The November Rules Update

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

  • KeyserSoze wrote:

    We know that community wants more and more, but it's extremely difficult to make it happen.
    Another example: in ID, people wanted the small tauruks, mainly because they had the models, and centaur like creatures are always intriguing and unique.
    Problem was, there was no room for them in the army, without breaking the internal balance of the book. What we did was going on the safe road, and creating a non-appealing unit. Still, they are there for all those hobbyists that want to see them on table. But in game terms, we(let's be honest) didn't manage to make them fit(which, as I said, was extremely difficult).
    I understand your point and the point of the 9th Age team, but for me it's "Cool unit idea" > more options > Internal balance. I play casual and for me everything is balanced so long both players had a good time. I play only in a small group with the same people and honestly we found Warhammer 8th nicely balanced :whistling: . I never understood the quest for balance the 9th Age rules team has.
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    We know that community wants more and more, but it's extremely difficult to make it happen.
    Another example: in ID, people wanted the small tauruks, mainly because they had the models, and centaur like creatures are always intriguing and unique.
    Problem was, there was no room for them in the army, without breaking the internal balance of the book. What we did was going on the safe road, and creating a non-appealing unit. Still, they are there for all those hobbyists that want to see them on table. But in game terms, we(let's be honest) didn't manage to make them fit(which, as I said, was extremely difficult).
    I understand your point and the point of the 9th Age team, but for me it's "Cool unit idea" > more options > Internal balance. I play casual and for me everything is balanced so long both players had a good time. I play only in a small group with the same people and honestly we found Warhammer 8th nicely balanced :whistling: . I never understood the quest for balance the 9th Age rules team has.
    That's likely because you are a casual player. The issue is 8th if you didn't play it casually was extremely broken, there were miles of distance between the best and worst armies. And if you consider that the 9th Age was designed to allow for the coninuation of competetive mass combat tournaments the balance aspect makes sense. If you are a casual player GW ending 8th, doesn't really affect you that much you can continue to play as you wish. But for tournaments and tournament focused players it means the game isn't going to see better balance or rereleasing of armies, and so to deal with that void and horrible, horrible, balance, T9A arose to fill that gap. Luckily they are devoted to promoting the hobby as a whole, and as such are creating background, and all this other wonderful stuff so everyone can enjoy the hobby.

    But the project needs to keep a balanced rule set or tournaments will stop using it, and with those tournaments will go a decent chunk of th active community on this forum. There will still be some left to work on the project, but I suspect at that point it will be in it's death throws.


    Vazalaar wrote:

    KeyserSoze wrote:

    It's because it was created by ETC players maybe? ;)
    Probably ;) , but I am one of those guys that thinks that ETC has to much of an impact on the rules.
    I agree with you on this point :P , but I am also a tournament player so I still think the rules should before anything else be balanced :D
  • Krokz wrote:

    Vazalaar wrote:

    "Cool unit idea" > more options > Internal balance. I play casual and for me everything is balanced so long both players had a good time. I play only in a small group with the same people
    Then play homebrew :) Look at T9A as a frame, like D&D is. Create interesting units from models you want and have fun.
    Yeah, but what is the benefit has 9th Age above Warhammer 8th if you add freely units and rules. Which we do, i.e Slaughterpriest rules done by me..
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    Krokz wrote:

    Vazalaar wrote:

    "Cool unit idea" > more options > Internal balance. I play casual and for me everything is balanced so long both players had a good time. I play only in a small group with the same people
    Then play homebrew :) Look at T9A as a frame, like D&D is. Create interesting units from models you want and have fun.
    Yeah, but what is the benefit has 9th Age above Warhammer 8th if you add freely units and rules. Which we do, i.e Slaughterpriest rules done by me..
    oh, I don't know..... it has an active community? :P
  • Because it lets you play any combination of units you want and still have a fair game :)

    Even among our casual gamers I noticed in 8th most slowly tended to use lists similar to net-lists. Not because they looked at the internet and fished the best list, but because some units worked so much better that the other options and gave them more glorious moments (aka, smashing victories), in the end they unconsciously did the smart thing and used the best options.
  • @Vazalaar

    I am not sure you understand what is meant by balance. Based on your post, you view balance as a personal viewpoint, similar to the concepts of "fun" and "challenging".

    When people are talking about a game being balanced, it is actually an objective game design principle that is separate (though related) to fun. When a game is balanced, then the outcome of a match is decided by player skill and ability, rather than by the stats of any particular unit.

    Balance is not a nebulous concept only meant for the highest level of tournament play. It is meant for all levels of play to ensure that people are rewarded for playing better, not for choosing the strongest army and face rolling their opponent.

    So, while I am glad that you found 8th Ed. fun (we all did, which is why we are here playing this game), fun is not the same as balanced. In 8th Ed., if you played tomb kings, then you were always at a disadvantage. If you played WoC (in an uncomped environment), you were always at an advantage. You could still win as TK, you could still lose as WoC, but it was a much more difficult feat to accomplish.

    That is why this game is focused on balance. A balanced game means that people can play an army because they like the playstyle without being punished for it by game mechanics. If you start winning, it is because you are getting better, and if you start losing, it means that the problems are with your play, not your army. In short, the game is more fun for both players, not just the player with the more powerful army.
  • Krokz wrote:

    Vazalaar wrote:

    "Cool unit idea" > more options > Internal balance. I play casual and for me everything is balanced so long both players had a good time. I play only in a small group with the same people
    Then play homebrew :) Look at T9A as a frame, like D&D is. Create interesting units from models you want and have fun.
    exactly, there are even people playing/testing homebrew magic rules that I created. And I got feedback for things they like and things they either want less complex or different.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • Giladis wrote:

    We are seeking to reduce mid game confusion. Options that cannot be properly distinguished when looking at a unit are under review. Like how do you differ between a unit that does not have Light Troops and the one that has bought it as an upgrade.
    That must be a hard goal to meet when there is no WYSIWYG rule and no official models. How can you tell if they bought any upgrade at all? Heck, I can think of several instances where you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell what unit it was just by looking at it (and without your opponent telling you).
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Giladis wrote:

    We are seeking to reduce mid game confusion. Options that cannot be properly distinguished when looking at a unit are under review. Like how do you differ between a unit that does not have Light Troops and the one that has bought it as an upgrade.
    That must be a hard goal to meet when there is no WYSIWYG rule and no official models. How can you tell if they bought any upgrade at all? Heck, I can think of several instances where you wouldn't necessarily be able to tell what unit it was just by looking at it (and without your opponent telling you).
    QFT
  • lawgnome wrote:

    @Vazalaar

    I am not sure you understand what is meant by balance. Based on your post, you view balance as a personal viewpoint, similar to the concepts of "fun" and "challenging".

    When people are talking about a game being balanced, it is actually an objective game design principle that is separate (though related) to fun. When a game is balanced, then the outcome of a match is decided by player skill and ability, rather than by the stats of any particular unit.

    Balance is not a nebulous concept only meant for the highest level of tournament play. It is meant for all levels of play to ensure that people are rewarded for playing better, not for choosing the strongest army and face rolling their opponent.

    So, while I am glad that you found 8th Ed. fun (we all did, which is why we are here playing this game), fun is not the same as balanced. In 8th Ed., if you played tomb kings, then you were always at a disadvantage. If you played WoC (in an uncomped environment), you were always at an advantage. You could still win as TK, you could still lose as WoC, but it was a much more difficult feat to accomplish.

    That is why this game is focused on balance. A balanced game means that people can play an army because they like the playstyle without being punished for it by game mechanics. If you start winning, it is because you are getting better, and if you start losing, it means that the problems are with your play, not your army. In short, the game is more fun for both players, not just the player with the more powerful army.

    I indeed never had an issue with balance with 8th, on the otherhand we only played in a small group and the 8th edition armies are/were (Wood Elves, Dark Elves, High Elves, Empire, Lizardmen and Warriors of Chaos). My armies are Empire and WoC and I am probably quite a bad player, as I lost most of my games.

    I base my armylist on units that imo look great on the table top and not how uber they are, so I never, never used those old and ugly GW Empire knights.. my hope is that @Hidden Dreams will one day make new heroic scaled knights.. :saint:

    I indeed see external / internal balance as personal viewpoint. I.e It seems that WotDG is considered to be very internal balanced, for me it's the most boring version of Chaos I have ever seen.

    The only reason for me not playing an army was because I disliked the miniatures, I have never been bothered by uber or non uber units. It's a game with dice, I mean balance is one thing, but it is certainly not the most important thing that makes a game good.
  • Vazalaar wrote:

    I indeed see external / internal balance as personal viewpoint. I.e It seems that WotDG is considered to be very internal balanced, for me it's the most boring version of Chaos I have ever seen.
    The thing is it's more objective than it is subjective, I will admit their is some subjective nature to it. We can measure if an army, or with enough data, unit is over or under performing. I don't disagree the books have become rather boring, and I could have the wrong impression, but I think this next design cycle where books get revamped is going to address putting the character and feel back into armies.



    Vazalaar wrote:

    It's a game with dice, I mean balance is one thing, but it is certainly not the most important thing that makes a game good.
    But the lack of it can and will create a horrible game. The only reason T9A is te size it is now, is because of that commitment to balance. I know a LOT of people who only showed up aroud v1.0, AFTER seeing it really was more balanced than 8th, had it been just as bad as 8th they never would have picked it up.

    But I don't disagree there is more to a game than just rules, and that is exactly why T9A has it's own art team creating stories and backgrounds for each of the armies.
  • @nicreap

    I can't disagree with your post. But i.e 8th Edition had balance, imo the most balanced version of all Warhammer versions, the only difference was that for some it wasn't balanced enough. As I said I play in a friendly / casaul enviremont, ofcourse we all play to win, but we don't min-max our armylists and etc.. . The internet is full of broken and WAAC lists and imo people that play like that just missed the intention of the game.

    About art, imo the 9th Age should i.e release weekly some art about an army / unit. So people can be exited and inspired. Same for miniature companies. @Hidden Dreams made a mini (the shapeshifter) based on 9th Age artwork. It's one of the best mini's I have seen this year. We can and should have this more. As it seems now, some armies can wait months / years for they will see some artwork about their beloved 9th Age army.. .
  • Digger614 wrote:

    omalley69 wrote:

    Just read the announcement of rulebook 1.2 in november.

    i REALLY dont hope they are going to cut down on unit options. Having invested heavily on pistol militia and hw shield imperial guard for my empire army and then loosing those options would break it for me.

    I migrated from 40k to 9th in the belife that armybooks would be updated regularly and would be full of flair, maybe even reintroducing old models like the war wagon for EoS.

    Omalley69 wrote:

    So stuff like skeletons with halberds and other stuff might get removed again?

    I could easily see a community getting quite upset about that. First been giving cool new options, investing time and money in them, and then loosing them.

    Its been seen over and over in the past of 40k codexes. Options and complexsity comming and going (GW releases a cool new miniature and making the rules for its old counterparts obsolete). It leaves the fans frustrated and honestly one of the reasons i joined the 9th age community. I hopped this whouldnt be the case with 9th age.
    I'm not a rules designer, but I do know that the more variables that you add, the harder it is to balance a game. But I do appreciate the comments about investing money in models. On the question of complexity I defer commenting to @fjugin @arthain and @el rey. They could answer this much better than I ever could. Also, add @SmithF.
    In this case, the balance of the game (how powerful armies are) is not really the main reason for reducing options. It's a nice bonus, but the main reason has more to do with game being too complex, and speeding up the game.

    Upgrades that are difficult to keep track of because there are no way you can represent the option in a clear and unambiguous way slows down the game. Keeping track of them for your opponent is not easy when there are multiple units involved. Consider a situation where a KoE player has 3 pegasus knight units, one with devastating charge, one with vanguard and one with nothing. You'll constantly have to ask your opponent which unit has what upgrade, and this slows down the game.
    Speeding up the game is something we are working hard towards, anyone should be able to play a game in under 3 hours without rushing through the last turns. Which currently is not the case.

    These are the type of upgrades we are eliminating (usually through making them included in the default configuration of the unit). Weapon options are different. If you have several units of skeletons, some with halberds, some with hand weapons and some with shields, I can just look at your models and instantly know which units is which.

    The other reason for dropping optional (non-representable) upgrades is to make it easier for new players to get an idea of what the unit's purpose within the army is. With several different unique upgrades that makes the unit fill slightly different roles it becomes difficult to get a feel for the unit. The current situation is manageable for experienced players, but newer players seems to be struggling more with this. We need to stop this trend we had during the beta phase with more and more options for all units.
    This also makes it easier to give each unit a more distinct role, and to fit into the theme of the army and its strengths and weaknesses, if we don't also have to take into consideration all the possible options the unit has.

    Head of Rules Team

    Advisory Board

    Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team

    OnG_LAB team

  • Vazalaar wrote:

    As it seems now, some armies can wait months / years for they will see some artwork about their beloved 9th Age army.. .
    If this had been another company you would have to wait a lot longer than that for an army update.

    Also as a long time Tomb King player, I did enjoy 8th edition very much. But even then I could see the blatant discrepancy between armies. I was thrilled when this project came around because it's main focus was balance. To me it has been a wildly successful endeavor and I have full faith that things will only get better.