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

wayniac

Members
  • Content Count

    955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

717 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About wayniac

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant
  • Birthday 06/26/1982

Recent Profile Visitors

984 profile views
  1. I just picked up GHB2019 yesterday and have been flipping through it. Personally I think the army generator, terrain layout generator et all are probably one of the best things GW has added. I am so tired of the same boring "Matched Play, Pitched Battle" and I really think the army generator alleviates a lot of the prior stigma of Open Play, that being there was zero guideline for how to pick something without lengthy discussion with your opponent (and we know how that usually goes over). Of course it won't be quite as balanced as matched (not like matched points is really balanced though) and I do suppose it rewards people who have larger collections instead of your typical "I bought 2000 points of X only" but overall I think it's a great idea that adds a lot of possibilities for a more open-minded group who wants something different. Has anyone given them a shot yet and can offer their experiences? I also really really like the terrain layout generator (the piece of terrain generator not so much); I find it's often really hard to figure out where terrain pieces should go so being able to roll on that table and have a guideline for where pieces should be set up adds a lot. This in particular I think has application outside of Open Play since even in Matched Play you need to set up terrain, and this provides a (relatively) impartial guide for where it should go. I really think with this, plus the open war table/cards, Open Play just got a lot more interesting. It's still not for everyone and I've already heard some dislike of the system since it's "random", but overall as a concept I could see this sort of thing being great for game night in a group/club that isn't dead set on matched play 24-7. Between the army generator (and I suppose you could pick rather than roll if rolling is such a concern; it already mentions you can agree on the force points beforehand), the terrain generator (layout, at least), the hidden agendas and the open war battleplans, that sounds like a lot of fun to me. Not to mention the application for narrative campaigns without just using your standard X points method. What are your thoughts on them?
  2. RE: Terrain, the main thing is that terrain has to be meaningful. I see way too often like just a ton of rocky outcrops or similar that are easy to make and ultimately useless except as decorations or to block off lanes because they have gaps so don't do anything to block LOS, are too narrow to really give cover, so are just there so you aren't playing on a flat table. That's another topic but I find there's a serious lack of good terrain in most games. It might be functional, but it doesn't do what terrain should do. However, my mind is clouded because in my area people rarely if ever use the mysterious terrain rules, if we use them its forgotten about 99% of the time, and a lot of the terrain is leftover stuff from WHFB that doesn't really fit or IMHO is suitable for AOS and is better suited to rank-and-file games like Kings of War. However, other than GW (which is still too limited IMHO) I haven't really found any good terrain that fits the AOS aesthetic and isn't just your typical WHFB Empire/Bretonnia medieval European building.
  3. One thing I will say, is that I feel the AOS team is doing a way better job than the 40k team. There seems to be less ambiguity (there's still some, see the latest terrain stuff) and the rules are more "what we say is what we meant" than I've found in 8th edition. So that's a big improvement if you ask me. I think the balance could be better of course but at this point I'm convinced these imbalances are intentional to try and do the CCG style "reward system mastery" which I personally dislike, but that's neither here nor there.
  4. Well part of that is because hills, lakes, rivers etc. are useless. They serve no purpose other than to add visuals to the game. Back on topic the fact that TOs think they know better (ITC is especially guilty of this) is always going to be an issue. Even in the old days you had RTTs that had additional rules, just it was less prevalent. I personally feel GW needs to have an actual tournament pack, an official one based on what they feel makes the game, and make using it a requirement for "official" tournaments. So your "GW tournament rules suck" person can run their own event, just it won't be officially recognized. You'd still have people like the ITC trying to undermine and usurp (which they already have done in the USA) but I think most people would be using the official from GW rules and not from an arrogant third-party who thinks they know better than the designers of the game.
  5. I find it's either love it or hate it, sometimes both. The major issue with it is that it's basically you rolled badly, so you spend two turns doing nothing except rolling saves (if you're lucky) and removing models. That's bad. The benefit is that it is pretty unique and I guess adds some complexity, but really not because "hinging on a single die roll" isn't complexity. I have almost always seen situations where whoever gets the first double turn wins, because they get two free rounds of beating on their opponent while the other guy cannot do anything but sit there and take it. Honestly I would have preferred getting rid of the IGO-UGO thing anyways and doing alternating activations like Bolt Action, then I could see a double turn mechanic mattering since if you drew two activations in a row, it means you use more of your units so you can't react when your opponent inevitably gets more of theirs. That's good random chance IMHO. Double Turn is, again IMHO, bad random chance because it's all or nothing. So basically I think it's an alright mechanic but not in an IGO-UGO game. If it was unit activations or the game itself had more reactionary things you could do (imagine like like a unit given an action such that if you move in range of them, they can counter-charge you on your turn) then it would make sense since the person who lost the roll would get something other than two turns of being kicked in the groin.
  6. While I don't disagree, a standard set of rules is a very important thing. When tournaments run their own rules, pick and choose what they run, etc. it sort of detracts from the "legitimacy" of competitive play since there's no single standard. The GW rules might not be the best but they should be the standard if only because they are directly from the company making the game. I feel what they say should be used in events is what should be used in events. If that includes the terrain and realm rules, then so be it.
  7. Yes and no. I think they are tactically shallow with a lot of list building/CCG-style combos, but that's the wargame design of the modern day. I wish the rules were better written with less emphasis on randomness (beyond the usual in a dice game) but I think AOS is in a better place than 40k and the AOS team seem to have a way better handle on design.
  8. I agree losing to RNG is bad, but isn't the point of these to DISCOURAGE stuff like Shootcast or Stardrake Staunch Defender? Okay Nagash you can't help he's one dude, but it seems like the entire intent (even if it's not used that way) of the realms is to make people think "Hmm.. we could roll Ulgu limited sight for the realm. Shootcast might not be the best option, I should bring something more well-rounded" or what have you and give a reason to rethink those skew builds.
  9. Fair point I Haven't followed the media in a while, and when I did it was mostly if its not ITC then it doesn't matter, at least that was the impression I got. I do agree with you that Ghur is weird and probably is the "worst" of the realm rules. THe rest I think encourage balanced lists in most cases; sure you have something like KO where they have a bad book that needs work, but for most everything else I think they add balance.
  10. On that note, not to deviate too much, the US seems to consider most of the UK events to not be "serious". The official GTs at Warhammer World especially are considered to not be "real" tournaments from most of the sentiment I've seen.
  11. In the US from what I saw, there was near-universal panning of the realm rules and all the major tournaments I'm aware of said no way, not using it. At least from what I recall. I could be mistaken though my memory is hazy from that period but I do recall a LOT of gnashing of teeth and "What were they thinking" and just a near-universal agreement to ignore them.
  12. In my experience all the realm rules were written off day one. I find way too much "but what if" rather than doing it. "What if my opponent brings X monster". Same sort of thing that was written off for pre-GHB AOS or Open Play. "What if my opponent runs 10 Nagashes" "What if my opponent fields all monsters", "What if my opponent fills every inch of their side of the table with the most powerful units in the game". Ghur is a weird place though because it A) requires you to have a monster and B) it gives you free reign to pick the most powerful monster. That's not possible to be balanced. It needed something else to not just open Pandora's box.
  13. I would assume a tournament would have a house rule to prevent that anyways, or just not pick Ghur from the list assuming realms are determined before the round. House-ruling isn't a bad thing however. Ghur is one of those things I really don't see how it's even remotely balanced for gameplay.
  14. I won't delve too deep into this tangent but people don't want randomness to dictate what they can't control, they want it to be actual skill and how you play, like wargaming of old where maneuvering and setting up charges and things like that were all the rule of the day. Well actually most modern players seem to want list building to be the only real tactic, but my point stands: The issue is it's just "We rolled the result on the chart which really hurt my army" isn't doing anything for tactics, it's just RNG ****** you over and making you adapt instead of adapting coming naturally during the course of the game. That said though, I still think the realm rules add some nice variety, even if I feel that having such huge swings of the game due to a die roll isn't actual tactics.
  15. Yet wargames don't have random things like that in such polarizing ways. At least not any wargame I've ever seen other than Warhammer. This is neither here nor there so I won't continue down this train of thought but randomness is not strategy nor tactics, it's just randomness.
×
×
  • Create New...