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

Sleboda

Subscriber
  • Content Count

    2,973
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Everything posted by Sleboda

  1. Or maybe even all of Nehekhara, and not just one city state! Sorry. Pet peeve.
  2. 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.
  3. I dunno. I recommend it to people pretty regularly. 🤷‍♂️
  4. 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!
  5. 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.
  6. 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."
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I'm just waiting for someone to give me Advance Wars in either GW setting. If this is it, fantastic.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. This really is one of the best game mechanics GW has ever created. I just wish they had not treated that game as fire and forget. It's so hard to know which GW games to get into. Which ones will they maintain? Which ones are one shot cash grabs? I passed on Blackstone, thankfully (since it's ending). I have resisted Aeronautica so far (until they add Necrons). I've only dropped about $2000 on Titanicus (if they add other races and infantry, I'm doomed though). Somehow I've stayed away from Necromunda this time around (but dayyyum, those ogryns!). Blood Bowl has taken way too much of my cash, and I have all the Underworlds stuff, often in doubles. It'****** or miss. Even main games like AoS and 40k are hard to predict. Do you get the limited edition version of a book, knowing that it's gonna be, um, "updated" in a month or replaced in a year or two? I dunno. I love GW and the hobby they sell me, but it's often hard to go in on anything but the absolute most sure things they make.
  18. Indeed they can be fun, but I'm just saying that they are not great as a regular game. I really enjoyed Mighty Empires, but in that game the siege was usually abstracted. You could play them out on the tabletop if you were so inclined, and sometimes you would do so just for the occasional variation in your weekly game, but it was not the norm. And that was for a good reason. The nature of the game just wasn't Warhammery, for lack of a better term. Sure, when the stars aligned for two like-minded players, when they were tired of the energy and excitement of the thrust and parry of armies clashing on the battlefield, when they wanted something more akin to a slow plotting of strategy and resource management, they could agree to the multi-day event of almost no actual movement of models, calculating how many more shots of catapult ammunition they had left, how many weeks of grain remained inside the castle walls, and determination of how many plagues the priests could inflict or stop. Thrills. But it was an option. Could it be dressed up? AoS-ified? Sure! And I bet it would actually be fun and take under 27 hours to complete. But, as the basis for a new version of the standard game, awww hellz no. A supplement in White Dwarf? Sure! The standard out-of-the-box experience? No gosh darned way. Can you imagine the in-store demo games that try to recruit new players? "Gee, mister, what do I do now?" "Well, Timmy, you point at the wall, remove an ammo token from each of your catapults, and then roll on the structural integrity table for section 3.16 of the south wall." "Um. Ok. I guess. Then what?" "This is the fun part! You then decide to either poison their water or go foraging for winter supplies and waiting for them to starve. Which do you want to do?" "I want my soldiers to charge across the table and fight!" "Oh, Timmy. Silly Timmy! No. That would be stupid. It's much more effective to have your army stand around and do nothing! See, it's fun!" "Oh. I think I'll go buy the new Borderlands game for Xbox. Thanks, mister."
  19. Sieges have never been compelling affairs in wargaming, at least not in the sense that they have broad appeal. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea as an occasional break from the norm, but the very nature of them runs counter to the Three Fs of Fast, Fun, add Furious. They are sedentary endeavors, where the enjoyment comes not from the action and excitement on the table, but rather from the plotting and planning of the long game that takes place in the imagined tents of the commanders. A siege is best won by doing absolutely nothing. By encircling the besieged force and just ... waiting. Not exactly the stuff of legends! "Tell us, oh mighty general, how your forces defeated the hated foe. Did your centaurs storm the gates? Did your harpies blacken the sky and pluck the defenders from their walls? Were your ophidian brigades swift and fierce as lightning as they skewered the enemy upon poisoned pikes?" "Nope. We sat around eating rabbits for three months as the poor sods starved while hiding behind their walls." GW has tried siege rules a few times in the past (Warhammer Siege, Mighty Empires). It's always been a distraction, not a main attraction.
  20. This is actually one of my favorite parts of the game as it is why putting things like gods on the table is ok. Everything dies. I like it.
  21. It did, and it created some of the least enjoyable situations in the history of Warhammer. You would make a few amazing characters, stick them in a unit where all of their powers and buffs would be in full effect at no risk of losing them. They called it Herohammer. I'm not a fan of "cute" names like that, but it did sum up the problem well. As an aside, I'm amused by how many suggestions in this thread are, intentionally or not, basically saying "let's go back to Warhammer Fantasy."
  22. I disagreed with a bunch of your ideas (:shrug: - nothing personal - I think about 90% of the suggestions I see in this thread are massively bad ideas (imo)), but gotta give this one a huge 👍. Assuming that by "normal people" you mean people who understand what words actually mean and who don't just take the lazy "well, common sense ... they'll figure it out ... nobody would ever try that cheeky interpretation ... we can't possibly be expected to be clear" way out.
  23. I would like three things: 1. A delay of at least another two years before it comes out. There's just no overwhelming need for a restart. Edit: Importantly, I would be highly bummed if the new edition invalidated the existing Battletomes. It might even get me to stop playing for an edition or two. 2. A further refinement of terms, in particular an un-muddying of wound/mortal wound and damage/wounds. You should not be checking for wounds at a point before you are wounding. 3. Model-by-model additions to units. Right now it really, really stinks to have to add 10 more models to a unit just to prevent losing a buff when a single model dies. Plus, sometimes you have six points left or are six points over and you have no flexibility on how to handle that. Bonus fourth item: Do not remove the priority roll. Not being able to completely predict the sequence of turns is a vital, absolutely crucial element of the game. Those of us who have been around long enough can remember when knowing the order of turns meant you could mostly predict all the action. It was boring. It was not fun. Too many games were over before a single hit roll was made. Now, with random turn order, gosh, you have to make contingency plans and can't just hit autopilot after deployment. We can also recall hundreds of games where one player or the other would say "Well, next turn is the last turn and I go first, so I will just retreat and deny you any chance. If the game were going to keep going (or I didn't know I could escape), I'd do something else, but oh well." Talk about anti-climactic! Determining the sequence for the whole game at the start is a major road block to fun and to challenge.
  24. That book is in my stack of backlog reading. The model is on my shelf of backlog painting. Sounds like both will soon move closer to the front of the line. Thanks for the interlude!
  25. Been done before. It was great. I bought 30 of each of the two Tomb Guard that it came with to use in my black and white silent movie themed undead army and other projects (examples shown here - they are the two models on the right).
×
×
  • Create New...