| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
| | Author | Messages | |
Knight of the
Round Table
Thenameless
Warlord
11730 Posts
    
The Fortress of Solitude
 | | 11/10/2005 12:08 AM |
| I actually agree with Gnolaum on the save=10 issue. I admit to favouring the huge minis so take my opinion with a grain of salt. The problem certainly isn't in 200 point play. The problem really lies in what multiple Beholders can do to a warband that relies on a save=10 huge to anchor its team.
Yes, one can argue that all warbands have their bad matchups. But this is not exactly the case with the huge creatures from GOL. Aside from the Nightwalker, which looks almost perfect against Beholders, all of the huge creatures have a bad matchup against multiple Beholders.
How would you feel about the removal of save=10 from huge creatures in GOL? Fairly simple, and it seems like it would even up the playing field in extreme/epic battles. | |
Over 270 successful online DDM trades. | |
|
md3
Sergeant
702 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 1:20 AM |
| This looks fun.
Ok, I want to start of stating that Save=10 is not fun to play when there are other lower leveled and now Epic leveled figures running around.
Now for plausability, Save=10 on moral saves makes a bit of sense based on RPG. How do you think that HUGE Red got to be so HUGE, by taking a few hits, seeing all is loss and flying the hell out of there before he dies. Remember that rule about living to fight another day.
Anyway, I think that some DCs get out of hand when the biggest baddest figures in the game end up with a greater % chance of failing.
We know the designers were trying to simplify the game with the Huge Red and Gold and a few others by giving their opponents a chance albeit slim that they would rout or fail a saving throw. I hated seeing a Huge Red fly off the board. I hated seeing a Cloud Giant die from a DeathBlow. I hate seeing the Storm Giant take a burning from the HRD or HGD, but it happens. I just wish the Save or Die rolls were more inline with the DC and the Save. For example, the new Death Slaad Save or Die has a good DC, and so does the Beholder's Flesh to Stone.
Why did the designers deviate from the Mummy Lord's Save or Die? At least the Fomorian would have a chance until he was below 35 hp. Maybe the Save or Die spells should have caps, like disintegrate caps at 60.... didn't disintegrate use to disintegrate? Anyway the Saves should be appropriate for the creature. I just saw a Death Slaad at a prerelease kill an unharmed (excpet by the first hit of the Death Slaad) Balor. It really was a single bad roll by the player, but the Balor has Save=10, similar to most Huge. To make the game fun, there should be some sort of restriction.
Personally, I like the idea of new cards. Call them EPIC or whatever. I really want to see my investment in Drider figures with a new Drider card. Why retire the figure, the figure didn't do anything wrong, the darn card did.
Anyway, that is my 17 cents. | |
"You are not the sum of your miniatures."
| |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 10:51 AM |
| I've put together the responses so far (since my post). This involved a little guesswork on my part, so if I read your position wrong, or if your position was so ambiguous that I didn't count you, feel free to post again.
save=10 is a problem: 5
Gnolaum
Bert the Troll
Wraith
thenameless
md3
save=10 is not a problem: 3
Felagund
psistef
Pauper
Current respondends who feel save=10 is a problem: 62.5% | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
| 
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| |
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 11:56 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Not to nitpick but I think the real question is whether or not it is a problem ... it is whether or not it is a problem worth the trouble to fix.
It bugs me at a basic level that the HGD has save=10, but I don't advocate a change to save=10 as a whole. I don't think it is enough of a problem to require a full change.
I'm about here, too. Save=10 may not have been the best solution to saves getting too high, but changing it causes more problems than it is worth at this point. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 11:58 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I've put together the responses so far (since my post). This involved a little guesswork on my part, so if I read your position wrong, or if your position was so ambiguous that I didn't count you, feel free to post again.
save=10 is a problem: 5
Gnolaum
Bert the Troll
Wraith
thenameless
md3
save=10 is not a problem: 3
Felagund
psistef
Pauper
Current respondends who feel save=10 is a problem: 62.5%
You must have put me on your ignore list, as I'm pretty sure I had made my 'side' clear. [:D] I'm not for changing it at this point. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Gunthar
Commander
2938 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 11:58 AM |
| Save 10 doesn't bother me. Anyone who has played around me knows I can fail a save at 16 just as easily as a save at 10. And you know what, it sucks, but that's the dice. It's not worth putzing with, especially since GoL is supposedly getting harder to find. Should new players not get to be competitive in 500-point play?
Titan builds have issues in 200-pont play too. Look at the Mounted Paladin. That's a problem inherent in the build if it goes down and teh chance you take. | |
Champion of Prit(Wemic vindication is here)
Minneapolis/St. Paul area
Completed trades: Aspect of Cheese (Love that moniker), Tickparasite, Elderthing, Lalato, Sodj, Grimoire, SmilinIrish, Zeb, RWarehall,Link, wikkawikkawa, Auramancer, Rommers, HK, Ivid5,Qillan_dvra, Puggins, Arcabius, Ironfist Boulderbender, Robby, Corim Danex, monster_slayer, DNDJUNKIE, Kelemvor, Krush, ckissee, Massawyrm, hockey fan, Wish, Uninspiring Lieutenant, vtloon x2, Vrecknidj, Darthpoke, WakeXX, AnarionZell, lycusmike, papabear5 and umpteen local trades with board members
| |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 12:19 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
It's also not really that much an overhaul to remove one set of critea of a easily identified group.
From the outside, it may not seem like it is. But it's not like Shoe can just show up to work in the morning, decide to drop the Save 10 rule, and have the changes on the website by lunch. I imagine there would a lot of playtesting that goes on, a lot of discussion, and then the process of implementation. And these guys are busy! Did you know they're required to surf the forums for several hours a day? [:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
They have shown that they will change rules though. And didnt they change one mini, a kobold or something? Guy's clarification & offical errata page shows almost twnety additions/subtractions to the wording of abilities (eg Drow cleric doesnt state negative damage on card, Halfling Wizard casts spells not special abilkities despite whats on the card).
These minis weren't really changed. They were clarified. Which is to say that the way the designers intended for them to be was unclear or in error with the original card. They have never changed a mini from what they intended it to be to something else.quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
The designers dont throw everything RPG out when they design mins either. I cant easily imagine them making a CE dwalf that has more spells than Elminster. Or a golem that is a commander. etc.
They try for a balance of both.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Bert the Troll
Also imo, "not worth the points" = not playable is only true for the hardline tier one players. I play with plenty of bands thay include figures that are playable but not worth thier points.
So if you're using these figures anyway, can you really justify the effort it would take to change things? | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 12:43 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
Not to nitpick but I think the real question is whether or not it is a problem ... it is whether or not it is a problem worth the trouble to fix.
It bugs me at a basic level that the HGD has save=10, but I don't advocate a change to save=10 as a whole. I don't think it is enough of a problem to require a full change.
The question I'm asking at this point, is if it is a problem. The fixing part will come later. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 12:46 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
You must have put me on your ignore list, as I'm pretty sure I had made my 'side' clear. [:D] I'm not for changing it at this point.
Nope, you just havn't posted since I asked the question. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 1:58 PM |
| Gnolaum - the reason I voted no is that whereas it is odd to me that save=10 exists that is the game. I also find it odd that the Ochre Jelly is affected by stench, the Blue Wyrmling is not immune to electricity and that Troglodytes smell better as zombies. I also want the Large Blue Dragon be more competitive and the Human Cleric of Bane to not be the default "this mini is sooooo poorly costed" stepchild.
Problem is a tricky word. It's basically just a basic mechanic of the game, similar to being able to fly over walls in a dungeon. Doesn't make lots of RPG-sense, but that's the game.
I would not be opposed to re-printing new versions of the stat cards for ANY figure. That still doesn't guarantee that the figure will be part of a tier-1 build. | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 2:58 PM |
| I have seen several references to making Epic cards for Huge figures. That makes sense for some. Not so much for others. To make a figure Epic, one would have to increase its point cost. To just alter the figure, or adjust up slightly is alterations/fixes/adjustments, not Epic versions. Given that Artemis has the lowest normal to Epic ratio at 2.42 and Rikka has the highest at 4.61, here is what Huges would have to look like:
Name Cost Low Epic High Epic
Huge Gold Dragon 291 704 1342
Cloud Giant 287 695 1323
Storm Giant 278 673 1282
Treant 44 106 203
Warforged Titan 151 365 696
Behir 75 182 346
Bulette 57 138 263
Fiendish Tyranno 122 295 562
Fomorian 119 288 549
Glabrezu 269 651 1240
Huge Red Dragon 216 523 996
Nightwalker 393 951 1812
Granted, this is only based off of ratios of what we have seen them do to take a figure and turn them Epic. But this gives you an idea of what would be required to make Epic versions of Huges.
| |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
IanB
Commander
3112 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:01 PM |
| quote:
And that is covered by the answers to their questions (yes/no).
So you don't think there's any value in actual discussion of the factors that might make it a problem?
My vote is that it is not a problem, since you're counting. | |
Anson on WotC boards | |
|
Pauper
Sergeant
508 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:06 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
Granted, this is only based off of ratios of what we have seen them do to take a figure and turn them Epic. But this gives you an idea of what would be required to make Epic versions of Huges.
Interesting (and humorous) point.
I'll still stand by the idea, though, that since the huges were designed for 500 point play (huge creatures aren't even legal in other, lower-cost environments), that the cards we have for them are the epic cards.
Given that there have been persistent rumors that Wardrums will have huge figures (probably fueled by the popularity of huges in the last SWM expansion), it'll be interesting to see what they decide to do with these new huges vis-a-vis the old huges. Will we see some reprints a-la the Loyal Earth Elemental vs the Large Earth Elemental? Perhaps. That's probably the best long-term solution, irritating only those folks who spent $50+ on the secondary market to get their Huge Red or Huge Gold.
--
Pauper | |
Champion of the War Wizard of Cormyr | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:11 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Pauper
Interesting (and humorous) point.
I'll still stand by the idea, though, that since the huges were designed for 500 point play (huge creatures aren't even legal in other, lower-cost environments), that the cards we have for them are the epic cards.
Given that there have been persistent rumors that Wardrums will have huge figures (probably fueled by the popularity of huges in the last SWM expansion), it'll be interesting to see what they decide to do with these new huges vis-a-vis the old huges. Will we see some reprints a-la the Loyal Earth Elemental vs the Large Earth Elemental? Perhaps. That's probably the best long-term solution, irritating only those folks who spent $50+ on the secondary market to get their Huge Red or Huge Gold.
--
Pauper
Thank you. That was a big part of my point. That Huges are 'Epic' already.
I hadn't seen the rumors about Wardrums having Huges. The impression I got from Gen Con was that we would probably see Huges next year, just not early next year. Of course, that memory is now feeling lie it is being confused with clear plastic... | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:31 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I hadn't seen the rumors about Wardrums having Huges. The impression I got from Gen Con was that we would probably see Huges next year, just not early next year. Of course, that memory is now feeling lie it is being confused with clear plastic...
This is what I remember as well, that we could expect huges at the end of 2006. Also, I believe that they specifically said that there would not be epic cards for the huges, for the same reason you just pointed out (they already are epic). | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:42 PM |
| I find it interesting that here the majority of the respondents to my poll have said there is no problem, and on the WotC site, the majority have said yes.
Different audiences, different votes, I find it interesting.
I also find it interesting that after Fenris chose 1D (the option that I would think most people who choose 2 would have chosen if they read the entire post), the next bunch of people also choose. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 3:55 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I find it interesting that here the majority of the respondents to my poll have said there is no problem, and on the WotC site, the majority have said yes.
Different audiences, different votes, I find it interesting.
I also find it interesting that after Fenris chose 1D (the option that I would think most people who choose 2 would have chosen if they read the entire post), the next bunch of people also choose.
I was thinking the same thing about the voting difference between the boards. I was also wondering if Sith would shut it down, seeing as how polls aren't technically allowed on the WotC boards.
I thought about picking 1D, as it was so close to 2 in my thinking. To me, a problem that isn't worth fixing (1d) isn't really a problem at all (2), it's just an annoyance. In the end, I think that both things say more or less the same thing. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 4:08 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I find it interesting that here the majority of the respondents to my poll have said there is no problem, and on the WotC site, the majority have said yes.
Different audiences, different votes, I find it interesting.
I also find it interesting that after Fenris chose 1D (the option that I would think most people who choose 2 would have chosen if they read the entire post), the next bunch of people also choose.
I wonder what the response is from ... more serious OP Tournament players ... and others. IE, do the hardcore types lean in one direction or another? | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 4:09 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I find it interesting that here the majority of the respondents to my poll have said there is no problem, and on the WotC site, the majority have said yes.
Different audiences, different votes, I find it interesting.
I also find it interesting that after Fenris chose 1D (the option that I would think most people who choose 2 would have chosen if they read the entire post), the next bunch of people also choose.
I was thinking the same thing about the voting difference between the boards. I was also wondering if Sith would shut it down, seeing as how polls aren't technically allowed on the WotC boards.
I thought about picking 1D, as it was so close to 2 in my thinking. To me, a problem that isn't worth fixing (1d) isn't really a problem at all (2), it's just an annoyance. In the end, I think that both things say more or less the same thing.
And that's my thought as well ... | |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 4:17 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by ChristopherGroves
I wonder what the response is from ... more serious OP Tournament players ... and others. IE, do the hardcore types lean in one direction or another?
This may be just bias on my part, but it seems to me as though the more serious players seem to be voting 2 or 1d. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Balduran I
Sergeant
404 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 7:01 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I find it interesting that here the majority of the respondents to my poll have said there is no problem, and on the WotC site, the majority have said yes.
Unless I'm missing a thread, the lack of 'no' on the WotC board is simply respect for your original post. You said that those of us who don't see a problem (or see something that is too marginal to demand a fix), shouldn't post at all. So I didn't. | |
| |
|
John05
Warrior
246 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 7:46 PM |
| I'm a relatively new player, and I normally don't respond on these boards, but this thread got me thinking because it's not a typical thread about warbands and skirmish.
I didn't think of it as that much of a problem at first, but... it would be kind of cool if the cheaper huge minis had slightly higher saves that they'd be competitive.
I am a bit biased though, because I tried once putting together a relatively "cheap" band with King Snurre + 2 Fomorians. They got taken out in a round or two by just two beholders (plus Dark Naga) [:(]. Now, my opponent was gracious enough to tell me I didn't make many mistakes (I like to think so too [:)] ), and that I just had really bad dice rolls.
So, admittedly, that colored my view about this Save=10.
The game before that, a friend had played him with a Huge Gold Dragon band, and won by spearheading his warband with Large Silver Dragon (who has a nice save of 16). So obviously, Huge Gold Dragon can be played even with the Save=10 disadvantage.
It doesn't bother me much anymore, since my collection of figures is starting to grow, and I have my own beholders now, but then it would have been nice to have been able to build a cheaper 500 pt warband without being forced to spend too much. [xx(]
It's not that much of a problem now (that I've been spending more money on DDM), but I can see why some people would want the uncommon huge minis to be more competitive to offset the fact that 500 pt warbands are a significant monetary investment... and as a student, I should really stop spending so much. It's been a while since I've been working. | |
| |
|
Kithmaker
Commander
3926 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 10:07 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
I have seen several references to making Epic cards for Huge figures. That makes sense for some. Not so much for others. To make a figure Epic, one would have to increase its point cost. To just alter the figure, or adjust up slightly is alterations/fixes/adjustments, not Epic versions. Given that Artemis has the lowest normal to Epic ratio at 2.42 and Rikka has the highest at 4.61, here is what Huges would have to look like:
Name Cost Low Epic High Epic
Huge Gold Dragon 291 704 1342
Cloud Giant 287 695 1323
Storm Giant 278 673 1282
Treant 44 106 203
Warforged Titan 151 365 696
Behir 75 182 346
Bulette 57 138 263
Fiendish Tyranno 122 295 562
Fomorian 119 288 549
Glabrezu 269 651 1240
Huge Red Dragon 216 523 996
Nightwalker 393 951 1812
Granted, this is only based off of ratios of what we have seen them do to take a figure and turn them Epic. But this gives you an idea of what would be required to make Epic versions of Huges.
It's already been said, but the Huges are already Epic. The format was and still is 500 points, and that's what they were designed for. Only the name has changed from "Extreme" to "Epic." They're still costed properly for 500-point play. Except the new pieces don't have save=10.
| |
My H/W list is not current...
Trade Reference List
OLD Trade references (191) | |
|
sienar
Sergeant
640 Posts
| | 11/10/2005 10:35 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Kithmaker
It's already been said, but the Huges are already Epic. The format was and still is 500 points, and that's what they were designed for. Only the name has changed from "Extreme" to "Epic." They're still costed properly for 500-point play. Except the new pieces don't have save=10.
Right. That IS my point. I was tired of so many calls for Epic cards as a fix for this purported problem. The new monthy kits are to give us Epic versions of figures, not to fix purported problems in already Epic figures. | |
[http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user_id=22] | |
|
Wrackspawn
ChristopherGroves
Warlord
6093 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 10:02 AM |
| So anyone want my solution to this problem?
I'm beginning to suspect that most of the frequent tournament players are voting 1d/2 ... clearly the need and desire to change things isn't really focused on organized play and sanctioned events. Casual play though ... that is an area that can easily be modified.
Some person in the community starts working with others in the community to produce Bob's New Stat Cards for Casual Play. You add immune electricity to the Blue Wyrmling, change around the saves of the figures you want to modify (as well as their points I'm hoping) ... heck maybe even come up with Bob's Casual Play Drider where you make it not as exceedingly painful as it is now. You could make the Human Cleric of Bane useful, etc. Make the cards look similar but be easily recognizable as NOT official ... maybe green or black and yellow ... not a color combination already in use.
So, shove them on your own website somewhere and let folks download them. Then for casual play you can use those cards ... it's like playing w/ one-eyed jacks or jokers as wild cards in poker. Heck, I've got some file space I could donate if folks wanted to send things to me (but I'm sure others do as well).
| |
Triangle DDM Skirmish Group | My Email | 45-ish trades and counting | Stuff for Trade
* * * Show your brother some love and click here * * * | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 11:15 AM |
| Preliminary results (will post final results Monday morning in another thread).
Anyway here are the results combined from the WotC, and Maxminis boards (if you are interested WotC boards gave yes a landslide win, while on the Maxminis boards it is a dead heat)
Results (69 respondents so far):
Yes save=10 is a problem: 64%
No save=10 is not a problem: 36%
Of those who responded yes it is a problem, here is how the posible solution breakdown was:
Remove save=10: 43%
Issue Epic Cards: 24%
Complex formula to replace save=10: 7%
Not worth fixing: 26%
| |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Puggins
Sergeant
622 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 11:45 AM |
| quote:
Originally posted by sienar
Right. That IS my point. I was tired of so many calls for Epic cards as a fix for this purported problem. The new monthy kits are to give us Epic versions of figures, not to fix purported problems in already Epic figures.
Well, sure, but there's only going to be so many figures that can have epic stats before things get silly- somehow I doubt that an Epic Snig would be more desirable than a recosted HRD/HGS without save=10.
This seems to be the ideal solution, at least in my eyes- put out Epic cards for some of the usual suspects, then intersperse the next few with Epic cards of the Huges without the save=10 rule. Which, incidentally, will cost substantially more, and will thus be used even less than they are today.
I think at least one person made an observation that got buried under a mountain of argument- a significant number of Huges see quite a bit of regular play in the extreme format. If the huges were so inferior because of the save=10 rule you would see most competitive extreme warbands not using any of the huges, and yet the Storm Giant, Nightwalker and Huge Gold Dragon all see extremely regular play, and several of the others are also occasionally seen. That means that AT least 25% of the huges are considered worthy skirmishers. I'm not so sure that the non-huges approach that percentage.
That tells me that the save=10 rule is not broken, it's merely clunky, which are two entirely different situations. If save=10 were broken, then maybe more radical action might be necessary, but it's merely an artifact of the past that most people wouldn't mind going away. So why not just come out with rebalanced figures when the Epic-able miniatures start running low? | |
References: http://www.maxminis.com/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7231 | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 11:49 AM |
| So if I'm reading your results correctly, that means that 52% have voted for "no change" (2 or 1d).
I think Christopher Groves' solution is a good one for those who have problems with save=10. In fact, I know the guys at www.theminiaturepage.net are already changing old stats to come up with a playable version of every figure. Last I checked, they were still on Harbinger. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Gnolaum
Sergeant
854 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 1:07 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Felagund
So if I'm reading your results correctly, that means that 52% have voted for "no change" (2 or 1d).
It is true that 52% percent either voted for 'no there is no problem', or 'yes there is a problem, but it's not worth fixing'. So you could interpret that and say nothing should be done.
Even if you chose to interpret it that way, I think it shows that there is a real problem when 64% feel there is a problem, even if only 48% prefer one of the solutions we can think of.
I disagree that it is only the casual players who have a problem with this. Casual players have no need to follow the tournament rules. If I was a casual player, and saw that some particular rule was stupid, I wouldn't need someone on a message board to tell me to come up with my own rule. | |
My online store http://store.hoardsters.com
Use quick search to see scans of every stat card! | |
|
Felagund
Sergeant
922 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 1:18 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Gnolaum
I disagree that it is only the casual players who have a problem with this. Casual players have no need to follow the tournament rules. If I was a casual player, and saw that some particular rule was stupid, I wouldn't need someone on a message board to tell me to come up with my own rule.
The reason I feel like the problem seems to be more of a concern among the casual players is that every player I recognize from the national championships has voted either 2 or 1d. Granted that there may be some usernames I don't recognize, and that these players aren't the only serious players out there. But they do represent a considerable amount of playing experience.
It was also noted that the Maxminis voters tended towards 2 or 1d while the WotC voters were mostly voting 1a-1c. I feel like Maxminis tends to represent a more experienced group of players (on average) than the Wizards boards. | |
Champion of Gnomes | |
|
Feathers
Underboss
1140 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 1:50 PM |
| I agree with Felagund.
Also keep in mind that I have read some comments from posters here that said they didn't respond to the WotC poll because at one point the original discussion said, in effect, go away if you don't think there is a problem. So they never even bothered to go back and vote. I'm paraphrasing and I don't mean to offend Gnolaum. Not my intent at all, but just an observation. Many who don't think there is a problem might not even bother to vote. Whereas those who do think there is a problem will definitely go and vote. The vocal minority theory and all that. | |
Champion of Neogi
Completed Trades/Transactions: sttmxn, Krush, jgsugden, Ayrychx2, Venport, Tysac
| |
|
ktatroe
Sergeant
572 Posts
| | 11/11/2005 2:20 PM |
| quote:
Originally posted by Feathers
Also keep in mind that I have read some comments from posters here that said they didn't respond to the WotC poll because at one point the original discussion said, in effect, go away if you don't think there is a problem.
I didn't vote in the Wizards poll for two reasons: 1. A blanket statement was made that if you didn't see the problem with the Save=10 Huges, you were an idiot and that your opinion was not welcome, and 2. Polls are disallowed by the board rules there.
| |
H/W: http://www.hordelings.com/frontend/profiles/profile.php?user=ktatroe | |
|
| | You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
| |
ActiveForums 3.7 | You must be signed in to participate in the
games. |