A Knight of Blood
- Nov 11, 2013
Might makes right. Nagash was the strongest of all and defeated other gods. And now this.
There are a lot of things that I like about Soul Wars, but as others have noted, I too am also concerned by the number of expansions here. I know that they are voluntary, in theory, however, if the people who you play against end up going down that route, it makes it very difficult to avoid doing the same. In addition, it has the potential to make getting into the game more difficult and more confusing. Nevertheless, in terms of expanding the world, the narrative, and adding character to the armies there is a lot of very impressive material here.
There are many of them, both long before GW and after, like Hail Caesar by Priestley or MINI-NAP 2. And they work much-much better, also because tend to be much more scenic, thematic and thoughtful. GW has spoiled people quite much with terrible rules and those ETC nightmares that evolved into that "9th age" cadaver.what are some of these much better miniatures wargames you've spoken of that don't use any sort of points system?
It depends on what you are looking for. Composition? I would also name Infinity, if you like skirmishes, and I also like the Warmachine system in this regard (but, honestly, the game itself and minis find not that amazing as their fans insist they are). Large scale battles are the field of the historicals anyway. In terms of interesting and creative decisions I like SAGA and Bolt Action, for instance. In terms of GW, though, I find the current 2.0 rules quite decent, with some adjusting to your personal tastes and little improvements it can be enjoyable, but not for epic battles GW likes to promote. It's an old problem they still can't handle - you have units but everything is done model wise, which is very inconvenient and illogical.Like, what are some examples of the kinds of games you think handle things in a better way?
The set offers you a line of corps you can form your units into, just like many historicals actually.I though both warmachine and infinity used points systems. Never heard of mini nap, google search turns up the ruleset, which looks interesting, but doesnt seem to find anyone who's actually ever played it, let alone does so currently, and i have to wonder if that's because of that rule sets refusal to even try to structure games or scenarios in any way at all beyond just telling you to look up historical battles and try to emulate those.
it is at least by forcing you to think, if people ever can. Absence of brains is a weak excuse for clinging to such obsolete ideas as most people try. It's good even GW at last realized it's better to at least partially make people try to think outside of the box.And, I mean, I acknowledge the weaknesses of points systems, but I really can't agree that 'no attempt at any system what so ever' is an improvement. Like, my appartment is cruddy, but living on the street would not be a step up, if you get what I'm saying here.
HC offers you a lot, actually, scenarios as well, if people can't come up with their own. Also, as a sidenote, I imagine die hard WHFB fans will also label Bolt Action as unplayable and terrible, which will not surprise me. It must be a real pain for such people to encounter something vastly different from their little perfect worlds.Hail Caesar at least has some full scenarios with suggested lists? Apparently? The rule books aren't free to view, so I'm only going by second hand descriptions, here. That strikes me as more workable, but I'm not sure 'play these exact models' is a great direction for a fantasy hobby wargame, where part of the fun, for me anyway, is in customizing the army selection.
No, it can't, because you should then look elsewhere like "9th age". They rejected everything and made a perfect game that has no rival and is better than anything out there, perfect Warhammer. I guess they lost you somewhere on the way.Your condescending attitude to points can be applied to any other element of a ruleset, though. Why stop at rejecting gw for telling you how many wight kings can fit in an army, why not also demand to decide for yourself how far they can move, or how strong they hit?
GW has free rules, everything else is optional and so not free, because if people want more they can pay. It's quite logical and not bad for a marketing decision.But if some other rules writer wants to charge me 50 bucks for a rulebook
If I go to a restaurant and order the spaghetti, i want the spaghetti to come yo my table ready to eat. Not as a plate of dry noodles, cold water, raw tomatoes, and some loose garlic & spices.
Except that it's not hard and that many people do it and offer to others, just like it was with all those comps back in the day.Turn that laziness argument back at the game writer who wants to charge for the easy part of game design, then tell the players to work out the hard part for themselves.
GW has free rules, everything else is optional and so not free.
I was sarcastic here, because all that stuff is against everything I like in the hobby. No models, same old game engine completely unfit for the game, same exclusively tournament scene. No, not for me. And time tells they were dying out for a reason.Im confused by the peaise for ninth age's originality and quality. Per originality, that game mostly seemwd concerned with recreating an existing game. Per quality, i cant speak directly, as i never had the chance to play it, but from an outsider's perspective, that game and community really seem to be falling apart lately, in a way that seems incongruous with the "perfection" you're ascribing to it.
Well, if people can't do it themselves, they can pay. This is not immediately fair, of course, but so it is. I, for one, don't use all that stuff, that's just too much, I am happy with basic rules and my ideas to play. If, on the other hand, I would go to a club or tournament, I would use their ideas and methods that mean they have prepared it beforehand for themselves. Not bad. Also those GW stores I've seen in Germany also had some missions and scenarios for those people wanting to try out the game or just play at the store, likewise models and rules too.Actually, this is a good example, because the rules for moving the models around are free, but the rules for actually structuring and organizing your armies and games, those they know they can charge for, not even just once but again every year, and they know players eill happily pay for it, because that's the part that matters most. That's the hard part that will never be quite right, and requires system-wide regular maintenance to accomodate new releases.
I agree, that's true, that's why I adjust it to my tastes. Like alternating activation of units, I like it much more than "I move all and then you move yours all". I move one unit or hero, another player moves one his, and so on. This is really engaging. That's why I always say GW never made really good games despite decades of experience, save maybe only Chainmail back in the day.And as for the core rule system... I mean, it's serviceable? But nothing great.
Also true, 8th ed. of 40k seems much more entertaining for the most part. For now I only see the extensive use of terrain as more or less remedy for all of this, that's why I got those lovable Italery fortifications from their French artillery boxes. as well as four dwarven stockades from the Battle for the Skull Pass.And while that's my biggest problem with the core ruleset, it isn't the only one. true line of sight remains awkward. laser-guided cannonballs sniping heroes, the lack of differentiation in kinds of attacks beyond rend and mortal wounds (in 40k there's a difference between high accuracy, low strength attacks and vice versa, in AoS not so much)...
It is one of the weakest, but not so bad either, and still enjoyable with some tweaks. I just dwell on it much less playing with likeminded friends and no tournaments that are completely against the spirit of the hobby. But I understand your concerns either and agree it's all not perfect and needs still a lot of work in which GW seems to be lazy and unimaginable. Still at least alternating activation and either full model or unit activation instead of that hybrid we have can do the trick.But the part you seem to consider to be the good bits? To me, that's the weakest link in the entire chain.