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

Sleboda

Members
  • Content count

    1,614
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Sleboda last won the day on August 7

Sleboda had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,733 Celestant-Prime

1 Follower

About Sleboda

  • Rank
    Lord Celestant

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Totally Mannfred. It's why I refuse to even assemble his model.
  2. Sleboda

    Magore + Leader Cards

    Just wanted to say I'm having very good results with this. I still have a tweak it two to make, I to think, but I'm pretty close. I can even win when the warband is wiped out late turn 2 or later.
  3. Sleboda

    Removal of compendiums

    Perhaps they are being phased out. Maybe. But even if they are, at present they are still completely legal GW rules. Honest question - What makes anyone think they are not legal? I'm not saying my the opinions of my opponents don't matter. I'm just struggling to understand where that opinion is coming from and what supports it.
  4. Sleboda

    Removal of compendiums

    What's the negotiation? It's nice that you are willing to give others options, really, it is. The thing is, Compendium armies have official rules and official points. They just do. This is not adding if you can play with, for instance, Tyler's TK book (which really people should accept cuz it's neat). This is official GW stuff. And I called out forced because regardless of why you included it, it's factually inaccurate.
  5. I believe I would. Overread's response right after your question comes close to hitting the mark on the reasons why, but I'll take a moment to expand on one part here. It tells me something about the experience I am about to have, from the game itself to the mindset of my opponent. Here's a hypothetical to explain a bit: I am presented with two possible opponents for an afternoon's game at the local shop. Player D has a grey plastic army. Player 4 has a prepainted army. For all other purposes, the two players appear no different. Recent shower, pleasant breath, wearing some sot of anime t-shirt, a tattoo of a fish on their left wrists, pants pulled up over their hips, both named Terry, etc. You get the picture. I will select Player D over Player 4. I do this because I am making a judgement about the two players. In my mind when comparing these two people on the spot - Player D is invested. I'm not talking about money. He's picked out his stuff, spent the time to assemble all those kits, and is so excited to start playing that he wants to get a few games in as he's working on the army. He's probably got some color schemes in mind and maybe a theme or some hero names. He's going to want to tell me about where his army is headed. It may take him a year to get them all painted, and he knows he will lose a lot of games until they get painted (because painted armies do better), but he's willing to put in the effort to create something that not only can be very good at the table when rolling dice, but will bring him enjoyment over dozens of long painting sessions. When he's done, he will have become more invested in the game, the hobby, and the community of hobby gaming. Player4 is flavor of the week, chasing wins only. He's playing Magic, Hearthstone, or, at best, Hero Clix. When I see him again in two months, he won't remember my name or even our game, because we didn't chat about his army or talk about how upset his general must be about not having blue pants yet. There will be zero connection to the player*. Plus, he'll have a totally different army anyway, because of the new hotness, so it's not like we'll be building a friendly rivalry between his Ravagers of the Borax Fountain and my Legions of Nearly-limitless Irritability. In short, I can't see a reason to choose to play Warhammer with this person when Risk, Pokemon, or Chess would fill the same time and not ignore so much of what makes a game of Warhammer a game of Warhammer. Now, let me be clear. I may get along famously with the pre-painted guy and end up thinking that the grey army guy is a dirty, rotten Cowboys fan. That's possible. I'm not judging the person, just guessing at the at-the-table experience. I'm making a lot of assumptions based on first impression, but that's the essence of the choice for me. That's the feel in me for why I would pick the grey guy. * Edit: I just had an epiphany. This is related to why I really don't enjoy online gaming against people. No connection. Some anonymous, faceless hater 700 miles away just looking to trash me. No thanks. If I'm gonna get my face kicked in, I want a friend to do it at my house over a few beers and a game of Shadespire. I play lots and lots of video games, but unless the game has a solo campaign or some other way to play against the computer offline instead of only PvP online, I won't buy it. For me, there is no point to the experience of interacting with someone else in this way, and Player 4 triggers many of the same feelings for me - it might as well be a PvP online game because the activity between us has almost nothing to do with us.
  6. Not to doubt your personal experiences, but they don't mesh with mine. I can't say I'm competitive in the same way as, for instance, Dead Scribe, but I sure as heck do want to win each and every game I play. But. When I lose, I almost always still enjoy the game. The times I don't either have to do with my opponent being a tool or my most frustrating thing in gaming (making a perfect plan that works 215 out of 216 times, and getting that 216th option). My preference is, by far, to win, but losing doesn't negate the fun. I think your choice of how you presented it is, no shade to you, a representation of just exactly why we have this problem or conflict. By saying competitive players only enjoy winning and that non-competitive players are the ones playing for fun, you are reinforcing a negative mindset and a false separation. All Warhammer players - all of them - are playing for fun. Also, I'd wager that nearly all Warhammer players (all other things being fair and equal) would prefer a win over a loss, even in a Narrative or unbalanced game. We're all having fun and at least hoping for the win. We just emphasize different aspects of the experience along the way.
  7. Sleboda

    Removal of compendiums

    They are still able to be used, and not in some strange, hard to figure out way. They are 100% good in Narrative and Open. Plus, there are still points for them, just not updates planned to those points, which means really you can even still do Matched with them. Also, nobody is forcing anybody to do a darn thing. Before I get any "fanboy" or "shill" comments, I'll point out that I am often quite critical of GW (even in this very forum) and that Tomb Kings are my favorite hobby gaming thing ever for any game, but I understand and can be objective.
  8. Sleboda

    Removal of compendiums

    First part, very true. Second part, very not true.
  9. Sleboda

    Removal of compendiums

    Because you don't need points to play, maybe? I was fine with my TK in AoS when it first hit the shelves, and I am fine with them today.
  10. Yeah. 100% against. It would give me pause about staying in the game. I probably still would, but it would be a serious blow to what this whole thing means to me, even though I would only ever use my own painted stuff.
  11. Sleboda

    The Rumour Thread

    This is freakin' genius.
  12. I don't get all that narrrative-ish or RPG-y. I just drink too much and eventually hit "The F It Phase." That's when the little voices overtake my good sense.
  13. Sleboda

    Terrain usage and placement at tournaments

    Holy heck! Really? Those are both total d#@k moves. Wow. I mean, as in, I would rather concede the game right then and there than play against that kind of attitude.
  14. Sleboda

    Terrain usage and placement at tournaments

    As with many things in life, when you are one way, it can be difficult to see why everyone else can't just be the same way. Friendships and marriages end over this issue. The phrase "not everyone is you" is something I've had to say to friends many times over the years. Why can't people just have an friendly chat like I do? Why can't everyone just conduct a straightforward social conversation like I do? Why can't all the others act in the same way I do? Because not everyone is me. If we do a thing regularly, to where it is second nature, we often have a hard time recognizing that it's still a skill. Why can't everyone just paint great or memorize all the rules? After all, those are part of this hobby too, just as socializing at least on some level is, but we're not all equally equipped at everything, and whether we all realize it it not, for many people all around the world, simple social interaction is exceedingly difficult! Add in stronger personalities, celebrity status, charm, etc. and it really should not be hard to see that many gamers just don't have the confidence to assert themselves. On top of all that, some folks are just plain submissive. People have roles in societies. It's not limited to gaming. There are entire libraries filled with the results of studies of different personalities. How is it so difficult to understand that not every personality is as equipped to say "no" as we would like them to be? The rules of a tournament (and terrain falls into that) should not be up to dominant personalities to dictate to those who are more naturally submissive (for whatever reason).
  15. Sleboda

    Terrain usage and placement at tournaments

    Give this man a doughnut.
×