Jump to content

NinthMusketeer

Members
  • Posts

    738
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

NinthMusketeer last won the day on March 31

NinthMusketeer had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

NinthMusketeer's Achievements

Lord Castellant

Lord Castellant (8/10)

905

Reputation

2

Community Answers

  1. A big part is that so much of what is being introduced to new PtG is stuff RtR already has. Both hero and unit progression are already covered by rewards, though I will definitely be looking to adapt selections from battletomes into RtR where appropriate. What will probably happen is that the 'reward based on allegiance' result will be rolled into 'reward based on keyword' then as new battletomes come out they will each get their own customized reward table. In RtR the have/have-not effect will be largely mitigated since everyone's units and heroes already have access to the five generic reward tables (rather than PtG3rd's single table for units and nothing for heroes). Quests, like battalions, will be considered on an individual basis. Some are non-applicable to the context of RtR or would be too imbalanced to include. Each warband table will have a list of which quests from it's battletome are available in RtR. Territories... I'm not sure yet. The generic territories are all about increasing the limits on types of units that can be taken, non-applicable to RtR which does not use that mechanic. The main question I will need to evaluate is if the territories are interesting; will adding a territory mechanism make the system more fun, and will that fun be enough to justify the increase in content? Dealing with GW I'm sure we all know that options can be pushed to the point of being too much of a good thing, turning into bloat where the total is less than the sum of its parts.
  2. I am now working on an overall update coming alongside the SCE and Orruk battletomes. I will be going through the warband tables again now that I have a solid base of play experience to draw from. If you have any feedback please let me know! In particular thoughts on units that are too strong or too weak would be greatly appreciated, as well as if any rules are confusing to read/understand.
  3. I would personally prefer GW, or anyone, run a free open beta, as that will help them fix problems for the full launch. Having a real hard time seeing how one would logically conclude it is a bad thing. Like, even if the app was going to be free this open beta would be the same.
  4. No matter the odds, if someone hits the table with a full Bonesplittaz army, a completely reckless strategy, and an unreasonable amount of blind confidence... they just might win.
  5. It is an idea that seems great on paper. Unfortunately, it causes some knock-off issues. Simply put a significant portion of wargamers won't buy them; they aren't invested enough in the lore to buy/keep separate books that are only fluff. BUT if said fluff is already included in the book for rules then they will read it because it's right there and they already paid for it. This creates a positive feedback loop (provided the lore is good) where people who might not normally have looked into the lore at all become interested in it and talk about it, feeding further interest by the community. The reality is that people these days are tired. And with good reason; the 21st century has been a stream of ****** hitting the fan so much that a metaphorical poo-rain is standard living (to say the least). The energy to go out and initiate engagement in a tangential factor is not present in the same manner it was 30 years ago. But if that initiation is bundled in with the rules so people just have just basic lore in front of them without any extra effort? There is a lot more interest.
  6. May have to deploy the Sacrosanct Chamber because that's a bit non-sequitor.
  7. While it remains too early to say for sure, the new battletomes are quite promising in how much bloat they have cut out. Like instead of giving 18 options of which 4 are relevant they just give the 4.
  8. I'm saying the reversal of the community-positive trends is a reversal of what brought them huge success and is a bad business move no one benefits from. Though it isn't all bad. For starters we are still night-and-day better than Kirby era. And at least on the AoS side the prices on new releases are more reasonable than not. A few outliers, but definitely not a trend towards higher prices in general (yet). Though I cannot speak for 40k.
  9. Oh sure there are some niche builds that can squeeze better performance from the other options, I'm certainly not denying that. But if a weapon option is only viable with one unit, in a specific dammed legion, with a specific artifact, with a specific spell, I don't feel that qualifies as that weapon having a purpose. Weapon options having a purpose is like when infantry units have a spear option that is a worse profile but longer range, so better for larger units while the regular hand weapon is better on small units. Or an option that deals less damage against light armor but has better rend to counter heavy armor. And so on.
  10. The first half of the 2010s has two notable factors for GW; the most extreme of Kirby era policies and shrinking sales. 2016 GW changed, putting a ton of effort (and no doubt money) into community outreach, more intensive rules development, the launch of the Start Collecting boxes, and even outright price decreases (significant ones) on a large number of new releases. Games Workshop was the best performing stock on the UK market in 2016.
  11. Right now there isn't one, the daemon weapons are just better.
  12. I don't believe you! This move came out of nowhere, unable to be observed due to the extreme subtlety employed up to the moment of attack. Like a Mega-Gargant.
  13. Oh absolutely. But it's sprinting during an endurance race; the short term gains work out to a net loss in the long term. And there are always people who are blinded by the short term. It goes back to the behavior; if it was a net gain (or even zero loss) to always act this way people would never do anything else.
  14. 2016 definitively showed that yes, community-friendly moves do have a positive impact on the business for GW. Though broadly speaking we already knew that because if fostering communities wasn't good for business companies wouldn't do it. But they do, a lot. They sink untold amounts of money into it. Because it works.
  15. Oh this isn't the end of free warscrolls--the warscrolls are and will remain free online. GW just chose to stop being the source that provides them.
×
×
  • Create New...