Moldek
-
Posts
411 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Downloads
Blogs
Events
Posts posted by Moldek
-
-
While I agree that it would be a huge mistake to tease about square bases and end up with round ones (if only because they’ve become symbolic of the opposition between fantasy and aos), marketing teams in all kinds of companies have been known to play fast and loose with this kind of teasers.
If I remember correctly the video said something like « everything comes around, even squares ». So it might be a way of saying that the setting associated with square bases is coming « around » and being converted to round ones.
using square bases in my opinion would be bad because it would hinder cross compatibility between the 2 ranges. I’d much rather they’d put the Old World minis on smaller round bases and have square movement trays. Especially given how insanely expensive GW sells their bases.
I can’t believe I wrote 3 paragraphs about bases but here we are lol.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
Can we please not get into a fantasy vs aos match, especially based on the idea that one is good and the other bad? Especially while getting upset at the completely imaginary harm that one would do to the other?
-
6
-
1
-
-
@Dead Scribe I think it’s true that not everyone wants to paint a bunch of troops. That said AoS armies are still quite a lot of work, and I doubt that’s the main factor here. Visually AoS draws more from modern high fantasy aesthetics such as Mtg, DnD etc and that plus the simple core rules has played a big part.
But I think your gaming group should hold their horses; we have no indication that the rules of Warhammer Old World will be similar to Fantasy...
The savvy thing to do would probably be to build an army around demons, skaven, empire or some other faction that could easily work in the two settings; that way even if half your friends switch systems you still might get some games in
Edit : (not directed at anyone specific) I think people should also remind themselves that there’s no 2 sides called « AoS fans » and « WFB fans ». I’m pretty confident that the intersection of those groups is the majority of the players.
-
1
-
-
The story so far:
In the beginning Warhammer was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.-
3
-
1
-
12
-
-
Honestly I don’t get how people react so negatively to this news.
How is more options so bad? Why worry so much about people ditching AoS in at least 3 years? That’s 3 years of games you could be having, that’s enough for anyone to build and play an army and have fun with your friends.
It’s crazy to me how much complaining about the past (Fantasy sucked, GW let it sink), the present (AoS sucked, is pay to win, is unbalanced) and the future (Fantasy will suck, AoS will be destroyed, we can’t do anything while we don’t know how it will be) goes on at the same time. Where are the people who are just having fun with it?
I understand everyone’s venting, and to be clear that’s also what I’m doing 😅
But yeah, it baffles me how such a vague and (to me) pretty positive announcement turns into doomsaying so quickly...
-
7
-
-
4 minutes ago, Overread said:
Eh it's not silly but sensible; esp since this is a big project. Now GW's customers know this big thing is coming and we'll do more work marketing and hyping it up than GW ever could. Heck look at the threads we've got here on an AoS site as well as all the stuff in other forums and FB - its erupted and all GW has siad that in 3 or so years it might happen.
Totally agree; I’ve lost count on the number of times I’ve read people lamenting the lack of communication from GW, or the sudden new releases that triggered fear of missing out, or the lack of visibility in their release schedule, or that they don’t listen to the community...
Announcing this early allows them to gauge reactions, anticipate pitfalls, see what people want / fear... they’re listening to us.
I also don’t believe it’s a cynical cash grab. Sure they have determined it should be financially viable before deciding to invest millions into it; but I have zero doubt that it will be a labor of love for the designers, writers and artists involved. They are as nerdy as we are
Finally I agree that a « historical » approach focusing on different periods of warhammer history would be the most interesting and easy to add to.
-
What I’m really hoping for is that they build up to a huge campaign in AoS while the old world release is approaching. In the end, Sigmar himself takes down Archaon and rips out his heart. This sacrifice gives him the power to accomplish what has been his plan all along ; the 9 realms turn into a maelstrom of magic energy, then collapse into a single planet. Years pass as the various gods wake up and their people develop their civilizations.
Then they reveal that all support for AoS is dropped: there’s a new edition, warhammer Old World. With that classic rank and file, square bases vibe that everyone loves, and no more new factions...
let’s do it. Let’s go full circle.
😂
-
4
-
1
-
3
-
1
-
-
@Shankelton you make some good points. The different bases is really something that has the potential to cause trouble, they better cover all their... hmmm... bases.
I don’t know what the rules and models will look like, but one thing is sure: there will be salt. So much salt...
-
I was just now checking if it had already been posted lol.
Talk about a surprise! I’m honestly blown away by how much stuff GW is putting out these days. Marketing considerations aside, I think this shows that a lot of people in the studio grew up on warhammer and that there was no lack of enthusiasm to start something like this.
I wonder what the game will be like. The parallels to 30k suggest a big army battle game, and I’m sure they will try to recreate the feel of the ranked manoeuvers of warhammer fantasy. Wonder if some armies will stay playable in both formats. A lot of AoS armies would still fit right back into the old world. Maybe... I dare not say it... maybe Brettonia and Tomb Kings will come back?
Now the wait begins 🙂
-
@soak314 sounds like a really cool idea, your players are lucky!
I like the concept of permadeath, actually just today I was thinking about a "survival" Warcry campaign where you start with a full 20 guys roster, but can never replenish, and the odds of death are a bit higher... but I digress.
Aren't you worried that some warbands may be more hurt than others? Like Stormcast for instance have a lot of wounds, so they could tank a lot of damage and come out intact whereas a more fragile warband will have several dead for the same damage received.
Maybe have the wounds lost carry over the next round, rounding up to ten : that way a 20-wounds model that ends the game with 3 wounds left will start the next with only 10 wounds, but a 10 wounds model will always start a game with his full health. That might be a lot of book keeping though.
I think the idea of having dead players controlling monsters is really cool, I'm not so sure about them being really OP though. If I got eliminated that way, I think I'd feel frustrated; it kind of takes the focus off of the 2 players still fighting for survival and puts it on the huge monster. Maybe you could have different tiers of monsters : round 1-2 the dead players only get furies, hounds and raptoryxes ; turns 3-4, you have your razorgors, mercenaries that join in, and on the last round it's full on monster mash? This way you keep ramping up the pressure.All in all, I think the key will be to make it possible (if unlikely) that a warband could get to round 5; if 80% of players are wiped out in the first couple of rounds that may put a damper on things...
Just a couple of thoughts, I hope you'll keep us posted on this event.
-
1
-
-
On 11/6/2019 at 9:03 PM, Realmhead said:
Hey all, what are your thoughts, for map based campaigns, on showing the benefits of claiming territory, without leading to a snowball effect?
For that matter, what about justifying(right word?) forces fighting whose territories aren't near each other?
You could simply have the territory not give advantages - for instance you need to hold 12 territories to win. Or you make them give very small bonuses, like +15 pts in your army per territory, or a re-roll per game if you have more territory than your opponent.
-
I think the llama has great potential, with a creepier paintjob and possibly a face swap. I wish they didn’t give him armour though, a bit too much in my opinion.
I wonder if the ogroids will slowly replace bullgors in the fluff? I agree that it’s weird that they would create an entirely different race of horned, hooved giant monsters...
Given the size of these lads I’d expect them to be similar to the other monsters; you can have one on your roster once you’ve beat him. Gotta be pretty expensive points wise...
-
@Eldarain that seems to be a common problem. Between people who can’t pass up an opportunity to cheese and people who just happen to be good at list building / tactics...
Do you know at least 1 or 2 players that share your approach? I think you could probably start with just people you know will have a healthy attitude and go from there 🤔
To be honest I’m not the most experienced when it comes to all that, I mostly tend to convert my non-wargaming relatives. They usually have a pure mind, untouched by cheese and aware that it’s a game of pretty toy soldiers.
-
26 minutes ago, Leviadon said:
The price changes early this year forced my hand on a couple of big purchases I was planning for later in the year, but the same amount of plastic has changed hands in the end. I do find myself questioning every purchase now though, I have not bought much at all in the last 6 months, where as 3 years ago I had stacks of plastic waiting to be painted, now instead I have a long list of 'to buy' which never seems to get bought. I will never give this hobby up, but it has got to the point where buying GW models is a special occasion rather than a routine hobby purchase. I still love it.
See to me at least that’s almost a positive. Probably not what GW intended... I find stacks of unpainted sprue to be pretty depressing, but the prices make it easier for me to restrain from impulse purchases and « earn » them by painting enough models before...
-
It’s probably a bit out of the scope but I guess if you set your game in the mortal realms it could work. Or really just do it and we’ll see if it’s a problem; it’s not like this is the main hub of the forum 😂
-
1
-
-
So we have an ogroid warrior and an hypnotic lama-horse. What do you think guys?
-
2
-
-
@VBS very interesting, especially the skirmish game. I’d love to see your system. Maybe we should make a game design thread!
-
@Beastmaster asymetric battleplans are a great idea, and I think a great way to emphasize the interest of narrative. For instance if one player has a smaller force and must try to defend their territory for as long as possible, while their opponent can respawn their units. The defender already knows he’s going to « lose », but there can still be tense and tactical moments. Fighting environments like tunnels can be a great way to add some flavor to a battle too. I’ll definitely check out border town burning!
@Tropical Ghost General Your narrative night sounds super cool. The opportunity to play weird lists or models that wouldn’t perform well in competitive play is really nice. I think it’s cool to take some of the pressure off of having only super efficient units, and being able to play with your cool toys. I want to see silver towers heroes vs 1000 pts of clanrats haha. I’ve always liked smaller battles, I feel that a 500 - 1000 pts army can more easily feel like « your dudes »...
-
1
-
-
@EccentricCircle those are all great ideas! It does seem like a lot of commitment, and a lot of work for you. Maybe you could start with a very light core and build it up as the people you game with get into it?
For instance write a custom scenario where 2 armies come upon each other in the ruins near a realmgate, and are attacked by a npc faction (played by you). Have a couple of secret objectives for each player maybe. Just get the ball rolling and build on what the players like.
I think with narrative there’s a balance to find between having solid « systems » and emerging narrative. Your opponents might get into it more if it starts as a normal game or campaign with a story. They get attached to their characters, rivalries form, then you reveal an awesome campaign map... I’ll be in my bunk.
-
3
-
-
@EccentricCircle that’s so cool. I think goblins are the only faction where I like all the models, no matter the era. For a generic fantasy creature, warhammer goblins actually have always had a strong and consistent identity.
On other news, this whole discussion inspired me to start a thread in the hopes of reviving (reforging?) the narrative / open subforum. Let’s make ourselves heard! After all we’re supposed to be the talkative ones!
@JPjr @VBS I’m counting on you
(and everyone else of course, this is not some old boys’ club...)
-
2
-
-
Hey everyone,
There was an interesting discussion on the general hobby chatter thread. Basically people mentioned the general feeling that competitive play is the most visible side of AoS (on this forum and most other places) and seen by a lot of players as the only « right » way to play Warhammer.
Rather than whining and bitching about this, there is another way. We need to talk about it. We need to get threads on the home page. We need to share and discuss and comment. We need to get the word out!
So here is a topic to freely discuss anything narrative / open play related. Obviously we can create topics about our ongoing projects and so on, but this one can be the hub where we share half-assed ideas, ask quick feedback on scenarios, explain our newest houserule or daydream about the hobby.
I’ll start : due to lack of opponents I’m not really playing AoS proper right now, but I am really into warcry. In a couple of weeks I’ll be flying to spain to have a one-day mini campaign with an awesome painter / converter. I am writing the scenarios and converting an undead warband; I’ll definitely post more about it as the deadline approaches...
So what’s going on with you?
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, Overread said:
In my experience once users have been on a forum for a week or so they tend to start defaulting to "new posts" or the "new activity" as its called on this site. So active threads are more important than where they are located. Location tends to be more of an issue in sections where the threads themselves don't generate much posting activity to get bumped up the new activity list.
So if a subsection doesn't generate much chatter it sort of self perpetuates the issue. Which means if there's even just two or three people who want more activity in a section all they need to do is talk in a couple of threads in that section (typically in a positive and engaging manner)
Well if a couple of you are interested, I’m down to commit to posting regularly on the narrative subforum. Let’s make it happen
-
2
-
-
@JPjr I totally agree once again. Too bad we’re not neighbours as I think you and some of the people on this thread could form a gaming group tailored to my tastes
I also agree with @michu that your (awesome) game mode idea won’t probably clear up any confusion. To some people hearing « narrative AoS » is like hearing « narrative poker » or « freeform boxing ». It just clashes completely with what the point of the game is to them. The only thing to do is for narrative players to stay active in communities, share our vision and remind people that it’s not all competitive.
@Pariah I haven’t worked much with balsa, but I’d advise either a mix of pva and acrylic craftpaint as a basecoat, or just seal with pva if you want to spray the base color. Although you should check other sources too!
the terrain looks cool, I actually bought a halloween decoration with the same idea
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:
I do wonder if some of this is down to what your "gateway" into the game is. A lot of people don't start out as wargamers, but play board and card games, RPGs, or increasingly, computer games, and then decide to branch out into wargaming as well. However every genre has a different philosophy to how games should be played.
I come from a roleplaying background, and I feel like RPGs and older wargames all have a very DIY ethos. A good RPG isn't a prescribed game which you play the same way every time. It is a flexible toolbox that lets you play whatever game you want to play. Early GW evolved out of that ethos, and also built on all of the very creative wargame scene from which RPGs emerged in turn. From what I've read about the 70's historical scene, it was all about building cool stuff, customising games, and using different games together in the same campaigns to create a weird but immersive experience. Or that is the elements of the scene that still get recounted fifty years later anyway.
Other games are a lot more prescriptive though. Not all board games can be houseruled, and even if they can, most people seem to play the game they are given. On the whole you don't pick up ticket to ride, and say, wouldn't it be cool if we added space ships as well as trains!
Card games like Magic have prescribed ways to play, and lists of banned cards. It is very much a top down approach, and it seems as though the community are very much beholden to WoTC for how the game will play.
But the biggest thing I think is probably Video Games, because the market for them is bigger than all of our tabletop games combined. I know that there are modders who create custom content for video games, but they aren't anywhere near as flexible or customisible as tabletop games, because by their very nature you need to computer to adjudicate everything. If you want to change the rules you need to be able to code it in. I get the impression that for a lot of games the idea that you can do something beyond what the engine says you can do is just not a "thing". Or if it is, its a case of "wouldn't it be cool if we made our own game where it works in this different, prescribed way".
I wonder if people thus bring these sorts of expectations with them. Old school gamers, and people with RPG backgrounds want to be able to convert and kitbash, make our own stuff and do things our own way. Tournament Starcraft players expect a solid, functioning system which is going to be working the same however you play it, and aspire to the mythical concept of balance, and so on.
I may be completely wrong, and there are exceptions to every rule, but its interesting to speculate at any rate!
Completely agree with you. I think especially video games are a big influence. I don't think expectations should be the same because physically playing with actual people is very different than being connected to a worldwide community that is all on the same playing field, constantly updated by the publisher. I also think the internet skews our perception of what's going on in the hobby, since you don't hear about all the people playing a campaign with their friends in their garage or small clubs having their houseruled tournaments.
I do think we need clear and usable rules out of the box, but I also find that a lot of people completely dismiss the idea of using the game as a toolbox to be "not real warhammer" 🙄-
2
-
(and everyone else of course, this is not some old boys’ club...)
Warhammer - The Old World
in Warhammer: The Old World
Posted
To be honest I’m not sure I share your confidence! It is entirely possible that they haven’t even decided what type of base they’ll be using. To me the « square » stuff could just be a cheeky call out to the Warhammer of old; not necessarily an annoucement of future designs. Guess we’ll have to wait and see! (Or continue writing walls of texts of baseless speculations) 😅