News: Map Pack 2019 update!

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!

  • News: Map Pack 2019 update!

    Hello Community,

    An updTed map rule pack has been released which is compatible with our recent The 9th Age Lands Book!

    See the news here

    So, which map is your most and least favourite?

    T9A Team
    http://www.bugmansbrewery.com - The largest most informative Fantasy Dwarf website on the net, covering every dwarfers needs from forum to tactics, balls to ships!

    Advisory Board

    Head of Public Relations

    Bugmans Brewery Owner (Dwarven Holds)

  • Could we also get a version without the special names on the chosen terrain pieces? When playing without them it just clogs up the map.

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - ID]
  • Laik wrote:

    Maps looks good.
    It would be good to have description of special terrain on the map itself - otherwise you need to go to some other book to check how it works - which means people will not use it...
    I play with the thought of creating some cards with the special terrain rules. Would this help you?

    Layout Team

    Translation Team DE

    VC Community Support

    Supporter of Veil of the Ages

  • Lich King wrote:

    Laik wrote:

    Maps looks good.
    It would be good to have description of special terrain on the map itself - otherwise you need to go to some other book to check how it works - which means people will not use it...
    I play with the thought of creating some cards with the special terrain rules. Would this help you?
    As a person that plays with the new terrain rules I would love that!
    Currently posting a lot of Dread Elf WIP pictures over at: MrMossevig's Painting League 2019 - The Year of the Dragon

    My previous KoE project and complete army pictures: Army of Celeste
  • Laik wrote:

    Maps looks good.
    It would be good to have description of special terrain on the map itself - otherwise you need to go to some other book to check how it works - which means people will not use it...
    Have you even looked at the doc? ;)

    It’s all exactly the way you ask for :)
    WTC OPEN 2020 - 25.-26.04.2020 in Amsterdam
    an official T9A event
  • Looking at the maps more in-depth:

    - Number of average (meaningful) terrain pieces went down and thus the zone of influence of terrain went down :/
    - There are a ton of dumb maps, not as dumb as the old first map (with the two Impossible Terrain pieces in one of the deployment zones), but Map 1 (bottom side is forced to play wide, especially problematic for some scenarios), 3 (bottom one has only two thirds of the deployment zone available), 5 (see 3), 6 (Impossible + Ruins in the deployment zone...), 10 (two Impossible in the upper right quarter...), 11 (top side again), 16 (top side says hi) are all meh at best. Looks like that not many thoughts have been put into the consequences of the raw disadvantage of losing the roll for the side. Old Maps (but 4) were way more balanced in this aspect.
    - As an tournament organiser I will not use that map pack (or rather only use some specific ones, like map 12, 9, or 2), cause the raw amount of "dumb" maps to to damn high...

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - ID]
  • Kathal wrote:

    Looking at the maps more in-depth:

    - Number of average (meaningful) terrain pieces went down and thus the zone of influence of terrain went down :/
    - There are a ton of dumb maps, not as dumb as the old first map (with the two Impossible Terrain pieces in one of the deployment zones), but Map 1 (bottom side is forced to play wide, especially problematic for some scenarios), 3 (bottom one has only two thirds of the deployment zone available), 5 (see 3), 6 (Impossible + Ruins in the deployment zone...), 10 (two Impossible in the upper right quarter...), 11 (top side again), 16 (top side says hi) are all meh at best. Looks like that not many thoughts have been put into the consequences of the raw disadvantage of losing the roll for the side. Old Maps (but 4) were way more balanced in this aspect.
    - As an tournament organiser I will not use that map pack (or rather only use some specific ones, like map 12, 9, or 2), cause the raw amount of "dumb" maps to to damn high...

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    some really good players involved in creating the pack do not share your point of view :)

    Fun thing: you must have miscounted. Terrain spread is exactly the same as in the old map pack. Even map 1-16 kept the exact same terrain pieces with one exception, where afaik a lake was swapped with a field somewhere (might be two other features, but that’s it)

    Nobody is forced to use the pack. I’ll use them for my events for sure.

    Sidenote: Maps have been adjusted to give terrain a bit more meaning. Some might feel like it is better to have terrain exclusively as optical features not influencing the game. This was NOT the goal of the new map pack :)
    WTC OPEN 2020 - 25.-26.04.2020 in Amsterdam
    an official T9A event
  • Frederick wrote:

    some really good players involved in creating the pack do not share your point of view
    That is not a good argument at all.

    Care to comment on the points @Kathal made on the maps, and maybe why the team doesn't think they are weaknesses? Kathal was very specific (e.g. saying one side is hindered by terrain while the other isn't), if you are just saying "well we like it that way" without adressing his points, it doesn't create a very convincing story from your side.

    As I plan to use the map pack for all my games (and have enjoyed so in the past), I am very interested in having a good set of maps. If the conclusion is, that the old map packs were better balanced, I will use those.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • feel free to use the old ones.

    i have no interest in argueing about how single persons like the maps or not. The points Fabian make are most likely valid from his personal and preferred gamestyle point of view and i accept and respect that.

    The point i made is, that some really capable players gave the new maps some thoughts and tried to even make them all fit all kinds of depolyments and obejctives. Maps have to be a compromise in some way when you have to take that many variables to take into account. It was a deliberate choice to have maps where for certain armies there might be advantages in picking a certain side/corner or where splitting the map for diagonal matters for the game. In my opinion it is part of the game to take wise and right decisions and gain slight advantages from it.

    @DarkSky - comments like the one you just did are imo not helpful for encouraging anyone to give detailed feedback or reasoning.


    Given how "dumb" Fabian called the work of many i bet you understand why i felt like giving detailed feeback is not what i felt like is an appropriate answer to his "questions". Fortunately i know him and have no reason to feel offened ;). Still the internet is a place where people unintended come across very different as they are when you meet them in person (i´m master in this category myself for sure as well ;))


    Just to add: maps are part of the meta of the game. to keep a meta fresh and exciting you have to pull some triggers at some point. Maps are an easy one to make people change their lists a bit. The map-pack is not the rulebook. you can easiely play without it. Fact is (as always) that we can not make everyone happy all the time and thus there is always some people disliking whatever you come up with. I have neither heard nor seen a massive flood of negative comments and thus i treat it like all other publications: do not rely on feedback of a minority until it is 100% proven right.

    I bet none of the guys that commented here have even played on a single one of these maps and as such on top of the negative nature of the feedback, it is purely theoretical as well :)
    WTC OPEN 2020 - 25.-26.04.2020 in Amsterdam
    an official T9A event
  • Of course, I will do my own analys of the maps before I decide which ones I will use in februrary, april, october and on the onedaytourneys I host.

    Knowing on which maps the opinions vary helps to know where to spend most thoughts on as some seem to be considered good by both Frederick and Kathal. I might even pick from all packs avaiable ...

    Advisary Board Member

    Workfields: Tournament Analysis, Army Community Support, Playtesting, Community Engagement, Translation/ United Nations DE Blog: Inside TA. The biggest german Tabletop Board: tabletopwelt.de
  • @Frederick
    Of course you have the right to comment or refuse to comment in any way you like. I also do not dispute, that a lot of work went into the maps and great emphasize was to make them enjoyable, balanced, and diverse. The question for me was: If Kathal critisizes the maps (albeit in a harsh tone, I wouldn't say too harsh), I do not understand your comment.

    Your answer was basically "we know better than you" and "well if you don't like them, just leave them". You will most certainly agree with me, that this is not a comment which will earn you any points on a constructive debate. Reminding people that the maps are not mandatory might be a good thing for players who are not aware of the fact, and might mistake them for mandatory, on the other hand, it comes across a little bit condescending for all the players who know exactly that are looking for what the map pack actually wants to deliver: Good ready-made maps, which provide a balanced game play with the army books (because obviously the army books need to be balanced around a certain amount of terrain features, because they massively affect the efficiency of certain unit entries).

    My post was merely asking for your side of things, and maybe a few counter-arguments, why the issues Kathal has with the maps are invalid from your point of view. As I am in no way a master of the game, I would be very interested in the maker's comments on the maps.

    I do not know why you think my post is discouraging from anybody to give their comments, apologies if I offended anybody. My only intention was to get a few arguments to counter Kathal's points.

    Tool Support Battle Scribe

    Community Engagement


    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/
  • designers comments on maps is pretty hard to give, since setting up maps is kind of a process where you check different variables that are a requirement for a "good" setup and from that foundation you go an "spice" it up - this can for example be "having impass an ruin in a deployment-zone" as well as "center is a bit more full of terrain, while close to the edges there is more open ground". Both things have impact to the game and kind of force players to figure out a "gameplan". This is what makes games interesting - when you take terrain into account even more.

    Where one argues the deployment-zone is crowded due to an impass and a ruin and you can´t fit your army for full steam ahead-gameplay roperly, maybe defensive armies will enjoy acting from a ruin and hide some stuff behind the impass ready for a countercharge. It is all a matter of the point of view of the player and allows choosing tables sides to have an "impact" if you are a good in strategy and reading the terrain setup.

    Terrain is not only "what to use" but as well "what to avoid" :)
    WTC OPEN 2020 - 25.-26.04.2020 in Amsterdam
    an official T9A event
  • Lots of stuff, do not know if everything is in chronically order.

    Frederick wrote:

    Sidenote: Maps have been adjusted to give terrain a bit more meaning. Some might feel like it is better to have terrain exclusively as optical features not influencing the game. This was NOT the goal of the new map pack
    The nerfs towards the terrain effects (not cover, the effects) from the past iterations of the game say something different :P

    However, even with less influential terrain (which is a fact) you can generate maps, where terrain can be harsh. E.g. having 4 Impossible Terrain pieces on the table would change the whole game (as long as they are not put into the corners), but doing this would be overall rather detrimental to the game play instead of "spicing it up".

    Frederick wrote:

    The point i made is, that some really capable players gave the new maps some thoughts and tried to even make them all fit all kinds of depolyments and obejctives.
    Nigh impossible to do (especially for objectives). For example: if I can force the enemy to come to me, or other way around (aka having meaningful range output): Map 1, 4, 5 (if Aim is needed), 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 and 16 are very one sided in the following deployments: Encircle, Refused Flank and Dawn Assault.

    However, if I have time this week, I will make a table with all combination (it is just 16x6 combinations, so should be doable in a couple of hours).

    Frederick wrote:

    Maps have to be a compromise in some way when you have to take that many variables to take into account. It was a deliberate choice to have maps where for certain armies there might be advantages in picking a certain side/corner or where splitting the map for diagonal matters for the game. In my opinion it is part of the game to take wise and right decisions and gain slight advantages from it.
    I agree on this notion, that the map should influence on how the match-up plays out (classic Dragon vs Canons example). However, the margin of it is the big question. Currently I feel that many match-ups tip by about 20% in one or the other direction just based on the map (so if you would play 100 times on the same map with the same deployment, you will win/lose 20% more of the games compared to a more even map).

    Frederick wrote:

    @DarkSky - comments like the one you just did are imo not helpful for encouraging anyone to give detailed feedback or reasoning.
    Yours didn't help either ;)

    Frederick wrote:

    Given how "dumb" Fabian called the work of many i bet you understand why i felt like giving detailed feeback is not what i felt like is an appropriate answer to his "questions". Fortunately i know him and have no reason to feel offened ;).
    Rabbit hole, since I was quite often on the receiving end of the same notions from your side...

    Either way, I stand by the notion, that many maps are dumb (or rather imbalanced). Most of them can be fixed quite easily without destroying the general feeling of the map (like for Map 6, just switch the building with the Impossible), but to even the playing field somewhat out.

    Keep in mind, that I don't discredit any work done by volunteers in this project, I never did this.

    Frederick wrote:

    Just to add: maps are part of the meta of the game. to keep a meta fresh and exciting you have to pull some triggers at some point. Maps are an easy one to make people change their lists a bit.
    Come on, you know yourself, that this is not true. Any changes done to any AB has a bigger influence than small map changes. Furthermore, on most tournaments (aka I have not been on a single one where this was not the case), you do not know which maps are getting played (not even the ETC played with the map suggestions...). Hence, "metagaming" purely based on maps is wonky at best. Sure, if you exclude tournaments and are just playing with your pals, than this notion is correct. Than again, I doubt that those maps are meant for those players ;)

    Frederick wrote:

    Where one argues the deployment-zone is crowded due to an impass and a ruin and you can´t fit your army for full steam ahead-gameplay roperly, maybe defensive armies will enjoy acting from a ruin and hide some stuff behind the impass ready for a countercharge.
    Map 6 for anybody wanting to look it up.

    Did some tests on UB with it, conclusio: Even the more gunline-like armies I tested out (EoS and ID) had struggles fitting their army in the topside, without having either a huge LD problem (cause bubble reliant EoS) or shooting zone problem (if you park everything right of the impossible, you will have problems with Area you can shoot at. This is true for: Frontlineclash, Marching Column and partly Counterthrust (getting the first drop is more important, since you can carve out areas to gain more wiggle room). Diagonal (Refused Flank IIRC) makes the map interesting to play on both ends (either you take the side with lots of cover but suffer in your deployment, or the other way around). In comparison Encircle as a Defender on the top side is harsh, since you lose a lot of your advantage area (the nudge), which is fine, but in comparison the enemy doens't lose anything deployment wise.

    I basically get the feeling, that most maps got attention on layer 1 (aka does this look good) and not a more indepth notion of what this alignment of terrain features mean to the actual game/deployment. Than again, lots of maps can be fixed (in my opinion) rather easy. Base mapping is mostly good, the details are lacking to say it this way ;)

    Greetings,
    Kathal
    "When four Kings abdicate their thrones, do you really have a Kingdom anymore?"

    I kind have a "blog" now: From Beer and Bretzle vol 2

    [ETC 2016 - ID] [ETC 2017 - WDG] [ETC 2018 - ID] [ETC 2019 - ID]