do people.really take 40k too far?

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.

**Makumba**

actualy most nids dont have eyes as they dont use eyes to see. If we went fluff wise their eyes is the hive mind. and it is hard to check LoS from the hive mind to an opposing model .

**evildrspock**

Well, using that logic you get LoS from EVERY MODEL CONNECTED TO THE HIVE MIND. Zoanthropes, you now have clear LoS through that 1 foot thick mountain terrain, because one gaunt can see your target on the other side.

On a similar note, integrated targeting systems using the closest model's range/LoS for certain weapons would be a really awesome ability. I wants it!

**SoloFalcon1138**

All I'm saying is that the rules lawyers are what truly drive players off, not the rules. The rules are fine, its the people who make them frustrating. Is there no room anymore for common sense or compromise anymore? After reading the fiftieth snapfire thread, it gets kind of tragic that some simple rules slip past some people...

**Ratbarf**

Not really, some rules really are just vague or poorly worded. While, granted, there are certainly some rule where the intent is very clear but the word choice is simply inexcusably wrong, there are definately some that are very easy to misinterpret. For example, when the GKs codex came out the Falchions rules said that they granted +1 attack, but you could only buy them in pairs, so a lot of people thought, "okay, the rule says +1 attack, but there are also two CCWs, so now I must get +2 attacks right?" and arguably they were correct. GW however actually intended Falchions to only grant the normal +1 attack for having two CCWs. RAW, that is a wrong ruling, but RAI couldn't really be applied in this because common sense would have it go either way.

**Makumba**

evildrspock wrote:
Well, using that logic you get LoS from EVERY MODEL CONNECTED TO THE HIVE MIND. Zoanthropes, you now have clear LoS through that 1 foot thick mountain terrain, because one gaunt can see your target on the other side.

On a similar note, integrated targeting systems using the closest model's range/LoS for certain weapons would be a really awesome ability. I wants it!

no you dont because the hive mind isnt a model on the table and it doesnt have eyes.

**Ratbarf**

But the hivemind is represented by models on the table that do have eyes.

**Apple fox**

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
All I'm saying is that the rules lawyers are what truly drive players off, not the rules. The rules are fine, its the people who make them frustrating. Is there no room anymore for common sense or compromise anymore? After reading the fiftieth snapfire thread, it gets kind of tragic that some simple rules slip past some people...

I used to have a friend that was like that, used the commen sense card to decide on rules, but often he was wrong and his commen sense was difernt from everyone others.
Discussion on rules is fine, and its realy up to the creators to minimize misinterpritaition.

**Wight Lord**

Makumba wrote:
while I do agree with this , there is still the other side . I cant remember people leting DA/BT players use codex sm/sw cylcons or storm shields pre FAQ and that was done years in to 5th ed . Or to be more up to time , let chaos sm player use marine DPs as flyers just like the chaos one , before the newer FAQ.

My group (all friends for quite some time) back in Michigan actually did let me use the newer Storm Shield rules with the Dark Angels back in the day. Some were impressed I actually stuck by the DA with how 'not optimized' they were at the time. I didn't care really care about the rest of the list, but my storm shields were important to me, and we all thought it should be so. It's been a while, but I seem to remember my buddies letting me run the newer land speeder Typhoon back in the day as well. We were also okay letting our long time wolf player update some tings too, before they got updated, but he bitterly insisted that GW should update his codex soon, and it did take years, but he stuck to his guns. Maybe my group is a little different in that we've mostly known each other for at least 10 years... I couldn't imagine still playing if I had to put models on the table every week with a bunch of ill mannered ruffians.

What I remember that I thought was totally rediculous one day was when some players from another group, who played at the FLGS the same night we did, were trying to tell me that those 'Nid drop pod things, could shoot dudes riding in transports. Like, that was a serious get the hell out of here moment back then.

So I do hear you, that those people are out there. That being said, we did let the 'new' storm shield rules apply before the FAQ.

FJ

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
I have reduced my reading of these forums immensely due to the ridiculousness of the discussions. But it has left wondering, do people actually play the game this way? Vehicles can fire gun emplacements, space marines have no "actual" eyes, therefore draw no line of fire, Orks are too unpredictable to be competitive, etc. Has everyone forgotten that this is a game? No one's livelihood rests on 40k, if you are spending your money on this to the exclusion of necessities, that's your problem.

Seriously, everyone take a big step back and look at the big picture: it's a game.

Finally, someone with COMMON SENSE.

If someones got problems with rules, just figgin' roll over it.

**Makumba**

We were also okay letting our long time wolf player update some tings too, before they got updated, but he bitterly insisted that GW should update his codex soon, and it did take years, but he stuck to his guns. Maybe my group is a little different in that we've mostly known each other for at least 10 years... I couldn't imagine still playing if I had to put models on the table every week with a bunch of ill mannered ruffians.

only SW didnt need any updates they were an addon codex , So each time sm marine got a new one[first in each edition up to 6th] SW stuff automaticly got updated .

But the hivemind is represented by models on the table that do have eyes.

show me that in the rules of the models . hive mind is the "eyes" of nids in the fluff , just like 1ksons[no body no eyes] "see" stuff through their sorc or warp sight . Only rules have nothing to do with fluff [my IG would be pounding other armies from 120" away with imperial navy support and preliminary bombardments] . Rules say check LoS from models eyes . No eyes cant check it . Unless there is a special rule for it , like models in transport can draw LoS from fire point or tanks drawing LoS from weapons [well technicly in the fluff they should be offten checking LoS from those engine seer port things that are not always near weapons] .

**insaniak**

Seriously, folks, the 'eyes' thing is a non-issue, and not really the topic here. Start a new thread if you really feel a burning need to argue about it.

**burgerking ork**

When it comes to sketchy rules, I have a personal rule of my own-don't go there. Common arguement about rules for a unit? Don't take that unit. Arguement about scenery rules? Avoid it like the plague. It's served me well through 3 editions of 40k and many years of wargaming in general.

**SoloFalcon1138**

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/478483.page#4815106

Posts like this make me weep for the future...

**bfdhud**

azreal13 wrote:
I am content in stating that, although generally laid back and not interested tourney play, that if some of the arguments that crop up in ymdc were put to me in real life, the person would receive my fist, propelled with all the force my 300lb 6'5" framework could muster, right in the balls.

The nasty, squirmy rules lawyering element that populate this game who seem happy pushing things beyond breaking point when a simple application of logic would do, really gets my goat.

I'm lucky to have a large gaming group, including many guys I've known for years, but be warned, if you are this sort of player and we get involved in a pick up game? Be prepared to leave with a swollen scrotum.

Please do tell us more about your fascination with your opponents scrotum.

**SoloFalcon1138**

If players play like many describe it online, they are already major nutsacks.

**Fafnir**

The "most important rule" is a cop-out for poor writing and rules design. A well designed and properly thought out game should be able to embody the "most important rule" without it having to be written down.

**DONUTSREVENGED**

Sometimes I think that some of the points in the OP is more to do with the "what if" or the "is this" scenarios, more of a joke really at most and not at all trying to find a way of using logic to make your opponent's army unplayable and thus easy to beat. I can tell you now if someone was to play warhammer that way where space marines cannot see because their models doesn't show eyes not only would I point out that they have vision slits and that GW wouldn't mould a face for the inside of a bloody helmet but also then point out that he is a tosser for trying to worm out of getting shot at by some bolters.

If anyone does play 40k this way I can assure you that they play it by themselves. Period.

**DemetriDominov**

bfdhud wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
I am content in stating that, although generally laid back and not interested tourney play, that if some of the arguments that crop up in ymdc were put to me in real life, the person would receive my fist, propelled with all the force my 300lb 6'5" framework could muster, right in the balls.

The nasty, squirmy rules lawyering element that populate this game who seem happy pushing things beyond breaking point when a simple application of logic would do, really gets my goat.

I'm lucky to have a large gaming group, including many guys I've known for years, but be warned, if you are this sort of player and we get involved in a pick up game? Be prepared to leave with a swollen scrotum.

Please do tell us more about your fascination with your opponents scrotum.

Yes.... I too wish to dissect this phallic - er fallac- er fascination further...

**Paitryn**

Ive pushed some rules for the sake of argument in YMDC, but I dont play that way, no. If anything I'm probably the most easy going player to play against. Prolly why I also win tourneys more rarely than others who push for every rule to be correct and every move to be what its supposed to be.

**Mannahnin**

Most Q&A topics in YMDC are quick and simple, with people getting easy answers to stuff they're unclear about.

Some rules, however, are genuinely ambiguous. In those cases, YMDC serves a great function of allowing people to hash out the meaning and figure out how it's supposed to work, or how it can most practically be resolved, so they don't waste time arguing about it at the table. A hour or two of debating it online can save precious real game time and spare you confusion when you are with your RL friend for a RL game.

Beyond the above, primary uses, debating the fine points rules online is itself an enjoyable hobby for some folks. Akin to the kind of arguing over minutiae that sports fans enjoy. Usually when you get a really long, drawn-out thread it's because one or more of those guys is involved, and likes the pure intellectual aspect of the argument. Or can't admit they're wrong.

People need to be able to separate this kind of online debate pastime from the way players actually behave at the table IRL. IME practically no one wants to waste time at the table in a drawn out debate. Drawing judgmental conclusions about people based on how they choose to pass their time online is usually not a good idea, as those judgments are unlikely to be accurate.

**CuddlySquig**

I think people discuss rules in incredible depth to see what they can get away with.
The title implies someone is quitting his jobs, dressing up as a space marine and becoming an economic black hole.

**-Loki-**

Mannahnin wrote:
IME practically no one wants to waste time at the table in a drawn out debate.

My brother has a friend who does and will. I've seen them argue for 20 minutes, solve nothing, then he goes to the rulebook, reading the rules section through 3 times trying to find the bit he is arguing over.

He's seriously the worst person I've ever had the displeasure of playing against.

**Mannahnin**

If I were forced (though social circumstances or tournament pairings) to play with such a person, it would be conditional on them agreeing to abide by quick rulings by an agreed-on third party (obviously a TO or judge in a tournament).

**-Loki-**

Oh, believe me, we've tried setting those terms. They don't work.

**Mannahnin**

It's always worked for me. It takes effort, though. You have to stay firm but calm and polite. If you're not capable of making them work with him, then you either write him off or treat it as social work.

If you choose to socialize with him despite the inability to set and maintain rules, that's charitable of you, and hopefully you're building up good karma.

**-Loki-**

Oh I definitely didn't build up good karma with him.

**Lordhat**

insaniak wrote:
azreal13 wrote:
Some people just take everything waaay too seriously.

Where the infamous 'internet tough guy' routine is concerned, you'll find that most people really don't. Every time someone threatens violence over the internet as a result of someone's hypothetical actions at the gaming table, the earth shakes infinitisemally in its orbit as millions of eyeballs behind millions of monitors all roll simultaneously.

Sigged.

**Jihallah**

wowsmash wrote:
I think anything can be taken to far if your not careful. I remember when grand theft auto 4 came out me and my budy played that game none stop for days. Went to the super market for some grocers and saw a sweet looking car. My first thought was "sweet I'm taken that" then I realized I wasn't playing the game. Had a very weird video game/ real world confusion for a split second. After that I took a break from GTA for a week. To much of anything can be bad for you. Moderation kids.

"And now you know and knowing is half the battle"

wow...just wow dude.

You should go play lemmings. Then walk along some seaside cliffs- I hear the views are excellent

**evildrspock**

I've gone to bed and seen Tetris shapes falling in front of my eyes.

**davou**

insaniak wrote:
I find that the sillier RAW arguments are usually either made to prove a point (presenting a silly argument to illustrate the flaws in a particular line of reasoning, generally) or just something to discuss for the sake of discussion.

Of course, exactly where to draw the line is different for everyone. To return to a recent topical example, when the Drop Pod was introduced as an actual vehicle back in 4th edition, there was some debate as to whether the pod being Immobile meant that it counted as having suffered an Immobilised result on the damage table. One side of the fence said 'Yes, of course it does' and the other side said 'You're a pack of stinking cheaters, there is no way that GW intended for the Drop Pod to hand automatic Victory Points to your opponent just by landing on the table. That's just stupid...'

... and then GW ruled that, uh, actually, yes, that's exactly what we intended...

We've seen something very similar going on with the discussion over whether or not the Pod should automatically lose a Hull Point on landing in 6th edition, with the same sort of polarisation between those who see it as a clear extension of the rules, and those who feel that this is just twisting the rules.

Silly RAW, and taking things too far... or just a difference of opinion as to what the rules say? It's all down to your perspective.

Yes, people get personally invested in this sort of thing. Is that really surprising? I've been playing 40K for nearly 20 years now. It would be more surprising if I didn't feel some sort of emotional investment in the game after all that time. People put a lot of themselves into their hobbies, and yes, they sometimes take them very seriously.

It's just a game. But it's a game that a lot of people put a lot of time, effort and money into.

I started that argument... It provided me with a good deal of lols.