Jump to content

Reinholt

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

128 Celestant-Prime

About Reinholt

  • Rank
    Prosecutor

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I obviously won't name names but my impression is that it has likely INCREASED piracy. There are many people who don't want paper books for physical (heavy, clunky, hard to transport, especially for people who have disabilities, etc.) reasons, and there are many people who don't want paper books for environmental reasons. You have taken away the ability of these people to buy an e-book from GW and actually pay them for it. They can get the rules only, but not the rest. However, they can still get the e-book. Just they don't pay for it anymore. My honest belief is GW has cos
  2. This is what a properly crafted anti-SLAPP law covers, and there are multiple states with them. A lot of attorneys take these kinds of cases on contingency because you get fees when you win if it's clear fair use. I get the sense most people get a DCMA and don't even explore their options because it's much easier to punch back in a lot of places than expected. Some states less than others. You'd be foolish not to at least consult with a lawyer and it's usually free to have the first discussion (and if it's not, you're into something really messy and shouldn't be on a message board but rather l
  3. Depending on what state Doug is in, that could be extremely profitable for Doug. There are surprisingly strong anti-SLAPP protections in some places and I would strongly advise anyone to pay attention to those before DCMA'ing someone in the modern day. What Doug is doing is almost certainly fair use under any plausible interpretation of the law, and in certain jurisdictions, that means GW will be writing Doug a pretty fat check for doing this. Be aware of your rights and don't take this laying down. On the W+ front: I won't be getting it because GW's digital products have sucked, oth
  4. I can't hear you over the sound of how awesome Blood Knight battleline is. Joking aside, I think the zombies are also interesting for the pile in nonsense. They can move surprisingly fast. I like the skeletons to hold objectives but in the new form of the game where the primary weirdly might not be your main points generation tool at all times and holding 2 objectives might be enough, I'm not as sold on them. Still useful, and require less babysitting. Zombies are occasionally totally filthy though, especially if you run some buffs via a necromancer, vamp lord, radhukar, etc. on th
  5. So here is my counterpoint: I play a shooting army that only melees when I have a decisive advantage, and I win a lot of games without getting into melee combat at all with anything other than my screens and one or two key pieces. I'm speaking specifically about shootcast but there are Tzeentch, Kharadron, Lumineth, DoK, and Seraphon armies that would say similar things (edit: hat tip to magic flying eels which are the exception that prove the rule). If you look closely, these are also mostly the armies ultimately dominating the tournament scene and that are the most competitive. The mele
  6. That's not an accurate representation of what I said at all, though. What I specifically said was this: The new coherency rules, by being more intricate about the value of small distances, make the game significantly slower. This is a factual statement, backed up by other people who have started using / thinking about them and by 40k, which I also play. The interaction of >25mm base sizes, coherency for 5+ units, and 1" or less weapon ranges produce some very weird outcomes for units such that taking them in any size larger than 5 is almost certainly going to be sub-optimal
  7. To be clear, again, it's not "me", I didn't take them. I am saying if marginal units are already not particularly good, and now you have nerfed them, why would you ever take them? You're bringing a rock to a gunfight here. Shooting is already stronger than melee, monsters and heroes don't have coherency problems in the new edition, and when I point out that taking Gluttons is slow from a play perspective, inefficient for melee, and they were already not good, your answer is that it's working as intended? That is exceptionally poor game design. "Hey half our units are unbalanced garba
  8. I will bring this up to make a point: the history of GW has been awful balance. Anyone remember nigh-invulnerable Falcon grav tanks way back in 40k? Blood Angels turn 1 rhino rush? Anyone ever play against Daemons in 7th ed? Eldar in Gothic? GW doesn't get the benefit of the doubt because over a 20 year period they have repeatedly shown they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. The next time GW produces a tightly balanced main game and/or is responsive in short timeframes to both balance and quality of life concerns for players will also be the first time GW has ever done this. Th
  9. So as a starting point, I played AGAINST the Ogors, not with them. I'm actually the ****** who took the MSU units of skeletons and Blood Knights and smashed the face of my opponent through the table, essentially. What I am saying is that some of the design changes are going to promote some pretty material negative play experiences. First, taking Gluttons as an example, you CANNOT take them in a small enough unit that coherency is a non-issue (min 6!). Therefore, the only conclusion is literally never take them. I'm not sure if AoS 3 was intended to create a meta where a good 30% of
  10. In a very meta sense, this whole divergence that took multiple posts is actually an excellent demonstration of my feelings on the new coherency rules, as the amount of time we got sidetracked here is pretty much the same as sorting out that 9 Ogor Glutton charge. Where, I would add, after 10 minutes of tinkering, it was concluded that yes, about half the unit had no possible way to fight no matter how it was done and the Ogor 40mm base with a 1" reach for a foot unit does produce some super weird outcomes, especially in a case where I had deliberately compacted my unit down to a 5x2 on 25mm ba
  11. After playing with the new coherency rules, it really depends on your base size. In general, I would say: 25mm can work in units where you can deploy well in two ranks, so your size there can be big. 32mm melee units with 1" range are 5 or less, or don't even bother taking them. It slows the game down and if your opponent gets the new geometry you will never get all of your unit into combat. Cavalry really depends on reach and base size. You can do some weird formations with the oval bases so long as you can make triangle arrowhead type tips to make sure they are in coheren
  12. I think this last part is the key point. It's easy to house rule things in small groups but when you want an army you can play at the shop, you have to assume that you live with the default rules for the game. To that end, with points and the new coherency updates, I kind of feel like Slaanesh and Sylvaneth are literally bin tier right now (as in don't even bother to bring them), and GW needs to hear a lot more about how they are causing players to leave / quit the game by not bothering to take the 1 hour of effort to at least lower points for these armies even if they won't fix anything else.
  13. So after playing a game with the new coherency rules, I will say this: MAN that is janky. I don't think it actually changes much that matters, with one exception. Screens are slightly smaller (though not as small as one would think as if you have a truly cheap screening unit that was only going to live one turn anyways losing a bunch to coherency is no different than losing them when they get mulched in combat). However, it literally made our movement phase take more than 2x as long to sort out the new rules. It will get slightly faster as you go but instead of just "whatever here is
  14. I feel you on that and I think it's justified. What I hate is the design PROCESS for GW; a lone designer of a tabletop game should have support (playtesters, an overall project manager who ensures all the books are in line, technical writers/readers to help with clarity, etc.). I am all but certain GW does not have that. In a way, they are hanging the designers out to dry as well by not giving them proper support.
×
×
  • Create New...