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.
You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
Karol wrote: You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
You would rather have something remain broken for several years just because you want the book to stay valid? Maybe I'm crazy but to me the solution is to stop tying rules to an outdated model that's slow to update and just make them digital.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
I wish you good luck having a fun casual game playing Tau vs original Necrons.
See, they're imagining the 10th+ game they play against a friend who feels bad whenever they stomp you too badly. This is well after they started bringing weaker and weaker lists desperately trying to stoop down to where your army is before finally just secretly playing 1500pt and SAYING it's 2000 to make it somewhat even.
Once it gets to that point, I imagine it's a lot of fun. For you. Not as much for your opponent but w/e.
Karol wrote: You think TOs don't have armies they don't like or don't like, or people they know or like who play or don't play specific armies? You leave people make the decisions and it always ends bad.
Plus the way it was printed only is good for people who got a good initial army or at least the units they like are good in the book. I have my doubts a Necron player would like to revert his army to pre FAQ state or that a 1ksons player wouldn't want some substential changes to his.
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
FAQless sisters are a full tier better than current.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/31 16:46:57
I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies via lowering point cost. Which do you think will make the community happier?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/31 16:58:58
CKO wrote: I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies. Which do you think will make the community happier?
Your poll is an either/or but they need to do both. They need to meet in the middle rather than nerfing everyone to the power level of IG or buffing everyone to the power level of Harlequins.
CKO wrote: I added a poll in hopes of getting people to focus on how GW is trying to balance the game. GW mostly power down units which impacts the meta greatly. They buff Necrons recently which created another option for balancing the game, which is boasting the power of other armies. Which do you think will make the community happier?
Your poll is an either/or but they need to do both. They need to meet in the middle rather than nerfing everyone to the power level of IG or buffing everyone to the power level of Harlequins.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
LOL can't argue points so you throw people on the Ignore list. Super convenient.
Tittliewinks22 wrote: They should not buff or nerf anything. Leave it up to the TO scene to ban/restrict options.
Would be nice in a casual setting if the $50 book I buy worked the way it was printed.
You would rather have something remain broken for several years just because you want the book to stay valid? Maybe I'm crazy but to me the solution is to stop tying rules to an outdated model that's slow to update and just make them digital.
6th and 7th I played Orks and Dark Eldar. The armies were probably the worst through those editions, however I had ALOT more enjoyability even facing down the Eldar / T'au / mega formation armies because the edition itself was more hands-off.
A hands on GW would have been ideal if GW had the capability to actually balance their product in real time. They have shown time and again they cannot support this effort. The Tournament scene (TO's) do have the time to support this effort because they have a vested interest in balance to draw in larger crowds. GW does not, and their ham-fisted attempts at balance slates/faq/errata are typically months too late or in response to a meta that no longer exists. If you disapprove of the TO's balance changes then don't participate in those events, if enough people avoid them, then the TO is poised to reconsider. GW at this point is too large to fail, it's impossible to convince their audience to boycott with their wallets in any meaningful manner to enact change, and expecting them to alter course when they are showing record profits across all systems is lunacy.
I notice more and more of the vocal internet community around 40k being unwilling to discuss imbalances and create scenarios that are fun for all parties involved. The goal of the hobby should be to have fun. Competitions primary goal is to win, not to have fun. The way 8th and 9th rules have been curated encourage the advancement of competition to the detriment of fun and it has destroyed every local community that I was apart of since about Psychic Awakening.
So to reiterate, yes; I want GW to just print the publications however they may be, then be hands off with the exception of typo, misprints or to clear up ambiguous phrasing with an FAQ, leaving the meta balance to the tournament scenes that should house this meta, not the pick-up-games or clubs that should focus on enjoyability for all parties.
6th and 7th I played Orks and Dark Eldar. The armies were probably the worst through those editions, however I had ALOT more enjoyability even facing down the Eldar / T'au / mega formation armies because the edition itself was more hands-off.
I played the exact same two armies in 7th and have much much much way more fun now playing against the top tiers than in 7th. And in 7th I even had massive collections that allowed me to field the most competitive builds and chase the flavour of the months myself for my armies. Over the years I've significantly reduced my forces and I don't feel the need to expand them anymore. This edition is way more balanced than it was in 7th, at least from my perspective as an orks, space wolves, drukhari, adepta sororitas player or former player of such factions.
And I wonder how long those new codexes will stay this strong. In 7th playing against tau, SM or eldar was a nightmare for the entire edition, now I can accept a couple of months of heavy losses, at most, before things settle down. It's also much easier to power up or down the lists in order to have nice home games than it was in 7th.
Restricting options as an house rule should always be a thing in friendly casual metas, not in tournaments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/01 12:30:13
Blackie wrote: I played the exact same two armies in 7th and have much much much way more fun now playing against the top tiers than in 7th. And in 7th I even had massive collections that allowed me to field the most competitive builds and chase the flavour of the months myself for my armies. Over the years I've significantly reduced my forces and I don't feel the need to expand them anymore. This edition is way more balanced than it was in 7th, at least from my perspective as an orks, space wolves, drukhari, adepta sororitas player or former player of such factions.
And I wonder how long those new codexes will stay this strong. In 7th playing against tau, SM or eldar was a nightmare for the entire edition, now I can accept a couple of months of heavy losses, at most, before things settle down. It's also much easier to power up or down the lists in order to have nice home games than it was in 7th.
Everyone's experience is different - but this chimes with mine.
I mean Custodes and Tau have been bad for about 2 months. Harlequins for a a week or two. But... for me at least, there's one guy in the club with a fleshed out Harlequins army - and he doesn't have 9 voidweavers (yet anyway). That may change if this was to be "the state of play" for a year - but no on believes it will be. Tau and Custodes are undoubtedly a bit more popular - but not crazy amounts. (I mean I have a decidedly unoptimized Tau army.... so I guess here I'm part of the problem.)
By contrast in late 7th... Eldar, SM & Tau must have been approaching... 60-70%~ of the playerbase where I played? I think I've described before there was one afternoon I looked up from my DE being crushed and across 8 tables I could see 5 Wraith Knights. Running DE, Orks, CSM, Tyranids, IG into this felt hopeless - because it often was. (Cue stories of shooting an entire DE army into Necrons and failing to kill 10 warriors...)
FAQless thousand sons are more fun to play than current ones
Same with GK, even ones that run 0 NDKs or power armoured units. But I am used to boomerang nerfs, so it is what it is. 1ksons really didn't need them though. What is worse, after the nerfs CWE book comes out and suddenly harlis can be souped in to all eldar no problem. Making the whole prior balancing kind of a iffy.
Competitions primary goal is to win, not to have fun.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/01 13:54:21
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
There's times when winning can definitely not be fun.
1) We've got one guy who plays in our leagues, Crusades, etc that's simply a bad player. Even with terrible dice rolls you'd have to put some effort into losing against him. You draw him as an opponent & it's a 99%+ assured win. Yay! My units will score max xp etc. But winning the game against him isn't really fun. Just mostly a mechanical procedure.
2) There's one guy at the local shop that's simply not fun to play with. He's an donkey-cave. Win/lose/draw you won't have fun.....
3) Myself? 40k, Magic, etc, I get no enjoyment out of winning (or playing) tourney games. It's a job. A task to be accomplished as efficiently as possible in pursuit of the prize. Wich often clashes with how I like to build armies.
Wich is one of the reasons I no longer play in tournaments.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/01 15:10:35
VladimirHerzog wrote: \
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I look at this sentance. I understand the words. But I really can't understand the idea behind it. Because for it to be logical, it would require the assumption that winning can be unfun. I have never seen anyone in my 4 years at school, who won a bout or a competition and was unhappy about it. Maybe it is different when betting is involved and you know that there are going to be sad guys coming to "talk" to you. But I don't think GW games have a betting sceen.
i had a game recently where i played Thousand Sons against Black templar against a friend of mine that was getting back in the hobby.
I get turn 1 and kill most of her crusaders squad and drop her storm speeder hammerstrike to lowest bracket.
On her turn one, she tries charging my terminators only to deal a single wound to them before getting wiped.
At this point i'm solidly in the lead so i just skip any offensive psychic and start purposely not using units to their max capacity (i had Magnus that i straight up told her i wouldnt do anything with), still she couldnt come back from my lead.
At the end of the game i was doing stuff like actions on my terminator blob and not shooting with them (even if i bought the upgrade that lets them do so) and letting her kill stuff without popping defensive stuff on it.
She almost tabled me but on turn 5 i had magnus charge in her characters and get into a nice slapfest.
i managed to make the game semi-fun but if i had gone full tryhard then it wouldve been over on my turn 2 and the game wouldve been super boring an unfun. our weekly game night that usually lasts 3-4 hours wouldve lasted about 1 hour instead.
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
It wasn't the dice rolls. it was the army compositions, 2 meltas against rubric/scarab occult/magnus.
And it was game night, where we play post opening hours so we have limited time (don't want to keep the guy organising it super late) so starting another game wasnt really a possibility.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do (so she would improve). She straight up thanked me after and told me that she had fun with the game.
I'm not saying this is how everyone should act, theres a big part of it that is about being able to read people and know what they feel, put yourself in their place basically.
i was giving a counter example to karol when they said that winning is always fun
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
But then it stops being a game, and becomes some sort of pretend play. I will just settle on not understanding this. I am unable to imagine the mindset to come to the conclusion. Thankfuly understanding other people outside of game mechanics is not required to play the game. So not that bad for me.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do
I think your opponent would have to both know you really well and like you for that to happen. I don't think I would want to hear someone telling me that, if I want to keep playing w40k. I just have to rebuy my army, ditch the models I like, buy 8 boxs of power armoured dudes, 4NDKs and build a real 9th ed army made out of all the units I dislike.
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I guess. I would find someone who insisted that other players not play their best so they could win more to be selfish.
Thankfuly understanding other people outside of game mechanics is not required to play the game. So not that bad for me.
only in your hellhole in poland, in normal non-toxic games, the best way to make games enjoyable for both parties is to understand and "vibe" with them
I think your opponent would have to both know you really well and like you for that to happen. I don't think I would want to hear someone telling me that, if I want to keep playing w40k. I just have to rebuy my army, ditch the models I like, buy 8 boxs of power armoured dudes, 4NDKs and build a real 9th ed army made out of all the units I dislike.
i've done it with brand new players that i never played against before. As soon as i notice a skill difference, i do my best to transfer my experience to my opponent. Its not about buying a new army, its about helping them realise what the optimal use of their units is (for example, charging scarab occcults with assault intercessors isn't the best move)
Man, knowing my opponent was purposefully pulling their punches like that would take all the fun out of the game for me.
everyone is different and it wasnt my first game agaisnt that opponent so i knew that she would prefer if i did. At least she got to see what her units do instead of losing all of them.
I guess. I would find someone who insisted that other players not play their best so they could win more to be selfish.
it wasn't about winning or losing, just about not going to the store for an hour of gaming and then wandering around the other tables looking at the other games.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/01 17:43:33
I'm not convinced people would insist on anything - but unless you only play people who know as much about the game as you do, I don't think its surprising people tone things down to try and make a game of it rather than a one-sided massacre.
I mean I know beer and pretzels is evil etc - but a game of 40k takes...2-3 hours? Getting on for 4+ if you are at someone's house and get through a few aforementioned beers? A lot of people are looking to just entertain themselves over a Saturday/Sunday Afternoon - not prove they are the greatest general who ever lived.
I get it, harlequin rules are madness and skimmy bikes with killer clowns are deadly and they should be, ok… imho they should also be relatively rare, should not constitute their own faction, should be support for craft world or exodite forces, maybe dark eldar, but at the same time I do not think that eldar and dark eldar should ever ally, ever, at all, as in eldar would rather team up with orks, but that is just me.
They simply should have never been a standalone army. 8 datasheets including 4 characters? I'd like to see them as standard units from the aeldari codex with harsh limitations on their numbers. Something like "for every two aeldari troops a player can then add an harlequin troupe", for "every fast attack/heavy support aeldari unit a player can then add a unit of harlequin bikes/voidweavers", "for every harlequin troupe, bike unit, voidweaver a player can add an harlequin character". Or just flat 0-1 on each harlequin unit except troupes and their transports which both would be capped at 0-3.
Only if the same happens to everyone's Space Marines.
They're fine for the scale that 40k takes place at. You can take your hatred that one of the armies I play is a faction at all and shove it. They've been around longer than Craftworld Eldar. And they had more units back then, even, so let's get those.
Hatred? Strong language not close to the sentiments motivating the discussion from our end, assuredly.
Projection, much?
And, boy, shove it yourself. Welcome to the ignore pile…
LOL can't argue points so you throw people on the Ignore list. Super convenient.
...exactly what points was Jeff meant to argue there?
Hecaton has shot from the hip in response to a comment that maybe Harlequins shouldn't've been a solo faction given the limited number of available datasheets. I can understand the argument, even if I don't necessarily agree with it - given how much GW charges for a 'dex, I'd be wanting more units in there meself!
This is also a poster known for their slightly irrational posts when it comes to anything to do with the Imperium, so claiming that all Space Marine factions should stop being a thing is definitely going off the deep end, if not in a way that is entirely out of character.
Not sure I'd've acted the same way, but having someone tell me I hate a faction because I suggest they don't have a deep enough bench to be an independent faction? I can see why jeff responded as he did.
only in your hellhole in poland, in normal non-toxic games, the best way to make games enjoyable for both parties is to understand and "vibe" with them
Hellhole is a place to the right of us. You should know it, there is a huge Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. I don't really know you "vibe" within a constrains of a game. Your opponent brings his 2000pts of good list and you bring 2000pts of yours. If the disproportions in power are big, no amount of vibing will change the result of the game. It is not very enjoyable if the opponent throws the game, unless some outside prizes or qualifires are involved. Armies can't be changed in most cases either. Even if someone has more then one, they generally don't take bus trips with 4k pts of models. And the very idea that someone would want others to buy bad models and build bad armies, is something I can't wrap my head around either. You would have to not care about the game at all. But for that the money investment would have to be something inconsequential. And while I can imagine people having enough money for w40k to seem cheap, those people generaly don't play w40k, because they have better stuff to do. Or they invest the money.
i've done it with brand new players that i never played against before. As soon as i notice a skill difference, i do my best to transfer my experience to my opponent. Its not about buying a new army, its about helping them realise what the optimal use of their units is (for example, charging scarab occcults with assault intercessors isn't the best move)
.
But it creates bad habits, people think they can change the rules or do take backs etc. It is like as I said durning a match, stop I made an error lets reset everything to standing, because losing in first 20 sec is not going to be fun for me. It is just bizzar, maybe in training games this makes sense, but I don't play in tournaments, neither probably most of the people that play w40k.
Tyel wrote: I'm not convinced people would insist on anything - but unless you only play people who know as much about the game as you do, I don't think its surprising people tone things down to try and make a game of it rather than a one-sided massacre.
I mean I know beer and pretzels is evil etc - but a game of 40k takes...2-3 hours? Getting on for 4+ if you are at someone's house and get through a few aforementioned beers? A lot of people are looking to just entertain themselves over a Saturday/Sunday Afternoon - not prove they are the greatest general who ever lived.
Hellhole is a place to the right of us. You should know it, there is a huge Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. I don't really know you "vibe" within a constrains of a game. Your opponent brings his 2000pts of good list and you bring 2000pts of yours. If the disproportions in power are big, no amount of vibing will change the result of the game.
FYI, half my family is from poland so i know about the situation very well with Ukraine.
And yes, vibing won't change the result of the game BUT : its not about the destination, it's about the journey. It's called being a good winner/loser.
But it creates bad habits, people think they can change the rules or do take backs etc. It is like as I said durning a match, stop I made an error lets reset everything to standing, because losing in first 20 sec is not going to be fun for me. It is just bizzar, maybe in training games this makes sense, but I don't play in tournaments, neither probably most of the people that play w40k.
i play casually, why is me telling my opponent about auspex scan or that they have a juicier target to shoot with their anti-tank guns givign them a bad habit? Why are takebacks a bad habit (if theyre caught quickly)?
My goal is to have FUN , regardless of the outcome of the game
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/04/01 17:59:33
Honestly if the dice rolls are THAT bad for them......just win the game and do a new one with them. It's absurd that to make the game FUN you have to play badly on purpose.
It wasn't the dice rolls. it was the army compositions, 2 meltas against rubric/scarab occult/magnus.
And it was game night, where we play post opening hours so we have limited time (don't want to keep the guy organising it super late) so starting another game wasnt really a possibility.
Instead we kept playing and i gave her tips as to what moves she could do (so she would improve). She straight up thanked me after and told me that she had fun with the game.
I'm not saying this is how everyone should act, theres a big part of it that is about being able to read people and know what they feel, put yourself in their place basically.
i was giving a counter example to karol when they said that winning is always fun
You're not wrong that both parties should aim to have fun, but the problem is how much responsibility the GW defenders place on the players rather than GW itself.
The point of any game is to have fun, but the goal is to win. This isn't D&D, this is a game with a winner and loser.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/04/01 19:17:22
You're not wrong that both parties should aim to have fun, but the problem is how much responsibility the GW defenders place on the players rather than GW itself.
The point of any game is to have fun, but the goal is to win. This isn't D&D, this is a game with a winner and loser.
i'm not saying GW isnt to blame, their gak balancing is 100% on them. And i'd say the point AND goal is to have fun honestly. To me at least, the outcome of the game has nothing to do with the enjoyment i have
