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.

Luna Dragon wrote:

Project2501 wrote:Troll thread.

This is online discussion, not what a ugly thing uses to sew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The guy who start this thread pays the game what my club conisders the right way to play warhammer.

Trolling hard.

Polonius wrote:I'm not sure there are things that shouldn't be said. I mean, comparing Pol Pot to Hitler is at least somewhat acceptable, right?

Rather, there are appropriate levels of reaction. It's the old don't bring a gun to knife fight rule.

With the exception that bringing a gun to a knife fight would make you win the fight. Here? Well. No-one wins.

Polonius, I agree with you. But if someone goes through life thinking it's ok to compare a complete stranger to one the sickest individuals of our time......well, he needs to be told that sort of the thing is the equivalent of a social A-Bomb.......

Wether that comparison was made in jest or not, it's still wrong.

Peace.

I wasn't disagreeing with the judgement that his comment was inappropriate. Calling it a social A-bomb is a bit much, but I have a streak of black humor a mile wide myself.

I don't like setting things off limits for discussion, or even comparison. But you don't need to use the biggest club in your bag every time.

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Wether that comparison was made in jest or not, it's still wrong.

And, yet again, you assume that your standard is the only correct one.

I thought it was pretty funny.

(also, you missed the point - by making an utterly ridiculous, over-the-top comparison it made it clear that it was humour. If he'd compared the OP to someone much less offensive then it could have been taken seriously)

I have no problem with Corrode's comment. But then, I am scum.

Scott-S6 wrote:

sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Wether that comparison was made in jest or not, it's still wrong.

And, yet again, you assume that your standard is the only correct one.

Indeed.

It was someone using dark humor to get a rise out of someone and it succeeded wondrously.

In my job you need black humour. It's essential. I just feel a bit sad because it's probably the most inappropriate thing ive seen on this Forum.

And people like Scotty boy there thinks it's funny......

If you can't cope with other people's opinions then s**t or get off the pot I guess.

And this all came about because of some kids idea of sarcasm. I weep for the future....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Clearly some people have been quite offended by all this. What would be nice is if both parties were to offer an apology and build bridges, maybe moderating their stances a little to meet a middle ground.

It would be the first time I've ever seen it happen. I'd write to the BBC.

Project2501 wrote:

Luna Dragon wrote:

Project2501 wrote:Troll thread.

This is online discussion, not what a ugly thing uses to sew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The guy who start this thread pays the game what my club conisders the right way to play warhammer.

Trolling hard.

Uhh, are you alright.

htj wrote:Clearly some people have been quite offended by all this. What would be nice is if both parties were to offer an apology and build bridges, maybe moderating their stances a little to meet a middle ground

Instead of being dragged into this dakka mud slinging/wrestling match that is (as always) too lacking of estrogen to be even remotely attractive... I'm going to try to contribute

Mal the Wolf wrote: I must have lucked out because my shop and friends still play the way its supposed ta. No proxies, no i cant paint, no tool(overpowered or broke) lists. Just wysiwyg fun, Take it from me this is the way to play. No my rolls sucked or i could have won if. Some of my favorite moments came in the midst of a lose. Like a Fire Warrior beating a ork in cc and living!! Then wounding a nob and dying( special paint job for that). Play win lose or draw till the end, no conceding. How bout this fun: Loseing badly , bring it back at the end. On 6 there was Gazgul? and one Gun drone left on the table. We had more fun from there out than the rest of the game( we threw turns out of the equation.

To end: There is too much fun to be had in the gray area inbetween winning or loseing to worry about what your record is


Automatically Appended Next Post:
by the way paint ur army, good or not its yours

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also dont be a strickler on some rules. If some one forgets a deep strike let them still have it. No biggie you want to win with them at full force. A couple rules should stay like failed assaults, terrain stuff, but once again let stuff slide. Much better than tourney play

I disagree that this is the "best" way to play. For starters, rules requiring all models to be painted, no proxies whatsoever, and no overpowered lists is extremely stifling and makes your group appear elitist and not welcoming of new players.

I'm sure it doesn't seem like this to you- else why would you even have posted! But lets go through this here. To a new player- starting Warhammer 40K is a daunting prospect. You've got 50 dollar tanks, 30 dollar transports, and 30 dollars for ~10 infantry models.

Lets take a common situation, a player is looking to expand his army, but is unsure as to whether it will be worth the ~100 dollar investment for the squad + transport. You mean to tell me that you wouldn't let him proxy that unit- because its not WYSIWYG? I mean lets be fair here, people aren't made of money, and an attitude like this severely punishes people not as well established as you.

[Ninja Edited ]Also a blanket ban on "overpowered" lists is very difficult to enforce. Whats over powered? How do you define it? No razor spam period? No Mech Eldar period? How broad / narrow do you make this determination?

I agree that warhammer can and should be fun. The way to achieve that is through having a good attitude, and not by creating arbitrary rules that are unfair to new players and assumes that everybody has fully painted armies or tons of money + free time. Warhammer shouldn't just be a bunch of dusty old men talking about the good old days- I get enough of that at lawschool- the hobby, and player groups need to be open to new ideas and new players.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that I have never understood people's problem with forfeiting. If a game is over, there is no point dragging it on. Not everybody enjoys playing through the full game to the bitter bitter end when the game is clearly over after turn 3. Forcing these players to keep going isn't fair to them, and if they want to forfeit let them. Its potentially a waste of everybody's time to keep spending time playing a game that's already over- especially when you could be playing a new and exciting game filled with possibilities instead!

akaean wrote:Also a blanket ban on "overpowered" lists is very difficult to enforce? Whats over powered? How do you define it? Its just too difficult to equalize

Generally it means no lists that the guy in the group who shouts loudest isn't able to beat.

Personally, I'm of the opinion a legal list is a legal list. End. Of. Story.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Personally, I'm of the opinion a legal list is a legal list. End. Of. Story.

Agreed.

I used to be one of those who cried Cheese!(way back in the earliest days of 3rd ed, ironic, since I'd played 2nd ed), until I started playing in multiple groups and realized that cheese is a BS concept based purely on how your group plays.

Im just posting this because I want there to be some clarity on what he is saying. This is just my interpretation of what he was trying to say. I know Mal, I worked at the game shop where he first started playing. He is honestly one of the most "chill" dudes I know. What I mean by that is he always had a smile on his face, was always willing to help new players out, and never really has a word to say negatively about someone. I know the group of players he plays with, or at least I did (I moved a two hours away about a year ago) and they are pretty decent gamers. There are both types of gamer BUT most of them can turn it off and on. The WAAC guys can play friendly games (well most of them could... I couldn't ) and the hobby guys can step it up if you want a stiff competition. There was never any hate amongst the two groups. KrakKirby came down to one of the stores for Ardboyz last year and Im sure he can attest to the fact that most of us were pretty decent guys. (Of course he won )

I think what Mal was trying to say wasn't meant as inflammatory, but more along the lines of
Hey guys, if you are taking the game TOO seriously, chill out and realize its just a game that probably wont be remembered a hundred years from now. You can play serious, but don't be a butt head about it.

FYI Dash of Pep- I loved your article on tournament preparation.

I'd like to point out that in these discussions, what is lost is that the lowest common denominator wins out.


Consider that, if two people meet for a game, and one person enjoys a game with WYSIWYG painted models, and the other doesn't mind proxies at all, then only the person playing with proxies will be satisfied with the game.

In a similar vein, if one person enjoys a casual game, and another prefers to play with the most recent internet power list, the person who would rather play more casually has to either lose every game, or adjust their game to that of the more competitive player.

It's not just saying 'why don't you let other people enjoy the hobby the way they like', because at its core, this is a social activity, and like any social activity, it is governed by rules, written or otherwise, that are accepted by all those who participate.

For years, one of the unwritten rules of war-gaming was that you played with WYSIWYG painted models. That's just how it has been done. People who "didn't like to paint" either recognized that this wasn't the hobby for them, or got their models painted, by themselves or by commission, because it was a requirement of the social group.

Those who claim this is unfair, and why should they have to paint their models, need to realize that, to the same extent that someone else is making you do something you don't want to do, you're forcing the same situation on them by expecting them to play against unpainted models.

One group of people are going to be unhappy. Those who believe that wargaming includes painted models will be unhappy if unpainted models are allowed. Those who believe that painted models aren't a necessity will be unhappy if they're forced to paint their models. Why should the unhappy group be the group that are following the traditional practices of wargaming, and that are putting forth more of an effort?

I don't -like- playing against net-lists. I don't -like- playing against Space Wolves. But in agreeing to participate in a social activity, I accept that there is a possibility that I might have to do these things. You don't -like- to paint... but your opponent doesn't -like- to play against unpainted armies, so show them some respect and put forth the effort to be part of the community.

purplefood wrote:Obviously there isn't a 'traditional gamer' much like there isn't a traditional human...
Everyone is different.
Some people want to win.
Some people want to win and be a d**k about it.
Some people simply want to enjoy all aspects o the hobby.
Some people want to enjoy all aspects of the hobby and be a d**k about it.
Basically do what you want but don't force others to or look down on them if they don't do the same as you.

Pretty much true. The only trait shared by all "traditional" gamers is that they play games.

I personally don't care how people build their armies, or if they paint, or even proxy cardboard cutouts. If somebody is enjoyable to play with, I'll play with them. If somebody wants to play a "wouldn't it be cool if we had this special rule" game, that's fine, as long as it's stated before the game starts (and we both get to throw in our 0.02).

If somebody wants to play a "strictly by the rules" game (which is the norm), that's fine too - provided that the other player knows the rules and there is a rulebook nearby to consult. If they don't know the rules, I expect that I can point to a rule in the rulebook and provide a reasonable argument without being labeled a "rules lawyer".

Of course, if someone is a pain in the ass, I'm not going to want to play with them even if they've got the most "balanced", beautifully-painted non-proxied, wonderfully-converted WYSIWYG army in existence.

I think that having fun is good, but having fun at the expense of someone else isn't. I can and do look down on people who have their fun by bullying others, cheating (on purpose - accidents and misunderstandings aren't cheating), and otherwise making the experience unenjoyable for the other people around.

--

You'll notice that I managed to give some pretty strong stances and opinions without actually telling anyone that they're doing something right or wrong - there is no globally "correct" way to act. Do whatever you want, as long as the people you play with enjoy playing with you.

Here's how I read the original post:

"Hi guys, here are the things that I like about gaming: (insert stuff here). Do any of you guys like the same stuff? Because my gaming group is kinda small and it's feeling lonely over here - I feel that we are a dying breed." - of course, he probably should've also added
"By the way, I live in (insert city here). If you enjoy the same kind of stuff, maybe we can get together and have a friendly game or five"

LOL He lives in Charleston WV.

Though I think the max number of players we have had at any of our big tournaments in the state is something like 40ish
So I guess we arent to big

Redbeard wrote:
For years, one of the unwritten rules of war-gaming was that you played with WYSIWYG painted models. That's just how it has been done. People who "didn't like to paint" either recognized that this wasn't the hobby for them, or got their models painted, by themselves or by commission, because it was a requirement of the social group.

Maybe in your area, but not across the board. There's never been that sort of un-written rule in any place I've played(4-5 different Louisiana stores, 2 Mississippi stores, couple different areas in California, and several different groups in Colorado). Unless that rule stopped existing pre-'95(when I started playing).

Redbeard wrote:One group of people are going to be unhappy. Those who believe that wargaming includes painted models will be unhappy if unpainted models are allowed. Those who believe that painted models aren't a necessity will be unhappy if they're forced to paint their models. Why should the unhappy group be the group that are following the traditional practices of wargaming, and that are putting forth more of an effort?

I was in agreement with you until here.

If you go to play in an environment where not painting is the norm, that becomes the de facto standard. The traditional practices of wargaming are neither here nor there.

Does that mean you have to just put up with it? No, but the best way to change it is by example.

The problem I have, and this is the reason I visit my local store as little as possible, is the elitist, condesending, patronising and generally unsociable people who inhabit the place.

I've tried on several occasions to go down and get to know some of the people but they are just not friendly to new players and tend to be unhelpful (Oh, you play THAT army do you? pfft, good luck), demeaning (Have you not looked at any painting tutorials?) and generally off-putting.

All of my games have been with friends and family in my own home or my mates flat. I've met some really nice staff but I've also met some really fake staff who are interested as far as you buying something and then they don't much care unless you want to buy more.

I have met some nicer people but they are the ones who have options other than the store which are too far away for me and they tend not to visit the store very often.

Its a very negative and very cynical outlook of GW and the fanbase I've had contact with but I can only talk about my experiences.

Coming here and having a pretty good experience so far has been very encouraging for me and tells me that there are loads more helpful, supportive and friendly gamers out there which has given me hope!

I personally don't understand what proxies and paint jobs have to do with being a 'traditional' gamer.

Many of the gamers that come up to the local shop love to play 40k and have a good time like the rest of us. I personally know many of these folks and the game miniatures are simply too costly for some. Proxies, therefore, are very common and allowances are made.

With the economic situation where I live fairly desperate for most people. I find I'm either providing the actual figures, services to these folks by painting figures for them, or just not giving them too much grief about proxying.

Uhlan wrote:With the economic situation where I live fairly desperate for most people

Sorry mate but I had a little bit of a chuckle when I had a look at your location.


On a more serious note the only way I've managed to build what I have of my army is by trawling ebay and having people buy me stuff from there in return for favours or as gifts for birthdays and such. It's a bloody expensive hobby(habbit).

It is an expensive hobby. That's why it's a hobby and not just a game. Seriously, anyone who wants to prove their superiority at toy soldiers or military tactics would be better off playing Advanced Squad Leader. You can pick up ASL for a fraction of the cost of a GW army, it's a far superior (award-winning) ruleset, and there's no expectation of painting or modelling anything.

Miniature wargames are not pure games in the way that board games, or card games are. Sure, you can treat them as such, but then you end up wondering why you just dropped a grand on a case of plastic army men...

I simply cannot understand anyone who both complains about the price of this hobby and simultaneously makes the claim that they don't like painting the models. Like, can you really not find an alternative game that is both cheaper and doesn't require painting?

Redbeard wrote:I simply cannot understand anyone who both complains about the price of this hobby and simultaneously makes the claim that they don't like painting the models. Like, can you really not find an alternative game that is both cheaper and doesn't require painting?

Not with a large, global fan base, a rich back story, and readily available models.

It's just like anything else. How many people really prefer D&D to another system, and how many people just started playing what their group played?

Redbeard wrote:I simply cannot understand anyone who both complains about the price of this hobby and simultaneously makes the claim that they don't like painting the models. Like, can you really not find an alternative game that is both cheaper and doesn't require painting?

That's because you seem to buy into the whole "painting, playing, and collecting are one hobby" thing that GW puts forward. Not everyone sees all 3 as The Hobby. For some, the hobby is collecting, for some collecting and playing, for some collecting and painting. Maybe they don't feel like finding an alternative game because they like the models better or they like the fluff better.

Also, what Polonius said.

I wasn't complaining....ok, I was, but it's just idle ribbing tbh.

I'm also a PC gamer so I really can't complain about how much hobbies cost!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bit more on topic - It is very off-putting if you are unlucky enough to bump in to the super competitive unsociable gamers like I have when the hobby is so expensive.

dave_salmon wrote:

Uhlan wrote:With the economic situation where I live fairly desperate for most people

Sorry mate but I had a little bit of a chuckle when I had a look at your location.


On a more serious note the only way I've managed to build what I have of my army is by trawling ebay and having people buy me stuff from there in return for favours or as gifts for birthdays and such. It's a bloody expensive hobby(habbit).

You're the first person to ever notice that... and yeah, I chuckled as well after I thought about it.

Eye of Terra and Eye of Terror are pronounced the same where I live. So, the meanings are numerous.

haha need to clarify, I built my own PC for gaming and am currently planning a build for summer time....hence the hobby bit.


@Uhlan - OK I had a double chuckle. I suppose this is the place to let the nerd in me frolic!






Edited for context and spelling

Platuan4th wrote:
That's because you seem to buy into the whole "painting, playing, and collecting are one hobby" thing that GW puts forward.

Actually, I don't think GW puts that forward - they're on a 'four pillars' thing, where gaming, painting, modelling, and collecting are all seen as independent reasons to buy their stuff.

But I agree that painting, playing and collecting are the more traditional aspects of miniature wargaming, and that miniature wargaming (not GW wargaming) has typically considered all three to be requirements. You'll never see a historicals player asking why he can't proxy his spartans as romans or why he has to paint them...

In that way, GW has actively moved away from the traditional approach to wargaming. They're attempting to be more inclusive, by encouraging people to buy buy buy and just play, and not to worry about painting. Know why? Cause it sells more. If you don't need to paint things, you can buy more and when the next army comes out, it doesn't matter that the ones you already have aren't painted, you can just buy the new ones anyway.

Maybe they don't feel like finding an alternative game because they like the models better or they like the fluff better.

Fluff - maybe. Do you really believe that people who are complaining about the price of GW models, while actively advocating using proxies, could care less what the models look like? If you're using an unpainted space marine to stand in as a guardsman, does the fact that the marine has a decent sculpt matter at all? It probably still has mold lines and an undrilled bolter barrel.