No more Hard Weaknesses - A community plea

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

  • Altao wrote:

    One of arguments I heard for merging units was having too similar role. How solve that? :P
    I like to have choice - for me it isn't problem. Maybe they need just added some difference so each of them will shine in different situation making them meta-dependant choice?

    Adam wrote:

    Very little of the game complexity lies in the army books. Especially since most players (me included) start a game with opponent list in hand and finger point his units asking what they do. Magic is also simple, especially when people bring magic cards.

    On the other hand core rules are madness, movement itself is plain crazy and despite having played close to 200 games in T9A I still have to consult BRB routinely to check legality of some moves.
    I would say that there is good and bad complexity - like cholesterol.BRB's complexity is bad thing - cuz it makes game harder to understand.
    Armybooks complexity is good thing - bring enjoy of book, making it more interesting.
    I would say its the other way around. Army books should have a clear concise vision in mind with limited but specialized playstyles. The BRB should hold the complexity of the game. Games like warmachine are terrible because of the volume of special rules within factions. Dont turn t9a into a system like that.
  • ninepaces wrote:

    I would say its the other way around. Army books should have a clear concise vision in mind with limited but specialized playstyles. The BRB should hold the complexity of the game. Games like warmachine are terrible because of the volume of special rules within factions. Dont turn t9a into a system like that.
    I don't know that I agree with this. A lot of the charm of the game is that the different factions are unique. There is a big difference between ID and DH due to their own unique rules (flammability vs runes, for example).

    I prefer having the core rules being everything you need for the base game, and having the army books contain all of the cool special rules.
  • I'm seeing trouble brewing for my local T9A group in the Northwest US, who were vehement supporters of the game and wanted to settle on it to fulfill the void left by the death of Warhammer. I would like to see this game succeed on a more global level than the European tournaments.

    While I am by no means a game designer, I have been playtesting and giving relevant feedback to RPG designers for the last two years. T9A is not an RPG, but it is based on a game that was designed by people who wanted rules for big RPG battles. Thus there are RPG elements that have brought many into the fold of this game, and some of those design decisions could help with T9A. Therefore, some thoughts:

    -Change will divide folks no matter what you do, so it is important that every change be absolutely necessary with additional reasoning behind the changes provided for those interested. Change was apparently necessary for copyright reasons, but it seems we have gone further than that with the new WDG book. Taking away entire entries will upset the longbeards.

    -Rough balance is better than absolute balance. Balancing down to the wire will potentially make rules and units very similar and perhaps too predictable.

    -The complexity budget design principle may stifle army flavor. Limitations can be interesting, but as a player that started with T9A, I can assure you that the complexity of the game is in the incredibly finicky, unintuitive movement phase and the basic rulebook. The ASAW polls seem to have been used as a Monkey's Paw approach, making adequate rules strengths only by nerfing weaknesses or deleting them without raising up the strengths in turn.

    -The game is by its nature birthed from the corpse of a failed game that failed for several reasons. Lack of support was one of those, but massive armies and complex rules were others. I will do my part to grow the game, but T9A has inherited the old issues along with its own.

    CariadocThorne wrote:

    ninepaces wrote:

    I couldn't disagree more.
    Go and read about the battle of 5 armies in The Hobbit. Dwarves are not fast, but they are super tough, with insane endurance, and being able to maintain a steady run while wearing full armour, carrying a pack full of rations, clothes, a tent, pots and pans, a spare shield, a selection of axes which resembles a set of golf clubs in variety and number, half a keg of beer and whatever gold they''ve managed to loot recently, well, that sounds about as dwarfy as dwarfy gets to me.

    Triple march perfectly captures their legendary stamina, and just as importantly, it is absolutely vital for enabling dwarves to play combat infantry armies. Dwarves with cannons and stuff is cool, but when I think of a dwarf, I don't think of guns and steam-punk helicopters, I think of a tough little son of a *female dog* with an axe or a hammer.
    How dare you, I have enough armies as it is. Don't tempt a man like that.
  • Mad wrote:

    I very much prefer keeping the "complexity" to the main rules. The learning curve is a bit steep but once you've got the main rules the armybooks are easy to understand since they mostly use predefined concepts.
    The whole problem is that majority of players (even tournament ones) do not know main rules well. In every tournament I have been around a bunch of players had at least one idea about how the game works that was absolutely false or was true in some previous version of the game or even some edition of Warhammer. So many players do not get main rules ever.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HbE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HbE generals: HbE Beginners corner
  • The problem is that we have a bunch of highly unintuitive and unrealistic rules that make no sense. . . except that that's how it's always been and some competitive players like to be That Guy. For example, the NONSENSICAL and MORONIC exploit of the movement phase with impassable terrain protecting your flank. Because in real life, that means "you have to charge my front" (like in Warhammer Total War). In 9th Age, that means "you can't charge me for no valid reason". For some reason, that exploit was kept in 2.0 despite it being exactly the sort of complexity we should be looking to cut (unintuitive, doesn't add significant depth to the game). We can't exactly complain about "army book complexity being too high" when we keep moronic flaming turds like that exploit in the BRB (and there are plenty of them).

    We should have INTUITIVE and streamlined core rules that have LOW complexity to DECREASE the barrier to entry of a game. We should want to attract players to the game, AND make it accessible to them in its basic form. Warhammer Fantasy actually did this REALLY well. If you were just into playing for Beer And Pretzels with your friends, it was an awesome narrative game that let you play out huge battles. It was only problematic when you tried to turn it into a competitive sport. Unfortunately, 9th Age seems to have the attitude of wanting to be a competitive sport while selling itself as a cheerful narrative game.

    Thus we have highly complex core rules with bland and uninspiring army books. We *SHOULD* strive for the OPPOSITE. Easily accessible and intuitive core rules with a low degree of complexity with flavorful and complex army books. That makes it MUCH easier to attract new players because you have an easy to understand game that makes sense to them while giving them stuff to really get involved and inspire by in their army books.
    My army has rocks, papers, and scissors. The reason you lost this war is that you thought we were playing checkers at every battle. - Anon. Highborn Elf Prince.
    Highborn Master of the Infantry and aspiring Equitaininan Champion of the Lady.

    Playtester

    DL Army Community Support

  • Adam wrote:

    Mad wrote:

    I very much prefer keeping the "complexity" to the main rules. The learning curve is a bit steep but once you've got the main rules the armybooks are easy to understand since they mostly use predefined concepts.
    The whole problem is that majority of players (even tournament ones) do not know main rules well. In every tournament I have been around a bunch of players had at least one idea about how the game works that was absolutely false or was true in some previous version of the game or even some edition of Warhammer. So many players do not get main rules ever.
    Ayup. I've played since 4th ed, still can't remember if shooting or magic comes first.
    True Heirs of Avras: Vermin Swarm Auxillary Army books
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!
  • I'm not fully across the tournament scene but are the core design ideas actually working out? Are all armies being taken in roughly equal numbers. In those armies are all units seeing equal play? If units are being neglected will they get cut eventually?
    I'm also confused by the number of very different views on miniatures. As I understand the system is agnostic, so take the models from whatever company you like. What I read that is though is pick whatever model you like that fits the description. So find some lizardy dudes for saurian ancients smaller guys as small ones and bigger ones as the bigger guys. If the systems rules are all built around tournaments then surely the miniature rules should be too. i would also like to know which is the chicken and which is the egg. Out of background, rules and miniatures what is the decider of a unit going into a book in the first place. does anyone have the authority to say, hey when we started warriors of the dark gods we saw a lot of cool miniatures for dark heavy miniatures being produced by one company with their rules and we imported the roles of those to 9th age, however we imported the play style first, the background second and miniatures last.
    If that was the case then it's time to break the news that no models are safe because no one actually cares about what units look like, or their names.
    How that links to hard limits is that it's a collective process but it seems the rules team trumps everyone else. So it doesn't matter if plenty of miniatures exist, or in any given worlds background it fits, if the rules team decides it doesn't fit the play style to a tee it's out.
  • Eldan wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    Mad wrote:

    I very much prefer keeping the "complexity" to the main rules. The learning curve is a bit steep but once you've got the main rules the armybooks are easy to understand since they mostly use predefined concepts.
    The whole problem is that majority of players (even tournament ones) do not know main rules well. In every tournament I have been around a bunch of players had at least one idea about how the game works that was absolutely false or was true in some previous version of the game or even some edition of Warhammer. So many players do not get main rules ever.
    Ayup. I've played since 4th ed, still can't remember if shooting or magic comes first.
    In 4th I’m pretty sure magic came after combat and both players could cast.
    • I do vaguely remember a time when both sides could cast in each phase, but I mainly remember Battle Magic.
    True Heirs of Avras: Vermin Swarm Auxillary Army books
    Some call it shameless Wishlisting! Some call it an Unplayable Mess! Some ask what is the Point of This! Is it an Auxillary Book? A Copy-paste Ripoff? A Fan Version of an existing Book? See for yourself, citizens!
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    The problem is that we have a bunch of highly unintuitive and unrealistic rules that make no sense. . . except that that's how it's always been and some competitive players like to be That Guy. For example, the NONSENSICAL and MORONIC exploit of the movement phase with impassable terrain protecting your flank. Because in real life, that means "you have to charge my front" (like in Warhammer Total War). In 9th Age, that means "you can't charge me for no valid reason". For some reason, that exploit was kept in 2.0 despite it being exactly the sort of complexity we should be looking to cut (unintuitive, doesn't add significant depth to the game). We can't exactly complain about "army book complexity being too high" when we keep moronic flaming turds like that exploit in the BRB (and there are plenty of them).

    We should have INTUITIVE and streamlined core rules that have LOW complexity to DECREASE the barrier to entry of a game. We should want to attract players to the game, AND make it accessible to them in its basic form. Warhammer Fantasy actually did this REALLY well. If you were just into playing for Beer And Pretzels with your friends, it was an awesome narrative game that let you play out huge battles. It was only problematic when you tried to turn it into a competitive sport. Unfortunately, 9th Age seems to have the attitude of wanting to be a competitive sport while selling itself as a cheerful narrative game.

    Thus we have highly complex core rules with bland and uninspiring army books. We *SHOULD* strive for the OPPOSITE. Easily accessible and intuitive core rules with a low degree of complexity with flavorful and complex army books. That makes it MUCH easier to attract new players because you have an easy to understand game that makes sense to them while giving them stuff to really get involved and inspire by in their army books.

    Exactly this!!!
  • Altao wrote:

    Armybooks complexity is good thing - bring enjoy of book, making it more interesting.
    Most of the complexity in the Main Rulebook cannot be transferred to army books though, because most of the Rulebook complexity is tied into movement, cover and other general game principles.
  • Thordar Greybeard wrote:

    Hmmm.. maybe.

    You could definitely both cast in each players magic phase in 4th, and the start of 5th until the re-release of battle magic.

    I’m sure I used to Grey Wings my Troll slayers around (25% on Allies) in my opponents magic phase.
    I still own the book, so no, you couldn't cast in both players phase, only in your own. Was the same in 2nd ed, I never played or bought 1st ed, so maybe back then it was possible to cast in your opponents phase.
  • rolan wrote:

    Thordar Greybeard wrote:

    Hmmm.. maybe.

    You could definitely both cast in each players magic phase in 4th, and the start of 5th until the re-release of battle magic.

    I’m sure I used to Grey Wings my Troll slayers around (25% on Allies) in my opponents magic phase.
    I still own the book, so no, you couldn't cast in both players phase, only in your own. Was the same in 2nd ed, I never played or bought 1st ed, so maybe back then it was possible to cast in your opponents phase.
    In 4th edition you could cast in both your own and the opponentes phase.
  • Kristian wrote:

    rolan wrote:

    Thordar Greybeard wrote:

    Hmmm.. maybe.

    You could definitely both cast in each players magic phase in 4th, and the start of 5th until the re-release of battle magic.

    I’m sure I used to Grey Wings my Troll slayers around (25% on Allies) in my opponents magic phase.
    I still own the book, so no, you couldn't cast in both players phase, only in your own. Was the same in 2nd ed, I never played or bought 1st ed, so maybe back then it was possible to cast in your opponents phase.
    In 4th edition you could cast in both your own and the opponentes phase.
    was crazy OP
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    The problem is that we have a bunch of highly unintuitive and unrealistic rules that make no sense. . . except that that's how it's always been and some competitive players like to be That Guy. For example, the NONSENSICAL and MORONIC exploit of the movement phase with impassable terrain protecting your flank. Because in real life, that means "you have to charge my front" (like in Warhammer Total War). In 9th Age, that means "you can't charge me for no valid reason". For some reason, that exploit was kept in 2.0 despite it being exactly the sort of complexity we should be looking to cut (unintuitive, doesn't add significant depth to the game). We can't exactly complain about "army book complexity being too high" when we keep moronic flaming turds like that exploit in the BRB (and there are plenty of them).

    We should have INTUITIVE and streamlined core rules that have LOW complexity to DECREASE the barrier to entry of a game. We should want to attract players to the game, AND make it accessible to them in its basic form. Warhammer Fantasy actually did this REALLY well. If you were just into playing for Beer And Pretzels with your friends, it was an awesome narrative game that let you play out huge battles. It was only problematic when you tried to turn it into a competitive sport. Unfortunately, 9th Age seems to have the attitude of wanting to be a competitive sport while selling itself as a cheerful narrative game.

    Thus we have highly complex core rules with bland and uninspiring army books. We *SHOULD* strive for the OPPOSITE. Easily accessible and intuitive core rules with a low degree of complexity with flavorful and complex army books. That makes it MUCH easier to attract new players because you have an easy to understand game that makes sense to them while giving them stuff to really get involved and inspire by in their army books.
    wow. I am.so happy this message keeps popping up. By various people in all layers of the T9A cloud. Gives some hope on improvement. To have a chance to have real gold ruleset; a next level ruleset.
    Booooooaaaaaarsssss .... Chaaaaaaaaaaaaaarge !!!