|
Post by ForEver_Blight on Aug 17, 2017 17:27:35 GMT
What exactly does it tell you about them? Maybe that they are too competitive minded to play "just for fun" with less than optimal themes/lists. Or that they are not compassionate enough a person to engage in a game of toy soldiers with modified rules/limitation that fit another person's preferences. But should I have said "It lets you infer something about them"? Would that have been a better choice of words? There are some people that are stubborn and want things to be exactly the way they want them. That could apply to either side of this situation. It takes a friendlier, more agreeable, person to conform to the idea or preference of another human being. That concept is scarce these days. Perfect example is to look at just how many "hard-core" tournament players want to push for things that casual players don't want. The reverse isn't really as hard fought because instead of fighting back, they leave. That doesn't make the tournament players "right". Just proves they are less compromising/compassionate. And it's not just themes or no theme argument. It applies to many situations. "I want to play my super tournament list." vs. "I want to play a quick, low point game. I have to get home before [blah]". If neither can compromise, no game gets played. Both parties involved will bear so extent of resent for the other for not conforming to their preference. Thus it's seen as a negative attribute in behavior. This is a social game. If you cannot handle the different personalities and moods of other people. Things are going to go as well as they could.
|
|
|
Post by elladan52 on Aug 17, 2017 17:44:27 GMT
I don't think there's any good way to insinuate negative attributes to players that want to play the game in a reasonable way.
As you said, both sides share responsibility. Why can't I enjoy the game the way I like to (within reason) without someone assuming I am unkind? The person that looks down on my play is the person I don't want to play with.
My limited leisure time is my own, and you should not make people feel bad for enjoying it the way they want to, whether that be playing competitively or casually. Me not wanting to play a version of the game I won't enjoy does not make me uncompassionate.
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 17, 2017 18:18:52 GMT
Okay, this turned into a casual vs. competitive debate quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Aegis on Aug 17, 2017 18:33:23 GMT
Okay, this turned into a casual vs. competitive debate quickly. And should return to the original topic from now on, otherwise the thread will soon be locked for out topic.
|
|
|
Post by vakruz on Aug 17, 2017 19:21:31 GMT
My bad, wasn't my intention lol. That being said, i would like to see the free points removed, to see more fun abilities or benefits. Something that would make units or whatever act slightly differently, i think that would be fun, and would add a different dynamic to the game. More stuff like how the gator theme made posse. Not entirely sure how to do that, but i think it would be worth trying out.
|
|
|
Post by GreatBigTree on Aug 17, 2017 21:08:49 GMT
Having started with 3rd edition, either Feb or March of this year, I've only ever known WMH as a free solo-granting Theme game. I think the system could be rejigged. And I would prefer to see rules benefits that are not direct point-based alterations. I'd rather see things like...
Theme - Charge of the Light Brigade - Cavalry models that charge can re-roll failed to hit rolls.
rather than...
Theme - Charge of the Light Brigade - You can take a free CU / Cavalry Solo for every X points spent on Cavalry models.
But at the same time, not all themes would have a powerful rule effect. Sometimes, just getting more would offset lacking cool rules.
Theme - Unleash the Horde - For every 20 points spent on Units [not attachments] you can take 5 points of Units for free. Free models do not count towards the points spent on units.
I mean, if the theme is hordes of dudes, then giving more dudes is thematically more appropriate than giving them re-rolls to hit, you know?
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 17, 2017 21:28:17 GMT
Yep, totally agree with that.
The gatorman theme seems like kind of an anomaly to me tho. Something like "we made the gatormen too weak in their rules but we don't want to errata them for whatever reason".
|
|
|
Post by W0lfBane on Aug 17, 2017 21:32:33 GMT
Yep, totally agree with that. The gatorman theme seems like kind of an anomaly to me tho. Something like "we made the gatormen too weak in their rules but we don't want to errata them for whatever reason". Thats another issue i have with theme forces. Sometimes they straight up use them to fix models rather than fixing the actual model. Gajhhhhhh. Firetruck themes
|
|
|
Post by smoothcriminal on Aug 17, 2017 22:30:12 GMT
No, I want them in non-themes. Get X points of infantry - get free UA/weapon crew, get X points of jacks - get free support solo. Lists feel incomplete without them.
|
|
|
Post by greytemplar on Aug 18, 2017 5:58:46 GMT
Yep, totally agree with that. The gatorman theme seems like kind of an anomaly to me tho. Something like "we made the gatormen too weak in their rules but we don't want to errata them for whatever reason". Essentially. Which is a problem. PP is using themes as lazy patch work instead of actually fixing problems.
|
|
|
Post by droopingpuppy on Aug 18, 2017 6:21:32 GMT
I don't think that free points(strictly speaking, free model per some points spend) should be removed, for it is not the problem at all. In fact, Theme Force must enjoy some considerable benefit such as that, because of their less choices that makes them the inferior sub-faction without the benefit to do. As I said sometimes, if free points
The real problem is the individual models, and that actually determines the usefulness of the theme force. In some theme forces that have only the inferior choices, even if you get a ton of free points you end up with an inferior list than a non-theme force list that has no free point.
However, in some theme forces that have the overpowered spammable stuffs, you can simply making a better list(or more skew list with low penalty over the non-theme list), and what you only see are such an overpowered list. But that is not the problem of the free point. The model is.
Honestly, I do think that free points mechanism is flawed and poorly formed, but that(or the better replacement) is required to do so, and the theme force actually needs more benefits to be competitive over non-theme list, except for some theme force that having problematic models.
|
|
|
Post by pangurban on Aug 18, 2017 12:12:39 GMT
Yep, totally agree with that. The gatorman theme seems like kind of an anomaly to me tho. Something like "we made the gatormen too weak in their rules but we don't want to errata them for whatever reason". Essentially. Which is a problem. PP is using themes as lazy patch work instead of actually fixing problems. Now that they're pushing for all themes all the time in competition, that is a faster way than tackling models individually. In an ideal world I'd prefer the latter, but there are advantages to using themes as quick balance fixes too. I do wish they'd revisit the early themes before spending time on new ones though. CID is effective and the first themes didn't benefit from it.
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 18, 2017 12:30:18 GMT
Yep, totally agree with that. The gatorman theme seems like kind of an anomaly to me tho. Something like "we made the gatormen too weak in their rules but we don't want to errata them for whatever reason". I think the rationale behind Gatorman having 5 wounds normally, and 8 wounds in theme is that PP do not want Gators pretty much replacing native faction infantry, from my experience of MK2, Skorne in particular used Gators prolifically over their own infantry a lot of the time (barring Fist of Halak).
|
|
wishing
Junior Strategist
Posts: 353
|
Post by wishing on Aug 18, 2017 12:38:51 GMT
I think the rationale behind Gatorman having 5 wounds normally, and 8 wounds in theme is that PP do not want Gators pretty much replacing native faction infantry, from my experience of MK2, Skorne in particular used Gators prolifically over their own infantry a lot of the time (barring Fist of Halak).
I can appreciate that rationale, but it seems like it is something that should apply to *all* merc and minion models then, not just one. If Farrow Brigands can have the same base stats in and out of theme and in both minion and faction armies, and be OK, then it seems weird that Gatormen, as the only unit in the whole game, require different base stats in and out of theme, in minion and faction armies. Why?
|
|
|
Post by 36cygnar24guy36 on Aug 18, 2017 12:46:05 GMT
I think the rationale behind Gatorman having 5 wounds normally, and 8 wounds in theme is that PP do not want Gators pretty much replacing native faction infantry, from my experience of MK2, Skorne in particular used Gators prolifically over their own infantry a lot of the time (barring Fist of Halak).
I can appreciate that rationale, but it seems like it is something that should apply to *all* merc and minion models then, not just one. If Farrow Brigands can have the same base stats in and out of theme and in both minion and faction armies, and be OK, then it seems weird that Gatormen, as the only unit in the whole game, require different base stats in and out of theme, in minion and faction armies. Why? because everyone already owns 2 units of Gators and not 2 units of Farrow Brigands, cash dosh monies yo!
|
|