No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

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.

  • DanT wrote:

    Apologies all, I've been reading but haven/'t had chance to properly reply. I will try to get to it over the next few days though.
    I wanted to quickly jump in here though:

    Pellegrim wrote:

    the continued focus on balance over fluff / immersion,
    I'm still struggling to understand this sentence :/ Can anyone unpack it for me, or give some examples?

    What fluff/immersion things have been removed for balance reasons?

    I think lots of us are using words to mean different things, I really want us to establish common vocabulary so I can make sure that I understand your concerns correctly and completely. That way I am more likely to be able to propose changes that will make those who currently feel short changed happier.
    Examples? Last three years have been about balance. Next three about overhauling all army books, following Asaw guidelines.

    While the thing that brings the most excitement as of yet is the release of a side-product of the Warriors book, being the Asklanders.

    A genuine new product. This first as such. People are switching from warriors to Asklanders. Finally a new product! Cause everything up until this point has been tweaking an existing rule-set, like it or not (sure new unit's were created here and there, but generally).

    So focus on that, instead of more balancing. Focus on keeping the large group of players that is lingering along waiting for fluff happy. Start with the background compedium, start with fun characters, but please, do not take three years or more for book overhauls like the warriors, is what I plead for.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    It's a huge disconnect.
    Probably because you're reading Warhammer fluff and applying it to 9th Age rules. Mind you, I do that too, because I love Warhammer and the old world and 9th Age provides an excellent system for playing in it...
    But that doesn't mean the Doomwheel fluff applies to 9th Age.
    See the last part of my post.

    What other fluff should I apply then? BEcause we don't have any.

    What other model should I base my assumptions of what the unit represents on? Because there isn't one.
    As such, just let me say, Ceterum censeo Equitanem esse delendam.
  • Good work guys, this is progress :)

    Altao wrote:


    You mean like 1.2 removal of unrepresentable/invisible upgrades from units? Just look at current WDG with all Hard Weaknesses...
    Not balance, but I agree that the removal of unrepresentable upgrades has caused problems. Its not even consistently applied.

    rolan wrote:

    Maybe it is not balance, but streamlining, or the focus on "only 1 unit for each task", I don't really know how the process of getting rid of units is called internally.The idea behind the sentence is clear, though: the WodG AB was created with something in mind that helps to balance the game, make it predictable, controllable, better usable as a tournament game (another with a red tag admitted this already somewhere in either this or a similiar thread I spend the last days reading), and that is ruining the fluff and fun part of the game. We don't want the game to take that direction, so we voice our concerns.
    And sadly, instead of explaining or giving counter-arguments, many answers from the "officials" are not helpful, but make it feel like they don't care about our concerns and would like us to just shut up and let them do as they do, because they know better anyways (or don't care if somebody doesn't like what they are doing).
    Also not balance. And there is no intent I know of to make the WotDG army book better usable as a tournament game, but maybe I just haven't been told this yet. I hope/believe the next iteration of WotDG will be better received.

    Eldan wrote:


    The prime example for me, or at least the most recent one, was what happened to the Dreadmill/Doomwheel.
    If I look at the model and read the fluff, I see a giant hamster wheel, crewed by a cackling mad rat high on power, that generates a lightning storm as it drives around. That immediately suggests several things when I see it: fast, difficult to control, and "this will hurt if it hits someone". So, the model has random movement (fast, difficult to control), the chance to hurt itself when driving (more difficult to control) and it has a lot of strong impact hits (ouch).

    But then, the Skaven army's ASAW say that they aren't that good at close combat and especially not first turn damage output. So, out go the impact hits. Random elements are difficult to balance, so out goes the chance for uncontrolled movement and self-damage from driving. People don't like the self-harm and it's, again, difficult to balance, so out goes the movement misfire table.

    So, we're left with a thing that is primarily a mobile artillery weapon, with a rather pitiful damage output in combat. d3 grinding hits. That's about, what, a bit better than a single vermin hulk? Same amount of damage whether someone ran into it while it was standing still or it was driving full speed down a hill and landed on half the first rank? And that cackling madrat at the wheel is now calmly in control and makes no miscalculations while driving.

    Now, yes, of course, we may get new fluff for the thing that wonderfully describes that the Republic of Avras employs armored war wagons with lightning turrets that are crewed only by the most skilled and disciplined of vermin pilots. Cool. But we're told that's years away.
    Similarly, we're told the system is model-agnostic, so not dependent on the Doomwheel model. But then, we don't really find any other models for fast moving vehicles in the right size crewed by rats.

    It's a huge disconnect.
    I don't think the changes to the dreadmill were done for balance reasons.
    I wasn't on the team though, so I would have to check.


    Very good, I now understand better.

    So is a good summary of this thread:
    (1) Give us options
    (2) Stop taking stuff off us
    ????????
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire

    And some basic tactics for beginners (I should develop this properly at some point)
    No 'tactics for beginners' thread?
  • Eldan wrote:

    See the last part of my post.

    What other fluff should I apply then? BEcause we don't have any.

    What other model should I base my assumptions of what the unit represents on? Because there isn't one.
    You can use Warhammer if you like? I'm just saying basing your argument on "This 9th Age unit doesn't follow the fluff of this other system" seems a bit odd. Like what do you expect? That's part of the whole IP thing, we can't base our game on Warhammer fluff or we'll get f*cked.

    I mean... we all have the Warhammer Fluff in our heads when playing 9th Age, because so far 9th is building it's very own world and armybooks. That's the work in progress bit, that's the team made up out of volunteers bit. It's not a quick process!
  • That's two things. But honestly, I'd be happy with having stuff taken, if we got something else in return.

    Currently, it feels like a constant stripping down with nothing to show in exchange.

    Additionally, a lot of flavour is often in small, almost inconsequential rules. There can be rules that come up once in twenty games but have a huge impact.
    As such, just let me say, Ceterum censeo Equitanem esse delendam.
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    Eldan wrote:

    See the last part of my post.

    What other fluff should I apply then? BEcause we don't have any.

    What other model should I base my assumptions of what the unit represents on? Because there isn't one.
    You can use Warhammer if you like? I'm just saying basing your argument on "This 9th Age unit doesn't follow the fluff of this other system" seems a bit odd. Like what do you expect? That's part of the whole IP thing, we can't base our game on Warhammer fluff or we'll get f*cked.
    I mean... we all have the Warhammer Fluff in our heads when playing 9th Age, because so far 9th is building it's very own world and armybooks. That's the work in progress bit, that's the team made up out of volunteers bit. It's not a quick process!
    I can't use Warhammer, though. Because the rules don't represent the Warhammer fluff. That's my entire point.

    I want rules that represent the image I have in my head when I think of a unit. As long as there is no Ninth Age fluff, GW fluff is the only fluff I can use. And that fluff is incompatible with the rules.

    So I get units that don't work, since the rules don't represent what they look and feel like. That means I don't want to play them.


    Fluff comes first. IT's the first thing I read and see and imagine. If I read a unit entry "Spearman", I imagine a man with a spear. If the rules then represent a small war beast or a gigantic vehicle, that doesn't go together. It's weird. The rules may be great, but they don't fit.


    Actually, that should be the third point on your list, @DanT:
    "Rules must fit fluff". Actually, make that point one.
    As such, just let me say, Ceterum censeo Equitanem esse delendam.
  • @DanT
    What I read somewhere was that ADT don't try to create best idea/implement new things, but rather something that will pass through sieve of restrictions made by other teams.
    And would something like this be answer? But that thing fits more towards current HBE situation (they somehow avoided that) and I wouldn't like to start this discussion also here.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Armywide Signature Spells - Check! Maybe you could add something more? Success! We got Hereditary Spells!
  • Eldan wrote:

    I can't use Warhammer, though. Because the rules don't represent the Warhammer fluff. That's my entire point.

    I want rules that represent the image I have in my head when I think of a unit. As long as there is no Ninth Age fluff, GW fluff is the only fluff I can use. And that fluff is incompatible with the rules.
    This. @Squigkikka it feels like you are throwing down words cause you don't like what you are reading. Which really doesn't help in the discussion
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Of course I don't like what I'm reading, I thought I made that quite clear @Pellegrim? @Fnarrr, @fjugin and @DanT in particular have the patience of Saints for dealing with this type of post that inevitable makes the rounds every month (week? day?).

    Like the mythical Phoenix rising from the ashes, so too do these topics never end. Very grimdark! >:(
  • Squigkikka wrote:

    Of course I don't like what I'm reading, I thought I made that quite clear @Pellegrim? @Fnarrr, @fjugin and @DanT in particular have the patience of Saints for dealing with this type of post that inevitable makes the rounds every month (week? day?).

    Like the mythical Phoenix rising from the ashes, so too do these topics never end. Very grimdark! >:(
    Maybe you should start to think about those arguments, not ignore them and hope people forget their concerns.
  • It's so easy to derail a solid discussion on design goals and focus.

    I don't know why you want to do that though. It's totally counter productive.

    Instead of accepting there is a growing group of people that are getting disconnected with the current course, you hold your hands over your ears and shout "everything is fine!"

    Anyway - good points were made in this thread. Thanks you @Tyranno!
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!
  • Pellegrim wrote:

    DanT wrote:

    So is a good summary of this thread:
    (1) Give us options
    (2) Stop taking stuff off us
    Partialy but very incomplete. Instead of coming in and asking for a summary you could join discussion and read up? Check the posts with mosts likes if you will.

    The problem is simple (this comment also applies to similar threads like HE main, futur of hotfix,..) : there are good points being made, but to find them and have a discussion about it, you have to suffer the constants half-hidden insults, claim of incompetence and other general hate. Sometimes made by people that made those good comments, most of the time it's just a post with 5 likes after a good comment saying "see, this is why BLT/RT/whatever is dumb". No one can support that for a long time, and they shouldn't, that would just crush their motivation. Thus, it is hard to ask people like @DanT to look at all the stuff (even only the most liked posts) because they will have to slug through the hate of some.
  • Alzam wrote:

    The problem is simple (this comment also applies to similar threads like HE main, futur of hotfix,..) : there are good points being made, but to find them and have a discussion about it, you have to suffer the constants half-hidden insults, claim of incompetence and other general hate. Sometimes made by people that made those good comments, most of the time it's just a post with 5 likes after a good comment saying "see, this is why BLT/RT/whatever is dumb". No one can support that for a long time, and they shouldn't, that would just crush their motivation. Thus, it is hard to ask people like @DanT to look at all the stuff (even only the most liked posts) because they will have to slug through the hate of some.
    Not to sound like I am tooting my own horn, but then perhaps it should be best to address/get back on topic to the original post? As that has the most likes (and therefor plenty of people agree with it) but also has no half-veiled insults in it.
  • Tyranno wrote:

    @Squigkikka the medium of online text is not very helpful for this, but it was NOT meant as an insult to the people here. It was more to set the tone of this is important and needs to be addressed quickly, which the rest of the post set out to do.
    Being told what to do and implying we're idiots for not doing what you want certainly is a great way to kick off a constructive discussion. You set the tone alright.