This game needs to become more like Age of Sigmar

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

  • piteglio wrote:

    @Arturiki (and possibly @Eru and @Trakritch and @calcathin too), do you think this is something we could / should pilot for the Essence rulebook?

    Eru wrote:

    It should indeed be possible, and we could use EoW to experiment. The difficulty of implementation increases if we have things like auto-alphabetical sorting already in place, then I would need to investigate.
    I have no idea about the topic but we could experiment. And EoW seems like the easiest way to experiment, it's small, not as ripeas other books... Let's go!

    Goblin Lunatic

    Translation - ES

  • Things like this make absolutely no sense to me at all.

    Why do you want this game to be changed and made similar to another game? Just go play the game you want it to be similar to.

    Stop trying to change everything when you have a million other options available to you. Pick one of them and play that. Don't like it? Pick another.

    Art_of_War wrote:

    I couldn't agree more. Some elements of 9th Age are just over engineered. There is hardly any benefit from this additional level of complexity. It creates unnecessary obstacles for new players and keeps the target audience limited to people who can spend a lot of time for their hobby.
    I don't see a problem with this. If this game is too difficult for someone to grasp, then they can go and play another game, the same as everything else in life. This constant need to dumb things down to cater to a wider audience is how we ended up with Age of Sigmar and no Warhammer.

    I also want to say I don't think the rules for T9A are complex or difficult to learn at all. I would say anyone familiar with tabletop games would pick up 95% of the game very quickly, only having to refer to the rules for specific things, because T9A uses the same concepts. Turn orders, attributes, dice conventions.

    I am an awful teacher and I have taught about 10 people to play this game. Two of which had never played a board game beyond monopoly before. People see the rulebook as a 100 page wall of text and get intimidated, but no one ever felt the same way with the 8th edition book that would break your foot if you dropped it. It is just their perception, it looks complicated, there is lots of text and dot points, it must be really hard, but in reality it isn't.
  • I think this game shouldn't be closer to AoS, but I think this should be easier to learn. Rules inside rules inside rules make it arid.

    I'm going to give you a example:
    I'm a very casual player, which I think should be another niche for this game, not just "profesional" ones, and I have to stop to check this rule (and those related to this one) everytime I use raptor charriots (and I always use them):

    Scent of Blood:

    The model gains Fearless and Frenzy while Engaged in Combat. [...] the model gains Devastating Charge (+1″ Adv) [...]

    Fearless: [...] the unit automatically passes Panic Tests and [does not apply],
    cannot declare a Flee Charge Reaction, unless already Fleeing. [does not apply],
    Models that are Fearless are also immune to the effects of Fear.

    Frenzy: [...] must take a Discipline Test, called a Frenzy Test. If the test is failed, the whole unit must declare a Charge this Player Turn if possible. [does not apply].
    Frenzy Tests and Restrain Pursuit Tests taken by units with at least one model with Frenzy are subject to Maximised Roll.
    [...]

    This happens to me because (at least at my playing level) the main effect of Frenzy is the frenzy test, and I forget the rest. I think the rule is ok, but I think:

    "The model is inmune to the effects of Fear. Restrain Pursuit Tests are subject to Maximised Roll." and
    "The model gains Fearless and Frenzy while Engaged in Combat."
    means the same, the first one is much easier to understand (at least for noobs like me) and the difference, just 97-60=37 characters, shouldn't be a problem.

    If I miss something, let me know please.

    I put this as sample of noobs trap. The purpose of this post is not to speak about this rule, but to speak about over complexation not in the final result but in the form.

    The result in this example is the same, but if new players need to stop quite often to check rules to see if they are doing everything ok, they won't fell wellcomed. If you want a very elitist game, without cassual and new players, just make it harder to understand. If you want the opposite, make things as easier as possible, being the spirit of the game the main boundary here.
  • (not commenting in staff role)

    One curious thing for me is that every thread like this moans about the complexity that is apparently due to tournament players... and whenever the project streamlines something, tourney players say "fine" and casual players object (because depth, immersion, flavour etc).

    (Note: I sit somewhere between the two camps personally in this case).


    Anyway...
    I actually think t9a is less complex than legacy... but the complexity is explicit rather than implicit, because t9a aims to ensure there is no corner case not covered by the rules.

    So what we need is not rules changes, but a "learn to play" book that leaves out the corner cases.
    Then the fact that it is simpler than legacy will be made manifest.

    This was being worked on, but the main volunteer left the project.
    *shrug*
    Anyone who wants to volunteer to learn the layout software that was being used (don't ask me, I don't know :P ) in order to get this project finished, feel free... there is no barrier to this project (that I personally know of) other than having volunteers with the right skills :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • @Macicior Now imagine thatevery from 16 armies has rule more or less same as Scent of Blood.

    With current way of writing rules you need to remember what is Scent of Blood and 2 special rules: Fearless and Frenzy. If you remember those 3, you can easily find most interactions possible.

    If you expand Fearless and Frenzy inside Scent of Blood then knowing Scent of Blood gives you round zero knowledge about similar rules in 15 other books.

    To make it worse: there are rules that interact with special rules and expanding instead of referencing will make a mess in those rules...

    Example: you got Fear. Add expanded Fear to Scent of Blood - how it interacts with KoE Questing Oath which gives +1 to-hit against Fear?

    There is always exactly same dualism:
    • split rules into keywords that are referenced to build more complex rules. Learn once all keywords, understand all rules.
    • write verbose rules without (or limited) keywords. Rules are simpler to read, but interactions may be catastrophic and all rules become unique and no advantage of learning anything by heart.
    Both have disadvantages both have advantages. You already know which approach was taken in T9A. I can only add from my perspective that at least rules and keywords are nicely flattened: there are only few places in whole T9A where rules inherit rules and no 3 level inheritance at all ;).
  • @Macicior

    I would expect a casual player, of any game, would have to refer to the rules more often than a non casual player. In fact, if you and I were having a game and you told me 'Hey, I am new / don't know the game too well' I would help you, even in a tournament game. Almost everyone that plays here in Australia would.

    The reason there are rules inside rules is to remove the need for player interpretation. That is why the rules are so great. You are either right or wrong. You can't argue about rules in T9A and it is great.


    Macicior wrote:

    "The model is inmune to the effects of Fear. Restrain Pursuit Tests are subject to Maximised Roll." and
    "The model gains Fearless and Frenzy while Engaged in Combat."
    means the same, the first one is much easier to understand (at least for noobs like me) and the difference, just 97-60=37 characters, shouldn't be a problem.
    There is a part of this you are missing. It would become a herculean effort to learn what everything does in the game. They do mean the same thing, you are right, but now instead of just learning what Fearless does and being able to apply that to everything in the game that has the Fearless rule, you have to know what each individual unit does for every army.

    What is easier, remembering what Fearless does and seeing that word next to a unit, or having to learn which units automatically passes Panic Tests, cannot declare a Flee Charge Reaction unless already Fleeing, and are immune to the effects of Fear.

    @WarX beat me to the punch and did a better job!
  • DanT wrote:

    (not commenting in staff role)

    One curious thing for me is that every thread like this moans about the complexity that is apparently due to tournament players... and whenever the project streamlines something, tourney players say "fine" and casual players object (because depth, immersion, flavour etc).
    I think the problem is not so much complexity as presentation? I love complex rules. But the rules for this game are often horrible to read, like the example above where special rules are stacked three deep and you have to do tons of leafing back and forth.
  • DanT wrote:

    So what we need is not rules changes, but a "learn to play" book that leaves out the corner cases.Then the fact that it is simpler than legacy will be made manifest.
    I kind of worked on that for a bit, but I only got about two chapters deep before I noticed just how much work it would be... it's not just rewriting hte rules we have to cut out some corner cases and unlayer the rules. You would pretty much also change the order everything is presented in the book to make it newbie friendly, since it seems to me that it is full of cases where things are used in other rules before they are explained. The book basically can not be read in order if you don't already have an idea how the rules work.
  • If you'd prefer to play a more streamlined version of T9A with no nested rules...

    Well, we already have that for you :)


    I even explained a lot about why all the changes, here:
    agoners.wordpress.com/2021/06/…treamlining-design-notes/

    Essence of War Team

    Product Search Team

    Social Media Team

    My gaming website: Agoners | | My gaming twitter: Agoners Gaming | | Contributor at: Collecting Green
    Sheffield, UK | | Essence of War - Give Us Your Feedback!! |
  • disclaimer: this is going to be honest.

    i've seen people say "we want Fantasy Battles, but well-balanced at 3000pts".
    now people are saying "we want Fantasy Battles, but with simple rules".

    my personal opinion is that you cant ask for a dog that cleans after itself and smells nice.
    if you want that, consider getting yourself a cat.

    or at least consider spending an afternoon with someone who owns a cat, to see what that's about.

    or get a Habilitation from the Fetthis house and breed a new type of dog that behaves like a cat.

    anything else, and it'll be little more than a way to get your steam off on a forum...
    and as such it'll be interpreted, by those who know how to read between the lines.


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

  • This is an answer mainly to @WarX and @draeth187.


    draeth187 wrote:

    What is easier, remembering what Fearless does and seeing that word next to a unit, or having to learn which units automatically passes Panic Tests, cannot declare a Flee Charge Reaction unless already Fleeing, and are immune to the effects of Fear.

    The problem is that the unit doesn't passes Panic Tests automatically, can declare a Flee Charge Reaction even if is not fleeing, because all this things related to fearless happens just if the unit is not engaged in combat (and this DE rule has being engaged as condition). What I mean is that there is a very big loop just to avoiding say "The model is inmune to the effects of Fear. Restrain Pursuit Tests are subject to Maximised Roll" just because there are other rules with part of this text on it. I don't want to focus a lot in this specific case, but if this is the line the new boks and rules are going to follow, I think they are too focused for not casual players.

    I understand that rules are done by not cassual players (it's the only way to make them functional), so there is a rasonable bias in the rules team. This is not an accusation but something I hope the team understand and try to offset. And I think this is the most important thing of this post.


    When you say there are 16 armies to think about their rules, of course this is terrible if rules are not, let's say, "compact". But I won't be playing against other 15 books, but just one. That's the difference between casuals and proffesional players, if you, experienced player, face an army, you just see the list and you know (more or less) everything about it, add the scheme the actual rules are, and you get it all instantly. For you this scheme has an easy meaning.

    For casuals or begginers happens just the opposite. You need to understand how this army (and no more armies, in fact, just this list, not the whole army book) runs as fast as possible. And if you need to dive in rules inside rules... it makes it harder. If you can skip entries, much better.

    Of course I understand that the main amount of hours played in this game are done by "profesional players", but I think that those exist because once they were if not cassuals, at least noobs. I understand that the main use of this books are ok for the, let's call, main players. But there was another thread (The Ninth Age is the coolest game in the world – why aren’t there more people playing it?, already closed but, yes, I'm going to carry on a little bit here) telling that we need to make things easier in order to develope this comunity. And I'm not speaking about making the game simplier but making the rules more readable.

    And, sure, If I tell my oponent I'm noob, I hope he es going to try to guide me, he will do mainly speaking about rules, but not about stragety, and I think stragety is the cool thing here. I want to learn stragety, but I'm sometimes cornered by (special) rules (i think there are 94 entries just in the rulebook).

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

  • (not commenting in staff role)

    *shrug*

    It seems there is a school of thought saying that presentation of the rules is the problem.
    If this is the case, there is an easy solution: present them differently and post a PDF on the forum.

    The rules have been gold for years. Making a differently presented rulebook requires no permission from the project.
    I'm sure if a good job is done, the project will consider linking it on the download page. And/or suggesting changes that if made would result in it being linked on the download page.

    If no one is prepared to spend time doing that, why does anyone expect the project volunteers to do it?
    The project has no resources other than what individuals volunteer to do.

    The only thing needed to get a differently presented rulebook is a member of the community (or group of community members) putting the effort in :)
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but noobs need physical ‘information cards’ on all of their units and their opponents units. If I’m not mistaken AoS does this. Of course, T9A will have much more info on them.. stats, all special rules, etc.

    Helps keep the focus on the tabletop and off the phones/rulebooks.

    Training wheels for an insanely complicated game.

    Do these exist?
    Friends don’t let friends play soberhammer.
  • The problem with the outlining of the rules is - imho - that they are rules buried in rules buried in (sometimes) special requirements. And thats were (we see it in our local gaminggroup) our not so time-investing friends are blocked out by.

    Lets take the dread knights as an example again.

    To know what this unit does you need to know the following rules beside statlines:

    Scent of Blood, Scoring, Lightning Reflexes, Ruthless Efficiency, Lethal Strike, Harnessed. Now the buried rules come to play.

    You have to know, that scent of blood is just a fancy name for more special rules that only work under special requirements. In this case fearless and frenzy while engaged in combat and in ADDITION devastating charge (+1 adv) with an additional special requirement (the charge unit has at least one health pool that contains fewer health points than it did when the unit was deployed or otherwise entered the battlefield AND that the effect ends imediately before the unit declares a new charge.

    So reviewing that we have to know:

    Scent of blood, Scoring, Lightning Reflexes, ruthless Efficiency, Lethal Strike, Harnessed, Fearless, Frenzy, devastating charge AND we have to know the special requirements for Scent of Blood to activate.

    I mean guys ... holy moly. Not only is the rule very hard to read since it "has to be lawproof" its also a very unique and imho unnecessary way just to avoid giving them straight out fearless and +1 advance on charge and avoiding a lower defensive weaponskill what would normally be there because of frenzy.

    I do think that we need a certain amount of special rules so that we dont start playing kow (which is fun but something different) but its really getting to the point of being annoying.

    I don't think it would break any kind of flavour if you replace scent of blood directly with fearless and devastating charge (+1 adv).

    This would not only reduce the amount of special rules that contain special rules that contain special requirements, it would also make it way easier for an less-pro-player to spot what the unit can do or not.
  • Kronos wrote:

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but noobs need physical ‘information cards’ on all of their units and their opponents units. If I’m not mistaken AoS does this. Of course, T9A will have much more info on them.. stats, all special rules, etc.

    Helps keep the focus on the tabletop and off the phones/rulebooks.

    Training wheels for an insanely complicated game.

    Do these exist?
    No info cards but the new recruit app lets you access all the info for every unit - it's quite invaluable.
  • subspace wrote:

    Kronos wrote:

    Not sure if it’s been mentioned yet but noobs need physical ‘information cards’ on all of their units and their opponents units. If I’m not mistaken AoS does this. Of course, T9A will have much more info on them.. stats, all special rules, etc.

    Helps keep the focus on the tabletop and off the phones/rulebooks.

    Training wheels for an insanely complicated game.

    Do these exist?
    No info cards but the new recruit app lets you access all the info for every unit - it's quite invaluable.
    Oh good to know, that was my biggest problem with new recruit.. it wasn’t good for new recruits bc it didn’t tell em any essential information like stats.

    Is there an option to print the lists with all the stats and special rules under each unit, like an improved version of battlescribe?
    Friends don’t let friends play soberhammer.
  • @Zwei I guess both of us understand that unit having: Scent of Blood and unit having Fearless and Frenzy are mechanically two completely different units.

    This is only and pure reason it is how it is.

    We can now ask ourselves if we want 16 books containing same stuff doing same things or something different (sometimes in radical way)?

    I guess there is no good and simple answer to this question.
  • WarX wrote:

    We can now ask ourselves if we want 16 books containing same stuff doing same things or something different (sometimes in radical way)?
    For me there is no problem in having a special rule here and there, if they are unique for this army. The thing is that T9A likes to build packages and/or gives new names to existing rules and this can make things complicated.

    Example: Sylvan Elves can have Elven Cloaks, which gives +1 armour and can be combined with a light armour (in total +2 armour). So it is the same as a heavy armour. Why do we need a special rule for this?