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.

 Peregrine wrote:

There is technically no rule against threatening to punch your opponent in the face unless they let you move extra distance, and apparently that's the way the game is played in Poland. But I don't think anyone would hesitate to call that threat cheating, among other things.

Right. So because you cannot admit that you lied, you're now comparing wanting to play at point total you don't like to threatening with physical violence. This is so pathetic that it is actually hilarious.

"40k doesn't require a different mindset. Certain players in 40k just insist on having a different mindset, and GW employs some of those people."
The people I see play 40k have a different average mindset than the people I see play Xwing or WMH.

The people I see play 40k and another game have a different mindset while playing 40k than they have while playing Xwing or WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Crimson,
The less inflamatory form of his argument is thus:
When people want to play up a few points (agree for a 2k game, ask to play a 2006pt list), they sometimes leverage (intentionally or otherwise) pressure to get agreement (nobody likes to be the jerk who said no to the 2006pt list, is the simplest form this happens as). This can be a form of bullying. I think we all agree to that.

As such, when you ask someone if it's OK for you to bring 2006 points, how do you know they're actually totally fine with it, or if they feel pressured to accept? (My solution is to ask them to take a larger upgrade, like another troop model or something.)

Asking for a 2006 point game with the threat of "otherwise, if you say no, people *might* think you're TFG" isn't the most straightforward or obvious threat. So Peregrene is upping the states to demonstrate his concern; he doesn't like getting bullied into such a game.

He also is trying to shift '+6pts' to '+1" M' to refocus the discussion, to more clearly show what he sees as a rules change someone is being bullied into. And the punch in the face is to show that more forceful bullying is clearly wrong.

It's intended to put us, the people debating him reasonably, into a better frame of reference from which to have a reasonable discussion about this subject.

 Peregrine wrote:

auticus wrote:
99 times out of 100 its "hey I went over a couple points is that ok?" and the answer 99 times out of 100 is "yeah whatever thats fine".

And yet this doesn't seem to happen in other games. I also play X-Wing and I don't think I've ever seen anyone even asking for extra points, it's understood that you bring a standard 100 point list and the point limit is absolute. Only in 40k do people have this attitude that they can break the limit just because they want to take an extra power fist or whatever.

For the record Peregrine, I'm perfectly okay with you adding a powerfist to your X-Wing if it makes you happy.

If my opponent is a few over, i'll add in a grot, but NOT count the extra power level, if that applies anywhere. That way no one feels bad: they've broken the 2000 point agreed-upon limit social contract, and I've broken the killpoint rule. Everyone wins!

 Crimson Devil wrote:

For the record Peregrine, I'm perfectly okay with you adding a powerfist to your X-Wing if it makes you happy.

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

There is technically no rule against threatening to punch your opponent in the face unless they let you move extra distance, and apparently that's the way the game is played in Poland. But I don't think anyone would hesitate to call that threat cheating, among other things.

Right. So because you cannot admit that you lied, you're now comparing wanting to play at point total you don't like to threatening with physical violence. This is so pathetic that it is actually hilarious.

Please don't build straw men, I didn't say that the two are equivalent. Obviously threatening violence is worse. The point was that it was claimed that it isn't cheating if there isn't an explicit rule against it, and this is clearly a situation where "cheater" would apply (among other things) even though nobody can cite a rule that says that threats are not a legal strategy. And now that we've established this fact there is no general principle that "cheater" can only be applied to explicit RAW and the question is just which acts of breaking unwritten or implicit rules count as cheating.

Peregrine, the same "quest" for you as for Slayer-Fan - please do provide a quote from any applicable GW publication that backs up your view on things as "official rules" that makes people not agreeing with you cheaters and bullies.

How is it, that the only provider of actual quotes is a guy, who apparently is a "rule breaking filthy CAAC"?

And your pathethic ad hominem is, well, pathetic.

Bharring wrote:
"40k doesn't require a different mindset. Certain players in 40k just insist on having a different mindset, and GW employs some of those people."
The people I see play 40k have a different average mindset than the people I see play Xwing or WMH.

The people I see play 40k and another game have a different mindset while playing 40k than they have while playing Xwing or WMH.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Crimson,
The less inflamatory form of his argument is thus:
When people want to play up a few points (agree for a 2k game, ask to play a 2006pt list), they sometimes leverage (intentionally or otherwise) pressure to get agreement (nobody likes to be the jerk who said no to the 2006pt list, is the simplest form this happens as). This can be a form of bullying. I think we all agree to that.

As such, when you ask someone if it's OK for you to bring 2006 points, how do you know they're actually totally fine with it, or if they feel pressured to accept? (My solution is to ask them to take a larger upgrade, like another troop model or something.)

Asking for a 2006 point game with the threat of "otherwise, if you say no, people *might* think you're TFG" isn't the most straightforward or obvious threat. So Peregrene is upping the states to demonstrate his concern; he doesn't like getting bullied into such a game.

He also is trying to shift '+6pts' to '+1" M' to refocus the discussion, to more clearly show what he sees as a rules change someone is being bullied into. And the punch in the face is to show that more forceful bullying is clearly wrong.

It's intended to put us, the people debating him reasonably, into a better frame of reference from which to have a reasonable discussion about this subject.

If you don't want to allow a points modification then say "no". If you feel bullied then decline the game and walk away. It's very simple. No game is better than a bad game. It's not a legal contract or a blood pact just because Peregrine & Slayer-Fan believes so. It's amazing to me how many people need to turn a hobby into as miserable an experience as possible.

nou wrote:
Peregrine, the same "quest" for you as for Slayer-Fan - please do provide a quote from any applicable GW publication that backs up your view on things as "official rules" that makes people not agreeing with you cheaters and bullies.

Please provide a quote from any applicable GW publication that says you can't move your models 1" extra and threaten to punch your opponent in the face if they don't allow it.

And your pathethic ad hominem is, well, pathetic.

I did no such thing.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

There is technically no rule against threatening to punch your opponent in the face unless they let you move extra distance, and apparently that's the way the game is played in Poland. But I don't think anyone would hesitate to call that threat cheating, among other things.

Right. So because you cannot admit that you lied, you're now comparing wanting to play at point total you don't like to threatening with physical violence. This is so pathetic that it is actually hilarious.

Please don't build straw men, I didn't say that the two are equivalent. Obviously threatening violence is worse. The point was that it was claimed that it isn't cheating if there isn't an explicit rule against it, and this is clearly a situation where "cheater" would apply (among other things) even though nobody can cite a rule that says that threats are not a legal strategy. And now that we've established this fact there is no general principle that "cheater" can only be applied to explicit RAW and the question is just which acts of breaking unwritten or implicit rules count as cheating.

Not a rule against, I'm asking you and Slayer for providing actual rule quotes for your way of thinking.

nou wrote:
Not a rule against, I'm asking you and Slayer for providing actual rule quotes for your way of thinking.

And where's your rule quote for your way of thinking that threats of violence are not legal?

 Peregrine wrote:

Please don't build straw men, I didn't say that the two are equivalent. Obviously threatening violence is worse. The point was that it was claimed that it isn't cheating if there isn't an explicit rule against it, and this is clearly a situation where "cheater" would apply (among other things) even though nobody can cite a rule that says that threats are not a legal strategy. And now that we've established this fact there is no general principle that "cheater" can only be applied to explicit RAW and the question is just which acts of breaking unwritten or implicit rules count as cheating.

So basically you're just going to call people who like to play differently than you 'cheaters' without any justification. That is really vile, but then again, considering that you earlier said that casual players are not people, one should really not be surprised.

@Peregrine: as far as this topic goes I do think, that you have just hit your bottom and deep down you actually know this to be true, otherwise you would actually argue your point in meritoric way. There is no point in arguing with you anymore (if there ever was any).

Consider loaded dice. I would consider someone using loaded dice illicitly a cheater; the rules assume certain things.

Things like "Don't use loaded dice" I would certainly call cheating. "Don't threaten bodily harm" could go either way - clearly not acceptable, but it's debatable whether you're actually breaking the rules, or if you're just breaking the law and social contract.

So, Peregrene is right to point out that there *are* rules that are not explicitly stated RAW.

That said, RAW has some explicit wording suggesting that "No negotiation after the the first mention of points level" is not a rule or expectation.

(To say nothing of the RAW directly contradicting Slayer's claims. But Slayer and Peregrene are making very different arguments.)

 Crimson wrote:
That is really vile, but then again, considering that you earlier said that casual players are not people, one should really not be surprised.

Please do not lie, I said no such thing. I said that about CAAC players, not casual players. There is a huge difference between those two groups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nou wrote:
@Peregrine: as far as this topic goes I do think, that you have just hit your bottom and deep down you actually know this to be true, otherwise you would actually argue your point in meritoric way. There is no point in arguing with you anymore (if there ever was any).

IOW, you're not able to provide anything to back up your claims.

Bharring wrote:
Consider loaded dice. I would consider someone using loaded dice illicitly a cheater; the rules assume certain things.

Things like "Don't use loaded dice" I would certainly call cheating. "Don't threaten bodily harm" could go either way - clearly not acceptable, but it's debatable whether you're actually breaking the rules, or if you're just breaking the law and social contract.

So, Peregrene is right to point out that there *are* rules that are not explicitly stated RAW.

That said, RAW has some explicit wording suggesting that "No negotiation after the the first mention of points level" is not a rule or expectation.

(To say nothing of the RAW directly contradicting Slayer's claims. But Slayer and Peregrene are making very different arguments.)

Rules as written state, that entirety of pre-game negotiation is an open state until all parameters of a game are agreed upon. Any other interpretation leads to contradictions on those very two pages of Matched Play preface. Nothing in this preface backs up either Peregrine's or Slayer's positions and the burden of proof lies on them, as they are the original accusers. Their positions are even more invalid when it comes to Narrative or Open play.

And I will not answer to this ridiculous physical violence nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


IOW, you're not able to provide anything to back up your claims.

I'm the only one who actually provided any relevant quotes.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Why it is bizarre? Perhaps those were the forces I think thematically fit with my Inquisitor. Perhaps that was the total of the Space Marines I had painted for my new chapter thus far.

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?.

Because nothing is more important than being 1337.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

For the record Peregrine, I'm perfectly okay with you adding a powerfist to your X-Wing if it makes you happy.

So long as it is modeled appropriately, of course...

 Peregrine wrote:

And where's your rule quote for your way of thinking that threats of violence are not legal?

This line of argument is ridiculous and you know it. Move on.

Bharring wrote:
That said, RAW has some explicit wording suggesting that "No negotiation after the the first mention of points level" is not a rule or expectation.

No, and I never claimed that it was. The point I've been arguing the entire time is about the reason for negotiating. If you get a text in the middle of setting up and realize you don't have as much time as you thought it's perfectly acceptable to say "hey, can we play at 1000 points instead of 2000". It's not ok to arrange a 2000 point game, decide that you want to add an extra power fist, and ask to change the limit to 2005 points so you can have it. A more accurate version of the rule/expectation would be "the point limit should not favor either player and setting it is not a strategic element". Playing at even 250-point increments is the convention on how player-neutral point limits are set. They create standard game sizes that are determined separately from any individual game, without any knowledge of what each player might want to bring.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
That is really vile, but then again, considering that you earlier said that casual players are not people, one should really not be surprised.

Please do not lie, I said no such thing. I said that about CAAC players, not casual players. There is a huge difference between those two groups.

That you think it matters who it exactly was who you labelled as 'not people' says a lot. It is not language that is acceptable in any context, unless you're literally talking about robots or non-human animals.

 insaniak wrote:
This line of argument is ridiculous and you know it. Move on.

It's not ridiculous at all. It establishes that there are clearly things we consider "cheating" that are not discussed RAW, and therefore that "it isn't in RAW" alone is not sufficient to prevent something from being cheating. And it isn't even a theoretical scenario, according to at least one dakka poster implicit threats of violence and things like forfeiting a tournament game to avoid a beating or smashing an opponent's army so they have to forfeit are part of the accepted way to play 40k in their community.

Feel free to replace the example with loaded dice or whatever if that makes you happier, but the point stands.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
That you think it matters who it exactly was who you labelled as 'not people' says a lot. It is not language that is acceptable in any context, unless you're literally talking about robots or non-human animals.

You sure do seem upset about a joke about a group that deserves every bit of criticism we can throw at them. Do you get this upset when equally bad things are regularly said about WAAC players, or do only CAAC players get to be protected?

 Peregrine wrote:
It's not ok to arrange a 2000 point game, decide that you want to add an extra power fist, and ask to change the limit to 2005 points so you can have it.

And as your opinion, that's fine.

There are any number of reasons for a player to want to do this, however, and for many of us asking that question is ok. From my experience, in most casual gaming situations neither player is going to care enough to make an issue of it.

 insaniak wrote:
And as your opinion, that's fine.

There are any number of reasons for a player to want to do this, however, and for many of us asking that question is ok. From my experience, in most casual gaming situations, neither player is going to care enough to make an issue of it.

There are many reasons, but all of them are just rationalizations for why it's ok to break the rules. And, again, I'll note that this doesn't seem to happen in other games, casual or otherwise. Even in the most casual X-Wing games I have seen I've never seen anyone attempt to ask for a 101 point list so they can take a better EPT on one of their ships or whatever. It's just understood that the point limit exists, and you figure out a way to make a legal list within that limit.

"the point limit should not favor either player and setting it is not a strategic element"
I think most of us are closer to agreement than it appears.

I'd agree to the above. The argument comes from the view that any reason to pick 2006 points over 2000 points is for strategic reasons.

That was the purpose of my Harlequins example: a concrete event where "going over" was done for non-strategic reasons. Further, any advantage was nullified by having the requestee go over by more than the requestor (me). Finally, it involved taking Index Harlie options over Codex CWE options, so was clearly not the optimal competitive option.

So, Peregrene, in my Harlequin example, did I cheat?

 Peregrine wrote:

It's not ridiculous at all. It establishes that there are clearly things we consider "cheating" that are not discussed RAW, and therefore that "it isn't in RAW" alone is not sufficient to prevent something from being cheating. And it isn't even a theoretical scenario, according to at least one dakka poster implicit threats of violence and things like forfeiting a tournament game to avoid a beating or smashing an opponent's army so they have to forfeit are part of the accepted way to play 40k in their community.

Feel free to replace the example with loaded dice or whatever if that makes you happier, but the point stands.

No, threats of violence over a game of toy soldiers are ridiculous. It's not cheating, it's just being a moron.

If your argument needs to be replaced with a different argument in order to not be ridiculous, then you would be better served to use the non-ridiculous argument in the first place.

"So long as it is modeled appropriately, of course... "
Hilariously, WYSIWYG is not RAW. At least not for 40k, can't speak for XWing.

 Peregrine wrote:

There are many reasons, but all of them are just rationalizations for why it's ok to break the rules.

It's not breaking the rules to agree to change the rules.




And, again, I'll note that this doesn't seem to happen in other games, casual or otherwise. Even in the most casual X-Wing games I have seen I've never seen anyone attempt to ask for a 101 point list so they can take a better EPT on one of their ships or whatever. It's just understood that the point limit exists, and you figure out a way to make a legal list within that limit.

 insaniak wrote:
No, threats of violence over a game of toy soldiers are ridiculous. It's not cheating, it's just being a moron.

Tell that to the dakka poster whose community regularly plays that way.

If your argument needs to be replaced with a different argument in order to not be ridiculous, then you would be better served to use the non-ridiculous argument in the first place.

It isn't ridiculous, and I stand by it. But apparently you need a different version to accept it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not breaking the rules to agree to change the rules.

And, again, motives matter. Changing the rules to grant yourself an advantage is cheating. Changing the rules because you realized the store closes earlier than you thought and you need to play 1000 points instead of 2000 points to finish on time is not cheating.

 Peregrine wrote:

It isn't ridiculous, and I stand by it. But apparently you need a different version to accept it.

Yes. As evidenced by my telling you to drop it and use a different argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Changing the rules to grant yourself an advantage is cheating. .

Only if the other player isn't aware of the change.

If both players have agreed to it, that's not cheating, it's just changing the rules.

 Peregrine wrote:

And, again, motives matter. Changing the rules to grant yourself an advantage is cheating.

So when you ask ITC rules to be used, which allow your undercosted indirect fire weapons to be even more effective, you're cheating?

Bharring wrote:
The argument comes from the view that any reason to pick 2006 points over 2000 points is for strategic reasons.

What other reason is there? Is there any argument that 2006 points is inherently better than 2000 points or 1995 points or 2010 points, or is that limit picked specifically for one game to accommodate one list because one player doesn't want to reduce the power of their list by removing units/upgrades?

So, Peregrene, in my Harlequin example, did I cheat?

No, because in your situation it was your opponent asking you to bring a specific list, not you asking to break the rules because you didn't want to remove something to make a legal list. It's also an extremely weird situation that doesn't apply to most games.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
Yes. As evidenced by my telling you to drop it and use a different argument.

Are you stating this as your personal opinion or as an official instruction as a moderator? I sure hope that it isn't the second, as that would be completely inappropriate behavior from a moderator.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So when you ask ITC rules to be used, which allow your undercosted indirect fire weapons to be even more effective, you're cheating?

Again, motives matter. If I ask for ITC rules to be used because I've figured out a great indirect fire list and I'm picking the house rules that benefit it the most then yes, it would be cheating. If I ask for ITC rules to be used because I feel that ITC is the best version of 40k and want it to be used for all players in all games with all lists, even when the ITC rules don't work in my favor, then no it isn't cheating. As an informative test, do I still want ITC to be used when I swap that indirect fire list for one built around tank commanders (which give up tons of VP) or do I suddenly discover the merits of RAW 40k again?

(This is of course hypothetical because I don't have any interest in ITC.)