|
Pawl posted:New skydorfs look neat. Everything is weak to mortal wounds. It's a lovely mechanic.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
TKIY posted:Everything is weak to mortal wounds. It's a lovely mechanic. Not everything. Some units are weaker to mortal wounds than others. 5 mortal wounds kill a squad of Saurus Guard but only reduces a squad of Saurus Warriors to 50%. Some units have abilities that ignore mortal wounds, like the Phoenix Guard. Mortal Wounds usually come in small amounts (1, D3, 2D3, or D6) and there is always a way to play around them. I don't agree that it's a lovely mechanic. It creates a rock-paper-scissors dynamic of "armor" > "horde" > mortal wounds > "armor". For example, armies like Seraphon and Sylvaneth have high armor but are quite weak to mortal wounds. Undead armies can use huge blocks of zombies/skeletons/ghouls that ignore MW on 6+ (5+ with the right command trait) then ressurect models but they lack the rend to break through armored units and crumble to focused shooting/combat. Mortal Wounds are good but they're not overpowered or bad for the game. Like random turn order you might hate it at first but appreciate what it does for the game as you play more and get accustomed to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
The autowound mechanic is a bit weird in that it basically cuts the middleman out of wound resolution for, what in other games, would be single high-power/armor-piercing attacks. The thing about them is that they effectively become a hard counter to any small but valuable unit, as you may recall is what completely shut down TKIY when he tried playing his legacy dwarves against a Tzeentch list. Rock-paper-scissors is okay when talking about soft counters with more room to play around them, but the core rules of AoS are simple enough that it doesn't provide much of a toolbox for players to deal with things their army isn't built for. Granted, it's a problem for a lot of GW games, but adding an extra level of certainty to how hosed you are by something you're disadvantaged against is galling considering how much time and effort goes into playing and preparing to play. Especially if that autowound mechanic is attached to a ranged attack, like magic, basically creating a bubble of "get hosed" surrounding the casting unit for anything capable of dishing it out. The rules create a situation where the only real recourse is to just buy more models and drown out the autowound output with bodies, which isn't itself that bad. But it's more suitable for a game explicitly designed for mass combat in the way ranked unit games are. Not the least of which is because it takes significantly less real time to move an entire tray of models than it does to move a mess of models individually. It would be less troublesome if it were exclusively the purview of melee attacks, too, because the "play around them" pill is easier to swallow when the area denial effect doesn't take up quite so much table space. I've yet to see a cogent defense for random turn order, though. In smaller scale games having rolled initiative, especially individual character initiative for rpgs, adds a tactical layer to play, but in an I Go You Go game with a lot of models being pushed around, I have a hard time seeing the benefits over a set turn order.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 01:41
|
|
|
TKIY played poorly and got punished v v He didn't know what the Skyfires were capable of doing and was outplayed, and he even admitted himself that he deployed his cannon very poorly and left it exposed. (I also suspect the Tzeentch player was cheating a bit because you're supposed to use destiny dice BEFORE you roll, and the batrep made it sound like he used them AFTER rolling). If TKIY knew the threat that Skyfires posed he could have deployed differently (even just 1" out of their threat range is enough) and not be left open to that kind of alpha strike maneuver.Not all mortal wound sources are guarantees. All of them rely on passing some kind of dice roll or utilizing a finite resource (there might be a few that don't but I can't think of any off the top of my head) and then the amount of damage they do is usually either low (1) or randomized as well (d3 is the most common). This makes them very good against small elite units and I don't see why this is inherently a bad thing - you are just picking the right tool for the right job. Magic happens in the hero phase, which is before the movement phase. You can very easily measure the threat range and keep your vulnerable units out of range/sight of a threatening enemy wizard during your own turn. Units that put out Mortal Wounds are usually very expensive and can be either destroyed or tied down. If your opponent brings 3 Hellcannons then you can win just by killing the crew of those 3 cannons, and it's worth throwing away some units to do that. Re: Random turn order Everyone hates random turn order when they first start playing, but once you learn to play around the possibility of your opponent going twice you can see that it adds a ton of strategic depth to the game. Going first is not immediately the best choice unless you have a specific plan (crippling blow with an alpha strike, or capture objectives and hold them, or try to snipe exposed units) because your opponent has a good chance of going twice in a row and swinging the momentum far in their favour. If you're going first you tend to play more defensively, while if you go second you can be more aggressive because there is a chance you can snag a double turn. This adds an element to list building: the player that finishes deploying first chooses who goes first in the first round, so lists that use fewer units (or battalions) can adopt specific strategies. Double turns empower shooting lists on offense but also massively hinder them on the defense. Everyone has played a game where they got double turned by a shooting army and lost 50%+ of their list and then came online to complain about it, but nobody ever talks about times where they got two turns of movement/charging/combat and won decisively. It can turn a close game into a blowout, which is something that seasoned players will take measures against, increasing the number of decisions a player has to make and ultimately making it more fun. The best argument I have for double turns is that it can turn a losing game into a comeback. How many times have you played any game where you lose momentum on turn 1 or 2 and the game just snowballs into an inevitable loss? Double turns can give you a real chance of coming back into the game, especially if you have decent hero/shooting phases. Some special rules even interact with the turn order rolls, like a Seraphon hero that lets you reroll any dice rolls in the game (friend or foe), a Fyreslayer battalion that lets you add +1 for each hero you have once per game, and Archaon rolling his turn order ahead of time so he gets an idea of how the next round will shape out. I like random turn order. If you truly detest the concept then you don't have to play with it Pawl fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Apr 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Plus even if you get a double turn the combat phase has input from both players. So one of them won't be doing nothing during both.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
The bits dealers on eBay forced me to start buying Khorne Bloodbound. I got half the AoS starter, Slaughterpriest, second Bloodsecrator, second Bloodstoker, 5 more Blood Warriors. $100 for all this! it is like it's affordable to play Age of Sigmar!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:The bits dealers on eBay forced me to start buying Khorne Bloodbound. You get a starting Skaven and High Elf army for 80 dollars with Spires of Dawn. (Like it's a stupidly good deal compared to pretty much all Games workshop products.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
thanks for making a great case against both of those things
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
I dislike mortal wounds on an aesthetic level but I see where they fit in the rule design now. I'm also not fond of 40K's all-or-nothing AP system and how hard counters are built into that game, either, but at the very least cutting out the middleman for roll resolution speeds things up a tad.Pawl posted:I like random turn order. If you truly detest the concept then you don't have to play with it That was the most comprehensive case for random turns I've read. When you put it that way, it looks like the difference between MtG's card draw mana and Hearthstone's predictable mana curve. Both have reasons for why they do what they do and in the end it comes down to preference. For what it's worth, I prefer a more predictable gameflow allowing for more focused decisionmaking over playing around the highs and lows of randomness affecting momentum.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Somtimes you don't want a double turn so having the ability to deny your opponent it by making them go first can be good as well. (Close Combat armies don't really benefit from it as much for example)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
Real talk: Double turns, as implemented in Age of Sigmar are a bad mechanic. Here are three examples from three different games. Dropzone Commander When creating lists in Dropzone, units are set as parts of separate battlegroups. Armor, infantry, command, etc. Each battlegroup has different units that can be slotted in and most have a support element and transports so even an infantry group might still have attached AA or something along those lines. The game uses alternating activations, but rather than single units, players choose one battlegroup each time. They take turns activating each in turn until both players have nothing left. Sometimes it works out that a player has one more battlegroup than their opponent and so they get a double activation at the end. Additionally, Dropzone has a roll for initiative at the beginning of each turn. Players roll off and add their commanders' respective leadership scores. The winner gets to go first. It's possible to end a turn by activating a battlegroup, take/keep the initiative in the subsequent turn, and activate that same battlegroup again. Models can move then shoot or shoot then move. Whole units and strategies are built around this. Dropfleet Commander Dropfleet uses a similar battlegroup system as Dropzone, but with a few differences. First, there's no initiative roll. Players take their different battlegroups and assign them cards. Every turn, they take these cards and arrange them in a small deck in any order they like. At the first activation, both players draw a card from the top of their respective decks. They then compare strategy ratings of the associated battlegroups. Each ship has a strategy rating, smaller ships lower and larger ships higher. The group with the lower rating goes first. Players really have to manage their activations with this system and double turns are definitely manageable if the cards are in the right order, but your opponent still gets to respond. Bolt Action Bolt Action does alternating activations, but in a pretty unique way. Units are activated one at a time, though commanders have a small bubble where they can activate units at the same time as themselves with higher ranks able to activate more in a larger radius. That's not what I'm getting at though. Each unit has an order die associated with it. Both players take their order dice and toss them all in the same bag. At the start of a turn, a player draws from the bag and the owner of that order die gets to choose a unit and activate it. This then goes on until the dice are exhausted and the turn is over. Needless to say, the random nature of this does not guarantee you-go-I-go structure and some turns can wind up pretty lopsided where one player gets to activate, say, 5 units before their opponent can respond. However, it's important to note that just because a player has activated a unit doesn't necessarily mean that unit will actually do what it's told. Units are pinned easily by enemy fire and any unit with pinning markers has to take a leadership test in order to accept their orders. Pinning markers are cumulative and decrease leadership. If a unit fails, they take cover, but there are ways to mitigate this and pin markers can be removed through certain orders, etc. It can be chaotic and sometimes your units don't do what you want or you're activating units you don't want to yet , but it's a good system. In Age of Sigmar the players roll off with no way of swaying it. It's not a single unit or group, it's whole armies. That may be fine at 500-1000 points, but it's pretty ridiculous in larger games. It would probably work great with alternating units.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
I do wonder how AoS would play with alternating activations.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 09:35
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I do wonder how AoS would play with alternating activations. Probably a fair bit better.0
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
Some of the guys in my group played Necromunda with alternating activations and they said it really added a lot to the game. I imagine doing it for AoS, or even 40K, would do the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Some of the guys in my group played Necromunda with alternating activations and they said it really added a lot to the game. I imagine doing it for AoS, or even 40K, would do the same. Alternating activations or some other kind of shared turn (Runewars initiative etc) are generally a lot better than alternating turns when the turns take more than a few minutes on average, just in terms of player experience. Doubly so when player turns are asymmetrical in terms of eg who gets to attack and thereby remove an opponent's pieces. In AOS you'd need some good way to track who had and hadn't activated on a turn, but other than that it seems like it'd be a straight upgrade and make the double turn much better.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I do wonder how AoS would play with alternating activations. Well that is what happens with combats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well that is what happens with combats. Indeed but that's the part that makes least sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2017 19:15
|
|
|
Did anyone ever save the fanfic excerpts of the rat people dressed up as sigmarines?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
anyone know of a source of slotted 60x35 mm oval bases (2 slots, like old cav bases) I am looking to re-base some painted skaven weapon teams, and cutting off the metal tabs on painted models, and the fact that they are two models not one big one, is making my head hurt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:anyone know of a source of slotted 60x35 mm oval bases (2 slots, like old cav bases) I am looking to re-base some painted skaven weapon teams, and cutting off the metal tabs on painted models, and the fact that they are two models not one big one, is making my head hurt. I know it's a pain, but can you cut slots into some unslotted bases? I saw a guy do that when he rebased his tabbed metal stuff. I think a Dremel would make short work of something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
There are plenty of laser-cut mdf base makers out there who could do you something like that, probably. Might be thicker than usual mdf, or two layers of the usual stuff, but it couldn't hurt to send them your requirements and ask how much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
I need to buy bases, like $70 dollars worth at GW prices. Anyone have a good source for them? (Plastic or MDF as long as they look pretty close.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
sarissa perceision and war-bases.co.uk have cut custom stuff for me before, but they don't have that slight bevel like a gw base, was hoping to match. Maybe I am being too anal, they will all end up painted and flocked anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:I need to buy bases, like $70 dollars worth at GW prices. Anyone have a good source for them? (Plastic or MDF as long as they look pretty close.) Ebay is usually a good source.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:I need to buy bases, like $70 dollars worth at GW prices. Anyone have a good source for them? (Plastic or MDF as long as they look pretty close.) I buy most of my bases from Aliexpress, you get plastic bases like GW's for so much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Ebay is working well so far. I just got 29 dollars worth of gw bases for 20 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:Ebay is working well so far. I just got 29 dollars worth of gw bases for 20 bucks. so like 10 25mm rounds?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Well that is what happens with combats. And it is literally the worse mechanic in any wargame I've played.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 04:36
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:so like 10 25mm rounds? I got 35 32mm rounds, 13 40mm rounds, and 2 60mm. I bought the choas half of a Sigmar starter, and it didnt come with bases. I just got violated buying the base for the Khorgorath. 10 of the 40mm are so I can make 2 boxes of Wrathmongers + 10 Blood Warrior legs, into 10 Wrathmongers and 10 Skullreapers. The 30 32mm are for some Marauders I bought 20 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
Ultiville posted:Alternating activations or some other kind of shared turn (Runewars initiative etc) are generally a lot better than alternating turns when the turns take more than a few minutes on average, just in terms of player experience. I'm continually puzzled as to why they haven't flogged the initiative system from another game. Chain of Command or Sharp Practice both have excellent options as well as the ones you highlighted though they are multibasing systems. There is probably some underlying factors about drawing inspiration from the historical gaming scene though. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 05:21 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
Both of those systems have some "your unit may not activate" mechanics, even with options (SP2's kind of "basic activation" for a unit) it is not for everyone, younger folk (I can say that, I am old) find these types of not playing mechanics to be detrimental. I agree they make for good tension, and harder/more impactful choices, but that is again, not as popular as every 100$ toy you bought getting to walk and pew pew. Different strokes for different folks. I mean, you can play SP2 with fantasy armies, its not hard to make your own unit profiles, so let GW do something else so there are more options out there. GW is the gateway to better rules, but you gotta have a starting point before you jump into painting 2500 10mm prussians the proper shade of blue, and I am okay with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:Both of those systems have some "your unit may not activate" mechanics, even with options (SP2's kind of "basic activation" for a unit) it is not for everyone, younger folk (I can say that, I am old) find these types of not playing mechanics to be detrimental. I agree they make for good tension, and harder/more impactful choices, but that is again, not as popular as every 100$ toy you bought getting to walk and pew pew. Oh yeah, it's just a broad range of options. If you don't want that, go with the alternating activation instead. Or make it so the bag exhausts. Runewars looks great here. Lots of different options available for GW to draw inspiration from Not sure I agree that the AoS or 40k rules as constructed are easier to teach though. Maybe they are in practice, but it's probably not my experience with the game as played though. Cthulhu Dreams fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:Both of those systems have some "your unit may not activate" mechanics, even with options (SP2's kind of "basic activation" for a unit) it is not for everyone, younger folk (I can say that, I am old) find these types of not playing mechanics to be detrimental. I agree they make for good tension, and harder/more impactful choices, but that is again, not as popular as every 100$ toy you bought getting to walk and pew pew. Units die on the first turn before you get to use them all the time in GW games so the argument that everything gets a chance to activate doesn't really hold water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
how about, everything you have alive activates. You know what I mean, nothing "technically" sits there doing nothing for the turn, even though in practice it may be the same, it doesn't "feel" the same to alot of people. I There are a ton of great games out there, and alot of the people here discussing it have tried or play them. But GW thinks it is making a game for people who do not have alot of experience in tabletop gaming. I don't think it is so much about keeping it simple, but keeping it stable. The less they "shake it up" the more turnover they can get from the older gen to the new without splitting the it up. I only know 1 person under 20 who plays GW games in my area, people I play with/see playing at the shop, and he does it because his dad got him into it. Keeping some things the same, even if they seem stale to more veteran players allows easier transitions on change. Maybe 2-3 editions down the road they will have alternating activations, as they have alternating combat now it means it could be on their radar or at least are aware of it, its a slow process, an evolution instead of a revolution as it were. There are people out there who have tons of options as well, and i admit I am pretty spoiled for variety myself, I have a group that will play all kinds of games and have the income to try new things. We play Frostgrave, Batman, Bloodbowl, Dead Man's Hand, Saga, Arena Rex...really anything that one of the group wants to try someone is game to give it a go and learn (helps if you can have an all female team/army/warband, the lady in our group will go all in on it if so). But alot of people are restricted to playing what the local pick up game is, and keeping it from drastically changing benefits those without as adaptable of groups. Mileage may vary, this is from a US midwest point of view, I am sure it is different in the UK, or larger population centers where more like minded people can be found easier. Mr.Booger fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Apr 19, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:how about, everything you have alive activates. You know what I mean, nothing "technically" sits there doing nothing for the turn, even though in practice it may be the same, it doesn't "feel" the same to alot of people. Keeping legacy mechanics to the detriment of good design is the reason they have almost no younger players. It helps retain those older players, but people who haven't already gotten used to the way GW has done things are just going to pick games that do things in a sensible way. It's certainly no easier to teach new players with this legacy turn structure than it would be with a better one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
Ultiville posted:Keeping legacy mechanics to the detriment of good design is the reason they have almost no younger players. It helps retain those older players, but people who haven't already gotten used to the way GW has done things are just going to pick games that do things in a sensible way. It's certainly no easier to teach new players with this legacy turn structure than it would be with a better one. My experience has been that there are tons of new, young players getting into both AOS and 40k all the time (moreso the former than the latter lately) and the people you are describing are a small minority in the wargaming market. It is absolutely easier to teach turn based games. "I go then you go" is objectively easier to understand than "We both go but we do it in orders that are predetermined by the stats of our units and/or dice rolls". Calling it a "legacy turn structure" is incredibly pretentious. It's cool that you like a more complicated system but that doesn't make every other system obsolete.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
You can't be serious. I don't think a single person comes into 40k or Age of Sigmar without having first played chess or checkers. "I move a single one of my units and then you do the same," is way more natural than, "I'll move every one of my units and then you'll move what of yours is left." Like how stupid do you think people are? I would explain an initiative system by saying, "It's just like chess except instead of choosing which piece to move, sometimes other pieces have to go first and here's why." (Assuming it was a system that didn't let you choose) And even that wouldn't be a tough leap to make because pawns usually have to move before other pieces and check requires you to move specific pieces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Oh cool, this discussion again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
Do you seriously believe that kids born after 2000 give a poo poo about chess? It's far more likely they have played a turn based video game. I'm not saying that alternating activations is difficult to learn or explain, just that "It's just like chess except instead of choosing which pieces to move, sometimes other pieces have to go first and here's why" is more complicated than "I go then you go". It's all a moot point anyway. AOS is designed this way, if you don't like it because of fundamental designs then go find a game you like and post about that instead
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:40 |
|
|
I started looking through the AoS BRB, and what the gently caress. Granted, I'm only about 20 pages in, and a lot of those are just art, but it's like I'm coming in on book two of a series. I am very familiar with the old WFB lore, as well as 40K, and this AoS book appears to be "just take what you already know about 40K and replace certain parts with this!" There doesn't appear to be any world building or attempt to explain anything. I would have been happy with "Once, there was the Old World. It is long gone, having been destroyed by the forces of Chaos, and much has changed. Over millennia, the forces of Sigmar have been in a fighting retreat, but are now prepared to push back against the tide of darkness..." Bam. Justification of why everything is different and why names have changed. But so far, nothing, and it is very frustrating. Does it get any better or am I wasting my time reading this book for background?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2017 13:45
|
|