Skip to toolbar

The IX Age – Why/Why Not and so on

Home Forums Fantasy Tabletop Game Discussions The IX Age – Why/Why Not and so on

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 24 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  switzhobbies 3 weeks, 2 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1353894

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    Hey all,

    So I am an unabashed convert and lover of 9th age, but I’m always curious as to the why/what/why not of why people either play it, like it, dislike it, etc…

    Mainly, I like picking peoples brains on the topic and am curious of opinions from outside the T9A bubble.

    so, what are your opinions on the game?

    Cheers!

    #1353953

    danlee
    Participant
    5302xp

    For me, I was willing to give age of sigmar a go and found I liked it. At that point I had no interest in playing another fantasy game.

     

    I also never expected 9th age to take off or last as it was fan driven and seemed to be created as a knee-jerk reaction to age of sigmar.

    #1353960

    mage
    Participant
    13217xp

    Well, in fairness WHFB died for a reason. I think the days of individual models in huge blocks of infantry taking ages to set up for a game and longer to paint, not to mention costing more with the sheer number of minis compared to skirmish games from warband to platoon level and up put the last coffin in games like this.

     

    I think kings of war only works because you can get away with a single unit on a footprint base and make a diorama out of it.

     

    Lets face it, 9th age is supposed to be 9th edition WHFB in spirit, and the game died. Its a necromancy job at best and aside from people who were diehard Warhammer Fantasy fans, its drawing on a very niche market.

    #1353961

    mecha82
    Participant
    5583xp

    Over all from my experience 9th Age is good system as what it is, unofficial fan made 9th edition of the WHFB. Something that some people around this hobby want and prefer over AoS. Sure KoW is over all some what better system than 9th Age but something being better doesn’t make anything bad. It’s just that to me KoW doesn’t have as interesting setting and lore as WHFB had. Something that is also very important to me.

    I do feel that whole unending arguing over is it needed or not is pretty much pointless and doesn’t help anyone. It only helps to create wedge between different groups within community for no other reason than for sake of pure fanboyism. After all not everyone wants same things so there is place for both system like 9th Age and system like AoS. Sure people will still argue over it but that’s how I think and I won’t be bothering with it.

    #1353987

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    I think the biggest thing for me was that AoS just wasnt what I wanted.

     

    It was too close to 40k, and I played that. It was another skirmish game, and I didnt need or want that.

     

    I like masses of square troops. Its the game that got me into the hobby. KoW was too slimmed down for me…i like the granularity of 9th age.

    I really dont think its whfb by fans – not anymore at least. I think its growing into its own game, and I like that its made by a community. Its growth and development is participatory – its made by a community in the truest sense – or at least thats how its felt to me.

    I havent really found there to be a lot of aos bashing – maybe back in 2015 when shouting “for the lady” was still a thing – but most t9a players ive interacted with are really laid back.

     

     Well, in fairness WHFB died for a reason. I think the days of individual models in huge blocks of infantry taking ages to set up for a game and longer to paint, not to mention costing more with the sheer number of minis compared to skirmish games from warband to platoon level and up put the last coffin in games like this.

    I really dont think thats true at all. I know competktive aos/40k can outnumber t9a. I know 40k/aos sometimes now use movement trays. Not to mention historicals that have just as many or more repititive core infantry *stares over to giant pile of romans*

    I think GW just broke the physical scale of their style of game. Whfb and 28mm fantasy doesnt handle things like mini titan knights, and big giant foot high monsters…it broke the scale lf the game. (I would argue the same for 40k, but thats another topic altogether).

    I am firmly against hobby elitism, and the idea of wrongfun – there is no *wrong* miniwargame.

    Since t9a has a group of over 100 volunteers making it happen, do you think its on a different level of ‘fan made’? Because i think there is something radically different and disruptive with what theyre doing. Its not 1 guy writing fan books…but literal hundreds of people building together…thats what pulled me in.

    Im curious as to why one form of game is seen as legitimate and another just ‘fan made’

     

    Thanks for the responses!

     

    #1354053

    jamesedwards
    Participant
    814xp

    Jumping in late but for me at the end of WHFB I really decided to move to more skirmish-basedlow model count or open systems. I want variety to a huge system.

    i don’t think GW is more legitimate than a fan made game, but (ironically) I would trust the GW backed game to have a longer lifespan and be supported more.

    #1354306

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    One of the things I like about 9th is that the model count is back to a more sensible number. I find the physical size of the game as being closer to whfb 6th.

    I dont think anyone from t9a expects the game to be as big or popular than whfb was… But from what I can tell its as popular as say Antares, or even Kings of War depending on geography.

    Thanks for responding guys. Good food for thought!

     

     

    #1354341

    mage
    Participant
    13217xp

    At the end of the day, on its simplest level and I am not saying one is worth more or less than another: a game lives and died by it being supported by a company that created. It gives an official stance, structure and final say one way or another.

     

    The difficulty with a fan game, even one that is demi-professional with 100 volunteers: its still done voluntarily and without a business or company supporting it then it is destined to not be propped up strongly enough to instill confidence in gamers, shops and distributors for it to take off.

     

    Essentially, being fan or voluntarily, or close to professional is one thing: but it damages consumer confidence and investment and lacks the legitimacy of one backed by a company like GW, Warlord, Cmon, Sodapop (I said this one deliberately), Chaosiu, Wotc, Mantic or Privateer Press.

    #1354356

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    Point taken – but i also completely disagree.

    a game lives and died by it being supported by a company that created. It gives an official stance, structure and final say one way or another.

    There are many games that are played (especially in the historical world) that have little to no company backing.

    Aside from profit, what is the difference between “too fat lardies” line of games and T9A? Both make only rules, both rely on others for miniatures. Too fat lardies make profit, T9A puts it up for free – both strive to make a “good” game liked by their audience.

    without a business or company supporting it then it is destined to not be propped up strongly enough to instill confidence in gamers, shops and distributors for it to take off.

    Well, being supported by a company wasnt enough to keep whfb, epic 40k, older LOTR games, gothic, warmaster, etc.. Alive. If anything, being supported by a company was *the* reason those games died – the profit motive killed them. None of it had anything to do with how good or fun or popular a game it was…it was about turning a profit.

    Something maintained by a pool of passionate people who’s only concern is the end product (with profit motive removed) instills far more confidence in me than slmething that could disappear tomorrow if it fails to appease shareholders or profit motives.

    Again, GW, warlord, wotc, and others have all gleefully axed things in the past – “company backed legitimacy” is just a marketing tool meamt to encourage you to buy a product instead of finding an alternate – none of it actually impacts the quality of the product.

    Fwiw – i have no issues with the profit motive. But i just find that for our hobby, a profitable game is not always “good” and a good game is not always profitable.

    This is probably due to my experience in historicals where the break between rules and minis is commonplace – and free online rules/mods are widely accepted as valid products.

    Thats said, has anyone thats posted played t9a recently (last year?) Or seen the latest works released?

     

    #1354392

    woldenspoons
    Participant
    2579xp

    Hmm, I played WFB from 2nd to 8th although I didn’t play much 8th which is telling in its own way.

    I have played AoS mainly from Generals Handbook 1 of course and I like it. I used to play Warmachine, another competitor you didn’t mention but that went lots of troops and I believe has suffered as a result. I also find it funny that AoS went from ignoring the bases to people using movement trays.

    I’ve never even been tempted by 9th, however, I would like to be playing KOW. Vanguard helps that too.

    What does 9th offer over those others? Or Runewars and SOIAF,?

    #1354419

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    IMO – 9th has a great community and excellent balance, which has driven away WAAC players, and been great as a fluff player/modeller. There is no netlisting in t9a, in that there is no 1 dominating build.

    I like the community because there is a solid feedback between producers and consumers, and the door is open to participating.

    No official models has been liberating, as I can make a cool army of romans, use the perry minis for knights, mantic for undead, mierce for beasts, etc… Its all about rules of cool for me. The balance also rewards fluff builds since the game works really hard to focus on olayer skill over powerlists. Some lists have more synergy requirements than others, but smart maneuvre and hot dice still impact the game more than bringing the latest big bad.

    And its free. So theres that, even though i still bought rules from amazon because i retain reading rules from books better, but fully free rules is nice)

    I suggest downloading the rules and playing a few games. It plays similar to whfb, but imo its evolving nicely into something new, yet familiar in style.

    #1354422

    limburger
    Participant
    6620xp

    @switzhobbies 9TH age failed because it misjudged the timing, the potential for its market and just doesn’t have the charisma needed to become big in a stupendously competitive niche market.

    Remember : you are competing for time/resources against instantly accessible entertainment.

    And the second reason why 9th age was doomed to fail : it was made out of negative emotions.
    Every single time I hear about this game is in the context of ‘WFB was killed by GW’ or ‘I hate Age of Sigmar, because GW killed my favourite franchise’.  It never ever is mentioned because it does something unique or good.

    btw : games don’t need to be good or perfect to gain traction … quite the opposite in fact.
    Every game that tells people it is ‘the best’ system tends to be destined to be a niche product as it stinks of elitism.

    // historical games survive without official support …

    Sure … but they rarely survive at a scale they become visible to outsiders of the niche they are a part of.

    Companies as small as ‘two fat lardies’ survive … but one mistake and they’re gone ( I also doubt they could survive becoming popular … ).
    I honestly hadn’t even heard of them until I started digging deeper into historicals. And even then it looked amateur and not worth looking into. GW’s products on the other hand … slick, professional, expensive but worth it.

    Historicals have another advantage : people play them because of the fluff.
    It is ‘normal’ to use custom rules or modify existing ones, because the need to replicate the exact context of a battle is important (to many).

    Switching systems is a non-issue because at best you change the scale and you’re done.
    No need to learn ‘new’ things. At best you’re introducing things that the other system didn’t do, but you were aware of their existence.

    Rules for fictional settings need to convince people of several things :

    • the background is interesting
    • the miniatures have personality
    • the armies have a personality of their own
    • familliar concepts

    Oh … and did I mention timing and luck ?

    You see this within the video game industry.
    Everyone wants to be the ‘next big thing’ in multiplayer, but the vast majority fail to make an impact … unless they are very very lucky. You’ve got companies like EA and Activision wasting millions … only to see the game drop of the radar within weeks of release. And then there are the small indie teams that get incredibly lucky by being in the right time at the right place, which resulted in the likes of Counterstrike, Minecraft and DayZ becoming famous almost over night.

    My advice for 9th age is this :

    Don’t try to use ‘mass battle’ as the concept to sell the system to people.
    Tell them stories that make such a ‘mass battle’ intersting instead.
    You can’t sell a system that allows people to fight a big battle between undead and dwarves.
    You can sell a system that allows people to refight the battle of the 5 armies from Lord of the Rings …

    ie : you need a popular story featuring a huge battle
    The bad news is that there are very few popular books that feature such things.
    Even in LotR/The Hobbit the big battles are window dressing and not part of the story.

    #1354430

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    @limburgat9a

    T9A has been going for 4 years this august. Every so often someone tells our community our game is dead, or that its failed, or that its wrongfun. And we’ve mostly learned to politely smile and nod.

    I have to say that for the most part i have not run into any negativity about AoS. Of anything I get hounded in GW forums/boards for being a T9A player. Most T9A people just didnt want to play AoS – like I said in the first post really.

    Put frankly, i came here to find out why people play the game or dont. Not to slag one system over the other, but to see what others outside my bubble thought.

    Most of your post just feels like its here to bash the game, and not contribute constructively to the conversation – mostly because i dont think you’ve read the rules, the fluff, etc..

    I mean, you want a non-profit volunteer project to buy game rights to established IP and then rewrite everything from the ground up to match that IP…

    t9a doesnt want to be the next big thing. It just wants to be a fun thing. A fun game for people who want to play and help build it. There is no financial incentive here. No costs to recoup, no money to be made.

    Anyway, as I asled before, has anyone tried it within the last year? If so what were your thoughts?

     

    #1354449

    woldenspoons
    Participant
    2579xp

    I’ve not tried it and due to time/game/opponent restraints I probably never will.

    I’m not sure which rock you’ve been hiding under but holy crap this thing was born out of resentment towards AoS. I saw all the forum posts right at the beginning and the surveys for which system people were going to do. The consensus being people outright attacking AoS for daring to move the story on.

    I’m not knocking 9th and I know people who play it, just don’t want the vitriol towards AoS being hidden under the rug.

    I do like your analogy with the historical game rules. I can respect that. And like you I do like swooping blocks of infantry and flank attacks etc

    #1354459

    switzhobbies
    Participant
    428xp

    Let me clarify – in the last 2 years which ive been active in the t9a community – ive not seen much negativity.

    In 2015? Well i think people were jarred by the game change more than anything regarding plot or story. Kings of War’s rise in popularity was borne of a similar sentiment, yet no one gives mantic a hard time the same as t9a gets – even though mantic trolled hard with their golden “fisty glue man”!

    Like I said, its been 3.5 years and things are different. Aos is different, and the t9a community is different, and I feel the dust has mostly settled.

    Im also the first to tell anyone mocking someone elses game of toy soldiers to stop being silly.

    @woldenspoons – maybe one of the community members will run a demo game at a store or convention near you in the future! If you get a chance, give it a try, i like it more than whfb by a large margin.

     

     

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)