely.


      kisanis wrote:

      Prices can only go down - not up (This means that the focus is increasing play options, not invalidating others)
      That would not be healthy for the balancing process. The people doing it need to have both direction open to them as it is far healthier for the game and easier to follow the results to change the cost of a single unit than try adjusting several other units. It creates space for more mistakes which would then require more pricing steps to find the sweet spot resulting in even more changes and changes is what we want to minimise.

      kisanis wrote:

      FAB's do not get touched (only legacy AB's)
      FAB will have a period of external playtesting just like WDG have now during which they will be open to points adjustments on a more regular basis, but once the FABs become published I see no reason to treat them an differently for all other documents in the same category. Otherwise we will get a situation where WDG FAB would remain unchanged for up to 5 years something lead designers clearly stated it should be avoided and that adjustments should be possible when and if needed. That is why the management agreed only to freeze the Rulebook.

      Also just because there would be an option to make point adjustments it doesn't mean it would automatically be used. Please do remember how conservative in points shifts our BLT is.


      kisanis wrote:

      A minimum adjustment (like 15% reduction or it is not worthwhile - so don't bother)
      Hmm that is the exact opposite of the balancing policy we have of small iterative steps to avoid overshooting the mark.

      kisanis wrote:

      A minimum amount of data required to justify (as determined by the data team).
      That could be discussed.

      Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      Here is the thing, most of the people working diligently to create something approaching a balanced game fail to understand the producer/customer concept; That if you want repeat/more customers you have to listen to what the customer wants and give it to them.
      This is not what the customers/participants of T9A have been experiencing to their satisfaction.
      There is a misunderstanding here. There is no clear producer/customer divide in T9A. The producers are just as much customers as anyone else. I am not sure how and why anyone would expect the producer to create a product they themselves would not want. It is a double edged sword and we must balance it to avoid cutting either side.
      The lack of insight after community feedback is striking
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • What lack of insight? I am merely expressing the current state of things. Why do you automatically conclude that feedback will have no influence on future decisions.

      But basing discussion on speculation is pointless. I can't tell you what will be decided tomorrow or in three months time. I can only tell you how things stand at the moment.

      Background Team

      Conceptual Design

      Rules Advisors

      THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament
    • @Pellegrim whether you agree or disagree with him, I think you are squandering an opportunity to have a meaningful dialogue with cheap shots like the one you just posted.

      Discuss positions, ideas, reasoning - those lend weight to arguments. Attacking people with sweeping and unverifiable claims will result in decision-makers simply ignoring you.
      <3 Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank! <3
    • Pellegrim wrote:

      no thats total nonesense - litterally all those meaningfull discussion (read: attempts) have happend. Many many. So you can stop right there. The reaxtions objectively show little to no insight. Let alone a decent reaction that could open a discussion.
      the problem is that the USA comunity want a kind of game that is not the one we have in hand right now and will not became in the future.
      I don't see a solution, either you please one comunity there is other people that will not agree with the decisions taken.

      Playtester

      DL-Comunity Support

      Master of the Coins

    • Step 1)
      Basic rules have to be fixed for years. Only then the player base has a chance to grow.

      Step 2)
      Rest of the rules like magic, army books etc. have to be left alone, as long as there are no big issues.

      Step 3)
      Full army book reworks one army after another. 2-3 books per year. After the book is done, and patched, freeze it.

      Step 4, in addition and during 2-3)
      Background and world release. Addons not meant for tournament play. It is way easier to add some campaign setting etc. without the need to have full balance.

      There was a lot of time wasted by continous working on all things at the same time. Without a stable basic ruleset, including magic all the work in the army books, including the big changes in them was more or less pointless. But you can´t change this now. The time was wasted, and so it is just important to not make the same mistake again.

      Fix Base rules, freeze them for YEARS. Before this is done, no work in army books will help to increase player base outside of tournament players. We have some of those casual players doing 1-3 games per month. No one is willing to always check the base rulebook and the army lists if something changed in last 3 weeks, and they will for sure not invest time to learn rules that are subject to change.
    • This is a much seen pattern:
      • Worries are expresed, often with very good and clear explanation. More worries. Possible solutions. Sure, some whining is included, but that should not take the focus away from good argument and honest concerns.
      • The usual's who explain why things are done the way they and why it's all good the way it is.
      • Worries, by more people, again with solid arguments.
      • Staff members, who actually sense that the worries might have a point, trying to start a real discussion, actually coming up with interesting solution. Good discussion can actually happen, and does happen (bravo!)
      • One exec board member coming in, over-ruling other staff solutions with the epic words: "it has been decided differently"
      Let me assure you: this is no way to nurture discussion, nor does it help to improve the hobby. It does to opposite.

      If you want to nurture discussion, add a text like "thats an interesting idea", or "that's something we can thing about".
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • elendor_f wrote:

      grungimusic wrote:

      Shlagrabak wrote:

      Morgan_Treeman wrote:

      TOs are kicking out 9th Age from their events left and right (Adepticon, da boyz GT, crossroads GT) and blocking us from the big conventions (local big tournament TO told me to take a hike when I asked if we could have an event there).
      I still have a hard time understanding why, and if it is actually related to the problem of the frequency of updates. I mean, if players didn't sign up and therefore TOs/convention would cancel your event as a result, that would be one thing, but then at least for Adepticon this wasn't what happened, was it?
      Adepticon was because we aren't backed by a company. I spoke with the organizer directly and he said this to me (in the most diplomatic way he could muster).
      Then specifically for this nothing can be done, right? There is no company behind, so unless they change that requirement (which to me sounds like BS but then again I know nothing about the NA scene) there is no amount of change in T9A that will get the game into that tournament.
      I don't think it's just the US, and Adepticon is not the actual issue; we had 60+ players at the replacement tournament (Cornerhammer). But our tournament sizes are misleading; the numbers are inflated by people who travel great distances for them. I see many of the same faces in Kansas, Colorado, Chicago, Missouri, and Ohio.

      And that's great, but at the same time the total number who actually play nationwide is still very small. Many of our old WHFB club mates refuse to play, and the reason I hear repeated over and over again is the lack of rules stability. So when project talks of FABs that won't stay current for more than a year, it is extremely frustrating; particularly when post FAB point tweaks are intended to further "balance" that is ill defined, using data that is insufficient for the task. From our perspective, it's a very poor trade. For those of us trying to build local communities from the ground up, our efforts feel undermined.
      "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

      -Theoden, King of Rohan
    • Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      Streamlining is always good. Complexity appeals to very few people. My biggest headache in making any army list is the complexity of creating a character. Too many options, not enough points. I'd almost prefer characters that were pre-built. Just choose which character I wanted for my list and be done with it. Units too, could be set.Example; 25 Citizen Spear with full command for 300 points.
      Add on magical items to characters, banners to units and done!

      This may sound drastically mundane at first, but it is far more playable for new players and will go a long way towards balance.
      The second the game does this, I'm done.
    • Can I just clarify what the perceived issue is here?
      Is it that there might be periodic points changes to army books once the BRB is frozen?


      If so, can I get a few more specific answers please:
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs?
      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds).
      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the BRB is finally updated again, never...?


      Something to bear in my mind:
      For any given FAB, we don't plan for the first product that the community sees to be finished, so each FAB will undergo some beta phase type adjustments, both to design and pricing (see e.g. the WotDG book).
      However, it will (or certainly) should be clearly stated at what point the book is considered "finished" and thus on an equal footing as the other books in terms of updates.
      This part is unlikely to be done differently, as it just isn't really practicable to do otherwise.
      (Unless people would prefer that the initially released WotDG book had just been left and the complaints ignored? :P )
      But this will only apply to each book for a limited period of time when its FAB is released.
      New rules:
      (1) I will do my best to answer your criticisms, particularly of RT, but don't forget to thank one of the unsung heros who hold this project together: rules clarity team, lectors, website admin, background etc...
      (2) If you tag me and I don't answer you, its because I'm busy, sorry :( . If you still want an answer ~4 days later then tag me again and I will try to do better :)
    • DanT wrote:

      Can I just clarify what the perceived issue is here?
      Is it that there might be periodic points changes to army books once the BRB is frozen?


      If so, can I get a few more specific answers please:
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs?
      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds).
      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the BRB is finally updated again, never...?


      Something to bear in my mind:
      For any given FAB, we don't plan for the first product that the community sees to be finished, so each FAB will undergo some beta phase type adjustments, both to design and pricing (see e.g. the WotDG book).
      However, it will (or certainly) should be clearly stated at what point the book is considered "finished" and thus on an equal footing as the other books in terms of updates.
      This part is unlikely to be done differently, as it just isn't really practicable to do otherwise.
      (Unless people would prefer that the initially released WotDG book had just been left and the complaints ignored? :P )
      But this will only apply to each book for a limited period of time when its FAB is released.
      The issue is that we've been in "beta phase adjustments" for years.
      "An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down! But it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you *stand, Men of the West!*"

      -Theoden, King of Rohan
    • DanT wrote:

      Can I just clarify what the perceived issue is here?


      Is it that there might be periodic points changes to army books once the BRB is frozen?
      If so, can I get a few more specific answers please:
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs? Afaik both, but to a lesser extend to the slim books (I think that is what they are called?). To spread the hobby into new territories, physical army books work miracles. So yearly changes to FAB's would in effect shut this possibile expansion down. Yearly tweaks to the slim army books also get big criticism, as it really feels like tinkering in the margin. People prefer the game to focus on other area's. @Calisson had a staggeringly good idea for the FAB's if points would have to be adjusted periodically.
      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds). Don't think this thread was meant to discuss balance handling issues or processes, but @Fnarrr made a good point about this - perhaps this can be looked into in a different section.
      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the BRB is finally updated again, never...? If I read this thread correctly, the same fixed period as the BRB. After Beta testing, both private and public. The book needs to be solid before lockdown.


      Something to bear in my mind:
      For any given FAB, we don't plan for the first product that the community sees to be finished, so each FAB will undergo some beta phase type adjustments, both to design and pricing (see e.g. the WotDG book).
      However, it will (or certainly) should be clearly stated at what point the book is considered "finished" and thus on an equal footing as the other books in terms of updates.
      This part is unlikely to be done differently, as it just isn't really practicable to do otherwise.
      (Unless people would prefer that the initially released WotDG book had just been left and the complaints ignored? :P )
      But this will only apply to each book for a limited period of time when its FAB is released.
      Basically what you are doing here, is asking "make me a summary please". Think you used this method several times, and don't think that ever worked well before? But I added a few answer to your more direct questions in bold.
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • grungimusic wrote:

      The issue is that we've been in "beta phase adjustments" for years.

      We all know that there have been a lot of changes over the past few years.
      We all know that this has put some people off.
      We all know that BRB is going gold in Autumn and will be frozen.
      We all know that there will reduced (if not removed entirely, that is exactly what this discussion is about) changes to the army books from Autumn onwards.
      So it is quite clear already that from Autumn we will be in a different phase of the project with substantially reduced changes.

      Given that, what possible purpose does this comment serve when I am asking specific questions in order to decide what I will advise the project to do moving forwards in terms of deciding on the details of what future changes to allow?

      I don't know why I bother sometimes. So often I try to engage and run into comments like this. Both on the public and internal forums.
      I do not have the energy to continue in the face of such comments anymore. I am gonna unsubscribe from this thread.
      If anyone wants to give me constructive answers to my questions then feel free to tag me. Or PM them to me.

      For the record, I am probably one of the staff members most on your guys' side of this issue.
      If I am put off by how this discussion manifests on the forum, then you aren't doing yourselves any favours.

      (And apologies if this seems like an over-reaction to one post, but the attitude, absence of humility and lack of constructiveness exemplified by this sort of response is endemic on this forum (publicly and internally) and I have a limited amount of energy for dealing with such things right now).
      New rules:
      (1) I will do my best to answer your criticisms, particularly of RT, but don't forget to thank one of the unsung heros who hold this project together: rules clarity team, lectors, website admin, background etc...
      (2) If you tag me and I don't answer you, its because I'm busy, sorry :( . If you still want an answer ~4 days later then tag me again and I will try to do better :)
    • @DanT
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs?
        • Afaik both, but to a lesser extend to the slim books (I think that is what they are called?). To spread the hobby into new territories, physical army books work miracles. So yearly changes to FAB's would in effect shut this possibile expansion down. Yearly tweaks to the slim army books also get big criticism, as it really feels like tinkering in the margin. People prefer the game to focus on other area's. @Calisson had a staggeringly good idea for the FAB's if points would have to be adjusted periodically.
      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds).
        • Don't think this thread was meant to discuss balance handling issues or processes, but @Fnarrr made a good point about this - perhaps this can be looked into in a different section.
      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the [lexicon]BRB[/lexicon] is finally updated again, never...?
        • If I read this thread correctly, the same fixed period as the BRB. After Beta testing, both private and public. The book needs to be solid before lockdown.
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • Pellegrim wrote:

      @DanT
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs?
        • Afaik both, but to a lesser extend to the slim books (I think that is what they are called?). To spread the hobby into new territories, physical army books work miracles. So yearly changes to FAB's would in effect shut this possibile expansion down. Yearly tweaks to the slim army books also get big criticism, as it really feels like tinkering in the margin. People prefer the game to focus on other area's. @Calisson had a staggeringly good idea for the FAB's if points would have to be adjusted periodically.
        • Do I understand correctly that you are saying yearly points changes to the non-FABs is more acceptable than to the FABs?

      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds).
        • Don't think this thread was meant to discuss balance handling issues or processes, but @Fnarrr made a good point about this - perhaps this can be looked into in a different section.
        • My question was more about whether points changes per se are the problem, or specifically invalidation of builds. Every complaint I hear in local circles about points changes (as opposed to design/rules changes) is typically about how a list/character build that a player has spent time building/converting/painting has been invalidated. Since specifically points reductions would not invalidate any builds, I wonder if they are less of an issue than more general points changes. (Note that I know that changes of any kinds to the rules are problematic because they require players to re-learn things, but we are talking specifically about points changes not rules changes here).

      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the [lexicon]BRB[/lexicon] is finally updated again, never...?
        • If I read this thread correctly, the same fixed period as the BRB. After Beta testing, both private and public. The book needs to be solid before lockdown.
        • I didn't so much want a summary of the thread as to hear different peoples answers and reasons. I am currently canvassing the UK facebook group as well. I am already astonished at the breadth of responses there. Whatever we do, someone is gonna be unhappy :(


      New rules:
      (1) I will do my best to answer your criticisms, particularly of RT, but don't forget to thank one of the unsung heros who hold this project together: rules clarity team, lectors, website admin, background etc...
      (2) If you tag me and I don't answer you, its because I'm busy, sorry :( . If you still want an answer ~4 days later then tag me again and I will try to do better :)
    • grungimusic wrote:

      So when project talks of FABs that won't stay current for more than a year, it is extremely frustrating; particularly when post FAB point tweaks are intended to further "balance" that is ill defined, using data that is insufficient for the task. From our perspective, it's a very poor trade. For those of us trying to build local communities from the ground up, our efforts feel undermined.
      This is a clear example of cultural differences and how it effects the hobby in different places of the world.


      I come from a surrounding that is in stark contrast to what based on the responses in this topic the US scene was. For more than 15 years I have lived in a gaming culture that saw price adjustments and intrusion into the army lists several times a year due to ever changing comp packs and even several comp packs coexisting with a few hundred kilometres. What the T9A has been doing had felt as a natural progression of the existing state except this time instead of me needing to print out several papers to "correct" the GW sold book I get a whole document adjusted alongside.

      The European (especially on the continent) network of wargaming clubs grew and prospered under such conditions. The transition from WHFB to T9A saw reduction in numbers but growth is being experienced once again.

      One of the things I did notice is that few of these clubs are attached to any shops or reliant on a specific location unless they themselves own or rent it. In addition due to social programs proivded by many EU countires wargaming clubs can get financing from the local communities in amounts that are not insignificant ranging from a few thousand $ to as many as 10k in the best of years. But that requires a lot of work and paperwork to maintain as well as actively conducing programes for schoolchildren that eventually get hooked and become the new blood for the community.

      It roughly takes 20 kids to go through a 3 month long hobby workshop to get 1 new community member aged 10-14. It is a lot of work hours to devoute to just bringing new people but it is a basis upon which healthy gaming communities are built. As soon as people stop doing that getting new people into the hobby become very hard.


      Sorry I went off topic.

      What I wanted to say is that the gaming environment within which many people working on the project have existed for a very long time (some maybe do not know the time before the AC explosion in europe in early 2000's) is at odds to the gaming environment that was prevelant in US.

      It is not an easy task bridging the two together but we slowly are moving towards it.

      If you look how things were when we started to where we will be later this year it a big shift towards trying to find a solution that both sides would be satisfied with.

      :)

      Background Team

      Conceptual Design

      Rules Advisors

      THE THRONG OF NEVAZ RIG - ARMY BLOG; UPRISING 2018 - 26/27 May - Singles Tournament
    • DanT wrote:

      Pellegrim wrote:

      @DanT
      • Does this apply to both the get-you-by books and the FABs?
        • Afaik both, but to a lesser extend to the slim books (I think that is what they are called?). To spread the hobby into new territories, physical army books work miracles. So yearly changes to FAB's would in effect shut this possibile expansion down. Yearly tweaks to the slim army books also get big criticism, as it really feels like tinkering in the margin. People prefer the game to focus on other area's. @Calisson had a staggeringly good idea for the FAB's if points would have to be adjusted periodically.
        • Do I understand correctly that you are saying yearly points changes to the non-FABs is more acceptable than to the FABs?
        • A change to slim book doesn't render a considerable investment useless - I'd say yes (but only if I had to make the choice)
      • Those who have been told that others are put off by this, could you speak to them about whether there is an asymmetry between price increases and decreases in this respect? I ask because if the issue is invalidating builds then price decreases should presumably cause much fewer problems? The majority of complaints I hear (and my own complaints) are primarily about invalidation of builds).
        • Don't think this thread was meant to discuss balance handling issues or processes, but @Fnarrr made a good point about this - perhaps this can be looked into in a different section.
        • My question was more about whether points changes per se are the problem, or specifically invalidation of builds. Every complaint I hear in local circles about points changes (as opposed to design/rules changes) is typically about how a list/character build that a player has spent time building/converting/painting has been invalidated. Since specifically points reductions would not invalidate any builds, I wonder if they are less of an issue than more general points changes. (Note that I know that changes of any kinds to the rules are problematic because they require players to re-learn things, but we are talking specifically about points changes not rules changes here).
        • I am sure the (in)validation of models plays a role, yes. And agree that minor changes have lesser influence. But minor changes only really cater a certain player-base, namely those who actually care about so called "hyper balancing". Cause let's face it, this iteration of the game is insanely balanced already. The downside of minor changes remains that people have to re-print rules and no actual stability exists.[/u]
      • What is the frequency of updates to existing books that would be acceptable? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, when the [lexicon]BRB[/lexicon] is finally updated again, never...?
        • If I read this thread correctly, the same fixed period as the BRB. After Beta testing, both private and public. The book needs to be solid before lockdown.
        • I didn't so much want a summary of the thread as to hear different peoples answers and reasons. I am currently canvassing the UK facebook group as well. I am already astonished at the breadth of responses there. Whatever we do, someone is gonna be unhappy :(
        • Different peoples opinions are in the thread. I hope people that do not agree with my answer reply also. I can understand it's hard. I think it's best to be crisp about 9th Age intentions on further changes. So people can make up their mind on what to play.[/u]



      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • DanT wrote:

      Pellegrim wrote:


      • yearly changes to FAB's would in effect shut this possibile expansion down. Yearly tweaks to the slim army books also get big criticism, as it really feels like tinkering in the margin. People prefer the game to focus on other area's. @Calisson had a staggeringly good idea for the FAB's if points would have to be adjusted periodically.
        • Do I understand correctly that you are saying yearly points changes to the non-FABs is more acceptable than to the FABs?


      Maybe @Pellegrim's reference was about a suggestion I made, that Full Army Books would be printed without pts cost, and PoM printed without power level, and special equipment without pts cost (assuming it remains in the BRB).
      The pts costs and power levels, subject to yearly balance adjustments to a moving meta, would be printed in a single, yearly document.

      Pro:
      - Balance can be done yearly and easily.
      - When a full document is printed, be it BRB, FAB or PoM, it is stable for a very long time (maybe an erratum might be considered), so quality or even luxury prints can be considered by professional printers and by players/collectors.
      Only the yearly book about pts cost and power level is, er, yearly. You know the obsolescence ahead of time, and that is a rather slim book.
      - During the game itself, pts cost are useless anyway.

      Cons:
      - Need to consult one more document when creating army lists. No big deal, as you already need AB+BRB+PoM, but still.
      - Power level matter during the game, so maybe power levels would need to be printed in a separated sheet.
      - The additional document about pts costs would group all AB, making it ~36 pages thick. Probably no big deal, if people only print home what they need.

      This suggestion would address the investment necessary for printing the AB, be it home printing or buying a professional print.
      Hopefully, with this guarantee that printed documents are there for a long time, professional printers would be more interested, and shop keepers would be incited to sell them, and T9A visibility would improve. Hopefully.

      Social Media Team

      UN Coordinator, aka UNSG

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