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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

At my FLGS 2000 pts is the limit without special permission. Anything more just takes waaaay too long.

No such limit at any of my FLGS, but as you say, you don't want to be 5, 6, 7 hours at a FLGS. Besides, my fave FLGS sells food and drinks (and doesn't allow outside food/drink), and they've got a bazillion tables. They'd be in their glory if they could convince people to hang out for 11 hours

Any discussion of what goes on in private gaming groups is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.

It is fair to assume that a group of like minded friends playing in the privacy of their own homes will be able to resolve any issue that interferes with their enjoyment of the game, it is mainly the PUG in a store or open club environment that are affected most by the big issues.

The point remains, as always, that fixing these issues for the latter players will have zero impact on those playing in private social groups, but the current state of the game only works well for the former.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Any discussion of what goes on in private gaming groups is, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant.

It is fair to assume that a group of like minded friends playing in the privacy of their own homes will be able to resolve any issue that interferes with their enjoyment of the game, it is mainly the PUG in a store or open club environment that are affected most by the big issues.

The point remains, as always, that fixing these issues for the latter players will have zero impact on those playing in private social groups, but the current state of the game only works well for the former.

I'm totally in agreement with your conclusion that a group of like-minded friends (whether it's at home or at a club) can resolve issues that interferes with their enjoyment of the game (or the vast majority of games, for that matter), and that the public, pickup scene is most affected by "broken rules" or "broken lists".

I also completely agree that 40k is a game that works better between friends, and/or when missions/scenarios where the starting parameters are more closely defined. I think most games are a lot more fun between friends anyhow, but certainly, 40k is an infinitely superior experience between like-minded players.

I don't really agree that what goes on in private groups (or semi-private groups) is irrelevant, because it comprises a large part of the customer base -- I don't know what percentage, obviously, but I do know a lot of people who visit shop at various FLGS regularly don't play at any of the stores, or *can't* because they live quite far away. I think a lot of people enjoy planned games, and for comparative purposes, comparing gaming systems for games between friends is still important.

I still go back to things not being either/or, anyhow. There's no reason friends or strangers can't enjoy more than one game.

I did qualify that with "for the purposes of this discussion."

I don't believe Unbound breaks the game for private gaming groups, because they will simply fix what they find broken about it, it is anyone who is playing in an environment where they need to stick to RAW who is most affected by, well, how the rules are written.

A private group are in a position to modify the game freely, a gamer who plays in public venues will seldom have that luxury.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I did qualify that with "for the purposes of this discussion."

I don't believe Unbound breaks the game for private gaming groups, because they will simply fix what they find broken about it, it is anyone who is playing in an environment where they need to stick to RAW who is most affected by, well, how the rules are written.

A private group are in a position to modify the game freely, a gamer who plays in public venues will seldom have that luxury.

Oh, I misread you. I thought you meant, any discussion, as in any discussion of any topic (not just unbound games). Yeah, you are right -- unbound games between friends is pretty much a non-issue. Unbound games between strangers can suck the fun out of the game pretty quick.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.

That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.

Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."

I really recommend you avoid a little known movie starring two nobodies called Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks from 'our' era (I'm 37 in a little over a month) called Dragnet, if you found my little joke in poor taste, that will have you spitting feathers!

How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
No, the woosh was for your very serious reply about not actually dancing around fires or making sacrifices to Azrael's joke post.

That is not somethig you joke about. It is in poor taste to do so.

Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."

I really recommend you avoid a little known movie starring two nobodies called Dan Akroyd and Tom Hanks from 'our' era (I'm 37 in a little over a month) called Dragnet, if you found my little joke in poor taste, that will have you spitting feathers!

How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.

I dont think you can compare being a nerd to being a holocaust survivor.

 EVIL INC wrote:
How about you find a WW2 surviverof a jewish concentration camp or someone who sufferedunder the regime of Papa Doc or even an older african american whose family was lynched and make fun of them and what they went through I am sure that they will tell you that they do not find it funny. Then i'm sure you will again make fun of them by making such comments as "Frankly, you're not really doing yourself any favours if you're applying for the job of "ultimate judge of what's funny."". The point is, and I'm sure you get it but for some reason ignoring it (or should i just say "woosh") that making fun of those who have suffered hardships ust is not funny to that person or thers who ffered similerly t just isnt nny to make n of them at all n that criteria. You nt have to be 'ultimate judge of what's funny' to understand this.

Nobody was making fun of you. It was a joke.

I think we're done here.