|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 6, 2018 8:06:35 GMT
One of those Battle reports annoys me to no end. Take one of every steelhead thing, take the worse of the 2 magnus', dont take his arc node despite the fact that arcing scourge and not paying for bg upkeeps is basically what magnus 1 does, take a battle group of rocinante, mule, nomad, lose and then talk about how far the CID has to go because you took a pastiche of random models, a warcaster who does next to nothing to support them and then play it against mohsar tharn. To be fair, its partly PP's fault because they expect players to playtest things like rocinante, mule, nomad when players already know what they do and dont want to bring them, and 1 point barely makes any difference for the expensive ones, while 1 point makes a lot of difference for the cheap ones. Increasing the nomad's cost to 12 can only be tested in a spam list, which seems like the main intent (to nerf Mag2) while on the other hand, players who had 3 nomad lists can no longer squeeze them in and will be playing other models and have nothing to say about the nomad in the actual battle report. If no one squeezes unliked models into their lists PP will say 'everything is fine'. Thats not fair, its a fundamental misunderstanding of what playtesting is. If you CBA to test the things they're putting up cause you just dont "want" to bring them you got no business on the CID forum.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 6, 2018 10:17:23 GMT
One of those Battle reports annoys me to no end. Take one of every steelhead thing, take the worse of the 2 magnus', dont take his arc node despite the fact that arcing scourge and not paying for bg upkeeps is basically what magnus 1 does, take a battle group of rocinante, mule, nomad, lose and then talk about how far the CID has to go because you took a pastiche of random models, a warcaster who does next to nothing to support them and then play it against mohsar tharn. When the batreps are that bad, it's totally fair to call them on it. Granted, it's not at all unusual for people to take the combo platter approach at the start of a CID to get a better feel for each thing, but that only goes so far, and yes, that has to be acknowledged. If he glossed over that point, that also has to be acknowledged.
|
|
|
Post by Big Fat Troll on Dec 6, 2018 10:20:33 GMT
"This is obviously so awful that I can't even bear to playtest it." as feedback is still worth something. Maybe not much, but something.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 6, 2018 10:28:01 GMT
"This is obviously so awful that I can't even bear to playtest it." as feedback is still worth something. Maybe not much, but something. Its feedback that gets that poster's input round filed going forward. Theyve as much as admitted that people who can't follow the format and do what they ask get their input rated far lower than those who do.
|
|
|
Post by welshhoppo on Dec 6, 2018 11:13:13 GMT
What exactly is the bulldoze change? Once per turn as opposed to once per activation.
|
|
|
Post by Soul Samurai on Dec 6, 2018 11:42:42 GMT
What exactly is the bulldoze change? Once per turn as opposed to once per activation. As in, a model can only be bulldozed once per turn rather than once per activation? To be honest, that's how I thought it worked anyway for a long time. Well, it doesn't sound too bad for us; the Spriggan can still push stuff out of his way to get to his target at least.
|
|
|
Post by hocestbellum on Dec 6, 2018 11:47:29 GMT
Once per turn as opposed to once per activation. As in, a model can only be bulldozed once per turn rather than once per activation? To be honest, that's how I thought it worked anyway for a long time. Well, it doesn't sound too bad for us; the Spriggan can still push stuff out of his way to get to his target at least. Yes, that's it. Tbh, I've only had it come up in one or two games, but I can see how it would be a more pertinent concern for casters with Unstoppable Force and swarms of light jacks
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Dec 6, 2018 20:14:36 GMT
Give Harkevich Fortune back and drop the Demolisher to 14pts and I will gladly accept only being able to bulldoze a model once in exchange for an ossrum nerf. As long as I can still shining spear a spriggan with superiority into a caster through their screen I'm perfectly happy.
Seriously though, I'm still way salty about PP dropping Fortune from his spell list.
|
|
|
Post by auraco on Dec 6, 2018 22:31:47 GMT
I'm still salty they gave him mobility instead of escort and his old field marshall pathfinder, now you need to use half his focus to get your jack anywhere, he's a jack caster that has a hard time fueling his jacks.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Dec 6, 2018 22:39:42 GMT
"This is obviously so awful that I can't even bear to playtest it." as feedback is still worth something. Maybe not much, but something. The Devs don’t count “It's obviously bad” posts. Soles passive aggressively drops reminders that changes come thru playtesting. Not playtesting a model means your feedback does not matter, but testing a model and pointing out it’s short comings makes your opinion relavent to the Devs. The main reason not to test a model you think is obviously bad is because you don’t want your game to be mixed and not prove your point that it’s obviously bad, which happens all the time. It also happens a lot that a handful of players play obviously bad models and point out how they sucked and suddenly the model gets fixed. If you hate a model and wont test it all your saying is that you’re fine if PP prints it that way.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 6, 2018 23:11:52 GMT
"This is obviously so awful that I can't even bear to playtest it." as feedback is still worth something. Maybe not much, but something. The Devs don’t count “It's obviously bad” posts. Soles passive aggressively drops reminders that changes come thru playtesting. Not playtesting a model means your feedback does not matter, but testing a model and pointing out it’s short comings makes your opinion relavent to the Devs. The main reason not to test a model you think is obviously bad is because you don’t want your game to be mixed and not prove your point that it’s obviously bad, which happens all the time. It also happens a lot that a handful of players play obviously bad models and point out how they sucked and suddenly the model gets fixed. If you hate a model and wont test it all your saying is that you’re fine if PP prints it that way. Bingo. Well thought out concerns get work done on models. T-rexing the process is just annoying to others and useless to them. I kind of wish they'd blow up the theorycraft and listbuilding section or rename it wishlisting.
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Dec 6, 2018 23:15:34 GMT
The Devs don’t count “It's obviously bad” posts. Soles passive aggressively drops reminders that changes come thru playtesting. Not playtesting a model means your feedback does not matter, but testing a model and pointing out it’s short comings makes your opinion relavent to the Devs. The main reason not to test a model you think is obviously bad is because you don’t want your game to be mixed and not prove your point that it’s obviously bad, which happens all the time. It also happens a lot that a handful of players play obviously bad models and point out how they sucked and suddenly the model gets fixed. If you hate a model and wont test it all your saying is that you’re fine if PP prints it that way. Bingo. Well thought out concerns get work done on models. T-rexing the process is just annoying to others and useless to them. I kind of wish they'd blow up the theorycraft and listbuilding section or rename it wishlisting. I get the feeling the point of that section is to keep the rules question forum and the battle report forum from being impossibly tedious for the dev team to sort through. Even if the wishlisting is not fully contained, a little spillover is better than dumping the whole pot in.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 7, 2018 1:42:35 GMT
They are doing you a massive favour in letting you test their models for them at no cost.
The least you can do is suffer through playing some games with models you see no point in using so that your opinion can be deemed as valid in they eyes of God.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Dec 7, 2018 3:07:05 GMT
They are doing you a massive favour in letting you test their models for them at no cost. The least you can do is suffer through playing some games with models you see no point in using so that your opinion can be deemed as valid in they eyes of God. The last sentence is pure snark but the first is spot on so....half credit?
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 7, 2018 3:46:53 GMT
They are doing you a massive favour in letting you test their models for them at no cost. The least you can do is suffer through playing some games with models you see no point in using so that your opinion can be deemed as valid in they eyes of God. The last sentence is pure snark but the first is spot on so....half credit? No, the entire post is pure snark.
|
|