One Page Rules Edition Update! Edition 3.4 is out!

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 23 дек 2024

Комментарии • 98

  • @MatthewHagepanos
    @MatthewHagepanos 2 месяца назад +17

    Honestly, I love any clarifications OPR can put out for some of their rules, but It's getting to feel a bit bloaty with all the additions and I would like any changes to make sense and as you said "be better than the last rule version". Please OPR, KEEP IT SIMPLE

  • @legatus_newt
    @legatus_newt 2 месяца назад +29

    The aircraft rule is not a catch-22 however it could be clarified. OPR doesn't have a concept of facing ( except in Regiments ) so moving in a straight line simply means the model goes straight in the direction it wants to go. If your flying aircraft model was a sphere it would be facing every direction at the same time but would still only be able to move in a straight line

    • @angeredtsuzuki
      @angeredtsuzuki 2 месяца назад +7

      Exactly what I was going to say. If you just read it literally aircraft work just fine.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +9

      My goodness, aircraft move like pinballs? That's...interesting. It makes sense but it means aircraft can bounce back and forth between the same two points all game, which, in the spirit of the law contradicts the forced movement of 36" They want to simulate the speed and commitment of movement, but you can spin 180 and the go the opposite direction on a dime? I get your point, It just feels like the cure is worse than the disease.

    • @Zeitgeyst
      @Zeitgeyst 2 месяца назад +1

      @@Good.Nuff.Gaming movement between 30 and 36..the advance +30 is still "up to 6".
      It is another abstract way, but more playable than the last

    • @CausticSpace
      @CausticSpace 2 месяца назад +3

      it should have facing for advanced rules aswell as 5th edition vehicle armor rules

    • @legatus_newt
      @legatus_newt 2 месяца назад +2

      @@CausticSpace Facing is very much up for interpretation in a model agnostic game. I could see a rule where you specifically pick the front of an aircraft for this rule but it adds an unnecessary step when you effectively just pivot at the beginning of your move anyway

  • @lamontgreen9991
    @lamontgreen9991 2 месяца назад +11

    I think opr is in a precarious place. Just like all of the people making Warhammer inspired 3d prints they can't really go too far away from it less they hurt their profits. I agree with you that they should be furthering themselves from GW but doing so could drive off people looking to get in or those who just use opr to play warhammer but without GW's mountain of rules.
    I don't see how they'll be able to further distinguish themselves while not ripping off the band-aid of being discount Warhammer and losing the people that come to them for that.
    I hope with their mission pack campaigns and continued refining of their original factions they'll be able to further make a niche for themselves in the space. Thanks fo the bid!

  • @EvilVampMuffin
    @EvilVampMuffin 2 месяца назад +1

    I appreciate that most of the rules are optional, choose how you want to play, and just have fun. Sure are some of the new stuff 40k inspired but they aren't needed just to play some games n have fun.

  • @jbarters1
    @jbarters1 2 месяца назад +1

    I live that they added in extra complexity, and it is up to players that implement those rules. The basic rules is virtually the same tried and true game they offer.

  • @frogofwargaming
    @frogofwargaming 2 месяца назад

    Thanks for the video! As someone who just fell down the OPR rabbit hole, this was a very helpful and concise way to see all the changes.

  • @vagrant2863
    @vagrant2863 2 месяца назад +3

    I feel like the Terrain Generator would be the kind of thing you're roll in advance of a game. Like a day before for some storyline kind of thing.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      Indeed. If you are the one putting on the game or hosting. If someone is ok with taking on a little extra, no problem.

  • @MiniWarMutt
    @MiniWarMutt 2 месяца назад +2

    Very nice video of explaining the updates. What you said at the end of this video is exactly what I fear may be happening. I'm still new to OPR, but man! The changes are like, GW? Wait... what? Of course, I will play my games as I like which OPR makes that easy to do. Thanks again, have a great weekend.

  • @samuelaylmer804
    @samuelaylmer804 2 месяца назад +5

    The advanced rules look interesting but I’m only play OPR like once a month so I am no where near getting tired of the free rules.

  • @chuukasoba
    @chuukasoba 2 месяца назад +8

    This is a weird comment perhaps but I need to share it. A couple months ago I had covid, and was laying in bed with a fever and watched one of your videos, and began having some fever dream stuff going on. Fell asleep and had what felt like 20 straight hours of weird fever dreams, all set to the music you use in your videos. And now when I watch your videos my brain gets kinda nervous lol
    Ok starting the video now love your stuff, worth pushing through a fever for

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      I...I don't know what to say. I became the source of torment, and then later entertainment. I can agree, a fever dream set to "Fuzzball Parade" would be awful.

    • @chuukasoba
      @chuukasoba 2 месяца назад

      @@Good.Nuff.Gaming not your fault at all... Just don't let it happen again! 😉

  • @Zeitgeyst
    @Zeitgeyst 2 месяца назад +2

    The scout says "deploy them and then place them anywhere 12" from that (where they were placed). So no movement, just placement, after deploy them last. I have to read it several times to get it... it was pointed out in the discord and the text maybe clarified for everyones benefit

  • @kurtl8425
    @kurtl8425 2 месяца назад +2

    As it’s making vehicle units less effective shouldn’t system damage and degradation also include a points reduction for vehicles?

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +1

      That's a good point. I'd say yes, but since it's an advanced rule it won't be auto-reflected in the Army Forge.

  • @masterwilliam8704
    @masterwilliam8704 2 месяца назад +40

    I came to OPR to get away from GW. I am worried the influx of GW players only want OPR to be discount 40k. OPR should be trying to separate themselves from GW as much as possible. I believe OPR biggest strength is the vast army possibilities you can have, not shadowing GW not only the armies but the list and units. OPR should be focusing on the Army Forge and the ability to create your own factions.

    • @TheOtakuKat
      @TheOtakuKat 2 месяца назад +7

      Being a little too fearmongery aren't we?

    • @PostProteusKitten
      @PostProteusKitten 2 месяца назад +4

      Sooo... you wanna gatekeep people that got here same way you did?

    • @RobotTanuki
      @RobotTanuki 2 месяца назад +8

      I gotta be honest, I play OPR precisely because I can play a game using my 40k minis and pretend to be in the 40k universe without requiring 5 hours to play a standard sized game whilst having the honour of paying $200 for the rules and cards that, at worst, is outdated in 2 months.
      If OPR were to say "Our universe is totally original and we got rid of anything remotely close to 40k", I'm out. And I think OPR knows it will crash.
      I would instead propose Nexus Wargaming's route and say, if anything, OPR should make their rules for units CLOSER to 40k lore. For example, right now anything Terminators are pants, and they should make the 'Destroyers' function more like Termies in 40k, with both the shock offensiveness and also the resilience to go with it. This will make people disappointed in 40k join OPR more and more.
      Players will eventually search and grab game-agnostic models or 3d print miniatures, but they can't do that if they don't take the first step in trying a different game system, even if it means they are playing what is effectively "40k with alternate activation".

    • @RahkiantheMighty
      @RahkiantheMighty 2 месяца назад +3

      Saying you went to OPR to get away from GW is like saying you don't like a bar so you're leaving, only to stand outside the bar and continue drinking. Most people play OPR to use their GW minis in a cleaner more static ruleset. That is the target audience. You want to get away from GW go play xenos Rampant or something.

    • @SuperDuperHappyTime
      @SuperDuperHappyTime 2 месяца назад +1

      So you got away from GW for OPR, and are afraid of other people who are trying to get away from GW?
      Roll that ladder back down, you’re your group’s That Guy.

  • @brunofrance4776
    @brunofrance4776 2 месяца назад +2

    It'd be interesting if they did a community vote before adding new rules. There have been a few big rules changes that I think were not for the better of the game.

    • @kurtl8425
      @kurtl8425 2 месяца назад +1

      99% these new rules are optional (actually when you think about it every rule is optional) and the rules are always subject to change during a player feedback period.

  • @JetPantherCrispy
    @JetPantherCrispy 2 месяца назад

    I am most hype for boarding actions. having a concise way to play that with non regular players is going to be so dope.

  • @oldschoolonline8871
    @oldschoolonline8871 16 дней назад

    Good stuff - 'nuff said!

  • @lagnath
    @lagnath 2 месяца назад +2

    Its just personal but i disagree on the melee engagement range. It says charging models must move into b2b or as close as possible. It says nothing about needing the range to theoretically reach b2b.

  • @electricboogie8920
    @electricboogie8920 2 месяца назад

    For remembering to do things inbetween rounds like random events etc, you could just have a piece of paper with the few things you need to do written down like a "reminder checklist" I know this might seem tedious but it's fairly straightforward

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      Absolutely. My problem is I'd forget to look at the list.

  • @zraal3759
    @zraal3759 2 месяца назад

    I like the spirit of the chnage tk ambush, but would make a few changes with some being similar to what you suggested. The base line rule name changed to to flanking and would behave as described, but instead of 6" it would be the distance the unit can move. To make it more like the unit just walked onto the battlefield. Additional other rules added to modify or replace this flanking rule like you suggested. For example, the existing tunneling rule pretty much keep as is and something similar for units that come down on the battlefield called some thing like Descend. Or, a general rule that covers the same concept with a more generic name to keep from duplicating rules. A fully new rule called Ambush that allows for flanking but from terrain pieces. To simulate the vanguard units getting setup b3fore battle and jumping out at the right moment, a vampire's shadow walk, etc. Though, would need a limitation, so maybe only a terrain pieces over 12 inches from enemy models?

  • @mitchellsink2584
    @mitchellsink2584 2 месяца назад +1

    As a player, is there a way to get in touch with the developers. I have a couple of things I would like to tell them. Like a need to clarify or re-word unite abilities because there are some things I don't know how they work. Like Hidden Paths for the Jackel faction. Is it half your WHOLE army or half the models in the unite that the model is a part of.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +2

      You can go to their discord. I think there's a feedback channel.

    • @mitchellsink2584
      @mitchellsink2584 2 месяца назад

      @Good.Nuff.Gaming thank you. I'm very new to wargaming, so a lot of the terminology is lacking for me.

  • @caspion82
    @caspion82 2 месяца назад

    Hi, really good video. Can I ask a question? I couldn't find an answer, or maybe I was just too stupid to understand. Scouts for the age of fantasy workingyou how ? You can deploy unit 12 from your deployment zone or 12 from enemy army? Musician gave ×1 to move, but it is working when you rush or charge ? If yes, that gave us +1 or +2 when you charge.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +1

      That's one things that was missing from the new book. I think scout is 12" from your deployment zone. For the musician, it's +1 to any move action, and advance, rush, and charge are all considered move actions, so it applies to all 3, but it's only +1 to each, so for a typical unit it's 7" move and 13" rush and charge.

    • @caspion82
      @caspion82 2 месяца назад

      ​@Good.Nuff.Gaming great thank you for responding. That helps me a lot. I just play a couple of games and am still learning.

  • @ironknight132
    @ironknight132 2 месяца назад +4

    Skirmish and Regiments are the neglected children of OPR. Skirmish armies seem forced to take max models to be competitive due to how hard it is to knock out models, which adds to the silliness of rounding points to a '5' when you only have 250 or 350 to work with...

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +1

      Maybe the new Shaken penalty to wounding will help with the knock out issue. And that's a good point that 5 points for gear isn't much in a 2k point game, but in 300 it's a big difference.

    • @ironknight132
      @ironknight132 2 месяца назад

      @@Good.Nuff.Gaming it’s still weight of activations, if it’s insta kill or roll as normal the effect is minimal because it cuts both ways. Quality needs to have an effect on the roll or else quantity will always have a strong advantage.

  • @Dmitriy_8791
    @Dmitriy_8791 2 месяца назад

    6:37 - почему бы не добавить домашнее правило: выставлять модели на игровую доску "волнами" в определенных местах со своей стороны поля или сразу все выставить (как в шахматах)?

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      Relying on Chat GPT to translate here: Существуют миссии с таким развертыванием. Вы определенно можете добавить домашнее правило, что все миссии будут играться таким образом

  • @jamesreid6778
    @jamesreid6778 2 месяца назад +3

    The game (gdf) doesnt have facings... Doesnt matter if its looking in the right direction... There is no right direction to begine with. Aircraft works as intended. It's an Advance action that has to move in a straight line. Its not that hard.
    Edit: Now that I think about it, the confusion probably came about due the the wording of the old aircraft rules which talked about turning...the only place it ever talked about such a thing. And even then that's more a statement on the old ruling not making sense then the new one. as it should have instead said something along the lines of "move in the same direction as last time" to stay consistent.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      I can see now how I was reading more into it than was intended, but I still think the wording needs to be adjusted.

  • @alocascio5825
    @alocascio5825 2 месяца назад +10

    Aircrafts were the beginning of the end for WH back in 5th edition. Aircrafts should not be modeled, they should be represented by special rules like a called in air support attack or deep strike deployment (e.g. paratroops)

    • @Dmitriy_8791
      @Dmitriy_8791 2 месяца назад

      Добавьте "гномский вертолёт" (как в игре "Военное ремесло 3"): 1) можно бомбить; 2) можно высадить десант; 3) нельзя скинуть парашютистов с вертолёта; 4) можно вести обстрел; 5) можно маневрировать (до 36 дюймов), но не стоит делать огромные модели - просто обозначить маленький забавный вертолёт (на подставке до 40 мм).

    • @SabreXT
      @SabreXT 2 месяца назад

      Agreed. Or they should be limited to things like helicopters.

  • @BluelineBattlesports
    @BluelineBattlesports 2 месяца назад

    Honestly I don’t care for much of the advanced rules. I got into OPR specifically for the simplicity of it. Easier to play solo, easier to play if you have limited time, etc. When I want to play 40K or AoS, I do. OPR was my go to for a light experience

  • @longmeaderulez
    @longmeaderulez 2 месяца назад +5

    OPR is quickly losing their whole value prop by trying too hard to be a carbon copy of GW games... Prime example, aircraft. There should just be NO aircraft in OPR, simple as that. Instead of just speedrunning the mistakes GW made over many years after introducing them.

    • @Dram1984
      @Dram1984 2 месяца назад

      Aircraft in miniature games at this scale are just grade-a dumb.

    • @Wanstreisser
      @Wanstreisser 2 месяца назад +2

      I like the way NetEA deals with Aircraft. When the Aircraft is activated you can deploy it on a table edge, then it moves straight to the other end of the battlefield. While it moves it can shoot all it's weapons to targets in range, and get reaction shoots from nearby units with anti-air weapons. After the activation the Aircraft goes back to reserve.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +1

      I've heard others than say aircraft should be reduced to the way they are in FoW or Team Yankee - they are treated like a special rule or environmental hazard rather than a moving piece. You could bring a model that's a radio operator, give it a "airstrike" ability that give an A1, AP2, Blast (3) attack that's indirect. Same idea, no need for a model.

  • @grognardgaming8952
    @grognardgaming8952 2 месяца назад +5

    I was a HUGE OPR fan just a couple of years ago but after a couple of wonky rules sets and some less than stellar model lines, compounded by their inability to listen to the community, Ive gone kinda meh over the last year or so. The quality all around seems to be suffering as they are having problems with either scaling or mission creep. A LOT of us came to play a simple rules set with all our old Warhammer armies and maybe some new ones. Im not looking to move away from GW lore and armies, frankly OPRs lore is pretty silly and takes away from the game for me so I just ignore it. My point being they should have stuck to their original vision and not tried to create a whole new thing most of us aren't interested in, it's pulling attention and resources from the things we are interested in, like clear and simple rules, balanced armies and quality stls.

  • @SabreXT
    @SabreXT 2 месяца назад

    If OPR is going to continue stealing from GW, I think they should look back at older stuff people liked. City Fight/Cities of Death, Apocalypse, the jungle rules from the Catachan codex. I'm also far from the first person to suggest they should try to port the Poorhammer Horde Mode rules to OPR.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      Seeing how much they added here it's entirely possible those might be added in future editions.

  • @mjolasgard2533
    @mjolasgard2533 2 месяца назад +1

    7776 combos.... >.>

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      WHAT! they couldn't come up with ONE MORE! Do you know what that's doing to my OCD right now?!

  • @stephenphilp8222
    @stephenphilp8222 2 месяца назад

    When I first read 3.4.0 my immediate thought was the tail is getting too big for the dog... The rules need to be split between Basic, Advanced and Narrative. I also think that none of the rule changes have been play tested effectively. These should be slapped into beta and given to the community via Patreon for comment for a month before they're published. I can see version 3.4.1 coming soon with some fixes the same way that 3.3.0 to 3.3.1 was done. It effectively does the same thing but looks shabby, unprofessional and lacks forethought. The rules are also disjointed specifically because they keep cherry picking from other rulesets and shoehorning them into OPR rulesets. OPR really need to start making their own mark and as you say - go their own way.

    • @Woodthorn
      @Woodthorn 2 месяца назад +1

      This is a test version released for public testing. From the Patch Notes: "Today we are releasing a our 'test in progress' version publicly, and the plan is to leave it as is for 3-4 weeks, to catch as many small mistakes as we can with the help of our community. Then we will take that feedback, fix all typos and unclear sentences, and release a 'final' version of the rules at the end of October, which will remain unchanged until September 2025."

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      I was a bit surprised when I saw some of the features added. Some, like Endless Spells, weren't a big hit when they his AoS (at least not in my local community), so I was surprised that OPR ported them over.

    • @stephenphilp8222
      @stephenphilp8222 2 месяца назад

      @@Woodthorn fair enough. I do read the patch notes but there were quite a few and I may have missed this. However, the fact that this is a test (prerelease) version should have been stated clearly by OPR within the 3.4.0 rulesets as well as a posting a clear route for feedback and comments. Calling it 3.4.0 is also misleading - it looks like a major release.
      Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of what's being proposed but I think it needs a bit more thought during release. Especially for me as I'm trying to wean certain people off another game system to OPR and it can be confusing when they pick up the rules from the website only to be told those are test versions but they are the only version available...
      If there's a beta version being tested for release (and that what 3.4.0 appears to be) then the current rules should remain available front and centre. They're not.

  • @janwawrzik2856
    @janwawrzik2856 2 месяца назад

    Twists and Gambits are blatantly 'inspired' by GWs Spearhead AOS game.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад

      I remember them from the 8th edition cards. They worked a bit differently. Twists were environmental hazards that affected both players, and gambits were special missions for the underdog in the fight to win a sudden victory. I've haven't played the new AoS spearhead. What do they do in there? Same thing?

    • @gonarsan
      @gonarsan 2 месяца назад

      Twists are part of Warcry, too

    • @janwawrzik2856
      @janwawrzik2856 2 месяца назад

      @@gonarsan good to know, i wasnt aware of that :-)

    • @janwawrzik2856
      @janwawrzik2856 2 месяца назад

      In spearhead twists are effects which add a different spin on the current game round by modifiers on environment or played units. If a player is the underdog they are mostly to the underdogs benefit.

  • @wolfofthewest8019
    @wolfofthewest8019 18 дней назад

    I would definitely prefer Grimdark Future continue to be closely linked to 40k and would lose interest if it became too much of its own thing. Grimdark Future lets me play 40k with my friends as a relaxed, beer and pretzels game. It feels like 40k without the constant rules headaches and new-model-meta. If it stops being a vehicle to justify my continued purchase of stupid expensive GW models, then it becomes useless to me. I literally don't know anyone who plays with anything but 40k models and 40k lore, completely ignoring any lore in the books (which is pretty generic pap).

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  17 дней назад +1

      That's how I'm coming to enjoy it - OPR rules, but 40k setting.

  • @ryanphillips5126
    @ryanphillips5126 2 месяца назад

    FIRST!!!
    Also, been loving your videos. Hoping you'll be returning to Fantasy with your Dwarfs soon.

    • @Good.Nuff.Gaming
      @Good.Nuff.Gaming  2 месяца назад +2

      I definitely hope to, but with only 3-4 batreps a month and 5+ OPR games it takes a while to cycle through. Plus the demand for the other games is a bit bigger.

  • @phillipdoe7967
    @phillipdoe7967 2 месяца назад +1

    First comment baby

  • @samthompson2980
    @samthompson2980 2 месяца назад +1

    love these updates Thanks :)