Sleboda
-
Posts
3,381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
22
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sleboda
-
-
I just thought of another thing I'd like to see in 3.0.
I want a new rule that says if your opponent uses the prefix "meta" as a word on its own, you win the game. This could apply to any misuse of a prefix. For instance, if you're setting up the game and instead of asking you if you have anything to explain or take care of before turn one they instead ask about what you have to handle in the "pre." Or if they wonder aloud about any abilities your troops have that allow them to wound with no need to make a roll and refer to them as any "autos" you have have.
It would promote better communication and do something to help slow down the stupifying of our children. Please, think of the children. The children, I say!
After that, they could show up at my house and put a very pretty sign in my front yard that says "kindly get the heck off my lawn."
-
1
-
1
-
-
On 2/13/2021 at 11:36 AM, Nostrammo said:
I think that they are of the mindset that guessing ranges, and having modifiers tables slow the game...so they add dice to the roll to manipulate the propabilities which some times unfortunately has catastrophic consequences.
I think if some of the "old" things made a comeback they would help the game a bit
Running with no dice (marching)
Marchblocking
Charging without dice
Charging Reactions
shooting modifiers for attacks (shooting through screening units, shooting Long Distance, Shooting in Close combat)...
Sooooo ... Warhammer Fantasy Battle then?
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Keilerei said:
Getting rid of Auto-xx.
eg. Teleports, casts/unbind, destiny die. This is a Dice game, Skaven and Gitz do This in a cool risk and reward way, everything That happens automatically without giving at least a chance of interaction or is without consequences is just unfun to Play against.
I, on the other hand, want to see more ways to remove the influence of dice. Make more things auto.
Nothing stinks quite like coming up with a plan, executing it perfectly, and saying "I just need two of these 10 dice to roll anything but ones and I'll win" only to roll 10 see and see 10 ones.
Games like Super Fantasy Brawl and Bloodborne manage to be great without dice, and they make me really feel the pain of dice luck in GW games.
-
33 minutes ago, Overread said:
It also takes them a further step away from single-faction-domination marketing. Which whilst that is easy and Stormcast are clearly going to be very core; it also can backfire to waht 40K wound up as.
Not sure I'd call the massive popularity of 40K, and Space Marines, a "backfire." 😘😉
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Joseph Mackay said:
This is a melee focused game
Stated as fact, with authority.
I'm interested to know which game developers you had over for dinner and a chat about what the game *is.* Surely you're not saying that your preferred style of play is the One True Way, right?
-
1
-
-
On 1/8/2021 at 3:26 PM, azdimy said:
I am concerned that gw in a near future treats the eu as the rest of the world and prevents uk resellers to sell gw goods outside of the uk. Something they could not do legally when the uk was part of the eu
I strongly suspect this will be the case. It makes so much sense from a business perspective, and now that the rules are different over there, expect GW, and other UK manufacturers, to reevaluate many aspects of their terms and practices.
-
4 minutes ago, Deepkin said:
Cathay is cool but I can guarantee you a massive part of the decision to make up a whole new roster and characters <snip> was because of the gigantic market that is Chinese gamers.
CA, much like GW, wants money.
This. Movies do it, and it works. GW is just following the money (as they should!).
-
8 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Yes, it is a fault of the rules. Saying "well if you use totally different terrain from the terrain GW clearly intends you to use based on what they sell for use with the game, you can hide" is not an argument that the rules are fine, it's an argument that you can get around the inadequacies of the rules by using a totally different kind of terrain.
Just because GW sells terrain kits for those who want convenience doesn't mean the rules aren't good. People forget that GW selling prefabs at this level is a relatively recent thing. For decades White Dwarf ran articles on making your own terrain. Even today we see them encouraging creative terrain making in various ways.
Choosing to pay for terrain kits that don't give you the blocking you want isn't a problem with the rules or with GW. It's a valid thing to do, of course, but blaming the rules rather than embracing this aspect of the hobby feels, to me, like lazy excuse-making.
BTW, several other companies make larger terrain kits, so you have can the best of both worlds - ease of use and rules functionality.
-
9 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:
Now in theory if everyone started using totally different terrain - big, long, tall walls with no gaps - you could hide (except from Lumineth and a few other units nobody takes). But that isn't how the game is played
That's not the fault of the rules.
-
2 hours ago, Popisdead said:
I think we are going to see 40k changes come to AoS. Obviously smaller tables
That would be one of a handful of things that could get me to quit the game instantly. I still miss 4x8 tables. You know, tables that allowed you to play war games, not just skirmishes.
I accepted the move to 4x6, but smaller would just have me transition to Warcry as my standard fantasy gaming fun (that and Super Fantasy Brawl).
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, EMMachine said:
With this as Line of Sight rules, it is basicly not possible to hide
Oh, I get that it's hard to hide models behind models (as it should be) sure, but terrain? We don't really have issues hiding anything but the largest models when we play. Knowing the rules, making and using effectively imposing (large) terrain is key (and fun!).
🤷♂️
-
6 hours ago, Grimbok said:
Many bad rules in armybooks needs to be corrected, especially out of phase rules, like hero phase combat and shooting, 6” pile in no need to charge, strike first, strike twice, shoot twice etc.
I'm leaning this way myself. As much as I love GW, this "let's make things cool by having them break existing rules" is a decades-long failing of theirs. I don't know if they just run out of ideas, if a designer gets too cute and "in" for his own good, or what, but for a very long time now they have made great games that work really well and are really fun when they first come out ... and then the cleverness mucks things up.
My favorite example is Man O' War. That boxed game was pretty darn great. Then they added Sea of Blood and Plague Fleet (I think those were the names), and rather than just relying on the excitement of new fleets to carry the day, they had to give the new stuff special rules that not only over complicated the game, but also messed with (not to their benefit) core mechanics. Our group eventually skipped the new stuff and just played with core stuff.
AoS feels like that. The game has solid mechanics, but it feels like GW's way of introducing new, interesting stuff is to give it "clever" ah-ha(!!!) rules that ****** up things for everyone else.
I just wish they would keep shooting in the shooting phase, combat in the combat phase, and so on.
Monsters don't feel tough enough (for example)? Don't let them fight in the hero phase, or add a new stat, or whatever. Just give them more Wounds. That sort of thing is much preferred for me.
-
6
-
-
7 hours ago, Enoby said:
addressed this in the post you replied to - it's not that it does actually cause the new player to lose (that could be a million other things), but rather it feels very bad to have it happen to them and the purpose of a rule should be fun
I get ya. I wasn't clear enough.
I'm saying it's just a bad feeling by the player, and thus placing the blame on the rule is as misguided as being upset that the kicker of your favorite team lost the game at the end by missing a kick.
Both are just feelings based on the observer not understanding what happened, not based on the rule itself being bad.
It is my opinion that making things worse to appease the feelings of a person who didn't understand what actually happened is not the right call.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
Now if AOS had 40k-style terrain rules and you could hide from shooting, this would change. But the combination of ranged attacks you cannot hide from
Why can't you hide?
-
22 hours ago, Enoby said:
There are many reasons a new player can lose, but the double turn is the most obvious to the new player.
That's like when casual football fans, and even some broadcasters, say that when a kicker misses a field goal at the end when the team was down by two points, the kicker "lost the game."
No, he didn't.
A thousand other moments were just as equally to blame. Bad play call by a coach four minutes into the game. Dropped pass before half time. A running back missing the hole midway into the third quarter. A ref getting a call wrong. And so on.
All of that contributed to the loss. It's just that the timing and the clarity of a missed kick as time expired is simple and easy to blame.
A double turn is too easy to blame for our own (or the Dice Gods') failings.
-
3
-
-
On 1/31/2021 at 9:57 PM, someone2040 said:
Basically, I think given the simplicity in the AoS core rules, there's not a huge need to 'a new edition'.
I think this is a big key to keep in mind. I'm one of those oddballs who really liked the 4-page rules version. It has everything you needed ... yes, including the full rules for handling terrain (to discuss elsewhere if you disagree and want to).
Army building and game play were so clear. Now it's getting complex, and needlessly so. While I understand the desire for things like limiting shooting to every other turn (no offense to the person who suggested it!), stuff like that just adds yet another small book keeping task that, when added to the heap, makes the experience feel less like a fun 3 hour game and more like a tedious 5 hour chore.
As much as I really, really enjoyed old Warhammer Fantasy, I don't want AoS to continue its seeming slide back into a complex beast like that was, and as I read many of the wishes here and elsewhere, the thought keeps going through my mind: "These ideas surely do feel like people just want to play WFB instead of AoS."
-
1
-
-
What I would like for AoS v3 is about another three years to go by before it comes out. A new edition will negate every single paper product I've purchased for the game, especially if some of the more radical (and imo needless) ideas like removing the current determination of turn order get implemented.
I'm not ready, or willing, to jettison all my materials yet (especially collectors edition tomes).
-
7
-
1
-
3
-
-
12 hours ago, Kramer said:
nobody says it is fun to moderate. But its worth it for the company.
I actually really enjoyed doing it. I thought it was worth it.
It was the Director and other management folks that didn't have the foresight to keep it going.
-
7 hours ago, Kramer said:
I do community management for several companies and the worst thing you can do is to remove it.
If it’s a vocal minority you brush it off with a joke (which they do often). And the majority wil respect amd support that.
if you remove it, people will see it as shady control. Regardless if it’s a minority or not.If it’s a majority than the best thing to do and maintain the attitude* is to own your mistake.
*don’t know the non-jargon term for that in English, sorry
Back in the day I worked at GW US HQ. In addition to my actual job duties, I moderated the original forums (I was GW_JadeGriffinJoe or something like that).
Our IT director hated having to support the forums. Our management hated them as well. Too much work, too much complaining from customers.
So ...
They shut the forums down and rejoiced.
Dumb.
-
3
-
-
7 hours ago, stratigo said:
Using an information advantage in an attempt (even one that backfires) to get people to make purchases they would not if they had the information being withheld is a violation of business ethics.
Lol.
Are you the arbiter of what "business ethics" should be?
He was right. Buy it or don't. It's not food, clothing, or shelter.
People really need to get off their high horses when it comes to freaking toy soldiers.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
-
7 hours ago, JackStreicher said:
Tbh: If the miniatures of Mantic were more appealing and less blocky I‘d gladly skip GW‘s for good. They appear to be a hobbyist company and not a greedy corpo like GW.
Ronny is a GW vet. I guarantee that as soon as he can grab a pile of cash, he will. Not a criticism. Just reality.
Nobody. I mean nobody. Nobody works for the good of the people when they can get freaking rich instead.
People are inherently selfish, greedy, and evil. All that gives them the appearance of altruism is a lack of opportunity to ****** others to benefit themselves. It's human nature.
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:
At some point, GW will reach the natural zenith of the growth it can achieve by selling more and more $ worth of stuff to the same people, at which point you may see some more serious efforts at bringing in new people.
People have said this for, literally, several decades. It's like how people rally behind the next miniature wargame as "the one that finally takes down 40K" only to see that system bomb and be dead in under five years.
I worked in GW trade sales. We always knew there was limitless growth potential. World population is increasing, and every newborn whelp becomes a potential customer down the road. We're making more new customers every night in the back seat of our station wagons.
As to efforts at bringing in new customers, I can tell you it's pretty much priority number one for them. Our mantra was "new customers are our life's blood."
Nearly every single decision factored in recruitment. White Dwarf repeats content for a reason. New painting vidoes say the same thing as old ones regularly. Store managers are compelled to run demo games to new people or lose their job.
GW is laser focused on getting new players.
-
3
-
-
On roadmaps:
GW would be foolish to do them for AoS and 40K.
People would be more likely to save up for the things they want and skip stuff that comes out before their chosen items. As much as folks may not want to admit it, impulse control is hard. Not knowing what is coming down the road removes a barrier to impulse purchasing.
Sure, you may suspect that a new release is coming for your army in four months, but if you don't know it for sure, you are more likely to part with the cash you currently have to excitedly buy what comes out this week, and then find more money in your budget (perhaps you skip a video game or concert down the road in order to buy the toy soldiers that you didn't know were coming but then did) for the next thing later on.
As to other companies in this industry using roadmaps ... yeah, well, let's compare the financials of those companies and GW. It's not even close.
What GW is doing works. It's working very, very well.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Mattrulesok said:
I mean that analogy doesn't work at all does it?
My point was that he was making up an issue. The idea that buying a car means you should automatically get free gas is just as nonsensical as saying that buying a model automatically means you are entitled to rules.
Or, to put it another way, you don't get to decide that you get to have more stuff than you bought just because you want the extra stuff or feel somehow entitled.
GW makes no secret. They don't trick you. You know that when you buy a kit, you get the kit, not all the possible rules for all related kits, or indeed even the full rules for that kit.
What would you like for AoS 3
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted
QFT.
Something was bugging me about these shooting discussions, and this was it. Thanks for the reminder and for putting it well.
I think (and have thought) that when WFB transitioned to AoS, a lot of old thinking stuck around. In the before times, the game was actually designed around kills. It was only at the invention of the Watch Tower scenario (a sort of a preview of AoS, as it turns out) that objective play became a thing in Warhammer. Until then, it was just kill, kill, kill. My old Tomb Kings were a miserable failure of rules writing because they didn't play the kill game very well at all. Watch Tower actually gave them a chance to compete!
When we tested 6th edition, we were even given specific direction to only test 4x6 (or maybe it was still 4x8 at the time?), 2000 points, Pitched Battle (old meaning). Win/lose on VPs only. That's all the studio wanted to know from us. Again, the game was centered around kills.*
Then we got AoS. I think a huge amount of the complaining then, as now, came from people playing with the WFB "kills" mindset as opposed to trying to achieve the conditions in the Battleplans.
As you say, shooting is nice, but not well suited to objective play.
*Interesting side note -
Folks used to complain that certain WFB armies were too powerful. That huge monsters and heroes would win most games. If you investigated, you'd almost invariably find that players were playing "to the last man" instead of the proscribed six turn limit. Duh! Of course monsters/heroes ruled the day. They were only supposed to be able to get into a few fights, cast a few powerful spells, etc. because they didn't have endless opportunity. Remove the limits and they got better.
In other words, when you ignore the conditions that balance the game, some things *seem* too good. Shock!!!