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.

Can someone explain what it means when someone is a "donkey cave"? After 8 years in the US Army, I thought I'd heard just about every possible swear word or insult a human can come up with, many having to do with Donkeys. But this is new to me.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can someone explain what it means when someone is a "donkey cave"?

Urban Dictionary wrote:Donkey Cave
Clever, Internet friendly term for donkey-cave.
Brad, quit being a donkey cave and help me move this rock.

EDIT: Dakka's filter doesn't like that word...

It’s a family friendly swear evading phrase.

There is another word for donkey. Starts with an “A” ends with a “S” 3 letters.

A cave is a hole in the ground.

What's wrong with just "Mudhole" As in "I will stomp a mudhole in your face Private, if you do not correct your uniform as soon as you feel comfortable doing so."

You've got the automatic swear filter on. We're not deliberately typing "donkey-cave".

I've been pondering this discussion a bit, and had a thought.

I think some thing that has changed slowly over the long haul of editions, which affects the "context" for playing games, is that "standard missions" that get played are increasingly dominated by missions designed around a competitive, tournament format.

What I mean by this is that the missions are symmetrical in their structure and even down to the layout of objectives. Secondary objectives provide a way to optimize your point potential relative to your opponent.

On paper, this sounds great. Of course you want the mission to be fair and the rolled mission to not hand a big favor to your opponent or yourself. You the match to be a test of skill or whatever.

The problem is that the above warps our expectations, both at a competitive tournament level and at a casual level. It's, in a way, a coddling. It's saying that "of course you have just as good a chance of winning as your opponent - don't blame the mission if you lose!"

In older editions, I'm especially thinking of 3rd and 4th that had a petty wide range of missions types, there were some missions certain armies were just going to be worse at, others they'd be better at. You'd try to hedge your bets by making an army list that could cover all the bases, but the point still remained.

I feel like, as a result of this older style of mission, it helped actually undercut some of the hyper-competitive mindset. You couldn't optimize a list perfectly. You knew some games were going to be an uphill battle to win, and would hope that it would even out across multiple games overtime. It just felt more easy going. The more varied missions with unusual setups made normal matches and their mission pool feel more narrative based, rather than competitive based.

I recall people complaining about older editions but then realizing their groups MO was just to play the cleanse mission over and over, or similar symmetrical setups. They complained about overpowered lists, dull repetitive games, etc.

All of this had led to a bifurcation of matches/competitive players versus narrative/crusade players and their associated attitudes towards the game. I think everyone, and the game itself inherently, leaned more towards a narrative "let's see what happens!" style of play that's missing more and more.

Deadnight wrote:
'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me.

To where players can make lists that seem right and play against each other without the game or overpowered codexes taking a gak on people's fun.

Deadnight wrote:
And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.

It's different when you need vets to walk you through the game system not flatlining when you play it "wrong."

Deadnight wrote:


*shrug*

Then they move on, or try and figure it out through the various means available. Personal responsibility is a thing.

The playerbase isn't responsible for GW's boneheaded rules and profit-wringing behavior.

Hecaton wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
'Isnt so bad' is pretty relative but kind of meaningless if you ask me.

To where players can make lists that seem right and play against each other without the game or overpowered codexes taking a gak on people's fun.

If that's your metric then pretty much every ttg fails. Every game has easy-to-walk-into-match up-issues, especially if you don't know any better. 40k isn't the only horse in town with lopsided factions. And I'm pretty sure walking into the likes of haley 2 with someone like p stryker in warmachine is just as frustrating.

Hecaton wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
And 'necessary' is a poor benchmark. I've played a lot of systems in multiple countries and have never seen a ttg where new people didn't reach out to vets or vets weren't encouraged to pass on what they knew.

It's different when you need vets to walk you through the game system not flatlining when you play it "wrong.".

See above. That's ^every game^.

Which is why its so important to teach, guide and accommodate our peers.

Hecaton wrote:

Deadnight wrote:


*shrug*

Then they move on, or try and figure it out through the various means available. Personal responsibility is a thing.

The playerbase isn't responsible for GW's boneheaded rules and profit-wringing behavior.

And yet, when they refuse to help or accommodate each other, or consider working around the issus and instead weaponise every sharp edge in the game and gleefully inflict it on their peers they're just as complicit. Both sides of the exact same coin. And when they refuse to acknowkedge their own part in it, or that there's anything they can do, I rapidly start to lose sympathy for them. Personal responsibility is a thing.

 Ordana wrote:
Plus you don't see the work put into trying to create 2 lists that will have a fun game, something that normally doesn't happen when 2 people play a pick up game at a store/club.

Maybe, I've played since 3rd and ALWAYS considered pre-game work to tone up/down the lists as standard part of the game. Sometimes pre-game work isn't necessary as players know very well each other armies or the specific collections of the players are already pretty balanced to each other. That's what happened in most of my games in 9th edition, we didn't really need pre-game work to get fun balanced games. And that's another reason why I like 9th edition.

I've never considered random pick up games the best way to play a game like 40k, or any GW game to be honest. But in this edition it works very well at competitive levels, tournaments are pretty balanced right now. And in casual metas it works better than in the past.

It doesn't mean 9th edition is perfect. It simply satisfies what I'm expecting from a game like 40k. Sometimes it's not "playing it wrong", it's expecting 40k to be something it never was and probably never will be.

Deadnight wrote:

Hecaton wrote:


The playerbase isn't responsible for GW's boneheaded rules and profit-wringing behavior.

And yet, when they refuse to help or accommodate each other, or consider working around the issus and instead weaponise every sharp edge in the game and gleefully inflict it on their peers they're just as complicit. Both sides of the exact same coin. And when they refuse to acknowkedge their own part in it, or that there's anything they can do, I rapidly start to lose sympathy for them. Personal responsibility is a thing.

Who gives the players those sharp edges? Who refuses to dull those edges or take them away? This isn't someone who eats McDonalds every day or drinks 20 litres of coke where the corporation just puts out a product then forgets about it. GW is almost fully in control of the rules and the state of the game and have some control over how people interact with it. Most player will always play with the most recent rules and GW know that. If they don't fix the rules in such a way that it makes it at least difficult for people to be donkey-caves then that is on them.

beast_gts wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Can someone explain what it means when someone is a "donkey cave"?

Urban Dictionary wrote:Donkey Cave
Clever, Internet friendly term for donkey-cave.
Brad, quit being a donkey cave and help me move this rock.

EDIT: Dakka's filter doesn't like that word...

It used to be worse. Most of you whippersnappers missed the Donkeycannon days.

 Sim-Life wrote:


Who gives the players those sharp edges? Who refuses to dull those edges or take them away?

Let's be clear. I'm not exonnerating gw. theyre not without blame. Theirs is a game that is at best, poor. Their rules? Notoriously bad. Their motivations? Cynical. Manufactured discontent tells. Their balance? Laughable. But all the blame does not belong to them. theirs is only one side of the coin.

Who gives those sharp.edges? Pretty much every person who has ever written a ttg... its almost like these are limited systems ehere sharp/rough edges can't be avoided and can only hold so much weight. Another question to ask is who goes looking for them.

 Sim-Life wrote:

GW is almost fully in control of the rules and the state of the game and have some control over how people interact with it. .

And we the players have all of the control over (a) what they bring to the table, (b) how they play and (c) who they play against and hell, (d) what rules to use (or not!).

Neither you nor I can change gw. What we can do is change our local environment. And consider the game we bring to the table. That is absolutely within our power to affect. Its like the thinking behind recycling. We all do our bit.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Most player will always play with the most recent rules and GW know that.

Will they? I strongly doubt that. The flgs/store crowd? Maybe. Garage gamers? Old hammer players? Casuals? Plenty of us around.

And players that happily buy into this 'chasing the dragon' are just feeding the monster. (Doubling down on all the sharp edges exacerbates further). They players chose this approach. There's other ways of playing. We know full well that this approach is problematic and a big component of the issues with the game. Like I said, players do have a role to play and ofyem are complicit in the issues, just as gw are.

And let's face it, if the approach is problematic or helps contribute to the issues you face, but you keep doing it anyway, well thats on you.
And I'm sorry but my sympathy wears thin very quickly.

 Sim-Life wrote:

If they don't fix the rules in such a way that it makes it at least difficult for people to be donkey-caves then that is on them.

I'll have that fantasy with a side of unicorn please.

Trying to say it's gw's fault people are donkey-caves to either other is incredibly conceited rubbish and moral cowardice. 'Gw and The rules' don't help, but players choosing to weaponise and abuse those sharp edges is the other side of it.that is on the players. And this is in every game. And hey, maybe players should call those jeeks out if theyre poisoning the game or play with likeminded people who dont do that kind of thing instead. Been doing it here for nearly ten years of the 18 I've been actively gaming and im loving my hobby, thanks. Suggests to me that this approach has worth. Frankly this approach saved my hobby for me. Like I said, personal responsibility is a thing.

You're familiar with the term "enabler" yes? I never said it was GW that makes players donkey-caves. I said it was GW that enables them to be donkey-caves. Also don't break up my posts like that if you're going to reply, I post from a mobile so its hard to respond to.