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.

I doubt there would have been talk of modeling for advantage as I hear on Day 2 he switch his awesomely converted models out for standard models which negated that. On personal level on those models I'm torn. I think they look awesome but they do grant a significant advantage based on their width.

I think that if you have something that is way, way out of proportion to the standard model then having a stand-in just in case is the best bet.

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

Chosen Praetorian wrote:

blood angel wrote:I have to agree with Shinkaze above.

Random game length ending on turn 5 is crap. It is an unfortunate rule that GW has saddled us with.

+1
I hate that Ive seen so many people pull out a draw/win from a game they got their handed to them in because of the game randomly ending at turn five

You can keep playing 4th edition if you can find people interested in it. If you are not playing for a possible turn 5 end, and your opponent wins because of it, he played better than you.

Don't complain about it; play better. It's like the folks who complain about Dawn of War and complain about Kill Points and complain about Capture & Control. Guess what? Those rules and missions are there to force you to be flexible and come up with tactics and army lists which aren't boned by them. If my tactics or army list are boned by those rules, then that's MY failure as a player.

DarthDiggler is my tournament-playing internet brother from another mother.

That's like saying you can't have an opinion though. I can hate Capture & Control even if I win it.

It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

I actually enjoy it quite a bit.

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Mannahnin wrote:DarthDiggler is my tournament-playing internet brother from another mother.

Knowing both of you .. this comment is disturbing and troubling.

Mannahnin wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Pyrovores suck.

Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy. To my eyes, it's equivalent to saying that good players who like to play by 5th edition rules and codices figure out how to fit Pyrovores competitively into lists. I think everyone pretty much went "this is dumb, I'm never using this." SOME people, who aren't idiots or bad gamers by any means, feel the same way about OTHER things GW has published 5e rules and codex-wise.

Yeah, that's an extreme example, and from a codex, but the point is GW can make mistakes, and can publish questionably "Fair" or "competitive" things ... arguments about why they ARE fair or competitive are probably better than blanket disregarding any opinion that doesn't strictly adhere to 5e. Hell, there isn't a tournament out there that does.

Also, I routinely play with and am a member of that nebulous and questionably-proof-oriented group of "GT-winning 40k players." Plenty of people in that group have won most or all of the KP, 5-6-7 RGL, C&C, etc., games they've played ... handily at that ... and yet still don't think they have merit. That's not to say they DON'T ... just that it's not simply a cadre of baddies who are espousing such a position.

<3 intended in all respects,
- Mike

MVBrandt wrote:Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy. To my eyes, it's equivalent to saying that good players who like to play by 5th edition rules and codices figure out how to fit Pyrovores competitively into lists. I think everyone pretty much went "this is dumb, I'm never using this." SOME people, who aren't idiots or bad gamers by any means, feel the same way about OTHER things GW has published 5e rules and codex-wise.

This. Just because someone dislikes a mission does not mean they are incapable of evaluating it for appropriateness, good design or more importantly *fun*. I play Dawn of War because it's in the rulebook, but I think it's a pathetically designed mission personally.

Cheers, Gary

Well thats why you make up your own missions for your own tournaments like Adepticon and Nova.

Every tournament makes up their own missions, and attaches scoring and such that isn't in the rulebook, yatta yatta yatta.

There are almost no tournaments, and even fewer GT's that simply random roll book missions, apply no battle points or margins or anything, and play some games for a couple days. This includes Throne of Skulls, which also does not simply random roll book missions and play simple 40k. Tournaments are as much "base 40k" as campaigns are. AKA they aren't.

The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

This feeling is strengthened by the fact that I've myself so many times in the past personally done just that.

MVBrandt wrote:The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

Did anyone say that?

I'm pretty sure the main point people were making is that it isn't the mission's fault that you lose. If you're going to play the game and you want to win, you need to adapt to the missions that the game involves. Not preferring one or the missions or deployment styles or random game length doesn't isn't the issue, blaming them for an inability to win is. I also haven't seen anyone saying that individual tournaments shouldn't make up their own missions, though just because you (general you, not you ) do that it doesn't make your missions any more or less intelligent or balanced.

Monster Rain wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:The point here is that there ARE legitimate, intelligent changes that can be made to the game to make it SUBJECTIVELY better or more fair at a tournament, or even in your basement. Arguing about why any given change or base rule is wrong or not great is ... fine. In fact, it can sometimes generate some really great conversation. Taking a stance of "STANDARD BOOK 5E 40K OR YOU'RE AN IDIOT" however, is just as wrong as when people say "KILL POINTS ARE OBVIOUSLY STUPID AND YOU JUST PLAY A BAD ARMY IF YOU THINK OTHERWISE." Guess I just don't like potentially intelligent people getting crapped on with blanket statements.

Did anyone say that?

I'm pretty sure the main point people were making is that it isn't the mission's fault that you lose. If you're going to play the game and you want to win, you need to adapt to the missions that the game involves. Not preferring one or the missions or deployment styles or random game length doesn't isn't the issue, blaming them for an inability to win is. I also haven't seen anyone saying that individual tournaments shouldn't make up their own missions, though just because you (general you, not you ) do that it doesn't make your missions any more or less intelligent or balanced.

I was more targeting some of the "tone" in some responses that was a little along the lines of "I've just found that most people who object to the book missions are bad." The overarching theme of "don't blame the mission" is one I strongly agree with ... and that was sorta my point. I've won a lot of tournament and pick-up games using book missions and book RGL ... and I still haven't always agreed with them as "ideal" for the game of 40k as it is right now. So, basically, I pretty much AGREE with your point, and most of the points made here, I just didn't like some of the "Tone" I felt from some posters about WHY people don't like certain rules components, and WHAT not liking them says about who they are as players.

Fair enough.

I guess I just wanted to clarify that that type of tone certainly wasn't intended to be read into my posts on the subject.

I don't particularly care for DoW missions, but that's because they really bone my Devastators and Thunderfire Cannon.

I don't know... I've certainly heard tons of complaints about 8th edition fantasy, and participated in them. However, sometimes people complaining are going along the lines of what Mannahnin said above- i.e., they're not adapting their playstyle to the changes, and suffering the consequences.

I.e., random charge length. Maybe time to fit in more swiftstride units? Declare charges with everything in range and just accept failed charges on the units that won't fit? Etc, etc... not a reason why intelligent players can't question why this game mechanic was introduced, but certainly not something to blame losing on (which I hear often "8th ed is so random, it cost me the game...").

So, I think I can see both sides of the argument here. It's certainly not good to imply that someone's not intelligent because they don't like a mission- but intelligent players adapt, even if they don't like it, so that they can win, anyway.

hyv3mynd wrote:

Dash got the lowest sportsmanship score....

Actually, I didn't.

I got the lowest sportsmanship score out of the top tables due to David Light chipmunking my sportsmanship; short of that, I had the same as many other folks in the GT, higher than others.

I think people should be as careful with the term "chipmunking", as they are with the term "WAAC". Both get thrown around more than they deserve, imho. Grading someone very low on sportsmanship, within the confines of the sportsmanship rubric at an event, is not always chipmunking... just as playing strict RAW, going for full battle points, etc is not always (or even usually) WAAC. I don't know what the case was here, but I think that term gets far, far overused...

I also don't think you should be using someone's real name on forums. I know you say that people are aware of your real name, but that doesn't mean that others are comfortable not using a screen name. You could have simply said "Someone gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly, that's why I have the low total" without specifying any name... that'd be a better way to do it, I think.

I also think it's fair to point out that your argument after your last event about the low sportsmanship score, was that you hadn't had a similar score at another event. Now you have, and you should be coming up with other ways of dealing with it / adapting to it than only accusing someone of chipmunking you (such as, for example, getting a judge ruling much earlier into critical rules disputes so that they don't escalate, take up a large portion of game-time, and give your opponent reason to dock your sportsmanship total- not that that was necessarily the case in that game).

MVBrandt wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Wolf 11x wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if you don't like it.

The point is that its not the mission's fault if you lose.

Right. It hardly makes the mission well thought out or enjoyable though!

Sure. But by the same token, the fact that someone doesn't enjoy it or complains about it doesn't necessarily mean that it's BADLY thought out or UNenjoyable either. In my experience, in many cases those people are lazy, or simply bad players, who have failed to adapt to the mission in question, and use it being "badly-thought out" or "a guaranteed draw" as excuses to not figure out how to win, or not to adjust their army list. Whenever I'm in a tournament and my opponent comments "I hate this mission" or "Dawn of War is dumb" or "Kill points suck" I feel kind of bad for them, but I also feel kind of amused and happy because it probably means an easier win for me.

Pyrovores suck.

Since when is everything GW creates rules-wise an *inherent* positive? I'm not saying Kill Points or Cap and Control or RGL are BAD; I'm not even necessarily saying I presently don't like them. I just think arguments like "Well those are the rules and if you're a good, tactical player you'll like them and have them figured out" are a little unfair. An ENORMOUS number of players dislike some of these components of the 40k rules, and blanket counters that imply their inferiority are inherently improbable in terms of accuracy.

Except that I didn't say any of those things. I know you're mostly reacting to perceived tone, but if you take another look at that paragraph you quoted above, I think you'll find that I qualified my statements repeatedly, and was careful not to make any universal, sweeping generalizations at all. "Doesn't necessarily mean". "in my experience". "in many cases". "probably means".

I can certainly agree that people can legitimately criticize GW, that not EVERY person who complains about kill points is an ignoramus, that not every mission is equally "fair" or "balanced". But in my experience most of the complaints of that sort that I've heard about 5th edition missions including ones I myself made (when 5th was newer), have been driven by the factors I mentioned. People are resistant to change, and they don't like having to change habits or ways of thinking which have brought them success in the past.

I'm not calling anyone an idiot, but I will opine that many of us are lazy, and we can be resistant to change and slow to adapt to a new play environment. In some cases it may be harder to adapt than in others. For example, as a former hardcore Eldar player, I personally thought always having Random Game Length was a brilliant choice in 5th ed, because I was bored with the Guaranteed Turn 6 quadrant/objective Grab with a Fast Skimmer. OTOH some other stuff (like Dawn of War Annihilation) I had a harder time adapting to.

Does Russell Adams have a blog or frequent a forum anywhere? I'd like to hear his thoughts on why he went dominions, and without vet sgts to boot. I've never seen a 6 faith point army at this point level.

RiTides wrote:I think people should be as careful with the term "chipmunking", as they are with the term "WAAC". Both get thrown around more than they deserve, imho. Grading someone very low on sportsmanship, within the confines of the sportsmanship rubric at an event, is not always chipmunking... just as playing strict RAW, going for full battle points, etc is not always (or even usually) WAAC. I don't know what the case was here, but I think that term gets far, far overused...

I also don't think you should be using someone's real name on forums. I know you say that people are aware of your real name, but that doesn't mean that others are comfortable not using a screen name. You could have simply said "Someone gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly, that's why I have the low total" without specifying any name... that'd be a better way to do it, I think.

I also think it's fair to point out that your argument after your last event about the low sportsmanship score, was that you hadn't had a similar score at another event. Now you have, and you should be coming up with other ways of dealing with it / adapting to it than only accusing someone of chipmunking you (such as, for example, getting a judge ruling much earlier into critical rules disputes so that they don't escalate, take up a large portion of game-time, and give your opponent reason to dock your sportsmanship total- not that that was necessarily the case in that game).

Actually, no - two events ago I got a low sportsmanship score - one of my detractors there was the same who "chipmunked" me here. The result of his action was me getting a middle of the road sportsmanship score - not a low one.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

In terms of your other point...the name is part of the story, since this is the second time we've faced each other. This is the second time my sportsmanship has suffered at his hand, although this time he had a judge talk to him being unreasonable - since the judge was on our table and saw the game. The internet is a place for people to post anonymously. That doesn't extend to your real life actions not being posted on the internet. All of us have real names. Traveling to a public event to publicly participate in the event for which results will be publicly posted...tends to get your real name involved in a discussion about you. If the actions you take in real life aren't something you want reflected on the internet, then those actions should change. I doubt David cares; he made no secret about his feelings about us not getting a sixth turn, judge intervention to tell him how it was or not.

I don't agree with this at all, and names in post like this can creep up and bite you in the ass in the future. Take for example the last time you used his name in a post, the one in which you told the world that he was a loud drunk that was late to the round and slowed the game down.

It's best to keep a person's real alias out of forums.

Or you could just not do things that you would feel uncomfortable being exposed.

Good life lesson that. If you do it, say it, whatever be prepared for the repercussions of what you did. To many people think the Internet is some "I did something stupid safe zone", it's not and shouldn't be.

Neither should it be a place where you can basically sling mud around without the person necessarily being able to defend themselves. I've noticed (and I'm sure many others have) that when events get posted about on the net afterwards, usually only a small percentage of the people who were there post, and usually without all the facts. So you end up getting a slanted view, and someone's name can get unfairly tarnished.

You obviously get the side of the story from the person posting about it... whereas if you were talking about it face-to-face with people at the event, you could quickly hear both sides.

One person's "That guy chipmunked me!" can be another's "That game was horrible, and here's why". Rather than air that dirty laundry in a thread about the tournament in general, simply posting "One opponent gave me a low sportsmanship score unfairly" would be a way to address it without going into territory that (imho) shouldn't be covered in a public forum.

Regarding Sports scores being popped:
I went to a few RTTs where the TO required you to write a sentence or 2 and justify the score you gave your opponent; good or bad.
If you dinged your opponent and it was for obvious BS reasons you recieved the score you just chipmunked your opponent with.

If it was a valid issue the TO then had something specific he could take back to the offending player...sometimes it would be an action or attitude (excess cursing or making critical dice rolls behind terrain and out of sight) the player was not even aware of doig.

Regardless, it made people really think over their scores and provide an honest assessment, rather than dinging a guy they don't know (or have some drama with) while pumping up their buddy (who actually is a slow-playing dice concealing loud mouthed douche).
Something to consider.

I'm with RiTides. While in principle I like the idea of "name and shame", in practice there's usually more than one side to a story like this. And for one person to start badmouthing the other where that other can't respond is poor practice. It makes already bad situations/relationships worse, and spreads ill-will.

Mannahnin wrote:I'm with RiTides. While in principle I like the idea of "name and shame", in practice there's usually more than one side to a story like this. And for one person to start badmouthing the other where that other can't respond is poor practice. It makes already bad situations/relationships worse, and spreads ill-will.

Why would you think he can't respond? He has a Dakka account, he posts here. Don't "presume" that my side of the story is inaccurate.

Liquidice: You said, "Take for example the last time you used his name in a post, the one in which you told the world that he was a loud drunk...." Yes, I remember that thread. He posted that he was only PRETENDING to be a loud obnoxious drunk to try putting me off my guard.

I'm not sure what lesson you think I'm supposed to learn from that.

Okay, maybe he can in this case. Although we were speaking more generally about why name & shame may not be the ideal policy. In the case of situations where both parties are on the forum, not everyone is equally eager to hash this kind of disagreement out publicly in this medium. Usually it's much more easily resolved in person. And usually communication online about sensitive matters is less effective, and onlookers may only catch part of it ans draw negative conclusions about one or both of the parties involved based on getting an incomplete, out-of-context picture.

As for what lesson, how about noting that the thread in question continued to spiral unpleasantly into a trainwreck? And that the focus of the discussion about the event was lost amidst sniping and personal drama?