Jump to content

Welcome to Card Game DB
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Space Marine Faction Preview


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#61
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

Thank god I have no clue of the 40K universe what so ever, so I can basically plainly enjoy a game which I hope have good mechanics, is balanced and competitive and fun to play and watch. Lore or feel comes at second place for me this time.

 

+1  What I care about is that it's a good game with good mechanics, which so far it seems to be.  Card games have always been abstractions so I'm really not sure why there's so much fuss over it all of a sudden like this is a new issue.  It doesn't matter exactly how many troopers a card is supposed to be and I doubt anyone at FFG even raised the question.  It's some guys of a certain type, that's all.  This is no different than every other CCG/LCG that exists and the rules on the card are the rules, not the artwork, so it shouldn't make a difference whether the card shows a single soldier or a formation of many.  Me, I'd rather see a nicely detailed picture of one guy instead of 2000 little grey blurs that I can't make out.  My imagination can fill in that he probably has some buddies along with him that aren't shown on the card.


  • Toqtamish, VonWibble, kamacausey and 1 other like this

#62
MotoBuzzsawMF

MotoBuzzsawMF

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1456 posts

+1  What I care about is that it's a good game with good mechanics, which so far it seems to be.  Card games have always been abstractions so I'm really not sure why there's so much fuss over it all of a sudden like this is a new issue.  It doesn't matter exactly how many troopers a card is supposed to be and I doubt anyone at FFG even raised the question.  It's some guys of a certain type, that's all.  This is no different than every other CCG/LCG that exists and the rules on the card are the rules, not the artwork, so it shouldn't make a difference whether the card shows a single soldier or a formation of many.  Me, I'd rather see a nicely detailed picture of one guy instead of 2000 little grey blurs that I can't make out.  My imagination can fill in that he probably has some buddies along with him that aren't shown on the card.

 

Preach!!



#63
Ironswimsuit

Ironswimsuit

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1081 posts

What some are describing is sounding more like the Terrible game system rather than 40K game system.

 

 

 

 

Fixed.  

 

I'm not a 40K fan by any stretch, so I don't understand the reason for the gripes. It reminds me of people complaining that Tom Bombadil wasn't in the LotR movies. Whether or not the trait is singular or plural doesn't matter. It's a trait which may key off other things later. Whether or not every little convoluted 40K detail is represented on the cards is unnecessary. If the game evokes the theme of the universe, I say it's enough. If a player wants to be a purist, they can play the minis game.


  • Toqtamish likes this

#64
Asklepios

Asklepios

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 5433 posts

Evoking the themes of the universe are exactly it though. The game is specifically sets out to... well..

 

"In the game, each player controls one warlord and his armies as you engage in interplanetary warfare."

 

"a life-and-death combat for the Traxis sector, Warhammer 40,000: Conquest forces you to secure your hold over the sector’s key planets."

 

This is pitched as a game on a larger scale than the W40k game, and arguably on a larger scale than Epic too. I'm just saying that the units shouldn't have been "Eager Recruit", they shoulda been "Scout Company". Say you deploy two assault squads, a land raider, a zealous scout and Sicarius on a particular busy turn: that's not armies, thats a patrol. Thats less marines than a 1000 point tabletop game.

 

This doesn't force the art to show thousands of dudes. You can still show the one scout in the art.

 

Its only a minor quibble though, and probably not something that will stop me playing. Its just something of a missed opportunity, is all.

 

You don't have to love the fluff to get into this game, but I think that its disappointing and a missed oportunity  to have a game pitched as armies controlling worlds, then to be given a smaller scale than the tabletop game.

 

You are right though: the quality of the game will be what matters at the end of the day. I no longer even blink when I see House Lannister drawing income from the Knights of the Hollow Hill to recruit Ygritte to take control of Tycho Nestoris. While part of me yearns for the more nedly experience, I'll make do with the fact that AGOT is a well designed and fun game that borrows some of the trappings and themes of AGOT without trying to make it feel like events in the AGOT universe. I guess I can make do with this being the same. It just a slightly lower sense of fluff immersion, which hopefully the gamist joy of lcging will compensate for.


  • MotoBuzzsawMF likes this

#65
Toqtamish

Toqtamish

    Conquest Rules Arbitrator

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 3289 posts

I like this scale better. I don't want a card that is a company or squad of dudes. Some fine, but I like having individuals too. 



#66
dboeren

dboeren

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2834 posts

Named individual heroes (or villains or whatever) add a lot of flavor, and need to be represented in a card game.  Someone might say that this is an incongruity where one card appears to be one dude and another card appears to be a whole fleet of tanks, but if the alternative is a bland game that has no heroes or a game where heroes have clunky mechanics in order to treat them as an attachment to a normal squad of guys then I would rather stretch my imagination and let the game represent the feel of the world in a more abstract manner that provides extra flavor and smoother gameplay.


  • Toqtamish and MotoBuzzsawMF like this

#67
Tobogan

Tobogan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts

Think of the game being standard armies of the planet stalled in a tie. Then you, the player, will drop the elite units that will the decide de victory on that planet. I agree that, if not, those will be a very desolate planets.



#68
Asklepios

Asklepios

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 5433 posts

Named individual heroes (or villains or whatever) add a lot of flavor, and need to be represented in a card game.  Someone might say that this is an incongruity where one card appears to be one dude and another card appears to be a whole fleet of tanks, but if the alternative is a bland game that has no heroes or a game where heroes have clunky mechanics in order to treat them as an attachment to a normal squad of guys then I would rather stretch my imagination and let the game represent the feel of the world in a more abstract manner that provides extra flavor and smoother gameplay.

 

Thats definitely the case. Named heroes are completely in keeping with both the fluff anf the tabletop game..

 

"Cao Sicarius" and "Veteran Brother Maxos" are no problem. Nor even is "Honored Librarian". Depending on fluff these guys can easily fit on the same scale of conflict as whole squads or even companies.

 

"Eager Recruit" and "10th Company Scout", not so much. If nothing else, its a slight fluff misfire that scouts are represented as heroic individuals, whilst fully fledged battle brothers come in squads. The scouts are marines in training, less heroic and powerful than tactical company marines.

 

My preference would have been for most units to represent formations, and for characters to be attachments that enhance those formations in significant ways.



#69
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2081 posts

Sorry to derail the thread a little but I have to leap in to defend the Epic system. Having played every edition of the game with the exception of the latest version I can honestly say it has one of the better systems in the GW line-up. The feel of commanding HUGE armies is just awesome and the board looks like a proper battleground.

 

I used to have 20,000pts of both Orks and Space Wolves and used to play against 2 friends who had an equivalent amount of Eldar and Tyranids and we used to throw down every couple of weeks. Those were the days.

 

If anything it amuses me that 40K is becoming more akin to Epic with the addition of Titans, Super Heavy Tanks, Stompa's and the like. Funnily enough, we occasionally used to play 40K using epic miniatures and some homebrew rules. 

 

I always felt that Epic was the only game to do the scale of the universe any real justice.



#70
Tragic

Tragic

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts

can't beat titans!

 

Front-Templar-with-Scale.jpg



#71
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2081 posts
That's not even a Titan but an Imperial Knight. But yes, they do look awesome!

#72
Tragic

Tragic

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 1661 posts
an imperial knight IS a titan dude :P )well close enough)... but yeah.. they are very cool!

#73
Tobogan

Tobogan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 223 posts

I think they reduced their shape to fit in a WH40K table. Or it may depend on the titan's model.



#74
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2081 posts
Close enough for sure without going for a Forge World affair. The Warhound titan is huge and the Phantom and Warlock Titans are awesome. I'll always have a soft spot for the epic titans, back in the day they looked amazing.

These new ones do make me want to play 40k again though...

#75
Skelton

Skelton

    Advanced Member

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPip
  • 2081 posts

I think they reduced their shape to fit in a WH40K table. Or it may depend on the titan's model.


That's probably about right for a Knight.