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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Opinions are fine, 40K and GW have a history of making things so wooly people have their own facts.

Rules questions on other forums and groups for other games go
"Is this how this works?"

Then the answer is
"Yes" or "No, and here's why."

By and large that's the end of the discussion.

I think you are suffering from a confirmation bias here. Honestly, look at any D&D forum about making skill checks and you will see spiraling, long winded threads about how to establish a target number (DC) for said check. You will find similar for Total War series, MtG, etc. because a lot of people play those games. The wider the audience, the more likely you are to have disagreement on things.

This is not a problem unique to GW, and the same "the designers just suck at making rules" discussions going on about any major game.

 Easy E wrote:
I think you are suffering from a confirmation bias here. Honestly, look at any D&D forum about making skill checks and you will see spiraling, long winded threads about how to establish a target number (DC) for said check. You will find similar for Total War series, MtG, etc. because a lot of people play those games. The wider the audience, the more likely you are to have disagreement on things.

I don't think that's true about any of your examples.

D&D does not have rule disputes about how to establish the DC of a check because the rule is incredibly simple: the DC of the check is whatever the DM says it is, end of discussion. There are guidelines and suggestions to help the DM make a decision but none of them are rules. So you can certainly have play style discussions about things like how challenging encounters should be, how to handle characters of different power level, etc, but that's not the same as an argument over how the rule works.

MTG doesn't have extended rule disputes at all. The full rulebook is longer than an average nation's entire legal code but it does cover any possible situation with a single clear answer. Arguments can only happen when both players are ignorant of how the rules work, as soon as someone who understands the rules enters the discussion they can provide a rule citation and the argument is over (outside of someone continuing to argue just to be a troll). And in the unlikely event that there's something the rules don't cover with a single clear answer WOTC will very likely fix it with the next rule update.

Total War doesn't have rule disputes because it doesn't have a rulebook. It's a video game where the rules are all strictly and without error enforced by the software, the players do not have access to the rules and their opinions do not matter. Players can argue about how they think the software works but that's not the same as being presented with a rulebook and still not being able to know the correct answer.

40k is by far the worst offender among popular games because it's the game with the longest history of the authors insisting that clear rules aren't necessary, you can 4+ anything, and anyone who tries to "exploit" a rule error is a TFG that shouldn't be playing the game. Other games don't have that attitude, other games don't have 40k style YMDC dumpster fires.

Check "cognitive disssonance" and strategies people use for dealing with it.

Long story short, people having a different philisophy of whatever undermines your belief in the validity of your own philisophy which is an unpleasant feeling. As a result you create justifications for other philisophies being invalid and look for validation of your own (online).

Aecus Decimus wrote:


D&D does not have rule disputes about how to establish the DC of a check because the rule is incredibly simple: the DC of the check is whatever the DM says it is, end of discussion. There are guidelines and suggestions to help the DM make a decision but none of them are rules.

Yes and no. This comes part and parcel to the whole "common sense" thing where a seasoned/good DM should know this, but there are a fair number of inexperienced DMs, DMs who refuse to read the books as a whole(generally the same person as the first), and rules lawyer DMs who refuse to do things not codified strictly by the rules(who are generally the type who take guidelines as rules) and as such spend way too much time trying to find a "definitive" answer. Personally, I've been subjected too many times to the third example and the "rule" disagreements tear groups apart.

 Eilif wrote:
I'm sure it annoyed some folks, but I would love to see more fluff answers like that from companies, especially if it's paired with a clear answer to a rules question.

My annoyance comes from the fact that the person answering the question didn't consider that Daemonic Flight =/= Jump Pack, and that "Daemonic Flight" was a catch-all upgrade for anything from Jump Packs to insect wings to giant sweeping bat wings. Their answer was essentially "Of course it doesn't. How could being angry make a rocket go faster?" without any consideration for what Daemonic Flight actually was.

That's why using trying to answer a rules question by using a half-baked fluff justification is always a bad idea.

It just reminds me of the old adage about asking GW questions:

"Ask a Rulezboy one question and he will give you three answers, each one different and wrong."

So leaving aside the issues of GW's attitude toward rules - which is honestly a whole topic of its own - and getting back to the ways people play.




I think one factor to consider is that humans are social creatures and that when we find something enjoyable/rewarding we often have a desire to share that something with other people. When we find a community that shares that interest we want to share with them even more and reinforce what we enjoy and have others come and enjoy it as well.

So someone who enjoys casual play wants to share that experience with others, just as someone who enjoys competitive play does. When the population of a group is very large and diverse those different attitudes and approaches can often find niches within the population to link up with.
When the population is smaller and the niches more broad you can end up more clashes where two from very different or even opposing approaches come together and try to convert the other.


Neither side is right nor wrong, but passion and enthusiasm can overrule logic at times. Even before you add in that some might not have the best social skills.





Another angle that I think is important to consider is education. Wargaming has a big black hole in education for gameplay. It doesn't matter what game, in general you can get from building to painting to army list construction with a LOT of backup, support, education, awareness and such. There's a heavily mature and developed culture around all those areas.
However actually playing the game is a black hole of very casual terms (play to the objectives) but no real depth. This is the same no matter the rules system itself; there is just very little depth to much of it.

This lack of education creates a skill barrier that is hard to overcome and I think fuels some of the "wrong way to play" arguments from those who have game skill and those who do not. Because those who do not are basically being told to "get good" to "get more fun" but there's few tools to aid them in getting there. So some choose to not even try; which can cause frustration in those who have found that they get more fun playing to a higher level of skill and want others to have that experience as well.




Others have also touched on the fact that the written word can sometimes come across different to different people. A "harsh" comment might just be short or blunt or lacking in pleasantries. Some take offence at even the most casual of comments whilst others don't show any visible disgruntlement no matter how hostile the other side is. Throw in some dog piling and the fact that, in GW's case especially, frustrations over things like GW's rule writing can boil over into discussions between people. Much like how at times facts get put aside in an argument and its all about egos and who gets the last word etc...




Personally I choose to think that much of it is either miss interpreted typed words that build into arguments where none was intended at the onset; an element of skill barriers; an element of passion and an element of there simply being an imbalance of player types and player type discussions.

Heck online that last one is especially true of casual/openplay/narrative game formats where there's often no unified structure and each game area plays to their own. Creating far less discussion about those game types and overloading the net with "Matched play/competitive" discussion in many hobbies and areas of interest. Which results in the causal groups feeling pressured when they strike up discussion and the competitive people start dominating the chat.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Counter-question: why do some people have trouble distinguishing between criticism/disagreement and being genuinely upset about something?

In my experience I see a lot of comments about WHY U SO MAD when it's very obvious that the person who made the "mad" post is, at most, mildly annoyed about something. It seems like there's this weird thing where people obsess over "civility" and "everyone's opinion is valid" and anyone not complying with the hugbox must be portrayed as some kind of raging donkey-cave with massive anger issues.

It's also in choices of words. Your post above, for example, comes across as both aggressive and angry. And yes, specific words are a specific choice.

JNAProductions wrote:See title.

I've seen, on this forum, people get really salty over other forum-goers playing a game differently than them. (Usually 40k.)
It just seems odd to me to be so upset that someone you don't know and will never play a game with plays the game in a way different than yourself. I honestly do not understand why they're so emotional about it.

As other posters have aaid, Gw have a part to play, for sure. Wooly language. Poor rules. Vagueness. i think claiming this as the cause is missing some of the forest for the trees though. we the players are the other side of the exact same coin.

Wargamers are often... dogmatic to a fault and incredibly Conservative about 'how' a game is played. Orthodoxy is a huge cornerstone of our gaming culture and 'one common way of playing' anywhere in the world is seen as some kind of holy mantra. There is a very real and very misplaced tribalism out there that wishes to wash away alternative approaches, alternative points of view, alternative games even - in favour of this single minded 'conformity'.

The most important thing isn't necessarily good rules, its official rules and essentially 'toeing the line' and playing 'properly'. Deviating from the dogma and 'how to play properly' is often severely frowned upon if not attacked outright eg Anything that isnt 2000pt tourney format is not 'real' 40k, or that kind of thing. Watch the debates when homebrewing/house-ruling, alternative formats and casual/conpetitive come up. Homebrewing or suggestions to ignore/change broken rules in your group (without the nod of approval from god/gw) or anything where you yourself take ownership/responsibility for your hobby are often met with hostility and derision, especially online. I've previously been told, for example, that I (and people like me) were the problem in the hobby because we homebrewed and house-ruled to make our games work for us. But thsts by the by.

Add in the usual Internet anonymity where there is little or no accountability and folks can sling whatever nastiness they wish.

Another factor out contributing to the 'having a go at folks' for doing it differently imo at least is that There is there is often a certain type of 'miserable' player out there that defines their hobby by being angry about the hobby and everything in it - that is only every really content (can't use happy) when everyone else is as miserable as they are and folks that either enjoy the hobby, or don't have as many issues with things become the enemy by proxy for no other reason than they aren't as apoplectic with rage as mister misery themselves. Ive often sern this manifest in players that keep playing well beyond the point of burnout and who get unhealthily invested in the 'game', when really, what thry need to do is take a break and maybe consider a change in perspective.
They won't necessarily represent a lot of people but they can absolutely contribute to the nastier discourses that you're referring to.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I think you are suffering from a confirmation bias here. Honestly, look at any D&D forum about making skill checks and you will see spiraling, long winded threads about how to establish a target number (DC) for said check. You will find similar for Total War series, MtG, etc. because a lot of people play those games. The wider the audience, the more likely you are to have disagreement on things.

I don't think that's true about any of your examples.

D&D does not have rule disputes about how to establish the DC of a check because the rule is incredibly simple: the DC of the check is whatever the DM says it is, end of discussion. There are guidelines and suggestions to help the DM make a decision but none of them are rules. So you can certainly have play style discussions about things like how challenging encounters should be, how to handle characters of different power level, etc, but that's not the same as an argument over how the rule works.

Exhibit A is a thread about if Strength bonus can be used for an intimidation check or not......

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650311-Muscles-shouldn-t-improve-intimidate

TLDR: A 10 page thread about if and how to use a Strength Mod for an intimidation skill check in D&D 5e.

 Easy E wrote:
Exhibit A is a thread about if Strength bonus can be used for an intimidation check or not......

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650311-Muscles-shouldn-t-improve-intimidate

TLDR: A 10 page thread about if and how to use a Strength Mod for an intimidation skill check in D&D 5e.

That's not at all comparable. Nobody there is arguing over how the rules work, they're arguing over how you should play the game. RAW is perfectly clear: you do not add your strength bonus to intimidate rolls, and nobody in the pages I skimmed was suggesting otherwise. The argument is entirely over whether it's a good idea to modify the rules, whether as a general change or by applying a situational modifier on a single exceptional roll.

A 40k equivalent of that D&D argument would be the use of matched play in Crusade: like the example of the feeble bard being better at intimidation than the wall of muscle barbarian it's a pretty clearly awkward situation that technically RAW you don't use any of the major balance changes that GW has made. And you can have a debate with no obvious correct answer on whether you should house rule Crusade to use the matched play changes, if you should use all of the matched play changes or just certain changes, etc. But none of that involves arguing about whether RAW those changes apply or not, RAW is perfectly clear that they don't.

What 40k has more than any other game, and what none of your examples involve, is arguments over how the rules work. It has argument after argument over things like "can this model attack in melee" with no clear answer because GW has failed at proper technical writing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:
It's also in choices of words. Your post above, for example, comes across as both aggressive and angry. And yes, specific words are a specific choice.

That's just proving my point. I wasn't more than trivially angry when I wrote that post and nothing in there comes even remotely close to a true aggressive and angry post. I think some people just have a very skewed and sheltered point of view on what actual anger looks like and assume that anything less than 100% politeness and fawning means the person is literally screaming at the screen as they type and one step short of smashing their PC through the wall and going on a murderous rampage.

Communication is a two-way street. If your message isn't coming across correctly, modify how you say it.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Communication is a two-way street. If your message isn't coming across correctly, modify how you say it.

I agree with you, but if it is indeed a 2-way street than the onus is not only on the sender to send the clear and correct message. It is also on the receiver to choose to assume the better interpretation of the message until/unless evidence points the other way.

If both sides aren't doing their best than it makes having a conversation of good will very difficult. Of course, some folks don't want a conversation of good will or in good faith, but that's a whole other ball-o-wax.

 Eilif wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Communication is a two-way street. If your message isn't coming across correctly, modify how you say it.

I agree with you, but if it is indeed a 2-way street than the onus is not only on the sender to send the clear and correct message. It is also on the receiver to choose to assume the better interpretation of the message until/unless evidence points the other way.

If both sides aren't doing their best than it makes having a conversation of good will very difficult. Of course, some folks don't want a conversation of good will or in good faith, but that's a whole other ball-o-wax.

That's fair-but Aecus should know, since they've been told directly, that they're coming off as angry and aggressive. If they continue to type in the same way and expect different results... I don't know what to tell them.

To be fair, some people see any deviation from the "standard" mode to literally be an attack on their chosen methodology. As such, they treat an attack with vehemence and hostility.

Those people would be what is wrong with gaming culture as a whole, not just wargaming.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
It's also in choices of words. Your post above, for example, comes across as both aggressive and angry. And yes, specific words are a specific choice.

That's just proving my point. I wasn't more than trivially angry when I wrote that post and nothing in there comes even remotely close to a true aggressive and angry post. I think some people just have a very skewed and sheltered point of view on what actual anger looks like and assume that anything less than 100% politeness and fawning means the person is literally screaming at the screen as they type and one step short of smashing their PC through the wall and going on a murderous rampage.

"Some people", sure. But "some people" is a pretty loose term, right? Especially on the internet. Me personally? Notsomuch. I've seen a lifetime of anger and grew up surrounded by alchohol-fuelled violence. I'm certainly no sheltered snowflake that's going to be especially offfended by someone playing the role of angry internet warhammer nerd tough guy. I'm making the point that It's more about being at least reasonably polite when there's no real reason to come across as an acerbic donkey-cave. Of course, this is the internet and Dakka has a fairly loose moderation (they give us a lot of rope here compared to other places, to be honest), but you do come across as that angry internet warhammer nerd tough guy in the way that you type - of course if you spoke to a lot of people in a face to face situation in the manner which you type your posts, you'd likely be picking your teeth up from the surrounding area. Of course, this is the internet, so what are the real repercussions of being an anoymous donkey-cave poster? Essentially none when you figure out where the line is and how to skirt it.

I hope I didn't come across as aggressive there, as I'm personally not angry at all and certainly am not making a personal threat. For one thing, we'll likely never be on the same continent, let alone be face to face. Duh. I'm simply making the point about when people choose to take on the online persona of angry donkey-cave and the way those words come across to others. Like I said, words are a choice. You're clearly intelligent enough to understand how your words come across and how those choices will likely impact others and basically don't have any regard. Possibly you find it amusing - because people are all snowflakes, apparently and just can't handle the way that you spit truth. or something.

But it's about context and social norms. Dakka isn't twitter. Twitter is a cesspool, as we all know - and what moderation barely exists there is uneven and inconsistent. Back to that "some people" that we started with. Some people on twitter are offended by you or I existing. We can safely disregard people on twitter being offended, as while there are sub-communities there, twitter itself really isn't a community and the medium thrives on ragebait and people jumping into each other's conversations, often being dickheads. "twitter drama" is a phrase we all understand for a reason. Dakka is more moderated, and Rule#1 here is.. well, you can look it up or try to figure it out. But people are expected to be a bit more polite here than on twitter. It's also the social norm of this (very loose) community. On your private discord with your mates? Well, you can be as off-colour there as you like. Different locations, different communities, different norms.

I'm literally shaking right now.

Shaking a paint bottle. Because I'm trying to (re)organise my paints and am putting little dots on top of all the Vallejo bottles. It's fething tedious, and I'm going to get back to it now. You have a nice day, y'all!

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Exhibit A is a thread about if Strength bonus can be used for an intimidation check or not......

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?650311-Muscles-shouldn-t-improve-intimidate

TLDR: A 10 page thread about if and how to use a Strength Mod for an intimidation skill check in D&D 5e.

That's not at all comparable. Nobody there is arguing over how the rules work, they're arguing over how you should play the game. RAW is perfectly clear: you do not add your strength bonus to intimidate rolls, and nobody in the pages I skimmed was suggesting otherwise. The argument is entirely over whether it's a good idea to modify the rules, whether as a general change or by applying a situational modifier on a single exceptional roll.

What 40k has more than any other game, and what none of your examples involve, is arguments over how the rules work. It has argument after argument over things like "can this model attack in melee" with no clear answer because GW has failed at proper technical writing.

Ummm..... okay then.

Warhammer 40K sucks and should feel bad, and all other games are superior to it.

You win. Enjoy!

So basically this thread is a thinly veiled attack at specific posters? I wish I could say I'm shocked...




However, I'll go ahead and answer the question. I personally don't view Narrative At All Cost, Win At All Cost, Competitive At All Cost, or Casual At All Cost as wrong compared to each other. If someone uses Stillmania as their driving collecting/gaming force, there's nothing "wrong" with that.

Now, consistently guffing the rules or misrepresenting facts to push a narrative? Oh, I'm ABSOLUTELY calling that out. Being told you can consolidate 2D6" into units in 3rd Ed. 40K locking them into combat the next turn without recourse is a flat out lie, yet it's been stated REPEATEDLY on this site. I've had to correct people on this very topic. "5 man knight units wipe out every infantry unit every time" in 6th Ed. WFB is a flat out lie, and I have to take that to task at least every 6 months.

Modern GW gaming has had a push to the halcyon days of needing a GM in order to actually play the game, and the push is by Jervis Johnson and Nigel Stillman minded players who will die before playing anything but narrative. Where does that leave everyone else? Should someone's game experience be tethered to the preferences of someone else?

 Just Tony wrote:
Should someone's game experience be tethered to the preferences of someone else?

Isn't that true of the base rules for 9th Ed already considering how much of scoring is basically straight lifted from the 8th Ed ITC tournament rules? We're already tethered to how ITC thinks the game should be played.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Should someone's game experience be tethered to the preferences of someone else?

Isn't that true of the base rules for 9th Ed already considering how much of scoring is basically straight lifted from the 8th Ed ITC tournament rules? We're already tethered to how ITC thinks the game should be played.

I can imagine a lot of that comes from a manager saying people like that, make that.

I think a lot of 40k is like that, where the team writing the rules has to follow along other teams.
They have to only change little bits, and future proof for ideas they don’t even seem to know about yet.
Keep the game flat enough to keep a lot of half releases functional, but still write rules that keep it interesting.
With the potential that they will get a bunch of new things dumped into there lap to make work.

 Just Tony wrote:

Modern GW gaming has had a push to the halcyon days of needing a GM in order to actually play the game, and the push is by Jervis Johnson and Nigel Stillman minded players who will die before playing anything but narrative. Where does that leave everyone else?

Oh, tell me more about this?

Do you see this more with AoS vs. 40K? Is it more with their spin-off Specialist games like Titanicus, Aeronautica, Necromunda, Kill Team, etc?

My experience maybe different from yours in this regard, BUT I am so far out of the loop on "current" trends in GW land that I really do not know what the "Modern GW Gaming" experience is.

 Easy E wrote:
Ummm..... okay then.

Warhammer 40K sucks and should feel bad, and all other games are superior to it.

You win. Enjoy!

Cool, passive-aggressive table flipping and straw man arguments, that's great. You know you can just admit you were wrong, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Isn't that true of the base rules for 9th Ed already considering how much of scoring is basically straight lifted from the 8th Ed ITC tournament rules? We're already tethered to how ITC thinks the game should be played.

Except that Crusade also exists and keeps getting lots of new content independent from tournament 40k.

(Now, whether or not Crusade is good is an entirely separate question. But it clearly exists and GW is treating it as an equal to tournament 40k.)