Arquinsiel wrote: well, Warhammer went shiz a long time ago.
Could you expand upon that statement please? What went wrong, and when?
I missed 5th-7th, but realise there are a lot of gamers who like that era.
Moderator: The Dread Knights
Arquinsiel wrote: well, Warhammer went shiz a long time ago.
faerthurir wrote:Arq kicked me in the gyros.
Cultofkhaine wrote:Did you see the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUPJ0inN4c#t=626
Crikey he really did not take it that well at all.
Red... wrote:Huh? GW sold rules last time I checked... even their ebook rules cost money. Sure, you can easily downloaded pirated pdfs, but you can apply that same logic to movies and music too, and they definitely remain "purchase or you're stealing" merchandise.
Lord Drakon wrote:Cultofkhaine wrote:Did you see the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUPJ0inN4c#t=626
Crikey he really did not take it that well at all.
Holy frig
It seems rage-quiting from Warhammer is a little different from other games
While this critique has merit to it, it applies to any games with chance involved altogether. I mean, that same criticism could be made about rolling to hit, to wound, to pass armor saves, to do morale checks, and so on. The skill with luck based components is minimizing risk. At first when 8th came out, I would have agreed with you, but over time I learned that it was pretty manageable to make charges not feel very risky at all. For example, if you have a unit of elves and they are 15" away from the enemy, then it would be silly to try to charge them, as they would have to roll a 10 on two dice. But if they were 9" away, then charging makes sense, as you only need a 4. On many occasions, troops could be brought close enough to enemy forces that there was no need to roll at all (e.g. dark riders running around the back of the enemy lines would often be less than 9" away from their opponents when beginning a charge, and so make it in automatically). Yes, occasionally an enemy unit would make a hail mary attempt at a charge from 12" + their movement away and make it by rolling box cars, but most of the time they wouldn't try and if they did they would fail. If anything, removing the movement guessing dynamic (and removed the hyperfocus of previous editions on who gets the charge wins by getting to strike first) improved the strategy of the game dramatically, because it moved the game away from being primarily about whether or not you could guess whether a distances was 13" or 15" into being a game about the actual match ups. As with any game involving luck - the key is not to roll and hope for averages, but to twist the odds in your favor and then run with them.Arquinsiel wrote:Then 8th ed came along and decided that the smart thing to do was to take the game with probably the best and most strategically flexible movement system of any mass-combat ancient to early-modern equivalent tech game and... make it random instead. Because can't have strategy winning over lucky dice rolls., at which point it was basically in freefall to failtown.
Red... wrote:@The Mattler, well, the law is the law is the law. Downloading books without paying for them is illegal and GW made a good amount of sales based upon people paying to buy hard copies or paying for the e-version. I think saying that they didn't is a little silly.
Sangfroid wrote:Actually reading the rules for summoning the models don't count towards your army but do count towards casualties.
So
You can count the, towards % for a minor victory if at the end of the game no one is outright destroyed.
Also if you kill all the original models (I.e those that were deployed not summoned) then you win a major victory irrespective if there is countless summoned models on the table.
So against death or daemons your tactics are kill casters, then starting models and try to ignore the summoned stuff unless you feel a major victory is not possible in which case slay anything you can.
Sangfroid wrote:I like the interpretation of only casting the spell if the unit started on the board. The wording of the scroll is not 100% clear so could be argued BUT the defence is that the ability is written on the units scroll not the Wizards so I'd lean towards your interpretation. I hadn't spotted that and I like it a lot and also makes the summoning game more enjoyable for both parties
Arquinsiel wrote:I'll try remember to come back to this with sources later, but the point where I realised that all attempt at keeping things sane and not nosediving into a "spend more, get less" cycle with power sprint was the first standalone Daemons of Chaos army book for late 6th ed/early 7th (long ago, not entirely sure which). There were units in that book which had abilities that there was no possible counter to, and which changed the meta entirely. Then 8th ed came along and decided that the smart thing to do was to take the game with probably the best and most strategically flexible movement system of any mass-combat ancient to early-modern equivalent tech game and... make it random instead. Because can't have strategy winning over lucky dice rolls., at which point it was basically in freefall to failtown.
The Mattler wrote:What I'd like to see is a resurgence of the old Druchii.net mentality of exploration and tactical development instead of the pointless, butthurt bitching going on right now. When life gives you lemons, sacrifice them to Khaine!
T.D. wrote:On the contrary, when life gives you lemons, you sacrifice the person giving you the lemons to Khaine; in this case the personage being a company known as GW.
T.D. wrote:The "pointless, butthurt bitching" is in fact negative feedback, and is quite purposeful and with point. We are heavily invested consumers with a right to a public opinion on the changes fantasy has undergone.
T.D. wrote:- would you rather be playing a supported WFB or Age of Sigmar?
I'd much rather be playing a supported WFB.
T.D. wrote:A) Take the passive approach, and quit or move on to another games system?
or
B) Take an active approach and communicate my displeasure to GW?
Option B) is the option that the D&D community took with the release of 4th edition, which forced wizards of the coast to respond with 5th edition. It is the option I am taking, because I would like to see a return to WFB. The ultimate outcome of this action is neither here nor there, but at least I have spoken my mind and GW have gained the negative feedback.
T.D. wrote:The Mattler,
May I ask you; would you rather be playing a supported WFB or Age of Sigmar?
Elrithral wrote:I'm sure it's been discussed to death in this thread, but the lack of points, or any tangible way of just picking an equal amount of something, is a killer for me.
...
The only way round it, that I see, is actually discussing your lists before hand and sharing/tinkering with them, which surely ruins some of the game.
The Mattler wrote:I like 8th edition, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't more excited about the new and interesting ways to field my Dark Elves offered by Age of Sigmar, and abolishing points costs lets me rely entirely on my own brain for unit evaluation.
Option B) is the option that the D&D community took with the release of 4th edition, which forced wizards of the coast to respond with 5th edition. It is the option I am taking, because I would like to see a return to WFB. The ultimate outcome of this action is neither here nor there, but at least I have spoken my mind and GW have gained the negative feedback.
Cultofkhaine wrote:Taking a positive approach to TD's Option B how do we tell GW just exactly how we feel.
Could we summarise our points of concern, sign a petition and forward it to them for a supported WFB?
Cultofkhaine wrote:What would make them listen to us their loyal customers?
Cultofkhaine wrote:What about social media as an option - a lot of the GW stores in Aus have a FB page?
I also get the impression GW as a company are really just not interested in this kind of stuff.
Basically, you're not allowed to say anything bad about GW, ever. Notice also the sections near the bottom of that page encouraging reporting infringement of GW's intellectual policy, with as much detail as possible, to infringements@gwplc.com. That's how forums get Cease & Desist orders. For example, 40kOnline was on the receiving end of some legal pressure from GW, and now lives in fear of them, to the point where the mods there aggressively censor any post containing unit stats or points costs.However, whatever exciting hobby activities you are working on, please do follow the guidelines below. So long as you keep within these guidelines, we are unlikely to object to your activities.
...
Do not damage our brands. Please avoid anything which may be prejudicial to the goodwill, reputation, image or prestige of our IP.
Cultofkhaine wrote:If only GW could read these forums - there is a wealth of information in them for their customers! I wonder if they realise just how many people they have p!%$#@d off.
Flam1ng0 wrote:Age of Oxyotl
"We do no demographic research, we have no focus groups, we do not ask the market what it wants. These things are otiose in a niche."