Necromunda The Sump: General hobby venting thread (Beware: old men shouting at clouds)

[TopsyKretts]

That's funny because it is itself a product of years of frustration and confusion

Here is some other sumping entirely, about the latest Blood Bowl FAQ:

How are we supposed to use this information? Yesn't.

 

[Stoof]

 

[TopsyKretts]

To their defense, I may have misunderstood the part with jumping/leaping/pogoing over a square. Seems to differ depending on whether the square was occupied or not. Still don't understand whether you're supposed to re-roll a Lasting Injury stat decrease or not (if that stat is already at minimum).

 

[spafe]

I think it is explaining PA stat specifically, as no other stat can be '-', so it is clarifying that a PA of 6+ does not become a PA of '-', it counts as the lowest, therefore nothing happens. This means you need to reroll the injury as per the above, similar to if you were at str 1.

 

[TopsyKretts]

That is brilliant! Thanks.

This FAQ feels so convoluted. The old FAQ mentions stat reduction with ST as an example, but the new FAQ mentions PA. As you point out, that's specific to PA, not an example. Same with the Jump over a square, old FAQ mentions Jump and "over a player" (occupied square), but new FAQ only mentions Leap & Pogo. The intention for the Leap/Pogo seems to be for crossing over an unoccupied square, but doesn't emphasize that (or mention it at all).

Then there is this stuff:

Which feels like "STFU and read the book". Or, if using your big brain interpretation skills, explain that conceding a game means you lose the match? Possibly the book forgot to explain that.

 

[spafe]

yeah, it's not the easiest read. BUT, having seen some of the rulings that TT tournie organisers have ruled on things... I can see how these things get worded to address very specific situations that if you dont know the context off the question, seem stupid. Not saying I know the exact reasoning for these questions, but I get why some are like that.

 

[almic85]

yeah, that bloodbowl FAW is a bit of a shit fight, because it could mean that "nothing happens" so the stat stays the same and you don't reroll the injury, or it could mean "nothing happens" and the stat stays the same and then you do reroll the injury because the stat is at minimum already.

 

[Mr. M]

I was looking at the recent WarCom article about the upcoming Old World/WFB releases, and noticed that GW is planning to release two books covering the good and evil armies respectively. The book about the bad guys (Ravening Hordes) doesn't seem to include Dark Elves or Skaven. This seems like quite the omission, given that those were two of the more popular armies from my time playing WFB way back when (4th/5th edition). I stopped following WFB before the Tomb Kings were a thing, but it could be that the old Vampire Counts army is also not going to be resurrected...

 

[Mr. M]

Despite WFB being my first real experience with wargaming, I'm just not excited about the return of the game with this Old World product. I hope it allows those who are interested in Old Hammer to build armies they want and collectors to get models that were otherwise scarce, but the new rule set and new GW "book barrage" are just leaving me uninterested. Can't quite put my finger on why; I still have all my old 4th/5th edition stuff and love it, so could be that I'm just stuck in the past with for this particular gaming experience. Could also be that I much prefer making & painting terrain these days, so skirmish games are more to my taste now - with few miniatures and lots more terrain!

 

[MedMos]

I've opted out of the old world, and your posts have confirmed me in my decision, @Mr. M. Skirmish games for me as well, and if I do decide to do a bit of army gaming, I think it'll be One Page Rules from here.

 

[Punktaku]

Yeah, after collecting multiple armies for years and playing a grand total of a single game of WFB, I sold everything off. I’m out of this one too.

 

[Lord_Ikka]

I was looking at the recent WarCom article about the upcoming Old World/WFB releases, and noticed that GW is planning to release two books covering the good and evil armies respectively. The book about the bad guys (Ravening Hordes) doesn't seem to include Dark Elves or Skaven. This seems like quite the omission, given that those were two of the more popular armies from my time playing WFB way back when (4th/5th edition). I stopped following WFB before the Tomb Kings were a thing, but it could be that the old Vampire Counts army is also not going to be resurrected...

There's several WFB armies that will have rules provided (eventually) but aren't part of the narrative of the Old World.
Dark Elves, Skaven, Vampire Counts, Daemons of Chaos, Ogre Kingdoms, Lizardmen, Chaos Dwarf - will all receive a PDF of new rules at the launch of the Old World, but will not be in the books. This is according the this WarCom post - https://www.warhammer-community.com...development-diary-the-main-factions-revealed/

 

[MedMos]

There's several WFB armies that will have rules provided (eventually) but aren't part of the narrative of the Old World.

Hmm, maybe this is actually the crux of the matter. I care less and less for gw's narrative, even as they seem to produce more and more of it.

 

[Lord_Ikka]

Hmm, maybe this is actually the crux of the matter. I care less and less for gw's narrative, even as they seem to produce more and more of it.

I guess it just depends on whether or not players want to explore that particular era in the Old World. I can understand those that have old armies that are now only getting "Legacy" rules being unhappy- you want to play with the stuff you have. I do think GW is trying to make the Old World narrative more compelling than just "it's WFB, forget about AoS".

I prefer GW at least trying to make decent narratives, rather than relying on their old standby of "we're a model company", to draw in players. Even if the narratives are a thin draw for more cash in the form of models/books, it can be better for the game(s) than just releasing a new edition without any significant changes. Edition changes should be major reconstructions in terms of rules, not a refresh every 3 years because it generates profit. But I'm a player, not a stockholder, so my opinion is biased towards gameplay rather than money.

 

[MedMos]

I can respect that, @Lord_Ikka. On my end, I find that I prefer a skeleton or framework of narrative, to then flesh out my army details myself. Which is also why I've never played with any of gw's special characters, and probably never will.*
That, of course, does not generate a need for constant updates, and is not desirable from a company perspective.

*One exception are the named hired guns from the ORB, I haven't tried any yet but might actually consider it, as my gang is not supposed to be built around them.

 

[Lord_Ikka]

Yeah. Unfortunately GW is at the forefront of the TT minis world, and requires a constant churn of rules/models to make the money demanded by their shareholders. Crafting great models and tight rulesets doesn't do that in a way that makes investors happy- making FOMO a thing through stuff like Limited Editions and having ever-resetting editions does.

 

[Stoof]

I'm not going to play the old world, but I think I might well buy some knights just because I want to paint some.

So a partial win for GW?

Reading the special rules and bumf on WC just makes me think they're introducing far too much special rules nonsense - falling into the trap of making AoS with historical models.

 

[Punktaku]

Actually, if they remake the Bretonnian squires multi-part set, I might get one to expand my Inquisitor’s retinue…

 

[Pagumb]

I really liked the Bretonnian Men at Arms set which is supposed to be available again. Whether or not I'll like it enough to stomach the new price point is a completely different matter.

 

[MusingWarboss]

I shall also put a +1 in for interest on the Brettonian Man at arms kit. Mostly because I used my previous one up on old projects and some of the spares have made their way to my Cawdor and I’d love a fresh sprue to pillage!!

Unless it’s £40 for a box. Which it probably will be.