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.

In Episode 13 give an in depth review of the Days of Wonder game Battlelore. We also dive into Privateer Press's miniature war game Hordes.

Plus our usual antics including:
- When Wives Attack
- Off the Table (Civilization Revolution)
- The Hollywood Minute
- & More

Please let us know what you think.

Link to our show: http://www.TheD6Generation.com




Link to thread about prior episode:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/215115.page

Ok guys, I demand payment for new carpet after I spat my tea all over the floor during the "Hunt for red october" link.

Great stuff, and I've only listened to 7 minutes so far...

That was a marathon. Thanks for all the content. I'll have to take a closer look at Battle Lore.

Good stuff as usual, guys

I may have to stop listening, though, as every time I do I get an overwhelming urge to go out and buy more game stuff!!! (Are you guys on comission, or what? )

Another excellant episode, guys.

I think Hollywood is confusing meta-gaming and cheating again though. If someone lies about believing there's no cover save, when they actually do believe there is one then that's cheating, not meta-gaming. Lying = cheating.

Meta-gaming to me would include things like making one of your two Steamroller tourney lists be a list tailored
for dealing with something you consider a likely threat - such as Sorcha, eVlad, Kreoss drop&pop or Cryx arc node spam. You can argue about whether meta-gaming is good or bad, but please stop comparing it to blatant cheating

I do always enjoy Hollywood's Minute though, they're always interesting even if I don't agree with everything.

Oh, re: the Hollywood Minute question, I'd never use it, and I'd call a judge over if the person did use it. If the judge accepted the other person's suggested ruling, I'd likely never play there again. It's an abuse of the rules to use them in that manner.

Listening to This Week in Wargaming's 40K episode, the particularly negative guest host mentioned that this happened throughout a tournament he recently attended. I'm sorry, but I'd have to agree 100%Valhallan42nd. (Especially now) if someone tried this on me I'd START with "Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you want to do this?" and end with "Now that my boot is firmly planted up your arse, do you wish to continue with this game, or shall we call it a draw?"

I think we're all agreed on that, Craig. What I'm disputing is calling that meta-gaming. It's cheating, not meta-gaming, and I'm not disputing it happens.

Meta-gaming is gaming about the game. If it involves deliberate lying (which the hollywood minute example did) then it's cheating.

If you feel that Circle or the Coven are major contenders at an upcoming tournament, then having one of your two lists be designed to deal with those armies speicifically would be meta-gaming.

Same with me bringing Druids of Orboros over blood-trackers even though I might like both units equally, but the Druids neuter Cryx spell assasination, so they get the nod for that reason.

Meta-gaming is not the same as flagrant cheating, which the example was.

@qouzl

Would you refer to the rule that the "cheater" is breaking? A page number perhaps?


Yes, I am playing the devils advocate here. I would not stoop to using this gimmick myself nor would I accept it being used against me. IMO it is metagaming and not cheating.

Simple, cheating involves deliberate fraud, 'To act dishonestly', 'To deceive by trickery' (dictionary.com, etc etc).

If, as stated in the example the player really believed one thing but claimed to believe another, that falls under cheating.

If they didn't, then it isn't cheating.

Meta-gaming (harder to find a definition of that) doesn't involve deliberate dishonesty. If it does, then it leaves the realm of meta-gaming and goes in to cheating.

Meta-gaming, as in the examples I've given above can be perfectly fair. There's few people who will go to a tournament and won't think of what they're likely to face and try and bring lists that can deal with it. If you don't construct your tournament list in a complete vacumn then you are meta-gaming it.

There is no need to point to a rule that the cheater is breaking. Deliberate lying is not allowed in any of the GW games, or by PP.

There is also no rule that says "You're not allowed punch your opponent in the face", but that doesn't make it legal either.

The key point, I'm trying to make here is, once you go into the realm of deliberately lying, as in the example, it's cheating, not meta-gaming.

I'm comfortable to say that I meta-game at tournaments, for example, I would never bring Morvhana as my only caster because she is totally neutered by half a dozen other casters who dispel or steal upkeeps. I would never cheat, intentially lie or even lie by omission to an opponent. I think that's a fair distinction.

But you can't actually prove that he is cheating. You have no place to point and say; "you are doing this with malicious intent and this is why...". TFG will just say; "no, im not. I am truly in doubt wether that unit is in cover".
Its like how a verbal contract is just as binding as a written one (in my country at least), but infinitly more difficult to prove.

But in the end it don't matter much, as we can just go through the motions of actually determining the validity of cover using the majority rule.
I don't waste my time with tournaments so I will never run into a game where the extra time is a big issue.

I agree Steelmage99, I didn't suggest you could prove he was cheating, and like I said, I agree it's a real issue with the rules. You're disagreeing with something I am honestly not saying

I just said that in the example given, where the example was that the player was doing it deliberately, that it is cheating, not meta-gaming.

If someone lies about believing there's no cover save, when they actually do believe there is one then that's cheating, not meta-gaming. Lying = cheating.

My point is that Hollywood seems to consider the two things the same, I don't, that's all.

And another very amusing 'When Wives Attack' by the way. Lots of good advice - I kept my nerdiness secret from my fiancee for the first few months and gentle eased her into it It's definitely worked out, I have her playing Descent campaigns now, and I even proposed to her just after a game of Carcassonne. Before you guys recommended it fortunaltey, I think proposing after a D6G recommended board-game would be that final step too geeky even for me

Good Morning All:

I thought I would chime in after giving the forums a chance to respond. Yes. My example sets up a person as cheating by giving you his mind set when he declares the cover save. I do not believe cheating = meta gaming. I do believe however as other people have stated that the person pulling this move would not say he does not really believe there is no cover save. Ok there are too many double negatives in there. A person is not going to admit, "I really think there is no cover save" He is going to say "No, no, those guys over there are a little in the open, right?" What I was getting at is, what does one do with the cheating meta-game if you will. Now I am not saying that all meta gamers are cheating. I am merely wondering how you all would deal with the uscrupulous person who uses this kind of tactic as his meta game. What say you all.

Hollywood

quozl wrote:If you don't construct your tournament list in a complete vacumn then you are meta-gaming it.

I do make my lists in a complete vacuum.

Makes for better lists.

Well, in RTT's, there is a vehicle to address a person like this, IE, sportsmanship scores. That being said, it's likely that this person will also intentionally give low scores for sports/painting given that he's also trying to gain an advantage via cheese-ing. I'd ask the judge/TO to review his given scores as well.

Stelek wrote:

quozl wrote:If you don't construct your tournament list in a complete vacumn then you are meta-gaming it.

I do make my lists in a complete vacuum.

Which is probably why Nature abhors them...

I don't think there is a good solution to that particular rule, Hollywood.

That's why I think it's a bad rule for tournaments, but a fine rule for friendly games. GW don't seem as bothered about making their game as tournament tight as PP do. Which is fair enough.

I don't like rules that leave things open to interpretation or judgement calls, because there always will be the odd person who'll exploit it to cheat, and sportsmanship score systems have flaws of their own. My personal favourite would be that red card system you guys suggested, and that a few tourneys do use.

It's very difficult for rules writers to avoid all interpretation questions, but deliberately writing one in as a core rule seems silly to me.

I don't have to face any of these sort of issues with my friendly gaming club, but, I quite enjoy tournaments, the only down side is the occassional ass like Craigg met, or the very occassional person who deliberately cheats. Making that as hard to do is a good thing imo, and PP do a better job of it currently by leaving the absolute minimum open to interpretation, and clarifying what is accidentally left debatable.

PP wants to grow the hobby by making their tournaments successfully competitive.

GW has never cared to do this, considering it a drain on company resources, and GT attendance just keeps on stagnating.

Thanks for the Battlelore review. It was......exquisite. Hopefully, you will do some future updates on the expansion packs and how they change the base game.

As to the cover save issue, I don't do tournaments so I doubt it will ever come up with the people I typically game with. However, whether you call metagaming or cheating, it still smells funny and I would handle it with Craig's Boot Up The Arse approach for that game and avoid playing that person in the future. Life is too short to deal with that nonsense, especially in what is really a hobby.

Wow. This one erupted over night.

Quozl: Couldn't agree more. Metagaming is NOT cheating. It's taking into account all the beyond-rules-as-written variables such as most common armies, common missions, etc.

Quozl and Steelmage99: I do think this example can be taken to an extreme where it would be cheating, but you're right: how would you prove it outside of a gross violation? If you're shooting THROUGH area terrain and TFG (love it!) pulls the "they don't have cover" card, you've got him dead to rights.

But what if he's just shaving his opinion in his favor constantly? Could go one way, could go the other, he ALWAYS gives himself the benefit of the doubt. Is THAT cheating?

I also agree that the Sportsmanship score is your only recourse here, as well as the fact that it's of limited value, because TFG is going to use THAT too, most likely.

Yet another reason to lament the passing of Dakka the store. This stuff almost NEVER happened there. It was a genuinely fun group to play (usually in the 30 to 40 player range for big tournaments), and the one or two A-Holes were known-quantities.

Stelek: I have to say that your gaming environment is not one in which I would enjoy playing. But that's the great thing about wargaming. It's big enough for everyone to fit in somewhere.

PP definitely does a better job of writing tighter rules, and their current tournament scene IS more vibrant and energetic.

Of course, GW's was much more vibrant and energetic when it first started also.

And that's all I'll say about that.

I'm just going to go back to my original sentiment: If you're shooting through area terrain and you try to tell me my guys don't have cover, I'm going to take a break from the table for a moment and show you some of the cool moves I've been learning with my MMA instructor.

Good review of Battlelore. I've played it a couple of times and enjoyed it. I can't see it becoming a "Hobby game" for me, as the "command and colours" card system doesn't appeal. I understand the "fog of war" issue that the randomness is intended to replicate, but personally I find it a bit frustrating, and prefer "god games" where activations are by preference rather than random. It's still fun, but just not as much fun for me.

On the other hand, I would LOVE to see a fully painted army for the game. That would be truly awesome! I'd rather gouge my own eyes out with a rusty spoon though than paint them all myself!

Liked the "!when wives attack" segment again. This is a great new angle on gaming and very welcome. I just keep thinking how lucky you guys are having wives who at least appreciate something about geek culture.. such as sci-fi in general. My own beloved can't abide any of it. Mind you, I can't stand her taste in books and films either (Jane Austen and Mama Mia are current faves :(), so we just have to find other things to have in common!

Tetchy, believe me, I feel your pain. Karen is usually tolerant of my gaming stuff. She's more appreciative of the fact that I have close friends than anything. And of course it's great that she plays these borderline games. But as for her taste in books/movies/tv etc? Blech. We have NOTHING in common. I end up staying up till 2 or 3 in the morning so I can watch my scifi shows on TiVo because all evening we're watching her game shows and reality TV. And movies? Ouch. She's got the worst taste in movies I've ever seen. And, of course, because I don't MIND going to the movies alone, whenever we go out together, we HAVE to see something she wants, because she doesn't like going alone. And then there's Howard Stearn . . .

Eh, never mind.

Let's just say I feel your pain.

Hey, another great podcast guys.

Listening to this review of Hordes made me extremely puzzled as to why people feel it necessary to compare PP games to GW games. They both sound great, but to me seem totally different games.

I don't just mean different in rules/models/etc., but as fundamentally different as say, a RTS game like Dawn of War from a First Person Shooter like Halo.

I played my first game of Hordesmachine the other day, and while I enjoyed it, the experience to me seemed like a cross between playing a hand of Magic the Gathering and my regulard D&D game.

I did ok, got a feel for the game and can see it being really fun, but it seems like it will require a totally different approach to gaming than a GW game, and provide a very different experience.

I guess this is just a long winded way of saying that I'm mystified by the comparison/competition between the two, as aside from the fact that they are both miniature games competing for hobby dollars, they seem like apples and oranges.

Anyways, I'm actually pretty excited about the prospect of using Hordesmachine as a "gateway drug" (er. game) to get several people I know who roleplay and play Magic into miniature gaming. (Like my wife.) The buffing and synergy of the spells seems very magic like, and the individual movement, flanking/raised ground bonuses and the like actually seem very similar to D&D, so there's another tie-in there. It's probably a long shot, but I think it's worth a try.

Craig - Howard Stern? Ouch.

W00t. I found Ticket to Ride on the xbox live arcade downloads section... It's in the arcade tab of new arrivals at the moment...

freaking awesome.

Great show again guys.

Will give the Civ Rev a go when my xbox is back from the hole UPS lost it in on the way to repair.

Beautifully detailed reviews as always. A pleasure to listen to.

Cheers

Apone

GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!

Did you guys include some sort of mind probe in the Mystery of the Abbey box you sent me?

Just before starting your podcast, I listened to the most recent Vintage Horror Radio podcast that had a reading of M.R. James short horror story "Number 13". & what's one of the 1st things on your show? Geekly McNerdigan going on about Triskaidekaphobia. (http://www.vintagehorror.com/, great show, recommend it).

Then I continue to listen as I scan The Miniatures Page. Within seconds of responding to a thread about "What songs need More Cowbell?", & giving my answer of Carmina Burana, the intro to the Painted Fig ad comes on, & yes, it starts with Carmina Burana. At this point, I'm turning the show off before it starts predicting my future (& I'm required to ramble for a minute about some incoherent gaming topic

Nice work,

Btw is that really how americans pronounce cavalry. To me it sounds a lot like calvary which is a totally different thing.

No, no, your majesty, that's how a WAKELIN pronounces Cavarly.

In fact, at one point one of our listeners (Nils, I believe, who posted above, in a troubled state of mind, clearly, under the handle "Black Cavalier") listed a series of words that were not created by the D6G, but rather mis-pronounced or butchered. I was very happy to note that not a single example was from me. (Not that I'm perfect, mind you, but these two yahoos see malapropisms as a hobby).

Most Americans, even if they don't know that Calvary was where Jesus was crucified, do know that it isn't how you refer to those chappies who ride the big burly animals into battle.

Our educational system is a mess, but it's not THAT bad!

I did love how you corrected Russ on the pronunciation of a certain IG transport:

"And for those of us with a classical education it's pronounced Ki-mere-ra"

I was also a little pleased that you read out my name in the iTunes reviews bit, cos I'm sad like that.

Also, if you could ever get your hands on a copy, I'd love to hear a review of Forgeworld's Aeronautica Imperialis. Though it's pricey unless you can rangle a copy from someone local.

Thanks again guys for all your great work!

Apone

Black Cavalier wrote:GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!
(http://www.vintagehorror.com/, great show, recommend it).

Hey Nils, thanks for the link! Now I have something to listen to for hours in front of my work computer once my biweekly Monday fix is over. :(

BTW, your quiz was a riot. Started writing a poem yet for the next contest?

I'm thinking there's some possibilities for some good dirty limericks about Iron Kingdoms dragons. After all, Everblight makes his minions out of parts of his body, and most good limericks have a body part or two in there.