|
Played my first game of 7th last night. My marines against some crons (immotech, 2 blocks of immortals, 2 fliers with immortals, 3 spiders, scarabs) that included a Transcendent C'Tan. We tried the mission cards. I wound up winning, having him mostly tabled (a spider and the C'Tan were all he had left). Because of some misplays I didn't have a ton left (3 airplanes, rhino with 5 marines, thunderfire) but I was certainly in control of the game towards the end. The cards were ok, it definitely made me play a bit weird but overall it was pretty fun. Super scoring harder to kill rhinos really helped with jumping around and grabbing objectives.HiveCommander posted:Competitive players in a lot of environments tend to be elitist dicks so they deserve the snippy, passive-aggressive comments more often than not. lovely casual scrub players cry when they get stomped by "cheap" armies/builds/units and are passive-aggressive little poo poo lords. It does cut both ways buddy. serious gaylord posted:I know how to play. Knowing the rules and understanding how the game plays out are two different things.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The reason I believe that the cards are inherently broken is that in order to remain competitive, you have to build your list around them. Like Flyers and Psykers, this means you can no longer build lists with a specific strategy in mind. It's limiting. TL;DR: The majority of people do not like strategy games they like party games. 5th Edition was judged to be too cerebral, (and darn it, it actually was in hindsight!) so 6th and 7th are the culmination of efforts to make 40k into a party game. Note the many references in White Dwarf about "twists of fate!" and "tables turning." The cards are the epitome of that, anyone can win at any time, it makes nerds excited about things. Unrelated: how many people forget to roll for Soulblaze when using Heldrakes?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Unrelated: how many people forget to roll for Soulblaze when using Heldrakes? I certainly do.  Generally though, most if not all of the unit I've target is dead at that point, but yeah, I really need to remember about Soulblaze.This post has reminded me I should go replay Soulblazer again.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Note the many references in White Dwarf about "twists of fate!" and "tables turning." The cards are the epitome of that, anyone can win at any time, it makes nerds excited about things. Warhammer: Blue Shell Edition. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
JerryLee posted:I think that the objective cards are a great idea in principle but I have zero problem believing that this is the sort of outcome that can result because, y'know, GW. I would love to have some better (amateur) game designers take a stab at making some homebrew cards and/or modifications to the card usage rules. I'm sure armchair game designers can get the missions to a reasonably balanced state. Half the time I spent playing 40k before I cashed out was brainstorming fixes for terrible design like random psychic powers/random charge distances/etc. That's not the problem, it's not too difficult to homebrew 40k to get it to a decently balanced game, but the fact that I felt like I had to constantly work with my playgroup to fix the system like a broken-down house, and then get consensus to implement the changes, made us eventually get fed up and switch to Warmachine/Hordes, which has issues but not nearly on the scale of 40k.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Soulblaze is overly complicated and stupid but it does do a significant amount of damage against soft targets. Same reason why I never forget to fire combi/stormbolters on Rhinos, late game they can be the difference between a win and a loss. Hey, guy that suggested putting Bloodletters in a Landraider:  I shat out this doodle in less than a minute. The idea is to have the hull of the vehicle be more like a rusty cage, spiny, runic, etc, allowing a view of the demons inside, mainly made out of plasticard. Lascannons on both sides (not pictured) are crewed by a cackling Bloodletter. Front ramp is some kind of maw. Possibly modeled to fit all 10/12 Bloodletters inside. Good idea or best idea?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
quote:TL;DR: The majority of people do not like strategy games they like party games. 5th Edition was judged to be too cerebral, (and darn it, it actually was in hindsight!) so 6th and 7th are the culmination of efforts to make 40k into a party game. The issue is party games tend to be a small resource investment in terms of time, money, and mindspace. It takes very little time or forethought to buy Mario Kart or Smash and a console to go with it, plug it in, and play. Same with Cards against Humanity or whatever the kids like now. It makes sense for these low-investment games to be "random" and have less influence by the player, because there is usually no emotional investment in the outcome due to the lack of resource investment by the player. Miniature wargames are naturally a very, very high time, money, and mindspace investment. Even more so than other "involved" nerd games like Magic. For a lot of players, it is extremely unsatisfying to spend all of this time preparing and thinking about the game only to have a tabletop experience (which is very long in and of itself) where the results are directly pulled from your control by the game. I think if Games Workshop wanted to release an all-inclusive boxed set with pre-painted/assmbled miniatures, cards, simplified rules, etc. and implement a more casual experience THERE, it would make a lot of sense, especially as a "gateway drug" into the hobby. Magic has done something similar with Duels of the Planeswalkers - it's $10 for a basic game experience, you don't have nearly as much control as in actual Magic, but it's a successful product because the experience matches the target audience, and the "core" audience has a more complex, rewarding product that they can enjoy. As it is, Games Workshop is trying to take their core product and aim it firmly at non-core players. As always there will be a section of the audience that enjoys it or simply is too stubborn/deep to switch hobbies, but they are alienating a lot of potential customers, including me, with their "one-size-fits-all" approach.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
40k is, was, and probably always will be a d6 based game. Random bullshit has always been a thing. This poo poo is checkers, it's never been chess.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:Knowing the rules and understanding how the game plays out are two different things. Why do you have this pathological need to prove you're superior to anyone that doesn't play the game like you do?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:40k is, was, and probably always will be a d6 based game. Random bullshit has always been a thing. This poo poo is checkers, it's never been chess. Randomization within a unit's mechanics versus the overall metagame is apples and oranges. The cards remove any strategy you would normally take from turn to turn in a mission, and the game becomes "Simon Says" based on the cards, rewards irreverent unit behavior over a cohesive strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
I'm aware you're in a group where the cards are preferred, which is unfortunate for you, but it is still only a problem* with that version of the game. The old style is available, and your group should be willing to play how you want at least some of the time. Otherwise the problem is less with the game and more with your friends. *For the people who don't like it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:53
|
|
|
SUPER NEAT TOY posted:You guys do know there's still the old set of missions, right? If the Maelstrom (Wackiness) of War isn't suitably cinematic just play the Eternal War missions. Of course there are. And we'll probably end up playing those again. But we wanted to try out the new mechanic that represents 50% of the new content in 7th edition, and I'm sharing the experience, which was "good idea, problematic execution." Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm aware you're in a group where the cards are preferred, which is unfortunate for you, but it is still only a problem* with that version of the game. The old style is available, and your group should be willing to play how you want at least some of the time. Otherwise the problem is less with the game and more with your friends. Seriously guys, new edition is out and you think what, we're idiots for trying out the new cards system? Come on. Lord Of Texas posted:As it is, Games Workshop is trying to take their core product and aim it firmly at non-core players. As always there will be a section of the audience that enjoys it or simply is too stubborn/deep to switch hobbies, but they are alienating a lot of potential customers, including me, with their "one-size-fits-all" approach. The issue with their approach is that the level of randomness doesn't actually make the game less complex or more accessible, it just means there are more rolls and tables to look up with too little upside. I agree that they should have a simplified version of the game that can act as a gateway for new gamers but the current version of the game is too complicated in ways that it shouldn't be (too many tables, lots and lots of USRs to memorize, FAQs to download) and not enough in the ways that it should be (tactics and strategy, using units together well), and that's kind of independent of any attempt to make a one-size fits all strategy. A beginner version could be cool though, particularly if it really narrowed the available units per faction to limit the number of USRs and create a more balanced, quick experience. Kind of like a larger kill team, really.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Why do you have this pathological need to prove you're superior to anyone that doesn't play the game like you do? I'm not trying to prove anything. I want a skilled community to play in. If the bottom level gets better we all get better.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:I'm not trying to prove anything. I want a skilled community to play in. If the bottom level gets better we all get better. There you go again. Just because they don't run the latest metagame list doesn't mean they're the bottom of the barrel skill wise.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:I'm aware you're in a group where the cards are preferred, which is unfortunate for you, but it is still only a problem* with that version of the game. The old style is available, and your group should be willing to play how you want at least some of the time. Otherwise the problem is less with the game and more with your friends. I do not understand this position at all. There is nothing wrong with home-brewing of course, but the onus to deliver an enjoyable experience falls first on the game designers (you know, the people that have your money), not the players. Reliance on home-brews and selective use of rules to make the game enjoyable splinters and hinders a greater community from forming around the game. TheChirurgeon posted:The issue with their approach is that the level of randomness doesn't actually make the game less complex or more accessible, it just means there are more rolls and tables to look up with too little upside. I agree that they should have a simplified version of the game that can act as a gateway for new gamers but the current version of the game is too complicated in ways that it shouldn't be (too many tables, lots and lots of USRs to memorize, FAQs to download) and not enough in the ways that it should be (tactics and strategy, using units together well), and that's kind of independent of any attempt to make a one-size fits all strategy. There is definitely some benefit in taking certain decisions out of the players' hands in terms of reducing complexity. For example, imagine if instead of shuffling your deck before a game of Magic, you were required to stack the 60 cards exactly how you wanted them in that matchup (Goblin Recruiter syndrome). It would be an analysis nightmare. However, I agree that GW removes too much control from the players' hands (run/charge distances and psychic powers being some of the biggest offenders), and that one-size-fits-all is far from their only problem. Lord Of Texas fucked around with this message at 17:19 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Speaking of which, are there any good home-brew 40K rulesets out there? I've got no interest in 7th but after ~20 years in the hobby I don't want to get rid of all my stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Hey, guy that suggested putting Bloodletters in a Landraider: Bestest idea!  HiveCommander posted:Being able to simply have a free mulligan of all the cards you draw at the start of the game would be a huge help, or even allow more than one discard per turn, so you don't get stuck with "Kill a flyer" against a dude fielding 6 Imperial Knights or something. This is what the new Tactical Warlord abilities are all about. Objective Deck management. Go Battle-Forged to get the re-roll and pick Tactical every time so you can manipulate the deck. You won't get "discard two every turn" each and every time, but you'll get something regarding the deck each game.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:I do not understand this position at all. There is nothing wrong with home-brewing of course, but the onus to deliver an enjoyable experience falls first on the game designers (you know, the people that have your money), not the players. Reliance on home-brews and selective use of rules to make the game enjoyable splinters and damages the community at large. Where did I say anything about home-brewing? My whole point was that the missions he prefers are still available to play in the Eternal War set, and to stop playing because you don't like one of two optional mission systems is a little bit of an overreaction.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:This is what the new Tactical Warlord abilities are all about. Objective Deck management. Go Battle-Forged to get the re-roll and pick Tactical every time so you can manipulate the deck. You won't get "discard two every turn" each and every time, but you'll get something regarding the deck each game. So, ignore two-thirds of the Warlord Traits to make the cards slightly less imbalanced? Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Where did I say anything about home-brewing? My whole point was that the missions he prefers are still available to play in the Eternal War set, and to stop playing because you don't like one of two optional mission systems is a little bit of an overreaction. The problem is, my local 40k group has embraced the cards wholeheartedly, and are no longer interested in the Eternal War missions. So what are my options?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:I'm not trying to prove anything. I want a skilled community to play in. If the bottom level gets better we all get better. serious gaylord posted:There you go again. Just because they don't run the latest metagame list doesn't mean they're the bottom of the barrel skill wise. Oh just gently caress already, you two. The sexual tension is getting ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The problem is, my local 40k group has embraced the cards wholeheartedly, and are no longer interested in the Eternal War missions. So what are my options? "Hi, I don't like those card missions, would you mind playing the old ones for this game?" Surely they're not all pricks?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:"Hi, I don't like those card missions, would you mind playing the old ones for this game?" Surely they're not all pricks? It's true, this is the workaround. Only most of them are pricks. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:The problem is, my local 40k group has embraced the cards wholeheartedly, and are no longer interested in the Eternal War missions. So what are my options? Field lists that are capable of disruption or area denial and control the objectives. A lot of the damage from these cards can be mitigated by a good mobile offense (especially with Troop selections or units with Objective Secured). If you prefer to keep your Warlord Trait non-Tactical that's your best option. Keep in mind these random objectives will just as often favor you and over the course of the game if you have a solid build and play smart those one-off "I can't stop his 50 Guardsmen from scoring" moments can be shored by your own. If your opponent gets all the good options and you got boned, well, that's just how it goes sometimes man. Random chance will always have the potential for complete and utter defeat for no fault of your own. I got nuked 0/20 in a tournament game last year because I failed all eight of my Grounding checks and lost 2/3 of my army in the first two turns to Dark Eldar. I literally did nothing wrong and lost due to bad luck. poo poo happens.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:32
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:40k is, was, and probably always will be a d6 based game. Random bullshit has always been a thing. This poo poo is checkers, it's never been chess. This is another false dichotomy I hear a lot. There is nothing about the d6 system that forces GW to pull massive amounts of control from the players themselves. Checkers vs chess is not the right analogy. Checkers is a simple game with easily understood rules. 40k is a massively complex game from a technical rules standpoint (so rough on the new player), but likewise removes a lot of tactical and strategic decisions from the player (so frustrating for the experienced player). I believe they should invert this - simple and easy to understand at a basic level from a rules standpoint, deep and involved from a tactical/strategic standpoint with the player having power to control key parts of the game like movement. Don't get me wrong, randomness should still absolutely be part of the game - picking up 20 dice and rolling to hit is just fun, and when you boxcar your opponent out it creates memories. Rolling a d6 to run, for example, does not and adds needless randomness.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:35
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:There you go again. Just because they don't run the latest metagame list doesn't mean they're the bottom of the barrel skill wise. Fine. Not skill. Challenge. I've played lovely players with awesome lists, I've played awesome players with lovely lists. I want everyone to be awesome players with awesome lists. And if the bottom of the challenge barrel gets better we all get better, both in lists and in skill. Because you need to have both to really be a good challenge and have the critical eye and the correct kind of ego to look at your list, see what doesn't work and make adjustments. I think that's the problem I have with non-competitive players. Their ego gets hurt when adjustments to their list or play are suggested. The thing is this isn't D&D. This isn't a cooperative game. This is a game with a huge investment and there is going to be a winner and a loser at the end so why wouldn't you want to get better list or skill wise? It just makes no sense to me. I mean I sort of see the sunk cost fallacy, or an expectation to win because of the money spent but hey, I spent the same amount, and probably had to spend again to get models that I actually needed and not what I thought would work on the first pass. Sure it sucks I have crap in foam and boxes and shelves that don't get play but that's the nature of the game. I remember walking though the Renegade Open taking photos of armies. I was near the bottom tables and I heard a couple players talking to each other. One asked the other how they are doing and the guy replied "Well, I'm having fun  ". The guy had not won a game and I could hear the defeat in his voice. And yeah, he may have been having a certain value of fun but I know, loving know that he would have been having objectively more fun if he won a game or three.tl;dr: *beep boop* I don't understand the motivations of the majority of the gaming community. *beep boop* Slimnoid posted:Oh just gently caress already, you two. The sexual tension is getting ridiculous. hey baby want to roll the dice 
Naramyth fucked around with this message at 17:39 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:Where did I say anything about home-brewing? My whole point was that the missions he prefers are still available to play in the Eternal War set, and to stop playing because you don't like one of two optional mission systems is a little bit of an overreaction. Sorry, I misunderstood, thought you were referring to the 6th ed mission types, and it has been a sentiment expressed by you and others to "not use a certain rule if you don't like it". Regardless, it's not an overreaction of him to stop playing if he doesn't enjoy the product.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Warhammer 40k 7th Edition- Player Base, Broken Home, Everyone Get Mad And Fight Each Other.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Had an interesting game in that regard lately, 1250 Imp Guard vs. Eldar, I ran pretty much a pure blob list, while my opponent was just testing out Eldar for the first time. Rolled Relic for the game. I pretty much completely dominated the game, had first blood, slay the warlord, all he had was a 1-HP Wave Serpent with a half-squad of Dire Avengers sitting around that I couldn't finish off. I was only a couple inches away from claiming the relic, had rolled a '1' on a consolidate move from where my closest blob had been stuck fighting jetbikes in close combat for the last 4 turns, but he managed to get a model onto the relic, bottom of turn 5, and won the game 3-2. Was pretty mad at the outcome at the time, but it does speak to how random the game can feel.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:40k is, was, and probably always will be a d6 based game. Random bullshit has always been a thing. This poo poo is checkers, it's never been chess. There's an area for nuance, however, between "This unit does everything the way I want all the time" and "Roll for literally everything." Since the very first tabletop wargame was invented by bored Prussians, dice have been used to simulate the natural uncertainty of battlefield events-if a unit's shooting is effective, if their morale holds or if they decide to break and run, those sorts of events that simply can't be predicted. In this way, you have to control for what you can't rely on through superior tactics or list-building. The issue with 40K randomness, however, is that in the past two editions what they've begun to do is randomize what the commander of the theoretical battlefield of the 41st Millennium SHOULD be able to control. Psychic powers, warlord traits, now the new objective system-these are all things that I should be able to recognize and understand BEFORE the battle happens, so I can try and plan for it in my list building and in how I maneuver my army around the table. Randomness will always be a part of the system, but it doesn't have to be the be-all end-all of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:So, ignore two-thirds of the Warlord Traits to make the cards slightly less imbalanced? The guy said that all he wanted was to discard more than one Objective Card per turn. I pointed out that hey, if you want that, take a Tactical Warlord because that option is on that chart. Not all card talk is about what you want. Some of us are willing to try some of the options presented in the rules before storming off in a huff about it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Haven't the rules for 40K always been a suggested guideline for how you and your fellow warham buddies should play? I mean, if you don't like certain elements of the rules, just discuss it with your opponent and play with what rules you like. So if you want to remove some elements of randomness you're well within your right as a terrible person playing a terrible game full of terrible people in doing so. The only situation where rules are required to be strictly followed would of course be tournaments, but it's pretty clear GW doesn't design their games with tournaments in mind anymore (if they ever did).
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
I thought you were proposing it as a cure-all. My mistake. I'm honestly trying not to be such a downer. But my playgroup (about a dozen guys) have all agreed they like the cards, arent interested in house-ruling, and want to use them for the campaign were about to start, which leaves me in a precarious position.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
We created a house Mission slate that details a few changes that we think have improved things. We provide extra bonuses to sticking to a single FOC with no allies or other supplementary stuff, making 3 tiers of armies (Brotherhood of War, Battle-forged and Unbound). We also use Primary Objectives, Secondary Objectives Kill Points and Tactical Objective cards in each mission. It keeps the games high-scoring, and provides multiple avenues to victory, promoting the creation of a balanced army list. We modified the rules for the Tactical Objectives, so that each player only has 1 active card at a time, which is discarded at the end of the turn if it's not accomplished so you don't get stuck with a poo poo card or one that's too hard/far away to pull off. It's still a rough draft and we'll continue to modify it as we get more experiences with 7th, but it's been a lot of fun, and the games are high-scoring and exciting with all the VPs constantly being awarded to each player. Will post if people are interested.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Tuxedo Jack posted:I thought you were proposing it as a cure-all. My mistake. Just play, man. You might have fun!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Continuing to progress through my large supply of Space Marine bodies. I might have a painted Salamanders army eventually! Considering they were my second army I started it's a little shameful it's taken me this long to get around to them. 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Naramyth posted:Words Dude. Some people don't, and have no interest in playing competitively. and that's fine
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
AndyElusive posted:Haven't the rules for 40K always been a suggested guideline for how you and your fellow warham buddies should play? I mean, if you don't like certain elements of the rules, just discuss it with your opponent and play with what rules you like. I literally just addressed this, but the problem with "every playgroup should come up with their own solution!" is that it hinders a greater community from building around the game itself. It also presupposes that you even have a group to play with, which for a lot of  potential customers, is not the case.To benchmark Magic again: Player ingenuity is awesome and should be encouraged. Magic has seen the rise of very popular formats like EDH/Commander and Cube, which were both home-brewed formats that were later brought under the WotC wing to an extent. However, since the advent of FNM, there is now always the option for a potential customer to play good old vanilla easy-to-understand Magic at his local store, where the rules will be the same regardless of whether he's in New York, Berlin, or Tokyo. The common ruleset also allows for easier internet discussion over the nuance of the game - more fodder for growth. If GW wants to grow instead of coasting off of their market share, they need to build 40k so it's a good experience when it's played in a game store among strangers, not only a good experience when it's played among friends in Joe's basement. Lord Of Texas fucked around with this message at 18:18 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
PierreTheMime posted:Continuing to progress through my large supply of Space Marine bodies. I might have a painted Salamanders army eventually! Considering they were my second army I started it's a little shameful it's taken me this long to get around to them.  The rims of each base could use some touch-up, though. That and drilling your barrels.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:It has access, but it's ML1 and has a fixed power so having access means nothing, it still can't pick a second power, or trade its fixed power in. Sure, like I said I basically agree with this position- but I don't think it's unreasonable for players to get confused that the Hemlock has access to Daemonology but isn't allowed to use it. PierreTheMime posted:Hmm, I'm having a real problem coming up with lists for CSM/Daemons because I just want too much and am having a problem focusing. Has anyone come up with decent builds they'd be willing to share? I'm likely going to stick with my successful CSM build of a Biker Lord with Spawn etc, but mixing in Chaos Daemons is making the points tougher. Crimson's Laughter has a big advantage in the Prophet of the Voices relic, which can turn one of your psykers into a Daemon to help shrug off perils. You can also just run a small contingent of summoners (say, a Herald + Pink Horrors) as allies and use them to generate occasional units and warp dice for your other guys to play with. You don't HAVE to go all-in on summoning- even in small doses it can be very strong. JerryLee posted:I think that the objective cards are a great idea in principle but I have zero problem believing that this is the sort of outcome that can result because, y'know, GW. I would love to have some better (amateur) game designers take a stab at making some homebrew cards and/or modifications to the card usage rules. The best fix I've seen yet is that, at the start of the game or the end of any turn, you can discard ANY number of cards. It's not perfect, but it at least gives players an "out" for when they end up with a bunch of bad stuff and stops one player from rapidly cycling through cards while the other one is stuck with garbage. jng2058 posted:This is what the new Tactical Warlord abilities are all about. Objective Deck management. Go Battle-Forged to get the re-roll and pick Tactical every time so you can manipulate the deck. You won't get "discard two every turn" each and every time, but you'll get something regarding the deck each game. The problem is that A, this costs you your warlord trait (and so isn't even an option for some armies) and B, usually doesn't work anyways. Only three of the Tactical traits actually let you discard cards for new ones, and one of them is one use only while another of those only works before the start of the game.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:22 |
|
|
The Sex Cannon posted:Just play, man. You might have fun! I dunno. One of the hard lessons I've learned after 30 years of gaming is that "Bad games are worse than not playing at all." There's a certain mentality that gamers get into where we think that since it can be hard to get a group to play 40k or D&D or whatever your tabletop poison of choice is, that you should always take every chance to play since you never know when you'll find another one. But if you're not going to enjoy yourself in a game, and especially if your displeasure makes the game less fun for others, you should just not play. Only Tuxedo Jack knows if the Objective Card tournament will cross that line for him. Are there ways to mitigate the randomness of the cards? Well, yes, but in doing so you're cutting yourself off from other options. Highly maneuverable armies to try and objective grab could work, but that eliminates whole factions who aren't good at that. Taking a Tactical Warlord will reduce how much the cards screw you, but that means you lose every other type of warlord. And so on and so forth. If Jack isn't willing or able to do those things because it won't be fun for him, and if playing the games themselves aren't fun, then maybe he just shouldn't play.  That said, if there's time before the campaign to try it out, I would suggest that he try using some of the mitigation techniques in a test game or three to see if that makes the cards more palatable. Either that or maybe see if there can be a "Jack Only Plays Eternal War" exception made for his games or something. If the alternative is losing a player, they may be willing to throw you a bone. You get some of what you ask for and none of what you don't, after all. Might as well ask. jng2058 fucked around with this message at 18:23 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:20
|
|