The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed
The Order of the Stick: Utterly Dwarfed - Coming in December and available for pre-order now
Page 2 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111227 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1472
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Destro_Yersul's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    sector ZZ9 plural-z alpha
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    ...Then you aren't talking about what I'm talking about. If your 'combo deck' ever won, then your idea was a good idea and it has merit. You won games built around a combo you found interesting. You noticed some mechanics that interacted well, and you utilised them.

    What was the purpose of the combo? If the combo gave yourself an advantage, or your opponent a disadvantage, you were playing to win. Stupidly, maybe, depending on the combo. But I guarantee you that the purpose of the combo wasn't to make you lose games. Losing may have been a possible - or even expected - outcome. But it certainly wasn't the intent.
    There were a lot. One of them drew the entire deck, killing the opponent in the process. One generated arbitrarily large amounts of mana. One generated ludicrous numbers of 1/1 tokens. One tried to cheat huge monsters into play.

    One of them had no real win condition. It was just a card I thought was cool, and a deck built around getting to play that card so I could warp the fabric of the big mutliplayer games we liked to do at the time. It wasn't built to try and lose, but it wasn't really built to try and win, either. I don't think it ever did win. Not that I really wanted it to. If I lost, or won, either way the game was over and I had to stop having fun with my card.
    Last edited by Destro_Yersul; 2019-05-19 at 06:42 AM.
    I do LP's sometimes! I'm currently on hiatus for college purposes.

    My Youtube Channel

    The rest of my Sig:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Avatar by Vael

    My Games:
    The Great Divide Dark Heresy - Finished
    They All Uprose Dark Heresy - Finished
    Dead in the Water Dark Heresy - Finished
    House of Glass Dark Heresy - Deceased

    We All Fall Down Dark Heresy - Ongoing

    Sea of Stars Rogue Trader - Ongoing

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Cheesegear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Destro_Yersul View Post
    One of them had no real win condition. It was just a card I thought was cool, and a deck built around getting to play that card so I could warp the fabric of the big mutliplayer games we liked to do at the time. It wasn't built to try and lose, but it wasn't really built to try and win, either. I don't think it ever did win. Not that I really wanted it to. If I lost, or won, either way the game was over and I had to stop having fun with my card.
    So, basically, you created a new objective for yourself; "Play the card."
    That's a fairly objective goal. It may not necessarily be the aim of the game (i.e; Make your opponent lose). But it's still a tangible goal, and you built your deck around making it happen. What you didn't do, was build the deck around not making it happen.

    That is still very, very different from the extremely nebulous and subjective goal, 'Have fun.'


    Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?
    Steam Name: Cheesegear
    League of Legends Name: Cheesegear
    You can fight like a krogan or run like a leopard but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard.


    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Destro_Yersul's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    sector ZZ9 plural-z alpha
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?
    After the earlier discussion, I went looking for pictures of them that weren't the GW studio minis. I found a bunch on CMON that I actually really liked, and decided that the problem wasn't the models, it was the way GW had painted them. I looked around at some painting tutorials people had done. Then I went and read through all of the fluff sections in the new codex, to see what their deal was and why they were around. Then I decided that a unit of them might be fun to paint, and would give me some variety. I've still got Rubrics, but now I also have Tzaangors. Currently I'm trying to figure out what colour I should paint their tabards in order to fit them in with my army fluff.

    Also, I've never liked doing complete proxies, probably because of the old WYSIWYG thing. Which means that if I want to try some out and see how they work, I need to buy them.
    Last edited by Destro_Yersul; 2019-05-19 at 07:04 AM.
    I do LP's sometimes! I'm currently on hiatus for college purposes.

    My Youtube Channel

    The rest of my Sig:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Avatar by Vael

    My Games:
    The Great Divide Dark Heresy - Finished
    They All Uprose Dark Heresy - Finished
    Dead in the Water Dark Heresy - Finished
    House of Glass Dark Heresy - Deceased

    We All Fall Down Dark Heresy - Ongoing

    Sea of Stars Rogue Trader - Ongoing

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Manticoran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    So, basically, you created a new objective for yourself; "Play the card."
    That's a fairly objective goal. It may not necessarily be the aim of the game (i.e; Make your opponent lose). But it's still a tangible goal, and you built your deck around making it happen. What you didn't do, was build the deck around not making it happen.

    That is still very, very different from the extremely nebulous and subjective goal, 'Have fun.'


    Which begs the question; Why did you go out and buy Tzaangors? Why not stick with Rubrics?

    Cheese, how do you feel about things like tribal decks in mtg?

    Back when I was playing competitively, I'd have my good decks that won games... And then I'd have my "this desk is not going to win" decks that were for doing something like being all elves at a time elves were bad, or repeatedly blowing up everything to the point where the deck couldn't win really, it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)

    Obviously for no one is losing a goal. But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing. So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun. And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players, as they're not really playing the same game.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Cheesegear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Manticoran View Post
    it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)
    ...You know a concession counts as a win, right? The winner in that scenario would simply be the one who doesn't deck out first.

    But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing.
    Great. What are those goals?

    So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun.
    Which is meaningless.

    "My goal is to have fun."
    Great. How?
    Define the steps you're going to take to achieve your goal.

    Destro pointed out the way he won. By objectively playing his card. It doesn't matter whether he wins or loses the game. He wins, personally, when he plays the card.
    I appreciate that answer very much.

    When is something not fun?

    And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players
    Why? If nobody is actively trying to lose, then both players, by default, should be trying to win.
    Why would it be awkward?

    Unless what you're saying, is that it's awkward because one player has no chance of winning regardless of what they do, and if you can't win, why play?
    Last edited by Cheesegear; 2019-05-19 at 08:19 AM.
    Steam Name: Cheesegear
    League of Legends Name: Cheesegear
    You can fight like a krogan or run like a leopard but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard.


    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Orc in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Manticoran View Post
    Cheese, how do you feel about things like tribal decks in mtg?

    Back when I was playing competitively, I'd have my good decks that won games... And then I'd have my "this desk is not going to win" decks that were for doing something like being all elves at a time elves were bad, or repeatedly blowing up everything to the point where the deck couldn't win really, it just also tended to not lose (people tended to quit at the point both players had no cards in hand and nothing on the field, including lands.)

    Obviously for no one is losing a goal. But in a lot of situations, the way people have fun is by setting their own goals that have nothing to do with winning or losing. So I find that's usually what people mean when they say their goal is to have fun. And if a player whose goal is winning shows up, it gets kind of awkward for both players, as they're not really playing the same game.
    Except that's more Redefining what Winning is. Its setting your own win state, then working to that effect.
    There's the classic "achieve the games stated objective" and there's "set your own goal of what winning is, then work to that". In that list of games posted before of "no win state" all of them you go in with a thing you want/plan to do, or a point you try to reach, and you judge if you did well by if you achieved that state. Even Dwarf Fortress, you go into it to make the fort last as long as you can, or to do a particular thing with this fort. "Winning" in a "losing is fun" game is more about how able you are to postpone that losing. "If this fort lasts longer then the last one" or "If i can set up this strategy" or any other things you may plan to do with a fort, if you can achieve a personally stated goal, you are Winning. The example of building a combo deck, the actual Winning of that deck is to pull off the combo, that's a personal stated Win State, and you don't build a combo deck, then try to not do the combo.
    So again, you don't go into a thing, then try to "lose". You go in with a predefined notion of winning, whether that's achieving the stated goals of the game or a personal goal for this particular session, and do your best to achieve said thing. "I play for fun" doesn't mean you have absolutely no goal, it just means you have a goal that isn't listed in the mission rules and you are still working to achieve it. Like, "I want to try this unit" and then not taking that unit is directly playing to lose your own personal goal. If you take the unit, and have fun, you won, so thus you played to win, in your own personal way.
    So yes, making a fun combo deck, or trying a not that great unit in 40k is still playing to win, just your own personal state of winning. But when talking about games in general, its far easier to use a blanket definition of what winning is, so people look to the core rules of the game. Each person goes into a game to win, in their own way, but when talking of "how to win at this game" its far easier to go with the stated win state in the rule set then tell people "find your own win state". And if you go in with your personal win state, then achieve the games stated win state too, bonus. Its also possible you achieve the games win state without achieving your personal win state and that's when you can feel you had a hollow victory as you didn't win by your personal goals.
    Point is, everyone plays to win, but each persons win state can be different. And actively trying to avoid your personal win state is something no one ever does.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Cheesegear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Saambell View Post
    Point is, everyone plays to win, but each persons win state can be different. And actively trying to avoid your personal win state is something no one ever does.
    That's where the problem is. No two players will have the same win state - except for both players playing by the rules, and trying to win the game, as written. The problem is when one player has decided what the game is, in their own head, outside of the rulebook, that the other player couldn't possibly comprehend (e.g; A player arbitrarily refusing to play anyone with a Red Deck Wins deck).

    This is where I have an issue with Avaris' statement, that the game needs to focus on something other than winning. Like what? You mean like Golden Daemon, where the focus is on hobby? But the win condition for Golden Daemon, is still 'be the best painter', and if you can't paint, why did you even bother entering? Golden Daemon is definitely something you 'win and lose at', and it's purely about hobby. I don't understand what other goal for the game that there can be, other than winning. Either you win, or you don't. What's the middle ground? ...Well, inb4 Draws, I guess.
    ...Unless Avaris' point is that human behaviour is ****ed. Why is winning better than losing? And why can't people just lose all the time and be happy about it? Why can't people just be happy that their army sucks? ...But I don't think that is his point.

    Goof'd hard. That wasn't Avaris' point at all. Sorry Thread.

    But let's say you do have a personal goal? A personal win state:
    Do you win, personally, when 3x20 <Alpha Legion> Berzerkers all make their Turn 1 Charges? If you've already won - in your own head - why keep playing Turn 2 onwards? If your 60 Berzerkers don't make their T1 Charges, have you already lost? Do you concede?

    The game needs to focus on Narrative? Cool. I play Narrative battles all the time. How many VPs can I score before the Gretchin horde wipes me out through sheer attrition? If I score more VPs than the Orks do, the Space Marines win gloriously. If the Orks score more than I do, then it's a defeat for the Imperium this day!
    ...Just kidding. That's a normal Matched Play Space Marines vs. Orks game in the current meta.

    I understand where Destro is coming from, with his combo deck. But, with his own personal win condition, I also have to point out that he's not playing the same game as everyone else, because 'his part in the game' is effectively over once he plays his combo - whether he wins or loses.

    ...How do you play that kind of game, when everyone's win condition is different? How do you have online discussions when no-one is on the same page? That's why the online discussions focus on it. 'Cause playing competitively is the same for everyone.
    If you want to optimise your D&D character, go to the internet.
    If you don't want to optimise your character, how hard is it, really, to just play what you want?

    How do you play a game, where 'fun' is subjective, and someone playing by the rules can be ostracized for playing by the rules?
    Last edited by Cheesegear; 2019-05-19 at 09:57 AM.
    Steam Name: Cheesegear
    League of Legends Name: Cheesegear
    You can fight like a krogan or run like a leopard but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard.


    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Manticoran's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    This is where I have an issue with Avaris' statement, that the game needs to focus on something other than winning. Like what? You mean like Golden Daemon, where the focus is on hobby? I don't understand what other goal for the game that there can be, other than winning. Either you win, or you don't. What's the middle ground? ...Well, inb4 Draws, I guess.
    ...Unless Avaris' point is that human behaviour is ****ed. Why is winning better than losing? And why can't people just lose all the time and be happy about it? Why can't people just be happy that their army sucks? ...But I don't think that is his point.
    This sort of thing is a large part of why I personally donít think 40k is at all a good system for players who play with winning as their primary concern (to use Magic the Gathering archetypes, the Spikes: Iím not saying winning isnít important to anyone else, but it isnít necessarily the focus), and clearly it isnít a focus for GW designers either. Though given the Spike crowd is a large part of the community, they should try to improve in this regard.
    I think the above statement is what you're talking about? And I don't think that's what Avaris said. I think Avaris said that they think GW is currently focusing on something other than winning in a lot of their design decisions, and they need to do MORE focusing on the game winning as a state, i/e cater to the Spikes more?

    Otherwise why would we get new models that suck?

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Orc in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Manticoran View Post
    I think the above statement is what you're talking about? And I don't think that's what Avaris said. I think Avaris said that they think GW is currently focusing on something other than winning in a lot of their design decisions, and they need to do MORE focusing on the game winning as a state, i/e cater to the Spikes more?

    Otherwise why would we get new models that suck?
    Yeah, I think what Avaris's trouble is, is hes still focused on "Win by the Game Rules" as what winning is, yet keeps talking of playing for fun where hes trying to win by way of his personal goals. And his line there is him saying he thinks GW keeps trying to shape the game as a "win by your own goals" yet markets as "win by the rules of the game". That's the issue I feel. He likes the "Win by Personal Goals" and thinks Games Workshop is designing to that end, and hes saying they keep trying to market to the "Win by Game Rules" and the people who only think of games that way will never be happy.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Cheesegear's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    I'm pretty sure I misread or straight up didn't read a key sentence in one of Avaris' posts. He wasn't talking about playing to win. He was talking about designers not designing their game for players who want to win. Now that I know what he was trying to say 'cause I went back and read it...I disagree.

    ...Ah well, the conversation has progressed way too far from that point. Still, everything I said about players playing to win still stands. Even if it turns out that I wasn't even talking about what Avaris was talking about. I was talking about what Destro was talking about.
    ****.
    Oops. Sorry Thread. I goof'd real hard. I'll stop now.
    Derailed on the first page. Is that a record?

    ...





    If we're saying that people who want to win, shouldn't play 40K, because the game in inherently unbalanced. Then...No. Because 8th Ed. trends towards balance.

    Most points adjustments trend downwards - buffs - because units aren't as good as the designers thought they were in the meta.
    Most rules adjustments trend towards nerfs, because particular units and armies aren't intended to interact with the rules in the way that they...Do.

    I think if you want to win games, then 40K is a good game. GW trends towards balance...Eventually. You should get a good game against most players who aren't intentionally taking the worst units in the game, or players running cutting-edge net-lists that are ahead of the nerf curve. You will almost always have a chance of winning if you even remotely play to your Factions' strengths, and use Allies which are an intended part of the game. (Unless you're Necrons or Grey Knights. )
    This is why Chaos Daemons weren't nerfed into oblivion, despite placing several times at Adepticon. They're working as intended, without being broken (though I'm still not certain that Plaguebearers with -1 to hit, 5+ Invulnerable, 5+ Ignore Wounds is intended...Though, to be fair, they are slow and do take Morale tests). Whilst Knight Castellans were not working as intended.

    By adding Guardsmen into my Space Marines' list. I've started winning a lot more games. I read that GW intends for Guardsmen to remain at 4 Points each, and I read that GW intends that <Imperium> armies should have Guardsmen in them. Once I stopped fighting what GW clearly wants me to do, I started winning games with Space Marines.

    If you want to WAAC, then you're likely going to be SooL, because GW tends to hard nerf the things that you're likely to buy. Though, to be fair, you've probably got around six months of 'fun time'...If you get the Codex or model the day of release.

    If you're a casual...GW markets towards you. But arguably in the worst way possible, in a way that doesn't reflect your likely player-base at all. People like winning, and as such will design their lists to win or at the very least, 'not lose'. Your 'one of everything' or 'fluffy and balanced list' approach that GW convinces you is the way to build your army, is likely to lose you several games in a row with no chance of improvement. Especially because of how you win the game, doesn't actually line up with certain models' strengths (if they have any strengths at all ), and as such, those models are useless insofar as the game is concerned.
    Last edited by Cheesegear; 2019-05-19 at 10:19 AM.
    Steam Name: Cheesegear
    League of Legends Name: Cheesegear
    You can fight like a krogan or run like a leopard but you'll never be better than Commander Shepard.


    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Anuan View Post
    Cheesegear; Lovable Thesaurus ItP.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lycan 01 View Post
    Cheesegear, have I told you yet that you're awesome?
    Quote Originally Posted by MeatShield#236 View Post
    ALL HAIL LORD CHEESEGEAR! Cheese for the cheesegear!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shas'aia Toriia View Post
    Cheesegear is awesome

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Durham, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Cheesegear View Post
    I'm pretty sure I misread or straight up didn't read a key sentence in one of Avaris' posts. He wasn't talking about playing to win. He was talking about designers not designing their game for players who want to win. Now that I know what he was trying to say 'cause I went back and read it...I disagree.

    ...Ah well, the conversation has progressed way too far from that point. Still, everything I said about players playing to win still stands. Even if it turns out that I wasn't even talking about what Avaris was talking about. I was talking about what Destro was talking about.
    ****.
    Oops. Sorry Thread. I goof'd real hard. I'll stop now.
    Derailed on the first page. Is that a record?

    ...

    Just to say, thank you for acknowledging that you misinterpreted my point! You are completely right that I have previously argued about playing to win, so it's an understandable goof to make!

    The point I was trying to discuss was that the designers are poor at designing their game for people who want to play at a tournament level with strangers because that isn't their personal focus (not 'playing to win', you rightly say everyone is trying that in some way). They mostly don't participate in that scene, so their metric of what is necessary for it is skewed. They don't have a rule for whether you can draw line of sight from a banner peaking over the top of a building because to them there are a lot of unwritten rules to how they play, such that it doesn't even cross their mind to do so.

    This is a problem, given there is a fairly thriving tournament scene, and while 8th is definitely tending towards balance it still has weaknesses in this regard. As an interesting contrast to Age of Sigmar, in AoS design studio they have a clear templating document, so that when they want to write a new rule they look at how they worded it last time and stick with that to avoid ambiguity. This is why AoS has far more 'unmodified roll of a 6' type thing. I'm willing to bet that when writing the plasma rules for example the 40k designers never even considered what happens with +1 to hit, or interactions with re-rolls. They meant 'unmodified roll of a 1', but they didn't write that, and later when they realised they needed to they couldn't go back and change it.

    So for me I can think 'great', this is an interesting game, I understand it, and I follow my intuition on how the rules 'should' work because I've got a similar mindset to the game designers. But I can almost guarantee that I play the game wrong by the rules, because the little interactions which are vitally important in trying to eke out every advantage for victory simply don't occur to me or my opponent. And this is a massive problem, because it means that if I go to a tournament or whatever I'm more likely to have a negative experience because I make mistakes or feel my opponent isn't playing by the spirit of the rules. The way to fix this is to ensure the letter matches the spirit, as people at tournaments absolutely should be playing by the letter of the rules, but I'm not convinced GW has the skillset to do this at present.
    Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DataNinja's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Avaris View Post
    I'm willing to bet that when writing the plasma rules for example the 40k designers never even considered what happens with +1 to hit, or interactions with re-rolls. They meant 'unmodified roll of a 1', but they didn't write that, and later when they realised they needed to they couldn't go back and change it.
    I mean, in theory, isn't that what errata is for? "We wrote all this stuff under the interpretation of this rule, but didn't notice it actually reads differently, so here's how it's actually supposed to read."

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Forum Explorer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Avaris View Post
    The problem is that one personís common sense is another personís clear abuse of the system.
    To elaborate, by common sense it's: 'could I see this model if it was modeled correctly? Yes? then I can see it. Can I only see the extra completely optional doo-hicky hanging off the top? Yes? Then I can't see it.'

    My win condition is often basically to have a close game. Which is pretty hard to define. Basically a game where I have to try to win I suppose. Or perhaps I'd call it a game where I have a decent chance of losing.
    Spoiler: I'm a writer!
    Show
    Spoiler: Check out my fanfiction[URL="https://www.fanfiction.net/u/7493788/Forum-Explorer"
    Show
    here[/URL]
    ]Fate Stay Nano: Fate Stay Night x Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha

    I Fell in Love with a Storm: MLP

    Procrastination: MLP



    Spoiler: Original Fiction
    Show
    The Lost Dragon: A story about a priest who finds a baby dragon in his church and decides to protect them.



  14. - Top - End - #44
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Durham, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by DataNinja View Post
    I mean, in theory, isn't that what errata is for? "We wrote all this stuff under the interpretation of this rule, but didn't notice it actually reads differently, so here's how it's actually supposed to read."
    In theory yes, but I suspect that it's the sort of thing they're unwilling to blanket errata to the extent it is necessary. It isn't game breaking, it's just not what they planned, and passes across many different codexes in order to fix it. The fallout from printing such errata would probably be more than it is worth.
    Evil round every corner, careful not to step in any.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    At this point I'll just pipe up and say that while, yes, I play to win, I play to win using my army, not some other army that did well at the last ITC major. Yeah, pre-nerf I could have bought a Knight Castellan and perhaps done better, but that's not the point. I play Imperial Guard, and I play Imperial Guard to win. That's fine this edition (though not as good as Imperial Soup; I say again look at ITC tournament results posted after they changed faction reporting requirements to see what I mean), but I did the same thing in 7th and 6th. I won a lot less then, but I didn't swap armies to Eldar jetbike spam or a Space Marine Gladius because that's not the point. Doing "everything I can to win" would include buying the latest and greatest OP stuff and optimizing detachments to support it. Does that make me a scrub by the definition of competitive fighting games? Sure does; I'm consciously choosing not to use certain combos because of personal taste, but I'm still making an honest attempt to win with tanks and guns.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  16. - Top - End - #46
    Troll in the Playground
     
    bluntpencil's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Ho Chi Minh City
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    I had a fun game on Friday with my Deathwatch.

    We called it a draw because my buddy had to go, but it was great fun and I learned a lot.

    1. Going second is great if you intentionally deploy all your guys out of the enemy's movement + range.
    2. It's even better when you've positioned Teleport Homers forward (but not too far forward), so your cowardly deployment becomes a counter-attack.
    3. Beacon Angelis is amazing, as it's easy to drop a jump packer down and have him move to some place to drag storm bolters forward.
    4. Deathwatch Bikes, whilst good shooters, decent in melee, and can have their Sgt tank lascannon shots on his shield... are very fragile in comparison to the mixed save Veteran squads, and therefore draw all the fire and promptly die.
    5. The nerf to Bolter Discipline was, honestly, a good decision, but not crippling, when teleportation is used effectively.
    6. Chaplain Dreadnoughts are okay. Not great, but they don't get shot and can therefore lay down anti-armour shots, or get in folks' faces to punch them.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    The shop I run for wants me to try to run a Kill Team tournament. I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced. That said, any ideas on how to do it? I'm kind of inclined to ban the Commanders supplement on the grounds that a lot of HQ units are radically unbalanced at extremely low points levels, but even aside from that, the sheer amount of content that's locked inside boxed sets (stratagems, etc) makes it very hard for me to know what to do. I'm not going to even think about finalizing rules until the Elites supplement is in my hands next week, but pending that, I'm willing to take suggestions.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    For us Commander is an auto-ban. Not sure about Elites yet.

    We focused on asimetric missions that where flavorful but sort of balanced, varied and huge focus on terrain variability and interaction, to set it apart from 40k. We used the NOVA Open rules GW put out as a guideline.

    As for the stuff 'locked' in boxed sets, we went with just rulebook tactics for everyone. If the store wants to give an edge to those who bought stuff thats a valid aproach, but it also risks bad feels from those whose faction doesnt even have a boxed set they can buy.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    We don't have much incentive to give advantage to people who bought boxed sets, since they certainly didn't buy them from us. (I tried to get the Imperial Guard/Storm Troopers starter back when the game was new and GW didn't allocate us any copies; pretty sure everyone else is in the same boat.) We have gotten and sold a couple of Killzone expansions, but I'm inclined to ban those simply because not every table is going to cater to any given Killzone.

    I'm willing to consider Elites simply because it's introducing faction traits to Kill Team, which I like. If Custodes or something looks like it'll completely dominate the game, though, I'll reluctantly ban it.
    Last edited by Renegade Paladin; 2019-05-19 at 08:52 PM.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  20. - Top - End - #50
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin View Post
    We don't have much incentive to give advantage to people who bought boxed sets, since they certainly didn't buy them from us. (I tried to get the Imperial Guard/Storm Troopers starter back when the game was new and GW didn't allocate us any copies; pretty sure everyone else is in the same boat.) We have gotten and sold a couple of Killzone expansions, but I'm inclined to ban those simply because not every table is going to cater to any given Killzone.

    I'm willing to consider Elites simply because it's introducing faction traits to Kill Team, which I like. If Custodes or something looks like it'll completely dominate the game, though, I'll reluctantly ban it.
    You can allow faction traits and not the new units though. But yeah, better to wait for the book (although I thought it had already been leaked online? I remember seeing costs and stats for Custodes earlier).

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Renegade Paladin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by LansXero View Post
    You can allow faction traits and not the new units though. But yeah, better to wait for the book (although I thought it had already been leaked online? I remember seeing costs and stats for Custodes earlier).
    I haven't been paying attention to leaks. I'll look around for it tomorrow.
    "Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein


  22. - Top - End - #52
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    9mm's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin View Post
    I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced.
    it really isn't.
    That said, any ideas on how to do it? I'm kind of inclined to ban the Commanders supplement on the grounds that a lot of HQ units are radically unbalanced at extremely low points levels, but even aside from that, the sheer amount of content that's locked inside boxed sets (stratagems, etc) makes it very hard for me to know what to do. I'm not going to even think about finalizing rules until the Elites supplement is in my hands next week, but pending that, I'm willing to take suggestions.
    Honestly just use Arena, it is what it's for. The big thing about Elites is it appears to add most of the box set exclusive stratagems into the Arena space other wise it might shake up some rosters, but I doubt it. (A single terminator is worth 2 interccesors lol)
    Rule of Cool former designer

    Games I'm playing: League of Legends, Mechwarrior Online

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by 9mm View Post
    it really isn't.
    So the lack of internal balance, the clearly superior options and factions and the all-over-the-place costs are not imbalance? :O

    Its not unplayable, by any stretch, but balanced it aint.

    Honestly just use Arena, it is what it's for.
    Corridors and junk is boring if its all you get to play. For 'no terrain type matters but this one' you already have regular 40k.

    A single terminator is worth 2 interccesors lol
    Faction traits are bound to make a larger impact indeed.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Wraith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Renegade Paladin View Post
    The shop I run for wants me to try to run a Kill Team tournament. I know that Kill Team is grossly unbalanced. That said, any ideas on how to do it?
    If it's your first Tournament, I would advise that you make it as simple on yourself as possible; just use the Main Rule Book and don't add anything else yet.

    While not as horribly unbalanced as some folks have made it out to be, there are clearly some factions which are better than others, and some more that have a clear gimmick that is great if they can pull it off but not much else going for them if they can't. That's on your players - if they want to run Necrons, then that's up to them and they know what they're getting into

    Everything else, until you know how balanced or unbalanced they are, adds complications and isn't available to all of your players, so don't bother with it in the beginning.
    If things are going well later, then you can add a plot twist and allow access to Elites or something if people had time to play enough games to really consider whether or not they want to buy them. If that turns out to be a fuster-cluck, no worries; they can be gone again in the next mission as "their plot has been successfully resolved", with the minimum of disruption. It's harder to do that if you allow them all in the beginning and need to roll them back later.

    I would probably allow players to use the Faction boxed sets as I don't think any of them are particularly or outrageously over-or under-powered, but that's just me and while I wouldn't mind refusing to let a player use "1 Terminator" in their team I would feel pretty bad if I told them that they couldn't use their ENTIRE team. If nothing else, everyone with a boxed set if going to be able to provide their own rules for it, unlike asking everyone to play Commanders.
    Last edited by Wraith; 2019-05-20 at 03:35 AM.
    You don't know what it was like.
    You weren't there.
    You never fought in the Console Wars.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    So... there's just no preview for next week's preorder? Maybe it was blocked out for that Sylvaneth book that got held up on the border or something. Feels weird to have no previews whatsoever, though.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    What goes on pre-order friday? Its all blood bowl and necromunda.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by LansXero View Post
    What goes on pre-order friday? Its all blood bowl and necromunda.
    Weren't those Forgeworld preorders? Maybe I skimmed over that part.

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    Quote Originally Posted by Requizen View Post
    Weren't those Forgeworld preorders? Maybe I skimmed over that part.
    We get a weekly update on mondays. Not supposed to be public info until friday. Nothing new for AoS / 40k this week.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Titan in the Playground
     
    LeSwordfish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts

    GW confirmed on facebook that the forgeworld previews are the only ones for this week: presumably this was the slot the Sylvaneth were meant to take.
    - Avatar by LCP -

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    LansXero's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Lima, Peru
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XXXVII: Highlighting the Contrasts



    Anyone knows where to find a list for that Necrons guy? I know nothing about the event, but Necrons making top 2 seems amazing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •