Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ha! Back then I was the most OP ever, since I always had a bunch of Super Heroes and the USS Enterprise! Fun times!

At this point I would only be mildly surprised if 8th Edition 40K was a $100 book packed with fluff and beautiful art work with a one-page rule section that says "Make it up as you go along".

 RatBot wrote:
At this point I would only be mildly surprised if 8th Edition 40K was a $100 book packed with fluff and beautiful art work with a one-page rule section that says "Make it up as you go along".

And people saying its the best edition ever, heralding it as the purest form of 40k yet to be achieved.

I won't click the article if that's all it is.

malfred wrote:I won't click the article if that's all it is.

I know what you mean. It's a bit like Wayne's situation with 40K: I want to, but I know the stupid will hurt.

As for what's already been said here: since Talizvar posted that Sirlin article and it's definition of 'scrubs', I've realised that 40K established a whole scrub culture, not only about how the 'true' game should be played, but also about how the game - and any game - is made. A nice wee bit of doublethink: 'true' (i.e. scrub) 40K is balanced, but balance is impossible.

warboss wrote:inquisition eldar force with a knight or two isn't the type of narrative I want to "forge". That isn't a wargame in my book but rather what you used to do UNDER the table as a kid with your cousins on holidays when your thundercats and autobots challenged his he man, gobots, and ninja turtles to a battle.

Nice to see Larry's articles are about as good as the accuracy of his rumors.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Nice to see Larry's articles are about as good as the accuracy of his rumors.

Often it's just larry posting it, the author is often someone from their forums.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:
Nice to see Larry's articles are about as good as the accuracy of his rumors.

Often it's just larry posting it, the author is often someone from their forums.

Ah, apologies to Larry then.

I guess I should say

Nice to see the BoLS community articles are about as good as the accuracy of the BoLS community rumors.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html

Best article yet.

It was incredibly long and tedious so may well have missed the point entirely but I think it equates a competitive player challenging a casual player to child abuse.

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html

Best article yet.

It was incredibly long and tedious so may well have missed the point entirely but I think it equates a competitive player challenging a casual player to child abuse.

Heh, wow that really was long. I'm not sure what the purpose of the child abuse story was. The TLDR version is basically: an abuse survivor gets destroyed at a game, and that causes her to have a panic attack, and sit at home hugging her knees for the next three months.

With that story he tries to make the point that by beating people at games you can unintentionally hurt them (Don't worry, in true "scrub" fashion, the author hunted down the guy and made him feel super guilty about winning a fething game). Though what I take away from his story is more like: people who are too fragile to cope with losing, probably shouldn't be playing games.

I think that's the problem I have with people who criticize others for being more competitive, and banding around phrases like WAAC. They love saying things like "It's just a game" and "you take it too seriously". But really it's hypocrisy because they are the ones who take it the most seriously. So what if your army got tabled by some streamlined demon summoning machine... It's just a game right? Do they smile and say "wow good game, you played the hell outa me"? No, when they lose it isn't "just a game". Then it's "unfair", and they have to start bitching and calling the other person WAAC and "competitive jerk", and saying "he isn't fun" blah blah blah... And then apparently they go home and rock themselves to sleep for 3 months reliving the experience before bitching about it again it on BoLS. What happened to "just a game" there?

People shouldn't be stigmatized for just playing the game within the rules. That does not make them WAAC, quite the opposite. While scrubs literally are trying to change the rules to help themselves win more often. The only difference between a scrub and a cheat, is a scrub will try to convince people to agree with his rule breaking beforehand. And if you don't agree he will resort to name calling (cheap, not fun) and try to guilt trip you into letting him change the rules. It's really just sad.

If the game really isn't "fun" when it's played by the rules, then that is the game designer's fault, not the player's.

Oh gak, soon we'll need to list trigger warnings before we play a game of 40k? "DEAR TUMBLR TODAY I LOST A GAME OF 40K AGAINST A HORRIBLE COMPETENT PLAYER, I WANT TO CUT MYSELF BUT THE SAFETY SCISSORS WONT LET ME. T_T #40KISFULLOFMEANPEOPLE #BOLS"

I'm a horrible 40k player, but nine times out of ten I walk away from a loss with the feeling that at least I learned something and I had a hoot.

This is as far as I've got with it.

‘If you’re just going to take the very best, most unkillable units, ignore points costs, all in the name of making yourself feel big… Why even play? Why not just roll a dice and tell him on a zero or less he wins, on a one or more you win?’

Again, he looks at me like I’m mad.

I don't blame him.

I don't think I can carry on. He's only just got onto the topic of wargaming and it already feels like he's been rambling forever. He says he's a teacher: I hope his subject isn't English.

... I did carry on, a bit. This guy rants about the pure goodness of scrubdom worse than in that 'competitiveness' topic that got locked recently. Kids play to win because they're starting to be 'poisoned' by testosterone; the GoT nicknames seem to be awfully convenient, cherry-picked to set up a narrative of victims and villains, and stir up certain images and emotions (the boy who learns to 'fight' well is not called 'Jon' or 'Arya', or who stacks the odds in his favour [listbuilds] is not called 'Tyrion' or even 'Littlefinger'. Nope, he's an out-and-out Joffrey. Matters not a pick that he says 'Joffrey' is a nice boy in real life - he's already been branded as equivalent to one of the worst psychopaths in popular fiction!); and the abuse survivor story, while a regrettable circumstance, smacks of being a step or two away from Godwin's Law. "Abuse survivor! Topic won. No comebacks or you advocate hassling abused people..."

The confused, overlong whole just seems like a cobbled-together appeal to emotion.

Lastly, it might be just because I'm on a mobile, but have comments already been closed?

 Vermis wrote:

Lastly, it might be just because I'm on a mobile, but have comments already been closed?

They have.

This is interesting- we've been talking a lot with a friend of mine about Stockholm syndrome in the context of GW in the last few months. I quit 40K around a year ago, he decided to hold the line because he loves his chaos space marines. Few weeks ago I decided to return, but then the Eldar Codex happened. My friend loves his CSM, but D weapons on a infantry was too much, even for him. So his money went to Privateer Press instead. The things happening with GW lately are absurd and surreal. Having interest in the Knight models I went to the GW site and saw that the old codex was 45 quid. What? So much money for few pages of rules and arguably mediocre fluff? I thought that you were a model company? And now it is getting updated? I was disgusted and yes, I am not starting 40K again...

But it is hard- Yesterday I painted an eastern dragon thingie from Malifaux and said to myself "This painting scheme will look perfect on Tyranids!". Having learned nothing from the past and having a rather short memory, I went on to check the price of a nidzilla 1750-ish list. Well, long story short, I discovered that for such amount of money I can get around three 50 Point Everblight lists with minimum overlap. And there are no {D}eldar in Warmachine. Guess what, my money are going to PP too.

Frankly, I believe that thing are going downhill fast for Elves Workshop. Every move they make reeks of desperation and you must be indoctrinated beyond saving or just starting 40K , not to see that you are being milked like there is no tomorrow.

 Vermis wrote:
He says he's a teacher: I hope his subject isn't English.

Heh, "The visual side of my learning manifests through my chosen profession – there’s a reason I teach English", and now we also know the reason students fall asleep in lessons.

His ultimate point was sort of reasonable, he suggests you talk to your opponent before the game and find out what their expectations are. But as has been said in this topic, sorting out a pick up game shouldn't need to be like negotiating a pre-nup. That's what the rules are for. Playing by them aught to be the only expectation. Obviously people can turn up with whatever other crazy expectations they like, but then they shouldn't be disappointed when those ones aren't met.

 BrookM wrote:
Oh gak, soon we'll need to list trigger warnings before we play a game of 40k? "DEAR TUMBLR TODAY I LOST A GAME OF 40K AGAINST A HORRIBLE COMPETENT PLAYER, I WANT TO CUT MYSELF BUT THE SAFETY SCISSORS WONT LET ME. T_T #40KISFULLOFMEANPEOPLE #BOLS"

Soo tempted to sig this.

Funnily enough I've seen that last article linked by Warmachine people too and touted as good. I apparently didn't get it as I read it as s typical need to negotiate and don't play competitively against a casual player nonsense (aka dumb down your list when playing a scrub so the scrub doesn't feel you're cheap) and was called out for that view by other warmachine players of all people including a host of a prominent warmachine podcast who was arguing that social contracts are a part of every game including warmachine. I was flabbergasted to see that one.

Evidently I still don't get it, because that's all I'm seeing in that article after you take away the additional fluff: If you're a casual player, it's okay to not play competitively and be a scrub (Sirlin) and it's the fault of the competitive player who wants you to bring your A game because that's not fun for you, and that nasty competitive guy shouldn't bring the good stuff so you can have a fun game.

Maybe the reason I'm getting disappointed with Warmachine is because my current meta is basically full of scrubs. Not to say I'm amazing or even good at Warmachine, but I love trying to improve my gameplay and my list creation while my meta is full of people who don't want to improve or up their game but want ot basically show up on game night, shoot the breeze with their buddies and maybe roll some dice and push some figures around - I sometimes think they'd be happier playing 40k if it wasn't for the fact most of them have a stigma against it, because in 40k they can derp around and ban powerlists to their hearts content. When you try to do that in Warmachine, it doesn't work so well.

 jonolikespie wrote:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/04/40k-safe-sane-and-consensual-or-the-arrogance-of-unacknowledged-playstyles.html

Best article yet.

It was incredibly long and tedious so may well have missed the point entirely but I think it equates a competitive player challenging a casual player to child abuse.

I remember skimming through this article and thinking "eh it's okay", after actually reading through it though.

It kind of feels like he had a good idea, but failed to present that idea in an unbiased manner. If he was trying to say "think about the other player and that not everyone wants the same things out of the game" it was lost in the extreme examples he used. It doesn't help that in all the cases he used the more competitive player was presented to be in the wrong.

I don't think the article was intended to be malicious towards anyone, he just isn't good at presenting his case.

Funny. I always asumed a person was a WAAC scumbag if they quibbled over every half a mm, twisted rules interpretations and rushed you. Not because they took an optomised list and played to win. Surely there is a difference between playing to win and just being a jerk?

That said, I dont like the useage of scrub.It implys that people who play narrative lists or have accused someone of being a WAAC jerk, even legitimatly, are somehow lesser fools.

Just my zwei marks.

I'd prefer a different term as well.

Much like 'apologist' though, 'scrub' does have a legitimate application without a negative implication, it just kinda sounds like an insult without actually being one.

Yeah that was essentially what I mean. It just feels like an insult.
Its like with "Scotch". Being Scottish I hate people using that word "Oh but your Scotch"
They dont mean it in an offensive way, but enough people do or have done that it feels like its an insult.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I'd prefer a different term as well.

Much like 'apologist' though, 'scrub' does have a legitimate application without a negative implication, it just kinda sounds like an insult without actually being one.

The thing with Sirlin's definition of a scrub is that in the context of what he means, a scrub would not only refuse to play to win but also cry foul or cheap or OP when their opponent uses the tools at their disposal.

It's not so much a casual or narrative player is a scrub, it's the narrative player who claims moral superiority for not taking the good choices is a scrub.

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Funny. I always asumed a person was a WAAC scumbag if they quibbled over every half a mm, twisted rules interpretations and rushed you. Not because they took an optomised list and played to win. Surely there is a difference between playing to win and just being a jerk?

I agree with that.

There is nothing wrong with taken an optimized list to a tournament or even to a store for a pick up game. If that's the kind of game you want, tell your opponent. if he/she wants the same, great!

On the scrub point: As a fluff bunny, I prefer the term fluff bunny.

 kronk wrote:

 Pete Melvin wrote:
Funny. I always asumed a person was a WAAC scumbag if they quibbled over every half a mm, twisted rules interpretations and rushed you. Not because they took an optomised list and played to win. Surely there is a difference between playing to win and just being a jerk?

I agree with that.

There is nothing wrong with taken an optimized list to a tournament or even to a store for a pick up game. If that's the kind of game you want, tell your opponent. if he/she wants the same, great!

On the scrub point: As a fluff bunny, I prefer the term fluff bunny.

A fluff bunny isn't a scrub, though. They can be a scrub, but scrub is a different thing entirely.

A fluff bunny just takes what they feel is fluffy. A scrub does that but also constantly complains that their opponent uses OP/cheap/cheesy lists and doesn't play "fair" by which they often mean handicaps themselves arbitrarily.

Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Scrub is an more focused word and isn't synonymous with "casual" or "fluff bunny."
"Scrub" stays because it fits.
If you're confused on its meaning, go back an look at the definition.

I completely agree with WayneTheGame on the definition of a scrub. Even though Sirlin said that everyone starts out as a scrub, I think the term has moved on a little since its Street Fighter origins, where it just meant new/bad, to mean something more specific in the wider gaming context, and I can't think of a better word. There is nothing wrong with being a fluffy player, or a casual player, or even a bad player (everyone was a bad player once). None of those things alone make someone a scrub.

WayneTheGame wrote:
If you're a casual player, it's okay to not play competitively and be a scrub (Sirlin) and it's the fault of the competitive player who wants you to bring your A game because that's not fun for you, and that nasty competitive guy shouldn't bring the good stuff so you can have a fun game.

Yes exactly! That attitude is completely back to front. If I went to my local chess club, I would actually be embarrassed to challenge one of the master-level players to a game, I'd feel like I was just wasting their time. After my inevitable loss I certainly would not turn around and say "Hey it's just a game, you don't have to take it so seriously! I could win too if I memorized all the openings". That would be incredibly disrespectful and also completely wrong (I've memorized loads and I'm still bad). No one would expect a chess master to sit down to a game and not play like a chess master.

Yet in 40k that kind of expectation seems to be commonplace. People turn up to games with some circus act that they know isn't very good, and then they expect their opponent, who has done his homework and built a strong list, to try and pull some punches so they can win. Then when he doesn't, they act like he's the jerk. That's completely backwards, playing properly should be the default. If you just want to mess around and eat pretzels then fine, but don't act like some guy who played properly and beat you did something wrong.

The word your looking for is Affirmation.

People who want to play like a mutt, usually have issues on their own, and the game is nothing to do with it, it's just the vehicle in how they want to gain acceptance.

I've read through Johnny the teachers Manifesto, and in this day and age, I'm not really surprised that someone would go to this length to write about how important it is to me just like everyone else, and that being a winner just for showing up is the most important.

Its the downfall of society, and the world we live in, these days. Couple that one with the first diatribe on GW? Yeah, you can see why GW's antics can do no wrong.

Both of these Hemmingway inspired piles of gak need their own place as exercises in futility.


Oh, yeah, and- "I don't want no scrub".

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

You're misunderstanding what he's saying.
A scrub makes up their own rules or code of honor, and assumes others will abide by that code without ever really letting it be known that that is how he wishes to play.

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

40k in general caters to scrubs, but what i mean is that a scrub has their own idea of how the game should be played, and calls anyone who disagrees with them cheesey. It's not scrub to play 40k and not like Apoc, it IMHO is scrub to not like apoc and think that everyone else should also not like apoc and are cheesey if they want to use it. You can still agree not to use it.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

40k in general caters to scrubs, but what i mean is that a scrub has their own idea of how the game should be played, and calls anyone who disagrees with them cheesey. It's not scrub to play 40k and not like Apoc, it IMHO is scrub to not like apoc and think that everyone else should also not like apoc and are cheesey if they want to use it. You can still agree not to use it.

I don't think people are anything if they like apoc, just people, however unlike apoc fans I just have no interest in apoc stuff IE super heavies, formations, gargantua mc's and so on. At the same time I see no reason to play against that stuff while being passive aggressive and labelling the other player, I'll simply not play. But yeah, we play a game full of entitled people, my preferences are often made out to be bigotry.