Should we move to having all magic items in the specific army books?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Randdogs wrote:

    It might be beneficial to the team in evaluation if play testing included if the mechanic "breaks or bogs down the flow of the game." Do you really have to think about a bunch of restrictions while testing the mechanic out. Does the mechanic play well thematically in your head?
    I agree completely.
    In fact, in my opinion, internal playtesting should be primarily focussed on things like this:
    whether mechanics are easily understandable and applied, whether units are fun to play with/against, what the feel of the army is.

    But I am not in charge of what such teams are used for, so I cannot say for sure how the team are used.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D
  • Iluvatar (sabbatical) wrote:

    ArchangelusM wrote:

    @Iluvatar (sabbatical)

    Not sure who else to tag, but @Just_Flo seems to have something in his signature that warps the layout, could you please check?
    Already fixed, right?
    Not sure, but he said it eas deliberate so not sure if intervention is wanted...xD
    Used to be a Vampire ABC member... then an Elf lass bit me... nowadays I have this insatiable craving for cheese, whine and fancy dresses... 8| The Dawn Host of ArchangelusM

    Army Design Team

    Draecarion, may the Lord grant eternal peace to your soul, my Friend!
  • Aenarion43 wrote:

    Yes, but the difference between 2.5 hours and 3 hours or so doesn’t matter as much to you, right? I constantly see tournament players talking about getting the game to “playable under 2.5 hours”. That’s the main thing I mean.

    I don’t THINK most “fun” players will care that much about that 30-45 minute difference. Maybe I am wrong, However.
    There are two time frames for casual.
    1) when you got the whole day off to game and don't care about the time. This is when people play 5k or 6k games as well. Or do 2-3 person teams with 3k pts each and have a 5 hour game on one big table.
    2) when you get home from work, eat shower, travel to friends place or local gaming store to get there by 6pm to play a game. Store closes at 9pm. And remember there is still set up time and you want some time to chat and stuff.

    And remember that in this type of game, fun players and tourny players are sometimes the same people. ....just depends what you are into that day.
    The difference for tourny is that it's on a scheduale. The difference for fun is that it can go over time limit, but no one wants the game to drag on for bad reasons.
  • Mr.Owl wrote:

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    The main issue is that most "casual" players don't really care about "time frame to complete a game"
    I have to personally disagree with you there. If I can play in less than 3 hours that makes a HUGE difference to me than say, 5 hours since I have three kids. Time investment in modeling is different because I can do that at home. But time investment in playing the game comes from a different bin because I'm playing at a store and the wife is watching the kids while I push my toy soldiers around the table. Just sayin' ...
    Wel there you go. For me time is rather unimportant.
    As long as I can squash 1 game in an evening I am happy.

    Time-wise a bigger concern would be how many games you can do on a 1-day tournament.
    Usually it's 3 and with 2.5 hours per match - and time is often running out (> 50% of the cases) before the game is done.

    Aenarion43 wrote:

    The main issue is that most "casual" players don't really care about "time frame to complete a game" or knowing every book's rules. So they prefer a higher level of complexity and depth in their army book. I am on that level.
    For me time isn't all that important - but getting a grip on the game is.

    Getting a grip has various aspects:
    1. The rules
    2. Know my army
    3. Know other armies

    For new players like me (I started playing in 2017) more complexity (growing amount of armies and more and more special rules) is an increasingly steep hill to climb though. It isn't exactly inviting to join a game with so many experienced veterans that know all the army books.

    But OT: Shared items isn't bad as they at least work the same for every army.
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..
  • I am still in favor of moving all items into armybooks. Creates better balance, richer armybooks and trims out items from BRB which kinda feel odd in there anyway considering everything else is rules connected to playing the game and the items are used also during list building if that makes sense. Also makes army specific armories more diverse. Hopefully we could get more than one optimal build per army at that point. Or at least situationally differing builds. Also hopefully reduces the amount of 'staple' auto-include items like Imperial Seal for EoS.
    It's okay, it has frenzy.

    Just Flank It © KoE - Tactics 101