|
Aaod posted: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. by town I really mean like, large village of a couple hundred people living there A money laundering scam does make more sense tbh
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Giant Ethicist posted:ATSKNF Armageddon.. tank special knight.... night force?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
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. This is absolutely the coolest part of it (my buddy has a Guard and Marine army). The Marines are actually kind of cool in Epic since they actually have to take advantage of their initiative and good command and control to create localized superiority and kill people at important points before they're overwhelmed, rather than just facetanking entire armies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
Joe_Richter posted: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. Suggestions? I've looked at Onslaught and they're pricey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
GHQ is your best bet for cheap 6mm modern or WW2 infantry (ie: Guard or Cultists).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:19
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:Armageddon.. tank special knight.... night force? And They Shall Know No Fear. tweekinator posted:What a thoughtful position, delivered with such grace and tact by a consummate gentleman-opponent! It's largely true though. If you are having to self-censor your army building then we've looped back around to the AoS balancing mechanism of trying not to be 'that guy'. If the rules let you take it and it's an actively unfun list to play against with no hard counters, then the problem isn't with the player who made the list. It's super easy to retrofit rationale as to why your army consisting of nothing but Imperial Knights and GK Paladins are some awesome exemplar of pure fluff even as they melt the poo poo out of everything on the table so asking people to respect the spirit of the rules rather than the letter is a non-starter. RAW trumps RAIWLTTB.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:It sounds like you want one of the WMH MK III starter boxes Or a Malifaux starter crew box! Or an Infinity faction/sectorial starter box! Or a Wolsung club starter box! Or a Deadzone faction starter box!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted: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. You sound like you're no fun to play space soldiers or weeaboo fightpunching with. We had a guy at my uni's fighting game club who was into the whole gg ez thing and the net result was nobody wanted to play him and he quit after a month even though he was good at skullgirls. EDIT: And if the response is "Well yeah, but what I mean is-" then it's probably best to actually say the things you mean. Helen Highwater posted:It's largely true though. It's not largely true because there's a mile of difference between playing in an effective way and intentionally being an rear end in a top hat because you want to make someone else's day bad. Your opponent's job in any game is to win; this doesn't mean "have the worst game possible" unless you're incapable of taking defeats with any grace. You could follow up a crushing win with "Suck it! Anyone here not poo poo?", especially if you were trying to make your opponent's game as unfun as possible, but it's sporting to go "Bad luck" or, hell, run down where you think your good play was (which I'm trying to get better at at the moment because I appreciate it when people run down what they think I did wrong/right when I lose). spectralent fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
ilmucche posted:Armageddon.. tank special knight.... night force? Automated task-succession kill-negation factor. It's part of the way Epic models the chain of command and fog of war, iirc. (iirc = it is really cool)
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:Automated task-succession kill-negation factor. It's part of the way Epic models the chain of command and fog of war, iirc. (iirc = it is really cool) That is one hell of a mouthful. I kind of wish I'd played Epic but as a small and immature baby I thought tiny figures were lame, and as a large and immature baby I regret my youthful errors 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:And They Shall Know No Fear. Yeah, I don't disagree with the underlying point (bad games are bad). But we had the paragraph complaining about Orks immediately followed by the paragraph about how everyone should do their utmost to make their opponent have "the worst time possible", and how that is both cool and good. It's a game; you play to win, but also to have a good time doing something you enjoy. The other person is (presumably) there for the same reason. Taking something you know to be a literally unstoppable, uncounterable force with the express intention of not only certainly winning, but making your opponent have "the worst time possible" is a lovely thing to do. It's primarily the fault of the game designers for writing that into the rules, but that doesn't absolve a player of blame for exploiting poor design to ruin the game for the person they're playing, which is what BL expressly endorsed. It's not asking people to repsect some unknowable spirit of the rules or a very long acronym, it's asking people to not set out to be dicks to other people. /oldmanyellsatsky
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
spectralent posted:It's not largely true because there's a mile of difference between playing in an effective way and intentionally being an rear end in a top hat because you want to make someone else's day bad. Your opponent's job in any game is to win; this doesn't mean "have the worst game possible" unless you're incapable of taking defeats with any grace
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Ashcans posted:Yes, this. There isn't a game created that can't be made intolerable by the person playing you - they don't even have to play the game in any obnoxious way, if they simply have a grating enough personality. In fact, there are ways that throwing a game can be more of an rear end in a top hat move than playing to win! You've now reminded me of the game I played against some eldar guy when I still had my tyranids who kept on going "Now I could've shot your hive tyrant here but I'll just shoot those gaunts instead because I'm such a nice guy...". That was indeed insanely annoying, I thought he was an rear end in a top hat when I was like thirteen, and given how much of an rear end in a top hat I was he must've been awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
spectralent posted:It's not largely true because there's a mile of difference between playing in an effective way and intentionally being an rear end in a top hat because you want to make someone else's day bad. Your opponent's job in any game is to win; this doesn't mean "have the worst game possible" unless you're incapable of taking defeats with any grace. You could follow up a crushing win with "Suck it! Anyone here not poo poo?", especially if you were trying to make your opponent's game as unfun as possible, but it's sporting to go "Bad luck" or, hell, run down where you think your good play was (which I'm trying to get better at at the moment because I appreciate it when people run down what they think I did wrong/right when I lose). I'm talking about interactions with the rules, not interactions with other players. An unfun list with no good counters is a failing of the game system, not the player who uses it. A player being a raging dickhole is obviously a failure of that individual and is entirely unrelated to the design of the game being played.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
Games should be fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Saint Isaias Boner posted:gotta admit to being tempted by the new bolt action starter set Bolt Action is cool and good, it's fun to buy the better part of a 2000 point army for what GW wants for a couple of Tac Squads
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:Bolt Action is cool and good, it's fun to buy the better part of a 2000 point army for what GW wants for a couple of Tac Squads yeah i might pick it up, it's only £70 for the new rules, a halftrack, 36 dudes, scenery and a pile of dice. i think i'd get like 12 imperial guard and a tank for £50 in the "start collecting" set or i could buy a single IG tank for £85 or whatever
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
goatface posted:Games should be fun. No. As a games designer, fun doesn't exist as a game objective unless you are making a game for kids where the metric is more about keeping attention than providing an actually good game experience. Fun is not something you can design, there's no 'fun mechanic' in any game. Fun is what you have left when you take all the bullshit away but it's also heavily couched by the assumptions of the target audience. For most wargames, this means providing opportunities for meaningful decisions that have consequences. If there is an obviously superior choice to make, then that's not a meaningful decision. If you have to make hundreds of small decisions that have negligible outcomes on play, then those aren't meaningful either. If you can make optimal choices but the consequences are largely controlled by external mechanisms - then those aren't meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'm talking about interactions with the rules, not interactions with other players. An unfun list with no good counters is a failing of the game system, not the player who uses it. A player being a raging dickhole is obviously a failure of that individual and is entirely unrelated to the design of the game being played. Yeah, but the rant that began this included the statement that playing games properly included trying to make people have the least amount of fun possible. You can be winning and remain sportsmanlike. I don't think there's anyone in this thread who's argued that bad games are in fact good, and it is potentially we who are the real racists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
That is the fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
In my tournament experience high sportmanship scores go towards the old guys that bring their army that's been un-updated for a decade, don't really know the rules, and let the other players run all over them. It's pretty clear you have a busted system/community when you need a "how nice are you" score to make sure people aren't total asses which is typically abused by assholes to punish people that beat them anyway. I've also watched people that didn't know better get cheated to hell by guys that were really nice and friendly while doing it so those people didn't get bad scores either. It's REALLY stupid and I lobbied against it when I was in the tournament community but got ruled against consistently.  WAAC and bad rules results in this kind of stuff and it shouldn't be up to players to have to figure out what the line for broken is.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Fun is not something you can design, there's no 'fun mechanic' in any game. Fun is what you have left when you take all the bullshit away but it's also heavily couched by the assumptions of the target audience. I would argue that because it's possible to intentionally design a game to be no fun whatsoever, it should be possible to at least suggest fun by doing the opposite of that. That is, recognize design elements which are broadly reviled and avoid them. You can't engineer fun, but you can avoid certain "anti-fun" pitfalls: Labyrinthine rules peninsulas, unbalanced player experiences, convoluted explanations, conflicting case-by-case design, etc. There's always a subjective element, but if we can design a chair that "most people" find comfortable, one should similarly be able to present a game most people would find fun.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
moths posted:I would argue that because it's possible to intentionally design a game to be no fun whatsoever, it should be possible to at least suggest fun by doing the opposite of that. Basically look at any Avalon HIll game and don't do that. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
goatface posted:That is the fun. Fun is not the same thing as a well-made game. People get this confused all the time, but "fun" is a squishy, super-subjective term that doesn't translate to designing a game. You can have fun with punching each other in the balls, that doesn't mean it's a good game. Conversely, Infinity/Warmachine/etc are all better rulesets than GW's stuff and lots of people don't enjoy them. The best thing a game designer can do is try to hit objectively good design goals like: - Make rules clear and concise - Make player choices meaningful - Introduce randomness only when needed - Keep game time down to minimum necessary - Avoid un-counterable strategies Warhammer fails at all of these, catastrophically in most cases. Can you still have fun with it? Yeah, but why bother when there are so many other good choices out there? moths posted:There's always a subjective element, but if we can design a chair that "most people" find comfortable, one should similarly be able to present a game most people would find fun. Sitting down is a way less complex than a shared social activity though. Crackbone fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Radish posted:In my tournament experience high sportmanship scores go towards the old guys that bring their army that's been un-updated for a decade, don't really know the rules, and let the other players run all over them. It's pretty clear you have a busted system/community when you need a "how nice are you" score to make sure people aren't total asses which is typically abused by assholes to punish people that beat them anyway. I think it's really sad GW have managed to make fun and sportsmanship bad words.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
The community around warhammer has lost the ability to have fun. The warhams cannot be saved. We should all sever.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I think it's really sad GW have managed to make fun and sportsmanship bad words. Seriously. The idea that "sportsmanship" can be quantified into a 10 point score is really stupid and I tried to explain this to people. It's also extra stupid when that score affects the rankings of your direct competitors (although not highly admitedly) and players have an insentive to rank people lower than they should. Other organizers told me that it's required or players would be bad sports which is absurd since cheating should be an immediate dismissal and being an rear end in a top hat should get you a talking to from a judge. Other than that playing to win within the rules and constraints of the game shouldn't be something that other players can downgrade you for based on what they consider unfair. As a player I've had an opponent get pissed off at me (and then try and tell the organziers I was cheating with an illegal list along with giving me the lowest sportsmanship ranking) because I kept rules checking him everyturn as he were consitently playing the game wrong. I found that out because I was friends with the people running the tournament. This leads into another issue with GW games is that the company encourages not following the rules and just playing for "fun" which results in people coming to torunaments, not knowing the rules, then getting pissed off when they find out that they aren't allowed to do something or get called on things that their local scene thinks is legal because it's always played that way. Some guy didn't know how the rules for Terror worked at one, got angry when the other player called over a judge, and then when the judge sided against him, knocked his opponent's character model on the ground. That's an extreme example but people throwing fits when they realize they can't do stuff they are used to (and that's being generous and implying they aren't intentionally cheating) is the biggest turn off for GW tournaments and why I quit. People tried to force a method where you have a 5, a 3, and a 1 to give out at the end and you could only use each number once which was just as dumb. (I think) They understood that the concept of rating table behavior was flawed but were commited to the idea. I've been out of the community for years so maybe they don't do that anymore. 40k meta is a mess and Fantasy is dead so maybe it's not needed anyway. Warmahordes doesn't bother with that silliness and tournaments there work just fine. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
In the tournaments I ran, everyone got full sportsmanship points by default and only judges could award a lower score if a player was being a dick in some way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Radish posted:Other organizers told me that it's required or players would be bad sports which is absurd since cheating should be an immediate dismissal and being an rear end in a top hat should get you a talking to from a judge. But that would require judges to actually be assertive and confront assholes rather than be timid nerds. Much better to allow everyone playing to passive-aggressively mark their opponent down behind their back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:But that would require judges to actually be assertive and confront assholes rather than be timid nerds. There was a guy at x-wing nationals who got warned 3 times for slow playing and literally got caught cheating but was not kicked out. This person got second place overall. Grow a loving spine, TOs, drat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:In the tournaments I ran, everyone got full sportsmanship points by default and only judges could award a lower score if a player was being a dick in some way. That's pretty cool. Helicon One posted:But that would require judges to actually be assertive and confront assholes rather than be timid nerds. When I was a judge I was told very specifically after asking how I should interject if I saw cheating or rules being played incorrectly I could not interfere at all since that would show bias (or something) and that it was 100% on the players to call over judges for rules questions. Another one I went to (the one where the guy's model got busted) the organizers took no poo poo from anyone and were also like 6+ feet tall so they could just show up to disputes and the players would quickly stop being assholes. That guy in question got banned forever. Panzeh posted:There was a guy at x-wing nationals who got warned 3 times for slow playing and literally got caught cheating but was not kicked out. Oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Radish posted:Another one I went to (the one where the guy's model got busted) the organizers took no poo poo from anyone and were also lilke 6+ feet tall so they could just show up to disputes and the players would quickly stop being assholes. That guy in question got banned forever. I think I missed this story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Apollodorus posted:I think I missed this story. I mentioned it in my previous post with an edit. Guy tried to use Terror a certain way because in whatever area he played it was played that way and I've found that bad rules just got accepted in communities as the players didn't read the books just learned through playing. He was wrong and the opponent asked other players for confirmation but it wasn't enough. A judge showed up, showed where the rules was in the book and the guy was getting more and more angry. Then when the judge left he ACCIDENTALLY knocked the large metal general on the ground and smashed it. That was the end of that game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Radish posted:Oh my god. They had two judges at his games at all times from then on in but if you have to do that then what does it take to get kicked out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:34
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:They had two judges at his games at all times from then on in but if you have to do that then what does it take to get kicked out? If I was going to give the TOs the benefit of the doubt just because a player says another is cheating then that alone shouldn't be enough to kick someone out but it sounds like the player was taking some severe advantage of the idea that proving intent to cheat as a judge is really hard. I've seen stuff done that COULD have been unintentional so it's hard to pin that stuff down. I've been the guy that TOs have said to watch a table because a player has had numerous complaints about and just having a judge watching stops a lot of shenanigans. I don't know the specifics of that player but if the judges saw him cheat and just decided to monitor that's really lame. Having to have the game police make sure a player doesn't cheat is pretty bad though and it sounds like they should have acted on that guy much sooner. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Radish posted:If I was going to give the TOs the benefit of the doubt just because a player says another is cheating then that alone shouldn't be enough to kick someone out but it sounds like the player was taking some severe advantage of the idea that proving intent to cheatias a judge is really hard. I've seen stuff done that COULD have been unintentional so it's hard to pin that stuff down. I've been the guy that TOs have said to watch a table because a player has had numerous complaints about and just having a judge watching stops a lot of schenanigans. The guy who got cheated didn't see it- several nearby people did. You don't accidentally pick up your opponent's dial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:The guy who got cheated didn't see it- several nearby people did. You don't accidentally pick up your opponent's dial. Yeah that's pretty bad. When I got back into Magic after finally quitting GW games I was watching a game at FNM and saw a player do something incorrectly. I was conditioned to shut up and let them play it out. After the game I told the guy that the other player did something wrong and he probably should have won. The guy looked at me funny and asked why I didn't say anything when it happened and I had to reply I thought we weren't allowed to interfere and he laughed and said that's real stupid if someone is playing against the rules then make sure they are corrected.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Fly casual isn't about lists though, it's about attitude. That's how it always starts. It's coded dogwhistle bullshit. I've gone to several excellent regionals and other large tournaments (I'd do nationals/worlds if they weren't out in the middle of nowhere) with great opponents who have never uttered the "fly casual" mantra.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:I'm talking about interactions with the rules, not interactions with other players. An unfun list with no good counters is a failing of the game system, not the player who uses it. A player being a raging dickhole is obviously a failure of that individual and is entirely unrelated to the design of the game being played. If a game has the potential to create unfun interactions, you shouldn't play that game, even if you figured out the unfun interaction and can benefit from it. It is not a good game, and it's very doubtful it will provide an enjoyable experience for either player. Our lives are too short to waste time voluntarily taking part in bad, boring, frustrating experiences. (While I know other people have different goals when playing games, I usually care more than anything else about using the game as a backdrop for a positive social experience. Interesting strategic play and skill-acquisition are important too, of course.) Helen Highwater posted:Fun is not something you can design, there's no 'fun mechanic' in any game. Fun is what you have left when you take all the bullshit away but it's also heavily couched by the assumptions of the target audience. That's not really true (although at some point we'll probably just end up arguing semantics here, since "fun" is a super-vague term). I'd say what mechanics are "fun" are purely subjective and based on players' preferences. If you design for a target audience, you can find the things they enjoy for their own sake and ensure that they enable legitimate strategies in your game. Maybe you just really like playing with horde armies, or having a lot of mobility, etc; a good game will try to make it possible for you to choose a basis for your army like this and still allow you to create something competitive. This applies to lots of other games too, e.g. Overwatch: if you really liked the demoman from TF2, you'd probably like playing as Junkrat; if you liked Q3A or Tribes, you'd probably like Pharah; if you shop at Hot Topic, you'd probably like Reaper; and so on. Of course, at pro levels, Overwatch has substantial balance issues, with half of the heroes almost never being used, but at lower levels of play, almost all of them are viable on a team. In short, I'd say "fun" in a game can be designed in by giving players a sufficient variety of choices that they can just pick something they like for whatever reason (including purely aesthetic reasons) and still ensuring that they can be competitive with that choice. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Aug 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 20:30 |
|
|
Broken Loose posted: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 lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2016 18:05
|
|
