GW Death Thread 2015 - 2016 - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > GW Death Thread 2015 - 2016

«‹›554 »

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Early magic is a bad thing to base anything on because it was just a gigantic loving mess

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 19:55

Galaga Galaxian: Apr 23, 2009; What a childish tactic!
Don't you think you should put more thought into your battleplan?!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzsDLpNMZq0

Am I allowed to give GW money for this? :ohdear:

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:37

Ultiville: Jan 14, 2005; The law protects no one unless it binds everyone, binds no one unless it protects everyone.

Ilor posted:

No, it's not novel at all. My point is that I used to do it casually. I started when the game first came out, before tournaments were even really a thing (though they caught on pretty quickly in all the local gaming conventions). I found the game-play concepts interesting at first, and while there were some balance issues, it was a decent way to pass the time with friends (and do something other than going to class - gently caress undergrad).

But what I also noticed was that there was a strong incentive to pay more money to buy more boosters to get better cards. I had friends dropping hundreds of dollars on CASES of boosters and was like, "Hmmm, I don't wanna be that guy." And playing against those people became increasingly pointless and frustrating, because you knew your buddy had umpty-bajillion split lands, circle-of-protection-you-name-it, and 5 Serra Angels tucked in there. Hence the Korean MMO comparison - free (or cheap) to play, pay to win. That is how CCGs are designed, pretty much from the ground up.

I know enough people who still play the game and I still hear them bitch about both the expense and balance issues, hence my reticence to get back into it. It's not that I'm miraculously rediscovering a novel concept, it's that I am hesitant to re-expose myself to a concept I found unfulfilling the first time around. Your idea of casual and my idea of casual are likely to be very different.

Plus also, Avenging Dentist is right; there are no jewel-like war mans.

I don't think anyone's saying you should play or enjoy Magic. Just that the model is pretty reasonable.

As for "pay to win", it isn't. At the highest levels of competitive constructed, it's entry-gated insofar as you need to assemble the cards you need to build whatever deck you want to play. But that's not the same thing; you also can't play golf unless you can afford clubs and a membership, or whatever. Once you've got your deck, spending additional money is not useful.

And of course even if you want to be competitive, you can play in events up to the Grand Prix level solely by playing Draft and Sealed, where you literally cannot pay more for more cards.

Again, not saying that you're wrong for not wanting to play Magic; play whatever you want. But it's a Good Game for what it is, and WOTC for the most part supports a wide variety of styles of play, again contrasted with a lot of other games where the company itself tells you what the "right" way to play is.

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:38

Ilor: Feb 2, 2008; That's a crit.

Literally The Worst posted:

Early magic is a bad thing to base anything on because it was just a gigantic loving mess

Heh, no disagreement there. You've certainly made a cogent and persuasive case for MtG in its current incarnation. If I find myself kickin' around the FLGS on Magic night with nothing else going, maybe I'll give it a try.

But if I find myself divorced and living as an itinerant out of the back of a rusted-out 1972 VW bus relentlessly chasing the MtG tournament dragon six months from now, I'm blaming you. You guys are cool with that, yeah?

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:41

LGD: Sep 25, 2004

Ilor posted:

Plus also, Avenging Dentist is right; there are no jewel-like war mans.

you can still pay artists to paint your cards with finest of anime titties, there is no discernible difference

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:41

Saint Isaias Boner: Jan 17, 2007; posting is magic

Galaga Galaxian posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzsDLpNMZq0

Am I allowed to give GW money for this?

it's being made by streumon, you pretty much have to

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:48

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Ultiville posted:

I don't think anyone's saying you should play or enjoy Magic. Just that the model is pretty reasonable.

As for "pay to win", it isn't. At the highest levels of competitive constructed, it's entry-gated insofar as you need to assemble the cards you need to build whatever deck you want to play. But that's not the same thing; you also can't play golf unless you can afford clubs and a membership, or whatever. Once you've got your deck, spending additional money is not useful.

And of course even if you want to be competitive, you can play in events up to the Grand Prix level solely by playing Draft and Sealed, where you literally cannot pay more for more cards.

Again, not saying that you're wrong for not wanting to play Magic; play whatever you want. But it's a Good Game for what it is, and WOTC for the most part supports a wide variety of styles of play, again contrasted with a lot of other games where the company itself tells you what the "right" way to play is.

poo poo WotC has even started supporting a format that was literally created by players (EDH/Commander) with yearly releases

WotC is not a terrible company

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:49

Ultiville: Jan 14, 2005; The law protects no one unless it binds everyone, binds no one unless it protects everyone.

Ilor posted:

But if I find myself divorced and living as an itinerant out of the back of a rusted-out 1972 VW bus relentlessly chasing the MtG tournament dragon six months from now, I'm blaming you. You guys are cool with that, yeah?

Wouldn't be the first time, probably.

# ? Aug 17, 2016 23:56

Kaiju Cage Match: Nov 5, 2012

Saint Isaias Boner posted:

it's being made by streumon, you pretty much have to

Will I gain brouzouf and unlock level 10 cyberlegs? :ohdear:

# ? Aug 18, 2016 00:47

S.J.: May 19, 2008; Just who the hell do you think we are?

Galaga Galaxian posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzsDLpNMZq0

Am I allowed to give GW money for this?

Yes. We should encourage people who aren't GW to create products for their IP.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:06

Avenging Dentist: Oct 1, 2005; oh my god is that a circular saw that does not go in my mouth aaaaagh

Literally The Worst posted:

Early magic is a bad thing to base anything on because it was just a gigantic loving mess

On this, at least, we can agree; you should never base anything on early MtG.

Including current MtG.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:15

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Avenging Dentist posted:

On this, at least, we can agree; you should never base anything on early MtG.

Including current MtG.

It's interesting because it was this new concept and because of crazy nonsense like the power nine

Gardield's answer when asked if he considered what would happen if there were multiple copies of those cards in a playgroup was amazing: "I figured at that point it would mean we were a runaway success and that's a very good problem to have"

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:21

Ultiville: Jan 14, 2005; The law protects no one unless it binds everyone, binds no one unless it protects everyone.

Literally The Worst posted:

It's interesting because it was this new concept and because of crazy nonsense like the power nine

Gardield's answer when asked if he considered what would happen if there were multiple copies of those cards in a playgroup was amazing: "I figured at that point it would mean we were a runaway success and that's a very good problem to have"

To be fair, he wasn't wrong. It's easy to forget now because we've been living with it for so long, but Magic really was something fundamentally new in terms of how quickly and thoroughly it took off. The amount people were willing to invest in it was unexpected to everyone.

It was kind of cool for the brief times and places it actually worked as intended, though. I started playing right around when The Dark came out and was out in the boonies playing mostly against other middle school, high school, or college students. Between budget and the small amount of product available, we didn't really have anyone who owned everything, or knew about the "net decks" (heck, there was barely a net). So you'd play against that one guy who owned two Mana Flares and virtually no one else in the group had any at all so it was a totally different experience.

Not necessarily better, but interestingly different from how the game developed once they started actually printing enough product to keep up with demand, the secondary market matured, information exchange improved, etc.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:29

Moola: Aug 16, 2006

haha the snooty art supply shop in my town that never seems to sell anything and is run by a rude douche has loads of AoS kits in the window

bahahaha

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:31

goatface: Dec 5, 2007; I had a video of that when I was about 6.

I remember it being shit.; Grimey Drawer

Does he sell chisels?

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:35

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

Ultiville posted:

To be fair, he wasn't wrong. It's easy to forget now because we've been living with it for so long, but Magic really was something fundamentally new in terms of how quickly and thoroughly it took off. The amount people were willing to invest in it was unexpected to everyone.

It was kind of cool for the brief times and places it actually worked as intended, though. I started playing right around when The Dark came out and was out in the boonies playing mostly against other middle school, high school, or college students. Between budget and the small amount of product available, we didn't really have anyone who owned everything, or knew about the "net decks" (heck, there was barely a net). So you'd play against that one guy who owned two Mana Flares and virtually no one else in the group had any at all so it was a totally different experience.

Not necessarily better, but interestingly different from how the game developed once they started actually printing enough product to keep up with demand, the secondary market matured, information exchange improved, etc.

It was also the first TCG, nobody had done this before. They were breaking a ton of ground every step of the way.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:43

little munchkin: Aug 15, 2010

Ilor posted:

No, I get that WOTC doesn't care about the secondary market in terms of cost (because as you rightly point out, they don't make any money off it). But my point is that if you want the rarer, more useful cards, you are faced with two choices: 1) buy a poo poo-ton of packs and hope for the best, or 2) hit the secondary market.

And ultimately, someone somewhere is buying a poo poo-ton of packs in order to feed those rare cards into the secondary market (unless of course they are Chinese knock-offs). So no, WOTC doesn't make any money any time someone sells a Vintage card at a trade show. But they sure as poo poo made their money when the 100 packs containing that one card were purchased originally. They don't get a direct cut of the year-over-year appreciation value, but to say that they don't make anything off it at all is na�ve. Sets that are known to have "good" rares have much stronger overall sales than those that don't.

Yea, if a set is in print, then the secondary market works by stores opening cases in order to meet demand, and pricing the cards to match the cost of the sealed product. If there's some chase card with massive demand a huge pricetag, then WotC most certainly profits off that. They deliberately design certain cards to be the best ones in the set and then print those cards to be extra rare, making the stores crack as many cases as possible while passing the costs down to the players. Even if you never open a pack, buying singles of in-print sets is passing money on to WotC.

That only really matters if you play standard (competitive format using only the most recent sets), though. Which you shouldn't. Drafting and older formats are good though.

Ultiville posted:

As for "pay to win", it isn't. At the highest levels of competitive constructed, it's entry-gated insofar as you need to assemble the cards you need to build whatever deck you want to play. But that's not the same thing; you also can't play golf unless you can afford clubs and a membership, or whatever. Once you've got your deck, spending additional money is not useful.

Yea magic is "pay to participate" not "pay to win". Money just gives you more options to choose from. I play modern and my decks are quite cheap for modern standards, but still competitive. I can play against people with $2000 dollar Jund decks with my 200$ Skred deck and the game will still come down to luck + skill instead of who spent the most.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:48

little munchkin: Aug 15, 2010

Also RE: GW death: I've never seen any flavor of warhammer being played at the shop I've been going to for 9 months. I see a lot of a spaceship one, and there's also a soccer one that features a shark that is somehow popping out of dry land. There's also a bunch of ones where dudes shoot at each other, or maybe just one but I can't tell them apart at all.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:56

BENGHAZI 2: Oct 13, 2007; by Cyrano4747

little munchkin posted:

Yea, if a set is in print, then the secondary market works by stores opening cases in order to meet demand, and pricing the cards to match the cost of the sealed product. If there's some chase card with massive demand a huge pricetag, then WotC most certainly profits off that. They deliberately design certain cards to be the best ones in the set and then print those cards to be extra rare, making the stores crack as many cases as possible while passing the costs down to the players. Even if you never open a pack, buying singles of in-print sets is passing money on to WotC.

That only really matters if you play standard (competitive format using only the most recent sets), though. Which you shouldn't. Drafting and older formats are good though.

Yea magic is "pay to participate" not "pay to win". Money just gives you more options to choose from. I play modern and my decks are quite cheap for modern standards, but still competitive. I can play against people with $2000 dollar Jund decks with my 200$ Skred deck and the game will still come down to luck + skill instead of who spent the most.

The other and much more important function of really powerful cards being really rare is it stops them from warping a format

# ? Aug 18, 2016 01:59

Ultiville: Jan 14, 2005; The law protects no one unless it binds everyone, binds no one unless it protects everyone.

little munchkin posted:

Yea, if a set is in print, then the secondary market works by stores opening cases in order to meet demand, and pricing the cards to match the cost of the sealed product. If there's some chase card with massive demand a huge pricetag, then WotC most certainly profits off that. They deliberately design certain cards to be the best ones in the set and then print those cards to be extra rare, making the stores crack as many cases as possible while passing the costs down to the players. Even if you never open a pack, buying singles of in-print sets is passing money on to WotC.

This isn't even entirely true; having small numbers of highly valuable chase cards doesn't necessarily make for more successful sets. Origins didn't sell significantly better than the surrounding sets, for example, despite Jace, Vryn's Prodigy being one of the most absurdly valuable Standard-legal cards in a while. What happened instead was that the value of the other rares in the set for the most part got seriously deflated, so only Jace had much value. From my perspective, that was bad for Standard, and I'd expect WOTC agrees; they're much better off having a variety of chase rares in the $10-$20 range than a single massively valuable card. Both of them cause secondary market vendors to buy a bunch to keep up with demand, but it increases the chances that any given pack makes the player reasonably happy to open, reduces entry costs, etc. (Attendance in our Standard events still hasn't fully recovered from the era when you needed 4x Jace for pretty much any deck, plus some pricey lands.)

# ? Aug 18, 2016 02:08

Aaod: May 29, 2004

Moola posted:

haha the snooty art supply shop in my town that never seems to sell anything and is run by a rude douche has loads of AoS kits in the window

bahahaha

Is it located downtown? I swear my town has a good dozen stores like that where the owner is an rear end in a top hat and you never see them sell anything to the point you wonder if it is just a money laundering operation.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 04:30

Leperflesh: May 17, 2007

I still have piles of Magic cards, many of which I bought new in the mid-late 1990s. Last year my brother, who similarly has his piles of cards bought through the 90s and early aughts, but also some more recent stuff, came over and re-taught me (since the rules have changed a little since the old days).

We had a dozen or so enjoyable and challenging matches involving cards from decades apart. It was possible because my brother's play style is to build thematic decks that do something funny or sometimes stupid, but in a way that could win. And my decks tended to be similar - such as my token deck, which simply had every Magic card I owned in ~1998 that used or generated tokens. So lots of thallids, saprolings, goblins, etc. I think I made a huge green deck with like 200 cards in it that contained every card I owned that was an elf, had a picture of an elf on it, etc. plus a few dozen cards to make the deck actually function.

I made a blue deck that was just wizards and wizard spells. That's apparently very powerful in later editions but my deck was not very powerful, just fun.

I played cards like Drudge Skeletons that my brother said are more or less totally abandoned now, because it's well known that there are cards that are strictly better, or they're overcosted or something. Whatever. I had Homelands cards, and that's supposed to have been one of the weakest sets ever released. Whatever.

None of that poo poo matters at all if you and your opponent are playing casually. Which hey, is exactly the sort of bullshit excuse being made for pointsless Age of Sigmar, so I can see the irony of defending casual magic play that way, but there is a difference; it's literally not possible to play "for serious" without sinking hundreds of dollars into a deck, so pretty much anyone who isn't doing that, is playing some form of casual Magic. And if you take the very easy and universally understandable step of only playing cards from contemporaneous releases against one another - e.g., you and your opponent are only playing cards from circa 2014, plus or minus two years? Something like that is enough of a balancer that you are probably going to have good games on a relatively even playing field.

And as mentioned, if you have $20 to spend on a friday night, you can go play sealed deck drafting, where a group of players pools their "entry fee" to buy decks, open them and draft from them on the spot, play games (which are balanced inherently by only using cards from the same release, although player skill at drafting and deckbuilding matters), and then at the end of the night, go home with a pile of cards worth approximately what you paid to play.

Compared to the cost of buying one board game and playing it for years? Magic clearly still loses. But that's not really fair, is it? Most of us spend several hundred a year buying many different games, in order to sustain a play group, and our overall cost-per-game-sitting probably isn't much less than what a casual Magic player spends in order to play Magic, per year, divided up by how many hours they spend in enjoyable gaming. It's fairly comparable.

There is a path that leads from that casual play into the very expensive pursuit of tournament-level Magic play, but that just isn't really comparable to any other trad game tournament format, with one specific exception: playing poker tournaments for real money. It's no accident that quite a few professional poker players started out playing tournament Magic.

e. oops there was a whole nother page of posts, I may be behind the conversation

Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 04:45 on Aug 18, 2016

# ? Aug 18, 2016 04:40

Night10194: Feb 13, 2012; We'll start,
like many good things,
with a bear.

I got to try Epic 40k today because a friend still has 2 armies.

Wow, that game is actually good and fun! The initiative system is actually really cool and the abstractions and large formation movement were neat. How long ago did GW cancel Epic?

# ? Aug 18, 2016 04:48

TerraGoetia: Feb 21, 2011; A cup of spiders.

I bought a $35 Commander deck from my local gaming store so I could go in on Friday night and meet people / play games. Magic's always had a low buy-in cost compared to THE HOBBY, which is why it's easy to have so many casual players. If AoS had a $40-ish box where you got a few dudes and a hero, it'd probably get a lot more casual play.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 04:48

Numlock: May 19, 2007; The simplest seppo on the forums

I don't think it's really possible to play any game casually except maybe historicals.

The reason I say this is that in my experience there is an infinitesimal amount of time between you and your group being new to the game and figuring out how to play it without huge fuckups (the newbie period) and the point where somebody (if not all of you) starts net-listing/power gaming/theory-crafting and other stuff that boils down to taking the game more seriously so that everybody who wants to continue playing the game has to join the metaphorical arms race.

At this second stage the guys who don't care for that kind of play drop out and what is left is WAAC players complaining that everybody (But themselves of course) is WAAC and guys who want to play competitively (not "casually").

The only reason I make an tentative exception for historicals is that there are so many rule sets out there for them, and so many new ones coming out replacing the previous flavor of the week ruleset that no Historicals player has time to understand any one ruleset enough to hit that second stage. There are a few exceptions to this of course but its clear that your average historical player hates "those guys" who play those rulesets *cough*FoW*cough*

GW stuff doesn't count as at best if you think you are playing a GW game casually you are just rationalizing a bad relationship you should probably seek help to get out of.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 05:36

Atlas Hugged: Mar 12, 2007; Put your arms around me,
fiddly digits, itchy britches
I love you all

Night10194 posted:

I got to try Epic 40k today because a friend still has 2 armies.

Wow, that game is actually good and fun! The initiative system is actually really cool and the abstractions and large formation movement were neat. How long ago did GW cancel Epic?

I was just reading up on this recently. So Epic was considered the "third pillar" way back when, but it was always divided into two games: Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, focusing on Titans and massed infantry/vehicles respectively. Both of these went through two editions. Then in 1997 GW released a third edition boxset that combined the rules into a single book and streamlined the gameplay. Naturally fans were outraged and after 6 months GW canned it. The developers felt that this was the best game they had written up until that point. Then when Specialist Games was a thing, they brought Epic back in the form of Epic Armageddon, though I think this was developed from 2nd Edition and not 3rd Edition. This was released in 2003. Support died whenever it was that GW began to scale back on Specialist Games.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 05:41

Ghazk: May 11, 2007; I can see EVERYTHING

Night10194 posted:

I got to try Epic 40k today because a friend still has 2 armies.

Wow, that game is actually good and fun! The initiative system is actually really cool and the abstractions and large formation movement were neat. How long ago did GW cancel Epic?

I wish more people would do this because Epic is good and cool.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 06:13

Atlas Hugged: Mar 12, 2007; Put your arms around me,
fiddly digits, itchy britches
I love you all

Ghazk posted:

I wish more people would do this because Epic is good and cool.

I just wish the barrier to entry was lower.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 06:51

Ultiville: Jan 14, 2005; The law protects no one unless it binds everyone, binds no one unless it protects everyone.

Numlock posted:

I don't think it's really possible to play any game casually except maybe historicals.

The reason I say this is that in my experience there is an infinitesimal amount of time between you and your group being new to the game and figuring out how to play it without huge fuckups (the newbie period) and the point where somebody (if not all of you) starts net-listing/power gaming/theory-crafting and other stuff that boils down to taking the game more seriously so that everybody who wants to continue playing the game has to join the metaphorical arms race.

At this second stage the guys who don't care for that kind of play drop out and what is left is WAAC players complaining that everybody (But themselves of course) is WAAC and guys who want to play competitively (not "casually").

The only reason I make an tentative exception for historicals is that there are so many rule sets out there for them, and so many new ones coming out replacing the previous flavor of the week ruleset that no Historicals player has time to understand any one ruleset enough to hit that second stage. There are a few exceptions to this of course but its clear that your average historical player hates "those guys" who play those rulesets *cough*FoW*cough*

GW stuff doesn't count as at best if you think you are playing a GW game casually you are just rationalizing a bad relationship you should probably seek help to get out of.

You can definitely play games casually. I don't, myself, but I know people who do. The trick with it, though, as you say, is that the group has to be all in roughly the same camp, or else it'll splinter (often with one side quitting the game).

I've seen/heard about groups where it's the people who start getting serious about it that end up splintering off or out, rather than the casuals, though.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 07:25

MikeCrotch: Nov 5, 2011; I AM UNJUSTIFIABLY PROUD OF MY SPAGHETTI BOLOGNESE RECIPE

YES, IT IS AN INCREDIBLY SIMPLE DISH

NO, IT IS NOT NORMAL TO USE A PEPPERAMI INSTEAD OF MINCED MEAT

YES, THERE IS TOO MUCH SALT IN MY RECIPE

NO, I WON'T STOP SHARING IT

more like BOLLOCKnese

One of the cool things about Epic (both Epic 40k and Armageddon) is that Space Marines are not some indestructible death dealers with eleventy billion options and just as many troops as everyone else. They are a small, fast, hard hitting elite force that has to deal with having less units than any other force or special options like long range firepower and superheavy tanks, and are one of the more difficult forces to play well since they are quite fragile.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 10:18

Tekopo: Oct 24, 2008; When you see it, you'll shit yourself.

MikeCrotch posted:

One of the cool things about Epic (both Epic 40k and Armageddon) is that Space Marines are not some indestructible death dealers with eleventy billion options and just as many troops as everyone else. They are a small, fast, hard hitting elite force that has to deal with having less units than any other force or special options like long range firepower and superheavy tanks, and are one of the more difficult forces to play well since they are quite fragile.

I agree, the best thing about Epic:A is how the Space Marines are modeled. Watching them drop in/teleport/use thunderhawk to do surgical strikes is really representative of how they should actually work. The fact that they require twice as many blast markers to rout makes them very stable as well, and since they are less easily suppressed than other armies, they can dish out the hurt even when taking a relatively large amount of incoming firepower.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 10:40

Giant Ethicist: Jun 9, 2013; Looks like she got on a loaf of bread instead of a bus again...

Tekopo posted:

I agree, the best thing about Epic:A is how the Space Marines are modeled. Watching them drop in/teleport/use thunderhawk to do surgical strikes is really representative of how they should actually work. The fact that they require twice as many blast markers to rout makes them very stable as well, and since they are less easily suppressed than other armies, they can dish out the hurt even when taking a relatively large amount of incoming firepower.

ATSKNF is a great example of how E:A uses small numbers of fairly simple rules to model very different army playstyles. Marines feel like Marines, Orks feel like Orks, Eldar feel like Eldar, and so on, with a minimum of actual rules to drag things down. (Sadly, NetEA can be kind of hit or miss here - Tyranids, I'm looking at you - which is why I tend to prefer the EpicUK army lists, which hew more closely to the simpler-is-better philosophy.)

# ? Aug 18, 2016 10:56

Atlas Hugged: Mar 12, 2007; Put your arms around me,
fiddly digits, itchy britches
I love you all

Tell me if you've heard this one before.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:08

Panzeh: Nov 27, 2006; "..The high ground"

Tekopo posted:

I agree, the best thing about Epic:A is how the Space Marines are modeled. Watching them drop in/teleport/use thunderhawk to do surgical strikes is really representative of how they should actually work. The fact that they require twice as many blast markers to rout makes them very stable as well, and since they are less easily suppressed than other armies, they can dish out the hurt even when taking a relatively large amount of incoming firepower.

Epic is the only decent game GW ever produced. Titans are still kinda flawed and are probably one of the worse parts of the rules.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:21

Broken Loose: Dec 25, 2002; PROGRAM
A > - - - LR > > - - LL > - - -

Getting into fighting games opened up my mind when it came to other stuff.

I've played a ton of poo poo across a ton of genres and media. "WAAC" isn't unique to Warhammer or even GW, but GW fans certainly excel at it. People who cry WAAC are scrubs by the most literal definition-- somebody who downplays the victories of their opponents as breaking the rules of some invisible, unspoken honor system. Too many Tyranid monstrous creatures is "too cheap." Special Characters are "bullshit." The White Scars player was using "cheese" to try to win. All of these are dogwhistle for "my opponent was cheating" without actually having the guts to call your opponent a cheater.

Yes, it's possible to make your opponent not have a good time in 40k, no matter what. Are you loving kidding me with this "Orks have always been fun" nostalgia hogwash? There was a point where Orks were the most complained-about army given that they had access to a death star unit that largely ignored most damage you threw into it due to 5th Edition wound allocation tricks (10 Nobs, on bikes, with 5 Toughness, 3+ armor, rerollable 4+ FNP, 5++ cybork, a permanent cover save, with a tricked out Warboss, each with unique equipment so the squad could absorb up to 11 wounds without losing a single model). poo poo, I hated games against Wacky "Comedy" RNG Ork players because dice tables constantly hosed me over. Oh boy, you rolled the result with your Shokk Attack Gun that removed my Hive Tyrant and his retinue from the game, what a strategic triumph! Ork evangelists never think about what it's like to be informed that your decisions and planning don't matter due to dice tables with joke results, and they can't see the irony in their insistence that the opponent is there to spectate whatever stupid bullshit is happening on the table.

If something is too good in a game for your taste, use it. Somebody else will find a counter and you can observe it being used against you. If there is no counter, enjoy your free wins. You have no reason to bitch. Your opponent's job is to make you have the worst time possible, and if the game is rear end when that limit is pushed then that's not your opponent's fault. It just means that the game is rear end. A good game isn't rear end when pushed to said limit. If the game is rear end, then drop the game.

The fact that it costs so much money to attempt different strategies in wargames (40k, mainly, given that WM/H players are really cool about proxies 99% of the time) is indicative of the greater problems of the hobby on a macro scale. It's also something that rules writers should be considering before they publish unbalanced schlock.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:27

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Galaga Galaxian posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzsDLpNMZq0

Am I allowed to give GW money for this?

I'm really excited for this game.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:36

Iron Crowned: May 6, 2003; by Hand Knit

TerraGoetia posted:

If AoS had a $40-ish box where you got a few dudes and a hero, it'd probably get a lot more casual play.

It sounds like you want one of the WMH MK III starter boxes :v:

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:47

Saint Isaias Boner: Jan 17, 2007; posting is magic

gotta admit to being tempted by the new bolt action starter set

and that deathwing game

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:51

Joe_Richter: Oct 8, 2005; Laser Lenin approves of hobo murder simulators.

Atlas Hugged posted:

I just wish the barrier to entry was lower.

It is, unless you for some godforsaken reason insist on using only GW minis rather than the wealth of other much cheaper 6mm ranges out there.

Also, Epic Armageddon is cool and good and is very much an evolution of Epic 40k rather than any other edition.

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 19:55

Cotton Candidasis: Aug 28, 2008

Broken Loose posted:

Getting into fighting games opened up my mind when it came to other stuff.

I've played a ton of poo poo across a ton of genres and media. "WAAC" isn't unique to Warhammer or even GW, but GW fans certainly excel at it. People who cry WAAC are scrubs by the most literal definition-- somebody who downplays the victories of their opponents as breaking the rules of some invisible, unspoken honor system. Too many Tyranid monstrous creatures is "too cheap." Special Characters are "bullshit." The White Scars player was using "cheese" to try to win. All of these are dogwhistle for "my opponent was cheating" without actually having the guts to call your opponent a cheater.

Yes, it's possible to make your opponent not have a good time in 40k, no matter what. Are you loving kidding me with this "Orks have always been fun" nostalgia hogwash? There was a point where Orks were the most complained-about army given that they had access to a death star unit that largely ignored most damage you threw into it due to 5th Edition wound allocation tricks (10 Nobs, on bikes, with 5 Toughness, 3+ armor, rerollable 4+ FNP, 5++ cybork, a permanent cover save, with a tricked out Warboss, each with unique equipment so the squad could absorb up to 11 wounds without losing a single model). poo poo, I hated games against Wacky "Comedy" RNG Ork players because dice tables constantly hosed me over. Oh boy, you rolled the result with your Shokk Attack Gun that removed my Hive Tyrant and his retinue from the game, what a strategic triumph! Ork evangelists never think about what it's like to be informed that your decisions and planning don't matter due to dice tables with joke results, and they can't see the irony in their insistence that the opponent is there to spectate whatever stupid bullshit is happening on the table.

If something is too good in a game for your taste, use it. Somebody else will find a counter and you can observe it being used against you. If there is no counter, enjoy your free wins. You have no reason to bitch. Your opponent's job is to make you have the worst time possible, and if the game is rear end when that limit is pushed then that's not your opponent's fault. It just means that the game is rear end. A good game isn't rear end when pushed to said limit. If the game is rear end, then drop the game.

The fact that it costs so much money to attempt different strategies in wargames (40k, mainly, given that WM/H players are really cool about proxies 99% of the time) is indicative of the greater problems of the hobby on a macro scale. It's also something that rules writers should be considering before they publish unbalanced schlock.

What a thoughtful position, delivered with such grace and tact by a consummate gentleman-opponent!

# ? Aug 18, 2016 12:55

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > GW Death Thread 2015 - 2016

«‹›554 »