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.

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Do you make things up as you go? I'm talking about any attack that just removes a model, not special snowflakes. There's a reason 1k sons are considered weak over in the tactica for them.

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Speaking of Orks, my mom plays Orks, and she's my only opponent. My power swords are thus pretty worthless.

 nintura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Do you make things up as you go? I'm talking about any attack that just removes a model, not special snowflakes. There's a reason 1k sons are considered weak over in the tactica for them.

Because if you look carefully, my comment was replying to someone else, not you. Then you came in with a defense to what I was arguing, which was his comment about special snowflake rules like hellfrost. What was I making up exactly?

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Do you make things up as you go? I'm talking about any attack that just removes a model, not special snowflakes. There's a reason 1k sons are considered weak over in the tactica for them.

Because if you look carefully, my comment was replying to someone else, not you. Then you came in with a defense to what I was arguing, which was his comment about special snowflake rules like hellfrost. What was I making up exactly?

And yet you were attacking everything under the sun.

 nintura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Do you make things up as you go? I'm talking about any attack that just removes a model, not special snowflakes. There's a reason 1k sons are considered weak over in the tactica for them.

Because if you look carefully, my comment was replying to someone else, not you. Then you came in with a defense to what I was arguing, which was his comment about special snowflake rules like hellfrost. What was I making up exactly?

And yet you were attacking everything under the sun.

I was responding to everything he commented about in response to my post.

 Don Savik wrote:
People said that GW is using it to push models. I don't think a 650 point magnus worth 130 dollars dying instantly does that.

QFT. Also because I lol'd. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea this was supposed to show off the WoM units, or why anyone would think that when there's a Helfrost weapon on the table. Maybe they did it to show off Helfrost? Tryna shift dem Stormwolves or something.

 BBAP wrote:

 Don Savik wrote:
People said that GW is using it to push models. I don't think a 650 point magnus worth 130 dollars dying instantly does that.

QFT. Also because I lol'd. I'm not sure where anyone got the idea this was supposed to show off the WoM units, or why anyone would think that when there's a Helfrost weapon on the table. Maybe they did it to show off Helfrost? Tryna shift dem Stormwolves or something.

Loyalists never lose. Even when they are trying to show off a new army. When I played Magnus, he was a fire magnet. He did bare minimal damage for a 650 pointer, but he took a helluva lot of shots. Worth it? Not really. Cool factor? You bet your ass. Fun to paint? Check my sig.

 Don Savik wrote:

 nintura wrote:


You know the points cost of those sorcerers on discs? How about 190 base with no other upgrades? For a toughness 5 3+/4++ with only 2 master levels. My 1850 army with Magnus had a whopping 19 models in it, and 10 of those were rubrics. Care to guess how hard that is to take objectives when you have 2 squads? Those terminators? 250 points for 5 while you get what? 5 for 170? Yeah, they get +1 invuln save, but no ap 2 weapons and their heavy weapons are a joke. 30 points for a half assault cannon? 20 points for a half typhoon missile launcher that has half the range, half the uses? Yes the army is tough sure. But it's tiny. Everything is overpriced.

So we only hate 'special snowflake' rules if they're good? It's kind of hard to follow people's criteria sometimes.

And you don't just have to use the Wrath of Magnus models, you have access to the entire codex chaos space marines. I mean, cmon. I play orks, we don't have any ap 3 melee weapons. Preaching to the choir here.

Not to nitpick, but Tankhammas still exist, and a Nob with one isn't the worst idea you could do, especially after the FAQ clarified "one grenade in melee".

morgoth wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yes - GW does not employ tournament players that take min/max lists for their reports. Their reports have never had min/max lists, which is something also complained about since the beginning of the internet on AOL chat rooms in the 90s when discussing white dwarf reports and how "unrealistic they are".

Not just theirs... I've rarely seen anything on youtube which looked like top tournament players with top lists - I know there are some but it's really a minority.

Maybe because tournament top players prefer spending time tuning up their tournament performance while those willing to spend time to produce quality video BR(junky ones aren't even worth making) are less interested in tournament play?

Making videos isn't quick process(especially quality) so if somebody spends that time then odds are they either have no other life or they aren't top tournament players. There's only so much one can do in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:
And I agree. S: D should not remove a model. It should be super powerful for sure. But not strictly remove. It could be something as simple as d6+3 if you roll a 6. Sure it has a chance to kill your big model, but it isn't guaranteed at least. There's no reason to progress from 1 wound > d3 wounds > d6 wounds > remove. That kind of power leap is just uncalled for.

S does not remove model. But actually S is more powerful than hellfrost. So before touching hellfrost touch S first. Despite it not removing any models outright.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well I think its stupid, and I am more than happy to remove them with as little effort as possible. Or rather, I'd be happy to do so if I could fit some of that sweet remove from play stuff in my lists, oh well.

Exactly. Because that's what YOU want. You want the easy way. You don't want your opponent to have fun playing a game. Removing models is not fun, it doesn't require strategy, it's luck. People spend hundreds of dollars and weeks painting a big model, so what's the point of not getting to use them. That's whats toxic.

Hmm. Every game I enter many models I have gets removed from board. With possible exception of all out of LOS(not even then) or in reserve situations. That's life. I have lost my leman russes and land raiders before they move so many times even without S(no such thing in our games) or hellfrost(ditto)

 Roknar wrote:

 nintura wrote:
And I agree. S: D should not remove a model. It should be super powerful for sure. But not strictly remove. It could be something as simple as d6+3 if you roll a 6. Sure it has a chance to kill your big model, but it isn't guaranteed at least. There's no reason to progress from 1 wound > d3 wounds > d6 wounds > remove. That kind of power leap is just uncalled for.

D doesn't straight up remove a model though. 2-5 is d3 wounds saveable as normal, which is totally fine.
6 causes a massive 6+d6 wounds, which is enough to kill like 95% of models in one shot, including forgeworld superheavies. And that's just from the guaranteed wounds.
Yet you could still save against that and have it be fine, but nooo they had to go and make that unsaveable.

Considering all the re-rollable invulnerable saves and abundance of 3+ invulnerables a 6 would be quite manageable. It could even ignore cover saves and still be ok imho.
One slip up though and you are fittingly destroyed. And the really big stuff comes with void shields to warrant that kind of destructive power.
Removing all saves though means it may as well outright remove models.

And that's the thing, no it's not the same at all, you can still LoS, etc.

I've one-shot a Reaver Titan once, but that was a hit on one of the wost D-weapons there are (the Cobra's gun, 36" range), roll of 6 (strength D), roll of 6 (D6 Hull points), roll of 6 (Explosion), roll of 5 (D3 Hull points) = 15 hull points, void shields ignored, kaboom.
Chances of that happening ... if you get in range, that's still one in 648.

But really, the big thing about strength D is that it can only one-shot tiny things, like up to a Knight or an unshielded Warhound - on a 6.
Anything else is massive luck and brings home the following point: strength D is mostly good against huge expensive models, and that's a good thing.
It breaks in half stupid rerollable invul deathstars and it's only downside in its Apocalypse version is the lack of ability to nuke Invisible units, due to being large blast at a minimum.
The fact that it goes through the invul save is a very good thing about strength D, because it limits the abuse thereof.

Besides, all strength D weapons are very expensive and can generally be exchanged for weapons that kill a lot more regular units, so strength D is a trade off that lets you target only big expensive stuff and is a massive loss against anything else.

The reason the Helfrost sucks is that it's not a strength D weapon, wherein str D is well integrated in the game.
It's just one weird rule that sucks 97% of the time, and which accidentally may insta nuke some specific expensive character.
That does make it a rather bad rule tbh.

tneva82 wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Yes - GW does not employ tournament players that take min/max lists for their reports. Their reports have never had min/max lists, which is something also complained about since the beginning of the internet on AOL chat rooms in the 90s when discussing white dwarf reports and how "unrealistic they are".

Not just theirs... I've rarely seen anything on youtube which looked like top tournament players with top lists - I know there are some but it's really a minority.

Maybe because tournament top players prefer spending time tuning up their tournament performance while those willing to spend time to produce quality video BR(junky ones aren't even worth making) are less interested in tournament play?

Making videos isn't quick process(especially quality) so if somebody spends that time then odds are they either have no other life or they aren't top tournament players. There's only so much one can do in a day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:
And I agree. S: D should not remove a model. It should be super powerful for sure. But not strictly remove. It could be something as simple as d6+3 if you roll a 6. Sure it has a chance to kill your big model, but it isn't guaranteed at least. There's no reason to progress from 1 wound > d3 wounds > d6 wounds > remove. That kind of power leap is just uncalled for.

S does not remove model. But actually S is more powerful than hellfrost. So before touching hellfrost touch S first. Despite it not removing any models outright.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 nintura wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
Well I think its stupid, and I am more than happy to remove them with as little effort as possible. Or rather, I'd be happy to do so if I could fit some of that sweet remove from play stuff in my lists, oh well.

Exactly. Because that's what YOU want. You want the easy way. You don't want your opponent to have fun playing a game. Removing models is not fun, it doesn't require strategy, it's luck. People spend hundreds of dollars and weeks painting a big model, so what's the point of not getting to use them. That's whats toxic.

Hmm. Every game I enter many models I have gets removed from board. With possible exception of all out of LOS(not even then) or in reserve situations. That's life. I have lost my leman russes and land raiders before they move so many times even without S(no such thing in our games) or hellfrost(ditto)

You said it yourself. S: D is NOT more powerful than Hellfrost. It doesn't remove the model. Is 1d6+6 powerful? Sure, but it never beats 100% removal. Should it be toned down? I've already said as much. Dying from getting hit is one thing, just straight up removing models is another. A single wound infantry or tank is not a big deal. A LoW who's meant to be around for most of the game, and is a large part of your army should not. Hell, if you removed Magnus first turn, I'd conceded, after all, why play a 1200 point army vs 1850, you're never going to win, or even likely to have fun playing it.

 nintura wrote:
tank is not a big deal.

 nintura wrote:
People spend hundreds of dollars and weeks painting a big model, so what's the point of not getting to use them

Whatever happened to that? A tank might not be hundreds of dollars, but it can take a long long time to paint only to have it blow up turn one. Meanwhile Magnus can only be instantly killed under rare circumstances.

 nintura wrote:
You said it yourself. S: D is NOT more powerful than Hellfrost. It doesn't remove the model. Is 1d6+6 powerful? Sure, but it never beats 100% removal. Should it be toned down? I've already said as much. Dying from getting hit is one thing, just straight up removing models is another. A single wound infantry or tank is not a big deal. A LoW who's meant to be around for most of the game, and is a large part of your army should not. Hell, if you removed Magnus first turn, I'd conceded, after all, why play a 1200 point army vs 1850, you're never going to win, or even likely to have fun playing it.

It's going to affect things lot more reliably than hellfrost and d6+6 is instakill on pretty much anything so on the 6 there's no practical difference. Difference comes on results OTHER than 6...

Would Magnus have survived 6 from S? I don't think so. 7 wounds is minimum on d6+6.

What things don't die to S rolling 6 that would die to hellfrost?

And I have had LOW's one-turned before I get to even move. Those are tad tougher to hide than most stuff for obvious reason...Boohoo.

tneva82 wrote:

 nintura wrote:
You said it yourself. S: D is NOT more powerful than Hellfrost. It doesn't remove the model. Is 1d6+6 powerful? Sure, but it never beats 100% removal. Should it be toned down? I've already said as much. Dying from getting hit is one thing, just straight up removing models is another. A single wound infantry or tank is not a big deal. A LoW who's meant to be around for most of the game, and is a large part of your army should not. Hell, if you removed Magnus first turn, I'd conceded, after all, why play a 1200 point army vs 1850, you're never going to win, or even likely to have fun playing it.

It's going to affect things lot more reliably than hellfrost and d6+6 is instakill on pretty much anything so on the 6 there's no practical difference. Difference comes on results OTHER than 6...

Would Magnus have survived 6 from S? I don't think so. 7 wounds is minimum on d6+6.

What things don't die to S rolling 6 that would die to hellfrost?

And I have had LOW's one-turned before I get to even move. Those are tad tougher to hide than most stuff for obvious reason...Boohoo.

You are completely missing the point and not understanding what you're reading. I've already answered both of these.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Cyprien wrote:
For me as a really inexperienced player who's only into this for the setting and the awesome stories, it sounds a bit as if most of you really are angry because it was a game for fun and that they didn't play as some hardcore nerd at a tournament would.
and i really don't understand why you guys are always returning to that helfrost cannon. even though most of you state "it's not the cannon, we're displeased with the GW staff" many of you are complaining about that one hit kill a lot. you know, the rules of that weapon work for every enemy, not just for magus, right? xD

My complaint is not that they don't play like hardcore gamers ( I'd really appreciate a bit more respect on both sides of this) it's that they don't even seem to recognize the concept of competitive gaming to the extent that they write such horribly flawed rules. Those rules are what perpetuates the divide between the casual and the competitive. If they wrote a balanced rules set with options that were equally appealing it wouldn't devolve into "take all of these I can and leave that obvious trash out" types of builds. If all the fluffy options were as powerful as the other options then we wouldn't have the paper rock scissors situation we have now. When people are coming up with lists that break the game a week after a codex drops it's clear that play testers don't try and test the system, they just play to have fun. Which ironically makes it no fun for a lot of their customers.

This right here. I'm so far on the casual side that hyper competitive play nausiates me and personally ruins a game for me. But that's just my personal preference and no more right than someone who does like competitive play. But I still want a well written rule set because that also makes casual play better. People seem to be conflating casual play with "who needs rules." I want to be able to build an army that's fluffy and have it not be a total mess, or be able to have a game against someone that isn't decided in the "pick which codex you're using" phase. Casual doesn't mean you don't want a challenge with a winner and loser, it just means you want to build an army that looks like an army instead of a joke.
Better rules benefit both casual and competitive players.

-

I think everyone is looking for the silver bell. You want the perfect answer but don't realize that the perfect answer doesn't exist. If you give something towards one party, you take away from the other.

Competitive players will always play competitively however, despite the rules but you will never find a perfect balance. There will always be better units and those units will always be obviously the best ones to take.

 nintura wrote:
I think everyone is looking for the silver bell. You want the perfect answer but don't realize that the perfect answer doesn't exist. If you give something towards one party, you take away from the other.

Competitive players will always play competitively however, despite the rules but you will never find a perfect balance. There will always be better units and those units will always be obviously the best ones to take.

Mostly I'm just baffled by why they decided to livestream a casual game of 40k.

40k tabletop tactix:
S
S




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pouncey wrote:

 nintura wrote:
I think everyone is looking for the silver bell. You want the perfect answer but don't realize that the perfect answer doesn't exist. If you give something towards one party, you take away from the other.

Competitive players will always play competitively however, despite the rules but you will never find a perfect balance. There will always be better units and those units will always be obviously the best ones to take.

Mostly I'm just baffled by why they decided to livestream a casual game of 40k.

Cause it's way more fun than sporthammer magic deathstar fapping?

For fun, of course. What other reasons are there?

 koooaei wrote:
Cause it's way more fun than sporthammer magic deathstar fapping?

Don't get me wrong, I know why casual games can be fun to watch, as I play a lot of online video games. Two of my favorite YouTube channels are just highlights from games where people screwed up colossally.

But at the same time, the only times that the actual companies that make those online games officially host a livestreamed game is during an official tournament, during competitive play. Game creators uploading their own personal casual gameplay sessions on an official company channel is not the sort of thing I'm at all familiar with.

 Pouncey wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Cause it's way more fun than sporthammer magic deathstar fapping?

Don't get me wrong, I know why casual games can be fun to watch, as I play a lot of online video games. Two of my favorite YouTube channels are just highlights from games where people screwed up colossally.

But at the same time, the only times that the actual companies that make those online games officially host a livestreamed game is during an official tournament, during competitive play. Game creators uploading their own personal casual gameplay sessions on an official company channel is not the sort of thing I'm at all familiar with.

Pouncey you've already declared you only want to see GW go down in flames and it's clear you'll never see any silver lining in anything they do.

Further, you've only spewed BS throughout this entire thread -- the "Game creators uploading their own personal casual gameplay" is not what happened, not at all, and at this point you know this, so you are simply just trolling.

Further I'd much rather see a fun game than "sporthammer", your assertion about "official tournament" is based on nothing, like everything else you've said.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Pouncey you've already declared you only want to see GW go down in flames and it's clear you'll never see any silver lining in anything they do.

You should probably have actually read what I said in that thread if you're going to try to tell me what I want and don't want.

Further, you've only spewed BS throughout this entire thread -- the "Game creators uploading their own personal casual gameplay" is not what happened, not at all, and at this point you know this, so you are simply just trolling.

I didn't watch the actual video, as I don't want to watch a few hours of real-time 40k gameplay, but I've been told the following:

-It's not a playtesting session
-It's not a competitive tournament match
-It's not a marketing video

And now you're telling me:

-It's not a casual game for fun

So what, the HELL, was ACTUALLY in the video then?

Further I'd much rather see a fun game than "sporthammer", your assertion about "official tournament" is based on nothing, like everything else you've said.

...It's based on having spent much of my life in online gaming and having noticed what the companies that make online games do and don't do. Like I said.

More BS... I didn't say it wasn't a casual game for fun, because it does appear to be that. I said it wasn't "Game creators" uploading their "own personal casual gameplay" - because it wasn't.

You didn't even watch the video and you've commented here more than anyone. Weak. You might not realize it - but you are literally just trolling.

 Gunzhard wrote:
More BS... I didn't say it wasn't a casual game for fun, because it does appear to be that. I said it wasn't "Game creators" uploading their "own personal casual gameplay" - because it wasn't.

...You're saying two entirely contradictory things there.

You didn't even watch the video and you've commented here more than anyone. Weak. You might not realize it - but you are literally just trolling.

I don't troll, actually.

Trolling is deliberately attempting to incite a negative reaction to ruin someone's day.

I. Don't. Troll.

People these days just have a very loose grasp on trolling and think it's "anyone saying anything negative about anything whatsoever."

 Pouncey wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
More BS... I didn't say it wasn't a casual game for fun, because it does appear to be that. I said it wasn't "Game creators" uploading their "own personal casual gameplay" - because it wasn't.

...You're saying two entirely contradictory things there.

You didn't even watch the video and you've commented here more than anyone. Weak. You might not realize it - but you are literally just trolling.

I don't troll, actually.

Trolling is deliberately attempting to incite a negative reaction to ruin someone's day.

I. Don't. Troll.

People these days just have a very loose grasp on trolling and think it's "anyone saying anything negative about anything whatsoever."

"loose grasp on trolling" ...ha that's pretty funny.

And there's no contradiction at all. It appeared to be a fun, casual game - but they weren't 'game creators/designers'. If you've ever worked in ANY professional company you might know that not every single employee is plugged into the datastream like some mechanicum servitor; at some point the rules are new to everyone, and these weren't game designers - but you know that already.

 Gunzhard wrote:
"loose grasp on trolling" ...ha that's pretty funny.

And also very true, which you'd know if you spent time online.

And there's no contradiction at all. It appeared to be a fun, casual game - but they weren't 'game creators/designers'. If you've ever worked in ANY professional company you might know that not every single employee is plugged into the datastream like some mechanicum servitor; at some point the rules are new to everyone, and these weren't game designers - but you know that already.

Actually I don't keep track of the names/jobs of every Games Workshop employee, but I am aware that GW is the company that creates the game.

Who exactly was playing the game then?

Seriously, you're insulting me for not knowing what actually happened in the video, while making zero effort to explain what actually happened so I can learn and form a more educated opinion on the video.