|
Goonhammer has a pretty unfortunate review for beta garmon. Apparently the shattered legions got a "these rules are just for funsies and don't try to play them anywhere" disclaimer. Apparently you use the number of surviving legionnaires present in each squad to determine what their rules are. Which makes sense in theory, but doesn't sound like it was exposed to much playtesting. Everything else seems ok though, just a big disappointment for the shattered legions.
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
moths posted:Goonhammer has a pretty unfortunate review for beta garmon. Apparently the shattered legions got a "these rules are just for funsies and don't try to play them anywhere" disclaimer. Important to note - you check "number of surviving legionaries of each legion" at the start of each phase of each turn, so that number is potentially constantly changing AND you have to keep track of what it was at the start of the phase since it doesn't change mid phase. For every unit. The bookkeeping is... a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 15:23
|
|
|
moths posted:Goonhammer has a pretty unfortunate review for beta garmon. Apparently the shattered legions got a "these rules are just for funsies and don't try to play them anywhere" disclaimer. non-issue
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
I mean, the problem isn't the review - it's the bookkeeping described in the review.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 16:09
|
|
|
moths posted:I mean, the problem isn't the review - it's the bookkeeping described in the review. And knowing ijyt, it's probably a "skill issue" to not want to stretch the game out even longer for minimal to no gain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 16:36
|
|
|
It's going to be a total non-issue in play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 16:39
|
|
|
I got a feel that GH was wringing hands pretty hard over it, but it looks annoying AF to re-establish your units' rules whenever they take casualties. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 17:00
|
|
|
Most people realistically won't play Shattered Legions, and those that do will be choosing to deal with it. You have a lot of control over when models die anyway most of the time, so the odds of it being something you are not choosing is fairly low. I think it's not amazing design or anything, but it is so unlikely to matter in any normal situation that it is pretty easy to forget about. Something cool for a narrative hobby weekend, but you won't see it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
They should make good rules instead of bad ones, but this IS 30k we're discussing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 20:32
|
|
|
long-rear end nips Diane posted:They should make good rules instead of bad ones, but this IS
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 20:56
|
|
|
This is my first time seeing "it's bad so nobody will use it" described as a self-solving non-issue that will never come up IRL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:13
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Most people realistically won't play Shattered Legions, and those that do will be choosing to deal with it. You have a lot of control over when models die anyway most of the time, so the odds of it being something you are not choosing is fairly low. I watched the Winter SEO video review of the book and it was significantly more positive about the Shattered Legions rule, and apparently there's a passage in the book about how choosing which models die when so you have the rules you want in the phase you want is even called out in the book as an intended element of Shattered Legions play. Of course, another one of his comments was "I don't like all these 4 turn missions, those are for tournaments where things have to be short but I'm here to gently caress around all afternoon with my friends, 4 turn missions just means less Heresy in my Heresy" so he's definitely not looking at it in terms of competitive play.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:23
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:And knowing ijyt, it's probably a "skill issue" to not want to stretch the game out even longer for minimal to no gain. I don't even know who you are, but if you were to read the quoted text I'm talking about "ask your opponents permission" being a non-issue as 95% of heresy games aren't in a competitive setting. Who are you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
moths posted:I got a feel that GH was wringing hands pretty hard over it, but it looks annoying AF to re-establish your units' rules whenever they take casualties. imagine if GW had spent 8 million on a universal app for tracking rules/wounds/game objectives etc instead of a worse website
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:34
|
|
|
ijyt posted:I don't even know who you are, but if you were to read the quoted text I'm talking about "ask your opponents permission" being a non-issue as 95% of heresy games aren't in a competitive setting. Who are you? Someone who's interacted with your trolling in other threads, unfortunately repeatedly. "This force we expect you to spend $500+ can be invalidated by some rando saying 'no' and they can point to the rulebook to back that up" is an issue regardless of situation. Paying money (and not small money!) for the privilege of being in a grey area of the rules that can be rejected at any time, for any reason, and you can't do poo poo about it. Maybe for the communities with dozens of heresy players (that's, what, maybe ten cities in the US?) it's not a problem since you can avoid the assholes, but when you have four or five people in a community and the majority are 40k refugees with 40k mindsets, you don't exactly have a big pool of players to find the like minded ones. Giving them any GW-backed excuse to decline a game based on the faction being played is bullshit. I'm not saying "you should never be allowed to decline games". You should - someone who brings optimized FotA spam or something like that isn't going to get games, that's a natural consequence of the social environment. GW should never be putting out rules with the intent of them being declined by players if they want to charge money for those rules, though. Either playtest and adjust enough that your rules don't need the disclaimer, or release it as a free pdf like the daemons rules were (with a similar disclaimer to this one).
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 21:54
|
|
|
sorry for not being a forums yes-man ig idk lol if your current group of people tell you you can't play your army you spent time making it sounds like they're doing you a favour by urging you to find a different group. gotta get out of that competitive mindset to find a big open field of happy hobbying waiting for you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:13
|
|
|
like chaging ur groups lovely mindsets is really not GW's responsibility tho if they hadn't supported the loud tournament weirdos so much this wouldn't be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:14
|
|
|
ijyt posted:sorry for not being a forums yes-man ig idk lol Explain in concrete terms how you want someone whose next nearest 30k player outside this group is a 50-mile+ one-way trip (including rush-hour big city traffic for the last dozen or so miles, given game store hours, so longer than the pure distance indicates) away to find a different group. Or, much easier: don't print that disclaimer in the books, and the problem goes away!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:20
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Explain in concrete terms how you want someone whose next nearest 30k player outside this group is a 50-mile+ one-way trip (including rush-hour big city traffic for the last dozen or so miles, given game store hours, so longer than the pure distance indicates) away to find a different group. Sometimes you have to travel to get what you want.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:22
|
|
|
Lord_Hambrose posted:Sometimes you have to travel to get what you want. "What I want" is "competent writers at GW" and no amount of travel is going to make that happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:25
|
|
|
The disclaimer itself isn't the problem, or even that people might leverage it to veto your army. It's that they needed a disclaimer because oops we published tedious bullshit and James Workshop himself recognized that it's even below their own bar.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:33
|
|
|
SkyeAuroline posted:Explain in concrete terms how you want someone whose next nearest 30k player outside this group is a 50-mile+ one-way trip (including rush-hour big city traffic for the last dozen or so miles, given game store hours, so longer than the pure distance indicates) away to find a different group. live in a smaller country
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:37
|
|
|
I think it is okay for a game with this many factions to have one faction that is The loving Around Faction, with rules written to facilitate maximal loving around. Game designers can have a little nonsense, as a treat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:44
|
|
|
I honestly don’t think counting is really that tedious
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 22:58
|
|
|
I would also want to see the exact text. There's that one sidebar that shows up in all the Legacies PDFs -- "Core" and "Expanded" Army List Profiles -- that explicitly calls out expanded units as legal in all games of the Horus Heresy and doesn't mention exceptions, and I've absolutely seen reviewers read it as the exact opposite, citing the explicit divide between core and expanded units as an example of GW being responsible in allowing people to veto use of "expanded" units in their games. I'm not saying Goonhammer definitely got the contents of the Shattered Legions disclaimer wrong, but given the reviewer's jaundiced view of the rules themselves, and my own experience in seeing that people tend to give unfavorable and sometimes even inaccurate reads of material relating to content they viscerally dislike (I am not immune to this!), I am not inclined to take their account of the Shattered Legions disclaimer as explicitly providing justification for opponents to arbitrarily veto Shattered Legions armies without seeing the text for myself. The Winters SEO video explained it less like an arbitrary veto and more "The first couple of games you play with Shattered Legions will tend to take longer than normal because the rules are more complex, so we recommend setting more time aside for those games, and we recommend not allowing them in tournaments where time may be a factor and where not everyone is familiar with the SL rules." That is not the same thing as "These are just for funsies, don't use them if you don't want, not our problem if they suck." That certain types of players will take the former to mean "Banned in tournaments; I'm not letting anything banned in tournaments into my home games" does not mean GW ought to design Heresy for that type of player. Anyone for whom that type of player is the dominant voice in their local community has my sympathy. Stephenls fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Mar 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 23:22
|
|
|
I think 30k is a bit caught between worlds; specifically the more historicals-like, relaxed attitude the rules writers expect from players, and the tournament loophole-obsessed attitude of GW proper.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 23:43
|
|
|
In happier news, the rules for blackshields apparently do include rules for giving your blackshield forces lasguns because all their boltguns broke and they haven't been able to scavenge more. (Again courtesy of Winters SEO; he didn't mention it in his video but i asked in the youtube comments and he said that's there. I'm kind of surprised goonhammer didn't mention it either.) Stephenls fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Mar 24, 2024 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
Dual-wielded even!
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2024 23:50
|
|
|
(The Goonhammer suggestion of just using Blackshield rules for your Shattered Legion modeling project does seem completely reasonable to me if you don't want to deal with the extra Shattered Legion rules overhead, though.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:In happier news, the rules for blackshields apparently do include rules for giving your blackshield forces lasguns because all their boltguns broke and they haven't been able to scavenge more. the goonhammer review posted:One lets you use weird (and fairly bad I think) Xenos weapons while another has your Legionaries use scrounged lasguns, shotguns and stubcarbines – one in each hand as pistols.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
Welp, teach me to read.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
the rules also seem insanely stupid and gameable (a unit of 3 jetbikes can choose the most optimal combination of merits and flaws every single phase) and also utterly nonfunctional for single model units like dreadnoughts, so it’s not like it’s just the tedious bookkeeping that’s a problem. They are bad rules. It’s ok, some rules are bad, but it’s a bummer when it happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 00:44
|
|
|
Going to be playing Militia going forward so I never, ever, ever, have to imagine that I might win another game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 02:52
|
|
|
I can’t imagine playing 30k to win. It’s about putting cool models on the table and having a good time, which both Blackshields and Shattered Legions look to be great for. Give me more hosed up crazy Marines with unbalanced rules over Primaris Marines all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 03:09
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:They are bad rules. It’s ok, some rules are bad, but it’s a bummer when it happens. The example of a Night Lord dreadnaught who can never charge a unit was utterly disparaging. The good news is those Astartes decals are finally coming to pre-order next week. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 25, 2024 17:13
|
|
|
Stephenls posted:I think it is okay for a game with this many factions to have one faction that is The loving Around Faction, with rules written to facilitate maximal loving around. Game designers can have a little nonsense, as a treat. This would only be applicable for a game studio that averages 30% nonsense on even the best rules release. And I know it's 40K, but sometime during the last edition, they gave up on trying to balance admech at rolled back all the rules changes. Oh, and no 30k sounds better than 30k with people so 40k poisoned they'd refuse to play your army because the rules say you can. No game is good enough to play with that kind of crowd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 15:01
|
|
|
I'm probably the least competitive player I know, but I would absolutely refuse to play shattered legions in the hands of a certain type of player. I mean the player who'll look up the rules consequences for every possible resulting composition before choosing casualties. Every time. No game will run smoother by adding an army re-composition step into basic damage resolution. That said, a shattered legions mirror match sounds like a hilariously janky way to waste a Saturday.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 16:33
|
|
|
I would also like to look at the actual rules for it before passing full judgement but I think with my friends we'd probably just house rule it so the 'work out who's rules are applied' thing would just be at the start of each turn for the Shattered Legions player. I sort of get the reason why the fluff would be every phase but I feel that walking it back to once a round still preserves the flavour without making it a bookkeeping nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Mar 26, 2024 21:26
|
|
|
We finally got a look at the legion command set https://www.warhammer-community.com/2024/03/28/heresy-thursday-plant-your-flag-with-new-legion-command/ 
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 07:54 |
|
|
Lucinice posted:We finally got a look at the legion command set Oops, All Swords is not exactly what I hoped for but it looks like there's good parts in here. Baffling decision to just pair it with the same five default poses though. They look okay, just you'd think you'd get fancier armor for them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 28, 2024 15:35
|
|