• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    341d 16h 58m 49s

Community Reputation

2254 Excellent

About Deep-Green-X

  • Rank
    Comlog Addict
  • Birthday 02/16/1986


  • Location Belfast Northern Ireland


  • ITS PIN G5759

Recent Profile Visitors

2,351 profile views
  1. Im asking since the atmosphere in here is getting more toxic than that in an outhouse the day after a bean supper. Case in point you've just assumed I want this buried when really I want a decision form higher up that can't be challenged. As much as I respect Ian and his rules knowledge he's not one of the CB staff (AFIK) and as such people will challenge his knowledge as I've seen you do on MANY occasions.
  2. @PsychoticStorm can you lock this thread until we get an FAQ or ruling from someone within CB? I don't see this going anywhere positive right now.
  3. This from the guy who moaned constantly about the plastics without having seen any decent photos and who wanted metal minis more than anything?
  4. Don't forget the extra cost on shipping, 8 metal minis might not seem that heavy to you or I but for shipping it's a world of difference.
  5. Nobody questions that luck plays a big part in the game as will any system using a quasi-random variable like dice. However where we differ in option is how luck and player agency balance with the Critical mechanics. I do not feel that the situations in the two games you referenced are the same. I'd like to explain why but as they are different games I need to make some generalisations in order to make a comparison. Let's assume for sake that the two games were functionally identical, same players, armies, terrain and general strategy. In Game A you lost all your units due to failing ARM rolls while in Game B you lost them due to your opponent rolling Criticals. (Again big generalisarions, this wouldn't be the case in a normal game) The difference between the two games is that: In Game A you had an opportunity to roll ARM saves (and I'm assuming your dice were counted in the ftf rolls which reduced the number of saves you had to make) which you had a probability of succeeding at due to your choice of unit (ARM value) and their position when the ftf roll occurred (Cover bonus to ARM). They had a >0% probability of passing their ARM save and continuing as an active unit. In Game B you didn't have the opportunity to roll ARM saves (also the number of saves you need to make is presumably greater due to the Critical effect on ftf rolls) and your choice of unit (ARM value) and their position when the ftf roll occurred (Cover bonus to ARM) was irrelevant. They had a 0% chance of continuing to act as an active unit. The difference between having a 0% chance and a >0% chance is also the difference between your actions as a player, your player agency, counting or not within the game. The whole issue of Criticals IMHO boils down to player agency being reflected within gameplay or not. In Game A you had player agency, the result may have been the same but your probability of changing the outcome of those ARM rolls was directly related to the choices you made as the player. In Game B you had no player agency, the result was the same but your probability of changing the outcome is 0% since you never got to make those ARM rolls and your so your choices are irrelevant. There are many more factors in this and I've only touched the difference in the ftf rolls and resolution between the games. However the point Im trying to get across is that loosing due to failing tests within a probability range and loosing due to that probability being 0% are not the same.
  6. @PsychoticStorm take it to the bridge.
  7. Thats really up to the TO if it's in a tournament setting. While not against the rules as written it could be argued that it's against the rules in spirit. So a TO may request that such behaviour not take place at their event. For casual games it really depends on the person. I'd not do it but I'm not going to deny a game to someone who wishes to do it. I think there needs to be a distinction between the different types of app that players can use in a game as aids. For example there's the excellent hacking helper program that I use all the time to make choosing a program easier and for remembering what each device does. It also provides all the booty charts etc. There's also programs that help you track your orders and remind you of time played which are fine aids for play. I think those programs are separate from those that would use a phone camera to estimate distance on the table or one which predicts what the opponents LT or cammo markers are. The difference being the former are providing knowledge which is freely available within the rules in a more accessible context while the latter are giving access to information which would normally be prohibited within the context of an active game.
  8. I don't agree with using an app to try and guess your opponents list composition. To me it just feels wrong and is allot closer to cheating than I'm comfortable with. The curtesy list exists for a reason, anything beyond that is down to the skill and experience of the player which ought to count for something. id put it in the same category as premeasuring.
  9. This is exactly what I was suggesting in the discussion topic that was closed. Just saying an idea is "bad" or "wrong" without suggesting alternatives or engagement in actual analysis based criticism is not going to dive the discussion anywhere but into the gutter. You can have great points and insight but if you put them across like an asshat nobody is going to want to engage with you.
  10. I don't know if it's worth us bringing up anecdotal evidence around the influence of Crits in our games. I mentioned the Mayacast stuff because it's interesting and relevant to the topic at hand but I wouldn't count it as hard evidence of anything. Personally I've lost plenty of games due to Crits and won others by the same means. I remember the losses more than the wins though nether feels as good as a win or loss without them. Any idea when a new poll or discussion topic will be going up? Yeah I've been pulled into this before and all it does is get topics closed. If you see bad behaviour report it to @PsychoticStorm and don't engage back
  11. @PsychoticStorm
  12. Just as an aside and because I found it interesting. I'm catching up on Mayacast episodes after missing a few over the summer and last night listed to their "Final Burn" report on the last tournament of the summer. The number of times they mentioned Critical hits as being decisive in their tournament games and the frequency with which they occurred I found to be very interesting. They also have a friend and contributor Lewis who jokes that a valid tactic for winning games is to roll more Criticals, I think he's only half joking with that. In any discussion of Critical frequency would it be worth looking at any previous tournaments where data is available and seeing how often Criticals occurred and how it impacted final positioning? I know Ian has done it for several of his events in the past and there was a definite corillation but I'd like to see some more recent data hopefully before and after FAT LV 2 entered the game.
  13. A move to plastic can work for a range but it's not always smooth sailing. From the examples you quoted. Warmahordes didn't have stellar minis to begin with (IMHO) and some of their initial attempts at plastic were pretty dire. The game survived to be sure but from my experience Warmahordes players are all about the rules and system, the minis are very much a secondary concern behind gameplay. Malifaux required an entire redesign of the range from the ground up. Wyrd have done some stellar work with their plastics to the point where I think they've surpassed GW. The only issue I have is the required complexity of the assembly to match what they want from detail leads to some madly fiddlily assembly, 11 parts for one human sized mini... Steamforged are an interesting case and one worth using for comparison. They started as all metal but have just released 2 fully plastic (PVC) teams Farmers and Engineers. The latter two teams have a slightly different asthetic to the older teams which facilitates their easier production in plastic. The older teams are still available in metal and probability will be for the foreseeable future as Steamforged dont feel they can successfully recast them in PVC. The very interesting part are two of the teams that appeared in the Kickoff Starter set. These teams (Brewers and Masons) were previously metal minis remade in coloured PVC. The comparison between the metal and PVC versions shows they are very similar but small changes were made to facilitate easier casting in PVC. In addition (and here's where it's relevant to Aristea) the kickoff minis are preassembled in China after casting from multiple parts, this means that the minis have allot of detail and dynamic poses for PVC minis since they don't have to be single piece casts. Having seen the Guild Ball plastics, the bare metal Aristea sculpts and looking at the Aristea mini previews I highly suspect CB have used the same manufacturer as Steamforged and have gone through a similar process. If they have I guarantee you that apart from some small flash issues the Aristea minis will be very high quality and you might be hard pressed to tell a primed PVC mini from a primed metal one.
  14. Not that I disagree with you about metals but Rackham went down mostly due to AT-43 and pre-paints. The industry wasn't ready for pre-paints yet and not until a seriously strong IP like X-Wing came along.
  15. Frequently of Criticals only arose as an aspect of the Fatality LV 2 discussion since this is first skill to give a constant percentage increase to the probability of Criticals occurring. Other skills like Martial Arts and Beserk also increased Critical probability but it's only for CC, is highly based on the CC skill and suitability of the unit and in the case of Beserk comes with associated risk by making both rolls normal. It was the increased probability and hence frequently of Criticals through Fatality LV 2 that brought them back into discussion (again) I personally think there's an underlying issue with the strength of Criticals and their relationship to player agency/interaction that exists outside of their frequently but for many people those two are intimately tied. @Section 9 is absolutely right about how difficult it is to write questions for polls. Even my suggestion of the word "good" in a very basic two option question can be interpreted in a way I had no intention of it being. I would suggest that any poll with two many options becomes confusing and it's hard to make judgements when the difference between so options is narrow in a single vote option poll. If there was a poll asking for opinions on specific suggestions for changes (weaker, stronger, more frequent, less frequent) it should have the option to vote on more than one since I think there are many posters who would have a favourite suggestion from a list but would accept other Ines as well.