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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:I do appreciate what you are saying, but if the referee has to vote for / against someone, so what's the difference between them making a call, and a simple role of a D6. If I'm playing against someone and they call the ref in to decide, straight away I'm on the defensive. If however, the attitude is, lets just roll a D6, its a more friendly atmosphere (In my experience HMBC).

I find a... strange disconnect within your argument Squig.

1. There is no rule or gaming situation that is not covered in the 40k rule book.
2. Roll a D6 in a dispute.

These two cannot co-exist.

What I meant was that if the 40k rule book does not cover the rule, nor do the codexes, then role a D6. In that way, there is nothing that is not covered. I can appreciate how you could see it as an 'under the rug' solution, but from my view, this is a game, not a life and death situation. Stop arguing, roll a dice, get on with the game.

In the latest Epic Armaggeddon rule book, I've not got it with me so I can't quote the page, the above is stated in the rules. If a situation crops up that neither player can decide the ruling, then role a D6 to decide the outcome.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And I was still right.

You were wrong.

Or, to clarify, if what you said in your post above is an exact summary of what happened, you were wrong.

The D-Cannon rules in 2nd Ed did not destroy anything that landed under the template. Furthermore, they only hit vehicles on a 4+, regardless of how much of the template covered the vehicle or where on the vehicle the template landed. You then rolled to see what happend and, yes, 66% of the time the target will be instantly destroyed - completely, removed from the table - but the other times the unit in question will be teleported or other strange things could happen (it could be inverted - which is fine for a Land Raider as its main guns are on the sides).

Did you roll to hit the tank after scattering on it? Did you roll to see the effect of the D-Cannon after you had rolled to hit?

If you answer 'No' to either of these questions, then, I say again - you were wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSecretSquig wrote:What I meant was that if the 40k rule book does not cover the rule, nor do the codexes, then role a D6.

Ok. Fair enough. That's not what you said originally, but if your original statement was poorly worded (as it appears to have been) then I can see how I misunderstood or misinterpreted what you were saying.

TheSecretSquig wrote:In that way, there is nothing that is not covered. I can appreciate how you could see it as an 'under the rug' solution, but from my view, this is a game, not a life and death situation. Stop arguing, roll a dice, get on with the game.

I'm of the opinion that an argument should involve evidence and proof - if one cannot prove their case, then why the hell should I roll a D6 to satisfy them? No, no, no. If you (again, this is general 'you', not you you) disagree with me, then state your case, explain why you disagree and prove it to me. I'm not going to take gut feeling of "let's just get on with it" as an excuse.

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the latest Epic Armaggeddon rule book, I've not got it with me so I can't quote the page, the above is stated in the rules. If a situation crops up that neither player can decide the ruling, then role a D6 to decide the outcome.

Almost every GW book has said that. So what? If GW wrote rules that were worth half a damn in the first place they wouldn't need to. Having a 'Aw shucks! Can't we all just get along!' clause at the start of a rulebook is tantamount to the American Bill of Rights having "Or, y'know, whatever!" as its closing clause. Sure, that's an extreme example, but I'm pointing out bad rules writing.

H.B.M.C wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:In that way, there is nothing that is not covered. I can appreciate how you could see it as an 'under the rug' solution, but from my view, this is a game, not a life and death situation. Stop arguing, roll a dice, get on with the game.

I'm of the opinion that an argument should involve evidence and proof - if one cannot prove their case, then why the hell should I roll a D6 to satisfy them? No, no, no. If you (again, this is general 'you', not you you) disagree with me, then state your case, explain why you disagree and prove it to me. I'm not going to take gut feeling of "let's just get on with it" as an excuse.

TheSecretSquig wrote: In the latest Epic Armaggeddon rule book, I've not got it with me so I can't quote the page, the above is stated in the rules. If a situation crops up that neither player can decide the ruling, then role a D6 to decide the outcome.

Almost every GW book has said that. So what? If GW wrote rules that were worth half a damn in the first place they wouldn't need to. Having a 'Aw shucks! Can't we all just get along!' clause at the start of a rulebook is tantamount to the American Bill of Rights having "Or, y'know, whatever!" as its closing clause. Sure, that's an extreme example, but I'm pointing out bad rules writing.

I 100% aggree with the evidence statement. If one side provides evidence of the rule in their favour, and the otherside doesn't, then its a no brainer, the guy with the evidence wins. I'm discussing competitive playing and people getting all emotional when both sides have evidence, neither can agree. My attitude is roll a D6 and get on with it.

The difference here is the 'Roll a D6 rule' IS a rule in the Epic book, whilst its in the fluff of the 40k rules book. IF it was in the rules section, it may solve the problem. I really don't know.

LunaHound wrote:I wont try to sugar coat this , so i'll get straight to the point.
to you ,

TheSecretSquig wrote:Its a hobby, its supposed with be a way of relaxing and enjoyment.

but as clearly seen on legoburner's poll there is just as much other type of players out there.

Now , just like people take painting so seriously when they laugh at primer armies ,
there will be gamer that take games so seriously as well.

I think thats a fair way of putting it :/

of course there can be other factors , but i thought its only fair for a direct comparison.

LunaHound wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:I've no issue with people taking it seriously, I'm asking why do people start throwing their toys out the pram when they are in dispute over the rules....

Roll a D6 - problem solved.

Personally, I'd much rather loose and enjoy a beer afterwards, than to win by being ultra competitive, and alienate myself. If no-one likes you, you've no one to have a beer with afterwards!!!

Because during any given dispute , both side really believe they are "right" and to roll a die over it may seem unjustified.

Thats like having a paint competition rolling D6 to determine a winner instead of getting into the technicality of paint skills and such...

LunaHound wrote:

warpcrafter wrote:So, Luna, why do you defend these people?

Because im a bad person , thats what you wanted to hear right?

LunaHound wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:
Painting is not judged by the role of a dice. The game is however.....

No but the purpose to decide something that way is unfavorable for players especially when their head is dead set on they are right.

To them its just as random and unacceptable if they were to choose a painter randomly.

See what im trying to say?

LunaHound wrote:

TheSecretSquig wrote:
I do appreciate what you are saying, but if the referee has to vote for / against someone, so what's the difference between them making a call, and a simple role of a D6. If I'm playing against someone and they call the ref in to decide, straight away I'm on the defensive. If however, the attitude is, lets just roll a D6, its a more friendly atmosphere (In my experience HMBC).

TSS, i do understand what you are trying to say.
But what im ultimately trying to say is , you might feel relaxed letting it go because you naturally are a painter
and dont really care as much as player.

If today its the opposite , im not sure if the answer would be the same.

*Just easier to use you as example since its impossible to ask someone that doesnt exist ;D

LunaHound wrote:Hmm...

The big giant painfully obvious distinction that you are trying to damnably hard to not make is that the game is a set of crappy rules that are based on dice rules and rolling for it is the only fair way to resolve things, while a painting contest is all about merit, which while still subjective can be judged on said merit.

Hi all.
I would just like to point out the amount of importance placed on winning a game is proportional to the amount of game play in the game.IMO.

Eg cutting cards, you cut and select a card I do the same , highest card wins.
The ONLY game play is turning over your card therfore ONLY winning is th focus .

However if you play poker , there is all the bluff and counter bluff etc , and the game play is far deeper.So having played 'bad hands' to the best of thier potential can bee seen to be an achivment , therfore winning is not the only measure of sucess.

Similarly playing a minatures game with deep game play and multiple layers of sucess , can be enjoyable if you win or lose.

Playing a tacticaly shallow game like 40k can be polarised into W/L/D if the narrative aspect is ignored.IMO.

TTFN
Lanrak.

OP - what were you thinking going to 'Ard Boyz, a notoriously competitive tournament, with the attitude that you'd just take it easy and have a bit of fun. There's lots of opportunity to play friendly games, 'Ard Boyz really isn't the place for it.

Scott-S6 wrote:OP - what were you thinking going to 'Ard Boyz, a notoriously competitive tournament, with the attitude that you'd just take it easy and have a bit of fun. There's lots of opportunity to play friendly games, 'Ard Boyz really isn't the place for it.

I never said I went to hard Boyz!!!! I said after reading all about it. I Game in the UK, but at the moment I'm living in Saudi Arabia! You want to try and find an opponent here, let alone a tournament!

It would be easier to find an unclothed woman here (which don't exist), than anything to do with Games Workshop (not including the Ork army I brought over to here to keep me amused).

H.B.M.C. wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:And I was still right.

You were wrong.

Or, to clarify, if what you said in your post above is an exact summary of what happened, you were wrong.

The D-Cannon rules in 2nd Ed did not destroy anything that landed under the template. Furthermore, they only hit vehicles on a 4+, regardless of how much of the template covered the vehicle or where on the vehicle the template landed. You then rolled to see what happend and, yes, 66% of the time the target will be instantly destroyed - completely, removed from the table - but the other times the unit in question will be teleported or other strange things could happen (it could be inverted - which is fine for a Land Raider as its main guns are on the sides).

Did you roll to hit the tank after scattering on it? Did you roll to see the effect of the D-Cannon after you had rolled to hit?

If you answer 'No' to either of these questions, then, I say again - you were wrong.

No, the post was not an exact summary, the game in question was quite some time ago, I can't remember exactly how it went now but the end result of whatever had been rolled was that the D cannon had destroyed the model (the target is sucked into the warp etc), my opponent's argument was that it should have only blown off a track since the template didn't cover the entire vehicle, so that was the argument, the rules for the D cannon clearly stating 'the model is removed' and my opponent saying only the track would have been sucked into the warp since 'the model' was larger than the template. He was basically pissed at taking an expensive 'eggs in basket' model and having me gakker it off the table without it causing a casualty.

And I was still right.

Because im a bad person , thats what you wanted to hear right?

I don't know about anyone else, but that's what I like to hear.

"I've been a bad girl..." lol Leave it to me to class up a thread if no one else will.

Anyway, what the hell are you doing there in Saudi Arabia? Get out!

I think the question here isn't really about tournament players or people wanting to win or anything of the sort. The question is really "Why are some people just nasty, vicious people?"

I have an answer, but it seems as if Dakka is scared of talking about religion, so I won't use the technical term. Instead, I'll quote Terry Waite; "People are no damn good".

Seriously. You go to a tournament and there are some guys and / or girls there who are nasty, vindictive people who cheat, lie, manipulate to get what they want and - when they can't get it - react with annoyance, impatience, and rudeness.

Go ANYWHERE and you will find such people. Go to a model pagent (models in bikinis, not models in paint) and listen to the sniping. Do you really expect the Oscars to be a hot-bed of lovely charity and kindness backstage? Oh, the Emmy's! I bet they are peaceful - NOT!

Heck, I think if you went to the local Church bake-sale and listened to Mrs Miggins and Mrs Jones and dear old widow Smith talk about their cakes, you would find at least one absolute total bitch.

Some people are just nasty, vindictive people. It's the way of the world. Forgive them, and ask to be forgiven for your own foibles. Learn from them and don't be that guy.

TheSecretSquig wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:OP - what were you thinking going to 'Ard Boyz, a notoriously competitive tournament, with the attitude that you'd just take it easy and have a bit of fun. There's lots of opportunity to play friendly games, 'Ard Boyz really isn't the place for it.

I never said I went to hard Boyz!!!! I said after reading all about it. I Game in the UK, but at the moment I'm living in Saudi Arabia! You want to try and find an opponent here, let alone a tournament!

It would be easier to find an unclothed woman here (which don't exist), than anything to do with Games Workshop (not including the Ork army I brought over to here to keep me amused).

Ahh, that's a bit different then.

The biggest problem is people dont teach their kids to lose anymore....

Its the ref's fault, they lost the game,

Teachers fault they got bad grades.

No one teaches kids that its ok to lose, as long as you learn from it..

If you're surprised that some people behave poorly when personal gain is involved, then you have a lot to learn about life.

R3con wrote:The biggest problem is people dont teach their kids to lose anymore....

Its the ref's fault, they lost the game,

Teachers fault they got bad grades.

No one teaches kids that its ok to lose, as long as you learn from it..

I think that the above point is the source of a great deal of problems today and that the problems with competetive 40k are only a reflection of the general lack of personal responsiblity in society. There are so many causes for this I could write a dissertation on it, but it boils down to one simple fact.

Everything that happens to you in your life is YOUR responsiblity. Even things you have no control over happening, you control how you respond and deal with them. Even my own neice and nephew frustrate me to no end because it is simply inconcievable to them that they can be actually to blame for anything that happens to them. It drives me mad sometimes.

The people who are the asshats are the ones who always want to blame YOU for the fact that they are loosing. Not by giving you credit for outplaying them, but that somehow you are robbing them fromt the victory that is thier birthright. Everyone feels the world ows them something, I find it facinating that even many people who claim to be the most conservative self reliant in the world are the first to point the finger of blame elsewhere when things go badly for them.

"They took our jobs."

It's equally prevalent in all political and religious sectors of american culture and seems to be getting worse with each generation.

LOL, I feel like the crotchety old fart sitting on his porch.

" Kids these days...."

Still I belive if more people could just say, damn he beat me, he out played me, he deserved to win. Then you would see a lot less whining and tantrums everywhere, from 40k to Professional Sports to Congress and beyond.

I fully agree, although a less-reasonable reading of your post would seem to suggest you are saying those who shift blame are to blame for society's ills. People who would read like that are to blame, I think.

</irony>

Oh, come on bigtmac68, you know that you want to just give everyone a trophy

I actually heard a parent at little league baseball tryouts, where they were seeing how well kids could run, catch, swing a bat, and throw, so that they could make balanced teams state, "They shouldn't rate them on their skills, it could be damaging to their ego integrity." And he was serious. Ugh...

I think its a combination of your point, and the point made above that people invest way too much of their own ego and self-worth into a game of plastic soldiers.

There is enough drama in real life, I don't want any drama in my hobbies.

R3con Wed, 12/Aug/2009 12:52:01 Subject: Why do people get so Emotionally attached to having to win?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The biggest problem is people dont teach their kids to lose anymore....

Its the ref's fault, they lost the game,

Teachers fault they got bad grades.

No one teaches kids that its ok to lose, as long as you learn from it..

QFsomeT, I think we all have a responsibility to put others in the community (40k or generally) straight when they are out of line, not just parents. If you don't say stop to someone acting like a git then when will they learn to be a better person/gamer?

Re the competitive nature of tournaments, I play allot of Rugby and we have a saying regularly trotted out that "there is no such thing as a friendly game", if you don't play aggressively and with the right attitude then you leave yourself literally open to injury. We play with utter aggression and expect the same, thus so longs as we have given it our all we get an enjoyable game no matter the result, much like an Ardboyz tourney you might think.

But judging by some of the recent threads where the two differ is that at Rugby we will then retire to the bar for food a drink (strong, lots of), the ref is respected no matter the decision (it’s not easy to give quick decisions on those 50/50 calls), as is the opponent no matter the result. I just seem to see allot of vitriol attached to these events, not a great way to spend the weekend?

The point I am making that if it is in the culture of Rugby to act in a respectful way there is no reason why it can not be the case at 40k tournaments, it just requires the community to say this is the way we are going to behave and act like it.

The OP seemed to me to highlight some interesting issues, a number responded with quite defensive rebutles? Could it be that the tourney players do not have the same community spirit as the pie and a pint brigade? I'm not sure but these tourney threads seem to bring the worst out of people.

It also helps that in Rugby if you are cheating the laws of the game allow you to keep the opponent in line! However I don't think that this is transferable what with the propensity for people to carry pointy lead things!

Interesting thing just struck me; in rugby (which I watch periodically) you have big, fit, strong chaps running about with a ball. In football (soccer for the Americans) you have smaller, equally fit, perhaps not as strong chaps running about with a ball. The games are quite similar.

Yet, I cannot remember seeing anything like the theatrics and yelling at the ref etc. etc. in rugby that I do in football. So, what is the difference? And is there a way of translating that to 40K? I've never seen chess players get rilled up over THEIR games of toy soliders - why can't 40K players be more like rugby guys and less like football prima donas?

D6ing isn't always an answer as I've seen people "bend" the rules to the point of absurdity.

In the first two rounds of 'ard Boys I got the following incorrect rules pulled on me, if I had to d6 it I'd have a 50% of losing the ruling, completly changing the type of game I had to play, however by getting the TO involved I was able to get the other player to play by the rules:

A squad can NOT fire from an fast open toped transport that moves cruising speed.

An independent character attached to a squad in terminator armor can NOT sweeping advance.

A vehicle does NOT recieve a cover save from just being behind area terrain, it needs to be 50% covered.

Normally I can have a discussion with the player in a friendly game, however, when playing in a tournament with both a time limit and prize support I'd rather be playing someone who plays by the rules then d6 everything they don't play correctly on when the larger 40k community plays it correctly.

Bigmac 68 I couldnt agree more,

And tbh, a D6 roll can just push the game on and solve an issue, me and my mate do it sometimes, just taht if the rule cant be found in the codex's and rulebooks present then roll a d6 123 its one result 456 its another, move on and continue playing.

Sorry, please prepare yourselves we are going way off topic here but i'll try to reign it back in!

Well done for calling footy by its correct title, I'm impressed sir!

Also well spotted on the stark differences in the respective playing cultures of football and Rugby.

Most would see the difference in cultures as being one of class; footy - working class and ruger - upper/middle classes but this is a definite misconception, which I will not elaborate on here. Thus traditionally it was seen that the better educated are seen to play Rugby and the oiks play footy. This is definitely not the case (as I prove!), however the assumption remains as does the way players/fan behave.

It is commonly said that football is a game for gentlemen played by thugs and Rugby is a game for thugs played by gentlemen, curiously this carries over into the way that the game is managed by the referee. It is not acceptable to swear during a Rugby match cartainly not at the ref (ungentlemanly conduct) and is treated as a penalty offence (you have to address the ref as sir!). The penalty for which includes turnover of possession, a penalty kick (potential for 3pts) loss of territory for repeated offence (10yrds) and a right dressing down from your team mates! Persistent offence will see sin binning (removing from the field of play for 10 mins). The rules are similar in footy (not as severe) but have not been taken seriously for decades by the authorities therefore we see the lack of respect by the players today. The result is that players act with respect or expect severe consequences if they step out of line. would be good to see in FLGS/Tourney eh?

Re the whole 40k comparison; the nature of the tournament scene has different rules (for the comp, not the 40k rules) being used for the same games system, that can't help with the consistency of the application of tourney rules, never mind the 40k rules themselves. All of this is without any sharp practice form the Organiser, which is what gets suggested in many threads. The fact is the Tournaments are organised by amateurs without clear guidelines, if gamers are attending with the expectation of a slick professional outfit then disappointment may well be the outcome. At that point do you act out like or take it on the chin?

Playing – good, winning – good, but if you are playing for the prize and not the game then you are playing for the wrong reasons. Whoever came up with the term “prize support” should hang their heads in shame!

Darknight wrote:I've never seen chess players get rilled up over THEIR games of toy soliders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1972

The players I have issues with are the ones who slam dice around, swear and curse when something goes against them, who throw models around...

For me, those are the problem players. Want to drop a superhard list in a friendly game? Knock yourself out. If you throw your dice cube because you miscast on turn two, however, GTFO of my store.

Yeah I find them to be the most problamatic as well as the dancing around because you rolleda one to hit something, oh and dancing because they won? Just spoils it really.

bigtmac68 wrote:

LOL, I feel like the crotchety old fart sitting on his porch.

" Kids these days...."

Still I believe if more people could just say, damn he beat me, he out played me, he deserved to win. Then you would see a lot less whining and tantrums everywhere, from 40k to Professional Sports to Congress and beyond.

Actually I Look for other gray hairs when I go to play at my LFGS.....although there are a few gray hairs that are TFG as well they are generally more laid back..

As for sports, I teach my sons sportsmanship through wrestling, you win or lose on your own, no one else is there to blame......at the end of the match win or lose you have to shake hands with both your opponent and the opposing coach, tears in your eyes or not...

And I think the degrading "courtesy" in 40k is a epidemic of society as a whole not just our little corner of it...

TheSecretSquig wrote:

I'm not trying to stereotype anyone, but in my +20yrs of experience, more competitive tournament players than none, try to bend the rules, or throw their toys out the pram, when things are not going as they planned.

Translation: I'm not trying to, but based on an appeal to authority, I'm just going to. I would think in your "+20yrs" this wouldn't shock you by now. It sucks for me to take the time to buy, build and paint an army according to a set of specifications, playtest it for realistically hundreds of hours, only to have someone call a false ruling that on 50/50 chance I get credit for. I will argue if it "matters," but I can still be cordial about it and no one should give a crap if I do.

If you think tabletop games are bad; just spend more time on a forum or in online video games...the veil of anonymity and the power to say and do what you want with basically zero repurcussions bring about a lot more douchebags. I'd even say it brings out the inner douche in everyone.

As for the OP; being relaxed and cool is the way to be ala Obama. This is a hobby where people spend thousands of dollars and hours on plastic toys; its hard to get more nerdy and geeky than stuff like 40k. Since it attracts so many geeks and nerds there's a lot of people who simply are awkward in social situations and don't know the meaning of sportsmanship.

Just think of the comic book guy from the Simpsons; yea its a stereotype but its one we could all relate to.

I think if people could play more games so things could even out it would be a little easier. It's hard when you play maybe 2-3 games a week, if that, and lose all or most of them. People "sparring" with a card game can easily exchange several wins and losses in just an hour, same with a video game.

Can you appeal to authority when you yourself are the authority? I'd call that appearl to a false authority...

I believe so. Like definition by example could use the given situation being argued about as an example. Nothing says it's a valid appeal though.