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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 21:26:22
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Fog of war is easy. Numbered tokens correlating to specific units. Each turn you simply say that "this unit in my list is doing this" for the hero phase. The enemy gets to determine what a unit is once the enemy is within 18" unless you target them with a power or they themselves use an attack.
Done.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 21:27:49
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Talys wrote:Sorry, man. Fog of war on tabletop is so lame compared to a PC. A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight. If you possess/build certain technologies, you may see on a radar, for instance, some representation of your enemy (like dots or relative sized dots) without all of the information, or perhaps, some technology, like a satellite, will offer you a complete view of your enemy. Among other things, it creates a need for scouts -- units to keep an eye on things -- and a reason to kill those units. The depth and surprise FoW adds to a strategy game is immeasurable and irreplaceable on the tabletop. Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough. This is an easy and fun way to do it. There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative). We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun. Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 21:28:38
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 22:21:47
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Swastakowey wrote:
Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough.
This is an easy and fun way to do it.
There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative).
We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun.
Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
If you find that fun, sure  For me, that sounds like WAY more work than it's worth - compared to PC, where it's just part of the game, and no extra work is required. Among other things, having a GM is difficult in most cases (most people want to play, not referee), and it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop
On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways. All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 22:33:46
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Talys wrote: Swastakowey wrote:
Thats not true, if you want fog of war you merely need to take a scale drawing or photo of the map you set up (probably a few maps per person). Play on the fake map until scouts see bits of your force. When this happens, since the map is scaled, you can simply put the models where they moved. Once a unit has been spotted it would be very hard for them to become hidden again unless they withdraw enough.
This is an easy and fun way to do it.
There are plenty of other methods of restricting the gods eye view of the battle through Having GMs, like sitting so your eyes are at table height and having to pass orders to the GM (this means you cannot see easily and a lot of orders rely on guess work and initiative).
We have also played games where the commanders do not even see the table, relying on runners with drawn maps to give you accurate information for your orders and then someone to enact your orders. That was a lot of fun.
Fog of war is easily attainable in various ways, it just wont be like the fog of war in age of empires, you have to make the mechanics yourself to represent fog of war unless the game already has it.
If you find that fun, sure  For me, that sounds like WAY more work than it's worth - compared to PC, where it's just part of the game, and no extra work is required. Among other things, having a GM is difficult in most cases (most people want to play, not referee), and it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop
On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways. All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it.
But that is entirely opinion you see, it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too.
I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting.
Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 00:14:58
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
That's a funny statement coming from you.
Swastakowey wrote:it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
No one said it wasn't possible, Talys point is that its easier to achieve in a virtual space due to the ability to visually withhold information from all players in the actual game space mediated by the program itself, which is an objectively easier implementation.
Swastakowey wrote:Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too.
Sure, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it still gives away more information via the ability to see token location and movement. On the other hand video games with fog of war give no unintended information away. Moreover you completely ignored a very fair point that if you are using and intermediary refereeing separate maps and using tokens on the main board, then you aren't really getting to see your miniatures on the board as the battle unfolds which is a very big draw for certain players. Which again, video games allow you to do while still preserving fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote: I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting.
That statement is a red herring so big it could win you a Guinness record. Are you honestly arguing that on the whole, it is common for people to utilize out of sight artillery and ask their opponent to locate it via fall timing and sound? Beyond that how, as a tabletop mechanic, is that even accurately representable beyond a GM telling the opponent the shot sounds east and took X number of seconds to impact, which is then immediately obvious based on which fog of war tokens haven't moved.
What's even funnier is that video games are able to do both of these things objectively better than a tabletop game because all of those details can be calculated in milliseconds through the physics engine and then rendered as actual visible graphics. In fact, I actually just applied both of your scenarios in Metal Gear Solid 5 earlier today. And if you want another game, more related to tabletop games, then Starcraft 2 has both of these features.
Swastakowey wrote:Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures.
Can't resist taking a cheap shot at the end can you. Does the fact that some people enjoy the miniature side of the hobby more bother you that much? You might think the most important part of a game is it's rule set "but that is entirely opinion you see."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 00:57:07
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Jack Flask wrote: That's a funny statement coming from you. Swastakowey wrote:it's still very possible to do this in table top form.
No one said it wasn't possible, Talys point is that its easier to achieve in a virtual space due to the ability to visually withhold information from all players in the actual game space mediated by the program itself, which is an objectively easier implementation. Swastakowey wrote:Heaps of games use the token idea too posted earlier too. Sure, and while there's nothing wrong with that, it still gives away more information via the ability to see token location and movement. On the other hand video games with fog of war give no unintended information away. Moreover you completely ignored a very fair point that if you are using and intermediary refereeing separate maps and using tokens on the main board, then you aren't really getting to see your miniatures on the board as the battle unfolds which is a very big draw for certain players. Which again, video games allow you to do while still preserving fog of war. Swastakowey wrote: I find on the PC it does not work well since I cannot change the rules easily to account for things like locating artillery based on the sound or the time it takes for shells to land etc. Or if a sniper fires too many times from the same spot he should more easily be located etc. It's more mechanical and less fluid or something I don't know. Pc is just more limiting. That statement is a red herring so big it could win you a Guinness record. Are you honestly arguing that on the whole, it is common for people to utilize out of sight artillery and ask their opponent to locate it via fall timing and sound? Beyond that how, as a tabletop mechanic, is that even accurately representable beyond a GM telling the opponent the shot sounds east and took X number of seconds to impact, which is then immediately obvious based on which fog of war tokens haven't moved. What's even funnier is that video games are able to do both of these things objectively better than a tabletop game because all of those details can be calculated in milliseconds through the physics engine and then rendered as actual visible graphics. In fact, I actually just applied both of your scenarios in Metal Gear Solid 5 earlier today. And if you want another game, more related to tabletop games, then Starcraft 2 has both of these features. Swastakowey wrote:Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures. Can't resist taking a cheap shot at the end can you. Does the fact that some people enjoy the miniature side of the hobby more bother you that much? You might think the most important part of a game is it's rule set "but that is entirely opinion you see." Are you ok mate? Someone jack into your flask this morning? (now thats a cheap shot)  No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him? Anyway... He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not. With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens. When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist. You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table. Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale. Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield. Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting. No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example. In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way. Anyway, in short, calm down buddy.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 01:01:37
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 02:06:01
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
I used to "gm" citytech for my bothers. Id set up identical cities where they couldn't see. It was really fun. Ive always liked urban combat and many of my Warmachine and Infinity games are in urban settings.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 02:39:32
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
|
Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him?
I never said it was a cheap shot against Talys, did I?
Text removed. No need for lines like this. reds8n
"Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures."
The way this is written states fog of war is both an easy and commonly used mechanic in tabletop games. That sentence is fine on its own, but adding the second sentence implies a contrast between two groups, one appreciates both the rules and models while the other appreciates only the models. The use of "especially" suggests that the first statement is primarily true for the first group, while the statement is less true for the second. Considering the first sentence pertains to the ease of implementing fog of war, it suggests that this second group find the task difficult, which is a judgement about said groups abilities. Considering the majority of your grievances with Age of Sigmar are related to the design of its system, that would place you in the first category and your detractors in the second, which is very easy to interpret as a slight.
Swastakowey wrote: He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not.
It is objectively not the same though. Sure you can make a low effort implementation in a video game which is mimic-able by a tabletop rule set, but video games are well beyond that now. Moreover your arguments, specifically in reference to Talys' posts don't actual refute or even address his main points.
"A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight.... it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop... On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways.... All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it."
There's is no way to completely eliminate information from the tabletop easily, visually, all while still preserving accountability. Tokens give away information, and remove the fun of watching your miniatures move around the map. Beyond that the requirement of doing everything by proxy makes judging actual elements of the game difficult because the GM looks at two one-sided force abstraction and has to make judgement calls about elements such as cover or sight without the certainty afforded by actually just measuring the miniatures on the table.
Swastakowey wrote:With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens.
Which is not the same thing as actually getting to watch your models move around the board and set up firing lines, ambushes, etc.
Swastakowey wrote:When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist.
Again, a red herring. Not only are you making baseless assumptions about force compositions including its own artillery, much less decoys, analysts, and counter batteries, but this is all completely irrelevant to the question of effectiveness in implementing fog of war between the two mediums.
Swastakowey wrote:You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table.
Are you seriously going to make the assumption that a force is dragging along an artillery specialists, to then suggest simply rolling a die to determine if he's able to do his job right is actually hilarious.
Swastakowey wrote:Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale.
Sure, I've done that before for games, because personally I don't like large artillery on board. Thing is, at that point all the rest of your arguments are moot. Why does it matter if you can time the shelling and locate the sound in order to find an item that isn't on the board. It becomes completely irrelevent.
Swastakowey wrote:Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield.
Which isn't really fog of war in the same capacity as say Warcraft or Starcraft.
Swastakowey wrote:Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting.
Again, completely outside the question of what does fog of war better. Also, I love how you suggest changing the system to add fog of war, which is a very significant addition, and yet you were one of the people who kept saying that the various community balancing methods for AoS were invalid because they weren't part of the core game.
Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example.
Because myself and other people may in fact enjoy watching their minis sit behind cover, climb walls, and walk through the terrain we build before they meet their horrible fate. Just because you don't doesn't make it of trivial importance.
Swastakowey wrote:In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way.
Modding rules into the game is outside the scope of the conversation which was about the best implementation of fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote:Anyway, in short, calm down buddy.
Funny how when you speak critically of something it's just voicing your opinion, but when someone else criticizes you its suddenly rage.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 11:03:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:01:58
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
Jack Flask wrote:
You need to work on your word choice because everything you post makes you look like a smug gakhole.
That's really rude and you need to stop taking opposing view points so personal.
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:02:35
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Jack Flask wrote: Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shots on my end dude, I actually don't mind Talys, why would I cheap shot him?
I never said it was a cheap shot against Talys, did I?
"Nevertheless, you can easily do it in table top games and fog of war can be common. Especially if you play games for the games as well as the miniatures."
The way this is written states fog of war is both an easy and commonly used mechanic in tabletop games. That sentence is fine on its own, but adding the second sentence implies a contrast between two groups, one appreciates both the rules and models while the other appreciates only the models. The use of "especially" suggests that the first statement is primarily true for the first group, while the statement is less true for the second. Considering the first sentence pertains to the ease of implementing fog of war, it suggests that this second group find the task difficult, which is a judgement about said groups abilities. Considering the majority of your grievances with Age of Sigmar are related to the design of its system, that would place you in the first category and your detractors in the second, which is very easy to interpret as a slight.
Swastakowey wrote: He said it's not the same, when you can, with some effort make it the same. It just depends if you want to put in effort or not.
It is objectively not the same though. Sure you can make a low effort implementation in a video game which is mimic-able by a tabletop rule set, but video games are well beyond that now. Moreover your arguments, specifically in reference to Talys' posts don't actual refute or even address his main points.
"A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight.... it's not possible to tell if someone's cheating, and playing on a fake map seems contrary to playing with, uh, miniatures on the tabletop... On the tabletop, I want to see cool models anyhow -- that's 99.9% of the reason that I play miniature wargame, anyways.... All I'm saying is that a true fog of war -- ie not being able to see things not in line of sight; exploring the map, possibly being fired upon, such as by artillery or sniper fire and not knowing exactly where the source is -- is dynamic and exciting on the PC. It's cool knowing that there are snipers to the east, but you need to find them (and if you do, they're dead); and artillery from the north, but you're not sure exactly from where, and you need to get through defensive lines to reach it."
There's is no way to completely eliminate information from the tabletop easily, visually, all while still preserving accountability. Tokens give away information, and remove the fun of watching your miniatures move around the map. Beyond that the requirement of doing everything by proxy makes judging actual elements of the game difficult because the GM looks at two one-sided force abstraction and has to make judgement calls about elements such as cover or sight without the certainty afforded by actually just measuring the miniatures on the table.
Swastakowey wrote:With tokens most games have mechanics to get your minis on the board, even if they start off tokens.
Which is not the same thing as actually getting to watch your models move around the board and set up firing lines, ambushes, etc.
Swastakowey wrote:When enemy artillery fires in most games they should reveal themselves as your side usually had a team of men specialized to find this out, they are usually attached to your own artillery command. This why counter batteries exist and decoy batteries exist.
Again, a red herring. Not only are you making baseless assumptions about force compositions including its own artillery, much less decoys, analysts, and counter batteries, but this is all completely irrelevant to the question of effectiveness in implementing fog of war between the two mediums.
Swastakowey wrote:You don't need to know the calculations involved to add this mechanic in the game, merely a dice roll or an abstraction to represent this on the table.
Are you seriously going to make the assumption that a force is dragging along an artillery specialists, to then suggest simply rolling a die to determine if he's able to do his job right is actually hilarious.
Swastakowey wrote:Also you assume the game is using tokens, a lot of the more decent games put artillery off board for better representation of how they work. It all depends on how you want to do it and at what scale.
Sure, I've done that before for games, because personally I don't like large artillery on board. Thing is, at that point all the rest of your arguments are moot. Why does it matter if you can time the shelling and locate the sound in order to find an item that isn't on the board. It becomes completely irrelevent.
Swastakowey wrote:Tokens are arguably pretty good, because it means you have an idea of where the enemy are, but exact details are not obvious until more pieces of the puzzle are shown, so you can use scouts etc to clarify and broaden your view of the battlefield.
Which isn't really fog of war in the same capacity as say Warcraft or Starcraft.
Swastakowey wrote:Never played the games you mentioned, the last game I played with fog of war was Age of Empires 1/2 and Command and Conquer generals (I think). There are plenty of things I would like to change with those games in terms of Fog of War but without the modding know how I could not. However in any wargame, it's incredibly simple to change (this goes for any rule etc) the set to make it what you want if the base of the game is good. In this manner, PC is more limiting.
Again, completely outside the question of what does fog of war better. Also, I love how you suggest changing the system to add fog of war, which is a very significant addition, and yet you were one of the people who kept saying that the various community balancing methods for AoS were invalid because they weren't part of the core game.
Swastakowey wrote:No cheap shot, but if you play wargames because the rules are fun and like minis (or even if you just like the wargames I guess) then fog of war can and does add a lot of extra fun in a game. If you mainly like models id argue it just delays when your models reveal themselves and nothing more, even then, when you play a game and your models die turn 1 there isn't much difference than then=m being revealed in turn 2 for example.
Because myself and other people may in fact enjoy watching their minis sit behind cover, climb walls, and walk through the terrain we build before they meet their horrible fate. Just because you don't doesn't make it of trivial importance.
Swastakowey wrote:In short, I merely stated my opinion against his, which is wargames are great for fog of war and other details, it just takes a bit more effort and imagination. The PC may do the work for you, but most people couldn't reliably code their own rules into a game (people like me) to make a game suit my tastes hence why im not a fan of PC in this way.
Modding rules into the game is outside the scope of the conversation which was about the best implementation of fog of war.
Swastakowey wrote:Anyway, in short, calm down buddy.
Funny how when you speak critically of something it's just voicing your opinion, but when someone else criticizes you its suddenly rage.
Ok im gonna keep this short...
I did not slight anyone, if you think i did, I don't care. As I said, I did no "cheap shots" (except towards you).
Yes there is a way to remove information from the table top... and that is by having maps and charts for each player. Easy, done it before and it works well. In my opinion it's far better than on PC too because we can change it up any second. It is very easy to have no info on the table.
Again there is easy ways to remove information from the table top. Charts and maps. Its as simple as printing out a few A4 maps and having players keep track of their models on their maps and revealing them when it needs to be revealed. just like in the video games. You dont need to have tokens, tokens you sacrifice a little info for less keeping track. Tokens is just one of many ways to do it.
Artillery cannot function without impressive logistics, command structure and observation teams. If the enemy has artillery it is not baseless to assume they have observers looking out for enemy battery fire. Its like artillery 101. Im merely pointing out that details like this can change on the fly how you use Fog of War and if the game doesn't meet that requirement (if you have them) then you can change it up quickly (unlike on a PC). If you think a dice roll to see if someone can do their job on the table is hilarious then you have missed the point of dice rolling in wargames. Just because it's someones job does not mean they will always be successful at it. In terms of artillery this could mean the enemy countermeasures worked or the guys radio was fuzzy and the details did not go through. None of the above changes if artillery is on the board or not.
Again, tokens are one way of doing it. Tokens are just the simple way of getting fog of war likeness in a more realistic manner (in some ways, depends on scale) than empty map.
I don't suggest it, I stopped playing the game because (not just fog of war) it did not meet my requirements for fun. At the very least I can redeem a game as bad as AOS with house ruling (does not make the game good though, makes my rules good), in a PC game I cannot do this.
Cool you enjoy it, I never said it sucked or nobody did. But even in your example that means you don't enjoy it when models die before they get to move (common in GW games).
Anyway dude, Talys said he likes Fog of War in video games for X reasons. I state you can do the same on a table top if you do X then said why I prefer it on the table top (because he prefers it on PC). He merely said "if you find that fun then sure". The main reason he doesn't like it on the table top is because he always wants to see models on the board, which is fine but ultimately defeats the purpose of Fog of War (as it requires hiding the game tokens).
That was all the original conversation was about. I suspect you merely saw my name and thought "that guy is bashing something" and then went into full anger post mode about me being snide or something.
If you think fog of war isn't as cool on the table top then that's fine, but it is easy to replicate on the table top. If you don't like putting in a bit of effort for that then that's fine, I never said the PC was not easier since it does all the work which is obvious, but PC gaming is easier in general. If you disagree tell me how fog of war cannot be done on the table (which you haven't done so far).
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/07 11:02:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:04:44
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
...I like Fog of War in video games and I like the idea of having a GM'd tabletop game with Fog of War.
Is...is that allowed?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:09:44
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Heroic Senior Officer
|
Spinner wrote:...I like Fog of War in video games and I like the idea of having a GM'd tabletop game with Fog of War.
Is...is that allowed?
Yes I will allow it
...
For now.
But you don't actually need a GM for fog of war on the table depending on how you do it.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 14:24:33
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Fog Of War is achieved in tabletop games by various hidden movement rules and by C&C and Morale rules that prevent the player having his units always act as he precisely wishes them to.
Hidden movement can be most easily achieved by having umpires run a master table to move units out of sight of the players. It is much easier to do in a computer game, of course.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 14:25:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 17:04:26
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Hidden movement can be most easily achieved by having umpires run a master table to move units out of sight of the players. It is much easier to do in a computer game, of course.
Yes, my point, which Jack Flask highlighted, was simply that (a) it's not easy at all to achieve even in the most rudimentary way on the tabletop, whereas on the PC, Fog of War is a natural part of the interface, and (b) it kind of means you're not looking at miniatures. And if you're not looking at miniatures, why play a miniature wargame? I mean, that's like watching the Kentucky Derby with just colored dots on a screen representing positions on the track instead of looking at you know, horses and jockeys.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 19:37:39
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
I don't think it's that difficult to present fog of war in miniatures games. There are various ways it can be achieved.
C&C and Morale rules that generate the fog of war that prevents the easy control of your army.
Unknown identities and abilities of units until they are contacted.
Written orders for simultaneous movement.
Players just have to do a bit more book-keeping.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 21:03:33
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Spawn of Chaos
Wakefield, UK
|
For simple and easy to use fog of war rules for the tabletop take a peek at sharp practice from two fat ladies.
Essentially once the forces are chosen you take a number of cards for the tabletop, a card can represent 1 unit, many units or a feint, nothing but a bluff.
When combined with their activation deck you gain fog of war at the cost of keeping your own force secret until you want to commit. Whilst represented by a card units activate last and can only complete basic actions, once revealed they move and shoot normally.
G
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 23:28:10
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
@KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible. Without a GM and some second map/table, which just sounds like WAY more work than the vast majority of players would be willing to engage in, you're limited to an abstraction of Fog of War -- there are elements of surprise, without actual suppression of sensory information. There's nothing wrong with this, but abstraction is not equivalent to simulation. In some games, abstraction actually makes a lot of sense and is really cool. For example, in Space Hulk, genestealers that are out of line of sight are represented by blips, and the Space Marine player doesn't know how many genestealers they'll encounter until the they achieve LoS (token is flipped). In this case it's both fluffy, thematically representative, and a good game mechanic. In a true Fog of War, units see nothing beyond their line of sight (sometimes not even the terrain, at least not until they explore it). Then when a scouting party or sentry encounters something, hears something, or dies, they radio it in, you see it an alert on your radar, hop over, and deal with the threat (perhaps dispatch units), while the rest of the game continues. At least during the beginning of the game (prior to technology/magic that allows it), you have no idea what forces your enemy has, how they've deployed, or how they're mobilizing. It affords you the ability to leave gaping holes to your defense for an assault, on the gamble that your opponent doesn't go there. It incentivizes building defensive fortifications, sentries, and reconnaissance. If you used an abstraction method on a PC game to provide Fog of War, instead of visual radii of units, nobody would buy the game. The whole thing about true invisibility with a GM on the tabletop... without two players actually playing on different surfaces and a GM that pops units onto a third that both that can see, you can't make things invisible. Which, again, this sounds crazy to me... it means setting up the same terrain 3 times, having a GM, and having 2 tokens plus one model for each model... and 3 large tables in 3 rooms, or at least partitioned. Plus you'll not see your opponent half the time. I mean, it's just totally contrary to my idea of a tabletop game. It's the first time I've heard of someone doing that, and it just sounds really hard on anything other than a low model count game on a small surface with not much terrain, but hey, if you're set up for it... cool!
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 23:38:50
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 23:54:38
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
It would probably be simpler to do on a larger, strategic scale, as part of a campaign. I think I remember seeing something like that in the General's Compendium, where everyone got a map, the GM had a master map, and he adjusted what everyone saw...or I could be remembering it from something else. Maybe that island campaign GW used to have on their website?
Gah. Wish I'd thought to save the rules for that one all those years ago.
Fog of War seems more appropriate on that scale, to be honest. Most of these battles are at pretty short range. You're going to be able to tell where people are, whether they're on horses, if they've got pikes, that sort of thing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 00:49:22
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
|
Sqorgar wrote: CoreCommander wrote: Sqorgar wrote:
I keep hearing this quoted. First, I'd like to know when and where it was said, so I can see the quote in context.
The "scandalous" document in question is an yearly report for 2014. I'll find it in a minute. P.S. Ah, yes here it is http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Games-Workshop-Group-14-combined-FINAL-cover-version.pdf. Got it wrong the first time.
And the paragraph that lit the whole interned on fire itself:
"Our market is a niche market made up of people who want to collect our miniatures. They tend to be male, middle-class, discerning teenagers and adults. We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."
Thanks for that. I think I understand their reasoning here. A niche market is, by definition, small and specialized. Market research in such a small arena is of limited value, especially if your competitors (like both of them) don't share sales information, or if their sales are so insignificant compared to your own that you wouldn't care. If they do something that is successful, is it because it was a better choice or because it was a better choice for their specific audience? You can't really draw trends from such a small data set. I mean, you can make assumptions, but the market is small enough that they don't need to pay other people to make assumptions for you.
I also understand why it could be seen as frustrating for fans, because it seems like "we don't care what our fans think", especially with how uncommunicative GW can be about the decisions it makes. They won't even announce new products that it has been preparing for months/years more than a week in advance. It makes the players feel isolated from the direction of the game, like followers instead of companions. But, alas, that's how GW wants to play things. I kind of get that too, as if there's one unifying behavior that applies to all GW fans, it's that they think that they know how better to run the company than GW does, and man, I'll bet that gets old real quick.
Says he isn't an apologist. Says he wants to see document for himself. Sees it and agrees with GW's reasoning. How's el armor blanco?
Look, I'm trying to enjoy Age of Sigmar. I WANT to keep playing the newest edition, as well as older ones I love. But it's not a wonderful system. And to have someone tell you a mistake GW openly admits to (not that they consider it a mistake, just an action they admit to doing), you hand wave it away.
|
Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.
Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.
Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 05:07:23
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
I think the new CEO is making moves away from that. Remember the online survey the Webstore had? Or the difference in tone in the last financial report? They're still not perfect, but steps in the right direction are appreciated.
On Fog of War, GW have had a version of it in Space Hulk and Zone Mortalis with the "blip" system. Works well on the tabletop when LoS is restricted to narrow corridors :-)
(Oh I see Talys already mentioned this!)
|
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 06:46:15
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Talys wrote:@KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible.
No, not really. We're playing table top wargames. We use miniatures but there is no inviolable rule suggesting they must be used all the time and 'put on display'. For a lot of people, including myself it's not about that. They 'use' miniatures as part of their ttg 's, 'displaying' them means something else. Both are fine, but playing ttgs and displaying models are not necessarily the same thing. Don't project. You're quite guilty of projecting your views on what you like as some inviolable mantra that defines wargamers as a whole- in this case, playing with miniatures and displaying them being the same thing. Fine fir you, but there are other ways of viewing this and approaching this.
Football is played with a ball, but you don't have it all the time, do you?
You still are playing with miniatures at the end of the day. They've simpky not appeared yet. Just like reserves. Or deep strikers. Or does everything have to stay on the table all the time for talys to consider it 'fun'?
As I see it, fog of war is far easier in computer games. No question. It's more 'natural'. Then again, having a gm, or coming to a consensus about with your mates as to a cool game mechanics you'd like to try out isn't exactly hard. And by the way, you don't need a gm. Infinity has hidden units in the army lists, and camo troops are deployed via camo markers rather than placing the model on the tabel. The Ariadna spetsznaz even has ambush camouflage where he generates two camo tokens representing how skilled he is at distracting you and fudging his precise location.
Personally I see it as being similar to movies and the theatre. The theatre will never show the same story in the same way as the movie, due to space restrictions and lack of cgi etc but often times is just as good and sometimes even more imaginative in how thry convey it. In some ways, they capture something brilliant that movies can never do either. Just look at the lion king, great movie. Brilliant show.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/09/08 15:38:22
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 07:38:36
Subject: Re:Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Yes it's not contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures at all, board games do it all the time.
|
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 07:48:57
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Lincoln, UK
|
Talys wrote:@KK & Gharak - Yeah, but still, it's contradictory with the idea of playing with miniatures. I mean, you can't simultaneously display miniatures and make them invisible. Frog of War  is only partly covered by not being able to see things at all and blundering straight into them (though there are plenty of stories from WWII of troops turning a corner and coming face to face with a Battalion of the enemy). I admit that's one type of Fog of War that isn't handled well by tabletop miniature games, although it's incredible how often a camouflaged unit in a wood is forgotten until the end of the game. A good one I've heard of is setting up every German tank in a WWII game as a Tiger and only reveal the actual tank on a spotting roll, to represent Allied troops' well-documented tendency to take fright and identify EVERYTHING as a Tiger. Hidden Deployment is a form of Fog of War. Or Defender deploys half > attacker deploys all > defender deploys remaining. Infiltrate is a form of Fog of War. Unknown enemy stats is a form of Fog of War. Friendly Fire is a form of Fog of War. Revealing "blind counters" to be either units or dummies when they are finally spotted is a decent form of Fog of War - troops can hear shooting and "spot" movement , correctly or otherwise, without knowing what they fight (it's amazing both how far away you can hear the enemy and how close you can't hear a thing under different circumstances). As an example, the Argentinian defenders on Mount Tumbledown could hear the British Royal Marines giving orders to "Fix bayonets" in the darkness long before they could make out troop movements. Playing in the darkness and only allowing limited use of torches from your troops' positions is gimmicky but fun. Fog of War. All simulation is abstraction, strictly speaking. 40k is poor at handling other aspects of the simulation such as battlefield friction - Morale and pinning are only counted in certain situations, and troops receive and follow orders (mostly) perfectly.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/08 15:17:17
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 07:49:02
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Jack Flask wrote:
You need to work on your word choice because everything you post makes you look like a smug gakhole.
As opposed to your nice and polite "gakshow of whining manchildren"?
|
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
How could I look away?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 07:50:41
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I prefer simpler base rules. I'm glad AoS isn't bogged down with facing, fog of war etc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 08:15:38
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
Who ever said that tabletop games must always have visible miniatures that exactly portray the units they represent?
Wargames aren't a religion.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 14:46:51
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Tough Treekin
|
Coming soon - HomeoHammer! Buy 1 mini for £££ safe in the knowledge it actually represents thousands on the tabletop...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 15:18:45
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Lincoln, UK
|
RoperPG wrote:Coming soon - HomeoHammer! Buy 1 mini for £££ safe in the knowledge it actually represents thousands on the tabletop... 
Don't encourage them...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/08 15:22:15
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 23:12:53
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Kilkrazy wrote:Who ever said that tabletop games must always have visible miniatures that exactly portray the units they represent? Wargames aren't a religion. No, of course not. Proxies are just fine in my playbook, though yes, I play miniature wargames in large part for the miniatures. In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently. Plus, if you imagine a literal fog of war -- where you can only see 6" beyond your regular units and 12" beyond scout units, or where each unit can see about 1-2% of the map, like a computer game... this is simply not realistic in *most* people's tabletop gaming situations. Yes, you can finagle it by jumping through some hoops. I'm certainly not denying that. It's just not the norm, it's not very natural, and I don't think most people play this way; whereas, on the PC, practically every wargame is played with a "true" Fog of War. To me, an analogy would be like trying to bring a car racing game onto the tabletop. Sure you could do it, but an Xbox is just a more natural interface. I mean, look, I'm not advocating for PC games. I spend way more time these days on hobby and TTGs than RTS and TBS PC games; I'm just saying that they can handle this particular mechanic a lot better better, and it's a really good mechanism that opens up strategic possibilities like leaving exposed flanks. And if you like to play your TTGs with tokens instead of miniatures, have fun; I'm not judging. It's not the norm in my area for any wargaming group I've come across, but hey, that's just what I've seen.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/08 23:17:30
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/08 23:40:04
Subject: Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)
|
 |
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
Talys wrote:
In my opinion, and ONLY in the context of my opinion, if you take away all the miniatures and terrain and physical things which make tabletop wargames unique, a PC is just a better medium, because it acts like a free GM that can do math really quickly and reveal information instantly and consistently.
Wait, you pay your GMs? Can I submit a resume?
|
|
 |
 |
|
|