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

Sleboda

Members
  • Content Count

    2,420
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Sleboda

  1. I realize that for some, this is a drawback because tournament play is very important to them, but in my opinion not all games need to work in that environment. Personally, I don't think AoS is well-suited to tournaments rather, but I suppose that's neither here nor there. Warcry is a fantastic basement game. The campaign system is freaking brilliant. I mean, for decades we've seen attempts at campaign gaming with GW games and they've always hit the same snag - relying on your group of participants to stick with it and show up for "campaign night." This Warcry system finally removes that problem. If I had to pick one thing about the game that is a bit of a let down, it's the occasional game where the four decks generate a non-game, as you touched on. Still, as the game seems to be designed with casual play amongst like-minded gamers in mind, that should not be much if an issue. It takes all of five minutes to set up the scenario, so just redraw and get on with a better game. Job sorted. I dunno. I just think this is a real gem of a game. I already have the scenery painted (in record time for me) and I've now gone through my stock pile of models and the new models to cobble together seven warbands, with more to be done this week. It's really stoked my hobby fires and made use of kits I've owned for years that have just been sitting there. Loving it. Side note on the Gitz. That's debates. According there a complete reading of the rules a you should be adding the bonus damage to -each point of damage you allocate-, which I think everyone would agree is insane. That leaves the sensible interpretation that you add the bonus damage one time, to the total of what you generate from hits and grits.
  2. Point one: agreed. I thought they would be the worst. Then I played with them and find I was wrong. Point two: that's a lot of boxes! Or a lot of converting. Lol.
  3. We can all have our opinions of course, and I certainly don't mean to criticise you for yours. That said, it runs counter to literally every single video I've watched and every single game I've played. I think this is one of GW's best games.
  4. True, but (and maybe you realize this, but I'm seeing that many people don't) remember that when you bring a model back, at best he will come back with six wounds remaining, not full health.
  5. I had a look at mine, and the pillars that go around the edges of the big rectangles move from deep map to map, so don't glue those down.
  6. I'm suggesting that's the ideal to which we might try to aspire, yes. Minimal confusion is not really a bad goal, is it? Being considerate to our opponents as much as possible? I'm really not seeing why my general idea of putting the other person over your self is such met with such resistance. I've not played against or with (yet!) Ironjaws in AoS, but that's not relevant. This is Warcry. Same setting, utterly different game. I don't think veteran AoS experiences have any impact here. Besides, what about new players who don't have that experiential knowledge? Isn't it even more incumbent upon us, as veterans, to ensure that new players encounter as few obstacles as possible? It does no good to get a new person in, game against them, have them go after the wrong models on the table, get beat because they didn't recognize the model for what it was, and then quit because they felt like the game was too confusing or frustrating. We should endeavor to make the game as conflict/confusion-free as possible, shouldn't we? Again, why is trying to be as nice as possible to our opponent seen as a bad thing?
  7. I'm not saying your general premise in the rest of the post is off, but this part seems to be to me. This hobby is a 3D model thing. The models and their appearance matter. If your above statement were true, we could all very easily just play with cardboard chits that have a stat or two on them. That's not what we're here for. A dwarf is not an elf is not a human and to treat them all as the same just because the have the same weapon and base size is to ignore the visuals and lore that draws people to one over the other.
  8. Sleboda

    Is SCE OP?

    Did the shop impose a time limit?
  9. It definitely is a hobby. For sure. Collecting, modeling, painting, gaming. That's a pretty great hobby! The thing is, all those matter. Not just one part. Gaming is part of it, and the game has rules, and those rules are tied to models. For me, painting is the best part of the hobby, with gaming second, collecting third, and modeling last (but not unimportant - just last in my list). I don't think it's fair to denigrate others who prioritize things differently (for instance, implying with "what sort of person"). It appears you put modeling very high up on the list. Lots of folks do, and that's awesome! That doesn't mean that someone who wants to ensure the rules are played accurately and that the models on the table reflect the rules is any lesser of a hobbyist. I'm saying that we can work together as a community to blend all the elements of the hobby for the betterment of the experience. Convert models! Go for it! Just maybe make sure that the conversions don't interfere with the gaming/rules part of it. And speaking of conversions, why not apply those hobby skills to making very, very simple weapon swaps on da boyz to make them better reflect the standard appearance? The modeler gets to model, and the gamer gets a more consistent rules experience. Win-win!
  10. I made it pretty clear why. Multiple times in the thread. It's about working out things on a forum, trying to create an ideal situation, and being as considerate to an opponent as possible. Sure, if I were totally me-centric and only ever had people play against me with these models, there would be no point. However, I'm working toward a community consensus, and, I suppose, saying the I'd never put it on my opponents to expect them to deal with inaccurate models. After 30+ years in this hobby, I've seen and experienced far, far too many instances of form over function getting in the way of clarity and courtesy to an opponent. I never, ever want to be the one to upset an opponent or win a game against them because I let me creative juices interfere with their ability to recognize a model and react to it accordingly. Short version: It's about trying to help us all be more courteous to our opponents.
  11. To be clear, I'm talking about creating a "best state" where visual identification is as easy as possible not only to aid the player (who likely had some degree of familiarity with his force) but more importantly, to aid the opponent (who may have zero familiarity). Lots of my posts here follow that common theme: making sure my creative or interpretative choices don't negatively impact my opponent negatively. I'm NOT (OOPS!!! had to edit that in)trying to limit peoples'enjoyment or ability to make cool stuff. There, now with that said, yeah, I suppose I'm sorta saying that (given that the only difference between some of the Orruk fighters in Warcry is that some have, for instance, two swords as compared to a sword and club or an axe) if you don't match up the weapons in the pictures on the abilities card to those on the models, then it seems a bit off to me - especially, again, because those weapon looks -are- the differentiator. I wanna be super clear on this: I'm not going to wee in someone's cornflakes if they show up with inaccurate models. I'm just discussing it here, on a discussion forum, as is appropriate to do.
  12. I played my first game using these guys tonight, after several games using others. I've seen a common theme, and that's the need for bodies to supplement quality troops. My list tonight was the flying leader, the flying non-leader, the walking non-leader, and give ghouls. Having numbers to take objectives and use wait actions to force my opponent's hand while still having several remaining activations was vital to my win. Having fast, durable fighters to be threats drew attention away from the little guys. It was the combined force that really did the job. I'm planning on Orruks next, but I'm not convinced they will have the numbers to win.
  13. But this isn't using the AoS models in Warcry. It's using a-kit-containing-orruk-models to represent the orruk troops on the warcry orruk abilities card. The models do not match what is shown. As was pointed out earlier, it's a simple conversion, but as sold, they don't match. In Warcry it's going to be very important for the models to match since individual loadouts have different unit cards and often times the appearances are already very similar between models in a warband - with the distinctions between them often coming down to only the weapons they hold. It would not be fair to an opponent to essentially tell them to remember that "the thing that looks like the thing shown on the card is actually another thing that looks like the thing on a different card." It's already tough to tell the differences in some warbands (looking at you Cypher Lords) even using the purpose-made models. When a player removes identification a step further it is incumbent upon that player to ensure his opponent can still identify the models at least as well as he/she could were they the standard models. Not saying I'd deny an opponent the use of non-converted Gurzag dudes. Just discussing what I see as a fair standard and an ideal to which we can aspire.
  14. Actually, also @DrJekyll325 , I've just had another look at Ironskull's Boyz and it turns out that the only one that has a use in Warcry is Bonekutta. Gurzag and Basha have the wrong weapons to match any of the Ardboyz, and Hakka is not a Brute, which is the only 2-choppa Warcry orruk. Bummer.
  15. That's exactly my thought. We have a spare box (wanted two sets of the cards) that I am re-purposing this evening.
  16. There are some good battle reports on YouTube. Like you, I'm using Warcry as motivation to get my Iron Jaws going again, but after several games with other warbands where the benefit of numbers has been demonstrated clearly, I think I'll need to drop a brute or two in order to get some black orcs in the list.
  17. Not really. It was a natural outgrowth of an in-game discussion. My opponent attacked with the ability. She added the bonus to each attack. I was like "Wow, really?" She read the rule to me. Being our first game with Gitz, we took all of about 10 seconds to go "well, let's check the main rules for what they say about the terms used in the rule." Just a few minutes later we saw the issue. Seriously, in maybe 5 minutes or so of discussion we spotted the potential for trouble with the rule and were a bit surprised this made it through testing, especially seeing as how the rest of the book itself is really pretty tight in terms of rules clarity. Then I watched battle reports while painting one night and saw different people playing it different ways. Even if you just look at the two main interpretations, it's pretty apparent that people are playing it two different ways. The third, most thorough, reading of the rules is simply a natural progression from trying to see why players are not in agreement on how to play it. No huge amount of time spent. No overthinking. Just plain old reading and thinking. All in less time than it takes for a pot of coffee to brew.
  18. The Insanity of Sneaky Stab I've seen two ways to play this rule, and, with a careful reading of the main rules, there is a third way which, within said rules, seems to be the most by-the-book way of playing it. But. If played that way, it seems horrifying, which is why my conclusion is that it can't be right and one of the other two must be (and I have an opinion on which). Interested in discussing? Warning, it's a long one. If so, read on. The Sneaky Stab rule read: "... add the value of this ability to the damage points allocated by hits and critical hits from that attack action." Most people have interpreted this one of two ways: 1) Add up you damage from your hits and critical hits and then apply the bonus to this total. The argument here is that the phrase "damage points allocated by hits and critical hits" is simply a way to say that if you are applying damage from some other source that is not a hit or critical hit, you don't get to add this bonus damage. There are currently a few ways to do damage without hits or critical hits, and (as we've seen from Kill Team and other recent games) initial rules for new things are showing that they are written with future add-ons in mind (see reference to mounts and gargantuans in the Warcry main rules). This phrasing could easily be a way to future-proof the rules. Even beyond that, this interpretation sees, in essence, an implied parenthesis around "hits and critical hits" - as in figure out the damage you a generating from (hits and critical hits) and then add the bonus to this total. 2) Add the bonus to each hit and critical hit. The argument here is that the rules say each hit and critical hit carries a damage to be allocated. Nothing says to add up all your damage and then apply it to the target. It says, on p. 44, point #3, "For each hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the first value ... for each critical hit, allocate a number of damage points equal to the second value ..." Well, that leads to the question of the actual process of allocating said damage, which bring us to this issue ... In our games, we went down this rabbit hole and found something bothersome. If you use the justification for #2 above - that you allocate damage for individual hits (and criticals) you need to look at the rules to see where that comes from and where it goes. That inevitably leads to this: Main rules, p. 44, point #4 "Damage points are allocated one at a time (note: emphasis mine)." Uh oh. Hits and critical hits generate damage points to be allocated. These are allocated one at a time. Sneaky Stab adds the value of the ability to damage points allocated which means that each individual point, as it is allocated, gets the Sneaky Stab bonus. Yikes! Now, am I saying this is how it ought to be played? Nope. What I am saying, though, is that if you are using the main rules to justify option #2 above, you must use all the main rules that relate to damage allocation. You don't get to pick a few of them and ignore the rest. You must follow the process of damage allocation through to the end of that process. This means that if you support #2, you really should support adding the bonus to each and every point, not to each hit. In other words, #2 is a middle ground between a reasonable reading of the ability+main rules and the most literal reading. I support #1 and, if an opponent tried the literal application in a game against me, I'd have to allow that his reading is also correct and take the massive damage. Note that this is not RAW vs. RAI. This is RAW and RAW vs a made up middle ground. Thoughts?
  19. Yeah, I don't use those either. 😉 I'm finding I use the Universal Abilities far more often than faction ones. There are exceptions of course (like the one for spirit hosts that gives them crits on all hits!), but generally I am finding the Universals to be more useful more often.
  20. Sleboda

    Basing

    I'm old school. I used to do the following for all models, even Tomb Kings (initially) : - Woodland Scenics fine ballast glued on with Emler's - Paint goblin green - Drybrush bilious green - Drybrush with bilious+white - Drybrush very edges with bilious+lotsa white Now I do the same with degrees of brown (for a few armies) or grey (for most armies) over astrogranite. This lets me paint models for use in multiple games. For instance, my demons are good in 40K, AoS, and Kill Team. I've never been a fan of scenic bases. It doesn't make sense to me that the skull/twig/tombstone at the warrior's feet is moving up the battlefield with him/her. For display models? Heck yeah! Gaming models? Nah. I even have put ballast over the decorative nighthaunt models in my nighthaunt army. This is not a criticism of anyone who jazzes up their gaming model bases. I'm just answering the question and giving insight into my answer.
  21. Isn't that the ability that fails one third of the time even after you got lucky enough to get the needed doubles and spent them? Seems too risky to plan on. Don't get me wrong, I'll give it a go. It just seems far too luck dependent.
  22. Sleboda

    Is SCE OP?

    I think gloomspite is the best when you go Hopper heavy.
  23. Why is that? I've played several games of Warcry now, with various warbands, and (even though I am/was very excited to get going with them) The Unmade seen like the low end of things in the game, in terms of power. How are folks making them work?
×
×
  • Create New...