bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184 
|
Post by bward on Feb 15, 2018 15:27:40 GMT
This is a whole different can of worms... but why bake in the hobby-side (a completely different aspect of the game) into the competitive side? There’s no relation. Let alone the fact that some people don’t care for painting and that shouldn’t prevent them from enjoying part of the game they do enjoy. Painted armies make the game more interesting to watch and enhance the experience for all, and players should be encouraged to show off all aspects of the hobby. Strongly disagree, but ok. |
|
|
|
Post by zerodaimaru on Feb 15, 2018 15:41:41 GMT
I think in the next steamroller packet, PP should consider making basic painting requirements the default and have no painting requirements be an alternate rule, in order to emphasize the hobby aspect a little more and encourage more fully painted armies on the table. So long as they also add a clause that to participate in the painting competition you have to have placed in the top X (where X is determined by tournament size) of the steamroller event. Both of these are awful ideas. Well yes it would be nice if everyone played with painted models I'd much rather have more people to play against then be a painting snob. Besides this is also essentially tells folks that don't have the time to paint their minis nor have the disposable income to hire someone to do it for them but can get a weekend every now and then to go to a tournament (a lot of students for instance) that they aren't welcome which I personally don't want either. Better to encourage the people who want to paint with things like best painted awards then to punish the folks who cant or don't enjoy that aspect of the hobby. |
|
|
|
Post by beardmonk on Feb 15, 2018 15:52:29 GMT
I think in the next steamroller packet, PP should consider making basic painting requirements the default and have no painting requirements be an alternate rule, in order to emphasize the hobby aspect a little more and encourage more fully painted armies on the table. I am a very strong advocate for playing painted and making WM/H community in general focus on the hobby elements of the game. I think we do ourselves a huge disservice as a community/game system by ignoring painting and almost accepting non painted models as a norm. I also think that one of the reasons WM/H is not as popular as it could be down to the lack of hobby focus within the community. However the word you used in your own post is “encourage”. Given all of the above, while I would like to see every competition game played painted, 3 colours minimum, id rather encourage people to do this than have any form of written rule. If this was to appear in the SR packet I think many TO’s and players would ignore it and it would cause bad feelings. So “Yes” to more fully painted armies. But no to making is a compulsory SR requirement . |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 15, 2018 15:53:40 GMT
Painted armies make the game more interesting to watch and enhance the experience for all, and players should be encouraged to show off all aspects of the hobby. Strongly disagree, but ok. eh? you don't think painted armies enhance the gaming experience for both players and spectators? |
|
Asmoridin
Junior Strategist
Getting back into the game after too long a hiatus!
Posts: 323
|
Post by Asmoridin on Feb 15, 2018 15:59:05 GMT
Painted armies make the game more interesting to watch and enhance the experience for all, and players should be encouraged to show off all aspects of the hobby. Strongly disagree, but ok. Disagree about which part? |
|
bward
Junior Strategist
Posts: 184
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 15, 2018 16:01:03 GMT
via mobile
Post by bward on Feb 15, 2018 16:01:03 GMT
Strongly disagree, but ok. eh? you don't think painted armies enhance the gaming experience for both players and spectators? Eh, I wasn’t totally clear based off just quoting one post. “Strongly disagree” with the concept of a painting requirement. |
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Feb 15, 2018 16:02:20 GMT
eh? you don't think painted armies enhance the gaming experience for both players and spectators? Eh, I wasn’t totally clear based off just quoting one post. “Strongly disagree” with the concept of a painting requirement. ah ok, that makes more sense |
|
gordo
Junior Strategist
My star is green?
Posts: 548
|
Post by gordo on Feb 15, 2018 16:10:22 GMT
I think in the next steamroller packet, PP should consider making basic painting requirements the default and have no painting requirements be an alternate rule, in order to emphasize the hobby aspect a little more and encourage more fully painted armies on the table. I am a very strong advocate for playing painted and making WM/H community in general focus on the hobby elements of the game. I think we do ourselves a huge disservice as a community/game system by ignoring painting and almost accepting non painted models as a norm. I also think that one of the reasons WM/H is not as popular as it could be down to the lack of hobby focus within the community. However the word you used in your own post is “encourage”. Given all of the above, while I would like to see every competition game played painted, 3 colours minimum, id rather encourage people to do this than have any form of written rule. If this was to appear in the SR packet I think many TO’s and players would ignore it and it would cause bad feelings. So “Yes” to more fully painted armies. But no to making is a compulsory SR requirement . And this is how you get GW games, where the mechanics, balance, and gameplay all play second fiddle to the hobby aspect. If painted armies enhance the game experience by themselves, they should be naturally occurring. Artificially enforcing them just provides another barrier to play too scare away players. |
|
gmonkey
Junior Strategist
I, for one, welcome our Infernal Overlords.
Posts: 313
|
Post by gmonkey on Feb 15, 2018 16:39:50 GMT
Suggest we spin the painting discussion off into another thread and continue SR2018 discussion here.
|
|
|
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 15, 2018 16:45:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by macdaddy on Feb 15, 2018 16:45:54 GMT
Im all for letting incorporate models score, but not contest. It’s not just Grymlin swarms. Haley3 is also a scenario monster for this reason.
I’m sure grymkin players will hate that but honestly, I don’t see it being a huge issue for them in the long run.
I personally dislike Recon 2, The Pit 2, And Breakdown.
Breakdown is just always dead for me.
The pit 2 needs to move flags to where the objectives are and move objectives to the bottom and top edge of the round zone.
Recon 2 just needs to get revamped, that scenario always feels super clunky to me. Too hard to score more than your flag without overcommitting.
I really like spread the net but it could be compacted more.
I also really like the other scenarios, particularly standoff
|
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 15, 2018 16:48:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by crimsyn on Feb 15, 2018 16:48:24 GMT
Suggest we spin the painting discussion off into another thread and continue SR2018 discussion here. Ok, but I suggested it because painting is part of SR |
|
crimsyn
Junior Strategist
Posts: 389
|
SR18 CID?
Feb 15, 2018 16:50:05 GMT
via mobile
Post by crimsyn on Feb 15, 2018 16:50:05 GMT
I also think Cavalry models shouldn’t be subject to the 50% rule for conversions, in order to allow for the use of creative conversions on mounts
|
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 15, 2018 17:27:46 GMT
Firetruck right off with the condescension. I'm perfectly capable of critiquing what I see as a source of imbalance with the gamestate, without it being tied to my failings as a player. I think I've lost...one? game to Grymkin, period, and they're one of my more frequent opponents (I have far more trouble into Khador and Cryx). Doesn't mean that I can't look at cheap models that are capable of stalling scenario, at little or no cost, and think they might just not be the best idea in a scenario-driven environment. I'm sorry. That said, I still disagree on the gremlins. They're cheap, for sure and difficult to deal with by some factions. There are ways around that. Here's the thing, I'm not terribly good. Often I will look at the game and say to myself 'well, scenario is out, how can I assassinate'. Many many times, it's a 1-2% chance but it's my only real option so I go for it. That's one way around the scenario game. I realize that scenario is important to the game, but it is not and has never been the only win condition. If you're winning in every possible metric, except the damn gremlins keep getting in the way, is it that hard to go around them? Two things: 1. If you're going got a 1-2% chance assassination, that means you're failing 98-99% of the time, and therefore losing 98-99% of the time. If that's a situation that a hypothetical Grymkin player can engineer much of the time, that's a sign of imbalance (and no, I don't believe this is the case). Yes, there are 2 win conditions (3 if you count attrition), but removing one of them as a viable option weakens the effectiveness of the other two, as well. Part of the value of scenario is in forcing both players to come forward and interact with the scenario elements - either by putting stuff in the centre of the table, or by scoring their 'home' scenario elements while successfully contesting their opponent's scenario elements. If one player doesn't have to do this, or naturally does this much better, then the advantaged player typically has the ability to play much more defensively, and avoid putting their caster in a position where they can be assassinated. Can you pull off a janky, out of nowhere assassination? hell yes. I've done it many times. That doesn't mean that cutting out the opponent's ability to play scenario effectively is good for the game. 2. On a more basic level, scenario is the second tiebreaker in SR2017, which means that any faction with an innate ability to stall out scenario (and force the opponent to win mostly via assassination) has an innate advantage in SR2017. |
|
|
|
Post by krigsol on Feb 15, 2018 17:53:56 GMT
I also think Cavalry models shouldn’t be subject to the 50% rule for conversions, in order to allow for the use of creative conversions on mounts PP is not very conversion-friendly in the first place. Conversions are tolerated, but not at all encouraged by them. |
|
|
|
Post by oncomingstorm on Feb 15, 2018 17:57:01 GMT
I also think Cavalry models shouldn’t be subject to the 50% rule for conversions, in order to allow for the use of creative conversions on mounts There is no 50% conversion rule, unless you're referring to the fact that 50% of the model by volume must be PP parts. A mount swap would be fine. Of course, a mount swap would likely run you smack dab into Rule 3, so... Also, I'm totally opposed to painting requirements. Most of the players I know would not play if this were a thing that was enforced, and it's unnecessarily discriminatory against people without a ton of time to paint. Personally, I paint decently, but I paint SLOWLY. I do not want to slop 3 colors on a model, that I will then have to strip later in order to paint it properly. |
|
