Jump to content
ryanabt

Army Themes and FFG failure

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Derrault said:

As a GCW purist, I’d be far more offended by an opponent who painted off-scheme, and not at all offended by one who simply didn’t paint at all.

Then again, the minis only belong to the owner, so it doesn’t really concern any busibodies what someone does with their own minis, right?

I'm curious what you consider an off-scheme? For example, fleet troopers in a made up uniform colors that are supposed to be a mercenary regiment my rebels hired?

Or are you talking more like, one of those Hello Kitty themed armies or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I'm curious what you consider an off-scheme? For example, fleet troopers in a made up uniform colors that are supposed to be a mercenary regiment my rebels hired?

Or are you talking more like, one of those Hello Kitty themed armies or something?

Hello Kitty and My Little Pony armies are heresy and are to be treated as such

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I've said many times, they're a hedge against "pay to win".  

"Painted armies" is such a low bar, that to call it elitist sounds to me like saying rules that require addition and subtraction is elitist because we aren't all professional math teachers and engineers.

I don't see how that effectively does anything? Someone able to afford "pay to win" can afford to pay someone else to assemble and paint the "killer netlist they found." I've seen it before in 40k circles.

It doesn't matter the height of the bar, you are voicing the opinion that those who play unpainted at tournaments are in some way inferior to you. That one of the definitions of elitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpainted is not the same as forgetting required components or not having a list. Both of those are required to physically play the game. Painting is completely an aesthetic choice and very optional for purposes of the game.

You are insisting that someone else go out of their way to make your experience better for you. You view it as selfish to show up with an unpainted armies but is equally, if not more so considering actual work is involved, selfish to require it. 

I like to paint. I have a lot of things to paint. I only paint when inspired. I have other things in my life I'd like to do as well. If you played 40k against my Thousand Sons, you'd never see a painted model. I like the army and background but I don't want to paint them. Conversely, my Legion army is almost completely painted, as I actually work towards finishing them all. 

I'm not going to complain about someone showing up to a game with unpainted armies because they didn't feel like painting. They might feel like sculpting, or reading. Maybe in their spare time they tie flies or work on their custom cars. Not everybody devotes the same amount of energy to every hobby they have. And that's ok. It's their hobby too and they have the choice to enjoy it the way they want. Just because you've set the bar low for them doesn't mean they have to jump over it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I'm curious what you consider an off-scheme? For example, fleet troopers in a made up uniform colors that are supposed to be a mercenary regiment my rebels hired?

Or are you talking more like, one of those Hello Kitty themed armies or something?

Both, but seeing as that’s just my opinion on the matter, I would never say anything about that to another player.

Instead I’d try my best to enjoy their heretical company while gritting through my teeth ?.

In case it’s not clear, I’m jesting, nothing a player does (or doesn’t do) with their own toys offends me. Aesthetically, I definitely have preferences for my own minis, but it’s just that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I've never actually witnessed someone be criticized in a store or tournament for their unpainted or poorly painted models. But Arnolddrew apparently has and I'm going off why that might be. And I don't think I've ever played in one of the above settings with a majority of painted armies. I don't know how severe of a comment from someone it takes to consider that the tournament winner with unpainted models has been insulted, but if it's low enough bar, then we can also guarantee that the player who comes in dead last will get insulted too. Although the biggest reason I like painted armies is, as I've said many times, they're a hedge against "pay to win".  So people might see an unpainted army and draw conclusions of that, and insult Arnoldrew's proposed tournament winner?

Like poor hygiene, painting the models can be about the experience you create for your opponent. Two painted armies on nice scenery looks awesome. You can choose to create that cool experience for someone else... or not... it says something about where your opponent's experience ranks in your priorities. Like using unpainted figures, one could also be that annoying person who never remembers their dice & ruler and is constantly borrowing stuff. Or the player who never has their army list figured out beforehand so the games start late. None of this is illegal, but it does get old when the same person keeps doing it over and over. Or, when the same person in the group has played the same faction for several years and STILL doesn't have a painted army.

I used to think it was silly to require painted stuff until I figured out how easy it was to paint stuff up to a standard that looks nice from 3 feet away. It's really, really, easy. Especially with Legion models. If you spray paint stormtroopers white, paint their guns black and their bases brown, they'll look pretty good among the scenery. Rebel troopers can be sprayed green, get a dot of pink or brown on their faces, and get their guns and boots painted black, and they'll look really cool during a game.

"Painted armies" is such a low bar, that to call it elitist sounds to me like saying rules that require addition and subtraction is elitist because we aren't all professional math teachers and engineers.

Ok so I get where you are coming from. Being someone who has painted armies and built scenery for many years I do agree it’s a very nice thing to see across the board. I also agree that it’s a lot easier to apply “something” or anything to minis than most people think, it really is. It does make my experience more enjoyable. But then again the most enjoyable part is the interaction during the game it is not? If all someone wants is the painting aspect then there are other competitions for that. As I mention if you are in a tournament that “requires” your army to be painted thats what it is, you know that going in to it. But to tell people they must because you like it that way or any other excuse you can come up with yes that is elitist. This person can always chose not to play against or at venues that don’t have this requirement. I am sure that there are venues that will or do require this either all the time or on certain days, I’ve come across a number of them myself. For the person that complains about the winner of a tournament not having a painted army when it’s not required, says more about that person than anything. 

Now requiring basic math skills is a part of life. Life does not require anyone to be a professional math teacher or engineer, although yeah someone needs to be. So that elitist comparison just falls flat, still doesn’t help the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Painting is hard.  It's not for everyone.  It's FANTASTIC to see but you can't expect or demand it.  To be brutally honest, I've played plenty of games (of various systems) against models so poorly painted I'd have rather they weren't painted at all, but I'd still rather play the game than not.

As a quick tip to people who don't have the time or skill to paint but still want better looking models, I'd totally recommend spraying your models with white primer and then giving them a black wash.  You can probably do an entire collection of Legion models this way in a couple hours and it will upgrade things from solid grey blocks to something that looks like a black and white line sketch.  I often do it for stuff I want to play right away but don't have time to paint and it really helps make models feel like they're worth what I paid for by bringing out a lot of the detail that gets lost from solid colors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jabby said:

Hello Kitty and My Little Pony armies are heresy and are to be treated as such

Well I don't know. Such things can work if done right. Pink and white polka dot Hello Kitty uniforms would work... if you go the extra mile of madness, and create pink and white alien jungles to hide in! You could even make the leaves on the plants hairbow shaped!

 

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

I don't see how that effectively does anything? Someone able to afford "pay to win" can afford to pay someone else to assemble and paint the "killer netlist they found." I've seen it before in 40k circles.

I said it's a hedge, not razorwire. It keeps you from plunking down a weird new loophole each week, at least, even commissions don't turn around that fast. The thing about really weird lists is, they're unbeatable by normal armies, but once you know that's the gimmick your friend is using, you could easily come up with a counter-gimmick to beat it. Painting the armies slows down the rate of list-change enough to prevent the game devolving into what someone else called "competitive solitaire".  But for broader tourney purposes, at least pro-painted armies do look cool. Though 40k's so far off the edge of the map these days, that's a whole other thing. The armies have gotten so big in headcount, painting them is like a hamster wheel. Every time I think I have a 2,000 point legal army painted for a GW game, they release a new book and suddenly I have 1,700 points or so :( I've actually given up on "full" sized games and do 500 and 1000 points instead. Since nowadays, 1,000 points uses the same size collections that were sold as boxed 2,000 point armies when I started. The points-to-painting-hours treadmill in that game has gone haywire. However, you can go on eBay and buy, for relatively little money, awful looking broken figures to win with your proposed netlist too. What does that accomplish? Anything? No visual spectacle. No interesting game. No nothing.

Quote

It doesn't matter the height of the bar, you are voicing the opinion that

I'm voicing the opinion that playing with two fully painted armies looks better than not doing so. I'm not suggesting those players are inferior to me as a human being, but I am inferring that they are not trying to improve the spectacle of that particular game.

What I am suggesting is, it's a shame that people don't realize how little it takes to make a figure look great from the kind of distance we play games at. It's not expensive. It's not time consuming. Think about museum dioramas. They look really cool, even though usually each individual figure is painted to a very low standard. But it works when you put it all together an take a step back.


I am also theorizing about why Andrew's theoretical tournament winner is getting insulted for using unpainted models. Like I said, I've never actually seen anyone insulted for using unpainted models in a public setting. Those who use unpainted figures are the vast majority in public play (particularly for science fiction games) in my experience. In fact I've had the opposite experience. In stores, I've been told I'm wrong for using painted models. Because it might keep me from min-maxing, and get this, because my fully painted armies might make other people feel judged for not painting theirs.

1 hour ago, ImhotepMagi said:

Unpainted is not the same as forgetting required components or not having a list. Both of those are required to physically play the game. Painting is completely an aesthetic choice and very optional for purposes of the game.

Miniatures are very optional for purposes of the game. The only reason to use them instead of cardboard chits or standees is to create spectacle. Spectacle is best served when the models are painted.

Quote

You are insisting that someone else go out of their way to make your experience better for you.

I don't insist that they do so. But if they do, I'll gain respect for that accomplishment and feel gratitude, and if they don't, I won't.  I might gain respect for other aspects of them as players, but not that one.

There's a lot of things you can do, by action or omission of action, to increase or decrease how cool the gaming sessions is. Painting your army is one of them. Do you gain respect for the prowess of someone who plays but doesn't even try to win? Of course not. Does that make you elitist? Nope.

This is a multifaceted interpersonal pursuit that transcends simply finding out who wins and loses. Once upon a time I too, used to think painting was nice but didn't really matter. I was wrong. I may not be particularly interested in math but I still go along with that aspect of the hobby: I don't shoot at things I know I can't possibly hurt for example. For some reason the community  overall feels that compromises should be made for the non-artistic, and even anti-artistic, people within the hobby. Should we also compromise on the game rules to accommodate people who aren't fascinated by math and statistics? Just make all the pieces move and react the same, so that people who don't like math aren't left out? Surely not. At their most basic level these games are a three part hybridization between visual arts, math, and storytelling. Now, someone could view competitiveness as a vice, but in the context of a Star Wars miniatures game, both players need to try to win or both the storytelling and math aspect of the hobby will fall apart into nonsense. All three aspects are needed for the game to be more than just another pastime, for which numerous, economically more efficient, substitutes exist.

25 minutes ago, miridor said:

Life does not require anyone to be a professional math teacher or engineer, although yeah someone needs to be. So that elitist comparison just falls flat, still doesn’t help the argument.

I said that because the reverse is what people often say. The reasoning goes, they're not an artist, so painting their toy soldiers is a ridiculous idea. As to life skills, the hand to eye coordination needed to paint a low grade figure is a basic life skill too. If you can't spray paint Darth Vader black, and then brush paint his saber red and his base green, you'll probably lack the coordination to play the game without breaking things, losing dice, etc.

Quote

 

 

those who play unpainted at tournaments are in some way inferior to you. That one of the definitions of elitism.

One could just as easily say that games (and especially tournaments) by their nature state that the loser is somehow inferior to the winner. Are they elitist? If they are not, then neither am I. If they are elitist, then I'd just be voicing elitist attitudes within the correct hobby.

When you dig into the history of gaming, this push for unpainted armies being normal has grown over the years.  I personally think it's a sales gimmick from the manufacturer's side, and reflects the ever increasing demand for instant gratification on the side of all consumers.

And in the end this gets down to the whole point of the thread. FFG hasn't "failed" with e-webs and the like, since most players don't seem to be driven by the painting and modelling aspect anyways. They're mainly in it for a Star Wars branded algorithm puzzle they can play with friends so the lack of theme choices is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LunarSol said:

As a quick tip to people who don't have the time or skill to paint but still want better looking models, I'd totally recommend spraying your models with white primer and then giving them a black wash.  You can probably do an entire collection of Legion models this way in a couple hours and it will upgrade things from solid grey blocks to something that looks like a black and white line sketch.  I often do it for stuff I want to play right away but don't have time to paint and it really helps make models feel like they're worth what I paid for by bringing out a lot of the detail that gets lost from solid colors.

A variation on this approach was very helpful for me to overcome the scale creep of Legion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the opening post, I fully agree that I believe that they should have released options for both storm troopers and snow troopers in regards to weapons customisation, to simply bring some variation to the tabletop.  I now you can always convert and I may indeed look at this in the future, but to have the flavour of an all snow trooper army march across the table is much better then seeing a mix of different unite, after all this is a miniatures tabletop war game, not Imperial Assault lol.

In regards to painting I personally believe that if you are simply play testing at home or having casual games at the local store, then unpainted is fine, but if you are participating in tournaments then it should be a must do.  I know a lot of tournaments that I attend in Australia aren’t making it a requirement to have your army painted, but the painting score adds towards your overall score for the tournament now and pretty much guarantees that the f you want to place well then you have to attempt to paint your models.  Really though it is part of the hobby to paint you miniatures for any tabletop war game, that’s why they come unpainted.

 

cheers,

Skarlnger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

Miniatures are very optional for purposes of the game. The only reason to use them instead of cardboard chits or standees is to create spectacle. Spectacle is best served when the models are painted.

This is also a facetious argument. Not using components for a game is not the same as using the components for a game but "ugly". Unlike chits, models have 3D shapes that affect gameplay, usually through line of sight. The reason to use the components for the game is to facilitate gameplay with a minimum of house ruling, i.e. as the game is intended to be played in the rulebook. The dimensions of a chit change that, a coat of paint does not.

Once again, you can enjoy spectacle and want to achieve greater spectacle through your own efforts. Insisting that others do so to improve your experience is selfish and immature. If you don't insist that people paint their models then I don't see what we are arguing about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I said it's a hedge, not razorwire. It keeps you from plunking down a weird new loophole each week, at least, even commissions don't turn around that fast. The thing about really weird lists is, they're unbeatable by normal armies, but once you know that's the gimmick your friend is using, you could easily come up with a counter-gimmick to beat it. Painting the armies slows down the rate of list-change enough to prevent the game devolving into what someone else called "competitive solitaire".  But for broader tourney purposes, at least pro-painted armies do look cool. Though 40k's so far off the edge of the map these days, that's a whole other thing. The armies have gotten so big in headcount, painting them is like a hamster wheel. Every time I think I have a 2,000 point legal army painted for a GW game, they release a new book and suddenly I have 1,700 points or so :( I've actually given up on "full" sized games and do 500 and 1000 points instead. Since nowadays, 1,000 points uses the same size collections that were sold as boxed 2,000 point armies when I started. The points-to-painting-hours treadmill in that game has gone haywire. However, you can go on eBay and buy, for relatively little money, awful looking broken figures to win with your proposed netlist too. What does that accomplish? Anything? No visual spectacle. No interesting game. No nothing.

I know a couple of commision painters personally that can and do turn over a single unit of models in less than a week, to a fairly high standard, especially if the client pays extra for a rush job. Netlists aren't always gimmicks, sometimes they are whatever list managed to win the last big tournament. Legion doesn't really "need" a slow down in list change due to painting in my opinion, since it's not like Legion has had a huge shake up besides when FAQs or rules updates hit. Plus much of the "meta" these days is being tried out and finalized in Tabletop simulator, so even the physical models aren't required.

The point of a wargame isn't (typically in my opinion) the "visual spectacle," that's a fringe benefit of when both players have decided to paint their models. Visual spectacle as a main benefit seems more suited to such hobbies as diorama building.

Quote

I'm voicing the opinion that playing with two fully painted armies looks better than not doing so. I'm not suggesting those players are inferior to me as a human being, but I am inferring that they are not trying to improve the spectacle of that particular game.

I agree that painted armies look better, but don't view that as a personal affront.

Respectfully, that does seem to be the only thing you are suggesting in some of your other comments. 

23 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Unpainted armies are an eyesore and indicate a lack of respect for your opponent's experience. Playing with unpainted models is insulting his opponent, so yes, they might insult him right back.

There's really nothing keeping someone with time to go to tournaments from having 800 points of Legion stuff painted.

16 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

I can't draw a straight line with a ruler and I have lots of commitments but somehow my armies are painted.

*OK I do criticize my friend "Greg" for having unpainted armies. That guy has an art degree, one job, and no kids. C'mon.

These comments seems to indicate that you feel that people that field unpainted armies are rude as they lack respect for others, and that it is only laziness/apathy that prevents people from fielding painted models at tournaments. "I can paint with X going on, so EVERYONE should be able to," which seems to imply superiority as you are accomplishing something they are not. Further, you are calling out a specific individual (presumably with name changed) and shaming them, and anyone else who matches that description. To me, a greater insult is to cheat, or otherwise exhibit bad sportsmanship.

Quote

I am also theorizing about why Andrew's theoretical tournament winner is getting insulted for using unpainted models. Like I said, I've never actually seen anyone insulted for using unpainted models in a public setting. Those who use unpainted figures are the vast majority in public play (particularly for science fiction games) in my experience. In fact I've had the opposite experience. In stores, I've been told I'm wrong for using painted models. Because it might keep me from min-maxing, and get this, because my fully painted armies might make other people feel judged for not painting theirs.

I would contend that Facebook, forums, and blogs are public settings, and in addition I have seen people make snide comments behind another player's back regarding their miniatures not being painted. I also don't think you should be told that you are "wrong" for using painted models, and feel those individuals are quite rude, as are those who indicate "models MUST be painted," of "you MUST paint models to match the movies."

Quote

Miniatures are very optional for purposes of the game. The only reason to use them instead of cardboard chits or standees is to create spectacle. Spectacle is best served when the models are painted.

I disagree. The other reason to use miniatures is to allow for heights of miniatures to play a role in determining cover and line of sight, AND to encourage sales. I daresay Legion would not be nearly as successful if the "miniatures" were just printed paper or cardboard. The rules for wargames that use chits/standees tends to be very different. Battletech is one such game, and the rules for line of sight are very different. 

Edited by Caimheul1313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

Miniatures are very optional for purposes of the game. The only reason to use them instead of cardboard chits or standees is to create spectacle. Spectacle is best served when the models are painted.

Now we can argue opinions all day every day, but this is just incorrect. Miniatures in a miniatures game are not optional. Games where you use chits or standees do not serve the same purpose game wise. Painted miniatures are indeed there for the wow factor, that's part of GW’s handbook for selling their games. For someone who says they play miniature games you should know this, it’s not even a discussion. Seems just when it looks like you are making a point you lose it and something different comes out.

 

1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

I said that because the reverse is what people often say. The reasoning goes, they're not an artist, so painting their toy soldiers is a ridiculous idea. As to life skills, the hand to eye coordination needed to paint a low grade figure is a basic life skill too. If you can't spray paint Darth Vader black, and then brush paint his saber red and his base green, you'll probably lack the coordination to play the game without breaking things, losing dice, etc.

Ok so we are not talking about having had to eye coordination, nor whether or not someone is or is not an artist. We are talking about playing a game with minis not painted, the reason is immaterial. It is also an absurd to jump from lack of hand to eye coordination to  "play the game without breaking things, losing dice, etc." Where do these comparisons come from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

A variation on this approach was very helpful for me to overcome the scale creep of Legion.

I assume you're referring to a zenithal highlight?

For those curious, its where you prime models black, set them all up and spray them again white from above so the raised areas are white.  Works pretty well; takes like 30 minutes or so.  I'll admit there's been a few times I've strongly considered playing a game with a Sin City army this way. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, LunarSol said:

I assume you're referring to a zenithal highlight?

For those curious, its where you prime models black, set them all up and spray them again white from above so the raised areas are white.  Works pretty well; takes like 30 minutes or so.  I'll admit there's been a few times I've strongly considered playing a game with a Sin City army this way. :)

Well, 30 plus minutes drying time depending on paint used. Might want to consider adding in some grey to meet the 3 colour minimum some tournaments have, regardless that would be really cool.  I have seen photos of a Bolt Action army painted entirely in black and white to match the film footage.  

I tutorial I've considered using once I get my airbrush setup finalized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Well, 30 plus minutes drying time depending on paint used. Might want to consider adding in some grey to meet the 3 colour minimum some tournaments have, regardless that would be really cool.  I have seen photos of a Bolt Action army painted entirely in black and white to match the film footage.  

I tutorial I've considered using once I get my airbrush setup finalized. 

I'd hate to implement a 3 color minimum for Star Wars.  The poor imperial players would have to start making stuff up.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Battletech is one such game, and the rules for line of sight are very different. 

Yup, and it used to come with (cheaper, easier to store) cardboard standees to indicate height instead of minis.

Miniatures are only here for the looks.

Doesn't seem like lack of alternate artillery crews is hurting Legion though. And hasn't historically hurt Star Wars miniatures games much if any. That's really my point in the thread.

Edited by TauntaunScout

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TauntaunScout said:

Yup, and it used to come with (cheaper, easier to store) cardboard standees to indicate height instead of minis.

Miniatures are only here for the looks.

Doesn't seem like lack of alternate artillery crews is hurting Legion though. And hasn't historically hurt Star Wars miniatures games much if any. That's really my point in the thread.

Battletech is a hex-and-counter game with optional miniatures. The base set still comes with standees as well as miniatures. The standees don't indicate height, the rules apply a standard height to each hex of terrain or unit and LOS is abstracted. The separate miniatures rules are slightly different, but at that point you can no longer use chits or standees.

Edited by ImhotepMagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ImhotepMagi said:

Battletech is a hex-and-counter game with optional miniatures. The base set still comes with standees as well as miniatures. The standees don't indicate height, the rules apply a standard height to each hex of terrain or unit and LOS is abstracted. The separate miniatures rules are slightly different, but at that point you can no longer use chits or standees.

There's been so many versions of that game over the years I can't even keep up. The ones I owned (decades ago) only had minis of mechs and counters for everything else, you could use hex maps or rulers and scenery, either one. But I was aware of cardboard standee ones being sold at the exact same time, in a starter set of sorts. For most minis games, LOS only matters to the area covered by the base. The model is purely aesthetic. Hence, LOS couldn't be drawn to backbanners that were prevalent in oldhammer. How "tall" figures and scenery were "supposed" to be was an abstraction. Otherwise two minis of the same troop type, in two different poses, effectively had different stats for cover purposes. For the hobby writ large, the base IS the mini as far as the rulebook could care. But we used minis anyways cause that was the whole point.

I kept thinking about getting a current big box o' battletech but I keep missing print runs. I don't even know what's available any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TauntaunScout said:

There's been so many versions of that game over the years I can't even keep up. The ones I owned (decades ago) only had minis of mechs and counters for everything else, you could use hex maps or rulers and scenery, either one. But I was aware of cardboard standee ones being sold at the exact same time, in a starter set of sorts. For most minis games, LOS only matters to the area covered by the base. The model is purely aesthetic. Hence, LOS couldn't be drawn to backbanners that were prevalent in oldhammer. How "tall" figures and scenery were "supposed" to be was an abstraction. Otherwise two minis of the same troop type, in two different poses, effectively had different stats for cover purposes. For the hobby writ large, the base IS the mini as far as the rulebook could care. But we used minis anyways cause that was the whole point.

I kept thinking about getting a current big box o' battletech but I keep missing print runs. I don't even know what's available any more.

Well for Legion, the model matters for LOS. There is a large chunk of the market share of miniatures games (i.e. the most popular or visible) that uses true line of sight in some way. For those games, the shape of them matters and what parts of them stick out also matter. "Used to be" no longer applies. The "hobby writ at large" is a terrible blanket statement, since the hobby is dominated by a few games that certainly don't rely on just the base. There are a lot of games in which that is true and in those enclaves there is truth.

Games that want a volume space will tell you what area it fills while games that use TLOS will rely on the miniature. In the former, go nuts, use whatever the rules will allow. In the former, use miniatures. We use minis because they are cooler than cardboard. How much cooler you want to make them is up to the individual.

And there are supposed to be new Battletech boxed sets coming out from Catalyst Game Labs soon, so I would keep an eye out on their website, terrible as it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, ImhotepMagi said:

Well for Legion, the model matters for LOS. There is a large chunk of the market share of miniatures games (i.e. the most popular or visible) that uses true line of sight in some way. For those games, the shape of them matters and what parts of them stick out also matter. "Used to be" no longer applies. The "hobby writ at large" is a terrible blanket statement, since the hobby is dominated by a few games

I've seen a lot of games come and go. Editions of Games Workshop games also come and go and take LOS rules with them. Some very popular games right now don't care about "true" line of sight. Since it's not really "true" that people are always in the exact same position, or can die of an arrow to the lance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TauntaunScout said:

I've seen a lot of games come and go. Editions of Games Workshop games also come and go and take LOS rules with them. Some very popular games right now don't care about "true" line of sight. Since it's not really "true" that people are always in the exact same position, or can die of an arrow to the lance.

I've been in the hobby for 25 years. I've also seen lots of games come and go. GW games currently rely completely on TLOS and have for at least the last decade. Before that, there have been variations of "don't shoot him in the gun or banner" but body parts were always fair game. These days, it abstracts that the gun might be an arm as people aren't always in the exact same position. I don't agree with banners but them's the rules.

I feel at this point we are mostly arguing technicalities. If you'd like you can PM me but I think it best we should leave the discussion out of the thread. 

Edited by ImhotepMagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...