Pinned Patch 2.2 Feedback

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!

  • Razon wrote:

    In the end what kills this game for me is the time needed to play a 4.500pts game. Both friendly and in tournaments. New game length is 3,5h for a tournament and 4h for a friendly game. I
    God daymn, that would make me burnout too.

    In England, round times are 2:30 - 2:45. 90% of people finish their games, except a few repeat offenders.

    Its not the game itself that's the problem there
  • DanT wrote:

    Razon wrote:

    In the end what kills this game for me is the time needed to play a 4.500pts game.
    Do you think there are any simple fixes that don't reduce the size/composition of typical armies and rank/flank nature of the game?
    Well, there is one I'd like to see (and been lobbying for years)- reduce all the special rules by ¨50%. At random if needed, Thanos style, and then have the ones left over cover for any holes created.
    I loved the change for magical items; main book (Arcane Compendium) gets a few of those and each army book a few more. And that's it, no need to have pages upon pages of each to make the game fun.

    In random friendly games, well, I can't think of something that will speed things up. Explaining the rules and army lists before the game, taking a leisure pace, looking up rules and checking online for special situations all take a lot of time. If you have two players that will enjoy their beer & pretzels and take time to angle all their units correctly, because it is actually possible to be both a friendly laid back player and want to play to a high standard, 4h is the norm.

    There is an easy solution for solving this problem for tournaments. Organizers would have the ungrateful task of seeing it through, but the solution is simple and doable. Create draconic sanctions for games not finishing full 6 turns. And players will make it happen.
    Write it in the rulespack that all games must finish 6 full turns. If the game does not, both players get 0 points. Judges get to use their discretion for fixing the game result if needed. This would cause a lot of friction and raise a ton of dust at first, but as it settles there would be almost no problems; since the 'slow' players would adapt or stop playing.
  • Razon wrote:

    Well, there is one I'd like to see (and been lobbying for years)- reduce all the special rules by ¨50%. At random if needed, Thanos style, and then have the ones left over cover for any holes created.Hahaha! The wailing and gnashing of teeth would be glorious, with the cries that the project "removes flavour", "makes everything boring", "only caters to spikes" etc.




    There is an easy solution for solving this problem for tournaments. Organizers would have the ungrateful task of seeing it through, but the solution is simple and doable. Create draconic sanctions for games not finishing full 6 turns. And players will make it happen.
    Write it in the rulespack that all games must finish 6 full turns. If the game does not, both players get 0 points. Judges get to use their discretion for fixing the game result if needed. This would cause a lot of friction and raise a ton of dust at first, but as it settles there would be almost no problems; since the 'slow' players would adapt or stop playing.
    Sure. TOs are welcome to do this. The project doesn't really legislate to TOs.


    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Games have always taken 2-3hrs to play, thats nothing knew, and its been that way since the 90's. Fantasy warground games that involve actual armies always take a while. Ya'll want to know slow? Bolt Action. Game takes an hour to set up and almost 4 hours to play. Tournaments are ment to be fast, friendly games are supposed to be a game where you can spend time with your friends talking and joking while rolling dice.
    I am going to offend you. You are not going to like it. You will survive.

    Chaotic Neutral
    youtube.com/channel/UCJ9e5C1f26iuvhOA33rsFJQ

    Model Reviews with Twice the Brain Injuries!
  • I'm wondering why now games are longer then they used to be? I remember playing my skink cloud list vs my friends empire. I remember us playing 3 games in 3hrs, which was quiet an achievement considering I was playing a skink cloud list with all the possible flee paths being taken into account. Why can I not replicate that now? Are we simply better players now and considering a lot more things when playing?

    The only culprit I clearly see is the magic phase being not about 6 dicing an important spell now. Has the general balance of 9th brought the game in a state where clear tactical decisions are harder to see then before and hence longer decision time in the movement phase? Deployment is still usually much faster so the game length is from all the other turns. However, I do see 9th age favouring non rank and file troops with easy lateral movement to be more used and these have more options in where to go, and therefore again more decisions need to be made. Possibly with the return of rank and file troops being the norm the game would speed up a bit.

    What aspect of the game can be simplified further but not dumb it down? Some positive changes have been made in the wheeling of troops and the flee and pursuit directions which definitely help. If the norm game length magically became 2h, this would be a huge boon for the game. It would be good to get some time keeping per phase and to see if simplifying the magic phase would help shorten the game without loosing much complexity, or if charges become maximum m+10" as it would eliminate some of the what if moments. Definitely a goal should be to try and reduce game time.
  • Year to year more units pops to the table.
    And the complexity of game grows exponentially with each added unit.

    We should be playing 4000.
    I want to say that it would decrease the playing time significantly - but in reality it wpuld bring the size of the battle to the more 7th edition levels.

    It is impossible to finish full 6 turn vs quality opponent in 3 hours without actively detrementing the quality of your game by going from "best options i can think of" to "options good enough"
    my ETC 2019 roster
    750 - High Prince on Dragon, Dragon, Great Weapon, Obsidian Rock
    565 - Mage: Asfad Scholar, Master, Divination, Book of Meladys,
    485 - High Prince: Queen's Companion, General, Spear, Sliver of the Blazing Dawn, Destiny's Call, Longbow, Moonlight Arrows
    280 - 20x Citizen Spears, MC
    190 - 5x Elein Reavers, Bows
    662 - 27x Sea Guard, MSC, Banner of Speed
    360 - 5x Knights of Ryma, M
    180 - 3x1 Sea Guard Reaper
    663 - 21x Lion Guard, MSC, Banner of Becalming
    4500
  • Furion wrote:

    Year to year more units pops to the table.
    And the complexity of game grows exponentially with each added unit.

    We should be playing 4000.
    I want to say that it would decrease the playing time significantly - but in reality it wpuld bring the size of the battle to the more 7th edition levels.

    It is impossible to finish full 6 turn vs quality opponent in 3 hours without actively detrementing the quality of your game by going from "best options i can think of" to "options good enough"
    But is 4000 going to solve that. Like why not 3000?
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Assuming that dropping points levels will solve speed issues seems . . . wrong. The people who aren't finishing games will still not finish games and struggle with that. Just because there are less points doesn't mean that all the speed issues are going to be fixed, as it goes beyond "there's too much on the table".

    It is a combination of changing rules (up until last year) and the way the game is scored being a complex combination of points taken, points kept, and objective. Often this leads people to play overly cautiously. Even further comes the baseline rules that mean each phase is done in sequence, rather than each unit going through the sequence on its own. So it's a lot harder to make decisions, especially in the movement phase, because everything happens simultaneously.

    I'd also point out that "drop the points so that tournament players can play faster and finish games" is absolutely NOT where the project should want to go. It's already struggling to break the stigma that it's game made purely for Spikes. While balance helps everyone, decisions cannot be made purely to appeal to ONE section of its player base.


    It's important to keep in mind that you can DEFINITELY finish 4500 point games, especially if terrain is set up ahead of time, in under 3 hours. Myself and several of my friends and acquaintances routinely do it despite playing quite well. It's only when someone slows down the game massively planning each entire phase to the millimeter that things can get . . . complicated. Heck, one of my friends and I completed a 6k game to practice for a tourney that is upcoming locally in about 2.5 hours. The issue with "the speed of the game" doesn't necessarily come from the size of it or from the rules as much as exploiting every single segment of the game extensively to maximize win percentages (even if only by fractions of a percent). The time involved in that is what can stop people from finishing games in under 3h.
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    as much as exploiting every single segment of the game extensively to maximize win percentages (even if only by fractions of a percent).
    This is where your argument breaks down.
    Some times it may be fractions of a percent. But often times it's the difference between being charged or being out of arc, or being a flank instead of front. These milimeter differences decide the whole game, they are pivotal points. Charging and overunning can make a slow infantry unit cover up to triple the distance they normally can move.

    So unless you have some way to simplify this phase, it will always take lots of thinking and time. Cause it makes or breaks the game.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Taking away premeasurement might do it ;) .

    Or failing that, chess clocks where you lose if you time out. Then time management becomes part of the strategy.
    Stop the Chess Clock nonsense already. Of course my infantry VC takes more time to move then my opponents superfast WoC army. Same with an MSU army versus practically anyone. It's not because we are slower players. We just need to move more and more carefully. I've played several tournament games where we only went to round 5. But if both players believe they're playing at a good pace, none of them is going to argue. If someone would call a judge on me after a game for slow playing (never happened btw) I would find it unsportmanlike. If someone would tell me after an hour or even 2 in the game "Dude, I get the feeling you're stalling the game" (also never happened btw) I would shortly try to rectify that and even offer to get a judge to our table to follow the flow of the game. If I get the feeling my opponent takes too long to decide I will tell him that. And I'm not threatening with the "judge card" at the first or second offence. It remains a game, not the planning of the 3rd World War. Nobody dies...
    Kaj a.k.a. the Chosen of Sigmar
    Played for:
    Belgium @ ETC 2014 (HE), 2015 (HE), 2016 (EoS), 2017 (VC)
    Latvia @ ETC 2018 (VC)
    Slovenia @ ETC 2019 (VC).
    Treasury Keeper for Team Belgium.
  • duxbuse wrote:

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    as much as exploiting every single segment of the game extensively to maximize win percentages (even if only by fractions of a percent).
    This is where your argument breaks down.Some times it may be fractions of a percent. But often times it's the difference between being charged or being out of arc, or being a flank instead of front. These milimeter differences decide the whole game, they are pivotal points. Charging and overunning can make a slow infantry unit cover up to triple the distance they normally can move.

    So unless you have some way to simplify this phase, it will always take lots of thinking and time. Cause it makes or breaks the game.
    I will disagree with you on the fact that it is not fractions of a percent. You already know the charge distances, and can find a cheat sheet to know percentage chances for things like charges. It's also easy to know Front/Flank unless you are literally going with the absolute closest millimeter you can. In those cases you really ARE aiming to maximize extremely small percentages for a potentially massive time expenditure.

    Is being 12.01 inches away better than 12.5? Strictly speaking, yes. Is it likely to be relevant? No. THAT is the sort of thing I am talking about. As an example, I was once playing HbE against my friend's Equitaine back in like 1.1. I'd put my Ancient Dragon in countercharge range of 2 of my blocks fairly close together, and figured "with the charge rules (at the time), he can't get to me (Because I was confident he wouldn't be able to hit the angles after checking)".

    Well, the guy then proceeded to declare his charges, boxcar against my dragon, and when he couldn't actually move the unit through to my dragon, proceeded to take each model off its movement tray, ask me to take MY models off their movement trays, and move EACH model individually in 1/2 inch increments to show that he COULD get his unit there . . . because when he used a precision laser measurement tool, it turned out that there was 75mm of space between my units and enough space between them and another of his units to fit his 3x5 knight bus. So the space was actually there to do it, but to do it he had to basically slow the game so much that we could play ANOTHER game in that time span. That single charge slowed down the game by over 1.5 hours. I very much felt like saying "Either call it a failed charge or I concede because to heck standing around for over 2 hours because you REALLY wanted that ONE charge and now we have to waste 2 hours on your 1 charge".

    THAT is the sort of thing that I am referring to. THAT sort of maneuver, while legal, is the sort of thing that slows down the game and incentivizes slow playing and leads to games not getting finished.

    duxbuse wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Taking away premeasurement might do it
    i don't think so.This would be back to old hammer style. Which meant there was regular arguments on if it was in or not. All this time to settle would eat up any savings imo.
    It would also lead to things like people measuring out the distance of their forearm/finger/hand and using that to know ranges. "I'm not measuring, I'm estimating". Removing premeasurement would be one of the worst things in the game and actively hurt a lot of players for no real gain.
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    duxbuse wrote:

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    as much as exploiting every single segment of the game extensively to maximize win percentages (even if only by fractions of a percent).
    This is where your argument breaks down.Some times it may be fractions of a percent. But often times it's the difference between being charged or being out of arc, or being a flank instead of front. These milimeter differences decide the whole game, they are pivotal points. Charging and overunning can make a slow infantry unit cover up to triple the distance they normally can move.
    So unless you have some way to simplify this phase, it will always take lots of thinking and time. Cause it makes or breaks the game.
    I will disagree with you on the fact that it is not fractions of a percent. You already know the charge distances, and can find a cheat sheet to know percentage chances for things like charges. It's also easy to know Front/Flank unless you are literally going with the absolute closest millimeter you can. In those cases you really ARE aiming to maximize extremely small percentages for a potentially massive time expenditure.
    Is being 12.01 inches away better than 12.5? Strictly speaking, yes. Is it likely to be relevant? No. THAT is the sort of thing I am talking about. As an example, I was once playing HbE against my friend's Equitaine back in like 1.1. I'd put my Ancient Dragon in countercharge range of 2 of my blocks fairly close together, and figured "with the charge rules (at the time), he can't get to me (Because I was confident he wouldn't be able to hit the angles after checking)".

    Well, the guy then proceeded to declare his charges, boxcar against my dragon, and when he couldn't actually move the unit through to my dragon, proceeded to take each model off its movement tray, ask me to take MY models off their movement trays, and move EACH model individually in 1/2 inch increments to show that he COULD get his unit there . . . because when he used a precision laser measurement tool, it turned out that there was 75mm of space between my units and enough space between them and another of his units to fit his 3x5 knight bus. So the space was actually there to do it, but to do it he had to basically slow the game so much that we could play ANOTHER game in that time span. That single charge slowed down the game by over 1.5 hours. I very much felt like saying "Either call it a failed charge or I concede because to heck standing around for over 2 hours because you REALLY wanted that ONE charge and now we have to waste 2 hours on your 1 charge".

    THAT is the sort of thing that I am referring to. THAT sort of maneuver, while legal, is the sort of thing that slows down the game and incentivizes slow playing and leads to games not getting finished.

    duxbuse wrote:

    Hachiman Taro wrote:

    Taking away premeasurement might do it
    i don't think so.This would be back to old hammer style. Which meant there was regular arguments on if it was in or not. All this time to settle would eat up any savings imo.
    It would also lead to things like people measuring out the distance of their forearm/finger/hand and using that to know ranges. "I'm not measuring, I'm estimating". Removing premeasurement would be one of the worst things in the game and actively hurt a lot of players for no real gain.
    I mean I was not being particularly serious (see smiley face) since it won't happen, but you literally just gave an example of why that's not true. You can't get mm precise measurements from knowing your extremities lengths, in fact you can really only get approximations close to what some people can do by eye anyway. It's only really a big issue for people very focussed on the kind of exactness this game has so much of that it's become less apealling to non competitive players.

    Even just the scoring rules would make some casual players head hurt, as you pointed out. That's fine the game is for who it's for, but that sort of mechanic does tend to make games take longer.

    I agree with Mike Newman this is really off topic though, and should be split or continued elsewhere.

    Data Analysis

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Hachiman Taro ().

  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    THAT is the sort of thing that I am referring to. THAT sort of maneuver, while legal, is the sort of thing that slows down the game and incentivizes slow playing and leads to games not getting finished.
    not to beat a dead horse, but this example proves my point I believe. Such small movement is the difference between being charged or not, can turn the whole game. It has huge impact, whuch is why it takes forever to get right. To solve there needs to be some rule change that somehow simplifies this from an np problem to a p problem.
    #freekillerinstinct
  • Except that
    a) Had I simply set the record straight with my opponent of "I believe your charge is blocked, do you agree?", the situation would have been avoided. (Edited to add, unless your opponent is a terrible human being who will agree when you ask, but then check and do the thing you were blocking if you didn't do the measurements JUST right)
    b) had I simply moved closer (as my point above) to having 2.5 inches (100% less than a lance's width), the problem would have been avoided.
    c) Had my opponent not been an angle shooting Jerk, he would not have LITERALLY wasted 90 minutes setting up that charge because for him to do that we had to literally take two of my units and three of his out of their movement trays and have him manually move each unit in 1/2 inch increments. Unless of course, you believe that sort of action would fly at a tournament (and who knows, it might).

    I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. The solution is NOT a rules change. The people who play slowly and struggle to finish games will STILL do so because angle shooting to maximize win percentages (even by tiny amounts) always takes a boatload of time. However, your statement does nothing to refute the fact that you can achieve what you want without wasting time unless you are angle shooting for tiny fractions of a win percentage, which is exactly the situation described (well, I can't fit the unit and its tray, but if I take my unit and these 2 others out of their trays and your units out of their trays and walk through the movement model by model for over an 90 minutes, I can do it).

    PS. It's especially important because that wasn't a tournament game. it was literally just a beer and pretzels game at my LGS with nothing on the line as I was coming back to the game. If you don't see how that sort of unsportsmanlike conduct can harm the playerbase and why the behavior is not appropriate, then we really don't have anything further to discuss.

    PPS. I agree with HachimanTaro. This discussion needs to either be moved or stopped. This thread is not the place for it.