|
Crackbone posted:Have they revealed any more of their fantastic new ruleset? Yes, more information can be found in this illustrious document https://www.games-workshop.com/en-GB/Age-of-Sigmar-Generals-Handbook-ENG
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Crackbone posted:Have they revealed any more of their fantastic new ruleset? Well, they confirmed you don't have randomized initiative order every time, so already 40k is way more of a stable game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
To me mortal wounds is just a redundant mechanic because saves shouldn't exist. The attacker determines the hit value and the defender determines the wound. Then wounds are allocated. Multiple games use this and it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
Something has to be done about the number of save rolls in 40k. Insta-hit death wounds might not be the best solution but it's better than 3+++/2+++/A+++++ would save again nonsense. Give them more wounds with less evasion if they're going for that. Lol AH beat me to it
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
Yeah, I do agree that having both a save and a toughness roll is very redundant, especially with this update implying that invulnerable saves are still there. It's probably the one element of the system that worries me most so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:To me mortal wounds is just a redundant mechanic because saves shouldn't exist. The attacker determines the hit value and the defender determines the wound. Then wounds are allocated. Multiple games use this and it's fine. I tend to agree, though semantically I like 'saves' more than 'wounding' because rolling saves/defense/evasion for your dudes makes you feel more like you have a hand in whether they live or die (that it's random doesn't matter). Would have preferred to see saves + wounding piled into a single roll, though I suspect doing that well probably would have required moving away from only using D6s
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:To me mortal wounds is just a redundant mechanic because saves shouldn't exist. The attacker determines the hit value and the defender determines the wound. Then wounds are allocated. Multiple games use this and it's fine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I tend to agree, though semantically I like 'saves' more than 'wounding' because rolling saves/defense/evasion for your dudes makes you feel more like you have a hand in whether they live or die (that it's random doesn't matter). Would have preferred to see saves + wounding piled into a single roll, though I suspect doing that well probably would have required moving away from only using D6s Well it's a would roll in Kings of War because one of the design philosophies of the game is that the defending player does nothing on the attacker's turn. This is boring, but also speeds up play considerably since the attacker makes two rolls to damage the unit and then what's effectively a leadership roll to try to rout it. Warpath makes this less dull by having alternating activations rather than a full I go you go system.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Bistromatic posted:Instead of having the attacker do two rolls you can also skip the damage roll and let the defender do an armour roll. Dropfleet does it like that and i'm pretty fond of it so far. You lose a bit of time to communication but thematically it can be nice. Right, see my above post. It's speed versus theme.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
Personally I never felt like the agency I was supposed to feel while rolling saves was ever worth how lovely it was getting saves rolled against your attacks, both the experience of the process, which was usually your opponent slowly rounding up the dice they need if they're one of those weird shitbeards who can't just grab the successful wound roll dice you just picked out and roll those, as well as the feeling of your weapons being fizzly little farts. Hell, regardless what I used as a weapon I already had to go through 2 separate at minimum 1/6 chances of the gun doing nothing before it's your opponent's turn to try to make the gun do nothing one, or sometimes even multiple times. That said for some reason I don't mind armor rolls in Infinity. I guess it's because that game is much more brutal and the scale so much smaller that everything feels dangerous all the time and things still move at a decent pace.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Hra Mormo posted:Personally I never felt like the agency I was supposed to feel while rolling saves was ever worth how lovely it was getting saves rolled against your attacks, both the experience of the process, which was usually your opponent slowly rounding up the dice they need if they're one of those weird shitbeards who can't just grab the successful wound roll dice you just picked out and roll those, as well as the feeling of your weapons being fizzly little farts. Hell, regardless what I used as a weapon I already had to go through 2 separate at minimum 1/6 chances of the gun doing nothing before it's your opponent's turn to try to make the gun do nothing one, or sometimes even multiple times. In infinity you don't have 60+ guys on the field. Armor saves are a relic of 1st edition where it was basically DnD in space. You can use toughness vs. armor to differentiate units, but it's idiotic in a game with 100+ dudes, and even more so with their old AP system/meta that made 5+ armor saves effectively useless. Considering we know GW's going to poo poo the bed again and make a bunch of individual special rules for every unit, you use those to create anti-infantry/armor effects (ie Meltagun gets +2 S vs. vehicles).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
The problem with mortal wounds in AOS is that some armies can do a lot of it, and some armies have like one wizard who can do it. And the mechanic is super loving obnoxious when you have a blood thirster who can do up to 15 mortal wounds to everyone within 8" if he rolls well enough. Or the shitshow of mortal wounds that tzeentch can do. There is a bunch of stuff with saves against mortal wounds and I'd be willing to bet that a bunch of poo poo in 40k will also have a save against it
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
I quite like the infinity methodology in general. But then my experience with that game has been quite positive thus far. I guess 8th will be the edition of psykers and psykers as shields against them?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
mcjomar posted:I quite like the infinity methodology in general. But then my experience with that game has been quite positive thus far. Or worthless dudes as sheilds. As Psykers can't aim the most basic power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
If you want agency in defending you do something like x-wing or other systems where you get to evade or brace against attacks. You don't do another roll because that's not really agency. At most it's list-building agency. In infinity and tactical video games you get stuff like cover which just increase your chance for better evasion, which isn't as satisfying as actually getting defensive tokens that nullify attacks, but at least it's better than rolling yet another die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:If you want agency in defending you do something like x-wing or other systems where you get to evade or brace against attacks. You don't do another roll because that's not really agency. At most it's list-building agency. In infinity and tactical video games you get stuff like cover which just increase your chance for better evasion, which isn't as satisfying as actually getting defensive tokens that nullify attacks, but at least it's better than rolling yet another die. I don't think a defend roll actually gives you agency, but it gives the illusion/feeling of it and so if you have to choose between "roll to hit, roll to wound" or "roll to hit, roll to avoid damage," I prefer the latter. I like X-Wing's implementation a lot, even though I am normally not a fan of custom dice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I don't think a defend roll actually gives you agency, but it gives the illusion/feeling of it and so if you have to choose between "roll to hit, roll to wound" or "roll to hit, roll to avoid damage," I prefer the latter. I like X-Wing's implementation a lot, even though I am normally not a fan of custom dice. I hate when the stupid mana weaving poo poo comes up too. It's weird how much people value their dice rolls in dumb games. They even prefer it to a dice app because they feel like they have some control over it. Humans are bad and dumb.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
What the gently caress is mana weaving?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
In Age of Sigmar you have this stupid two-tier damage system and it sounds like they're bringing it into 40k and it's all due to the stubborn and insane insistence of rolling piles of D6es (and not adding their values together). You've got your normal fightiness guys and your normal defensieness guys who interact on the normal scale. Then you've got your extra fightiness guys who can do mortal wounds, and your extra defensiness guys who have some kind of defense or chance to avoid mortal wounds too! You only have six points across one d6, so that's not enough to encapsulate all the different levels of fightiness and defensiness across your whole game, so you had to make two layers in this shitcake. A far better and obvious solution is to just expand the scales of fightiness and defensiness. If your attackers had 1d10 or 1d12 or 2d6 plus bonuses of fightiness and your defenders had similar ranges of defensines, then you can have your loincloth-clad snotlings and your thick steel plated steam tanks on the same scale of fightiness and defensiness. You can use the size of the scales to create situations where the snotlings with pointy sticks have no ability to hurt the steam tanks - they roll 2d6 -4 on attacks and the steam tank gets 2d6 + 6 on defense so best case the snotlings can get a 8 and worst case the steam tank can get an 8 and ties go to the defender. And if you don't want just two scales and you feel the need to throw in like different kinds of weapons that do different amounts of damage to different kinds of armor, dodging, warp shields, whatever, then OK - each additional thing adds complexity, but at least you're not using two different mechanics to deal with the exact same thing (attacking effectively and preventing being hurt). Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Dragonshirt posted:What the gently caress is mana weaving? Basically it's when someone sorts their magic deck into lands (mana) and non-lands, the inserts the lands into the non-land stack at regular intervals, like every 2-3 cards. You still have to shuffle thoroughly afterwards, but the idea is to break up pockets of lands that are all next to each other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:You still have to shuffle thoroughly afterwards uhhh
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
People think random distribution implies some sort of normal distribution so because of the land:other ratio in MTG decks, they "should" draw 1 land for every 2 other cards. They do the mana weave to try and correct the clumping that naturally happens for random events.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
This whole "normal wounds vs. mortal wounds" dichotomy sounds an awful lot like another tiered-damage system I know of: Palladium's SDC/MDC system. When you're taking a page from loving Kevin Simbieda, you should know you're doing something objectively wrong.
Ilor fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:17
|
|
|
Oh. I got the mortal wounds idea wrong earlier then. I thought it was a way to bypass all the "+++ save and an annoying number of wounds" bullshit with an earlier comment. The dual type of damage sounds dumb. It could work like in MTG with similar but not similar "poison/either" damage but that'd be a pain to track in a minis game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
It's a no armor save attack - there are other games use that mechanic. Just because Palladium had a version doesn't mean GW is cribbing rules from them, for God's sake.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
Ilor posted:This whole "normal wounds vs. mortal wounds" dichotomy sounds an awful lot like another tiered-damage system I know of: Palladium's SDC/MDC system. When you're taking a page from loving Kevin Simbieda, your should know you're doing something objectively wrong. Yeah. The need for SDC and MDC highlighted the enormous power disparity in the game. The fundamental problem wasn't the system, it was the disparity, and maybe that's an issue in warhammer too; having some units in your game that are pathetically underclassed against other units in your game might not be a super fun game design decision?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:It's auto-kill - there are other games use that mechanic. Just because Palladium had a version doesn't mean GW is cribbing rules from them, for God's sake. Yeah if there were no way for anyone to ever save or deal with mortal wounds, then it'd just be autokill, and that was probably the intent from the outset; my damage is so good it bypasses all forms of defense. But they couldn't help themselves. https://www.google.com/search?q=save+mortal+wounds And the result is another system where the interactions between various sources of damage and various sources of defense is confusing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:uhhh I didn't say it was smart, I was just describing what it was
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah if there were no way for anyone to ever save or deal with mortal wounds, then it'd just be autokill, and that was probably the intent from the outset; my damage is so good it bypasses all forms of defense. I misspoke - it's no armor save, not autokill. But what's wrong with that? If you fire a lascannon at a dude in carapace armor, he should get killed on the spot. Not every weapon needs to be defeated by armor, as long as you can't spam the table with said weapon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:I didn't say it was smart, I was just describing what it was Yeah, I got that. You know how sometimes nerds like to claim nerd cred and superiority over stupid jocks etc. on the basis that they're much more logical and smart? The prevalence of gambler's fallacies and superstition among nerds always signals to me that actually no, they're (ok, we're) no more logical than the general population. Athletes in organized sports and players of nerd trad games appear to me to be equally susceptible to illogical superstitions, fallacious arguments, and gross misunderstandings of statistics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:It's a no armor save attack - there are other games use that mechanic. Just because Palladium had a version doesn't mean GW is cribbing rules from them, for God's sake. I get that, but the problem it's trying to "solve" is exactly the same: the dynamic range of possible damage categories exceeds the granularity of the dice rolls available within the base rules system. In Rifts, you have dagger-wielding dudes next to rail-gun-toting power armor, guys shooting bows and arrows at 'mechs. The (broken) system they used to try to square the different types of damage ultimately caused more problems than it solved. No one is saying that the GW designers were leafing through old Palladium rulebooks and said, "Hey, these guys were really on to something!" But people have known Rifts is bad since the 1980s, so why would The New Games Worskhop (TM) use a systems that's almost identical to a stupid, 30+ year old mechanic to solve a lovely problem that they have introduced into their own system by refusing to expand beyond rolling obscene numbers of D6s? Something more modern or forward-thinking in game design would be cool, don't you think? Instead, we just get another tired old two-tier damage system. Ilor fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Every time I hear something new about mortal wounds I find I like it less. I guess it's the sort of thing you nuke from orbit. Or I could just play another game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah, I got that. Well we're all still human and therefore wired to think in certain ways--the gambler's fallacy, information bias, ad hoc, etc. Nerds aren't immune to that. Hell, in my experience everyone is superstitious in some weird way. Humans are really, really, really bad at thinking about/visualizing probability. Reminds me of a talk Sid Meyer gave a while back where he talked about players playing Civ and if they saw that their unit had a 70% chance to win a fight, they expected to win the fight close to 100% of the time, which I think applies to most situations--if you tell someone that something has a 70% chance (or 80%, or 90%), it's really hard to think of that as "less than a sure thing" TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Mana weaving is useful, but not for randomisation purposes. What it does do is make it easier to shuffle a big chunk of cards covered in slippery plastic sleeves with sharp edges, since you're essentially breaking it into smaller piles then shuffling those. I don't play Magic any more, but whenever I have to shuffle large amounts of cards I just deal them into 4 or 5 piles, shuffle those, combine them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Mana weaving is useful, but not for randomisation purposes. What it does do is make it easier to shuffle a big chunk of cards covered in slippery plastic sleeves with sharp edges, since you're essentially breaking it into smaller piles then shuffling those. that's pile shuffling though, not mana weaving mana weaving is either genuinely useless (if you're sufficiently randomizing your deck via shuffling) or cheating (if you're not)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Yeah. If your cards tend to stick, you can use various ways to make sure you're actually shuffling them, but none of those ways involve looking at the faces of the cards and arranging them in a specific way. As soon as you are trying to seed your deck so that your results are nonrandom (and getting one land every three draws would be nonrandom) you're either cheating, or trying to cheat but failing because you don't understand how statistics and probability work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
LGD posted:that's pile shuffling though, not mana weaving Well yeah, what I'm saying is that the pile shuffling is the only useful bit of it.  EDIT: The very fact that mana weaving is even a thing shows how the land mechanic is the most broken/worst part of MtG's design.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Use the Inis card-driven action and combat system in a miniatures game. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
I put the lands in specific places of my choosing to make it more random because
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 07:27 |
|
|
Gravitas Shortfall posted:Well yeah, what I'm saying is that the pile shuffling is the only useful bit of it. Hmm. Simple mod to the game: you have one pile of land cards and one pile of not land cards. Each turn you pick which pile to draw from. You can also draw from each pile however many you want to build your starting hand of 7 (but there's no mulligans). Would this be viable, or totally break the game? Maybe modify it so you can only draw from the land pile once every two turns? I dunno. Something like that. e. Still a single discard pile. I guess you'd have to deal with effects that cause you shuffle discards back into your deck, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 22:57
|
|