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.

Yes, we know. That's why a lot of folk have walked away.

#Are they actually putting a miniatures company behind it and producing models or is it just them basically saying "we'll balance and make rules for the old armies and add new ones, but you'll have to source the models yourself".

Ergo are they just saying that they'll expand the rules to include more creative factions.

Having just gotten into 8th edition fantasy maybe once my play group and I are burnt out on the system we'll switch over. However we would probably stick to GW's lore as that is what we are mostly interested in and at some point we are going to work on our own post End Times lore (I'm working on it a bit currently here and there). But, and this is just my personal opinion which may change with time, the idea of player made lore just makes me want to source the inspiration from my own player group and myself. The art work and everything else you've posted is interesting, but if my play group and I were to deviate from GW's cannon I just see us building our own world rather then jump ship to a new one.

T9A has to express the differences for legal reasons.

I do not mind so long as my not-Empire and not-Chaos follow the Games Workshop factions, so I can set them in the Old World and ignore the T9A fluff.

With early editions of T9A all I needed to do is rename some items and units. Done and done.

 Orlanth wrote:
T9A has to express the differences for legal reasons.

They really really don't. Even the potential for GW to come down on T9A was eliminated as soon as they decided to use non-GW names for armies & units(and even then most of those weren't necessary since GW can't and/or don't have trademarks on many of them), but the main point is that GW never would have had any reason to come down on them because they're a fan project that weren't distributing copyrighted material.

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

I do not mind so long as my not-Empire and not-Chaos follow the Games Workshop factions, so I can set them in the Old World and ignore the T9A fluff.

With early editions of T9A all I needed to do is rename some items and units. Done and done.

But the whole point of T9A is supposed to be an actively supported system, so who's going to be playing early versions of it? And the newer versions are going to be diverging further and further from WHFB, so they won't be 1:1 representations of the GW factions for very long.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
T9A has to express the differences for legal reasons.

They really really don't. Even the potential for GW to come down on T9A was eliminated as soon as they decided to use non-GW names for armies & units(and even then most of those weren't necessary since GW can't and/or don't have trademarks on many of them), but the main point is that GW never would have had any reason to come down on them because they're a fan project that weren't distributing copyrighted material.

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

Evidently you are unaware of how litigious GW has been over IP in the past. Many of the changes from 1.2 onwards were to create greater points of difference than there were points of comparison.

 Yodhrin wrote:

I do not mind so long as my not-Empire and not-Chaos follow the Games Workshop factions, so I can set them in the Old World and ignore the T9A fluff.

With early editions of T9A all I needed to do is rename some items and units. Done and done.

But the whole point of T9A is supposed to be an actively supported system, so who's going to be playing early versions of it? And the newer versions are going to be diverging further and further from WHFB, so they won't be 1:1 representations of the GW factions for very long.

Because of the legal reasons you are in denial over you cannot get copies of 1.0 and 1.1 on their website officially. But you can still ask members for those rulesets, there is no risk of infringement in owning copies ourselves. Some of us moved as far as T9A 1.1 and then stopped. It helps that I also collected all the 8th edition army books I can find, and a fair few 6th.

I'm at that point where my own fantasy worlds are more interesting to me as a setting than worlds created by others, probably because I am not playing many games. So I think it is cool that these guys had some creative ideas for their fantasy world, and serious effort seems to have gone into the artwork for it, it does seem to defeat the purpose of the 9th Age, which was to create a home for the dispossessed fandom of Warhammer Fantasy Battle.

The purpose of T9A was to inherit WHFB fans and then evolve over time into a new game. They have done this.

For WHFB continuency join one of the Oldhamner forums, or stick with one of the fan continuations, of which early T9A qualifies as.

Eighth Edition For Life and Oldhammer Forums are both good homes to fans of WHFB.

Mark my words: In years to come, T9A may become more than even Warhammer Fantasy was in very many areas as a setting. T9A will have to earn its place in the imagination of hobbyists to take the place of Warhammer Fantasy. A tall challenge, but one which I predict it will rise to the occassion of.

There is a plethora of miniature companies that cater to the fantasy market. No need to limit yourself to only one. T9A should not, and have no need of sticking to only one of them. Use whatever models you like as long as the bases are right!

...seeing the ongoing one-company dictatorship for 40k models in tournaments is actually like looking back at a primeval age. Barbaric!

T9A are certainly trying to be more diverse and absorb cultures from outside Europe plus generic fantasy. Various fantasy races combined with not European seed cultures may well bear fruit in time.

Well you guys do you, and good luck with that. The fact remains, T9A was pitched to WHFB fans as one thing but has become something else, and I think that combined with the heavy tournament focus has held it back. I doubt reviving Pygmies is going to help very much.

 Yodhrin wrote:

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

No it is not, it was necessary for the Chaos factions as GW IP covers the 4 God concept and not only the names

But what really made it necessary was the fact that companies supporting the project asked for it.
There are those that want to sell miniatures for T9A and want to make a Core Box or Faction Starters and therefore the game need to be 100% legal (which is very different from a community/fan project only)

And it is a little bit difficult to follow the goal behind the project
While it announces itself to be independet from miniatures and especially from GW, there is still a "no model no rules" policy as if there is no company making something yet it will not be added to the game

 Yodhrin wrote:
Well you guys do you, and good luck with that. The fact remains, T9A was pitched to WHFB fans as one thing but has become something else, and I think that combined with the heavy tournament focus has held it back. I doubt reviving Pygmies is going to help very much.

The tournament focus is not a problem, the problem was pandering to people who wanted nerfs of whatever units performed well in their opponents armies. You can imagine the results of this.

As for tournament focus, I welcome it as it forces balance. Privateer Press are sticklers for tight wording and game balance, so the players need not be. The more point are balanced the less people cheese out with 'cookie cutter' lists, the more the wording of rules are tightened the fewer rules lawyers appear, or last. These are good things. Frankly I belivve that games developers should be the most picky when it comes to balance and the most pedantic when it comes to rules lawyering, so nobody else gets to be. Of course they should themselves not behave that way, but should act that way in development to the extent of being a bunch of 'that guys'. Privateer Press learned this lesson early and while Warmahordes has issues of its own, it misses most of the failings of Games Workshop. T9A got this mostly right, but then started listening too much to the feedback, which tends to be subjective and self serving.

As for Pgymies, that is just fluff. Say you want Dark Elves, are they white skinned and living in the ice wastes of Kanadar, or black skinned and living in the jungles of Nigerior? As your dwarfs Nordic living in underground longhouses or Persian and living in underground ziggurats. I dont think they are after a pygmy faction as much as 'unlocking' a pgymy skin to a faction. Manufacturers can run with that. High Elf samurai, yes if someone sculpts them, Arabic style high elves, why not. Jungle wood elves, why not. Pirate skaven, again why not. I think T9A is trying to throw it all in the air and allow manufacturers to pick up and create various styles to varied armies. Not every combo will work, but sensible variety can happen by combining tropes to races as and where manufacturers want to support them.

The problem is that both of your first two sentences contradict each other, pandering to people that want nerfs and balance are one and the same in a lot of game developer's minds, video or otherwise.

The biggest problem with balance is, it's boring. Everyone should have something outrageous and unbalanced that's in their army, it should have a weakness of course, but if i wanted all the troops to be the same and balanced, i'd play risk.

It should also be mentioned that one advantage with T9A as a distinct setting, is that much of the Warhammer fan art that exists out there, can find a home in official fantasy works, so long as they don't contain GW-specific symbols (which many don't). They can already find a home in various fan homebrew developments for WHFB, which is all well and good, but the ambitions at greater outreach that T9A have mean better chances for more seeing one's (donated) artworks.

So instead of being fanart, they may rise to official artworks for another setting.

Cool that this is still a thing. Not a huge fan of WFB 8th but I love the creativity!

 brr-icy wrote:
The problem is that both of your first two sentences contradict each other, pandering to people that want nerfs and balance are one and the same in a lot of game developer's minds, video or otherwise.

If done badly. Developers should listen to feedback but with moderation.

 brr-icy wrote:

The biggest problem with balance is, it's boring. Everyone should have something outrageous and unbalanced that's in their army, it should have a weakness of course, but if i wanted all the troops to be the same and balanced, i'd play risk.

That however is balance, units can have a potent feature or ability but be weak elsewhere, if not they should be expensive perhaps even inefficient. A dragon can be mighty in terms of offense defence and mobility, so make the player pay for that so that ranked up troops have a better offensive and defensive structure for the points cost.

There is some very nice ideas and art there

T9A: for when your GW battered wife syndrome runs so deep that when the husband leaves you, you start beating yourself

No, but seriously. I'm absolutely amazed that this is still going and mad respect for that, but I still think a mass battle game with no company backing and no miniature line has no real future. Even most games that do have these things struggle to survive for even a few years (see Rune Wars) and the only thing keeping T9A alive is momentum from the old WHFB community. The only two choices are to either stay a WHFB clone and die slowly or become something else and die quickly. They're now going for the latter, apparently.

 kodos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

No it is not, it was necessary for the Chaos factions as GW IP covers the 4 God concept and not only the names

That's just...no, that's not how IP works. You can't own something so ludicrously generic as "a pantheon of four deities". Even for a commercial project, it wouldn't take very much to make your "not-Chaos" distinct enough from Chaos-in-GW-IPs that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they came after you, as demonstrated by the fact that Chaos isn't GW's creation in the first place, huge chunks of it are ripped right out of Moorcock's work.

But regardless, the initial claim by the T9A bigwigs was that they had to drop all the trademarks and IP even as a fan project, which is nonsense. So long as you're not distributing copyrighted material(ie, actual GW publications) and aren't charging for the result, even the famously litigious GW isn't going to hassle you. Christ on a bike all the Specialist Games communities have been happily toddling along creating new material explicitly based on GWs IPs for almost two decades without any trouble. If T9A had remained what it was initially pitched as - a fan-managed continuation of WHFB - there was zero need to drop the WHF IP.

But what really made it necessary was the fact that companies supporting the project asked for it.
There are those that want to sell miniatures for T9A and want to make a Core Box or Faction Starters and therefore the game need to be 100% legal (which is very different from a community/fan project only)

Well, yes, obviously. Which is the problem for me and some others - we were "sold" fan-made 9th Edition WHFB, and then there was a bait & switch to try and turn the whole thing into a money making project. Thing is, if we'd wanted a non-GW rank & flank game with models that don't fit the GW faction aesthetics, we'd have been playing Kings of War.

 Karak Norn Clansman wrote:
It should also be mentioned that one advantage with T9A as a distinct setting, is that much of the Warhammer fan art that exists out there, can find a home in official fantasy works, so long as they don't contain GW-specific symbols (which many don't). They can already find a home in various fan homebrew developments for WHFB, which is all well and good, but the ambitions at greater outreach that T9A have mean better chances for more seeing one's (donated) artworks.

So instead of being fanart, they may rise to official artworks for another setting.

This is a pretty bizarre sentiment tbh. Being "official" works for a non-WHF setting doesn't somehow make the art better, just less relevant to Warhammer. As you point out, it's not even like they'd suddenly get paid for the work.

 Yodhrin wrote:

That's just...no, that's not how IP works. You can't own something so ludicrously generic as "a pantheon of four deities". Even for a commercial project, it wouldn't take very much to make your "not-Chaos" distinct enough from Chaos-in-GW-IPs that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they came after you, as demonstrated by the fact that Chaos isn't GW's creation in the first place, huge chunks of it are ripped right out of Moorcock's work.

As is Space Marines but GW still tried to sue people about it
For the very same reason Mantic's Varangur have 1 God that gives different marks. So you need to make sure that there is no basis to go to court for GW and as far as this goes the 4 God concept of Chaos is the only thing that is really a problem were just changing names not enough

 Yodhrin wrote:

But regardless, the initial claim by the T9A bigwigs was that they had to drop all the trademarks and IP even as a fan project, which is nonsense. So long as you're not distributing copyrighted material(ie, actual GW publications) and aren't charging for the result, even the famously litigious GW isn't going to hassle you. Christ on a bike all the Specialist Games communities have been happily toddling along creating new material explicitly based on GWs IPs for almost two decades without any trouble. If T9A had remained what it was initially pitched as - a fan-managed continuation of WHFB - there was zero need to drop the WHF IP.
[...]
Well, yes, obviously. Which is the problem for me and some others - we were "sold" fan-made 9th Edition WHFB, and then there was a bait & switch to try and turn the whole thing into a money making project. Thing is, if we'd wanted a non-GW rank & flank game with models that don't fit the GW faction aesthetics, we'd have been playing Kings of War.

The project was sold with a claim that was not true right from the start
It was just made as otherwise and would not have had a chance. They even promised to get stuff back GW dropped over time and integrate new things

But it was very clear from the responsible people that they want to make their own game that is not related to Warhammer or GW right from the start but manoeuvred themselves into an impossible position as they promised to make no model invalid that was there at the end of 8th edition
So the "new" game is stuck to stuff that was there at the end of 8th edition, they still have to offer a different game each year for the ETC (no one there wants to play the same game twice so at least faction rules need to change each year) they have to please the companies that support them and to keep the balance between the ETC players and the rest of the community

From my point of view, this game will live as long as it is played at the ETC

 Yodhrin wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

No it is not, it was necessary for the Chaos factions as GW IP covers the 4 God concept and not only the names

That's just...no, that's not how IP works. You can't own something so ludicrously generic as "a pantheon of four deities".

That is how IP work when there's such a disparity between both parties, all GW needs is for the case to be admitted and their sheer weight and will to go all the way. The legal fees alone will be out of reach for any regular individual or nonprofit.

Even if you're right you still lose.

 Yodhrin wrote:

That's just...no, that's not how IP works. You can't own something so ludicrously generic as "a pantheon of four deities". Even for a commercial project, it wouldn't take very much to make your "not-Chaos" distinct enough from Chaos-in-GW-IPs that they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they came after you, as demonstrated by the fact that Chaos isn't GW's creation in the first place, huge chunks of it are ripped right out of Moorcock's work.

That is a dishonest postion, T9A didnt have just a pantheon of four deities. They had a not-Khorne, not-Slaanesh, not-Tzeentch and not Nurgle, and their armies behaved appropriately.

As fpr Moorcock, yes Gw did copy him and even admitted it in a White Dwarf. However this was because GW got in early before gaming was big enough to attact IP claims, by the time Moorcock heard about GW or their claim on the Chaos Star it was too late for Moorcock to do anything about it. He did however give permission for others to use it, notably in the Chapterhouse lawsuit. You would have a case for claiming Gw to be hypocritical here, defnidng IP while stealing content themselves, but that is how corporations behave. GW was the big fish in a small pond and thus was litigious.
They are less litigious now because the Chapterhouse lawsuit became a very expensive cause celebre.

GW Chaos is mostly orginal, it draws some from Moorcock, mostly iconography and it draws even more from Gloranthan lore.

 Yodhrin wrote:

But regardless, the initial claim by the T9A bigwigs was that they had to drop all the trademarks and IP even as a fan project, which is nonsense. So long as you're not distributing copyrighted material(ie, actual GW publications) and aren't charging for the result, even the famously litigious GW isn't going to hassle you.

Actually no. GW were well known for issuing C&D's, it was having fingers burned over 'specificity' that stopped hem, not a change of heart. T9A drew too much from WHFB, mechanics could not be copyrighted, but fluff can and the fluff was evidently WHFB based. The devs changed this, thus chaos became based on the seven deadly sins rather than the pantheon of four

 Yodhrin wrote:

Christ on a bike all the Specialist Games communities have been happily toddling along creating new material explicitly based on GWs IPs for almost two decades without any trouble. If T9A had remained what it was initially pitched as - a fan-managed continuation of WHFB - there was zero need to drop the WHF IP.

Fan content is legal, and at least in part the property of the creator, though based on IP owned by GW. It is even an encouraged part of the hobby with publications of fan content. Some companies try to claim more than this. White Wolf make copyright claim and exclusive ownership on any content for World of Darkness including content made by players

 Yodhrin wrote:

But what really made it necessary was the fact that companies supporting the project asked for it.
There are those that want to sell miniatures for T9A and want to make a Core Box or Faction Starters and therefore the game need to be 100% legal (which is very different from a community/fan project only)

Well, yes, obviously. Which is the problem for me and some others - we were "sold" fan-made 9th Edition WHFB, and then there was a bait & switch to try and turn the whole thing into a money making project. Thing is, if we'd wanted a non-GW rank & flank game with models that don't fit the GW faction aesthetics, we'd have been playing Kings of War.

Its not a bait and switch if you don't move on to 2.0 Also Kings of War is a very different game.
Agreed on the legal certainty being useful for manufacturers. T9A has a lot of support, however much of that support has a WHFB aesthetic even while technically being T9A. Quite blatantly so sometimes.

https://www.norbaminiatures.com/604-thickbox_default/bestia-sangrienta.jpg
Norba Miniatures "Bloodbeast", with 100x150mm base.


MOM Miniaturas "Kladrin and Blend".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 kodos wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

The "we had to for legal reasons" thing is complete, unequivocal nonsense on toast.

No it is not, it was necessary for the Chaos factions as GW IP covers the 4 God concept and not only the names

That's just...no, that's not how IP works. You can't own something so ludicrously generic as "a pantheon of four deities".

That is how IP work when there's such a disparity between both parties, all GW needs is for the case to be admitted and their sheer weight and will to go all the way. The legal fees alone will be out of reach for any regular individual or nonprofit.

Even if you're right you still lose.

Exactly, this is how they used to bully smaller manufacturers and designers through the 80's and 90's and beyond. This is why the chapterhouse lawsuit was important, it was pro bono so the costs were not important and a lot of people wanted to see GW brought down a peg. They were successful at this but GW is still a threat.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Yes, we know. That's why a lot of folk have walked away.

Not to mention the empty promise of supporting armies like Dogs of War.

Not to mention starting with the worst edition of WFB as the baseline.

Classichammer 6E with a few tweaks is what WFB players should be playing, not this.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


Classichammer 6E with a few tweaks is what WFB players should be playing, not this.

We have a choice you know.

For T9A to start from 8th in 2016 was the smart thing to do even if one were to argue it was an inferior system, it would make sense for reasons of direct continuency.

 Orlanth wrote:
This is why the chapterhouse lawsuit was important, it was pro bono so the costs were not important and a lot of people wanted to see GW brought down a peg. They were successful at this but GW is still a threat.

Chapterhouse lawsuit was what? A year before they cancelled WFB? Kind of a coincidence... IMO AoS is what it is because of that lawsuit. Seeing the "leaks" back then from a few forums of what AoS and "Age of War" were intended to be and what happened in the end with the complete annihilation of the world instead and renaming all the factions, etc. looks more like an IP thing than a WFB wasn't selling thing. Add in some cost savings with the round bases, molds are expensive, and those had to be kept up, easier to go to a select few bases than have the variety.

Regardless of WHY T9A decided to do what they did, the end result is that they AOSed their game. This is funny because T9A came into existence because of GW AOSing WFB.


NOW in the ultimate irony you have T9A people cherrypicking older editions of their game like WFB players because of the massive paradigm shift.


In short, "More Than Just Renaming" is not nearly as adequate a tagline as "Buy Gold Spraypaint" would be.

 Orlanth wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Classichammer 6E with a few tweaks is what WFB players should be playing, not this.

We have a choice you know.

For T9A to start from 8th in 2016 was the smart thing to do even if one were to argue it was an inferior system, it would make sense for reasons of direct continuency.

We do.

Sure, it 8E was an obvious starting place, but the inherent flaws of that edition, now moving the background away from the Old World means T9A doesn't need to exist any more.

 Orlanth wrote:

We have a choice you know.

"choice"
of course there is WarhammerCE as 6th/7th based ruleset, Fluffhammer as how 8th should have been system, Warhammer Armies as a mix of all, default 6th edition with FAQ/Errata and without army books etc

But in the end it is the system that is played in the local scene that dominates your choice and for now if you want to play tournaments/events (for whatever reason, as for some people it is easier to get a weekend once per year playing 5 games than going to the store/club once per month for one game) Kings of War and T9A are the games you can choose from.

If you are just playing with friends at home, no reason to jump on any of those as continue playing the edition you liked most is the way to go.

 Orlanth wrote:

For T9A to start from 8th in 2016 was the smart thing to do even if one were to argue it was an inferior system, it would make sense for reasons of direct continuency.

Of course it was obvious to start with 8th edition is as the main goal of the first version of the game was to have a suitable rule set for the ongoing ETC tournament were no one wanted to stick to default 8th edition and play the same version of the game 2 years in a row

But as the game later changed there was no reason at all to stick with 8th edtion as a baseline instead of doing a "best of all editions" versions and use it as a baseline for their new game.
This would have removed all those controverse legacy items that are going to be a problem in the future and are just there because they were there in the 8th edition ETC version of the game (starting with round bases for warmachines only instead of round bases for everything with 360° or free pivot, or using a streamlined base-size for all armies instead of the mess GW had in the end because bases were there to fit the model instead to fit the rules, and the important thing is that they say that rules need to fit the 8th edition model which is ridiculous with the fact that it claims to be a miniature independent rule set)


But it is what it is now, the core rules are finally fixed, so lets see what they do with the faction rules
Specially with those that got no real update in 8th edition