|
So I mentioned remembering playing GorkaMorka while I was at my FLGS today picking up some stuff I ordered for painting, and ended up with a spare sprue of Boyz that someone had lying around and didn't want. Is there something not-40k I could do with 'em? Besides paint them up, because I think that's going to happen. I'm limiting my actual 40k play to Dawn of War 3 anyway, until I realize that once again the Orks are shite.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So I mentioned remembering playing GorkaMorka while I was at my FLGS today picking up some stuff I ordered for painting, and ended up with a spare sprue of Boyz that someone had lying around and didn't want. You could play Marauders in Deadzone. They could probably be mutants in the upcoming game "Scrappers".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:So I mentioned remembering playing GorkaMorka while I was at my FLGS today picking up some stuff I ordered for painting, and ended up with a spare sprue of Boyz that someone had lying around and didn't want. Shadow Wars is out in a few weeks. Not sure if that is what you are looking for or not but it's not 40k rules even if it is in the 40k universe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Deino posted:Round 3, I was faced with this: And this is why I am happy I discovered Kings of War.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
To be fair, the full context of that photo is that in Round 3, we were playing the perfect scenario for his army, Hold the Center, in a deployment type where you get to start very close. We easily could have rolled up Secure Target, where each army needs to travel across the board to capture the opponent's objective. That would have been nearly impossible for him given the placement of terrain and the fact that he would also need to split up his forces to attack and defend simultaneously, when his army depends fully on everything being within an 18" bubble. Breakthrough would also involve him needing to move fully across the board with those huge, unwieldy units, and Capture the Flag would be impossible for either of us to complete. Any army with Pyromancy magic or widespread access to Lethal Strike (Wrath Daemons, Dread Elves, etc.) would also have little problem dealing with the masses of zombies. I just had a Bad Time.
Deino fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Mar 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
Deino posted:To be fair, the full context of that photo is that in Round 3, we were playing the perfect scenario for his army, Hold the Center, in a deployment type where you get to start very close. We easily could have rolled up Secure Target, where each army needs to travel across the board to capture the opponent's objective. That would have been nearly impossible for him given the placement of terrain and the fact that he would also need to split up his forces to attack and defend simultaneously, when his army depends fully on everything being within an 18" bubble. Breakthrough would also involve him needing to move fully across the board with those huge, unwieldy units, and Capture the Flag would be impossible for either of us to complete. Any army with Pyromancy magic or widespread access to Lethal Strike (Wrath Daemons, Dread Elves, etc.) would also have little problem dealing with the masses of zombies. I just had a Bad Time. Well it's not as bad as "I can simply never beat this army under any circumstance", but there's a lot buried in what you said that also points to major fundamental problems. If a scenario can have such a profound affect on who can and can't win a match, then armies should strictly be selected after the scenario is determined. If the tournament setting doesn't allow for changing lists to meet each scenario, then the scenarios should be designed in such a way that one army isn't immediately at a major disadvantage. The scenarios in the core Kings of War book aren't particularly interesting, but I've never run into a problem where the match was decided before the first turn had even begun. This is intentional because Kings of War is designed for balanced competitive play. They have a separate book with asymmetrical scenarios for narrative or campaign play. Another option would be for the scenarios to be pre-determined with these considerations in place. The other thing I'll say is that I'm not a fan of "hard counters". Sure, some armies can wipe out zombie hordes without much effort, but that doesn't do poo poo for me right now with the army that I have. It's a lazy justification for lazy design. Any army should be able to win any scenario with any reasonable* list against any other army. Now even Kings of War isn't perfect in this (I don't really think you can be outside of a static game like chess), but while playing Dwarves with Elves can be a grind, I never felt like victory was impossible. *Obviously if you intentionally make a gimmick list you fall outside of the scope of this discussion, but Kings of War by design lacks trap choices so you'd really have to try to make a list that couldn't compete
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Well it's not as bad as "I can simply never beat this army under any circumstance", but there's a lot buried in what you said that also points to major fundamental problems. If a scenario can have such a profound affect on who can and can't win a match, then armies should strictly be selected after the scenario is determined. I think this is a bigger problem with tabletop wargames generally---most games have list building come before mission selection which to me is totally loving bonkers since it implies that the forces are rarely selected/constructed to accomplish a specific task. I'd rather see systems that either select mission first or have objectives be tied to army construction and unit types--e.g. if you take elite assassins, your mission objective becomes to eliminate the enemy chain of command.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
I think part of it is logistics, if you're going for a pick up game at your LGS you need to decide what models to bring before you leave your house and before you know who your opponent is. But yeah, asymmetric objectives are cool and good if done well. Especially if you have both open and secret ones.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I think this is a bigger problem with tabletop wargames generally---most games have list building come before mission selection which to me is totally loving bonkers since it implies that the forces are rarely selected/constructed to accomplish a specific task. I'd rather see systems that either select mission first or have objectives be tied to army construction and unit types--e.g. if you take elite assassins, your mission objective becomes to eliminate the enemy chain of command. Those are cool ideas. I get why you can't do army selection after determining a scenario in a tournament format since it means bringing an impractical number of models, spending a ton of time between each round fiddling with army composition, and then getting that list approved by a judge before the match can start. It's so much easier for the organizers of the event, not to mention saving a ton of time if, everyone submits a single list well ahead of the tournament. Kings of War takes the simple approach by making the scenarios fairly generic, which if you're playing the same group of guys every week is less than ideal, but keeps a tournament fair. I've always liked the idea of a "sideboard" for a minis tournament. Something worth maybe 1/4 of your total points. You could approach it where you either subbed out individual units from your main list for units from your sideboard, or maybe you'd have to take out an identical chunk of points and put the whole sideboard in. But that way you'd have at least some flexibility to react to your opponent's army and to the scenario and everything you subbed would be pre-approved and legal to some definition of army composition and tournament rules. Warpath/Firefight does try to get around this by having armies each bring secret objectives with them in addition to the objectives of each scenario, so hopefully I'll get a chance to try those out. But yeah it's a tough problem to crack. I think a lot of rulebooks do explicitly put "roll for scenario" ahead of "choose forces". It's just the least followed rule ever because people have what they have and often don't even own enough miniatures to field something else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Yeah, I get that. Though with the right mechanics it could work and also solve larger game issues with forces that are seemingly unbalanced. Like if you take X heavy tank/suit you place an objective marker that has to be destroyed, but your opponent gets demo charges that can be used to destroy your unit. Or if you take X flyers, you can place a series of target objectives to destroy behind enemy lines, but enemies near these get a bonus to shoot at flyers. You both tie the objective to the unit's purpose, and also mitigate the chances of two armies playing "past" each other by giving them a way to fight back against forces they might have no answer for otherwise. Then your scenario selection process can be removed entirely, because your objectives will always be based on 1. Your army's unit selection, and 2. Your opponent's army selection. This would hypothetically save time and energy in tournaments.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
So rather than a hard counter being something your army either has or doesn't have, the unit selection process more or less guarantees that your opponent is given something to deal with the units you take, directly or indirectly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:25
|
|
|
I think Malifaux has it go flip + decide objectives(since you flip 4 objectives and each platyer picks 2)->Pick units
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
For Infinity you know the scenario and often the army your opponent will be using for their army before a match. The rules are set up that way because you're supposed to be using a squad of troops assigned to go out and accomplish some mission. Tournaments get around this by releasing the missions before the event, and allowing players to bring two lists. The majority of Infinity scenario's are fairly well balanced too. Though these official scenario require troops to be specialists in order to complete the majority of objectives (ie: hacker, engineer, doctor, etc). There's a couple of fan made scenario packs that lend themselves better to playing pick up games. Notably the 20x20 system, where you roll a d20 for the primary and secondary missions. In this format any trooper can complete an objective, but some specialist troopers grant a bonus to rolls that complete objectives. Another fan system is called TACOs that I"m not a huge fan of, because you draw objective cards. Each turn, the active player may discard one of the cards that they can't complete (or that their opponent could easily complete) to draw a new one. There's something like four ways to score per turn which is kind of nice as you're never out of options to put points up on the board. But it is a random and constantly changing goalpost, which doesn't jive as well with Infinity's focus on selecting a squad of bad asses to go out and accomplish a mission. And to be honest, 40K's tactical objective deck ruined random turn by turn changing objectives for me. I'd rather have a game plan that I can execute and see what happens as I run into my opponents road blocks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
There's a tournament format for x-wing called hangar bay that's similar to that infinity tournament scenario layout. The difference, which bistro/atlas pointed out, is that you can bring 10-20 models total for x-wing and infinity much easier than bringing 5 suitcases of stuff for massed ranked battles. I think the only real compromise is something like Chirurgeon suggested: bringing a few extra models for opponent usage is much easier than bringing a couple extra suitcases in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I've always liked the idea of a "sideboard" for a minis tournament. Something worth maybe 1/4 of your total points. You could approach it where you either subbed out individual units from your main list for units from your sideboard... Then you'd like Dark Age which does exactly this for their tournaments. (Although I think they use 1/5 of the total point cost.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:So rather than a hard counter being something your army either has or doesn't have, the unit selection process more or less guarantees that your opponent is given something to deal with the units you take, directly or indirectly. Yeah, pretty much, though your opponent may still have units that are natively better-suited to what you've brought, it ensures that the game will at least have a chance of being interactive. One of the issues I've seen with the sci-fi games (and 40k has this in spades) is that some units just straight up aren't really interactive *unless* you have the hard counter--you just end up trying to avoid them or minimize the damage they do rather than attempt to deal with them. Sideboards are OK, but to me they seem like an inelegant solution to the problem, and require you essentially build another half an army to swap in/out and then paint/transfer units that might not even get used. It's OK but not ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
PrinnySquadron posted:I think Malifaux has it go flip + decide objectives(since you flip 4 objectives and each platyer picks 2)->Pick units Indeed it does, Malifaux's low model count also makes this more convenient than something the size of Kings of War or Warhammer would be. Malifaux is also highly scenario focused which allows a greater variety of models to be useful. I've just started playing (and working on getting my Ressurectionists assembled and painted) but they game seems remarkably balanced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Was browsing humble bundles and this came up: https://www.humblebundle.com/store/space-hulk-ultimate-pack Is it any good?
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Was browsing humble bundles and this came up: https://www.humblebundle.com/store/space-hulk-ultimate-pack isn't this a more or less direct translation of the board game to PC? i remember it was completely panned at release
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:isn't this a more or less direct translation of the board game to PC? Oh, gross. I was hoping there was more stuff. If it's just the board game, I might as well keep playing the Aliens board game instead: http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/408816
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
incidentally if anyone wants any other old bad GW boardgames in digital form, humble has Talisman for two and a half bucks. enjoy the thrills and chills of a game eurogamer once described as "like having your fingers broken by a copy of the Monster Manual".
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:I think part of it is logistics, if you're going for a pick up game at your LGS you need to decide what models to bring before you leave your house and before you know who your opponent is. Yeah, this is it. Practically you need to bring a list to a club. Infinity and Malifaux both do cool things with blank boxes, but in practise you've got a carry case so one way or another you know what's what.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Well it's not as bad as "I can simply never beat this army under any circumstance", but there's a lot buried in what you said that also points to major fundamental problems. If a scenario can have such a profound affect on who can and can't win a match, then armies should strictly be selected after the scenario is determined. If the tournament setting doesn't allow for changing lists to meet each scenario, then the scenarios should be designed in such a way that one army isn't immediately at a major disadvantage. The scenarios in the core Kings of War book aren't particularly interesting, but I've never run into a problem where the match was decided before the first turn had even begun. This is intentional because Kings of War is designed for balanced competitive play. They have a separate book with asymmetrical scenarios for narrative or campaign play. Another option would be for the scenarios to be pre-determined with these considerations in place. Hard counters as a concept should be restricted to video games, where swapping units is a few clicks rather than 'is the $50 worth of models I need to play against this edge case something I brought with me by chance'. I mean, it can maybe be reasonable in squad sized games with a dozen models where you're talking bringing a couple spare guys or changing a gear load out on paper. But for something like 40k with a dozen factions and stacks of niche units, it just isn't practical.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hard counters as a concept should be restricted to video games, where swapping units is a few clicks rather than 'is the $50 worth of models I need to play against this edge case something I brought with me by chance'. I mean, it can maybe be reasonable in squad sized games with a dozen models where you're talking bringing a couple spare guys or changing a gear load out on paper. But for something like 40k with a dozen factions and stacks of niche units, it just isn't practical. I agree with this, which is why I tend to avoid anything based on the core mechanics of a GW game in a competitive setting. 9th Age is still carrying that baggage as we've seen discussed above.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
I think hard counters depend on the game and probably how you define them. For example in Dropzone Commander Anti Aircraft units will gently caress up aircraft which is their job. You could build a list completely without aircraft or AA but due to the combined arms approach the game emphasizes you're very much expected to bring some of both. This is not because of strict requirements but because aircraft are really good but AA counters them and keeps them in check balance wise. Something like the above can fit well into games but entire armies countering others obviously shouldn't happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:I think hard counters depend on the game and probably how you define them. That doesn't sound problematic to me because of the nature of the game and because of list building expectations. I have an issue with hard counters being something you would only take in a specific circumstance or are built into some armies but not others. In the former example, it's a waste of points if that particular edge case never comes up and in the latter it's frustrating for those whose armies don't have access to them and get bad matchups. Similar to your AA units, Kings of War has units with the special rule Phalanx. These units counter the ability Thunderous Charge, which is a common cavalry ability. You can reasonably expect an opponent to have some form of cavalry, and if not the unit is still perfectly capable of fighting other enemies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 11:30
|
|
|
Good Lord I read every page of this thread in like 2 days, still travelling though and now I'm out of death thread  I've got bitten by the modelling bug again, it's a shame games workshop stuff is so poo poo but nobody I know is interested in anything else. Even KoW, warmahordes and infinity seem to have their own problems. I guess I'll just keep daydreaming about a KoW army instead. Also I'm so loving enjoying the 40k end timesing, looking forward to the great reconciliation between this thread and the bad thread as happened before with the fantasy thread during AoS.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Despite everything a part of me wants to collect some tiny men for 8th edition but thankfully GWs increasingly loving offensive prices keep me at bay. Holy hell. Even my friend who is rich and used to play with me and is 100% un-death-threaded looks at these prices and asks me "but WHY does that cost so much?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
I would go to eBay and snag some old models you might have liked back in the day but never got for whatever reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Also I'm so loving enjoying the 40k end timesing, looking forward to the great reconciliation between this thread and the bad thread as happened before with the fantasy thread during AoS. There will be no reconciliation in the Age of the Sigemperor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Hard counters as a concept should be restricted to video games, where swapping units is a few clicks rather than 'is the $50 worth of models I need to play against this edge case something I brought with me by chance'. I mean, it can maybe be reasonable in squad sized games with a dozen models where you're talking bringing a couple spare guys or changing a gear load out on paper. But for something like 40k with a dozen factions and stacks of niche units, it just isn't practical. It's also why it's so important to pay attention to the strengths and weaknesses of your components in game design. In a large-scale minis wargame where you're expected to spend a lot of resources on individual components, scenarios that call for specific components or reward very specific force compositions are a huge barrier to entry. It gets even worse if you have, say, an event that allows construction every round after you see the scenario. At base, it vastly favors people with tons of minis, and if you're talking about something like modern 40k, it just isn't possible unless everyone brings a hand truck to the event to carry all their figures. Of course, the advantage of minis is that they look far nicer than the alternatives if properly modeled and so forth, and they're two hobbies in one, so for people who enjoy both, it's very satisfying. On the other hand, the "build in response to the scenario" game play is really fun if you can do it, like with chit or card based games. I used to be big into the Battleground: Fantasy/Historical Warfare tournament scene. That's a game that's all cards, and you get a complete army set for $25-$30, containing more of each unit than you could ever reasonably want. So while it's way less pretty on the table, everyone can be assumed to have full access to their faction, and there aren't logistical problems to putting together a force on the fly, it only takes a few minutes to pull out cards and total up points. So you could dynamically generate scenarios in tournament play, which was super fun. Basically it's just all about making your rules fit your components. (Which, incidentally, GW usually sucks at, eg detailed movement rules for a game where you have absurd numbers of functional units to resolve and physically move about.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Despite everything a part of me wants to collect some tiny men for 8th edition but thankfully GWs increasingly loving offensive prices keep me at bay. Holy hell. because enough dumbasses out there will pay what theyre asking
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
If I remember right, Heavy Gear Blitz had you select a handful of missions as part of army list construction, then roll on a table to see whether you'd be doing a Defense, Offense, or Special mission. Armies constructed with more specialist troops rolled on a table that was heavy with specialist missions (that they would definitely be prepared to fulfill), while more militia-esque forces would be more likely to roll a Defend mission that they'd be able to use their superior numbers to capitalize on. I don't remember much of that game, but that always seemed like a fun take on missions that included just enough variance to keep the same match between the same armies effectively a bit different.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:because enough dumbasses out there will pay what theyre asking Buying a product with the quality and pedigree of Games Workshop doesn't make you a "dumbass".
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
panascope posted:Buying a product with the quality and pedigree of Games Workshop doesn't make you a "dumbass". It does however, make you a fool.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
panascope posted:Buying a product with the quality and pedigree of Games Workshop doesn't make you a "dumbass". So inbred garbage?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
panascope posted:Buying a product with the quality and pedigree of Games Workshop doesn't make you a "dumbass". your high concept troll posting wont work on me friend
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 03:46
|
|
|
It's pretty obvious Games Workshop has totally turned things around. With 8th edition promising streamlining of 40k, the ongoing success of Age of Sigmar, and Forgeworld continuing to run out high quality releases every month, it's time to close the Death Thread imo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
panascope posted:Buying a product with the quality and pedigree of Games Workshop doesn't make you a "dumbass". otoh you're the guy who thinks the star wars prequels are good so nah
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 04:38 |
|
|
The Star Wars prequels are so insanely good that nerds have been absolutely obsessed with them for two decades.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2017 04:11
|
|