Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 But battleline and heroes have a cost. The problem is the 0pts cost, it creates ridiculous situations and it's basically, pay to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kramer Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Asensur said: Generic terrain should be part of army building. Maybe modify the rules to include 1 terrain + 1 per battalion? That would limit army building in my mind. Because you are no further disadvantaging yourself if you don't take a battalion (which in it's core is a limitation on you option in exchange for a benefit). Right now they already give to much advantages in my mind and as a result will limit players with a competitive mind set even further in their army creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XReN Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 2 minutes ago, Belakor said: But battleline and heroes have a cost. The problem is the 0pts cost, it creates ridiculous situations and it's basically, pay to win. What about undercosted overpowered units? Are they pay to win? If they are and you are not okay with it, why are you playing this game? If not, how free terrain is pay to win? Can you provide examples of ridiculous situations with faction terrain involved? ATM only this conversation is ridiculous, not terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 At the time the ONLY limitation for you to play something that benefits your army is money. That's basically the definition of Pay to Win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XReN Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Belakor said: At the time the ONLY limitation for you to play something that benefits your army is money. That's basically the definition of Pay to Win. The only conclusion I can draw from your answer is: you don't have problems with pay to win Why is this conversation happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jabber Tzeentch Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Belakor said: @Overread Yes I also think they are very affordable but money is not my point. For my forcing people to take this exact scenery without any option is not a good game design. But as I said, i'm kind of okey with it at the moment, I just hope they will end up giving those a cost like the Spells. No one is forced to take the scenery. You’re just at a disadvantage if you don’t. They build interesting mechinics in to armies that wouldn’t be possible without a physical terrain piece. They’ve added load of fun to games with them. And to those saying it’s unrealistic etc... who cares?! You’re playing a fantasy game with all sorts of crazy, the logistics of how they het there is the leasts of the realism concerns. How about why am archer can only shoot his arrow about 50 metres? Tops. When in real life it should be triple or more. Or how come cannons only have the power to shoot about 100m... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tea_wild_owl Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 actually, the first point free Faction specific terrain features were introduced with sylvaneth (wyldwoods!) very near the beginning of AoS, it just started recently with other armies and seems to be standard now. i like it, not only is there more terrain on the field, but sylvaneth aren't alone with transporting problems of additional stuff anymore it is more of an extension to your army, visualising effects of your powers (growing woods good or evil, moon shaped meteors, heardstone etc) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overread Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Actually Wood Elves could also summon forests way back in the Old World. On some level Warhammer 40K does require you to pay to play if you want to use official models. Nothing stops you making your own terrain feature, in fact there's several who are already making their own Gnawholes. Home Made Terrain is very accepted in most clubs and events and the only restriction on faction terrain would be that it has the same base/bottom size as the official terrain feature. So you don't have to pay to play you can 100% make your own at home from whatever you want. However because the game requires physical models you do have to pay to play anything in 40K, its not free to play. It's nothing like "pay to win" where the game assumes you don't have to pay anything to take part because, well, the terrain costs are in line with regular model costs that you are expected to pay if you want to join in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlvalentine Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Belakor said: But battleline and heroes have a cost. The problem is the 0pts cost, it creates ridiculous situations and it's basically, pay to win. I feel like you're maybe still not understanding that there are restrictions on how many of them you can take... so there are no 'ridiculous situations' or 'pay to win' elements - you can't just buy five herdstones and plonk them on the table, that's not how it works. It's just part of your army that you need to buy the one or two you're allowed to use. Think of it the same way as Flesh Eater Courts players having to buy extra units for their summoning spells. I can definitely see the negatives of free terrain pieces - they are basically a tax on players playing that army. But I think they're also a really cool idea that add a lot of flavour to battles. So swings and roundabouts really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tea_wild_owl Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 50 minutes ago, Overread said: Actually Wood Elves could also summon forests way back in the Old World. On some level Warhammer 40K does require you to pay to play if you want to use official models. Nothing stops you making your own terrain feature, in fact there's several who are already making their own Gnawholes. Home Made Terrain is very accepted in most clubs and events and the only restriction on faction terrain would be that it has the same base/bottom size as the official terrain feature. So you don't have to pay to play you can 100% make your own at home from whatever you want. However because the game requires physical models you do have to pay to play anything in 40K, its not free to play. It's nothing like "pay to win" where the game assumes you don't have to pay anything to take part because, well, the terrain costs are in line with regular model costs that you are expected to pay if you want to join in the game. it is hard to compare 40k to AoS now, because for example summoning is free in AoS (you had to pay points for it before), so the same applies to the terrain features. the "points" that you have to pay for it is that you limit your models to the faction, similar when using faction specific spells and artefacts. It is basically the same as any faction abilities except that they have an actual model on the field (which offers other benefits as blocking LoS). most of these features are fixed in number (basically one) except for nurgle and sylvaneth where you can summon additional stuff while playing. but if they wouldn't be free they wouldn't offer any benefit for you (which would hit these armies hard). as another example, for gitz you have the moon travelling the field and offering benefits. you have to remember it or place tokens, imagine doing this for all armies. i personally prefer having an actual model over this (build my graveside markers for LoN, too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Belakor said: it creates ridiculous situations Name one ridiculous situation it creates please. This needs to be a rules or game based situation to be clear - not a 'its weird that this shrine is here' situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackStreicher Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 4 hours ago, Belakor said: At the time the ONLY limitation for you to play something that benefits your army is money. That's basically the definition of Pay to Win. It‘s not. Buying an (unfair) advantage (with real money either to get currency or the item) compared to your opponents is ptw. Since this mechanic is meant as an auto-include it‘s meant to be used (or proxxed) by everyone and has been integrated to your army and in some cases it is even an integral part of your army this means -> you don‘t get an advantage, you have a handicap if you don‘t use the scenery which is more like pay to Compete. But this whole game is ptc in this manner since you need units which have to be bought with real money in order dir you to „compete“ with others. apart from that the terrain is never spamable since you can block the creation of new, additional terrain via placement of models and it can be blocked by other terrain since the placement rules are very clear and strict (most Sylvaneth players run out of space after 3-5 woods depending on how much terrain the board starts with) quick overview: sylvaneth: can have an „infinite“ amount of trees which is can be summoned via magic and abilities. This mostly caps at 3-5 woods FeC: max 1 Nurgle: I‘ve never seen more than 4 and those trees aren‘t big Legions of Nagash: it‘s pseudo terrain capped at 5? (Or 4, I haven‘t played them for months) Beasts of chaos: max 1 Skaven: max 3? Edit: Idoneth : Max 2 I don‘t see how this is stupid it a „Spamming“ since the theoretically I finite Terrain pieces have to be summoned so buying more terrain will cost you money for no effect whatsoever since you won’t have a lot of them on the table anyway. though I agree that auto-includes of any kind with no choice are bad game-design. Definition of pay to win Games that let you buy better gear or allow you to make better items then everyone else at a faster rate and then makes the game largely unbalancedeven for people who have skill in the game without paying. this also does not fit your understanding of ptw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 I didn't make myself clear when I said a ridiculous situation. What I mean is, for example, imagine a kid who has just started playing, and gathers a 1000k army with a lot of effort, but he can not pay for a Bad Moon Loonshrine for example. He goes to a tournment, and he keeps playing against people who could afford the scenery. Every time he takes battleshock tests (Loonshrine makes your near units don't take battleshock tests) he will feel miserable, just for not having the money. If it had a cost, even if it was only 50 pts that feeling would not exist. That (for me) is a very bad game-design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPjr Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Sounds like our hypothetical soft lad, let's call him Walter, needs to get out there and wash a few more cars or deliver newspapers or whatever he does, wait another month and buy the loon shrine rather than wander around a tournament with a sad little face on. He's going to need to toughen up when the big tough men twice his age with their commission painted DoK armies smash his face in on the table and mock him relentlessly all weekend anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overread Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 35 minutes ago, Belakor said: I didn't make myself clear when I said a ridiculous situation. What I mean is, for example, imagine a kid who has just started playing, and gathers a 1000k army with a lot of effort, but he can not pay for a Bad Moon Loonshrine for example. He goes to a tournment, and he keeps playing against people who could afford the scenery. Every time he takes battleshock tests (Loonshrine makes your near units don't take battleshock tests) he will feel miserable, just for not having the money. If it had a cost, even if it was only 50 pts that feeling would not exist. That (for me) is a very bad game-design. Thing is what if this person only bought really cheap models second hand and didn't build and army and just has a random assortment of 1000 points - they will again likely lose. On some level there is a requirement to build a decent army and build and paint it to compete in a tournament and have an expectation to win. It's just part of the hobby. The terrain features are not horrifically priced and are within what most would consider reasonable prices for the game in its current form. So its in line with current prices; its just not a warrior model but a terrain one. They also have to buy a battletome and dice and ruler; they need a case or something to put the models in paints brushes etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skabnoze Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 51 minutes ago, Belakor said: I didn't make myself clear when I said a ridiculous situation. What I mean is, for example, imagine a kid who has just started playing, and gathers a 1000k army with a lot of effort, but he can not pay for a Bad Moon Loonshrine for example. He goes to a tournment, and he keeps playing against people who could afford the scenery. Every time he takes battleshock tests (Loonshrine makes your near units don't take battleshock tests) he will feel miserable, just for not having the money. If it had a cost, even if it was only 50 pts that feeling would not exist. Then he can either save up the money for a Loonshrine or he can scratch build one out of cheap junk. The Loonshrine is simply a small rocky cave entrance with a moon-shaped rock stuck to the top. It would not be hard to build that out of junk. Most people won't care about scratch built scenery as long as it is about the same size. In my experience local tournaments are pretty lax in regards to things like this and most players appreciate people putting effort into hobby projects. This is an expensive game. It always has been and always will be. I don't buy the argument that we should design the game so that people without much money have immediate access. There are multiple play formats for building up your collection and army such as Skirmish or Path of Glory. GW seems to be working on something a bit like KillTeam and that will possibly be another nice gateway game. Small gateway games that transition someone into the full game is the best way so solve the issue of high start-up costs for armies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 I understand you, I just think its a bad game design, thats all, I love this scenery kits and I love playing in good looking boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtninja Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 Introducing unique scenery pieces to each new army accomplishes a couple things, outside of what they do rules-wise. For one thing, they guarantee more terrain on the table. A lot of people seem to set up areas with huge open spaces, especially if their army includes huge models or hordes of dudes. People also like to put their terrain rather out of the way, so they won't be an actual factor to objective-taking or actual strategy. Giving every army terrain they can lay down not only fills those gaps, but actively encourages players NOT to leave huge areas open when they set up the board, and NOT to leave areas uncovered by terrain - do you really want your opponent to fill it with angry trees, or put a gnaw-hole there, or toss their giant ship in the middle of that field, or plant their cancer tree right on that objective, or otherwise advantage themselves and harm you? This encourages players to place terrain more near objectives, so that the random terrain actually becomes a factor in play, instead of being pushed to the side. Better to have a deadly ruin on the terrain that your opponent's massive Wyldwood, for example. With this in mind, even setting up the table can be tactical - you know what your opponent is bringing, you can assess the board and figure out how they might try to move across it - and you know what terrain they'll bring to the game, so you'll be able to plan for that, too. There's a layer of additional strategy that army-specific terrain provides that encourages players to actually think about the field as a vital component to the battle, rather than an annoyance or non-impactful variable. Personally, I like having to think about what my opponents might bring terrain-wise to the game. Some things, like the Herdstone, or Loonshrine, or that gross throne that the ghoulies have, are for their army to rally around, but others affect the whole field and both players have to play around their presence. This kind of game design means that each game can be very different, because the terrain placement can have such a heavy effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 hour ago, Belakor said: That (for me) is a very bad game-design. That has nothing to do with game design and has everything to do with little Timmy not being prepared for the event. A good shop will have helped Timmy get himself in good order before he showed up (including having necessary terrain pieces). This is no different from Timmy not having models to summon if he played Seraphon or Beastmen, or Timmy not having other proper gaming tools such as dice and a tape measure. Timmy made a choice to attend the event without having access to the shrine - that's not the game's fault. Most of us in this hobby know the feeling of being a younger player and having to play with the army you could afford and not the one you want. Army scenery hasn't changed that fact. It sounds like what you're saying is 'I don't want to have to buy these models' and instead of just admitting that you're foisting the issue on some imaginary kid going to an event he probably shouldn't have. I think you'd have a better conversation/discussion if you were just honest about the fact that you don't like having another thing to buy for your army rather than trying to pin the thing on game design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jabber Tzeentch Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 I wouldn’t say it’s bad game design, this is the first time I’ve ever seen a thread where someone dislikes them, they’re almost universally loved as part of the game. Mans with the cost situation, some 2000 point armies will cost you 2-3 times as much as another army. Some armies without a terrain piece are crazy expensive (fyreslayers) compare to some of those with them. Nearly all terrain models are relatively cheap, especially from a discount store or second hand. I really just don’t think the situation you mentioned is very likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 Jajaja I have no problems in buying this kit. I said that before, the money is not the problem. The concept is. Any autoinclude in any game is a bad design, if you dont wanna see it no problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 5 minutes ago, Belakor said: Any autoinclude in any game is a bad design, if you don't wanna see it no problem. But those already exist. In KO Arkanaut Companies are auto-include because they're literally the only battle line choice. There will always be 'auto include' choices in armies, the fact that scenery is free has nothing to do with it. The issue is you're looking at army scenery like a unit on the table and not just a physical representation of allegiance abilities. You've framed them up in your mind as the exact same thing as taking another unit of squigs or gors but that isn't what they are. They are just a continuation of your army's allegiance abilities. Or do you also think army allegiance abilities are pay to win auto include since they also don't have points? I mean you do have to pay for a Battle Tome to get access to them so you're spending money and the same kid you were worried about not having a Loonshrine may not be able to afford his army book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belakor Posted February 28, 2019 Author Share Posted February 28, 2019 They ain't Pay to Win because they are free. It just feels... Weird a 0pts scenery, like if they are giving you the choice to take it or not, it feels weird. I come from other games where every cost and value is strictly studied and tested to be balanced, this kind of things really feel weird to me. But as I said, I have nothing against GW or AoS. I love them, but critisising and discussing about a game and it's rules is good, all games have things to improve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XReN Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 1 minute ago, Belakor said: I love them, but critisising and discussing about a game and it's rules is good, all games have things to improve. Can't talk for the majority here, but the main rule issue atm is providing "new standart" rules for older armies (which GW executed beautifully with Ghouls and Rats imo) and personally for me, at least, slow-ish FAQes, but people would debate that it's better than "in the old days" and I agree with them, just think it can be more frequent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted February 28, 2019 Share Posted February 28, 2019 3 minutes ago, Belakor said: but critisising and discussing about a game and it's rules is good, all games have things to improve. Sure - but that isn't how you framed this conversation. You stated having free terrain is pay to win - under the pretense that it costs 0 points. And then said that was bad game design. Yes AoS has many things it needs to improve (Better Part of Valor is a great example) but allowing players to field a terrain piece of a part of their army allegiance abilities isn't one of them. Again you have framed the terrain piece in your mind entirely wrong - because it has a points value you are looking at as though it were a unit but it isn't. It is just the army allegiance being added to the table - they choose to use the points system because it helps with consistency since those terrain pieces do have a Warscroll associated with them. But they aren't the same as taking another unit. If an army got a real unit (that moves, fights, scores, etc) with a cost of 0 I could understand your angle. But that isn't what's happened at all - a herdstone can't fight, it doesn't move, it doesn't cast spells. You just deploy it on the table and it has an affect - it would literally no different if it was instead a token with abilities instead of a physical piece of terrain. Again there is literally no difference - game wise - if the Loonshrine was just a cardboard marker that placed on the table with the same effects. Or do you also have an issue with LoN grave markers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.