|
Their introductory products now are insanely good. They get you into the game or hobby at a great price point. You can split any of the deluxe box sets with a friend for $63~ each and both of you have a small playable army to battle each other that contains a hero, line troops, and a couple elites. Then they have the start collecting boxes for just about every faction as well that are also discounted to get people playing and into it immediately at reasonable price points. The ability for a person to spend $50-75 and begin playing immediately is super important.
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
I’ve always avoided GW gaming cuz lol I’d never buy a billion expensive models or play an all day game. But kill team got me buying things because it’s actually almost affordable. Thanks GW for having a skirmish game with reasonable model counts, please don’t ruin it by somehow adding knights to it. But yeah like two easy to build packs of Primary marines is about 100 points. Sure it’s not half of the poo poo you can deploy for rear end tarts, but who gives a poo poo. I’m playing as cheap as possible. vkeios fucked around with this message at 20:00 on Oct 16, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 19:56
|
|
|
I played a killteam game recently against an immobile Knight being repaired in a gantry. It could only shoot stuff in direct sight of its guns and my team had to climb up the building around it and turn off a console. Was very Shadow of the Collossus.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
8th edition Warhammer 40k is not a good game. (40k threaders don’t respond to this)
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 20:12
|
|
|
Kill Team and Shadespire are on one end of the spectrum and 8th edition 40k is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over there on the bad side
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Hixson posted:8th edition Warhammer 40k is not a good game. (40k threaders don’t respond to this) HANDS u have now been owned
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
I knew you couldn’t help yourself
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
vkeios posted:I’ve always avoided GW gaming cuz lol I’d never buy a billion expensive models or play an all day game. But kill team got me buying things because it’s actually almost affordable. Thanks GW for having a skirmish game with reasonable model counts, please don’t ruin it by somehow adding knights to it. eBay is also a fantastic place to buy cheap stuff thanks to all the boxes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
Hixson posted:8th edition Warhammer 40k is not a good game. (40k threaders don’t respond to this) I've really tried to enjoy playing it, but like...I don't get it. I really don't feel like I'm playing a game that has meaningful choices or where I have any ability to interact with my opponent's choices. Remembering my abilities and using my CP effectively are the only parts that seem to require thinking. Most decisions seem to be made for you or have clearly best choice. I feel like the list building / understanding the mission / and deploying correctly are the only parts relevant to winning, and none of those have much "play" in them. When I'm playing Underworlds there seem to be a lot more choices to make and understanding what my opponent is trying to do and countering that feel far more relevant to success. While dice decides a lot of the outcome, the decisions you make seem to actually matter. I want to play more Underworlds, the enjoyment of 40k is just seeing painted models with terrain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:13
|
|
|
Hixson posted:8th edition Warhammer 40k is not a good game. (40k threaders don’t respond to this) Agreed. Knights are cool because you only have to move like 5 models around and can skip engaging with a bunch of rules
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:21
|
|
|
MCPeePants posted:Runewars good! There are dozens of us... dozens! Runewars was (is?) a weird case. I remember seeing a ton of ads/content on wargaming sites and decent number of people posting their painted models. Then FFG announced that Star Wars thing and it pretty much died overnight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Seldom Posts posted:They make more profit now because people by their poo poo directly again. I can buy the Kharadron overlords SC box and have cool models that I can play with right away. I can't do poo poo with a box of 10 dwarf warriors under 8th rules. I also can't do poo poo with 2.5 boxes, which is at the same price point. You being personally priced out isn't they same as everyone being priced out?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 21:38
|
|
|
The Moon Monster posted:Runewars was (is?) a weird case. I remember seeing a ton of ads/content on wargaming sites and decent number of people posting their painted models. Then FFG announced that Star Wars thing and it pretty much died overnight. Yeah they really shot themselves in the foot with that. Locally we went from a group of about 6 to 2 as soon as they announced, which is strange because the games are very different. I guess FFG has a bit of a fanbase too from X-wing, imperial assault, destiny, etc. Then Runewars had nearly a year without new releases (presumably) because of Legion's production demands, so they really stalled it out. I'm still playing and enjoying it, but there is a pretty short list of cities in the world with real communities. Be interesting to see where it is in a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:46
|
|
|
Mugaaz posted:I've really tried to enjoy playing it, but like...I don't get it. I really don't feel like I'm playing a game that has meaningful choices or where I have any ability to interact with my opponent's choices. Remembering my abilities and using my CP effectively are the only parts that seem to require thinking. Most decisions seem to be made for you or have clearly best choice. I feel like the list building / understanding the mission / and deploying correctly are the only parts relevant to winning, and none of those have much "play" in them. When I'm playing Underworlds there seem to be a lot more choices to make and understanding what my opponent is trying to do and countering that feel far more relevant to success. While dice decides a lot of the outcome, the decisions you make seem to actually matter. I want to play more Underworlds, the enjoyment of 40k is just seeing painted models with terrain. 40k has always felt weird like that because people consistently make those statements about it getting better from edition to edition, or the whole "it's super good now" schtick when it never actually fundamentally changes from smooshing big blobs of dudes together and rolling a bucket of dice through the filters of hit, wound and save. I mean yeah I guess technically it is getting better when you trim off the cruft and poo poo, but it's not even beginning to touch concepts like "tactical" or "engaging" or anything. It's just statlines and fuckloads of dice which is laughable at present when tabletop game design has moved so far in such a relative period of time otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 22:47
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:40k has always felt weird like that because people consistently make those statements about it getting better from edition to edition, or the whole "it's super good now" schtick when it never actually fundamentally changes from smooshing big blobs of dudes together and rolling a bucket of dice through the filters of hit, wound and save. I mean yeah I guess technically it is getting better when you trim off the cruft and poo poo, but it's not even beginning to touch concepts like "tactical" or "engaging" or anything. It's just statlines and fuckloads of dice which is laughable at present when tabletop game design has moved so far in such a relative period of time otherwise. What would you consider to be on the cutting edge of wargame design?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:What would you consider to be on the cutting edge of wargame design? Infinity and Warhammer Underworlds. Years ago I would have said Warmachine, but I think that time has passed. F.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Mugaaz posted:Infinity and Warhammer Underworlds. Years ago I would have said Warmachine, but I think that time has passed. F. Having played Infinity I agree it's a great ruleset. Are you aware of any wargames that you would consider to be cutting edge at 40K's scale of combat?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:Having played Infinity I agree it's a great ruleset. Are you aware of any wargames that you would consider to be cutting edge at 40K's scale of combat? Warmachine is only thing at that scale that has rules that actually result in a "real game". I used to think it was the best thing ever, I'm probably just a bit sick of it now. While Mk3 was pretty loving bad on release, I hear things have improved considerably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
I'm in a similar boat with 40k. I try to enjoy it but i don't feel as engaged with it anymore. Like, it might seem silly but i enjoyed WS and BS being on a table. Seeing that your elite assault duders, while not especially tough, have an easier time hitting the enemy due to having a higher score. Just having a flat value to look at feels really  Oh, also; templates were fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
I don't think I'd use the term cutting edge for any known wargame really because they all definitely have their issues and non of them are exactly air tight. But to answer the question I would kind of go with almost any other relatively modern game that saw some modicum of support and concern for design really. Like, you name it and it's probably got some kind of extra layer or gimmick to at least try and lend thought and player agency to the formula in a meaningful way. A lot of wargames could, in the simplest terms, be reduced to that same kind of 40k formula; you move dudes around then either shoot or melee the other dudes. Difference being 40k is almost quite literally just that, whereas most other games are going to try and lace in mechanics within those basic steps. Maybe movement is super critical because there's a ton of nuance to line of sight and positioning, or maybe selecting and prioritizing targets is a meaningful choice because there's a lot of granularity and depth to the combat phase. Just stuff like that. Granted I haven't messed with 40k since 6th edition. I would genuinely be curious to know if there is more to the claim that 8th edition 40k is now a good game than the fact that the fat has been trimmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Beer4TheBeerGod posted:What would you consider to be on the cutting edge of wargame design? Oh, and just throwing this tidbit out there: it's also a game you can play solo in an interesting and surprising fashion, so "but no one around me plays!" is less of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Gumdrop Larry posted:I don't think I'd use the term cutting edge for any known wargame really because they all definitely have their issues and non of them are exactly air tight. But to answer the question I would kind of go with almost any other relatively modern game that saw some modicum of support and concern for design really. Like, you name it and it's probably got some kind of extra layer or gimmick to at least try and lend thought and player agency to the formula in a meaningful way. A lot of wargames could, in the simplest terms, be reduced to that same kind of 40k formula; you move dudes around then either shoot or melee the other dudes. Difference being 40k is almost quite literally just that, whereas most other games are going to try and lace in mechanics within those basic steps. Maybe movement is super critical because there's a ton of nuance to line of sight and positioning, or maybe selecting and prioritizing targets is a meaningful choice because there's a lot of granularity and depth to the combat phase. Just stuff like that. Granted I haven't messed with 40k since 6th edition. I would genuinely be curious to know if there is more to the claim that 8th edition 40k is now a good game than the fact that the fat has been trimmed. I played 40K on and off since 2nd edition, and 8th got me back in. The game is definitely not perfect and retains the core experience from 25 years ago, but I think it's improved for a variety of reasons:
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:38
|
|
|
For me, Warpath: Firefight is the game that I want 40k to have been. It's by no means perfect, but it's straightforward enough to be picked up with just a skimming of the rules and complex enough that you can't just rush across the board and expect to win. You have alternating activations so you can respond immediately to something your opponent did and are never waiting for long to make a move, stat lines are clear and the game exclusively uses universal special rules so there's no confusion about what things do, and you have command dice to give you potential bonuses or extra activations to get you out of a jam. The biggest issue is that it's a Mantic game and no one plays it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Horus Heresy continues to be the perfect game with perfect models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
panascope posted:Horus Heresy continues to be the perfect game with perfect models. As long as the model is a Legion Veteran with a Combi-Weapon, this checks out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Things I like about 8th: This is good, and should have been done ten years ago. Instead of having Beasts, Cavalry, Jump Packs, Jet Packs, Fleet, Slow and Purposeful, Bounding Leap, and a million other special rules that are almost always just different ways of doing the same thing, just add a number to a profile that says "This guy moves 6 inches per turn, this guy moves 8". Corrode posted:- Vehicles using the same rules as everything else, squashing that whole subsystem. Also includes removing facings and firing arcs and pivoting etc.. Corrode posted:- Removing blast markers/flame templates, meaning that movement phases don't include spacing guys out to maximise coherency just so they don't get pie-plated to death. Beer4TheBeerGod posted:IMO the consistency is nice. It speeds up playing since you no longer have players obsessing over positioning. 8th is still bad, just in a different way. Many of the changes they made are massive improvements to ease gameplay, but it cost the game its soul. It feel so generic and boring, and every game I have played you know who's won halfway through the first turn. Building armies feels like you're just searching for ways to exploit the rules, much like late 7th edition and its endless sprawl of broken formations. It feels more like playing a game of Magic: The Gathering than a tabletop minis game. panascope posted:Horus Heresy continues to be the perfect game with perfect models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 06:03
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:This is bad. So boring, especially now that every gun on a tank can fire in any direction at any target, and different targets. Just plunk your heavy tank wherever you want, and go nuts with the shooting, nothing matters. Same with every unit being able to split-fire; there goes the tactical decision of target priority. 10 man marine squad with a lascannon stuck between infantry and a tank? Older editions you'd either sacrifice the bolter fire to try for the tank, or waste the lascannon to whittle down the infantry. Now everything can always shoot at whatever it's designed to shoot at. I do miss facings but once that Tau mecha got a W stat it was all over. Also the 14 all-round on a LR pissed me off. Which actually gets to a problem: the vehicle rules were poorly applied, inconsistent, opaque. Above and beyond GW not being able to write rules to save their goddamn lives, I mean. I do sort of miss templates, but on the other hand I also remember people spending, no joke, 30 minutes playing with alternative placements of blasts every loving time my bassie dropped a pie plate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 06:38
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:8th is still bad, just in a different way. Many of the changes they made are massive improvements to ease gameplay, but it cost the game its soul. It feel so generic and boring, and every game I have played you know who's won halfway through the first turn. Building armies feels like you're just searching for ways to exploit the rules, much like late 7th edition and its endless sprawl of broken formations. It feels more like playing a game of Magic: The Gathering than a tabletop minis game. Odd, it usually takes me to the second round to know that I've lost. Having played on and off since second I disagree the game has lost its soul. Quite the opposite in fact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
Fashionable Jorts posted:This is bad. So boring, especially now that every gun on a tank can fire in any direction at any target, and different targets. Just plunk your heavy tank wherever you want, and go nuts with the shooting, nothing matters. Same with every unit being able to split-fire; there goes the tactical decision of target priority. 10 man marine squad with a lascannon stuck between infantry and a tank? Older editions you'd either sacrifice the bolter fire to try for the tank, or waste the lascannon to whittle down the infantry. Now everything can always shoot at whatever it's designed to shoot at. In prior editions almost all units could fire in whatever direction, vehicles were the exception. This gave you a host of really dumb things which only mattered for vehicles - whether you mounted the sponsons further forward, whether a weapon that looked like it was a turret was actually a turret, whether your vehicle was at 89 degrees or 90 degrees to something so its second sponson could fire. You paid the same points for a turret-mounted lascannon or one which was halfway back on the model on a sponson with restricted line of sight, and those were vastly different in effectiveness. How good a transport was had a lot to do with where GW had bothered to model doors - in a business where the rules guys only start writing the rules after the thing is basically designed and rolling off the injection molds. If people did conversions, you had to be really careful about not "modelling for advantage" by placing the weapons differently or making the profile too distinctly different. The obvious example here was Ork Battlewagons, which didn't have a model for years. People mostly used Land Raiders, which made sense, then the actual Battlewagon model dropped and it was way narrower on the front and way longer on the sides than the Land Raider, meaning that the old converted ones were basically modelling for advantage since they had much more AV14 that was easier to face to the enemy and much less AV12 which was easier to hide. Facings made even less sense outside of the world of boxy Imperial or Ork vehicles. Compare that to monstrous creatures, which didn't give a poo poo about any of that stuff, and could merrily roam the battlefield 360 noscoping things out of their rear end in a top hat. Meanwhile you had walkers, which were pseudo-vehicles which were an exception to an exception. You had whole subsystems to account for walkers in combat not getting hit in the rear end even if models were technically positioned to do so, except if they could be thanks to another sub-set of another rule. The walker/MC distinction really mattered for reasons that had nothing to do with the individual units. Basically vehicles now function like the rest of the game, where the models are representative instead of trying to bring some kind of "realism" into positioning which mostly resulted in a lot of crunch for not much gain. I have never yet played a game of 8th and thought "wow, this would be really enhanced by having to check whether or not my opponent's heavy weapons were slightly more left or right than where I thought they were," or start positioning measuring tape to determine if a dude was actually in the side arc even though he's clearly in the front arc, etc. Funnily enough, even as the vehicle rules streamline crunch at the cost of what some people considered realism or "feel," splitting fire goes the other way. Splitting fire makes sense. That Tactical Squad isn't lugging a lascannon around so that it can be fired at Ork Boyz, they're lugging it around so Brother Tank Hunter can shoot the battlewagon in the back of the field while his brothers protect him from oncoming infantry. Vehicles with mixed-use weapons aren't mounting that stuff so that they can waste half their firepower firing the multi-melta at a tank ahead and then following in with heavy bolters which can't even hurt it, they're mounting different weapon systems to engage multiple threats at once - for example, to protect the vehicle from the light infantry trying to get in and strap a grenade to it or fire a rocket at it out of cover. From a crunch perspective, what split fire does is to lessen the gap between specialists and generalists. Previously if a vehicle had two heavy bolters and two lascannons, and another vehicle had four lascannons, you wanted the latter, because you'd lose half your effectiveness of the former depending on what you shot at. Now, between "everything can hurt everything" - another product of vehicles joining the rest of the game - and split fire, it can actually be valuable for a unit to be flexible. Fashionable Jorts posted:Positioning is still fiddly as gently caress, just in a different way. You have to perfectly set up your dudes so all of your squads are within 3" of your hero to get his sweet buff. You have to make sure exactly the right models are the closest ones to the enemy in order to exploit the charge system. Cover is still a mess, but I don't think GW is capable of designing a cover system that works. Honestly most of these things sound like you haven't actually spent long playing the edition. Buff auras are non-complex to set up and are not even close to comparable to fiddling about with avoiding templates. I don't even know what you mean about "exploiting" the charge system; I'm assuming it means making sure you're placing units so that models you do/don't want to remove don't gently caress up charges, but that's such a trivial thing I don't even notice myself do it. I agree on cover though, it's silly at the moment. As for the latter stuff I mean, that's your feeling, but I don't get it. All editions of all games are about building armies which use the rules effectively. That's what good list-building is. You use the word "exploit" a lot and that, like "abuse," seems to be a word people use when they mean "do effectively" but feel "cheat in some undefined way." The "CCG-like" complaint just seems to be one of those of-the-moment clever criticisms since I've heard it a few times, and again, it seems like it's more about coming across really clever than actually meaning anything at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 07:32
|
|
|
When you guys talk about the merits of 8th ed. it sounds really bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:02
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Vehicle stuff. I totally understand that argument, I even liked the change when I first started playing 8th. Everything was so very streamlined and led for very quick and encumbered games. But the lack of encumbrance also led to a lack of interesting battlefield choices. My deep-striking tank-hunters are coming in this turn, do I slap them down behind the tank to hit that weak rear but risk mishap as they smash into a building? Or do I land them in front, where it's safe, but they are less likely to destroy their target in one volley? That's interesting to me! I definitely agree that GW needed a change on their vehicle rules, you explained probably every single issue that they've ever had in one nice coherent post. But I think making the difference between a Imperial Guardsman and a Imperial Knight just being the latter has larger numbers on its profile was not the right fix. The tactics of the game has been reduced significantly. Just push your dudes forward with a broom, roll a thousand dice. Corrode posted:Honestly most of these things sound like you haven't actually spent long playing the edition. Buff auras are non-complex to set up and are not even close to comparable to fiddling about with avoiding templates. I don't even know what you mean about "exploiting" the charge system; I'm assuming it means making sure you're placing units so that models you do/don't want to remove don't gently caress up charges, but that's such a trivial thing I don't even notice myself do it. I agree on cover though, it's silly at the moment. We played weekly for just shy of a year. Maybe since it was just a group of us who learned the game together and never played with anyone else to get a different perspective, we never got a full feel for the game, but we all lost our enthusiasm for the game rapidly after the novelty of it wore off. I mean for charging is the whole "pile in to nearest enemy model" rule, making it so you have to bump a model 0.02 inches to the left when moving to make sure that the model from unit X is now the closest to you in the ensuing phase. Corrode posted:As for the latter stuff I mean, that's your feeling, but I don't get it. All editions of all games are about building armies which use the rules effectively. That's what good list-building is. You use the word "exploit" a lot and that, like "abuse," seems to be a word people use when they mean "do effectively" but feel "cheat in some undefined way." The "CCG-like" complaint just seems to be one of those of-the-moment clever criticisms since I've heard it a few times, and again, it seems like it's more about coming across really clever than actually meaning anything at all. It feels like its encouraged to make the most min/max army lists possible, moreso than previous editions when you had to pay hq and troop tax. Near to completely free-form list building seems like sloppy design choice. Then you have Stratagems, which I love the idea of, but seem too much like a "gotcha!" card. Oh, you did this thing? Well I will spend 2cp to make sure you didn't do that thing! (I honestly haven't seen other people compare 8th to CCGs before, I've just been playing Magic a lot lately and there is a weird crossover feel that I get between the two now). Its possible that my rose-tinted glasses for the glory days of 4th are too strong (I've even recently replayed some 4th and we came to the consensus that its pretty terrible), but when 6 people who have been gaming together for over a decade all lose passion for 40k around the same time, something has gone wrong. Its also possible that since I've been designing my own game off and on for the last few years (and 8th came out having "stolen" several of my ideas lol) that I think I can do better and just need to get over it. Maybe a 9th can come out in a couple years that combines the good of 7 and 8 into a game that I would absolutely love. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I would like to find someone who can teach me Kill Team, since I feel like 8th is the perfect core ruleset for a skirmish game with handfuls of models instead of armies of models.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:07
|
|
|
I see two obvious solutions to the vehicle problem. You have a template you rest over a vehicle that shows firing arcs or you add it to the base of the model so you can do whatever you want to the model itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
Kill Team is very good, because much like Kill Team in 7th ed, it strips back the pile of knights/slam captains/whatever and restricts you to basic troops and basic factions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 11:03
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I see two obvious solutions to the vehicle problem. You have a template you rest over a vehicle that shows firing arcs or you add it to the base of the model so you can do whatever you want to the model itself. Why would you want to do either of those things when they're just adding faff back into the game though? And that's not getting into how you would make a template that works for the dozens of wildly different vehicles, or the vehicles with no base.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 11:30
|
|
|
Hixson posted:8th edition Warhammer 40k is not a good game. (40k threaders don’t respond to this) Lmaooooo they really couldn’t help it. Look at those posts ^^^^
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:12
|
|
|
Lovely Joe Stalin posted:Why would you want to do either of those things when they're just adding faff back into the game though? And that's not getting into how you would make a template that works for the dozens of wildly different vehicles, or the vehicles with no base. You'd just make a silhouette for different vehicle types. All you'd have to do is define every vehicle by type. Probably the best way to implement it would be to declare you're moving the vehicle, measure as normal, and place the silhouette down. Then you measure from the silhouette when shooting and slide it out when you're done. Bases is the most elegant solution since it doesn't have anything to do with how the figure is modeled and you're not messing with a separate card to abstract a vehicle. Put your sponsons wherever the gently caress you want them, it doesn't matter, firing arcs are built into the base. If a tank doesn't traditionally have a base, then I guess you'd have to retroactively add them. From what I can tell lots of vehicles are on bases in 8th that hadn't been previously because bases suddenly matter more, but whatever. I'm not saying you'd want to put them back into the game. But if vehicle placement, firing arcs, and armor facings are something that matter to you, then that's how you'd do it without running into the problems of modeling for advantage. If vehicles just being big units is something you're happy with, there's no need to change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:19
|
|
|
Hixson posted:Lmaooooo they really couldn’t help it. Look at those posts ^^^^ Truly, you are the puppet master and we your dancing marionettes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Fish and Chimps posted:When you guys talk about the merits of 8th ed. it sounds really bad Well it's a bad game so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 13:47
|
|
|
Hixson posted:Lmaooooo they really couldn’t help it. Look at those posts ^^^^
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Everyone should just play historicals. I'm getting into Test of Courage, which is based on that Warlord Test of Honour game but with Greeks instead of Japanese, and actual good models since they're just using existing Victrix stuff instead of the ugly warlord plastics. Instead of trying to bang 40k into shape, go push some French dudes in bright uniforms around, it's a good time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2018 14:10
|
|