|
Atlas Hugged posted:Actually, wasn't the ship in Urth of the New Sun made of wood? I think that ship was made from wood, and dreams, and weird hypertech, and also existed at multiple points in time simultaneously. A bit beyond the scope of Star Wars, really 
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
I just wanna play a updated version of Mordheim/Necromunda. No epic battles over dumb rear end realm gates. Just small groups of petty people fighting for petty reasons. Hell make a setting inside that skaven worm city that sounds like a cool setting for Age of Mordheim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:My recommendation was that it was frustrating and tedious and maybe not worth playing but if you are aware of that hey go ahead and then maybe try the same armies in Firefight to see the differences. you said "I would never recommend it as a competitive game but..." and the guy responding to you said "well, I'm not interested in tournaments so...", which is what the offhand comment you responded to was about
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:you said "I would never recommend it as a competitive game but..." and the guy responding to you said "well, I'm not interested in tournaments so...", which is what the offhand comment you responded to was about Which is a discussion on semantics and definitions - the type of discussion I tend to dislike. But for the sake of  for me "competitive" means "I want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" as opposed to "rolling dice and laughing at the stupidity" for the sake of example. Both of these things can be fun, but in different ways.If I wanted to play a streamlined "competitive" game, I'd pick up my Ariadna force, for a 150 or 300 point ITS game, and get rolling, and have fun learning how to play intelligently. If I want something that doesn't involve tournament play (or taking things seriously at all), I'll pick something like Necromunda and watch as my gang either kicks rear end, or dies horribly to dumb poo poo because why the gently caress not. If I want something in between those two positions, I'd probably pick Battletech, because while the rules are fairly clear at a base level 98% of the time as to whether or not you can hit a target, there are edge cases, and it's dumb robot fights that make no sense. And there's a whole other spectrum of points between those two positions as well. Hence why if I want to play with a serious attitude I'll pick a non-poo poo ruleset (Most parts of Infinity, some parts of Wangs, etc), but if I just want to roll dice and see the results, then I could also play Infinity or Wangs with a non-meta list, or I could play just about anything else as well, including rules that are objectively poo poo, but subjectively cause fun or amusing events to occur on the tabletop and entertain both myself and my opponent. Possibly while also observing the poo poo parts and considering how those parts could be made less poo poo with a rewrite. Hence why I think Atlas made the comparison to movies - sometimes you want to watch an objectively good movie and talk with friends about it afterwards about a really cool film. Sometimes you want to chug beers with friends and point and laugh at a really lovely B-movie, and turn it into a drinking game instead. Not all fun needs to be serious fun.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
tankfish posted:I just wanna play a updated version of Mordheim/Necromunda. No epic battles over dumb rear end realm gates. Just small groups of petty people fighting for petty reasons. Hell make a setting inside that skaven worm city that sounds like a cool setting for Age of Mordheim. Both rulesets are available online. NM might be a little difficult, since there aren't a lot of ganger alternatives out there (though some do exist) but Mordheim is easily played with any fantasy minis. You don't need GW to give you the blessing to play an OOP game - all you need is the willingness to bring it up in your group. You have the power inside of you. We believe in you - believe in yourself... Thirsty Dog posted:GW already knows how to do good activation systems, Epic Armageddon exists The last time my group played NM, they used alternating activation and said it made the game a whole lot more enjoyable. I was, unfortunately, not present that day, but I really think alternating activations could make a huge impact on most of the GW games. If GW used the pinning/blast marker rules from Epic in their other games I would be over the moon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:Which is a discussion on semantics and definitions - the type of discussion I tend to dislike. the whole point I've been making is that talking about quality mechanics as something that are for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" or are "serious" is wrong if I want something that doesn't involve tournament play or taking things seriously at all I... still don't want to play some monkeycheese lolrandom bullshit because that does not sound like fun at all, whether of the serious or unserious kind (well, more specifically, it sounds like something that's fun for about 30 seconds and then you have 2 hours left, welp) e: but I'm not actually arguing about whether you can find playing some terrible trash fun. my point is that the difference between bad and good games is not something that primarily concerns "tournament" and "competitive" players Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:the whole point I've been making is that talking about quality mechanics as something that are for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" or are "serious" is wrong And nobody has actually been disagreeing with that point at all. I just used "tournament" and "competitive" as shorthand for "serious play/quality rules" in the context of wargaming, and by using it in the negative I was implying that I was comfortable playing a janky/objectively crap ruleset in the pursuit of objectively dumb subjective fun, which is the point that Atlas seemed to be trying to make also. Not least because generally speaking, I doubt anyone who cares about playing seriously or competitively would actively want to play a ruleset that is objectively crap. Of course, 40k, Fantasy, and AoS tournaments are still a thing, so
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
The only upside to how dumb and random games like 2ed are is that its very useful if you are a closed group with limited options it serves to provide variety. When we played games as kids it was the same set of guys (Space Wolves, Eldar, Chaos, Tyranids, IG) and we all had very small collections. So you would basically spend every weekend round-robining the same armies. If 40k was a completely good game that would be ok, but it was always badly unbalanced, and if it was unbalanced and predictable, we all would have spent every weekend losing to the Wolf Guard Terminators with two assault cannons and a cyclone missile launcher. But thanks to the vagaries of 40k, there was always the chance that his assault cannons would explode when he fired, or my D-cannon would get the perfect shot to flip his razorback onto them and sweet victory could be mine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:And nobody has actually been disagreeing with that point at all. e: like here is literally you mcjomar posted:But for the sake of mcjomar posted:I just used "tournament" and "competitive" as shorthand for "serious play/quality rules" in the context of wargaming how does that make any sense if you don't think "quality rules" are a thing for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Both rulesets are available online. NM might be a little difficult, since there aren't a lot of ganger alternatives out there (though some do exist) but Mordheim is easily played with any fantasy minis. You don't need GW to give you the blessing to play an OOP game - all you need is the willingness to bring it up in your group. You have the power inside of you. We believe in you - believe in yourself...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
tankfish posted:I already do I have the rules for This not a Test it's a matter of getting my FLGS to play it as most are either pure Magic players or Warhammer 40k vets who play Apocalypse for "fun" Yeah, that's tough. I'm lucky in that I'm part of a group of guys, rather than having to rely on the local community as a whole. Not everyone in my group is willing to go outside our go-to game (Epic) but there are enough of us that it's possible to bring something up and at least get a handful of people to participate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
What happened to that Halo Ground Command game? It seems like that should've been a big deal, but they just released the starter set and then nothing
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Why do the magic fart dorfs have ork rules?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:Why do the magic fart dorfs have ork rules? I thought AoS did away with the dumbass rules contained in the initial launch of the game...
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:jesus loving christ do you guys even read your own posts  I literally said that people who play in tournaments (ignoring GW tournaments) tend to prefer quality rules. How the gently caress is that me saying I don't think quality rules are a thing for people who play in tournaments or prefer serious games?  do I need to make it any clearer for you?Nobody is saying that quality rules aren't for people who don't play seriously. They are saying that by implication people who play in tournaments probably (again ignoring GW) prefer quality for funhaving over trying to have dumb fun with lovely rules. You 'arguing' that people who don't play in tournaments can also have good fun with good rules is like saying water is wet. Why the hell does it even need to be stated?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:What happened to that Halo Ground Command game? It seems like that should've been a big deal, but they just released the starter set and then nothing Doesn't Spartan have a history of not supporting their stuff?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Doesn't Spartan have a history of not supporting their stuff? This, Spartan is a garbage company that took forever to complete a couple of their games, and the rest of them have had few, if any, releases since their launch. I've been waiting like 3 years for news on the Antarctica faction for Dystopian Legions beyond the 2 player starter set. There's still nothing. The game launched with 4 factions which at least have some options, and then they released a 2 player starter set in 2014 (I think) with two new factions, and those factions haven't gotten a single new model since then. Yes, that's right, the armies in the starter set have gone completely unsupported. Spartan is actually worse than GW in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:Which is a discussion on semantics and definitions - the type of discussion I tend to dislike. This is an oversimplification but I find it a useful model anyway: All disagreements boil down to one of three key factors:
However, it's possible to have a coherent discussion with someone even if you disagree on matters of fact or philosophy. If one person believes that all life is "sacred" and another doesn't, they may have different positions about the value of preserving species from extinction; but they can still have a coherent debate about it. If two people disagree about whether or not global climate change is real, they will have a hard time seeing eye to eye... but they can still discuss points of policy regarding CO2 regulations. But when people are using different definitions for the same words, they are failing to communicate. Their arguments will go nowhere because they do not understand each others' statements. Unidentified semantic disagreements destroy debate. People are "talking past each other." So while I appreciate that many people find semantics discussions to be tedious, those people are shooting themselves in the foot, because establishing a common definition for key terms is a prerequisite to having a coherent and functioning discussion. And that's why mcjomar posted:But for the sake of was an important thing for you to say, because tournaments are a tangent. There are plenty of competitive games that are unsuitable for tournament play. You and Atlas probably are not able to effectively debate the value of good rules in games not because you have a fundamental philosophical difference, but because he uses the word "competitive" to mean something slightly different from you. (Perhaps other words too.) The most relevant definition to this discussion is Merriam Webster's second definition for the word Competition: quote:a contest between rivals In other words, all games in which two or more players are pitted against one another are nominally "competitive" games. Used as an adjective, you could rank some games as more competitive than others, perhaps along lines of the degree to which players can affect one anothers' chances of victory through their own choices; I have played supposedly-"competitive" games in which individual players essentially race for victory without being able to hinder the other players (Candyland, chutes(snakes) and ladders, etc.) Those are typically childrens' games. But the competitiveness of a game may also be sabotaged by randomness. A game which gives each player the illusion that their decisions affect the outcome, but which undercut those decisions with piles of dice and lookup tables that frequently and randomly invalidate or counteract their decisions, are decreasingly "competitive" the more swingy they become. For example, Dreadfleet. Sadly. A game which I was very excited to own, and which has gorgeous components. You appear to be able to direct your ships and have a tactical battle with your opponent, but actually those are illusory choices; the outcome of the game is determined by the luck of dice and card draws, with tactically sound decisions constantly undermined by lolrandom monkeycheese determined entirely by chance. Dreadfleet may be said to be "not competitive" because of those factors. So, tl:dr; no, "competitive" has nothing to do with whether or not the game is or may be played in tournaments, and everything to do with whether or not a game pits players against one another and gives them meaningful choices that affect the outcome. Atlas was speaking to I think a different thing: that in a casual setting, a game can be less competitive and still be worthwhile, because the players are not valuing their agency towards the outcome as much as they are valuing the experience and flavor of the game. I doubt he and his friends will be breaking out Candyland any time soon, but they can enjoy a bad game - a game which he specifically acknowledges is bad - for reasons unrelated to the "competitiveness" of it. It's true that a game with better rules is generally more enjoyable for people who want to engage with those rules and generate an outcome that they felt they were nominally in control over; but you can also enjoy a game in which the most important factor is the lolrandom monkeycheese itself. It can be fun because it's funny, or tragic, or inspires your imagination. You can fully acknowledge that it could have and should have been better, but still enjoy it for what it is, especially if you don't care as much about engaging with a quality, balanced decision-making exercise. I like to watch The Mummy, an objectively bad film, because I like seeing Brandon Frasier hamming it up, watching hordes of scuttling beetles running everywhere like a tidal wave, and the general wacky egyptian-mythology theme of the film. Nobody argues that a game like this is better than a well-balanced game, at least as far as "competitiveness" goes; and Games Workshop has taken the swinginess-factor to an extreme habitually, to the extent that there are only one or two games in their entire history that were actually worthwhile for anyone who wants to play a "good game." Their games' popularity hinge on the visceral experience of the setting, models, and randomly-generated situations and outcomes. They're bad games, but it should not be so surprising that a lot of people play them. What is sad is that there are available, games which are both objectively better from a "competitive" standpoint, and have interesting or engaging aesthetics, settings, and outcomes, but GW still maintains a disproportionately high grip on the attentions and pocketbooks of countless gamers. But that's entirely extraneous to a debate over whether or not Atlas should play 2nd edition Warhammer 40k with his buddies. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:This, Spartan is a garbage company that took forever to complete a couple of their games, and the rest of them have had few, if any, releases since their launch. I've been waiting like 3 years for news on the Antarctica faction for Dystopian Legions beyond the 2 player starter set. There's still nothing. The game launched with 4 factions which at least have some options, and then they released a 2 player starter set in 2014 (I think) with two new factions, and those factions haven't gotten a single new model since then. Firestorm Armada is the only Spartan game I've ever seen anyone play. Is it supported well/at all?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:This, Spartan is a garbage company that took forever to complete a couple of their games, and the rest of them have had few, if any, releases since their launch. I've been waiting like 3 years for news on the Antarctica faction for Dystopian Legions beyond the 2 player starter set. There's still nothing. The game launched with 4 factions which at least have some options, and then they released a 2 player starter set in 2014 (I think) with two new factions, and those factions haven't gotten a single new model since then. That's so dumb. I know Halo isn't as bag as it once was, but I bet at least a lot of people who didn't even play the game would've bought a Scarab mini.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:38
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:
mcjomar posted:But for the sake of mcjomar posted:I just used "tournament" and "competitive" as shorthand for "serious play/quality rules" in the context of wargaming
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
I can not think of situations where people playing in good faith competitively would want the game to be unbalanced or mechanically bad. I can think of scenarios where people playing casually wouldn't mind if the game's balance was poor or the mechanics were bad. But again this assumes good faith. Erego, primarily, balance and mechanics are more important for tournament and competitive players.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:either you've switched some words around here, or you read exactly the opposite of what I said, so I'll repeat. when you say: Jeb Bush 2012 posted:How does that make any sense if you don't think "quality rules" are a thing for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" My point was that people who play in a tournament with a greater focus on competitiveness are more likely to want to play quality rules. It was not that a casual player won't prefer to play quality rules. I agree with you that they will as these two points are not mutually exclusive. And in my last post I was trying (and apparently failing) to say that suggesting that quality rules are (or should be) important to all gamers is one which I consider to be the 'water is wet' of statements in our discussion. My secondary point was that inversely, people you would generally consider to be casual are probably more likely to be comfortable playing with rulesets that can be objectively considered bad if it is in the interests of story generation. Doubtless they (myself included) would still prefer it if those rules that are good for generating stories were improved. But in the short term are willing to accept a poorer ruleset in the interests of those stories. So when Atlas said it wasn't a ruleset that he would consider competitive, I took it to mean that it wouldn't be good in the same way that Infinity would be (i.e. a quality, more balanced ruleset). I responded with my allusion to the stereotype that more competitive players such as those in tournaments are usually going to have a lower interest in playing bad or otherwise 'unbalanced' games. That's all there is to it. I never once said that a casual player would not prefer a quality ruleset. Perhaps I did not make that clear enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Doesn't Spartan have a history of not supporting their stuff? Yeah, Spartan are pretty bad for continuously starting/announcing new projects instead of focusing on their core games and making sure they're well supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
tankfish posted:I just wanna play a updated version of Mordheim/Necromunda. Its called Malifaux brah
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
I think those dorfs should have a rule that if you sing AC/DCs "big balls" during your turn they get bonuses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:Firestorm Armada is the only Spartan game I've ever seen anyone play. Is it supported well/at all? It's probably their most supported game, in that all of the main factions have the same fleet depth to choose from, and I'm pretty sure all of the sub factions have the same fleet depth as each other, and a new rules edition was released not so long ago. How many people play it I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:I think those dorfs should have a rule that if you sing AC/DCs "big balls" during your turn they get bonuses. If during your hero phase you sing Balls to the Wall by Accept you may engage sudden death victory conditions. If you are a London Leatherboy add +1 to all your rolls.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I can not think of situations where people playing in good faith competitively would want the game to be unbalanced or mechanically bad. I can think of scenarios where people playing casually wouldn't mind if the game's balance was poor or the mechanics were bad. Then why is competitive 40k a thing? Bad mechanics, unbalanced armies. Balance is more important for casual play because it supports pick-up-and-go armies and playstyles without hampering the effectiveness of the army. If you can pick what you think looks cool and it is reasonably effective than that is a huge bonus. After all, even a casual player will get discouraged if they never win... Unless you think "casual" means "idiot player"? Even people who prefer to play goofy scenarios, which can be very fun, are served by balanced gameplay to make sure the scenario is relevant. They might not view it as such but there you go. It's like saying casual Magic the Gathering players aren't served by having balanced starting decks. Rubbish. EDIT: As mentioned, you can enjoy a bad game with a good theme. Now imagine it was a good game with a good theme. I'd rather have that because it support all levels of play. LordAba fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 08:32
|
|
|
LordAba posted:Then why is competitive 40k a thing? Bad mechanics, unbalanced armies. Truly a question for the ages. Given that the game has trap choices, obviously better combinations, and a pay to win structure I don't know why people bother with it. It's not like there are compelling choices to be made on the battlefield or actual tactics to employ. It is a lovely competitive game as a result. quote:Balance is more important for casual play because it supports pick-up-and-go armies and playstyles without hampering the effectiveness of the army. If you can pick what you think looks cool and it is reasonably effective than that is a huge bonus. After all, even a casual player will get discouraged if they never win... Except as has been pointed out, not everyone is agreeing on what we mean by competitive versus casual. Pickup and go with the intent of winning falls under the broad umbrella of competitive for me and so yes balance is super important. quote:It's like saying casual Magic the Gathering players aren't served by having balanced starting decks. Rubbish. I have no idea what this analogy is supposed to mean or reflect but my guess is it's a misreading of something you think I said. quote:EDIT: As mentioned, you can enjoy a bad game with a good theme. Now imagine it was a good game with a good theme. I'd rather have that because it support all levels of play. I have never once said that casual play shouldn't be balanced or isn't served well by balance and good mechanics. I said, that at the end of the day, if the point of the casual game is to enjoy the experience of playing a game with friends regardless of what game is being played or how good that game is, then balance and mechanics are less important than when the experience is (in contrast to a pickup game against a random at the shop). I would also prefer to play a game that had a great theme and great mechanics and great balance. My point is simple. A casual game doesn't necessarily require those things to the same degree as a competitive match. Obviously, and so obvious that I don't know why I have to keep saying it in defense of myself, a casual game will be better with those things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 09:36
|
|
|
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2017/03/gw-new-releases-march-18th-pricing-links.html Buy your gold-plated land raiders and rhinos here! Spend massively over the odds to own an army that's like Grey Knights, but smaller! Is this new peak GW? Also some titan-related releases, because this is the run up to Adeptus Titanicus. E: why does the "new" land raider cost so much? Isn't it literally the same kit? mcjomar fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
I was never really part of the hobby back in the whole 'two dreadnaughts for £5' era, but the fact that the Rhino there has laid unchanged since 3rd Ed (when it retailed for £11) and is now $37.50 is a loving travesty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 10:54
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:I think those dorfs should have a rule that if you sing AC/DCs "big balls" during your turn they get bonuses. Conversely, if your opponent sings Ballbreaker they get bonuses to attacking your flying units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 12:01
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:I was never really part of the hobby back in the whole 'two dreadnaughts for £5' era, but the fact that the Rhino there has laid unchanged since 3rd Ed (when it retailed for £11) and is now $37.50 is a loving travesty. Yea, price hikes are going to happen, but it's really falling when the models don't change in the least and just keep getting price hikes. There are so many models that stayed the same for 20 years and ended up three times the price
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 12:53
|
|
|
What other models are ridiculously old?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Off the top of my head, the Warp Spiders are still the first sculpts of those models I bought in the mid 90s. They're in finecast now, though. Also true for the Phoenix Lords and a number of the warlock/seer models. We had the same jet bikes from the early 90s until the latest release, and they tripled in price over that time. Outside Eldar, the buggy and wartrakk ork models are the same ones circa Gorkamorka in 1997, and basically the entire IG line is old - I think catachans were one of the first multiparty plastic sets - all the special squads (valhallans, etc) are the original sculpts. I'm not sure if their tanks ever got a review, although they are pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Off the top of my head, the Warp Spiders are still the first sculpts of those models I bought in the mid 90s. They're in finecast now, though. Also true for the Phoenix Lords and a number of the warlock/seer models. We had the same jet bikes from the early 90s until the latest release, and they tripled in price over that time. The leman Russ kits look like garbage as soon as you put them next to a comparably priced 1:35 scale military model kit. For I think 6 dollarydoos more than a Leman Russ you can get a 1:35 scale model kit that has more metal parts than the Leman Russ has parts. You get fully articulated tracks and road wheels, metal barrels, grilles and other details and clear plastic parts for periscopes etc. Additionally they come with tons more exterior accessories so they look a lot more interesting visually. If you want more budget a 1:48 scale (28mm scale but of course a 1:48 scale is going to look small next to GW tanks) with some metal parts and a fully detailed interior is less than half the price of the Russ. Those IG kits are not even close to good imho Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Mar 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:03
|
|
|
And by metal parts, Cthulu Dreams means photoetch and turned aluminium gun barrels, not cast white metal that needs to be bent and straightened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
I believe you, but thats probably also true for even GW's newest tank kits What I mean is that while the Russ and the Falcon are fairly old kits, they are comparable to the more modern kits in quality and appearance, so it's more tolerable they haven't been updated. They're ALL in a bad place compared to historicals. This is compared to, say, Warp Spiders which are single piece monopose figures which you have to repeat even in a 5 man squad, or the ork buggies which have really lumpy looking crew.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Does anyone make mod packs for Good 28mm scale historical tanks to sci-fi them up a bit? Because most sci fi tanks are kinda poo poo, I tend to find. I know dreamforge (IIRC?) do a pack for the hanomag.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2017 14:28
|
|
