|
Moola posted:Pre the last Jedi I might have fought you I am sorry, my friend.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Mugaaz posted:Isn't the Alpha Strike in Infinity a good thing? There are so many missions that favor going last. I thought the entire struggle was supposed to be as the first active player that you *need* to alpha strike hard enough to nullify their ability to act last on the final turn and score objectives with units that would otherwise be immediately destroyed if the game went another round. It feel pretty fair to me. In a pure annihilation maybe not, but in scenario play alpha striking doesn't feel overpowered at all. In the case of scoring objective points in 40K, you usually do it at the end of your turn. This means you can score on an objective in your turn, only to have your opponent blast you off it, occupy it, and score on the same objective in his turn. Very few missions in Infinity score in the middle of the game, and of those that do they only score and the end of a game turn after both players have had an equal number of goes. There are merits and trade-offs of both ways, and I'm not sure which scoring method I like better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
If we’re talking activation, then I have opinions on some systems. Gaslands handles activation in two discrete units: turns and gear phases. Turns start in Gear 1, and each player activates a vehicle that can act in that phase before passing to the next player, until all vehicles are activated. This repeats for phases 2-6, then the “Player who activates first” token passes. Not all vehicles can get up to Gear 6, you’re restricted in which movement templates you can use based on what gear your vehicle is in, and so it becomes a risk/reward thing because you are required to move for every gear phase you can activate in. This Is Not A Test has model-to-model activation, with the twist that you roll to activate. Success, and you get your full actions. Fail, and you get one action, and play passes to your opponent. Key to this is that damage and conditions aren’t resolved until play passes: you could drop a ton of hits on a model, but you’re not sure if you’ve taken them out of action until you no longer can activate. That, plus the fact that models getting shot at can dive for cover if they fail a test, means that you’re usually pretty engaged based on the fact you could need to make a move based on a changing play field. I like both systems. They have their own quirks and bits that could be more intuitive, but they do their job very well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 02:35
|
|
|
BattleTech's initiative system is great, too bad it's dead!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 02:49
|
|
|
Battletech's initiative system is not great.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 03:03
|
|
|
Scrappers had a pretty good activation system. At the start of the turn you roll to see who has the initiative for the turn. This is a D10 roll plus your command value compared to your opponent's roll, rerolling ties. The player with initiative gets a number of action tokens equal to their command value plus 3. The loser just gets their command value in tokens. You alternate placing these tokens on models to determine which models will be able to act during the turn. After all tokens are placed, the player with initiative declares which model will act and removes their activation token. They then perform their action. The other player then does the same with one of their models. To balance the player with initiative having (potentially) more actions (depending on how many models they bring to the battle and how many have been killed), the player without initiative gets a single interrupt at any point during the turn. The player with initiative declares which model will act and do what, then the other player declares an interrupt and can activate a model as per normal. Then the player with initiative activates their model but may change the original action to respond to the results of the interrupt. No player can have initiative more than two turns in a row.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 03:09
|
|
|
Xarbala posted:Battletech's initiative system is not great. I think that team initiative is pretty flawed, but individual initiative is great for up to demi-company vs demi-company/binary vs binary level stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 03:11
|
|
|
Re: Runewars, the sheer ugliness of the bases is killing me. I mean I know it's a small thing and I should get past it but I just can't. Also how did no one mention X-wing for best game? We can quibble about FFG's actual ship design, but the basic mechanics are minis perfected- low model count, fast setup and tear down, long enough to be satisfying w/o taking too long, and the hidden movement challenges players in a way that almost no other game does. Oh, and now that FFG owns the L5R universe outright, they really ought to just shovel the whole Terrinoth universe into the dumpster where it belongs. smug jeebus fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Oct 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I am bored at work, so let's talk unit activation in wargames for a bit! I'm curious as to what you'd think of the activation system I'm working on, since you seem to know your games you might be able to give a quick insight (I should probably make a write-up for this in the Game Writing Workshop, but  ).Player A has 4 units in their army, player B has 2. Saying player A has first turn, they activate one unit (each unit may only be activated once per round), and the two players then alternate until a player has no more units to activate. Since player B has fewer, they will run out of units first. When it becomes Bs turn again and have no unit available to activate, the round immediately ends. This means A only got to activate 3 out of 4 of their units in their turn, but B got to use all of theirs (A-B-A-B-A-END). Since B ended the round, they gain priority. So assuming no units have been destroyed, the round will play out B-A-B-A-END (assuming no units are wiped out) My plan for this mechanic is to attempt to naturally reduce a player's desire to take as many tiny units as they can when building a list. An army with a few expensive units will always be able to activate all of them, but that has the obvious disadvantage of being one large target that can be outflanked or struggle to hold objectives. Standard sized games will also have far more units than the example I used. Does this sound interesting?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
StuG Jeebus posted:Re: Runewars, the sheer ugliness of the bases is killing me. I mean I know it's a small thing and I should get past it but I just can't. I think it is because 2nd edition came out recently and people are still debating the merits. First time I played Xwing, I felt like I was playing the perfect game. It went downhill quite a bit for me after that. I think it is the same problem as Warmahordes, where everything started feeling bloated and the individuality of any model or tactic vanished for me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 05:22
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:I'm curious as to what you'd think of the activation system I'm working on, since you seem to know your games you might be able to give a quick insight (I should probably make a write-up for this in the Game Writing Workshop, but It sounds interesting yeah, but it doesn't sound good at all. First of all, why is taking many tiny units bad? People start with these axioms and never explain why. Let's say you an bring a 100pts of units, I would try to bring one 100 point model. I'm effectively removing all of my opponents models except their best unit. Once I destroy their prime unit the game would be kind of over. His scruff is going to activate 1 for 1 with my uber unit. It seems super gamey. What do you gain from this rule?I don't see the benefit of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 05:28
|
|
|
Mugaaz posted:It sounds interesting yeah, but it doesn't sound good at all. First of all, why is taking many tiny units bad? People start with these axioms and never explain why. Let's say you an bring a 100pts of units, I would try to bring one 100 point model. I'm effectively removing all of my opponents models except their best unit. Once I destroy their prime unit the game would be kind of over. His scruff is going to activate 1 for 1 with my uber unit. It seems super gamey. What do you gain from this rule?I don't see the benefit of it. Thats a very good point. There are some army requirements for list building, so while you cant do exactly the one model army, if you push hard some of the factions could take very small, very powerful units (I know you were just using that as an example). I personally dislike many tiny units, as it just naturally slows down the gameplay. I'd rather have a player take one 20-man unit than four 5-man units, just because the 20-man will take a third the time to resolve. Also the game is designed for high damage output, so even the most expensive units can get massacred by a trash militia unit if the player manages to get a good flank going on. I like the idea of not-too-complicated alternating unit activations, but I don't want a moment where one team has run out of stuff to do and the other team just gets to go hog wild with all of their remaining models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 05:47
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:Thats a very good point. There are some army requirements for list building, so while you cant do exactly the one model army, if you push hard some of the factions could take very small, very powerful units (I know you were just using that as an example). I personally dislike many tiny units, as it just naturally slows down the gameplay. I'd rather have a player take one 20-man unit than four 5-man units, just because the 20-man will take a third the time to resolve. Also the game is designed for high damage output, so even the most expensive units can get massacred by a trash militia unit if the player manages to get a good flank going on. Feel like you could accomplish this with strict list building rules much better.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
Mugaaz posted:Feel like you could accomplish this with strict list building rules much better. So you'd recommend making it so the rules encourage players to always have around the same number of units, and having just alternating activation with nothing else special? Then a bit of a dump of activations at the end for the one player who has one or two extra units. That seems possible, but might restrict list building creativity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Seems like if I have a bunch more units than you that I can't always activate, I can still overwhelm you with numbers, so taking a bunch of tiny units is still obviously advantageous. You can't know round to round which units I'll activate so you can't simply ignore a group of units. If you turn to go after one flank, I'll just leave them be and send in a unit who can now hit you in the flank or rear and squash you even if they're a smaller unit. It's just designed to constantly force the smaller army into pincer attacks. Also, it feels like you're designing a game around your preferred style of play, not an actual game design philosophy. That's going to be a tough sell to players who like small units and aren't worried about minutes per activation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 09:42
|
|
|
Ilor posted:I think a lot depends on your play-style. Yes, going second can be a big advantage in certain scenarios, but a lot of that is predicated on being able to waltz in and flip the objectives in the very last turn. If the player who goes first plays very aggressively and sets up a ton of AROs on the objective(s) in his or her last turn, the player who goes second often has their work cut out for them. But if you're not playing an army that has strong ARO pieces, then yeah, killing a bunch of dudes off the bat is how you win objective-heavy missions. To further respond to this, I play Infinity competitively and generally I have pre-decided on whether I prefer to go first or second based on the mission. I think of that decision as being based on the scenario alone, but obviously I am looking at it from the perspective of my army. Many missions (IMO) reward the second player very heavily, to the extent that I will actively choose the second turn if I win the initial roll. [When beginning a game of Infinity, you roll off. The winner can determine the turn order (wanting to go first or second) OR he can pick his side of the table and determine deployment order (99% of the time this means forcing his opponent to deploy first, so he can look at what's opposing him and counter-deploy). Obviously going second and deploying first seems like a severe tactical disadvantage, but it can be worth it if being the second player is advantageous enough in the mission.] Some armies are built to take greater advantage of the first turn than mine are. Having a very powerful, mobile armoured unit, a TAG. Or having Impersonators, models that can sneak attack right up to your opponents lines. From the perspective of a competitive player going against other competitive players, you want some sort of tool(s) like that to have a good chance of gaining a decisive advantage by attacking hard in the first turn. Of course in missions where killing the opponent is a primary objective it's fine to go first, but it isn't a huge strength unless you have the tools to use it, especially since your opponent will be able to see the bulk of your deployment. Experienced players are usually far more likely to deploy most of their forces 'head down', forcing you to spend a lot of your precious first turn manoeuvring into position to attack them. This can then leave you exposed to a counter-attack that's equally or more devastating, since you've brought key units forward to threaten him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 13:22
|
|
|
StuG Jeebus posted:Re: Runewars, the sheer ugliness of the bases is killing me. I mean I know it's a small thing and I should get past it but I just can't. Jigsaw pegs killing it for you? It's a real shame you can't cut them off and replace them with magnets, because they definitely affect the game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:Also, it feels like you're designing a game around your preferred style of play, not an actual game design philosophy. That's going to be a tough sell to players who like small units and aren't worried about minutes per activation. Yeah, that's a fair point. I'll have to do a full write up for the game sometime when I have more time. It does sound like in hyper-focused on unit sizes, and I don't think that's the case (just is important for activation and turn order). Balancing units and factions was easy, balancing the game seems hard. Thanks anyway for the advice, it's been a while since I've worked on this game, and talking about it has re-ignited my passion for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 16:41
|
|
|
Weird that every game maker except GW is on the verge of death.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Weird how every game maker other than GW was thriving when GW was making GBS threads the bed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
nationalize GW
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:10
|
|
|
panascope posted:Weird that every game maker except GW is on the verge of death. Yeah nah I don’t think FFG is worrying
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:11
|
|
|
What happens when they lose the GW and Star Wars licenses, or get bought out by Hasbro? FFG is "pissing off one Disney executive" away from disaster at any time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:18
|
|
|
gently caress it let em get consumed by the Hasbro beast. Gimme that GI Joe VS Transformers game.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:27
|
|
|
Badablack posted:gently caress it let em get consumed by the Hasbro beast. Gimme that GI Joe VS Transformers game. Unironically
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:38
|
|
|
Imagined posted:What happens when they lose the GW and Star Wars licenses, or get bought out by Hasbro? FFG is "pissing off one Disney executive" away from disaster at any time. Didn’t they already lose the GW license? It didn’t hurt them too much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Imagined posted:What happens when they lose the GW and Star Wars licenses, or get bought out by Hasbro? FFG is "pissing off one Disney executive" away from disaster at any time. Didn’t they already lose GW? I thought that went to WizKids (lol)
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Yeah, Asmodee's teetering on the brink. Any day now, you betcha.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Didn’t they already lose GW? I thought that went to WizKids (lol) Yep. From the FFG Rogue Trader RPG now to 40k Dice Master
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Didn’t they already lose GW? I thought that went to WizKids (lol) GW took it away during their... upheaval... The biggest casualty was loving Fury of Dracula.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:46
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:GW took it away during their... upheaval... The biggest casualty was loving Fury of Dracula. I have yet to play that but, I bought it with the sweet store credit I got from offloading my warhams in 2016
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:56
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:GW took it away during their... upheaval... The biggest casualty was loving Fury of Dracula. Huh. I did not realize that was a GW license. I played the poo poo out of the 2006 edition. Is the 4th any different? It shows for sale on sites but doesn’t have much info anywhere and even the wiki article ignores it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:GW took it away during their... upheaval... The biggest casualty was loving
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:08
|
|
|
grassy gnoll posted:Yeah, Asmodee's teetering on the brink. Any day now, you betcha. Much like in God-Emperor of Dune, Asmodee unified all the game franchises so that on its death, they'll re-spread out to form a new golden age
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Paging Leperflesh to the thread https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6289819/Games-Workshop-raises-alarm-bells-blue-warning-trading-uncertainties.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh Leperflesh Leperflesh
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
poo poo's bad when private companies are dunking on the PM. https://twitter.com/GamesWerkshop/s...pagenumber%3D10
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:13
|
|
|
I really wish that was really GW's handle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:15
|
|
|
Days since someone fell for Games Werkshop Twitter account: 0
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Ilor posted:Days since someone fell for Games Werkshop Twitter account: 0 Oh poo poo, I never noticed the "e"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:33
|
|