Handelabra have just tweeted about Bottom of the 9th. If you have any interest in it you might want to answer their survey.
If you have 5 minutes, we’re looking to learn some more about our players!https://t.co/3eWIkWXmT0 pic.twitter.com/lYaJolywGF
— Handelabra Games (@handelabra) 20 April 2017
No
Yes!
Maybe?
Cake!
Sorry -- what was the question?
I don't know
Nein!
Get it? it means NO, also sounds like Nine, and continues the thread!
I filled it out. *feels proud*
Not to break up the silliness, but where can I learn more about Bot9? I'm not really interested in baseball, or baseball-themed card games, but if GTG made it and Handelabra's adapting it, I feel obligated to at least give it a shot sometime.
Watch It Played did a how to play video and a play through of the game. You can watch it Here.
Third base!
@TalkWalker
Most people who play it find it to be a very fun game whether they care about baseball or not, for what it is worth. :)
I agree as someone who has no intereste otherwise in baseball. It's a fun and quick game when I've played it solo or with others.
This is what I'm hoping for. I've played a lot of fun games with themes that didn't immediately appeal to me before!
I don’t give a darn!
He's our shortstop.
When I was a little kid, whenever I asked my mother "Do y'know what?" she would replay "No, but I hear he plays second base." I heard this for years before I finally learned what it was a reference to.
That there? Good parenting. Except the part where she didn't share it with you. 
I have it come up in my random list of favorite music pretty frequently, just because it's awesome.
Having watched this, I think I can say this is not the game for me. I prefer things like Sentinels because the strategy doesn't involve trying to outdo your opponent in real-time.
That said, this is so well-designed that it captures the feeling of baseball for me right down to "more fun to watch than to play". I hope I see this at my local game club sometime, because I think it would be fun as heck to spectate. 
Two great things about that Abbott & Costello routine:
1. They never actually called it "Who's on First," they only referred to it as the baseball routine/bit.
2. They would improvise the entire exchange once they got going, knowing the basic gags, and could make it go as quickly as 3 minutes and as long as 15-20.
Yeah, I've watched a few videos of them performing the routine, and it's impressive how much they improvised it! Of course, as improv, some performances are better than others.
one thing I have done with the rules is each player can only roll at the same time. No race. Makes the game go a little bit smoother imo. I have found though its a nice relaxing game.
I enjoyed the game but found it quite difficult to learn because it by necessity has terminology I didn't understand and therefore had to learn at the same time, and I didn't have a "foundation" of baseball rules to hang the game rules on. I'm sure it's easy if you know the slightest thing about baseball!
Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about baseball.
I agree, and would qualify it as easy to teach. It is easy to learn if you understand what balls, strikes, hits, runs all refer to.
It's hard as an American to think that anyone wouldn't know those terms, but that's because it would be hard to grow up here without hearing them.
I also turn the roll-off into a staggered roll off, where the defense rolls first, then the offense, and then back.
But that's because my kids love the game and my 4 year old son doesn't stand a chance at beating his incredibly competetive 9 yr. old sister with the regular rules.
It's just not a thing over here. Never played it (although rounders is commonly played at school and that's a similar use-a-stick-to-hit-a-ball-that-someone-throws-at-you-and-then-run-to-get-points kind of game), it's never on TV, never seen a game, don't know where I'd even find a diamond!
Yeah, definitely understandable. I see this with folks here in the USA when it comes to soccer (football everywhere else). 
It's been getting better, but still not something that's as well-understood as baseball or (what we call) football.
I definitely don't know any of the rules to soccer/football except "some number of guys run around a field, and if one of them kicks a ball into a net it is a point." I also know that the point thing tends to happen only once or twice a game, but that other interesting things must be going on during the running that I don't understand.
In summary, I am confident that I could like soccer if I lived somewhere where people were really excited about it and I could go to professional games and had friends who could explain to me why they like it!
How to soccer:
1) Spend an hour and a half drinking
2) GOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAL!!!!
I played soccer as a kid (which is where all my knowledge comes from, so it may not always apply to professional play), and one of the things I like about it how simple it is, rules-wise. Players are not allowed to touch the ball with their hands or arms (except for the goalie within a specific zone), and they are not allowed violent contact with other players (shoving, tugging, tripping, etc). There's one more rule that says that players can't be passed the ball if they're already beyond the defenders. That's pretty much it. The rest is about how to restart play after the ball went out of bounds or the referee stopped play, and about how many players can be on the field at the time, and when they can be switched out.
The other thing I like about soccer is that play mostly doesn't stop. Unlike a football game, where each 15 minute quarter takes an hour, soccer just goes until it's done, with the exception of the half-time break. They might stop the clock for player substitutions, or particularly long pauses, but I'm not actually sure. Either way, the players are mostly on their own. They're not stopping every five seconds to consult with their coach, and the field's too big for anyone to communicate significant detail while they're playing.
Despite being American, I understand soccer just fine and it's American football that confuses the heck out of me.
As for the Bot9 game, I too am a little bit put off by some of the more reflex-y parts of the game. I like my games as turn-based as possible. Not really sold on the whole metagamey rock-paper-scissors guessing either. But that's less a criticism of the game and more the game might not be for me personally after all. Guess I'll see if they put out a limited Play the Tutorial app like they did with Sentinels.
Thinking about it, I'm not sure how you could really implement a realtime roll-off in a video game. "Mash the dice button faster"? Streamlining that into something like what folks have suggested for house rules might make this more fun in digital format, especially if you can just play against an AI.
The digital version will likely have both real-time rolling and the official base-path variant from the rule book:
When Contact is made, players roll their dice (Control/Swing) once then apply any Speed and Fielding Abilities/Traits, and check the result. A 5 or 6 is a success, resulting in either the Pitcher throwing out the lead runner, or all runners reaching base safely. If both players roll a success, the higher number wins; any ties go to the runner. Repeat this until the Run phase is resolved.
Real time rolling is for the birds.
But in all seriousness, how does the "real-time rolling" translate into the digital version in a way thats fun and engaging? Tapping a "Roll!" button as fast as you can over and over until the RNG lords bless you with favor seems more painful than fun. I want funness in my digital games, not carpal tunnel.
Honestly, if it's only for the mobile devices, I would like to see an actual "shake" mechanic implemented for rolling. I have no problem having "real" dice roll, and not being able to roll again until after the dice have settled.
That would be a neat mechanic, though there would have to be some other way to achieve the same effect as well, due to accessibility concerns.
Right. I think the main part of that is simulating the settling of the dice, as that's still a "fair" way to keep real-time events concurrent.
They could implement a button or shake to roll the die, then show an animation of the die bouncing on the table. You could let the for settle, or interrupt the die by pressing the button or shaking the phone again.
Just like watching the real die on the table, and reaching down to grab it and roll again.
We are iterating on it, but right now you have to tap the die to roll it and wait to see the result (similar to the analog version). If it's a success you need to tap a safe/out button to claim victory (like shouting safe/out in the analog version). If it's not you need to tap the die again to roll again. So there's a bit of a dexterity element to it, like the analog version.
What is the time frame like of pressing the roll button to seeing the result? 1-2 seconds of animation? Is it instant? Will lag time between opponents have an effect on the outcome?
As I said, we are iterating on it. Lag time between opponents will not have an effect on the outcome.