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.
2013/10/17 20:35:51
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
Yeah, sorry guys. I'm the one who got my hands on WD early and I've read the thing front to back. No mention of a skirmish game, or even a specialist game at that.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/17 20:36:32
2013/10/17 20:40:12
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah, sorry guys. I'm the one who got my hands on WD early and I've read the thing front to back. No mention of a skirmish game, or even a specialist game at that.
Shocking...
Rumor
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2013/10/17 20:45:16
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
happygolucky wrote: Is it just DE? or is there other releases for other army's in the WD?
There's some army box releases in time for christmas, but that's about it.
Blacheitsu returns in all its glory, though. And as I said, no mention of a specialist game at all. Optimists can still hold onto hope (don't blame me when they are dashed, though)
2013/10/17 20:52:53
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/17 21:02:46
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2013/10/17 21:02:14
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
A Tau box (contains a Riptide and 6 Broadsides)
An Eldar box (contains a Wraithknight, 2 Wraithlords and 15 Waraithguard)
A Space Marine box (contains a Stormraven and 2 Stormtalons)
A Chaos Warrior box (contains a Giant, Slaughterbrute, 6 Dragon Ogres and 2 Chaos Spawn)
A Dark Elf box (contains the new Fleetmaster and Chariot, 20 Dreadspears, 20 Corsairs and 5 Cold One Knights)
and finally 2 Vampire Counts boxes (one with a Wight King, 20 Skeleton Warriors, 10 Grave Guard and 5 Black Knights, the other with a Necromancer, 20 Ghouls, 3 Crypt Horrors and a Garden of Morr)
2013/10/17 21:03:28
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
Looking for great deals on miniatures or have a large pile you are looking to sell off? Checkout Mindtaker Miniatures.
Live in the Pacific NW? Check out http://ordofanaticus.com
2013/10/17 21:08:13
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
xxvaderxx wrote: The thing is, will this new thing be a tournament game or a "casual" game. A large part of WM/WH and the new game by Mantic is that they are tournament oriented.
Not a chance, GW does not understand the tournament mindset, or ever shown interestin in catering for it.
And that's one of the few things I like about the company these days. Tournament types can claim orienting games towards them doesn't affect other styles of play, "tighter rules are better for everyone" etc, but that's not been my experience and since almost all the alternative systems that have been springing up recently have taken such a tack I'd rather GW stuck to focusing on narrative(and modelling, but that's become a bit limited as well these days with their "why convert when you can BUY THIS BUY THIS BUY THIS BUY THIS" routine).
Except, concepts of 'narrative', 'cinematic' and a tight rule set are not exclusive of each other. Many other games manage it, GW have themselves with some of their games in the past.
The great trick GW seem to have managed to pull, and that many people seem to buy, is that their lazy, 100% sales-at-the-expense-of-everything-else-orientated approach is something that exists as an alternative to having a game that two players can play on an equal footing, regardless of their unit/list composition and whether they are trying to make a 'competitive' or 'fluffy' list.
And the great trick competitive players have managed to pull is to convince people that "tight" rules benefit everybody. The more options you give people, the harder it is to balance everything versus everything else whether that's rules, or wargear, or units. There comes a point when you have to make a choice between rules that put everyone on an equal footing, and giving the players more choices and relying on them to have some semblance of sportsmanship - the 6th edition Allies rules are a perfect example.
Most of the complaints about them come from competitive or semi-competitive players who bemoan the way they allow armies to circumvent their weaknesses or amplify their strengths to an unbalanced degree. Well, the only way to get rid of that as an issue is to either make the rules more restrictive, or eliminate them entirely. But many of us like the Allies rules, they let us compose fluffy armies without having to resort to getting opponent's consent before every game, they allow us to combine units from different armies to represent forces that have no official rules of their own like the Mechanicus.
Forgeworld is another example; 90%+ of the units and lists they put out for 40K are either spot-on balance wise, or even slightly underpowered/overcosted, but because of the sheer volume of units they put out, there's usually a handful that are overpowered/undercosted to some degree and because of the size of the team they take a while to fix. As far as I'm concerned, that is absolutely a worthwhile tradeoff, but the response of many competition-focused players is to claim FW are "unofficial" or just flat-out refuse to play with them or participate in tournaments which allow them.
If you make the rules tight enough to satisfy competition-focused players, that necessarily means you must also make them more restrictive and more limited in scope, which is in direct conflict with the desires of "fluff" gamers who want as many options open to them as possible.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2013/10/17 21:34:07
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
Blachitsu is John Blanche's segment where he displays INQ28 and Inquisition warbands made by him and others he's met.
People were speculating that his article were a lead up to Inquisition (I doubted it, and still do)
2013/10/17 22:05:41
Subject: Re:Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
If you make the rules tight enough to satisfy competition-focused players, that necessarily means you must also make them more restrictive and more limited in scope, which is in direct conflict with the desires of "fluff" gamers who want as many options open to them as possible.
Yodhrin, I don't mean this as a criticism (and please don't take it as so), but you really need to try some other games. There are indeed some that have fewer options than 40k (Kings of War springs to mind), but a lot of the stuff on the market has a similar amount if not more and yet still manages to maintain game mechanics that are more balanced. Please note I'm not using the term 'completely balanced' here, because they are not - but there are degrees of balance and numbers of loopholes, it's a sliding scale.
By way of example, Infinity has about 30-40 different unit types per faction (there are 8/9) and each one of these has between 3-8 different loadout options. On top of this, there are loads more special rules, which interact with each other in a much more fundamental and complex way, and yet the game still manages to maintain a far greater degree of balance so that you don't end up trying to artificially channel the players into list building either 'competitive' or 'fluffy' games - with fireworks and wasted time resulting if both players want something different from the game. And it's as 'cinematic' as they come, in fact more so because it doesn't have the ridiculous level of abstraction that 40k contains, and its as easy as anything to create narrative games and scenarios. In fact, I would say that kind of thing is far more common than in 40k.
Having a massive range of stuff does not give the games designers carte blanche to throw their hands up in the air, cry 'cinematic!' or 'narrative!' and just not bother trying to balance the games at all, and there are several examples on the market right now that prove this isn't the case.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/17 22:08:22
If you make the rules tight enough to satisfy competition-focused players, that necessarily means you must also make them more restrictive and more limited in scope, which is in direct conflict with the desires of "fluff" gamers who want as many options open to them as possible.
Yodhrin, I don't mean this as a criticism (and please don't take it as so), but you really need to try some other games. There are indeed some that have fewer options than 40k (Kings of War springs to mind), but a lot of the stuff on the market has a similar amount if not more and yet still manages to maintain game mechanics that are more balanced. Please note I'm not using the term 'completely balanced' here, because they are not - but there are degrees of balance and numbers of loopholes, it's a sliding scale.
By way of example, Infinity has about 30-40 different unit types per faction (there are 8/9) and each one of these has between 3-8 different loadout options. On top of this, there are loads more special rules, which interact with each other in a much more fundamental and complex way, and yet the game still manages to maintain a far greater degree of balance so that you don't end up trying to artificially channel the players into list building either 'competitive' or 'fluffy' games - with fireworks and wasted time resulting if both players want something different from the game. And it's as 'cinematic' as they come, in fact more so because it doesn't have the ridiculous level of abstraction that 40k contains, and its as easy as anything to create narrative games and scenarios. In fact, I would say that kind of thing is far more common than in 40k.
Having a massive range of stuff does not give the games designers carte blanche to throw their hands up in the air, cry 'cinematic!' or 'narrative!' and just not bother trying to balance the games at all, and there are several examples on the market right now that prove this isn't the case.
Ah yes, the old "you can't like GW games unless you play nothing but GW games" canard. For the record, I have forces from going on a dozen different non-GW systems, sadly many of them now defunct. I take the position I do precisely because I've spent a fair amount of time with other systems, but I keep coming back to 40K and the various Specialist Games because they give me experiences I've not found elsewhere yet and I love the universe. I'll have to take your work for it on Infinity, as I've not played that and don't plan to as the storyline doesn't appeal, but if what you say is accurate then it's an exception not a rule compared to the other systems I've used.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
2013/10/18 01:38:43
Subject: Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
Yodhrin wrote: And the great trick competitive players have managed to pull is to convince people that "tight" rules benefit everybody.
It's not a trick. I'm as casual a player as they come (I care more about the story-driven RPG than the table-top game), and I want a set of tight, unambiguous balanced (or as balanced as possible) rules. There's no trick to that. That's something all games should strive for.
A tight rule-set is ALWAYS preferable. Loose rules results in situations where you aren't sure how something works which results in arguments at the table and at best slowing down the game as you re-read stuff over and over and eventually have to house rule it on the fly or do a dice off which means that one person is probably getting the raw deal. You can have plenty of options AND have tight balanced rules it just requires a lot of playtesting and erratas to fix issues when they come up. Having stuff be inherently more powerful or weak than their points suggest because of "fluff" results in situations like in Fantasy 7th edition where I saw Brettonian armies tabled second turn by min-maxed Slannesh demons which is really no fun for either side unless the demon player is a dick. Saying that you can't have both is just a cop out.
On topic that's a bummer about the White Dwarf and I'm holding out hope that this is still in production for some time in the future.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/18 12:37:01
2013/10/18 15:06:55
Subject: Re:Inquisition the Game (40k Skirmish Game for late November?)
H.B.M.C. wrote: (or as balanced as possible) rules. There's no trick to that. That's something all games should strive for.
No.
Most "hobby" and "collectible" games these day, including most video games, skylanders, MtG, etc.. all purposefully strive for a healthy bit of imbalance to create a meta-game and allow meaningful play across a variety of skill-levels.
I am not saying that 40K gets it right, but Go&Chess-style "perfect balance" is definitely not the goal, never was, never will be.
Night Lords (40k): 3500pts
Klan Zaw Klan: 4000pts
