Indalecio
-
Content Count
792 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Indalecio
-
-
Here we go (sorry for the background and light, just took a quick shot):
Minis look a bit better on the picture than in reality
About the 1ed minis, I was tempted to get them too but 1- it was tricky to find sellers (people would rather sell everything BUT the minis) 2- from the few quotes I got it was **** expensive 3- the monster packs will replace them anyways. But yeah lucky you if you got them
-
Yeah sorry if I wasn't being clear. Thing is I don't know how I can be more specific
The thickness of the paint obviously varies from color to color (I use Vallejo btw), but even if I use a rather fluid color (let alone an ink), it's enough to cover some of the details when I go back later on with a brighter shade to highlight the edge of -say- a belt or a chainmail plate. Did you actually say that sometimes one layer may be enough? Judging by your paintings you have different tones for almost every surface? or did you cheat somehow since the result looks great in the end? 
Going to post a picture with one of each of the models I've painted so far (I've obv. painted all the monsters in these groups). How the hell do you do that?
It says upload to your gallery but I cannot find any gallery tab anywhere... -
Great painting skills here, thanks for showing, very inspiring
I'm also in the process of painting my own set (speed painting cause I really shouldn't have the time for this). I'm not very experienced though but pictures like the ones you posted are a great help. So far I've done 6 monster groups and 1 hero (3 days), but I've really been struggling on some of them. How do you manage to retain the same level of details on the mini? I'm not doing everything perfectly but even with inks and washes I never seem to be able to recover the initial level of details on a mini once I've laid 2-3 layers of paint on the said zone. How do you manage to do that? I've spent tons of time on these freaking goblin archers for instance because I couldn't get the details to stick out on the belt.
Oh btw about starting with the easiest ones, I've found the Volucrixes (whatever the name) and the Fire Imps to be easy too. Spiders are a bit tricky because of the thin space between them and the base. I also started with the Zombies. I guess the Elementals are easy-ish as well but I haven't done them yet.
-
Thanks for all the replies so far. I kind of misunderstood the purpose of this introduction quest and I see now how this quest interacts with the rest of the campaign. I was looking in the quest book but the information was in the campaigns section of the rules book.
At the end of the day there is almost too much information on the internet about different configurations for the OL upon starting off a campaign, and I can't find a list of things I should absolutely be avoiding, so I guess there is no right or wrong in essence, only useful abilities on situational basis. It's all about fine tuning and then everything comes own to your dice rolls. So I'll just make the necessary preparations and chill out. I think I'll just pick the Basic I deck and have a look at my potential first OL purchases just to have it prepared/planned before moving on to the next quest. Probably picking a plot deck as well although I still haven't decided if I want an agent already present as a lieutenant in the Shadow Rune campaign or somebody from the other expansions. Thematically it should be one of the campaign lieutenants, on the other hand it could potentially become an issue for the quest using him/her.
-
Hi there
We're about to have our first taste of the game with me taking the role of the overlord. I've spent a lot of time gathering information about my options as an overlord for when the campaign kicks in. My question however is if you think that I should be preparing anything for this First Blood quest, bearing in mind I don't know which heroes they will be picking. I guess plot cards can only be used during a campaign and not during this trial quest.
It's a trial quest so I don't mind if the heroes end up kicking my butt, however my real issue is that we're going to start off the campaign straight after that, leaving me with no time for planning anything after they've picked their heroes before going to the first quest. Do you think this is an issue? I mean, I can always rectify my approach between sessions, but I've read so many "heroes just kick my butt" posts that I don't want to run into the same issues just because I couldn't handle the OL planning during the 1-2 first quests.
Any opinions are welcome. Thanks.
-
What Julia said.
Page 15 of the Rules Book states that every highlight has three payment sections, one on each side and the central payout. The Home Grown Talent card says you can replace ONE payment section by three fans, so if you win the highlight you can choose which one you want to replace.
-
We haven't found the Undead to be that unbeatable, but we can definitely agree they are a first tier team. I share your thoughts about the Vampires and Dwarves as well. It is difficult to rank the teams because most of them depend on the playstyle of the person piloting them. Which is why I normally rank Humans at the top (or close to it) because they naturally follow any kind of playstyle. That's their strength and why they appeal a lot to players. That's funny because I´ve never seen a player draw Humans in any other game and say loud "**** yeah!" like in Blood Bowl Team Manager
How many players do you normally have at your table? We normally play with 4-5 players, sometimes 6 but that's a lot less enjoyable as it requires splitting the teams into groups. The reason why I ask is that I´ve found that the teams' performance is highly affected by the number of players around. Teams mostly winning and the back of luck have a harder time against numerous opponents. I´m thinking Chaos for instance.
About your house rules, I mean why not if you think it works for you. This said you really need to be confident about implementing such a change for the Vampires.
I disagree somewhat with the idea of getting a revised version of the core set with downed skills etc. I don't think missing downed skills on the 6 original teams is an issue, and I don't think it makes things that unfair for these teams. As long as you release team upgrades for the original teams in future expansions you can always balance a few things out. Any team can get the regeneration skill for instance from a team upgrade. I too agree that downed skills would have given much needed benefits to the Dwarves, but I don't think that's the way to go.
-
Well, there is a large part of luck in this game so I´m not saying the best teams always play out at their expected power level, and I won't be saying either they can't be defeated by lower tier teams. The game wouldn't be interesting at all if that was the case, lol. Also, 1vs1 games is a huge factor in the equation because some teams are much better in that format than in a larger free for all games. And of course, if you also forget to apply the skills of the players you commit then it sorts of changes everything, I mean, you can't compare teams performance if you don't play them as they should be played
But generally speaking, after playing plenty of games with all the teams, some teams do end up with a much higher win ratio than others regardless of who pilots them, and Humans is one of them. Playing a couple of games with them and losing is not really a proof that they are weaker. You´re welcome to play more games and let us know about how you feel about the teams, there is another thread in this forum where we discuss about teams performances and comparison. You might be interested.
-
Have you tried to ask a game designer about this combo? I don't find any solid reason why it wouldn't be allowed, this being said we would certainly limit this to one ball possession by player to avoid any abuse.
-
I would love to see some effect making a team borrow, illegally buy or even steal (mind control?) players from other teams, even temporarily. That could help some of the weaker teams battle against their opposition. I would also like to see some form of player re-commitment effect allowing you to re-use the skills of a given player. I´m not sure how that would play out, if it would require a team upgrade to enable, but maybe that would be a solution too for making weaker teams more efficient since their skills would be tighter. I was also thinking about a bounce effect forcing a player (at a matchup your team is involved in) to move a commited player to another matchup (and apply his skills). I guess there is room available for quite fun shenaningans effects.
The reason why I was thinking this is that since we can't possibly put all teams on the same power level, maybe some more chaotic/sneaky effects are required to remove some of the gaps between these teams as the game is progressing. In my understanding of the BB world, there is a large portion of the game dedicated to sneaky wizards commanding at players, guys hiding balls or mining the field etc. I mean it doesn't have to be a more complex game than it is, but maybe some team upgrades could be released with these kind of effects so it just takes the place of the existing cards. Game changers could be fun.
-
How do we know it's from a gamedesigner? I'm a bit new here.
Under "Customer Service" you can submit a "Rules Question", which goes directly to the game designers. I received an answer from Jason Walden, who has "Game Producer" in his signature. Of course there is no proof I can show people for this, and all I can do is quoting the response so theoritically I could toy with it all I want, so I guess you just have to trust me or doublecheck yourself
-
If you're not happy with the way the community reads the rules, then play it your way. If you believe we are all struggling for an official ruling about this non-issue, feel free to use the "rules question" button of this very site and ask FFG an official answer.
Yep, I posted the game designer's answer in my previous post so I guess there is nothing else to discuss in regards to that particular point.
-
"If only one team is present at a matchup, they are considered the sole winner of that matchup and do collect all payouts on that card."
That's the clarification I received from a game designer.
-
The first passing skill puts the ball at midfield, the second passing skill makes your skaven player grab the ball, so you are correct e.g. the ball goes all the way to the skaven player.
-
Sudden Death introduces 3 teams, two of them (Dark Elves, Undead) are a million times better than Dwarves, while the last one (Vampires) performs too randomly to allow a comparison. The extra toughness on downed Dwarves helps against the three new teams, but everything else is lacking as in the original game.
Note that the expansion does not introduce any new content for the original teams aside from a few more staff upgrades which are not particularly relevant for Dwarves.
I think Dwarves perform "best" in duels (1 vs 1). With 4+ players around the table we´ve always seen them way behind every other team. We select our teams randomly so we´ve had equal amount of games with them than any other team, with player skill disparity. We´ve played something like 40 games already, maybe 15+ with the expansion, granted that was with at least 4 players (again, if you´re only playing duels then it does change a few things). Dwarves have never been in the top 3.
I respect the fact their performance may vary from metagame to metagame (in regards to the above post) but I am absolutely shocked somebody would rate Dwarves better than Humans. You need to play one game with Humans to realize that.
-
"Scoreboard Phase: Each time you win a matchup where each other manager present has more players than you, gain FF."
You get the bonus only if you have the least number of players in the matchup when the scoreboard phase kicks in (after ejections). That means #3 is the correct answer, your team is not the underdogs if there is another team at this tournament with lower or equal amount of players.
-
Honestly Sudden Death did not bring much to the game. The teams are cool but none of the new stuff feels necessary to the experience. As much as I´d love to get some new teams out at some point, I don't think new rules or variations are that beneficial to the game. At worst increasing complexity won't be doing anything good, plus it's quite a long game already. I can't imagine a new expansion with three new teams with no real relationship in terms of alignment coming along with their own new mechanisms. Like what, a deck with Lizardmen, Hobbits and High Elves? Come on. I don't see what a fourth division would comprise of, and I don't see either how each of the existing divisions could possibly welcome a fourth team, the impact would just be too much. So that I don't feel a new expansion would become a "natural" addition to the game without introducing flaws, complexity or unfairness between the teams. The game needs to stay balanced. I´m no game designer but it feels like this game is stuffed already, plus all major races are already covered.
The more we play with Sudden Death the more we realize the original game was just the same. Still, new teams are cool, it brings some variation. Doesn't change the fact some of them would need some help (Dwarves, Vampires), but whatever.
-
"I'll use dodge if you use deathlace."
"I'll use deathlace if you don't use dodge."
Players may say whatever they want to each other, but that's not quite a rules point. The Dodge player has the upper hand in the situation your´re describing and just needs to sit back and wait for the Deathlace manager to make his decision, and respond (or not) in consequence. The Deathlace manager should realize that the Dodge player will respond to Deathlace, so it becomes a decision as for which situation is most beneficial between letting it go and applying the original tackling result, or play Deathlace but run the risk that Dodge will change the deal completely.
You can't really get stuck on a verbal agreement, this is a game of responses. I hope this makes it clearer as for why I don't think there is no problem at all with this situation.
-
This dice result is lovely for Deathlace as both players would be downed as a result of it. As the defending team I´m not sure I wouldn't re-roll this result though, since I would lose more star power at the matchup than my opponent (remember, it was 2 dices against the tackling manager). But that's in a vacuum, I can agree there might be situations when I wouldn't want to risk a re-roll with Dodge and stay happy with the "both downed" result - Deathlace in the equation or not.
But in all cases, I don't see the problem, because regardless of when managers announce the use of Dodge or Deathlace, the resolution is still timed according to the above clarifications, e.g. Deathlace last based on the final roll. There is no "play or pass" in my understanding of the rules, so I could wait for the defending player to announce Dodge and respond to it. Or, I could announce Deathlace straight away and the defender manager would respond by requesting a Dodge free-roll. In both cases, Dodge occurs first then Deathlace applies on the final result. So there is no "loop" of any kind in my mind. There is never any conflict between Dodge and Deathlace as I understood it.
-
That's my opinion, yes. Just relying on one strategy makes it very easy to offset, and that's almost in every game I´ve played. The crucial part is the decision of what player you want to commit each time you take your turn. This is where you want to have the right card in your hand, so to me the split skills of the Dark Elves for instance are really useful as you never have any "dead play" like some other teams would have. Sitting with a hand full of tacklers forces you to tackle "something" even though you don't need to. You want to sprint/cycle to get rid of these linemen to build up your hand with useful players and reserve some of these powerful plays until the last couple of turns when your opponents might have exhausted their possibilities and lack "fuel" to land a proper response to yours. As an example, you may want to keep this player with two pass skills as your last player to steal this ball and win the matchup on the spot. You don't want to play "reactively" by looking at your player's skills. You want to select them and make a decision as for what most powerful play you want at a particular point. If you really need to tackle somebody but only have players with pass skills then you lack the ability to make that move and must rely on a less powerful play, maybe even giving up on a matchup.
I think this game is a lot about reading your opponents' plays and commit players in consequence. If you know what choices your opponents might have in terms of players (upgrades are also visible btw) then it makes it a lot easier for you to make decisions. If you know this Human team at a matchup against your own team drafted Morg N' Thorg and he still hasn't been played, then it makes your decision to commit player A or player B at this matchup more informed.
-
My understanding is that the turn order is only required when several managers intend to play a card at the same time in response to something happening. As a MTG player I have the [bad] tendency to seek for an explanation using some form of "priority" sequence when people take initiative by turn and either play or pass, but I don't think that's what happens here at all. I don't think you really "pass" in the scenario you´re describing, I think you want the manager of the team being tackled to use Dodge (why wouldn't he use it anyway assuming the tackling roll was succesfull) and then announce the use of Deathlace if the final dice result is interesting enough for you to apply both dices.
There is no real scenario when you wouldn't use Dodge because of Deathlace being played. If the roll shows two crosses then there is no point using Dodge. If the roll shows one blank and one cross then there is no point using Dodge and no point either using Deathlace. If the roll shows at least one succesful tackle (explosion symbol) then there is no excuse for not re-rolling with Dodge regardless of Deathlace.
So to summarize my view, there should never be a case when the Dodge player makes his decision to play Dodge rely on the decision for the Dark Elves to play Deathlace.
-
I completely agree on the fact each team's performance highly depends on who is playing it. You can give Humans and Skavens to virtually anybody and the team will still perform. I think this should be a factor in the equation as for ranking these teams (but you did this anyway). To me that's why Dark Elves can't be on top of the ladder, because even if I would definitely consider them in-pair with the two aforementioned teams (again, based on my own playgroup's experience), they are a lot more hermetic to newer players. Choices (as for split skills) are tough for newer players, for instance. But give them to a strategist and you´ll be amazed. This to me is what you cannot do with Vampires, even though that's what you would think would be required for them to function well. That's why teams like Dwarves and Vampires (and Chaos, as for their lack of sprint skill) are like BB in "hard mode" because they are more difficult to get going. I´ve seen Chaos do well a couple of times though, but it was always at the price of something else.
Obviously, bad rolls and draws are bad, so everything is to be taken with a grain of salt, it's not because you play a great team that you will automatically get a great game result.
Like you say, psychology also plays a role, players are different and some are reluctant when it comes to used "bad" strategies like cheating tokens or injuring players (to get fans for instance). I´ve seen players playing the "pacifist" role in other games, e.g. never attacking any other player, if I give Chaos to such players then I can't expect anything to go well with the team, the mindset is still important, I´d think.
-
Okay so I ended up asking the design team (I just wasn't aware of how to to it before) and I´m glad to share the clarification in regards to Deathlace.
1- The Dark Elves do not need to be involved at the matchup where the tackle is happening.
"[…] Deathlace can be used to modify the dice of managers even at match ups where the Dark Elves are not present. That is why it says "any manager""
2- Deathlace is resolved based on the final dice result.
"[…] the intent is for Deathlace to occur after the final dice result. That would thus include any other modifications to the roll, like Dodge."
3- Deathlace can be played anytime during the tackling sequence following the player turn order (first player then clockwise order) BUT its resolution - as opposed to announcing Deathlace is being played - occurs according to point #2 above.
"Yes, according to the rules structure, I suppose it is possible to declare Deathlace before using Dodge but not use its effect until after using Dodge."
It means that if I play after the tackling team but before the tackled team then I can make use of Deathlace before the tackled team attempts to Dodge.
4- Two "BOOM" symbols on the final tackle result with Deathlace involved implies the player is both downed and injured.
"two "target down" results rolled in conjunction with the Deathlace ability would result in the tackled player being downed and then injured"
Some further clarification was then provided about upgrades in general:
"I also would like to point out that when Team Upgrade abilities (like Deathlace) conflict with other abilities occurring during the same phase (like Dodge), managers should resolve them in turn order starting with the manager who currently holds the golden coin. So if one manager wanted to use Dodge and another wanted to use Deathlace, the manager highest in turn order (closest to the manager with the golden coin) would use theirs first. Then, the other manager would have the opportunity to reroll again using his ability"
It's quite interesting because it means I can also "pass" my turn and not use Deathlace and let Dodge happen, then announce Deathlace. That's probably what I would do anyway since I wouldn't waste it on bad tackling roll (final result), I need to know what comes after Dodge I guess.
-
Honestly, I started to read this whole analysis with the idea that it would be a pile of very subjective ratings with no true meaning, but I can tell you that I was wrong in my assumption and I think you did a pretty decent job in the end. This theory does make sense, even if I can't quite comment on every single rating you assigned to each skill/upgrade etc. This analysis is purely theoritical and should not reflect the practical way teams are played considering the randomness in the game (tackling and card draw mostly) and also players' behaviours (as for playing the teams' inner strengths and exploiting them the right way, the number of players also does matter, how much risk players are willing to take, and what are the rewards people tend to go for depending on teams etc). All of this can well make any of these bad teams shine because it's basically an open game. It would be quite boring otherwise, lol.
But what you did beatifully came down to this final conclusion and I can confirm that your rankings do make a lot of sense and my personal meta (up to 7 players) is confirming your assumptions. The top of the ladder is the simplest, we rank Humans, Wood Elves, Skavens, Dark Elves and Undead in the top 5 quite a bit ahead of the 6th team on the ladder. I would have ranked them as follows:
#1 Skavens (they completely dominate our meta, they have everything and can't be easily offset once they go off)
#2 Humans (for all pros you highlighted, every single puzzle piece making this a team makes sense)
#3 Dark Elves (based on slightly less play due to the expansion, but it strikes us how flexible this team is, I know some people were sceptical in the thread asking for strategy advice but we personally don't see what the problem is).
#4 Undead (same as above, we haven't played them tons of times), this team is a bit special to play and involves more skills from the player to pilot them. Tied with the Dark Elves, at least we believe, but more play is required.
#5 Wood Elves (only seem slightly weaker on the star power side), but still a great team overall.
Then we differ slightly on the Orcs versus Chaos discussion. Piling up on cheating tokens can make Chaos win games but that's too random to call this a strategy, therefore we tend to think they´re more of a "party crasher" team (litteraly, lol) with small chance of achieving any sort of win. You can agree or not, it's fine, but based on our own experience Orcs are a much more reliable team and Chaos just doesn't sprint at all, which is really lacking. So:
#6 Orcs
#7 Chaos
Finally the two last spots to Vampires for the reasons I explained several times on these forums (I´m glad you could confirm some of these views despite your different experience as you see more success coming out of this team, as said earlier they completely SUCK in our meta, still waiting for them to achieve anything). Relies too much on the Vampires and even then they´re not great if ever good. Still, some potential but again, relies too much on your opponents since they basically need to let you build up in order for you to get the most needed rewards. That's not a strategy to me. Still, some potential and definitely a big plus for the flavor. Vampire theme is always great.
Dwarves as last, not because they are bad but because I fail to see anything they´re good at. They´e boring to play and the few strengths they have (higher down star power is one of the most "exciting") is just not worth the hype. Plus their art is not great.
#8 Vampires
#9 Dwarves
So great job and thanks for your time on this!
LinkavichChumofsky reacted to this
It says upload to your gallery but I cannot find any gallery tab anywhere...
Painted Models (Image heavy thread)
in Descent: Journeys in the Dark
Posted · Edited by Indalecio
Drybrush from dark red all the way to light yellow. Took me no time! I wanted some contrast between the flames and the imps so I did them in the opposite color. I did the non-master imps in the base color with a wash. Not sure it was a good idea to zoom in that much though, lol: