​The Ninth Age is the coolest game in the world – why aren’t there more people playing it?

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

  • bas_2312 wrote:

    And you're right, I haven't read the unreleased background stories, because that stuff is not available for mere mortals like me. With this point we go alllll the way back to the start of this topic: Release some basic background stories! (and no need to go back over this again, I understand there's a plan on why it's all kept slighty hidden)
    :whistling:
    You already have some reading here, its not hidden at all.
    the-ninth-age.com/factions/vermin-swarm/?lang=en

    To be patient until LAB.

    I dont say you wrong with name, but you know naming is something really difficult. I have read the topic where decision was taken, and it was not easy. Around 8 people discussing to find name that fit well background, that sound good etc.. There was always around 10 proposition, long thread of discussion, first turn of vote, and second turn..

    So you thats totally fine you dont like name. And that normal not everybody like them. ;)
    Will never happend. Not even really happend into the team that take decision ;)

    Website Team

     

    Art Team

      :SE_bw: :EoS: :VS: :O&G: :KoE:
    Graphic designer  cas-p.net
  • Josse wrote:



    We really are just criticizing the choices you seem to have made in the VS book, but for some reason you seem to think we are some sort of malicious force out to destroy t9a fluff. That is just not the case.
    I haven't made any choices in the book. I'm not part of the team. I don't know anything more about this than you do, I don't have insight into anything going on internally.
  • bas_2312 wrote:

    And you're right, I haven't read the unreleased background stories, because that stuff is not available for mere mortals like me. With this point we go alllll the way back to the start of this topic: Release some basic background stories! (and no need to go back over this again, I understand there's a plan on why it's all kept slighty hidden)

    So yes, you're right that I'm judging the background team in a way. I'm just hoping for them to develop a world for the 9th Age instead of just meme-ing existing stuff.
    Don't tell me that. Tell the background team. Again, I'm not part of the theme. I've spent the last, I don't know three years or so, of my life on the forum heckling the background team about releasing more stuff. I haven't read any of it either. I'd love to, but I haven't. I'm with you on that one. Release the damn background already!

    And calling using some existing names "memeing" is, well, at least out of proportion. Just because the Empire of Sigmar has "elector counts" doesn't make it a meme, or at least not beyond the broadest sense of original memetics, which, well, we are using language. Of course we are using known words.
  • ferny wrote:

    Thanks for collating that @Eldan. I'm still not sure it shows *how* they ape but *fail* at doing Roman (or avrasi).

    One quite says they ape it, but doesn't really say how it isn't matched. Another says they don't create anything new, but this seems in contrast to doomwheels and weapon teams etc, and indeed the general level of tech ratmen have. It just seems like Romans, until eventually their rat king is slain and their empire crumbles.

    If anyone has examples of how this is expressed in the design of the units etc I'd be interested to read more.

    To be fair, it feels like a very difficult brief to pull off. How, and why, would a design team come up with something which is crumbling, which doesn't make internal sense (it's a mimic not something achieved organically), something which isn't maintained and breaks and doesn't work. It would be so frustrating to play.

    It's this *feel* that I'm trying to get a handle of.

    But if the design could be achieved, it would be interesting. And it would match the claim that rats are background driven, derived from the conquerors of Rome who adopt her customs but fail at them. It would address the issue of 'but rats as disciplined Romans is a poor fit', it would be truly unique, but it would still retain something of the shambolic about the faction.
    I suppose that's fair. Yes, the background is not here yet. But then, that's a thing to blame the entire project for, not just this army specifically. The entire project suffers from a criminal lack of background, I've said so for years. There's still factions we don't know anything about, yet are supposed to play on the tabletop. It's bad.

    Now, as for the Vermin specifically, yeah. If you want more specifics, I suppose we don't really see them failing at being Rome yet. It's something I hope we'll see in the full fluff book, when it comes out. However, it hopefully shows at least the intent of hte team to make the Vermin not a disciplined Roman force, but a parody of Avrasi virtues. It's something that needs to be worked out in the full book.

    What I mainly mean is that it is, I don't think, entirely justified to say that the Vermin look too much like disciplined Romans, when we don't know what the context will look like once their book is out. We haven't even really been given a preview so far, but I think it's justified to have some faith in the project, given that they have released a few good books now with interesting cultural treatment.
  • Eldan wrote:


    And calling using some existing names "memeing" is, well, at least out of proportion. Just because the Empire of Sigmar has "elector counts" doesn't make it a meme, or at least not beyond the broadest sense of original memetics, which, well, we are using language. Of course we are using known words.



    knowyourmeme.com/memes/darth-sidious-unlimited-power

    knowyourmeme.com/memes/i-am-the-senate
  • I didn't even notice that when I read through the book. Oh dear.

    I think some of it might come down to however many players come from a WFB background and are used to how Skaven were portrayed, and VS aren't those. Gotta keep them separate for obvious IP reasons but also to create T9A's own background.
    Legion of the Barrow Downs (Vampire Covenants) - 1575 points.
    Pondering a Sylvan Elves army too.

    "I see shapes of Men and of horses, and pale banners like shreds of cloud, and spears like winter-thickets on a misty night. The Dead are following."
  • Hi all, commenting as VS LAB facilitator, just to make it clear. :D

    This is not a VS specific thread and we can't possibly go through all of the forum to find discussions. Yet be aware this one was noticed. The BGT team controls naming, we control the theme within the book. Yes there is synergy there and to keep it simple let's say both teams are aware of this.

    If you do not see us violently defending what we did, then it's because we are in a phase where we take in your feedback, to go to heart and see if we did it right.

    Please be aware that I can't and won't discuss unreleased background. It's not our job. This is not shifting blame or pointing fingers, I am certain we will get a great vision of the VS. Take that "not ready yet" as an incentive and please also post your reasoning here.
    Besides it making it easier for us, you also empower your ACS team to make a case to us. They will give us a list and we will need to answer it.

    We are not kidding when we say this is a game for gamers by gamers. We do not go into alpha to get a fake seal of approval and move on with life. We want to give you the best book we can possibly make. Not everybody will be happy, yet we do our best.
    Please also respect existing lore and the design guidelines, they are your best tools to make a case. ;)
  • That's solid reply LJ. Good to know feedback is taken in.

    But doesn't this expose the actual problem?

    Isn't the real issue with the design guideliness then? Isn't it there where the pseudo roman theme was set? And as such, where is the interaction between those and community feedback? Plus who sets those guidelines?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When strolling around before going to bed, a mean Orc might whack you on the back of your head!
  • I can say with dead certainty the community forced RT, BGT and management (those setting the guidelines) to make changes. The dictator is the single most powerful unit in the book by popular request. We spend a lot of time on it and it saw many iterations. That of course does not mean the community got what they wanted, it's a lot cheaper now after all.

    The public process started before publishing the design guidelines, ACS compiles community wishes, we had a little helper who already had the work done so we would not ignore it. Once work started, we were happy enough to share design directions through ACS and much more will follow. The VS LAB team supports PT in sharing their experiences even if we do not come out looking golden and shiny, that has not happened before. ACS however is how to get through, they start dedicated threads and ensure community consensus or heavy controversy/praise gets passed on. All of it.

    Once we started there is a good process of checks and balances that is being improved upon. Many companies would wish they had such a proficient and professional system in place. We keep learning and improving, some public failures will be seen, hopefully the ongoing improvements are also felt.

    In short ACS is a stakeholder to enforce community interests.

    Rome was not build in a day. :thumbsup:


    Pellegrim wrote:

    ... Good to know feedback is taken in.

    ...
    That this is still questioned is our only real problem. We can't go too public, we need to get on with the show and do our work. You are many, we are few. even though I read most myself, having a filter is nice and needed.
    Internally everything is documented, maybe some day students of history go dig through it all and give you a look at it. Or you can go join some of the social media groups that spy on us (yes that is a thing, before you ask, I do not know where they are because I do not care). The process is pretty transparent.

    Whatever we make, use it as a place to make it your own. Please also respect that T9A is it's own as well and it comes with great opportunities for creativity and input.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Little Joe ().

  • Sry thats still very vague to me. I must be getting old. I read the design guidelines once, I think for VS, and they seemed rather strigent and tight. That is where the basis is formed for the book, it seems. Am I mistaken? If not, my guestion remains, who writes these guidelines, and how is the comminity involved? And shouldn't this proces be more open for input? Is community input now organised as: ACS gathering feedback from several threads, here and there?

    Let me give an example. The other day the OG ASC put the idea out there that feral orcs are young orcs, not tribal orcs. Rather upsetting idea to me and many others, as we have full tribal armies set up, and totally hate the idea these would just be young orcs. Is this the official gathering of info for an army book? There was no official feedback after the discussion if anything was done with the feedback in the thread.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When strolling around before going to bed, a mean Orc might whack you on the back of your head!

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

  • Yes, the design guidelines are the boundaries within which we must work.

    Management ensure the broad direction of the project, the rules team ensures the rules fit (mechanics) and background ensures the army fits in the world of T9A (story). The last 2 write the design guidelines and all 3 get input, they are also the stakeholders that can stop us and enforce changes anytime. Of course we do not take it that far, over multiple rounds of feedback we ensure we are broadly aligned.
    This process will change, but only to inform the community better early on.

    Through ACS ideas might be tested on the community, yes. But it is also from within the community that ACS compiles information of what is acceptable/wanted and what is not by themselves.

    There are a few reasons I answer as little as possible publicly.
    1. Things change and I do not want to say something that makes change hard.
    2. You get into word fights and it helps nobody doing that. We accept that for many this is a passionate subject.
    3. It disrupts the talk the community is having with itself and corrupts the data we can get.
    4. ACS rightly so tells us to stop if we do. They have an important job as well, we should not give them a hard time.
    5. Time, I already spend hours per day and typing good answers is time consuming.
    About the design guidelines being tight, macro yes, micro there is a lot of room to go wherever you want. LAB teams are encouraged to explore, there is no linear process.


    I too read the orc young ones theme and personally it feels strange so far. I could read up internally but I do not do that. VS takes up a lot of my hobby time right now and beyond that I just do not want to know because of item 1 above. I also do very public work for the library team if some time is left and there I want to know as much as the community knows. It makes working with you all much easier, there we do not have access, so that is good.
    Now with some access, I can see threads moving, but I would only read if it is needed for work on VS.

    When I accepted to help with VS, I had as many questions as you do now. A lot has changed on the process since then, but I knew that I wanted it to be more public and share some insights. That is also why I answer here, we (T9A team as a whole) want the community to be more involved and we do our best to get there. A major part of that is asking and pointing out that you can and should participate.
    Not everything works, many things are being tried and we keep the things that do work. Even so, LAB team dynamics will also play a role, not every team will do things the same. We all mean good and take in feedback though.
    You will get the answers specifically for this LAB in the next iteration of the book. And here comes the recruitment pitch again: if you are a team player and want to know and influence the process, then try to get a team job or do homebrew. :saint: I know PR, since we have it again, is working hard on improving feedback to the community as that is an official channel. There are many tasks that need people to do them. That is why I accepted the task in VS, it frees up someone else in PRO and I do feel that I can contribute in a positive way. For example by having this discussion we have with knowledge.

    Secret councils where decisions get made just because do not exist. Well, except the one we have at the top of the T9A structure, but that's macro, not micro level.

    Personal opinion!
    I greatly value this project as a free haven for creativity, I think we need more homebrew/team and live the dream. There is an opportunity to expand the hobby here, to add levels that did not exist before. By hobby I mean wargaming as a whole, but also fan art in all it's splendor. Times change and technical evolution gives access to do more than ever before. Even in a very traditional way where technology may just be networking to find like minded people.
    Internally there are many great high level processes and tools that keep getting better and the community should benefit from that in time as well by making them public. For that we need to grow the critical mass within and outside the team. Become sexy to many other groups out there that should join us in making this a very happy place.

    EDIT: Within that sense, what you do by keeping asking questions and prodding helps a lot. That is activity that helps us all grow.
  • Excellent post @Little Joe. Thanks for that!

    The weird secret master counsil at the top sounds a bit weird and mysterious, but lets focus on the positives:

    Little Joe wrote:

    Personal opinion!

    I greatly value this project as a free haven for creativity, I think we need more homebrew/team and live the dream. There is an opportunity to expand the hobby here, to add levels that did not exist before. By hobby I mean wargaming as a whole, but also fan art in all it's splendor. Times change and technical evolution gives access to do more than ever before. Even in a very traditional way where technology may just be networking to find like minded people.
    Internally there are many great high level processes and tools that keep getting better and the community should benefit from that in time as well by making them public. For that we need to grow the critical mass within and outside the team. Become sexy to many other groups out there that should join us in making this a very happy place.

    EDIT: Within that sense, what you do by keeping asking questions and prodding helps a lot. That is activity that helps us all grow.
    Make 9th Age a nice little hippy communion where we create everything together! Lets go!
  • New

    Ok, next chapter of this discussion ;p

    Some people here argued that the fluff for the Vermin was basically set in stone, and that the time to change/talk about it was a long time ago before the army was put in development. This way the work of the writers wouldn't be wasted.

    So I decided to check up on my favorite army, Orcs & Goblins, and see what could be done there. That army is not in any kind of LAB development, so lets talk about the shaping the fluff, right?

    [Community feedback poll ] O&G lore - top 3 questions

    Changing building-block concepts (like "Vermin Swarm [i]of Avras" or, in this case, "the Orcish life-cycle") is... there isn't really a faction that's sufficiently undeveloped/unconnected for that to be an option.[/i]

    So it turns out that even though some armies have only released snippets of their fluff it's enough to bake it in and no more disccusion is possible?

    All the fluff that's been put on the website/released to the public is canon and can't be talked about. So far for community input...

    And that's ok too, but don't tell people that their opinions matter. Just release your stories and build it the way you want to. (the you in this sentence refers to the Background Team/the secret cabal that runs t9A I guess ;p)
  • New

    bas_2312 wrote:

    he Background Team/the secret cabal that runs t9A
    Make no mistake that the Background Team does have a large amount of influence on the game. But this is a rough influence if that make sense? The BGT can define how a faction functions and acts, what motivates them, where they fit in with society and so one. But that background information does not translate directly to rules. The Task Teams have HUGE latitude to write rules and just need them to be in harmony with the background. IMO, the most rich rules are inspired by the background stories. But it is up to the TT.
  • New

    Mr.Owl wrote:

    bas_2312 wrote:

    he Background Team/the secret cabal that runs t9A
    Make no mistake that the Background Team does have a large amount of influence on the game. But this is a rough influence if that make sense? The BGT can define how a faction functions and acts, what motivates them, where they fit in with society and so one. But that background information does not translate directly to rules. The Task Teams have HUGE latitude to write rules and just need them to be in harmony with the background. IMO, the most rick rules are inspired by the background stories. But it is up to the TT.
    But this thread is about the fluff.

    So the Background Team defines the character of the army, and the Task Teams can figure out the rules to go with that.

    But where is the point where people can talk about the direction the background is going? At first people here told me that Background Team sets up the background, people can react and maybe change the direction the development is going and then the background is fixed for the next step. But now it seems that the Background Team sets up the background and it is fixed for the next step. The part where the general public can react and influence the direction of the project seems to be missing?