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.
JFC the out of context straw man building and accusing me of making stuff up. Please review the exact quote I was responding to about the 1350 game.
Crimson wrote: I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
And once you do please try to understand the difference between "I don't have much time today, can we play at 1000 points instead of 2000" and "I want to take an extra power fist that wouldn't be legal at 2000, can we play at 2005 so I can have it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this thread is reminding me of insecure 15 year olds trying to impress a date. "Yes, I play 40k but it's all just stupid toy soldiers and I don't really care about it, I only play as an excuse to drink lots of beer (LOOK HOW MATURE I AM MAKING ALCOHOL PART OF EVERY SOCIAL EVENT LIKE A REAL ADULT), look I just threw then all in the garbage oh dear god please sleep with me." I really do not understand why people invest countless hours and dollars into a hobby and then feel compelled to brag about how little they care about it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 04:20:55
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Luciferian wrote: But if I were to go looking for a pick up game, after having agonized over whether or not I can afford to get rid of this or that to fit that last upgrade in and be under a certain, widely accepted points level, and someone comes up to me not having made the same concessions or with a strange points value that is clearly meant to advantage some weird list, why should I be happy about that? And is it more inconsiderate to deny that game, or to be the person imposing things on people that they couldn't possibly have planned for?
So it's perfectly fine for you to make a xxxPT list & go looking for a random pickup game using x assumptions. But when you find the other person also looking for a game who's decided upon a different pt limit etc they're somehow in the wrong?
Luciferian wrote: But if I were to go looking for a pick up game, after having agonized over whether or not I can afford to get rid of this or that to fit that last upgrade in and be under a certain, widely accepted points level, and someone comes up to me not having made the same concessions or with a strange points value that is clearly meant to advantage some weird list, why should I be happy about that? And is it more inconsiderate to deny that game, or to be the person imposing things on people that they couldn't possibly have planned for?
So it's perfectly fine for you to make a xxxPT list & go looking for a random pickup game using x assumptions. But when you find the other person also looking for a game who's decided upon a different pt limit etc they're somehow in the wrong?
When my assumption is that I'm going to have all of my gak together and use standard point limits that everyone uses, and not go over them, out of respect for my opponent, sure. I'm not going to go into a meta where everyone plays 1750 points and insist that someone's an donkey-cave for not wanting to play some weird, stacked up 1467 point game that they haven't prepared for. Would you?
Also, you're going to drag one paragraph of everything I said out of context and make an argument from absurdity, huh?
Peregrine wrote: JFC the out of context straw man building and accusing me of making stuff up. Please review the exact quote I was responding to about the 1350 game.
Crimson wrote: I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
And once you do please try to understand the difference between "I don't have much time today, can we play at 1000 points instead of 2000" and "I want to take an extra power fist that wouldn't be legal at 2000, can we play at 2005 so I can have it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this thread is reminding me of insecure 15 year olds trying to impress a date. "Yes, I play 40k but it's all just stupid toy soldiers and I don't really care about it, I only play as an excuse to drink lots of beer (LOOK HOW MATURE I AM MAKING ALCOHOL PART OF EVERY SOCIAL EVENT LIKE A REAL ADULT), look I just threw then all in the garbage oh dear god please sleep with me." I really do not understand why people invest countless hours and dollars into a hobby and then feel compelled to brag about how little they care about it.
Well, when you go about assuming that a 2000 point list ISN'T the same type of killer combo list, isn't that making it a strawman argument? Or you have previously assumed that everybody going a couple points over is doing it solely for the killer combo list making it a strawman argument?
He was even willing to play against a higher point list which could easily have a killer combo list which can more easily trump his. You seemed to completely miss that mark to declare Scarecrow with.
You are acting like a 6-year-old who yells at people for not playing like he does. You have literally called people who ask for a point change (a perfectly reasonable request in a non-tournament game and which can be accepted or rejected) to be cheating. That's something my 6-year-old son has literally said when we were playing Sorry! using the cards that came with the game (where you have zero control over what the movement rate is going to be)! Before you start complaining about other people acting like 15-year-olds, quit acting like a 6-year-old. It makes your arguments more intelligible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 06:19:21
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
That conversation is a direct reply to them specifically talking about asking for a non-standard point value tailored to their combo. Please stop ignoring that context.
And no, asking for more points so you can fit an extra thing is not reasonable. It's a selfish attempt to bend the rules for your own benefit. It's like if your kid started drawing extra cards and picking the best one, asked you to allow it, and then threw a fit over how you're "not having fun" when you said "nah, let's play a normal game".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 07:03:12
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
The basic rules of the game say nothing about the size of games, nor do they even mention Matched Play.
I know a few folks who run off the Battle Primer, Indexes, and Datacard sets, they run all kinds of scenarios and have a blast. If I remember correctly, they also use the PL system.
They run scenes from codexes, like the won from the 3E Necron Codex about infiltrating a tomb, fighting Scarabs, some spiders and a some Warriors, but lasting X rounds, enough to set off a bomb.
That conversation is a direct reply to them specifically talking about asking for a non-standard point value tailored to their combo. Please stop ignoring that context.
Quote what I said in full instead of picking a tiny part in attempt to misrepresent me:
If that total is 1337 points then why not play a 1500 point game? Why should your opponent have to match an awkward point total perfectly tailored to your army?
As I already said, they don't need to perfectly match it. 163 point more seems a tad excessive though, it is over 10% more. Also that 'perfectly tailored' might matter if the list was constructed around some specific strategic build rather than a theme or what happened to be painted at the moment. And ultimately if one wants to construct some power list, certainly the advantage is one the person who first suggest the point limit in the first place? I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
Very disingenuous.
Player 1 gets a whole unit or significant upgrade that he just couldn't take otherwise (if it were just a melta bomb or a single troop model he'd have just dropped it to get under points) and player 2 gets a tiny upgrade.
Not the same thing at all and this is precisely why being 10pts over is not the same as being 10pts under.
That conversation is a direct reply to them specifically talking about asking for a non-standard point value tailored to their combo. Please stop ignoring that context.
And no, asking for more points so you can fit an extra thing is not reasonable. It's a selfish attempt to bend the rules for your own benefit. It's like if your kid started drawing extra cards and picking the best one, asked you to allow it, and then threw a fit over how you're "not having fun" when you said "nah, let's play a normal game".
Are you being wilfully obtuse?
The point was about a random list that came to 1377. The later point was that EVEN IF it was some magical power combo, you could suggest a round number close to that and it would be reasonable (a bit gamey, but reasonable). He was extrapolating the point to its logical limit, to pre-empt the mindset that you and slayer seem to have, which is that everyone who suggests house ruling is some nefarious power gamer intent on taking advantage.
I don't get why some people in this game are completely unable to come to sort of social contract with people. The people who think that any slight modification of the rules is cheating seem to be the same people who think that the game is an unbalanced mess written by morons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 08:10:36
During 7th edition I played with a guy that thought that 40k was broken, a dumpster fire with its actual rules, and insisted in using the ITC rules. I wasn't familiar with them so I said no and he refused to play.
Should I consider him a cheater because he clearly wanted an advantage as he knew the rules he wanted to play better than me and he had a list created with those rules in mind? I could have told him: why do you want to break the rules for your own advantage? I've never considered him as a cheater and had a lot of games with him after that, some even with the ITC rules (not in this edition though). If I had known the ITC rules at that specific time I would have probably granted his request.
By some posters' logic he was indeed a cheater as his request was just "a selfish attempt to bend the rules for his own benefit".
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/19 08:25:49
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Peregrine wrote: JFC the out of context straw man building and accusing me of making stuff up. Please review the exact quote I was responding to about the 1350 game.
Crimson wrote: I mean if I really had build some ingenious killer combo that required exactly 1337 points, and I knew that my opponent was stickler for round numbers, then I'd suggest 1350 point game, that sounds round enough.
And once you do please try to understand the difference between "I don't have much time today, can we play at 1000 points instead of 2000" and "I want to take an extra power fist that wouldn't be legal at 2000, can we play at 2005 so I can have it".
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, this thread is reminding me of insecure 15 year olds trying to impress a date. "Yes, I play 40k but it's all just stupid toy soldiers and I don't really care about it, I only play as an excuse to drink lots of beer (LOOK HOW MATURE I AM MAKING ALCOHOL PART OF EVERY SOCIAL EVENT LIKE A REAL ADULT), look I just threw then all in the garbage oh dear god please sleep with me." I really do not understand why people invest countless hours and dollars into a hobby and then feel compelled to brag about how little they care about it.
It isn’t bragging about not caring, quite the opposite. I care about the hobby, passionately hence why I spend so much time and money on it. But I care about all aspects of it. Painting, modelling and story telling. What I don’t care about is winning or losing. It is not a sport. It is NOT a test of skill or prowess. It is a game of plastic soldiers. I see your attitude to the game as much more juvenile and boastful as if somehow winning a game of 40k makes you superior to anyone else. I don’t get it and never will. I am a competetive person, I used pay sports, real ones, and would care about winning or losing and performing well, but that was a genuine competition or physical strength and skill. Not net list building and moving your toys in such a way as to gain an advantage.
I play 40k for the other reasons. It’s the story and the models for me. I accept there is a chunk of the “community” that enjoys the competition part of the hobby above all others. I don’t understand it, there are so many better more suitable outlets for that side of life but I accept it and try not to let it affect my enjoyment of the hobby. In summary what does 6 points or what ever really matter if you still enjoy the game. This is why power levels are the way forward.
What I would still like see a separate rule set for competitive and open/narrative play. Completely apart so that changes to “balanace” the competitive side don’t stifle the creativity of the other. That way no one side could say that their was better or more justifiable than the other.
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
I'm not familiar with the ITC rules in 8th edition but maybe those rules reward some armies more than other ones. Crimson made a few examples of that. If that's the case it's reasonable to say that some players who insist on playing with that format are doing that mostly for personal benefit. Just like the guy who wanted to bring 2005, with the difference that he's probably someone who doesn't have any interest in making much effort in list building and brings a non optimized list anyway, while the guy that advocates the ITC rules is probably a WAAC one that he fears he might not win a game using a list that is built with a different set of rules in mind.
The player that wanted to field a 2005 list doesn't do that because he feels more powerful with his +5 points but because he wants to bring all the models he likes and he doesn't want to proxy. That +5 points can definitely be more important for the opponent if he has an optimized list. I made several examples of what I could add to my 2000 points lists without needing any other models and all this options would certainly be more critical than the power fist on a crappy tac marine.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 11:04:06
That conversation is a direct reply to them specifically talking about asking for a non-standard point value tailored to their combo. Please stop ignoring that context.
And no, asking for more points so you can fit an extra thing is not reasonable. It's a selfish attempt to bend the rules for your own benefit. It's like if your kid started drawing extra cards and picking the best one, asked you to allow it, and then threw a fit over how you're "not having fun" when you said "nah, let's play a normal game".
Are you being wilfully obtuse?
The point was about a random list that came to 1377. The later point was that EVEN IF it was some magical power combo, you could suggest a round number close to that and it would be reasonable (a bit gamey, but reasonable). He was extrapolating the point to its logical limit, to pre-empt the mindset that you and slayer seem to have, which is that everyone who suggests house ruling is some nefarious power gamer intent on taking advantage.
I don't get why some people in this game are completely unable to come to sort of social contract with people. The people who think that any slight modification of the rules is cheating seem to be the same people who think that the game is an unbalanced mess written by morons.
Yes, he actually thinks that it wasn't an extrapolation of this example to the point of logical limit, but a genuine "catch ya" moment proving his initial suspicion, that 1337 list was a power combo from the very beginning. Sometimes I wonder if he actually remembers what happened in a discussion few posts or even sentences earlier, as it is not the first time he does this kind of eristic juggling when cornered.
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
I'm not familiar with the ITC rules in 8th edition but maybe those rules reward some armies more than other ones. Crimson made a few examples of that. If that's the case it's reasonable to say that some players who insist on playing with that format are doing that mostly for personal benefit. Just like the guy who wanted to bring 2005, with the difference that he's probably someone who doesn't have any interest in making much effort in list building and brings a non optimized list anyway, while the guy that advocates the ITC rules is probably a WAAC one that he fears he might not win a game using a list that is built with a different set of rules in mind.
The player that wanted to field a 2005 list doesn't do that because he feels more powerful with his +5 points but because he wants to bring all the models he likes and he doesn't want to proxy. That +5 points can definitely be more important for the opponent if he has an optimized list. I made several examples of what I could add to my 2000 points lists without needing any other models and all this options would certainly be more critical than the power fist on a crappy tac marine.
Where's the line drawn though?
If you're allowed a Power Fist and you're telling me *I* have adjust my list (even though I'm the only one in this scenario capable of creating a proper army in the limit), I have to find points for models I don't have. OR I start getting upgrades and all the sudden I'm at 2007! I have to say I'm at 2007 and you need to find somewhere to spend the points. Now you're looking and you've only got a Flamer, and that's an additional 7 points.
So why not just play a bigger game if you're so concerned about using all the models you like? Your inability to construct lists at lower point levels is something YOU need to rectify, and I shouldn't cater to you because of your accusations "Oh you hate fun". Rules exist for a reason.
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
Exactly.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
Very disingenuous.
Player 1 gets a whole unit or significant upgrade that he just couldn't take otherwise (if it were just a melta bomb or a single troop model he'd have just dropped it to get under points) and player 2 gets a tiny upgrade.
Not the same thing at all and this is precisely why being 10pts over is not the same as being 10pts under.
Bingo again.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/19 15:54:14
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Slayer, please stop likening 40k to MtG. They are not alike, that is a false analogy to the topic at hand. MtG and 40k can both be played in a competitive, tournament setting, yes, but at this point the resemblance ends, if you ask me: 40k is so much more then the competitive side, just because the fluff and modelling and Roleplaying sides do not suit you does not mean they can't suit me.
MtG, as far as I know, is not generally played in a pseudo-role-playing fashion. 40k, whether you like it or not, is. All I am trying to argue (I can only speak for myself) is that this Roleplaying side is a valid playstyle, and it's MY playstyle. I get the impression (Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the intention of your arguments) that you do not value my playstyle. Fine. Just please do not insult me for having it, by insinuating that I am too stupid to 'list-build' or am actively trying to cheat. I am doing neither of those things.
Crimson Devil wrote: The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.
Civility is how much of a good sport you are, it has nothing to do with list building. If the other person brings a subpar list and has a bad experience because of that, it is not my fault. If someone picks a terrible hero in Dota and loses because of it, not my fault or problem. If someone plays some jank deck or drafts poorly in MtG, not on me to replace my power cards with more lands to help them. If someone lines up in the lane across from me with 100 less hp at the 1/4 mile, I'm not going to short shift. If someone shows up the 3 gun meet with a Glock, and I have a $4k custom shop 1911, I'm not going to shoot left handed.
I'm not sure why people seem to treat Warhammer so much differently than anything else with a winner and a loser. If you refuse to make a decent list and also can't handle losing to good lists, go play D&D. Any game with a winner and a loser, I will try my best to win. In Warhammer it means I take a good list, in MtG I play the best deck I can play, when I go to the track I am setting my car up to win, when I go to a shooting match I'm taking the best gun and ammo I can get my hands on. I do not lack civility because I try to win when there is a winner and a loser in an activity.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).
Nah, it goes further than that. Outside the tourney environment you have to fit in with those your playing with. You prove yourself un-fun to play with & you'll have few, if any, games.
I mostly play tournaments. If someone wants to refuse to play me and give me an extra lunch break, that's fine with me. If someone refuses to play my list outside of a tournament, I doubt I would have much to gain by practicing against them or that list anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 16:38:55
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Slayer, please stop likening 40k to MtG. They are not alike, that is a false analogy to the topic at hand. MtG and 40k can both be played in a competitive, tournament setting, yes, but at this point the resemblance ends, if you ask me: 40k is so much more then the competitive side, just because the fluff and modelling and Roleplaying sides do not suit you does not mean they can't suit me.
MtG, as far as I know, is not generally played in a pseudo-role-playing fashion. 40k, whether you like it or not, is. All I am trying to argue (I can only speak for myself) is that this Roleplaying side is a valid playstyle, and it's MY playstyle. I get the impression (Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the intention of your arguments) that you do not value my playstyle. Fine. Just please do not insult me for having it, by insinuating that I am too stupid to 'list-build' or am actively trying to cheat. I am doing neither of those things.
Hey, it's an apt comparison to me, because in order to play MTG my playgroup have elected to spend 50$ per card pack on blank cardstock, then individually handpaint and illuminate each of our cards personally taking several hours on each one.
"Got you, Yugi! Your Rubric Marines can't fall back because I have declared the tertiary kaptaris ka'tah stance two, after the secondary dacatarai ka'tah last turn!"
"So you think, Kaiba! I declared my Thousand Sons the cult of Duplicity, which means all my psykers have access to the Sorcerous Facade power! Furthermore I will spend 8 Cabal Points to invoke Cabbalistic Focus, causing the rubrics to appear behind your custodes! The Vengeance for the Wronged and Sorcerous Fullisade stratagems along with the Malefic Maelstrom infernal pact evoked earlier in the command phase allows me to double their firepower, letting me wound on 2s and 3s!"
"you think it is you who has gotten me, yugi, but it is I who have gotten you! I declare the ever-vigilant stratagem to attack your rubrics with my custodes' ranged weapons, which with the new codex are now DAMAGE 2!!"
"...which leads you straight into my trap, Kaiba, you see I now declare the stratagem Implacable Automata, reducing all damage from your attacks by 1 and triggering my All is Dust special rule!"
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Slayer, please stop likening 40k to MtG. They are not alike, that is a false analogy to the topic at hand. MtG and 40k can both be played in a competitive, tournament setting, yes, but at this point the resemblance ends, if you ask me: 40k is so much more then the competitive side, just because the fluff and modelling and Roleplaying sides do not suit you does not mean they can't suit me.
MtG, as far as I know, is not generally played in a pseudo-role-playing fashion. 40k, whether you like it or not, is. All I am trying to argue (I can only speak for myself) is that this Roleplaying side is a valid playstyle, and it's MY playstyle. I get the impression (Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the intention of your arguments) that you do not value my playstyle. Fine. Just please do not insult me for having it, by insinuating that I am too stupid to 'list-build' or am actively trying to cheat. I am doing neither of those things.
Hey, it's an apt comparison to me, because in order to play MTG my playgroup have elected to spend 50$ per card pack on blank cardstock, then individually handpaint and illuminate each of our cards personally taking several hours on each one.
That is awesome! I would very much like to see those cards if you have a link to some web gallery of those. But I think your group is quite unique in this regard... I have never before heard of such agreement.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Slayer, please stop likening 40k to MtG. They are not alike, that is a false analogy to the topic at hand. MtG and 40k can both be played in a competitive, tournament setting, yes, but at this point the resemblance ends, if you ask me: 40k is so much more then the competitive side, just because the fluff and modelling and Roleplaying sides do not suit you does not mean they can't suit me.
MtG, as far as I know, is not generally played in a pseudo-role-playing fashion. 40k, whether you like it or not, is. All I am trying to argue (I can only speak for myself) is that this Roleplaying side is a valid playstyle, and it's MY playstyle. I get the impression (Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the intention of your arguments) that you do not value my playstyle. Fine. Just please do not insult me for having it, by insinuating that I am too stupid to 'list-build' or am actively trying to cheat. I am doing neither of those things.
Hey, it's an apt comparison to me, because in order to play MTG my playgroup have elected to spend 50$ per card pack on blank cardstock, then individually handpaint and illuminate each of our cards personally taking several hours on each one.
There are people that create their own illustrations on their cards and they're legal for use too.
I know you wanted to try and make a point, but...
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm fairly certain that was meant facetiously, to further illustrate Lazzamore's point by way of sarcasm...
Too bad, as one of the aspects that drew me to MtG back in a day was collecting unique art and I know about quite a lot of people (I'm graphic designer and illustrator by trade) who honed their skills drawing MtG like illustrations. Heck, I did some card game illustrations myself in the past few years, commercially.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm fairly certain that was meant facetiously, to further illustrate Lazzamore's point by way of sarcasm...
Too bad, as one of the aspects that drew me to MtG back in a day was collecting unique art and I know about quite a lot of people (I'm graphic designer and illustrator by trade) who honed their skills drawing MtG like illustrations. Heck, I did some card game illustrations myself in the past few years, commercially.
The basic problem is a matter of civility. Like any human interaction between two people, you have to come to an agreement on the interaction to have a positive experience. Just because someone says yes doesn't mean you can inflict all of your fetishes on them. Find common ground and begin there, or walk away. No game is better than a bad game.
Civility is how much of a good sport you are, it has nothing to do with list building. If the other person brings a subpar list and has a bad experience because of that, it is not my fault. If someone picks a terrible hero in Dota and loses because of it, not my fault or problem. If someone plays some jank deck or drafts poorly in MtG, not on me to replace my power cards with more lands to help them
. If someone lines up in the lane across from me with 100 less hp at the 1/4 mile, I'm not going to short shift. If someone shows up the 3 gun meet with a Glock, and I have a $4k custom shop 1911, I'm not going to shoot left handed.
'merica! apt analogy. I guess it would depend on the class you'reshooting in. IDPA,IPSC,NRA all have diff classes and some dont allow x or y. but that's neither here nor there.
I'm not sure why people seem to treat Warhammer so much differently than anything else with a winner and a loser. If you refuse to make a decent list and also can't handle losing to good lists, go play D&D. Any game with a winner and a loser, I will try my best to win. In Warhammer it means I take a good list, in MtG I play the best deck I can play, when I go to the track I am setting my car up to win, when I go to a shooting match I'm taking the best gun and ammo I can get my hands on. I do not lack civility because I try to win when there is a winner and a loser in an activity.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The social contract extends as far as point level and the mission (which can be rolled for).
Nah, it goes further than that. Outside the tourney environment you have to fit in with those your playing with. You prove yourself un-fun to play with & you'll have few, if any, games.
I mostly play tournaments. If someone wants to refuse to play me and give me an extra lunch break, that's fine with me. If someone refuses to play my list outside of a tournament, I doubt I would have much to gain by practicing against them or that list anyway.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Slayer, please stop likening 40k to MtG. They are not alike, that is a false analogy to the topic at hand. MtG and 40k can both be played in a competitive, tournament setting, yes, but at this point the resemblance ends, if you ask me: 40k is so much more then the competitive side, just because the fluff and modelling and Roleplaying sides do not suit you does not mean they can't suit me.
MtG, as far as I know, is not generally played in a pseudo-role-playing fashion. 40k, whether you like it or not, is. All I am trying to argue (I can only speak for myself) is that this Roleplaying side is a valid playstyle, and it's MY playstyle. I get the impression (Please correct me if i'm misunderstanding the intention of your arguments) that you do not value my playstyle. Fine. Just please do not insult me for having it, by insinuating that I am too stupid to 'list-build' or am actively trying to cheat. I am doing neither of those things.
Hey, it's an apt comparison to me, because in order to play MTG my playgroup have elected to spend 50$ per card pack on blank cardstock, then individually handpaint and illuminate each of our cards personally taking several hours on each one.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Where's the line drawn though?
If you're allowed a Power Fist and you're telling me *I* have adjust my list (even though I'm the only one in this scenario capable of creating a proper army in the limit), I have to find points for models I don't have. OR I start getting upgrades and all the sudden I'm at 2007! I have to say I'm at 2007 and you need to find somewhere to spend the points. Now you're looking and you've only got a Flamer, and that's an additional 7 points.
So why not just play a bigger game if you're so concerned about using all the models you like? Your inability to construct lists at lower point levels is something YOU need to rectify, and I shouldn't cater to you because of your accusations "Oh you hate fun". Rules exist for a reason.
The line is drawn wherever you want. By asking if they can change the point value, they are renegotiating the terms of the game. The other player can:
1) Accept it and just start playing.
2) Accept it and adjust their list to accommodate.
3) Refuse it and ask their opponent to adjust their list.
4) Refuse the game and seek another opponent.
That is not cheating, yet considering it cheating is the point that Peregrine has repeatedly made. It's not even poor sportsmanship. The person ASKED to make the adjustment before the game began. A cheat would have not bothered mentioning being over points. A poor sportsman would start yelling and screaming at the other player (whether they were the one being asked or the asker being refused) or slammed the door on the way out of the room.
A player who asks to play with the ITC rules is not necessarily cheating because, even if using the ITC rules might benefit them (and could just as easily hurt them), there is a reason for using the ITC rules besides personal benefit. A reasonable person can believe that ITC is better for the game as a whole, including for their opponent, and therefore should be used. Perhaps there's some player out there who thinks "lol this guy doesn't know ITC I can beat them with it", but most pro-ITC players are advocating a popular alternate format independently from any question of who has the advantage in a single game.
A player who asks to play at 2005 points is clearly doing it for personal benefit. They're very obviously starting with a standard 2000 point game and asking for endorsement of an illegal list. And there is no player-neutral benefit to playing at 2005 points to believe in as an alternate motivation. No reasonable person can argue that 2005 points is better (for all players in all games) than the standard 2000 or an alternative of 2010, 1995, 2011, etc. The choice of 2005 points over 2000 is driven purely by one player's selfish interest in having an extra thing added to their list.
Exactly.
This would be like playing MtG draft and forgetting to shuffle something in, and just asking your opponent if you can just have it in your opening hand.
No. Try again.
Peregrine's statement is quite disingenuous and is making a lot of assumptions about the other person's character and condemning them without any further thought. He also ignored many different facts, some of which he even quoted. A person wanting to play a specific format is always because they find an advantage in it, be it experience in it, to gain experience in it, or whatever. That is no different than wanting to play the point values of the models you want to put on the table.
MtG is rather a poor example for many different reasons, being designed as a competitive game being one of them. Your example is even worse. In order to "forget shuffling something in", you are presenting the game has already started, while point negotiation happens before models are even deployed. I don't know many people who would ask to renegotiate points while they are putting models on the table.
Bharring wrote: I think Peregrine's comment about "who is the rule for" is important.
If someone commits to a 2k game, then last second says "But I'm at 2006", and they clearly knew they were 6 points over beforehand, it might be skeevy.
When I've seen this situation, it's been more like "Are there any small upgrades you can add to be about 6 points over?" or "Can you add another Troop or something?" If the person who wnated to go over 2k winds up playing 2006pts vs 2010pts, it very clearly shows they weren't just looking for an advantage.
Very disingenuous.
Player 1 gets a whole unit or significant upgrade that he just couldn't take otherwise (if it were just a melta bomb or a single troop model he'd have just dropped it to get under points) and player 2 gets a tiny upgrade.
Not the same thing at all and this is precisely why being 10pts over is not the same as being 10pts under.
Bingo again.
[sarcasm]Yes, because playing 6 points over is so much more an advantage than being 10 points over. It is obviously a "bingo".[/sarcasm]
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 17:05:41
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wayniac wrote: This is not a TCG. it is a social hobby where the theme and entertainment of the game is just as important, if not more so, than having things as balanced as possible for matched play. That's what seems to be the disconnect here. Some people can't fathom wanting to play loose with the rules, others enjoy it.
Just because you say that doesn't make it fact. It's a game with a winner and loser, period, full stop. It should be treated like any other game with a winner and loser. If you want to treat it some other way, that's up to you and your play group. You seem to be confusing what is important to your playgroup and what is important to other people or groups that play the game.
Wait what?
Are you seriously claiming that you treat "every game with a winner and a loser" the same, whether you're playing Bacchi Ball against a five year old, or in an Olympic swimming contest?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm fairly certain that was meant facetiously, to further illustrate Lazzamore's point by way of sarcasm...
Too bad, as one of the aspects that drew me to MtG back in a day was collecting unique art and I know about quite a lot of people (I'm graphic designer and illustrator by trade) who honed their skills drawing MtG like illustrations. Heck, I did some card game illustrations myself in the past few years, commercially.
OK? The point went over your head I think.
Still, it would be awesome if true and I would have a genuine interest in MtG if such hypothetical groups would indeed exist. But you are right, my profession did cloud my judgment here, I must be overworked then . My bad.
And yes, every IG player has spare lasgunners. I refuse to accept your absurd example that one exact 2005/2000 point list is the only possible list that player can bring, without a single alternate model for their most basic troops.
Why make this assumption?
We talked about this earlier. What if they truly don't? Are you going to assume that people always have extra models? To what end?
Again get, new and poor players are dismissed.
OK I'll play along. You only have a set list, and it's exactly 2004 points. You can't just swap a 10 point model for a 6 point model to get to 2000. Then take out a damn 10 point model and play at 1994. Wow, mind = blown. Look how difficult it was to solve that list building conundrum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ValentineGames wrote: If a Miniature Gamer played an actual miniature wargame...they'd be fragged.
They'd have no clue how to function.
By "actual miniature wargame" I'm assuming you mean lining up little green plastic army men and shooting rubber bands at them while making pew pew noises. That seems to be your definition of actual miniature wargame. The people who want to play a tight, balanced ruleset with somewhat similarly powered armies to test their skill as list builders and generals are not miniature gamers? What exactly are we then? This should be good.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 17:15:57
60PL 
12PL 
. My bad.
