The Gaming Den

Will you do the other one afterwards?
I don't really play these games, but those two are so wicked cool to me as a fan of big mechs and steam punk/scifi

Stahlseele wrote:Will you do the other one afterwards?
I don't really play these games, but those two are so wicked cool to me as a fan of big mechs and steam punk/scifi

I could.

But, okay, here's a preview of Steam Warriors: It's about 120 pages and it's mostly in 20 page blocks, give or take a few pages per section. The big exception is there's only two pages of spells.

So it's 20 pages of feats, 20 pages of gear, 20 pages of PrCs, etc. So it's interesting to look over with an eye to editing and space. Maybe I'll tally up if it was a good page or a bad page.

Second Age of Walkers is meant to be "The setting aged along a few years". I remember it going into actual Dragonmech units--people who are actually on-call to fight dragons, rather than patrol or keep the peace or move freight--and Irontooth Clans and so on.

Steam Warriors is the much more mechsy and steampunk thing, though. There's even a PrC where you're basically Kroenen from the Hellboy movie.

Any chance of Cyberpunk 2020 or v3 ossr?

Holy shit, someone find a copy of this and review it, please.

A Classic Battletech OSSR.
I know my way around that a little bit, but i would like to read the Denizens (re)Views on the Matter.
Don't really care what gets reviewed either.
A Rulebook, a campaign book, something fluffy or crunchy . . i just enjoy the mad ramblings of you lot.

Would anyone consider doing a retrospective or anatomy of failure on Warhammer 40k in general?

Wiseman wrote:Would anyone consider doing a retrospective or anatomy of failure on Warhammer 40k in general?

Seconded with enthusiasm!

Mord wrote:

Wiseman wrote:Would anyone consider doing a retrospective or anatomy of failure on Warhammer 40k in general?

Seconded with enthusiasm!

I vote for the first Koumei/Frank teamup of Den history to write this.

WH40K is 30 years old and has been doing monthly updates that radically change the competitive scene the entire time. Doing a review of WH40K as a whole would be like doing all of D&D or all of Magic. Not really practical for the drunk review format.

You could review an edition, and some people have. Or you could review a major sourcebook that changed the game a lot like Realms of Chaos, and some people have. But you're not going to get a Rogue Trader to 8th Edition retrospectacular, because such a thing would be way too superficial.

-Username17

Yeah, you couldn't supply me with the kind of alcohol and spare livers needed for such a thing. That said, I'm amazed that 40k is nearly as old as I am (32), and you can legally soak the books in alcohol. Which is a good first step for my general recommendations of what to do with them.

Pro-tip: make sure it's at least 51% alcohol!

WH40k would lend itself more to random game anecdotes. Like the perils of using Mt Dew cans to represent Land Raiders.

Wiseman wrote:Would anyone consider doing a retrospective or anatomy of failure on Warhammer 40k in general?

Reviewing more than a single edition at a time is probably too big of a task.

An Edition-by-Edition series of reviews would be the closest thing to that.

So, perhaps OSSRs of WH40k editions/key-books that haven't already been covered?

So far there's been at least a couple of book that have been reviewed. As well, I'm pretty sure Koumei has reviewed 2-3 editions; but I can't think of where the extents of 40k reviews actually are.

Which is not to say that I wouldn't do a tagteam review with Koumei about something 40k related. I would totally do that. But there's no chance we'd go through three hundred and sixty months of Hamlet typing monkeys making various twiddles and twaddles to the game. Sometimes you'd have a lot to say, like when they up and removed Squats from the setting and told everyone to go fuck themselves, sometimes you'd have a bit to say like when they printed a massive nerf to the Imperial Guard by making a codex that made their units cost 20% more points across the board because "fuck you, that's why." But a lot of the time we'd be just "this month they introduced a new melee-focused Marine Chapter that wasn't as good as the Blood Angels and no one fucking cared" or "Did you want special rules for playing battles on a specific planet you've never heard of and don't care about? Well, you got 'em."

-Username17

I would also like to see a K&Frank "Highlights of 40k" fails tag review if possible. Don't bother with the mediocre stuff, just go right for the high points.

Rather than being exhaustive, you could just discuss specific updates in random order until one or the other of you gets bored and call it there.

Chamomile wrote:Rather than being exhaustive, you could just discuss specific updates in random order until one or the other of you gets bored and call it there.

It could form the structure of the books being reviewed; and the explain the highlighted fails in editions in terms of a rulebook format.

Setting/faction fluff, intro to tabletop wargaming, what units types exist/mean, how a table is set up, various aspects of gameplay: army lists, game objectives, deployment, and table setup. As well as play order: movement, shooting/psyker, assault, reconciliation, victory calculation. [The only reason I didn't initially add Rulebook Army Lists is that they're typically so limited in choices that no one considers them more than juryrigged at best.]

Koumei/Frank tag team anything should be pretty awesome.

Or just 3rd edition and why it's allegedly the best?

more RIFTS

JigokuBosatsu wrote:Holy shit, someone find a copy of this and review it, please.

Someone else have at it. I got about ten pages through this fucking thing before declaring it the bastard child of White Wolf and everything wrong with the late 80s/early 90s in terms of game design.

Antariuk wrote:

OgreBattle wrote:Fantasy Flight's Rogue Trader RPG

Seconded.

3rded! The Fluff is fun, but the rules... ouch. Most people who play a while have to heavily house rule the game.

Heaven's Thunder Hammer wrote:

Antariuk wrote:

OgreBattle wrote:Fantasy Flight's Rogue Trader RPG

Seconded.

3rded! The Fluff is fun, but the rules... ouch. Most people who play a while have to heavily house rule the game.

4th vote for. Agree, it's got great fluff, and lets you play Trek 40k.

Actually, reviewing Rogue Trader seems like it could thread the needle for specificity and ranting about 40k in total for Frank and Koumei.

Disclaimer: I don't actually know anything about 40k other than /tg/ memes and Warp Cult, so have no idea if RT covers enough of the verse for that.

Actually, Frank and I have been talking, and will specifically review 3Ed 40k. Obviously it'll take some time.

Koumei wrote:Actually, Frank and I have been talking, and will specifically review 3Ed 40k. Obviously it'll take some time.

Zomg, getting seriously hype here.