Jump to content

pnkdth

Members
  • Posts

    186
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

pnkdth's Achievements

Protector

Protector (6/10)

306

Reputation

  1. Challenges used to be that characters stepped aside and depending on the outcome generated a combat resolution result depending on the outcome ('Overkill' added +1 to combat resolution for each wound that exceeded the total wounds the character had left). In AoS terms this could instead be represented by an aura of negative modifiers to battleshock or other more creative ideas. However, I do not think this would work very well since god-tier characters is already annoying (and numerous) enough as it is. That said, it would be cool if larger units would get extra bonuses, e.g. +1 to bravery or bonuses carrying a battle standard. Right now so much is focused around damage and resilience and this would go some way in increasing the value of larger units. Definitely something WHFB did a whole lot better than AoS since the outcome doesn't just come down to mathhammer but also army composition.
  2. Overall, I do not think they quite understood or appreciated how much work there is behind battle reports and creating engaging continuous content. Like with lore videos, it is nothing more than reading from a wiki. No interesting insights or "wow, I didn't know that"-moments. Then battle reports with blatant rules issues... First impressions matters and the impression I'm getting is not a service worth paying for. Had they gone with, "hey, this is a soft launch and for 6-12 months it is 100% free. We want to learn what you like and how to improve as a community. If you want to support us you can and you'll get this cool mini + this and that cool stuff (suitable for super-fans)", and then crank up content and quality the reception would have been so different. I know I would have been a lot more positive towards this initiative since in this way they wouldn't be splitting the community and creating an atmosphere of "are you in or out?"
  3. Simple really, GW is not a tiny content creator who needs our money and support to get off the ground. They are a business and if they do not have faith in their own product, why should I? Same reason I don't excuse them for their poor QA testing on their rules and so on. The excuses people make for GW would be fine if we were talking a small studio with limited funds but we're talking about the single largest tabletop gaming company on the market who announced record levels of profit. In other words, if a service is created with 80% content for X and 20% content for Y, you can't stand there surprised wondering why the content for Y is getting a lower amount of clicks. If you focus on your channel on X and then of course the algorithm will favour X over Y (since the demographic for Y will go/be directed elsewhere). Organic growth doesn't just happen on its own, it is an arduous journey most people don't have the will or patience for. As for being an unpopular opinion or not; I think once GW releases WHFB then AoS is going to get even less space because WHFB + TW series is going to be a much stronger brand and, more importantly, more sales. Even if it is ends up being closer to 40k/AoS in its design (as opposed to square bases and movement trays).
  4. I've stopped buying GW products. Started to give attention and my time to other games. If you choose to go on with business as usual nothing will change but I can pretty much guarantee change when and if GW notice a change in customer behaviour. I've already seen content creators cover other games and miniatures they haven't done before and that's the way the ball will start rolling, i.e. when GW notice that their players are starting to play other games. Whatever loyalty or faith I had for GW has evaporated since everything is profit, profit, profit. To the point where the games they provide us with suffer for it. What that means is, 1) drip fed armies, 2) expansions, 3) power creep turning into power leaps, 4) FAQs for FAQs, 5) unreasonable deadlines and low pay for game devs/artists, 6) raising prices during a period of record profits, 7) subscription service which is cynically made to max out profits... And there's more. Being pro-business does not mean you got to take stuff like this lying down and I am sick of hearing the same lame argument of "don't you know GW is a company?!" In fact, good business is based on a mutually agreed upon deal. GW has chosen a path where they are testing the limits of people's threshold and has such has lost a customer since 20+ years. It ain't all bad though. I've discovered other amazing games and gotten fresh new experiences on the tabletop. Just because we've spent X amount of time an Y amount of money on their toy soldiers does not mean you gotta keep spending. I mean, you can always return where you left off. For me though, they gotta steer their ship back towards a direction which makes me think of them as a hobby company again and not as the 'EA of tabletop gaming.'
  5. Silver lining, GW has directed me to other more consumer friendly game studios. Once upon a time this was a niche hobby but today there's so many games out there. I think GW is going to experience a similar trajectory to WoW as more and more players get tired of their nonsense and explore other areas of tabletop gaming. I doubt they'll go belly up, but right now they're acting as if they're the only game in town and you should pay them for the privilege of being a part of their exclusive club. Something I think it is going hurt them long-term because once you base your community on a payment model that is what your relationship will be based, measured, and valued on. This type of community building is also much more fragile than that built on personal investment on time/effort/social aspects. TL;DR: To everyone wondering why people are upset over the removal of warscrolls. It isn't just because of that. Unless you've been living under a rock GW has made a series of decisions as of late to squeeze and control the community. You (in the general sense) might be able to keep on going as they, bit by bit, make this hobby more expensive and less accessible but for the rest of us, it is about having a broader perspective and not just how it impacts us individually. Like @MarkK I went and explored other games and I'm loving it (Malifaux). Star/Frostgrave looks promising too. Who knows perhaps GW will notice the backlash and do something, eventually, but for now I'm #livingmybestlife without GW. 😂
  6. Because it is a predatory business model designed to get you to spend more and more money. There's a reason why it works and it isn't because it is clever, it is because it exploits what's called 'sunk cost' which formula is built around making you feel obligated to spend more to justify what you spent before (both in terms of time and money). It is the reason gaming companies like EA and Activision are so hated because they lock you into their services and use manipulate tactics to drip-feed you DLC and other content. Just get that battletome, just get that W+, and you also need this expansion, and the general's handbook, and so on. Then you find out you hate your army but now they got you. That said, having played other systems now where I do get the rules for free I feel much happier about buying both the rules and supplements. It is refreshing to be treated nicely as opposed to with amped up jealousy and paranoia that if I see the rules up front their rules will crumble and fade away. That's the thing with trying to control everything is that you end up losing control. I look forward to the day when GW turns their ship around, if they do, but till then they've lost a customer. To me that is the most constructive way of reacting, to simply not put up with it and go back to 'the why' you love the hobby. Because "the hobby" is not GW, it is you and your mates having fun playing tabletop games. Happy hobbying!
  7. Oof. Requires 9 of the bottom to get up to 11+ 4 or more wins. 75 4+ wins are within the top 6, 52 4+ wins with the rest. Additionally, the majority of 5 wins sit among a small selection of armies. To no one's surprise we see the usual suspects up there. Although IDK have dropped off the map. However, the positive part that they've actually acknowledged there is a balance issue (unlike the 40k article). Personally, I've taken a step back from AoS for now. FAQs for FAQs and general frustration with GW has pretty much taken the joy out of the game for now. On the upside I've discovered other skirmish games (having your "army" be a handful of models has been a really nice change of pace). I just want to make it clear this ain't some dramatic "I QUIT!" post. Just burnt out, it is supposed to be fun after all, and I hope you all keep having fun with both HoS and AoS. I'll probably stick my pristine and glorious mug in every once in awhile. In the immortal words, I'll be back. Probably. Very likely. 🤗
  8. At this point one can only hope they actually deal with the shooty/magic meta in future books as these are the problem armies. If it turns out as an arms race to create ever more alpha strike armies rather than overhauling those armies this game is going to become a game you win or lose on a single dice roll (priority). Or maybe, much like when things spiraled out of control in the days WHFB, TOs en masse will start to create army composition rules and custom battle packs to ensure we see a more healthy tournament scene. I remember several tournaments which flat out gave certain armies more/less points to use in their list since they were so obviously poorly pointed (feel somewhat familiar, eh?). The result was that you saw armies which would never be considered as a tournament viable army and as a result a really good mood and atmosphere was created. It is also a very effective way to get GW to do something since it looks really bad when the community start house ruling their official rules.
  9. There has been a series of actions done by GW which has caused ripples and waves of anger throughout the community. Each new thing is simply one more straw that breaks more and more camel's backs. For me, its lacklustre release and perceived value reinforce certain concerns I'm already having with how GW does things. Ongoing quality issues with FAQs for FAQs for the new FAQ and, to me, it seems whoever is in charge is cutting the maximum of corners to get the biggest bonus or payoff. Which is really bad for staff (who also act as convenient messengers to shoot when things go wrong) and customer. Negative emotions should be expressed and heard. Like with Hedonites there has been A LOT of anger and feeling like they got duped. Now I could have reacted by calling them stupid for not loving the new battletome or, and this is the important part, I could acknowledge the changes had an impact yet also offer something positive in return. For example, "X mechanic is no longer the same but look at Y mechanic which allows you to do K better." I bring this up because I got told off by certain people that what I was doing was toxic positivity. I could have called them silly and told them to move on, sure, but I'm pretty sure many of them had an army of mostly daemons which are now mostly used for summoning. That's a large chunk of models (maybe the entire army) they can't really use in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, from my perspective, it is all new and fresh. Obviously, I'm going to have much different reaction to someone who's invest tons of hours and money into an army. TL;DR: if you want people to be more chill and levelheaded don't belittle them or their views because you're not invested. That only adds more fuel to the fire. Because if you add more negative energy back into a discussion, that's the energy which is going to be reciprocated. Once that ball gets rolling things can quickly turn sour.
  10. A great start would be to make everything a sub-forum to the hedonites forum IMO. I think the rest of the forum should have the comic sans font in a transparent grey to make it more annoying to read. Everyone wants to the be at the hedonites forums anyways so we'd just be speeding up te process in a benevolent and kind way. We truly are great, aren't we? 🥰
  11. Who knows, perhaps this is the time when army comp and custom tournament packs become a thing again? Given the changes to the rules (them incorporating a lot of what was previously only in tournament packs) it seems this is an area GW really are paying attention to.
  12. Fellow hedonites seeing @enoby promoted, "ONE OF US! ONE OF US! ONE OF US!"
  13. Requirement to be in combat, D3 DP being random and conditional really hurts it. A regular keeper wins out in my book. Assuming wards + "after saves," i.e. save stacking, are actually going to be a thing it might actually be worth going for the 5++ relic and 6+++ with the aegis. This one really took me by surprise. I thought the aim was to reduce dice rolling... But here we are.
  14. Just some thoughts on this setup (the list looks good). You might struggle to keep this one alike for long enough for that 50/50 roll to have much impact. I'm guessing you want to get the LoP into thick of it (use the CA and hunt monsters). Might be worth looking into the pendent of slaanesh since that would make him really quite tough. Gives you more flexibility on which character to use heroic recovery on should you need it and keeps your heroic stature ticking for longer. Welcome to this side of the forum!
  15. Not a huge fan of godhammer since it has severely impacted list diversity. Though I do enjoy trying to figure out "anti-meta"-lists, the challenge, and alternative ways of beating them. To that end, battle tactics and, every once in awhile, grand strategy allow you to beat through other means. I very much enough the new battalions because it has lead me to experiment more with different kinds of allegiances and sub-allegiances. Which also makes things more interesting trying to create new and, also, more lore/fluff lists. Doesn't mean I make purposefully bad lists just that I don't want to win with the same copy/pasted net-lists all the time. Gets old. I would like to see terrain having a bit more impact to make the smaller boards more interactive to navigate. All in all though, I like it. Once we get used to the new heroic/monster stuff it is just going to be something we do.
×
×
  • Create New...