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.

prwtty sure many of us in this thread were implying it was a idea that should be shelved...

Just give it Abs and the ability to snatch bullets out of the air.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Its Apoc, for the sake of your opponent, make it expensive and underpowered.

This, so much this. If you want the privilege of running your own custom crap in a game, the least you can do in return is underpower it into an interesting sideshow rather than a board-clearing game changer.

ThePrimordial wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I call them as I see them.

You asked for opinions about your titan, I am providing said opinions.

Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they're taking the thread off-topic.

I didn't ask just for opinions. I asked for ways to make this dolled up titan viable and balanced for a game of apocalypse with the average player. You've given negative comments without being specific or giving ways to improve it.
Stop arguing. You're not good at it, clearly. You actually said "buts" don't add up. That's the primary way of balancing 'mite. I said construcive comments only. You always go back on your points, dude stop talking, your mouth has no use to this topic if all you're gonna do is argue without knowing how to argue. Back on topic 'mite. Can you list what you think is wrong with the statline at the top of the thread and I'll try to make it better because no one else is saying anything.

Except, I have given you advice - that you cannot simply price your overpowered mary sue titan into acceptability. Your titan is ridiculous and making him 3500pts or 35000pts isn't gonna change that.

Everyone else is saying much the same stuff as I am. If your not going to listen to peoples suggestions and comments,and instead are going to badmouth them and make up random gak such as "you always go back on your points", don't bother posting your stuff up.

I know your type. You came here to get people to fawn over your latest creation, and can't handle it when they don't share your view of how awesome it is. Talking with someone like yourself in this instance is a waste of time. I'm out.

The OP calls for a mega weapon, Dakka wants it to be fair and balanced. OK, how about this?:

Vortex Caster.
Main arm weapon Warlord or Emperor class titan only.

Strength: as Vortex missile
Area: Apocalypse flamer template
Range: 18" place tip of flamer template within this range.
Normally used as a siege weapon the Vortex Caster fires a stream of anti particles activated post emmission by a standard warp projector opening a momentary tear in the fabric of reality with devastating results.

Special rules
Warp Weapon: Even Eldar cant move and fire with vortex weapons, so the titan must remain stationary to fire a Vortex Caster.

Feedback: This weapon can only be fired by a titan with active void shields. D3 void shields are lost upon firing. If insufficient void shields remain the feedback damages the titan causing d6 hull damage and automatically causing a weapon damaged result on the Vortex Caster.

Emperor class variant. Has a Range of 36" and loses D3-1 void shields upon firing, minimum of 0.

 Dakkamite wrote:

Its Apoc, for the sake of your opponent, make it expensive and underpowered.

This, so much this. If you want the privilege of running your own custom crap in a game, the least you can do in return is underpower it into an interesting sideshow rather than a board-clearing game changer.

ThePrimordial wrote:

 Dakkamite wrote:
I call them as I see them.

You asked for opinions about your titan, I am providing said opinions.

Just because you dislike them doesn't mean they're taking the thread off-topic.

I didn't ask just for opinions. I asked for ways to make this dolled up titan viable and balanced for a game of apocalypse with the average player. You've given negative comments without being specific or giving ways to improve it.
Stop arguing. You're not good at it, clearly. You actually said "buts" don't add up. That's the primary way of balancing 'mite. I said construcive comments only. You always go back on your points, dude stop talking, your mouth has no use to this topic if all you're gonna do is argue without knowing how to argue. Back on topic 'mite. Can you list what you think is wrong with the statline at the top of the thread and I'll try to make it better because no one else is saying anything.

Except, I have given you advice - that you cannot simply price your overpowered mary sue titan into acceptability. Your titan is ridiculous and making him 3500pts or 35000pts isn't gonna change that.

Everyone else is saying much the same stuff as I am. If your not going to listen to peoples suggestions and comments,and instead are going to badmouth them and make up random gak such as "you always go back on your points", don't bother posting your stuff up.

I know your type. You came here to get people to fawn over your latest creation, and can't handle it when they don't share your view of how awesome it is. Talking with someone like yourself in this instance is a waste of time. I'm out.

Aparrently you don't know my type. I'm actively asking you to list what's wrong with the Titan at the first post so I can fix it.
Surely everyone understands you're not giving actual criticism you're just saying it sucks without saying what in the actual first post sucks . And you do go back on your points. You certainly never touched the "buts" thing again. That's called "going back on your points" with the broadest definition.
Assuming the Titan in the first post is all were talking about what changes should be made?

ThePrimordial wrote:

Aparrently you don't know my type. I'm actively asking you to list what's wrong with the Titan at the first post so I can fix it.
Surely everyone understands you're not giving actual criticism you're just saying it sucks without saying what in the actual first post sucks . And you do go back on your points. You certainly never touched the "buts" thing again. That's called "going back on your points" with the broadest definition.
Assuming the Titan in the first post is all were talking about what changes should be made?

Except everyone has pointed out what's wrong, why its wrong, and how to make it playable.

Instead you focus on the one person you feel has wronged you somehow.

And no, he hasn't gone back on his points. In fact, I hardly even know what you mean by that. Just because every post he makes doesn't repeat the same point from before doesn't mean it no longer applies.

For the ease of your opponents and for the fun of playing an Apocalypse game where winning isn't the point so much as its about putting out your collection and a few kickass models, do as a recommended.

You don't need some super special weapon with a different profile. Its going to be hard enough for most players to keep up on which apoc weapon does what without a collection of custom made doom cannons.

You don't need it to be overpowered, or even particularly balanced. Tack on one SP and one void shield, give it the ability to re-roll something to represent advanced technology and tack on 1000pts. Or 500pts. Whatever, its Apoc, nothing is actually balanced at this scale anyways.

Its simple.

Its clean.

Your opponents won't hate you.

You'll still have fun with a giant Warlord titan.

You may or may not win, but again, this is Apoc, who cares?

 Blacksails wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

Aparrently you don't know my type. I'm actively asking you to list what's wrong with the Titan at the first post so I can fix it.
Surely everyone understands you're not giving actual criticism you're just saying it sucks without saying what in the actual first post sucks . And you do go back on your points. You certainly never touched the "buts" thing again. That's called "going back on your points" with the broadest definition.
Assuming the Titan in the first post is all were talking about what changes should be made?

Except everyone has pointed out what's wrong, why its wrong, and how to make it playable.

Instead you focus on the one person you feel has wronged you somehow.

And no, he hasn't gone back on his points. In fact, I hardly even know what you mean by that. Just because every post he makes doesn't repeat the same point from before doesn't mean it no longer applies.

For the ease of your opponents and for the fun of playing an Apocalypse game where winning isn't the point so much as its about putting out your collection and a few kickass models, do as a recommended.

You don't need some super special weapon with a different profile. Its going to be hard enough for most players to keep up on which apoc weapon does what without a collection of custom made doom cannons.

You don't need it to be overpowered, or even particularly balanced. Tack on one SP and one void shield, give it the ability to re-roll something to represent advanced technology and tack on 1000pts. Or 500pts. Whatever, its Apoc, nothing is actually balanced at this scale anyways.

Its simple.

Its clean.

Your opponents won't hate you.

You'll still have fun with a giant Warlord titan.

You may or may not win, but again, this is Apoc, who cares?

Edited by AgeOfEgos

I'll just do what you said and tack on 600 points. It wasn't my idea to give it a super special secret weapon. Read the comments. When you argue and make a point that someone refutes with an explanation if you don't make comment on said explanation it means you agree with the refutation. So yeah he did. These are simple debate rules.

Then whose idea was it? I don't see anyone telling you to start with a 15 inch Strength D blast when this whole thing began.

Namecalling and a huffy attitude is not winning you any respect.

ThePrimordial wrote:Dark Age Nova Cannon: S: D, 15inch blast, heavy 1, unwieldly, Gets Hot!, scatters an extra d6 inches

Well that's awkward.

Also, no, Dakkamite wasn't being an ass. He wasn't super polite by any stretch, but you exactly weren't perfect either. Two lane street my friend.

curran12 wrote:Then whose idea was it? I don't see anyone telling you to start with a 15 inch Strength D blast when this whole thing began.

Namecalling and a huffy attitude is not winning you any respect.

Couldn't agree more.

Just thought I'd add my 2c.
Apart from what everyone else has said here (which I agree with), I believe 11 structure points is too high. Also, structure points have been replaced by hull points on a 1s=3h. this... thing would have 33 hull points! going by the 2 titans in the current Apoc rulebook, you warlord should have 27 hull points. (Warhound has 9, Reaver has 18, 9 increase each time so 18+9=27)

Also, 10 void shields? I understand this is from the dark age of technology, but still... should be 6... 8 maximum (Warhound has 2, reaver has 4, +2 increase each time. 4+2=6. Allowing +2 as it's from the Darkage)

Also, what's it's I and A? I should be 1 (2 at the highest) & A should be 3 (4 at the highest, again because of Darkage tech)

EDIT: you also made this thread about a 15" StrD stomp... when we said no you turned it into a range weapon in this thread. Def not a good idea, you think we'd say yes to it as a shooting attack when we said no to it as a stomp? God...

EDIT 2: Should also have the 'Reactor Meltdown' rule the Reaver has

 curran12 wrote:
Then whose idea was it? I don't see anyone telling you to start with a 15 inch Strength D blast when this whole thing began.

Namecalling and a huffy attitude is not winning you any respect.

I didnt start with that go to the first few posts and you'll see. Someone said it should have 2 arm weapons instead of 4 that were better than Warlord weapons. For the last time read all the posts before posting yourself.

ThePrimordial wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Then whose idea was it? I don't see anyone telling you to start with a 15 inch Strength D blast when this whole thing began.

Namecalling and a huffy attitude is not winning you any respect.

I didnt start with that go to the first few posts and you'll see. Someone said it should have 2 arm weapons instead of 4 that were better than Warlord weapons. For the last time read all the posts before posting yourself.

Curran12's point is that it was your idea to create a 15" blast weapon.

His point is not that you or someone else said to have an improved gun.

His point is that the 15" blast gun is absurd and you created it.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Just thought I'd add my 2c.
Apart from what everyone else has said here (which I agree with), I believe 11 structure points is too high. Also, structure points have been replaced by hull points on a 1s=3h. this... thing would have 33 hull points! going by the 2 titans in the current Apoc rulebook, you warlord should have 27 hull points. (Warhound has 9, Reaver has 18, 9 increase each time so 18+9=27)

Also, 10 void shields? I understand this is from the dark age of technology, but still... should be 6... 8 maximum (Warhound has 2, reaver has 4, +2 increase each time. 4+2=6. Allowing +2 as it's from the Darkage)

Also, what's it's I and A? I should be 1 (2 at the highest) & A should be 3 (4 at the highest, again because of Darkage tech)

EDIT: you also made this thread about a 15" StrD stomp... when we said no you turned it into a range weapon in this thread. Def not a good idea, you think we'd say yes to it as a shooting attack when we said no to it as a stomp? God...

EDIT 2: Should also have the 'Reactor Meltdown' rule the Reaver has[/quote

Yeah I thought people would understand it has all the disadvantages the warlord had. That bullsh*t weapon was just a suggestion.
And I would have to be a saint to be more polite to mite. Dude doesn't even know how to critique, he doesn't even point at something and say it sucks, he just says it sucks. I was trying to get him to tell what was wrong with it and he kept arguing when there was no point.
I'm sorry that I had a bad thought that I would never tack on to. The Warlord given feedback
My thread was derailed by a 20 comment long argument and I never stopped having patience.
I displayed decency if nothing else. Read comments before posting. It takes 5 minutes.

Back to the topic, I think whoever it was who mentioned a flamer-vortex weapon has it right, but it definitely should have risks when firing it- this thing's meant to be incredibly old, so something could go wrong. it'd also work well with the rules for the ork lifta-droppa from IA8, where if it has a weapon destroyed result, it inflicts an additional penetrating hit - possibly a Strength D hit to represent a whole lot of bad tech going wrong.

the 15 inch blast is the tiered one, isn't it? with 3 blast sizes designed to decrease in strength as it goes out? you could have the inner 2 blasts being Strength D, with the outer one being strength 8 AP3, representing the shockwave of the impact. that gives you a mega-pieplate of doom, but one with slightly less doom than you mentioned before (i was going to say 'originally wanted', but that wording has sparked off a few things already ). if you were going to insist on trying out a 15" doom-plate, might i suggest only being able to fire it every other turn, like the stompas belly-gun (the only other mega-plate of death i'm familiar with).

with the rules your club uses concerning strength D, it might work. you'll have to playtest it and find out!

 Blacksails wrote:

Also, no, Dakkamite wasn't being an ass. He wasn't super polite by any stretch, but you exactly weren't perfect either. Two lane street my friend.

I agree with Blacksails.

@Initial topic

The 15" blast was a bad idea with too few drawbacks, the vortex flamer weapon was a really good idea with appropriate drawbacks. Why not just use that?

ThePrimordial wrote:


Yeah I thought people would understand it has all the disadvantages the warlord had. That bullsh*t weapon was just a suggestion.
And I would have to be a saint to be more polite to mite. Dude doesn't even know how to critique, he doesn't even point at something and say it sucks, he just says it sucks. I was trying to get him to tell what was wrong with it and he kept arguing when there was no point.
I'm sorry that I had a bad thought that I would never tack on to. The Warlord given feedback
My thread was derailed by a 20 comment long argument and I never stopped having patience.
I displayed decency if nothing else. Read comments before posting. It takes 5 minutes.

Mite made four posts in this thread. All of them had content that aimed at showing you why your idea was not a particularly good one. I'll admit, he probably could have phrased it a little better, but its still feedback none the less.

You keep returning to how terrible a single user in your thread was, and then play the victim card. No, you don't have as much patience as you claim you do. Whatever slight you think Mite has thrown at you, you've returned in kind, which make you no better than which you seem to despise.

Your thread was never derailed. Every post was about your rules, how to improve them, or pointing our flaws in your idea/rules. All relevant, just might not be exactly what you wanted.

You call people an ass in your thread, and then claim you have decency. Please. Step back for a minute and breath. We've all been trying to explain why the various ideas you've thrown about are not the best. Most of the comments have been rather positive ways to improve and modify your original idea. Don't latch on to one or two seemingly negative comments and ignore the truly good ones. You may not always hear what you want to hear, but that's the price you pay for asking for feedback on the internet.

Plenty of genuinely great advice in this thread.

*Edit for above**Edit again, because I said below, when its really above when you're not editing*

motyak wrote:The 15" blast was a bad idea with too few drawbacks, the vortex flamer weapon was a really good idea with appropriate drawbacks. Why not just use that?

I just went back to read that. Its actually pretty reasonable. Its incredibly short range for an apoc game, genuinely hurts the titan with an immediate and active drawback on every activation for extreme power. I mean, I'd probably give it some sort of slow firing rule as well, where it can only fire every other turn because warp capacitors...or something.

 motyak wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

Also, no, Dakkamite wasn't being an ass. He wasn't super polite by any stretch, but you exactly weren't perfect either. Two lane street my friend.

I agree with Blacksails.

@Initial topic

The 15" blast was a bad idea with too few drawbacks, the vortex flamer weapon was a really good idea with appropriate drawbacks. Why not just use that?

I acted better than he did. Why are we still talking about the 15inch template?
If that's all you're gonna talk about than don't post, I feel sorry about my bad idea for a boardgame .Does anyone have any other ideas for a weapon. The apocalypse flame is fathoms weaker than a volcano cannon which is the standard warlord weapon IMO.
If everyone thinks Black's idea is the way to go. I'll slap volcano cannons on it and be done.
What do you mean you actually went back and read it. You should read everything before you post. It's simple courtesy.

ThePrimordial wrote:

I acted better than he did.

Its sad you really believe this.

He leaves some negative feedback about your titan.

You call him an ass.

Anyways, do as you please, just take away the feedback and think about it.

No personal bias or anything, but I do believe my idea is sensible and not overly complicated. Do it for your opponents.

 Blacksails wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

I acted better than he did.

Its sad you really believe this.

He leaves some negative feedback about your titan.

You call him an ass.

Anyways, do as you please, just take away the feedback and think about it.

No personal bias or anything, but I do believe my idea is sensible and not overly complicated. Do it for your opponents.

For the last time I didn't ask for feed back, I asked for ways to improve the design. He just said it sucked and when I asked him what sucked he kept arguing. I did behave with decency. I specifically asked for ways to improve the design not just feedback. It's fine to say it sucks if you say what sucks.

ThePrimordial wrote:

For the last time I didn't ask for feed back, I asked for ways to improve the design.

Asking for ways to improve something is asking for feedback.

He just said it sucked and when I asked him what sucked he kept arguing.

He wasn't arguing. He was pointing out the flaws in your design. As I said earlier, it wasn't the prettiest feedback I've seen, but I'd be lying if I said I've never done the same thing. Frankly, your idea was, well, rather poor. It was blatantly overpowered, and your 'drawbacks' well, weren't. He pointed that out, and you reacted negatively to it.

He was arguing as much as you were. I don't expect you to agree with me, as I'm getting the feeling you sincerely believe you're the victim here, but from an outside perspective, you were doing exactly what he was doing.

I did behave with decency. I specifically asked for ways to improve the design not just feedback. It's fine to say it sucks if you say what sucks.

Yeah, he said it sucked. He also quickly explained why. It was overpowered. He also brought up a good point that points alone aren't a good balancing tool.

And if you think you behaved with decency, remember this; he may have been short with his comments, but you called him an ass. You resorted to a personal attack where no else in the thread did.

Anyways, I expect you'll debate what I perceive in this thread, but I truly believe you could really work on how you accept feedback; both good and bad. This thread has run its course as far as I'm concerned, and I hope you can look back on this in a few days with a clear head and read it all objectively.

People like myself, Curran12, Dakkamite and Ovion, among many others, are regulars here and go out of our way to provide often lengthy explanations to improve ideas. Always remember that.

I need a beer.

@ThePrimordial

At this point, after reading this whole thread, it is really irrelevant weather or not you idea was good, epic, gakky, whatever... YOU have had a poor attitude, if someone is a jerk to you that's on them. You can only control your own actions/thought/responses, and your actions have been immature/rude. Unfeth yourself, rework your idea, come back tomorrow with a positive attitude and maybe a little perspective and let's try this again, no?

Spartak wrote:
@ThePrimordial

At this point, after reading this whole thread, it is really irrelevant weather or not you idea was good, epic, gakky, whatever... YOU have had a poor attitude, if someone is a jerk to you that's on them. You can only control your own actions/thought/responses, and your actions have been immature/rude. Unfeth yourself, rework your idea, come back tomorrow with a positive attitude and maybe a little perspective and let's try this again, no?

Can we have people leave feedback that can actually be used to improve. Criticism is a narrower term than feedback. It involves nitpickd used to improve. This is the kind of thread where positve or negative feedback isnt neccesarily until we actually have a final design. Wouldnt mean anything cuz people didn't read my opening post.

Instead of that rediculous D/D/D Weapon how about make it D/D/8 since that's how 15" blasts are supposed to work. But keep all the drawbacks. Hell make it D/10/8 if it would wipe off too many things without a glance. I would just field 2 Warlords if you want the kind of stupid firepower you are asking for

Please discuss the rules/ideas of others objectively--without getting personal/attacking.

Along those lines---if you feel someone is becoming personal/attacking you---or violating Dakka's posting rules---better to hit the Mod Alert button--rather than respond in kind. Considering this a warning for all users in the thread.

Thanks,

Ryan

 Blacksails wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

For the last time I didn't ask for feed back, I asked for ways to improve the design.

Asking for ways to improve something is asking for feedback.

He just said it sucked and when I asked him what sucked he kept arguing.

He wasn't arguing. He was pointing out the flaws in your design. As I said earlier, it wasn't the prettiest feedback I've seen, but I'd be lying if I said I've never done the same thing. Frankly, your idea was, well, rather poor. It was blatantly overpowered, and your 'drawbacks' well, weren't. He pointed that out, and you reacted negatively to it.

He was arguing as much as you were. I don't expect you to agree with me, as I'm getting the feeling you sincerely believe you're the victim here, but from an outside perspective, you were doing exactly what he was doing.

I did behave with decency. I specifically asked for ways to improve the design not just feedback. It's fine to say it sucks if you say what sucks.

Yeah, he said it sucked. He also quickly explained why. It was overpowered. He also brought up a good point that points alone aren't a good balancing tool.

And if you think you behaved with decency, remember this; he may have been short with his comments, but you called him an ass. You resorted to a personal attack where no else in the thread did.

Anyways, I expect you'll debate what I perceive in this thread, but I truly believe you could really work on how you accept feedback; both good and bad. This thread has run its course as far as I'm concerned, and I hope you can look back on this in a few days with a clear head and read it all objectively.

People like myself, Curran12, Dakkamite and Ovion, among many others, are regulars here and go out of our way to provide often lengthy explanations to improve ideas. Always remember that.

I need a beer.

Saying something is overpowered is far too general to be useful in any way my friend. The weapon everyone was talking about was just an (admittedly) bad idea that never saw the first mold made.
I started to type up something to know that the idea had been dropped the second I looked at it a good 10 seconds on paper. There was no reason to keep talking about it.
OVERPOWERED ISNT GENERAL.
The only real advantage my initial design had over the warlord was that it was a lot more durable.You payed for that. That was almost literally the only difference.
Yeah I called him an a*s, but he was behaving like one and never said anything remotely useful, As I said saying something is overpowered is far too general to help. That simply isn't debatable. If you say you hate everything that gives me all I need to know with what to do with the design. Saying you hate everything about it is actually useful. With the initial design it was almost the same cost point per structure point & void shield!!! I actually did the math when I did the initial design. assuming a structure point is 185 points & a void shield is 150 points (decently accurate pricing), the warlord titan has 9SP and 6 void shields. It's cost is 2565 points. By the same costs my titan which has 11SP & 9 void shields, my titan comes up to 3570 points. That's very accurately done & not OP by apocalypse standards......
Look at Imotekh, the second post. He gave specific feedback that he didn't like AV 15. I changed that. That's the way this is supposed work. You give me feedback on what SPECIFICALLY you don't like and I make it better. And if everything goes well I have something viable to put on the table at my FLGS 4 miles away, and you helped me. That's the exact purpose of a proposed rules section.
If I have to use my conversation with Imotekh to show how to give feedback to a work in progress, there's something wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A GumyBear wrote:
Instead of that rediculous D/D/D Weapon how about make it D/D/8 since that's how 15" blasts are supposed to work. But keep all the drawbacks. Hell make it D/10/8 if it would wipe off too many things without a glance. I would just field 2 Warlords if you want the kind of stupid firepower you are asking for

That makes the same point that I wanted to make when I commited the cardinal worst sin in recorded human history and typed out that weapon. This is good feedback. This is useful. Thankyou.

ThePrimordial wrote:

Saying something is overpowered is far too general to be useful in any way my friend.

Well, yes and no. Most people who post here don't really have an idea as to what is actually overpowered. For some people, saying its way overpowered, might get them to re-think the whole idea and re-evaluate what they're trying to accomplish. Granted, most people follow up a little more, but no one's perfect.

Every army is better at something than another army.

Umm, sure? I guess? Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Overpowered is overpowered regardless of the book it came from.

The only real advantage my initial design had over the warlord was that it was a lot more durable.You payed for that. That was almost literally the only difference.

Your very first iteration was far too durable for the pittance of points you were paying. It was overpowered.

As I said saying something is overpowered is far too general to help. That simply isn't debatable.

Okay, I get this sentiment, but your quote below clashes oddly.

If you say you hate everything that gives me all I need to know with what to do with the design. Saying you hate everything about it is actually useful.

Now I'm confused. If I post "Its overpowered", you don't like it. If I post "I hate every upgrade you made over a standard warlord", you're happy? Both of those statements translate to the same thing; its overpowered for a variety of reasons that still aren't specific. The biggest issue you're having with people here is that you're asking for a very specific set of responses within a very specific set of definitions you've attributed to certain words, and then get passive-aggressive/defensive when someone responds not inline with your criteria.

Example.

I respond with, "Its overpowered"

Instead of responding as you did, here's what you should have said, "Okay, would you mind pointing out what is giving you that feeling?"

Seriously, thats all it would have taken for a much smoother conversation. People here have different posting styles. Some of us come out immediately with paragraphs of changes, others focus on a specific thing they don't like. Some need to be asked politely what specifically doesn't work. You as the thread's author have to the single most understanding and receptive person in the thread. This means always asking more questions in an open-minded manner and taking in the feedback. If you don't like the feedback, politely respond why you don't like it and offer an alternative.

Look at Imotekh, the second post. He gave specific feedback that he didn't like AV 15. I changed that. That's the way this is supposed work. You give me feedback on what SPECIFICALLY you don't like and I make it better.

Sure, and most of us in the thread have done the exact same thing. You continue to focus on a single user at the expense of everyone else.

If I have to use my conversation with Imotekh to show how to give feedback to a work in progress, there's something wrong.

What does this even mean? Are you insulting Imotekh? Are you insulting yourself? What point are you trying to make with this obviously provocative sentence?

So really, here's my point. Be reasonable in your responses if you expect the same from your readers. Don't make some arbitrary distinction between criticism and feedback and complain when you receive one and not the other. Frankly, the nuances between the two don't translate well over text, so accept all of it feedtique...or critiback. Something. Don't get defensive. Don't play the victim. Don't point fingers.

I'll also re-emphasize this is for Apoc. Seriously, keep it as humanly simple as possible. Use pre-existing weapons and profiles and make it underpowered. Your opponents will thank you. Afterall, its Apoc. Do you really care about winning, or about spending an afternoon with badass armies and your best friends?

 Blacksails wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

Saying something is overpowered is far too general to be useful in any way my friend.

Well, yes and no. Most people who post here don't really have an idea as to what is actually overpowered. For some people, saying its way overpowered, might get them to re-think the whole idea and re-evaluate what they're trying to accomplish. Granted, most people follow up a little more, but no one's perfect.

You and I both now that's not enough, and I showed the math that occurred with the durability. Its pretty striking how similar the two are point per quality.

Every army is better at something than another army.

Already deleted this, I apologize

The only real advantage my initial design had over the warlord was that it was a lot more durable.You payed for that. That was almost literally the only difference.

Your very first iteration was far too durable for the pittance of points you were paying. It was overpowered.

I'll point you to the math that I did again.

As I said saying something is overpowered is far too general to help. That simply isn't debatable.

Okay, I get this sentiment, but your quote below clashes oddly.

If you say you hate everything that gives me all I need to know with what to do with the design. Saying you hate everything about it is actually useful.

Now I'm confused. If I post "Its overpowered", you don't like it. If I post "I hate every upgrade you made over a standard warlord", you're happy? Both of those statements translate to the same thing; its overpowered for a variety of reasons that still aren't specific. The biggest issue you're having with people here is that you're asking for a very specific set of responses within a very specific set of definitions you've attributed to certain words, and then get passive-aggressive/defensive when someone responds not inline with your criteria.

this comes back to overpowered being far too general to be at all useful in improving. That's not what goes on in my head because you're still giving me what I need to change (in this case everything)

Example.

I respond with, "Its overpowered"

Instead of responding as you did, here's what you should have said, "Okay, would you mind pointing out what is giving you that feeling?"

Seriously, thats all it would have taken for a much smoother conversation. People here have different posting styles. Some of us come out immediately with paragraphs of changes, others focus on a specific thing they don't like. Some need to be asked politely what specifically doesn't work. You as the thread's author have to the single most understanding and receptive person in the thread. This means always asking more questions in an open-minded manner and taking in the feedback. If you don't like the feedback, politely respond why you don't like it and offer an alternative.

I made a mistake, that's all it would've taken. Did you look at the Math behind the durability? I've never encountered someone entering a thread already with rude demeanor.

Look at Imotekh, the second post. He gave specific feedback that he didn't like AV 15. I changed that. That's the way this is supposed work. You give me feedback on what SPECIFICALLY you don't like and I make it better.

Sure, and most of us in the thread have done the exact same thing. You continue to focus on a single user at the expense of everyone else.
This is the first time I've encountered someone being rude and not even giving me what to change. My behavior was inappropriate and I of course offer my apologies.

If I have to use my conversation with Imotekh to show how to give feedback to a work in progress, there's something wrong.

What does this even mean? Are you insulting Imotekh? Are you insulting yourself? What point are you trying to make with this obviously provocative sentence?

That you don't simply say something is overpowered and be done with it. You say WHAT EXACTLY is overpowered.

So really, here's my point. Be reasonable in your responses if you expect the same from your readers. Don't make some arbitrary distinction between criticism and feedback and complain when you receive one and not the other. Frankly, the nuances between the two don't translate well over text, so accept all of it feedtique...or critiback. Something. Don't get defensive. Don't play the victim. Don't point fingers.

I had a person who was very easy to point fingers at, but yes I understand this and will act accordingly with this in mind

I'll also re-emphasize this is for Apoc. Seriously, keep it as humanly simple as possible. Use pre-existing weapons and profiles and make it underpowered. Your opponents will thank you. Afterall, its Apoc. Do you really care about winning, or about spending an afternoon with badass armies and your best friends?

I care about the fun but the design did indeed use pre existing weapons.

You sir are a genius ^^^

Exalted

 A GumyBear wrote:
You sir are a genius ^^^

Exalted

Its a Frankenstein post tattered together from the souls of dead hookers and some guy named John.
If Egos could help me fix that I'd appreciate that because I wouldn't know where to start with that.
It still shouldn't be a problem actually reading the entirety of it (dear god that would take a whole minute). It should still be obvious where its me typing.

ThePrimordial wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Just thought I'd add my 2c.
Apart from what everyone else has said here (which I agree with), I believe 11 structure points is too high. Also, structure points have been replaced by hull points on a 1s=3h. this... thing would have 33 hull points! going by the 2 titans in the current Apoc rulebook, you warlord should have 27 hull points. (Warhound has 9, Reaver has 18, 9 increase each time so 18+9=27)

Also, 10 void shields? I understand this is from the dark age of technology, but still... should be 6... 8 maximum (Warhound has 2, reaver has 4, +2 increase each time. 4+2=6. Allowing +2 as it's from the Darkage)

Also, what's it's I and A? I should be 1 (2 at the highest) & A should be 3 (4 at the highest, again because of Darkage tech)

EDIT: you also made this thread about a 15" StrD stomp... when we said no you turned it into a range weapon in this thread. Def not a good idea, you think we'd say yes to it as a shooting attack when we said no to it as a stomp? God...

EDIT 2: Should also have the 'Reactor Meltdown' rule the Reaver has

Yeah I thought people would understand it has all the disadvantages the warlord had. That bullsh*t weapon was just a suggestion.
And I would have to be a saint to be more polite to mite. Dude doesn't even know how to critique, he doesn't even point at something and say it sucks, he just says it sucks. I was trying to get him to tell what was wrong with it and he kept arguing when there was no point.
I'm sorry that I had a bad thought that I would never tack on to. The Warlord given feedback
My thread was derailed by a 20 comment long argument and I never stopped having patience.
I displayed decency if nothing else. Read comments before posting. It takes 5 minutes.

First of all, I'm unsure why you quoted my post, sorry.
Second, yes the weapon was a suggestion, by you. While someone else may have suggested it should have a weapon more powerful than that of a Reaver, no one except you suggested a 15" blast D weapon gun.
I never mention mite or scrutinised your politeness, and I'll refrain from doing so now as it isn't necessary for me to. So, again, unsure why you quoted me.
Thank you for appologising about the 15" D blast weapon. Just don't use it (only saying this to make it absolutely clear it's bad). Now, then, since you aren't going to use it, we can all stop going on about it!.
I'm sorry, but your thread had not been derailed before this quote, it was on topic. It has swayed a tad now, though.
Again, not going to comment on your decency. However, I did read everything before posting. I usually do. Hence why I didn't echo what others have said to death.

You asked for feedback and suggestions. That is what I've given. If you don't see it that way, I'm sorry, but the comment of mine you quoted had feedback including what you could do to improve your idea.

I really would seriously suggest converting structure points to hull points, seeming that's what all super heavies have now.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

ThePrimordial wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Just thought I'd add my 2c.
Apart from what everyone else has said here (which I agree with), I believe 11 structure points is too high. Also, structure points have been replaced by hull points on a 1s=3h. this... thing would have 33 hull points! going by the 2 titans in the current Apoc rulebook, you warlord should have 27 hull points. (Warhound has 9, Reaver has 18, 9 increase each time so 18+9=27)

Also, 10 void shields? I understand this is from the dark age of technology, but still... should be 6... 8 maximum (Warhound has 2, reaver has 4, +2 increase each time. 4+2=6. Allowing +2 as it's from the Darkage)

Also, what's it's I and A? I should be 1 (2 at the highest) & A should be 3 (4 at the highest, again because of Darkage tech)

EDIT: you also made this thread about a 15" StrD stomp... when we said no you turned it into a range weapon in this thread. Def not a good idea, you think we'd say yes to it as a shooting attack when we said no to it as a stomp? God...

EDIT 2: Should also have the 'Reactor Meltdown' rule the Reaver has

Yeah I thought people would understand it has all the disadvantages the warlord had. That bullsh*t weapon was just a suggestion.
And I would have to be a saint to be more polite to mite. Dude doesn't even know how to critique, he doesn't even point at something and say it sucks, he just says it sucks. I was trying to get him to tell what was wrong with it and he kept arguing when there was no point.
I'm sorry that I had a bad thought that I would never tack on to. The Warlord given feedback
My thread was derailed by a 20 comment long argument and I never stopped having patience.
I displayed decency if nothing else. Read comments before posting. It takes 5 minutes.

First of all, I'm unsure why you quoted my post, sorry.
Second, yes the weapon was a suggestion, by you. While someone else may have suggested it should have a weapon more powerful than that of a Reaver, no one except you suggested a 15" blast D weapon gun.
I never mention mite or scrutinised your politeness, and I'll refrain from doing so now as it isn't necessary for me to. So, again, unsure why you quoted me.
Thank you for appologising about the 15" D blast weapon. Just don't use it (only saying this to make it absolutely clear it's bad). Now, then, since you aren't going to use it, we can all stop going on about it!.
I'm sorry, but your thread had not been derailed before this quote, it was on topic. It has swayed a tad now, though.
Again, not going to comment on your decency. However, I did read everything before posting. I usually do. Hence why I didn't echo what others have said to death.

You asked for feedback and suggestions. That is what I've given. If you don't see it that way, I'm sorry, but the comment of mine you quoted had feedback including what you could do to improve your idea.

I really would seriously suggest converting structure points to hull points, seeming that's what all super heavies have now.

Did you see the math I did for the durability? It's again striking how similar the two are point per durability.
I showed my reasoning for the durability a couple posts ago.