|
Post by slaughtersun on Dec 7, 2018 17:11:26 GMT
using the rules to your advantage? i hate those guys Not so much a problem with using the rules but an issue with the rules themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 7, 2018 17:51:54 GMT
using the rules to your advantage? i hate those guys It's altering something outside its original design specifically to take advantage of the rules.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 7, 2018 18:48:49 GMT
using the rules to your advantage? i hate those guys It's not the guy that's the problem for me, it's the game.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Dec 7, 2018 19:51:39 GMT
using the rules to your advantage? i hate those guys The equivalent in warmachine would be putting your Heavies on small bases, except condoned by the rulebook.
|
|
|
Post by cainuslupus on Dec 7, 2018 23:36:13 GMT
True LoS was the nail on the coffin for GW games for me. I'll never play a game that uses it. I've seen enough crouching Wraithlords... Well, when you see that, and it's not on a raised piece of rubble, then you know you're dealing with a "modelling for advantage" guy and it's time for a new opponent. Still, it works both ways, if you can't see them, they can't see you. Works better for melee-centric models, though. True LoS is probably most abusable rule there is. In KoW 1 ed. there were canon barrels at 90 degrees from base to make their LoS better. There are no lows some people wouldn't sink to gain a little advantage in a game.
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Dec 8, 2018 6:40:18 GMT
You know what's funny? No one actually plays narrative in 40k or AoS either. Everyone plays with tournament rules which are basically GW's annually updated version of Steamroller. The main differences from WMH are: 1. Bigger community, duh. 2. Easier scalability. Most local tournaments go at 1-1.5k out of 2k. For wmh it's always 2 lists at 75 (usually with some extreme metagaming and gear checks involved) or bust. 3. Lesser costs. Mainly due to the previous point. That's all there is to it.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Dec 8, 2018 7:04:30 GMT
It's also easier to build GW models as their plastic provides for easy grip for most super glues or even have the option of the less messy cement. WMH models are largely white metal, which takes preparation to get glued together, with some resin models which don't take to glue as readily as GW's plastic (though, still better than the white metal).
And it is easier to paint most 40K models. Oh, there are outliers like Chaos Marine filigree, Nurgle pustules, and most of the Tyranid line, but for the most part, the models are not extremely detailed so painting is rather easy. WMH models tend to be rather detailed on everything but the Warjacks, which is intimidating. And when you have a bunch of people who play it painted, it becomes a pressure to paint as well. That last part isn't a bad thing, it is just more intimidating between expecting to color a child's coloring book versus a Van Gogh.
|
|
cain
Junior Strategist
Posts: 243
|
Post by cain on Dec 8, 2018 10:15:15 GMT
You know what's funny? No one actually plays narrative in 40k or AoS either. Everyone plays with tournament rules which are basically GW's annually updated version of Steamroller. The main differences from WMH are: 1. Bigger community, duh. 2. Easier scalability. Most local tournaments go at 1-1.5k out of 2k. For wmh it's always 2 lists at 75 (usually with some extreme metagaming and gear checks involved) or bust. 3. Lesser costs. Mainly due to the previous point. That's all there is to it. Some of the biggest miniature conventions indeed have large narrative tournaments for 40k. Las Vegas open for example has 40k narrative tournament and Horus heresy narrative each day. So 3 days in a row. They are very popular. Adepticon the same. In our meta the the 40k guys also play narrative. And overall the tournaments seems more relaxed than warmahordes. Lots of players which Focus more on having painted and fluffy armies and dont care If they win
|
|
|
Post by frumiousbandersnatch on Dec 8, 2018 15:07:38 GMT
Have to disagree on some fronts. It's easy to build beautiful scenic tables fort WarmaHordes with the current terrain guidlines for Steamroller. No, not dense urban terrain, but if you have even a modicum of creativity you can put together some really nice druid groves, railyards, farmsteads, battlefields, etc that look nice and are totally playable. I've a dearth of quality terrain, but it is what it is. I'll give you the lack of fantasy playing out on the tabletop, though what you say the "game is all about" is not what I see the game as being about. "big, lumbering machines smashing into each other and wrestling around" is not at all what I think of when I think of WarmaHordes, nor is it what got me into it, nor is it what has kept me here for 9 years. Different strokes for different strokes, though. As underwhelming as it can sometimes to see a badass caster or heavy piece go down in shortorder I honestly prefer it to the alternative. I absolutely HATED playing Warhammer Fantasy and 40k for this reason. 40% of the time spent "playing" those games was padded out by pointless dice rolling. Having two kitted out lords get int melee combat and sit there round after round dribbling dice and rolling saves while the actual goings-on of the battle has ground to a halt is the epitome of boring. And, as much as I love GW's LotR game it's artifically difficult to bring models down in that game. It's just an excuse to drag out game times and give the illusion of gameplay depth to the kids they sell this stuff to. If that's the choice I will take piece trading heavy kills heavy any day over that kind of crap. If you want to live out the dream of a tough model slugging it out play a defensive gargossal with a caster packing defensive buffs and skew that way. Anything except other skews will likely be unable to bring it down in a single turn if you play with a head on your shoulders and a list that does manage to take it out in one go is probably spending their entire army's activations and/or a feat to do so. I'd suggest an alternative is having actual interplay between the models. Big, tough models getting killed in an activation isn't just unthematic because of the timeframe, it's because the model doesn't get to respond at all. If two heavies could end up in melee and beat the stuffing out of each other then it'd fit the theme much better even if one did die in one round. Same with the little guys - it's often unthematic when a character solo gets dinged off the table in one hit without being able to respond. It's not that them going down in one hit doesn't make sense - it often does - it's that they just sit there flat-footed waiting for the enemy to hit them in the face as hard as they can. It'd make more sense if they got to respond. Honestly, I don't think 40k or AoS are all that great at this either, they're just better at it than Warmachine. I think a big point where we disagree on the terrain thing is that I really love dense urban terrain and multi-level terrain and Warmachine can't deal with either of those at all. It also doesn't really handle scenic terrain at all because the measurement is so finicky and binary (and this ties back into the heavies dying in one round without response bit) so people don't even want scenic elements on the table that don't have any effect, let alone ones that do. But all that said, the game is what it is and presumably most people who are still playing it have at least made their peace with its limitations, or even see them as positives. Maybe all it will ever be is a competitive game, and that's okay. I just don't think its shortcomings as a narrative ruleset get considered enough when people are talking about why its narrative leagues aren't that popular. Have you played Infinity? From what you are describing it sounds like you just want to play Infinity. It's a fantastic game with it's own set of flaws, but WarmaHordes it is not. Implementing those kind of things would require a fundamental redesign of the game and honestly work best in squad/skirmish level games like Infinity. I don't think it seems reasonable for a small battlefield game like WarmaHordes. This is why company of Iron was such a huge letdown for me, though. They just made WarmaHordes with cards and no battlegroup when they had the opportunity to make something really amazing like a Mordeheim or a tight competitive fantasy skirmish game.
|
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Dec 10, 2018 14:41:30 GMT
I'd suggest an alternative is having actual interplay between the models. Big, tough models getting killed in an activation isn't just unthematic because of the timeframe, it's because the model doesn't get to respond at all. If two heavies could end up in melee and beat the stuffing out of each other then it'd fit the theme much better even if one did die in one round. Same with the little guys - it's often unthematic when a character solo gets dinged off the table in one hit without being able to respond. It's not that them going down in one hit doesn't make sense - it often does - it's that they just sit there flat-footed waiting for the enemy to hit them in the face as hard as they can. It'd make more sense if they got to respond. Honestly, I don't think 40k or AoS are all that great at this either, they're just better at it than Warmachine. I think a big point where we disagree on the terrain thing is that I really love dense urban terrain and multi-level terrain and Warmachine can't deal with either of those at all. It also doesn't really handle scenic terrain at all because the measurement is so finicky and binary (and this ties back into the heavies dying in one round without response bit) so people don't even want scenic elements on the table that don't have any effect, let alone ones that do. But all that said, the game is what it is and presumably most people who are still playing it have at least made their peace with its limitations, or even see them as positives. Maybe all it will ever be is a competitive game, and that's okay. I just don't think its shortcomings as a narrative ruleset get considered enough when people are talking about why its narrative leagues aren't that popular. Have you played Infinity? From what you are describing it sounds like you just want to play Infinity. It's a fantastic game with it's own set of flaws, but WarmaHordes it is not. Implementing those kind of things would require a fundamental redesign of the game and honestly work best in squad/skirmish level games like Infinity. I don't think it seems reasonable for a small battlefield game like WarmaHordes. This is why company of Iron was such a huge letdown for me, though. They just made WarmaHordes with cards and no battlegroup when they had the opportunity to make something really amazing like a Mordeheim or a tight competitive fantasy skirmish game. What WAS the problem with Company of Iron? I know zero people who ever played it, but I've never looked at the rules myself.
|
|
|
Post by redcathal on Dec 10, 2018 15:03:46 GMT
Have you played Infinity? From what you are describing it sounds like you just want to play Infinity. It's a fantastic game with it's own set of flaws, but WarmaHordes it is not. Implementing those kind of things would require a fundamental redesign of the game and honestly work best in squad/skirmish level games like Infinity. I don't think it seems reasonable for a small battlefield game like WarmaHordes. This is why company of Iron was such a huge letdown for me, though. They just made WarmaHordes with cards and no battlegroup when they had the opportunity to make something really amazing like a Mordeheim or a tight competitive fantasy skirmish game. What WAS the problem with Company of Iron? I know zero people who ever played it, but I've never looked at the rules myself. The rules are fine but there's no development or campaign element which I think is what lets it down after all the fun bit about Mordheim is how your group grows over time and CoI didn't have that.
|
|
|
Post by Havock on Dec 10, 2018 15:12:47 GMT
CoI's biggest problem is that it's Warmachine Light; it caters mostly to people who already have an army, rather than being a gateway drug to one, so to speak.
|
|
gmonkey
Junior Strategist
I, for one, welcome our Infernal Overlords.
Posts: 313
|
Post by gmonkey on Dec 10, 2018 16:10:56 GMT
The thing I disliked about CoI is that the rules are _almost_ like warmachine, but not quite. If the rules were the same, great. If they were different, fine. But that almost is a killer.
|
|
|
Post by darkshroud on Dec 10, 2018 16:49:04 GMT
using the rules to your advantage? i hate those guys The equivalent in warmachine would be putting your Heavies on small bases, except condoned by the rulebook. not really since the card tells you what base youre required to put the mini on. there isnt much changing that.if it was in a tournament he'd be called out as soon as he put the mini down for cheating. in 40k there arent clear cut rules like that. hence the modification of minis to game the rules
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 10, 2018 17:26:08 GMT
I love COI in itself, but it does struggle a bit from that feeling that it's not quite "there" and it's not even totally clear where "there" is. A campaign system, more narrative scenarios, scenes like "Holy crap, this unit of Trenchers has to take down a dire troll before it eats them all." Stuff like that could help. Really though, it's just a matter of building a player base, because I would play if anyone else did, but it's hard to get anything off the ground in this town.
One of the things I liked about it was the ability to just buy bits of different factions, really just stuff I wanted to paint as much as anything. I was going to get units of Skinwalkers, Striders, and Cinerators, and a Nephilim Soldier. Now, probably not.
|
|