Switch Theme:

Warhammer The Old World : Cathay trailer, page 128  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in fi
Dakka Veteran





I must admit I quite like how unit sizes are restricted in Age of Sigmar. Encouraging to use units in sizes that they are sold makes the game more accessible. The biggest flaw of late editions of WHFB was that you needed multiple boxes to build one large unit which was both cumbersome and expensive. I hope that Old World models will be sold in unit sizes that are usable straight out of box.

That place is the harsh dark future far left with only war left. 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

Cronch wrote:
Assymetrical objectives are in no way limited to "narrative" play, you just need to put more effort into testing and writing the scenarios than "LOL CAPTURE THIS CIRCLE". Both from the designers and the gamers.

Like I said, I only bring it up cause it'd be the best way to ensure core units aren't seen as dead weight you have to take like your least favorite sibling on a road trip, but I have no doubt it'll be "balanced" around symmetrical play only.

PS: "All-comer" lists can also go and die in a nurgle soup filled ditch as far as I'm concerned. They're bad, kill list variety and are a refuge of netlisters.


2nd edition 40k had a great approach to this. Players had their own missions this created a lot of fun encounters.

Whe not limited to narrative play, they tend to be only found in narrative based games nowadays.

I think a lot of this down to tournament play, it had forced game designers to balance the game around symmetrical missions.

jullevi wrote:
I must admit I quite like how unit sizes are restricted in Age of Sigmar. Encouraging to use units in sizes that they are sold makes the game more accessible. The biggest flaw of late editions of WHFB was that you needed multiple boxes to build one large unit which was both cumbersome and expensive. I hope that Old World models will be sold in unit sizes that are usable straight out of box.


Yes and no. Oathmark and Age of Fantasy have infantry capped at 20 models and cavalry at 10. The big issue that made WFB so bad in layet editions is the push towards Horde units..
Which required people to go out and buy several boxes. This was made worse because GW had downsized the boxes from 16-20 to 10 models. So if GW return to say 20 infantry in a box, that would be OK. However I doubt they will.

The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in fr
Hungry Ghoul




jullevi wrote:
I must admit I quite like how unit sizes are restricted in Age of Sigmar. Encouraging to use units in sizes that they are sold makes the game more accessible. The biggest flaw of late editions of WHFB was that you needed multiple boxes to build one large unit which was both cumbersome and expensive. I hope that Old World models will be sold in unit sizes that are usable straight out of box.

This was more an issue with increasing game size (in terms of points), and increasing cost of models than it was with hordes. A player would still have to max out at the average 2500 points per standard/tournament game with or without hordes.

Also, unit fillers were widely used for good reasons--primarily they looked good if done reasonably well (which wasn't hard for most armies) and they cut down on having to buy more models.

The horde rule in game being good or bad is another matter altogether.
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






So the complaint that everyone has to fight over the same objective?

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So the complaint that everyone has to fight over the same objective?


I think it’s more that the capture and securing of specific battlefield positions wasn’t a part of medieval and early modern warfare. The objective of battle was to force the enemy to quit the field and destroy him in a rout.

Thought for the day
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

Fantasy IS a Game were if done rigth the táctical depth can make fun just fighting tobthe dead tought asymetrical missions are always cooler

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Speaking of the Old World, here's everything Cathay have.


Pretty cool looking, except for the flying units, but then, i rarely like them in any armies

lost and damned log
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/519978.page#6525039 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






 Galas wrote:
Fantasy IS a Game were if done rigth the táctical depth can make fun just fighting tobthe dead tought asymetrical missions are always cooler

Assymmetrical are really bad for tournament and PUG.
They can be fun for two friends playing a narrative game.
But for a balanced scenario among two players just bringing lists to play is not a good deal.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison





Bristol

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
 Galas wrote:
Fantasy IS a Game were if done rigth the táctical depth can make fun just fighting tobthe dead tought asymetrical missions are always cooler

Assymmetrical are really bad for tournament and PUG.
They can be fun for two friends playing a narrative game.
But for a balanced scenario among two players just bringing lists to play is not a good deal.


I disagree. Anyone can go to a board game night and play a game of Risk which not only has asymmetrical missions, but also randomisation in starting positions which can also cause early increases in certain players power (if they start with most of a continent, for example). And through careful play, utilising alliances with other players against those in stronger positions, and focusing on your own objectives, you can win even if you had a weaker starting position.

If a tournament is meant to determine the actual best player, then reacting to and playing to suboptimal goals for your list should be a part of that.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/09 18:44:06


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.
 
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

I mean, doing lists that can work in multiple different scenarios actually makes you take more TAC lists, like they do in MESBG.

And is not like a Tournament hasn't a mission package posted before sending the lists. If the game has 12 missions but a tournament will use 5, then you'll prepare for those 5.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in es
Brutal Black Orc




Barcelona, Spain

jullevi wrote:
I must admit I quite like how unit sizes are restricted in Age of Sigmar. Encouraging to use units in sizes that they are sold makes the game more accessible. The biggest flaw of late editions of WHFB was that you needed multiple boxes to build one large unit which was both cumbersome and expensive. I hope that Old World models will be sold in unit sizes that are usable straight out of box.


Restricting =/= encouraging, though.
   
Made in us
Pragmatic Primus Commanding Cult Forces






Southeastern PA, USA

 Galas wrote:
I mean, doing lists that can work in multiple different scenarios actually makes you take more TAC lists, like they do in MESBG.

And is not like a Tournament hasn't a mission package posted before sending the lists. If the game has 12 missions but a tournament will use 5, then you'll prepare for those 5.


Yeah, it’s kind of an old debate about balancing tournaments vs individual games. The presence of suboptimal scenarios for certain army concepts can help balance the overall tournament and drive TAC lists if you can ensure everyone encounters suboptimal stuff equally.

But really I think that the move toward symmetry, certainty, choosing secondary objectives etc in games like 40K especially is because the gameplay is so much about army special rules and combos and focused concepts, and players don’t like it when their armies can’t execute them. Meanwhile, asymmetric scenarios in AT for instance work better because the forces are more symmetrical (but not wholly), special rules aren’t a big factor, and gameplay is driven more about what you do activation by activation than what you field.

None of this is a good/bad judgment…just different strokes for different folks. Personally AT scratches my itch right not and 40K feels like it’s racing away from my tastes, but obviously 40K is extremely popular…more than its ever been. It’ll be interesting to see the design approach behind TOW.

My AT Gallery
My World Eaters Showcase
View my Genestealer Cult! Article - Gallery - Blog
Best Appearance - GW Baltimore GT 2008, Colonial GT 2012

DQ:70+S++++G+M++++B++I+Pw40k90#+D++A+++/fWD66R++T(Ot)DM+++

 
   
Made in ie
Dakka Veteran




Ireland

 gorgon wrote:
 Galas wrote:
I mean, doing lists that can work in multiple different scenarios actually makes you take more TAC lists, like they do in MESBG.

And is not like a Tournament hasn't a mission package posted before sending the lists. If the game has 12 missions but a tournament will use 5, then you'll prepare for those 5.


Yeah, it’s kind of an old debate about balancing tournaments vs individual games. The presence of suboptimal scenarios for certain army concepts can help balance the overall tournament and drive TAC lists if you can ensure everyone encounters suboptimal stuff equally.

But really I think that the move toward symmetry, certainty, choosing secondary objectives etc in games like 40K especially is because the gameplay is so much about army special rules and combos and focused concepts, and players don’t like it when their armies can’t execute them. Meanwhile, asymmetric scenarios in AT for instance work better because the forces are more symmetrical (but not wholly), special rules aren’t a big factor, and gameplay is driven more about what you do activation by activation than what you field.

None of this is a good/bad judgment…just different strokes for different folks. Personally AT scratches my itch right not and 40K feels like it’s racing away from my tastes, but obviously 40K is extremely popular…more than its ever been. It’ll be interesting to see the design approach behind TOW.


Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game, because the game is pretty much desided before players have set up the terrain. If a game takes a few hours to play it is more than likely going to be a bad experience for one player as they get curbed stomped.

A player's decisions on the table coupled with a bit of luck should be what victory hangs on. However I get the feeling that a lot of modern mass combat games are pulling away from this and doubling down on special rules and list building being the path to victory.

Balancing a game for Tournament play is a recipe for disaster I think, it is what morphed WFB into the car crash that was 8th edition. When a system panders to the Tournament crowd it is giving up its friendly fun encounters for cut throat ruthlessness. Tournaments from my experience kill off the spirt of the game, and result in a very narrow approach to gaming, one where units, and missions are ignored as they are seen as bad.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/10 07:35:10


The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused. 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





 Dryaktylus wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.


Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.


I'm surprised no one else picked up on the Tomb King icon right at the bottom given how much people complain about them being squatted. Doubt we'll see this any time early in the TOW's release schedule - and only if TOW is a great success but still nice to see them around.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Savannah

I'm assuming that all the OW factions will get their revival if the game lasts long enough. The order and how much support GW's dumping into this are what's up in the air. If we're talking HH release rates and a starter that's Empire v Empire, we might not see TKs for a decade+, but there's always the chance they wheel out the old molds and drop a massive amount of stuff right off the bat for an initial cash influx.

What I really want GW to do now, though (besides give us more info), is to slap together some MTO waves for the main factions that are obviously going to return so people can get to work on new stuff or fill in some gaps in their collections. I know I'd jump on the chance for a few more boxes of the Boar Boys they only sold for a couple years and could use a sprinkling of other O&G bits to finish things I was always going to get around to "later". Heck, some of the stuff (thinking of the later Tomb Kings releases, specifically) could fit right in with AoS or be converted with minimal effort to work in 40k even for those who aren't interested in the Old World.
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Londinium wrote:
 Dryaktylus wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.


Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.


I'm surprised no one else picked up on the Tomb King icon right at the bottom given how much people complain about them being squatted. Doubt we'll see this any time early in the TOW's release schedule - and only if TOW is a great success but still nice to see them around.


Personally I think it doesn't matter, because it isn't unclear if icons on pretty maps are going to translate to anything for the game. The geography lesson is neat, but... something of mechanical substance in terms of factions and gameplay is really needed.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in de
Powerful Ushbati






 Londinium wrote:
I'm surprised no one else picked up on the Tomb King icon right at the bottom given how much people complain about them being squatted.


It's not really surprising to see a Tomb Kings symbol in the northern conquests of Nehekhara? Besides, you answered your own question in the following sentence:

 Londinium wrote:
Doubt we'll see this any time early in the TOW's release schedule - and only if TOW is a great success but still nice to see them around.


Tomb Kings don't need background. Nehekhara hasn't changed for a couple of thousand years. Going back five hundred years from the End Times is a big deal for the Empire. For Nehekhara, nothing of notice changes.

So as long as we all, GW included, agree that Tomb Kings models aren't happening anytime soon, a symbol on a map just isn't a big deal.

Nehekhara lives! Sort of! 
   
Made in us
Da Head Honcho Boss Grot




New Jersey, State of Perfection

 Londinium wrote:
 Dryaktylus wrote:
 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
It also doesn't help that certain editions toned up the grimdarkness of certain factions. 6th edition Brettonia tends to be one of the more commonly cited ones on how a faction can suddenly be changed with it's viewpoints.


Well, that's the fault of Stillman's bland heroic army book. Before that, Bretonnia was even worse: full of decadent nobles, degenerated folk and extreme penury. Chaos worshippers everywhere of course and the cities were mostly slums. It was portrayed as a failed state drowning in it's own depravity. 6th edition army book was quite positive compared to this.

------

Soooo. Border Princes. Well, I spot a Nehekarian tomb. And the Harkon emblem looks like the current ruler isn't that much alive (or he/she is a wine connoisseur). There's hope for some Undead stuff.


I'm surprised no one else picked up on the Tomb King icon right at the bottom given how much people complain about them being squatted. Doubt we'll see this any time early in the TOW's release schedule - and only if TOW is a great success but still nice to see them around.


Problem is that icon (like the dwarves and orcs icons scattered about the map) is not a full emblem or whatever you want to call it as is the case for the Border Princes, Empire, Bretonnia, High Elves, Wood Elves, Kislev, etc. The implication here is that the map is acknowledging the existence of these factions but not their importance/relevance - i.e. they won't be playable.


This ain't no pansy GW Armor, son - Digital Sculpting Plog, Now with Heavy Weapon Platforms!
Sympathy for the Devil, or: The Project Log from Hell

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It reads like the ramblings of a Nigerian lobotomized Shakespeare typed into a cellphone with a very aggressive autocomplete function.
 
   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

Massively lore filled interview




Timestamps:

Spoiler:
00:00 - 05:14 Intro & Cathay Army Book
05:15 - 08:51 Is The Lore Fully Linked?
08:52 - 10:22 There was only ONE Dragon Emperor
10:23 - 12:58 Who Is The Moon Empress?
12:59 - 20:17 How many Dragon Children? And Who Are They?
20:18 - 22:20 Are Cathay still isolationist? Do they have other bases?
22:21 - 25:58 Are Cathayan Dragons their own species?
25:59 - 27:17 Cathayan Dragons are NOT Gods
27:18 - 29:18 Are There More Dragons in Cathay?
29:19 - 32:00 Where did the Dragon Emperor go? Monkey King take over?
32:01 - 34:24 The Dragon Emperor has a plan
34:25 - 38:51 Dragon Bro
38:52 - 44:04 The Monkey King & Monkey Warriors, Ind and Khuresh Naga
44:05 - 45:45 Nippon?
45:06 - 47:40 Can you tell us about other big cities in Cathay?
47:41 - 50:21 Cathay's relationship with Chaos
50:22 - 53:33 Can you tell us about the Celestial city?
53:34 - 57:33 The lores of Yin and Yang & Dragon Blooded
57:34 - 58:44 Jade Vampires?
58:45 - 1:03:48 Regions of Cathay
1:03:49 - 1:05:09 New Clan Eshin lore?
1:05:10 - 1:08:04 Who is the master artificer?
1:08:05 - 1:10:20 How much of Cathay's lore is now established?
1:10:21 - 1:12:27 Who are Cathay's big enemies?
1:12:28 - 1:14:12 The Great Maw?
1:14:13 - 1:15:58 Dragon Monks?
1:15:59 - 1:19:27 Why does Tzeentch want Cathay?
1:19:28 - 1:24:00 The other dragons and the elements? How powerful are they?
1:24:01 - 1:29:19 When was the Grand Bastion built? Any other info?
1:29:20 -1:31:54 Any well known mortal Cathayans?
1:31:55 - 1:38:49 Magic in Cathay?
1:38:50 - 1:44:41 - Closing thoughts and outro

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Khorne Veteran Marine with Chain-Axe




Dallas, Tx

Thank you!

WHFB armies I own:
Empire: 10,000+
Chaos Legions: DoC- 10,000+; WoC- 7,500+; Beastmen- 2,500+; Chaos Dwarves- 3,500+
Ogres - 2,500
Hotek: Dark Elves- 7,500+; High Elves- 2,500
40k armies I own:
CSM- 25,000+  
   
Made in us
Keeper of the Flame





West Lafayette, IN

 stonehorse wrote:
Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game, because the game is pretty much desided before players have set up the terrain. If a game takes a few hours to play it is more than likely going to be a bad experience for one player as they get curbed stomped.

A player's decisions on the table coupled with a bit of luck should be what victory hangs on. However I get the feeling that a lot of modern mass combat games are pulling away from this and doubling down on special rules and list building being the path to victory.

Balancing a game for Tournament play is a recipe for disaster I think, it is what morphed WFB into the car crash that was 8th edition. When a system panders to the Tournament crowd it is giving up its friendly fun encounters for cut throat ruthlessness. Tournaments from my experience kill off the spirt of the game, and result in a very narrow approach to gaming, one where units, and missions are ignored as they are seen as bad.


The problem is that if you build a game for the Narrative players only you shelve it for 2/3 of the player base. Narrative players can play narrative games no matter HOW the system is balanced, they are going to throw that balance out the window for the lolstory of their match up anyway. Narrative play makes pickup games impossible, which throws the casual and competitive players out simultaneously, and does nothing to dispel the WAACs as they will salivate at the chance of having an imbalanced system to exploit from the get go.

8th Ed. WFB was anything but tourney friendly. I'd say WFB stopped being tourney friendly in 7th.

I do agree about the listbuilding phase, which is why I personally went back to editions that are much harder to listhammer.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





What's the chances that GW release the 8th Edition Cathay book as a special edition at some point in TWW3's lifespan? or even as part of a Collectors Edition or something. We all knew that they'd statted the Cathayan units for 8th to help out with developing the video game but from what Andy Hall has revealed and said in that interview they've basically written a whole book. Would be a shame for that to go to waste, just need to commission some artwork to go along with it.

More realistically it's probably more likely to form the core of a Cathayn TOW book, although dependent upon how the rules change in that game, there would need to be a rework of the rules.

I'm also liking how much in depth the Cathay lore seems now that Andy Hall has revealed more of it, plenty of closed door mysteries and hints at darker lore and less altruistic motives for the dragons. Goes a long way to dealing with my initial misgivings that Cathay was a little bit too 'good'. Now if they could could just darken up the art style a little, Cathay would be great.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/12 11:07:19


 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Zero,

by the time The Old World launches they'll be doing a new ruleset (maybe based on 8th, maybe based on a mash-up of earlier versions)

no point releasing a book for a 'dead' game even if they're planning to bring back something similar later

 
   
Made in au
Osprey Reader




Excuse my ignorance, and apologies if this was discussed upthread, but ... have the Border Princes always been left as a blank spot for your own campaigns? And as a place for displaced nobles from all over to come and set up shop?

Most of my WFB knowledge comes from 4th and 5th edition, with a smattering of 6th. The 5th edition Bretonnian book says the BP were claimed by Bretonnia long ago by crusading knights who decided to stop there instead of continue on to Araby (because the crusade was already over by then). The Princes are therefore descended from Bretonnians.

That's the only detailed reference to the BP I can find in my books, though. Most other background from that era ignores the area. Unless I've missed something.

Is this something that was later retconned? I know the Bretonnian background has gone through a lot of whiplash and mood swings over the years. I don't have the 6th ed Bret book to compare.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut






 stonehorse wrote:
Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game(...)


List building is a form of gameplay optimisation. If someone refuses to optimise in a competitive environment, they have no right to complain about losing.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





Zenithfleet wrote:
Excuse my ignorance, and apologies if this was discussed upthread, but ... have the Border Princes always been left as a blank spot for your own campaigns? And as a place for displaced nobles from all over to come and set up shop?

Most of my WFB knowledge comes from 4th and 5th edition, with a smattering of 6th. The 5th edition Bretonnian book says the BP were claimed by Bretonnia long ago by crusading knights who decided to stop there instead of continue on to Araby (because the crusade was already over by then). The Princes are therefore descended from Bretonnians.

That's the only detailed reference to the BP I can find in my books, though. Most other background from that era ignores the area. Unless I've missed something.

Is this something that was later retconned? I know the Bretonnian background has gone through a lot of whiplash and mood swings over the years. I don't have the 6th ed Bret book to compare.


It's always been a bit of a melting pot as far as I recall; even in 5th Edition there were elements from Bretonnia and the Empire mixed together. The text in the 5th Ed Bret book does mention that Tybalt's crusade force did pick up knights and other forces from the Empire as it attempted to pass through the region so it wasn't exclusively a Bretonnian establishment even at its inception. Given it's essentially pioneer country by Old World standards it's not too hard to see why you'd get figures from all over trying to stake a claim and that, even if they were originally a majority, the Bretonnian lines probably got eroded over time and displaced by Imperials. We do have Sven Carlsson (from Shadow of the Horned Rat) as an example from the 4th/5th edition and that's certainly no Breton-esque name.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 His Master's Voice wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game(...)


List building is a form of gameplay optimisation. If someone refuses to optimise in a competitive environment, they have no right to complain about losing.

And this attitude is exactly why "competitive" players shouldn't be allowed nice things.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

 Dysartes wrote:
 His Master's Voice wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game(...)


List building is a form of gameplay optimisation. If someone refuses to optimise in a competitive environment, they have no right to complain about losing.

And this attitude is exactly why "competitive" players shouldn't be allowed nice things.


It's more complex than that.

It's more about creating a game system where there are sensible viable choices which can produce different lists that will work in different ways on the tabletop to give different styles of strategy and a chance to use different models within each army. Ergo so that there are multiple ways to victory.

Then ensuring that the power disparity between a decent list and a good list and a great list is subtle rather than night and day different. That way, at the list building stage, the power variations are slight, which means building a good list gives advantages but its not the case of it being an automatic win/loss situation


Of course there will be cases where there are terrible lists and that is just part of the game.



The issue is when you have a power disparity closer to, say, Magic the Gathering. Where a good list and great list have such vast power differences that sometimes the only win for the good list is the great list getting a lack of mana/optoins through purely the chances of shuffling.

In MTG that's ok to a degree, because the game length is fast so if you lose its not a vast investment of time. Furthermore you don't have to make and paint your cards prior to the game so the investment is slightly less. IT can still be an issue in smaller or very niche populations. Casual players in competitive MTG circles often don't have as much fun gaming because of the vast power disparities.
For a wargame its even more important to reduce the power difference because games last for hours and take many hours prior to even just build let along paint. The investment is far greater all round








Sadly some people loudly like ot have a huge "I win" button in armies. IT makes it simple to build a great list and then have a huge power advantage .

A Blog in Miniature

The Swarm Arises

Do you ever notice, sometimes, there's an extra post? 
   
Made in us
Exalted Beastlord




 Dysartes wrote:
 His Master's Voice wrote:
 stonehorse wrote:
Losing because a player brought the 'wrong' list is in my opinion a hall mark of a bad game(...)


List building is a form of gameplay optimisation. If someone refuses to optimise in a competitive environment, they have no right to complain about losing.

And this attitude is exactly why "competitive" players shouldn't be allowed nice things.


Despite his use of the term 'competitive' it isn't a competitive exclusive problem. Its entirely possible to bring two fluff bunny lists, one of which is fun and capable, the other completely unfun and terrible.

Kicking the problems to 'competitive players are awful' solves no problems whatsoever.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/12 15:03:55


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran





I wonder if the End Times will be an expansion pack or the final plot of Total War 3. Seems to be the main reason you'd be secretive about the dates.
That would also make a lot of sense for the end of a trilogy, and the last Total Warhammer.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/12 16:47:27


 
   
 
Forum Index » News & Rumors
Go to: