|
Not a viking posted: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. Yeah, in deadzone you could squares for range and movement, so no tape measure. Then you can place guys anywhere in a specific square. Terrain is usually in two types, scatter terrain which you can place randomly and building terrain which you usually align to the squares to make things easier (though you certainly don't have to). So if there is rubble in half of a square you will usually put your guys behind the rubble for cover. Being fully open grants... 2 more dice for rolling ranged attacks I believe. I get WHY they chose the cover system for Infinity, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. Like I don't like the fact that only one trooper can peek around a corner and still gain cover, while a second trooper would have to be fully open when peeking. It is more of a personal annoyance. Also the fact that you can basically Skaven your way to victory according to my friend. Fine, okay, just not my cup of tea.
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Skaven your way to victory?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
That's when you have three small players in a trenchcoat working in concert, but pretending to be only a single entrant into a tournament.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Yeah, in deadzone you could squares for range and movement, so no tape measure. Then you can place guys anywhere in a specific square. Terrain is usually in two types, scatter terrain which you can place randomly and building terrain which you usually align to the squares to make things easier (though you certainly don't have to). So if there is rubble in half of a square you will usually put your guys behind the rubble for cover. The problem with infinity is that you pretty much have to bring some fakeout models in your tray or your hidden stuff isn't really hidden. I don't know why CB loved to make a bunch of stuff not public info but they did. Also you have to keep your full stat sheets hidden from your opponent in that game but you also have to give a 'courtesy list' to them which includes all the public information about your forces. This basically means that to play optimally you have to memorize a shitload of stuff in a way even warmachine or x-wing doesn't require, and both of those games are full open info games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
EAThief posted:This also led to some really dumb poo poo to game the system, like people modelling their Wraithlords lying prone. This is my favorite part of TLOS game models; at least half of them look like they've been rendered mid-deadlift/taking a dump/both. If I ever had the money to actually get into a GW game, I'd have an entire army of gruff looking marines laying down on two gym scooters
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Welp, gonna have to use empty bases as unit filler No need!     More here in my tournament trip report!  
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Legit seems weird that totally unambiguous grid or hex-based stuff where you could completely eliminate rules arguments about positioning/cover/LoS isn't more prominent, really. I guess there's a lot of value placed on having more freedom of positioning and busting out tape measures, but I'd love a full blown miniature based war game that played like an SRPG or something similar.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Legit seems weird that totally unambiguous grid or hex-based stuff where you could completely eliminate rules arguments about positioning/cover/LoS isn't more prominent, really. I guess there's a lot of value placed on having more freedom of positioning and busting out tape measures, but I'd love a full blown miniature based war game that played like an SRPG or something similar. How hard could it be to accurately recreate Advance Wars on the tabletop?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
^^^ Both Endless Fantasy Tactics and Aetherium are stupidly good mini games that you play on a grid. Ilor posted:Skaven your way to victory? My friend wins by getting victory points / objectives early on, then throwing crap guys at the enemy to cause enough losses that he can run his model away. Mordhiem terminology.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
That's pretty in character for Skaven though. Letting your opponent wins through dictating who and when you do fight is more on you rather than him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The problem with infinity is that you pretty much have to bring some fakeout models in your tray or your hidden stuff isn't really hidden. I don't know why CB loved to make a bunch of stuff not public info but they did. Or just keep the hidden stuff in your case. The hidden stuff *will* gently caress your poo poo up until you learn to prepare for it. I disagree about Infinity being more memorization heavy than WMH. Granted, I don't actually play WMH, but doesn't that have a ton of model specific rules and interactions? Most rules in Infinity are shared between all the factions with a few exceptions (and some factions have more models with particular rules). "Swarm" lists have been called OP by the internet for a while, but the lists that are winning the biggest tournament aren't. Maybe its easier to play them at the less competative level, I don't know. Certainly, going for the objective in an objective based game while making it hard for the opponent to do the same is a Good Strategy, but swarm lists are not unbeatable in ant way. Not a viking fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
LordAba posted:^^^ Both Endless Fantasy Tactics and Aetherium are stupidly good mini games that you play on a grid. Though things might slowly go the way of roleplaying games, moving away from "realistic" simulations to abstract rules that focus on what's important?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Not a viking posted:Or just keep the hidden stuff in your case. The hidden stuff *will* gently caress your poo poo up until you learn to prepare for it. Eh, sort of? The vast majority of special rules in the game show up in more than one faction, and a huge number of them are so common that they're represented only by symbols on the model/units cards. The most unique things in the game are the leader characters feats, and it's always good to look at your opponents warlock/warcaster at the beginning of a game to re-familiarize yourself with them. But that only takes a few moments usually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
LordAba posted:^^^ Both Endless Fantasy Tactics and Aetherium are stupidly good mini games that you play on a grid. LordAba posted:My friend wins by getting victory points / objectives early on, then throwing crap guys at the enemy to cause enough losses that he can run his model away. And I think that of all of the games I've played, Infinity has some of the best mechanics for dealing with swarm lists. Because everyone gets an "Automatic Reaction Order," you don't have to wait until your opponent's turn to lose guys. If your opponent is clever and has set up strong AROs over the objectives, all that feeding orders to your crap dudes to rush the objective does is get your crap dudes killed in your own turn. It's not like 40K where you might literally only have enough shots to kill half of your opponent's grots/orks/gaunts/whatever in 6 turns. S.J. posted:Eh, sort of? The vast majority of special rules in the game show up in more than one faction, and a huge number of them are so common that they're represented only by symbols on the model/units cards. The most unique things in the game are the leader characters feats, and it's always good to look at your opponents warlock/warcaster at the beginning of a game to re-familiarize yourself with them. But that only takes a few moments usually.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
Not a viking posted:Or just keep the hidden stuff in your case. The hidden stuff *will* gently caress your poo poo up until you learn to prepare for it. True, the rules are to some extent more common in Infinity, but in order to make an informed decision about what camo/AD models remain, you have to memorize statlines, exact point valuces/SWC costs, and not only that you have to know all of them in a particular faction/sectorial to make informed decisions about all the camo markers/TO camo markers/impersonators/AD on the board. WMH, at the very least you can ask what everything does because it's all there- your opponent can't hide anything from you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
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. Not being super clear about the terrain interactions, especially with unfamiliar terrain or new players, is the biggest dick move. My few Malifaux games were full of "Oh, that's a high wall so you can't see past it, by the way" type poo poo. I feel like this kind of thing is probably actually worse in abstracted systems since whether or not a terrain piece is good/bad for you or not is kind of binary, but that is largely a faction of people being dicks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Ilor posted:This is exactly what Infinity's courtesy lists are for. They are a way to quickly and easily remind your opponent what all of your poo poo does. Yeah but if your courtesy list has stuff missing from it then they can't do that. That appears to be the reason you'd not put that info out there, no?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Ilor posted:Uh, two things here: first, that only works for games where you can move with the objective (of which ITS actually has very few), and second, getting objective points early and keeping your opponent from doing the same is pretty much how you win at wargames. Like, all wargames. You misunderstand: he basically indicated that: 1) Get a 1 point lead on objectives 2) Get most of your guys killed so you retreat 3) The game ends because you have no more models on the table, thus you win the game. Unless I'm missing something in his description of what he does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Legit seems weird that totally unambiguous grid or hex-based stuff where you could completely eliminate rules arguments about positioning/cover/LoS isn't more prominent, really. I guess there's a lot of value placed on having more freedom of positioning and busting out tape measures, but I'd love a full blown miniature based war game that played like an SRPG or something similar. Imperial assault.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
I do totally want an advance wars game at some point. If someone could do 15-28mm tiny chibi armymans, we're gold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Not being super clear about the terrain interactions, especially with unfamiliar terrain or new players, is the biggest dick move. My few Malifaux games were full of "Oh, that's a high wall so you can't see past it, by the way" type poo poo. I feel like this kind of thing is probably actually worse in abstracted systems since whether or not a terrain piece is good/bad for you or not is kind of binary, but that is largely a faction of people being dicks. That seems like something that could easily be rectified by mandating terrain structures have some sort of marking to denote their characteristics Like, if X stone wall is high and not medium there's a bright red H that looks like it was scratched into the bricks, medium tree has a blue M carved into the bark, etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I do totally want an advance wars game at some point. If someone could do 15-28mm tiny chibi armymans, we're gold. Or make a Battle Isle game. Its roughly the same in terms of gameplay, but on a hex grid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Doresh posted:Or make a Battle Isle game. Its roughly the same in terms of gameplay, but on a hex grid. I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Battle Isle had some excellent unit designs and a cool aesthetic for a hexgame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Butting in to defend Infinity a bit, as it's my favourite game:Panzeh posted:True, the rules are to some extent more common in Infinity, but in order to make an informed decision about what camo/AD models remain, you have to memorize statlines, exact point valuces/SWC costs, and not only that you have to know all of them in a particular faction/sectorial to make informed decisions about all the camo markers/TO camo markers/impersonators/AD on the board. So I think what you mean, is that an experienced player can use the info in his opponent's open list, to make deductions on what could be hidden, or what certain camo markers etc could have under them? This is more of a small advantage in knowing what to expect. It does help an experienced player while an inexperienced one can be completely caught off-guard, but you will get that with most any game system. I think you're overstating the 'need' to calculate exactly what your opponent has. The same tactics and defenses are used against most Camo markers and Airborne Deployment troops, regardless of their stats or individual quality. LordAba posted:You misunderstand: he basically indicated that: It is a rule in some of the ITS scenarios that the game is called at the end of the player turn in which the active player starts with <25% of his points left. So what you're describing, with the player suffering heavy losses winning on points, is technically possible. I have only ever seen it happen because one player went super hard and smashed the opposition without thinking of the objective. It's quite hard to do it deliberately as a tactic, because you have to charge forward and get killed in your Reactive turn (ie your opponent has control of the engagement) in order to start your own turn in Retreat, in order to end the game. So you'd have to get annihilated, while your opponent did no objectives, and remained oblivious to what you were doing. On top of that, winning by 1pt is not terribly helpful in a tournament ladder, which is the only setting in which anyone could possibly have a reason to try that. The challenges to your friend's tactic I just described make it pretty drat hard to win decisively, which is a big deal in tournaments. Basically, I think your friend is pointing out a technicality in the rules, or talking about something he's seen happen once or twice. It's not a tactic people can or do use often.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Genghis Cohen posted:Butting in to defend Infinity a bit, as it's my favourite game: I just think the hidden info adds a lot of really clunky crap for little real added depth. It's the kind of thing made of shoddy game design. Hidden information should be added carefully, not, just thrown in because it 'should' be there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Malifaux hidden objectives are kind of like that, especially since you know what all the objectives are already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:Legit seems weird that totally unambiguous grid or hex-based stuff where you could completely eliminate rules arguments about positioning/cover/LoS isn't more prominent, really. I guess there's a lot of value placed on having more freedom of positioning and busting out tape measures, but I'd love a full blown miniature based war game that played like an SRPG or something similar. Sometimes I wonder if this was just because people wanting to make big-battle games in the 80s couldn't easily get huge hex maps or something. It's not like GW didn't dabble in both hex and square formats for various games, but they were all board-style games that weren't designed to be played across 3x6 or 4x8 spaces. Maybe we could go back in time and make 4x8 hexmaps readily available to Rick Priestly et al and change the course of game design forever!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:What's the name of the Chaos god of crippling depression? Tom Kirby?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Morrissey
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I do totally want an advance wars game at some point. If someone could do 15-28mm tiny chibi armymans, we're gold. Isn't that basically what Rivet Wars is?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Captain Rufus posted:Isn't that basically what Rivet Wars is? Pretty much! I know they had plans for 3rd faction, but haven't heard anything new about it for a while. The only problem is that you really need an expansion out-of-the-box. The base game is fun enough but can feel a little samey, but adding even a single different unit opens up the game play so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Malifaux hidden objectives are kind of like that, especially since you know what all the objectives are already. The combination of strategy (a big objective both players share) and schemes (a tableau of four possibilities each player pick two to score points from, which as of 2016 all started hidden) is something I love about Malifaux. Knowing a range of possibilities but not the exact combination your opponent picked makes for some interesting play as schemes are slowly revealed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah but if your courtesy list has stuff missing from it then they can't do that. That appears to be the reason you'd not put that info out there, no? But it is of note that as soon as the thing that was omitted from your courtesy list hits the table, all information about it becomes public. "This is an AD: Combat Jump Hassassin Ragik with a Boarding Shotgun." OK, cool, I have a pretty good idea what that does. Panzeh posted:I just think the hidden info adds a lot of really clunky crap for little real added depth. It's the kind of thing made of shoddy game design. Hidden information should be added carefully, not, just thrown in because it 'should' be there. Similarly, the presence or absence of hidden troops can change how you approach a tactical situation. If you look at an opponent's courtesy list and it "feels light" on points, then you immediately have to change your strategy to deal with these suspected threats. And even if you do think the opponent has something hidden, it could often be one of several things (Airborne Deployment, Hidden Deployment, a variety of different camouflaged troopers, or something disguised via hologram as something else). Holoprojectors are awesome, because I can drop a mini on the table that some kind of bad-rear end heavy infantry with a missile launcher, or a nasty sniper covering some important lane of fire. You might then think, "crap, that guy's going to be hard to take out, I'll go around the long way instead." Or "crap, that guy's going to be hard to take out, I'll move one of my own heavy hitters over there to deal with him." Or "I'll need to burn one of my 4 command tokens on a coordinated order to take that guy out." What I am doing with that holoprojected unit is forcing you to burn orders you didn't want to burn. It works the other way too - "Oh, that guy's just a basic trooper, my Fireteam is safe from that one dude." Yeah, until that "basic trooper" turns out to be a guy with high Ballistic Skill toting a Spitfire or a Panzerfaust. The "classified objectives" are another hidden aspect of the game that are interesting, because they are asymmetries in an otherwise mostly symmetrical game (i.e. where both players have the same primary objective).
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:True, the rules are to some extent more common in Infinity, but in order to make an informed decision about what camo/AD models remain, you have to memorize statlines, exact point valuces/SWC costs, and not only that you have to know all of them in a particular faction/sectorial to make informed decisions about all the camo markers/TO camo markers/impersonators/AD on the board. That's just partly true. You can and should always cover the board edges in case AD troops walk in. You can use hackers and cover the most likely places to land to make it harder to combat jump safely. You can use mines, deployable equipment, suppressive fire or good ARO pieces to cover key access ways to the objectives. All this without knowing if your opponent even has any kind of hidden deployment / AD. Your guys should also cover each other to avoid having ninjas or impersonators slice their way through your back line. quote:You misunderstand: he basically indicated that: Sorry, I read that as in taking a 1 pts lead and then forcing the opponent into retreat. Not a viking fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Oct 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 07:34
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:How hard could it be to accurately recreate Advance Wars on the tabletop? Ask and ye shall receive
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Just Dan Again posted: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. in 2nd ed hovering vehicles could pop-up attack and you measured 12" directly up for LOS and overwatch
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
Kaiju Cage Match posted:But they're jewel-like objects of wonder! The future Next year, internally, there will be some disruption remaining from the big reorganisation we have just made and from the one man store programme. Nevertheless I, and all the rest of Games Workshop, still believe we should be growing by opening new stores; particularly in North America and Germany. External events that may affect us are only those things that bother everyone: interest rates, tax rates, exchange rates, directives from Brussels, war, pestilence and disease. What will not change is the eternal desire for some always to want yet more of the small, jewel-like objects of magic and wonder that we call Citadel miniatures. cracks me up everytime
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Loxbourne posted:I'd buy that in a heartbeat. Battle Isle had some excellent unit designs and a cool aesthetic for a hexgame. Dem giant f*ck-off monster tanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Looks like plastic Sisters are happening. Might be time to Give GW Money
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Looks like plastic Sisters are happening.  DO NOT GIVE GW MONEY!
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
