Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2022/01/22 17:12:27
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Dudeface wrote: Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
Hmmm?
Tech in a list building sense refers to how you might put something into your deck/list/build which doesn't necessarily synergise with the rest - but reflects the current meta.
So the equivalent in say 40k would be where you have a list of say 1750-1800 points. The last points to reach 2000 could be an anti-MEQ unit, an anti-horde unit, an anti-heavy unit etc. That's a tech choice - you can make it largely independently of the rest of your army. You can start pulling out more significant things - but at some point its a completely different list, playing in a different way.
Wondering if it's an Atlantic divide here? Tech is most commonly "technology" here, I'm wondering if an American would first assume "technical" which, whilst not the best word to use imo, would loosely fit that definition.
Don't think so, I assume someone is trying to port in jargon from some other game or community. Or maybe sport?
I'd honestly expect 'sidebar' rather than something as disassociated as 'tech.' Maybe JRPGs? That's the only place I've ever heard it used as its own term.
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2022/01/22 17:14:39
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 17:15:10
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
2022/01/22 17:22:42
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
gungo wrote: How did orks take a bigger hit in chapter approved then drukari? This just shows how out of touch both the Gw rules team is and how biased the playtesters are with orks. Orks been sitting at 55% win rates since the codex dropped and drukari has been anywhere from 60-65% for almost a year.
Drukhari go beyond points.
2022/01/22 17:50:18
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
In say a card game - say Hearthstone, there used to be (and probably still are) cards that would be called tech cards by the community. Say for example an Acidic Swamp Ooze that destroyed an opponent's weapon when played.
This card doesn't really synergise with anything. If your opponent doesn't have a weapon its inefficient for its cost. Nor is it the sort of card you'd build a deck around. But it was a card you might throw in if you knew the meta was big on weapons at the moment. It would improve your odds in those matchups, and since those matchups were so common, it would therefore improve your overall win rate in that meta.
If the meta changes, and no one was running weapons any more, you just take it out and put something else in - to take into account what the meta has changed. Because you are only altering 1 card out of 30, you are not altering your entire deck. The deck essentially plays the same - you are just tweaking at the margins.
I guess yes - it could also be described as "things you would likely put in a sideboard" - but lets assume you have to commit before the game/tournament etc.
In 40k its not unusual to see tournament lists which are 80-90% the same line by line. These units, with this warlord traits and relics in that chapter etc etc. The final unit or two though may vary and at the competitive end, that will usually represent a tech choice based on the perceived meta. You don't rejig your entire list because we know those choices are good. But you might tweak the stats slightly, because you want an edge in the finals and you think this will give it to you.
2022/01/22 17:52:11
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
CKO wrote: I think making the game competitive has proven to be profitable. That is why we see the type of changes GW is making.
They became their most profitable during a time in which tournaments couldn't be run. I don't think your hypothesis bears out.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2022/01/22 18:13:08
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
40 bucks for books we already know will be outdated in six months?! I'm not one of the "I hate GW and everything they do" crowd, but even I have a hard time swallowing this one.
She/Her
"There are no problems that cannot be solved with cannons." - Chief Engineer Boris Krauss of Nuln
Kid_Kyoto wrote:"Don't be a dick" and "This is a family wargame" are good rules of thumb.
CKO wrote: I think making the game competitive has proven to be profitable. That is why we see the type of changes GW is making.
They became their most profitable during a time in which tournaments couldn't be run. I don't think your hypothesis bears out.
competitive as being the engine that keeps the game running is a thing since 4th/5th, the average casual gamer does not care about point changes, missions/scenarios or even Edition changes of there is no competitive community next to him that makes him care
want to play in the local store/club, those are running tournaments hence use the latest missions, points and rules, so you need to use them as well
there is no tournament scene next to you and/or you just play with friends in the basement, there is a chance you still play 5th Edition because it is the most fun for you and just update some models from time to time or house-rule them in
that a lot of people picked up the hobby during a time were everyone was sitting at home, got money from the state and had finally the time and money to build the army he always wanted to was of course driving sales much more than change for the sake of change
so lets see if those people still keep buying in the future or became the local crowed in the basement that plays with what they have and stopped caring about new rules and points changes
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2022/01/22 18:17:35
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
2022/01/22 18:22:47
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list? well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable.
Also, it's a lot like 'buff' in that, whatever term it actually originated from is irrelevant now. 'Tech Choice' exists as its own thing.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 18:43:59
2022/01/22 18:33:41
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a
specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Likewise, I'll go tech into my asparagus while enjoying my unplayable unit I still play with being a little cheaper in a casual game.
2022/01/22 18:38:36
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Manfred von Drakken wrote: 40 bucks for books we already know will be outdated in six months?! I'm not one of the "I hate GW and everything they do" crowd, but even I have a hard time swallowing this one.
Its taking the forced obsolescence model a bit far, yeah.
Its particularly galling since the last points update was online in PDF format, and the current and future quarterly updates are going to be online PDFs. Not books, or WD articles or app garbage, just... available.
It feels like two different branches of the company are completely out of touch with each other and trying to do things 'their way.'
And given how dated (and just bizarre in the case of Custodes) some of these changes are, the books are obviously the incredibly inferior approach.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/22 18:41:28
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2022/01/22 18:45:13
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
kodos wrote: those changes are not meant to balance the meta or make it better
it is all about random changes to the meta, so that previous lists are not valid any more
the stuff you have makes a nice 2000 point list?
well, now those are just 1900 points but here is a new unit you can buy
your list is 2100 points? why don't you buy the models that are now cheap to get back to 2k
Except it doesn't even do THAT right.
There is not a single change in here that would make me want to buy anything. The only effect it has is making armies smaller.
Am I suddenly going to guy BUY an Exorcist because it's 170pts now? NO. All that change does is make me want to sell the exorcists I have to someone who doesn't know any better.
The Castigator is the only SoB model I don't own. Am I suddenly going to go buy one now that it's 150? No. It's exactly the same level of useless it was before.
Am I going to go buy Paragons? They got a THIRTY point drop for the unit. Surely, with every good unit in the book going up a hundred points Paragons will be taken now right? NO. Because not only are Paragons STILL not good, now I don't have any room for tech choices at all.
TTT complain about the value of the book and blame it on the accountants. They said over and over it's not the rules team's fault. Unpopular opinion but the rules team IS responsible for the points changes and as a result are the PRIMARY REASON this book is doggak.
I'm American. I'm comfortable with exploitative corporate greed. What I'm not okay with is just how terrible they are at it. If they had dropped all the tanks 60pts to FORCE you to go buy them, I would have been WAY happier than I am with this garbage update. At least that would have given me something NEW to think about. But no, they can't even exploit their consumers correctly.
They're writing these changes months before they reach people, of course they're weird, out of date and inappropriate, TTT do explain this in the video as well.
But ultimately your issue is precieved entirely by "make me buy what's OP" when that's not the goal at all. Points changes affect all players, not just people trying to be the top 10% in tournaments. There shouldn't be a most effective or best choice, closing that gap down is only a positive.
Maybe someone has a unit of paragon suits they love and want to play, but making them cheaper makes it easier to include them in list with adequate redundancy, or add more.
Also, buying a laptop is tech, including a precision laser measure would be including tech. Taking a different unit of plastic models is not tech and its an utterly misplaced term. I appreciate this isn't aimed at anyone in particular but I get sick of seeing and hearing the term like they've been playing civilisation on the table top.
1. It's not closing the gap. It's OPENING the gap. If Sisters(for example) were the only faction in the game, yes there would be a smaller gap between the best and worst units. They are not the only faction, so all this does is increase the gap between them and factions like Drukhari who saw very little change in this.
The points changes were not significant enough to make garbage units like the Castigator playable. All it accomplished was making the overall army smaller. Considering several factions that were at the same level or higher DIDN'T get hit with 100pts of nerfs per list, the balance externally is worse even if the internal balance is technically(meaninglessly) better. Especially when you consider how it's compounded by the subfaction changes.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a
specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
Rihgu wrote: Tech as used here is an abbreviation for technique, originating I think from trading card games and most commonly used in fighting game communities. RTS does it a lot.
You have "tech" for dealing with certain things your opponent does. You have tech for dealing with a zerg rush, or tech for dealing with Ryu. You have anti-Delver of Secrets "tech" in M:TG.
But in 40k a technique is something you do, not a unit you bring? Honestly I think it stems from tech trees in rts and 4x games, which is why it seems inappropriate.
Right, the phrase has evolved a bit so it's a bit looser than the strict meaning. Tech is options you have to deal with something. In Fighting Games, Shoryuken is anti-air tech. In Starcraft, hellbats are anti-zergling tech. In 40k, bringing attack bikes in your list is anti-vehicle tech. The "thing you're doing" is "bringing a unit".
In Starcraft, you have to build the appropriate buildings, gather appropriate resources, you can upgrade them with (ironcially) tech upgrades. Most importantly you can go down that route reactively. In 40k you're drafting into a build blind to your opponent, that'd very different. The knowledge of scouting and build orders lead to helbats in starcraft, they're not built "just in case" without some harrying and scouting.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Likewise, I'll go tech into my asparagus while enjoying my unplayable unit I still play with being a little cheaper in a casual game.
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
2022/01/22 18:48:01
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
Or possibly consider your folksy jargon is useless if it isn't universal (or even related) to the hobby you're trying to apply it to.
You're at a keyboard, you've got time to use your words.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 18:49:50
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2022/01/22 18:53:54
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
ERJAK wrote: I almost alway buy them just for the mission but this piece of garbage? Yarr Matey...
Yea it's always been a nice to have, but I've crossed the point of really needing it especially when it isn't even spiral bound and has not core rules reference.
2022/01/22 19:07:19
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
CKO wrote: I think making the game competitive has proven to be profitable. That is why we see the type of changes GW is making.
They became their most profitable during a time in which tournaments couldn't be run. I don't think your hypothesis bears out.
LVO has 1000 players majority of them flying in to play 40k, I know what I am talking about.
I used to work GenCon, 1000 players isn't as big as you think. Tournament players are a small fraction of over all players in every table top. Of course it could be profitable, but it's not THE profit driver, especially with proof that sales went UP when tournaments weren't being held.
competitive as being the engine that keeps the game running is a thing since 4th/5th,
No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 19:19:18
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2022/01/22 19:20:05
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
$40 is pretty outrageous at this point. I really hope people don't buy this
Yeah as several people in this thread have already noted, it's incredibly obvious how much the practical demands of physical printing have affected and distorted the final results. There's no chance of reaching anything close to game balance when updates are based on feedback from 6-12 months ago. The kicker is how much of the final product ends up getting released for free (AdMech / Custodes / DE players), or doesn't apply at all (GSC & Tau players).
With a game that changes and evolves with such a pace, there's no excuse for key updates lagging so far behind reality. At this point our best shot at any improvement is for as many as possible to leave this product on store and warehouse shelves.
Also, 'tech choice' in gaming is a colloquial term referring to an option chosen for its ability to fulfill a specific purpose, rather than simply for its raw effectiveness. It's been around since at least the 90s. Language is very mutable. Try to keep up.
I can hear the WHOOSH noise of the point going by your head from here, lol.
Have fun, maybe use the time to catch up on some colloquial terminology? Based on missing out on 'tech choice', I would recommend starting with phrases like "Groovy man!" and "Far out, brother!" and work toward the modern lexicon.
While you're clearly a language expert, you may benefit from looking further into the words "patronising", "condescending", and "unpleasant".
2022/01/22 19:21:56
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2022/01/22 19:21:59
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2022/01/22 19:26:41
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2022/01/22 19:33:11
Subject: Re:Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
Platuan4th wrote: No, it wasn't. 5th Ed was when we learned GW's idea of playtesting was having everyone in the studio play a big game where the planetary governor could become possessed by a Greater Daemon.
might have been different in your country, but without the competitive scene pushing the game, no one would have played 40k at all in the local clubs or stores
I can guarantee you that was an issue with your country/area and not a RoW or GW issue in 5th.
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states. And while I'm not across the pond, going by Ammobunker at the time, that was fairly common in the UK, too. They, Warhammer World, and other groups regularly ran narrative campaign weekends with massive rule/fluff packs back then.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 19:38:24
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
2022/01/22 19:37:56
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states.
my question was not if you found someone to play but if you used the original rules from GW without any modifications or house rules?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/22 19:38:42
Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise
2022/01/22 19:39:36
Subject: Warhammer 40,000 - Chapter Approved preorder 22 Jan (MFM changes on pg 14)
so people actually liked the mess GW called a game for casual pick up games, no comp/restrictions, no scenarios, no community FAQ/Errata or house rules?
Despite what Warmachine players would like people to believe, 40K has always been THE game where you could find players nearly every where you went. I moved literally across the US TWICE during 5th ed and never had issues finding casual games or groups in all 3 states.
my question was not if you found someone to play but if you used the original rules from GW without any modifications or house rules?
House Rules have ALWAYS been a part of the game, even more so for competitive than for casual. They still are. More often than not, the casual games I've played didn't have any issue playing by the rules without house rules because *gaspshock* most casual players don't care enough to waste time arguing about that when we could be playing.
Also, that's moving the goal posts. Your original point was "tournaments drove the survival of the game in 4th/5th", which was the whole patently false point I was disproving.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2022/01/22 19:52:46
You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was
