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.

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

No, i'm saying that because you seem to delight in being rude and disrespectful to other posters, it's ok for me to point out, using the parlance of our time, the characteristics of your behavior. I've said nothing about you as a person, but rather I've defined the manner of your posting.

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

I am not rude, I am just blunt. People mistake that as rudeness and then issue personal attacks against me. Polonius' Assertion that it is then acceptable to make personal attacks because of my bluntness is in itself a personal attack.

Just to derail this thread a little more.

The 'Ard Boyz doesn't allow GKT in a Valkyrie. Says nothing about GKPA. Not as heavy hitting, but still an unpleasant surprise.

Gwar! wrote:

padixon wrote:

Gwar! wrote:What you are saying is that because I don't sugar coat my responses, it is OK to post personal attacks.

That in itself is a Personal Attack

no its not, in fact he was being polite in pointing out that you are coming off rougher than you may mean too.

I am not rude, I am just blunt. People mistake that as rudeness and then issue personal attacks against me. Polonius' Assertion that it is then acceptable to make personal attacks because of my bluntness is in itself a personal attack.

Read what I wrote. I did not say it was acceptable, I said it was funny. Bluntness, when it offends people, becomes rudeness. Etiquette is situational, and here a certain decorum is generally seen as a good thing. I'd also assert that you find your "bluntness" to be useful as a tactic, simply because people find it rude. The standard for offense is not subjective, it is objective. I think a reasonable person would find many of your posts to be rude, and not just blunt.

And you can keep repeating that my non-existent assertion is a personal attack, but that's not going to make it true. In addition, putting words in my mouth is simply not polite either.

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know!

Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Danny Internets wrote:

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know!

Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Knock yourself out, champ.

Polonius wrote:

Danny Internets wrote:

Like I said, you can call a spade a spade. When a person posts something full of spelling and grammar errors, it's not a personal attack to say they're posting like somebody that can't spell. Likewise, pointing out that a person posts like a jerk, when they do indeed post like a jerk, is not a personal attack. It's an accurate appraisal.

Ah, I see. So it's OK to derail threads simply to insult someone as long as you believe the insult to be merely pointing out fact. Good to know! Someone should let the mods in on that gem.

Knock yourself out, champ.

Are you inciting someone to self harm?

sourclams wrote:All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

We can dislike ambiguous rules all we want... but if GW have no interest in writing a seamless, tournament-ready ruleset, then it's not going to happen.

That's really all that I was getting at with option 3. They're going to write the ruleset that they want to write, and no amount of bitching on forums will change that, because GW have a very low opinion of the value of internet discussion.

insaniak wrote:
That's really all that I was getting at with option 3. They're going to write the ruleset that they want to write, and no amount of bitching on forums will change that, because GW have a very low opinion of the value of internet discussion.

Hmmm, I wonder why.

Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

Polonius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

sourclams wrote:People are acting like Gwar is the first person, ever, to have problems with Option 3.

Go do a search for Deff Rollas, God of War, Vulkan Allies, Nemesis Force Weapons, ICs and Snikrot, and the multitude of other things that generate 8 page threads.

All of us dislike ambiguous rules, and all of us wish they were clearer. At least Gwar pushes back against shoddy rules writers that we do indeed pay a hefty premium to.

Thanks, I am glad some people appreciate my stance rather than start throwing Personal Attacks left and right.

I've always found it interesting that it's always the most abrasive, in your face style of posters that seem to constantly whine about personal attacks. You have every right to post like an arrogant jerk, but you have to live with the consequences of that. Personal attacks aren't proper, and are no substitute for debate, but it's not impolite to call a spade a spade.

Remember, GW sees themselves as a minatures company that prints rules to use their pretty models in games. They don't see themselves as a gaming company that produces pretty models to play with.

And you do Realise GW was originally a Company that made no miniatures for 40k and just made the rules for them?

This is a prime example. Rogue Trader was released at the October 87 games day. Stuff of legends lists at least space marines as being released in Spring 87. By the 1988 catalog, there was a pretty decent range. http://www.solegends.com/citcat88/index.htm Couple this with the well known statements by GW officers are being a miniatures company, your post is both factually incorrect and nitpicky.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

And Cheaters Justify themselves by waving page 2 About.

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

They do write bad rules. Everyone knows this except JohnHwangDD.

The unfortunate thing is, the rules are the only thing that sell their models. The assumption that a tiny pewter man is intrinsically worth $20.00 without Space Opera is so wrong that I can't even comprehend the thought process that gets one to that conclusion.

sourclams wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Rules lawyers always blame GW stating they write bad rules to justify their game play. It is a basic 101 copout.

G

They do write bad rules. Everyone knows this except JohnHwangDD.

The unfortunate thing is, the rules are the only thing that sell their models. The assumption that a tiny pewter man is intrinsically worth $20.00 without Space Opera is so wrong that I can't even comprehend the thought process that gets one to that conclusion.

Personally I think it a combination of fluff, cool models, availability of opponents, and relativly simple play mechanics that sell the game IN SPITE of the sometimes unclear rules. Overall I think 5th ed rocks, but I do wish these constant niggly little issues were not so common.

IMHO of course, and now I have to go give myself 20 lashes for letting myself read a YMDC thread.

The fifth edition rules are the tighest yet. My only gripe with GW is their FAQs and errata... They completely missed the boat on Space Marines.

I have heard people say that the rules should be as tight as chess. I don't think that is possible seeing that GW is run strictly for profit... New edition roughly every five years and new codices. Things just constantly keep changing.

There are two approaches to rules that come into question and both methods can become clouded by bias, either interpreting a rule in favor of what races you play or not in favor against races you don't play. The first approach is basically to say if the rules don't say you can't then it's okay. This is the liberal approach. The second method is conservative... If you feel uncomfortable about something then play it safe and don't do it. No one I know has yet to strictly apply only one of these two methods for every issue that crops up. I tend to take the latter approach but there are certainly times when I'll opt for the liberal tact. We can play the rules to our best advantage when it helps us and be more consevative when a rule appears to hurt us. In the end I think it all just evens out. If a lot of people abuse a rule it will eventually be taken away by the game developers when a new set of rules are introduced. Then the cycle starts all over again.

G

I remember when Games Workshop produced only game rules and no miniatures. Back then, both Citadel Miniatures and Marauder Miniatures produced the entire Fantasy and 40k line between the two companies. Then Citadel bought Marauder, followed by Games Works purchasing Citadel; which was tragic since Citadel was founded by HG Wells to produce miniatures for historical and fantasy dioramic battles as well as some of the battles in his “future history” novels. GW's purchase of plastic injection production machines was quite recent.

So, yes, they can say that they are currently a miniatures company that writes rules, but that is a more modern spin on their own company history.

SJ