Zingbaby is a crybaby, and a tool. I don't know what his dysfunction is, but he's amusing me no end over on BoLS. I figured best to quote my own brilliance *bows* here, since it's so rare that I would be ardently defending a BoLS'er, let alone most of them. El oh el, these things happen. Not that they need it, from a scrote like this, but, hey, it's funny, no?
Showing posts with label BoLS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BoLS. Show all posts
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
As part of my attempts to highlight things of particular note amongst the community - BoLS' turn!
This is quite simply the best article I have ever read on BoLS. Do I completely agree? No - I think mention should have been made that 1 Troop for every 500 points is a good rule of thumb.
Thursday, 18 March 2010
I Can Has Cheating?
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2010/03/40k-tactics-metagame-expect-unexpected.html
Very funny discussion. Many many cookies to a bunch of folks, but Chumbyala is currently winning the internet, in my mind. I'd like to think I'm pretty close behind...coming in last is elbrop. Nah, he's not last. The article author is the only one who fails at playing fair AND at replying to comments.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Credit where credit's due.
I just read the following BoLS article:
...and I have to say I was kinda impressed. This is a far cry from some of the bullshit they've turned out in the past, and even recently. Well done.
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Setting up a Space Wolves FAQ...
Any questions?
Seriously.
lol
I'm going to do my own, rather than wait 6 months + for GW, or rely on dubious quality from other people. Obviously, I'm going to use my FAQ, but while I don't expect you to necessarily use it, anyone is welcome to do so. Finally, I intend to provide two answers to each question, where applicable - a Strict RaW answer, and a Common Sense answer...if they don't clash, only one will be presented, but quite often they will...you know GW. ;)
You can submit in the usual ways;
PM me on Heresy/Dakka/BoLS Lounge/Rules Lawyers Forum (I don't check ATT, Ammo Bunker, Astro or Warseer enough, tbh.)
Email me: Mindwar_ftw@hotmail.com
Post here.
Pigeon post.
Thanks for your contributions guys!
Seriously.
lol
I'm going to do my own, rather than wait 6 months + for GW, or rely on dubious quality from other people. Obviously, I'm going to use my FAQ, but while I don't expect you to necessarily use it, anyone is welcome to do so. Finally, I intend to provide two answers to each question, where applicable - a Strict RaW answer, and a Common Sense answer...if they don't clash, only one will be presented, but quite often they will...you know GW. ;)
You can submit in the usual ways;
PM me on Heresy/Dakka/BoLS Lounge/Rules Lawyers Forum (I don't check ATT, Ammo Bunker, Astro or Warseer enough, tbh.)
Email me: Mindwar_ftw@hotmail.com
Post here.
Pigeon post.
Thanks for your contributions guys!
Thursday, 13 August 2009
WTF???
My comment on BoLS is awaiting approval by a moderator. So, fuck that shit, here it is.
First, BlackSly's bollocks:
"Again, it sounds like bollocks to you because you haven't the brain to comprehend that
1) a game designer has to balance points
2) even if you consider several balancing features, such as defensive ability (points lost per enemy point shooting at you), offensive ability (points removed from the enemy in a shooting phase per point spent on the unit), mobility, transport available, etc... you still calculate each feature separately. Only a fool designer would balance units based ONLY on a defense-vs-S4-weapons calculations, but it would be a stupid one who gave that calculation no weight at all.
3) I didn't say that Immortals were better than Terminators as a unit. If I were to do that, I'd have to run calculation on defense vs all types of weapons (BTW, I have), in and out of cover. And I'd have to do a separate analysis for melee, because in melee you can lose the entire unit if you lose 3 to 0. And I'd have to run offensive calculation vs AV10 to AV14 units, plus infantry units of T3 and T4, and armor saves of 3+ to 5+. And I'd have to factor in their movement (similar), and their movement options (Land Raiders and Deep Strikes vs Monoliths). And if we were comparing other units, I'd have to mention different ranges. Which is why I specifically said only that, as an example, vs S4 weapons, they compare as such, rather than saying "Immortals are tougher than Terminators in all cases, and here is an single example of a situation to show how they are tougher".
All in all, comparing units in all their abilities with just calculations is a ridiculously complex task, which is why I doubt any designer does it. However, failing to use ANY calculations when considering units is just stupid, and I'm sure no professional designer suffers abject design fail by saying "talking about points lost per shot/kill is worthless".
Is points lost, or points killed the only barometer of a unit's worth? Obviously not, if you can have one unit of Troops that performs 10% worse than an Elite unit in all the categories... but most players would prefer to field the Troops since it can capture objectives. But it's just downright ignorant to ignore a unit's killiness, or resistance to being killed, just because one single measure point cannot completely measure a unit's true worth."
And, my response - what I can recall of it, anyway.
You make me LOL, retard.
The Games Designers are inherently lazy with their points values - if you don't believe me, pick up a copy of the 2nd, 3rd, and current Eldar Codicies, and see for yourself how few points costs have significantly changed. Is it possible that Rick Priestly got them so perfectly balanced first time around that they are perfect across 3 Editions of the game? Fuck off.
Trying to compare an ancient Codex with today's 5th Ed ones is too stupid for words. The Necron Codex was written for a completely different ruleset, when Foot Armies were competitive, and C'Tan were cool. Thinking that the points have any realistic bearing on what they would be were the Codex written a year ago is so fucking stupid, I wonder if people have to remind you to breathe.
We all are painfully aware that points values are only internally balanced at all, with no regard to the other Codexes in production, or already in print. We also, except you somehow, are aware that units are deliberaltely undercosted in order to promote sales of that particular product. It's a marketing ploy, that is far more important than any pathetic notions of creating a balanced game you seem to have engendered.
Attempting to calculate points lost from an enemy by your shooting is literally the stupidest calculation I've ever heard of. Pythagoras has more fucking relevance to real life. Literally, working that out for every unit in the game...If you've done that, you need a fucking life.
I love the way you ignore Chaos Theory too. LOL.
Anyway, while you sit in your mom's basement, playing with your numbers, and your penis, I'm off to enjoy the sunshine.
Moron.
(Admittedly, that's longer, because I had to type it from scratch.)
First, BlackSly's bollocks:
"Again, it sounds like bollocks to you because you haven't the brain to comprehend that
1) a game designer has to balance points
2) even if you consider several balancing features, such as defensive ability (points lost per enemy point shooting at you), offensive ability (points removed from the enemy in a shooting phase per point spent on the unit), mobility, transport available, etc... you still calculate each feature separately. Only a fool designer would balance units based ONLY on a defense-vs-S4-weapons calculations, but it would be a stupid one who gave that calculation no weight at all.
3) I didn't say that Immortals were better than Terminators as a unit. If I were to do that, I'd have to run calculation on defense vs all types of weapons (BTW, I have), in and out of cover. And I'd have to do a separate analysis for melee, because in melee you can lose the entire unit if you lose 3 to 0. And I'd have to run offensive calculation vs AV10 to AV14 units, plus infantry units of T3 and T4, and armor saves of 3+ to 5+. And I'd have to factor in their movement (similar), and their movement options (Land Raiders and Deep Strikes vs Monoliths). And if we were comparing other units, I'd have to mention different ranges. Which is why I specifically said only that, as an example, vs S4 weapons, they compare as such, rather than saying "Immortals are tougher than Terminators in all cases, and here is an single example of a situation to show how they are tougher".
All in all, comparing units in all their abilities with just calculations is a ridiculously complex task, which is why I doubt any designer does it. However, failing to use ANY calculations when considering units is just stupid, and I'm sure no professional designer suffers abject design fail by saying "talking about points lost per shot/kill is worthless".
Is points lost, or points killed the only barometer of a unit's worth? Obviously not, if you can have one unit of Troops that performs 10% worse than an Elite unit in all the categories... but most players would prefer to field the Troops since it can capture objectives. But it's just downright ignorant to ignore a unit's killiness, or resistance to being killed, just because one single measure point cannot completely measure a unit's true worth."
And, my response - what I can recall of it, anyway.
You make me LOL, retard.
The Games Designers are inherently lazy with their points values - if you don't believe me, pick up a copy of the 2nd, 3rd, and current Eldar Codicies, and see for yourself how few points costs have significantly changed. Is it possible that Rick Priestly got them so perfectly balanced first time around that they are perfect across 3 Editions of the game? Fuck off.
Trying to compare an ancient Codex with today's 5th Ed ones is too stupid for words. The Necron Codex was written for a completely different ruleset, when Foot Armies were competitive, and C'Tan were cool. Thinking that the points have any realistic bearing on what they would be were the Codex written a year ago is so fucking stupid, I wonder if people have to remind you to breathe.
We all are painfully aware that points values are only internally balanced at all, with no regard to the other Codexes in production, or already in print. We also, except you somehow, are aware that units are deliberaltely undercosted in order to promote sales of that particular product. It's a marketing ploy, that is far more important than any pathetic notions of creating a balanced game you seem to have engendered.
Attempting to calculate points lost from an enemy by your shooting is literally the stupidest calculation I've ever heard of. Pythagoras has more fucking relevance to real life. Literally, working that out for every unit in the game...If you've done that, you need a fucking life.
I love the way you ignore Chaos Theory too. LOL.
Anyway, while you sit in your mom's basement, playing with your numbers, and your penis, I'm off to enjoy the sunshine.
Moron.
(Admittedly, that's longer, because I had to type it from scratch.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)