Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Sleboda

Subscriber
  • Content Count

    2,972
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Sleboda last won the day on August 15

Sleboda had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,539 Celestant-Prime

2 Followers

About Sleboda

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FWIW, I truly miss the days of mono-pose toy soldiers in my battle games. In skirmish games of a dozen or fewer models, sure, give me individuality. In a game where armies clash, give me disciplined, uniform soldiers who look like they are in a regiment.
  2. I dunno. I recommend it to people pretty regularly. 🤷‍♂️
  3. Hi all, It's been a bit since I've added more Bonereapers, and that's because of 40K. As you can see, Necrons have pulled me back in. I'll be back to my bone guys soon, but at least I'm working on something!
  4. I understand that, and agree to a degree, which is why I put it in quotes. Thing is, it's not like this would eliminate any options. If you want your all steam tank moments, you could still totally have them. This just rewards taking the units that are iconic/baked-into-the-fluff. It would encourage people to take armies that look like the armies from battles in Black Library novels, Battletomes, and other narrative sources. I know there are lots of ways to enjoy this stuff, but, for me, the best movies with battles in them show vast legions of soldiers supported by other stuff, not 5 giants and 2 soldiers taking on 3 dragons and 1 soldier. A strength of AoS is its versatility. I'm just saying that encouraging people to take armies that look like actual armies is not a bad idea.
  5. I just read the community article on Core units in 40K. At first I thought it was just Battleline for 40K. Nope. I really like what they are doing as a way to help reinforce what an army "should" look like from a fluff perspective and also how it limits characters from inspiring themselves. I'd be happy to see this come to Age of Sigmar. I'm good with anything that helps armies look "right."
  6. Beasts of Nurgle have the dubious distinction of being both bad on the table and a model that's gotten worse looking each time it's been redesigned. The original model was fantastic. Frye this thread, I'll nominate Bloodletters. I may revise later, but for now, the 60 I bought never see the table, so they get my vote.
  7. I think tournament settings are the exception here. By definition, a tournament is a competition aimed at determining the "best" participants. When your tournament is for a game, which means there are rules to know in order to play at all, let alone at the highest level, it is entirely reasonable to expect the competitors to have knowledge of those rules. Having more knowledge makes you a stronger competitor. Do some people attend tournaments with the erroneous idea that they are not competitors? Sure, but that's on them not understanding the nature of the activity, not something to hold against those who are there with full knowledge of what the event is. To put it another way, you wouldn't expect a football team that has not studied the game tape of the other teams in the league to do as well as a team that put in the work to study the tape of the other competitors. We generally laud those people who study and learn. Players in a Warhammer tournament who put in the work should be commended, while those who turn up expecting to use their lack of knowledge as an excuse to get a pass might reasonably be less well regarded. Standard Note: this is not a post about sportsmanship or being a ****** at the table or winning by tricks and cheats. This is just a refutation of the idea that it's unreasonable to expect others at a tournament to have put in the effort to learn about the competition.
  8. Do you recall Arcane Magic and Battle Magic? Hundreds of items, all with point costs. I miss that. Still, even then there were a dozen or so Can't Miss Winners (Black Gem of Gnar, Crown of Command, and others) and 95% of the stuff just stayed home. Now, I understand the argument that that's a problem for GW to fix with the points they assign. Two issue with that: They can't and they won't. Can't - As much as I love GW, they have never shown any real ability to get this sort of thing right, and they've had decades to try. At this point, it's pretty much institutional tradition for them to look at gamers with rose colored glasses ("Naw, the players won't take the best stuff all the time or twist our vague wording into a horror show." smh) Won't - I believe that, despite battalions being a thing, GW doesn't want people building armies without buying models. Every 100 points spent on a magic item is 100 points not spent on models.
  9. I'd leave the game. Physical books, not just rule books, are treasures for me. Going purely digital would gut a big part of the enjoyment of this hobby for me.
  10. I disagree. My Ironjawz don't pick a subfaction, and I'm unlikely to use one often for my Bonereapers. The reason? I prefer the other trait/item options. If I could get the power of a subfaction and combine it with "better" items and traits, things would edge closer to bad balance.
  11. FWIW, I'll point out that it's even worse/better than that. If the toe of my archer can draw a line between the legs of the troll and to the hem of your wizard's dress, I can shoot it.
  12. I'm just waiting for someone to give me Advance Wars in either GW setting. If this is it, fantastic.
  13. Minor tangent, but I miss the 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy rule of compulsory troops. For instance, all undead armies required skeletons with scythes ("the very embodiment of death" or some such. This really made armies that looked like armies, and, more specifically, armies that matched the idea of what that army was.
  14. Alrighty then, I've had some time to mull this over and am now in front of a PC instead of a phone. Before I give my two (or seven) cents, I want to be clear: I do not endorse cheating, deceiving ("You asked if I had any teleporting units, but not if I had any hidden glades movement units- ha!"), or playing psychological games. Nor do I believe in treating a new player who is asking you to help them learn the same as an opponent in a tournament. I'm not about being "that guy." It's probably good to keep that in mind when/if you read this to the end. In no particular order, here are my thoughts on gotchya moments and avoiding them (or not) - I believe that using deceit to create an intentional trick situation is awful. I also think that there is more than just a little onus on the players to follow the rules, to know the rules, and to gain experience with them. In the olden days, list sharing was not only not required, but not particularly encouraged. Many tournaments would require you to swap lists after the game as a way to discourage cheating. Sharing was not in the rules and was only an expectation when playing a small subset of the ways the game could be played. Today, this is not the case. The actual rules of the game now tell us to share our lists before we play. Wow! That was a big change for old-timers like me. A welcome one in the end, but a big one. So, we have a base level expectation that you will share your list with your opponent. What that opponent does with the knowledge you give them in your list is up to them, not you. You could even take the extra step of giving them an AoS Reminders sheet, but that is up to you being generous. I have no problem doing that. I will also answer questions my opponent has about the rules and stats of a unit, but almost never (exception as listed in the intro) what tactics I plan to use. What I won't do is run down the highlights of my army proactively. There are two main reasons why. 1. Princess Bride. Sort of. If I offer up proactively what the highlights of my army are, I can quite easily, intentionally or not, tip my hand as to what I plan to do. I am naturally going to want to talk about the coolest things my army can do, which are likely the things I like about the army and will try to do. I'm often giving my game away before we start if I do this. On the other hand, if I am a ****** (and I've seen this all too often, sadly), I can give my opponent a red herring of sorts by highlighting the things I want them to focus on while I am secretly planning to do something else. I tell them that Unit X can teleport behind their lines, so they guard against it, committing troops to defending the rear, while all the while I have zero desire to do that and now I get to worry less about some of their forces. Shady as heck. It's best to not proactively share capabilities in order to avoid being on either side of the psychological rope bridge. 2. Experience matters. This is not "git gud." This is recognition that we grow more from experience than being told what to do. We also gain knowledge of what other armies can do by actually playing against them and, yes, getting burned by something you didn't see coming. It's not fair to the experienced/informed player to give up that advantage that they have earned through playing, reading, etc. It's also not fair to the less experienced/informed player to deprive them of a chance to improve through actual game play. Again, accumulating knowledge through actual experience (and research) is a part of growing as a player, and it should be both rewarded and earned. Next, secret info. Another old time thing was that information used to be quite deliberately kept secret. If you had a magic item that could burn out after using it on, say, a roll of 1, you were under no obligation to let your opponent know if it had failed. The Staff of Volans is a great example of this. When you used it, your spell could not be dispelled. That meant your opponent would not waste dispelling resources stopping a spell cast with it until the staff had burned out. You had to decide to commit the resources without knowledge of the staff's status. If it had not burned out, you wasted your resources if you used them. If it had and you assumed it was still functional, you might not use resources and the spell would be cast unchallenged even though the staff could not power up the spell. It was a guessing game based on not sharing info. Heck, in those days we didn't even use dice to cast and dispel. You had cards that were dealt secretly that governed the winds of magic. My point is, the game used to be designed with hiding info as part of the experience, and for many veteran gamers this idea of freely sharing info is tough to get used to. I'm not saying that justifies bad behavior, only that in the OP's case, the opponent may have had some residual influences knocking around. Maybe not, but maybe. I also want to draw a distinction between hard rules and optional choices. Another poster above talked about reminding the opponent he has Nurgle saves to make when the opponent forgets to take them. That's not just courtesy or an option. That's the rule. If you know they get a save that they forgot to take, you are obligated by the rules to inform them. This is not a case of the opponent not learning new tactics, new options, having a brain glitch, making an error, etc. This is them unknowingly skipping a rule, and both players have a responsibility to enforce the rules. If you are inwardly gleeful that your opponent forgot to save and you win as a result, you have cheated because you knew the rule for resolving that save and chose to ignore it. That's it for now. TL;DR: Don't cheat. Don't deceive. But also don't grant unearned advantages or play psychological games. Winning is the object of the game. Having fun is the point of it. Cheating or defeating yourself is against both.
  15. Precisely. I have a lot to say on this, and will later at my PC (6 a.m. phone typing is yucky), but yeah, this.
×
×
  • Create New...