Death Thread 2017 - GW is Cool, and Good - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Death Thread 2017 - GW is Cool, and Good

«‹›3 »

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

FACT CHECK: Gundams are garbage and GW is bad

# ¿ Dec 23, 2016 19:25

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:47

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

speaking of things that are bad, it sounds like whatever cancer infects RPS's boardgames coverage has metastasised https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/12/23/learning-to-love-imbalance-in-strategy-games/

# ¿ Dec 24, 2016 02:30

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Autism Sneaks posted:

I feel like GW going from bad to less bad has something to do with Trump, Brexit, and tons of famous people worth a drat dying off, like a weird monkey's paw causality

GW has not in fact gotten less bad, they're just benefitting from AoS lowering the bar to the point where releasing some starter boxes which are only moderately overpriced gets scored as a big turnaround

e: I mean, they've gotten better if you are comparing their recent decisions to the age of sigmar decision, but obviously any organisation will look like they're improving if you compare them to their most recent low point

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 28, 2016

# ¿ Dec 28, 2016 00:34

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Chill la Chill posted:

I really enjoyed rogue one, much more than TFA. But then I like anime so

I don't like anime and I thought rogue one was a bit better than TFA

Also no-ones started doing spoilers yet but let's not do that it's really lovely

# ¿ Dec 28, 2016 02:55

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Cinnamon Bear posted:

The Good News: GW has outlived its competitors
The Bad News: GW has outlived its customers

"time enough at last", except instead of reading the guy wants to finish painting all his models and he finds out his GW paint pots have all dried up

# ¿ Dec 28, 2016 06:42

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

TTerrible posted:

GW is good.

Sir.

# ¿ Dec 29, 2016 16:19

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

the standard fantasy races are all bad

even humans

especially humans

# ¿ Dec 29, 2016 17:07

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

NTRabbit posted:

Uncontroversial opinion: By the standard of today no edition of 40k has ever been good

Yes, and the same for fantasy

# ¿ Jan 8, 2017 15:43

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Saint Celestine
The Living Saint

# ¿ Jan 9, 2017 00:24

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Leperflesh posted:

So when is his murder trial? I mean he's basically admitted he's a murderer.

Well, that's not valid evidence I don't think, although if it's his legal name it will probably bias the jury against him http://loweringthebar.net/2009/08/murder-convicted-of-murder-1.html

# ¿ Jan 9, 2017 20:09

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

your punishment is to have less money and more GW products

# ¿ Jan 11, 2017 15:14

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Gyro Zeppeli posted:

I've genuinely still not found a tabletop wargame that appeals to me as much as 40k. Everything else seems to either be "I like the rules, but not the models" or vice versa.

so i have considered not doing that, but other companies don't seem to want money from me in particular

I can just about understand preferring the models but 40k has loving terrible rules wtf

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 00:34

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

90s Cringe Rock posted:

This is completely insane. Warhammer is a brutal universe and wearing fur fits completely into the law of all the races that do it. Stop trying to cause trouble.

This is a world that is completely full of war where people will literally kill a whole planet, and they wouldn�t wear rare fur pelts to show riches? PETA get your priorities straight and deal with real animals.

This is a serious concern, and I thank you guys for bringing it up, but you may want to do your homework before you assume.
As there are no wolves on Fenris.

Lol, jfc. Getting offended by fake fur. A new level of idiocy for PETA.

You have absolutely no idea what youre talking about. Killing a wolf the size of a APC with your barehands takes skill. WWI was 20x worse than a cage. 40k is WWI but with actual demons that are the pure embodiments of Murder, Rape, and Disease. Or youre fighting hordes of monsters with acid blood that have consumed galaxies. Or youre fighting giant green monsters who live only for war. All these monster will dismember, rape, kill, enslave, or consume you in whatever order they want.

And nobody cares about your stupid screeching and nothing will ever change.

I've changed my mind PETA is good now

# ¿ Jan 30, 2017 18:01

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Moola posted:

*GW dumping mounds and mounds of raw sewage directly in the mouth of fans*

PLEASE GIVE ME MORE DADDY!!!

GW fan: *drinking sewage* how can we convince GW to give us ice cream instead of sewage
everyone else: you could stop drinking sewage
GW fan: *drinks more sewage*

# ¿ Feb 4, 2017 18:17

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

darnon posted:

Correct. Although the 'over $100' is a little bit of a stretch since it's based on RRP and you can get most of the games dirt cheap when a Steam sale rolls around. That and if you don't care about mid-range or budget indie titles it won't be for you (or if you do care you might already have some of them).

Yeah I got it because $12 is fine for a total war game but I'm gonna assume the bundle will be worth 0 to me and be pleased if it turns out to be worth >0

# ¿ Feb 7, 2017 08:20

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Guy Goodbody posted:

It would be nice if things were free, but I think you're reaching for Death Thread material if you're getting mad at GW for not giving you free books.

GW's model for selling the rules (both in terms of how much they charge you up front and how often they make you rebuy them) is horrendous compared to any of their main competitors so yes, it's 100% reasonable to complain about it

# ¿ Feb 8, 2017 07:10

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Not a viking posted:

Is.. is GW good now?

gw sucked when their prices were way lower than they are now, so no

# ¿ Feb 11, 2017 19:33

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

academically I knew there were people who did it, but it's still kind of horrifying to actually see someone call pizza "za"

# ¿ Feb 12, 2017 08:02

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Captain Rufus posted:

As a casino dealer with a heavy dose of realism this statement angers me because people believe this stuff and aren't just mocking it as you are. It's random goddamnit. And in most cases even biases for say dealer roulette spins, wheel balance, dice throwing are so low as to be effectively negligible except maaybe for playing the long game and doing 12-30 hour runs at whatever game. (People do but in most cases it's because their brains are broken and not because they are doing some MIT poo poo that puts the odds slightly in their favor.)

talking to gamers about probability is a rapid route to an aneurysm. x-wing players who think that drawing more cards from the crit deck reduces the chance of future draws being direct hits :|

Gravitas Shortfall posted:

True randomness in computer science is a complicated and interesting issue, and I have no problems with anyone who doesn't trust app based dice rollers.

but making stuff random enough for hobby purposes is an extremely simple and solved issue. even something terrible like C random is going to look perfectly random to a human observing the number of dice rolls in a game (although of course it's entirely possible to write a buggy dice rolling app)

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 01:01

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

spectralent posted:

I haven't played X-Wing for... probably more than a year, but don't you remove cards from the deck when they're drawn? In that case you would remove direct hits by drawing them, if that's useful.

to be clear, the context here was whether flipping extra face-down crits when a ship is overkilled makes you less likely to get a direct hit in future. it does not, unless you actually exhaust the deck

# ¿ Feb 28, 2017 01:21

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Hamshot posted:

The troubles I had when I attempted to use a dice app was grognards suspicious about the app being rigged.

I mean it would be pretty trivial to make a cheating dice app that looked like a real one so that's not a 100% unreasonable suspicion (assuming you're in a context where people might cheat if they could get away with it)

even letting them use your app would be fairly easy to get around, just put in a subtle switch that changes how biased it is

# ¿ Mar 1, 2017 08:33

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

LordAba posted:

Blood Bowl is good, but you have to take it for what it is: a random number generator that hates you. Half the game is setting up the field to roll the least amount of dice while forcing your opponent to roll the most dice.

Fun models for a good game:

EDIT: OMG the snake have little roboarms!

I have no desire to take up another minis game but these models own, drat

# ¿ Mar 11, 2017 03:59

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

all I know about blood bowl it sounds like a bad game even when described by people who obviously like it

# ¿ Mar 12, 2017 00:50

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Guy Goodbody posted:

Games Workshop should start doing "pin-up" versions of models like Kingdom Death does

naked space marines but because of all that genetic engineering stuff they just look like ken dolls with occasional some cyborg poo poo

# ¿ Mar 14, 2017 17:46

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

I could've sworn there was a reason people didn't make balloons out of metal

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 04:23

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

I'd be interested in seeing how GW sales break down between new players versus the middle-aged guys who've been playing and giving GW money for decades. because if they're getting most of their money from the latter that'd explain a lot of things

otoh I doubt GW actually knows the answer to that question

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 19:28

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

can't believe they went to all the effort of sculpting those dudes just to set up a "going down like a lead balloon" joke

# ¿ Mar 15, 2017 20:55

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

I don't understand the tic where people talk about terrible balance and garbage mechanics as if they're primarily a problem for people who play in tournaments

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 16:23

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Atlas Hugged posted:

The way I look at it, there are three ways you can play a game. The highest tier is at the tournament level where there are rankings and prizes involved. Obviously balance and mechanics that focus on player agency and reward tactical decision making matter the most here. The second level is competitive, be it with friend or some guy at the FLGS, but not in the sense that winning means anything. You still don't want to feel like you wasted your time, but if someone is being a dick or fields the same broken list every week even when people encourage him to try something different, you can just avoid playing him.

Then lastly is casual gaming with other like minded people. Points may not matter and the game is secondary to the social aspect of hanging out with people with similar interests. Winning and losing take a backseat to interesting events unfolding on the table, so people are more likely to make intentionally bad tactical decisions because maybe the dice or lovely mechanics will work out in their favor and it will become a legend in the local club.

So when I say "competitive", which is what I said in my previous post, I don't strictly mean in the sense of a tournament. If your goal is to play and win a game and to feel like you accomplished something because you outsmarted your opponent and were the better general, then obviously the game needs to be balanced with solid mechanics. This is true if you're playing a friend or playing in a tournament. But if like I described above the game is just something to justify a get-together, then the balance and mechanics are less important.

you're mushing together "caring a lot about whether you win" and "wanting to make interesting decisions". this is why it's ridiculous to talk about it as if it's an issue for "competitive" players. if I'm playing games with my friends I want to actually be able to, you know, play a game, there's plenty of non-games stuff I could do with them otherwise!

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 17:09

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Atlas Hugged posted:

I guess I don't see those as distinct. Either the interesting decisions that I make affect whether I win or not, playing with friends or otherwise. That's why I said it didn't matter who the opponent was in a generic "competitive" game. If the point of getting together is to play the game for the sake of playing the game, then it's competitive in my book.

then you're very confused because they're obviously different things! a well-designed game will have interesting decisions, and the effect they have on the victory conditions &c are an important part of what makes them interesting. but it's the decisions themselves that are the main point, not the end state where you "feel like you accomplished something because you outsmarted your opponent and were the better general"

also it's weird that you talk about this as if it's a binary choice between "only the game matters, my opponents could be androids for all I care" and "we're only playing this game because no-one told us we're allowed to socialise without it"

# ¿ Mar 16, 2017 17:33

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Atlas Hugged posted:

I also don't really get what you mean when you describe decision making for the sake of decision making. I don't want to play a decision making simulator that opens up new decisions. I want to play a miniatures game where my decisions are competing against my opponent's decisions to lead to my eventual victory. Unless I'm intentionally playing a game without caring about the results, then interesting decisions that don't advance my agenda of winning seem incoherent. And yes who you play does matter. I don't think it's necessary for me to explain that there are lovely opponents and fun opponents who affect the atmosphere without affecting the game itself. But in so far as I care about balance and mechanics, if I'm playing because I want to engage with a particular game, then those things are important regardless of if I'm playing some random guy or a friend.

yeah the point you seem to be missing is that you can play to win, without caring a huge amount whether you win, because a good game makes trying to win fun. that's why it's silly to act as if game quality doesn't matter if you're not being "competitive"

and neither watching movies I don't enjoy nor playing games I don't enjoy sound like enjoyable social activities! that said, I don't have anything against people doing that if they're into that kind of thing, just don't go around claiming that movie quality is irrelevant to people who only go to movies casually?

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 05:12

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Atlas Hugged posted:

No one ever made the claim that game quality couldn't or shouldn't matter to people playing casually. If we go all the way back to what caused this little tangent, we were talking about 40k 2e, a game with broken mechanics and little balance, and said that it was not ideal to be played competitively, but that playing it casually presented less problems, but it was still frustrating and tedious. I've also said several times in this thread, the AoS thread, the Warhammer thread, and the Special Games thread that if you and your friends are going to get into a game, then you might as well get into a good one because it will improve the overall experience. So why you think I said that quality is completely irrelevant to casual gamers I'm not sure.

I mean unless you want to finely slice the definition of "completely" this conversation started with talking about whether game balance and mechanical quality were primarily an issue for "competitive players" (they are not)

Atlas Hugged posted:

Ultimately I think we agree on this at least. Whether or not you win or lose is irrelevant in a competitive, non-tournament setting and in a casual setting so long as you enjoyed the experience. However, enjoying the experience is going to mean different things to different people. In a competitive setting, I'm not going to enjoy the experience if the game has lovely mechanics, and for me competitive can be a 1v1 game against a friend of mine on a Tuesday evening. But you asked why people tend to say balance and mechanics matter more in tournaments/competitive settings and I gave several examples and scenarios where I felt that was the case.

I said "primarily". as in, are poor balance and bad mechanics mostly a thing for tournament players to worry about, or are they a problem for everybody*? you were making the imo pretty bad recommendation that 2e 40k is fine if you're not looking to be competitive, which is how it came up

*well, not everybody, since people like all kinds of weird things. but competitive and non-competitive players alike

Atlas Hugged posted:

I guess I'm the one left scratching my head because I watch movies I don't enjoy all the time because the point of the activity isn't to bask in the glow of the movie but to be with people I enjoy being around. When it's my turn to pick, of course I go for the better movie, but it's not always my turn and the social aspect trumps my taste because I'd rather watch a bad movie with good friends than not see my friends. Now, I'm not going to go out of my way to watch a bad movie just to watch the bad movie, and likewise I'm not going to go show up at a Warhammer store on AoS night to play with people I don't know just to play a lovely game.

I mean I can understand doing something that otherwise sucks if it's the only way to socialise with people you like, I'm just saying that of the methods you could choose, those seem like pretty bad ones

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 06:10

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Atlas Hugged posted:

My recommendation was that it was frustrating and tedious and maybe not worth playing but if you are aware of that hey go ahead and then maybe try the same armies in Firefight to see the differences.

you said "I would never recommend it as a competitive game but..." and the guy responding to you said "well, I'm not interested in tournaments so...", which is what the offhand comment you responded to was about

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 16:15

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

mcjomar posted:

Which is a discussion on semantics and definitions - the type of discussion I tend to dislike.
But for the sake of for me "competitive" means "I want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" as opposed to "rolling dice and laughing at the stupidity" for the sake of example. Both of these things can be fun, but in different ways.

If I wanted to play a streamlined "competitive" game, I'd pick up my Ariadna force, for a 150 or 300 point ITS game, and get rolling, and have fun learning how to play intelligently.
If I want something that doesn't involve tournament play (or taking things seriously at all), I'll pick something like Necromunda and watch as my gang either kicks rear end, or dies horribly to dumb poo poo because why the gently caress not.
If I want something in between those two positions, I'd probably pick Battletech, because while the rules are fairly clear at a base level 98% of the time as to whether or not you can hit a target, there are edge cases, and it's dumb robot fights that make no sense.

And there's a whole other spectrum of points between those two positions as well.
Hence why if I want to play with a serious attitude I'll pick a non-poo poo ruleset (Most parts of Infinity, some parts of Wangs, etc), but if I just want to roll dice and see the results, then I could also play Infinity or Wangs with a non-meta list, or I could play just about anything else as well, including rules that are objectively poo poo, but subjectively cause fun or amusing events to occur on the tabletop and entertain both myself and my opponent. Possibly while also observing the poo poo parts and considering how those parts could be made less poo poo with a rewrite.

Hence why I think Atlas made the comparison to movies - sometimes you want to watch an objectively good movie and talk with friends about it afterwards about a really cool film. Sometimes you want to chug beers with friends and point and laugh at a really lovely B-movie, and turn it into a drinking game instead. Not all fun needs to be serious fun.

the whole point I've been making is that talking about quality mechanics as something that are for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" or are "serious" is wrong

if I want something that doesn't involve tournament play or taking things seriously at all I... still don't want to play some monkeycheese lolrandom bullshit because that does not sound like fun at all, whether of the serious or unserious kind (well, more specifically, it sounds like something that's fun for about 30 seconds and then you have 2 hours left, welp)

e: but I'm not actually arguing about whether you can find playing some terrible trash fun. my point is that the difference between bad and good games is not something that primarily concerns "tournament" and "competitive" players

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Mar 17, 2017

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 16:48

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

mcjomar posted:

And nobody has actually been disagreeing with that point at all.

jesus loving christ do you guys even read your own posts

e: like here is literally you

mcjomar posted:

But for the sake of for me "competitive" means "I want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" as opposed to "rolling dice and laughing at the stupidity" for the sake of example. Both of these things can be fun, but in different ways.

mcjomar posted:

I just used "tournament" and "competitive" as shorthand for "serious play/quality rules" in the context of wargaming

how does that make any sense if you don't think "quality rules" are a thing for people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others"

Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Mar 17, 2017

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 18:14

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

mcjomar posted:

I literally said that people who play in tournaments (ignoring GW tournaments) tend to prefer quality rules. How the gently caress is that me saying I don't think quality rules are a thing for people who play in tournaments or prefer serious games? do I need to make it any clearer for you?

either you've switched some words around here, or you read exactly the opposite of what I said, so I'll repeat. when you say:

mcjomar posted:

But for the sake of for me "competitive" means "I want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others" as opposed to "rolling dice and laughing at the stupidity" for the sake of example. Both of these things can be fun, but in different ways.

mcjomar posted:

I just used "tournament" and "competitive" as shorthand for "serious play/quality rules" in the context of wargaming

that means that the people who care about "quality rules" are people who "want to play in a tournament, or otherwise compete with others". and the point I've been making all along is that no, quality rules are a thing that matter for competitive and non-competitive players alike (not, of course, literally all of them, since you can find both competitive and non-competitive players who don't care about game quality)

# ¿ Mar 17, 2017 19:41

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

companies are not like people and they are especially not like people you used to date okay

the only thing the two have in common is that you can discuss either without being a gigantic sack of poo poo w/r/t autistic people or whoever

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 21:15

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

Southern Heel posted:

Just got back from my local GW store how'd I do?

don't give GW money and don't undermine the integrity of the space-time continuum

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 22:50

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

the invention of the copy-paste function was a mistake

# ¿ Apr 1, 2017 23:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 27, 2024 19:47

Jeb Bush 2012: Apr 4, 2007; A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs, it is because they are made with ideas.

v. impressed by the dedication of people committing so hard to copy-paste trolls that they became unironic 40k players

# ¿ Apr 2, 2017 00:32

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Death Thread 2017 - GW is Cool, and Good

«‹›3 »