|
I work in a store that could dump all of their CCG product in the dumpster tomorrow and be completely fine. It'd suck not having magic around but we'd be fine. It's often times much more hassle than it feels like it's worth. Also magic loving sucks and Netrunner owns.
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
w00tmonger posted:Is this tied into that whole judges lawsuit? That whole mess has really spoiled the pot for community support programs. That sounds pretty unrelated to me. They should've just done what everyone else does and lie wholesale about their nuumbers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
It's so weird to me that there are people who are surprised about codexes coming back.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
They should have been, yeah. They were very disingenuous about 'free' rules. Although, again, can't say I'm surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
The Bee posted:The only hazy thing is what counts as core rules so, like, the rules?  TheChirurgeon posted:Yeah it was bad form to not make the indices free in some form or another. At bare minimum, not making your 'core rules' (lmao) include all of the rules in your core rulebook is a huge gently caress you. They treated this entire exercise like they had turned a new leaf after the AoS reception, but, whelp. S.J. fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 07:16
|
|
|
The Bee posted:But they did include all the rules in the core rulebook. The rest of the rulebook is basically just mission types and a few rules for tournament play that were 95% revealed on the official website already. They also clearly said "these will not be the full rules" several times during the edition's launch. Is it more expensive than I'd like? Yeah. But they weren't lying in the slightest. Actually the free rules don't include any of the FoC charts or command point rules, and only the most basic terrain rule, which are pretty big parts of the core rules set in my eyes. Although, granted, they did a pretty good job of making terrain somewhat irrelevant from what I've seen. I actually am happy that the new rulebook is considerably less expensive than the last one, however. Putting the hardcover version in the starter set was a good move.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
The Bee posted:While I agree on the core rulebook, I still hope codices continue this trend of cheaper books. Core rules being cheaper is nice, but the game getting exponentially more expensive for each army owned is still an irritating trend. This is moreso after many people spent 25 dollars for a stopgap of all things. I'm sure if they allow you to trade your index in for a codex / a discount on a codex, it would go a long way to get some goodwill back over the initial index launches. I want to believe, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
something tells me that space marines and eldar might be... good
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
I mean, of course the codexes were going to be mandatory. They can charge you the cost of a rulebook for each one 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
TheChirurgeon posted:If you want to play in any kind of structured environment, yeah. The basic rulebook stuff only covers the game rules, and doesn't cover unit/faction rules, though models come with those now (it isn't enough to really play on long-term). You basically still need to buy a codex for your army. Though this shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone, since GW was talking about Codexes coming back before the new edition came out. At the very least you should get a PDF code for free or a steep discount when you buy a physical copy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
'Ard Boyz was actually awesome but everyone who knew what was up knew it was a joke from the beginning and treated it as such. It literally spawned an IG army called 'The Leafblower'
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
It absolutely leads to arguments and misinterpretations, on top of the actual design imbalances that result from that outlook. It's very similar to the kinds of problems you see in D&D style RPGs. You can write a tight rules set and not worry about using that as a selling point, and use your product line and product support to emphasis narrative-heavy playstyles. S.J. fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jul 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:I just read a synopsis of 8th edition on 1D4chan. Is it me or is it just shuffling chairs on the titanic? Rules wise there doesn't seem to be any coherent design philosophy. Instead it seems just to be reheating past elements they already discarded. Sort of? There is, to no surprise, still some serious bullshit in the game and lots of unplayable garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:But apparently nids are good again. We'll see when their codex comes out
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2017 07:34
|
|
|
Hormagaunts are good, but the faction as a whole isn't. Same with Orks. Regular boyz/stormboyz are pretty good, the rest is kinda trash.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:All of Spartan Games stuff ecept Halo was bought by Wayland Games, so Dystopian Wars-Legions/Firestorm Armada-Planetfall/Uncharted Seas lives again lmao that was a dumb purchase
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
Ugleb posted:I was not aware that GW's studio has a three year lead time. I would have guessed they were working 12-18 months ahead of releases. I wonder if that is just the sculptors working on designs? I'm kind of surprised people don't know about this. Bringing a model from concept to release is a very long process pretty much regardless of which studio you're talking about. 3 years isn't out of the ordinary at all. Their studio is working on a large collection of future releases at any given point in time so a lengthy pipeline is necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Yeah one year is fairly normal, three years is fairly absurd. If it's considering beginning of concept development to end product 2 plus years isn't weird. A lot of models will float about in concept foe a while before being hammered out in testing modelling etc.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Ugleb posted:There is a difference between 'this doodle has been in a sketchbook for 3 years' and 'this design has been in the pipeline for 3 years'. Yes it's usually weekly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2017 21:02
|
|