|
Lord Hypnostache posted:The only thing Ogres have got post-AoS are new names and round bases. This saddens me, I'm morbidly curious to see how GW would redesign them and gently caress them up.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
Lord Hypnostache posted:The only thing Ogres have got post-AoS are new names and round bases. This saddens me, I'm morbidly curious to see how GW would redesign them and gently caress them up. Turn them into Ogryns going native?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:The 'model parts sticking out so far' problem has existed for a long time and GW aren't the only ones guilty of it. PP had models whose bits stuck out further than their model could reach in Mk2. It's the only reason why GW's 'measure from the model' rules for AoS made partial sense. But nobody likes constantly nicking their paint job so nobody measures from the model. Even the most diehard, GeeDubs can do no wrong types measure from the base. How is giving a spearman more range/exposure to missile fire because he happens to be holding his pocking stick forward of any sense? Worse, if he hold his spear upward and it goes over a wall, it makes him liable to get shot even though his actual body is hidden. It's stupid and makes no sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
As a person who models my entire army in the fetal position on the ground, I see no problems here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
I'm the guy who designs rules that can't accommodate the idea that a model is a visual abstraction rather than a static and literal representation because I assume the people playing the game are so stupid that this is what they must actually believe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
And because I'm that guy I have to say I don't see anything wrong with giving GW money for bringing back games you're feeling nostalgic about
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:As a person who models my entire army in the fetal position on the ground, I see no problems here. What's the name of the Chaos god of crippling depression?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:As a person who models my entire army in the fetal position on the ground, I see no problems here. And the best way to play undead is to turn your skeletons into piles of bones with broken weapons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:How is giving a spearman more range/exposure to missile fire because he happens to be holding his pocking stick forward of any sense? Being fair here, the point was that if you aren't measuring from base to base then model overhang is no longer an issue. In the base AoS rules the spearman doesn't have more range because the whole model still has to start behind the 12" deployment zone and rotating the model would still count as movement. quote:Worse, if he hold his spear upward and it goes over a wall, it makes him liable to get shot even though his actual body is hidden. It's stupid and makes no sense. True LoS is the dumbest possible LoS system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:Being fair here, the point was that if you aren't measuring from base to base then model overhang is no longer an issue. In the base AoS rules the spearman doesn't have more range because the whole model still has to start behind the 12" deployment zone and rotating the model would still count as movement. Yes, but it also means your spearman has a "hitbox" and threat range that's somewhat of oblong, whereas if he was holding it at rest they would be a smaller circle. But he could fight a bloodthirster
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
it sounds like you guys are saying GW games might be bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:Being fair here, the point was that if you aren't measuring from base to base then model overhang is no longer an issue. In the base AoS rules the spearman doesn't have more range because the whole model still has to start behind the 12" deployment zone and rotating the model would still count as movement. I really don't like Infinity's LoS + Cover system. If the cover system was better, or buildings more abstract, it would work. But you take the worse of True LoS with a very restrictive cover system and it is a pain in the rear end. Especially if you are a new player (like I am) and don't know how to call bullshit on unfair terrain setups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
Doesn't Infinity use a silhouette system where everything has a defined cylinder of space it occupies/measures from ala Warmahordes? That's the opposite of true LoS.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Doesn't Infinity use a silhouette system where everything has a defined cylinder of space it occupies/measures from ala Warmahordes? That's the opposite of true LoS. It uses this for models, but you have to draw true line of sight around terrain to the model. The opposite of true Line of Sight is pure abstraction. This guy is Size 2 with this hill being Size 3 so you can't see me. Otherwise Age of Sigmar is the only true line of sight system because all others have some form of abstraction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Iceclaw posted:Yes, but it also means your spearman has a "hitbox" and threat range that's somewhat of oblong, whereas if he was holding it at rest they would be a smaller circle. But he could fight a bloodthirster Well that's part of the huge problem I have with True LoS systems. That plus it becomes impossible to screen short of ridiculous modeling for advantage. One day I want to play an AoS game where I have units of Ogre Bulls holding sheets to block LoS to the 40 Goblin Fanatics behind them. This is the idiocy that TLoS encourages. KoW is my favorite LoS system, even moreso than PP's which has some weird corner cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
Moola posted:it sounds like you guys are saying GW games might be bad? Wooh there bud lets not jump to conclusions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
the worst LOS systems are those that think a "forest" literally consists of 3 trees with no bushes or other forestry in between. take these forest bases literally. there is no foliage or anything that could block or provide cover in between those trees.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Daedleh posted:the worst LOS systems are those that think a "forest" literally consists of 3 trees with no bushes or other forestry in between. It's almost like miniatures games sacrifice literal realism for ease of use!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
TLOS works in games like Napoleonics where you're just drawing lines between squares and in certain low count skirmish games where actually using real positioning and real terrain can be fun if not a bit gimmicky. But once you start going into the zone where you have more robust characters than just normal soldiers with normal soldier stuff you desperately need abstraction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Daedleh posted:the worst LOS systems are those that think a "forest" literally consists of 3 trees with no bushes or other forestry in between. At there is scrub in this post. It's you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
All this thread has taught me is that the Ogre range has been terrible for longer than I thought. If you can't get the bases to be in contact, you basically can't play Kings of War properly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:All this thread has taught me is that the Ogre range has been terrible for longer than I thought. Welp, gonna have to use empty bases as unit filler
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
4th edition 40k had a perfect LoS system abstraction based on relative model/terrain sizes in categories from like 1-4 or whatever so of course they got rid of it for TLoS to make the game more 'cinematic' (THE MODELS DON'T MOVE YOU IDIOT)
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Welp, gonna have to use empty bases as unit filler Or models that fit within the footprint. A bit of overhang isn't an issue, but these loving models have several inches blocked in front of their bases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
S.J. posted:4th edition 40k had a perfect LoS system abstraction based on relative model/terrain sizes in categories from like 1-4 or whatever so of course they got rid of it for TLoS to make the game more 'cinematic' (THE MODELS DON'T MOVE YOU IDIOT) I distinctly remember the move from abstract terrain sizes to TLOS and being super unsatisfied with it. TLOS led to all sorts of confusion even beyond the silliness of getting a "model's eye view" of the board, particularly with area terrain. Everybody I played with back then treated forests as a single piece of blocking terrain, but the fact that we needed to draw some kind of distinction between a-bit-of-wooded-terrain and literally-three-trees was ridiculous. I can hardly believe it's been going on for three editions, not to mention that it spread into Fantasy before the hammer dropped.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
I hadn't bothered looking at anything GW based in quite some time particularly since the age of sigmar poo poo broke cover. I know the answer is because GW but how the gently caress can they justify have a single character that $280 AUD? When I started collecting 15 years ago you'd have most of a workable army for that much and the land raider was the most expensive at like $85 which was very expensive. I'm glad I haven't spent anything on their stuff in 7 or so years. I'm also glad I'm not attempting to get into it today cause I don't think I'd be able to afford anything at all
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
LordAba posted:I really don't like Infinity's LoS + Cover system. If the cover system was better, or buildings more abstract, it would work. But you take the worse of True LoS with a very restrictive cover system and it is a pain in the rear end. Especially if you are a new player (like I am) and don't know how to call bullshit on unfair terrain setups. Which part of Infinity's cover system is the worst part of TLoS? The "Get a model's eye view" part? I agree that it can be a pita sometimes, its not as elegant as KoW. Otoh, the silouettes help (you only need to see a 3x3 mm square of the silouette to have LoS )
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
S.J. posted:4th edition 40k had a perfect LoS system abstraction based on relative model/terrain sizes in categories from like 1-4 or whatever so of course they got rid of it for TLoS to make the game more 'cinematic' (THE MODELS DON'T MOVE YOU IDIOT) This also led to some really dumb poo poo to game the system, like people modelling their Wraithlords lying prone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
If those mechanicus manpiles are designed to level cities what chance does a regular unit have? Surely if it points its thunderblaster skullmissisles at a jumpjett tankenshooter or a axechopper grumpymans everything in a 200 empirefoot radialmeasure would cease to exist. What I'm trying to say is do they ever miss and how is it justified?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 08:20
|
|
|
I'm the axechopper grumpyman
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:07
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:If those mechanicus manpiles are designed to level cities what chance does a regular unit have? Because WH40K has a poo poo rules system, and the best way to take down a city-obliterating megarobot is to charge it with chainsaws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:If those mechanicus manpiles are designed to level cities what chance does a regular unit have? Anything can be justified with "Heresy!" Doresh fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:All this thread has taught me is that the Ogre range has been terrible for longer than I thought. But they're jewel-like objects of wonder!
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 12:16
|
|
|
Hmm, I used to own GW ogres and I never had problems with overhang.Not a viking posted:Which part of Infinity's cover system is the worst part of TLoS? The "Get a model's eye view" part? I agree that it can be a pita sometimes, its not as elegant as KoW. Otoh, the silouettes help (you only need to see a 3x3 mm square of the silouette to have LoS ) The need to touch cover combined with the model's eye view. Shooting through a tiny window that I'm touching? Cover. Shooting through a tiny window that I'm 1mm away from? No cover. Maybe I'm just used to other systems, but it just seems annoyingly specific. Deadzone does TLoS right with very permissive cover (aka assume cover at all times unless you can fully see the model).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 12:18
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Or models that fit within the footprint. A bit of overhang isn't an issue, but these loving models have several inches blocked in front of their bases. Just don't use the Thundertusk then. None of the other figures in the Ogre range have that issue if you assemble them sensibly (except possibly the Ironblaster but I haven't really used that). The Stonehorn does have giant horns which overhang the base but they're high up enough to go over the top of most units.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 12:46
|
|
|
LordAba posted:The need to touch cover combined with the model's eye view. Shooting through a tiny window that I'm touching? Cover. Shooting through a tiny window that I'm 1mm away from? No cover. It's the same way with smoke; Is your base touching the smoke? Yes? Then you're obscured. There's none of this "the model must have at least 50% of its base obscured in order to blah blah blah..." Yeah, it seems a little weird to have a dude have a toe in the smoke and be covered, but I'm OK with that because it makes the game absurdly easy to play.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Mr. Sunshine posted:Because WH40K has a poo poo rules system, and the best way to take down a city-obliterating megarobot is to charge it with chainsaws. How is that bad?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Dr. Garbanzo posted:I hadn't bothered looking at anything GW based in quite some time particularly since the age of sigmar poo poo broke cover. I know the answer is because GW but how the gently caress can they justify have a single character that $280 AUD? When I started collecting 15 years ago you'd have most of a workable army for that much and the land raider was the most expensive at like $85 which was very expensive. I'm glad I haven't spent anything on their stuff in 7 or so years. I'm also glad I'm not attempting to get into it today cause I don't think I'd be able to afford anything at all Their justification is Australia raising their tariff on "Parlour Games and Model Kits" by 10% and the cost of international shipping exploding in the last 5 years. It's why Aus and NZ prices tend to be close to twice what everyone's is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Hmm, I used to own GW ogres and I never had problems with overhang. The one game doesn't give cover unless you are touching while the other always give cover unless you can "fully see the model". That sounds pretty similar to me, except the first is less forgiving, which is a personal preference tbh. Isn't Deadzone VERY lenient when it comes to movement and placing? Like your dude can move up to three squares, but can be placed anywhere in the square he lands on? I guess Infinity is a lot easier to gently caress up in that if you fail to cover a corner with your 180 degree LoS you could be hosed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:29 |
|
|
OTOH, exploiting the low number of minis per side to create slightly fiddlier rules seems a good idea to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 16:19
|
|