Jump to content

Munkie

Members
  • Posts

    5,707
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Munkie last won the day on January 19 2021

Munkie had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Munkie's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • Reacting Well
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

2.1k

Reputation

  1. I've never read the books and I have absolutely no interest in doing so. I find the show to be a solid "meh" on its own merits. It seems to me that they're trying too hard to be episodic with it and the several CW comparisons seem apt. GOT, by comparison, had each season more or less following a book but broken up into 10 chunks. But within each episode, there wasn't necessarily a defined openining->obstacle->climax->resolution arc that this show leans on. I can't imagine the "False Dragon" plot was resolved so quickly in the book, but again, I would not know. As much as I like the fantasy genre, I have a hard time feeling compelled when magic is so ever-present. It's an awfully convenient device to get characters out of a jam. When the going gets tough, sparkles!!! And all is well. Then when someone doesn't get the benefit of sparkles, I just wonder why. Why pretend one character is going to die for about 10 on-screen seconds only to have him magically healed, then have another character actually die an episode later and all the magic people decide to mourn instead of sparkle him back to life. The stakes are just automatically lower when anyone you want to be saved can just be saved with the wave of a hand; and anyone you feel needs to die is arbitrarily allowed to do so.
  2. My God, that article. I learned Custodes are going to be very complicated. I couldn't make heads or tails of what, why, or how. You choose a martial art of some exotic name resplendent with vowels and apostrophes and choose 1 of 2 stances from that. But sometimes you get to use both, but still have to declare which one you chose because things trigger off the one you chose and you can't choose it again, but you still get the benefits of the one you didn't choose and are free to choose that one next turn and you'll still get the benefits of the one you chose this turn because you'll choose the other one next turn, which makes the one you chose this turn the one you didn't choose-but-still-get-to-benefit-from next turn. Duh. Obviously. Right?
  3. Is this a joke I don't understand (well yes, some of this is for sure jokes that are too old for someone who's only played for 20 years to understand) But those images...is that real? What is happening to that dude struggling so hard on the stairs? It looks like he's shredding an ACL and MCL at the same time his hand is being devoured by his fanny pack. For sure, stairs are tricky. I've never seen a living creature fail so miserably at stairs that they were at risk of losing both legs and a hand. Like he tripped but rather than taking an embarrassing tumble, he just fell into the house collapsing in on itself in poltergeist. These fellas are, by some accounts, the emperor's elite, if I'm not mistaken? If 6 stairs cause a minimum of 3 career ending injuries per attendant traversing them, then the imperium stands no chance. They bought a metric [big bad swear word]load of stairs and the best of the best get vomit-inducingly maimed by them. Bad business. Now I see where the 1000 psykers a day come into play. 999 of them end up in a disfigured mess at the bottom of a small handful of stairs, and that one lucky bastard who steps over their mangled bodies ends up getting his soul sucked out. The emperor protects. Or he forgets to put out a "slippery when wet" sign...
  4. Yup. It's just a theory people wish was real so much that they refuse to let it die.
  5. This is a random thought generated by the Realm of Chaos: There is no such thing as an alpha wolf. That theory has been long debunked (by the author who originally proposed it no less). What he thought he observed of a larger more aggressive male dominating over subservient males was just a pack consisting of a mated couple and their pups. Larger wolves telling smaller wolves what to do, not to exert social dominance, but because parents teach their young how to operate in the world. No zoologist or with wolf enthusiast gives the idea of alpha males any credence. It is, however, still used an effective way to explain away someone's bad behavior as evidence they're socially superior.
  6. My last 3 Google searches: "Separating into eighths" "Is there a verb for separating into eighths?" "4 is to quartered as 8 is to" (particularly proud of that one) Now I know, what you might be thinking, and no! I'm trying to come up with a particularly poetical way to describe a gruesome death at the tentacles of a kraken for for the purpose of hockey-based [big bad swear word] talk. Anyone help a fella out?
  7. I guess we'll have to settle for Professor Xavier then. Welcome back! I can completely relate to the experience of losing all motivation for the hobby amidst the pandemic. Luckily for me, some friends pushed me into going to a small tournament a while back and it totally flipped the depression switch in my head. It's hard to remain positive when the things that should bring you joy end up feeling like chores. The community can remind you what joy looks like if you let them!
  8. Winning is the validation of the goal of improvement. Closely related, and easily mistaken by someone who doesn't know you (like me!). That's why communication is really important. "Competitive" and "casual" are loaded terms and if you say you're looking for one, your opponent is primed to feel some way about it. If you said something like "hey, my goal is to be the best player I can be so I'm hoping to have a game where we're both trying to win and I'd love to have a post-battle conversation about improvement. Is that the kind of game you're looking for?" ...perhaps you'd be better off? They can negotiate if there's something they have questions about or walk away if that sounds completely wrong for them, but hopefully they'd at least respect the clarity of intent. If they accept and then proceed to have a bad attitude then all you can do is attempt to de-escalate a little and wash your hands of it if you get pushback.
  9. People of both camps get lost in the debate about winning and whether or not it matters and should matter. I think regardless of your gaming persuasion the proper mentality towards playing to the mission with intent to win it if possible is: Endeavor to finish the game a better player than you were when you began. For competitive players, winning more games is a byproduct of adopting that mentality. You learn to formulate a path (or several) to victory pretty early on in competitive gaming. Your opponent and random chance want to derail that plan and learning how to stay on course is the long process. Opponents are a variable you cannot control, so don't try. Just keep getting better than yourself and you'll find you're getting better than others too. For casual gamers, "better" can mean a lot of different things. We play an artistic game, a social game, and a competitive (in the sense there are 2 people competing, regardless of how seriously you take that). Learn about your opponent's color theory, technique, or basing tips and become a better hobbyist. Learn how to be a better communicator, how to find common ground with them, how to calibrate your behavior to what they are responding to. Or just learn to be better at the game in whatever incremental way. I really feel that the breed of gamer who truly does not think of winning and losing at all is exceedingly rare. Most of us will try to win because the game tells us how to. It is a puzzle to be solved and human minds want to solve them. The level to which a win or loss affects us varies greatly, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's how we react that causes trouble. It can be tedious for a casual player to be ground to dust by someone who only cares about winning. It can equally tedious for a competitive player to spend several hours playing against someone not even trying to play the mission. However, if both players can just focus on getting better at something, they'll be operating on common ground even if the specific "something" is very different. You're getting better than you, so you can spare your opponent whatever gamer angst you'd otherwise lay at their feet.
  10. This a point I've wrestled with for many years because getting everyone on the same page is both impossible and a compelling goal. Games would feel so much more like games if everyone enjoyed then the same way. Attitude in game is the most important thing. Before a game, you have a chance to opt out. Whether it's a bad matchup, a personality conflict, or just completely different philosophies about what's fun, for the sake of everyone, just decline a game that you think will be a waste of time. However, once you have accepted a game with someone, you waive your right to then complain about their list, approach, whatever. You knew these things ahead of time and chose to play the game anyway. That's on you, not your opponent. Because the problem with "casual play" is it means different things to different people. How many suboptimal choices must I make before my list is considered casual? Is it a fixed number of inefficient choices or a percentage of my army? If I make too many suboptimal selections does it start to come across as patronizing? Is there a generally agreed upon ban list within my codex I'm expected to adhere to? It's all quite complicated. Because fundamentally when someone is asking to play a "casual game" what they're really saying is "if we play the game as it's designed, I won't enjoy myself. Therfore I would like you to play a version of the game that conforms to what I will enjoy." There's nothing wrong with that request, but there is something wrong with getting frustrated with someone not knowing what your desired version of 40k is. All that said, I think the biggest and most important innovation of the competitive scene within the last few years is the "playing by intent" standard. 40k is too big, too complicated, and too technical to play everything perfectly and, in my experience, the competitive crowd, has relaxed on expecting that. Allowing people to trigger things even though they technically missed a timing window, not forcing your opponent to kill models to re-establish coherency when they could've just moved one or two models differently and maintained it, and understanding when someone is trying to "unlock" obscuring ruins vs just trying to hide behind them. People are more forgiving and understanding now than they ever have been. And it makes sense too. If I'm playing a competitive game, I want to win because I played better, not because they made a small mistake and I wouldn't extend them any grace. I want to know if I can beat you when you're on your game, not if I can take advantage of a brain fart. The nice part of this is it gives you the freedom to be more open about what you're planning and your opponent is likely to let you know if there are any traps. Me: "I'm moving this squad to just outside an inch so I can move block you but not engage you." Opponent: "Remember, I've got a heroic intervention strat, so if you park there, I can still get you." Me: "Oh thanks for the heads up, I guess I'll park 3.1 inches away so you can't do that." Conversations like that happen constantly in tournaments I attend and the games are very fun and friendly as a result. Because it isn't the format or playstyle that dictates these things. It's the attitude. So I'd say 1) set expectations as clearly and honestly as possible. 2) stick to those expectations you set. 3) have a good attitude when the game starts regardless of how even the matchup is or isn't. In my experience, when bad interactions happen it's because one (but likely both) player(s) did not do one of or more of those 3 things.
  11. I agree! It was a very odd thing to add to a thread about plastic discs...
  12. I...what? I mean I know changing bases is frustrating and all so I can sympathize. I still have like 25 scourges to change...But what do base sizes have to do with public assistance? Are you too rich to care about base sizes? Or is it that only poor people have the free time to worry about base sizes? Or is it that the government checks are so lucrative that they can cover the cost of living, at least one warhammer army, and new bases when needed; whereas you, a person who can afford a multiple large armies, somehow doesn't have the income for new bases? Please explain, because it seems like you're consolidating multiple gripes that have nothing whatsoever to do with one another into a single stream of consciousness.
  13. Congrats on the tourney win. I'm looking at that Drukhari list and can't figure out for the life of me why it says 10CP in the list. Post FAQ, the Raiding Force (multiple patrols) no longer begins at 14 CP, they have 12 like anyone else. Drazhar is his warlord but he spent a CP on each of the other 2 characters to get them a WL trait, and 1 more to get a relic for the succubus. Or should have paid one more... the Triptych Whip is listed but the Prizes from the Dark City strat is not. Not sure how he managed that, because battlescribe won't allow a relic without the appropriate stratagem. Oddly though, he didn't take the free relic on the Archon either. You get one for him because he's in the same detachment as the warlord who can't take relics. Maybe he originally had Drazhar in the Cult of Strife detachment so the relic was free, then he moved Drazhar for some reason and didn't correct it? I dunno what happened, but as written, the list is illegal. The only thing needed to fix it is to move Drazhar into the wych cult detachment. Or pay an extra CP for the relic.
  14. Thanks for confirming. Related side note, at a tournament last weekend, I had an opponent fail a 1" charge against me for the first time ever. He was standing on a crater and charging off. He rolled a 5" originally, but wanted more to try to swing some extra models onto an objective to snag it from me. CP re-rolled into double 1s and had to sit in the crater and think about his choices. 😄
  15. I believe that you can only declare charges against units that are within 12", but you can still move whatever you roll. Not at home to double check that though.
×
×
  • Create New...