The "What Are You Doing This Moment" Thread

[Vilden]

Are you crazy? I'll admit I'm not familiar with Volkmar but the greater daemon models look so much better now and there really isn't any comparing with old edition 40k to now, it is much better now. 7th edition was admittedly pretty bad but 8th so far seems like a huge improvement and the models these days are mostly much better.

Well, the new models are ofcourse MUCH better made and much more detailed and dynamic etc etc. The problem is that they are just so over the top and cartoonish that the army feel get lost and you get more superhero or anime vibes imo.

Some examples from old to new:

Mannfred Von Carstein:




I mean wtf is up with this, classic Von Carsteins have the old Dracula look, not big ass muscles and some kind of super monster.

Volkmar the Grim:

I can't help but assume this tis an opinion based almost entirely on nostalgia.

I guess this explains some of it, especially when you talk about rank n file or regular space marines or whatnot. But my biggest problem is the one I showed above which is not just nostalgia.
About the Bloodthirster, the new one is better looking but fails because it is about double the size from the old which just looks rediculous imo.

This also ties in with my opinion hat big monsters are most of the times the most boring kind of unit to play with in Warhammer.

 

[Dak]

I'll agree the Volkmar model wasn't an improvement, but in general the models have gotten much better over time. Look at Tyranids from 2nd ed or whatever to 6th or whenever they overhauled the range into plastics. I'm not a big fan of the Primaris range due to the size bump, but no one is forced to buy them (yet anyway).

8th is absolutely superior to 7th rules wise. There's been a couple of things I don't like in army errata etc., but the core rules are far more play/speed-friendly. Switching vehicles to the same unit templates as everything else (Toughness, wounds, sv) was absolutely the right move along with the change to AP v SV.

 

[Mort Divine]

Mtg has gone abit downhill for two reasons.

#1: The direction the art has gone is waaay too streamlined and clean, which most of the time makes it more soulless imo. Sure the sets are more even and the older art had way lower lows but also higher high. Older sets generally feels less flashy and more obscure and arcane.

#2: The power creep in specifically creatures. I'm tired of all creatures having 2-3 good abilities and also stats that are annoyingly good. Just look at for example Deathrite Shaman. 1 mana 1/2 with 3 good abilities. Yeah that seems reasonable. Leovold is another one on the same theme. IMO the most boring games are when both players just play splashy creature after splashy creature and hope to win the value war. I like grind but it should be with finesse, not just big bombs.

I think wizards has realized this and in the latest sets they've upped the spell power and lowered the creature power which is good.

With this said MtG is still awsome and they do alot of things right so I wont say newer sets suck or anything, just that I liked the direction, both in art and game design in older sets abit more.

As for Games Workshop and Warhammer: They have gone downhill waaay more imo. Mostly because of the cartoony over the top models nowdays which looks rediculous. Just compare the size of old (3rd-4th fantasy) edition greater daemons or Volkmar the Grim. The new ones are awful.

About the rules, I haven't played the newest editions so I can't really comment but as far as I've tester I don't think they've gone in the right direction either.

I feel like Deathrite Shaman isn't a fair example though. It feels like a card that was designed with eternal formats in mind. It didn't have a major impact on standard at all. Powerful, yes, but mostly only in formats with access to both fetchlands and cheap low CMC spells.

Leovold isn't a good example either because he was printed in a set meant to be drafted and then played multiplayer.

 

[CiG]

I think Warhammer models in general looked much more cartoonish and goofy in the beginning and have been gradually moving away from that.

I like the developments in the Volkmar model but I will give you Mannfred Von Carstein, the old more romantic/classic vampire look was a lot better.

Of course one of the perks of Warhammer is that you can table old models if you don't like the newer ones.

 

[tagradh]

Messing around trying to blend BAN/Godflesh/NKVD/Skaphe like metal with stuff like Theologian and Death Kneel.

But now I have to go for drinks with sexy skeletons.

 

[Vilden]

I feel like Deathrite Shaman isn't a fair example though. It feels like a card that was designed with eternal formats in mind. It didn't have a major impact on standard at all. Powerful, yes, but mostly only in formats with access to both fetchlands and cheap low CMC spells.

Leovold isn't a good example either because he was printed in a set meant to be drafted and then played multiplayer.

But Leovold is still played in other formats than it's draft enviorment.

But if you want cards that is/was good in standard: Siege Rhino, Grim Flayer, Emrakul the Promised End, Smugglers Copter, Hazoret, Longtusk Cub, Walking Ballista, etc.

Edit: Even Wizards have stated that they agree that creatures generally has been too good compared to spells and are trying to change this moving forward.

 

[Vilden]

I think Warhammer models in general looked much more cartoonish and goofy in the beginning and have been gradually moving away from that.

I can see what you mean, and in alot of ways the old models are more goofy, just look at old Orks, Squats, etc. Lots of bright colors and funny faces. In the new models I mean cartoonish in the over the top way. Everything is always over 9000 nowdays. Like the last Mannfred.

Of course one of the perks of Warhammer is that you can table old models if you don't like the newer ones.

Which is great and something I use very much.

 

[Vilden]

BTW if i come across as hating and negative I will also say that I LOVE and worship both Magic the Gathering and most of GWs products, those are ment as general complaints that I think could be done better, not something that makes the games unplayable or anything.

 

[The Butt]

well deserved ban tbh

fuck any fandoms version of 'genwunners'

A typically reductive response by someone with input of negligable value.

Not my fault Magic started to decline in quality significantly after 2006, both in terms of art direction (for reasons Vilden very eloquently stated for me, props Vilden); and shifting from spell-heavy, long games, to creature-dominant short ones. Shrug life. There are elements to the very core of how cards are mechanically designed that changed, and it was detrimental to the game as a whole.

Pre-emptive "shut the fuck up" to whatever variation of "b-but modern/Vintage" will come up.

 

[The Butt]

they can

but all i've heard from Dustin Henderson over there doesn't hold up

its all complaints about power level and shit that are outright false

Power creep is demonstratably real in Magic and you're flat-out incorrect if you deny it.

 

[Mort Divine]

Power creep is looking at Hearthstone and seeing their 'eternal' format being made up of nothing but decks containing small alterations to current standard decks.

Power creep is fucking affinity a mechanic introduced before the 'downfall' of Magic in your mind. It is Urza's block.

The power level of recent sets has been such a rollercoaster.

Overall though the most powerful spells are from a long time ago. So okay, we are seeing creatures that make Serra Angel and Shivan Dragon not as cool as they once were, but so fucking what? Modern magic doesn't even have access to Counterspell let alone something as powerful as Force of Will or Mana Drain, and lets not get into the beyond broken mana rocks that were once available.

Magic is a MUCH lower power level game than it used to be. That is non-negotiable.

 

[The Butt]

"Power creep is a phenomenon present in any collectible game that uses both old elements and new ones. It is the gradual unbalancing of a game due to successive releases of new content. The idea behind the concept is that a company has to sell their new products, but everything new they create has to compete with previously existing pieces. To compensate for this cards end up becoming superior to other cards to the point of becoming strictly better. This means that older content becomes regressively outdated or relatively underpowered."

You are wrong. Spells may have gotten less powerful, there may also be blips im the radar like affinity. But creatures as a whole (I am not speaking solely about tournament level play, but Magic as a whole) have become faster, beefier for their mana costs, and a lot of older cards have been strictly obsoleted. It's not that Serra Angel has become less cool. It's that many, many, many older creatures are simply strictly worse than their modern counterparts. There is no point to running them anymore, even in the scrubbiest of dinner table Magic.

Strictly obsoleting cards in general is a tacky, sloppy design practice; not that I'd expect you to get it, since as far as I know I don't think you've ever even designed anything before. Speaking as someone who started designing their own sets in '06, taking part in the You Make The Card subforums on both the Wizards boards and other places like Nogoblinsallowed, there are subtleties to card design and design practices that Wizards simply stopped following come Alara and Zendikar blocks.

 

[Mort Divine]

so what? Should creatures simply have been left to stagnate being no more powerful than the serra angels of the world?

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Handlers/Image.ashx?multiverseid=435163&type=card

Oh hey a recent strictly worse Serra angel...

Regardless, the power level of the game as a whole is undeniably lower as a whole regardless of creature power

 

[CiG]

@Vilden I take it you're a Fantasy man exclusively?

I can see what you mean, and in alot of ways the old models are more goofy, just look at old Orks, Squats, etc. Lots of bright colors and funny faces. In the new models I mean cartoonish in the over the top way. Everything is always over 9000 nowdays. Like the last Mannfred.

The obsession with realism might make some of the HQ units suffer, but as a guy who remembers his first Ork army looking like Ninja Turtles on crack, I'd rather my models be over 9000 than have a third chromosome 21.

 

[Dak]

@Vilden I take it you're a Fantasy man exclusively?

The obsession with realism might make some of the HQ units suffer, but as a guy who remembers his first Ork army looking like Ninja Turtles on crack, I'd rather my models be over 9000 than have a third chromosome 21.

Frankly I agree about some of the ridiculousness in AoS, and some of the new Nurgle/Primaris stuff. But I don't play AoS and something like Nurgle is sort of asking for the absurd.

 

[CiG]

And of course it's all a trade-off because as some units have started to look ridiculous, other entire factions like Nids and Orks only seem to be looking better and better.

 

[Vilden]

Regardless, the power level of the game as a whole is undeniably lower as a whole regardless of creature power

I don't think this is true though. The average power level of older sets are generally much lower than now. Just look at sets like Alliances, Homelands, Masques, Visions, etc. There are VERY few playable cards (and a few boken ones). Urza was very powerful though, I give you that.

My problem isn't really the power creep which I understand why it's there. It's the pushing of creatures. When most good creatures have have 2-3 good abilities - AND good stats too, why bother playing spells? It's just better to play a creature and get the same ability + a guy, always a 2 for 1. This is apparent in creatures like Reflector Mage, Siege Rhino, Spell Queller, Grim Flayer, etc. Most games just devolve into midrange bombs being played over and over.

Had the power creep of spells and creatures been more even this would lead to more interesting and varied gameplay imo.

 

[Vilden]

@Vilden I take it you're a Fantasy man exclusively?

No, but I have one large 40k army and about 4 large fantasy armies.

But you're right my complaints are mostly at the fantasy model range, the 40k range have lots of the time improved. There are things there too. Like huge vehicles. And the need to take everything to "their final form". Like super terminators, super dreadnaughts, etc. Also the fact that alot of units/monsters have upped their Base size in 40k too.

 

[CiG]

As long as the developments correspond with the rules I'm okay with all of that.

I haven't played any AoS yet so I don't know the dynamics of Fantasy right now and even if I wanted to my Dwarf army is in storage at the moment, what're your Fantasy armies?

 

[Krow]

I don't think this is true though. The average power level of older sets are generally much lower than now. Just look at sets like Alliances, Homelands, Masques, Visions, etc.

Tbh these sets were never good were they? Other than a random card with massive power level a lot of older sets sucked ass or had broken shit.