|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 23, 2018 0:46:52 GMT
Stop getting your information from alex jones dude, its not a good look. Who? I get my information from numerous sources rather than just those funded by the fear-mongers of Gore and Company. You've made many poor assumptions here, I'm afraid.
I was mainly pointing out that Trump is as believable on climate change as 4chan is on warmachine. Not a great analogy. Id only point out that some people would deny climate change, some people would support trump, some people would anonymously complain the game is dying. Their biases are very important. In that case it's somewhat accurate. The only problem is that some seen NdGT as an climatology expert (which he isn't), and no one would consider the Trump Team as one. They both have biases in place, the Trump Team's just happens to be obvious. That was my issue with the comparison. Unfortunately, on a forum a bias can only be found if it stated outright or by consistent checking of what they have posted before.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 22, 2018 22:55:42 GMT
Don't reference shit if you're just going to go "this isn't the place to talk about it" The founder of the weather channel wrote an angry old man screed, he didn't disprove anything or even analyze the science, so yeah, ill take NdGT over an aging potentially senile lunatic mad about expensive gas and his football being interrupted. www.snopes.com/fact-check/weather-or-not/And did that same site bother to fact check the same scientists who deliberately reported false data for several years to support the Global Warming Hysteria because they were paid to do so? So, he was a weatherman, who is actually closer to an expert on the situation than an astrophysicist who ignored evidence happening to other celestial bodies (the average temperature increased across the entire solar system during the 80s and 90s). I'm more likely to believe a report on my car from a mechanic who works on cars for a living than someone who designs aircraft. And he wasn't the only one to counter many of these claims. The point was that Mr Kerr unfortunately presented a bad case of presenting proper credentials for comparison. I wouldn't trust an aeronautical engineer with my car any more than I would trust the local politician, which is analogous to mrKerr's statement. Also it really becomes clearer why some people see a dying meta and others dont the more people post on the subject. Edit: Actually NdGT vs angry old lunatic mad about gas prices and his football being interrupted is a pretty good analogy for comparing things to 4chan. Maybe, but I would need a good reason to be convinced either knew what they were talking about the subject at hand. I am more likely to believe sardonicartery on WMH's situation than I would NdGT or angry white guy.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 22, 2018 22:10:20 GMT
This really isn't the best place to have this type of conversation. NdGT has as much authority on climate change as anyone from the Trump team. In the end, they are both talking heads more than they are experts on the field. Reputation can mean something, but it helps more if you are an actual authority in a field. NdGT at least has a respect for the concept of science. Thats as bad an analogy as comparing a niche small warmahordes forum to 4chan. Not when he is countered by experts in the field (like the weatherman who created the Weather Channel), and the only claim to non-respect for science is the other's lack of desire to believe in one claim (if you don't believe in man-made climate change you are denying science?). True, he is also supported by experts in the field (some of whom were paid to get specific results to support scare-mongering). The problem is that a lot of "science" has been coopted by scare-mongers over the last few decades, especially when it has come to food and weather. One of the aspects of science is questioning the results and testing things further, not subscribing to dogma, yet people supporting NdGT are trying to enforce it as dogma that you are not to question. That should bring up warning bells in any scientist's head.
As I said, this really isn't the place to have this discussion. My only point was that neither was an expert on the aspect in question. It doesn't matter if one is the expert in another field if one is only repeating something someone paid you to say in a field you are not an expert in.
Should I listen to a 40K expert over a Call of Duty expert on the various intricacies of WMH if both have had the same amount of playtime with the game? Should I listen Mark Walberg over Anita Sarkeesian for this game? It's irrelevant as they are not experts. I would rather listen to the person who won the latest Conference's tournament, or even some of the people here, than any of those.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 22, 2018 21:53:09 GMT
It will be interesting to see how the 'Jack/'Beast analogues are going to work. Will they be entirely Soul-powered, operate off of a Focus mechanic, or will it be closer to the Fury mechanic?
I sincerely doubt we'll see them as a force without a Battlegroup (those free points are just too valuable), so consider me intrigued and watchful, but not signing up to buy.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 22, 2018 21:33:50 GMT
This isnt true. Just look at climate change deniers. If Neil deGrasse Tyson says climate change is a hoax, id listen. When it comes from the Trump team I roll my eyes. Peoples reputation and biases are very relevant This really isn't the best place to have this type of conversation. NdGT has as much authority on climate change as anyone from the Trump team. In the end, they are both talking heads more than they are experts on the field. Reputation can mean something, but it helps more if you are an actual authority in a field.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 20, 2018 20:56:27 GMT
Ironically, little over a year ago, 40K was using a form of Themes called Formations, and people were spamming within those setups. Great for the new builder, not so great for someone who had to rebuild their entire force.
But then, a year ago is when they decided to simplify 40K and dropped Themes all together. Not that it mattered too much as you can still spam units via the numerous detachments that came out.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 18, 2018 20:59:12 GMT
... Why? It can be an even bigger challenge to play with a handicap than it is fully decked out. Do you always play a video game on easy mode with all cheat codes enabled? Or do you play the harder modes with no helps to give yourself a challenge? You completely missunderstood me. It's not about playing hard mode, it's about your self-restraint not being the same as anyones' self-restraint and that leading to both parts of a game building lists in the dark. What is ok? What is not? Even if I can decide for my list, I can't for my opponent's list. If there is a hard mode available for WMH I want it to come from my opponent's skill. Unfortunately, that is not a universally available option, especially if you're trying to build a community to play against and get an opponent's skill to match yours.
If you're going up against a new player, then bring out units that you have which you have little experience with. Play a Warcaster/Warlock outside of the Theme you normally play them in. Use the time as a chance to explore options that aren't the latest net list. These are methods of "handicapping" yourself which aren't a method of self-restraint but of exploring the game. Because I don't have unlimited time&energy. Rolling dice is no fun for me. I'll always want WMH. Beer&Pretzels is cool for hanging out having a conversation about whatever. Then maybe you misunderstand the point of "Beer & Pretzels". WMH can be a casual game as you choose to make it. It is only seeruz biznezz if you get carried away with it. The problem with quite a few metas is that there are too many people focusing on the seeruz bizness of WMH and not enjoying the game. I don't think many people would agree with coddling, but one doesn't have to steamroll the new people until they are ready, either. I never said steamroll, I said play like it's a practice game. Give advice, warn of traps but play a game. If you can put new ppl playing against each other. Well, you were the one talking about coddling. Usually that is the response of someone who tends to steamroll the new players. And I am using steamroll to reference the hard core seeruz biznezz tournament players who won't take time to help new players grow and develop by only playing Steam Roller with these new players.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 17, 2018 15:38:15 GMT
I don't want to play a dumbed down version of WMH. I want to play WMH. But these aren't dumbed down versions of WMH, just different versions of WMH. There isn't only one way to play WMH. That is one reason behind the numerous scenarios and types of play that Privateer Press presents. That is why there are different point values available in War Room 2. Don't get stuck in the "One Way To Play" mentality which can poison a meta to death. I don't want to do an exercise in self-restraint and hope whoever is in front of me exercises a similar brand of self-restraint. Why? It can be an even bigger challenge to play with a handicap than it is fully decked out. Do you always play a video game on easy mode with all cheat codes enabled? Or do you play the harder modes with no helps to give yourself a challenge? I don't want beer & pretzels night. I want a page5 kind of night. Why can't you have both? WMH doesn't have to be for everyone. The success it has had shows there is room for steep learning curve games centered around tournament Style play. You can attract people to WMH just don't lie to them, don't coddle them, warm them they will lose for a variety factors and play with new guys like it's a practice game. I don't think many people would agree with coddling, but one doesn't have to steamroll the new people until they are ready, either.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 8, 2018 17:17:06 GMT
Hopefully those NQ scenarios get compiled in a book and/or PDF for quick access at the end of the year. It sends across a better message to those who avoid magazine subscriptions for one reason or another. "Everything is pointed at competitive style play." is pretty cut and dry assertion (read opinion). Eitherway, if that does not fairly represent his comment he has to tell me.
SR Everything being pointed at a certain style doesn't mean that is the only focus, just the primary focus. I don't know of anyone who doesn't think that WMH isn't setup to be competitive, but it is the community which determines if it is the only focus.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 7, 2018 19:14:50 GMT
Of course making no new rules at all wouldn't work either as the game would become stale and people would lose interest I keep hearing this from folks, but I'm really not convinced that it's true. With a stable of almost 20 casters in each main faction, there's no shortage of variety to keep people playing. Even changing up the rules for those 20 would help keep things fresh. Consider what myself and Cyel were discussing earlier about coming back again and again to the same board games. The rules and setups are far less varied than a static WM environment would ever be, and the games are never dull or repetitive. People have been playing Chess for bloody ages with no change, and still keep coming back for more. As has been said, board games and miniature games are not the same thing. There are people who have collected the full FA of their Faction, and a little bit more. How do you keep their interest? You mention Chess, yeah, I've been bored of that game for decades because it doesn't evolve. The masters only concentrate on movement patterns and how to counter them. That's partly how they can predict how quickly a win will happen after only a few moves. Any game which involves dice, though, has that random factor which you can't plan for. You can have the best position in Risk, and if you don't roll enough 5s and 6s, you won't keep it. Miniature games are even more different because the placement of a model can mean the difference between a win and a loss, no matter the dice. Get the game to a good place, and I see no reason why you should have to constantly release new rules. How do you get the game in to a good place without constantly releasing new rules? In order to get to that good place, you have to make changes and then test to make sure those changes are good. It will take a while to get to that place.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 6, 2018 20:18:34 GMT
You can be nice to people all you want, but that won't help if stuff they want to play doesn't work (PP is in process of solving this one with CID) or if they can't afford to get models to compete. You can sugarcoat the reality of wmh gameplay up until the people play their first tournament where they will be mercilessly crushed by more experienced people with cookie cutter (often spammy) lists.
I'm not advocating being Uranus to people from the start, but communication will only get you so far.
GW has disproved this for decades, man. Their stuff never works properly and has to be house ruled and played by Intent in order to work at all. The reason why GW still exists is that they created an environment that people can enjoy and the games dosn't take long to tweak to workability (most of the time). And you want to talk about cookie cutter spam lists?
WMH started from the outset of having a workable system that doesn't rely on intent as much as GW's. It also is a system intended to be competitive with. I do think Themes have ruined the ability to play your own preferred style more than was intended, especially for those Factions where your old combined arms group cannot play together in Themes (hi Slingers and Cataphracts).
In the end, communication is what has kept GW alive (even though it has also been part of almost killing it) more than its systems. There are more who leave due to the community more than leave from the systems.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 5, 2018 18:49:42 GMT
On the subject of what could change, I don't think they need a UA or solo, Steelheads are meant to be 'cheap, numerous and effective', they are the back-to-basics merc infantry of the Iron Kingdoms, they don't need fancy UAs, they just need to drop down to 12 or 13 points for a full unit. I have to agree with this sentiment.
However, I would still like the option of a decent CA, but more importantly, a WA, or better yet, a selection of different types of WA to provide flavor as to where the unit comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Jun 5, 2018 0:17:48 GMT
Ironic, when you think about it. The SA was so bad when it was introduced that there were people who were literally saying that Skorne finally had a Battle Engine when the Farrow Meat Thresher was released. Now it seems that some people are not capable of playing the average game without one.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on May 25, 2018 17:45:54 GMT
They look like they may scale well with DropZone buildings. So maybe bringing across those lots to help fill in may be useful.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on May 25, 2018 2:29:12 GMT
Skorne has Mordikaar who does great things with Void Spirits. No Theme allows Void Spirits on their own, which means the only way Mordikaar can have them in a Theme is when his Character 'Beast generates them in-game. This is incorrect. Void Spirits are allowed in The Exalted theme. So Mordikaar (as bad as you might believe it is) can have void spirits in The Exalted. I guess a lot of people have missed them there as well because that has been a frequent complaint regarding them.
|
|