|
Hixson posted:How could a company be bad if they make such good miniatures? Say what you want about GW, but nobody can touch them in terms of quality Tee hee. You keep being you, Hixson. 
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
I expected the Lascannon to do more damage. Assuming that its still the go-to anti-armor standard, it means that a Dreadnought is always going to be able to absorb at least one shot before going down. I think that's probably for the best - its really frustrating to completely lose a big unit like that on turn one, and presumably if its down to 2 wounds it will weakened to reflect that. Also interesting that they have nixed templates on flamers - I am guessing that's going to apply across the board and we'll see variable wounds for blast and large blast weapons as well? It's definitely a simpler way of handling it, and spares people fiddling with templates and debating on who is actually under/touched by them, but also means that positioning and spacing are overall less important.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Well, might as well use the stuff from bolt action. Bolt action actually went from xdx blast to templates again in 2nd edition for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I expected the Lascannon to do more damage. Assuming that its still the go-to anti-armor standard, it means that a Dreadnought is always going to be able to absorb at least one shot before going down. I think that's probably for the best - its really frustrating to completely lose a big unit like that on turn one, and presumably if its down to 2 wounds it will weakened to reflect that. That's one of the few changes I've seen from them so far that seems like it'll help speed things up, though--right now too much time gets spent making sure your whole army is 2" apart so they don't get housed by a template. Positioning may still be important, but spacing was only important because of the super-powerful weapons that cared about it. The change also makes flamers more useful against smaller units, where you can hit models multiple times with the same shot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:08
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I expected the Lascannon to do more damage. Assuming that its still the go-to anti-armor standard, it means that a Dreadnought is always going to be able to absorb at least one shot before going down. I think that's probably for the best - its really frustrating to completely lose a big unit like that on turn one, and presumably if its down to 2 wounds it will weakened to reflect that. Yeah. I think tomorrow's page is movement, so I'm hoping we'll see more about proper positioning then. I think it's better to reward unit by unit positioning rather than the awkward 2 inch space fiddling that was too common before, at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Sir Teabag posted:Rolling 290 dice to accomplish something is the reason I stopped playing guard. Buckets of dice is actually quite a tedious affair for everyone involved. I wonder what they've done to speed this aspect of the game up, as one of the main selling points of the new edition is reducing the playing time by more than half (from 3.5 hours to 90 mins). Yeah I'll buy it about 4 months after I see it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Well, might as well use the stuff from bolt action. Because they are fun and easy to use? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
Hixson posted:How could a company be bad if they make such good miniatures? Say what you want about GW, but nobody can touch them in terms of quality If they made more models like that cool skelebro and less like the busy mess the more recent efforts I would agree. That's mostly personal astetic taste though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:Because they are fun and easy to use? let's have a fight over the fact I saw you nudge that one dude "accidentally" after you saw me getting out the blast template to try and make sure he doesn't fit but look 1/10th of a mm of his base is totally under the template so he is hit you cheater
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:If they made more models like that cool skelebro and less like the busy mess the more recent efforts I would agree. That's mostly personal astetic taste though. I think most GW models are just plain better than their competitors. There are some exceptions but you have to reach quite a bit Leperflesh posted:let's have a fight over the fact I saw you nudge that one dude "accidentally" after you saw me getting out the blast template to try and make sure he doesn't fit but look 1/10th of a mm of his base is totally under the template so he is hit you cheater You can't design a game around how people cheating...
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Hixson posted:You can't design a game around how people cheating... You can recognize that precise to-the-mm positioning in a game played on a table where people have arms and elbows is just asking for fights and cheating accusations. Make precise positioning less important and you have a game that is better designed for the environment in which it is played.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:20
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah, this--his point was that you wouldn't try to use lasrifles to take down a dreadnought because of how difficult it is, so being *able* to wound one with small arms fire isn't as big a deal as it looks During my gamed in 40K, shooting a Landraider to death with Las guns wasn't possible, so I didn't shoot my Las guns at them. My point was that buckets of dice are a bad resolution mechanism especially when the chances of affecting the game state are so low. This is a huge time sink in the game and often results in no actual results. So I'm very curious how they will address this as it is one of the biggest ways to reduce game times form 3.5 hours to 90 minutes. But they are also sticking with D6 as their base, so I wonder if any changes to how you resolve things on the table will be made. Other than the announced static WS and BS rolls. E: the still clearly have at least three roll resolution with hit, wound, save being present on the stat lines. Guess I answered my own question!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You can recognize that precise to-the-mm positioning in a game played on a table where people have arms and elbows is just asking for fights and cheating accusations. Make precise positioning less important and you have a game that is better designed for the environment in which it is played. Soooo precise positioning makes precise positioning less important??
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 22:58
|
|
|
Hixson posted:Soooo precise positioning makes precise positioning less important?? so getting rid of template weapons is an improvement
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
^^^ This. Infinity also uses templates for a few weapons, and it's honestly one of the aspects of the game about which I am less enthusiastic. The only saving grace is that the Infinity rules are very explicit about how templates are placed/used, and there are fewer models on the table so disagreements are pretty rare.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Templates are fine for something like Shadow War or Infinity but dropping them in favor of randomized hits allocated to a target unit saves a lot of time and hassle for a larger-scale game. A little bit of abstraction can go a long way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
*gets out a tape measure* *picks a model in a unit* *attempts to measure a 3" circle around it using flexible tape* a better system with less arguing
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
^^ Does anybody think there's an appreciable difference between checking range with a tape measure and placing a plastic template down? If you do I have bad news for you: You can play the .001" game with either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Wait is Leperflesh defending a GW rule decision and I'm attacking it? Hmmm
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Templates are fine for something like Shadow War or Infinity but dropping them in favor of randomized hits allocated to a target unit saves a lot of time and hassle for a larger-scale game. A little bit of abstraction can go a long way. Yes. It also means that the most precise positioning you normally need to do with a model is to within 1 of whatever is the measuring increment being used. For example: If all of the ranges and measurements your game calls for are in 1" increments, then you rarely have to fiddle over positioning someone more carefully than that. Say you're trying to get your archers to within their firing range of 7" of the enemy but you don't want to be 6" or closer because that's their charging range. OK, so you only have to position your archers somewhere inside that 7" to 6" gap. (And if you want to you can declare to your opponent that this is what you're doing, to remove any question.) Say you're trying to make sure that next turn you'll be within range of an objective. Most likely you have to be within X whole inches, so you can make sure your model clearly is across that Xth inch and that's good enough. Occasionally there will be edge cases where you need to be more careful. Maybe there's a gap just wide enough for you to stick a model so that he's not in charge range of two different enemy units on opposite sides of him, with a tiny fraction of an inch to spare on each side... that could happen and you'd now care more about precise positioning. But normally while you maneuver on the board, you can nudge a guy an eighth of an inch by accident and it won't matter one bit. Templates gently caress this up though. With a template, the exact precise position of every model that might be under the template matters. And so now if your enemy has ranged template weapons he can hit you with, you're loving around with unit coherency and terrain etc. trying to minimize how many models will be under the template, and your opponent has an interest in making sure you tow the line to within a mm. You can "accidentally" nudge a mini and suddenly your squad captain can't be under the template since it has to be positioned to cover as many models as possible and he's juuuuuust outside of that inclusive circle, or whatever. It's not a huge deal and I'm fine playing good games like E:A that have templates. But they're not necessary, especially in a game that has formations or squads or whatever, because you can just use some randomizing factor to determine how many models in the formation are hit and you're good. e. Yes, removing templates from 40k would be a good design decision, if whatever they use instead isn't worse somehow. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Apr 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
I figure it'd just be easiest to pick a unit with a model in range and then the attack affects that unit but I dunno how 8th ed is going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
I mean, you do maybe lose the ability to drop a template down so it covers the edges of two or more units? That's fun when you can manage it but I'm not convinced it's an essential part of wargaming or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
Don't look at me, I see at a table and I think "hex map."
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Don't look at me, I see at a table and I think "hex map." Well yeah, haha. A long tom hits a hex and all the hexes adjacent to it, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yes. This is retarded. Positioning your models with a higher degree of precision than a drat inch isn't an "edge case". This comes up in literally every game of table top miniatures I've ever played. Shooting, movement, charging, ect. You're always toeing the line of almost being in range of something or visa versa
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Hixson posted:This is retarded. Positioning your models with a higher degree of precision than a drat inch isn't an "edge case". This comes up in literally every game of table top miniatures I've ever played. Shooting, movement, charging, ect. You're always toeing the line of almost being in range of something or visa versa You mean all those GW games, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Seeing my hated foes the Lizardmen always is a good thing. It is always weird to me they never did a 40k army of Space Dinos. Aren't these the Tyranids? I mean they're kind of space insect dinosaurs, but i'm sure I remember reading a White Dwarf article that said that dinosaurs were a big source of faction design inspiration, and there's even a bunch of 'Tyranno' in the faction and some unit names.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You mean all those GW games, right? I play FW games too
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Oh, well!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Let's make tabletop war gaming less about positioning. I have Leperflesh's unwavering support. Who else is in? Let's make a petition
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Nitpicking: less about precise measurement. Tactical positioning (ex: I put my unit such that you can't charge it due to the intervening terrain) is obviously an essential factor of tabletop wargaming.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Well yeah, haha. Yeah, basically I mean there's a lot that's time-consuming and fiddly about Battletech, a game whose core design, among other things, is stuck in the 80's. But the abstracted (and horrific) effects of, say, flamers on infantry isn't one of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"A few inches is just an edge case, baby, it's all about tactical positioning"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
So playing a game of millimeters is bad game design when applied to thing A, but not for thing B because one involves a clear plastic template. I'm being trolled
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Nitpicking: less about precise measurement. Tactical positioning (ex: I put my unit such that you can't charge it due to the intervening terrain) is obviously an essential factor of tabletop wargaming. I've never played a tabletop game that didn't have the occasional necessity for precise measurement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Occasionally there will be edge cases where you need to be more careful. Maybe there's a gap just wide enough for you to stick a model so that he's not in charge range of two different enemy units on opposite sides of him, with a tiny fraction of an inch to spare on each side... that could happen and you'd now care more about precise positioning..
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:You mean all those GW games, right? positioning is a pretty big deal in the non-GW games I've played. Hell, X-wing is super-precise about it, especially when you start doing poo poo like barrel rolls. Xarbala posted:I figure it'd just be easiest to pick a unit with a model in range and then the attack affects that unit but I dunno how 8th ed is going to do it. We don't have any real info on how blast weapons will work yet. So far all they've shown is that flamers have gone from templates to "d6 automatic hits." Most of the discussion around how other template weapons ("blast" template weapons) is based on how Age of Sigmar does it, which might not be how 40k does it... there are more than a few differences so far. in AoS, they just replaced templates with hitting every model/unit within x inches of some target spot, which basically sounds like something you'd just as soon want a template for. That said, removing templates does give them the option of doing a wider range of Areas of Effect, instead of being locked into 3"/5"-diameter zones, but to Hixon's point, the precision of measuring a circle is bad and you'd really just want a template instead. ...Which is why I'm hoping they just keep those effects to a minimum and have blast weapons move to a certain number of hits against the target instead. Template weapons inadvertently create a lot of extra wasted time in 40k because they force players to space whole armies 2" apart when moving and prevent them from taking good advantage of cover because it's worse to take more hits than it is to lose the benefit of cover, so people spend a bunch of time positioning a bunch of cheap worthless models. But just so we're clear, if they do keep shots that explode and hit an area of effect within x inches of a target spot, templates are a much better way to check this on the table than spinning a tape measure. I mean come on
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Hixson posted:This is retarded. Positioning your models with a higher degree of precision than a drat inch isn't an "edge case". This comes up in literally every game of table top miniatures I've ever played. Shooting, movement, charging, ect. You're always toeing the line of almost being in range of something or visa versa
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
One of the more trod out debates in the Infinity community is whether you play "intent" or not. As Infinity has a reaction mechanism, where if your model moves into line of sight of mine, then I get a reaction. So some players will say "I'm going to move up to that corner as close as possible, without being seen". Then you help your opponent with his positioning ("Back just a little bit/ you can actually come forward a bit more" etc). When you're playing in a tournament, depending on the lengths of the rounds, you may not have the time to play with "intent" like this. So you just move your models where you want them to be, trying to do what you wanted to do such as only be seen by one model, or move up but not into LoS or whatever. If you have moved too far, oops you get shot at or whatever. This is usually resolved before the game starts and then you go about having fun either way. Infinity is also the game I play/played that I think has the most at stake in terms of precise movements, but it also has well defined rules for what is visible and what is not. For example, every miniature has a defined silhouette projected from the base. So the more dynamic models are not penalized for cool poses. A certain amount of the silhouette must be visible for it to count as being visible. As another poster said, there are templates in Infinity. I agree that they are one of the less fun part of the game, but I don't feel like they detract very much. The ranges for all guns are standardized and basically everyone is using the same range bands. So you you develop a pretty good eye for if you'll be shot by such and such a model if you move up to a certain location, and if you'll be in your optimum range and stuff. The other cool thing is that like the new edition of 40K, the rules are free. Not sample rules like KoW, but the whole rule set and expansions. You buy the books if you want fluff/art. Otherwise enjoy your PDF on whatever device you want. Also a free online army list builder that links rules to a rules wiki, and a free mobile app if you don't have an internet connection at your friendly local games dungeon or whatever. WIth each rule book they move the story forward as well, so it's not like you're picking it up for the rules. You're doing it because you like to leaf through a book instead of ctrl +f on a pdf, and you want something to read on the bus ride to the game store or whatever. Basically, this safe guards against the situation of releasing Gathering Storm/The End Times and then invalidating all the rules that you bought that book for. That's my post thanks for reading. E: It shouldn't even really be a debate since CB has explicitly they don't intend for you to play with "intent". But it's an easy way to play and leads to fewer debates and very speedy, charitable play. So it works just as well either way. It's kind of like raising the difficulty on a video game, fun but not always necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 22:54 |
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:positioning is a pretty big deal in the non-GW games I've played. Hell, X-wing is super-precise about it, especially when you start doing poo poo like barrel rolls. Yeah I don't think this is a GW-specific problem, it's a very common (universal, even?) problem with free-move miniatures games. e: It's definitely a problem that can be bigger or smaller though, and template weapons are a bad idea precisely because they make the problem bigger
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 00:55
|
|
