Jump to content

Sinbin

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Sinbin's Achievements

Liberator

Liberator (1/10)

25

Reputation

  1. Sorry, this needs to be addressed, because Red King is right to point it out. A person writes that the removal of warscrolls from a manipulatable format is a disability concerns, citing their own disability and the difficulty it would impose on them. It's responded to with: "If you have issues with sight then you probably dont get much use out of seeing things on youtube on the phone either etc. I would suggest getting a tablet, which you can get for next to no money (considering how expensive anything else is in this hobby)." Followed by: "I dont really get this whining for the sake of whining though - I mean you said it yourself, you are already done with the game, but your post just makes you come off as a grumpy old man. " The responder begins by offering an alternative option, but then immediately frames everything the poster wrote as "whining for whining's sake". If that isn't minimizing someone's disability, I'm not sure what is. Does it matter if the poster is "done with the game"? They raise a legitimate point about moving the files to an app. The responder wrote what they wrote, it's not disingenuous to take a poster at their word. It is, after all, all we have to operate on. Just as I can say that you writing "removal of free warscrolls on GW webstore has nothing to do with human disabilities" is objectively incorrect. We just had another poster, who has a disability, comment on the effect it would have on them. You're flatly saying it isn't relevant, when it is relevant, the question is regarding to what degree.
  2. I can only speak for myself, but that's incorrect. It's also incorrect, anecdotally, for some of the chaps i've started playing AoS with from around my area. I came back to GW after almost a decade away. When I came back, I was basically a total new player, I hardly remembered any of the rules and, in the case of AoS, had zero knowledge on how it worked. I only decided to come back after reading the rules online and browsing through all of the freely available warscrolls. Sure, I had little context to what they meant, but I at least felt more prepared to start playing a game none of my friends played. Free rules from an established company indicate one of two things: 1. The rules are secondary to the models. They're their to drive model sales and aren't meant to be a main focus, just something for you to do with said models. Which is actually a good model. 2. The rules are free to facilitate a competitive environment, as free information is the bedrock of any competitive scene. The company is selling you a system, rather than just models. Warmachine & Hordes typifies this. AoS falls (fell?) squarely into #1. It's why I decided to buy-in, because it was a goofy ruleset with ostentatious, ridiculous models. It felt like it would feel good to play all the way from the models to the rules. And it is! So I bought both the battletome and the rulebook when I picked up the models I need. But free rules are a signpost to how a company views both its customers and the ecosystem for its models. Not free rules, in this day and age, are like getting a faint whiff of mold when you enter a hotel room. Not necessarily a deal-breaker, but not a great sign either.
  3. Guess here's where I can grouse a bit: Godhammer is dumb (not unpopular). A viable army that can field numerous dragons is even dumber. Dragons should be the titans, and not the knights, of AoS. Scary but too costly for their points. SCE is a bad release. 3rd Edition, with minor tweaks, is actually super solid. If players went all in on supporting comps at tournies it could be up there in terms of fun at tournies, well above 40k. Introducing actual Gods onto the tabletop is extremely stupid. Wrecks the scope of what is set up as a skirmish game. "Why is Nagash stomping around here with only 40 other dudes?". ........Kharadron Overlords are not dwarves. They're gnomes cosplaying as Dawi and you bet that's going in the book.
  4. The conversation stops at "The NDA is bad" because the next step would involve dictating the choices of other consumers. The "So What" will differ heavily from person to person. The line in the sand, where enjoyment/enfranchisement is no longer enough to continuing consuming a company's product, is wildly different from person to person. There's not much of a discussion beyond that. I had a "line in the sand" moment with a big videogame company a few months back, but I didn't pressure my friends to cancel their subs --- I chose to end my subscription and explained why. They're choosing to still support the company. There's not much to talk about because the stakes are very low out here in hobby-land. The NDA is bad. For me, personally, who had a line in the sand moment with GW just half a decade ago and saw a (tiny bit)-more pro-consumer GW emerge afterwards, it means very little. GW was shady and is still shady. My guard was already up and my interaction with GW is limited to buying enough models to participate in a few, yearly sanctioned tournaments and 3d print everything else. It doesn't change my habits, my line in the sand hasn't been crossed. But discussions like this are good. In order to qualify the "So What", discussions like this one need to take place.
  5. I don't think there's any context where deriving enjoyment from scapegoating someone (which making fun/gossiping/"using" "That Guy" is scapegoating) is appropriate. You have an exemplary write-up on growing a scene for a local club, but the "Toxicity" section is rather problematic. Especially this bit: That is not a healthy environment. I speak from experience of reviving my university's DnD club, where "Those Guys" abound in large numbers, especially since it was focused on 3.5e. Having "good tables" and forcing new players to the "bad tables" simply because nobody else wants to play with these folks stratifies what should be an open-to-all environment. Often if a new player gets a bad taste early into their tabletop hobby it lingers and they bounce soon after. As you note, regulate them in a low-tolerance environment --- they'll find better pastures or, in some cases, shape up to where people enjoy playing with them. It should also be noted that "Those Guys" are often "Those Guys" from reasons other than stubbornness, there's often a reason they hang out in a store for dozens of hours a week. Weaponizing them, like in your example, seems in very poor taste. It's certainly worth a discussion, because poor behavior is often a large reason small scenes immolate, but perhaps in a kinder tone.
  6. I started IDK and AoS when 3rd edition dropped, but have gotten in a decent amount of games. Quite enjoy them, reminiscent of Dark Elf Flying Circus lists from 7th and 8th Eds of WFB. Flying sharks and the utterly shameless edginess of the book make it a wonderful army to paint. I would say i'm concerned that a new book could shift heavily towards monster mash, would certainly still be in flavor for the faction, and leave Eels in the dust. More ground-pounders would be welcome, Turtle + Namarti is a solid combo that just needs more pieces to be interesting. Hard to justify buying 40+ Reavers for anything but tournies as they're a bit on the boring side after the first 10, modelling-wise. As an aside, i'm currently having trouble justifying running any other subfaction than Fuethain. The RR1's on T2 even when spread out and RR1's to wound on mounts (makes Turtle an absolute banger) seem hard to give up. Currently running Allopex/Ishaleen heavy in 1k/1.5k lists. Getting good results against KO and CoS. Any thoughts on another subfaction to keep things interesting while not making me wish I had just taken Fuethain? Playing modestly competitive games where we tinker lists & terrain to better balance games.
×
×
  • Create New...