No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

    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.

    Our beta phase is finally over. Download The Ninth Age: Fantasy Battles, 2nd Edition now!

    • No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

      To whoever thought of this idea and is forcing them through I have to say as a player of this game, please stop implementing hard weaknesses.

      This is not coming from "I don't want me armies to have weaknesses" or "I want my army to be strong at everything", no. I am fine with soft weaknesses and strengths, but hard weaknesses are becoming a detriment to this game.

      1: This has resulted in units being scrapped or merged in WoDG, this is not acceptable.
      We came here (and hell this whole thing was created) so we could use our models, not so we could watch them disappear from the books like piecemeal.
      Answering with "Use your imagination" or "well you could use these three units as this one entry" are not valid excuses. When Vortex Beasts, Slaughter Brutes and Chimeras got merged into a single 0-2 entry, that ruins anyone who had even just one of each. Now they have purchased a model that they cannot use.


      2: You are intentionally making your own jobs harder.
      With WoDG's full book there are ways that they are trying to "get around" and "bypass" weaknesses that are very convoluted or sometimes even downright re-writing a rule but technically having it occur a tiny bit later so it does not classify as something.
      This is clearly an attempt to ram a square peg through a round hole that you don't even need.
      You are spending time and energy jumping through hoops you have created.
      A good example being Warhounds have:
      Release the Hounds: Universal Rule.During their owner’s first Player Turn, the models gain +8” March Rate and Devastating Charge (+1 Att, +1 Off,+1 Str, +1 AP).
      This is basically vanguard without saying Vanguard...why not just give them Vanguard when you pretty much have written it here?


      3: What do hard weaknesses actually add to an army?
      Do they add uniqueness? Because right now all the armies play differently. Hell, even during the previous game all factions had ways they could play that would have been different (even if it didn't pan out properly due to poorly thought-out rules *cough*Beastmen Ambush*cough*).
      But trying to force more uniqueness is foolhardy, they are already unique in the way they play and the units they can bring.
      Even mirror images like HBE and DE have strong differences. With HBE having more long ranged warfare and more flight, and DE having buff wagons and plentiful grounded monsters.


      4: The reception has been dire across the board.
      You are not going to convince anyone this is a good thing. Units and tactics being completely stripped from books does not make people want to play them. The reaction in the WoDG forum has been very strongly against the changes made via the removal of options.

      In addition some of the changes make no sense. In Vermin Swarm the Giant hamster Wheel no longer does impact hits...why? It rams into things and has giant spikes at the front, how does that not hurt more than it just standing there spinning? Meanwhile in Infernal Dwarves Bull-based units no longer do any extra damage on the charge...has anyone SEEN a bull charge? It hurts.
      And just look at what the reception was to WoDG when people saw it and how certain things were flat out unavailable. No ability to lay down any kind of pressure on the opponent through either shooting or special deployment makes them the most bland "run across the board fast" armies around, and leads on to my next point.


      5: You are going to make the Rock-Paper-Scissors aspect worse.
      If an army has no ability to pressure an opponent what on earth does it do when faced with a gun-line? I played the new WoDG against one and by the end of my first turn I had lost 1/3 of my army to shooting and was nowhere near charge range. How is it fun/entertaining to have a match-up so up-hill it feels almost painful to play?


      To reiterate, I am not against armies having weaknesses. But having hard weaknesses that involve the stripping of units or functions from units is not what any player here came for.
      So while WoDG are the only army to have this fully implemented, and you have a chance to reverse this, I am begging you to look again and reconsider this road you are going down.


      (If someone can tag various higher-up designers so they can see this I would be grateful)

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog

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

    • Your post would be more helpful if you could provide some examples of what you mean. I actually have found it bizarre that an army has a stated weakness and a ton of in-list options to circumvent that weakness. Two examples that spring to mind are Ogres having low initiative and lots of ways to reduce enemy initiative/boost their own, and Dwarves being “slow” but having the ability to build lists that outmove all but SE avoidance lists.
    • Not here to discuss really (still too busy with getting hotfix ready for release). I just want to clarify definitions a bit here. The term "hard weakness" was a poorly chosen term.
      One should really call it "weakness with a hard limit".

      In many cases, this hard limit is "army has none of X". But it doesn't have to be none of it. It could be other less extreme things as well, such as "army cannot have better armour save than 4+", or "cheapest model in the army must be above 20 points", or "no flyers outside character section", or "no units outside core may have more than 25 models, and core must not have more than 40", and so on.
      Hard weaknesses really are just a clearly defined frame which the armybook needs to stay inside. As opposed to the fuzzy edge associated with normal weaknesses. Surely having such well defined limits isn't a bad thing in itself.


      That is of course different from saying that the hard weaknesses implemented in some specific case was good. That is entirely different discussion.
      - Head of Rules Team -
      - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
    • It could be called "Fluffy Candy Weakness" and I would still have a problem if it was doing the things it was doing. I know stuff like having armour as a weakness will not result in some armies running around fully naked. It is the hard weaknesses where something is flat-banned where I take issue.

      The problem with these weaknesses being implemented now is that some are being forced on armies that already disobeyed them. If they were a guideline to prevent possible new units from breaking theme I would understand it. Like for example, no cavalry for Vermin Swarm outside of mounts. Fine, they don't have any and it prevents anything breaking what they already have.

      But when you have something for example like Infernal Dwarves, who had tons of first turn damage effects (probably more than most armies) suddenly losing most of them it is baffling. It was already established that they had this, and now it's gone.

      And then there are removed units, which is over the line.

      I know there is always the thought of "Some people just dislike change", but you also need to step back and ask "Is this change right?".

      Soft weaknesses can become defined as well. They are present to some degree, but either not in large quantities and/or more expensive due to their lack of availability.

      Lord of the Hobby

      The Great Horde of Chaos <-My hobby blog Tyranno's Ride into the Steppes <-My Makhar hobby/army-list blog
    • I agree with most of this.

      By defining armies more narrowly and taking out the other things that give them some versatility in weak areas, you start to make the game very rock-papers-scissors based on each army book.

      If the meta switches to a certain mix of army types. Certain army books just won't be played because they lost the versatility to play in that meta. Due to defining the armies so narrowly.

      I often wonder if all these changes are based on making team events like ETC and pairing more strategic. It seems the main focus is team play. Which is great for team events but in a lot of areas there just isn't any team events. Everything is singles events and the game needs to be based on that as well. And for singles events or just pick up games this rock-paper-scissors matchups makes the game feel very unfair.

      If 33% of games you easily win and 33% you easily lose based on random match-ups (not team selection)... Only 1/3 of games are the fun and interesting ones for singles or pick up games. Not very good for the game or trying to get new players.
    • Quick response (I have subscribed to the thread and will read it all)

      TheEvilOne wrote:

      I often wonder if all these changes are based on making team events like ETC and pairing more strategic. It seems the main focus is team play.
      This seems to be a thing on the forum.
      The game is not being designed for or focussed on team play.
      Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
      Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE
    • The problem I have with the current ASAW is than it is implemented in a really closed aproach. It is written in stone and any army should commit to them pretty narrowly.

      Buut, indeed, ASAW should be guidelines. The tauruk family from ID is an example. Even if ID had a weakness in "first turn dAmage", it makes nosense thana bull based unit doesn't have any kind of bonus on charge.

      Also, ASAW should be better discussed. As I talked about ID, I continue. If one of ID strenghts is " short shooting" but also we have weakness in "first turn damage", that is counterintuitive. ID want to shoot, recieve charge of damaged unit and being able to deal with them in CC. Now, tgey don't do it.
    • fjugin wrote:

      Not here to discuss really (still too busy with getting hotfix ready for release). I just want to clarify definitions a bit here. The term "hard weakness" was a poorly chosen term.
      One should really call it "weakness with a hard limit".

      In many cases, this hard limit is "army has none of X". But it doesn't have to be none of it. It could be other less extreme things as well, such as "army cannot have better armour save than 4+", or "cheapest model in the army must be above 20 points", or "no flyers outside character section", or "no units outside core may have more than 25 models, and core must not have more than 40", and so on.
      Hard weaknesses really are just a clearly defined frame which the armybook needs to stay inside. As opposed to the fuzzy edge associated with normal weaknesses. Surely having such well defined limits isn't a bad thing in itself.


      That is of course different from saying that the hard weaknesses implemented in some specific case was good. That is entirely different discussion.
      Having well defined limits actually has been a bad thing in IMO.
      It's been the biggest barrier to design.

      This project is brimming with extremely experienced and qualified people. At this point looking back I'd feel better about the teams all scrapping ASAW and going with gut feeling. No joke.
      I honestly feel you will have a better result with less nuanced rules bent on circumventing (warhounds) less broken rules- mostly flops due to cautious balancing and ASAW warping otherwise great concepts and overall less time spent as well. Look at asklanders for example. My group likes it over WDG and some tournaments have even said they will support it. Its a better product.

      Sorry got off track. I don't mean no boundaries for design I mean scrap ASAW make a commitment to not imposing hard anything on any faction. No hard weaknesses.
      Build the teams from people who have a strong grasp of 9th age lore for that faction and turn them loose. Then see what happens. The worst that happens is RT or BLT says no.. same as now.


      Here's an example of ASAW potentially forcing change on something that has existed that works and the players are content with..
      Nugget of info gleaned.
      AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
      Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Stygian ().

    • I think restrictions are creatively beneficial.

      Restrictions are crucial for innovation. You ponder questions you otherwise wouldn't and come up with new ideas and solutions you otherwise wouldn't.

      That said, I do think that compromise is extremely important, as is a degree of freedom. ID are a great example. It makes sense that if a bull charges you it hurts more. For that reason alone, Taurukh should have something along the lines of devastating charge.

      Internally, at least before launch, the HBE book was regarded as what other teams should strive for. Balance aside, from a player freedom point of view, and as a book as a whole, I think the book was a smashing success. Every member of the team that has commented on it said that this was due to strong respect, communication and compromise. Ultimately, I think the ability to respect, understand and compromise is the key to success. Having a hard, unfeeling, uncompromising restriction is antithesis to this, but so is absolute freedom of design.

      For these reasons, I agree with the initial post that ASAW should serve as a guide, human relationships should serve as the concrete of design.
    • A thought: perhaps the issue is simply one too many hard weaknesses.

      If every army has ONE hard weakness, that can be their own unique thing they don't share with anyone else. Then any number of soft weaknesses.

      (This is separate from what I think the issue is with the ID weakness, which I now think was a case of taking something that should be a strength of the army and making it a weakness. As people pointed out - it's an army full of bulls, which are known for charging.)

      Background Team

    • I think hard weaknesses are good, but similar to Dan I find it weird how too many tools are sometimes build into armies such as DH (a mess of a book IMO) that transforms it into the opposite of its weakness.

      However one thing hard weaknesses shouldnt do is making it impossible for an army to defeat certain kinds of foes, which is sometimes the case
    • I will have to agree, hard weaknesses might seem like a good idea on paper but in practice what happens is that options and play styles get taken away without anything new being added to replace them. Also well tested and working concepts (Like DH devastating charge) needs to be removed (as DH is apparently not supposed to have first turn damage output as a strength). When the full rewrite of the DH book comes around this will create the need for a massive amount of redesign and play testing just to get the book back to where it is now in regard to internal and external balance. Is this really time well spent?
    • This hyper tinkering of balance is more then a terrible waste of energy. The Asklanders has been this first thing in years that caused some excitement for many players. That is why it is supported widely by TO's in the Netherlands - including the GT near amsterdam. T9A needs new priorities imho.
      Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
    • Pellegrim wrote:

      This hyper tinkering of balance is more then a terrible waste of energy. The Asklanders has been this first thing in years that caused some excitement for many players. That is why it is supported widely by TO's in the Netherlands - including the GT near amsterdam. T9A needs new priorities imho.
      Agreed!

      I wonder if a focus on diversifying available/viable tools, rather than restricting them to make 1-2 50% winrate build types, would still result in a relatively balanced game through player ability to meta-tailor. I definitely feel like player emotion is under-estimated in balancing decisions. This is ultimately a role-playing game.

      (Not to try to bring the topic off-course ^^ it ties into human interaction being the concrete xD)
    • I've said this elsewhere but I believe a symptom of power reduction (or even increase (if it occurred) is that people adjust to the new level and then apply the same perception as before or i.e. search out the best and worst to define the boundaries of the game. This won't ever change and hyper balance is as much a symptom as a cure. Likewise, if a team or person is tasked with balancing they will continually identify strong points and reduce. In other words this is a cycle and a spiral.

      If armies are to have hard caps then I request that so does the balancing teams rules teams or really all teams. There must be a floor and a ceiling to this thing called balance. It can't exist in the abstract or we will continually decline in power level (or terminally increase in the case of GW). At least that's the theory.. but so far it is correct.

      I'll add that the community has been trained to respond with outbursts as the negative feedback mechanism to shut off further reduction, if only temporary.

      All of this.. approach, phenomenon results needs to be RE evaluated and changed.
      AVOIDANCE FAILS 28% OF THE TIME FOLKS. -SE
      Undying Deathstar Construction Inc.
    • Stygian wrote:

      I've said this elsewhere but I believe a symptom of power reduction (or even increase (if it occurred) is that people adjust to the new level and then apply the same perception as before or i.e. search out the best and worst to define the boundaries of the game. This won't ever change and hyper balance is as much a symptom as a cure. Likewise, if a team or person is tasked with balancing they will continually identify strong points and reduce. In other words this is a cycle and a spiral.

      If armies are to have hard caps then I request that so does the balancing teams rules teams or really all teams. There must be a floor and a ceiling to this thing called balance. It can't exist in the abstract or we will continually decline in power level (or terminally increase in the case of GW). At least that's the theory.. but so far it is correct.

      I'll add that the community has been trained to respond with outbursts as the negative feedback mechanism to shut off further reduction, if only temporary.

      All of this.. approach, phenomenon results needs to be RE evaluated and changed.
      Whether or not I agree, what is the connection between this and hard weaknesses?
      Hard weaknesses do not exist for balance reasons, nor are they about power. They are about flavour and faction differentiation.
      Not saying you are wrong or that it isn't related, just that I'm afraid I can't see the connection.
      Being supportive & giving useful criticism aren't mutually exclusive.
      Are you supportive of the project? Do your posts reflect that?

      List repository and links HERE
      Basic beginners tactics HERE