Version 1.2 - Why Change From Version 1.1?

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

    The brand new army book for Infernal Dwarves is finally available, along with a small surprise! Remember that it is a beta version, and provide us your feedback!

    • Version 1.2 - Why Change From Version 1.1?

      I'm opening this thread in the General Section to field questions (if I can) about the News Announcement I posted here:

      Version 1.2 - Why Change From Version 1.1?

      I hope to provide more transparency to the community about global decisions. Please note that I don't write rules, so I can't answer specific rules questions. But from a strategic standpoint, this discussion is one that I hope provides some insight.

      Thanks everyone.
    • This is a long and very interesting text. I think this is written honestly,thank you very much for it!

      If you could have posted this text a week before the update to 1.2, I think people wouldn't have been so upset, as like in the last few days.

      I now don't like 1.2 more, than before I read the text and I will stick to 1.1 for the near future, but I can now understand the reasons to do that change and I can respect that step.

      Keep up the good work, I hope soon in the future there will be a good version of the game with good backround and fluffy rules again!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by JeroBeam: typo ().

    • Yes thanks for the work, but 9th Age is WHFB, whether you try to say that it is not. Community was created due to Age of Sigmar. If GW continued with WHFB i believe you would not even exist...Thank you for the effort you putted in, but this is for me the end of the road. I haven't posted a lot, felt okay from the start of your game to now. I started even to be convinced that we were at that "stable" version that could be kept for years with little tweaks. Disappointment.

      Most of the community you have here are sad WHFB players that felt betrayed by GW and hoped for a better and newer version. Legally suitable ? No of course not. I am still surprised you were not attacked by GW already personnaly. I understand your concerns, but it feels like "we steal the sad customers from that company" provide a faked "same" game and then depart to follow another route.

      The main concern i have with all this :
      -Fluff. You have no fluff, no story. I believe most people do not think or say "Empire of Sohnnstal" but more "my Middenheimer" , My reiklanders, my Tomb King and kept the use of their armies of the post.
      -Stability
      -Depths of armies and identity

      I will repeat it, evolution of a game is also the story of the game. Many players don't care but still they like their armies identity, heroes they can create or narrative ones. 99% of the players do not give a damn about ETC or Tournament rules. They want correct rules, not perfect rules. They want rules that can be read without thinking about loopholes or poorly written and waiting 4 years to have a poor errata or a change of Rulebook.

      That is the reason people dislikes the change, and also dislike being betrayed. I, for one, felt betrayed by GW. I feel the same here, and worse even, because you are supposed to be community based, but we feel like you are following a company line... We just want to have stability.

      Thanks for reading, thanks for the work you put in it, and goodbye. This was a quick glance to these forums, a quick play of this project, and a quick leave finally. I won't play Age of Sigmar either as i won't give a penny to GW anymore but i will probably stick to 8th and play with my useless KArl Franz again :)
    • toony14 wrote:

      -Fluff. You have no fluff, no story. I believe most people do not think or say "Empire of Sohnnstal" but more "my Middenheimer" , My reiklanders, my Tomb King and kept the use of their armies of the post.
      There is a B&A team that has prepared amazing and deep fluff. You got the first idea with SE and UD, if you stick around a little longer you can see more!
      Also check the Paths of Magic, and the nice artwork and texts that accompany it!

      Army Design Team

      Rules Clarification

      Lexicon Team

      Oceanborn

    • very good read, thanks a lot, this wouldve been great if provided before 1.2 came up, but its nice to know now anyway. I guessed something along those lines beforehand, but knowing is definetly better and more precise. ;)

      about the background, it looks nice already and dont let you be hasted, a lot of pepole have no clue what insane amount of work this is and they cant contemplain it. You have plan, stick to it! it will do you good in the long run!
    • KeyserSoze wrote:

      toony14 wrote:

      -Fluff. You have no fluff, no story. I believe most people do not think or say "Empire of Sohnnstal" but more "my Middenheimer" , My reiklanders, my Tomb King and kept the use of their armies of the post.
      There is a B&A team that has prepared amazing and deep fluff. You got the first idea with SE and UD, if you stick around a little longer you can see more!Also check the Paths of Magic, and the nice artwork and texts that accompany it!
      Thanks KeyserSoze, i will of course read it. I completely understand that this project is time consuming to all of the people working on it. Services are never rewarding as we would like. I really appreciated the work done before on the rules, the books out are amazing and free and there are a lot of great things about the project of course. Keep your passion up, and of course, do not take my rant into account. Sometimes you do not like how things turns out, impossible to please everyone. Keep up doing what you believe is good RT/Legal Team/Design Team etc etc.

      I am not pleased with how things turned out but hey, my minis won't die from it! I will keep an eye on your fluff and hope i will like it :) , i will maybe be interested in your game when it will be stabilized or just forget about it :)
    • Why didn't you post this from the start, seriously? I was pretty disapointed with the changes but this changes my perspective, I'm still not happy but at least now I understand the reasoning behind your actions, I'll just pray you don't deviate too much from where this game started and that 9th Age still ends up being the game that most closely resembles WHF because I'd really not like to switch to KoW or some other game. For now I'll stick to 1.1 with my group though.
    • Pirao wrote:

      Why didn't you post this from the start, seriously? I was pretty disapointed with the changes but this changes my perspective
      You are, of course, correct. This should have been posted a week ago (or a couple of weeks ago).

      That is my fault, and I apologize for it and for the unnecessary stress this may have caused the community.

      But thank you for reading that rather long explanation and for understanding.
    • Thanks for that post, @Digger614. It's the feeling I started having some time ago when reading between the lines, but it's not something that could really be shared widely, until now. So thanks for doing it.
      Now - what do I have to do to become a red tag and have access to that info earlier? :D
      Professionally printed Magic cards

      I’m no lord. I’ve more respect for myself than that. - Mat Cauthon
    • toony14 wrote:

      Sometimes you do not like how things turns out, impossible to please everyone.
      Maybe we shouldn't be so amazingly awesome and don't let people grow expectations :D
      Seriously, if you like your minis and the hobby, don't let a company or a forum ruin it for you. We are sory to disappoint the community, but we'll keep trying harder. Remember that community was also disappointed during Nov '15, and then we tried harder to change things towards a better version.

      Army Design Team

      Rules Clarification

      Lexicon Team

      Oceanborn

    • While I'm personally in the camp that believes distancing from WHFB and the direction of 1.2 overall is the best long-term move for many reasons, I don't really see how the reasoning about legal threats makes sense.


      You write that T9A in both it's 1.1 and 1.2 version is legally in the clear (which I agree with) but that:

      digger614 wrote:

      anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time. Remember all that discussion above, you know, army selection, rules similarity, the name “The NINTH Age”, etc.? Doesn’t that sound “similar” to WH? We are a tiny little community project with absolutely no resources. We could not fight a legal battle of any sort. Just because you may be legally “right” does not mean that you would “win” a legal fight if you can’t afford to fight. We can’t. We feel like a mouse sitting in the room with a gorilla who could squish us as easily as looking at us.
      So basically that GW has no legal case but that they could bring the project down by launching a spurious lawsuit. T9A couldn't defend itself simply because a lawsuit would incur costs.


      So if the mere fact that a lawsuit could be filed is the issue, what does it matter if 1.2 is even more obviously in the clear than 1.1? If it's the actual lawsuit itself and not the verdict that's the issue; what's stopping anyone willing to file a spurious suit against a 1.1 T9A from doing the exact same thing against 1.2 T9A?
    • Zywus wrote:

      So if the mere fact that a lawsuit could be filed is the issue, what does it matter if 1.2 is even more obviously in the clear than 1.1? If it's the actual lawsuit itself and not the verdict that's the issue; what's stopping anyone willing to file a spurious suit against a 1.1 T9A from doing the exact same thing against 1.2 T9A?
      apparently we try to decrease the possibility of this happening ;)

      Army Design Team

      Rules Clarification

      Lexicon Team

      Oceanborn

    • Zywus wrote:

      So if the mere fact that a lawsuit could be filed is the issue, what does it matter if 1.2 is even more obviously in the clear than 1.1? If it's the actual lawsuit itself and not the verdict that's the issue; what's stopping anyone willing to file a spurious suit against a 1.1 T9A from doing the exact same thing against 1.2 T9A?
      Hmmm, good question. I will try to answer. In my post I tried to explain the similarities. Given enough similarities, a judge will say, ok, while I think it's a long shot, there is a triable issue here. But if you look so different on the face of the documents this will give someone pause before they bring a frivolous suit for harassment purposes. That would open the person bringing the suit up for sanctions and punitive damages. We want to be in the latter category, not the former category. In other words, there are serious practical benefits to moving further away.
    • Digger614 wrote:

      Zywus wrote:

      So if the mere fact that a lawsuit could be filed is the issue, what does it matter if 1.2 is even more obviously in the clear than 1.1? If it's the actual lawsuit itself and not the verdict that's the issue; what's stopping anyone willing to file a spurious suit against a 1.1 T9A from doing the exact same thing against 1.2 T9A?
      Hmmm, good question. I will try to answer. In my post I tried to explain the similarities. Given enough similarities, a judge will say, ok, while I think it's a long shot, there is a triable issue here. But if you look so different on the face of the documents this will give someone pause before they bring a frivolous suit for harassment purposes. That would open the person bringing the suit up for sanctions and punitive damages. We want to be in the latter category, not the former category. In other words, there are serious practical benefits to moving further away.
      That does make sense I guess. :thumbup:

      It would indeed have been good if that text had been widely read before the 1.2 changes. There were a lot of confusion over whether the changes were legally mandated and if so, why?