|
(Edit: a more charitable alternative interpretation is that players enjoy the sheer spectacle of a mass of toys moving across the table; as this point however, like with purely social gaming events, the actual system used is ancillary, except for the memetic momentum that makes it a source of nerd glee and points of common reference.) Or, that 40K players are looking for a more satisfying experience of tactically complex decisions, and the only way to increase this in the tactically flat gamespace is to add more units for more possible interactions. This is problematic as I believe the actual complexity will only increase linearly, with tedium outpacing it. In the PoontifexMacksimus fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jun 5, 2017 |
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Not that this is the place for good faith arguing, but with SW:A GW now has a reasonable path for a player to start with a small force and grow an army. You can buy an infantry box, make an SW:A team, then add a start collecting box and have a small army, then fill it out with other stuff until you're at a full sized army. There's a logical progression that was totally absent a few years ago. I do appreciate that GW is making steps in this area. It's pretty good from a business perspective and its way less intimidating than looking at a big "start collecting" box or tables crammed with models. It's how Mantic got me to buy Deadzone stuff to go up to FireFight. (although I hear Warpath isn't great). anti_strunt posted:If people have the same toys they had before, why should they suddenly want to play with fewer of them? If they wanted shorter games, why didn't they play smaller games? The first point is pretty good and I can't think of an incentive for smaller games people would take up on, as there's plenty of skirmish games already and they're not playing 40K for those.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:Well it's an interesting situation since the trend since 3rd edition is that every new edition point values have gone down, not up. And ever since 2nd 1500- 2000 point games have been the staple so it bears to be seen which way the game will go. Well, at the end of the day, the size of the games will be decided by what people want out of it... and they will pick the size they think meets their needs for either spectacle or tactical complexity. PoontifexMacksimus fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Jun 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
I can't believe Games Workshop died.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Not that this is the place for good faith arguing, but with SW:A GW now has a reasonable path for a player to start with a small force and grow an army. You can buy an infantry box, make an SW:A team, then add a start collecting box and have a small army, then fill it out with other stuff until you're at a full sized army. There's a logical progression that was totally absent a few years ago. Yeah this is good I think - there's a definite Thing You Can Do with your models that didn't used to exist before until you had like 1k minimum. Combat Patrol or 40k in 40 Minutes or whatever didn't have that, because it was very obviously not the proper game and there's only so many things you can restrict before you're telling people outright "bring 2 Troops and 1 HQ and nothing else."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Not that this is the place for good faith arguing, but with SW:A GW now has a reasonable path for a player to start with a small force and grow an army. You can buy an infantry box, make an SW:A team, then add a start collecting box and have a small army, then fill it out with other stuff until you're at a full sized army. There's a logical progression that was totally absent a few years ago.  this is cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:Well, at the end of the day, the size of the games will be decided by what people want out of it... and they will pick they think meets their needs for either spectacle or tactical complexity. I think points costs naturally balloon because people want to stuff in all their toys while still including a complete, balanced army- it's not necessarily a "spectacle" thing or a "tactical complexity" thing. I only really play 30k but some of my closest and most enjoyable games came at 1500 points- we had enough points to include a complete balanced force or a viable skew, but you can't cover all your bases and also stuff in a primarch or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:Not that this is the place for good faith arguing But yeah, having this progression of various viable game sizes is definitely a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Yeah I never got why they did that. The whole AOS release was some monumentally badly handled poo poo. It was the high point of Kirby's 'rules don't matter' policy. It also coincided with the studio having lost people like Alessio, Rick and a bunch of others. There was no plan to carry on Fantasy Battle, and they literally couldn't think of where to take the game after the shitfest that was 8th edition, which had killed the popularity of the system through giant units and poor support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Yeah I have no opinion on SW:A's rules, I haven't read them or whatever, but one of my first complaints about GW back int he first iteration of the death thread was their bizarre allergy to having a straightforward entry point to the game. SW:A is long overdue but it seems to be exactly what I was asking for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
SW:A is 2nd edition kill team. Such a weird release.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I think points costs naturally balloon because people want to stuff in all their toys while still including a complete, balanced army- it's not necessarily a "spectacle" thing or a "tactical complexity" thing. I only really play 30k but some of my closest and most enjoyable games came at 1500 points- we had enough points to include a complete balanced force or a viable skew, but you can't cover all your bases and also stuff in a primarch or whatever. Yup I think it's mostly this. I've spent money on all these different units and spent a lot more time painting them up, of course I want to play in a game where I can bring them all out on the table at once! If you only play twice a year, even more so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
Eh, i've never been a fan of super large games. Even if i get to play rarely i'd rather have two short games at a size where the system shines than one giant slog.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:Classy opening. I mean this is the thread where GW games take 4 hours to play, mantic sculpts look great, infinity isn't utterly infused with creepy sexualization, it's easy to find a frostgrave/dark age/random osprey game opponent, all rulebooks are free and warmahordes is cheap.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I mean this is the thread where GW games take 4 hours to play, mantic sculpts look great, infinity isn't utterly infused with creepy sexualization, it's easy to find a frostgrave/dark age/random osprey game opponent, all rulebooks are free and warmahordes is cheap. shook af if true
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I mean this is the thread where GW games take 4 hours to play, mantic sculpts look great, infinity isn't utterly infused with creepy sexualization, it's easy to find a frostgrave/dark age/random osprey game opponent, all rulebooks are free and warmahordes is cheap. I'm the creepy sexualization
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:Eh, i've never been a fan of super large games. Even if i get to play rarely i'd rather have two short games at a size where the system shines than one giant slog. Oh I'm not saying it's a good idea to have these huge games. It's just a natural inclination when you've collected a lot of dudes for the game. The design problem then, might be offering too many different unit options for each faction. If your space marines only had maybe like six different possible units, you would maybe be less tempted to try to play a game where you have 150 models on the table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I think points costs naturally balloon because people want to stuff in all their toys while still including a complete, balanced army- it's not necessarily a "spectacle" thing or a "tactical complexity" thing. I only really play 30k but some of my closest and most enjoyable games came at 1500 points- we had enough points to include a complete balanced force or a viable skew, but you can't cover all your bases and also stuff in a primarch or whatever. So, if average points costs went up by X% and you wanted to field the same model collection with same amount of choice in forces, you'd probably just shrug and raise the points of your games by X%?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
tallkidwithglasses posted:I mean this is the thread where GW games take 4 hours to play, it's easy to find a frostgrave/dark age/random osprey game opponent, all rulebooks are free and warmahordes is cheap. Those are both true  like holy poo poo if you think posters are making it up just to post 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:So, if average points costs went by X%, if you wanted to field your models and have the same amount of choice in forces, you'd probably just shrug and raise the point level of your games by X%, yes? Me, personally? Nah. Like I said, my personal favorite games have been smaller anyway and I like the challenge of coming up with a list that has to acknowledge resource limitations. Big games where everyone throws all their expensive models on the table are a fun once a year thing but for my regular 2-3 times a month games I like switching between a variety of smaller lists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Oh I'm not saying it's a good idea to have these huge games. It's just a natural inclination when you've collected a lot of dudes for the game. The design problem then, might be offering too many different unit options for each faction. If your space marines only had maybe like six different possible units, you would maybe be less tempted to try to play a game where you have 150 models on the table. Infinity has like a hundred different dudes per side though (for all their minor variations in loadout and specialisations) yet I've never heard of anyone trying to play a 2000 point game just to field their entire display cabinet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Those are both true I've never had a GW game take more than 3 hours, plenty of companies still charge for rulebooks, PP models aren't cheap at all and you need two 75 point non-overlapping lists to have a chance in the default tournament format, and I've played all over the region (which probably has one of the largest, most active tabletop scenes in the US) and have yet to see people playing pickup games of frostgrave or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
anti_strunt posted:Infinity has like a hundred different dudes per side though (for all their minor variations in loadout and specialisations) yet I've never heard of anyone trying to play a 2000 point game just to field their entire display cabinet. same with X-wing I have loads of wangs but I'd never want to play some massive epic game with all my models gimme quick cool skirmish games please
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Man, I don't play regularly, but just thinking about it, an Armageddon-sized Infinity game would be some absurd, degenerate poo poo. Imagine resolving a 40K bowling green gunline exchange with Infinity rules...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
panascope posted:I can't believe Games Workshop died. and on the way back to its home planet no less
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Moola posted:same with X-wing Same. Actually my favorite thing about X-Wing is that it's played on a 3x3 table, so it fits perfectly on the table I have in my kitchen with some room left over on the sides for models
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
can you play SWA on a 2x2 board? I like the sound of it but when I look it up people are using big stupid regular size 40k boards...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
You can play with your toys however you want 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
but wont GW be mad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Moola posted:same with X-wing  I have all sorts of painted ships but at wanting to play epic games because "bigger is better."tallkidwithglasses posted:I've never had a GW game take more than 3 hours, plenty of companies still charge for rulebooks, PP models aren't cheap at all and you need two 75 point non-overlapping lists to have a chance in the default tournament format, and I've played all over the region (which probably has one of the largest, most active tabletop scenes in the US) and have yet to see people playing pickup games of frostgrave or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Moola posted:but wont GW be mad? Why do you care? GW isnt even your real dad
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Moola posted:but wont GW be mad? If I were to play with pirated rules using Chinese recasts painted with Vallejo, would I even be playing 40K...? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Moola posted:can you play SWA on a 2x2 board? Yeah, probably, though I suspect it'd be too small. 3x3 would work, though. As-is, I play SW:A on a 4x4 which isn't bad, but still requires I break out the 2x4 planks to put over my table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Why do you care? GW isnt even your real dad 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
You could probably get away with playing SW:A on a 3x3 board. I'm not sure what the standard points limits are for it but considering it's one box of whatever troops you like, you could do that pretty easily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:14
|
|
|
Why do you think you need non-overlapping lists in Warmahordes? As a Minions player, I really miss having list overlap when I play a pig caster and a gator caster, but overlap between lists on the same side of the divide is HUGE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Moola posted:who cares? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Q7CcINC8M
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Why do you think you need non-overlapping lists in Warmahordes? As a Minions player, I really miss having list overlap when I play a pig caster and a gator caster, but overlap between lists on the same side of the divide is HUGE. Because you don't want your lists to effectively get countered by the same thing. I play Khador pretty casually so my perspective is definitely skewed by that, but I wouldn't take two jack spam lists to a tournament- I'd probably take one jack spam list and then winter guard or something, to force my opponent to choose between a jack-destroying list or an infantry-killing list. I'm not a super great or involved player though, so maybe a lot of factions can run basically the same list with different warcasters. It sounds like you don't have overlap either though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
I regularly duplicate upwards of half my lists for a steamroller, and Minions is the worse faction for duplicating except maybe Mercs because of the Pig/Gator divide.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
warmachine doesnt sound fun
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2017 21:46
|
|