Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Dead Scribe

Members
  • Content Count

    935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

642 Celestant-Prime

About Dead Scribe

  • Rank
    Lord Castellant

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is something I agree with a lot because we have caught a few people with loaded dice in our tournaments and there are people that know how to do dice tricks where they can roll dice and get the values they want reliably. You can't do much with the people that know dice tricks, but you can weed the people bringing in weighted dice or dice that have a tendency to roll high by making them use the same sealed dice pack everyone else uses.
  2. Yeah. Again - no. Very much no. All armies should get equal treatment.
  3. I'd say that if that was the MOST competitive army that the only thing that would influence me to buy that army would be if the meta had people doing that. Historically the very powerful but very expensive in terms of money builds aren't seen very often at all. Plus the painting time etc. Thankfully.
  4. I think all armies should be equal in terms of attention. Though from a competitive angle I'm glad that GW does the work for me by showing me which armies I should play easily without me having to spend a ton of time experimenting. I'm glad that they make it easy to figure out which armies are top tier. Based on how expensive the game is I would probably be irritated if I had to figure out what was OP instead of the rules being obviously OP or not because I'd surely spend some money somewhere that I wouldn't have wanted to spend later.
  5. The thing that gets kicked back a lot is that some groups only run optimal lists, so casual players have to hope for other casual players lol.
  6. Here is a question I'd like to pose, because it seems there are a lot of people here, on facebook, on dakka, everywhere, that constantly say the bad balance kills their scene, but say that for years so to me their scene is still going (I know I'm not arguing the balance is bad, because it *is* bad but my scene is still huge *despite* the bad balance) If its that bad and you feel it kills it for you or you casual scene, why do you keep coming back for more? Why doesn't your casual scene find a different game to play?
  7. Its really about numbers. I agree warmachine and infinity as game systems are more suited for tournament play. But 40k and AOS has a much deeper player base so you have the ability to have much larger tournaments, much larger prizes, and much larger community where you can make content and earn money from doing that content than you do with smaller games.
  8. I disagree. Saying house rules are great for skilled people and bad for people that are "bad generals" isn't going to drive that point home either. Its just plain hostile. If 40k was barely playable it wouldn't have literally tens of thousands of people playing it without ITC on a daily basis. My store is always packed with 40k players playing the "barely playable" 40k in a non-ITC context. We have over 200 people in the 40k group in my city alone that are very active, and they don't use ITC to my knowledge. I'd say that "barely playable" in that case is not only extremely hyperbolic (which I thought we are supposed to hate?) and just demonstrably not true. A "barely playable" game wouldn't be the dominant juggernaut of tabletop gaming that 40k has been since pretty much forever.
  9. I mean - the thing is that read this forum or any other forum and you'll find that no one can agree on what should or shouldn't be changed to make "balance". "Balance" is different to everyone. GW balance is not the greatest, we all know that. But GW balance is still official balance, and when I go to the store to buy models I do so knowing that the rules I am building against are official, not some random committee of dudes that got to be on the committee because they are friends with the right people, choosing how to "balance" the game I play in their own opinion and then forcing that opinion on me ITC-style so that I have no choice but to play by those rules in tournaments. No thanks. I hear enough horror stories online every day about how this and this needs changed to make "balance" but you can't balance a game like this, so when they change one thing for "balance" they are breaking something else.
  10. I'm highly opposed to some random internet fans dictating to me how I get to play my game. If they want to write their own game and churn a tourney scene up around it and put the work in instead of riding GW's coattails and premade fan base, let them do that. If its any good it should stand on its own merit.
  11. I hope we never get an ITC in AOS the way it is in 40k. I don't like houserules. People argue over ITC being valid or official all the time and I would dread having to have those conversations in AOS. Otherwise why not just houserule the things you hate out of the game? Why do we need a team of people who have no qualifications and no official weight to tell us what house rules they approve of us to play with globally? If everyone is as upset at the rules as people claim on forums, why don't they all write GW and let them know, and when the poll comes every year, poll that the rules bother you?
  12. Thats why I don't really put much stock in the background. The reality on the table and the background stories are nothing alike.
  13. I've been seeing this a lot lately. I would say that there is logic in this. The stuff sells very well as it is.
  14. Yeah they come off as an elite army in the book and the models, but in the rules are just regular normal knights or warriors.
  15. I'll chime in and say I don't think most of what they offer is that good. The writing itself just does not engage me. There are a few exceptions, but I think they need to re evaluate their formula.
×
×
  • Create New...