|
The Gate posted:Okay, okay, I know I was defending Necro, but I can still poo poo on GW in general, right? This kind of inconsistency is what pisses me off the most about GW. MURDERFANG has two wolverine claws so he gets +1 to his attacks. Every Tyranid model has a set of close combat weapons but they only ever count as 1 CCW for no reason and GW goes out of its way to violate core game mechanics just to say no. He is also a half dead cyborg and is I4. Tyranids have bio-engineered monstrous fighting machines but they attack at I-1/2 90% of the time for no reason. In their last codex, Eldar were specifically FAQed to be able to decide how much bonus to their reserve rolls they wanted to use (+0/+1/+2). And it's all from the exact same unit taken multiple times. Tyranids were specifically FAQed so that they must always use the bonuses and taking a unit multiple times only ever gives +1 to rolls. GW rules are absolute poo poo and are activly vendictive against some of their player base. Crackbone posted:Why would it take two days for a sell off? Correct me if I am wrong, but stocks have a buy/sell freeze for a few days after earning in order to prevent insider trading. The changes going on now are normal market movement. Two Feet From Bread fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jul 30, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:I'm going to assume swarm tyranid isn't viable at all these days? I loved dropping 100 gaunts on the table but I don't see how they'd do anything but get gunned down under 6/7e rules. A couple guys around here did a 4,000 points of Tyranids vs 2,000 points of Tau. The tau player didn't move the entire game and tabled the Tyranids on turn 6 after losing ~400 points worth of models. Atlas Hugged posted:That just sounds like the stupidest loving trade-off. "You know the distance so your move is completed randomly to penalize you for your foresight." Jesus loving christ. Ostensibly it's to add an element of uncertainty into an important part of the game that could provide very powerful. However, the questions you've asked here are almost certainly more effort than was put into the actual rules change, so S.J. fucked around with this message at 17:02 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Tyranids are apparently viable with certain builds, which I think is just BUY ALL OF THE MC KITS build. The latest codex is loving dogshit though, they gutted loads of the fun stuff like Doom in a pod, or pods at all. They don't get access to any of the cool new psychic powers because ~*immersion*~. Basically if you hate yourself and want to play an army that shits itself then play nids!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
I can't comment on the rules, but 2014 is way, way too late to start criticizing fantasy games for coining stupid compound words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
S.J. posted:A couple guys around here did a 4,000 points of Tyranids vs 2,000 points of Tau. The tau player didn't move the entire game and tabled the Tyranids on turn 6 after losing ~400 points worth of models. The uncertainly should come from how effective your assault is - i.e. do you flub your to-hit/to-wound rolls and does your opponent make a stupid amount of armour saves. Not a single dice roll to determine whether you actually make it or not, leaving you smack bang in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, 3" away from the target, with the entire enemy army pointing their guns at you. I love that people always say "but the average is 7" - it's your own fault for being more than that away!", ignoring that the AVERAGE is 7", but you still have a 42% chance of failing that even before any casualties from overwatch are taken off. Hell, even 5" away you'll still fail it 28% of the time before any casualties. With casualties being taken from the front, you can often end up an extra 2-3" away after overwatch.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Paper Kaiju posted:You made your own counterpoint; it's not a criticism of the quality of the meal, but of the service of the restaurant. Much in the same way that criticism of a game is different from criticism of its publisher. This food (game) is not filling (fun) enough for what this restaurant (game company) charges for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Oh also: disordered charges don't allow you to get the bonus charging attack including rage, and you also can't use furious charge. lol gently caress you orks e: also lol at the average being 7 inches, if you need a 7 it's only like a 58 percent chance to make it, barely better than a coin flip in practical terms S.J. fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
I don't hate random charge distance as a concept, but I really wish it were D6+Initiative or D6+4 or something. But we've definitely had this conversation before. Sidenote: GW closed an hour ago at 6.25, which is the highest it's been since 7/3 (also 6.25). It did not trade higher than 6.25 today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
Randomized charges are stupid as hell. In 8th edition Fantasy the first game I played was against a Dwarf player. Dwarves, with their movement of three, had a slow six inch charge. To offset this they have powerful warmachines, anti-magic, black powder shooting, and strong characters. With the change to random charge distance (2D6 and add your movement) I was hit with Dwarf unit that ran at me from fourteen inches away, almost five times their movement speed. Similarly I've had cavalry fail charges that were that same distance due to statistically unlikely rolls. It's a terrible mechanic that you have to work around rather than appreciate as part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:38
|
|
|
I'm quoting this again because no one has noticed what I just noticed. Look at the wargear list and special rules list. What is missing? Terminators don't have terminator armor
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Daedleh posted:The uncertainly should come from how effective your assault is - i.e. do you flub your to-hit/to-wound rolls and does your opponent make a stupid amount of armour saves. Not a single dice roll to determine whether you actually make it or not, leaving you smack bang in the middle of bumfuck nowhere, 3" away from the target, with the entire enemy army pointing their guns at you. This! Not to mention the melee to-hit chart means you never get a better chance to hit than 3+ or worse than 5+ no matter how great the discrepancy in WS. Unless you're Kharn. Edit: And if you fail the charge, you're stuck within 12" of yet another round of enemy fire, this time at full BS. ThNextGreenLantern fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Fix posted:This food (game) is not filling (fun) enough for what this restaurant (game company) charges for it. How good/bad games are shouldn't be affected by how closely the game matches your tastes. Saying 'this game is good because it is fun' is equivalent to saying 'this game is good because I like it'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Two Feet From Bread posted:I'm quoting this again because no one has noticed what I just noticed. Look at the wargear list and special rules list. What is missing? Uhhh, it's a Dreadnought not a Terminator 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
Ole murderface has no murderclaws in his profile.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Ole murderface has no murderclaws in his profile. I know. But WD is such a terrible magazine I can barely muster the enthusiasm to make fun of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
S.J. posted:Uhhh, it's a Dreadnought not a Terminator I remember a unit or legendary character that once had terminator armor in the artwork and model but none on the actual rules. This caused a huge shitstorm because people couldn't read rules but insisted he had it. I recall the FAQ didn't even clarify so the only reasonable thing to conclude was that he wasn't supposed to have it. Any idea what this was? I think it was around 2006-7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:How good/bad games are shouldn't be affected by how closely the game matches your tastes. And yet it is. I know you guys keep wanting this to be objective, but you will never boil down game criticism to such pure objectivity that you will eliminate subjective criticism (whether within your own ranks or amongst the wider dumb public) that you will not ultimately be frustrated again and again and again. You're just never going to win at this because people who make and sell games will always cater to people who don't analyze these things in the way that you do, nor value your opinions in doing so. It's fine that you want to come up with a specific set of ever-shifting criteria for what makes one game better than another. You find that fun. It matches your tastes. It's your game. But someone saying that a game is "fun" is not free from useful content. It is confirmation that someone actually played the thing and enjoyed it after doing so. It's thumbs-up/thumbs-down criticism. It's not specific, but it is strongly indicative for the people who don't use objective criticism, and prefer to rely on a specific critic's, an amalgam of critics', or even popular opinion in making a purchasing decision. Might it lead to disappointment? Sure. But so can buying something upon the recommendation of objective critique.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
counterspin posted:Ole murderface has no murderclaws in his profile. At first I was going to be 'meh, you goons are so goony and spergy, can't you see that it's on the page and blah blah', then I kind of looked it over again. Not only isn't it in the profile, but nowhere in the description does it say anything about them. Sure the guy's dumb name and stupid version of ablative armor or whatever the old 'don't get shaken/stirred' wargear was are both named in a the same dumb way, but there really isn't even the thing like with Abaddon where it mentions in his story that he's got a sword. Also there's no cost. So that either means you can equip that poo poo on anyone or no one. I can't decide. It's like an optical illusion of some kind. Chill la Chill posted:I remember a unit or legendary character that once had terminator armor in the artwork and model but none on the actual rules. This caused a huge shitstorm because people couldn't read rules but insisted he had it. I recall the FAQ didn't even clarify so the only reasonable thing to conclude was that he wasn't supposed to have it. This reminds me of my favorite rules nonsense story time GW thing. I used to play Tyranids in 2nd, but they were too expensive because they didn't have many plastics. So I switched to chaos, but I didn't use vehicles because, again, kid without a lot of money. Anyway, I started building an undivided army that got gradually very heavy in nurgle and tzeentch just by the coincidence of what models I could get deals on or bring in from other ranges (mutant chronicles zombie-death guard, and a bunch of weird girl-space marine models that I covered with neon slime like they were mutated (I also loved teenage mutant ninja turtles, so every game I played somebody got super powers from neon ooze)). So anyway, 3rd edition came out and at the time, they incorporated troops for each chaos god, and because I had a lot of nurgle and tzeentch, I was kind of stoked that I had a really tough gun-line army. So I repainted a lot of my undivided guys as Thousand Sons. 1k sons had a rule that made them immune to strength 4 or lower shooting attacks (maybe all attacks, I forget). The explanation was 'these are empty suits of armor, with dust in one of the boots--you have to blow them apart to destroy them'. Meanwhile, sniper rifles in this era had a very specific mechanic. The result of the rule was that every shot had a 50% chance to wound if it hit. However, the *reason* that was true was because the strength of a sniper shot was always the same as the toughness of the target. This was only ever mentioned in one place in the rulebook, and everywhere else, snipers were just footnoted as wounding on 4+. or 3+ whatever. I forget. You get the point. The fluff for the sniper rifle at the time was that it first shot a laser that made a hole in armor or whatever, and then fired a dart of frozen super-toxin into the hole it made. Using science. So at a fluff level, it's pretty clear what *Should* happen. The empty suit of armor should be no more impressed by that than bolter fire. As it happened, if you did the full logical progression, it worked out. Sniper gets S = to T of target, and the T of 1k sons was 4. 1k sons are immune to S4 and less shooting attacks. But, man, I had a hell of a time convincing eldar, SM, guard, and whoever else I played against that this was the case on the table. I finally had to memorize the WD back issue it was FAQed in just so I can be like 'see? You don't even have to listen to my reasonably argued position--the company shill rag says I'm right'. What was really fun about it was that we'd argue about that round of shooting and whether it took place or not, then they'd switch over to my death guard, kill a bunch of them, and finish tabling me something like turn 3, because I had to march across the table. Eventually, as befits a petulant young man, I just deep struck with a terminator retinue near their poo poo, then took about half my army in 'demons' which I modeled as unbased and unpainted millisaurs and ripperjacks. When they were 'summoned' into a close combat, I just sprinkled them gently over my foe's models like pewter croutons. I got a lot of weird looks, but I was just like 'hey man, it's just 40k, relax.' Years later I see now how wrong and angry that young man was. TheCosmicMuffet fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
TheCosmicMuffet posted:It's like an optical illusion of some kind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Any "Relics" specific to characters have been listed this way since 6th Edition. The Swarmlord doesn't have Bone Sabres listed as wargear either, but there's a giant loving "Bio-Artefacts" box on his page with the rules for them in there. I guess that means he magically doesn't have them and since they're free I can put on on anything? I mean, Games Workshop does some stupid poo poo and can rightfully be mocked for many things but this is willfully dense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
I'm... I'm pretty sure they were kidding
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
S.J. posted:I'm... I'm pretty sure they were kidding Well that post was made in 2 threads so I think he was serious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Well that post was made in 2 threads so I think he was serious. Oh. Well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:But why do they want you to fail assault? Half the units in the game are built around it. 2nd edition had super decisive combats and the game designers haven't figured out that 3rd edition changed everything yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:2nd edition had super decisive combats and the game designers haven't figured out that 3rd edition changed everything yet. I like explaining 2nd editions combat to people that got in after 3rd. Explaining you had to roll dice equal to your attack, pick the best one, force parry re-rolls, add to your weapon skill, subtract fumbles, split the difference between the attacker and defended, apply that many potential wounds as dice rolls, then figure out the armor save modifier before rolling saves and their eyes gloss over. Then you tell them that you did that for every model in the fight.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Fix posted:And yet it is. I know you guys keep wanting this to be objective, but you will never boil down game criticism to such pure objectivity that you will eliminate subjective criticism (whether within your own ranks or amongst the wider dumb public) that you will not ultimately be frustrated again and again and again. You're just never going to win at this because people who make and sell games will always cater to people who don't analyze these things in the way that you do, nor value your opinions in doing so. Players that don't analyze game mechanics with a microscope still have an opinion on what is fun and what is not. They just voice their opinion in a different way - they play the game and buy the product or they don't. Voicing their opinion in a certain way does not have a direct relationship with the actual opinion they hold. quote:It's fine that you want to come up with a specific set of ever-shifting criteria for what makes one game better than another. You find that fun. It matches your tastes. It's your game. But someone saying that a game is "fun" is not free from useful content. It is confirmation that someone actually played the thing and enjoyed it after doing so. It's thumbs-up/thumbs-down criticism. It's not specific, but it is strongly indicative for the people who don't use objective criticism, and prefer to rely on a specific critic's, an amalgam of critics', or even popular opinion in making a purchasing decision. "Fun" is not magical or inscrutable. There are many different ways to enjoy a particular game, but you are speaking like a game's quality of fun is completely unknowable outside of direct game experiences, which is not true. Give me a game called "You get punched in the face" next to a game called "You get $500" and I know which one I'm going to have more fun with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
Radish posted:I like explaining 2nd editions combat to people that got in after 3rd. Explaining you had to roll dice equal to your attack, pick the best one, force parry re-rolls, add to your weapon skill, subtract fumbles, split the difference between the attacker and defended, apply that many potential wounds as dice rolls, then figure out the armor save modifier before rolling saves and their eyes gloss over. Then you tell them that you did that for every model in the fight. Maybe lightning claws were the one other exception? Large scything talon shaped thing on a giant monster? Doesn't count. So if you ever wonder *why* there is a tyranid 'bonesword' instead of just cutting out the loving middleman and having the thing grow its own giant claw shaped weapon--that's why. 2nd edition parrying. Best part; Hive tyrants with 4 boneswords. Suggestible youthes such as myself were not aware that you could do that, because the only HT model at the time had a lash whip, bonesword, and either a venom cannon or barbed strangler.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
Yeah I think lightning claws could parry which they could also do in Space Hulk. 2nd edition was such a mess but also the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Much of it lives on as Necromunda.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:50
|
|
|
Sadly in Necromunda I can't have my space marine sergeant throw a vortex grenade at my friend's Chaos Terminator lord with all four marks and kill him outright on a 2+ roll with no saves of any kind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I think lightning claws could parry which they could also do in Space Hulk. IMO, still not as good as Rogue Trader chaos rules, where a single model could be a 1000 pt army on its own. Also Zoats. They started out strong! When did they first go awry? Was it the declaration of no more Squats, or the development of Necrons into a real army that was the 'Ultimate evil'? Trick question, it was when the Orks stopped smiling 
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
I remember my Inquisitor lord from the pamphlet you got in the box set to hold you over until you bought the codices. I can't recall how many point he ended up being but he was absurdly loaded up for bear so I guess some of that Rogue Trader mindset came though initially. At least in regards to orcs they haven't ret-conned Margaret Thatcher out yet.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Fix posted:And yet it is. I know you guys keep wanting this to be objective, but you will never boil down game criticism to such pure objectivity that you will eliminate subjective criticism (whether within your own ranks or amongst the wider dumb public) that you will not ultimately be frustrated again and again and again. You're just never going to win at this because people who make and sell games will always cater to people who don't analyze these things in the way that you do, nor value your opinions in doing so. It's fine that you want to come up with a specific set of ever-shifting criteria for what makes one game better than another. You find that fun. It matches your tastes. It's your game. But someone saying that a game is "fun" is not free from useful content. It is confirmation that someone actually played the thing and enjoyed it after doing so. It's thumbs-up/thumbs-down criticism. It's not specific, but it is strongly indicative for the people who don't use objective criticism, and prefer to rely on a specific critic's, an amalgam of critics', or even popular opinion in making a purchasing decision.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:"Fun" is not magical or inscrutable. There are many different ways to enjoy a particular game, but you are speaking like a game's quality of fun is completely unknowable outside of direct game experiences, which is not true. That is not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that dismissing opinion because of its subjectivity or even non-specificity is a pointless pastime in an arena where even the company you keep can be as impactful as the ruleset on your overall enjoyment of your purchase. That turning your nose up at the word fun just makes you look like an rear end in a top hat. Tekopo posted:You can find people that will enjoy something, it's not difficult, especially on the Internet. Fun is specifically not useful because there is just so much subjective criteria tied to games. Why can people enjoy lovely films and admit it, but not like lovely games and admit it? I like games that to a whole lot of people are going to be the most boring poo poo ever: I have no problem stating this. The thing is, no one is trying to remove subjective criticism completely, just make people aware of it when they analyse games. I mostly agree with many of your points. I think part of the problem is that the objective criticism invades the conversation when people are not necessarily analyzing games for the purpose of simply analyzing them, but when they are recommending them to others, at which point subjectivity and simple terms are totally fair game. Fix fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
Fix posted:And yet it is. No, it isn't. Games, like movies, music, etc, have objectively good and bad qualities that can be analyzed. It just so happens that many of the qualities of these media can be objectively analyzed in reference to how they appeal to or engage a particular subjective taste or desire. In other words, you look at what a game is trying to do, and then analyze the mechanics and the follow-through in the context of how those mechanics try to create the game state, or the feel, or the tension, or whatever of the game. A mechanic might be objectively bad used in a certain context in an attempt to create a certain type of game that it is poorly suited towards, and might be objectively good used in another context where it is more appropriate. Certain mechanics serve certain types of games well, and their objective value is based on how well they serve the type of game that's being made, not whether or not they align with your personal tastes. Whether or not people understand that doesn't change it. quote:I know you guys keep wanting this to be objective, but you will never boil down game criticism to such pure objectivity that you will eliminate subjective criticism (whether within your own ranks or amongst the wider dumb public) that you will not ultimately be frustrated again and again and again. It isn't as though every mechanic is being analyzed and placed on a giant objective totem pole of bad mechanics ---> good mechanics. Yes, some mechanics are almost universally bad - often lazy dice rolling mechanics with little to no thought put into them. But they still have to be analyzed in context, and they can be analyzed in context. And just because context is important doesn't suddenly change the analyses of any of that to a subjective analysis. That doesn't mean that there's always a right answer and that personal preference has no place, and as far as I'm aware no one is claiming that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
Fix posted:And yet it is. I know you guys keep wanting this to be objective, but you will never boil down game criticism to such pure objectivity that you will eliminate subjective criticism (whether within your own ranks or amongst the wider dumb public) that you will not ultimately be frustrated again and again and again. You're just never going to win at this because people who make and sell games will always cater to people who don't analyze these things in the way that you do, nor value your opinions in doing so. It's fine that you want to come up with a specific set of ever-shifting criteria for what makes one game better than another. You find that fun. It matches your tastes. It's your game. But someone saying that a game is "fun" is not free from useful content. It is confirmation that someone actually played the thing and enjoyed it after doing so. It's thumbs-up/thumbs-down criticism. It's not specific, but it is strongly indicative for the people who don't use objective criticism, and prefer to rely on a specific critic's, an amalgam of critics', or even popular opinion in making a purchasing decision. Wow, that's some passive-aggressive poo poo if I ever saw it. Nobody claimed games can be rated by perfect objective criteria, that's weak-rear end strawman you setup. What we are saying is that there are objective criteria by which you can discuss (and in many cases rate) games. Would Chess be better if at the end of the game the winner actually lost if they rolled a 1 on a D6? It's not about turning up noses at the word fun, it's about using the word fun to avoid talking about flaws or issues with a game. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Jul 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
The issue I have with fun as a word is that it is used liberally to describe lighter, more social games. My criticism is that what I find fun might be completely different. If I tell someone that my 12 hour economic game is fun, am I wrong because the social consciousness doesn't equate that as fun?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
The issue with using the word 'fun' as a descriptor in games is that it is the base line assumption. We wouldn't be here even attempting to play these games if they provided no fun. 'I had more fun playing x than y' is a useless statement, but saying 'I had more fun playing x than y because z appeals to me more for [reasons]' is a good thing to know, and you can analyze z and the associated reasons in concrete terms, even though personal tastes and preferences are in play.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Well that post was made in 2 threads so I think he was serious. gently caress yea I am serious. GW made over $200 million in revenue last year and they are making mistakes that they should have grown out of after 2 editions. GW is actively getting worse at writing rules and they are touting it as a badge of honor. As seen in their FY ’14 report.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:17 |
|
|
S.J. posted:The issue with using the word 'fun' as a descriptor in games is that it is the base line assumption. We wouldn't be here even attempting to play these games if they provided no fun. 'I had more fun playing x than y' is a useless statement, but saying 'I had more fun playing x than y because z appeals to me more for [reasons]' is a good thing to know, and you can analyze z and the associated reasons in concrete terms, even though personal tastes and preferences are in play. Yeah, but when I tried to explain I had more fun with Necromunda because I enjoyed the randomness in it, I was told I was wrong for saying it was good (an opinion) and that it was a Bad Game (another opinion). That is entirely subjective, on both sides, and it's not like I'm gonna look at some post on the internet and suddenly go "Oh my god, they're right! I secretly hated this game all along, it's terrible!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
