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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Kindly keep the name calling out of it and try to keep the posts on a civil level.? Thank you very much, I'm sure the mods will appreciate it.

Frankly the OP set the tone by implicitly calling anyone with anything negative to say about the game a hater in the thread title. It is a term I loathe, as it isn't accurate and is so frequently used as an over emotive term by white knights (hey, if we're going to use haters, we may as well use the equivalent term) to try and invalidate well reasoned and sensible criticism.

If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.

True, but I did have fun looking for it.

Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.

We all have to ask, because you're lying. And I will call you out on it right here and right now: you, sir/madam, are a liar.

I'll dog pile on too, filtered thread, read all Skink's posts. Not a hint of anything as described.

Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
If 5 literate individuals could not find the offending post he was worried about children stumbling across, then it is obviously a falsification on his part.

True, but I did have fun looking for it.

I'm literally sitting here laughing at my failing attempts to find something graphically sexual in my posts

At this point I'm wanting either a quote or an apology because it's coming across as either a huge error or a really, really sad attempt at slander.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?

Good to know.,

Ever since 3rd edition the game has basically been the same. 4th, 5th, 6th and now 7th are little more than updates, not new editions. No amount of arguing is going to change that because its not true. The last real edition was during 2nd to 3rd which actually changed up the game, and according to legend the 3rd edition rules were a homebrew 15mm WW2 game from Rick Priestly because the original version of 3rd (a cleaned-up 2nd) was rejected since management wanted to push selling larger armies (personally I think that's why Bolt Action is so close to 40k, because I think Bolt Action used those original rules as well).

Not a single change in that time has really been a change from the core rules and in fact it's likely the changes that do end up occurring are done on purpose to invalidate people's existing forces so they have to buy new things to fix their armies - look at even recent codexes like Dark Eldar where special characters were outright removed for basically zero reason, so those people are SOL with their armies that might have been built up specifically around that character. Couple that with going in a direction many people do not like (adding flyers and superheavies to 40k), and it's easy to see why GW isn't well liked. Nobody likes what is essentially planned obsolescence.

And the offensive comment? I'm still waiting to hear what it was.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Skink, if you have to ask. There is no point in telling you. lets hope you "find it" before the mods do. As a personal favor to you, I did not report it.

WE aim for PG-13 here, and nothing Skink's written so far has crossed that line, as far as I can see.

Please don't worry about playing Moderator - if you see something that you think is not in accord with the rules of the site, just use the Moderator Alert Button and the actual Moderators will take a look at it.

Hmmm 40k, hate, GW, rules, balanced...

All the key words.

Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.

Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.

Nutshell:

We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.

Done.

Count down till Evil gets on us for derailing? I think that's the next phase.

 Talizvar wrote:
Hmmm 40k, hate, GW, rules, balanced...

All the key words.

Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.

Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.

Nutshell:

We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.

Done.

See ya next time. Same Dakka time, same Dakka channel.

EVIL INC wrote:Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.

Part of that was remembering the last thread where you brought up "bringing guns back into the game" where everyone (else) agreed that 4th edition was too CC oriented but that had been fixed in 5th and continued getting "fixed" in 6th and 7th... and you said you were happy they were bringing guns back and that assault ruled 5th and 6th.

Regardless - where is this sexual reference you found and many other people tried and could not? Put up or shut up man - libel isn't polite at all.

 Talizvar wrote:
Hmmm 40k, hate, GW, rules, balanced...

All the key words.

Peregrine here, Grimtuff, Evil, me, it is either groundhog day or another thread about rules and 40k.

Some ten thousand pages written around this very topic? I need to make a macro with multiple spoiler buttons to cover the various versions of this.

Nutshell:

We want to play a "common" rule-set for "pick-up" games with strangers. 40k is becoming problematic to do that. With friends you can pretty much do what you want.

Done.

Exactly this. Saying that you can ignore all the problems doesn't help if you play at a game store against whoever turns up for a game. For the price you're paying for rules they damn well better be ironclad and worth using, because otherwise why pay for it? If I have to rewrite half of the rules to make the game work, I might as well buy the Bolt Action rulebook for half the price of the 40k rulebook(s) and port over the armies. it would probably work just as well, and not cost nearly $100 for something that is the tabletop equivalent of promising a complete package and when you open up the box it requires assembly and expensive tools to put it together.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?

Good to know.,

There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.

Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed. i have never and will not start playing moderator. i had enough of that when i was on larger forums dont want the job here. Too much headache for me. Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Ever since 3rd edition the game has basically been the same. 4th, 5th, 6th and now 7th are little more than updates, not new editions. No amount of arguing is going to change that because its not true. The last real edition was during 2nd to 3rd which actually changed up the game, and according to legend the 3rd edition rules were a homebrew 15mm WW2 game from Rick Priestly because the original version of 3rd (a cleaned-up 2nd) was rejected since management wanted to push selling larger armies (personally I think that's why Bolt Action is so close to 40k, because I think Bolt Action used those original rules as well).

Not a single change in that time has really been a change from the core rules and in fact it's likely the changes that do end up occurring are done on purpose to invalidate people's existing forces so they have to buy new things to fix their armies - look at even recent codexes like Dark Eldar where special characters were outright removed for basically zero reason, so those people are SOL with their armies that might have been built up specifically around that character. Couple that with going in a direction many people do not like (adding flyers and superheavies to 40k), and it's easy to see why GW isn't well liked. Nobody likes what is essentially planned obsolescence.

The only way you can really call it a different game is when you consider how small changes can change how the game is played. I agree with that sentiment, a small change like the damage table on vehicles or being able to assault out of any transport can drastically change how the game is played.

But it's not those sorts of changes that are causing people to "hate" on 40k, as you say the core game hasn't changed since 3rd edition and while I can totally deal with change, after 16 years I'd like to see some actual refinement instead of just change.

I agree with the people who say there is no perfect edition of 40k. There are pros and cons to all of them. The problem is the game has been around for so long and it still feels sub par and there hasn't been improvement. I personally feel 2nd edition was only a few tweaks away from being a really solid game. 4 more editions later and I still think GW haven't nailed a "solid game" yet.


**Skink frantically reads over this post trying to see all the ways it could be taken to mean something sexual**

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?

Good to know.,

There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

metaphor
[met-uh-fawr, -fer]


noun
1.
a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”.
Compare mixed metaphor, simile (def 1).
2.
something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?

Good to know.,

There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

Good for you!

Personally, if I'd painted myself into the corner you have, I'd probably have left the thread leaving a Looney Tunes style hole in the wall next to the door.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Good for you!

Personally, if I'd painted myself into the corner you have

Duuude.... this is a thread about wargaming, not painting. If you want to talk about painting go over to the painting and modelling forum.

(\sarcasm for those who missed the really obvious)

 Azreal13 wrote:


Good for you!

Personally, if I'd painted myself into the corner you have, I'd probably have left the thread leaving a Looney Tunes style hole in the wall next to the door.

Amazing.

EVIL INC wrote:
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread.

Savageconvoy wrote:Count down till Evil gets on us for derailing? I think that's the next phase.

Will someone pick up the phone?

Because I freaking called it!

 Savageconvoy wrote:

EVIL INC wrote:
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread.

Savageconvoy wrote:Count down till Evil gets on us for derailing? I think that's the next phase.

Will someone pick up the phone?

Because I freaking called it!

Are you a carpenter? Because you NAILED it!

Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.

Let me add to those 3 since i am evidently "in a corner for the other 3. Players are people. Human beings. Different human beings have different views, perspectives and opinions. people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.

 EVIL INC wrote:
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.

It's almost like no one has said that ever. This is why you get accused of moving goalposts (a metaphor meaning that your argument changes slightly when it's proven wrong). Yes, small things change. Overall it's still the same game.

Just like D&D 3rd is basically the same as D&D 1st and 2nd. Sure, new concepts were introduced but at their core they're the same.

i have never and will not start playing moderator.

Except you did by calling him out on an imagined thing.

Just trying to be polite and friendly.

I'm not sure I believe this statement. Deliberate misspelling of someone's name isn't polite.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?
because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?
because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?
those are my 3 statements in this thread and if any of those 3 are painting myself into a corner, It must be an awfully wierd shaped room.

Let me add to those 3 since i am evidently "in a corner for the other 3. Players are people. Human beings. Different human beings have different views, perspectives and opinions. people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.

Stop saying such offensive things. There are children present.

I would agree that GW would be better off making a single edition, only if that edition was amazing....which hasn't happened yet. What they should be doing is finding out what to improve and each edition making it better.
They clearly are not doing that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

You're an intelligent person. I'm sure you know what a metaphor is. And I'm sure you have heard that particular one before.
I'm not sure why you're not acknowledging that it's a metaphor though. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

Maybe he's Drax the Destroyer?



NOTHING GOES OVER MY HEAD! MY REFLEXES ARE FAR TOO FAST!

Drax? Everything makes sense now.

 EVIL INC wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:
Look at earlier editions where you had first turn assults and the units consolidating from one unit into another without the army being assaulted being able to fire a single shot. i did not specify 5th or 6th edition. I am not going to say that 5th edition was the perfect game just as I will not say 6th or 7th or RT or any other is as is being insinuated by others.
Yes, I made a point to show that each edition being a different game was my personal view. I actually made that quite clear.

Gonna move the goalposts and not actually own up then?

Good to know.,

There you go with football again. Thats rather off topic and has nothing to do with the thread. I'm sure that there are forums designed Specifically for football if you want to talk about it. I'll just stay here and remain constant without changing my stance.

I had honestly not noticed that the rules have not changed over the years. If Ida known that, i coulda just kept my rogue trader book if every rule set since then was a copy/paste with no changes.

Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed. i have never and will not start playing moderator. i had enough of that when i was on larger forums dont want the job here. Too much headache for me. Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.

So where's the "graphically sexual post" you have accused another poster of making? We're waiting for that, and the fact that you continue to ignore this issue means that not only have you libeled another poster on the forums, but it also calls into question the integrity of anything you might post.

... and your claim that you're not trying to moderate is also a flat-out lie. You just think you're clever about it. If you weren't, you wouldn't have made up this story about a sexually-graphic post. Basically, every time your fingers touch the keyboard, you seem to be hoisting yourself higher on the Throne of Lies upon which you sit.