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

If I was having to remind them every single turn then yes I could see that as basically coaching but where is the harm in reminding someone about Orders in turn 4/6 when they have 50 Hormogaunts eating their Guardsmen?
I am a pretty casual player so maybe it's the comp mindset I just don't get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.

^ What Clockwork said.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.

Ok, lets jump to the real world then, where we play with the have to tell your opponent everything. You opponent deploys one of his unit, in what to you, assuming you are not a mind reader, is a disadvantageous position. Seeing this you proceed to inform him about your unit weapon ranges, charge rules etc. This is considered the norm and how the game should be played, so he is not suprised by it. He still doesn't undo or change the move. Which means one of two things, he is trying to fix the match without you being involved in it, or this movment or unit placement is part of his strategy or bait of some sort, which you now will see. Before when under the prior rule set , the bait would have worked, because something you percived as your opponent would not have made you tell him about it, which wouldn't start the chain of events of him not pulling the move back etc. And this couldn't have been mind games either, because puting units in wrong places knowingly and through that generating questions, would go against the wasting time rule.

Hyperbole thy name is Karol.

Nice made-up nonsense there chief. Take you long to come up with that absurd and utterly pointless analogy that adds nothing to the discussion?
You know fine well what it means when the document says remind opponents of rules they might have missed. Telling someone to deploy their unit in a different place isn't reminding them of their rules. Telling someone they forgot to use a Prayer from their Chaplain this turn is reminding them of their rules.

Karol wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.

Ok, lets jump to the real world then, where we play with the have to tell your opponent everything. You opponent deploys one of his unit, in what to you, assuming you are not a mind reader, is a disadvantageous position. Seeing this you proceed to inform him about your unit weapon ranges, charge rules etc. This is considered the norm and how the game should be played, so he is not suprised by it. He still doesn't undo or change the move. Which means one of two things, he is trying to fix the match without you being involved in it, or this movment or unit placement is part of his strategy or bait of some sort, which you now will see. Before when under the prior rule set , the bait would have worked, because something you percived as your opponent would not have made you tell him about it, which wouldn't start the chain of events of him not pulling the move back etc. And this couldn't have been mind games either, because puting units in wrong places knowingly and through that generating questions, would go against the wasting time rule.

So what you described initially was a game with a new player or someone you're coaching which is fine. And reminding them of their rules (or your rules) doesn't mean you tell them what to do, you're just not springing them with a "gotcha". They can still make what seem like unoptimized moves in order to take advantage of positioning.

And distraction carnifex tactics like you described would still work because they rely on being enough of a threat that the opponent has to target them to remove them, but not being a massive points investment meaning you will always trade up in any exchange you put them into, even if the opponent knows it's bait.

You make valid points, and if it's a new player we do coach them on their and our own rules. But my opponents never remind me of my rules either, it's a certain mentality in this group. I too would rather win knowing my opponent gave it their all but if certain courtesies aren't being returned I will stop doing them too. Now don't think that's because we are toxic to each other, rather we remind each other after the fact when it's too late to redo. We feel that while this might have handicapped your ability to win this game, a painful lesson is better remembered and you will become a better player faster in this way.

The issues outlined in this players agreement don't address the fundamental issues that 40k really has to deal with.That issue is primarily about setting player expectations for power play, and narrative gaming. Different players prioritize different parts of the game. Some build lists for power above all else, while others are looking for an army to play in the style and way of their choosing. Too often are these players forced to play one another when each has a different expectation of what they're going to get out of the game. When some players fell like they don't, or can't, get what they want out of an interaction due to the way that they each have chosen to approach the game, it leads to conflict.

This players code doesn't address this AT ALL, and from my experience has been the cause of all of my worse interactions in 40k.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
Sounds like babysitting to me, it's up to my opponent to remember to use his army's tools not me. Only thing we remind each other of over here is non-optional rules that should always go off.

Eh, if I need my opponent to forget rules to win I don't feel like I've really won that on skill.

Personally I feel like helping my opponent improve by helping them with their rules not only raises the skill level of my local group which helps me raise my own, but it also helps me master the playstyles of more armies since it reinforces their armies in my head allowing me to better understand them and plan around what their army does.

This is where I'm at as well.

Reminds me of the old sportsmanship score. Should attach vp to those conditions...

Tycho wrote:

Most of the time, the younger players in a club tend to take on the tone of what the older players are doing. Got a positive, upbeat group? The kids will follow suit. Got a negative, "cheaty" meta? The kids will follow suit. Making them read a "code of conduct" isn't going to help either way. Especially not when most clubs already have something in place like this anyway. But, again, I still feel like this is a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Things can and do get contentious on Dakka. I've not seen anywhere near that level in real life. It's just so rare that I really wonder at what people are doing that they find enough of these folks to make them WANT this in the BRB. I just don't get it honestly.

I think we basically agree that, yeah, that code is not going to help most people or solve major issues by itself - the people it helps are going to be rare, or will be helped in very small ways. Where we disagree is whether that makes the small thing worth doing.

I say that so much is on the small things. A few will adopt it as an ideal or memorize it, but much of the time, when it does help, most helped will not(and indeed, might not even be definitively able to) point to the Code as what forestalled a possible piece of gakky behavior; It's going to be simply a second thought before something is said that makes the game less pleasant, or a small change in the tone of the game. If it generates that, a few second thoughts, a few more pleasant games here and there, then that can have a knock-on effect; a sort of reverse toxicity, and I'd happily take a half page of the rulebook with this and the chance that it could improve a game here and there over another random diorama or other rulebook filler.

 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?

Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.

 vipoid wrote:

 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?

Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.

...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.

I seem to recall mild, simple advice about how to be a good sport and a fun opponent in GW rulebooks before this. Not a big code of conduct like this but a little paragraph or comment here or there.

Certainly, D&D Dungeon Master's Guides have something similar. It's just a nice idea to encourage people to play nice, not something that people need to get upset about really.

My only very poor experience playing a wargame didn't involve any of the things on this list anyway, just a game with a mismatch of expectations that I felt had thoroughly wasted my time. And that was really more of an issue with the core rules of that edition than any social problem.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?

Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.

...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.

Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me with a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.

There’s posturing and then there’s this thread. What a salty mess over one page that says “don’t be an donkey-cave”. And people’s response is to be donkey-caves to each other? Ok. It’s a choice I gues.

That list would be so long and so subjective. But I guess as OP said in respounce to my joke. "Don't even joke." Jokes are illegal even if you're mocking the toxic problem behaviour that is the subject of the threads grievance.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
That list would be so long and so subjective.

Yeah. That was the exact point I was making to begin with.

Alas, people couldn't help but take offence at my pointing that out.

You bad,bad man.


In actual seriousness though and even though it's been said, I should pad my post with more then a joking respounce. The kind of problem-children something like the player's code will address will not be stopped by paper. The only real solution is to try and find a gaming group that shares the same kind of vibe you want. Not everyone is a weaponized TFG from a Mongolian Basket Weaving Forum.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
That list would be so long and so subjective. But I guess as OP said in respounce to my joke. "Don't even joke." Jokes are illegal even if you're mocking the toxic problem behaviour that is the subject of the threads grievance.

As the OP, where did I say don't joke?

Literally when you replied to my comment. It's on the third or something page.

 Shadowbrand wrote:
Literally when you replied to my comment. It's on the third or something page.

You mean this?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Shadowbrand wrote:
Sometimes some toxic 40k builds character.

No it doesn't. Don't justify people being abusive jackwagons even as a joke.

Yeah, that wasn't "don't joke" that was "don't justify people acting like donkey-caves even as a joke". donkey-caves don't get that it's a joke and will unironically adopt this as a mantra. It's not about joking, it's about not giving ammunition to people who wear their butts as hats to justify their gakky behavior.

 vipoid wrote:

Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me of a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.

Unless you genuinely want to turn this into a discussion on the nature of what's 'offensive' - which I wrote several paragraphs regarding before realizing it was getting long, rambling, and well out of the expected scope of this thread - then the short answer is that it's very context sensitive. It's something you have to address with every group you deal with. And yes, it's a complicated question that a simple code isn't going to solve outright.

But it isn't about solving structural social problems - it's about a little reminder to be civil, which can go a long way.

Not being a jerk is difficult. I'm not sure I always succeed, frankly, and sometimes that just comes from a momentary failure to consider things or gradually feel out what's acceptable in a given group. A code may give someone a second thought to consider their words in public spaces or with those they don't yet know, and may genuinely help.

Karol wrote:


Let me intreduce you to the history of wrestling then. In its beginings among the Greeks, they very fast found out a few things about , sure there be rules in events. First thing was that, when a master of multiple events wins, by breaking the hands and fingers of his opponents every time, it lowers the attendance of the event, and is kind of a "unfair". Later with another champion, they revised the rules for kicking. Leg drops were always part of the sport, but an Ephesian champion got so good at kicking his opponents in the groin area, that he managed to kill two of his opponents durning Olympic events, you know those holy ones, no war, competition watched by the gods where people shouldn't kill each other. Groin kick and groin punchs were made illegal.


I think that GW games would gain a lot, not from the "don't be an donkey-cave" as a rule, but with an official code of conduct. What can be done, what can not be done. How to you call a judge, how to you resolve a dispute in another way the throw a dice, because I don't remember it, but my trainers do and matchs being decided by a refs coin toss were hated in every sport ever, specially by people that performed the sport.

And that is a problem before stuff like, someone from the US comes to europe with his concept of what is okey, and finds out it is drasticaly different. At my store there is a guy who has a hand sculpted Toltek inspired eldar army. From what I understand in the US, people would find his army offensive, because he isn't a Toltek himself, in fact he is very Polish.

I completely understand the point you are making here, and it's a fair point. If the iteration of the rules of conduct is created to be vague, then the room for abuse increases (as does the likeliness of such behavior). I would offer though that governing human behavior into a rule set of behaviors, even for something as simple as a tabletop miniatures game, would be vastly complex. As a comparative, though not equal example, the Diagnostics and Statistics Manual, 5th edition, released in 2013 is the most commonly used psychological diagnostic manual in the United States, is a 1000 page book that covers diagnostic behaviors alone. Not normative behaviors that can be observed and reported on abnormally, but these are, clinically speaking, nonnormative and maladaptive behaviors alone. And the DSM-V has a significant degree of criticism levied against it for being too vague, not widely ranged enough to encapsulate gradients of disease, doesn't cover enough, etc, etc.

It would be almost impossible to provide a hard list of what can, and cannot, be done within the context of human behavior, and that becomes multiplied exponentially with the inclusion of an adversarial system in which multiple people are attempting to compete with each other. I think it would probably just be better to lay out some groundwork, say "hey, this is what we think is a good idea", and leave the minutia up to the individuals running events to interpret and act upon. Sure there are going to be mistaken, and there are going to be areas where both parties involved, or all parties involved will have an equally valid point to make in contention to the others, but i think that would be better than attempting to dictate human interaction behind a rigid structure of rules.

Because at that point, the guidelines do actually become a malleable malleus from which to determine who actually is worthy, and anytime you place a subjective litmus test on the entry to any social event, it is by default made exclusive.

Side note on the whole Toltek army: people in the US get really upset at everything. It's kind of what we do. Sometimes it's justified, sometimes it isn't, but most importantly, most of the time it is spoken about loudly on the internet and never seen in practice or real life. If your friend came into one of my local stores with an army like that, I promise you, black, white, yellow, green, purple, orange, blue, doesn't matter...everyone is going to be talking to him and taking pictures of it. It has been my professional experience that it would be the same just about anywhere.

 CEO Kasen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Horla wrote:

Yet somehow getting through a couple of hours without saying something offensive remains an impossibility so the only course of action is… silence?

Remember kids - if you point out the logical flaw in a company's code of ethics, that doesn't make the ethical code badly written; it makes you a bad person.

...I think I'm on the opposite side of this debate from you and I have no idea what point Horla was trying to make.

I direct you to this quote, Kasen:

 vipoid wrote:

Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.

Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.

Somehow the above is pointing out a "logical flaw," not taking a scenario to such a ridiculous extreme that you end up playing a game in silence - which you would think would cause issues with actual gameplay.

 vipoid wrote:

And if it actually was 'don't be a dick' I'd have no problem with it.

Indeed, I have said multiple times that I have no issue with the actual 'don't be a dick' parts.

And yet, you took especially the "offend" part to make a mockery out of it.
What is the difference between "Don't offend the other player" and "Don't be a dick"? Both are standing there without a list of actions to avoid or words to say.
You could replace the wording respectively in your other post and it would be the same argument.

 vipoid wrote:

...you might have realised the problem with statements like that. Because unless my opponent is someone I already know very well (in which case we probably already know what we can/can't say to one another and don't need GW's intervention), I have absolutely no idea what will or won't offend them. I could say something I'd consider offensive and find that it doesn't offend them at all, or I could say something seemingly innocuous that ends up offending them regardless. Hence, the only way I can avoid using language that might offend them is to avoid using language altogether.

 vipoid wrote:
Cool.

Tell you what, then. Please provide me with a complete list of all language that might conceivably cause offence to somebody.

That way I'll know everything I'm not allowed to say and can avoid being a jerk.

Until 2014 the UK's law against Hate Speech included "insults" as being punishable. The government did not provide a complete list of what counts as an insult. How did you manage? Did you live your life in complete silence until then?

 vipoid wrote:

If you hadn't immediately jumped on the offended-asshat bandwagon and instead engaged your brain for 30 seconds,

 vipoid wrote:
But sure, keep defending their nonsense. Maybe one day sempai GW will notice you and give you the much-coveted White Knight of the Year Award.

Ironic that you use personal insults in a discussion about the guideline to not use offending language. Insults in lieu of arguments are often a good indicator for what side got the weaker position.

 Dysartes wrote:
I direct you to this quote, Kasen:

 vipoid wrote:

Avoid using language your opponent might find offensive.

Given the exceptionally long list of words and phrases that have allegedly caused offence to someone (not to mention such joyous inventions as "microaggressions"), I can't help but think that the only way to avoid using language that your opponent *might* find offensive would be to play the entire game in complete silence.

Somehow the above is pointing out a "logical flaw," not taking a scenario to such a ridiculous extreme that you end up playing a game in silence - which you would think would cause issues with actual gameplay.

Oh. Derp. Yeh, that'd do it. Okay, thanks, knowing what it was rebutting in this unexpectedly fractious discussion helps.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I have to agree with those opposed to "ask permission for unpainted/proxy model".
GW has really gone all in on the "go official or go home", when they make terrain rules they don't even do generic terrain, they make rules for this particular ruin that comes from this particular kit. urgh.

Well. 40k rules work just fine with any terrain. No requirement to buy kits. It's all about the traits you assign. Rulebook only gives examples but not requirements. Hint: You are expected to hash out what they are with opponent. Ruins are SUGGESTED as obscuring...but can be dense. 100% official rule!

AOS3 rules don't have requirement either. Not much change there except for LOS blocking for forests and now certain very big ones take 2/4 of recommended amounts(who has over 19" wide terrain pieces? O_o)

(AOS3 being fairly unchanged in terrain was bit of a surprise. I was expecting more like 40k. But forest blocking LOS is good change at least)

I also wanted to comment on Karol's anecdote about the dead dog. I believe you've mentioned before having a diagnosis about being on the autism spectrum?
Does your teacher have access to this diagnosis? As a teacher it would seem heavy handed and inappropriate to me to punish a student with a diagnosis like this if no harm was intended. I'd probably talk to you outside the room for a few minutes to figure out what you meant by the comment and explain to you why the other students feelings might have been hurt, and then invite the other student out so you could both discuss it, apologise if appropriate, and move on in a constructive manner.

It doesn't seem like the kind of thing I'd throw someone out of class for, so I'm sorry that happened.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
The player's code:


Honestly I rather like it (especially the part of reminding your opponent about rules your opponent forgot), but I'm all for hearing other opinions on if we should adopt this even if 40k doesn't adopt this in the rule book.

Not reading all the responses, but no. Much of this is common sense. Other parts are putting what should be a fun game into the realm of " Don't relax, even for enjoying this game you have to have rules outside the rules in the game ! " Which I don't like on its face, as you maybe can tell from the avatar, I'm not a huge fan of plans.

Make a respectful gesture ? If I want to do this, I will, if not I won't. I don't see how this helps, as long as I am friendly. Even playing with good friends we don't always wish each other luck, it's implied, nor do we handshake of share a big hug. I'm not really a fan of it telling me I have to do that with a stranger either. The fact we are sitting down to play is me showing a good deal of respect as I value my time so that action alone shows my concerns towards them.

Such as, avoid using language your opponent might find offensive. How about I just read the room and play against people who can handle talking like an adult ? That sounds much better to me personally. If they can't, I'd rather not walk on egg shells the whole game.

Asking his permission to use unpainted models. I'll be damned if I'm going to " My lord may I ? " Just to play a game, I'll tell him/her/them whatever I am using some unpainted models, they can choose to play with me or not, I'm not seeking your permission.

I will offer all the info on what my stuff does but my job there isn't to remind them every two seconds, I'll have my codex they can give it a look over anytime they want.

It's equally not my job to remind them of all their army does as well as remember all my army does. The onus on knowing rules is on them or me for knowing mine. First off I'm not going to enjoy my game if I can't relax because heaven forbid I don't notice they messed something up while I'm thinking on my own army or just chatting with some, answering a text, etc, etc that you can do on your turn. Not trying to be mean but if I'm making sure to play both armies right why not just play against myself at that point ? If they make mistakes, and its not spotted right away, not to be rude but we learn from mistakes, me, them, everyone. Sometimes making those mistakes and having to live with them is better in the long run for remembering to do it right in the future.

Wasting time is very subjective as is distracting your opponent making them rules, is silly and completely up for debate what that would entail. Sure respect personal space but I've never found that to be an issue I've run into.The game is supposed to be fun, if you can chat with your opponent or god forbid take your time, why the heck are we even playing this " fun " " relaxed " game ?

Lastly, if I want to complain about my dice being the poop a little or let them vent some steam for way too many 1's at key times, so be it. If people don't want to hear me say anything remotely human during a game of chance, play on line games with no voice option.

Most of these rules are common sense, some of them are just silly and the ones directly trying to say what I can and can't say can take a flying leap.

Know who you play with, play with people who are chill, if you have to do all of these to appease a player I'd probably rather not play them as I'd want to have relaxed fun when I play and not have to remember " Oh I can't call my luck crap even once or I violate the rules of the game ! Reeeeeee ! "




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Castozor wrote:
You make valid points, and if it's a new player we do coach them on their and our own rules. But my opponents never remind me of my rules either, it's a certain mentality in this group. I too would rather win knowing my opponent gave it their all but if certain courtesies aren't being returned I will stop doing them too. Now don't think that's because we are toxic to each other, rather we remind each other after the fact when it's too late to redo. We feel that while this might have handicapped your ability to win this game, a painful lesson is better remembered and you will become a better player faster in this way.

Yeah there is a very real difference between teaching new players, which is good, to reminding someone else how to play their own army if they have played as long or longer than you have. Which is less good and is in the end to me not teaching them anything if they rely on you to tell them their own rules, that makes a player sloppy imo.

I feel the idea people won't complain about luck is optimistic, but the rest should be standard practice.

The good parts of it should be standard practice, the parts that aren't should be purged with flame. It's a game, there shouldn't need to written rules for how to have correct fun. Somehow I've managed my whole life in being as good a person as I can without this drivel and I think I'll continue on this trend once I forget about it again.

But you all better remind me of my rules and and don't say offensive things to me, like anything about Necrons, and if I see even one unpainted model and you didn't grovel for my mercy you're getting yeeeted right out the game area.

Don't even get me started on if I don't get some respectful gestures at the start and the end of the game or I will be feeling some sort of way.