|
TheChirurgeon posted:If you want to play in any kind of structured environment, yeah. The basic rulebook stuff only covers the game rules, and doesn't cover unit/faction rules, though models come with those now (it isn't enough to really play on long-term). You basically still need to buy a codex for your army. Though this shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone, since GW was talking about Codexes coming back before the new edition came out. At the very least you should get a PDF code for free or a steep discount when you buy a physical copy.
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Crossposting my attempt at a cover fix/houserule from the other thread:The Bee posted:Maybe it could be "Models outside of cover get wound allocation priority. Then models with cover, gaining the benefits of a cover save. If this would make attacks miss, then the attacks miss. Finally, models that are not legal targets (whether due to LoS or range) cannot be damaged, unless by Flamer and Explosive weapons." This way, for example, you could cycle a wounded bigmarine into cover and have his battle brothers cover for him. It would also make wound allocation a simple chain of priorities instead of an overly complex system. Finally, it allows unit leaders to actually be picked off if positioned poorly instead of always being the last model standing. What do you guys think? Any glaring flaws in it I didn't notice? Also, completely agreed that physical should cone with digital. I mean, gently caress, it's 2017.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Crossposting my attempt at a cover fix/houserule from the other thread: How is wound allocation complex? The player taking wounds picks, unless a model already has a wound, then that model gets it. I probably wouldn't use your houserule, but then I don't mind how cover works right now--it's primarily for infantry, and it's generally based around being on an area of terrain. Plus, my group generally plays with enough LOS-blocking terrain that it isn't generally some huge issue, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
It currently isn't complex at all, but some people in both threads were annoyed by that not making sense or figuring it made cover less useful. After all, it is a little silly that a marine squad can have four marines behind a building and one sticking out from it, only to have the four hidden ones drop dead of sympathy pains when the exposed marine is shot up. Or how a marine in a forest gets a cover save, and a marine behind a hill gets full LOS blockage, but put the two together and they're both as good as fully exposed. I was trying to brainstorm on how to make cover more useful without making wound allocation too complex as a result, and figured just adapting the same priority rules used for injured models would be easier than giving the whole system an upheaval. The Bee fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
They didn't even include how to deploy in the "core rules". It was a really poor idea to make free rules a huge deal. The indexes definitely should have been free too, but gw gotta turn a buck on everything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
muggins posted:They didn't even include how to deploy in the "core rules". It was a really poor idea to make free rules a huge deal. The indexes definitely should have been free too, but gw gotta turn a buck on everything. Deployment is covered by the mission (and there are now new rules for deployment in the symmetrical missions where one player chooses which deployment map to use). The core rules come with a single mission that covers how to deploy for it, basically splitting the table into halves and requiring you be more than 12" from an enemy unit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
I missed that one mission page, then. Still doesn't change that 'free core rules' was misleading and really shouldn't have been done. I'm over it, but it seems like new GW definitely still has old habits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I mean, this is just another wording of the "gentleman's agreement" stuff, it's GW's go-to idea for how you're supposed to handle the fact that they can't be bothered to write functional rules I think the real problem is that the people who are more interested in "casual gaming" often don't understand that having "competitive" rules is better for everyone in the end. I get the feeling that GW, even when it was "old good GW", was writing from the perspective of gaming as a hobby where friends got together to tell emergent stories, have a few laughs, and not take anything too seriously. There's nothing wrong with this approach to gaming, but it's a terrible approach to writing rules. If the rules are well constructed, you can play a fair game without any house-ruling or negotiation. And if the players aren't happy with how things are turning out on the battlefield for whatever reason, they're totally free to bend the rules or have a do over or just declare that something different than what is "supposed" to happen happened. Just because something has tight tournament rules doesn't mean you can't ignore those rules outside of a tournament setting. So ultimately you're right and I agree with the point you're making, but I do think it's important to understand the mindset that GW is frequently writing from and the impact that this has had overall on the industry. They're not necessarily "wrong" to write rules the way they do, but they do end up being imperfect or flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I think the real problem is that the people who are more interested in "casual gaming" often don't understand that having "competitive" rules is better for everyone in the end. I get the feeling that GW, even when it was "old good GW", was writing from the perspective of gaming as a hobby where friends got together to tell emergent stories, have a few laughs, and not take anything too seriously. There's nothing wrong with this approach to gaming, but it's a terrible approach to writing rules. If the rules are well constructed, you can play a fair game without any house-ruling or negotiation. And if the players aren't happy with how things are turning out on the battlefield for whatever reason, they're totally free to bend the rules or have a do over or just declare that something different than what is "supposed" to happen happened. Just because something has tight tournament rules doesn't mean you can't ignore those rules outside of a tournament setting. yeah other than what it means to say someone is "wrong" I'm sure we more or less agree here
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
I guess I'm saying that it's wrong in the sense that if I'm paying money for a product, I want it to be a complete product that doesn't necessitate me fixing it every time some little thing comes up. This is why I look at old GW rules as "of their time" and haven't spent any money on rereleases of flawed rules like SWA or Blood Bowl. But it's not wrong in some broader moral sense. You can write rules however you want and if your design philosophy and intent are clear it doesn't really matter how comprehensive the rules are. I think GW wishes that everyone knew their games were at best a framework and they're really not intended for anything more than facilitating a story of the players' creation, but they can't or won't come right out and say that. So you have this really toxic culture that has grown up around their games, both internally on the development side and externally on the hobbyist side, where everyone is either pretending or convinced that the rules do exactly what they need to and nothing needs any work and you're crazy for suggesting otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2017 00:13
|
|
|
I just got a pile of free minis from Ral Partha. The guy running it seems like a decent enough fellow.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 11:18
|
|
|
The problem at least used to be that Games Workshop heavily encouraged tournament play which is dramatically at odds with their style of weak rules writing. The worst experiences I had with the hobby were when prizes were on the line and people were using broken lists that relied on untested rule books or I had to be the rear end in a top hat that explained to people that the way they played back in their local club was wrong and that the rules didn't work the way they expected. I think one time I had to call a judge over five times because the dude was just playing incorrectly so many times since his local scene had interpreted the rules poorly and finally I just gave up because it wasn't worth it. Another time a guy got so mad at me questioning his rules interpretations (which somehow always gave him an advantage and he was right one out of seven or so times I asked for a rules judgement) he told the judges afterwards I had an illegal army list in an attempt to get me banned for life from that particular tournament. In addition they also had 'ard Boyz which was supposed to be back breaking lists run by grognards which always resulted in even more rules arguments. They've since gotten rid of a lot of that support and kinda leaned into the "let's goof off with friends" angle which I think much more aligns with their style of rules writing and army balancing. Having to constantly get people to verify rules in competitive tournaments because they are written for casual play (and consequently the casual nature of the game results in people learning the rules wrong and never getting corrected until they run up against people that actually read the book) is terrible. People trying to game the rules and get stuff by other players in GW tournaments was a huge reason I just stopped bothering with them. When I moved on to just being a rules judge for tournaments I saw this from the other side and how one person always got kinda screwed when something worked how they didn't expect it and it was just as irritating. I really support GW just leaning in to making the game just something fun for its fans (my friends that still play really like it) rather than trying to have official tournaments with a game that isn't really designed for it. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
A lot of the reason why I keep seeing 40k take 4 hours to set up and play a game is that at least a solid hour of that is devoted to looking up rules. Looking back at it now, I can't believe i used to put up with that myself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
'Ard Boyz was actually awesome but everyone who knew what was up knew it was a joke from the beginning and treated it as such. It literally spawned an IG army called 'The Leafblower'
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
'Ard Boys was fun just to make the most broken stuff and not give a crap since it was so silly. My friend ran that dumb Chaos list where you abuse the chaos altars and just reroll craps dice until you get an unkillable deathstar. People incorrectly thought that Thorek was broken enough to run in 'Ard Boys (the real busted stuff at the time was Lizardmen MSU, Demons, and high elf Dragons) and I had to beat three of his armies in a qualifying tournament in a row. Yeah in 40k the leaf blower was real dumb just watching armies get shot off the board.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Radish posted:I really support GW just leaning in to making the game just something fun for its fans (my friends that still play really like it) rather than trying to have official tournaments with a game that isn't really designed for it. Also people being assholes is exacerbated by imbalanced rules, not discouraged by it. 40k has the worst player base of any tabletop game bar adults who still play Yu-gi-oh and Nazi players in WW2 games.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I don't have a problem with fun rules, but actually fun rules also tend to be better balanced rules. Same way I'm okay with cartoons being for kids, but if I need to watch said cartoon while looking after my cousins I'd prefer it was well written. You're exactly correct of course. It's better to start with solid rules and then let people change them as they see fit than to start with vague or broken rules and tell players that they're the masters of their own domain. But as I said earlier, it's much less of a problem when the writer is allowed to explain his intent and design philosophy. If there's a big warning label on page one that says something like, "These rules are at best guidelines, they are not intended for competitive or balanced play, you're going to have to fill in the gaps yourself or make tweaks to account for the scenarios and lists that you come up with that we could never have predicted," than that goes a long way towards tempering player expectations. GW very nearly went that route with AoS, but they ran into a serious problem. Their whales actually wanted competitive rules and erroneously believed that past editions were perfectly adequate and that current GW was capable of writing them. GW then had to do a 180 in design philosophy without actually addressing any of the problems that make competitive play impossible in AoS and slapped a points value onto everything so that their customer base would stop whining and would go back to throwing money away.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Yeah I totally agree writing actually good solid rules is best since it results in few discrepancies and people go in knowing what their stuff is going to do without having to make a legal argument mid game. I don't agree at all with the people that think a really weak ruleset is more fun because to me it just results in arguments as very few people really don't care at all about winning, especially Games Workshop fans. If GW is going to sell their game as just goofing around with your models and the rules are intended to be a framework to enact your narrative since if you go in knowing that it's on you then it's somewhat more excusable but you can't do that and then also encourage tight competitive play.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:39 on Jul 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
It absolutely leads to arguments and misinterpretations, on top of the actual design imbalances that result from that outlook. It's very similar to the kinds of problems you see in D&D style RPGs. You can write a tight rules set and not worry about using that as a selling point, and use your product line and product support to emphasis narrative-heavy playstyles. S.J. fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I totally agree writing actually good solid rules is best since it results in few discrepancies and people go in knowing what their stuff is going to do without having to make a legal argument mid game. I don't agree at all with the people that think a really weak ruleset is more fun because to me it just results in arguments as very few people really don't care at all about winning, especially Games Workshop fans. If GW is going to sell their game as just goofing around with your models and the rules are intended to be a framework to enact your narrative since if you go in knowing that it's on you then it's somewhat more excusable but you can't do that and then also encourage tight competitive play. Agreed. I think the narrative mission types, which are more about evoking a feeling than ensuring cutting-edge competitve play, do this well. The horrorshow that their point system became? Not nearly as effective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
I'm watching a DBMM tournament. 45 minutes into the round and people are still rolling dice to determine the effects of weather. I think one table has started moving bases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
Sign me up
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
I just read a synopsis of 8th edition on 1D4chan. Is it me or is it just shuffling chairs on the titanic? Rules wise there doesn't seem to be any coherent design philosophy. Instead it seems just to be reheating past elements they already discarded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread
Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Jul 16, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I just read a synopsis of 8th edition on 1D4chan. Is it me or is it just shuffling chairs on the titanic? Rules wise there doesn't seem to be any coherent design philosophy. Instead it seems just to be reheating past elements they already discarded. A lot of people felt this way when they started talking about Overwatch coming back and early descriptions of close combat sounding an awful lot like 2e/Necromunda. I think the game plays differently than those early descriptions though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I just read a synopsis of 8th edition on 1D4chan. Is it me or is it just shuffling chairs on the titanic? Rules wise there doesn't seem to be any coherent design philosophy. Instead it seems just to be reheating past elements they already discarded. Sort of? There is, to no surprise, still some serious bullshit in the game and lots of unplayable garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
But apparently nids are good again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:But apparently nids are good again. We'll see when their codex comes out 
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
S.J. posted:We'll see when their codex comes out The Tyranid codex comes out, reverts Instinctual Behavior to its original form, and includes a pinup of Cruddace laughing in our faces.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
At least I was finally able to offload my termaguants.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
If this isn't death thread material i don't know what is. http://www.spartangames.co.uk/spartan-games Spartan Games posted:The following statement is issued today, Friday 25th August 2017.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
I liked Spartan's minis and the Dystopian setting, but this news is totally unsurprising to me. It always seemed like they could never focus on a project and would make a new game, half-complete its model line, then let it sit around gathering dust while they made another new game and maybe revisit the first one many, many months later. I was especially frustrated with the fact that Dystopian Legions got one big launch, withered on the vine, got another, smaller batch of minis that was mostly two new factions with barebones model lines.... and then never got anything else despite being the factions in the new 2-player starter set. It's almost like having five or six half-baked product lines is not a good way to run a company! Hopefully a less clown-shoes operation will pick up the games.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:But apparently nids are good again. Not really. The monsters are suffering, and without lascannon/melta they do suffer heavily against mid/heavy tanks. Though if you play them with heaps of infantry and mindlessly try to get everything you have in your opponents face they do fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
Hormagaunts are good, but the faction as a whole isn't. Same with Orks. Regular boyz/stormboyz are pretty good, the rest is kinda trash.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:I liked Spartan's minis and the Dystopian setting, but this news is totally unsurprising to me. Pretty much. I get the feeling that people have been losing confidence in Spartans ability to support their new games so are looking elsewhere. It sounds like the ill health of a director led to them shutting down before the money totally ran out. I guess they have been struggling to operate without him else they might have tried to keep it going a bit longer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
The guys at my FLGS are pretty upset to hear Spartan is going under. They'd actually managed to get a decent number of plays (by our standards) playing DW and you could regularly see a game being played on the weekends. We've been joking with with the owner that he should just buy the molds himself since it's gotta be pretty cheap to produce models in Thailand if the molds are already finished. I guess Tor went down this weekend too? I didn't know anything about those guys. LordAba posted:Not really. The monsters are suffering, and without lascannon/melta they do suffer heavily against mid/heavy tanks. All I can go by is what my friend in Myanmar says. But I'm guessing the local meta in Myanmar is a bit different than the rest of the planet since it's going to be based around what models people can get on the secondary market.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
FrostyPox posted:It's almost like having five or six half-baked product lines is not a good way to run a company! Hopefully a less clown-shoes operation will pick up the games. its worked for gw tho 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Hey, there is still a death thread!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Beerdeer posted:Hey, there is still a death thread! well, GW is still bad, so this checks out
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 02:31
|
|
