FlatTooth
-
Posts
130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by FlatTooth
-
-
Now, I love dunking on GW as much as anyone but a large company having fairly tight IP rules is very standard. I know there are plenty of arm-chair lawyers out there who have strong opinions but this is pretty reasonable. Go on YouTube and post every page of a NY Times best seller book and I imagine you’ll hear from someone. Gamers have a unique concept of ownership when it comes to their hobby so we tend to see this as a bit more nefarious then I think it is (believe me I think there are plenty of nefarious things GW does elsewise) but, well, it isn’t.
-
1
-
-
I'm really excited by the prospect of the new Path to Glory. Unfortunately GW's kind of insane Battletome system means that Path to Glory will probably suffer in the way that Crusade does- you never know when you'll get the fun stuff added. I'm hoping a supplement will come out that adds things for everyone but we'll see!
-
9 hours ago, RuneBrush said:
I think the original hope may have been 2022 (possibly taking that specialist games November slot), but we don't know the impact that the pandemic has had on the design team. I don't think I'm on my own being happy to wait an extra few years for a ruleset that's polished rather than rushed.
I fear you may well be waiting for this one!
A new player doesn't have to buy the generals handbook or even the battletome to play either. There's free battleplans available and all of the points and warscrolls are available for free. The battletome will add additional rules and things like artefacts (which you certainly don't need for your first games) along with providing lots of information and lore on your chosen army. The generals handbook you only realistically need if you're starting to do organised events. Yes both books are really nice to have, but far from essential for your first runs into AoS.
It’s a bit disingenuous to say that you can play an army without the battletome. While strictly true you miss out on many of the rules which make a faction feel full. Not to mention you have to hope you can find folks who don’t want to play with points or full rules. I imagine it’s more realistic that they’d just offer to loan you the books. It’s an outdated method of delivering rules and they only do it because they can get away with it.
-
1
-
-
For double turn to work well not only would the core rules need to account for them but every battletome would need to interact with it. Currently a lot of folks want to call it an integral rule to the game but there is basically no interaction with it as a rule other than rolling a single die. There are no decision points outside of “do I want to take a turn again?”
in case I’m not being clear- I don’t think it is currently an important rule because currently so little of the game interacts with it. If you got rid of double turns I’m not sure if a single other part of the game would stop working.
-
2
-
-
Who would have thought that so many people loved the shooting phase in AoS. In most games I gravitate towards the squirrely fast-moving, high-shooting factions but the shooting phase in AoS is so mindless that I barely register it's there. "Pick unit in range, roll dice, good job" just doesn't tickle my fancy haha. I feel that if they added some stipulations and complications to shooting then they could start to give armies more meaningful options for shooting. Granted I'm still not 100% sold that GW rules designers are THAT interested in interesting design (roll a 5 or 6, do a mortal wound is not interesting design.)
Also I am so wildly uninterested in returning to the days of "mostly my heroes just add 3 attacks to combat." I love that heroes have flavorful support abilities. It gives me decision points. They could do a better job with the support heroes but if the argument is between "hero with an interesting ability" and "Hero that can can hit more good" I know where I land.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, dekay said:
Funny thing about double turn is that it worked actually good in LOTR. But LOTR had alternating phases, not turns, and there was the Might points mechanic where units around heroes were allowed to ignore the random priority if you spent them. I would n't mind if AoS had those.
If they wanted to bring alternating phases in I would be ecstatic. I have a feeling some grognards may not go for it but my goodness would I be excited.
-
2 hours ago, Mcthew said:
Double-turn aside, I'd love there to be a solid campaign mechanic for AoS 3.0 (match-play/competitive players should look away now 😁). Afterall, everyone enjoys a good story to frame an epic battle on, don't they??
I'm hoping they take some of the ideas from Crusade and bring them over. There was also that system for creating unique characters for AoS. I'm completely blanking on the name of it. I'd like that but with a bit more effort put into it as well. Most of my friends and I are pretty willing to put in that extra effort but it's sure nice when we don't have to.
-
1
-
-
It's absolutely wild to me how many people like the mechanic of "roll a single D6 to get an insane advantage of tempo in your game"
Aside from the teeth kicking that I receive when I lose the double turn I also just get so incredibly bored. It's like playing a multi-player game.
Before anyone says I'm not interacting with my opponents- we are very casual, narrative-minded players. I'm still here to move my little dollies, though!
-
1
-
-
I'm not sure where folks live that their friends don't spend absolutely bonkers amounts of money on silly lists that perform well. I'd like to play there.
-
1
-
-
Well this has got me thinking about doing a Temple of Loec again. Still no idea what I’d do to make the medusas feel wardancer-y.
Previews look pretty awesome!
-
This is amazing and I love it. I'm hoping that with a new edition of AoS they'll take some of the great ideas from Crusade and apply them to Path to Glory. I know stuff like this is largely thankless work and it's so cool that you've done it!
-
1
-
-
55 minutes ago, Nighthaunt Noob said:
I know @JackStreicher has gotten flack before for the use of the word "objective" but I have to agree with his perspective on this. There is evidenced based research that supports the notion that, in aggregate, the typical person finds something more visually pleasing than others, even subconsciously. It makes sense to tap into these "truths" when designing. For example, many people find the OBR heads visually jarring because of the noses and jaws. This departure from what our brain expects to see when looking at a skull is going to cause displeasure in your typical person processing this image.
That doesn't mean some people can't like certain things like OBR heads. However, these things may not be good design choices because of their likely impact on the typical viewer which has deep rooted concepts of beauty/good design.
Sure. The problem is when you're dealing with international markets the "typical person" changes *a lot.* You have to hit touchstones and you need to avoid pitfalls. The danger as a viewer is to decide that you are the "typical viewer" and that your opinion is objectively the correct opinion. If folks aren't willing to actually critique (not criticize but critique) then I'm not sure why they come here (that's not true, they come here because they are very upset about a faction of models they wanted to like but now do not like the direction of).
I would argue that these models hit the touchstones of what en elf is extremely well. They are haughty, they have flowing robes and elegant features/poses. They are mostly using delicate and precise weapons and are portrayed as well-ordered and noble. They have a single unit that departs from *some* of these themes. Let's take a look at that. They are still well-ordered and noble in long, flowing robes. They have a facial expression of disdain because they are fighting "lesser foes." These elves are meant to be connected to the earth so they need a weapon that is associated with the design touchstones of earth. That's a hammer in most situations. Elves are also associated with fine craftsmen. That's also a hammer. The designers have also chosen to attach an animal to the elite units. Hopefully they carry that through to other units or it will really make no sense. You never really want to do something just once in your design. Bulls make a lot of sense for the element earth. Stalwart and strong. The horns also help give these models and extremely memorable silhouette. Their design says "we are not easily moved." The skirt lending a wide base and the strong use of horizontal line drives that home. Bulls and hammers seem like a big departure for elves but I believe they still did a great job pulling them in with the other elements (graceful, elegant, noble).
In regards to Teclis- I don't actually think he's as stiff as the photo would seem. Until I see him in person I will have a hard time telling for sure. I think that model is probably incredibly difficult to photograph. I also don't think that the 'Eavy Metal style is doing him any favors. His robes and face are really calling for a softer gradient of colors (much like the art for him).
I think they should really be showing more of the Lumineth (if there is more to be shown). Right now, I think folks who want classic elves are frustrated that there are strong departures from what they expect. If GW has more to show it'd be smart to show it rather than drip-feed it over the course of the next few weeks. I realize the pandemic has messed up their release schedule but I'd hate to see them shoot themselves in the foot by generating the level of resentment these models have seemed to create. Please don't believe I'm a GW fanboy. I think they make more wrong decisions in a week than most other game companies get even a chance to in a year haha.
Also the behavior of coming here to vent frustration is strange to me. I don't like Nurgle models. They don't appeal to me. I also don't go into Nurgle threads to let everyone know that I don't like them. I'm not sure what that adds to the conversation because it isn't valuable feedback. I have feedback that I think could be helpful but, well, I don't think that's why people are going onto the Nurgle thread. I don't want to pee in anyone's cheerios just because I think I think X, Y, or Z.
Source: I'm a working graphic designer and illustrator and I teach those subjects as well.
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, Clan's Cynic said:
Sadly it seems more often than not you're free to be as condescending and snarky as you like on here so long as it's in defence of GW. It's why a lot of critical posts get a string of smart-arsed replies, but people recoil in shock and 'wow just wow' when the same is returned.
Anyway there's been a few edits of the Not!Hammerers floating around with the bull-ornamentation snipped off and they look pretty decent without them. Overall I'm quite fond of the initial Lumineth units shown. I'm not a lover of anything elven so I wouldn't pick them up regardless, but I do think GW are at their strongest whenever they try and make something more basic than 'hella epic and unique'.
Again, critique is not the same as “this is objectively bad and the designers are not good designers.”
lordy. Just tryin to throw some perspective out there.
Also, the number of folks in this thread who “wouldn’t pick them up anyway” but still have very strong opinions on what they should be. “This was never for me but I need you all to know that I think it’s bad.”
-
4
-
-
3 hours ago, Reuben Parker said:
But why start a flame war?
I like the models and the theme but equally I can understand why others don’t.
I’m not starting a flame war. I’m drawing attention to the fact that a lot of the detractors are speaking from an unwarranted point of authority. A lot of them aren’t saying “I don’t love these” or “I don’t like these”. They’re calling into question the competence of the designers and sculptors. It’s a bit unfair to accuse me of being the first to bring hyperbole into the mix.
-
3
-
-
I love how many folks on this forum are highly knowledgeable and accomplished artists, rules writers, figure designers, graphic designers, folklorists, media and communications experts, literary critics and probably great cooks to boot. Not fans, *experts.*
it’s humbling being in the presence of the greats. To hear what is objectively bad design, art etc. thank you for your service.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Watching people meltdown because they DARED to explore other themes with elves is giving me life during this pandemic, you guys.
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
-
“Elves- advanced wizardy. Amazing blacksmithing. Poetry that would make you cry.
Fundamentally cannot understand hammers.”
at least, if you listen to folks on the internet.
-
6
-
-
I've had really good luck mostly just using them in combination with regular paints. I think they're a great tool. Not revolutionary by any means but good to mix it up!
I'll try and remember to post some photos of what I've had good luck with.
EDIT: The two tree-folk are basically all contrast with highlights added and the Orlock is just the leather. I've found that if I use zenithal priming and then push the white with a brush before using the contrast I get pretty good results. I also think if you put work into skin/faces it pulls enough attention from other stuff.
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/27/2020 at 8:13 AM, Graywater said:
What size list are you looking to run?
Maybe 1500 or 2k! We don’t tend to play other sizes unless it’s while we’re building up.
-
Hey guys! I was wondering if you could help me out with a list-- I'm hoping to do a Daughters(and sons) of Loec army by mixing daughters units with blood bowl wood elves. Is there a beginner list you would start with? My friends and I play matched play but don't go all-out so it's okay if it isn't too crazy! I appreciate any help you guys can give.
Thanks!
-
These models are beautiful and I'm enjoying the insight but man, oh man are these articles kind of toothless. Oh well! Once it's closer to release I'm sure they'll get meatier.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Aloth_Corfiser said:
I was bored and made a small chart to compare the Runes on the Vanari Auralan Warden Shields with the old High Elven Runes out of the "Uniforms and Heraldy of the High Elves" Book. I hope it works for you - I could not find a reasonable way to display the chart directly in the forums.
Edit: Yeah I didnt think of a PDF - good point.
Fun Fact: If you Switch the Rune "Yngra - Rescue, Inprisonment" upside down it becomes "Denla - Freedom, fulfilment, epmtiness". 😁
Yeah I also was amazed at the "Twins" Rune - it is sooo lovely! 🥰
Sad that two of the Runes mean "War without end" ... ;(Hi, I love you for this. 😘
-
Hey all, thinking about dipping my toe into the KO pool. I’ve always loved the idea of Barak Thryng but I’m not sure the best way to use the dispossessed. One idea I had was a block of hammerers and a soulscream bridge in a bottle to help them get where they’re going. Has anyone else played with something similar? It seems a little silly to bring the bridge in an army with fly high haha
-
Okay so I guess we agree. As I was saying— I loved the old world. That doesn’t mean I thought it was some kind of high art with great depth. To me, there is a difference between what Tolkien did and what GW did. I can tell I hit a nerve here though so let’s just agree to disagree.
The Heavy Hand of Games Workshop - IP Rights
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
I’d love to know who gets the pleasure of writing this particular set of IP laws. Like, I am all on-board with eating the rich but I’m not sure we can write a law that is basically “IP protection unless you make a certain amount of money”.
Don’t get me wrong, IP laws need so much work but even the lawyers I’ve spoken to who specialize in copyright always say they can only give “maybe yes” or “maybe no” as answers.