Complexity vs play-ability.

    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.

    • Complexity vs play-ability.

      After watching a short video put out by my favorite 2 youtubers for 9th Age subjects, Hans and Gretal, no.... Waldorf and Statler, And seeing just how utterly complex a simple rule should be, and how it can utterly nerf missile-fire units, and characters in the unit, I came to the conclusion that this rule needs a serious re-look.

      I like a certain amount of complexity, but when it slows down my game and has some big short-comings to units that realistically don't deserve the restrictions imposed on them I get really annoyed. This impacts my fun-factor for the game, (which is not good for anybody).
      And if I, (an easy-going fun loving person) gets annoyed then I suspect that other people can get just as easily upset with such Empirical non-sense.

      I suggest picking one or the other aspect in this rule, but not both.
      Concerning LoS for firing arc; Either every figure in the unit, including Characters, goes off the front arc of the unit just as LoS for charging does for the entire unit.
      The other rule that only figures that have individual line of sight may fire, fine, then let each figure in a unit be able to pick whichever target they want within its' personal LoS! This means that one missile unit could fire some of its' figures at separate opposing units in one missile-fire phase. That I feel is quite fair. A bit cumbersome, but fair.
      Certainly Characters, being superior to rank and file, (at least in cost) should not suffer a penalty of LoS due to unit restrictions, as illustrated in the video.

      OK, I have my armour on, let the slings and arrows fly! Oh Crap, where did I leave my shield!
      Files
      Failure is not an option.
    • Sorry, it isn't clear to me precisely what you are complaining about here with regards to the rule.

      Which consequences of the rule don't you like?
      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
    • Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      Do you actually play this game? Just musing why you can't understand my beef with this LoS bovine fecal matter rule.
      DanT has done nothing but his best to help the community with understanding the rules. And yes, he plays this game. No need to get snippy.

      Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      Concerning LoS for firing arc; Either every figure in the unit, including Characters, goes off the front arc of the unit just as LoS for charging does for the entire unit.
      The other rule that only figures that have individual line of sight may fire, fine, then let each figure in a unit be able to pick whichever target they want within its' personal LoS! This means that one missile unit could fire some of its' figures at separate opposing units in one missile-fire phase. That I feel is quite fair. A bit cumbersome, but fair.
      Certainly Characters, being superior to rank and file, (at least in cost) should not suffer a penalty of LoS due to unit restrictions, as illustrated in the video.
      I'd actually be ok with the first part. However, it would lead to some abuse at the tournament level I believe. For example "my lone handgunner who can see you around this huge ruined building now allows the other 19 to curve their bullets and shoot you with full effect". It would also hamper the ability of some units to run around the flanks and get out of most of the fire. Sure, allowing the entire unit to shoot might allow some immersion (bowmen with a spotter who are simply volley firing over terrain) but at the same time it opens some wormy cans.

      The second part is actually a change they just brought to 40k, and it seems to be working quite well. Could be interesting. Here's my suggestion: every shooting unit starts the game "Ordered". The sergeant or equivalent regulates the firing of ranged weapons; the entire unit moves in unison and shoots at the same target. Maybe by doing so they gain an advantage (to be determined). The second setting would be "Fire at will" - the sergeant stops ordering and the troops take the best shots they can, allowing them to pick different targets.

      Just an idea. I think the rules as they are currently written are totally fine. That doesn't mean some improvements couldn't be thought of though.
      "The old wisdom born out of the west was forsaken. Kings made tombs more splendid than the houses of the living, and counted the old names of their descent dearer than the names of their sons. Childless lords sat in aged halls musing on heraldry, or in high cold towers asking questions of the stars.”

      Show off your Gaming Club!

      Southern California 9th Age Facebook Page
    • Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      It is two rules masquerading as one, but twice as complicated.
      Do you actually play this game? Just musing why you can't understand my beef with this LoS rule.
      Erm... I dno how to respond to this.
      I guess I'll leave you to it.
      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
    • DanT wrote:

      Borjnfer Wraith wrote:

      It is two rules masquerading as one, but twice as complicated.
      Do you actually play this game? Just musing why you can't understand my beef with this LoS rule.
      Erm... I dno how to respond to this.I guess I'll leave you to it.
      DONT COME HERE AND THINK YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PLAYED THIS GAME DAN.

      Buu.

      I think I have played the wrong game as well :(

      ----

      I don't see the issues here either TBFH, LoS is one of the things that work really well IMO.

      Can't you atleast specify the issues instead of attacking people that try to help you?
      Rules Questions?

      ETC 2016 - Referee
      ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
      ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
      ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
    • I think (one if) the issue(s) is the one adressed in the video: there are two concepts (boundary rectangle and footprint) in the rules that are very similar but still different, and lead to some situations that seem absurd to most people (units cannot be seen for shooting but can be seen for charging)
      WDG player - "Please, not in the face..."

      GRILLZONE - mein Hobby Blag
    • jimmygrill wrote:

      I think (one if) the issue(s) is the one adressed in the video: there are two concepts (boundary rectangle and footprint) in the rules that are very similar but still different, and lead to some situations that seem absurd to most people (units cannot be seen for shooting but can be seen for charging)
      That I agree on.

      But I think the current rules is the "lesser evil" compared to what you could do before Boundary was introduced. Or when you couldn't charge BR, you could place models in front of a unit and they couldn't see to charge but they couldn't move forward either because of Unit Spacing.
      Rules Questions?

      ETC 2016 - Referee
      ETC 2017 Warm-up Herford - Head Judge
      ETC 2017 Salamanca - Head Judge
      ETC 2018 - Team Sweden - Ogre Khans (ETC HYPE - CLICK ME!)
    • Lagerlof wrote:

      jimmygrill wrote:

      I think (one if) the issue(s) is the one adressed in the video: there are two concepts (boundary rectangle and footprint) in the rules that are very similar but still different, and lead to some situations that seem absurd to most people (units cannot be seen for shooting but can be seen for charging)
      That I agree on.
      But I think the current rules is the "lesser evil" compared to what you could do before Boundary was introduced. Or when you couldn't charge BR, you could place models in front of a unit and they couldn't see to charge but they couldn't move forward either because of Unit Spacing.
      I‘m not convinced we need two different concepts. Just using boundary would be fine by me, the exploits I am aware of are somewhat esoteric...

      At least be consistent with LOS, the current rules are more of a „worst of both worlds“ thing from a conceptual standpoint
      WDG player - "Please, not in the face..."

      GRILLZONE - mein Hobby Blag
    • Well it seems I was not clear on what was bothering about the footprint and LoS overlap rules, thanks for the clarity jimmygrill.
      DanT please forgive my snippity text.

      My topic is an old issue with just about any game ever made, and that is just how complex does the game/rule have to be and how much does it have to be complex before it begins to degrade the fun-factor of the game.

      This video about the LoS and footprint rules overlapping really triggered me on this topic of complex vs play-ability/fun.

      For me it is too complex, when I was under the assumption that T9A was trying to un-complex the game to increase the fun factor. I guess I was mis-informed.
      I proposed alternate ideas on how to streamline the rules conflicting each other, at least in my perception, especially for our characters in units.
      I hope I've made my concern about complexity versus play-ability a little more clear. Since this is still a Beta game I thought it was worth mentioning to see if it was worth a re-look before BSB went gold.

      cottage.jpg
      Failure is not an option.
    • jimmygrill wrote:

      I think (one if) the issue(s) is the one adressed in the video: there are two concepts (boundary rectangle and footprint) in the rules that are very similar but still different, and lead to some situations that seem absurd to most people (units cannot be seen for shooting but can be seen for charging)
      As a new player I have to say this doesn't confuse me too much. What's presented in the OP's video however is confusing. It's not too complicated to do so much as it's just counter-intuitive.

      I, personally, think it would much easier to have models in a unit draw LoS independently (ignoring models in the same unit) and completely drop the clause for using the "unit's Front Arc" entirely.
    • I think the takeaway here is:

      Does the rule asking for individual models to draw line of sight when shooting add sufficient depth to the game, and does it need to exist.

      Removing it will result in ever so slightly wider arcs of threat, but I think there is opportunity to have it removed (other than for joining characters) for both simplicity and for speed of gameplay.

      @DanT
      Hristo Nikolov
    • Fnarrr wrote:

      ....or just draw line of sight from the unit footprint, which will simplify and speed up the game; rather than still having to draw it from each individual model and then allocating it in separate pools to boot.
      The problem with that with some people is when there is some unit/terrain feature that would block some of the figures in the unit from getting a direct LoS to the target. As for me, I don't care which way they go with this, I'm flexible either way, but overlapping the two is just a mess IMHO.
      Failure is not an option.
    • Splitting fire is a can of worms.
      Not sure I want to open that one.

      I dno what the opinions of the rest of RT are here.


      To clarify, the issue is just that there are occasions when some models in a unit can shoot and others can't?
      Hasn't this been the case since forever?

      I'm not sure t9a has significantly changed this or made it more complicated compared to other similar games.
      It's also not obvious to me that there are any simpler alternatives that don't have an insignificant change to gameplay.

      Is this rule such a big deal that we want to change it before the freeze?
      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