What are the most blatantly incorrect or plain idiotic things you've heard said a bout a tabletop game-related subject?

For me it's got to be this:

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Workshop

"OMFG wargaming SUCKS I'm, off to play CALL OF watch the language please. Reds8n DUTY!!!!!!"

please only nominate stuff said by fans or player please.

p.s: this is not a GW hate thread [as much as some want it to be]

sing your life wrote:
please only nominate stuff said by fans or player please.

Why? I find the best quotes come from non-fans and non-players.

fishy bob wrote:

sing your life wrote:
please only nominate stuff said by fans or player please.

Why? I find the best quotes come from non-fans and non-players.

I meant that you're not allowed to nominate anything said by waragmes companies I[i.e Privateer Press]

Huh?

Why are there so many rules for something like this? :\

 curran12 wrote:
Huh?

Why are there so many rules for something like this? :\

Wow, seroisly? 2 rules isn't "so many".

Stupidest thing I've ever heard about a wargame: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/539184.page

 Peregrine wrote:
Stupidest thing I've ever heard about a wargame: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/539184.page

Too cool man, good move

Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

Some random guy walked up to me in the game store and tried to convince me to play Warmahordes because apparently the models are cheaper than 40k.

No they're not.

I wasn't even playing 40k. I was playing Malifaux.

I dislike the aesthetic of Warmahordes out of personal preference; I hate the fans out of personal experience.

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

Well I went to a Games Workshop store with a friend (non-fan, non-player) to pick up something. It was a crowded day at the store, and my friend said loudly "So that's what this is? Fat grown men, playing with tin soldiers?"

Everyone heard him and the store froze up and got completely silent. While true, it was an incredibly idiotic thing to say. This was a few years ago.

More recently a girl thought my Warmahordes stuff was Skylanders

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

Edited the post for more clarity.

Also, you're a case-in-point regarding Warmahordes fans. Insult their game even indirectly and they attack you. I guess you gotta play like you gotta pair or something.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

Edited the post for more clarity.

Also, you're a case-in-point regarding Warmahordes fans. Insult their game even indirectly and they attack you. I guess you gotta play like you gotta pair or something.

You didn't insult the game. You insulted the players. The unedited quote is right there.

" It plays quick!"

When I hear this I tend to avoid the game. When the most important element of an activity done for enjoyment is the speed at which that activity ends, my mind starts to cramp. I mean, if I really wanted the game to end FAST I could not play at all. This way it ends super fast! Before it even begins.

I think minis gaming is a nice relaxing hobby with lots of modeling and painting. What is the rush?

I think you might be reading too much into "it plays quick". What they probably mean is that it doesn't play super slow.

Also, "it plays quick" can also mean that it's great for huge games.

Also, "it plays quick" can be used to give someone a chance to try the game out without spending a huge amount to time to figure out if they like it or not.

It plays quick usually means, I'm almost always in the action.

The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

What? He's allowed to hate something he had a bad personal experience with.

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

I will say this though, it's very valid in plenty of cases. I found Warmachine, Malifaux, and X-Wing extremely quick to learn... I am still very much big fish in little pond with those games. I'm a good and solid player in my local scene, but expand me into other metas, and I'm an average to subpar player.

Edit: But I guess it could be said that I'm only able to quickly learn these games because of my knowledge of games in general.

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

This isn't always bad: X-Wing is an extremely simple game to learn how to play, but getting good takes a lot of work and toying around with it. Chess is the same way.

 sing your life wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

What? He's allowed to hate something he had a bad personal experience with.

Nope, not Warmachine. If you say one bad word about Warmachine on the internet, you're in for it.

 sing your life wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

What? He's allowed to hate something he had a bad personal experience with.

I'm fairly certain that blacklisting the entire fanbase over the actions of a few idiots - and the guy his story was about was an idiot - is taking things about thirteen steps too far...

The PP elitism thing has two aspects. One is that a huge number of players came over from 40k, and often legitimatly find huge aspects of the rules that are superious. After a decade of playing 40k, I was pretty pleasantly surprised by a lot of the PP rules.

the other is the sort of rabid, irrational partisanship that only fanbois exhibit.

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

Edited the post for more clarity.

Also, you're a case-in-point regarding Warmahordes fans. Insult their game even indirectly and they attack you. I guess you gotta play like you gotta pair or something.

Sorry you've had some bad experiences with a few Warmahordes fans. I would disagree with your belief that he is attacking you though - he is attacking your post - your statement. You flat out said you hate all warmahordes players... all of them... which is ridiculous obviously. And of course people are going to come back and say things like "well I'm not too fond of you either..."

I've played Magic for years, Warhammer Fantasy for years, 40k for years, and now into 2nd year of Warmachine. I've met the exact same distribution of Great Players, good friends, ignorant kids, Dbags, and smelly fat men in every single one of those games. You just push away the negative and make new friends with the good and get back to playing whatever is fun.

 Cryptek of Awesome wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

Edited the post for more clarity.

Also, you're a case-in-point regarding Warmahordes fans. Insult their game even indirectly and they attack you. I guess you gotta play like you gotta pair or something.

Sorry you've had some bad experiences with a few Warmahordes fans. I would disagree with your belief that he is attacking you though - he is attacking your post - your statement. You flat out said you hate all warmahordes players... all of them... which is ridiculous obviously. And of course people are going to come back and say things like "well I'm not too fond of you either..."

I've played Magic for years, Warhammer Fantasy for years, 40k for years, and now into 2nd year of Warmachine. I've met the exact same distribution of Great Players, good friends, ignorant kids, Dbags, and smelly fat men in every single one of those games. You just push away the negative and make new friends with the good and get back to playing whatever is fun.

I'm at fault for shoving in that unnecessary "i hate warmahordes players". Several friends play the game, and I obviously don't hate them.

On-topic, my 'stupid statement' about a game are strangers that make backhanded remarks in favor of Warmahordes by insulting 40k. It has happened several times in my presence. Once, it had happened when I wasn't even playing 40k. It was stupid.

I think we'll just shake hands and move on here then folks.

Thanks.

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

Indeed.

 Dysartes wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Absolutionis wrote:
but I outright hate the fans even more.

Stupid statement is stupid. With that attitude the feeling is mutual mateybobs.

What? He's allowed to hate something he had a bad personal experience with.

I'm fairly certain that blacklisting the entire fanbase over the actions of a few idiots - and the guy his story was about was an idiot - is taking things about thirteen steps too far...

I only said he was allowed to do this. I NEVER said it was a good idea.

 sing your life wrote:
What are the most blatantly incorrect or plain idiotic things you've heard said a bout a tabletop game-related subject?

For me it's got to be this:

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Workshop

You do know that uncyclopedia is not a "serious" web site, right?

 Breotan wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
What are the most blatantly incorrect or plain idiotic things you've heard said a bout a tabletop game-related subject?

For me it's got to be this:

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Workshop

You do know that uncyclopedia is not a "serious" web site, right?

Oh no...my history project...

I reckon the elitism present in gaming is what leads to the silliest comments, either broad condemnations of entire fan bases of games (warmahordes players are dicks, warhammer players are neckbeards, infinity players just like the cheesecake), or blunt dismissals of games that people don't even try because they don't like it, and because of that clearly no one else can either.

And of course, in recognising this I am more elite than the rest of you...

 motyak wrote:
infinity players just like the cheesecake

To be fair, I find this one mostly true. The only person I've seen not like it at all seems to be Kanluwen. But he doesn't like anything.

 -Loki- wrote:

 motyak wrote:
infinity players just like the cheesecake

To be fair, I find this one mostly true. The only person I've seen not like it at all seems to be Kanluwen. But he doesn't like anything.

Hey that's not at all fair to Kan. He likes disliking things obviously

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

 sing your life wrote:
What are the most blatantly incorrect or plain idiotic things you've heard said a bout a tabletop game-related subject?

For me it's got to be this:

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Workshop

"OMFG wargaming SUCKS I'm, off to play CALL OF watch the language please. Reds8n DUTY!!!!!!"

please only nominate stuff said by fans or player please.

p.s: this is not a GW hate thread [as much as some want it to be]

I don't honestly understand what you are asking here.

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

Yeah, I didn't really follow this one either...

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

I lol'd. Magic is only cheaper if you look at short term purchases. Long term, magic will take a much heftier toll on the 'ol wallet.

Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

A 40k eldar army, 2000 points, costs around $500-$750 depending on build. Books and models included.
A Magic deck, decent, will cost around, say $100 if you buy packs, about $50 if you go singles. For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you're not buying three booster boxes every set that comes out (which, lets face it, if your a magic tournament player, you are)

Winner: Magic

One year from now, that Eldar army will not have changed and will still be accepted at tournaments. Two years from now, same story, three years from now, same story. You may have to buy another $75 core Rulebook somewhere in there. If I wanted to, I could run a rogue trader Eldar army with the new rules in a tournament so long as everything looked like it should look (wysiwyg).

Magic, however, forces you to constantly upgrade your deck to play standard tournaments. That means that any cards that you have in your deck from an older set are not allowed in the tournament. At all. New sets come out every quarter, meaning that an older set becomes obsolete every quarter. Did you build a standard Avacyn Restored deck? Tough luck. Dragon's Maze came out in May, making all of your Avacyn restored cards unusable. So what's the best way to to get a new deck built? Singles of course. Do people buy singles? Yes, they do. But they also buy booster boxes as the most cost-effective way to get the new cards quickly (excluding singles). Lots of market research has gone into this, and those consumer psychologists and marketing pros have learned that random positive reinforcement is the most effective method of reinforcement to a consumer. Booster boxes list at $85-$115 per box. By three of those per set, which will give you a pretty good spread of most of the cards in that set (most, not all mind you, which is where those singles come in) and you've already spent about half of what the Eldar army cost us. Now multiply that times 4. You're now over the cost of the Eldar army by a very generous amount. Now do that again every year. I can do the numbers, but surely by now anyone can see that the whole idea that magic is cheaper (or most card games for that matter as many follow the magic model) is simply not true.

Now, you could play a different format, or you just play with friends so those purchasing rules don't apply, at which point I could spin it the same way with 40k and say that I only play kill teams which is probably still cheaper...

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

Isn't that the tagline for every Mantic ruleset or boardgame?

godswildcard wrote:
Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

Only relevant if you are actually playing in tournaments.

I've been playing magic with my brother and his son for 3 years now, and the total cash outlay for all three of us combined has been aound $60.

While watching a demo game on a new game the host said "Don't worry, this isn't like 40k, this game is actually fun."

While not stupid, just caught me off guard.

godswildcard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

I lol'd. Magic is only cheaper if you look at short term purchases. Long term, magic will take a much heftier toll on the 'ol wallet.

Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

A 40k eldar army, 2000 points, costs around $500-$750 depending on build. Books and models included.
A Magic deck, decent, will cost around, say $100 if you buy packs, about $50 if you go singles. For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you're not buying three booster boxes every set that comes out (which, lets face it, if your a magic tournament player, you are)

Winner: Magic

One year from now, that Eldar army will not have changed and will still be accepted at tournaments. Two years from now, same story, three years from now, same story. You may have to buy another $75 core Rulebook somewhere in there. If I wanted to, I could run a rogue trader Eldar army with the new rules in a tournament so long as everything looked like it should look (wysiwyg).

Magic, however, forces you to constantly upgrade your deck to play standard tournaments. That means that any cards that you have in your deck from an older set are not allowed in the tournament. At all. New sets come out every quarter, meaning that an older set becomes obsolete every quarter. Did you build a standard Avacyn Restored deck? Tough luck. Dragon's Maze came out in May, making all of your Avacyn restored cards unusable. So what's the best way to to get a new deck built? Singles of course. Do people buy singles? Yes, they do. But they also buy booster boxes as the most cost-effective way to get the new cards quickly (excluding singles). Lots of market research has gone into this, and those consumer psychologists and marketing pros have learned that random positive reinforcement is the most effective method of reinforcement to a consumer. Booster boxes list at $85-$115 per box. By three of those per set, which will give you a pretty good spread of most of the cards in that set (most, not all mind you, which is where those singles come in) and you've already spent about half of what the Eldar army cost us. Now multiply that times 4. You're now over the cost of the Eldar army by a very generous amount. Now do that again every year. I can do the numbers, but surely by now anyone can see that the whole idea that magic is cheaper (or most card games for that matter as many follow the magic model) is simply not true.

Now, you could play a different format, or you just play with friends so those purchasing rules don't apply, at which point I could spin it the same way with 40k and say that I only play kill teams which is probably still cheaper...

Magic is extremely cheaper if you play casually. Magic is extremely more expensive if you play Standard/competitively.

 insaniak wrote:

godswildcard wrote:
Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

Only relevant if you are actually playing in tournaments.

I've been playing magic with my brother and his son for 3 years now, and the total cash outlay for all three of us combined has been aound $60.

Yeah i meant competitive play, as I find a game really only compelling if I (emphasis on the I) can play it "seriously". I agree that magic is cheaper if its casual and if thats your thing dats cool. Those goons telling me my hobby is a joke monetarily while buying up a block of cards are infuriating.

 Polonius wrote:
The PP elitism thing has two aspects. One is that a huge number of players came over from 40k, and often legitimatly find huge aspects of the rules that are superious. After a decade of playing 40k, I was pretty pleasantly surprised by a lot of the PP rules.

the other is the sort of rabid, irrational partisanship that only fanbois exhibit.

Sega does what Nintendon't!

in my personal experience warmachine players are akin to old caricatures of the d&d player. they dont bathe they smell and are as obstinate as d&d players used to be.

at my local we got away from gw for awhile based on their stupidity...and we started warmachine.. small armies 25 points or less we had 8 or so people playing.. well word got out and then THEY showed up..we had been playing for like 3 weeks and all of a sudden we were being challenged to 50 point or more games and they were demanding 50-100 point tournements

my retribution army is sitting on my shelf primed in white and hasnt been played since... and i cant remember the last warmachine game ive seen at the store... like anything in life, there were some really nice guys that showed up but it was like putting sharks in the kiddy pool it just wasnt the right time

Magic costs almost nothing if you play casual or Pauper, and eye watering amounts to play Legacy. You can chose your approach depending on what you want to spend. I know people who only draft every now and again.

What's the GW equivalent of Pauper mtg? There isn't one. They axed all their smaller games. A single finecast figure will cost more than a pauper deck. I recently built a pauper deck for almost nothing, paid £4 to enter it and won two boosters at the end of the day. Can you do that with GW? No.

The approach to Mtg can be very much decided by the player, with a range of formats and buy in costs. GW is a lot more rigid in that their products are largely similar and based on a lot of high cost sales. If you want skirmish 49k games you're better off looking for another ruleset.

 Grot 6 wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
What are the most blatantly incorrect or plain idiotic things you've heard said a bout a tabletop game-related subject?

For me it's got to be this:

uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Games_Workshop

"OMFG wargaming SUCKS I'm, off to play CALL OF watch the language please. Reds8n DUTY!!!!!!"

please only nominate stuff said by fans or player please.

p.s: this is not a GW hate thread [as much as some want it to be]

I don't honestly understand what you are asking here.

Why? All the other users correctly read it.

godswildcard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

I lol'd. Magic is only cheaper if you look at short term purchases. Long term, magic will take a much heftier toll on the 'ol wallet.

Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

A 40k eldar army, 2000 points, costs around $500-$750 depending on build. Books and models included.
A Magic deck, decent, will cost around, say $100 if you buy packs, about $50 if you go singles. For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you're not buying three booster boxes every set that comes out (which, lets face it, if your a magic tournament player, you are)

Winner: Magic

One year from now, that Eldar army will not have changed and will still be accepted at tournaments. Two years from now, same story, three years from now, same story. You may have to buy another $75 core Rulebook somewhere in there. If I wanted to, I could run a rogue trader Eldar army with the new rules in a tournament so long as everything looked like it should look (wysiwyg).

Assuming the meta doesn't change (Vehicles becoming weaker, scenery becoming vital) or you need new kits to stay competitive (fliers, FMC), then you're still arguing that 40k is cheaper than MTG until about 5 years (best case) or 15 years (worst case), unless you're seriously into competitive tournament play, in which case you'll be spending a lot more on 40k too.

Anything to do with synergy, meta and combos.

That's to do with competing and gaming for advantage, not wargaming.

 notprop wrote:
Anything to do with synergy, meta and combos.

That's to do with competing and gaming for advantage, not wargaming.

So what exactly is "wargaming" if it doesn't include making sensible decisions based on the rules of the game and your past experiences? Do you just line up a bunch of models in a pretty formation, make some gun noises, and then put them away again?

 Absolutionis wrote:


On-topic, my 'stupid statement' about a game are strangers that make backhanded remarks in favor of Warmahordes by insulting 40k. It has happened several times in my presence. Once, it had happened when I wasn't even playing 40k. It was stupid.

With all due respect, i always find there are two sides to these stories.

What counts as "insulting" 40k?

Playing devil's advocate here:

Is this saying one is better than the other? Is that insulting? Is stating my preference insulting? Is describing why an insult? Or is it merely an explanation backing up an opinion?

How about an objective assessment about things? Bear in mind what im saying below is a few arguments youd be likely to hear. ANd to be fair, they would be arguments i stand by.

If i were to say that PP is vastly superior to GW in terms of its support to its players, with competitive play sponsored, frequent leagues, badges, trophies etc, not to mention frequent interaction with the fanbase. Heck, theyve even gone off and produced models (black dragon pikemen) after campaigns by the fans.

If i were to say that i find GW models silly and cartoony lately. that is quite subjective, but it is my point of view. I much prefer WMs cartoony models (vastly more character in my opinion), and even then, Corvus Belli are leagues ahead of both. Would this count as "insulting"?

If i were to say that i find PP fluff vastly more engaging and interesting than 40k fluff, how would you feel about that? If i were to say that honestly, ive lost almost all interest in 40k fluff aside from forgeword. its shoddily written (Kaldor Draigo) and irredeemably silly. In my mind, for all my love of the older fluff (armageddon, the gothic sector war, battle of the fang etc etc) , to me, 40k has gone from grimdark to grimderp. PPs stuff on the other hand is a hidden gem, and after reading through the RPG material, i find the breadth, scope, detail, grittiness and character of the world to be vastly superior to GW offerings.

If i were to say that GW write terrible rules. that GW rules are clunky, and full of bagage, and are weighed down by their own fat and needless excess. a lot of it could be stripped out and rewritten, but they insist on pushing a fundamentally flawed system. 3-rolls, the AP system, different damage mechanisms, ridiculous amounts of USRs instead of a movement value. Compared to how Flames of War, Warmachine, or Infinity operate, 40k rules are terrible. Add to this the sheer lack of balance, both internally, and externally and it is a severely flawed platform. I recently introduced a long time 40k player to Infinity (found out by chance he was a gamer) and ended up taking him over to a mates place for a game of flames of war. He's literally converted overnight. and now he shakes his head at 40k. He looks at flames of war and says "why couldnt 40k be this!?"

Now, here is my point. You could take what i've written above as being "insulting", or you could take it as someones analysis of the games they love. I, and other people are fully entitled to our opinions on things. Now, its one thing to be rabid about one system (or against a system) based on lies and misconceptions - and that is something i fundamentally disagree with. But if you can be rational, and objective about it, its a whole other story. And here is the other side of the coin. What one takes as being insulting isnt necessarily meant as such from the other guy. Not everyone says negative things about GW as a trollish attempt to belittle you. Not everything that sounds negative needs to be taken personally, or seen as a direct and personal insult either.

there are always two sides to things. and the middle.

 Peregrine wrote:

 notprop wrote:
Anything to do with synergy, meta and combos.

That's to do with competing and gaming for advantage, not wargaming.

So what exactly is "wargaming" if it doesn't include making sensible decisions based on the rules of the game and your past experiences? Do you just line up a bunch of models in a pretty formation, make some gun noises, and then put them away again?

No, do you just mathhammer (when I'm King those that use this word in IRL will be first against the wall) possibilities without getting you models from the sprues?

To me it's about playing a game for fun.

The flip side is gaming a system go improve probability to gain better results. I'll pass on this as the result has overtaken the enjoyment of playing.

To succeed with a given or even random force is an enjoyable tactical/strategic challenge to both players (chess as a basic example), min-maxing to kerb-stomp known/preferred/common builds is not enjoyable for both players or if you are like me either player. The latter is ultimately dull whether you are the winner or loser and debatably a challenge.

Gaming to Advantage is an aberration of the intent of most games and when taken to extremes it turns into tick/tack/toe or Rock/Paper/Scissor with [unpainted?] miniatures and calls from the powergamer who lost of broken lists/unbalance and all that other verbiage. To spend your valuable free time doing this when you could be enjoying yourself with others is stupid.

 Peregrine wrote:
Stupidest thing I've ever heard about a wargame: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/539184.page

Well played sir, well played

godswildcard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

I lol'd. Magic is only cheaper if you look at short term purchases. Long term, magic will take a much heftier toll on the 'ol wallet.

Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

A 40k eldar army, 2000 points, costs around $500-$750 depending on build. Books and models included.
A Magic deck, decent, will cost around, say $100 if you buy packs, about $50 if you go singles. For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you're not buying three booster boxes every set that comes out (which, lets face it, if your a magic tournament player, you are)

If you're a tournament player you're getting a significant amount of free packs even if you never place. Name a 40k tournament where you get a free box of minis just for attending (I don't mean the huge ones like Adepticon, etc. that have sponsors)

Magic, however, forces you to constantly upgrade your deck to play standard tournaments. That means that any cards that you have in your deck from an older set are not allowed in the tournament. At all. New sets come out every quarter, meaning that an older set becomes obsolete every quarter. Did you build a standard Avacyn Restored deck? Tough luck. Dragon's Maze came out in May, making all of your Avacyn restored cards unusable.

Close but no cigar.
Innistrad was released Sept. 2011 and doesn't rotate until Sept 2013.
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Standard

I can do the numbers, but surely by now anyone can see that the whole idea that magic is cheaper (or most card games for that matter as many follow the magic model) is simply not true.

Even a casual tournament player that never places gets free packs. And you're ignoring the fact that post rotation many cards still have good value and can be traded to stores for packs. I haven't spent a dime buying magic cards for about a year. I've got one strong deck and a few fun decks.

Now, you could play a different format, or you just play with friends so those purchasing rules don't apply, at which point I could spin it the same way with 40k and say that I only play kill teams which is probably still cheaper...

At least you didn't go after the $3,000 decks for Legacy - which I'd compare to Apoc and come out significantly cheaper.

rigeld2 wrote:
Even a casual tournament player that never places gets free packs. And you're ignoring the fact that post rotation many cards still have good value and can be traded to stores for packs. I haven't spent a dime buying magic cards for about a year. I've got one strong deck and a few fun decks.

I've not gotten a free pack of cards since starting playing magic tournaments again. I've got a foil FNM Judge's Familar... Not saying it's not true, I'd just like to know where these tournaments are so I can get free gak

I get mercy packs every FNM and draft night. Maybe your FLGS gives out more packs for placing? I thought it was a normal thing.

rigeld2 wrote:
I get mercy packs every FNM and draft night. Maybe your FLGS gives out more packs for placing? I thought it was a normal thing.

My store, while it has a large magic crowd (20 kids at least on Fridays), only about 6 to 8 of them want to actually play competitively, so they often scrape to get enough to get a sanctioned event. Idk why, I see kids buying like 2 to 3 packs, and then buying at least 5 dollars in food and drinks... Why not spend that money on a tournament fee and try out your ability to play? I'm very much not apart from that crowd, so when I entered my first tournament in a long while people who knew I did minis gaming were like, "Wtf, why are you down here?" I would just tell them I wanted a challenge, nothing seemed more challenging than playing a competitive game I suck at .

I think instead of the mercy packs, we get the promo cards... The last tournament I was in had something like this for prizes:

1st: 15 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
2nd: 10 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
3rd: 5 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
4th - 8th FNM Promo Card

rigeld2 wrote:

godswildcard wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 rapterz wrote:
Stupidest thing i've heard: "its too expensive, imma go play magic".

It's funny because magic is actually cheaper.

I lol'd. Magic is only cheaper if you look at short term purchases. Long term, magic will take a much heftier toll on the 'ol wallet.

Lets look at a typical tournament set up for instance:

A 40k eldar army, 2000 points, costs around $500-$750 depending on build. Books and models included.
A Magic deck, decent, will cost around, say $100 if you buy packs, about $50 if you go singles. For the sake of argument I'm assuming that you're not buying three booster boxes every set that comes out (which, lets face it, if your a magic tournament player, you are)

If you're a tournament player you're getting a significant amount of free packs even if you never place. Name a 40k tournament where you get a free box of minis just for attending (I don't mean the huge ones like Adepticon, etc. that have sponsors)

Magic, however, forces you to constantly upgrade your deck to play standard tournaments. That means that any cards that you have in your deck from an older set are not allowed in the tournament. At all. New sets come out every quarter, meaning that an older set becomes obsolete every quarter. Did you build a standard Avacyn Restored deck? Tough luck. Dragon's Maze came out in May, making all of your Avacyn restored cards unusable.

Close but no cigar.
Innistrad was released Sept. 2011 and doesn't rotate until Sept 2013.
http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Standard

I can do the numbers, but surely by now anyone can see that the whole idea that magic is cheaper (or most card games for that matter as many follow the magic model) is simply not true.

Even a casual tournament player that never places gets free packs. And you're ignoring the fact that post rotation many cards still have good value and can be traded to stores for packs. I haven't spent a dime buying magic cards for about a year. I've got one strong deck and a few fun decks.

Now, you could play a different format, or you just play with friends so those purchasing rules don't apply, at which point I could spin it the same way with 40k and say that I only play kill teams which is probably still cheaper...

At least you didn't go after the $3,000 decks for Legacy - which I'd compare to Apoc and come out significantly cheaper.

Good post man! And good catch on the innistrad block. I only played Magic Tourneys for about 6 months before I tapped out.

Just a few things on the above. If you haven't bought any magic cards in about a year, instead trading cards for packs and getting the free packs at tournaments to assembled your decks, you have to know that you are in the minority here. WoTC wouldn't stay in business if you were their normal magic tournament playing customer. The people that I know and play with seem to have bottomless pockets when it comes to this stuff. Yeah, we could flip that argument with 40K players doing the same thing, but by in large even the tournament players I know stick with their armies for about 2 years before shelving it for the next hotness. While the argument '40K involves you keeping up with the meta and buying new units' is valid, if all you're doing is buying new units, you're still behind the cost power curve set by Magic. I'm not making stuff up when I say the local Magic players (which are an uber competitive group, mind you) buy three booster boxes each, MINIMUM, when the new set releases (I know this because I tried to hang with them for 6 months, and that's when I went back to warhammer). That's a minimum of $85/ box after our FLGS discount. Times three boxes, times 4 sets per year. After my initial example with that elder army, that army will be good to go for quite some time, at least a year before meta changes, likely closer to two to three years before editions change. So split the difference and say that our Eldar army only requires us to purchase, say, $200 worth of new units every 2 years, you're still cheaper than Magic. Total cost of that Eldar army after two years of initial purchase: less than $1000. Our magic players have spent over twice that in the same amount of time. I won't even get into the tournament players that substantial amounts of free models every tournament they go to, thus nullifying the need to purchase those new units with their hard earned cash.

Getting into legacy is a whole new ball game, and I left that out for a reason, but since it's involved now, why not? Yep, a good legacy deck will run you about that $3000. You can also spend less than that, but if you're not dropping a couple of grand on legacy you can forget winning anything. What Apocalypse army are you talking about that costs remotely close to that amount? I can show links to Apoc armies you can buy for full retail on GW's website that cost about 1/3 of that. Let's use this one:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1120011a&prodId=prod2080046a
A space marine 1st company army is a good bet if you're looking for a good apocalypse army, and that's $1157 for everything. I can get the whole thing through my FLGS for $925.60. That is about 3500-4000 points of apocalyptic goodness right out of the box. I'll be crazy here and add in some superheavies: A forgeworld Thunderhawk and heresy era Fellblade and you're spending another $836.98, adding in another 1200 points or so (not sure, don't know the cost of the fellblade, but the thunderhawk is about 900 points by itself). And now since I want to have a decent 1st company army, I'll grab 7 drop pods and a land raider for my marines to go in, and I'll top it off with Marneus Calgar and his honor guard. That's another $394, or $315.20 after my FLGS discount. So if you're doing the math on this army, which is now in excess of 5000 points, you've spent $2387.98 or $1910.38 if you get my discount. STILL less than that legacy deck. By about another 40K armies worth. Yeah, you could continue to expand that army in your head until it surpasses the legacy deck, but then I can say that given enough time you're going to continue to incorporate expensive cards into the same legacy deck, so you're still coming out ahead.

The thing is, most magic players I've talked to don't really know how much they spend on this stuff. It just kind of flies under the radar for them, and that creates this viewpoint that they don't spend that much, which is where these arguments come from. But, all that said, exceptions do exist. I've got a pretty competitive group of magic players and 40K players, so I'm just going off my experience. YMMV.

 notprop wrote:


To me it's about playing a game for fun.

The flip side is gaming a system go improve probability to gain better results. I'll pass on this as the result has overtaken the enjoyment of playing.

To succeed with a given or even random force is an enjoyable tactical/strategic challenge to both players (chess as a basic example), min-maxing to kerb-stomp known/preferred/common builds is not enjoyable for both players or if you are like me either player. The latter is ultimately dull whether you are the winner or loser and debatably a challenge.

Gaming to Advantage is an aberration of the intent of most games and when taken to extremes it turns into tick/tack/toe or Rock/Paper/Scissor with [unpainted?] miniatures and calls from the powergamer who lost of broken lists/unbalance and all that other verbiage. To spend your valuable free time doing this when you could be enjoying yourself with others is stupid.

And what happens when that competitive wargaming (ie building an army based on clever synergies and combos) is what I consider to be fun? Is it the wrong kind of fun? Is my different fun wrong? Is my kind of fun fundamentally inferior to yours?

Regarding given and random armies, that defeats a fundamental point of wargaming: choice - 'my' army. You're telling me a game without choice is bad. No thanks. Winning with a random or pre set army is in no way superior than winning with an army built with synergy in mind - stop bringing elitist. Gaming to advantage similarly is a very negative take on pushing your army and pushing yourself to be all it, and all you can be. I see no difference between pushing yourself to be a better general with better and cleverer use of the assets at your disposal than desiring to be a better runner with cleverer kit, tactics and training regimes. More power to you

 Alfndrate wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I get mercy packs every FNM and draft night. Maybe your FLGS gives out more packs for placing? I thought it was a normal thing.

My store, while it has a large magic crowd (20 kids at least on Fridays), only about 6 to 8 of them want to actually play competitively, so they often scrape to get enough to get a sanctioned event. Idk why, I see kids buying like 2 to 3 packs, and then buying at least 5 dollars in food and drinks... Why not spend that money on a tournament fee and try out your ability to play? I'm very much not apart from that crowd, so when I entered my first tournament in a long while people who knew I did minis gaming were like, "Wtf, why are you down here?" I would just tell them I wanted a challenge, nothing seemed more challenging than playing a competitive game I suck at .

I think instead of the mercy packs, we get the promo cards... The last tournament I was in had something like this for prizes:

1st: 15 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
2nd: 10 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
3rd: 5 dollars store credit, FNM Promo Card
4th - 8th FNM Promo Card

Yeah, only our top 4 get promo cards, but everyone gets a pack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

godswildcard wrote:
Just a few things on the above. If you haven't bought any magic cards in about a year, instead trading cards for packs and getting the free packs at tournaments to assembled your decks, you have to know that you are in the minority here.

Sure, but a 40k tournament player that only has one army and never buys another model is even more of a minority.

So split the difference and say that our Eldar army only requires us to purchase, say, $200 worth of new units every 2 years, you're still cheaper than Magic. Total cost of that Eldar army after two years of initial purchase: less than $1000. Our magic players have spent over twice that in the same amount of time. I won't even get into the tournament players that substantial amounts of free models every tournament they go to, thus nullifying the need to purchase those new units with their hard earned cash.

So you're comparing uber competitive Magic players to a slightly competitive single army tournament player. Um.
And what free models? I've only ever seen store credit if you win (getting 3rd rarely gets anything at small tournaments). There's nothing like the FNM promos or mercy packs.

Getting into legacy is a whole new ball game, and I left that out for a reason, but since it's involved now, why not? Yep, a good legacy deck will run you about that $3000. You can also spend less than that, but if you're not dropping a couple of grand on legacy you can forget winning anything. What Apocalypse army are you talking about that costs remotely close to that amount? I can show links to Apoc armies you can buy for full retail on GW's website that cost about 1/3 of that. Let's use this one:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat1120011a&prodId=prod2080046a
A space marine 1st company army is a good bet if you're looking for a good apocalypse army, and that's $1157 for everything. I can get the whole thing through my FLGS for $925.60. That is about 3500-4000 points of apocalyptic goodness right out of the box. I'll be crazy here and add in some superheavies: A forgeworld Thunderhawk and heresy era Fellblade and you're spending another $836.98, adding in another 1200 points or so (not sure, don't know the cost of the fellblade, but the thunderhawk is about 900 points by itself). And now since I want to have a decent 1st company army, I'll grab 7 drop pods and a land raider for my marines to go in, and I'll top it off with Marneus Calgar and his honor guard. That's another $394, or $315.20 after my FLGS discount. So if you're doing the math on this army, which is now in excess of 5000 points, you've spent $2387.98 or $1910.38 if you get my discount. STILL less than that legacy deck. By about another 40K armies worth. Yeah, you could continue to expand that army in your head until it surpasses the legacy deck, but then I can say that given enough time you're going to continue to incorporate expensive cards into the same legacy deck, so you're still coming out ahead.

And you've completely ignored the cost to paint all of that. You spend all that money and have to assemble (and likely paint) all those models. Thats not free at all. It's just something 40k players tend to sweep under the rug. And the Legacy deck likely doesn't need to be tweaked like ever (or if it does, it'll be relatively inexpensive as the biggest cost is the land base).

Deadnight wrote:
..........stuff...........

All games are by their nature competitive; you appear to be alluding to the casual/tournament discussion and defending your own take on that.

It doesn't matter to me what force you take or what the result is, wargaming is about taking part and the enjoyment gained.

If you enjoy researching synergy/combos, mathhammering and min-maxing/list building and are focusing your energies on that, then obviously that's not wargaming, you appear to enjoy bookkeeping and lawyering followed by some wargaming.

You are right though, gaming to advantage is negative, precisely why I denote it as stupid.

Where you are wrong is that you state that an optimised force is that same challenge as one that isn't, when clearly the former is better suited to dealing with whatever meta (gah!) is expected and is therefore less of a challenge.

Be all you can be? Take the route of least resistance more like.

Don't forget to take into account the cost of "accessories" when comparing magic to 40k. Does that $200 estimate take into account paint, glue, basing materials (and magnets for the extra-dedicated). Compare that to the cost of two packs of card sleeves, and a deck box (and a playmat for the extra-dedicated).

rigeld2 wrote:
And you've completely ignored the cost to paint all of that. You spend all that money and have to assemble (and likely paint) all those models. Thats not free at all. It's just something 40k players tend to sweep under the rug. And the Legacy deck likely doesn't need to be tweaked like ever (or if it does, it'll be relatively inexpensive as the biggest cost is the land base).

Wait, really? You want to get into that? Paint, brushes glue for that whole army....$50. My time is free for me to spend however I choose. If I choose to spend time assembling and painting an army, that doesn't cost anything whatsoever. That's why it's 'swept under the rug'. It's a non issue. I don't use the fact that you likely don't just look at your cards or open packs right before a game or something. Doesn't happen. Just like you spend time with Magic outside of the competitive circle, so to do warhammer players.

If you really want to go down that road, I'll spend less money and buy a painted army off of ebay or from Dakka. Yeah, cheaper than if I'd bought it new and done all of that myself. Painted used armies rarely go over retail cost for the models unless the paint job is something special. Average paint job? Yeah, cheaper by a fair amount usually. Meanwhile, Magic singles are still priced pretty much the same, so the difference grows. There is a used market for warhammer that I can access if I want to increase my level of savings. Not so much a used market for Magic.

But I'm done with this. Agree to disagree.

 notprop wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
..........stuff...........

All games are by their nature competitive; you appear to be alluding to the casual/tournament discussion and defending your own take on that.

It doesn't matter to me what force you take or what the result is, wargaming is about taking part and the enjoyment gained.

If you enjoy researching synergy/combos, mathhammering and min-maxing/list building and are focusing your energies on that, then obviously that's not wargaming, you appear to enjoy bookkeeping and lawyering followed by some wargaming.

You are right though, gaming to advantage is negative, precisely why I denote it as stupid.

Where you are wrong is that you state that an optimised force is that same challenge as one that isn't, when clearly the former is better suited to dealing with whatever meta (gah!) is expected and is therefore less of a challenge.

Be all you can be? Take the route of least resistance more like.

With all due respect, I have no intention of doing the wargaming version of clubbing baby seals to death. You seem to be taking the view that it's one or nothing. I'm as capable of a fun game as I am with competitive ones. The guys I play flames of war with are very casual. My war machine buddies are quite competitive. Both are fun.

I take offended to the comment that list building comes first and actual play is a distant concern. It's all part of the same hobby, whether it's the lore, painting, modelling, or playing. You can have fun gaming and pushing yourself at the same time. If I'm gymming or running I push myself as hard as I can. My friends do too. And I have fun too! I enjoy that burn At the end of it. Frankly calling it the path of least resistance is downright insulting to me. I enjoy that push - I enjoy finding that line and pushing myself beyond it. I see no difference with my desire to pushy self in terms of my fitness as I do with my wargaming. Fitter, faster, stronger. That's what I want in myself. And I enjoy that attitude in other aspects of mu life too. Doesn't mean I can't rein it in, enjoy a KFC and a crate of beer with chill out time too.

Also pushing optimised builds has a different meaning in different games. In war machine pretty much everything can be built into an effective game winning strategy. It's radically different to 40k where only a handful of viable builds exist. Now when everyone is pushing themselves at the same time, and pushing each other at the same time, you get a very engaging scene. It's one I genuinely enjoy. As do many others. Please don't dismiss it out of hand because it's not your cup of tea.

Stupidest thing? MTG and TT gamers argueing over prices. I have an SM army that cost me nothing-i was given it. Likewise my Vampire deck cost me a bit but still not hundreds. Its a hobby and prices vary over playing styles. Live with it.

As for anything else?

At Hobbycraft looking for FOW. Ask a member of staff and she says: Oh we dont stock GW any more, only Warhammer. My mind staggered at the ignorance of the statement.

Can we stop talking about the cost of MTG and get back on topic please?

Bossy OPs?

Flames of war?no thanks, that game is too expensive(while buying some warhammer 40k stuff for a new army)

About a wargame?

The stupidest things I've heard are more within rule arguement... Some of the things said are just bizzare. I think the latest one was "That section says Division, but clearly here we are multiplying, so it doesn't apply."

Flames was interesting... "Historicals? Why play that, we already know who won?"

"You are doing it wrong."

this thread isnt funny but it sure is stupid. Dumbest thing I have heard about wargaming:

"How do the little men move, mommy, where is the controller?"

It was a 13 year old in the game store. Parents thought it was a video game store. We all cringed.

 cormadepanda wrote:
this thread isnt funny but it sure is stupid. Dumbest thing I have heard about wargaming:

"How do the little men move, mommy, where is the controller?"

It was a 13 year old in the game store. Parents thought it was a video game store. We all cringed.

There are no controllers in wargaming. Only Dorito fingers.

Oh, and Zuul.

 notprop wrote:
OPs who don't want the thread to get locked for being off topic??

There. I fixed it for you.

This guy > http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/961325/painting-and-assembling-is-not-a-natural-part-of-m/page/1

Essentially, his entire argument boils down to: the hobby side of wargaming should not exist, and that anyone that enjoys the hobby aspect of wargaming is angry and antisocial and lives in a dark and dirty basement. Also, since the X-Wing miniatures game requires none of these, it's the bestest thing in the world and obviously better than all those "hobby" games out there.

~Tim?

"Competitive Players don't play to have fun."

That single quote is the funniest thing I've ever heard. Some of the most enjoyable games I played in or watched involved Competitive players going all out. You find fun in painting or narrative gaming, they find fun in finding the perfect army or taking on a challenging opponent. I've seen guys running the space wolf razorback spam vs leafblower back in 5th and both guys having a blast and laughing. To them its just an aspect of the game. After all, who doesn't like to make their own list and see it win?

"I don't play to win, I play to tell a story"

Stupidest one I've heard. You are playing a story, I would hope your commander is trying to win. Even orks go into battle with a goal in mind, even if its just to get a good scrap in.

Even if you're just goofing around, you still have some sort of goal in mind, even if its just "screw the mission, I'm killing his commander in the silliest way possible." I took a pure infantry guard list to a local tourney once. Over a 150 guardsmen. Penal legion, stormtroopers, SITNW conscripts, the whole 9 yards. I knew it wasn't competitive in the slightest, and was doomed to lose. I played my hardest anyway, every single game, pushed every advantage I could, and loved it. Lost every game

Playing without even attempting to win makes no sense. I assume many of these people MEANT to say, "I play a more relaxed game, but still try to win." Afterall, that's the point of a wargame, you're matching wits against someone to see who is the superior commander. Some may prefer tournament play, mathammering, and list building, others set up a story to give their battle meaning, but no matter what, we're trying to win in some way.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
"Competitive Players don't play to have fun."

That single quote is the funniest thing I've ever heard. Some of the most enjoyable games I played in or watched involved Competitive players going all out. You find fun in painting or narrative gaming, they find fun in finding the perfect army or taking on a challenging opponent. I've seen guys running the space wolf razorback spam vs leafblower back in 5th and both guys having a blast and laughing. To them its just an aspect of the game. After all, who doesn't like to make their own list and see it win?

"I don't play to win, I play to tell a story"

Stupidest one I've heard. You are playing a story, I would hope your commander is trying to win. Even orks go into battle with a goal in mind, even if its just to get a good scrap in.

Even if you're just goofing around, you still have some sort of goal in mind, even if its just "screw the mission, I'm killing his commander in the silliest way possible." I took a pure infantry guard list to a local tourney once. Over a 150 guardsmen. Penal legion, stormtroopers, SITNW conscripts, the whole 9 yards. I knew it wasn't competitive in the slightest, and was doomed to lose. I played my hardest anyway, every single game, pushed every advantage I could, and loved it. Lost every game

Playing without even attempting to win makes no sense. I assume many of these people MEANT to say, "I play a more relaxed game, but still try to win." Afterall, that's the point of a wargame, you're matching wits against someone to see who is the superior commander. Some may prefer tournament play, mathammering, and list building, others set up a story to give their battle meaning, but no matter what, we're trying to win in some way.

Unless they want to recreate a battle from a Codex or BL novel.

Stoupe wrote:

Flames was interesting... "Historicals? Why play that, we already know who won?"

Eurgh. I absolutely hate hearing that.

A college kid walked into my FLGS with his girl friend and started talking crap to her about grown men playing with toys and how they don't have lives, etc., etc. before he really took a good look at who was in the store playing those games.
About half the players there were less than three months back from Iraq or Afghanastan and before he walked in were happily engaged in a tournament.
Once he actually realized at what he had walked into the middle of and the quality of the men he was trying to insult he quickly shut up and dragged his girlfriend from the store, never to be seen again.

@fishy bob

If you're recreating a battle from a book and intentionally losing to be correct, go ahead, I just find that as incredibly bizarre. I don't care if my force "actually" got killed to a man, I'm still going to try and win, as a what if kind of thing. Going by this logic historical games would be almost unplayable.

When I say "win" that does not equal "WAAC". When I say win, the mere act of putting your models on the table means you're trying to win on some level. Otherwise you may as well not even bother with rolling dice and just make explosion noises.

Do you not get what I'm saying? Would you honestly enjoy a game if you knew your opponent was just fething about and not trying at all? Or even worse, intentionally losing.

"Isn't that based off the X-Box game?"

"why not just play Starcraft/Warcraft?"


"When's the last time any of you got laid?"

for that last one, several of the groups wives were present. they all answered, nearly in unison: Last Night.

@MrMoustaffa, I'm not playing like that, and I never said I would enjoy a game like that (I wouldn't). And my post was not an attack against you, or the way you play your game. But it's not unheard of, someone recreating an "existing" battle, with the intention of getting the same outcome. And if that's how they have a good time, then who's to say that's wrong.

Cheesy or Beardy as terms to talk about overpowered units, armies, etc. I've never really cared for that cutesy crap when talking about inherently flawed issues in games.

 Grot 6 wrote:
Cheesy or Beardy as terms to talk about overpowered units, armies, etc. I've never really cared for that cutesy crap when talking about inherently flawed issues in games.

Disagree. I really like those names.

Apparently my Chaos Marines promote Satanism.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
Apparently my Chaos Marines promote Satanism.

Didn't you know? Only satanists play evil factions.

I'm really surprised this is 3 pages.

Anything anyone has ever stated implying that tabletop wargaming is in any way, shape, or form related to military training

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:
"When's the last time any of you got laid?"

for that last one, several of the groups wives were present. they all answered, nearly in unison: Last Night.

I think that's a big difference between being a kid (or overgrown adolescent) and being an adult.

Young Polonius thought sex was only available to good looking, in shape popular guys that tricked one of the few women willing to have sex into it. Adult Polonius knows that the world is full of women that are ready to go and are happy if you have teeth, a car, a job, and a place.

 Polonius wrote:

Big Mek Dattrukk wrote:
"When's the last time any of you got laid?"

for that last one, several of the groups wives were present. they all answered, nearly in unison: Last Night.

I think that's a big difference between being a kid (or overgrown adolescent) and being an adult.

Young Polonius thought sex was only available to good looking, in shape popular guys that tricked one of the few women willing to have sex into it. Adult Polonius knows that the world is full of women that are ready to go and are happy if you have teeth, a car, a job, and a place.

That explains my issues! I don't have a place... or teeth... Dagnabit!

Teeth are overrated mine rest in a jar most of the time

 sing your life wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
Cheesy or Beardy as terms to talk about overpowered units, armies, etc. I've never really cared for that cutesy crap when talking about inherently flawed issues in games.

Disagree. I really like those names.

I usually ask the others if they would like me to bring a bottle of wine/beer for the cheese they got.

Inquisitor Jex wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Grot 6 wrote:
Cheesy or Beardy as terms to talk about overpowered units, armies, etc. I've never really cared for that cutesy crap when talking about inherently flawed issues in games.

Disagree. I really like those names.

I usually ask the others if they would like me to bring a bottle of wine/beer for the cheese they got.

I prefer port and a few grapes with my Cheese.

 pities2004 wrote:
I'm really surprised this is 3 pages.

Why? There are booksfulls upon bookfulls of idiotic waragming-related statements.

I prefer roasted loyalists with my Heldrake cheese

 Alfndrate wrote:
I prefer roasted loyalists with my Heldrake cheese

Really dear chap? I think that the dismembered bodies of enamies torn apart by a literal wall of bolts makes a jolly good sauce for my fine banner ravenwing cheese .

fishy bob wrote:

Unless they want to recreate a battle from a Codex or BL novel.

Even then, there tends to be a "win condition" for both sides, even if that win condition is recreate the battle faithfully.

 sing your life wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I prefer roasted loyalists with my Heldrake cheese

Really dear chap? I think that the dismembered bodies of enemies torn apart by a literal wall of bolts makes a jolly good sauce for my fine banner ravenwing cheese .

INDUBITABLY! And I would love to try that banner list some time... too bad I'm lacking in several things, namely Ravenwing bikes

We need an orkmoticon with a top hat and monocle

 Alfndrate wrote:

 sing your life wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
I prefer roasted loyalists with my Heldrake cheese

Really dear chap? I think that the dismembered bodies of enemies torn apart by a literal wall of bolts makes a jolly good sauce for my fine banner ravenwing cheese .

INDUBITABLY! And I would love to try that banner list some time... too bad I'm lacking in several things, namely Ravenwing bikes

Same, I only have 6 bikes .

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

"I don't play to win, I play to tell a story"

Stupidest one I've heard. You are playing a story, I would hope your commander is trying to win. Even orks go into battle with a goal in mind, even if its just to get a good scrap in.

My first instinct was to disagree, but I read the rest of your post and you convinced me what you are saying is sound.

"I play to win and I like to tell a story" is far more realistic. My approach is probably "I play to find out what happens and do my best to make sure what happens is my side winning."

As for the MTG comments, Wizards has done a great job supporting all sorts of level of play for their product. From casual kitchen table players to those who travel the pro tour. There really is no single "cost" of MTG you can point at. But if we're going for what it takes to play the full game, MTG definitely wins as the event decks and release decks for each set totally work for a full and fun game. And they're like $30-$60 for enough cards for both players.

Relapse wrote:
A college kid walked into my FLGS with his girl friend and started talking crap to her about grown men playing with toys and how they don't have lives, etc., etc. before he really took a good look at who was in the store playing those games.
About half the players there were less than three months back from Iraq or Afghanastan and before he walked in were happily engaged in a tournament.
Once he actually realized at what he had walked into the middle of and the quality of the men he was trying to insult he quickly shut up and dragged his girlfriend from the store, never to be seen again.

The only FLGS within an hour of me (at which point you're in the Melbourne CBD) constitutes regular nerds of what you'd typically expect.

When I went to a hobby store (not-wargaming) in the city to look for something I was the youngest one in there, and I was 20 at the time. It was more of a store for acquiring train stuff, and most of the people there were middle aged in business suits, most with their wives.

I thought that was probably the sweetest thing I had ever seen that so many people didn't care about competing each other who was the cooler nerd; they were just there to be hobbyists with their regular lives without fulfiling a stereotype.

Just found this monstrosity over at 1D4chan:

"They [the GW paints] have the best metallic paints available, but the range of their [sic] colour paints is a bit lacking."

104 differant paint colours [122 if you include dry and edge] is "lacking"?

 sing your life wrote:
Just found this monstrosity over at 1D4chan:

"They [the GW paints] have the best metallic paints available, but the range of their [sic] colour paints is a bit lacking."

104 differant paint colours [122 if you include dry and edge] is "lacking"?

Well to be fair, GW doesn't have a very good lineup of natural/earth-tone paints. They're great when you want intense, bright colors, but if you want natural earthy colors, Vallejo or even P3 are a better bet.

I still prefer the GW metallics over all the others I've tried.

~Tim?

 sing your life wrote:
Just found this monstrosity over at 1D4chan:

"They [the GW paints] have the best metallic paints available, but the range of their [sic] colour paints is a bit lacking."

104 different paint colours [122 if you include dry and edge] is "lacking"?

Kind of...

Vallejo Colors:
Game Color: 119 colors
Model Color: 218 colors
Model Air: 121 colors (their Airbrush line has more, and is 1 short if you include dry and edge)

Reaper Paints:
Master Series Paint: 216 colors
Master Series Paint HD: 38 colors

Privateer Press Paiints:
Formula P3: 73 colors

They might not be as lacking as other companies, but there are 2 paint lines out there that have more than double what GW has, not including dry and edge.

Every time i have a game with my friends my wife and two boys start saying "Pew Pew Pew.. Pew Pew"

 Rotary wrote:
Every time i have a game with my friends my wife and two boys start saying "Pew Pew Pew.. Pew Pew"

That's not stupid, that's fething adorable

 Rotary wrote:
Every time i have a game with my friends my wife and two boys start saying "Pew Pew Pew.. Pew Pew"

You don't do that? I thought everyone did that. Sound effects are awesome.

I always envisioned DE Venoms to make the sound from the Jetson's when they moved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnT1VgeXOF0

 sing your life wrote:
Just found this monstrosity over at 1D4chan:

"They [the GW paints] have the best metallic paints available, but the range of their [sic] colour paints is a bit lacking."

104 different paint colours [122 if you include dry and edge] is "lacking"?

I really don't see how anyone can like the new GW metalics, they require a ton of shaking and never go on smoothly for me. Vallejo model air metals make them look plain laughable and I still prefer my old pot of boltgun over the new.. I want to say Ledbleacher?

 Easy E wrote:
"You are doing it wrong."

Amazing how many people think that there's only one way to run an army - or rather, think there's only a specific set of ways to run an army.

My personal story with this one: I play Tau (Been playing on and off since 4th Edition), and when I started tinkering with the 6e rules, I found an army that worked for me. Sure, I play around with what I add for support, but mostly it's the same list. Couple of troops, couple of pathfinders, a Riptide, three Missile Broadsides, and an Ion Cannon Hammerhead. Whatever's left over, I throw in extra goodies to support the army, sometimes with an ally, sometimes just adding a bunch of Crisis Suits. It works great, I don't think I've yet lost a game at my FLGS with it. And yet, I've heard more than one person tell me I'm not playing it right because I'm not spamming anything, I'm running a little bit of everything. Granted, these are mainly people who come up to the store once in a blue moon, but still. My method works, darn it!

I think my favorite comment, though, was someone who looked over my army, looked at my list, and said, "Running kinda power-heavy, aren't you?" This, in a list with my usual one of each heavy hitter and something approximating five full squads of Fire Warriors. What more do you want me to take to make it less power heavy?

After I bought a battleforce, my cousin said "why would you pay 100 bucks for toy soldiers when you could just go to the dollar store and get the same amount for $1"

After explaining wargaming to him, he said "God that sounds stupid"

I guess its just not a hobby for everybody

When you stick up your army list and the first response is along the lines of:

"Why does you take ***

Why would you *** on a ***"

Cheers for the help bro!

Or when you specifically state a lack of flyer spam at your FLGS (or somethign else along those lines) and someone replies "what if you play against 3 heldrakes/ 6 valkyries"

Or generally posting one army list idea, mentioning it is what you have in you collection/ want to run something similar for fluff or aesthetic reasons and the replies tellyou to basically scrap eveything in exchange for some kind of spam list. If i wanted a spam list i would have bloody well written one! if my list doesn't include a single anni barge, do you really think i want to run 3?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Just found this monstrosity over at 1D4chan:

"They [the GW paints] have the best metallic paints available, but the range of their [sic] colour paints is a bit lacking."

104 different paint colours [122 if you include dry and edge] is "lacking"?

I really don't see how anyone can like the new GW metalics, they require a ton of shaking and never go on smoothly for me. Vallejo model air metals make them look plain laughable and I still prefer my old pot of boltgun over the new.. I want to say Ledbleacher?

Personally I've been getting good results from the new GW metallics. They have a great Finish and I can fix the seperation problem with just a few seconds of shaking.

Oh and It's Leadbelcher not Ledbleacher.

In the first Dutch GW store not by the staff mind you.

Guy in GW store: So what do you play?
Me: I don't play anything I like miniature painting and modelbuilding.
Guy in GW store: So you only do half a hobby. (Not THE hobby but A hobby) Granted this was before pre-painted models.
Me:
Me: Explanes about my modelbuilding and me branching out into miniatures.
Guy in GW store: Well its still like half A hobby.

So all these 1/72 airplane models I still have. All which I assembled and painted. Is there a game for that?

 korbenn wrote:
In the first Dutch GW store not by the staff mind you.

So all these 1/72 airplane models I still have. All which I assembled and painted. Is there a game for that?

Take a look at 'Check Your 6!'.

I am going to guess that this is going to make people mad:

"Warmachine is a inferior rip-off of Warhammer 40k".

Yes, because you put toy soldiers on the table, roll dice, and fight other said player is automatically the same thing/ rip-off even though the rules are way different for each system. Even Warmachine and Warhammer 40k have a vastly different setting....

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
I am going to guess that this is going to make people mad:

"Warmachine is a inferior rip-off of Warhammer 40k".

Yes, because you put toy soldiers on the table, roll dice, and fight other said player is automatically the same thing/ rip-off even though the rules are way different for each system. Even Warmachine and Warhammer 40k have a vastly different setting....

Reminds me all too much of Zerg ripped off Tyranids and the Blizzard ripped off Games Workshop and vice versa. Guys who founded Blizzard Software where also original founders of Games Workshop who ttok the money they earned from GW and founded the software company that gave us Starcraft and warcraft.

I got another one. Maybe it was already posted.

I was at a Gothic Fantasy fair in a local convention center. They had one stand who sold games and miniatures.
I was browsing through a box of old discounted 40k miniatures since these fairs are good places too get discounted stock of merchants. (Got me some nice and cheap metal terminators.)

This was around the time Warmachine had just come out.

Guy walks up to me and sees me getting 40k mini's and tells me Warmachine is a better game than Warhammer 40k because Warmachine's manual said so.

Yeah if this was true GW would have a) sued for slander and b) Privateteer press would have lowered it's self too a 12 year old's level of insults.
I think he meant the part in the Warmachine description that said they where EXTREME or something. Boy did he sound like a stupid fanboy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 korbenn wrote:
In the first Dutch GW store not by the staff mind you.

So all these 1/72 airplane models I still have. All which I assembled and painted. Is there a game for that?

Take a look at 'Check Your 6!'.

Ha ha ha Oh wow!

That upset me a little. Not about the game that's cool and all, but that guy actually being sort of right.

 korbenn wrote:

 Tanakosyke22 wrote:
I am going to guess that this is going to make people mad:

"Warmachine is a inferior rip-off of Warhammer 40k".

Yes, because you put toy soldiers on the table, roll dice, and fight other said player is automatically the same thing/ rip-off even though the rules are way different for each system. Even Warmachine and Warhammer 40k have a vastly different setting....

Reminds me all too much of Zerg ripped off Tyranids and the Blizzard ripped off Games Workshop and vice versa. Guys who founded Blizzard Software where also original founders of Games Workshop who ttok the money they earned from GW and founded the software company that gave us Starcraft and warcraft.

I got another one. Maybe it was already posted.

I was at a Gothic Fantasy fair in a local convention center. They had one stand who sold games and miniatures.
I was browsing through a box of old discounted 40k miniatures since these fairs are good places too get discounted stock of merchants. (Got me some nice and cheap metal terminators.)

This was around the time Warmachine had just come out.

Guy walks up to me and sees me getting 40k mini's and tells me Warmachine is a better game than Warhammer 40k because Warmachine's manual said so.

Yeah if this was true GW would have a) sued for slander and b) Privateteer press would have lowered it's self too a 12 year old's level of insults.
I think he meant the part in the Warmachine description that said they where EXTREME or something. Boy did he sound like a stupid fanboy.

Now, I am a fan of Warmachine/Hordes (and this is coming from a 40k/ fantasy background), and he was quite wrong on that since he was taking page 5 a bit too seriously although it is suppose to be a message about Wargaming in general about how to take loss well and how you are not always going to win, and learn from your failure a bit. Take it with a grain of salt since page 5 tends to take itself not too seriously (although a bit controversial from some aspect from what I have seen, and the MK II page 5 is much more tone down). But yeah, quite a stupid thing to hear, and that is coming from a Warmachine/Hordes player as well. (and in no way, am I trying to start a PP Vs GW thing at all with this. )

And for the Blizzard ripping off GW, I think that has gotten past the point of old now, at it is not even relevant anymore. Hell, I grew up with Warcraft and Starcraft before I ever heard of Warhammer 40k, and then I did not really see how those two ripped off 40k/ Fantasy when I saw it.

A new member of our club called 40k a tactical war game.. and 5 minutes later after we stopped laughing , we realised he was being deadly serious !

(We had to show him what actual tactical game play was, a quick game of Blood bowl later and he understood. )

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

Another good one you read on forums is 'doing a commission' - brings images of a business fulfilling an order to mind within a painting studio, but I'm sure in 75% of cases is just someone offering to paint some marines for a mate before probably forgetting about it and then handing the miniatures back several years later unpainted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Isn't that the tagline for every Mantic ruleset or boardgame?

That phrase has been around for way longer than Mantic.

 Pacific wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

Another good one you read on forums is 'doing a commission' - brings images of a business fulfilling an order to mind within a painting studio, but I'm sure in 75% of cases is just someone offering to paint some marines for a mate before probably forgetting about it and then handing the miniatures back several years later unpainted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Isn't that the tagline for every Mantic ruleset or boardgame?

That phrase has been around for way longer than Mantic.

For me 'doing a commission' means:
'I am getting paid for this, so shut up, my own figures will be painted after these are done/I can't go to the pub until these are finished [delete unused]!

'Cause I don't get paid until I hand them over/I have already been paid and really need to get these painted and out the door [delete unused]'.

I had to paint seven Bones dragons before I could even get started on my own. And taking those commissions were what allowed me to get the Bones Kickstarter....

Last one went into the mail today - Kaladrax.

Sorry - I got a bunch of e-mails asking how many of the new Bones and Mantic figures I have managed to get done for myself... makes me cranky, because I haven't been able to paint even one for myself yet. And I still have some Mantic figures that need to be done, but, thank the gods! they can wait. (Not a real commission on that one - I am painting them for my girlfriend's dwarf army in KoW - we will be painting those together. )

Stupidest thing? 'You won't need to invest much money or time in [Any Miniatures Game In The World], just one or two units and *boom!* you're done!'

The Auld Grump

Most stupid thing I've ever heard about a wargame?...easy...

"Weren't the Squat homeworlds eaten by tyranids so there are no more Squats?"

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The statemetn about games in general that bugs me "quick to learn, hard to master."

It's the game marketing equivilent to "pro painted."

Another good one you read on forums is 'doing a commission' - brings images of a business fulfilling an order to mind within a painting studio, but I'm sure in 75% of cases is just someone offering to paint some marines for a mate before probably forgetting about it and then handing the miniatures back several years later unpainted.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Isn't that the tagline for every Mantic ruleset or boardgame?

That phrase has been around for way longer than Mantic.

For me 'doing a commission' means:
'I am getting paid for this, so shut up, my own figures will be painted after these are done/I can't go to the pub until these are finished [delete unused]!

'Cause I don't get paid until I hand them over/I have already been paid and really need to get these painted and out the door [delete unused]'.

I had to paint seven Bones dragons before I could even get started on my own. And taking those commissions were what allowed me to get the Bones Kickstarter....

Last one went into the mail today - Kaladrax.

Sorry - I got a bunch of e-mails asking how many of the new Bones and Mantic figures I have managed to get done for myself... makes me cranky, because I haven't been able to paint even one for myself yet. And I still have some Mantic figures that need to be done, but, thank the gods! they can wait. (Not a real commission on that one - I am painting them for my girlfriend's dwarf army in KoW - we will be painting those together. )

Stupidest thing? 'You won't need to invest much money or time in [Any Miniatures Game In The World], just one or two units and *boom!* you're done!'

The Auld Grump

Holy crap do I feel your pain...I haven't been able to paint anything of my own for almost 6 months. I've got half my O&Gs waiting to be redone, and a whole buncha' Dust Tactics stuff. And don't get me started on my WiP modular Stalingrad/CoD board...Plus it looks like it could be 6 MORE months until I can get time to paint my stuff.

~Tim?

"Lord of the Rings totally ripped-off Harry Potter..."

"Space Marines always win - it says so in their codex!"

Swan-of-War wrote:


"Space Marines always win - it says so in their codex!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!

in fairness It pretty much does gove that impression in the codex, unless of coarse you are a chapter that isnt ultramarines, in which case you are probably going extinct, or trying your best to be as glorious as the ultras.

 stargasm wrote:

Swan-of-War wrote:


"Space Marines always win - it says so in their codex!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!

in fairness It pretty much does gove that impression in the codex, unless of coarse you are a chapter that isnt ultramarines, in which case you are probably going extinct, or trying your best to be as glorious as the ultras.

Even though Matt Ward wrote the codex its not his fault:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSxQnZ3TM8

 Necrosis wrote:

 stargasm wrote:

Swan-of-War wrote:


"Space Marines always win - it says so in their codex!"

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARD!!!

in fairness It pretty much does gove that impression in the codex, unless of coarse you are a chapter that isnt ultramarines, in which case you are probably going extinct, or trying your best to be as glorious as the ultras.

Even though Matt Ward wrote the codex its not his fault:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSxQnZ3TM8

Thank you for that.

The Auld Grump

To be fair, it also says that orks always win in THEIR codex, but they are orks, so that's actually pretty reasonable, from their POV

 korbenn wrote:


So all these 1/72 airplane models I still have. All which I assembled and painted. Is there a game for that?

FFG has a wargame called wings of war, I suggest you look it up.

Not so funny one I heard.....

"Wow honey you can really smell the nerd in here....."

Thant was until the guy realized that there where 3 cops in uniform as well as a few off duty military guys staring at him.

He didn't stay long.

Me and some friends having lunch at the local Mcdonalds. We where talking about combos and stuff like that.
An older gentlemen in the booth behind us scoffed. he said
"You boys should stop playing video games and get out of the house"
We quickly corrected him and told him we where out of the house and off to the gamestore to socialize and play, which we do several times a week, I then asked him how often a week he takes his wife out of the house. He said they where on their weekly date, At Mcdonalds.

Not about a wargame, but applicable....

A publisher at a convention told customer that was planning to get one copy of his game to share at the table that 'You know, in the electronic gaming industry, thats called piracy, I tell them. And its the reason the adventure game industry will never come out of the basement. Because theres a whole ton of gamers out there who dont support their favorite authors or game lines because they wont shell out the cash because theyll just read their GMs copy.

They look stunned. Im just getting started.'....

Oddly enough the potential customer did not buy, nor did I, after reading the publisher boasting about telling a potential customer off like that.

Anybody surprised that the company is no longer in business?

And a virtual cookie to anybody that can name the game publisher.

The Auld Grump - I have also heard a book publisher complaining that getting books at a public library was just like piracy.... Some folks need to be hit with a Wiffle bat....

*EDIT* Added the actual quote....

"Warhammer games are fun!"

 BuFFo wrote:
"Warhammer games are fun!"

Edit: oh and I'm not facepalming at the quote buffo, I'm facepalming at you.

 korbenn wrote:


Reminds me all too much of Zerg ripped off Tyranids and the Blizzard ripped off Games Workshop and vice versa. Guys who founded Blizzard Software where also original founders of Games Workshop who ttok the money they earned from GW and founded the software company that gave us Starcraft and warcraft.

Errm, nope... Founders of GW; Ian Livingston, Steve Jackson and John Peake.

Founders of Blizzard; Michael Morhaime, Allen Adham, and Frank Pearce

IIRC Blizzard did reference GW in one of the earlier Warcraft games (2 I think) regarding making orcs green.

 warriorpriest wrote:
Not so funny one I heard.....

"Wow honey you can really smell the nerd in here....."

Thant was until the guy realized that there where 3 cops in uniform as well as a few off duty military guys staring at him.

He didn't stay long.

Not saying this didn't happen, but I'm finding it funny how many times I've seen variations on 'some guy/woman walked into the store, made fun of people, was intimidated to realize they were surrounded by INCREDIBLE LEVELS OF AWESOME YOU COULD CUT WITH A KNIFE, SERIOUSLY, A BACKUP BREATHING APPARATUS IS RECOMMENDED.' :-P

Like, does it really matter that there was an entire SWAT team and four sniper teams and oh my god King Kong was totally playing against Bruce Lee in a corner?

Is... is it really that common that people just randomly walk into a store to make fun of the occupants?

I'm waiting for the DCMs in the infinity thread to post some of the things I've been saying about their game as a new player. Lots of Lewis Black quotes, causes of aneurisms, and me going, "WTF IS THAT ABOUT?!"

 Forar wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:
Not so funny one I heard.....

"Wow honey you can really smell the nerd in here....."

Thant was until the guy realized that there where 3 cops in uniform as well as a few off duty military guys staring at him.

He didn't stay long.

Not saying this didn't happen, but I'm finding it funny how many times I've seen variations on 'some guy/woman walked into the store, made fun of people, was intimidated to realize they were surrounded by INCREDIBLE LEVELS OF AWESOME YOU COULD CUT WITH A KNIFE, SERIOUSLY, A BACKUP BREATHING APPARATUS IS RECOMMENDED.' :-P

Like, does it really matter that there was an entire SWAT team and four sniper teams and oh my god King Kong was totally playing against Bruce Lee in a corner?

Is... is it really that common that people just randomly walk into a store to make fun of the occupants?

Given how many people posts that it happens I would guess it does. The guy that came into where I was at was from another store. I think he was being an asshat just trying to cause trouble

. So i guess where you game you never had a jack in the nuts talk trash.......

 warriorpriest wrote:
. So i guess where you game you never had a jack in the nuts talk trash.......

Most of my gaming time is at someone's house, so no, I guess I'm lucky that rarely do random strangers walk in and start mouthing off.

That said, inter-store 'rivalries' seem even stranger than inter-genre ones.

There are a lot of very strange people in the world.

 Forar wrote:

 warriorpriest wrote:
. So i guess where you game you never had a jack in the nuts talk trash.......

Most of my gaming time is at someone's house, so no, I guess I'm lucky that rarely do random strangers walk in and start mouthing off.

That said, inter-store 'rivalries' seem even stranger than inter-genre ones.

There are a lot of very strange people in the world.

Yes people are very weird. LOL!! I game mostly at home now but that is due to the closest store to where i live is a bit of a drive.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And a virtual cookie to anybody that can name the game publisher.

Sounds like something TSR would have been up to, in the heady days leading up to their ignominious death.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not about a wargame, but applicable....

A publisher at a convention told customer that was planning to get one copy of his game to share at the table that 'You know, in the electronic gaming industry, thats called piracy, I tell them. And its the reason the adventure game industry will never come out of the basement. Because theres a whole ton of gamers out there who dont support their favorite authors or game lines because they wont shell out the cash because theyll just read their GMs copy.

They look stunned. Im just getting started.'....

Oddly enough the potential customer did not buy, nor did I, after reading the publisher boasting about telling a potential customer off like that.

Anybody surprised that the company is no longer in business?

Clearly sharing a book is not piracy, and it's no surprise that the sale and the company were lost. However, I do understand the base issue he was addressing. Gamers are notorious for not supporting their games, or FLGS's and then whining when they go under.

 Eilif wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Not about a wargame, but applicable....

A publisher at a convention told customer that was planning to get one copy of his game to share at the table that 'You know, in the electronic gaming industry, thats called piracy, I tell them. And its the reason the adventure game industry will never come out of the basement. Because theres a whole ton of gamers out there who dont support their favorite authors or game lines because they wont shell out the cash because theyll just read their GMs copy.

They look stunned. Im just getting started.'....

Oddly enough the potential customer did not buy, nor did I, after reading the publisher boasting about telling a potential customer off like that.

Anybody surprised that the company is no longer in business?

Clearly sharing a book is not piracy, and it's no surprise that the sale and the company were lost. However, I do understand the base issue he was addressing. People are notorious for not supporting anything and then whining when they go under.

Fixed that for you!

The endless "Warmachine/Hordes/Infinity/Mantic/Malifaux is soooooo much better than Warhammer 40,000, the models are better, the rules are better, the game is just better, if you like 40K more than the aforementioned then you're a casual GW whiteknight sheep" crap. It's impossible to as much as metion 40K without someone telling us how his game is better than ours. For crying out loud I just want to play my game I do not need you shouting at me about how much better Waramhordes of Infinite Dropzone Mantics is! Now shut up!

For example, on this very forum, someone was asking for ways to make his games of 40K more cinematic-house rules, background music, the like. It took about 3 posts before someone said, and I quote; "If you want a cinematic game, play Infinity, it is infinitely superior to 40K in every way"

 Eilif wrote:
Clearly sharing a book is not piracy, and it's no surprise that the sale and the company were lost. However, I do understand the base issue he was addressing. Gamers are notorious for not supporting their games, or FLGS's and then whining when they go under.

I feel there's a fine line on this, however. It's totally reasonable to have a Players Handbook of sorts, even some player/character specific additions over time so that people can have their own copy of the info relevant to their character(s) on hand in a cost effective manner.

But if you look at something like Rifts, which has a core rules book or two and like seventy other world and sourcebooks, it isn't reasonable to expect a group of 5 players to buy 500+ books just so they all have their own little copy.

My group (back when I played) generally ended up with the rules book and some of their favourite/preferred world/source books on hand, but only one of us (myself) went and collected the whole thing, and I was happy to share (on game days and for other purposes), especially as we were all teenagers/young adults of modest means at the time. If a publisher told me that lending a book was akin to piracy, I flat out would laugh at them. Oh, sure, if you glance at it funny there are some similarities (someone enjoying something that they didn't personally pay for!), but there's a large difference between my lending someone a book and downloading it off piratetorrentsharebay or whatever the hot site is these days.

If nothing else, many of those 'lends' became purchased duplicate copies when said friend decided they wanted to keep reading/using the book after they returned it to me. Hell, at that point I was practically paying them to be part of their marketing time. Feel free to cut me a cheque anytime guys!

Forar,
I completely agree with you. As long as their not pirating, there is nothing at all wrong with borrowing a book, using another player's book, etc. and no one can expect everyone to own every book.

I also know that this belief exists alongside the fact that unpurchased game systems die.

Again not saying there is any kind of moral imperative to buy, just that if enough of us just borrow, than the game will go away.

Even though I buy mostly old and used minis (not a great way to support miniature production) , I'm very keen to support the indie game writers that I like, many of whom publish on PDF, like Song of Blades and Heroes. I'll lend a friend my printed copy, but I've only make one printed copy for myself and encourage others to buy the rules themselves.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The endless "Warmachine/Hordes/Infinity/Mantic/Malifaux is soooooo much better than Warhammer 40,000, the models are better, the rules are better, the game is just better, if you like 40K more than the aforementioned then you're a casual GW whiteknight sheep" crap. It's impossible to as much as metion 40K without someone telling us how his game is better than ours. For crying out loud I just want to play my game I do not need you shouting at me about how much better Waramhordes of Infinite Dropzone Mantics is! Now shut up!

For example, on this very forum, someone was asking for ways to make his games of 40K more cinematic-house rules, background music, the like. It took about 3 posts before someone said, and I quote; "If you want a cinematic game, play Infinity, it is infinitely superior to 40K in every way"

Well said. I play 40k because I like 40k. I like the fluff as well as the models. I don't care if the rules for other games are "better". I also don't cat TOO much about the price of the game. I just budget for it and get the stuff I like. It's game for crying out loud.

 Agamemnon2 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
And a virtual cookie to anybody that can name the game publisher.

Sounds like something TSR would have been up to, in the heady days leading up to their ignominious death.

Nope - TSR is innocent, at least in this case.

What I really thought was bloody stupid is that he is talking about a brand new game.

I don't know about you, but most folk that I know like to try a game before everybody in the group goes and buys a copy.

Pathfinder was an exception, but that had more to do with Pathfinder being D&D 3.75 and not 4e... Everybody pretty much knew what they were getting..

But if folks like the game then it is likely that they will buy more copies, so they don't need to wait while the book gets passed around the table.

So he was chasing away not one person, but at least the potential of an entire group.

So... he can rot.

I have not bought a single game from him, nor have I supported his Kickstarter.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
The endless "Warmachine/Hordes/Infinity/Mantic/Malifaux is soooooo much better than Warhammer 40,000, the models are better, the rules are better, the game is just better, if you like 40K more than the aforementioned then you're a casual GW whiteknight sheep" crap. It's impossible to as much as metion 40K without someone telling us how his game is better than ours. For crying out loud I just want to play my game I do not need you shouting at me about how much better Waramhordes of Infinite Dropzone Mantics is! Now shut up!

For example, on this very forum, someone was asking for ways to make his games of 40K more cinematic-house rules, background music, the like. It took about 3 posts before someone said, and I quote; "If you want a cinematic game, play Infinity, it is infinitely superior to 40K in every way"

Well... it's true! :

Actually, I prefer saying that I like X game better than Y, because some folks do prefer Y to X, even if they are obviously wrong....

I definitely like Kings of War more than the current edition of Warhammer - but I have enjoyed previous editions of WHFB as much as KoW.

The Auld Grump

TAG - Would the person in question be Monte Cook, by any chance?

I doubt it. It sounds more like Kevin Sembeida than anyone else.

 frozenwastes wrote:
I doubt it. It sounds more like Kevin Sembeida than anyone else.

Can't be.

Despite shenanigans over the years, Palladium is still around, and he said this company was not.

Oops. I missed that.

Though he now has a new company... and a Kickstarter, I think.

Yep - and got his funding, back in March, looks like.

This looks like a supplement for Pathfinder

Hopefully he is wiser, this time around.

I will also say that before he went and founded (then fumbled) his own company he helped create one of my favorite role playing games - he has talent, but....

He also has a quote that I take to heart when running role-playing games, I even made a motivational poster of it:


The Auld Grump, after that... you only get half a cookie.

Another fart of a wargaming statement:

"New citadel paints are BULLCRAP!!!!!!"

I could have nominated any of the "I say x is y, so x IS y" quotes floating around dakka, but I thought this even worse than the others.

 sing your life wrote:
Another fart of a wargaming statement:

"New citadel paints are BULLCRAP!!!!!!"

I could have nominated any of the "I say x is y, so x IS y" quotes floating around dakka, but I thought this even worse than the others.

So any statement of opinion is stupid? Noted.

(Point of fact, I enjoy the new colors)

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Another fart of a wargaming statement:

"New citadel paints are BULLCRAP!!!!!!"

I could have nominated any of the "I say x is y, so x IS y" quotes floating around dakka, but I thought this even worse than the others.

So any statement of opinion is stupid? Noted.

(Point of fact, I enjoy the new colors)

I guess so. What I've gathered from the OP is any criticism of GW is a "stupid thing". We had this out about the paints on the previous page. OP, we get it; you're a fanboi of GW's new paint range.

I enjoy some of the colours. I also love CD'Arms inks as GW's washes are crap (except for Nuln oil). Vallejo is my go-to paint range, not least because they're cheaper than GW. GW is still my go to for metallics.

Many people have been irked by GW and their paints not once, but twice in very recent memory. First they got rid of the inks, then they got rid of their whole paint range and replaced it with another one which does not match in many key areas, forcing them to go elsewhere to complete preexisting armies.

Warhammer and 40K are not just Beer and Pretzel games.

Finecraft is Great.

And the best plastic is better then metal because all the poses you can do with multi part kits, hey look I posed this arm 2mm lower then the other guys. Plus it will be cheaper .

P.S. and yes this was all said by a player, the same one no less.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Another fart of a wargaming statement:

"New citadel paints are BULLCRAP!!!!!!"

I could have nominated any of the "I say x is y, so x IS y" quotes floating around dakka, but I thought this even worse than the others.

So any statement of opinion is stupid? Noted.

(Point of fact, I enjoy the new colors)

I guess so. What I've gathered from the OP is any criticism of GW is a "stupid thing". We had this out about the paints on the previous page. OP, we get it; you're a fanboi of GW's new paint range.

I enjoy some of the colours. I also love CD'Arms inks as GW's washes are crap (except for Nuln oil). Vallejo is my go-to paint range, not least because they're cheaper than GW. GW is still my go to for metallics.

Many people have been irked by GW and their paints not once, but twice in very recent memory. First they got rid of the inks, then they got rid of their whole paint range and replaced it with another one which does not match in many key areas, forcing them to go elsewhere to complete preexisting armies.

*sigh*

I nominated this post because:

1.He didn't give a single talos-damned reason to support his point.
2. A failed attempt at a precision F-strike.
3.From the tone of a post I'd expect that this guy went into a GW store when the new paints got realesed, tried to basecoat a miniature using one of the dry compounds and immediatly decided the range was complete gak.

Also I am not a "fanboi" [sic] of the new paints, in fact I'm planning to only use vallejo from now on.


text removed.
Reds8n

 sing your life wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 gunslingerpro wrote:

 sing your life wrote:
Another fart of a wargaming statement:

"New citadel paints are BULLCRAP!!!!!!"

I could have nominated any of the "I say x is y, so x IS y" quotes floating around dakka, but I thought this even worse than the others.

So any statement of opinion is stupid? Noted.

(Point of fact, I enjoy the new colors)

I guess so. What I've gathered from the OP is any criticism of GW is a "stupid thing". We had this out about the paints on the previous page. OP, we get it; you're a fanboi of GW's new paint range.

I enjoy some of the colours. I also love CD'Arms inks as GW's washes are crap (except for Nuln oil). Vallejo is my go-to paint range, not least because they're cheaper than GW. GW is still my go to for metallics.

Many people have been irked by GW and their paints not once, but twice in very recent memory. First they got rid of the inks, then they got rid of their whole paint range and replaced it with another one which does not match in many key areas, forcing them to go elsewhere to complete preexisting armies.

*sigh*

I nominated this post because:

1.He didn't give a single talos-damned reason to support his point.

Didn't read the last paragraph then I take it?

2. A failed attempt at a precision F-strike.

Um, what?

3.From the tone of a post I'd expect that this guy went into a GW store when the new paints got realesed, tried to basecoat a miniature using one of the dry compounds and immediatly decided the range was complete gak.

Major assumption to make there mateybobs. I've been painting since you were gaking into nappies, hell, before you were even born. I have given a reason as to why the GW paint range is utterly terribly in places. Seriously, do a search of this forum for "chestnut ink" to see the scores of threads about people desperately trying to find a replacement. Same goes for Devlan Mud with the most recent change.

Also I am not a "fanboi" [sic] of the new paints, in fact I'm planning to only use vallejo from now on.

Could've fooled me. Remember kids, if you disagree with the OP in this thread, your comment becomes immortalized as a "Stupidest thing (he's) ever heard about a wargame"

text deleted.

reds8n

This whole thread has been a train wreck since you started it. I'd suggest PMing a mod to lock it as they'll do that for you as the OP.

That's not a bad idea actually.

Threads which are, for the most part, an excuse to slag of on someone/something - they usually don't last long.

Or end well.