State of 9th age in the US

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

    The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

    • 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!*"

      -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
    • 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.
      Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

      Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

      Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
    • 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!*"

      -Aragorn, son of Arathorn
    • 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).
      Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

      Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

      Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
    • @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 :(


      Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

      Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

      Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"
    • 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

      Rules Team

      Conceptual Design

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- :BH: :DL: :DE: :DH: :EoS: :HE: :ID: :KoE: :OK: :O&G: :SA: :SE_bw: :VS: :UD_bw: :VC: :WDG:
    • 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
    • I always try to understand and discuss. I also try to be the Voice of the other half of the Community as often every half has its own lobbythread and doesnt discuss with the opposing side.

      But now för me it is time to leave this thread, too.
      I contribute to :

      TA / ACS / PT / Content

      Translation / United Nation DE

      The work of TA and where to report your lists. An app to report your games.
    • 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.

      This was mainly as a rehtorical/reflective look at the design. Basically we need to decide whether the points changes are adding to the game or taking away. If it is an increase the question has to be "is the potential shelving of a gamers investment worth the balance tweak we are doing?" Is the net gain worth it


      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.
      I was speaking in hypotheticals - I wanted to make sure that regardless we are explicitly clear in what guides decisions during the post-gold phase of the game.


      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.

      I was referencing the post-beta FAB's. I think we all realize that from the WDG process there will likely be 3 phases of the FAB process (initial Release and public test and feedback, redesign and second public test, Final adjustments).
      What is being suggested is after "Gold" for the FAB's. Each FAB will have a test and adjustment period, but that period needs to be clearly laid out and held to and then a 'gold' version of the FAB needs to stick.

      Again - its about making sure that if we are implementing changes in the post-gold phase, that we are clear and consistent with out policy so that stakeholders know what they're getting, and when they are getting it.


      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.

      Counter Point - If the points adjustment is that small - is it really worthwhile? in a cost/benefit review of the change - is the headache to the community of implementing the change worth the gain in balance at smaller amounts? IMHO in the post gold, post FAB phase (So legacy slimbooks only) it likely is not worth it. Its subjective and I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, but it is something that I think should be reviewed after gold as the project will be in a new phase.

      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.
      Thanks for the input @Giladis - Its good to be able to do some thought exercises on what post-gold will/could/should look like.

      I also agree that there will need to be compromise as @DanT stated - Change is a spectrum - we have to find out where on the spectrum will be the best place for the project after Gold.

      And to anyone who is complaining about 'changes' for the last few years - the core rules and full game wide army redesigns will be ending soon. Now is the perfect time to come back in - we're doing hte final touches and tweaks but the game is almost there.

      :)

      Head of Lectors

      Quick Starter Team

      "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

      - Grouchy Badger

    • 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.

      Persedious wrote:

      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.
      I feel we are two sides of the same coin. We both love the game but in different ways. I did write that some people like the complexity, as you certainly do, to try and find the perfect Army list for their strategos. And there is nothing wrong with that. But the idea is to gather new and old players who will enjoy a rather simpler format.
      Perhaps two levels of complexity can be entertained here, Basic and Advanced Rule sets? There are many games that have this offered to the consumer.
      TOs' would have the option to use one or even both sets so both advanced and beginners could participate.
      What I suggest is a growing tool for the T9A community, not a replacement.
      Files
      • bridge.jpg

        (103.7 kB, downloaded 5 times, last: )
      Failure is not an option.
    • For perspective:

      Giladis wrote:

      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.
      I do not belong to this culture, and I live in Europe - I remember going into a shop, buying some dolls, painting them and playing battle versus friends (4th -> 8th, the 9th) - cause I didnt do tournament prior to 2015. As a reflection that the tournament scene is only a part of the gaming scene. And god was I glad I didnt have to think about constant updates. And god was the balance poor in the old days.

      Giladis wrote:

      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.
      Though I liked the excitement from continuous upgrades, I see the annoyance with other players. And I myself am getting tired. Also, it's an unmarketable product due to constant changes.
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!

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

    • This thread is about the state of T9A in the US so having input from a US player based perspective is helpful. It has been heard. There are people in top management that are from the US and understand what many US players want. All that being said, the US player base is much smaller than the European player base. As such, the US can't demand that the game be fundamentally changed to fit their exact desires (even assuming those desires were monolithic, which they are not).

      On the issue that the tournament guys are a small slice of the community. Well, they are not a small slice of T9A community. T9A is a system that was started by tournament guys with a tournament bend. Those are the Founders of the project and where the roots of this project start from. It was quickly understood that with the demise of WH that another system would need to step in very quickly to hold the tournament scene together. Otherwise, the tournament scene would go to KoW or something like that. Alternatively, the scene would have permanently fractured and been lost. The guys doing Swed Comp said, yeah, we can help to hold it all together. So they did. The genesis of the project was balancing out WHF. ETC adopted the system that was created and the project grew as did the profile of the project. With growing legal issues the project decided to make a turn and go it's own way. This was hated by some, and loved by others. But this decision was to make T9A its own thing. Let me repeat: this decision was to MAKE T9A ITS OWN THING. This would result in legal safety, not because we moved just far enough away from WH, but because it really was its own thing. In other words, legal safety was the byproduct. Since 1.1 we have been in transition to that new game. The milestone of legal safety has been passed some time ago. But what is happening with the game is based on the plan of T9A being its own game.

      In making the decision to be its own game, the guys that stated this project decided that yes, indeed it would be a good thing to offer a game that did have broader appeal than just for tournament play. This can be seen by the implementation of the first FAB rewrite. Was it perfect? No. Will the guys try to continue to improve? Yes. But with the main rules reaching the "new game" state this being .20X, now we enter the phase of the project were we get to see the really interesting stuff be added into the FAB. While the magic was fully revamped, will it perfectly fit into each and every FAB rewrite? Probably not. If we want to take in more community input and adjust accordingly, we will need the ability to do that IF necessary.

      On the issue of constant point changes, the message has been received. We will see what can be done to dramatically slow the changes so that the game can be stable. Points adjustment to the "get-me-by" army books (all army books fall into this category now except the WDG) will continue, but hopefully we can slow them down. Likewise, we can't tie the PRO guys down to only points reductions. We all know that the game is highly externally balanced now, but internal balance is not the best. I'm not sure if we can / should fix all of it pre-FAB rewrite, but some of the get-me-by army books are messy and communities are demanding internal fixes to some of the books. Can we target the worst offenders rather than do ALL the books at once? Certainly. That's a good suggestion I have seen here. Slower changes are another good suggestion.

      Now, if you are generally happy or satisfied with what I have written above in this post you don't have to read what is written next because I'm a bit unhappy with the tone and direction some of the posts have taken. So there is no need to read my personal views below.

      For all that want to, go ahead. But this is my personal little rant.

      **begin rant** Flatly demanding that no changes occur (even points reductions) is unreasonable as it takes a myopic view of the global project. I'm a casual player generally speaking, but I don't have distain for the European Tournament players and their needs. To ignore them would foolish as the tournament scene in Europe is a central underpinning from the beginning and even now. Conversely, it is stupid to ignore the US market and what the players there want / need to be successful and grow it. But T9A is not WH. This is not primarily a fluff game that can be comped to make it tournament playable like WH. It's started as a tournament game, however, is being looked at to see how fluff aspects can be introduced to cater to casual players. But the self entitled attitudes expressed here do not help the casual player cause or the US player cause that want stability. All you do is drive away the staff members that are the biggest supporters of the casual community or that listen to the online community at all for that matter. Many here see things black and white. They are not. There are diverse interests. Some don't have to compete but can be complementary with well thought out compromise. Other interests truly do compete with each other. But the dismissive and hostile comments to guys like @Giladis and @DanT do more harm for the casual community and online community that you know. So please stop it. I can tell you that I am one of the top guys advocating for assisting the growth of T9A in the US and for the casual community, but the unreasonable comments and entitled demands here have just about made even me unsubscribe from this thread too. **end rant**