Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

jouso wrote:

Tonhel wrote:

jouso wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Design by committee rarely works in my experience. All design by committee has ever done in any projects I've been a part of is breed a lot of contempt and an end product that doesn't know what it wants to be.

OTOH T9A works. For many people. Tournaments keep popping up, the homebrew section has been massively boosted now that they will be published in the magazine (first one is the barbarian army).

I understand the US is its own beast but it is the game of choice over here, much bigger than any other fantasy wargame (rank and file or AoS). Some people drop for whatever reason but others come in. Overall and going by tournament frequency and attendance, games at the club and social media activity (meaning whatsapp goups nowadays) the game looks good enough. Plenty of hype going for 2.0.

Really, when browsing through the "official" 9TA forum I see a lot of negativity about asaw and how it seems to kill flavour. It seems to me that i.e HBE players are already in fear when their armybook will get the 2.0 treatment like WDG. T9A will be sustained by small group of die hards, but its heyday already passed.

Why the quotes on official? It's where development takes place so it's as official as it gets. Of course people moan in the forums, it's what people do ever since internet forums existed.

People want to have the nice toys and grumble when other armies get it.

To highlight that I was talking about the official 9th Age forum. Well there is a lot of moaning about it on their forum, I remember that a couple of months ago they posted that their first real 2.0 armybook in this case WDG should nail it.. . In all fairness it didn't and it seems that the majority of the WDG community agree with that. I really don't see any grow potential with T9A. I really liked their first versions it was an improved Warhammer. Than the IP "threat" came up and they used it to justify all their changes, than ASAW came, which is something that is changing the game for the worse. The stupid thing is that probably almost nobody that voted was fully aware of the impact that it is having on T9A and to make it even worse about only 200-300 members voted of all the forum members.... .

The new rulebook is far from easy to read., infact it's quite horrible.

Imo the loss of players is much greater than new players joining.

jouso wrote:

 kodos wrote:


So what reason to play this community version of the game over any other version that is around (Fluffhammer, WarhammerCE, Warhammer Armies etc) if you are not interested in tournaments or want to go to the ETC because for playing an older version of the game one can stay with 7th or 8th edition of warhammer too.

Because those competitive gamers play non-competitive gamers. On our club only maybe 5 people go to tournaments outside of our monthly beer-and-chips "tournaments", but the other 20-something people also play with them. And run campaigns, and so on.

I could point you to other groups near us who haven't been near a tournament since 7th edition but still play T9A because presumably they like it. There's a whole homebrew section on the website where people post their campaign rules, homebrew armies, a skirmish game in the Mordheim mould, special character development systems, etc.

But of course the Internet has decided T9A is exclusively for ETC-ultracompetitive player-fans, so there's that.

It is not the internet, but the official "rule-freeze" each year happens just to suit the ETC gamers and adjustments happens based on Team-Tournament data. This is the information people get, that they came to the conclusion that the game is made by tournament players for tournament players is not a surprise

And it is good that you have local groups around that use T9A for B&B games, here we still play the original Mortheim, no need for a replacement, as some still play 8th Edition.
For a B&B player, T9A add no advantage over the original rules (there is more the disadvantage that the army you are painting is outdated/illegal as sonn as you finished it if you are a slow painter)

 kodos wrote:

jouso wrote:

 kodos wrote:


So what reason to play this community version of the game over any other version that is around (Fluffhammer, WarhammerCE, Warhammer Armies etc) if you are not interested in tournaments or want to go to the ETC because for playing an older version of the game one can stay with 7th or 8th edition of warhammer too.

Because those competitive gamers play non-competitive gamers. On our club only maybe 5 people go to tournaments outside of our monthly beer-and-chips "tournaments", but the other 20-something people also play with them. And run campaigns, and so on.

I could point you to other groups near us who haven't been near a tournament since 7th edition but still play T9A because presumably they like it. There's a whole homebrew section on the website where people post their campaign rules, homebrew armies, a skirmish game in the Mordheim mould, special character development systems, etc.

But of course the Internet has decided T9A is exclusively for ETC-ultracompetitive player-fans, so there's that.

It is not the internet, but the official "rule-freeze" each year happens just to suit the ETC gamers and adjustments happens based on Team-Tournament data. This is the information people get, that they came to the conclusion that the game is made by tournament players for tournament players is not a surprise

And it is good that you have local groups around that use T9A for B&B games, here we still play the original Mortheim, no need for a replacement, as some still play 8th Edition.
For a B&B player, T9A add no advantage over the original rules (there is more the disadvantage that the army you are painting is outdated/illegal as sonn as you finished it if you are a slow painter)

https://www.the-ninth-age.com/index.php?attachment/12686-data-analysis-report-pdf/

As you see data is about 50-50 for individual vs team tournaments.

The next rules freeze will come after the ETC, and will last for at least 3 years. It's true that ETC is big for T9A, but it's not the end all.

And I can see several advantages about using 9th age vs 8th or older editions. For one it's free, evolving and has a huge community behind it. There are no laggard armies like Brets or Skaven who never got a proper 8th edition book and were either underpowered or a pain to play against because their rules were intended for an older edition.

There's balance, the obvious removal of blatantly broken stuff like botwd, the nuke spells, hellebron or the unkillable nurgle DPs, unit size limits, making no-magic armies viable, removing the mandatory lv4.

But sure, you're a casual, you don't use that filth. There's plenty of fan-produced armies. Stormcast, araby, kislev, dogs of war... All have their book. And let's be honest, improved interval and external balance does improve even casual play.

There's plenty of reasons why a group who's never been near a tournament chooses T9A. You don't have to like the end result or even the process of getting there, but to reduce T9A to the ETC is just not true

 kodos wrote:
the official "rule-freeze" each year happens just to suit the ETC gamers and adjustments happens based on Team-Tournament data. This is the information people get, that they came to the conclusion that the game is made by tournament players for tournament players is not a surprise

Wait, so are you somehow implying that T9A is somehow *not* a tournament game, by and for tournament players exclusively?

Because if you are, that rings awfully hollow and false.

I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

 auticus wrote:
I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

AoS at release was an exercise on showing a big fat middle finger to tournament gamers, yet fans were quick to make a tournament system out of it.

So whatever little boxes each one of us (including the designers) want to put game systems in means feth all.

jouso wrote:

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

"easy top learn, hard to master" is main thing for casual games because you have an easy start, while "hard to learn, heavy to read and a lot of micromanagement" does not suit casual games very much (a casual gamer gives up after reading the first 40 pages of the 2.0 rules when he realise that there are a 100 more in the same style and no the quickstarter rules are a different kind of game)

 kodos wrote:

jouso wrote:

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

"easy top learn, hard to master" is main thing for casual games because you have an easy start, while "hard to learn, heavy to read and a lot of micromanagement" does not suit casual games very much (a casual gamer gives up after reading the first 40 pages of the 2.0 rules when he realise that there are a 100 more in the same style and no the quickstarter rules are a different kind of game)

The quick starter rules are by design a simplified version of the big book.

They haven't been brought up to 2.0 because the beta has been out for weeks, and 2.0 won't be stable until October or thereabouts anyway.

What I really don't understand is why T9A would pretend to be anything other than a "pure" tournament ruleset for ETC matched play. If it just stuck with that, it could be "perfect".

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I really don't understand is why T9A would pretend to be anything other than a "pure" tournament ruleset for ETC matched play. If it just stuck with that, it could be "perfect".

Why does T9A have to pretend anything? As mentioned before AoS at the beginning was the absolute total opposite of a tournament ruleset, and players made one out of it. Why? Because they wanted to. Period.

Why would anyone make a homebrew armybook or campaign rules or rules for special characters if they're never to be used on a tournament? Ask them, because they do. Some on our group didn't like the lack of the old special characters in the armybooks so they just wrote rules for them, and use them in a mighty empires campaign. On our annual Christmas 3v3v3 game (18.000 points a side) we had our Nagash, our Archaon, our Karl Franz, etc., and our plan for next year is to make it even bigger.

Of course there are pure tournament players who play exclusively 4500 points for the sole purpose of trying to find the tiniest rules loophole to exploit their OP combination, but IME they're a minority (just like pure narrative and pure campaigners, etc.) Most of us fall somewhere in the middle and dabble a bit here and a bit there.

jouso wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

What do you mean by "zenith" Auticus?
If you mean the best or top, then no; KoW is well designed and written to be suited to competitive play. If you want to test your mind and gaming skill against your opponent I don't know of a better wargame.

 DarkBlack wrote:

jouso wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

What do you mean by "zenith" Auticus?

I guess because 60% of the T9A rules are about special cases to close all gabs of possible abuse of movement/model placement etc. written in a style that suits a lawyer
So stuff that other games have written in a FAQ or Tournament guide (not only TableTop, also Chess has tournament rules for those special things) is integrated in the Basic Rules of T9A

This is a reason why I cannot see it as a causal game, and the Quickstarter to help causal gamers is more like a different game than in indrotuction
I can also read the KoW rules instead of the quickstarter and play first games before I go to the main T9A book, it would make no difference

And than there is the problem that T9A is based on Warhammer, which is a hero focused mass-skirmish game with special rules for units in formations based on Dungeon&Dragons RPG.
So a lot of stuff is just there because it always have been there, no matter if a Tournament Battle Game needs it or not
Micromanagement because it is important were exactly a unit champion, and hero is inside a unit is one thing, having Skirmish-game rules for models inside buildings is a different one and something that should be optional


This makes KoW the streamlined and easier game, it just wanted to be a Rank&File mass battle game and nothing more (also saying it won't work on a small scale)
While T9A tries to be a mass battle tournament game, small scale casual game, single model and unit focused at the same time and this leads to the lawyer written complicated rules we have

 kodos wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

jouso wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

What do you mean by "zenith" Auticus?

I guess because 60% of the T9A rules are about special cases to close all gabs of possible abuse of movement/model placement etc. written in a style that suits a lawyer
So stuff that other games have written in a FAQ or Tournament guide (not only TableTop, also Chess has tournament rules for those special things) is integrated in the Basic Rules of T9A

This is a reason why I cannot see it as a causal game, and the Quickstarter to help causal gamers is more like a different game than in indrotuction
I can also read the KoW rules instead of the quickstarter and play first games before I go to the main T9A book, it would make no difference

And than there is the problem that T9A is based on Warhammer, which is a hero focused mass-skirmish game with special rules for units in formations based on Dungeon&Dragons RPG.
So a lot of stuff is just there because it always have been there, no matter if a Tournament Battle Game needs it or not
Micromanagement because it is important were exactly a unit champion, and hero is inside a unit is one thing, having Skirmish-game rules for models inside buildings is a different one and something that should be optional


This makes KoW the streamlined and easier game, it just wanted to be a Rank&File mass battle game and nothing more (also saying it won't work on a small scale)
While T9A tries to be a mass battle tournament game, small scale casual game, single model and unit focused at the same time and this leads to the lawyer written complicated rules we have

Those are your preferences. I used to play Infinity, which is more rules-heavy than T9A will ever be, yet still manages to capture a decent share of the miniature wargaming community.

KoW is simple, streamlined, etc. and my basileans are gathering dust in the shelf precisely because of that. All the armies feel same-ish and though I love the list-building of core units opening slots characters and magic for example are just too simple for my liking. It's precisely the lack of the fiddly bits that's kept me (and my gaming buddies) from going all in with KoW.

That said, there's a working group that's rewriting the rulebook in a more warhammer-ish sense. Dropping the ruleslawyer-speak for plain language. And the big book will act like the FAQ for the simple version.

I was frustrated enough by GW writing the same concept differently in different places, issuing contradictory FAQs and so on, so the FAQ-like writing was a welcome change from the often error-prone GW system. Has it swung too much on the other direction? That's often the case, but anyway there's the community to plug that particular gap.

jouso wrote:

Those are your preferences. I used to play Infinity, which is more rules-heavy than T9A will ever be, yet still manages to capture a decent share of the miniature wargaming community.

KoW is simple, streamlined, etc. and my basileans are gathering dust in the shelf precisely because of that. All the armies feel same-ish and though I love the list-building of core units opening slots characters and magic for example are just too simple for my liking. It's precisely the lack of the fiddly bits that's kept me (and my gaming buddies) from going all in with KoW.

I also play Infinity, and the rules are perfect for what the game want to be, a cinematic 10 model skirmish game

Yeah but different preferences, for me the KoW armies over much more difference in playstyle than Warhammer ever did.
While there were a lot of options, in the end there was just one way each faction was doing well ending with 1-2 different lists because of different hero choices. And T9A is doing similar, if I want to play a Hit&Run army, take wood elves which do this well but cannot be played in another way (options are there but High Elves will be the better choice for a different kind of lists)

In KoW I can play different kind of lists with each faction and playing an elves army is still different to playing the same kind of undead or dwarf army

A specific faction having a specific playstyle and other options are just cosmetic as the main difference between them is something I never liked

jouso wrote:

That said, there's a working group that's rewriting the rulebook in a more warhammer-ish sense. Dropping the ruleslawyer-speak for plain language. And the big book will act like the FAQ for the simple version.

Lets see how this works out
I will have the next closer look on the game after the final version is released

 kodos wrote:

jouso wrote:

Those are your preferences. I used to play Infinity, which is more rules-heavy than T9A will ever be, yet still manages to capture a decent share of the miniature wargaming community.

KoW is simple, streamlined, etc. and my basileans are gathering dust in the shelf precisely because of that. All the armies feel same-ish and though I love the list-building of core units opening slots characters and magic for example are just too simple for my liking. It's precisely the lack of the fiddly bits that's kept me (and my gaming buddies) from going all in with KoW.

I also play Infinity, and the rules are perfect for what the game want to be, a cinematic 10 model skirmish game

Yeah but different preferences, for me the KoW armies over much more difference in playstyle than Warhammer ever did.
While there were a lot of options, in the end there was just one way each faction was doing well ending with 1-2 different lists because of different hero choices. And T9A is doing similar, if I want to play a Hit&Run army, take wood elves which do this well but cannot be played in another way (options are there but High Elves will be the better choice for a different kind of lists)

I disagree. UD (old TK) can do an almost full shooting/underground ambush army which does the hit and run in a totally different way as WE, and at the same time can also play MSU combat block, monster mash or big blocks + support.

Beastmen make a marginally better monster mash than UD? Probably, but that's where player skill makes a difference. I'd still bet on UD because the casket and stalkers are awesome against monsters.

 DarkBlack wrote:

jouso wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I guess technically anyone can play it outside of tournaments but yeah... T9A is like the zenith of tournament gaming rulesets.

Personally I think that would be KoW. Much more streamlined, less rules-heavy, less choices and interactions, chess fething clocks, etc. Yet many people choose it for casual games, too.

What do you mean by "zenith" Auticus?
If you mean the best or top, then no; KoW is well designed and written to be suited to competitive play. If you want to test your mind and gaming skill against your opponent I don't know of a better wargame.

I meant extreme when I used the word zenith. It is the top of the extreme scale in terms of casual vs tournament rulesets. Most rulesets have a middle ground. T9A is in the sea of rulesets IMO the most extreme example of a tournament ruleset.

jouso wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I really don't understand is why T9A would pretend to be anything other than a "pure" tournament ruleset for ETC matched play. If it just stuck with that, it could be "perfect".

Why does T9A have to pretend anything?

Are you not pretending that T9A is somehow inclusive of non-tournament play and non-supported armies (i.e. Dogs of War)? Because if you are, that's a crock of gak.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

jouso wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
What I really don't understand is why T9A would pretend to be anything other than a "pure" tournament ruleset for ETC matched play. If it just stuck with that, it could be "perfect".

Why does T9A have to pretend anything?

Are you not pretending that T9A is somehow inclusive of non-tournament play and non-supported armies (i.e. Dogs of War)? Because if you are, that's a crock of gak.

There are non-tournament valid armies out there so yes.

Not that I have to care about what's legal or not when I play with my friends. This month's 9th scroll has a themed barbarian list, for example, where you can add krakens, wolf monstrous beasts and a T7 W7 Jötunn. Not tournament legal, of course, but who cares?

https://www.the-ninth-age.com/filebase/index.php?file/525-9th-age-scroll-issue-7-january-2018-mobile-version/

auticus wrote:T9A is in the sea of rulesets IMO the most extreme example of a tournament ruleset.

Based on? Again, I think KoW ticks more tournament boxes than T9A, and it being a Cavatore product rightfully so.

Overall feeling I suppose. KoW is definitely also a tournament ruleset. However T9A's style of writing lends itself to be a dry academic legal document moreso, which contributes to the feeling of serious tournament play.

Style of writing may seem trivial but is a factor for people.

T9A was made for ETC tournament players. That's why it's still popular in EU, because of the base frantically defending their way to play. They need a complex rule system so that they can abuse it to extreme levels and show everyone how clever they are.

No matter what their fans try to say, it was never meant for casual players - it's unnecessarily complicated and way too restrictive in the army list entries. And it is rebuttal for new players. T9A is really worse than GW as its bottom peak - full of themselves and thinking they are the best to make it because they are listening to the "elite" hardcore tournament players and obsessed sorely by the illusion of balance.

I'm still watching their evolution. I expect them to go the same way than Blackhammer - playerbase getting smaller with time, and then forgotten by the next generation. It's clear they're failing at attracting new players on a significant basis.

Watched also what happened at the last ETC for T9A. It was ugly to see all the worst features of hardcore tournament players, cheating in plain sight and the referees doing nothing against it. And that's called the elite ? If (when) it will disappear, to me, I say nothing of great value will be lost.

 Sarouan wrote:
T9A was made for ETC tournament players. That's why it's still popular in EU, because of the base frantically defending their way to play. They need a complex rule system so that they can abuse it to extreme levels and show everyone how clever they are.

No matter what their fans try to say, it was never meant for casual players - it's unnecessarily complicated and way too restrictive in the army list entries. And it is rebuttal for new players. T9A is really worse than GW as its bottom peak - full of themselves and thinking they are the best to make it because they are listening to the "elite" hardcore tournament players and obsessed sorely by the illusion of balance.

I'm still watching their evolution. I expect them to go the same way than Blackhammer - playerbase getting smaller with time, and then forgotten by the next generation. It's clear they're failing at attracting new players on a significant basis.

Watched also what happened at the last ETC for T9A. It was ugly to see all the worst features of hardcore tournament players, cheating in plain sight and the referees doing nothing against it. And that's called the elite ? If (when) it will disappear, to me, I say nothing of great value will be lost.

Wasn't that the 2016 tournament only though? I do kind of vaguely remember that because the spanish team got involved and some friends spoke about it.

jouso wrote:

Based on? Again, I think KoW ticks more tournament boxes than T9A, and it being a Cavatore product rightfully so.

How the text is written
lawyer language as basic rule book is not meant to be read by those who play a fantasy tabletop for the first time, but for those who want to have 100% failsafe tournament rules

KoW is a game that aims for casual games but also is written to suit competitive events

UD (old TK) can do an almost full shooting/underground ambush army which does the hit and run in a totally different way as WE, and at the same time can also play MSU combat block, monster mash or big blocks + support.

Beastmen make a marginally better monster mash than UD? Probably, but that's where player skill makes a difference. I'd still bet on UD because the casket and stalkers are awesome against monsters.

So two out of many
but this was not the point, and full shooting/ambush vs avoidance is not hit and run

but lets see next year when the development is done and we get finally a finished game how it works out

Lord Kragan wrote:


Wasn't that the 2016 tournament only though? I do kind of vaguely remember that because the spanish team got involved and some friends spoke about it.

Nope, it was 2017 as well with Poland and the infamous Furion.

Let's say it wasn't really incentive for new players to try the rules of T9A. Of course, we had players defending that kind of jerk attitude for the sake of competition. But I'll be honest, that kind of behaviour isn't specific to T9A.

To be fair, ETC did produce it's fair share of amusement for the casual crowd, like the Tau v White Scars forfeit.

The pic of that exact moment is amazing.

jouso wrote:

auticus wrote:T9A is in the sea of rulesets IMO the most extreme example of a tournament ruleset.

Based on? Again, I think KoW ticks more tournament boxes than T9A, and it being a Cavatore product rightfully so.

I think you've got different definitikns rather than opinions.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Auticus means that it is bad for casual play and written not to be played outside of tournaments (sounds accurate to me). Jouso means well suited to tournament play (also agree; KoW does it better).

It is much easier and infinitely better to play a tight ruleset built for competitive play casually than it will EVER be to try to play a game built for casual play competitively.

 DarkBlack wrote:

jouso wrote:

auticus wrote:T9A is in the sea of rulesets IMO the most extreme example of a tournament ruleset.

Based on? Again, I think KoW ticks more tournament boxes than T9A, and it being a Cavatore product rightfully so.

I think you've got different definitikns rather than opinions.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Auticus means that it is bad for casual play and written not to be played outside of tournaments (sounds accurate to me). Jouso means well suited to tournament play (also agree; KoW does it better).

Exactly. Verbosity and colourful language sounds good in theory but when getting down at actually playing it's a recipe for gameplay problems. T9A might be imposing at first sight but it's pretty much self-contained. Again, with personal experience with both rulesets I still think Infinity is much more rules-heavy than T9A. No one here ever played Avalon Hill wargames? Getting to learn ASL or Third Reich now that was something, which read almost like a different language, and me and my group did that as teenagers.

But that's beside the point because most people either are introduced by someone else or just play like they think they should. I'm sure when me and my brother started with 4th edition we ignored or changed half the rules, each game was slightly different than the previous one because we only checked the book after the game and said feth, we did play that wrong.

So I contend that "technical" writing style does not necessarily mean tournament-ready. This style of writing only means that you want the rules to be as unambiguous as possible, and that all possible interactions are contained within the rulebook. ASL was not a tournament game (even though people run tournaments with the smaller scenarios, ASL works better with bigger maps where you just can't fit more than a single game per day).

T9A style is down to pure complexity and, let's call it, fiddlyness. It's the absolute opposite of a tournament game where you very much want the minimum possible interactions so that gameplay flows faster (hence my point with KoW or to make another current example: X-wing). KoW is for people who loved warhammed despite being fiddly and T9A is for people who loved warhammer because of the fiddly bits. Casual or tournament doesn't really matter.

I will put forward again the AoS example again. Totally casual ruleset with minimum fiddlyness (taking quite a few pages from KoW actually, in the fixed rolls) while KoW is a tournament ruleset with minimum fiddlyness..... and yet AoS works for tournaments, and KoW works for casual.

We should not talk about tournament games, but about tournament players. I absolutely despise the attitude some of those players some of you have mentioned, just like I despise the several guys that have been caught changing the dials on X-wing (on live video, no less), or the guy who got a top position on the KoW Spanish nationals by stalling their opponents on their turn and having them run out of time, etc. You have to live with the knowledge that whenever there's a tournament there's a chance there will be someone who will put winning above having a good time together.

My worst tournament experiences were back in 7th edition (and in my short stint as a 40k player), the prevailing attitude was WAY worse during my MtG days, so if anything things have turned for the better.

 Just Tony wrote:
It is much easier and infinitely better to play a tight ruleset built for competitive play casually than it will EVER be to try to play a game built for casual play competitively.

Especially if it's balanced. The casual vs competitive player conflict arises from having lists that are more powerful than other lists (i.e. if your list rather than your skill wins games). If something gets spammed (in lists that win) then your game isn't balanced properly.

If I take my best tournament list to a casual game (with a casual player) then my opponent wil still win if I don't play better.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:
KoW is for people who loved warhammed despite being fiddly and T9A is for people who loved warhammer because of the fiddly bits.

Well said.

I played T9A just at the point it switched from the old WH-based magic lores to the new, self-designed ones, which was v1.1 to v1.2, I believe. IMO, T9A is a game clearly designed for tournament players, but I think it's gone a bit too far down this route. Yes, you can claim it's also for non-tournament players too, but I think if you look at the responses in this thread it's pretty clear there is, rightly or wrongly, a tendency to view it as a hardcore tournament/competitive game.

I think T9A has a problem at its core, unfortunately. My experience has been that the way the whole project is set-up and run seems to have none of the strengths of GW and most of the weaknesses too. The project doesn't have the player-base and model backing that GW could provide, nor does it have the world-building from the WH World. But it also doesn't seem to be agile and responsive enough to make changes favoured by the player base. When I first looked into T9A there was a massive flowchart that detailed the organisational structure of the project and it was so ridiculously convoluted and byzantine it was verging on satire. I can't find it on the website now so maybe it's been removed. It seems a lot of the people involved are more interested in the processes and sticking to self-imposed rules than taking advantage of their relatively small size to rapidly improve the game. It always seemed to me the process, rather than the game, was the most important thing to a lot of the people involved in creating the rules.

As an example of this, there was a situation with the UD (Tomb Kings) book in 1.2 where the chariots were given a rule that gave them +1 Strength per rank for their impact hits, but also had a rule that meant they never counted as having ranks. This is the sort of error GW was really good at making. Now, mistakes happen, which is fine, but I remember this being pointed out but instead of fixing things quickly there was a whole back-and-forth about procedures and the correct way to fix things which resulted in an obviously incorrect rule being in place far longer than it should have been.

I'm looking at the 2.0 rulebook now and I'd have to agree with the people who say it's very, very wordy and not an inviting read at all. Rulebooks are never particularly enjoyable to read but this is such hard work to get through I can see it being a major turn-off to new players. The standard of English is pretty poor too. I've already noticed about half a dozen spelling and grammatical errors and I'm only on page 12.

Speaking of those new players I mentioned above, I think that's the biggest challenge T9A faces. It's quite easy for people involved with the ETC to believe everything is going great and the game is healthy but I worry about getting new blood into the game beyond those communities that already play in the ETC. At my club there are 2 ways we get the majority of our new members: people who used to play a game who are picking it back up (we've seen a lot of this with 40k recently), or people totally new who've decided to take the plunge into wargaming. This second set of players invariably start either with 40k or X-Wing as these are by far the most high-profile games at the moment. Once they're hooked they often take up new games such as Necromunda or Bolt Action but the hardest part is often getting them hooked on gaming in the first place. I don't see how T9A truly expands in its current state because a lot of our new players aren't too keen to play a fan-made product with no real corporate backing. I know from experience the upheavals between 1.1 and 1.2 caused problems for us, and I suspect the same sort of thing will happen with 2.0. There aren't enough new players coming into it to sustain it once some of the current players start to drift away. If you want to grow a game you don't just need new players, you need whole new communities.

My overall impressions of T9A are twofold:

1. Frustration. I think it could have been a really good game but the strange fixation of process over product and seemingly random changes in direction it takes every now and then meant it became a struggle to keep up with it. I also find the various official team members to often be too defensive and closed off in the discussion forums.

2. It's just...soulless. All of the tinkering and the desire to turn it into an airtight tournament system has ripped the heart out of the game for me. It's not that the game is bad, per se, it's more that it represents something akin to a mathematical equation rather than an immersive gaming experience. That may be what the project was aiming for but it's not what I, nor the majority of the gamers I know, really want.