|
Cinnamon Bear posted:its a pretty boring model honestly but the name completely elevates it It's pure nostalgia. That doesn't make it bad though. Sometimes simple is good.
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:I guess it's better than buying KoW models and using them to play age of sigmar Cheap lovely models for a cheap lovely game?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
The thing that frustrates me is seeing so much talent put into something that is, if we're being generous, mediocre in all regards.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
Booyah- posted:Is there anything in the rumor mill about undead and specifically skeletons and tomb kings? What are Tomb Kings?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Bad Decision Dino posted:Oh good, people in the death thread were defending them, I was worried I was the only one who still thought these were bad. It can be both. Sure they're overly designed with a bunch of bits and bobs that are going to make them a massive pain in the rear end to paint in numbers, but they do also have a bit of charm to them that other AoS models lack. Even though they're all wearing masks, the masks are individualized rather than just being the same bland expression again and again. I'm going to say that if these were models for a brand new game from a brand new company people would be saying, "Wow these are pretty cool (for a company with no past experience)!" But given that they carry a ton of baggage from GW and Warhammer Fantasy and AoS, it's easy to not be impressed by them. For myself, I'm going to say they're just OK but hardly the worst things GW has done. I'd never spend money on them though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
All of my dwarfs are purple except for the especially sexy ones which are orange.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2017 20:14
|
|
|
koolkevz666 posted:I'm going to jump in to the deep end and say that I like Age of Sigmar quite a lot. A big part of this likely comes from the fact that I don't play competitive as I don't find it fun and just play games at my local store for fun. I know that at my local store we now have a lot of Age of Sigmar players when back in the old WHFB days we only had a small select few playing with their usually over powered lists while us casuals were driven out. That's not to say AoS doesn't have problems as it does but in my opinion it is still more fun than WHFB. Nothing wrong with enjoying a game. It's just a shame the people in your club went from WHFB to AoS and not to KoW. Better games are better for casual gaming.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
koolkevz666 posted:It isn't a club unfortunately, we play at the local GW thus why we play GW games, there is a gaming club nearby but until recently work patterns and such meant I couldn't go so my only choice for war gaming was GW. Even then the games that I know people play are either GW ones, Malifaux and Warmachine plus a few others now and then. This is the general Mantic thread. Discuss Kings of War or any of their other games here: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3491381 There's also the old Warhammer Fantasy thread, where we talk about Kings of War: https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3411068
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
GreenMarine posted:I got sick of the same 5 guys posting the same flamebait and closed it. Don't mind debates about the game, but I couldn't bother investing in the forum when the forum wasn't paying a return. You realized you closed it during honest discussion of game mechanics and right after someone went to the trouble of posting a battle report right? Like there were probably other times the thread was "worth" closing by your criteria, but at that moment it was super bizarre. Also you don't have to close the thread just because you're the OP. The thread could go on indefinitely without your participating if you weren't happy with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:45
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:making it a bit smaller is a way to add visual distinction to a rather bland looking faction i guess? Surely there are ways to add visual distinction that don't involve boob plate. It's 2017. Let's move on already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:good thing i didnt say anything bout the boobplate making it visually distinct but hey man whatever. forge your own narrative and all that Sorry, I thought you meant "making boob plate that's a bit smaller [than boob plate tends to be]" in relation to these posts. My mistake for inferring. Kung Fu Fist gently caress posted:that boobplate is a lot less egregious than most fantasy lady armor tends to be SteelMentor posted:Stormcast already have majestically sculpted titties on their armour though
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Wazzu posted:The smaller size is not great, but what visual distinction would you choose? It's an entirely armoured figure, really they should be genderless. I'm fine with visual distinction between models that has nothing to do with gender. They should basically be genderless when in armor with the helmet on. I liked the idea that a poster had where their armor is decorated with trinkets from their past life. So a former Bretonnian might have a bit of coloring from his old livery on a pauldron or an Imperial might have their sigil on their armor somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
The thing that bothers me about GW apologists is their insistence that being able to play the game how they want is somehow mutually exclusive from a game having comprehensive rules and balanced mechanics. Do they not realize that there is no miniature game police? I could go to my FLGS tomorrow and play a game of Kings of War where I fielded nothing but Troops even though that's a clear violation of the rules. As long as my opponent agrees, who cares? I do not understand what is controversial about saying, "It is better to have good rules that you can choose to ignore than it is to have an incomplete game."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:People who were fine with Open Play and no points boggle my mind. To me it's the "dumb kid clause" and GW not realizing that there would be people who didn't want to play that way. When my friends and I were dumb kids on limited budgets, we often didn't have enough models to make legal units or we didn't have the right types of units to make legal armies. "My friend has 8 plastic halbediers and a hellblaster volley gun, but that doesn't work out to >50% and <25%, guess he can't play." Obviously we could have just played if we wanted to, and inevitably we did, but we always felt like we weren't really playing Warhammer. So it's nice when the official rules recognize that as a legitimate way to play and you don't think that you're "playing wrong". Even the Kings of War book says if you're playing smaller games not to worry about points or army composition. Just play with what you have ready. As an adult with limited free time, if I get some models painted up, I want to put them on the table right away, but that doesn't always mean I have a legal way to field them. So just taking what you want regardless of strict composition rules does have a time and a place. The issue isn't that GW emphasized this, it's that they didn't realize that people still like competitive play in addition to that and sometimes you want to see who the better commander is on an even battlefield. So the General's Handbook was a step in the right direction and it seems they're going to be avoiding this in Age of the Emperor.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Oh I definitely understand why it exists and think it's a good thing as a supported format, it's just confusing to think it was ever the only format and people were like "yes, good." What's frustrating is that all of these arguments are in bad faith. It's not like the GW faithful actually want a good game. They want a GW game where GW packages everything nicely for them, from the top of the hobby to the bottom. They get legitimately angry and confused when people explain to them that there are better ways to engage with miniatures as a hobby. That isn't to say that GW has no merit or that enjoying it isn't legitimate or that everyone who plays GW games has that mindset. It's just that for a certain group of people, they have attached their identities to GW and so if GW says it, it must be true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
I am so happy Kings of War did away with this nonsense wholesale.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Deino posted:"Right, so the objective is to hold the building in the center of the board." I actually really love the idea of this stuff in theory, it's just that in practice in never ends up being fun and ends up having a ton of unintended consequences.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Only if they feel like not following the rules. Well, what if you divided your units into fives and every five guys was on a tray? You'd have a much easier time moving since now you're moving between 1 and 4 trays instead of 5-20 models, but you'd still have the flexibility to take advantage of the terrain or to surround a unit or to position yourself into a line.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Razzled posted:does this game actually suck why is there so much facetiousness around it? all the LGS' seem to be exploding with popularity for this game It does actually suck, but GW is ubiquitous with tabletop miniatures and for some people the guarantee of a game is worth more than insisting on only playing good games.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
The rules are still bad and combat resolution is still redundant and bad. There are points but this is GW so I'm not going to say that there's balance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:People really love Dead of Winter too even though it's utter poo poo that makes coop with hidden traitor mechanics games all look bad. And yet people will rave about it at LGSs~ Yeah I can't figure it out either. People are weird.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Mr.Booger posted:Both of those systems have some "your unit may not activate" mechanics, even with options (SP2's kind of "basic activation" for a unit) it is not for everyone, younger folk (I can say that, I am old) find these types of not playing mechanics to be detrimental. I agree they make for good tension, and harder/more impactful choices, but that is again, not as popular as every 100$ toy you bought getting to walk and pew pew. Units die on the first turn before you get to use them all the time in GW games so the argument that everything gets a chance to activate doesn't really hold water.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
You can't be serious. I don't think a single person comes into 40k or Age of Sigmar without having first played chess or checkers. "I move a single one of my units and then you do the same," is way more natural than, "I'll move every one of my units and then you'll move what of yours is left." Like how stupid do you think people are? I would explain an initiative system by saying, "It's just like chess except instead of choosing which piece to move, sometimes other pieces have to go first and here's why." (Assuming it was a system that didn't let you choose) And even that wouldn't be a tough leap to make because pawns usually have to move before other pieces and check requires you to move specific pieces.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Yes the nerds who play Warhammer in 2017 have played chess because they are nerds and chess is basically the first serious game that every person has learned for thousands of years. My anecdotal evidence is that I'm a teacher. And I'm just saying if your argument is that people familiar with turn based video games would be confused by an initiative order in 2017 then I'm genuinely curious what turn based video games you're playing. And I do post about other games. I'm just not terrified of discussing their flaws.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 13:49
|
|
|
Games Workshop makes the best models to play Sigmarines or Bloodbound in Age of Sigmar. I'm not sure where "decent rules" comes from.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Tbh I think it's over complicating it to work in a initiative system for activation order. It depends entirely on design philosophy. Sometimes it makes more sense to do it one way and sometimes it makes more sense to do it another. And not every game gets its rules to match its underlying philosophy. I think critics and fans of Age of Sigmar alike can agree that there doesn't seem to be a deeper design philosophy than, "It must fit on four pages," and the studio worked with that as best as they were capable.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Those look great. In my great list of ~someday~ I have a 5e Bretonnian army and a 6e Chaos army plus loads of Lord of the Rings miniatures that need to be rehabilitated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
Mechanically it's still a bad game even if it is fast to play and streamlined. Most of the target values are arbitrary and unnecessary and can be simplified into a single roll, but because of cargo cult game design there's still a to hit and to wound roll made before the to save. The D6 isn't granular enough to represent the range of power levels in the game, so they had to create a two tiered system not totally unlike Palladium's SDC and MDC weapons, and if you are adjacent to the same design space as Kevin Siembieda, you're doing something wrong.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Though the former is easier. Less checking for stuff. But I can understand liking it better the other way. "Easier" is such a weird thing to say here because it's literally, "What's your defense value?" and your opponent either knows it because he knows the stats of the units he brought or checks his warscrolls. Either way, there has to be communication between the two of you. It's the difference between saying, "These are my target values," after you check and him saying, "Here is your target value," after he checks. In fact, you're actually saving time and making things easier because you're just eliminating the to wound roll and combining it with the save roll. Whenever I read these supposed "pluses" of AoS, things like "you only have to know the stats of your units", it sounds to me like what they're actually saying is, "We know you don't want to interact with another human being any more than is absolutely necessary, so we'll make sure that you can basically play your half of the game without ever speaking to your opponent." It's not like other games require you to know the stats of your units and your opponent's units. That's why people have printed sheets and we have mouths and ears.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That's a dark way to look at it. See my original post about "streamlined" not being the same as "good mechanics". Yes, stat comparison charts are poo poo and moving away from that is on the whole a good thing, it's just that GW did it about the worst way they could and I can think of no other reason for doing so except so that they wouldn't have identical mechanics to Kings of War. But instead of doing something unique and interesting to get away from copying Kings of War, they just did basically the same thing but worse. And as Cthulhu Dreams said, rolling more dice doesn't improve or change the odds. It just slows the pace of the game down. You could have identical statistics with a combined roll.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:Having three different steps for anything to actually happen does give your granulatity because you can incrementally juice each step with buffs/debuffs/rend to marginally tweak odds. It's still way messier than rolling a single, bigger die or a number of other solutions but it doesn't quite just boil down to "these three sets of rolls are pointless." No, but two of them being separate is pointless. Remember, the stats are all coming from your side, so combining the two into a single roll and then combining the buffs ends up being exactly the same statistically. The granularity is imaginary.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
Pawl posted:It's not "pointless". A 3+ then 4+ might be the same thing as rolling a single 5+ but there are many other combinations possible. You conveniently picked one combination that does have a statistical equivalent.There is no single dice equivalent for a 2+/2+, or a 4+/4+. I didn't pick an example, not sure where you got that from. No one is arguing about a game being too granular or not granular enough. We're arguing that it's a massive waste of time to roll buckets of dice when other games have found much simpler ways of doing it. The flaw is in trying to use the D6 to represent granularity, not in trying to have granularity. And we proposed solutions: 1) Using 2DX for rolls instead of a series of D6 rolls because that produces a curve 2) Taking your 5+/2+ or 3+/6+ rolls and converting them into single D% rolls You could still keep most of your modifiers, though you might have to tweak them. But the bigger problem was that the game's granularity cannot actually be supported by D6 rolls even with the system as presented. They had to implement mortal wounds to have an entirely different scale of D6 rolls within those constraints.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I hope we don't have to belabor the point. It's a clear flaw in the game, but it's not a huge deal in play. To me, it's more interesting as a point of evidence on the heap that age of sigmar was designed by someone who didn't really understand game design, or at least, wasn't familiar with non-gw game designs. Exactly this. As I said, its design seems done to be specifically "not be the same as Kings of War". It's certainly not game breaking. It's certainly faster than Warhammer was if you hadn't memorized the charts (and honestly we all had). It's just not a particularly good system for what it's trying to do.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I dunno what WHFB rolls looked like but the Hit/Wound/Save thing seems core to the idea of Warhammer as a game these days and even though they blew up the setting people loved, they found that mechanic too precious to replace. Classic Warhammer and current 40k has typically followed these basic steps for working out combat: 1) The attacker compares his Weapon Skill to his opponent's Weapon Skill to work out a target to hit number and rolls against it 2) The attacker then compares his Strength against his opponent's Toughness to work out a target to wound number 3) The defender has a static save value that is modified by various factors including attacker's strength "It must have 3 rolls to be considered Warhammer" is classic cargo cult thinking.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:This is not a flaw. This is subjective. As shown by people arguing against you and saying its not a flaw. People disagreeing is not evidence of subjectivity.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Then what is. I'm sure you can enroll in the local community college and they'll have an introduction to philosophy class that will cover it. I'm not trying to be glib, it's just a fairly complicated topic and a derail that is far outside the scope of this thread. But what you're unfortunately saying is that if one scientist presents evidence of climate change and another rejects it, then climate change must be subjective. The evidence collected may have been good, the rejection may or may not have been valid, but these are beside the point. The disagreement does not make the topic subjective. Likewise, you may dislike or disagree with our analysis of the mechanics of Age of Sigmar, but in doing so you do not make the quality or efficiency of those mechanics subjective. The mechanics are merely a tool and all tools can be evaluated by the metric of how good they are at doing what they are intended to do and the fact that it isn't difficult at all to offer improvements to the system demonstrates that they are not particularly good tools. That also isn't to say that they don't work or that you can't personally like them, just that they could objectively be better.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:And at the same time, a single person posting isn't irrefutable. I love Leperflesh, and I see how he thinks the 20ish possible combinations of To-Hit/To-Wound with auto pass/fail on 6's/1's doesn't have enough granularity. There's also problems with his solutions. 8+ sided dice have issues with being cocked, they're too large to roll more than 10 of them at a time, they don't pack neatly storage, numerals take longer to parse than pips, determining at a glance what side is ontop on multiple d10+'s takes longer, etc. None of these complaints address the reasoning behind why he suggested those possible solutions. Those complaints are all about convenience which is easily addressed by making it an app. After all, these games are about decision making, right? Why should the dice have to be physical. It's 2017. As wellu "that would fundamentally change the game" arguments don't really hold water for me. Age of Sigmar is proof that they're willing to change the game and things being a tradition is a bad reason to keep bad mechanics. I should also point out the origin of this derail. I wasn't making a weekly reminder that Age of Sigmar is bad. I was specifically replying to an inquiry into the current state of the game and if things had really been improved. My response to that was no because it's still fundamentally a bad game. quote:A big issue with his solutions is that the game isn't a d6 followed by a d6. It's d6x30 followed by more rolling. Yes this is a huge problem especially since the game still uses the individual and not the squad or regiment as its basic unit.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:Which is subjective. We've been over this. Whether or not you like a game is a distinct phenomenon from whether or not the mechanics are sound.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
mango sentinel posted:I agree that the combat mechanics part well-designed but they are functional. They're grossly inefficient and it slows the game down but the game is playable. Being aware of that flaw and discussing potential solutions for it is good and healthy. Getting all assed up on either side of discussing a clunky mechanic is dumb. There's Lord of the Rings, but GW is legally prohibited from adapting the system to the Warhammer universe so even though it's a pretty good game, they'd never be able to draw from it. But it just shows when GW actually feels like it, they are totally capable of writing original rules that aren't garbage. Dragon Rampant had some good ideas and scale wise is pretty close to Age of Sigmar. The command system can be frustrating because it's like Blood Bowl where a failed command roll ends your turn. But there's a community set of rules that fixes that. Brink of Battle has a fantasy expansion that is worth checking out. The system can be daunting to approach because of how much stuff there is in it, so hopefully the professionally published Scrappers that uses the same core mechanics is easier to approach for learning purposes. Mantic should also have a skirmish level game on Kickstarter later this year but I'm not sure if that is going to be "Mordheim" skirmish (a dozen models moving individually) or "Age of Sigmar" skirmish (a few dozen models in loose formations). Speaking of Mantic, Firefight basically does what Age of Sigmar wants to when it comes to a skirmish game of squads fighting small engagements with an emphasis on individuals. A squad is the basic unit in the game, but individuals act as health points for the squad and are removed as the squad takes damage and line of sight is drawn between models. However, stats and rolls are still made for the squad as a single entity, which greatly improves the speed of play. There'd be nothing stopping GW from taking a similar approach to Age of Sigmar.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 02:29 |
|
|
Iceclaw posted:Now try reading the post again? The point of using 2 dices is that it creates a curve, ie you are more likely to pull one of the middle results than the extreme ones. It both gives you more room in stats between low and high, and make balancing things easier. You're analysis of the 2D6 is correct, but to be fair I don't think that's what he's addressing. He's saying that rolling a set of D6 (to hit) followed by a second set of D6 (to wound) isn't worse game design than making a single DX/% roll since using RPG dice potentially introduces its own problems and rolling buckets of dice for minimal results is "fun". To me, having to express a single percentage with multiple target values* is by definition less elegant and therefore necessarily worse design. Other games have managed to be based on specialty dice without it being burdensome so I don't really buy that argument either. If it's really truly impossible to roll non-D6, then just make it an app or reduce the need for so many dice**. "Fun" isn't something I ever like to discuss because it's purely subjective and we can't really have a meaningful discussion about it or its implications. *Remember, the crux of this complaint is that both values are generated by the attacker. This is not a problem in any other game and it wasn't an issue in classic Warhammer or in current 40k. To me this is the definition of a "sacred cow" and "cargo cult" design where they feel like they have to include certain core concepts that don't actually meaningfully improve the game. **This is the other big sacred cow of Age of Sigmar. Warhammer has always started at the individual level and your dice pools are based on the stats of individuals multiplied by the number in a squad/regiment. But other games, including other skirmish games, have come to the conclusion that if a squad is the basic unit of the game, then the squad should have shared stats and you shouldn't be rolling based on the number of individuals you have. This cuts down on the total dice you have to roll for any action and speeds up bookkeeping and gameplay significantly. What's interesting to me is that Age of Sigmar already has mechanics built into it that could make this switch. The degrading monsters are pretty neat and there's no reason why a unit of orruks (sigh) couldn't operate under the same principle. As you remove models, the unit gradually gets less dice to attack with and its target numbers might get worse. And since now a squad is the basic unit, you don't have to have 2-3 attacks multiplied by the number of models. You just say a full squad has "X" attacks, then a reduced squad has "Y' and a further reduced squad has "Z". One other thing I'll say. I'm making the assumption that we agree that elegance and simplicity of design is inherently better than solving the same problem with a more complex solution. I guess I take that for granted and I suppose it could be subjective. But as LeperFlesh said, just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing. If something takes a less elegant approach, it needs to have a drat good reason for doing so and I don't think Age of Sigmar's "well Warhammer has always had 3 rolls" justification is good enough.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:04
|
|