The Sad Cunts with No Life Thread

[Picador]

It seems the OFM doesn’t like Piquet.
http://theminiaturespage.com/news/talk/ ... 1082248180

He makes some good points about fanbois and their rabid obsessions.

And Piquet is a fucking silly set of rules. As are any others that rely on card draws.

[Derek H]

And Piquet is a fucking silly set of rules. As are any others that rely on card draws.

As a TooFatLardies fanboy I have to disagree with your generalisation there

[Bronshtein]

I've tried to love card buggered about systems but they are in the end fucking annoying.
I like what Sam Mustafa tries to do in his games generally but his card obsession fucks a lot/most of his games up.
The only TFL game I have is Dux Britanniarum and again the card bits piss me off.
If they are simply a random number generator - use the dice.
If they are a sub routine game in themselves - they distract.
If they do things like grow a wood/hedge/marsh out of nowhere in the middle of a charge - get a fucking grip. I know terrain can be a surprise in real life, but I'm not going to declare a charge against troops I can't see because I suddenly notice a wood in the way.

And ffs sake if you are going to the trouble of decent terrain and painted figures to suspend disbelief don't go cluttering the table up with card decks following units around.

Okay, rant over.

[kyotebue2]

What the fuck, gaming talk????

[Mustafa Kamel]

If they do things like grow a wood/hedge/marsh out of nowhere in the middle of a charge - get a fucking grip. I know terrain can be a surprise in real life, but I'm not going to declare a charge against troops I can't see because I suddenly notice a wood in the way.

I'm guessing given your reference earlier that you're talking about Mustafa's Maurice there. In which case, it never provides a forest, but is always limited to a small marsh or rocky ground - exactly the sort of terrain that you might not be aware of until you hit it and which would not affect visibility of units in front of you.

[Aurelee Needacrap]

[Comedy Arab Name wrote:I'm guessing given your reference earlier that you're talking about Mustafa's Maurice there. In which case, it never provides a forest, but is always limited to a small marsh or rocky ground - exactly the sort of terrain that you might not be aware of until you hit it and which would not affect visibility of units in front of you.
User avatar
Mustafa Kamel

Cards are not a problem for me pe se, but I think Piquet simply does it the wrong way.

The Magic Sub-game in 5th and 6th Warhammer was a good card game for example. If the example you give above is a true one, I think I approve, so that your Cavalry General can get realistically speared by some Polish Lancers in a morass.

[Ssanemax]

What the fuck, gaming talk????

is it allowed if it's TMP related?

I see on this thread that one of the oldest Myths in the Hobby is still going.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=537895

'Coat d'armes is Literally the OLD GW paint range'

No, John, it's not, in case you were tempted to try them.

The shades are often vaguely similar, but the paints themselves are shite. I watched a very amusing Youtube vid where a lad had got his hands on a virtually complete first box set of 40K, and decided to paint them with Coat D'armes as he had heard that myth too.

He started out getting all nostalgic, about how they even smelled like the old paints (they don't. At all) and as the vid went on his increasingly uneasy 'I don't remember them being this thin' and 'I have put 5 coats of paint on and the black is still showing through??? ' become rather funny.

The final nail in the coffin of my using them was puzzlement - I was washing my brushes extremely thoroughly but as I used the paints they were going 'off colour' - I eventually realised that the microscopic amounts of W&N ink left in my brush bristles was overwhelming the paltry amount of pigment in the Coat D'armes paint.

Mini Rant Over.

[Picador]

Like the stupid cunt that I am, and swayed by glowing reviews in WI and MW, I bought a load of Coat d'Armes at a show back in the mid 90s.

They were fucking rubbish then, their lack of pigment was obvious from the first brushstroke no matter how much you stirred them. I'd have more success using the kid's watercolours. The strange thing was that for all the lack of covering power, the bastard things would set like rock in the bottles.

There went another bit of environmentally unfriendly landfill.

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

[Comedy Arab Name wrote:I'm guessing given your reference earlier that you're talking about Mustafa's Maurice there. In which case, it never provides a forest, but is always limited to a small marsh or rocky ground - exactly the sort of terrain that you might not be aware of until you hit it and which would not affect visibility of units in front of you.
User avatar
Mustafa Kamel

Cards are not a problem for me pe se, but I think Piquet simply does it the wrong way.

The Magic Sub-game in 5th and 6th Warhammer was a good card game for example. If the example you give above is a true one, I think I approve, so that your Cavalry General can get realistically speared by some Polish Lancers in a morass.

The card sub game was in WFB 4th and 5th, while 6th returned to a dice based system. I liked that the cards contained all the necessary information, so not having to search for the effects of the Whip of Agony and Rod of Command was a plus, though the info was still in the books, in case the cards were misplaced - something Rackham should've done too. The disadvantage of the cards was that they took up too much space on the table or floor.

[Il Segaiolo Pedantesco]

What the fuck, gaming talk????

is it allowed if it's TMP related?

I see on this thread that one of the oldest Myths in the Hobby is still going.

http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=537895

'Coat d'armes is Literally the OLD GW paint range'

No, John, it's not, in case you were tempted to try them.

The shades are often vaguely similar, but the paints themselves are shite. I watched a very amusing Youtube vid where a lad had got his hands on a virtually complete first box set of 40K, and decided to paint them with Coat D'armes as he had heard that myth too.

He started out getting all nostalgic, about how they even smelled like the old paints (they don't. At all) and as the vid went on his increasingly uneasy 'I don't remember them being this thin' and 'I have put 5 coats of paint on and the black is still showing through??? ' become rather funny.

The final nail in the coffin of my using them was puzzlement - I was washing my brushes extremely thoroughly but as I used the paints they were going 'off colour' - I eventually realised that the microscopic amounts of W&N ink left in my brush bristles was overwhelming the paltry amount of pigment in the Coat D'armes paint.

Mini Rant Over.

Coat D’arms Paint Review for Miniatures & Wargames Models

I've had nothing but pleasant experiences with Coat d'Arms paints and yes, these are the near equivalent of the old Citadel range made by HMG*1 for GW, prior to switching to a French company*2. The review doesn't mention it, but based on my experience, the difference between the late 80s/early 90s and the mid 90s and later paints had to do with the formulation: some of the colors weren't as thick in the hexagonal bottles compared with the round ones, Goblin Green and IIRC Ultramarine Blue, for instance.

Did the sad lad check the bottle to make sure the pigment hadn't separated? Did he apply the paint directly from the bottle, instead of transferring some of it onto a wet palette? What color was he applying onto the black? Yellow will take a few coats, red not so much, and blue the fewest of all.

Has anyone tried Warcolours' Nostalgia 88?

*1) Bearing in mind that HMG changed the formula more than once and colors have been inconsistent between batches.

*2) Anyone know the name, all the reviews say a French company.