Some thoughts on the Quick Starter - Move Model Rules to Basic Rules

    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!

    • Some thoughts on the Quick Starter - Move Model Rules to Basic Rules

      I recently did a video about the Quick Starter, where I share my thoughts about it. But I also figured I should give you the feedback more directly too.

      First some minor thoughts:
      • Page 16 Charging a Fleeing Unit: Maybe add the Discipline Test required, to hammer in the similarity with FB
      • Page 25 Pursuit: Maybe add the Discipline test required


      And the big thing: Move all the Model Rules into the Basic Rules

      This would increase the load on the Basic Rules, which is a bad things. But the upside is that you can use the exact same Unit Profiles under the Basic Rules and the Advanced rules. Personally I think this would be a huge gain. To keep it fairly easy for new players, the sheets with the Pre-made army lists could contain a copy of all the relevant Model Rules that they use.

      To compensate, maybe magic in its entirety could be moved to the Advanced Rules, and then you drop the wizards from the pre-made armies.

      Rules Clarification

      Lord of the Hobby


      Empire of Sonnstahl Blog, including links to my other blogs
      The 9th Wiki, a community wiki for the official 9th Age background
      T9A: Skirmish Campaigns
    • Mad wrote:

      ...

      To compensate, maybe magic in its entirety could be moved to the Advanced Rules, and then you drop the wizards from the pre-made armies.
      the premises of the premade armies has been defined to include a wizard when the army has access (so DH being the exception).
      Reason:
      Not having magic would make the game lose half of what it makes a fantasy game.
      E.g. KoE vs EoS wouldnt feel more than a historical battle.

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • Mad wrote:

      ...

      And the big thing: Move all the Model Rules into the Basic Rules

      This would increase the load on the Basic Rules, which is a bad things. But the upside is that you can use the exact same Unit Profiles under the Basic Rules and the Advanced rules. Personally I think this would be a huge gain. To keep it fairly easy for new players, the sheets with the Pre-made army lists could contain a copy of all the relevant Model Rules that they use.

      ...
      This IMO would increase the complexity by a too big step....and wouldnt leave a lot to make the advanced rules be "advanced"

      The basic rules should be there to learn the basic game mechanics.
      Where essential, we added specific model rules either as army special rule or in the unit entry.

      I think a development and for some players maybe a wow-effect should be there when switching to the next level.


      With the army lists being rather short (8 unit entries on two pages for the regular+themed army lists), I dont think it would be a big deal to have different unit entries compared to the premade army lists.

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester


    • My own experience with QS was that the step from Basic to Advanced was confusing due to the changes in Unit Profiles. I think some of the most glaring examples are the Model Rules usually connected to Model Classification. Such as Swiftstride missing on Cavalry and Stomp (1) missing on Large. This makes it feel very unnatural to experienced players, but I can't image it is comfortable for beginners either.

      I agree that the step from Basic to Advanced becomes small, and that a wow moment is desired, but that is why I think adding magic at this stage is a good idea. Having to relearn how your units work is not a wow moment imo.

      A lot of that issue could probably be solved by choosing units for the Basic armies carefully and by explaining just a little bit more of the rules they have.

      Rules Clarification

      Lord of the Hobby


      Empire of Sonnstahl Blog, including links to my other blogs
      The 9th Wiki, a community wiki for the official 9th Age background
      T9A: Skirmish Campaigns
    • thank you @Mad 'At for taking the time to laying down your opinions so nicely! i am sure @DJWoodelf will appreciate your comments too. i have a few comments, but i don't want to infest this thread with discussion, so i'll keep it to a minimum (and i'll be happy to continue the discussion in whichever other thread will be more appropriate).

      postcombat pivot - i feel you! i was also unhappy about the wordiness of the QS2 writing, and any input from Rules Clarification team will be most welcome. i think we do need a way to allow multiunit combat to "still make sense" after a few rounds of combat, and that's why we added this paragraph, but i agree that this is the one section new players will have the most troubles with.

      character mechanics (replacing RnF, moving to left or right of unit) - these are probably the single main point of difference with the Fantasy Battles version. i agree this can be a bit jarring, and we would have happily dispensed with it, but... there's a "hobby" reason for it. a first reason, and admittedly not a sufficient one, is that a unit made of 5 files and 2 ranks + 1 lone dude in the back looks very ugly. it annoys new players, and it messes with the creation of plastic/cardboard/whatever unit trays. such considerations might seem lame to the experienced player, but they do create annoynces to newbies. as i said, however, this is not the main reason. much more importantly: character replacing RnFs allow to keep units to a fixed-size, and this is gold if you want to play with unit templates or cutouts, as @Giladis said he plans to do, and as i will also do this autumn at the Spiel Essen convention. there is a huge advantage in the idea of being able to print a page, cut it to unit measure, glue it onto some cardboard, and use tokens to mark casualties. new players can try out new factions by investing literally 50 cents into print, glue and cardboard. from this point of view, i think that these new mechanics are totally worth the small rewrite. en passant, given these premises, i hope the decision of only moving characters to the left or the right of a one-rank units starts to make sense as well. once more: we only accept to introduce differences from FB if newbies gain a greater advantage from them, than the disaadvantage they bring to veteran players. having a new (cutout) army to play with in little time and with practically zero cost, at least to me, is a perfect example of a reasonable trade-off.

      model rules into basic profiles - you find me in disagreement here. i do agree it would be nice to streamline the basic rules onto the advanced format, but we wanted to avoid the need to reference the main rules (and thus the model rules) while playing with premade armies. this is precisely what allows us to write everything you need to play with your chosen faction into a single A4 sheet and, as i think you also believe, this is a good outcome, and we should try and stick to it.

      all in all, i find your comments to be quite encouraging. it'd be great to have some more polishing (e.g. postcombat pivots), but if the new rules can be said to be overall acceptable to a veteran player, i'm sure the judgement will be even more positive if you look at things from the point of view of a new player. thanks again, and please do let us know if you ever decide to make a second video on the topic (for example, when the advanced armylists will be published?).
      cheers,
      f


    • I'm hoping the worst of this will be resolved with the next revision. I'm waiting on the changes to be implemented.

      I'll then collect what I hope to be the last final revision.

      Head of Lectors

      Advisory Board

      Quick Starter Team

      "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

      - Grouchy Badger

    • piteglio wrote:

      thank you @Mad 'At for taking the time to laying down your opinions so nicely! i am sure @DJWoodelf will appreciate your comments too. i have a few comments, but i don't want to infest this thread with discussion, so i'll keep it to a minimum (and i'll be happy to continue the discussion in whichever other thread will be more appropriate).

      postcombat pivot - i feel you! i was also unhappy about the wordiness of the QS2 writing, and any input from Rules Clarification team will be most welcome. i think we do need a way to allow multiunit combat to "still make sense" after a few rounds of combat, and that's why we added this paragraph, but i agree that this is the one section new players will have the most troubles with.

      character mechanics (replacing RnF, moving to left or right of unit) - these are probably the single main point of difference with the Fantasy Battles version. i agree this can be a bit jarring, and we would have happily dispensed with it, but... there's a "hobby" reason for it. a first reason, and admittedly not a sufficient one, is that a unit made of 5 files and 2 ranks + 1 lone dude in the back looks very ugly. it annoys new players, and it messes with the creation of plastic/cardboard/whatever unit trays. such considerations might seem lame to the experienced player, but they do create annoynces to newbies. as i said, however, this is not the main reason. much more importantly: character replacing RnFs allow to keep units to a fixed-size, and this is gold if you want to play with unit templates or cutouts, as @Giladis said he plans to do, and as i will also do this autumn at the Spiel Essen convention. there is a huge advantage in the idea of being able to print a page, cut it to unit measure, glue it onto some cardboard, and use tokens to mark casualties. new players can try out new factions by investing literally 50 cents into print, glue and cardboard. from this point of view, i think that these new mechanics are totally worth the small rewrite. en passant, given these premises, i hope the decision of only moving characters to the left or the right of a one-rank units starts to make sense as well. once more: we only accept to introduce differences from FB if newbies gain a greater advantage from them, than the disaadvantage they bring to veteran players. having a new (cutout) army to play with in little time and with practically zero cost, at least to me, is a perfect example of a reasonable trade-off.

      model rules into basic profiles - you find me in disagreement here. i do agree it would be nice to streamline the basic rules onto the advanced format, but we wanted to avoid the need to reference the main rules (and thus the model rules) while playing with premade armies. this is precisely what allows us to write everything you need to play with your chosen faction into a single A4 sheet and, as i think you also believe, this is a good outcome, and we should try and stick to it.

      all in all, i find your comments to be quite encouraging. it'd be great to have some more polishing (e.g. postcombat pivots), but if the new rules can be said to be overall acceptable to a veteran player, i'm sure the judgement will be even more positive if you look at things from the point of view of a new player. thanks again, and please do let us know if you ever decide to make a second video on the topic (for example, when the advanced armylists will be published?).
      cheers,
      f

      With that hopefully sorted, I'll continue discussion here.

      postcombat pivot - I'll give it another read and see if I get any ideas.

      character mechanics - Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Thanks for explaining it :)

      model rules into basic profiles - I understand the wish to remove the step of referencing back to the rulebook in the pre-made army sheet. Maybe a compromise could be to add a few more Model Rules to the army sheets, and maybe replacing some units from units with less Model Rules. The most glaring examples I feel are the Model Rules that are tied to Model Classification in FB, such as Swiftstride and Stomp.


      I will probably make some quick mentions of these follow up discussions on my next episode, certainly about the character rules. Might do future videos too, but I have difficulty planning far ahead.

      Rules Clarification

      Lord of the Hobby


      Empire of Sonnstahl Blog, including links to my other blogs
      The 9th Wiki, a community wiki for the official 9th Age background
      T9A: Skirmish Campaigns
    • Mad wrote:

      My own experience with QS was that the step from Basic to Advanced was confusing due to the changes in Unit Profiles. I think some of the most glaring examples are the Model Rules usually connected to Model Classification. Such as Swiftstride missing on Cavalry and Stomp (1) missing on Large. This makes it feel very unnatural to experienced players, but I can't image it is comfortable for beginners either.

      I agree that the step from Basic to Advanced becomes small, and that a wow moment is desired, but that is why I think adding magic at this stage is a good idea. Having to relearn how your units work is not a wow moment imo.

      A lot of that issue could probably be solved by choosing units for the Basic armies carefully and by explaining just a little bit more of the rules they have.

      Mad wrote:

      ...
      model rules into basic profiles - I understand the wish to remove the step of referencing back to the rulebook in the pre-made army sheet. Maybe a compromise could be to add a few more Model Rules to the army sheets, and maybe replacing some units from units with less Model Rules. The most glaring examples I feel are the Model Rules that are tied to Model Classification in FB, such as Swiftstride and Stomp.


      I will probably make some quick mentions of these follow up discussions on my next episode, certainly about the character rules. Might do future videos too, but I have difficulty planning far ahead.
      I get what you mean and I basically agree that not having especially swiftstride and stomp makes quite a big difference.

      Adding it manually to every unit entry with that rule would mean too many individual addings while we shouldn't split the model rules by having some already in the basic rules and some not.

      So IMO, the only solution to implement what you request is to get rid of the whole split of QS into basic and advanced rules, because by moving the Model Rules to the basic rules would mean what's left in the advanced rules would be just 3 pages with
      - victory conditions
      - building an army

      Taking into account that most new players gonna step up after few battles with the premade army lists, I don't see a big problem of "suddenly" having more special rules per unit.
      We already made sure that there are no units in the premade army lists which have lots of special rules even though some unit might be iconic to that army.

      Having only two pages (one page premade army list, one page rules summary) when having a demo game IMO is king.

      New players already get the impression of cav being faster by cav having higher adv/mar values.
      So why not let players be positively surprised ("Swiftstride is a great senseful rule!") when stepping up to the advanced rules?

      Quick Starter Team

      Playtester