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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Obviously it just comes down to personal taste, but I can see perfectly well how well detailed the FW DKOK are from the FW paint jobs, and the Conquest models look super detailed in the official product photography I have seen, so I don't know what you're getting at there. They aren't even what I'd describe as gritty and realistic, they simply used less saturated colours, but still used hyper-realistic shading and highlights.

Spoiler:

Counterpoint:

As a result of the style in which its painted you can't really make out a lot of the fine texture details on the sculpts, its difficult to tell how shes being posed or where one part of her starts and the other ends, etc. The face is lost in the rest of the model, the headdress is indistinct, etc.

If you look at that and tell me "It looks fine, I know exactly whats going on", you're a liar.

We were talking about realistic vs comical style in the context of DKOK, your counterpoint is meaningless because that is *not* a realistic style, it's just a badly painted model. Most of the Conquest models I looked at seemed fine in the images, but yeah, that one is painted poorly for showing off detail, but it's not because it's painted in a realistic style, it's because they painted an excessive amount of contrast on parts like the torso where that detail doesn't exist in the first place.

 Arbitrator wrote:
Four circles, Jeremy? Four? That's insane.

I never usually get obscure pop culture references on message boards, but have an exalt for this one!

 lord_blackfang wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
Author had a stroke while writing the rules. Just look at the uncancellable wounds inflicted by a completely cancellable critical hit.

Errr... Critical hits can be cancelled, but Mortal Wounds cause automatic wounds as a result of a critical hit *before* your opponent can cancel the hits. Makes 100% perfect sense, no stroke involved. Not really sure why people are having a hard time with this.

Yes, makes perfect sense that you can potentially cancel literally all hits and still take mortal wounds from a hit you didn't suffer. Might be what happened to JFK.

So far we've also not seen any reason for the "choice" of using two saves to cancel a crit as two regular hits do more damage than one crit, and the one example of an additional crit effect we've seen so far happens regardless of it being cancelled or not.

You'd spend two saves to cancel a hit if you ran out of normal hits to cancel. If they didn't cost more, you'd always cancel them first, which is against the whole "Wow, I got a Crit!" feeling they're going for.

 Geifer wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
The move to symbols and such is mostly for cost cutting. By using universal symbols on cards you dont have to translate and print rules for multiple languages beyond the rulebook.

Cool, but what does that have to do with GW? The rest of the unit card uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals to simulate something that could be mistaken for English without any issues. It's only ranges that use occult symbols.

The same reason GW has made a lot of changes in the last 10 years in regards to designs and names? $$$$$, These combat gauges use proprietary system, go ahead and try to make a 3rd party version.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
The move to symbols and such is mostly for cost cutting. By using universal symbols on cards you dont have to translate and print rules for multiple languages beyond the rulebook.

Cool, but what does that have to do with GW? The rest of the unit card uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals to simulate something that could be mistaken for English without any issues. It's only ranges that use occult symbols.

The same reason GW has made a lot of changes in the last 10 years in regards to designs and names? $$$$$, These combat gauges use proprietary system, go ahead and try to make a 3rd party version.

A ton of companies already make combat gauges with 1"/2"/3" sides.

Rihgu wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
The move to symbols and such is mostly for cost cutting. By using universal symbols on cards you dont have to translate and print rules for multiple languages beyond the rulebook.

Cool, but what does that have to do with GW? The rest of the unit card uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals to simulate something that could be mistaken for English without any issues. It's only ranges that use occult symbols.

The same reason GW has made a lot of changes in the last 10 years in regards to designs and names? $$$$$, These combat gauges use proprietary system, go ahead and try to make a 3rd party version.

A ton of companies already make combat gauges with 1"/2"/3" sides.

And it's not like you can't just cut one out of cardboard yourself if you're really tied to the idea of using a template vs a measuring tape.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Obviously it just comes down to personal taste, but I can see perfectly well how well detailed the FW DKOK are from the FW paint jobs, and the Conquest models look super detailed in the official product photography I have seen, so I don't know what you're getting at there. They aren't even what I'd describe as gritty and realistic, they simply used less saturated colours, but still used hyper-realistic shading and highlights.

Spoiler:

Counterpoint:

As a result of the style in which its painted you can't really make out a lot of the fine texture details on the sculpts, its difficult to tell how shes being posed or where one part of her starts and the other ends, etc. The face is lost in the rest of the model, the headdress is indistinct, etc.
If you look at that and tell me "It looks fine, I know exactly whats going on", you're a liar.

We were talking about realistic vs comical style in the context of DKOK, your counterpoint is meaningless because that is *not* a realistic style, it's just a badly painted model. Most of the Conquest models I looked at seemed fine in the images, but yeah, that one is painted poorly for showing off detail, but it's not because it's painted in a realistic style, it's because they painted an excessive amount of contrast on parts like the torso where that detail doesn't exist in the first place.

This is the exact gritty and realistic style I was describing, if you define it differently then thats a purely semantical difference in opinion and is irrelevant. Its not a badly painted model by any means, its actually very finely and intricately painted (and owning that model in its unpainted state - all the details in the torso you think are not there and simply painted in are, in fact, sculpted on) - but those details and the style in which it is painted are not conducive to photography, and that is the point of this discussion. Decry the Eavy Metal style all you want, but its ideal for photography and presents the miniatures to the public very well. Other styles of painting aren't necessarily as well conducive to that aim.

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
The move to symbols and such is mostly for cost cutting. By using universal symbols on cards you dont have to translate and print rules for multiple languages beyond the rulebook.

Cool, but what does that have to do with GW? The rest of the unit card uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals to simulate something that could be mistaken for English without any issues. It's only ranges that use occult symbols.

The same reason GW has made a lot of changes in the last 10 years in regards to designs and names? $$$$$, These combat gauges use proprietary system, go ahead and try to make a 3rd party version.

You say that like its a hard thing to do?? Have you never played any of the Star Wars games? Or A Song of Ice and Fire? Or any of the other games that use standardized range tools? *ALL* of them have third party unlicensed aftermarket movement/range widgets in droves coming from every which way, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing the same here.

I mean I dont agree with the choice but like has been said. Everyone who makes miniature games nowadays (with exception of smaller companies) makes their own proprietary tools and dice. GW is following the trend. Is it dumb and pointless? Yes. but it is what it is.

And absolutely nothing prevent sone from using any old D6's and making their own gauges from cardboard etc

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Is it dumb and pointless? Yes. but it is what it is.

Hard disagree. As an amateur game designer, exploring "proprietary tools" has opened up avenues for me in terms of mechanics design that I either would never have available to me or which would require a lot of additional complexity to accomplish using a tape measure and regular d6 or whatever.

I dislike the proprietary stuff as much as the next guy because it generally seems like a cash-grab, so I go out of my way to design in additional utility into them (i.e. minigames you can play, additional features and quality of life upgrades, etc) as well as to provide means by which you can make use of traditional tools to achieve the same results albeit at significantly more effort, but the fact of the matter is that when used correctly these tools allow a designer to achieve things that they either couldn't do or wouldn't be realistically feasible to do (time considerations, chart reading, etc.) otherwise. In my own case, through the use of proprietary dice I managed to cut the number of steps in a resolution system basically in half (and the amount of time spent by much more than that) while still generating basically the same outcomes as before. Is it really dumb and pointless if it makes gameplay that much quicker and easier?

I really don't understand the insistence on "purity" from some gamers who believe that its only a "real wargame" if it uses cube-shaped magic number stones and a construction tape measures - both of those are somewhat more modern (relatively speaking) innovations in tabletop gaming themselves as earlier wargames were played on map-grids and relied on chart-reading or umpires to determine their results. To those grogs, im sure dice and tape-measures were considered dumb and pointless too.

That being said - it remains to be seen if GWs implementation was a good use of those tools and techniques or if it really was just a dumb and pointless cash-grab or to check a box on some management/marketing generated requirements list.

I want to get into a new game but I can't decide between Age of Sigmar or Warhammer◿◇K

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Obviously it just comes down to personal taste, but I can see perfectly well how well detailed the FW DKOK are from the FW paint jobs, and the Conquest models look super detailed in the official product photography I have seen, so I don't know what you're getting at there. They aren't even what I'd describe as gritty and realistic, they simply used less saturated colours, but still used hyper-realistic shading and highlights.

Spoiler:

Counterpoint:

As a result of the style in which its painted you can't really make out a lot of the fine texture details on the sculpts, its difficult to tell how shes being posed or where one part of her starts and the other ends, etc. The face is lost in the rest of the model, the headdress is indistinct, etc.
If you look at that and tell me "It looks fine, I know exactly whats going on", you're a liar.

We were talking about realistic vs comical style in the context of DKOK, your counterpoint is meaningless because that is *not* a realistic style, it's just a badly painted model. Most of the Conquest models I looked at seemed fine in the images, but yeah, that one is painted poorly for showing off detail, but it's not because it's painted in a realistic style, it's because they painted an excessive amount of contrast on parts like the torso where that detail doesn't exist in the first place.

This is the exact gritty and realistic style I was describing, if you define it differently then thats a purely semantical difference in opinion and is irrelevant.

I'm sorry but where have you seen muscles that look like that in reality? No where, because it's not a realistic style.

Realistic means trying to create something that could be mistaken for reality, opposed to mistaken for a comic book.

We were discussing realism in the context of FW DKOK vs GW DKOK, then you bring up some random other style that is absolutely not realistic in any way shape or form.

"Gritty", I'll give you that's semantic, I wouldn't call the conquest models gritty, they simply use desaturated colours. Gritty is more like using browns for shades, using highlighting techniques that simulate a rough texture (e.g, instead of blending a highlight, use stippling or a sponge application). But if you want to call the Conquest models gritty, go for it, but it's very much a different style that's not aiming to be realistic.

Its not a badly painted model by any means, its actually very finely and intricately painted

Badly painted doesn't have to mean there was no skill involved, badly painted can just mean poor artistic choices. You yourself said the detail was hard to see, that's badly painted.

(and owning that model in its unpainted state - all the details in the torso you think are not there and simply painted in are, in fact, sculpted on)

They exist, but not with a depth that justifies such contrast. Granted I haven't seen the model in person, but looking at photos of unpainted versions the musculature in reality is subtle, but it has not been painted subtly.

Decry the Eavy Metal style all you want, but its ideal for photography and presents the miniatures to the public very well. Other styles of painting aren't necessarily as well conducive to that aim.

So you think FW's DKOK don't present as well in photographs? Sorry but are you blind I mean I know there's a level of personal preference, but GW's painting style is so frequently called out for not showing the models well, as is FW's when they stray too far from what they know best.

I maintain that the main style of the box and web display models from GW is an attempt to achieve a style that is easily emulated by beginners.

That is not to say that the models are poorly painted nor that they aren't painted with skill; but that the style is such that its easier to put into tutorials and simplify and for beginners to aim toward.



This is in contrast to say FW or even other firms like Infinity; where the paint style might use far more complex methods, far more varied paint types and also more experience and skill to emulate. Thus presenting a higher grade of painting, but at the cost that its much more tricky for a new customer to emulate unless they already have extensive painting experience.

Anyone who calls GW models poorly painted clearly hasn't seen the bloody freehand tattoos they made on that Cybork on the Great White Squig.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Obviously it just comes down to personal taste, but I can see perfectly well how well detailed the FW DKOK are from the FW paint jobs, and the Conquest models look super detailed in the official product photography I have seen, so I don't know what you're getting at there. They aren't even what I'd describe as gritty and realistic, they simply used less saturated colours, but still used hyper-realistic shading and highlights.

Spoiler:

Counterpoint:

As a result of the style in which its painted you can't really make out a lot of the fine texture details on the sculpts, its difficult to tell how shes being posed or where one part of her starts and the other ends, etc. The face is lost in the rest of the model, the headdress is indistinct, etc.
If you look at that and tell me "It looks fine, I know exactly whats going on", you're a liar.

We were talking about realistic vs comical style in the context of DKOK, your counterpoint is meaningless because that is *not* a realistic style, it's just a badly painted model. Most of the Conquest models I looked at seemed fine in the images, but yeah, that one is painted poorly for showing off detail, but it's not because it's painted in a realistic style, it's because they painted an excessive amount of contrast on parts like the torso where that detail doesn't exist in the first place.

This is the exact gritty and realistic style I was describing, if you define it differently then thats a purely semantical difference in opinion and is irrelevant.

I'm sorry but where have you seen muscles that look like that in reality? No where, because it's not a realistic style.

Realistic means trying to create something that could be mistaken for reality, opposed to mistaken for a comic book.

We were discussing realism in the context of FW DKOK vs GW DKOK, then you bring up some random other style that is absolutely not realistic in any way shape or form.

"Gritty", I'll give you that's semantic, I wouldn't call the conquest models gritty, they simply use desaturated colours. Gritty is more like using browns for shades, using highlighting techniques that simulate a rough texture (e.g, instead of blending a highlight, use stippling or a sponge application). But if you want to call the Conquest models gritty, go for it, but it's very much a different style that's not aiming to be realistic.

All of which is irrelevant, purely semantical differences in interpretation. To me, this is a realistic and gritty style of painting. The focus on extreme highlighting is intended to call greater attention to texture and detail in a manner representative of what the object might look like if it weren't 2" tall.

So you think FW's DKOK don't present as well in photographs? Sorry but are you blind I mean I know there's a level of personal preference, but GW's painting style is so frequently called out for not showing the models well, as is FW's when they stray too far from what they know best.

I think GWs DKOK present a lot better than FW's in terms of highlighting the detail and geometry of the sculpt. Thats not to say FWs DKOK aren't gorgeous, just that from the point of view of showing off the model itself FWs paintschemes are inferior. Are they perhaps motivational or cool? Sure. But when I'm shopping for minis I want to be able to see what it is I'm getting and understand how its shaped. GWs paint schemes do that, FWs paint schemes don't - so much so that there are details on the FW minis which I only noticed because I noticed them in the GW mini and then went back and saw them on the FW version too.

Rihgu wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:

 Geifer wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
The move to symbols and such is mostly for cost cutting. By using universal symbols on cards you dont have to translate and print rules for multiple languages beyond the rulebook.

Cool, but what does that have to do with GW? The rest of the unit card uses Roman letters and Arabic numerals to simulate something that could be mistaken for English without any issues. It's only ranges that use occult symbols.

The same reason GW has made a lot of changes in the last 10 years in regards to designs and names? $$$$$, These combat gauges use proprietary system, go ahead and try to make a 3rd party version.

A ton of companies already make combat gauges with 1"/2"/3" sides.

Even GW themselves have made multiple combat gauges in the past, the most recent one being released a month ago with dominion. This really isn't anything new.

Ummm...can we talk about new ORKS and the new BeastSnagga rules that came out today?

 Blastum wrote:
Ummm...can we talk about new ORKS and the new BeastSnagga rules that came out today?

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/1140/797386.page

crouching_tiger wrote:

Even GW themselves have made multiple combat gauges in the past, the most recent one being released a month ago with dominion. This really isn't anything new.

Yeah. And it seems to have been such a limited edition, it no longer exists on the GW webstore.
If they start introducing things like that to games, they best make them permanently available.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

crouching_tiger wrote:

Even GW themselves have made multiple combat gauges in the past, the most recent one being released a month ago with dominion. This really isn't anything new.

Yeah. And it seems to have been such a limited edition, it no longer exists on the GW webstore.
If they start introducing things like that to games, they best make them permanently available.

They’re in the Kill Team starter, they’ll almost definitely be available separately too.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Commodus Leitdorf wrote:
Is it dumb and pointless? Yes. but it is what it is.

Hard disagree. As an amateur game designer, exploring "proprietary tools" has opened up avenues for me in terms of mechanics design that I either would never have available to me or which would require a lot of additional complexity to accomplish using a tape measure and regular d6 or whatever.
.

Well these symbols have yet shown anything that can't be done with inch or cm that really matter. Or would white circle being 0.957" really open designs?

Same for dice. 6 sides with symbols, nothing reqular d6 couldn't do.

it is not about needing tools

those of course open up design space, as X-WING manoeuvre would be impossible with a tape measure

but the need to replace numbers with symbols is not there

if it would haven been 2.5", 3.5" and 6.5", Symbols make sense, bit with 2/3/4/6, there is no need for them
specially if you tell people that those are the numbers anyway

It's geometry with extra steps. It takes something that most people inherently know how to operate, especially in the context of a board/skirmish game, and complicates things for... what, exactly?

Who ever came up with using multiples of shapes for movement in this game, I’d like to buy them a beer. I now know exactly who I’ll never play 40K with.

Man if someone had told that one day I would lose all interest in a long-awaited game because of the ruler...

I'd have said they were nuts.

tneva82 wrote:
Well these symbols have yet shown anything that can't be done with inch or cm that really matter. Or would white circle being 0.957" really open designs?

Same for dice. 6 sides with symbols, nothing reqular d6 couldn't do.

I don't know where GW is going with their version but specialty dice can be easier/quicker even if it's the same underneath it (it's a D6, after all). Having different coloured attack and defence dice with different symbols can work rather well in games with pools of dice where you just have to pick out a certain symbol and then compare numbers (like Blood Bowl blocking dice but with one version for attack and one for defence, I think X-Wing does it like this). It's faster than "when attacking a 1 is this, 2 and 3 count as this, 4 and 5 is this, 6 is this and when you defend it's this, this, and this". It's probably much easier to get newbies into a game that way than having them memories different tiny charts for various actions.

Of course it depends on the implementation and how all of it interacts with all the other rules. It can help simplify things or end up being just another layer of useless complexities that appear to be simple but are actually not.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

crouching_tiger wrote:

Even GW themselves have made multiple combat gauges in the past, the most recent one being released a month ago with dominion. This really isn't anything new.

Yeah. And it seems to have been such a limited edition, it no longer exists on the GW webstore.
If they start introducing things like that to games, they best make them permanently available.

It's still available on elementgames, but anyway if you need it to play kill team they will most likely release one separately. Or alternatively, you buy a 3rd party one and paint on the symbols :p

Most likely this is just a way to simplify the game for new players, à la "just pick up this small handy tool and no numbers are necessary", but I doubt you would not be able to use a ruler if you really wanted to.

I wonder if you could use the shapes to scale up the battlefield easily. Want to play on a 4x6? Circle is now 3” not 2”, etc., use a larger measuring widget, but all the rules/dataslates are unchanged.

There is pretty no chance of the game scaling up since range weapons, bar a few, have unlimited range

Even with unlimited ranges, I'll be sticking to 4x4' boards just because I think it looks better visually. No need to scale down unless game lenght in turns has gone down from KT1..