Archived threads in /tg/ - Traditional Games - 4510. page

I'll say what everyone is thinking. How much until the zine?

>>44019812
>Game deader than banes in competitive setting.

So... not at all?

>>44019812
Is that gaspy cosplay?

File: goreshade the bastard.jpg (216KB, 800x1066px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 800x1066px

>>44020206
Just reminded me of this

>>44019643
I dunno. I haven't played it for a few years, but that was because I dropped out of a group that played it. Since then I stopped playing dnd all together.

I did enjoy it during playing it though.

>>44019643

I do but I run my campaign with my friends, not online. There is nothing to discuss here since I know what I want, how the system works and what to do in pretty much the situations my group find themselves in.

The system is well done and there isn't much room for different interpretations, therefore less arguments and less internet bitchfights within the system itself.

I'm in a game of it. I was dismissive of it at first because I thought I was past D&D in general, but 4e is actually different enough from the standard formula to be really interesting. I prefer the unique elements of 4e to the humdrum of D&D which is what 5e seems to focus on.

File: giphy.gif (5MB, 300x298px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 300x298px

>>44019613
I am Alpharius

>>44019613
>>44020320
Aren't we all Alpharius on the inside

>>44018428
I think it's a huge success

Don't think anyone cares about the game sold with it though

>>44018428
Great starter for people who wanna 40k
shame the Contemptor looked a little lame

>>44018486
Yeah I should probably give it a spin

>>44018283
>>44018283
>>At least two anons are making piecemeal reviews of various Book 3 exaltations and classes. Hi, other dude.
I gotta say the critique anon(s) have made the threads significantly better.

>>44018079
It does not, BUT Oricalcum Power Armor Paladin with a user with Armor specialization can have AP 21 but gets 1 lower max Dex.

All those resilience bonuses net him a surprisingly scary 16 resilience.

How much is 16 resilience with 21 armor?
36 damage and under is completely ignored.
37-52 is 1 HP.
53-68 is only 2.
69-54 is still only 3.
85-100 is merely 4 HP lost.
101-116 is finally 5 HP.

The Paladin? Likely has 25 HP.

A level 1 human with average stats for comparison?

Only 8 HP with resilience 4.

Resilience is a big deal.

>>44018283
It's a shame they never used this one cover.

>>44014602
I pick five

>>44014602
I'll be 1

I pick 9.

the new PSC A9/A10 hooked me. are they any good?

or better to stick with other brit tanks?

File: image.jpg (27KB, 900x474px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 900x474px

Japanese AA

I wonder how many planes were downed by rifle fire?

>>44010407
Probably at least 1... after flack did a number on it.

As a rule of thumb, I dislike ugly races unless they are played against type (being the good guys basically) so I prefer the more modern type of orc, as opposed to the one that looks like a rounded Neanderthal with leprosy or a pigman. Something like Elder Scrolls orcs, or the ones from the recent Hobbit movies.

Its very easy to play a character who slaughters things that look like they would be judged last in a beauty competition within the deepest bowels of hell, but killing something a lot more closer to you, a lot more human, is hard, and therefore more interesting.

>>44009325

Ugh.

>>44009248
They literally get better and better, but the last two are a tie.

My favorite are Orks.

Welcome back to life, /gg/.

General question for TL8-TL10. How viable is it to use any of the myriad shotguns? It sounds like our upcoming campaign is going to be set in a cramped orbital habitat, so I'm thinking pretty good, but I don't honestly know enough about the game yet to tell if the stats on them are shit or not.

No energy weapons, otherwise I'd be taking one of those instead. Tl;dr shotgun good y/n?

Bumping for more G.U.R.P.S.

>>44009088
What's the hull DR? If it's more than 4 (average pellet penetration-ish) or 7 (maximum pellet penetration-ish) you won't have to worry about blowing a hole in your air coffin on a miss.

Shotguns do pretty good damage close in and against unarmored opponents when loaded with shot. Decent damage at range with slugs (which you would be insane to use on a habitat!)

They have pretty crappy ammo capacity but that is fairly well balanced against their versatility. Lots and lots of ammo types for all occasions.

Plus, auto shotties. For when you absolutely, positively have to spend all your ammo this turn.

what is that critter? and are the tits just a lure or can you fuck it?

>>44008591
It's a nymphomaniac hillbilly goblin.

>>44008389
daisy duke goblin?

>>44007655
With words.

If you go in too heavy with geek paraphernalia you stop being a potential mate.

>>44007655
Just ask them if they like /tg/-related stuff. If they say yes, good for you. If not, you can move on and look for someone else.

If you're afraid of asking, then you don't want this hypothetical "potential mate" that's into /tg/-related things, you want a specific person and you're hoping that they aren't scared off by your hobby.

>>44007655
Initiate the /tg/ secret handshake.

>>44004164
>Members of the board hire and fire the company's officers, including (most importantly) the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). They also typically set the officers' compensation, including both salary and (very commonly) stock options, equity (just piles of in-the-money stock), and severance packages that can include lots more money and stock.

>The board of directors by law have what's called a fiduciary duty to the shareholders. That is, they are legally* bound to act in the shareholders' best interests. Scholars often break this duty down into categories, like "Duty of care" and "Duty of loyalty" and sometimes two or three more, but basically what these duties boil down to is that the board is supposed to take actions that are to the maximum possible benefit to the shareholders. That benefit can be fairly broadly defined, though: for example, the board is well within its rights to take an action that could lower the company's immediate earnings (e.g., reduce shareholder value) in anticipation that long-term earnings will be improved. Or vice-versa. A board can vote to sell a company for a certain amount of money per share, ignoring what individual shareholders might think those shares "ought" to be worth, or that most shareholders are holding stock in anticipation of long-term earnings... all they have to do is have a reasonable argument that selling the company now is the "best" option.

>*Common law, actually, at least in the US. Which is supported by a lot of case law. But the legal complexities are beyond my understanding. Suffice it to say that fiduciary duty is encoded in the legal system in such a way as to make it essentially binding, but with some wiggle room so that lawyers can still regularly extract multimillion-dollar paychecks from litigating cases that can take a decade to fully resolve.

>>44004187
>Where things can become very muddied is when the same person is acting as both board member and as an executive officer of a company, or when a board member owns shares in the company. On the one hand, you could argue that simply by virtue of being a shareholder, a board member is even more invested (literally!) in "what's best for the shareholders." On the other hand, when a board member owns shares, he or she might have immediate financial interests that are different from those of the majority of the shareholders. Perhaps he or she needs cash right now, and isn't worried about ten years from now. Or perhaps he or she is perfectly wiling to gamble the stock, taking big risks in the hopes of a long-term payoff. For this reason, most large corporations in the US have a board of directors that are not shareholders.
>Another potential source of problems is when a member of the board of directors is also an executive officer in the company. There is a potential conflict of interest here: the company's officers are supposed to be engaged in the day-to-day running of the company, held to account by the board of directors, hired and fired if they don't do their job well. But if the executive officer has one of the small number of votes of the board, by virtue of being one of those votes, he or she is much harder to fire, gets to vote on his or her own compensation package, can presumably more heavily influence the board's decisions, etc.
>There are common arrangements to help mitigate these problems. In the US, companies sometimes set up things so that if some officers might be taking actions in their own self-interest, specifically designated "noninterested" decision makers must approve the action. These decision makers could be other board members, or the shareholders (by putting the action up for vote), or both. This sort of thing happens a lot when a company is being acquired, sold, is issuing new shares to officers, etc.
>So now we come to Games Workshop.

>>44004199
>http://investor.games-workshop.com/the-board-of-directors/

>Kevin Rountree is Games Workshop's CEO, and a member of its board of directors, and a shareholder.

>His predecessor, Tom Kirby, is "non-executive chairman," meaning he's the chairman of the board but not an executive officer of the company. But he is a large shareholder: the largest individual shareholder and third-largest overall shareholder of the company, with 6.7% ownership.

>http://investor.games-workshop.com/shareholder-statistics/

>The other executive officer is Rachel Tongue, an accountant. The other non-executive officers are Chris Myatt, Nick Donaldson, and Elaine O'Donnell. None of these people, nor Rountree, own enough shares to get onto the shareholder statistics page, which means they each own less than 3%, but they could still have significant holdings.
>Here's a list of insider transactions that shows that O'Donnell and Rountree both own at least some shares, though. (Insider trading rules require that insiders, defined as employees of the company who are in a position to have significant knowledge of the company's finances and major decisions in advance of the company's reports, have to report their stock transactions to the market, and usually have to schedule those transactions well in advance.)

>Now, I'm not that familiar with the details of UK's corporate governance laws. Clearly this arrangement is, at the very least, legal; it may also be very commonplace, especially for a small company like GW. But, in my opinion, it leaves a great deal of room for unethical behavior. I think it's an inherent conflict of interest to have major shareholders running the company's board, for the reasons listed above as well as the one thespaceinvader specifically pointed out... it's possible for the board, as major shareholders, to simply transfer a huge proportion of the company's value (and its future) into their pockets by paying out dividends, granting themselves more stock, etc.

File: SHIIIIIIIIZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.jpg (46KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 500x333px

Remember to keep the thread bumped so it doesn't fall off of page 10.

File: Smug.jpg (35KB, 436x421px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 436x421px

>GM/Player
Player
>System Preferred
Fantasy Craft
>Times Available (with timezone!)
Friday, Sunday. GMT+1 preferrably after 18:00/6PM
>Method of Play (Skype, IRC, roll20, etc)
Anything goes although i would prefer to use something like maptools over roll20
>Voice or Text
Preferrably text for ingame stuff and voice for OOC banter
>Contact Info
Skype: apocalypsebacon
>Additional Notes
I'm very handsome too

>>43998572
>To start things off, what's the most insane thing your party has ever done? Survival is optional, but it's a nice bonus.
Use a shit ton of promethium and demopacks to make a fuckhueg IED to blow up a Bloodthirster and its retinue of lesser daemons.

My Rogue Trader party just jumped five years into the future during a standard business visit to the Lathe worlds. Considering the multiple time-sensitive plot hooks and the ancestral treasure they were about to pursue, they are about to arrive into one mighty clusterfuck in their business empire.

Shot a planetary Noble in the middle of a relatively public location, in full view of the Arbites, with no justification, without stating they were Inquisitorial Acolytes, then tried to kill the Arbites when they tried to arrest them.