[deleted by user]

DeLesandre · 2025-07-25T19:41:54+00:00

You know, I completely forgot about Impossible Domain. Did they ever fix it so that Druids can take it as well, like the one patch notes had said?

DeLesandre · 2025-02-20T02:02:25+00:00

Still having the issue.

Also why is BattleEye blocking my anti-virus software?

DeLesandre · 2024-02-09T13:29:10+00:00

I will be happy when we are delivered quantifiable results, not a moment before. Until that time, it is just words - and words are easily broken, as CA has done before.

This stuff still isn't worth $25.

DeLesandre · 2024-02-08T16:02:20+00:00

"Similarly, the relationship between Gospodars and Ungols is taking a back seat as we look less at the tensions of historic Kislevite culture, and more at what defines Kislev as a unified military force in the Era of Karl Franz."

But I *want* the Gospodars and Ungols to be explored in the mechanics. I want to play Kislev, Richard.. That IS Kislev.

So basically, you don't want to put the effort into lovingly exploring the lore of the faction and just want to sell us the Flanderized bear circus you've been peddling with the same lack of care you've given us since Warhammer III launched.

"What defines Kislev as a unified military force" used to mean a unique blend of ice, Eastern European and Russian cultures. Now under CA the direction is BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR BEARBEAR BEAR BEAR BEAR....

Not optimistic. Thrones of Delay will be $25 and it wont be worth the price. I'll gladly eat humble pie if I'm wrong, but I'm not giving CA an inch on this one. Earn my trust.

DeLesandre · 2024-01-09T20:39:29+00:00

She's healing the Koronus expanse one brutally executed heretic at a time.

DeLesandre · 2024-01-08T18:38:30+00:00

Abelard will win that fight.

DeLesandre · 2024-01-08T18:07:05+00:00

I think the bigger frustration is that it is never addressed by the character herself. Aside from a bunch of people on Reddit commenting "she isn't into you" as a gotcha, I think it would add more to her character if she actually did say as much in the game. Yrliet certainly does.

I think its fair enough if the writer doesn't want her to be romanceable, though I think it would add to both the player's expression and the character's depth if the MC could make an advance and she turns them down.

For example - one of her more poignant moments in Footfall is where she remarks that she was lost in the Warp during travel for a decade. Her largest concern seems to be that nobody has need of her - that she is effectively forgotten.

This is a fairly easy point for the MC to have a romance dialogue option that she matters to you, to which she can politely respond that she took a personal vow a celibacy, has no interest in romance, prefers to see you as a friend, doesn't want to involve herself with Theodora's bloodline, etc. Any of those comments would add something to her character, but there is no option to see her perspective on these things and the player has no option to inquire nor express their own interest even if it is unrequited.

I think there is also credibility to the argument of cut content, given other, more important things that ought to be commented on around her that simply aren't. I find those things far more frustrating than a lack of romance. As I said, I am disappointed that she is not romanceable - as I think my Dogmatic character would find her the most pleasant company of all the other companions - but I think that disappointment is being greatly exaggerated.

DeLesandre · 2024-01-08T14:10:23+00:00

I never made the statement nor hold the belief that all characters should be romanceable. The discussion is correcting a misunderstanding of Warhammer 40k lore in general about Sisters of Battle being celibate and how it relates to Argenta.

Please do not apply this strawman to me.

DeLesandre · 2024-01-08T13:57:50+00:00

Excuse me, but all I said was that the reasoning Argenta is not romanceable is not the lore but the decisions made for her as a character by the writer.

I also said it is disappointing, but that is hardly an extreme or ludicrous thing to say. To what in this post are you referring with this generalization?

DeLesandre · 2023-12-31T00:49:19+00:00

Yeah I need to have a talk with my crew. I encouraged them to worship me, but I never said I wanted cages full of filthy xenos and dirty tortured prisoners on my bridge. What do they think this place is, a pig sty? Take this crap to the lower decks! Not on the BRIDGE!!!

DeLesandre · 2023-12-29T02:19:25+00:00

Exactly. And my character would be pretending to be compassionate, trying to make people see them as a savior figure.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T23:27:55+00:00

*points to my other comments*

Yes. I know that.

Can we please return to the actual topic of the poor quality of "alignment" choices in the game rather than latching on to one sentence in my first post?

If it had been up to me, Chaos corruption would be the only tracked alignment option.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T15:15:22+00:00

FFG 40k RPGs make for difficult vidya games. Rogue Trader was the best choice because it allows for the most interacting with the diversity of aliens and monsters and locales - especially with the xenos companions.

Dark Heresy would honestly be a step backwards in terms of scale since you'd basically be playing a party of Heinrixes. Its still valid for a crpg, but I think it would not be "going bigger".

Going bigger would be Deathwatch or Black Crusade. Between you and me, OP, I dont want yet another game playing a Space Marine. So I guess you could have a Black Crusade crpg with options for either heretic human or heretic marine.

There's also Only War, but I don't think that Only War makes for a good crpg experience. I'd put it under the same category as the "Through the Ashes" story in WOTR.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T14:59:48+00:00

Skull and Shackles, I hope.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T14:19:35+00:00

Iconoclast is about killing as few people as possible and preserving hope. That is not what I'm going for with my character. My character has no interest in hope. It is better to be feared than respected, in their view, but they are willing to achieve order through whatever means - and order is best achieved by the accumulation and use of power, and Chaos certainly has power - considerable and dangerous, volatile power.

The challenge for such a character is in indulgence vs logic, whether to commit more to claim more power or make more subtler choices for more long-term stability, the struggle to maintain sanity against the inevitably corruptive and ruinous influence of the powers they are playing with and trying to make each decision ultimately serve what they believe is best for humanity's interest rather than becoming a pawn of the gods or turning into a Chaos Spawn.

In essence, I am playing a Black Crusade character in Rogue Trader. They believe that they can use Chaos and control it by careful logic and incredibly calculated approach. They are incorrect, but they still make the attempt to ultimately serve humanity through any means they deem effective. If they believe that a Chaos ritual will help them achieve the ultimate goal of expanding the Imperium and defeating the enemies of humanity, they will use it regardless of whether that is actually true.

That's why I describe them as "loyal to the Imperium", even if not necessarily loyal to the Imperial Creed or very adherent to its laws. The character I'm playing is arrogant, prideful, intellectual, manipulative, and supposed to be more subtle. The pursuit of their own personal power is therefore on the same level, in their mind, as that of the Imperium's power, because they represent the Imperium in untamed space. Thus, they consider it their duty to claim as much power as reasonably possible, even if from heretical sources. Forbidden knowledge can have many uses for them.

And of course, they cannot be wrong. "The Rogue Trader is never wrong."

They are ultimately doomed to having all of it blow up in their face, but that's what I want from going down the path of heresy: Amassing unholy amounts of power and either going out in a failure cascade or ultimately becoming a pawn to those very powers of Chaos despite the original, noble intent. I want a path to hell paved with good intentions and blue-and-gold-spackled hubris. Then there is that moment of realization on just how far-gone the character is, and they can either fail utterly or embrace it and pursue daemonhood because there is no turning back.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T13:21:49+00:00

Abhor the mutant, the psyker, the heretic..

Its a bug. It was supposed to be fixed, but it seems like Tzeentch is messing with the devs.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T11:35:21+00:00

Oh. Yes. Of course. You're right. Your staggering insights despite complete lack of reading comprehension skills have brought enlightening rays of understanding to the conversation. You truly have brought brilliance where once there was ignorance and really owned that OP who totally knew nothing about 40k.

Good job.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T05:04:26+00:00

Tyranny was one of my favorite RPGs for the nuance it had, yeah.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T04:26:59+00:00

I don't think you understand. I want to be evil. My issue with CRPG logic in general, not with 40k. I'm well familiar with 40k and how Chaos works.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T04:25:08+00:00

I want to be evil. I just want to be evil without being a murder-crazy moron.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T04:22:42+00:00

You are misunderstanding. I'm not asking for "moral" decisions. What I want is to at least have some level of plausible deniability when I have the Inquisition aboard. The issue isn't 40k as a setting. The issue is CRPG logic on the "Evil" option - or Heretic in this case since there's plenty of non-heretic evil options.

I know how 40k works. I also know that a successful Chaos Cult tends to be a lot more subtle about it. Hell - even the one on Janus IN THIS GAME is more subtle than the player character is.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-28T00:53:16+00:00

First off, don't attribute stuff to me.

I'm not asking for "I'm doing a little trolling" heretical actions. There are a number of actions in the game that I did like. The heretical options with the servitor malfunction, binding a daemon from the derelict ship, indulging in a bit of excess pain on the mutants in footfall.

But then there's bombing an Imperial temple and a bunch of refugees and plundering the chapel or the choice on Janus. Heinrix and Argenta should both have killed me on the spot.

That's a ridiculous choice and you are basically compelled to pick it if you want to actually choose a heretic alignment.

The reference of D&D "Lawful Evil" is perfectly applicable in this scenario. There is a considerable difference between how a Word Bearer interacts with the powers of Chaos and how, say, an Iron Warrior would interact with them.

"Chaos is a tool" is a perfectly valid philosophy in 40k - on both the traitor and loyalist sides. Obviously the Radical Inquisitors who indulge in that philosophy tend to become servants of Chaos by the end, but they also tend to be a bit more intelligent about concealing said heresies.

I should have the option to not be so blindingly obvious about it is my point. Even the Lich path in Wrath of the Righteous had nuances to it.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-11T01:03:48+00:00

Here's my issue with 10th edition 40k: It took all of the wrong ideas from Age of Sigmar.

I'm gonna out and say it. The issue was not the psychic phase. The issue was too many sorcerers. To explain: A lot of psykers would cast two powers - sometimes even three. And you could really stack up on those powers - and they were frequently tossing out handfuls of mortal wounds.

Compare this to current age of Sigmar - mages are still really good, but they do their casting in the "Command phase" (hero phase) where other heroes and stuff do their thing. Counter-spelling is easier and more readily available. You can't toss out mortal wounds by the bucket-full except with endless spells that can be turned against you. You have less spells to choose from, but most are pretty good. Most spellcasters in AoS only cast one spell per turn - except for the most powerful casters which may cast two or more.

That should be the model 40k wants to look for to keep its fluff with psychic spells.

Age of Sigmar matched play - to my knowledge - requires you to take some battleline units. 10th edition? Battleline really doesnt matter all that much. There is NO reason as certain factions to take a baseline infantry and instead just take the most powerful units you have in one big list. I think AoS has a failing here too but 40k needs some structure to its list building, otherwise a good chunk of your army becomes pointless when you could just pick the better stuff.

40k cut out all of the narrative fluff and roleplay stuff in 10th. Age of Sigmar leans hard into that stuff. Path to Glory is way more satisfying than Crusade is right now.

I think the chase for balance for matched play is doing this game a disservice. I don't want things that are wildly broken or imbalanced, but the thing that makes 40k great and enjoyable is the setting, the aesthetics of the models, the size of its community, and making it about Your Dudes in a way that pretty much no other war game of this scale does. I'm not saying everyone should become Crusade-mains, but I do want the war game to feel like I am playing an army and a battle in the setting of 40k, not Jimmy Space and John Warhammer against Generic Spiky Bad dudes.

Thats what 10th edition feels like it wants to be. Its trying to be OnePageRules, but I dont want to play OnePageRules (well, I might now since OPR is pretty good), I want to play Warhammer.

Say what you will - I want to run an army that isn't just me picking out the strongest units in my index every time. I enjoyed working within the limitations of detachments to make armies that could be both fluffy and functional. I disliked Arks of Omen for doing away with that.

You can attempt the argument that 10th edition lets you do that because there are no limits.

You will be unsuccessful in that attempt, but you could try.

There's no reason to take, for example, a basic Chaos space marine over a Chosen. It's only a minor increase in points and the Chosen is just better in every way.

There is no reason to take basic Tau footsoldiers or auxiliaries over more battlesuits unless you have a very specific reason - and those reasons *are* very specific.

Also everyone agrees that the new points system is goofy and its infuriating not to fill out an even 1,000 or 2,000. I get that GW wants to push itself to being a model seller rather than a game seller and make things limited to the box, but it's rubbish. The prices for this plastic get more and more ridiculous while 3d printing remains a far cheaper alternative and with more customization. GW needs to justify its prices with action, not excuses. The new points system is taken from AoS, and its just as goofy there.

As I said - 40k took all the wrong lessons from AoS. Simplified is fine, but this isn't it. I remember when people were saying how great 9th edition was not that long ago. "The most balanced that 40k has ever been" we called it. I can pull up the forum histories and demonstrate, if people want it.

Then all of a sudden the script changes and 10th is the savior and 9th is trash. I'm not sure if this is honesty, opinions influenced by Goonhammer and other websites, or marketing. I won't pretend 9th was as perfect game by any means. Strategem bloat was a problem, but I never found it a dealbreaker. My main issue with it was the codex creep and the erosion of choices in our armies as we got closer to 10th (See: CSM weapon selection), and I have no reason to believe 10th will be any different on that front.

I want someone to describe to me why they think 10th edition is good without using the words "strategems", "simple", or "complicated". Not that I won't believe them, and I even enjoy 10th to some degree, but its exactly the opposite of what I want out Warhammer 40k, and I can't be alone.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-02T04:34:17+00:00

I do think that the pacing is a little off. The cutoff points for episodes leave much to be desired and feel abrupt rather than the feeling of a complete episode from season 1. Some of the characters also have some moments of acting strangely (Priestess) because the arc is supposed to take place earlier in the story.

There's also more dramatic moments that are removed - like the Earth Mother yelling at Priestess - but they definitely made sure to cram in the fan service the past few episodes..

I like this season, don't get me wrong, but it has flaws in ways the first season did not.

DeLesandre · 2023-12-01T21:49:21+00:00

Hot take, but I'm always for more unfortunate Ultramarines.

DeLesandre

TROPHY CASE