|
That's a lovely shade of green. It really makes the librarian stand out. And Lord Of Texas, I agree with most everything you said. I was generally just shooting the poo poo about the topic you guys were discussing because I need a distraction at work.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted: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. This is too a false dichotomy, though one that has been enshrined by game design trends. I understand why people don't like random movement, because it makes units and plans for those units less reliable, but fundamentally that's no different than the effects of random accuracy. And it's just as fitting. Wars have been won and lost by units not getting where their commander wants them to be when he or she wants them to be there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Combat Doctrines Through discipline and training, your army's leaders have tamed the chaos of battle. Steady Leadership - 25 pts: Instead of rolling, your Warlord can choose which Warlord Trait he wants from any table he could ordinarily roll on. If your Warlord has a pre-determined Warlord Trait, he can pick a new one instead. Psychic Mastery - 25/50 pts: One Psyker in your army can become your Master Psyker. Instead of rolling, your Master Psyker can choose his powers from the Psychic Discplines available to him. For 25 points, he can choose his first power instead of rolling randomly (the remainder of his powers are randomly generated as normal). For 50 points, he can choose all of his powers instead of rolling. If your Master Psyker generates powers during play, or with nonstandard rules, this ability allows him to choose which powers he knows within a Discipline, but not which Disciplines he can access at any particular time. Counter-Intelligence - 25 pts: After armies are deployed and objectives are determined (including starting tactical objectives), and before the first game turn, your Warlord can choose to swap the locations of two numbered Objective Markers. If multiple Warlords have this ability, resolve them in the same order as player turns (i.e. the player going first swaps objectives, then the player going second swaps them). A pair of objectives that were swapped can't be swapped back, but one of the pair can be exchanged for another unaltered objective. Coordinated Assault - 25/50 pts: One of your units (or formations that deploy together) in Reserves can Coordinate their deployment. For 25 points, you can choose which turn they arrive on (including turn 1), without the need for a Reserve roll. For 50 points, you they can also arrive in the location you choose - if they Outflank, they do so from the table edge of your choice (even the opponent's own table edge); if they Deep Strike, they do so without scattering.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
e: ^^^^^ Those all seem pretty cool. Oh, something else about the tactical cards I forgot about last night: They should have included cards for Slay the Warlord and Linebreaker and First Blood, because using the cards themselves to track the score would be useful. The same goes with the psychic deck: they should have put an extra card with the Perils chart in there.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This is too a false dichotomy, though one that has been enshrined by game design trends. I understand why people don't like random movement, because it makes units and plans for those units less reliable, but fundamentally that's no different than the effects of random accuracy. And it's just as fitting. Wars have been won and lost by units not getting where their commander wants them to be when he or she wants them to be there. I'm not saying it's black and white where randomness should go and shouldn't go. There is definitely a lot of grey, and it's best to look at it on a case-by-case basis. I disagree with the bolded part though. Randomness is fundamentally "factors affecting an outcome that are out of the player/model's control". From a fluff perspective, think about these actions and how many outside factors are involved: 1) Crossing a few tiles of desert 2) Shooting at a fast-moving enemy that is desperately trying not to be hit 3) Swinging a giant axe trying to slice open an enemy that is desperately trying not to be sliced open #2 and #3 have a lot of Randomness, or factors affecting the outcome outside of the model's control. #1 really doesn't - there's little way to explain a Necron Wraith failing to reach a guardsman that he's 3 inches away from, other than "he tripped". Randomness is a tool but it's a tool that needs to be applied judiciously. Too much randomness and your players invested thousands of dollars and dozens/hundreds of hours to play Yahtzee. Too little randomness and the game becomes too predictable and rote. In my opinion 40k veers too far into the unpredictability territory, using random effects in places they don't belong.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:This is too a false dichotomy, though one that has been enshrined by game design trends. I understand why people don't like random movement, because it makes units and plans for those units less reliable, but fundamentally that's no different than the effects of random accuracy. And it's just as fitting. Wars have been won and lost by units not getting where their commander wants them to be when he or she wants them to be there. Yeah but don't reserves rolls already do this enough? He's not saying there shouldn't be any randomness, just that there needs to be less of it--remove random run distance and you still have random charge length (also bad), warlord traits, psychic powers, power tests, deep strike scatter, etc. My larger issue with the movement stuff is that the outcome is just likely to be what they refer to in Magic design as "feel bad" moments--the player stuck in the open or missing his movement goal feels bad about not accomplishing their outcome, with little upside for the other player (beyond "ha ha, you hosed up your roll!") Comparatively, something like sweeping advance has a large upside--your good rolls wipe out the enemy, but in the worst-case scenario you are still winning a combat, not falling flat on your face as your 200-year-old genetic supermen try to sprint. Fix posted:e: ^^^^^ Those all seem pretty cool. Totally agree here--we ended up having to go back and try to remember who got first blood halfway through each game because we were only keeping track of the cards!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
ugh card missions are so bad and the old mission suck. if only there was another way to play warhams that didn't use the same tired missions or random pokerface card decks
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
koreban posted:ugh card missions are so bad and the old mission suck. if only there was another way to play warhams that didn't use the same tired missions or random pokerface card decks Are the missions in there any good?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Crossing a few tiles of desert can include a ton of factors outside the player or models' control, though. You got sinkholes, slippery sand, sprained ankles, dropped kit, dudes crouching and scuttling because of random fire, and all the other nasty things that cross and live on those few tiles of desert. In fact, the more I think about it, a wargame about future combat with ridiculously powerful weapons would make a lot of sense if randomness didn't affect how effective those weapons were, but did affect one's ability to get those weapons in proper position. It's not a question of whether or not your mega-cannon can destroy a bunker, it's a question of whether or not your troops can maneuver that mega-cannon into position to fire on that bunker. E: Chirugeon, I understand that he's not being black and white "randomness is bad." My point is simply that random movement, conceptually, is no better or worse than any other form of random resolution. Clearly the game needs some randomness so that it doesn't devolve into a simple math exercise, but not too much so that the players' choices lack any meaning or consequence. E2: in regards to tracking points, I really suggest getting a cheap whiteboard to use as a scoreboard. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 18:54 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Combat Doctrines TheChirurgeon posted:agree here--we ended up having to go back and try to remember who got first blood halfway through each game because we were only keeping track of the cards! I'm thinking someone will make First Blood, Linebreaker and Slay The Warlord cards for people to print off and use...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Crossing a few tiles of desert can include a ton of factors outside the player or models' control, though. You got sinkholes, slippery sand, sprained ankles, dropped kit, dudes crouching and scuttling because of random fire, and all the other nasty things that cross and live on those few tiles of desert. In fact, the more I think about it, a wargame about future combat with ridiculously powerful weapons would make a lot of sense if randomness didn't affect how effective those weapons were, but did affect one's ability to get those weapons in proper position. It's not a question of whether or not your mega-cannon can destroy a bunker, it's a question of whether or not your troops can maneuver that mega-cannon into position to fire on that bunker. Yeah I'm fairly uninterested in whatever justification you can come up with for those rules and more concerned with the rules themselves, the experiences they create, and how they impact the quality of the game. I am more than willing to accept levels of abstraction for things like firing accuracy of space marines vs. guardsmen based on the quirks of a d6 system. Maybe crossing a desert would slow you down, but I play on a city board with open clean streets show why should I care about that? Some random elements are good, others are not, and the justification for the bad ones doesn't make them better. krushgroove posted:I'm thinking someone will make First Blood, Linebreaker and Slay The Warlord cards for people to print off and use... Sure, and it'll be a good idea when they do that. It's too bad they didn't come packed in with the $230 munitorum edition though!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah but don't reserves rolls already do this enough? He's not saying there shouldn't be any randomness, just that there needs to be less of it--remove random run distance and you still have random charge length (also bad), warlord traits, psychic powers, power tests, deep strike scatter, etc. Pretty much. I'm ok with stuff like deep strike scatter - you've got a giant hunk of metal hurtling towards the ground at insane speeds, of course it's not going to land exactly where you want. From a game design perspective, the scatter roll is a one-time thing, unlike running or charging which will happen repeatedly for a particular unit over the course of the game, adding more unnecessary dice rolls. quote:My larger issue with the movement stuff is that the outcome is just likely to be what they refer to in Magic design as "feel bad" moments--the player stuck in the open or missing his movement goal feels bad about not accomplishing their outcome, with little upside for the other player (beyond "ha ha, you hosed up your roll!") Comparatively, something like sweeping advance has a large upside--your good rolls wipe out the enemy, but in the worst-case scenario you are still winning a combat, not falling flat on your face as your 200-year-old genetic supermen try to sprint. I totally agree, and this was actually the basis for one of the houserules I came up with regarding random charges. To offset the feel-bad of failing a charge distance roll, I added the rule that if you rolled over a certain amount on the 2d6 result, you got a "Powerful Charge", which was either a to-wound re-roll or extra Hammer of Wrath attacks, i can't recall. That way, you have some potential upside to go with the downside, and charge rolls become more fun for the charger.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Combat Doctrines Being able to pick your warlord trait is amazingly strong, easily worth more than 25pts. Some of the traits are just clearly better than others, such as "infiltrate with three units," "ignore pinning this turn," etc. Psychic Mastery is either amazing or pretty worthless, depending. For Eldar, for example, it's... pretty game breaking. Okay, I pick Fortune, Invisibility and Doom- next? I think change it to just being a reroll (a la Tigurius) would be better, although I understand this sorta defeats the point of these things. Maybe have it cost per Mastery Level of the psyker? I like counter-intelligence except for the "can swap an altered objective for an unaltered one" text. Mmm. I guess I understand why it's there, though. Probably could price this one down slightly.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
My point is simply that random movement is not inherently bad. To be clear: I am not defending 40K's particular use of random movement (though I don't have any particular problems with it). I am simply arguing against the idea that random movement is inherently a bad thing while random combat resolution isn't. And you could come up with a ton of reasons why units can't cross a street at a fixed rate. People trip on nothing, and the streets of a war torn city aren't going to be as clean and open as mainstreet on Sunday morning. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:05 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Someone add "Banana Peel" to the possibilities for mysterious objectives.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Crossing a few tiles of desert can include a ton of factors outside the player or models' control, though. You got sinkholes, slippery sand, sprained ankles, dropped kit, dudes crouching and scuttling because of random fire, and all the other nasty things that cross and live on those few tiles of desert. In fact, the more I think about it, a wargame about future combat with ridiculously powerful weapons would make a lot of sense if randomness didn't affect how effective those weapons were, but did affect one's ability to get those weapons in proper position. It's not a question of whether or not your mega-cannon can destroy a bunker, it's a question of whether or not your troops can maneuver that mega-cannon into position to fire on that bunker. I don't mean to be a dick, but when your examples include sinkholes (!!!) and the entire unit spraining their ankles simultaneously, I think it's fair to assess that you are rationalizing, not supporting your point. And as Chirururururgeon mentioned, fluff is far from the only concern of where randomness goes, even though I think the fluff supports random attack efficacy over random movement efficacy. I think if you polled most gamers they would agree that a model has more control over the use of its own legs than it does whether a bullet effectively damages a quick, heavily-armored enemy model. quote:My point is simply that random movement is not inherently bad. To be clear: I am not defending 40K's particular use of random movement (though I don't have any particular problems with it). I am simply arguing against the idea that random movement is inherently a bad thing while random combat resolution isn't. You are arguing against a phantom then, because no one has said random movement is inherently bad, I even said I like Deep Strike scatter. The issue is, you can only have so much randomness in a game before it turns into Yahtzee, and so when you have too much, you need to trim it from the places where it makes the least sense from both a gameplay and fluff perspective. Lord Of Texas fucked around with this message at 19:10 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:Are the missions in there any good? The missions that I read were all really interesting scenarios. You won't play through a tournament using them and some require more terrain options than others, but I got a huge kick out of the more narrative focused missions and I'm pretty much up for whatever isn't The Relic for the 80th time.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
Oh come on, dude. One guy trips or sprains his ankle, so another guy helps him along, slowing the entire unit down. You invited examples of things outside the player's or models' concerns, and I gave you some.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:09
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Oh come on, dude. One guy trips or sprains his ankle, so another guy helps him along, slowing the entire unit down. You invited examples of things outside the player's or models' concerns, and I gave you some. ...and this happens at least 18% of the time a unit tries to move at a pace faster than a jog
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Random movement is frustrating and added rolling. From a game design standpoint, it just seems like a bad decision. As a player, why the gently caress should I have to worry about if I can actually move my guys or not, even on clear terrain? It's just a Feel Bad that also reduces the ability to play tactically. Even moreso random powers and the like. I pick units to fill a role in my army, but my psyker's powers aren't decided until the game begins. So I have no way of knowing if he'll actually be able to do something my strategy can use! That's horrible design.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted: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. Fer gently caress's sake. We just went over this. I was responding to a guy who wanted to either get a mulligan or discard more than one card per turn and I was telling him that if that's what you want, go Tactical Warlord. I am not proposing that this is a cure-all solution for people who don't like the Objective Deck. Context matters, people. Read the whole post including the quotes before you misconstrue poo poo!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
For the umpteenth loving time: I am not defending 40K's particular implementation of random movement, just attacking the idea that random movement is inherently wrong or illogical, while random combat resolution is not. Look at modern warfare: it's not a question of whether or not an Apache can blow up a truck, it's a question of whether or not that Apache can get in position to blow up a truck. A game with random movement and fixed combat resolution is no more random and out of player control than the opposite. It just refocuses where that randomness occurs. Would players like it? I'm not sure. We've been well conditioned to accept fixed movement and random combat resolution as the way wargames work.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
jng2058 posted:Fer gently caress's sake. We just went over this. I was responding to a guy who wanted to either get a mulligan or discard more than one card per turn and I was telling him that if that's what you want, go Tactical Warlord. I am not proposing that this is a cure-all solution for people who don't like the Objective Deck. Uh, I'm sorry I pointed out reasons why your proposed solution to a problem has problems? I realize you were responding to someone, I was explaining why, as a mechanic, that solution is not very good because it runs into several factors that trip it up. The fact that you suggested it kinda implies that you believe it is at least functional, because otherwise you wouldn't have said anything- and something with less than a 50% success rate I don't feel is terribly functional, even as a band-aid.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Is the thread still in "unbound" status, or is this just regular nerd fighting? For content: I bought an Imperial Knight, assembled and am in the middle of painting it. I'm thinking of selling my Space Wolves and Flesh Tearers to buy 5 more of them. Best idea or worst idea?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Do it, contribute to 40k Accelerationism.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:For the umpteenth loving time: I am not defending 40K's particular implementation of random movement, just attacking the idea that random movement is inherently wrong or illogical, while random combat resolution is not. Look at modern warfare: it's not a question of whether or not an Apache can blow up a truck, it's a question of whether or not that Apache can get in position to blow up a truck. A game with random movement and fixed combat resolution is no more random and out of player control than the opposite. It just refocuses where that randomness occurs. Would players like it? I'm not sure. We've been well conditioned to accept fixed movement and random combat resolution as the way wargames work. But no one is saying that random movement is wrong or illogical, we're saying that it's a poor design choice. We are talking about the design of the game, which is wholly independent from whatever fluff justification you want to come up with. There is an inherent tradeoff between randomness and skill, and we're arguing for a game that is more demanding (and rewarding) skill-wise.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted: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. This really can not be said enough. I stopped playing because my friends stopped playing due to the rules being poo poo and balance non-existent. I tried the local shops but the GW one was straight up unplayable due to the people there and the independent retailer was nearly as bad. At this point the game seems to only attract or keep the worst of the worst unless you're in a gaming group or playing with friends. Poorly written rules and faqs, codex creep, and an expensive entry cost is killing the game. It pushed me to warmachine (play warmachine, it's good) while others I know just sold armies to buy magic cards or board games. Let me ask you all a question. How many new players do you routinely add in the local store group? And my independent retailer I usually play warmahordes at least 1 Saturday a month and that's supposed to be 40k day. I can't remember the last time I seen a new face there and it's always the same 4 to 6 guys. In the last 3 months we've probably added 8 warmachine players to the Thursday night games, most coming in every other week or so. Since 8th started leaking rumors I've even seen some of the 40k guys wandering around the privateer shelves. Hell, I want to play 40k as I've got an easy 5k points in Chaos and love the setting but the communities seem toxic and I don't want to have to try and house rule the poo poo out of the game to unbreak it.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:Do it, contribute to 40k Accelerationism. They're so fun to assemble and paint. I like the idea of going to a local tourney and plopping down 5-6 models saying "That's my deployment" and walking outside for a cigarette while my opponent pulls out fist fulls of Orks / Guard / Nids and sighs at his horde army.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
You guys should all come play historicals with me, we can use your 40k models as proxies until you get the 50 bucks it'll take to get a period accurate army together. You can Forge The Narrative by following orders of battle and then have the outcomes determined by player skill! It's everything you want!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
AbusePuppy posted:Uh, I'm sorry I pointed out reasons why your proposed solution to a problem has problems? I realize you were responding to someone, I was explaining why, as a mechanic, that solution is not very good because it runs into several factors that trip it up. The fact that you suggested it kinda implies that you believe it is at least functional, because otherwise you wouldn't have said anything- and something with less than a 50% success rate I don't feel is terribly functional, even as a band-aid. Play a battle-forged army. Get a re-roll for your Warlord trait. 75% of your rolls now involve discarding cards or getting an extra one which is nearly as good. Two of the other three results give you more points for scoring objectives which isn't as good but can still help. Only one really sucks, forcing a random discard by your opponent, and that will happen 1 out of every Seems like a reasonable band-aid to me. e: math jng2058 fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:You guys should all come play historicals with me, we can use your 40k models as proxies until you get the 50 bucks it'll take to get a period accurate army together. Everything except the science fiction aspects! I personally don't play historicals because the settings and aesthetics don't interest me as much for my gaming time. I want lasers and railguns and hovertanks and robots, not real weapons and armor!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:But no one is saying that random movement is wrong or illogical, we're saying that it's a poor design choice. We are talking about the design of the game, which is wholly independent from whatever fluff justification you want to come up with. There is an inherent tradeoff between randomness and skill, and we're arguing for a game that is more demanding (and rewarding) skill-wise. Lord of Texas established a false dichotomy between random combat res and random movement, so I adressed that point and that point only. It's a point tangential but related to the discussion about 40K's level of randomness v skill, and I have been very clear about that. And game design is not wholly independent of fluff. Game desing codifies and implements the fluff. It, of course, should not be wholly beholden to the fluff because ultimately it is a game and needs to strike a balance between randomness and agency, but it still needs to be influenced by the fluff or it becomes completely disconnected and renders the fluff utterly meaningless.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Bad game design, however, is bad regardless of the fluff! Random movement just doesn't have a place in the game, as it prevents you from attempting your tactics, while random accuracy determines how effective your tactics are!
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:For the umpteenth loving time: I am not defending 40K's particular implementation of random movement, just attacking the idea that random movement is inherently wrong or illogical, while random combat resolution is not. Look at modern warfare: it's not a question of whether or not an Apache can blow up a truck, it's a question of whether or not that Apache can get in position to blow up a truck. A game with random movement and fixed combat resolution is no more random and out of player control than the opposite. It just refocuses where that randomness occurs. Would players like it? I'm not sure. We've been well conditioned to accept fixed movement and random combat resolution as the way wargames work. In the grim darkness of the 41st millennium there is only 21st century skirmish warfare problems.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Naramyth posted: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. I think this is where you confusion is. You seem to equate casual players as people who 'Don't know what they're doing, and when told otherwise their ego stops them from listening to me and thus being a better player.' You also seem to think that 'casual' players seem to think they deserve to win because they've spent money on the models they have. This is where you're going wrong. Sometimes a casual player wont listen when you tell them that Assault Squads are awful and they should really be running grav gun bikes for the same points, not because their ego is too big, nor because they feel they've spent this money and thus their unit will be good no matter what, but because they really really like Space Marines with Jetpacks. They're not listening to you because you're wandering up to them and saying 'Oh hey you know this thing that you really like, that thing you started the army entirely to have? Its poo poo, throw it in the bin and get this instead if you want to win. See ya.' These are the people that wont have boxes of models sat gathering dust because they're not 'optimal'. They'll be dug out and thrown on the board. And another thing. You seem to think that just because those guys at the bottom tables hadnt won anything they were 'play for fun guys'. Have you ever stopped to consider that they're a win at all costs type and they're just really really bad at the game? And thats why they were so depressed? I know I wouldn't go to a tournament purely because I know I'd play at least 2 games against identikit top tier lists where the only difference is the guy rolling the dice. I'm pretty sure its an opinion held by many other people that view the game the same as me.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 19:50
|
|
". 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.
|
Magic: The Gathering is a solid game ruined by intentionally unbalanced  cards and lovely players. My girlfriend actually played Magic before I did, I have a stack of old cards that would be really fun to play, since I have absolutely no Control decks or other heinous bullshit. One Green deck does nothing but spit out heaps and heaps of Land just for the gently caress of it. I have a White deck that is just totally mundane stuff that punches stuff, no tricks at all. We're going to start playing it this week, should be loads of fun. Player: "I'm playing a control deck, that means you can't spend mana, can't play cards, can't discard, can't play creatures, or do anything at all."Rational Player: "Jesus christ, what the hell is wrong with you." As with 40k, there is no stopping lovely players from being lovely, but certain systems can encourage and even monetize players to be shitlords.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Magic: The Gathering is a solid game ruined by intentionally unbalanced Not to make this Magic chat, but control does not dominate in today's Magic. It's just another archetype. Playing white dudes that punch stuff and green decks that spit out heaps and heaps of land are just as competitive, and often better, than "sorry, you can't do that" control decks. If you're posting from 1998, then I agree with you. But Magic has undergone a long shift from the previously dominant control and combo archetypes of yesteryear to a more balanced metagame.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Magic: The Gathering is a solid game ruined by intentionally unbalanced This reads like you haven't played Magic in 10+ years
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:This reads like you haven't played Magic in 10+ years It sounds like he played it once, poorly, at that. Also it's in no way related to the design of the rules, which is what the fundamental problem some people in this thread are having with 40k.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:Magic has undergone a long shift from the previously dominant control and combo archetypes of yesteryear to a more balanced metagame. Across every format, too. Magic is a really balanced game that's designed to be both competitive and casual. Oh, and they happen to make heaps of money too. GW could learn something from them. They don't have to appeal exclusively to a casual crowd to sell product.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 20:07
|
|
