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.

People of equal skill will generally have more fun playing people of equal skill. Would someone who enjoys swimming necessarily enjoying racing Michael Phelps over and over? Not likely. Just recognize that it takes two people to game and try to make sure both players are having fun and if both sides do the same there will be no drama. It's nobody's fault in particular for enjoying playing one way or another, but we can all agree that it would be better to play against someone who enjoys the same things we do.

zeekill wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:

zeekill wrote:

That sums up the thread. You see the game as a contest to win, and you want to maximise your chance of winning by having the strongest possible list.

Lots of people don't see the game that way.

It's like playing a game of dice, for highest roll wins, and you have three dice while your opponent has only two. Your view is that your opponent should have brought three dice. His view is that you should have brought only two.

That's why "People frown upon 'Playing to Win'"

But that is exactly what makes no sence. If one is not going to have fun taking only 2 dice against my 3 dice, and furthermore judge me on that, then why don't they take 3 dice? I have fun either way unless its something like 20 D8's vs 1 D3, in which case the game is pointless. Why do they hinder themselves and then complain about how I am in the wrong for taking the 3 dice that each player is able to use?

LOL! Even here you "play to win". There are so many excellent posts and arguments being made since your last post, and you choose that one which is easiest to argue against. Incredible.

Because most of the others continue to bash me for "being a rules bully" when I have already said that rules arguments usually dont come up in my games too often.

zeekill wrote:
On the subject of interpreting rules, the only rule (in 40k) I have ever seen with multiple interpretations so far has been the hive guard gun rule. In fantasy there's also several issues with certain spells or items that require Ld checks on 3D6 when being cast on lizardmen. For the hive guard part, I've gone through the arguments and I've just decided to stop about that, because no matter who is right (in this scenario one other person who I thought gave the best argument for his side, and actually convinced me to interpret it his way (which to this day I still think is the right way to read it if you pick at the grammar and wording)), all of the Tyranid players will never acknowlege any interpretation that does not benefit them. As for the Lizardmen we went deeper into the wording and found the correct answer.

Rule #1: "Take a Ld test on 3D6....."
Rule #2: "All Lizardmen take Ld tests on 3D6 and discard the highest roll...."

Therefore the Lizards would just take their test on 3D6 and discard the highest, as there is no rule that says "an additional dice," only "3D6."
However if a rule would have said "take a Ld on 4D6" then when mixed with the Lizardmen rule it has no answer and would break the game. We should not allow it to break the game so people dice it off (until an FAQ is made).

If you look closely then most rules do have a correct answer. There is not a significant number of rules that dont.

The fact that you consistently cherry-pick rule calls where you've been right makes me certain that you're not correct by far as often as you want to believe. Also, all the rules you've used as examples are easy to understand. They are clearly defined, and only a moron wouldn't get it. Those aren't the rules in question. Those aren't rules you have to interpret or make judgment calls for. Which also leads me to believe that you understand far less of the BRB than you think you do. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Lots of people aren't the smartest people in the world, even though they think they are. I have a mate (the same guy I mentioned earlier, the rules bully) who always thinks he's the smartest guy in the room when it comes to tabletop games and tactics/strategy. He's not. What's fun is that when he's "at it" everyone else in the room just thinks "Oh man, what a douche". What's even funnier is that everyone but him knows everyone else thinks this. I believe you're that guy in your group of friends. You only believe you are correct all the time, when in reality, you're not. Nobody can be correct all (or probably even 75%) the time about tabletop wargames. Trust me. Nobody.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

Yet again, can someone please give an example of a controversial rule? You are only proving my point (that most of the rules have a clear cut answer) more and more by not supporting your claim about these "OMGWTF controversey" rules.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

zeekill wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Because they don't want to take three dice.

They find the game as much fun with two dice.

But clearly they don't, because they cry about not having fun when they lose.

Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

Or maybe its because I WANT to win, not because I'm AFRAID of losing. If someone brings 4 Dice and beats me I don't care. If someone brings 3 dice and beats me, I don't care. If someone brings 2 dice and beats me, I DON'T CARE. It happens. This is partially a luck based game in addition to a tactical game.
But when someone brings 2 dice and then complains about me bringing 3 dice, thats when I care. Because they QQ for losing to 3 dice and all I can wonder is why they don't just take 3 dice to gain a better advantage.
I have lost to 4 dice before, and I don't b*tch about it. I have lost to 20 dice before (I.E. playing towards rules loopholes or just using BROKEN lists) and I do care, I dissaprove, I talk with people about if there is any way to beat the guy with 20 dice. But I dont b*tch about it to the player, that would just make me a sore loser.

Enough with the MULTIQUOTE... just quote who and what you are responding to...

Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.

Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.

Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.

You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.

paulson games wrote:Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.

Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.

Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.

You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.

The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.

zeekill wrote:

paulson games wrote:Wanting to win isn't a bad thing, but I don't think that's the real issue here. You might be percieving it as them being frustrated at rules or competitveness of your list, but in reality it's probably their dislike of you as a person.

Reading your replies to other posters points out how inconsiderate and argumentive you, are and I suspect you are even worse in person. You can't use rules and "competitive spririt" as a sheild or as justifiction to why you should or shouldn't be liked.

Sportsmanship has nothing to do with any page in a rulesbook, it's based on how you interact socially with other human beings, an area that given the tone of your posts suggest you are completely inept at. Chances are that while the local crowd doesn't say it to your face, they all loathe to play against you and try to dodge you whenever they can.

Winning alone isn't making you happy, otherwise there would be no point for you having started this thread. You are at least in a small sense aware that you want some measure of respect from your opponent which you won't ever get with your current attitude. You could win 100% of your games and it'd still be a hollow victory because nobody respects a self absorbed ass.

You need to spend some time brushing up on your people skills, if you can wrap your head around that you might find that you not only enjoy the game better but you *might* also end up gaining the respect of your fellow players.

The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.

And that is the thing.

See the example of TFG.


If it weren't so blatent it wouldn't be such a horror show.

zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.

Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.

Particularly when you are not winning the debate.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:I like this site and the people on it, but, and it's a big BUT... GET A GRIP PEOPLE!

17 - 25 year olds should not be worrying about being competitive at plastic soldiers. You should be chasing women your age and their mothers, drinking cheap cider, and smashing up bus stops. Stop wasting all your money on warhammer. Earn yourself some respect and buy a decent guitar. The hobby is fun, but often I despair at threads like these. Get your priorities sorted. Rant over!

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Now we know who is smashing up bus stops along the Eccleshal Road!

Ah you silly Brits and your buses. *sigh* Closest thing to this where I live is cow-tipping.

But on to the dice arguement as I figured I'd simplify this. Let's say the game rules say you can have those 3 dice, and your opponent actually has the 3 dice to play with, the powergamer will bring 3 d20s to the normal guys 2 d6s and 1 d4. The winner is obvious from the start. The powergamer just goes, "well should of had 3 d20s, and overlooks the fact that he himself could buy 50 d20s if he wanted. His opponent couldn't afford (i.e. money) a single d20 if he got lucky. He is stuck with his purchases of 2 d6s and a d4, if the powergamer finds out he bought a d4 instead of d20, he ebays the d4 and goes and buys another few d20s just to be safe.

AvatarForm wrote:

zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.

Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.

Particularly when you are not winning the debate.

All I'm saying is that saying some of this stuff in real life may get me (or anyone for that matter) lots of hate because its not polite to argue this harshly.

However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.

On a seperate note, STILL no one has posted a controversial rule that I could be wrong about even though I think I'm right.

zeekill wrote:However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.

You are mistaken.

Dakka has rules on Politeness and ettiquette.

On a seperate note, STILL no one has posted a controversial rule that I could be wrong about even though I think I'm right.

In order to end this, I will make a thread specifically for this in the 40k General.

You will be free to Make Da Calls for each scenario.

The result is that this thread can die and everyone will be happy.

You can either prove that you are correct 99% of the time, or be proven wrong.

@KingmanHighborn:

I again have to emphesize that I don't want it to be 200 D20's vs 2D6. That is boring and there is no point in playing that.

I take 3D6 on purpose. So that while my list is competitive, it is not boring "spam this transport 11 times and win by not moving and rolling lascannon shots." Can I compete against razorwolves? Hell No. I would get crushed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AvatarForm wrote:

zeekill wrote:However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.

You are mistaken.

Dakka has rules on Politeness and ettiquette.

Yes. Which is why I have not been just calling people donkey-caves and you haven't been calling me a dickhole.

But as for the argument, we can both express our opinions, no matter how extreme to either side (or passive) they are.

Edit: LOL auto-corrected what I wrote into "donkey-caves." That made me laugh

zeekill wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:

zeekill wrote:The reason I argue so much here is because I can. In real life I bring it back alot. But this is the internet, where people can say exactly what they want without needing to care whether or not it will affect someone's social status, because other than a few exceptions there is no social status on the internet.

Admitting to trolling your own thread is not a sign of greatness, nor something you should be proud of.

Particularly when you are not winning the debate.

All I'm saying is that saying some of this stuff in real life may get me (or anyone for that matter) lots of hate because its not polite to argue this harshly.

However the internet allows everyone to express exactly what they mean without care for that. I'm sure that some of the others wouldn't say some of the things that they did if this was going on in real life.
.

... Oddly enough I tend to be a bit more polite on internet forums than I am in real life, perhaps due to the fact that someone 2,000 miles away can't click a button and "ban" me In "real life."

Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain

There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.

On the other hand
Dakka rule #1
Uncontroversial

zeekill wrote:
Yes. Which is why I have not been just calling people donkey-caves and you haven't been calling me a dickhole.

I labelled you a troll. Stating a fact is not breach of etiquette.

I did not resort to hyperbole or banal insults as you have listed.

FYI, your Thread of Judgement is here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/386889.page

Let ye be judged whence one month has passed....

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain

There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.

... What are you talking about?

zeekill wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Feel no pain
The internet is anonymous
You don't know them personally
You don't care about what they think or feel
So it doesn't hurt to generate hatred and you feel no pain

There
a controversial rule that you could be wrong about even though you think you are right.

... What are you talking about?

...You read Chibi...but you don't "read" Chibi...
Let me sum up " You operate under the premise that due to the anonymity of the internet you can say anything you wish with impunity."...

You seem to think that the anonymity of the internet gives you free rein to express your opinions irregardless of others' opinions and feelings.
You seem to think that anonymity some sort of anasthetic.

It isn't. Precicely because we can forget there is actuallly another person on the other end if the wire that we need to exercise caution and restraint in what we say.

Your feel no pain rule is controversial
Dakka's rule #1 is incontrovertable.


Edit: Thanks Fitzz
bang on the money

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:You seem to think that the anonymity of the internet gives you free rein to express your opinions irregardless of others' opinions and feelings.

To a certain extent. Again I'm not going to go and start insulting people for no good reason just because of the anonymity of the internet.

I can however express my opinions in full and if for whatever reason doing so insults someone then I don't really care. I'll apologize for sake of politeness, etc but it has no effect on my life, and therefore I don't really care.

It is not just about what you say.

While there will always be disagreement about WAAC
no one can gainsay that you have a right to discuss your opinions.

The problem is precisely because you, "really don't care" that you come out in the OP all guns blazing, and guaranteed to get peoples' hackles up.

What you are saying is that it is okay to wind people up then walk away with a clear conscience because it doesn't affect you.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is not just about what you say.

While there will always be disagreement about WAAC
no one can gainsay that you have a right to discuss your opinions.

The problem is precisely because you, "really don't care" that you come out in the OP all guns blazing, and guaranteed to get peoples' hackles up.

What you are saying is that it is okay to wind people up then walk away with a clear conscience because it doesn't affect you.

I come to an internet forum to discuss things, not to get my boxers in a knot for the rest of the day. No matter how riled up people get when posting on the internet, as soon as they walk away they shouldn't care until they come back.

This also goes for the people who got "hackled up." Don't let this thread ruin your day. Like anyone else they can blow off some steam yelling at people over the web and discussing their opinions as forcefully as they want. But all that "hackling up" can and should be put away as soon as you leave your computer. There's no point in worrying about it in real life.

No there isn't
But in can still leave a bad taste.
Not everyone is a toughnut who thrives on confrontation.

If you wish for discussion rather than confrontation and ill tempered disagreement it would still be a good idea to ease down the aggressive assertions, as in the OP and consider what you say and how it will be received.

It is far more pleasant discussing now than the earlier self aggrandisment.

Scott-S6 wrote:

SgtSixkilla wrote:Because most people bring two dice, because they think it's more fun. Only the bullies and people who are literally afraid to lose bring three.

I think it's more fun to bring one. Guess that makes you a bully and someone's who's afraid to lose?

You handicap yourself for your own reasons. That does not reflect negatively on those that do not choose to do so.

Dude, if you want to play with the solo dice, I'll come down there and join you every once in a while. I'm not that fussed, and I never said I'd only ever play with two. As long as I don't have to play with three.

MOD: The idea behind DakkaDakka is that people come here for fun discussions about games of toy soldiers. That limits the topics covered and the way they are approached.

The desire to say exactly what we want must be tempered by social awareness about other users on the site.

It isn’t a good excuse to say people shouldn’t get annoyed. People should not take offence deliberately, however that doesn’t release us from the obligation to avoid giving offence.

This thread has run its course, so I shall lock it.