|
Thanks im pretty pleased with how they are turning out. Some of the base coats are pretty lumpy, and there's a lot of mold lines and sprue bits I didn't remove. I been painting up an admech army for 40k but am actually having more fun doing these. The Celestant Prime on his cat-lizard is gonna be a nightmare though, I messed that up bad.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Those look great. In my great list of ~someday~ I have a 5e Bretonnian army and a 6e Chaos army plus loads of Lord of the Rings miniatures that need to be rehabilitated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Is this the Mordheim reboot? http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2017/04/age-of-sigmar-skirmish-pic-from-new.html?m=1
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
TKIY posted:Is this the Mordheim reboot? Age of Sigmar Kill Team. Mordheim reboot is slated for next year as far as I know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Need to clean up some flash and his knee some more but I like how these conversions are coming 
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Stormchaos Infernals?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Need to clean up some flash and his knee some more but I like how these conversions are coming Is that a warrior of chaos or a Stormcast with a warrior of chaos head.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Is that a warrior of chaos or a Stormcast with a warrior of chaos head. Stormcast liberator body, chaos warrior head + shield + weapon
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
So, my friend is wanting me to try AoS, but I have reservations. I mainly remember the botched release, and that the general's handbook is $40 and makes it an actually a game. I also hated that they nuked fantasy for such a weird setting. I want to give the game a fair try though, so what are the reasons for and against playing? I loved lizardmen in fantasy. and stormcast and orruks look cool for aos.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
They hosed up the release hilariously bad, but the General's Handbook is only $25 and the game is pretty good. See if he'll go halfsies on the starter set. You can also still play lizardmen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Elblanco posted:So, my friend is wanting me to try AoS, but I have reservations. I mainly remember the botched release, and that the general's handbook is $40 and makes it an actually a game. I also hated that they nuked fantasy for such a weird setting. General's handbook is not $40. But an update to the general's handbook is coming out at some point. Other the standard Starter Set. Spires of Dawn is also a real good deal for dollar. But only if you are interested in Skaven or High Elves. (Though I guess the same could be said for the starter set, just with Chaos and Stormcast.) MonsterEnvy fucked around with this message at 00:43 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Need to clean up some flash and his knee some more but I like how these conversions are coming This looks cool.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
As for +'s and -'s +Most of the game's rules are free. +Game is way simpler and easier to get into then any other Warhammer edition. It's streamlining is very solid at this point. +Warscrolls are cool. +All the info to use a unit is on the warscroll no need for a lot flipping back and forth. +The missions and stuff involving narrative campaigns are pretty fun. +Game is pretty well balanced in most cases. -Not all factions in the game have gotten the same amount of attention so you have to use the default in lots of cases. -Some poo poo is expensive. -Setting is weird and not nearly as good as the old world. -Weird names for a lot of things. I will call an Orruk an Orc the change was unneeded. -Tomb Kings and Brettonia seem to be gone. (Though there are reports of the Kings coming back.) Subjective, some like this, some don't. =Game turns have a factor of randomness to them. As the person who goes first is determined randomly each round. Depending on Army having two turns can be good or bad for you. =No initiative so the game has alternating activations. The player whose turn it is decides which of his units is attacking first in the combat phase, then his opponent picks one of his units to fight. This does allow the other player to have more input on the combat phase. After not getting to do anything during the move and shooting phases. =Units can shoot in and out of combat. I can't really think of anything else right now. But feel free to ask any questions to jog my memory.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Brettonia isnt gone... they just now eat Flesh.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:-Tomb Kings and Brettonia seem to be gone. (Though there are reports of the Kings coming back.) DONT TOY WITH MY EMOTIONS.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:As for +'s and -'s That's alot of unexpected pluses. I haven't followed the game rules since release, has it really improved that much since then?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:That's alot of unexpected pluses. I haven't followed the game rules since release, has it really improved that much since then? Yeah the generals handbook pretty much saved the game. A new generals handbook is coming out at some point that will apparently make it even more robust.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Where can I find a decent overview of it?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
Nebalebadingdong posted:Where can I find a decent overview of it? I looked up a review and this is the first one on the list. http://www.mengelminiatures.com/2016/08/review-generals-handbook.html It has a pretty good overview of the book. Books also pretty cheap if you want to get it and I think you can get it in pdf form as well.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
The Handbook is useful for the Scenarios and for the point values. Point values can be obviated by scrollbuilder.com Scenarios are pretty important, and one of the two of you should probably own it. EDIT: This continues to be fun.  Converting the ez build Stormcast is gonna be a pain in the DIIIIIIIICK especially once I get to the Retributor. I may just grab a loosy Liberator somewhere so I don't have to deal with those beefmen. mango sentinel fucked around with this message at 04:03 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
Mechanically it's still a bad game even if it is fast to play and streamlined. Most of the target values are arbitrary and unnecessary and can be simplified into a single roll, but because of cargo cult game design there's still a to hit and to wound roll made before the to save. The D6 isn't granular enough to represent the range of power levels in the game, so they had to create a two tiered system not totally unlike Palladium's SDC and MDC weapons, and if you are adjacent to the same design space as Kevin Siembieda, you're doing something wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Mechanically it's still a bad game even if it is fast to play and streamlined. Most of the target values are arbitrary and unnecessary and can be simplified into a single roll, but because of cargo cult game design there's still a to hit and to wound roll made before the to save. The D6 isn't granular enough to represent the range of power levels in the game, so they had to create a two tiered system not totally unlike Palladium's SDC and MDC weapons, and if you are adjacent to the same design space as Kevin Siembieda, you're doing something wrong. I don't mind there being multiple rolls to kill somthing. If there was only a hit and save roll everything would die too easily.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I don't mind there being multiple rolls to kill somthing. If there was only a hit and save roll everything would die too easily. uhhhh no, that's not what that means at all. If you have to roll a 3+ and then 4+ to wound and then they get a 5+ save, that's not statistically different from you just having to make a single 5+ roll to wound and then they get a 5+ to save. The probabilities are identical. (.66 x .5 = .33) Of course it's not as granular, you can't replicate all of the combinations of one d6 roll followed by a second d6 roll if the first one succeeded, with just one d6. But this is easily solved by rolling a die with more sides. If you wanted to you could go through all of your units in age of sigmar, find the probability of their wounding as a percentage, and then just roll d%. And an even better option is to roll two or more dice and add them together because that gives you a probability curve, and you can do all kinds of interesting game design things with probability curves. GW even makes a game that takes advantage of that fact: blood bowl. But the thing that most people complain about here is not just the completely unnecessary "roll against one target and then roll successes again against another target" - it's the fact both of those target numbers are determined by the attacker. In other words, whatever the likelihood a given unit has of causing wounds, is the same regardless of who they're attacking. The only thing the target affects is the save roll (plus any special abilities tacked on). This is different from how it was in warhammer fantasy, where attacker and defender compared stats to find the target numbers needed. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 06:18 on May 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 06:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:But the thing that most people complain about here is not just the completely unnecessary "roll against one target and then roll successes again against another target" - it's the fact both of those target numbers are determined by the attacker. In other words, whatever the likelihood a given unit has of causing wounds, is the same regardless of who they're attacking. The only thing the target affects is the save roll (plus any special abilities tacked on). Though the former is easier. Less checking for stuff. But I can understand liking it better the other way. 40k 8th ed seems to be going for to hit is determined by attacker, wound is determined by difference between attackers strength and defenders toughness.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 06:47
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Though the former is easier. Less checking for stuff. But I can understand liking it better the other way. "Easier" is such a weird thing to say here because it's literally, "What's your defense value?" and your opponent either knows it because he knows the stats of the units he brought or checks his warscrolls. Either way, there has to be communication between the two of you. It's the difference between saying, "These are my target values," after you check and him saying, "Here is your target value," after he checks. In fact, you're actually saving time and making things easier because you're just eliminating the to wound roll and combining it with the save roll. Whenever I read these supposed "pluses" of AoS, things like "you only have to know the stats of your units", it sounds to me like what they're actually saying is, "We know you don't want to interact with another human being any more than is absolutely necessary, so we'll make sure that you can basically play your half of the game without ever speaking to your opponent." It's not like other games require you to know the stats of your units and your opponent's units. That's why people have printed sheets and we have mouths and ears.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:"Easier" is such a weird thing to say here because it's literally, "What's your defense value?" and your opponent either knows it because he knows the stats of the units he brought or checks his warscrolls. Either way, there has to be communication between the two of you. It's the difference between saying, "These are my target values," after you check and him saying, "Here is your target value," after he checks. That's a dark way to look at it. Also previously you would have to look at a chart unless you memorized it while confirming stuff with your opponent, now you just need to look at one number. So yes it's easier now. Yes things could be changed to make it even simpler but I don't think thats really needed. And as I said I don't think wound and save rolls should be combined. I prefer three chances to two.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:I prefer three chances to two. It's the same chance though, just you roll more dice to find this out. I agree there is an optics thing where some people look at it and go 'oh, because three dice are rolled I have better chances!' but that's not true at all in the underlying maths.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That's a dark way to look at it. See my original post about "streamlined" not being the same as "good mechanics". Yes, stat comparison charts are poo poo and moving away from that is on the whole a good thing, it's just that GW did it about the worst way they could and I can think of no other reason for doing so except so that they wouldn't have identical mechanics to Kings of War. But instead of doing something unique and interesting to get away from copying Kings of War, they just did basically the same thing but worse. And as Cthulhu Dreams said, rolling more dice doesn't improve or change the odds. It just slows the pace of the game down. You could have identical statistics with a combined roll.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
We could also get rid of all dice, and just have them inflict wounds. I think one reason play GW games is buckets of dice.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 10:08
|
|
|
dexefiend posted:Brettonia isnt gone... they just now eat Flesh. I kind of wish they'd rolled with that more when modelling the ghouls though; the basic Abhorrent Ghoul King model looks a little meh, and I think giving them tattered capes, scraps of armour, heraldry of flayed corpses etc would have made em look a whole lot cooler.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
I would love to see someone saw a Brettonian army in half lengthwise, and do the same with an army of flesh eaters. Then glue them together with mirrors in between, the length of the base. So from one side of the table yoj have Brettonians, and the other you have ghouls. It is an impossible dream.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Hidingo Kojimba posted:I kind of wish they'd rolled with that more when modelling the ghouls though; the basic Abhorrent Ghoul King model looks a little meh, and I think giving them tattered capes, scraps of armour, heraldry of flayed corpses etc would have made em look a whole lot cooler. That would have involved too much forward planning. The Ghouls were produced a long time before the current fluff of them being Brettonians.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Cthulhu Dreams posted:It's the same chance though, just you roll more dice to find this out. I agree there is an optics thing where some people look at it and go 'oh, because three dice are rolled I have better chances!' but that's not true at all in the underlying maths. We posted about this on the death thread but in the end you're making games for humans and humans have this insatiable lust for visceral randomization. People like to feel like they can affect their destiny with random odds. I personally don't in this aspect and can have a computer or other person roll for me, but I also recognize I have weird superstitions about dice. I pair them together with a specific list because I believe the dice have affinity for their games. It's stupid and silly but it's no different than people thinking they have a "choice" in the matter of rolling well vs rolling poorly.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Having three different steps for anything to actually happen does give your granulatity because you can incrementally juice each step with buffs/debuffs/rend to marginally tweak odds. It's still way messier than rolling a single, bigger die or a number of other solutions but it doesn't quite just boil down to "these three sets of rolls are pointless."
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Having three different steps for anything to actually happen does give your granulatity because you can incrementally juice each step with buffs/debuffs/rend to marginally tweak odds. It's still way messier than rolling a single, bigger die or a number of other solutions but it doesn't quite just boil down to "these three sets of rolls are pointless." No, but two of them being separate is pointless. Remember, the stats are all coming from your side, so combining the two into a single roll and then combining the buffs ends up being exactly the same statistically. The granularity is imaginary.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:No, but two of them being separate is pointless. Remember, the stats are all coming from your side, so combining the two into a single roll and then combining the buffs ends up being exactly the same statistically. The granularity is imaginary. It's not "pointless". A 3+ then 4+ might be the same thing as rolling a single 5+ but there are many other combinations possible. You conveniently picked one combination that does have a statistical equivalent.There is no single dice equivalent for a 2+/2+, or a 4+/4+. You complain about a lack of granularity and want to reduce the granularity further?? You're also not accounting for the massive amount of modifiers in the game like +bonuses and rerolls, which further increase the granularity and need for granularity. AOS is a game built on unit synergy; you only do naked rolls when you are playing the game wrong. There are a lot of valid criticisms of AOS but "3 dice rolling is bad because it's too granular" is not one of them
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
I hope we don't have to belabor the point. It's a clear flaw in the game, but it's not a huge deal in play. To me, it's more interesting as a point of evidence on the heap that age of sigmar was designed by someone who didn't really understand game design, or at least, wasn't familiar with non-gw game designs. More novel, and to me more ugly, are all the weird measurement and piling in rules.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Pawl posted:It's not "pointless". A 3+ then 4+ might be the same thing as rolling a single 5+ but there are many other combinations possible. You conveniently picked one combination that does have a statistical equivalent.There is no single dice equivalent for a 2+/2+, or a 4+/4+. I didn't pick an example, not sure where you got that from. No one is arguing about a game being too granular or not granular enough. We're arguing that it's a massive waste of time to roll buckets of dice when other games have found much simpler ways of doing it. The flaw is in trying to use the D6 to represent granularity, not in trying to have granularity. And we proposed solutions: 1) Using 2DX for rolls instead of a series of D6 rolls because that produces a curve 2) Taking your 5+/2+ or 3+/6+ rolls and converting them into single D% rolls You could still keep most of your modifiers, though you might have to tweak them. But the bigger problem was that the game's granularity cannot actually be supported by D6 rolls even with the system as presented. They had to implement mortal wounds to have an entirely different scale of D6 rolls within those constraints.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I hope we don't have to belabor the point. It's a clear flaw in the game, but it's not a huge deal in play. To me, it's more interesting as a point of evidence on the heap that age of sigmar was designed by someone who didn't really understand game design, or at least, wasn't familiar with non-gw game designs. Exactly this. As I said, its design seems done to be specifically "not be the same as Kings of War". It's certainly not game breaking. It's certainly faster than Warhammer was if you hadn't memorized the charts (and honestly we all had). It's just not a particularly good system for what it's trying to do.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I hope we don't have to belabor the point. It's a clear flaw in the game, but it's not a huge deal in play. To me, it's more interesting as a point of evidence on the heap that age of sigmar was designed by someone who didn't really understand game design, or at least, wasn't familiar with non-gw game designs. I dunno what WHFB rolls looked like but the Hit/Wound/Save thing seems core to the idea of Warhammer as a game these days and even though they blew up the setting people loved, they found that mechanic too precious to replace. I also find the billions of different kind of movement needlessly complicated and confusing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2017 16:40
|
|