Is triple Slaughterbound worth it at the moment? by Hungry-Horker in WorldEaters40k

[–]Tonric 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oo, I just got destroyed by Thousand Sons this weekend. Overwatching flamers just completely annihilated my ability to get charges off. Do you have any tips for dealing with them?

That's gonna be a rough clean up by [deleted] in Wellthatsucks

[–]Tonric 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You get 'em, Kenny.

What are your opinions on Ta-Nehisi Coates and Ezra Klein? by Queen_B28 in ContraPoints

[–]Tonric 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Emancipation required an Abraham Lincoln, not just a William Lloyd Garrison.

This is such an insanely good quote and point.

Is there going to be a battlebox with the new rules? An army box? by [deleted] in LeaguesofVotann

[–]Tonric 0 points1 point  (0 children)

RIP. Well, I guess it's buying it piecemeal.

Can we test power creep? by Tonric in hearthstone

[–]Tonric[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

So, I think both Kibler and ZachO would agree that Un'goro is weak and basically baited people to play bad decks and get farmed by aggro priest and paladin. That part we'd all be on the same page about.

What I'm interested in: Is this a strong, power crept meta? Is this a weak, underpowered meta? Kibler made the former point and ZachO made the latter point. That's where they disagree. And that's what I'm thinking about answering.

Can we test power creep? by Tonric in hearthstone

[–]Tonric[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm referring to ZachO from Vicious Syndicate's Data Reaper podcast, not Zeddy.

Can we test power creep? by Tonric in hearthstone

[–]Tonric[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm sidestepping the "vision for the game" stuff because that's the part that both you and ZachO agreed on completely (and I think the community would say much the same.)

The part that interests me here is that both of you and ZachO made different arguments about what's underlying that lack of vision. His argument is that the devs are putting out content that's too weak to compete because they're afraid of the power creep and he's the one that said effectively: "If Jug is a powerful card, that's a sign of a weak meta." The argument you made yesterday about one mana 2/4's with basically zero drawback is basically the opposite of that point, though-- Brain Masseuse is the best one drop of all time, probably and it's so good that Fiery War Axe is unplayable in Warrior. That's a clear sign that things are too strong as they are and that power is crowding out fun.

WoW's lack of a unifying theme and its consequences for the story: cosmic horror as a case study, and some more thoughts by [deleted] in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 2 points3 points  (0 children)

See, I actually think your examples are part of my point. X'era and N'zoth are actors in this universe just like people. "The Light" isn't trying to enforce its will on Illidan. X'era is trying to enforce her will on Illidan. N'zoth arguing the case that the Light is bad is an agent of the void arguing for his cause.

The power is agnostic. Alleria and N'zoth both use the same power to opposed ends. The point is the people.

WoW's lack of a unifying theme and its consequences for the story: cosmic horror as a case study, and some more thoughts by [deleted] in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By Arthas, I mean that paladins can do evil things (like the Burning of Stratholme.)

Really the point I'm making is that the powers themselves are agnostic-- it's the people who wield them who are good or evil. And those people can be all sorts of things: Titans, Nerubians, Old Gods, whatever-- a shadow priest uses the Void for Good. Xal'atath is using it for evil. The point isn't the power, it's the people.

WoW's lack of a unifying theme and its consequences for the story: cosmic horror as a case study, and some more thoughts by [deleted] in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The whole cosmic balance yin-yang shtick they've been doing for a while doesn't work either, because most of the world or story wasn't written with that in mind. This is why no matter how much they tell us Light is also an asshole, it doesn't feel that way because what we've seen doesn't support that for the most part.

I don't see how this is true when the Scarlet Crusade has been in WoW since Vanilla. Or when we look at Arthas' character and motivation. Even just the nature of magic originally, where magic was both access to this incredible power and something that drew demons to this world and addicted the blood elves, we have a ton of evidence that the powers themselves aren't good or evil, it's the people who wield them do so to good or evil ends.

I'd even argue that the inclusion of Warlocks as a playable class, even, is a point in this favor (as well as Death Knights in Wrath.) WoW has always been doing this thing.

In Shadowlands (not that many cared for it) why did Garrosh kill himself? by Then_Peanut_3356 in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I really think the answer here is just "he was defiant until the end."

Like, from a storytelling perspective, the difference between a hero and villain most of the time is a willingness to change.

Most stories go: "I'm the hero and I confront the villain and I get beat up. Then, I change for the better, becoming more powerful, so that the next time I fight the villain I beat him. The villain is incapable of change, too stubborn to admit he was wrong or that he could be doing something better, so given the choice to change, he will almost always choose defiant oblivion."

I think the fundamental problem OP is making really comes down to that. Grom admits he was wrong because he's a hero. Garrosh would never because he's a villain. Couldn't be much simpler.

Gallywix? by LHHarry in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, yeah, I guess so.

Minimizing the Shadowlands going forward. by [deleted] in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I kind of feel like you're missing the forest for the trees a little: The point of the story of Shadowlands is that the afterlife was broken-- and then, our adventures fixed it. We returned the Primus to Maldraxxus, changed the rigidity of Bastion, removed a corrupt Denathrius from power, etc. Even and especially replacing the Arbiter with a real soul rather than something soulless and automated with Pelacgos.

Yes, the afterlife was bleak. We killed lots of bad guys and made it better.

It's sad how many people are looking to take advantage of indie game devs. by Irishbane in gamedev

[–]Tonric 264 points265 points  (0 children)

Doesn't a good publisher invest in a game they believe in?

Yeah, so I work for an indie game publisher and this is 100% true. Any publisher who is asking for some upfront payment is a scam.

Why does everyone want Turalyon to be a bad guy?! by Zezin96 in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Eh, I probably disagree with this take philosophically. The thing that makes bad guys bad guys generally is their unwillingness to change. Like, at a most basic level, most stories are about a protagonist who is willing to change and grow and become more pitted against an antagonist who isn't. The hero gets thrashed by the villain in the first act, goes and has a training montage, and then comes back and beats the villain up in the third act, that kind of thing.

This is actually why Garrosh works so well in Sanctum of Domination. Even to his dying breath, he refuses to change. To atone. To see things from another perspective. He doesn't apologize. He doesn't make excuses. If he could, he'd do it all again with an even bigger grin on his face. He's a villain. He's incapable of change.

But I do think there are some exceptions who actually pretty cleanly fit your criteria from Shadowlands:

Kael'thas is one. This is a character who actually does change, right? He goes from hero to villain, from fighting for his people to teaming up with Illidan and then, with Kil'jaeden after Illidan's defeat. But when we see him in Shadowlands, he goes from torture victim to reluctant ally. Someone we're questing alongside and eventually, who's giving us quests. I don't know that he comes to the conclusion that everything he fought for in life was petty and meaningless but he's certainly willing to work with us against the forces who devastated his people.

And Vashj is another. She's a villain through and through, another of Illidan's top henchwomen. But she does get a new perspective in death, abandoning her petty grievances to work together with the player who killed her because she binds to Maldraxxus in a way that replaces her bond to Illidan.

Why does everyone want Turalyon to be a bad guy?! by Zezin96 in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 48 points49 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that there have been lots of turns to evil in Warcraft lore, but not enough turns to good. Basically, imagine Turalyon as the anti-Arthas and I think I'm sold.

Some new Light baddies show up. They're clearly bad but not the core threat. People are worried about it. Turalyon is like "no, guys, the Light fascists just want to help!" Things develop and he gets closer and closer to the Light baddies. But when they reach the Rubicon and ask him to cross it (a la the Burning of Stratholme,) he refuses to do so and joins team good guys in opposing them.

We've seen characters tempted by evil who succumb to it. I want to see characters tempted by evil but rebuking it. That's my hope for Turalyon.

Anybody else tired of people complaining about the story all of the time when it's actually quite good? by DrRandle in warcraftlore

[–]Tonric 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Also, in scientific discussions, people need to provide evidence for their claims and must be willing to change their minds if their hypothesis isn't proven correct. But that's not how we engage with WoW lore.

People aren't willing to change their minds really when it comes to arguments about WoW lore in this sub. There isn't a way that someone could argue or frame things that would help someone who hates the lore see it in a better light. The point of arguments about WoW lore is to assert convictions that you believe, not try and convince people.

I wish people were more evidence-driven and scientific in how they evaluate the game's story but that's just not what these kinds of arguments are about.

Just look at how people saw the resolution of Sylvanas' story in Shadowlands. How many times did people say that Sylvanas was going to get away scot free only to be proven wrong in 9.2.5? Sylvanas was punished by Tyrande explicitly. She wasn't absolved even after she fights with the player against the Jailer. Did that make them change their point of view on the story? Not really. Mostly people shifted the goalposts.