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.
This is Privateer Press' own twitter feed, advertising their game, and they've decided to report a bunch of pictures that make their game look awful. There are a lot of pictures of painted figures, but of the actual games in progress that they retweet, they almost all look like the above. I think I only skipped four images, of which only three had fully painted figures on halfway decent terrain. The last one was bare table, unpainted, but it was a person's first Battle Box game.
I'm not generalizing Warmachine here. This IS what Warmachine is. Go watch some battle reports on youtube. Most of them have flat terrain, even GMG, which has really great tables for all the other games played on the channel. Wargamer Girl, Advanced Maneuvers, Miniwargaming - flat, lifeless tables. If you move out of the channels that make a living from nice-looking battle reports, you'll find mostly unpainted armies as well. It is a generalization, but I think it's a fair one.
If points lead to models being unimportant and being played on boring boards you can go prove how that is the case with 40k, Infinity, KoW, and every bloody other game on the market that uses points
Of those, I only follow Infinity. Infinity is a game with few models and a requirement for lots of 3D terrain, so you'll never find a flat table in that game, ever. However, it is not uncommon to see bare foamboard or lasercut buildings with unpainted figures in that game - which still looks pretty good. Infinity is, I think, a game where treating the models like pawns does not hugely affect the aesthetic of the game, largely because the 3D board rules are an integral part of the experience. There's a lot of cheap, good looking terrain for the game. Heck, even the paper buildings included in the Ice Storm starter look pretty good on the table. So even when Infinity looks bad, it still looks good.
A cursory search of KoW battle reports shows a bunch of flat boards where the terrain, if there is any, is at the edges of the field (with maybe a single hill in the middle). I also see a lot of unpainted figures, including some unpainted GW models. There's no local KoW scene and I've never played it or seen it in person, but it strikes me as the type of game that shares WMH's pawns on a flat board mentality.
40k, I really can't speak for. The few games I've seen in person were entirely unpainted on both sides, but the online presence of the game has a wide breadth of quality, with some tables looking jaw dropping gorgeous and others being felt tables with a few unpainted GW terrain buildings plopped down. It could be that because the game is so popular, cliques have appeared within it, with some cliques having a larger presence in tournaments or online, where you might see better output there where in person games have more limited quality. I honestly don't know.
None of that means any more to me than me seeing AoS painted with grey models on a clearly 40k themed board in my local GW. This is people not actually often playing with fully painted armies across the entire hobby, it has NOTHING to do with list building.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
None of that means any more to me than me seeing AoS painted with grey models on a clearly 40k themed board in my local GW. This is people not actually often playing with fully painted armies across the entire hobby, it has NOTHING to do with list building.
To be fair, I'm sure AoS does it too, though I'd say it is far more likely a result of players not fully committing to the game in this early stage than it is a pawn-like attitude preventing them from engaging with the hobby as a whole. I've seen a bunch of AoS players who have shown full Realm of Battle boards and the entire suite of GW terrain - but they could just be early adopters who have committed fully where the average player has not. Time will tell on AoS, but I don't think it will ever reach the level of hobby avoidance that WMH does.
I mean, have you seen PP's Undercity boardgame? Even when PP makes terrain, it is still flat, exceedingly bland rectangles.
None of that means any more to me than me seeing AoS painted with grey models on a clearly 40k themed board in my local GW. This is people not actually often playing with fully painted armies across the entire hobby, it has NOTHING to do with list building.
To be fair, I'm sure AoS does it too, though I'd say it is far more likely a result of players not fully committing to the game in this early stage than it is a pawn-like attitude preventing them from engaging with the hobby as a whole. I've seen a bunch of AoS players who have shown full Realm of Battle boards and the entire suite of GW terrain - but they could just be early adopters who have committed fully where the average player has not. Time will tell on AoS, but I don't think it will ever reach the level of hobby avoidance that WMH does.
I mean, have you seen PP's Undercity boardgame? Even when PP makes terrain, it is still flat, exceedingly bland rectangles.
Of course if you actually look at PPs own convention you get tables like these
Spoiler:
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
A cursory search of KoW battle reports shows a bunch of flat boards where the terrain, if there is any, is at the edges of the field (with maybe a single hill in the middle). I also see a lot of unpainted figures, including some unpainted GW models. There's no local KoW scene and I've never played it or seen it in person, but it strikes me as the type of game that shares WMH's pawns on a flat board mentality.
A cursory search of AoS battle reports shows a bunch of flat boards where the terrain, if there is any, is at the edges of the field (with maybe a single archway in the middle). I also see a lot of unpainted figures, including only GW models. There's no local AoS scene and the only time I've seen it played was by 2 ten year olds with unpainted figures on GW's battleboard in a GW store. The board looked nice but was mainly a flat board with a couple of pieces of scenery on.
#sigh
Of all the games I've played since getting into the hobby in 1984, GW games have always been the worst culprits of unpainted vs unpainted.
It's obviously something GW are making massive attempts to turn around. Their youtube vids and simple paint guides are great steps in achieving this.
I take it you're a hhhobby believer and haven't really tried moving away to non GW games to really see the great wargaming scenes going on. I suggest opening a copy of something like Wargames Illustrated to broaden your rather narrow/blinkered view on the hobby in general.
Currently most played: Silent Death, Mars Code Aurora, Battletech, Warcrow and Infinity.
Gimgamgoo wrote: I suggest opening a copy of something like Wargames Illustrated to broaden your rather narrow/blinkered view on the hobby in general.
If we are throwing around painting magazines I have to chime in with the Weathering Magazine. Mostly historicals, but they apply the same ideas to fantasy and sifi stuff as well.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
This is the weirdest argument I've ever seen in favor of Age of Sigmar or in opposition to points systems (which is a pretty weird argument to start with, because, again, nobody ever made it before GW dropped both the ball and any attempt at balancing). So if Age of Sigmar players are having a game with unpainted models, it's because they're hesitant to commit to the new game - but if Warmachine or Kings of War (or, presumably, Warhammer) players do it, it's because the evil points system has reduced the models to mere pawns instead of objects of jewel-like wonder, and the gamers just had the hobby sucked out of them?
Spoiler:
Here's a Warmachine battle with some sweet terrain. I have no idea what's going on, but it looks cool.
Spoiler:
Here's a Kings of War game; two armies drawn up to do battle on a remote, tree-studded grassland. They're clearly still putting the finishing touches on their armies, but also clearly intend to paint everything, and the effect of two massive battle lines confronting each other still looks pretty cool - and note the river splitting the forces. Should be an interesting tactical element.
Spoiler:
Here's a half-painted Age of Sigmar battle. Note that one force is entirely unpainted. A new army that someone couldn't wait to try out? Or is he a proponent of darkness, a follower of point systems in other games, insidiously reducing his models to glorified pawns? You decide!
Spoiler:
Look at this joker. Monocolored, simple terrain and a big flat space in the middle of the table? That can't have been any fun, I bet he's not into the hobby at all.
If you really want to rail at something sucking extra dimension out of the hobby, by the way, I'd go for video battle reports. Whatever happened to a good write-up with juicy pictures and fluff bits?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 17:17:16
Look at this joker. Monocolored, simple terrain and a big flat space in the middle of the table? That can't have been any fun, I bet he's not into the hobby at all.
lold. Good one!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 16:57:14
To be fair, I'm sure AoS does it too, though I'd say it is far more likely a result of players not fully committing to the game in this early stage than it is a pawn-like attitude preventing them from engaging with the hobby as a whole.
Your ability to constantly apply double standards and to only see what you wish to see is truly astonishing.
Did you every think for a moment that people not playing with terrain and 'not fully committing to the game' was a gamer thing, rather than a game thing, considering it exists across pretty much every game out there?
Your zealous hostility towards anything that isn't Aos is getting tiresome.
I've seen a bunch of AoS players who have shown full Realm of Battle boards and the entire suite of GW terrain - but they could just be early adopters who have committed fully where the average player has not.
Good for them. Meanwhile in the real world, most of my friends who play privateer press games paint their armies (for myself, I only play it painted. I will not let an unpainted model touch the tabletop)and the lgs's we play at have lots of great quality boards and huge amounts of very well made and painted terrain for all the games that get played there. I frequently see examples on the pp forums of excellent terrain and boards used too. Jono had some nice photos of pp's boards, and they're not the only ones I've seen from them - they've had some stunners in their magazine. I guess you'll do your usual mental gymnastics to somehow discount these in your never ending quest to assume that anyone who doesn't play Aos is some evil points crazed non gamer who doesn't commit to the hobby, while those who play Aos just haven't gotten round to it yet.
A cursory search of KoW battle reports shows a bunch of flat boards where the terrain, if there is any, is at the edges of the field (with maybe a single hill in the middle). I also see a lot of unpainted figures, including some unpainted GW models. There's no local KoW scene and I've never played it or seen it in person, but it strikes me as the type of game that shares WMH's pawns on a flat board mentality.
Most of the figures are unpainted because they're either wfb armies ported directly over, or else they're new armies bought in kows recent explosion in popularity and people haven't gotten around to painting them yet. The amusing thing is that kow is probably the exact opposite of a 'pawns on a flat board' game, since the 'unit' is what's important, not the model, and plenty people have been drawn to it by the potential to go absolutely crazy on painting and hobbyist each unit almost into a diorama, rather thst just as abstract wound counters that get removed one at a time...
Not that you'll care because 'but game tokens margh'
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 17:09:09
Spinner wrote: This is the weirdest argument I've ever seen in favor of Age of Sigmar or in opposition to points systems (which is a pretty weird argument to start with, because, again, nobody ever made it before GW dropped both the ball and any attempt at balancing).
First, it isn't an argument in favor of Age of Sigmar. It is an argument against point systems only. I feel that they are overpowering in certain respects and makes other approaches to the game more difficult, or even impossible, and foster a specific attitude towards the game. I think Warmachine exemplifies this approach in the most obvious ways, seen easily from pictures, but I don't think Age of Sigmar is immune to that attutide. I just think AoS, without the list building, will keep that attitude from becoming the dominant way players interact with the game. I think the lack of army list building means there are fewer reasons to proxy models or field models you don't like, or spend considerable time in logistical efforts to minmax battle efficiency. That's not to say that it can't or won't happen, just that it won't be the default.
(I also think that with AoS being highly random and unevenly balanced is going to frustrate competitive players who want more deliberate wins and losses, helping again to stifle the more egregious competitive attitudes)
Second, AoS has terrain rules built into the core 4 pages and includes a suite of excellent terrain kits available. Like Infinity, I think that even with the bare minimum, an AoS table is going to look more 3D and have a greater variety in the types of battles you end up seeing, even if it is just the same six terrain features with six different random effects every game, placed in six different random locations on the board (using different Time of War options). Some people will choose not to use a lot of terrain, but again, that's not how the rules say to play, that's not how most of the scenarios suggest you set up the board, and it just won't be the default way people play the game.
So if Age of Sigmar players are having a game with unpainted models, it's because they're hesitant to commit to the new game - but if Warmachine or Kings of War (or, presumably, Warhammer) players do it, it's because the evil points system has reduced the models to mere pawns instead of objects of jewel-like wonder, and the gamers just had the hobby sucked out of them?
Age of Sigmar is a new game that had a slow adoption. I don't think people have had the time to build up AoS-specific tables yet. I say that mainly because I haven't. I have a half dozen terrain pieces (garden of morr, two realmgates, ophidian archway, citadel woods, and overlord bastion) that I've made a special effort to track down, but haven't been able to paint them yet because I'm still painting the miniatures from my starter set (finished the stormcast, working slowly through the bloodreavers). A year from now, I'll have all this stuff painted (hopefully!), but it is taking time to buy, build, and paint everything - outside of MongooseMatt, I'd think most people wouldn't have the time or means to build a decent table yet. The only question is whether they intend to or not, and I think that too cannot be answered this early in Age of Sigmar's lifespan. AoS is still less than a year old.
I don't think points systems are evil because I'm not applying a moral label to it. I, personally, don't like them and I don't like what they represent or how they affect the game. Having a competitive attitude or enjoying the logistical nature of minmaxing are not innately evil, terrible, or even corrupt attitudes. I just don't share them. The people who play Warmachine with flat tables actually love that - those nice tables from Lock and Load, reserved for painted figures? I saw people complaining that they had too much terrain and preferred simpler tables for competitive games. That's not a wrong attitude to have. They aren't wrong for liking the game that way. I just don't agree and don't want to play the game largely because it appeals to their sensibilities instead of mine. I want to like Warmachine, for many reasons, but I find that I can not, and my reasons for arguing against what Warmachine does is because there is already a Warmachine game out there and I don't think I need another one, or that other games should be changed to be more like Warmachine. I don't want Warmachine to go away or want Warmachine players to stop playing it - which seems to be the exact opposite of what AoS detractors seem to want.
So when I argue against those type of attitudes, I'm not saying that the way I play is The One True Way(tm), I'm saying that the way I play is the way I like it, and that the things which keep me from doing it that way, or make me struggle to do it, suck for me. I see no reason why the game I like, which does things the way I like, needs to have those features added to it, inevitably taking away what I like and replacing it with what I don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gimgamgoo wrote: I take it you're a hhhobby believer and haven't really tried moving away to non GW games to really see the great wargaming scenes going on..
Don't marry the first girl you sleep with, right? AoS ain't my first rodeo clown. It's pretty absurd to assume that the only reason I like AoS is because I just haven't experienced all the better games out there. It's personal preference which draws me to AoS, not ignorance.
And I have to ask... do you guys not play video games or board games? Because without the hobby aspect, I just don't know what appeal miniature games have over those other cheaper, more extravagantly produced, broader, and more varied fields of gaming. You guys act like miniature gaming is some super serious form of gaming that sits above all else, and seem to be completely unable to compare miniature games to anything but each other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 18:28:24
Gimgamgoo wrote: I take it you're a hhhobby believer and haven't really tried moving away to non GW games to really see the great wargaming scenes going on..
Don't marry the first girl you sleep with, right? AoS ain't my first rodeo clown. It's pretty absurd to assume that the only reason I like AoS is because I just haven't experienced all the better games out there. It's personal preference which draws me to AoS, not ignorance.
And I have to ask... do you guys not play video games or board games? Because without the hobby aspect, I just don't know what appeal miniature games have over those other cheaper, more extravagantly produced, broader, and more varied fields of gaming. You guys act like miniature gaming is some super serious form of gaming that sits above all else, and seem to be completely unable to compare miniature games to anything but each other.
I don't care which game you or anyone likes best. We all have our favourites for our own reasons. However, you spend a large amount of forum time railing on other games for not being as good as AoS. If you have played other games, then why is it you seem to think other gamers don't paint their figures or have their own backgrounds for their armies. I'm sure all wargames are on equal footing in that regard.
I don't know what rubbish you're spouting about video games or board games either. It may be your thing but doesn't necessarily mean that's everyone elses. You sure do make a lot of assumptions about what other people do and should like. I enjoy Mountain biking and probably spend far more on that than I do wargaming. It doesn't mean I go biking all the time. There are times I want to sit on my ass, paint figures and have the tv on in the background. A game of dominoes or monopoly is still gaming but I don't consider it a replacement for list building/model building/painting/playing wargames.
Besides, this thread is meant to be about "list building". Just because someone likes list building doesn't mean they don't do the hobby aspect of painting their figures - or giving them loving names, or playing on boards with scenery in the middle. You really do come across as someone addicted to GW's kool aid.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 19:29:58
Currently most played: Silent Death, Mars Code Aurora, Battletech, Warcrow and Infinity.
I dont know if its the "list building" I miss so much is having a rational method of knowing whether or not I will have a decent game or not. punting on any kind of balance really made AoS a third tier game at best. Of course you can have fun with AoS but you can just as easily have fun pushing around matchbox cars with your kids. I have noticed that "pure" AoS is rarely played even by its stalwart defenders (whose ranks I am fast dropping out of the more familiar with the game I become)
thekingofkings wrote: I dont know if its the "list building" I miss so much is having a rational method of knowing whether or not I will have a decent game or not. punting on any kind of balance really made AoS a third tier game at best. Of course you can have fun with AoS but you can just as easily have fun pushing around matchbox cars with your kids. I have noticed that "pure" AoS is rarely played even by its stalwart defenders (whose ranks I am fast dropping out of the more familiar with the game I become)
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "pure" AoS?
First, it isn't an argument in favor of Age of Sigmar. It is an argument against point systems only. I feel that they are overpowering in certain respects and makes other approaches to the game more difficult, or even impossible, and foster a specific attitude towards the game.
And the lack of points fosters a 'specific attitude' to Aos that makes other approaches to the game equally difficult or even impossible. Aos is not better, and points based games, despite your protestations can actually work rather well.
(I also think that with AoS being highly random and unevenly balanced is going to frustrate competitive players who want more deliberate wins and losses, helping again to stifle the more egregious competitive attitudes)
Is not just competitive players that are frustrated by highly uneven and unevenly balanced mechanics
Second, AoS has terrain rules built into the core 4 pages and includes a suite of excellent terrain kits available. Like Infinity, I think that even with the bare minimum, an AoS table is going to look more 3D and have a greater variety in the types of battles you end up seeing, even if it is just the same six terrain features with six different random effects every game, placed in six different random locations on the board (using different Time of War options). Some people will choose not to use a lot of terrain, but again, that's not how the rules say to play, that's not how most of the scenarios suggest you set up the board, and it just won't be the default way people play the game.
Does it matter if it includes specific terrain options? I mean a forest is a forest, a ruin is a ruin, a scenery piece doesn't need to be a gw(Tm) scenery piece.
And why does an Aos board have 'more variety in the types of battles' with the same six features in six random locations and effects, when you can do this in every other gsme too? Terrain exists in all of them. You can choose to use it, or not use it, which is apparently ok in Aos, but not in other points based games as it's somehow evil and proof thst they're horrible people destroying the hobby and doing terrible and evil things. Again, remarkable thst you only see what you want to see.
Age of Sigmar is a new game that had a slow adoption. I don't think people have had the time to build up AoS-specific tables yet. I say that mainly because I haven't. I have a half dozen terrain pieces (garden of morr, two realmgates, ophidian archway, citadel woods, and overlord bastion) that I've made a special effort to track down, but haven't been able to paint them yet because I'm still painting the miniatures from my starter set (finished the stormcast, working slowly through the bloodreavers). A year from now, I'll have all this stuff painted (hopefully!), but it is taking time to buy, build, and paint everything - outside of MongooseMatt, I'd think most people wouldn't have the time or means to build a decent table yet. The only question is whether they intend to or not, and I think that too cannot be answered this early in Age of Sigmar's lifespan. AoS is still less than a year old..
You don't need 'Aos specific tables'.
Ruins are ruins, forests are forests, the citadel approved tag is not necessary for officialness or gameplay. If Aos players are not playing with terrain, maybe it's because of the host of reasons you love to ascribe to those horrible people who play warmachine?
Or because unpainted armies, and bare/minimal terrain are aspects of our game culture as a whole, regardless of game played. And not just those of those horrible 'other games' which you have such a skewed view of how other people play.
I guess not though, as that would point to the hollowness of your whole argument.
Regardless, since you don't have any of it painted, I'll happily label you with all the labels you use towards those warmachine players you dismiss so readily
I don't think points systems are evil because I'm not applying a moral label to it. I, personally, don't like them and I don't like what they represent or how they affect the game. Having a competitive attitude or enjoying the logistical nature of minmaxing are not innately evil, terrible, or even corrupt attitudes. I just don't share them. The people who play Warmachine with flat tables actually love that - those nice tables from Lock and Load, reserved for painted figures? I saw people complaining that they had too much terrain and preferred simpler tables for competitive games. That's not a wrong attitude to have. They aren't wrong for liking the game that way. I just don't agree and don't want to play the game largely because it appeals to their sensibilities instead of mine. I want to like Warmachine, for many reasons, but I find that I can not, and my reasons for arguing against what Warmachine does is because there is already a Warmachine game out there and I don't think I need another one, or that other games should be changed to be more like Warmachine. I don't want Warmachine to go away or want Warmachine players to stop playing it - which seems to be the exact opposite of what AoS detractors seem to want.
So when I argue against those type of attitudes, I'm not saying that the way I play is The One True Way(tm), I'm saying that the way I play is the way I like it, and that the things which keep me from doing it that way, or make me struggle to do it, suck for me. I see no reason why the game I like, which does things the way I like, needs to have those features added to it, inevitably taking away what I like and replacing it with what I don't.
Boy, you love broad strokes, don't you! 'The people who play warmachine with flat tables actually love that'. Really? Since when this those people that play warmachine with flat tables define the warmachine playing community? Hmm? Weren't you just shown pictures of Aos tables devoid of terrain? Whavent you been given examples from people who play warmachine who love painting their armies and playing on terrain end boards? 'They' can like whatever the hell they like, they're not wrong by any definition, and they certainly don't define it by any means, but you sir-, you are wrong in defining a whole community through your own negative perceptions of it. And it's not your first time either. You have in the part defined 'tournament players' as tfg, you have misrepresented alternative points of view frequently, especially those who play warmachine. and dismissed them without cause, and labelled whole segments of the player base of our hobby in a negative light for no reason other than your own prejudice.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont know if its the "list building" I miss so much is having a rational method of knowing whether or not I will have a decent game or not. punting on any kind of balance really made AoS a third tier game at best. Of course you can have fun with AoS but you can just as easily have fun pushing around matchbox cars with your kids. I have noticed that "pure" AoS is rarely played even by its stalwart defenders (whose ranks I am fast dropping out of the more familiar with the game I become)
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "pure" AoS?
basically, no comp system for points no warscroll limits, etc... no house rules, just the 4 pages and whats on the warscrolls (and of course anything from the official AoS books)
Gimgamgoo wrote: [If you have played other games, then why is it you seem to think other gamers don't paint their figures or have their own backgrounds for their armies.
Exactly... I've gone through and converted / painted a number of armies for several systems, always heavily themed. First a monster mash army for fantasy, then a Dreamforge and Starship Troopers converted marine army for 40K, then a Trollforged converted tyranids army for 40K, and now a gatormen army for Privateer Press (which I converted but commissioned the painting for, to have it done to a better level than I could achieve).
The idea that people who don't like AoS don't care about the hobby side of the game is demonstrably not true, and honestly doesn't even relate to the list-building discussion... at least in a negative way. For many people, building a list and then assembling, converting, and painting it IS the hobby... taking away list building certainly gives folks freedom, but it also removes part of what was really enjoyable for many!
It's OK if you don't approach it that way, of course, but just because GW decided to go in a different direction doesn't mean that isn't a valid way to approach the game. It's still how most people approach 40K, and that obviously is an extremely popular game for GW.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 03:09:04
Gimgamgoo wrote: However, you spend a large amount of forum time railing on other games for not being as good as AoS.
That's factually untrue. I rail against Warmachine for not being as good as AoS, and I guess a little bit against KoW, for reminding me so much of the WMH mindset that grates so much on my nerves. I rather like Malifaux and Infinity, personally, and have few bad things to say about them. I've repeatedly said that I've never played 40k and have never praised or condemned it. There's also several hybrid miniature board games that I'm extremely fond of, like Imperial Assault, BattleLore, and Dust Tactics - but the things I dislike about WMH, I still dislike about all these other games... just to a lesser extent. For instance, list building in Infinity is far less impactful that WMH because individual models are more versatile and there is far less interdependence between them. List building is simply something that exists in that game, not the game itself, as it is in WMH.
I don't know what rubbish you're spouting about video games or board games either.
It was the insinuation that if only I played other wargames, I'd see the light. Through the literally thousands of games of all variety that I've played (and helped create) and the dozens of groups I've played them with, I've developed quite the keen sense for my own tastes in such matters, and even if Age of Sigmar were the only miniature game I'd ever played (it absolutely isn't), I doubt very much that the six or seven other semi-popular miniatures games, all created largely in the same identical image, would expose some hidden nugget of secret knowledge that a lifetime of gaming wouldn't.
I mean, doesn't it bother you that video games and board games have about 100 different strategy sub-genres, but all the miniature games are practically the same? So similar that people still argue that they would actually be better off if they were MORE similar? Miniature games don't have genres, they have followers.
Besides, this thread is meant to be about "list building". Just because someone likes list building doesn't mean they don't do the hobby aspect of painting their figures - or giving them loving names, or playing on boards with scenery in the middle.
I never said it did. I said that list building - particularly the list building that matters - creates a dominant focus of the game that, I believe, places the narrative and hobby aspects in a distant, submissive position. That isn't to say that these things don't happen (they do), but that they become secondary for the community at large, sometime offensively so. This thread is about whether you miss list building, and I said I don't and think that the lack of list building represents a refocusing on those previously secondary desires, which I appreciate.
You really do come across as someone addicted to GW's kool aid.
Aren't you going to accuse me of working for GW and ask how much they are paying me to write such drivel? That's usually the go to personal insult for when someone runs out of arguments, isn't it? Nerd Godwin's Law. Or is that passe, and we just accuse them of being mindless followers now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deadnight wrote: And the lack of points fosters a 'specific attitude' to Aos that makes other approaches to the game equally difficult or even impossible.
I disagree. Not having a feature is a different thing altogether than having a competing one. AoS has several point systems that are fairly competently made - perhaps moreso than anything GW would've created - with the one caveat being that they are fan made and not officially recognized.
Does it matter if it includes specific terrain options? I mean a forest is a forest, a ruin is a ruin, a scenery piece doesn't need to be a gw(Tm) scenery piece.
It's just like the point system. Having an officially supported gameplay element tends to build acceptance better. Having it available for new players is also a boon, as it sets expectations for the game. I've seen a LOT of AoS tables with the archway and realmgates on them, so I believe the adoption of terrain for AoS is probably higher than in most other miniature games. I honestly believe that if Privateer Press ever released some official Warmachine terrain, they'd become as ubiquitous as those brass rings.
...but not in other points based games as it's somehow evil and proof thst they're horrible people destroying the hobby and doing terrible and evil things. Again, remarkable thst you only see what you want to see.
Again, I've never made any moral judgment against any of these things or the people who engage in them. I don't think anything is evil or the players who enjoy it are destroying the hobby. I've passed judgment - as in, it creates inferior experiences, it is unappealing, or it doesn't play to the genre's strengths - but just because I think someone is wrong, doesn't mean that I think they are stupid, evil, or unjustified. In fact, it kind of worries me that you see that way.
Unfortunately, I'm out of time and can not address your other comments at the moment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/01 02:02:52
thekingofkings wrote: I dont know if its the "list building" I miss so much is having a rational method of knowing whether or not I will have a decent game or not. punting on any kind of balance really made AoS a third tier game at best. Of course you can have fun with AoS but you can just as easily have fun pushing around matchbox cars with your kids. I have noticed that "pure" AoS is rarely played even by its stalwart defenders (whose ranks I am fast dropping out of the more familiar with the game I become)
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "pure" AoS?
basically, no comp system for points no warscroll limits, etc... no house rules, just the 4 pages and whats on the warscrolls (and of course anything from the official AoS books)
I'm not sure I can claim to play 'pure' AoS - we use bases for measurement in our group. But other than that we've tried a few games using clash comp, but I definitely prefer AoS 'as intended'.
I just find it far more conducive to a pleasant overall experience. I don't think points values are 'wrong', but I'm enjoying not having to think about it.
thekingofkings wrote: I dont know if its the "list building" I miss so much is having a rational method of knowing whether or not I will have a decent game or not. punting on any kind of balance really made AoS a third tier game at best. Of course you can have fun with AoS but you can just as easily have fun pushing around matchbox cars with your kids. I have noticed that "pure" AoS is rarely played even by its stalwart defenders (whose ranks I am fast dropping out of the more familiar with the game I become)
Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of "pure" AoS?
basically, no comp system for points no warscroll limits, etc... no house rules, just the 4 pages and whats on the warscrolls (and of course anything from the official AoS books)
I'm not sure I can claim to play 'pure' AoS - we use bases for measurement in our group. But other than that we've tried a few games using clash comp, but I definitely prefer AoS 'as intended'.
I just find it far more conducive to a pleasant overall experience. I don't think points values are 'wrong', but I'm enjoying not having to think about it.
So you do not just put down a unit, let your opponent put down a unit, and repeat until you decide to stop?
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
No, we do. We tried a couple of games with comp but didn't really like it - although we agreed for a pitched battle it would probably be the best option.
Now, it's pick scenario, decide if we're using Time of War, set up board, generate terrain, then deploy as specified in scenario, whether that's I go you go, attacker deploys second, etc.
I don't actually start thinking about my force until I know what the scenario is.
If the identification of attacker /defender is done on model count, then we either look at contents of cases or agree so-and-so will be x and ensure the deployed forces meet the requirement.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 11:04:57
I'm a little behind on this conversation, but yeah, I greatly miss list building. It was a way to engage with the game mentally and mechanically when away from the game table - which I rarely get to enjoy - without all the mess and hassle and table space of breaking out the hobby supplies. It was something I could do while riding the train, or lying in bed.
And it wasn't just about trying to build the strongest list, I would spend hours tinkering with fluff lists, figuring out how to convey an army theme at various points values. What did this character's forces look like when they were just starting out? How did they grow over time? When they became too much to manage directly, how did they divide their forces, and which lieutenants did they put in charge of those divisions?
But mostly it was about balance, balancing fluff and function, considering what I might go up against, and tinkering and fidgeting the lists into a chosen size, kitting out the characters to be interesting and effective, picking the right units, etc.
It helped that I played Vamp Counts, as their 8th ed army book had, I feel, the all-round best written faction rules that GW has ever printed. Not to strong or too weak, almost everything worked, played as you would expect, was appropriately point priced, did something interesting to bring their fluff to life on the table, etc. And because all the points costs all felt appropriate to both thematic/narrative role and mechanical usefulness, you never fealt like you were fighting to fit your points, everything just sort of fit right on its own.
Great book, and I do miss noodling around with it, even if I still like the rules for undead units in AoS. Still, yeah, I sorely miss list building. I don't get to play often these days, and there's not much else to keep me engaged with the game.
I've spent years tweaking and building an amazing list, I dominated two tournaments and that was boring. That was in ancients (historical before gunpowder) where the smaller difference in power levels between everything makes it easier to balance, but the lists/factions are historical (so not written with balance in mind).
I then started Warhammer because I wanted something more focused on how fun and cool models were, rather than how useful in my army (also I wanted MONSTERS and fluff instead of history). I still enjoy list building, but that is not why I play Warhammer.
AoS suited me very well because it is aimed at people who want what I a looking for in a fantasy game.
That said, having a standard size army (the balancing does not have to be very exact or use points necessarily) would be nice, for logistical purposes.
I have a question for everyone. How do you guys and girls play? I mean just take what ever you want? How ever you feel at the time?
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
Davor wrote: I have a question for everyone. How do you guys and girls play? I mean just take what ever you want? How ever you feel at the time?
Yup and yup.
I've now got enough play time with stuff to know what the strengths of my units are, so as soon as I know what scenario and/or time of war options are then I have a rough mental checklist of what I *need* to get on the board - which will be deployed regardless - and then stuff I would *like* to get on the board, which will be affected by what my opponent deploys.
Over all *that* are the ongoing discussions about concerns, so if we're playing The Ritual and I'm attacking then I might point out to my opponent that deploying a 4th Wizard next to the artifact probably isn't that sporting, or my opponent might ask if I mind binning the Decimators as he wants to take a couple of big units of goblins and wants them to last more than a turn, etc.
We only generally worry about stuff that's a total scenario breaker, rather than "is this a fair fight"?
RiTides wrote:Always loved your armies, Salvage, and found it interesting, amusing, and occasionally worthy of a small bit of pity
*sighs* Thanks bro
Shout out to your list of recent projects too Tides, some great concepts and execution in there
That's one thing I've heard people also miss when trying Kings of War (how the lists are simple without all all the magic items, etc of fantasy). But I'm hoping the streamlined gameplay makes up for it for me, and it still gives me a good target for my list building and modeling
TheWaspinator wrote:Kings of War is debatably really good for people who want to use weird models or do a lot of customization since as long as it fits on the tray, you can put basically anything on the table and it doesn't affect the gameplay.
In fact KOW has seriously got my creative juices flowing - in large part because I can mess with it at work (i.e. there are lists and an online listbuilder), and actually get games in (i.e. my club plays it). My Nurgle Things have transitioned to Ratkin, my Tizz Daemons to Abyssals, I bought a load of Confrontation Wolfen to make into a Herd list, and am waiting for a Puppets War sale so I can pull the trigger on a Counts As, Multi-Based Ogre army. So yea, the game works for me
RiTides wrote:For many people, building a list and then assembling, converting, and painting it IS the hobby... taking away list building certainly gives folks freedom, but it also removes part of what was really enjoyable for many!
Bingo. Game time itself is increasingly hard to get a hold of, but I can make time for hobby, and the more caffeinated I am at work the more my brain wants to think about stuff that's actually interesting to me.
I feel like more happens with AOSin person - listen to all this (good!) stuff about crafting narratives, weighing the balance with the other player, etc - than it does with other miniature-based tabletop wargames. And that's precisely the time that's most limited for me.
- Salvage
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 18:29:54
I PM'ed Salvage for further info on the KoW list builder, and he pointed me here. Thanks for that! I hadn't realized it was updated, that's super useful!
I think the comment about all this happening with AoS in-person is a good one, and there is definitely a lot of appeal with that! But yeah, that's also the time that's most limited for me, too.
Davor wrote: I have a question for everyone. How do you guys and girls play? I mean just take what ever you want? How ever you feel at the time?
I put things mostly in my opponent's hands. I'll ask what size of game they want to play, throw together a list of units that about fits that size (including a list of anything I plan to have in reserve for summoning mid game), and then show it to the opponent and ask if that's about the size of game they were thinking. If it is, I let them bring whatever they think is appropriate to field against what I'm taking.
I'd like to try out more formal comp systems, in particular Clash, as I like the idea of its sort of sideboard system, and I think it handles summoning the best, but there hasn't been much traction for comp systems around here yet.
. Thanks for that! I hadn't realized it was updated, that's super useful!