sebster wrote: Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
So, Sebster made this observation in a different thread. I don't want to offtrack it, so a new one, perhaps, is in order. I was thinking that in many threads here, maybe most, one side states an opinion and maybe some facts that support it, and an opposing team forms and presents their own evidence, or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
not here on dakka, but I have become a definitely more female friendly, people I know have recently educated me to just how bad the gap between men and women is, and the plight of other oppressed peoples, such as the mentally ill, the poor, and the transgendered and those who aren't of a heterosexual nature. I have always been rather "meh" about most of these topics, but now I have seen just how screwed up things are, and that These are all near and dear to my heart, as I have these kind of misfit friends, who I care quite a lot about, and it has caused me to be more vocal and educated about my opinions.
I think I legitimately participated in one such thread many months back, and have ever since refused to do it again.
Now I just content myself to a witty remark or similar, as I did in the atheist/theist thread that recently got locked. I can proudly say I was the last person to be quoted.
In the overwhelming majority of such threads, no one will be persuaded to change sides, or even stop to reflect on the merits of the opposing viewpoint. Then again, how many people do you speak to over a few pints suddenly change their minds about their belief system if you're persistent enough?
It is what it is, and I guess people just enjoy this...intellectual masturbation. To each their own.
Kanluwen changed my mind on the Trayvon Martin case. Not trying to refire the debate, just pointing out an example. I pounced on him because of my initial mistaken impressions of what happened, but as time went on and more facts started to come out, it because clear that his arguments were actual totally reasonable, the case was way less cut and dried then it initially appeared, and I had just been kind of a dick, really. In any event, my opinion has definitely changed on that.
I like hearing what other people have to say (I know I probably come off as a total dick though ). Sometimes I will argue against something solely because there's something in my head I'm trying to work out or cause I'm curious what another poster will say.
There's only a few subjects I'd actually dedicate some real effort into arguing for, history, theology, and my eternal unending hate of mega publishers
My beliefs have changed since I first posted here. Several posters, such as IIRC Sebster and Dogma, have argued me in to a corner a few times and made me rethink my position on things. I've also had more education since I first joined as well.
That said, I'm notoriously stubborn, so it's not like it likely feels like there's much of a difference.
I don't know if Dakka has actually made me change my mind on anything, but I do try to actually debate (share my thoughts and listen to yours) instead of the usual internet version of debate (yelling at you about how I am right while refusing to listen to anything you say).
Ouze wrote: Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
I change my views more often now than I did in the past, I don't post here often anymore (mainly because I usually don't have anything new to add to the conversation) but I do a lot of lurking.
sebster wrote: Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
So, Sebster made this observation in a different thread. I don't want to offtrack it, so a new one, perhaps, is in order. I was thinking that in many threads here, maybe most, one side states an opinion and maybe some facts that support it, and an opposing team forms and presents their own evidence, or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
No. In most instances I have observed here on Dakka, also no. The current OT board is in my opinion a worthless use of forum space that serves only to make Dakka users mad at each other and enable posters to skyrocket their post counts into the ten-thousands by sheer weight of derp. I believe that this OT board currently only detracts from Dakka overall.
sebster wrote: Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
So, Sebster made this observation in a different thread. I don't want to offtrack it, so a new one, perhaps, is in order. I was thinking that in many threads here, maybe most, one side states an opinion and maybe some facts that support it, and an opposing team forms and presents their own evidence, or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
No. In most instances I have observed here on Dakka, also no. The current OT board is in my opinion a worthless use of forum space that serves only to make Dakka users mad at each other and enable posters to skyrocket their post counts into the ten-thousands by sheer weight of derp. I believe that this OT board currently only detracts from Dakka overall.
I disagree with you and this post made me very angry at the poster
There are several posters who frequently make at an absolute minimum, well thought posts, if not ones that I would agree with. There others who post little more than nonsensical hate and others who post gobblygook, but as most of do not speak goblin it is difficult to assess the quality of their position.
I've learned that I am actually much more pedantic than I had thought, as evidenced by the behavior of all the fictional characters I have dreamed up recently (you lot).
Amaya wrote: Other than Melissia, does any regular OT poster have tens of thousands of posts?
Alpharius.
Frazzled does as well, but I think he keeps wienerdogs chained to his keyboard to inflate his numbers.
Lets face it, Frazz's dogs could probably make a more coherent post than allot of people.
To be honest I find allot of OT is fine, as long as you avoid religion. Guns can also be a problem at times. Other than that I think there generally is a healthy debate. The problem comes where we have a Dakka Godwin rule. At some point someone will manage to link almost anything to religion one way or another then the topic will very quickly, and predictably, split in to two sides throwing insults.
I think it is much better than other area, for example news, where it is only a matter of about 10 posts on almost anything and someone will post some sort of GW hate rant. Or background where someone will jump in to a discussion about something and start talking "in character", such as a discussion on the different renegade legions someone will inevitably jump in with "U shud all die heretic scum" or anything about the golden throne someone will jump in with "thats what you get for worshiping a corpse. Fools". Delusional...
Having said this life is much better when you ignore 2 or 3 specific, very angry, people.
Once you keep away from "those" things there is some very interesting and informed discussion. My views have been changed on some things, and on others I have learnt something. Things I disagree with, but new information all the same.
Ouze wrote:And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
Although I cannot remember exactly what it was, I've had someone change my mind at least once in the OT forum. But largely I just enjoy the debate.
d-usa wrote: I do try to actually debate (share my thoughts and listen to yours) instead of the usual internet version of debate (yelling at you about how I am right while refusing to listen to anything you say).
It's funny because of the amount of this that happens on Dakka. Trying to avoid all those threads.
Besides, by the time I see them, they're already locked
My own personal acid test is if the a thread shows a level above 40% of Dogma Vs. Orlanth bickering it's probably turned to gak.
The idea that someone sees winning and losing in an argument on this forum is laughable. Nobody gives a crap if you correct some guy you have never met and never will on the internet about gun law in Tennessee.
My posts probably mostly fall into the gobblygook category, thanks for pointing that option out Amaya.
I find it very amusing that this thread is proving the point of the OP. See the quoted parts for reference.
I will also join the team that attacks the original evidence and idea, and say that yes I have been swayed in my thinking from time to time or enlightened on something. I also fall into the intellectual masturbation category, I sometimes join into a discussion just to test my memory of facts on a given subject and to see if I can formulate it into a coherent statement.
Ouze wrote:
sebster wrote: and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on -
or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
I've definitely learned from reading the OT, I've learned a lot about the politics of different places, the rationale behind certain beliefs, and an awful lot about gun control.
I think you just have to approach it with an open mind. I like the OT.
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, as a Science teacher, I see this all the time- it's not an internet only phenomenon. People have an idea of how the world works, and you can demonstrate to them that it is a misconception. They'll be surprised, interested. They'll nod solemnly when you explain the current theories to them. Then they'll head off, and in the test (or sometimes even in the homework) they will write down their original misconception about 50% of the time. This doesn't happen if it's something they haven't already formed a view on, something outside their experience. But if they have somehow formed a view, and it's incorrect, it's hell to get rid of it. Best example I have is gravity. Kids always think heavier things fall faster, always. So I show them the video of Niel Armstrong with the feather and the hammer on the moon. I get a vacuum tube and suck all the air out and show a coin and a feather falling at the same speed. I explain how air resistance is what can give the appearance of "falling at different speeds" but that gravity exerts the same acceleration on everything, regardless of size. I point out a frequent exam question which asks them about the hammer and feather on the moon situation, and to explain it. I point out that every year, kids get the question wrong because they revert to their original beliefs. They all solemnly agree that that is dumb, and this year it won't happen.
It always happens.
I try to combat that by making them write reflective diaries for homework:
1. What did I think when I came to lesson today?
2. What did I learn?
3. How has my thinking changed?
sebster wrote: Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
So, Sebster made this observation in a different thread. I don't want to offtrack it, so a new one, perhaps, is in order. I was thinking that in many threads here, maybe most, one side states an opinion and maybe some facts that support it, and an opposing team forms and presents their own evidence, or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
Why do you think the point of Dakka OT is to sway opinion? Its to keep the dregs in the basement where we belong. away from the more polite Dakka cityfolk.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote: Frazzled IS the crazy uncle of the OT forum.
What surprises me about Dakka is just how aggressively right wing some people are. I compare it to the science fiction and roleplaying fandoms I'm involved in and there is huge tolerance and acceptance of all sorts of people, gay, transgender, anything - very liberal people.
See, what with 40K being a both SF and gaming I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a greater overlap. What I see both inside and outside OffTopic is quite a streak of various prejudices that manifest as mild misogyny or slightly homophobic/racist. For example, I don't really care about the politics of an individual but I didn't expect recentlyon this forum to have to explain why I wouldn't be happy to spend *my* free time playing a person who was a flag waving BNP supporter who was very racist. Apparently, I'm the bigot it that situation because I don't want to socialise with white supremacists while gaming.
As for off topic, well that's where some of these things come to the surface. Now I'm biased as a left wing person, but I think the right wingers are far less open to persuasion on the basis of evidence. All the gay rights and abortion threads go this way, because people stamp their feet about their religious beliefs and think that counts as an 'argument' against historical, social and scientific studies. There's also quite a bit of misogyny in general, it's hardly worth pointing out most of the time but I guess it stems from the belief this is a 'boys hobby'. And what I was saying about some of the more aggressively right wing posters, some are so entrenched and bigoted they really nasty pieces of work. Sorry, but it's true, and I find it actually shocking that they exist in this little offshoot of the wider SF and gaming hobbies/fandoms.
I can change my opinion on things, if I see better evidence for something, a more persuasive piece of research. When doing my scientific work I worked along various ideas and changed and shaped my arguments over time. I actually liked finding better evidence because I was more satisfied I was getting a stronger and more coherent picture even if it had to be modified. I've become a so much more tolerant and accepting of people of all races and orientations, because of the internet. I wouldn't say I've had my mind changed a lot recently in debates, but the first year or so on debating forums changed me a great deal in my late teen and I grew up quite a bit. A lot of that was just having exposure to people from backgrounds I wasn't familiar with, actually getting to talk to people of different races and orientations, because where I'm from everyone is white and I can't recall anyone being openly gay.
As an aside, Ido not have tens of thousands of posts in the off-topic section. Just shy of one third of my posts are made here, about a total of 6500. Meh.
Also I have a vague memory that Off Topic in Dakka wasn't a section dedicated to political and other non-gaming topics. It was specifically treated like a scrap yard to shunt threads going off topic in other parts of the forum so they could just die off, as an alternative to closing or deleting. Am I right about this or was there another section now gone, or was that another forum entirely?
Sadly, even The Economist seems to be suffering from this at times; a certain writer on there, for example keeps misrepresenting Romney and Ryan's budget proposals so that they can claim that they "tackle the deficit" and that no one else has a plan to do so.
Even though they don't... and they're not even complete proposals, missing a lot of specifics that the president's budget did not miss as it was intended as a working budget, not a purely political move that they knew would never pass. Numerous comments have pointed this out, providing dozens of links and hundreds of arguments, but I don't think this particular writer reads them (many writers at TE actually DO read the comments section, and even respond to some, especially posts that point out factual errors), or perhaps, just doesn't care.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
I wouldn't say changed outright, but then I don't have many strong opinions anyway so there isn't much to change. I've definitely gained greater perspective on how different modes of thought tend to manifest, though. I've also reaffirmed one of my only convictions: that hard analysis is always superior to aesthetic analysis.
You know ,even if it's true that most of the people in the debates will never change their minds, at least they're trying to have intellectual discussions. I hate it when I'm in a debate and people are just leaving stupid snarky posts that don't contribute to the discussion at all. Like this...
Person 1: Skub is the best!
Person 2: Skub is the worst!
Person 1: Skub is the best!
Person 2: Skub is the worst!
Snarky Dude: Oh wow, you guys are so smart. You're definitely not just people getting angry at each other on a forum about toy soldiers.
Those snarky people think they're being edgy or smart or whatever, but they're just being jerkasses.
The thing is, when you've been here long enough the "intelligent debates" get so repetitive that the trolling and snark are the most entertaining part of the thread.
Monster Rain wrote: The thing is, when you've been here long enough the "intelligent debates" get so repetitive that the trolling and snark are the most entertaining part of the thread.
Monster Rain wrote: The thing is, when you've been here long enough the "intelligent debates" get so repetitive that the trolling and snark are the most entertaining part of the thread.
The thing is, it's only entertaining to the snarker. To everyone else, he's just another jerkass who wants to seem 'above the petty debate'.
I rarely join in on a thread of significance bar stupid comments, cos I often I have no opinion or can't word it well enough to consider it an argument. and when I do the other posters, much like in real life, tend to only get half a thought, kind of rendering it pointless.
so in answer to the question yes. the few times i have seriously joined in, one particular poster with their facts and stubbornness has often opened my eyes a little.
Monster Rain wrote: The thing is, when you've been here long enough the "intelligent debates" get so repetitive that the trolling and snark are the most entertaining part of the thread.
The thing is, it's only entertaining to the snarker. To everyone else, he's just another jerkass who wants to seem 'above the petty debate'.
Monster Rain wrote: The thing is, when you've been here long enough the "intelligent debates" get so repetitive that the trolling and snark are the most entertaining part of the thread.
The thing is, it's only entertaining to the snarker. To everyone else, he's just another jerkass who wants to seem 'above the petty debate'.
Even if that were true, what of it?
It's annoying.
Basically, someone is annoyed by a discussion, so they decide to go there and talk about how far they are above it. They're just trying to prove how superior they are to everyone, but no one cares.
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
which generally means he/she wins, due to the fact they are often a troll in disguise.
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
which generally means he/she wins, due to the fact they are often a troll in disguise.
The intent in trolling is to anger someone.
Mildly pestering them with thousands upon thousands of pointless posts isn't very good trolling.
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
which generally means he/she wins, due to the fact they are often a troll in disguise.
The intent in trolling is to anger someone.
Mildly pestering them with thousands upon thousands of pointless posts isn't very good trolling.
Not necessarily, the best/ most successful troll I've encountered did exactly that, then cried to the mods when things went against her. (different site)
Again, being annoying isn't successful trolling. Successful trolling is when you get them to post furious death threats in caps locks. Just being a pest isn't trolling, it's being a pest.
I have changed my mind plenty of times, but then, I tend to have longer and more intellectual conversations with people because I am far more pleasant and well mannered than most of you backwards ill-mannered fething dolts.
mattyrm wrote: I have changed my mind plenty of times, but then, I tend to have longer and more intellectual conversations with people because I am far more pleasant and well mannered than most of you backwards ill-mannered fething dolts.
have changed my mind plenty of times, but then, I tend to have longer and more intellectual conversations with people because I am far more pleasant and well mannered than most of you backwards ill-mannered fething dolts.
I can easily picture Matty drinking tea from a saucer and make it look right......
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
Are they held in higher or lower regard than irrationally angry partisan posters?
Ah yes mattyrm. He made me change my position plenty of times. Usually from the chair I'm sitting in to the local pub to reassess my faith in humanity.
Melissia wrote: As an aside, Ido not have tens of thousands of posts in the off-topic section. Just shy of one third of my posts are made here, about a total of 6500. Meh.
To be honest, if it's an issue to you, I don't think 6500 posts is any healthier than tens of thousands.
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
Are they held in higher or lower regard than irrationally angry partisan posters?
Based on the PMs I've received, lower. Four different people messaged me after my original rant about the snarkers.
Glorioski wrote: Ah yes mattyrm. He made me change my position plenty of times. Usually from the chair I'm sitting in to the local pub to reassess my faith in humanity.
Considering the I get along fine with the vast majority in both my real and virtual lives, I think you should be looking at yourself in the mirror if you feel you have to reassess your faith in humanity.
I mean, there's paedophiles and rapists roaming about and you have to reassess your faith in humanity because of good humoured Matty with his charm, good looks and lack of criminal convictions? That's some funny priorities you have right there.
I think you have a complex Fuhrer. Why the hate? Do you not think people should be allowed to disagree with you?
I ought to clarify. No one thinks the snarker is superior, intelligent or witty. That's what I meant. The only reason people sometimes reply to the snarker is out of annoyance.
Funnily enough, annoyance is generally the thing motivating snark.
sebster wrote: Yeah, I remember that study as well. It explained a lot about dakka, and especially how threads tend to get worse and worse as they go on - the opinions get more strident, especially among whichever side happens to be losing.
So, Sebster made this observation in a different thread. I don't want to offtrack it, so a new one, perhaps, is in order. I was thinking that in many threads here, maybe most, one side states an opinion and maybe some facts that support it, and an opposing team forms and presents their own evidence, or at least, attacks the original idea or supporting evidence. No one really ever seems to get convinced of anything.
And in a way, it kinds of makes me wonder what the point of a discussion forum like the OT even is for, if so few people can be swayed, if any. It's just like... intellectual masturbation, really. And while I suppose there is nothing inherently wrong with that, I wonder if other people feel the same way or if they don't.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
I avoid getting into discussions these days. I generally just pop in and give a synopsis of my opinion or point out when people are intensely wrong on something. I find it's better to point out blatant logical flaws in peoples beliefs over pointing out minutae in their arguments. People tend not to care if the finer points of what they believe are bs, but they'll care if what they believe is flagrant nonsense (or they won't but those people are scumtime).
I find my opinion will stay the same, but if someone writes their point well enough, I'll become more open towards another opinion. I also discuss to better understand other people's mindsets.
Have you ever had your opinion on a matter, news story, or political position changed by a topic we discussed here in the OT? If so, who and what?
I wouldn't say changed outright, but then I don't have many strong opinions anyway so there isn't much to change.
This is pretty much my take on it. There are few areas where my view is absolutist, so shifts in opinion are not very jarring for me. That and a BA in philosophy and a JD have taught me that nobody, even myself, knows anything about anything. We all are taking our best guesses and hoping.
I've definitely gained greater perspective on how different modes of thought tend to manifest, though. I've also reaffirmed one of my only convictions: that hard analysis is always superior to aesthetic analysis.
Back when I posted more in the OT (I have 2000 posts in OT somehow), I enjoyed writing, not so much for my "opponent," but to explain my points to anybody else reading. You generally can't persuade those sure of themselves. But thinking and writing about my opinions, and trying to find support for them, is a useful skill.
Melissia wrote: Sadly, even The Economist seems to be suffering from this at times; a certain writer on there, for example keeps misrepresenting Romney and Ryan's budget proposals so that they can claim that they "tackle the deficit" and that no one else has a plan to do so.
Even though they don't... and they're not even complete proposals, missing a lot of specifics that the president's budget did not miss as it was intended as a working budget, not a purely political move that they knew would never pass. Numerous comments have pointed this out, providing dozens of links and hundreds of arguments, but I don't think this particular writer reads them (many writers at TE actually DO read the comments section, and even respond to some, especially posts that point out factual errors), or perhaps, just doesn't care.
This is probably a clear example of "repeat something enough times, people will eventually think it is true"
As for changing my opinion, I'm a pretty pragmatic person, and have a pretty vehement dislike for ideologues for the most part. If a someones opinion or statement is valid and reasonable, I will certainly take it to heart when considering it against my own held belief. I always try to look at things from another point of view, or in someone else's shoes, or try to imagine 'what if this was happening to me'.
So I'd say that OT discussion (not necessarily just Dakka OT) has led me to think about things differently.
I have possibly had more laugh out moments here than anywhere else on the forums.
I also seem to remember more of those who post in OT thanks to the many detailed and interesting posts when a debate is going full on.
I generally attempt to stay out of the more serious ones however, as my views in general are not something I'd live or die by, and I find its a bit of a disconnect between UK and US thinking, due to the fact both US political parties are so much more right wing than our own. Although saying that thanks to US TV, I have a bit of a fascination about the US, but I am sure I would have issues with some of the things considered the 'norm' over there when you look at the political side of things.
Oh and I'd also say some of the biggest Dakka personalities in my mind, hail mainly from OT.
Imma agree with Morathi and say that you definitely see a lot more of people's personality here in OT. I mean I lurked here for like 2 years before I actually signed up, and so many of these people here seem so much more animated and entertaining than some of the other sections.
Glorioski wrote: It's because the rest of the site aren't using the forums as a social tool.
It's also harder to have a personality or viewset come across in most of the threads. 40k discussion is very binary. It's typically "I love that model!" or "That model sucks" or similar for opinions on GW. Topic and subculture specific discussion groups that cater to fans are usually like that since their topic is based on specific and focused subject matter. Off topic discussions will range and you get a bigger set of personalities and responses because there are more answers to a given discussion than y/n.
Easy E wrote: You have to remember, the point of an internet debate is not to change the mind of the person you are posting "against" perse. Their mind is set.
The purpose is to change the thinking and thought process of other people reading the thread and who aren't entrenched yet.
To be fair, that's the point of all debate, even formal, competitive debate.
nomsheep wrote: this site is one of the few I frequent that keeps it's off-topic, in the off-topic.
It seems to me that gak loads of people on the dakka OT dont actually have anything to do with 40k!
I mean, at least I post the occasional figure, and check the occasional bet-rep or tactics or something.. I only do 90% of my posting in here.
But some of this lot seems like they could happily be doing this arguing on the Fox forums or something!
I do something like 30% of my posting here, though I admit I'm more interested in backgorund and lore than I am in miniatures. FFG's roleplays are what keep me in 40k.
nomsheep wrote: this site is one of the few I frequent that keeps it's off-topic, in the off-topic.
It seems to me that gak loads of people on the dakka OT dont actually have anything to do with 40k!
I mean, at least I post the occasional figure, and check the occasional bet-rep or tactics or something.. I only do 90% of my posting in here.
But some of this lot seems like they could happily be doing this arguing on the Fox forums or something!
Hey, I just did a 7k Orks/Nurgle vs 7k Black Templars/Elysians apoc game yesterday. I stay out of the 40k forums because most of it is repetitive hogwash that I already know.
nomsheep wrote: Thanks but for the second bit I meant which ones do they do not what does it mean.
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay -- exactly as it says on the title. It's empire-focused, though it has Bretonnia as an expansion, at least.
Dark Heresy -- Inquisition-focused, usually a low level acolyte, such as a common thug, a law enforcement officer, or a gun for hire, but later on you can play an Inquisitor yourself, and most things in between such as ecclesiarchal Hierophants, Assassinorum operatives, Primaris psykers, etc. Focuses on investigation, your characters are not meant to be that competent in combat, comparatively speaking.
Rogue Trader -- Exactly what it says it is. Basically space pirates or space traders. IN SPACE. Includes rules for spaceship combat. Includes more focus on trade, making money, and etc than investigation. Characters are more competent in combat than DH characters, but often pay more for skills and stat advances.
Deathwatch -- You play as marines who drop down or drive up or walk up and kill everything. Very hack and slashy. Marines start off with more xp than anyone else, and a ton of special rules and better equipment ,but they have a very, very limited skillset and pay out the ass for many things.
Black Crusade -- Like Rogue Trader or Deathwatch, but from the point of view of cultists of Chaos, and the traitor legions. The game has a lot of potential for variety, but its xp system leaves much to be desired IMO.
Only War -- Sort of like deathwatch, but from the Imperial Guard's point of view. Has by far the most refined mechanics of the series, and includes a focus on squad combat, companionship, and vehicle combat.
They make EXCELLENT board games. Most of the ones my group plays these days are made by them. Arkham Horror, Battle Star Galactica, Talisman, Kingsburg...
They make EXCELLENT board games. Most of the ones my group plays these days are made by them. Arkham Horror, Battle Star Galactica, Talisman, Kingsburg...
Dark Heresy
-- Inquisition-focused, usually a low level acolyte, such as a common thug, a law enforcement officer, or a gun for hire, but later on you can play an Inquisitor yourself, and most things in between such as ecclesiarchal Hierophants, Assassinorum operatives, Primaris psykers, etc. Focuses on investigation, your characters are not meant to be that competent in combat, comparatively speaking.
Rogue Trader
-- Exactly what it says it is. Basically space pirates or space traders. IN SPACE. Includes rules for spaceship combat. Includes more focus on trade, making money, and etc than investigation. Characters are more competent in combat than DH characters, but often pay more for skills and stat advances.
Deathwatch
-- You play as marines who drop down or drive up or walk up and kill everything. Very hack and slashy. Marines start off with more xp than anyone else, and a ton of special rules and better equipment ,but they have a very, very limited skillset and pay out the ass for many things.
Black Crusade
-- Like Rogue Trader or Deathwatch, but from the point of view of cultists of Chaos, and the traitor legions. The game has a lot of potential for variety, but its xp system leaves much to be desired IMO.
Only War
-- Sort of like deathwatch, but from the Imperial Guard's point of view. Has by far the most refined mechanics of the series, and includes a focus on squad combat, companionship, and vehicle combat.
Amongst other, non-GW related things.
Are these standalone, or do you need to buy a central book for them?
Dark Heresy
-- Inquisition-focused, usually a low level acolyte, such as a common thug, a law enforcement officer, or a gun for hire, but later on you can play an Inquisitor yourself, and most things in between such as ecclesiarchal Hierophants, Assassinorum operatives, Primaris psykers, etc. Focuses on investigation, your characters are not meant to be that competent in combat, comparatively speaking.
Rogue Trader
-- Exactly what it says it is. Basically space pirates or space traders. IN SPACE. Includes rules for spaceship combat. Includes more focus on trade, making money, and etc than investigation. Characters are more competent in combat than DH characters, but often pay more for skills and stat advances.
Deathwatch
-- You play as marines who drop down or drive up or walk up and kill everything. Very hack and slashy. Marines start off with more xp than anyone else, and a ton of special rules and better equipment ,but they have a very, very limited skillset and pay out the ass for many things.
Black Crusade
-- Like Rogue Trader or Deathwatch, but from the point of view of cultists of Chaos, and the traitor legions. The game has a lot of potential for variety, but its xp system leaves much to be desired IMO.
Only War
-- Sort of like deathwatch, but from the Imperial Guard's point of view. Has by far the most refined mechanics of the series, and includes a focus on squad combat, companionship, and vehicle combat.
Amongst other, non-GW related things.
Are these standalone, or do you need to buy a central book for them?
Standalone, I haven't played, I got some of them just for the fluff, but they're all seperate rulesets.
I haven't been in an OT argument for awhile. They are pointless fun. I don't care about changing posters or lurkers hearts and minds. I like to read alot of the threads here because at some point I actually started to like the characters of quite a few of you nutjobs. Most of you are just irritating and I skip your posts.
). Sometimes I will argue against something solely because there's something in my head I'm trying to work out or cause I'm curious what another poster will say.
