Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2017/01/11 14:54:17
Subject: Re:So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has EW now, though, so she'll need 30 scatter laser shots to bring her down, that's without accounting for hitting and wounding rolls.
2017/01/11 14:54:32
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Okay. By that logic, Guildball is crazy overpriced compared to CandyLand or Monopoly. Monopoly even comes with figures you can paint, so they're basically the same!
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further.
Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has EW now, though, so she'll need 30 scatter laser shots to bring her down, that's without accounting for hitting and wounding rolls.
Or things like Psychic powers. Again, I think 200 points for 3 T3 models is reasonable. A Gladius could probably handle her too, with Ultramarine's Doctrines.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 14:55:26
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further. Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has Eternal Warrior and one of her two little buddies gets resurrected each owning players turn and wounds must be resolved against them before any can be allocated to Celestine.
So with two of them alive at the beginning of the battle, and it taking around 3 wounds from a scatter laser to kill each one on average (thanks to a 3+ save), that knocks off 6 wounds inflicted on Celestine before you even begin trying to whittle down her 5 wounds through a 2+ save.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/11 15:02:55
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2017/01/11 14:57:23
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Okay. By that logic, Guildball is crazy overpriced compared to CandyLand or Monopoly. Monopoly even comes with figures you can paint, so they're basically the same!
It's funny that you used the word "logic" then said those words. Monopoly currently costs around £30, whereas SFG make all the rules available for free, as well as print your own components (again, free) so what sort of loser is paying £30 for Monopoly when they can play GB for the cost of some ink and a few sheets of card, amiright?
But of course, we're all just crazy for not colouring in rocks with poster paints and throwing them at each other across a table, so why bother with any sort of sensible comparison?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
loki old fart wrote: I'm with the smoke an mirrors people. They know that the game is broken. But every time they produce a model they break it further. Look at the rules for cawl or celestine.
Eh, 200 points for that is I'd argue reasonable. Besides, Celestine and her squad are all T3, so can be ID'ed by Scatter Lasers, and Cawl really only has a 6" move and a 12" gun. Strong, but slow and not terribly scary outside his threat range. I think a standard Eldar list or one of the new Traitor Legions could take them.
The real point is how strong the new formations will be.
Celestine has Eternal Warrior and one of her two little buddies gets resurrected each owning players turn and wounds must be resolved against them before any can be allocated to Celestine.
So with two of them alive at the beginning of the battle, and it taking around 3 wounds from a scatter laser to kill each one on average (thanks to a 3+ save), that knocks off 6 wounds inflicted on Celestine before you even begin trying to whittle down her 5 wounds through a 2+ save.
Yeah, just saw her resurrecting her buddies, that's pretty bananas. Still, do her squad get EW too? Also, she's still just a Jump Infantry with a S5 AP3 sword and a Bolt Pistol. I think she's decent for her points and will be an annoying, fast objective grabber, but I don't think she's that far up the totem of broken stuff.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 15:18:04
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/11 16:03:53
Henry wrote: Poe's law is when someone puts forward an argument where, because of what has been said before, it is impossible to tell whether the argument is an honest argument to be taken at face value or if it is supposed to be satire that reflects other peoples rediculous beliefs.
Basically are you honestly saying that if people want to support their FLGS they should accept the added expense, or are you poking fun at those who would say that?
The other alternative is that this is straight forward sarcasm meant to mock those that say they want to support their FLGS while ignoring the fact those discounts they're getting pissy about not getting would take money directly out of the hands of the FLGS they so want to support.
Pretty much the last one. Buying stuff from the FLGS instead of an online discounter is just a roundabout way of paying rent or a membership fee at the store to play at their tables (or to have the convenience of a B&M store.) The main premium of the boxed set is its reduced price, so it's a little counter productive.
Thanks for clearing that up.
2017/01/11 17:03:36
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
So we arrive at the "you can't compare anything else to GW because nothing else is GW" cul de sac that this tangent inevitably ends at. Same time next week?
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
.
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance. Yes, I don't know much about GB other than its a fantasy sports game with beautiful miniatures. That sounds like Bloodbowl to me - and for newcomers those two games are going to look similar too (see threads asking if someone should choose Bloodbowl or Guildball to scratch their fantasy sports itch).
So it supposedly plays more like WMH, Malifaux and Infinity. Does that mean it should be compared to 40k instead of Bloodbowl? No I don't think so, comparing it to Bloodbowl is a much better comparison because they have an abundance of surface level similarities. The cost isn't that much different too.
Weirdly, one of us is arguing the points whilst another is throwing ad homs around yet I'm the "horrible individual?" Maybe take people disagreeing with you less personally?
Especially when they're right and have correctly assumed you know little of what you're talking about, even if you do double down on it. Surely you appreciate surface level similarities are the least valid to cite if you're looking to make a substantive argument? But, beyond they're both miniatures games that use a ball, there really aren't many superficial ones either, let alone abundant.
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance.
He's ignored for a reason, try the button you'll love it.
The reason being you kept saying stuff and I kept proving you wrong?
I love it when people feel the need to tell everyone they're ignoring another user, it totally not attention seeking passive aggression in the slightest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 17:15:15
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Nice to see you're still jumping down people's throats and being an all around horrible individual whenever you get the chance.
He's ignored for a reason, try the button you'll love it.
Oh no, someone has a different opinion to me and won't change their mind...
My Painting Blog: http://gimgamgoo.com/ Currently most played: Silent Death, Xenos Rampant, Mars Code Aurora and Battletech.
I tried dabbling with 40k9/10 again and tried AoS3 - Nice models, naff games, but I'm enjoying HH2 and loving Battletech Classic and Alpha Strike.
2017/01/11 17:25:47
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Lol. Is Guildball a "wargame"? I think Mymearan wanted to compare it to Bloodbowl rather than 40k/AoS which seems reasonable as the games share many similarities.
For what it is worth, I think the Guildball minis are absolutely beautiful and the starter set is a good price. I also think Bloodbowl is very well priced (although I would like to have seen the starter set be a little cheaper, extra teams retailing at £20 is incredible).
But then, I think it's silly to compare the price of a "starter box" or a "tournament sized force" as it leaves us comparing starter sets with 3 miniatures, sports games with a dozen and GW with 50 models or so.
No, it isn't. We're comparing the "cost to start" vs "the cost to compete" not "how many models do you get?"
It is absolutely irrelevant to a player starting a game if they get a million models for tuppence hapenny if they need to spend hundreds on materials to get started and hundreds more to compete.
As to you "it's more like BB" comment, I can only assume you've got zero knowledge of GB, saw it uses a ball and decided they must be the same. BB is a board game that's as much about random as it is about strategy (because it's a Jervis game after all) but that's ok because it's silly and it suits the vibe of the game. GB has more in common with WMH, structurally, and more closely resembles skirmish games like Malifaux or Infinity in terms of scope, it's essentially a wargame in the context of a sport, which just serves to open up avenues of play beyond hitting each other.
Azreal13 wrote: The Guild Ball starter contains two full size teams, both of which can compete outside of just starter on starter games, plus a full size pitch, plus all tokens and other ancillary bits and pieces for the full game for £50.
Either team can be to a full tournament roster for about another £20-30.
SC boxes or no, GW still get beaten up in the "cost to start" stakes or the "cost to compete."
Why are you comparing a sports game with 12 models to AoS/40k start collecting boxes? Or did you leave out a Blood Bowl comparison you were going to make?
Because they're both wargames?
Go ahead and compare it to uranium mining or destroying faberge eggs for a living, as this is where this tract is going, (again) right?
I honestly have no idea what you're saying with that last bit, but I don't think anyone thinks a 40k army should be cheaper than a 12-miniature starter set for a sports game with PVC miniatures (essentially a board game in a box).
You're making the "GW isn't expensive compared to collecting vinitage sports cars" argument but simply trying to narrow the scope of the argument so it doesn't sound so ridiculous. There's little point trying to argue the relative value of components when the broader discussion is about the cost of owning and playing games.
Actually you're the one making the sports car argument, only saying "but it's much more expensive than X" as opposed to the usual "but it's not as expensive as X", where X (in both cases) is a thing that is meaningless to compare. GB and 40k/AoS are so completely different that there's no point in comparing them. Who would ever say "Oh 40k looks amazing, all those huge battles with aliens and robots blasting each other to oblivion... but no, it's so expensive, I'll play this fantasy soccer game instead"? The comparison is meaningless because it broadens the argument so much. If you want to compare two war games you need to compare ones that are as close to substitutes as possible if you want to make a point.
So we arrive at the "you can't compare anything else to GW because nothing else is GW" cul de sac that this tangent inevitably ends at. Same time next week
Please don't put words in my mouth... It's not black and white. There's a middle ground between "exactly 40k" and "nothing at all like 40k except both are miniature games". Guild ball is the latter. If you want to make a relevant comparison, at least pick a game like Warpath or Warmachine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 17:26:32
2017/01/11 17:33:58
Subject: So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
Except I raised the cost of the Guild Ball starter in the context of a discussion Davor initiated about how the various bundles GW has introduced haven't fundamentally addressed the fact that their games are still amongst the most expensive to start and get to a "standard" level.
A context where X Wing had already been mentioned, but evidently has been overlooked in favour of trying to rubbish an equally valid comparison under those criteria.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Well, tell you what, get a handle on the idea that my posting is neither aggressive nor rude and just mayhap a little more abrupt than you'd ideally like people to address you and all our interactions will magically get more good natured.
As for your question, see my earlier response, in the context of the discussion it was a perfectly valid comparison. People need to start acknowledging that any game that gets subsitituted into a time or at a venue that may otherwise be a GW game is valid for comparison, otherwise we get into a spiral where the criteria get narrower and narrower until the whole thing becomes "if it hasn't got Space Marines, it isn't a valid comparison."
Here's a metric for whether it's a valid comparison or not for the thread to consider - if a news and rumours thread was started on Dakka for the game, would it get locked for not being appropriate to the forum?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
My posts are aimed at the post, not aimed at the person, so they shouldn't be taken personally, and I haven't got a problem with people thinking differently to me. If total strangers can't handle my not wrapping my posts up in cotton wool so it doesn't hurt so much when I tell them I think they're wrong, the problem doesn't lie with me.
BB is not a better comparison to GB than 40K, because the comparison you're trying to make isn't the one being drawn. In fact, BB is just as valid a comparison to 40K as GB in the context it was originally brought up, just less pertinent as it isn't made by a competitor.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Bottle wrote: You misunderstand, we've not been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with 40k than Guildball is. We've been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with Guildball than 40K is. Is that not something you agree with?
Can you not compare a miniature game with rules and 25 figures with any other miniature game with rules and 25 figures?
Does the fantasy vs scifi vs historical vs sports type really make a difference?
Can we only compare scifi to scifi etc.
Before we know it, we're back to the "you can't compare it as it doesn't have space marines in" argument we so often see.
My Painting Blog: http://gimgamgoo.com/ Currently most played: Silent Death, Xenos Rampant, Mars Code Aurora and Battletech.
I tried dabbling with 40k9/10 again and tried AoS3 - Nice models, naff games, but I'm enjoying HH2 and loving Battletech Classic and Alpha Strike.
2017/01/11 21:22:39
Subject: Re:So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?
The tone is getting a little too tense in here, my friends. Please avoid personal attacks and flaming, considering Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thank you!
Bottle wrote: You misunderstand, we've not been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with 40k than Guildball is. We've been saying Bloodbowl is a better comparison with Guildball than 40K is. Is that not something you agree with?
No, I understand fine, that's not the basis of the comparison that I originally offered GB up as an example of.
Davor's initial claim is that GW employing SC boxes and discount bundles is "smoke and mirrors" because 40K is still just about the most expensive game to start on the market, and that their existence hasn't really change due that.
Wayniac then made the point that, while on a price per model basis WMH can often be more expensive, the whole cost of playing the game is lower because of a lower model count and lower ancillary costs.
Someone mentioned X Wing at some point, which follows a similar idea to WMH i.e. higher model cost isn't offset by lower model count.
The WMH starter was then raised as a further example of low cost of access.
At this point, I then also mentioned the GB starter as another candidate for low cost of access, with the added advantage over the WMH 2 player box that it is even more complete and can be taken beyond a simple starter product for little or no extra cost.
People then got confused and started trying to draw comparisons between different games as experiences rather than simply as a variety of miniatures based games and their relative cost of access, and the fact that while GW are ostensibly lowering prices, they're still not that cheap unless you take GW's already inflated bar as the norm.
As for GB vs BB vs 40K, that, again, comes back to context. I'd argue that GB uses more mechanics that'd be familiar a traditional wargame than BB does, it uses measurement, not squares, it has terrain, and it has the depth of choice of actions for player activations you'd see in skirmish games like Infinity or Malifaux where not only what but when you do stuff can have huge impacts on the turn. While there are only six players a side, each player has a long list of moving parts that have internal and external synergies etc etc
While it undoubtedly has its own flavour, it definitely owes a debt to WMH mechanically, and I don't think you'd find many people arguing BB and WMH are similar games.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/11 21:33:51
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Jacksmiles wrote: Isn't Bloodbowl more of a board game? Guild Ball is actually a skirmish wargame, thus more comparable to 40k than Bloodbowl if I'm right.
Pretty much. It's first to 12, instant win as soon as 12 points are scored, 4 points for a goal, 2 points for a "takeout" (reduce an opponent to 0 HP) unless they're a mascot (all the teams have them and one of your 6 players must be one) then they're worth 1 VP.
So there are multiple routes to victory, all takeouts, score three goals, or a combination (teams are often referred to as 3-0, 0-6 etc goals to takeouts) and there's absolutely a sport being represented, but mechanically the game owes much more to acknowledged wargames and skirmish wargame rules than it does to BB. Then you have the playbooks, which is, AFAIK, a unique concept, where the number of hits you generate in an attack opens up an increasing number of choices as to the outcome, from simply damaging the opponent, knocking them down, tackling the ball off them, repositioning them or repositioning yourself, or generating whole other plays.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
You make Guildball sound intriguing, so thanks for that.
I've been interested in wargaming since RT era, been playing, on and off, since 2nd Edition, so I've played a lot of different games in that time, some good, some.. not so good. GB is right up there with the best rulesets, and has the advantage of being owned by a company run by gamers who are very focused on keeping things tight and balanced. They've made errors, nobody's perfect, and, as a Hunters Guild player I'm hugely frustrated that the smallest guild has the longest wait for new players now we've reached season 3.
I really didn't want to add a game to the list, I've played a lot of X Wing, I've still got 40K projects on the go, despite not playing in a good while, and I was just winding up to start Hordes with Legion, but one demo game and I now have a fully painted Hunters team, with Union players WIP (The Union is a team in its own right, but certain players can play for other Guilds,) a full match set of painted terrain and a Deep Cut mat to put it on, with a second team (Morticians) awaiting assembly.
The fluff is even intruiging and they recently ran a player event similar to the old GW global campaigns to determine the outcome of a power struggle for leadership of the Butcher's Guild (and would have modified the models they released based on the outcome, we found out after the event.)
It's a young game and experiences the odd hiccup, but if you're even slightly interested, the Kick Off box is a little over £40 from discounters, and you need never spend another penny on it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 21:55:05
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
There's no season 3 physical rulebook yet (expected at Salute) so this is the only place to get them, still on season 2 fluff till then cause spoilers.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
~1.5k
