.jpg.7322e1f85857c0c3e3a7eae21a61ffc2.jpg){kind=tracking}
Sarouan
-
Posts
579 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Sarouan
-
-
On 3/31/2024 at 12:53 PM, Clan's Cynic said:
I've said this on various other threads before, but my point still stands. I've never known as many people get turned off AoS as when they find out or remember that Double Turn is a thing. Ultimately, if you're struggling to get people through the door due to a single mechanic that is already controversial among people actually playing the game, something is up. No amount of "trust me bro, you'll totally get used to it after you've played the game at 2000pts for a while!" is going to convince people who were already looking for an excuse to keep playing 40k or going to another game instead.
I also find the argument that people who dislike Double Turn need to "git good" very much contrary to what I've seen many of the same people try and sell AoS on - that it's a far more accessible, casual friendly, relaxed wargame compared to 40k.
Frankly, if the designers believe Double Turn is this amazing, unique mechanic that all their playtesters and influencers adore, why I have I pretty much never seen anybody pushback or gripe when it's been increasingly neutered every edition going forward? Everybody knows a GW hobbyist's favourite thing to do is complain about basically everything, so it's funny that - anecdotal as my experience may be - watering it down is largely seen as a positive. Why do they feel the need to do that if it's so good as the marketing insists?
I dunno, when I see new players trying AoS, Double Turn isn't really the turn off : it's more about prices, rule bloat or player's mindset of the community they're playing in (like deemed too "competitive" or too "casual", it really depends where you learned to play TBH).
Remember, when you question the AoS designers to think Double Turn is "this amazing", it also goes both ways : people can also ask why you're so focused on Double Turn being "this bad".Your post there sounds more like personnal belief about what game mechanism is good or bad than hard data / numbers, and a reaction to the poll numbers not going your way of thinking, IMHO.
-
Between the 2 ? Gameplay 100 %. Balance and stats in a vacuum are useless.
-
On 3/31/2024 at 2:29 PM, KingBrodd said:
As of now Ogors have no named character minis. They need some. Also they need a presence in the narrative as of now we are seeing them more prevelant in COS than their own Faction.
They do have a presence in the narrative - I saw them in more than a novel in the White Dwarf, just to mention them, with names and all. As for named character miniatures, that depends when GW decides to release new Ogor models. Watch the next window for Ogor battletome, I'd say.
-
They're talking about the next Warcry box
-
1 hour ago, Tonhel said:
There a tons of great games outside of the GW bubble. If you have to train "the player mindset", it's just easier to seek another game you like. Imo.
Not really, because there's no point in playing a game if you have no one to play it with you - it's an investment in money and time, no matter what it is or the price it asks. Like it or not, GW games are the easiest to find people for that. In my area, Warmachine died : there's litterally no one around who wants to play anymore. And it's not a question of trying to attract new blood in it.
-
10 minutes ago, KingBrodd said:
Speaking of characters getting their dues hopefully Destruction can get a proper win for once as well.
Proper win ? What do you mean by that ?
They have already quite great named characters so far (I mean, at least litterally given their size). -
36 minutes ago, Marcvs said:
Last year we ran a Mordheim campaign at my club. The problem we had was not about balance (we policed ourselves a lot) but about the incentives structure about the game: consequences are brutal so you don't want to risk your leaders (I *could* charge jumping down a building but why would I??) + "winning" a scenario is not that beneficial compared to just surviving it, so basically our games were just a little scrap among our henchmen until one side had the option to withdraw and inevitably took it.
The parts before and after the games were the best part of our experience, so ultimately most people lost interest in actually playing.
Yes, that's one of the core problems of Mordheim. Core scenarios really lack incentive to play them, too few of them actually give you enough rewards that's worth risking your heroes and (more generally) the well being of your warband on long term.
Some scenarios made after in expansions or players did try to adress that problem in being more generous in its rewards, or give more options in the campaign system to cater to that (one of my groups did change the way to gain money afterward by allowing surviving heroes that were out of action during the game to still roll for exploration - helps a lot to involve more your heroes in dangerous actions). But sometimes, you indeed still want to rout voluntarily rather than going full out. That problem doesn't exist at all in Warcry. Even if some people here don't want to aknowledge it as Mordheim's spiritual successor, the reasons why its campaign system is so "light" and forgiving is directly because of Mordheim's own - and Sam Pearson himself said so in the interview he made. Warcry designers did want to make a Mordheim-like game, but better. And IMHO...they kinda succeeded (Warcry is a damn great game, easy to learn and fast to play) even though it's not replacing Mordheim at all.
Frostgrave is often seen as another of those Mordheim's spiritual successors - and one of its greatest mechanisms is to tie the money each band gains afterwards directly to the treasures you get during the game : thus giving a hell of an incentive to actually play them and get those treasures.-
6
-
-
Well the point with smaller games is that they take less time. There is also the player mindset that is important.
Allow me to give you a comparison with another situation from another game : Warmachine. It had a special mechanism where when you kill the warcaster (basically a heroo-like character that is the center of your army, let's say it's your warlord), you instantly win the game. Even if there are plenty of other units on the table, no matter the scenario. And it had a very sweet new player entry with their starter boxes, which are basically one warcaster and a couple of warjacks (2 to 4, depending on their sizes - they are basically big robots), that you could immediately play out of the box like this against the same content from your opponent. Of course, these games were very quick in the case you managed to take the opponent warcaster out of battle.
The point of Warmachine with these rules was that "dont get stuck on your loss, roll with it and play another game immediately after, because it's quick !". Yes it had a "git good" mentality that was plainly written in their core rule book (the infamous page 5).But the think is could be similar with Spearhead : the game ended fast because your army got wiped out, double turn or not ? Play another and get your revenge ! If the time needed to play is lower than a "normal game", then you can more easily feel less like you "lost time playing a "bad" game". Player mindset is key on that matter, and it also has to be trained just like your "skills" with the game.
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Nezzhil said:
The truth is that Mordheim was a bad skirmish game even when It was released. Mordheim have a few competitors and all were better on system gameplay or balanced games, even Necromunda from the same company was way better.
Mordheim is the living proof that a game doesn't need to be balanced or have "good rules" to be played and loved.
It's funny you mention Necromunda, because the version before Mordheim was exactly the same situation : using rules of 40k edition as its core mechanisms. It wasn't that balanced as well with experienced gangs vs less experienced ones. -
Interesting point. Which leads me to wonder if Spearhead mode for 4th will have a different handling of Double Turn or not, since it will definitely in the "smaller game" category.
-
Results aren't really surprising. The more you play, the more you get used to game mechanisms. TBH, the question asking if you "like" or not wasn't especially the best to choose, which is why I said this poll will prove nothing. "Like" has a lot of different meanings for lots of people, after all.
-
32 minutes ago, pnkdth said:
I am definitely not in the Mordheim is perfection and I do not seek a one-for-one copy. I quite like the underdog scenarios and decisions made mindful the long campaign. I think that more than anything is what I am looking for. Necromunda might be something. Haven't looked into it much yet though.
Old Necromunda was the inspiration to Mordheim campaign rules (main difference is that there weren't any henchmen, everyone was treated the hero way in progression - and the way to gain money was significantly different, more territory based : it was actually much more narrative driven than Mordheim, since it was more linked to something more substantial than "exploration somewhere in the town for Wyrdstone"). So if you like SF setting and punk gangs, it's definitely something to try.
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, pnkdth said:
Personally, it is was the setting and vibe + all the flavour 'Town Crier' added. I'd love to see a Warcry plus, complete with lots of extra gear, exp gain, etc, etc. Give me some janky yet flavourful rules, GW!
Ah but the thing is, once you introduce xp gains / extra gear etc, the Holy Balance is upset between bands. That's why a game in Mordheim between an experienced band and a beginner one tend to be...let's say quick - and the beginner band better rout voluntarily as soon as possible, to get that juicy bonus xp while still have enough heroes to gain money properly. When a game has mechanisms that incite you -not- to play the actual scenario for better long term results (which would be normally the point of a game, after all...moving your models on the board, instead of having them on the sidelines while you just roll dice on exploration tables), that's the hint there's a problem. You can say Warcry campaign rules are less exciting than Mordheim's, sure, but you can never say Warcry doesn't incite you to really get engaged in the actual games preceding the aftermath phase. In Warcry, you rarely try to rout voluntarily, because you know playing the scenario to the best you can won't punish you as hard as in Mordheim.
Unfortunately, I believe such a game is simply not to the current standards in GW industry. Which is why I don't believe we'll see a "true Mordheim remake"...if such a thing was actually necessary. I mean, the rules are already out on the internet, in more than a complete way to say the least. Why doing a remake if you already believe it's perfection ?
-
4
-
-
Edit : double post
-
1 hour ago, Chikout said:
Yeah. In a way Warcry is kind of the anti Mordheim. It's easy to learn, it plays fast and has great replayability due to the way missions are generated. There is a narrative side to the game but it's not massively in-depth.
Mordheim on the other hand is difficult to learn with a lot of rules to remember. It can be pretty clunky to play, but the narrative side is very in-depth and can be incredibly engaging with the right group of people.
Mordheim isn't difficult to learn, but it has a lot of clunky mechanisms that come from the fact it was a mere adaptation of Warhammer Battle rules to a more skirmish level - even so Battle was made for mass battle games. That's why there are a lot of weirdness in its core rules, and for example why armors are completely useless in the game (critical hits tend to completely nullify them, and if it's not, it's the save modifiers from weapons / strength that are way too easy and common to have...saves were already way too low from the start, anyway). If you knew the edition of Battle from that time, it was actually very familiar and easy to move from one to another...and that was the intent, IMHO.
Warcry isn't at all the "anti Mordheim". If you read its background, it's actually quite grim. Surrounding is hostile, death is at every corner and there's a heavy hint on the futility of these bands' actions in the way most of them die in the dark with their dreams of glory and riches unfulfilled.But the difference with Mordheim is that Warcry's campaign rules don't translate very well that, because they're meant to be balanced and less frustrating than Mordheim. Wounds are in most cases temporary, death of one of your miniatures in campaign mode is rarer and, in most time, quite without real consequences (you replace the lost guy much more easily, and the "progress" system is so light that it doesn't really matter if you lose an "experienced fighter".
On the other hand, Mordheim campaign rules are cruelly random, it's easy to completely mess your band because of a few bad rolls and the way you gain money to recruit / equip more guys punishes you really hard if you actually play the scenario to the end (ie fight to the last model). Basically, if you lose a Mordheim game, you tend to get punished in the campaign phase because if your heroes were out of action during the game, well guess what, they're also your only money makers - so they give you no money. It leads to stupid situations like routing voluntarily as soon as you lost the minimal numbers of fighters and keep your heroes away from action so that they can search optimally for wyrdstone in the exploration phase.
In Warcry, you care not for your models because they have no depth. In Mordheim, you better care not for your models because they die / get crippled to the point of being useless easily (even your warband, before you simply make a new one from scratch). I'm not sure Mordheim is really that narrative friendly on that matter, TBH (I mean, if you get unlucky with some wounds rolls / got your band heroes wiped out and you just restart your band because it's otherwise unplayable, it's not really narrative driven either).And I said that as a Mordheim player, who started from the very first day it released to still nowadays, 25 years later.
I'm just very aware of Mordheim's flaws, what it is and what it is not. And I certainly don't paint a lovelier picture of it because of nostalgia's bias. I'm not demeaning Mordheim players at all...I'm just amused at how some people tend to believe Mordheim is way better than it actually is / was (mostly those people don't play anymore or certainly not the core rules without heavy "patches" / fanmade rules to make the rules better, which is not my case).
-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, Gutsu17 said:
If you are talking about general warhammer fantasy, FB wasnt that grimdark before Mordheim, and never really got there, even tho it clearly moved in that direction. But i would make a baseless guess that grimdarkification of fantasy over the years is more of a result of 40k popularity, rather than Mordheim
You never played old FB RPG books, didn't you. Damn were they grim, dark, brutal and merciless. Mordheim invented nothing, it was just the natural continuation of what already existed before.
-
4
-
1
-
-
It has spoken indeed.
More seriously, this thread will actually prove nothing, since anyone can vote, there's no real control and no cadre either. It's just random numbers, and you can always twist them to whatever narrative you like. -
3 minutes ago, Ejecutor said:
It is not about the game, it is about the setting, IMO. And in that particular bit, Cursed City almost nailed it.
Yes, Cursed City was a grim dark setting. But you know, that kind of setting existed waaaay before Mordheim.
-
2 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:
People dont talk about literal mordheim, people talk about similar vibe and setting
Yes, that's why they're cute. They don't understand what Mordheim really is.
Thing is, Mordheim's setting wasn't actually that new when it came out : it's a general tendancy Warhammer universes already had (fighting at Midnight's hour, decadence of the world, futility of your actions, brutality of consequences : basically a grim dark setting, and Warhammer Battle was really in that mood when it was out). It was also making fun with the doom sayers close to the year 2000 at that time. And the rules were basically a rip-of the edition of Battle they were playing and Necromunda campaign system (which was also brutal in the aftermath, with lots of your fighters dieing or having crippling wounds).
Mordheim was a product of its time, but for some reason, newbies nowadays think it was something unique. It wasn't, really.-
2
-
1
-
-
Just now, Tonhel said:
Last thing, Can such a poll be done within TGA?
I guess you could open a new thread about it, but don't come to cry if you don't like the results.
-
2
-
1
-
-
Warhammer Quest is nice and all, but it has nothing to do with Mordheim. Mordheim came after Warhammer Quest and it is its own game (a skirmish one, BTW, not a RPG dungeon crawler like), and it's really funny to see newbies nowadays talking about Mordheim coming back in the next Warhammer Quest everytime rumors come for it. They're cute in their complete misunderstanding of what Mordheim actually is.
TBH, the nostalgia makes it better than it actually was. The main reason why it's so loved is really because of all the fanmade rules made over the years, Town Cryer and Fanatic Magazines. And that's why there are still players playing the game after all these years : it's thanks to all these player contributions during these years, some more "official" than others.-
1
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Dragon-knight77 said:
With the whole Blight city bursting into reality they could do a sorta spiritual successor to Mordheim and have the season be set in a devastated Free city
maybe even gave multiple CoS warbands go up against Skaven, Slaanesh & other?like look below the artwork and tell me that you can picture that with how the edition going go offWe already have a spiritual successor to Mordheim, and it's called Warcry. Jervis Johnson himself and Sam Pearson were very clear about it when they were talking about the rule designs in the interviews and where came their inspiration from.
Which leads me to think about the next background for Warcry ; since it's now linked to the events happening in AoS, it's pretty clear to me we're moving from Ghur to Aqshy, with all the new terrain we can expect for...and certainly a new edition of the rules as well. Current season is coming to an end to the quest in the Gnarlwood, so we'll definitely be moving on "soon". It won't be Mordheim for sure, but I suspect the events of 4th will give a lot of opportunities to fight in post-cataclysme ruined cities filled with warpstone and skavens...Sounds familiar ?
-
1
-
-
In Liège (Belgium), the town we're fighting for is called Last Gate.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Gutsu17 said:
I didnt use it literally, but more methaphorically, maybe i phrased it wrong.
a game with a very strict rules system that is played through combo-wombos, that has a theme, but not necceseraly tries to simulate what it portrais.
like for example you can have a HAZARDOUS test, or you can suffer mortals on a hit roll of 1.
In the first case it might be a better simulation and better for what i would call a proper "tabletop wargame". But in the second case you can get reroll of 1s to hit in some way, which is a combination of different mechanics that dont simulate anything (you can scream "TAKE AIM!!!" as much as you want, it wont change reliability of the equipment) but it makes for an interesting interaction.
I think it would be better to rephrase it into a tabletop game being either Strategy/Tactical game or a Simulator Wargame.
I personally attribute the booming (as i see it) popularity of Killteam for example to a combination of it being a 40k game, that gives an expirience of a Tactical game rather than a Skirmish simulator.Tabletop wargame has nothing to do with the degree of realism in a simulation or how hazard plays a role in it. This is a question of player personnal preference.
Rules are meant to have a common corpus players agree on so that they can play together. Nothing more, nothing less. What people like as mechanisms depend on their own tastes and what they're expecting from such a said game.
Killteam's popularity can't be explained on rules alone. Universe plays a role (40k is still highly popular), scale as well (you don't need a huge army of hundred of miniatures or a big table to play, so it's an easier entry), and community does help too (you have better chances to find players interested in Killteam given the huge pool thanks to GW and 40k in particular, in comparison to an obscure "indie" game only seen in Kickstarters or Adepticon). Perceived quality of the game can be a piece in the puzzle, but it's not necessary. After all, fans of a game will always find it awesome no matter what game critics can say on it.
The Rumour Thread
in Age of Sigmar Discussions
Posted · Edited by Sarouan
With every new edition, it's unavoidable the community loses a part of its old players. That's how old editions are still played even if they're not officially supported anymore.
However, I'd personnally refrain from writing threads about me "leaving forever if GW does do that", because I would feel really silly when I come back to the game after a while in the end. Life is about change and adaptation, and only the dead never do.