|
Most importantly, Andy Chambers might not be mugging at a camera with a berzerker face, which would make him harder to recognize.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
That dovetails hilariously with the rumor about the redshirt who had to memorize GW staffers' photos for his manager's exam.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
It actually speaks highly of that poor redshirt, that he did not obssess over GW so much that he had memorized the faces of GW "royalty." Indicitave of a more well-adjusted human being who might have a better shot at a normal life, after his inevitably-short stint as GW retail staff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:It's really petty of GW because FFG already had the Star Wars license and was making a popular science fiction miniatures game (sure it wasn't intrinsically a hobby, but the crossover of 40k players is about 100%) and GW doesn't make a mass battle fantasy game. If AoS is supposed to represent some new path in gaming then they shouldn't be worried when someone tries to resurrect the bones of the past. GW loves being petty. And Imperial Assault/Xwing are skirmish games so I don't think GW sees them as competition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Pulling the license from FFG would be dumb and stupid because FFG has only improved the GW stuff it has gotten its hands on. Which means it is probably entirely likely that's what they are doing. I don't think that FFG will be hurting much for it though, seeing as they have the Star Wars license to work with and the rest of the stuff they already produce.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
moths posted:That dovetails hilariously with the rumor about the redshirt who had to memorize GW staffers' photos for his manager's exam. I've seen that book and it wasn't for a manager's promotion it was part of the test for a Redshirt pay increase (the other part being the GW approved methods of upselling poo poo). Maybe that event is what led to that test.... Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Radish posted:I've seen that book and it wasn't for a manager's promotion it was part of the test for a Redshirt pay increase (the other part being the GW approved methods of upselling poo poo). Maybe that event is what led to that test.... It would depend on whose photos it was. Maybe the people who wrote the book only wanted you to recognize Kirby. Who gives a poo poo about the White Dwarf staff and the developers, am I right? Ashcans posted:Pulling the license from FFG would be dumb and stupid because FFG has only improved the GW stuff it has gotten its hands on. Which means it is probably entirely likely that's what they are doing. I don't think that FFG will be hurting much for it though, seeing as they have the Star Wars license to work with and the rest of the stuff they already produce. Also, isn't a significant part of their revenue at this point from licensing? I would absolutely love for them to pull the license and hand it off to some other game company less competent than FFG.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
With X-Wing overtaking 40k in the states I can see why GW wouldn't want to keep doing business with them. Sure, in the real-world HP and Dell are both competitors and partners depending on what part of their businesses are interacting but GW and FFG are small enough that GW probably thinks that games based on GW's IP is too beneficial to their biggest rival. I mean, personally I think GW should offload all of the rules to FFG and focus on models but I can see where GW is coming from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Pulling the license from FFG would be dumb and stupid because FFG has only improved the GW stuff it has gotten its hands on. Which means it is probably entirely likely that's what they are doing. I don't think that FFG will be hurting much for it though, seeing as they have the Star Wars license to work with and the rest of the stuff they already produce. Those poor kids starting their board gaming hobby with the likes of not-Talisman star wars though...
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Those poor kids starting their board gaming hobby with the likes of not-Talisman star wars though... Come on, kids have been starting board games with lovely horrible games for ages. Monopoly, Life, Snakes and Ladders, whatever, they'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I only ever played Talisman on Steam after it was on sale for like $2. I regretted my purchase 45 minutes in. Is the steam version identical to the boardgame? Cause I don't know how anyone loving thinks fantasy Chutes and Ladders was a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
That comic is always hilarious to me, because I actually worked for GW for a while and if staff ever tried something like that they'd receive a written warning at best the sort of  that happens in that comic is when the redshirts are already busy, and some 'helpful' regular decided to drag his neckbeard over to some poor kid before you can intercede The best was still one of our worst regulars asking if it was okay to bring a friend to the 8th ed showcase night, then that friend standing in the corner and meowing while a bevvy of new customers shared a "well let us never return here" look
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Should have asked if friend was a cat before agreeing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:I only ever played Talisman on Steam after it was on sale for like $2. I regretted my purchase 45 minutes in. Is the steam version identical to the boardgame? Cause I don't know how anyone loving thinks fantasy Chutes and Ladders was a good idea. I have never played Talisman, but if thats the case it sort of makes sense because people have been managing to sell regular chutes and ladders at a profit for decades. Maybe they should make a 40k themed version of Life as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Should have asked if friend was a cat before agreeing. they were decidedly not a cat they were wearing a collar and looked under 15, though! the regular was in his late twenties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
fnordcircle posted:I only ever played Talisman on Steam after it was on sale for like $2. I regretted my purchase 45 minutes in. Is the steam version identical to the boardgame? Cause I don't know how anyone loving thinks fantasy Chutes and Ladders was a good idea. Talisman is more like Monopoly than Candyland. It all comes down to luck and loving each other over. I played DunegonQuest with my daughter the other day and it dawned on me what an absolutely godawful game it was. I don't know why I ever liked it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
In fairness, there were some really amazing customers, too. We had a kid who was about twelve, saving his pocket money each week to afford Skull Pass. He'd come in about once a month, inform me in a clinical tone of where his savings were at, then politely ask if we could have another practice game. He would then very matter-of-factly explain how the goblins were using a phalanx formation, and how the giant was "really just a large man", who was vastly inferior to the dwarven cannons. Giles was the best. He eventually got Skull Pass, too. I wonder if he still plays Warhammer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Please pray for my giant. Aint nothing wrong with him he's just a really large man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:I have never played Talisman, but if thats the case it sort of makes sense because people have been managing to sell regular chutes and ladders at a profit for decades. Maybe they should make a 40k themed version of Life as well. Well Chutes and Ladders/Candyland are targetted at 5 year olds not 15-85 year olds. I actually like Monopoly more than Talisman because at least in Monopoly you're trying to manage a resource and sure it's dictated by random dice rolls but when I played Talisman it was 60 minutes of going around and around with no sense of controlling anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:It would depend on whose photos it was. Maybe the people who wrote the book only wanted you to recognize Kirby. Who gives a poo poo about the White Dwarf staff and the developers, am I right? The only pictures I saw were the director of HR and this one guy that I remember as being the lovely local manager we all hated ten years prior when we were in middle school who apparently got promoted up the chain significantly. That guy once told us that we needed to update our bases with new Citadel brand flock since the stuff we had wasn't current or we couldn't game in the store so we said gently caress that and didn't go back for years. It reminds me that when I was a kid the redshirts were huge assholes about making sure everyone had everything not only painted, but painted to a certain quality. I remember my twelve year old self being told my stuff wasn't good enough but the guy was going to be "nice" and let me play this time because I was already there. When I got back into the hobby in my 20s the first thing I noticed was that people were playing with unpainted stuff and I asked the manager about it and he said that stupid policy was gone for years. fnordcircle posted:Well Chutes and Ladders/Candyland are targetted at 5 year olds not 15-85 year olds. Talisman is pretty bad but Relic actually feels like a better game. It might still be poo poo but I don't hate it as much for some reason. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:My best redshirt story was from the time the design studio went into town to buy some new reference books. We went to Waterstones on Friar Lane which was coincidentally right opposite the GW store location at the time. There was Jervis, Andy Chambers, Tuomas Pirinen, Nigel Stillman, Warwick Kinrade, Ian Pickstock, and me. Collectively, you would expect to see photos of us, multiple times, in every contemporary issue of White Dwarf. We decide to step into the store to see what's up and sign a few books or something. The whole posse of us walk in at the same time, AndyC on point. The redshirt looks up from where he's reading WD at the till and waves. I still love this photo of you. It never gets old: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Free gun show itt
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Come on, kids have been starting board games with lovely horrible games for ages. Monopoly, Life, Snakes and Ladders, whatever, they'll be fine. Those games take maybe an hour to hour and a half. Talisman takes 2.5+ with 4 players.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Those games take maybe an hour to hour and a half. Talisman takes 2.5+ with 4 players. I dunno, man. Monopoly can take ages if the dice feel like it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
It's a lot easier for Talisman to go on for hours and hours than Monopoly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
On the other hand....I would be more amenable to playing star wars talisman where you have to run around and assemble a lightsaber to go in the inner chambers for the final duel, hmmmmmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
WAR FOOT posted:In fairness, there were some really amazing customers, too. We had a kid who was about twelve, saving his pocket money each week to afford Skull Pass. He'd come in about once a month, inform me in a clinical tone of where his savings were at, then politely ask if we could have another practice game. He would then very matter-of-factly explain how the goblins were using a phalanx formation, and how the giant was "really just a large man", who was vastly inferior to the dwarven cannons. I hope not 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
I don't actually care, the point is that kids have played poo poo games for ages and they often muddle through and only end up with some moderate psychological scarring, so its fine. That doesn't mean you should be an rear end in a top hat and make them play bad games when you know better. Related, I wish my extended family wouldn't give my kids lovely games, if I wanted to spend four hours playing chutes and ladders I would have bought it myself, grandma. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Speaking of GW games in stores does any other miniature game have the issue of players having to worry about being declared a "WAAC" if their army is good at winning? I dropped out of GW poo poo awhile ago and just ventured onto dakka and forgot how much of a witch hunt WAAC poo poo is and how you're an awful player if you play a list that is designed well compared to a "fluffy" list. I don't recall any other game really having an issue like that
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Speaking of GW games in stores does any other miniature game have the issue of players having to worry about being declared a "WAAC" if their army is good at winning? I dropped out of GW poo poo awhile ago and just ventured onto dakka and forgot how much of a witch hunt WAAC poo poo is and how you're an awful player if you play a list that is designed well compared to a "fluffy" list. I don't recall any other game really having an issue like that I think a lot of games have stuff that's known to be poo poo/a bit too good, but I don't know any other games where this is taken to be the fault of the player rather than the designers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Speaking of GW games in stores does any other miniature game have the issue of players having to worry about being declared a "WAAC" if their army is good at winning? I dropped out of GW poo poo awhile ago and just ventured onto dakka and forgot how much of a witch hunt WAAC poo poo is and how you're an awful player if you play a list that is designed well compared to a "fluffy" list. I don't recall any other game really having an issue like that WAAC is mostly a GW thing, in terms of miniature wargames. The majority of games have at least some modicum of balance to it, with an eye towards making tournament play not be a total goddamn nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Dr. VooDoo posted:Speaking of GW games in stores does any other miniature game have the issue of players having to worry about being declared a "WAAC" if their army is good at winning? Taking a 2 Fridge list in DZC as UCM is considered bad form - bad as it costs a lot and doesn't give you any objective grabbing units, even that's not completely unbalanced. (Fridge= the Human faction Drone carrier, that can have 6 drones a turn active, can replenish then with no cost or penalty- and they can do decent medium strength shots, combine them for a single good Heavy shot and even do anti-air duty.. while needing anti-air to shoot them down, and give no victory points, no matter how many you kill... I play Shaltarii.. and the only answer to this is dance round the objectives and hope)
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Slimnoid posted:WAAC is mostly a GW thing, in terms of miniature wargames. The majority of games have at least some modicum of balance to it, with an eye towards making tournament play not be a total goddamn nightmare. Yeah you have it in every game (see also: fighting games, magic, tabletop RPGs, rec sports, etc.) but the less-balanced a game is, the more prevalent that stuff becomes because the game itself lacks the mechanisms to prevent people who legitimately play to win from annihilating people who aren't in a way that isn't interactive or fun. So 40k is very, very prone to it since even at the higher levels of play you have a bunch of dominated strategies and a few dominant ones. Also worth noting that a good proportion of people who complain about WAAC people are who are upset that using sub-optimal strategies and having less skill led to them losing. TheChirurgeon fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
I can't mentally process that AoS is succeeding. A childish part of me still believes in a just world when apparently there's nothing but laughter of dark gods.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
I've only got into x-wing recently really and it doesn't so much have WAAC because to me that's breaking that nebulous thing of the spirit of the game (whatever that means) and more near-to-absolutely optimum lists that just do much much better than other lists. But! Unlike warhammer, a top meta list is not a near auto-win, but still requires skill to play in order to win. That kind of thing is still there, but much much less. I am someone who would not particularly like to play hyper competitive lists in warhammer and 40k, but wouldn't blame the player for taking a legal, if totally broken or (I can't believe I was into this) anti-fluff list. I'd blame the lovely writer allowing it. But then I just enjoyed rolling dice for the guys I wanted to bother painting and playing the game - and then discovered games where you can take that attitude and due to this crazy thing called "balance", still have an enjoyable game against anyone. Fly casual is drat good advice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
BULBASAUR posted:I still love this photo of you. It never gets old: I look more like Mad Bryan these days than I do my old staff mugshot.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I can't mentally process that AoS is succeeding. A childish part of me still believes in a just world when apparently there's nothing but laughter of dark gods. im pretty sure all of their non licensing sales are falling across the board iirc ironically, the setting that was squatted for not being profitable enough is keeping the company alive in the form of warhammer total war edit: spectralent posted:I think a lot of games have stuff that's known to be poo poo/a bit too good, but I don't know any other games where this is taken to be the fault of the player rather than the designers. for example, in 7th there was a very specific gear kit you could give a Dark Elf lord that would make him functionally invulnerable in combat and you could just park a dangerous unit for the whole game and dance around it. strategies like that and, say, blocks of 100+ skaven slaves are definitely conscious choices the player makes to game the system. there's a very big difference between being competitive and building a list that either deletes entire units at once (throwing your entire casting pool at a boosted megadeath spell on turn one) or just shuts down the other opponent's game so they don't get to do anything (the old slaanesh daemon lists) Business Gorillas fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Aug 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
i mean yeah, it makes more sense to blame GW for making lovely rules, but someone choosing to run an rear end in a top hat list is a lot closer and easier to hate than a corporation who's products you've bought and otherwise enjoy
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
WAAC hate is a combination of a few things and almost all of it comes from the toxic nature of GW and its fanboys. Mostly I think it's a crutch for people who are bad at losing. What constitutes a WAAC lists is generally arbitrary and the local guy who whines the most about 'competitive' players is also the guy who will go on and on about how balanced Frostgrave is because he's currently in the lead in our campaign due to playing the most games and is crushing everyone. But gently caress those Warmachine players from our tournament last week who wouldn't win anything without their netlists. We probably all agree that GW isn't simply bad at making balanced games it's more that they're actively antagonistic towards the concept. The right Stormcast list will crush a Chaos list thanks to some abilities and order allegiances that give Stormcast bonuses against Chaos. Losing a game in the list-building phase is no fun for anyone but instead of pointing the finger where they should, at GW for allowing narrative to override balance, they blame the person who they played. To the point where you're actually A Bad Person for using completely legal models and combos. The whole 'wargaming is a litmus test for the condition of your soul' poo poo. But these are the same people who will defend GW tooth and nail over claims that the rules are bad or that the game is a huge unbalanced pile of poo poo. What's interesting to me is that 99% of the time the people complaining about this poo poo like it should be considered a hate crime are self-described 'casuals'. The competitive players at my FLGS have never talked poo poo about me because I'm a casual player but the casual players just love to blame the competitive people for ruining this or that meta. Maybe my shop's unique, but there's nowhere near the amount of hate coming from competitives towards casuals as there is the other way which just makes no sense to me. If all you want to do is chuck dice and B&P (beer & pretzels) then I'm not sure why there's so much bitterness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 16:09 |
|
|
Last game I played I had a CAD of tyranids versus an armored company/knight/droppod formation of marines. There was absolutely no way I could have won that game. Formations absolutely broke the game.fnordcircle posted:If all you want to do is chuck dice and B&P (beer & pretzels) then I'm not sure why there's so much bitterness. Yeah, it seems like they actively rally against balance. Like you can't have a balanced game that is "beer & pretzels"* or that balancing for tournament play wouldn't help all levels of play. They will decry that they cannot field their awesome idea of an army without formations, when they all take unpainted lovely models that they think are powerful. * I loving hate that term. Just because something is simple to play doesn't mean it can't be balanced or strategic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 00:38
|
|
