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.

The behavior he's describing is deliberately trying to curb the fun of others. This isn't about differing gaming philosophies. It's about the difference between understanding what the entire reason we play any kind of multiplayer games at all is.

There's no ridiculous about calling people on that kind of behavior. The house and tournament rules that were in effect everywhere I ever played back then came into effect so that everyone could enjoy the experience of gaming. If peoples' only memories of 2nd Edition 40K was virus bomb spam, or other such nonsense, they weren't having any fun, which sort of precludes the idea that both sides were willing to actually commit to both sides having fun.

Hence, they played with awful people. It's a fairly simple equation. if you and your friends had agreed to play with everything the game offered, then that's cool. But you also described playing games with agreements to leave out the more ridiculous wargear.

It's just a basic feat of values to understand that nearly every game in existence has a flaw in its rules somewhere, and to exploit those flaws to take advantage makes you a bad person. I mean, otherwise, you just endorse the behavior of people who exploit or hack video games with the sole purpose of griefing people. It's the same basic behavior.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The behavior he's describing is deliberately trying to curb the fun of others. This isn't about differing gaming philosophies. It's about the difference between understanding what the entire reason we play any kind of multiplayer games at all is.

There's no ridiculous about calling people on that kind of behavior. The house and tournament rules that were in effect everywhere I ever played back then came into effect so that everyone could enjoy the experience of gaming. If peoples' only memories of 2nd Edition 40K was virus bomb spam, or other such nonsense, they weren't having any fun, which sort of precludes the idea that both sides were willing to actually commit to both sides having fun.

Hence, they played with awful people. It's a fairly simple equation. if you and your friends had agreed to play with everything the game offered, then that's cool. But you also described playing games with agreements to leave out the more ridiculous wargear.

It's just a basic feat of values to understand that nearly every game in existence has a flaw in its rules somewhere, and to exploit those flaws to take advantage makes you a bad person. I mean, otherwise, you just endorse the behavior of people who exploit or hack video games with the sole purpose of griefing people. It's the same basic behavior.

Except it's not a flaw in a rule, an exploit, or hacking.

It's literally coded into the game itself

You are saying that by taking X, you are a cheater.

When the reality is, by imposing your artificial limits, you are the one trying to hack the game to your own way of playing.

A game should be balanced, so that artificial limits are not needed in the least, but yet still fun.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The behavior he's describing is deliberately trying to curb the fun of others.

No it isn't.

Most of the ridiculous nastiness in 2nd edition did have ways to counter it. Vortex Grenades had Vortex Detonators. Virus could be minimised by not bunching your units up. Assassins could be pounded into the dirt with lascannons. Eventually.


For a lot of us, the fun was in building the nastiest list you could, and trying to figure out how to cope with whatever nastiness your opponent happened to throw on the table.


If players want to agree to limit which game rules will apply, that's up to them. But the 'default' for any game is to play the game as presented.

If peoples' only memories of 2nd Edition 40K was virus bomb spam, or other such nonsense, they weren't having any fun, which sort of precludes the idea that both sides were willing to actually commit to both sides having fun.

And yet here I am, with rather fond memories of the silliness that I encountered in 2nd edition.

My first tournament in 2nd edition, my first game was against an all-Bloodclaw army with Jump Packs, and all equipped with chainswords and powerfists. I was annihilated in 2 turns. It was hilarious, and awesome, and a wonderful learning experience.

The game is what you make it. Who exactly do you think you are to tell people whether or not they are having fun?


The over-the-top silliness was, for many of us, exactly what made 2nd edition fun.

As the OP, I feel obligated to post something to show that I'm still present and alive. But it is with great regret that I cannot add anything myself that would contribute to the ongoing discussion, as I have no experience with any edition but the 6th.

Starting in 3rd Edition, it sounds like 3rd really setup the "modern" trend of 40k, when it differentiated it's rules to a trend still going today. I remember making up all sorts of fun rules and ideas with friends, and how doing things "in the spirit of the game" was encouraged. For us, it was a "creative thinkers" game, and since we all loved RPGS like 2nd ed. DND, we came up with fun mission ideas, campaigns, special characters, allies allowances with sufficient, story driven purposes, etc. Basically, what the group agreed to, was ok.

I like 6th edition because, amidst the few rules that are kinda wonky (see charge distances), it captures spirit and feeling of the older editions, where cool, random stuff happens that keeps the game fun. There are definitely different 40k environments, and I think the game functions quite differently if you are playing for fun, casually, campaigns, or pure competitiveness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I am also a firm believer that a certain amount of "imbalance" keeps the overall game "in balance." By shifting the power, the meta keeps changing and lists are constantly changing and responding. This makes each new release change the face of the game.

Second edition was fun at the time, I would not want to go back to it. I would not mid going back to 5th and keeping the big models in apocalypse. Sixth edition is getting kind of weird.

I started to play in 5th but have seen the rules of 4th being used and read through them also. So far I like the rules for 6th edition. I've enjoyed using these rules and like them more than I did the rules in 5th. So 6th for me.

I like 2nd, honestly, but it's balance was worse then anything within the past fourth editions! (6th, 5th, 4th, and third!). With so much that could cause hell in a bad way, less manticore wounds your army, and more "Oh, your psykers are fighting my nids? Well Psychic scream, every turn they gotta roll 2D6 and if they under their toughness, they are stunned, over it, they die"

So yeah, the thing is, second was actually far better balanced than 3rd through 5th. What were your demons going to do against GK in 5th? GK could literally keep you from even deploying. Not playing a Blood Angels assault list in third? Enjoy your hefty loss. In each of those editions there were armies that could do things no one else could do and there were zero effective counters with them.

While second ed definitely had a lot of problems, the beauty of it was that every army had something every bit as stupid and rediculous as the next, and if that didn't work you could always take, rad/virus/vortex grenades to level the field. The balance of second came from the fact that at any army could set up a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario. It was basically, "You're taking Abbadon and his Terminator body guard again?" Cool. I'll prep my Eldar skimmers with "pop-up" rules and buckets of sustained fire dice, or "I'll let my bike mounted tech marines with Virus grenades know it's game time. lol So yeah, if both players wanted to be jerks, the game was only likely to last a turn or two but the point is, you had options.

Let me tell a story that illustrates why 2nd was so fun:

Back in the day, you got your Titans from Armourcast and while you had to have a certain amount of points before you could use them, there was no such thing as Apocolypse yet so you could use them in a normal game. I had just gotten a Reaver and my buddy had just bought a Shock Attack gun and about a million new Orks so we had a mega-game. Being very nervous about the Titan my buddy brought a Vortex grenade which he unleashed on turn two. Vortex was a small template that bounced around the table until it scattered off the board or dissipated. Anything it touched was simply removed from play. He botched his throw but the darn thing scattered uncomfortably close to my Titan so I had it move to the other side of the table. At which point he hit the Titan with his Shock Attack gun. At the time the gun bypassed Void Shields so he hit me easily and rolled the result that basically said that the Princeps suddenly had a bunch of terrified Snottlings appear on his head out of nowhere and the vehicle was now out of control.

So on one side of the table there's a vortex bouncing around so erratically that all of his orks were trying to run to the other side of the table. The side where the Titan is now romper stomping all over the place. At one point it kicked my predator and destroyed it. The vehicle damage table returned the "turret flys up in the air and comes down with a huge crash". Upon landing the turret killed a bunch of Gretchin who broke and fled back in the direction of the vortex. Hillarity ensued and he ended up having to get the Gretchin into CC with (of all things) a polymorphine Eversore just so that his boys could shoot into the CC in the hopes of killing the assasin. The entire time the Titan is still running around like a maniac in the background.

The Ork attack failed and he killed all his Gretchin without hurting the assasin. At which point he cast the "Foot of Gork" psychic power. It was literally a giant green foot shaped template that represented one of the Ork gods stomping on an opponent. We just stopped and looked at the table and started laughing. On one side of the table the vortex had finally spun itself out but had wiped out everything on that flank. On the other side the Titan had finally come to a halt but had little to shoot at because all of the Orks had run into each other mid-table and were bunched too close to my own men and then a giant green foot came down and crushed everything. lol Good times if you had the sense of humor for it.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You are saying that by taking X, you are a cheater.

Reading is an important skill.

I never said anything about cheating. I just said that intentionally taking the stuff in the game that was broken, in order to subvert the fun of your opponent, makes you a bad person.

Just like exploiting bugs in multiplayer videogames isn't technically cheating, but it definitely makes you a bad person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
The game is what you make it. Who exactly do you think you are to tell people whether or not they are having fun?
.

I didn't tell anybody anything. They said it in their own words.

Beyond the bare-boned codex's, looking through all the old codex's I've acquired 3rd edition seems to be the best.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Reading is an important skill.

I never said anything about cheating. I just said that intentionally taking the stuff in the game that was broken, in order to subvert the fun of your opponent, makes you a bad person.

Just like exploiting bugs in multiplayer videogames isn't technically cheating, but it definitely makes you a bad person.

I'm sorry but people have problem with this because it's just too subjective.
If I take a single vendetta am I a bad person? Two? Two + helldrake? Three helldrakes and a doom scythe? Full French bakery? How many of those against DE, against Necrons and how many against GK?

If I go to play random people in FLGS should I make changes to my army before every game after looking at my enemies army and exact build?

Different person, different opinion. How will you decide what is wrong and what is right so each and every person is happy? Are you sure you're just not creating a different imbalance that suits you more but somebody else is getting the other end of the stick?
It may be doable in a tight, closed group but how do you do it with each and every person out there?
There are a lot of stories about additional "balancing" rules in FLGSs or in small local tournies that are simply horrible.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
You are saying that by taking X, you are a cheater.

Reading is an important skill.

I never said anything about cheating. I just said that intentionally taking the stuff in the game that was broken, in order to subvert the fun of your opponent, makes you a bad person.

Just like exploiting bugs in multiplayer videogames isn't technically cheating, but it definitely makes you a bad person.

I mean, otherwise, you just endorse the behavior of people who exploit or hack video games with the sole purpose of griefing people.

Hack: . To gain access to (a computer file or network) illegally or without authorization

Exploit: To make use of selfishly or unethically

Typing is an important skill as well to convey one's meaning properly

Of note exploiting bugs IS considered cheating, as many companies can and will ban you if you are caught doing so from online games, and hacking a game very much so will get you banned, which is why everything you stated conveyed "Cheater"

How would exploiting a game's bugs, which are part of the design of the game (albeit a poor one), be any more or less cheating than using something in a table top game that was also poorly designed?

You're splitting hairs here, son.

And those companies ban those players caught exploiting because it creates a negative experience with the rest of the gaming population.

Wait. sounds familiar with gaming groups making house rules to enhance the playing experience of everyone there.

Aww, wait. So I was right all along? Yeah, thought so.

I wouldn't say using an "overpowered" unit is the same as "exploiting a bug", it's actually closer to sticking to BR/DMR/pistol/bestest weapon in Halo/shooters, or using pre-patched Ryu in SF4, neither are/were bug(s), they are/were just simply made too good. "Exploiting a bug" in WH40k would be, well, look at some of those crazy debates in YMDC, for example, drop pod doors and TLOS(but let's not bring that debate in here, just using it as an example!); basically exploiting a poorly written rule/rules to their advantage is the equivalent to "exploiting a bug". I wouldn't necessarily call someone "cheating" for using what is intended, if person B doesn't like the fact that my necrons can EL/RP, should I stop doing that so I could be a "good person"?

Baronyu wrote:
I wouldn't say using an "overpowered" unit is the same as "exploiting a bug", it's actually closer to sticking to BR/DMR/pistol/bestest weapon in Halo/shooters, or using pre-patched Ryu in SF4, neither are/were bug(s), they are/were just simply made too good. "Exploiting a bug" in WH40k would be, well, look at some of those crazy debates in YMDC, for example, drop pod doors and TLOS(but let's not bring that debate in here, just using it as an example!); basically exploiting a poorly written rule/rules to their advantage is the equivalent to "exploiting a bug". I wouldn't necessarily call someone "cheating" for using what is intended, if person B doesn't like the fact that my necrons can EL/RP, should I stop doing that so I could be a "good person"?

Agreed. Using stronger units, is no different than min/maxing your characters in an MMO. Most "Bugs" in 40k Are fixed Via FAQ or Errata.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
How would exploiting a game's bugs, which are part of the design of the game (albeit a poor one), be any more or less cheating than using something in a table top game that was also poorly designed?

You're splitting hairs here, son.

And those companies ban those players caught exploiting because it creates a negative experience with the rest of the gaming population.

Wait. sounds familiar with gaming groups making house rules to enhance the playing experience of everyone there.

Aww, wait. So I was right all along? Yeah, thought so.

Not at all, the equivalent is not even there.

I'm sure you can compare such analogues in your own head, and believe me I don't mind if you do so, but your analogues are not even close to whats happening on the table

This is more akin to being able to choose your own weapon in an online game. You've got your "Weak and horrible gun" needing of balance, your "Perfectly alright and does well" gun, and then your "Oh god why is this gun so strong it's so freakin awesome."

There is nothing about exploiting anything, an exploit would be hiding within like a mountain (Impassible terrain) and being able to shoot through it without retaliation. It is not the same as "Choose your own weapon"

I mean sure, if you have to house rule that you cannot shoot through the mountain if that exploit was there, but if you need a house rule saying "You can not deep strike into a mountain, and then shoot people from within it without being able to be shot." It just means you actually need proper rules within the game itself, house ruling is only going to go so far when people won't accept your house rule.

Still not right.

You don't get it, so I'll break it down to the simplest terms possible, and then I'll let it go, because you'll have a snarky comeback even though it will be as ludicrously wrong as what you just posted.

Online gaming companies ban people who exploit the mistakes they made while designing the game because they recognize that providing the best possible gaming environment is what will make their game successful, (bolded for your benefit) because it makes the game more fun and players having fun will continue to play, and recommend the game to their friends.

Gaming groups/stores/tournament organizers back in the day banned the stuff that were game design mistakes by Games Workshop because they recognized that doing so would provide the best possible gaming environment, ensuring everyone had fun, which would in turn incentivize players to continue collecting models and playing the game.

It's the same. Exact. Concept. I empathize if you still don't understand. That's an awful situation to be stuck in.

Only started playing in 4th, and I can't remember much about it.

I enjoyed 5th edition enough, though the Wound Allocation was a bit silly (can't say I didn't [ab]use it though ).

My original views on 6th was that it was significantly worse than 5th, mainly with the addition of Hull Points, moving models from the front, and the changes to outflanking taking a lot of the potency out of my armies, and reducing the fun/viability of certain themes I ran with in my list. Also, the original superiority of fliers was really annoying. I also felt it was too like WHFB. WHFB's great, don't get me wrong, but I play WHFB because it's different to 40k, it's a change. I don't want two game systems that are the same.

Now that stuff is being updated again, and being brought back up to speed and back into line, I'm starting to enjoy 6th edition more. Fliers are become less and less OP as everyone else gets some decent Anti-Air and the new codices have not only been, on the whole, fairly balanced, but they've also gone to certain (varying) extents to redress problems that were suffered in the initial transition to 6th. I hope this trend continues, especially for the new Ork, and particularly, Tyranid, codex.

So, in summary, I'd say, at the moment, I'd still want 5th back but I have a feeling this opinion will have changed in a year or two.

I know some of you young'uns that live in today's far more dynamic and fast moving world don't understand how things worked 20 years ago, lol. And some who might even be old enough, just have forgotten.

But a video game can be patched in a manner of weeks. An errata can be posted online and easily distributed and disseminated. That sort of quick fix never existed back in the day. And certainly wouldn't have been considered a priority in the tabletop gaming industry. The guys at Games Workshop had never seen Internet trolls, so they figured that players would just work that sort of thing out on their own because they played for fun (back then), so why wouldn't everyone else?

Foolish, I know. But it was a different time.

... they figured that players would just work that sort of thing out on their own because they played for fun (back then), so why wouldn't everyone else?

Foolish, I know. But it was a different time.

QFT

I really miss those days. I feel like with 6th they are trying to get back to that but it's probably an uphill battle.

You don't get it, so I'll break it down to the simplest terms possible, and then I'll let it go, because you'll have a snarky comeback even though it will be as ludicrously wrong as what you just posted.

Considering that you've been proven wrong on your vernacular several times, I suppose you would think its wrong

Online gaming companies ban people who exploit the mistakes they made while designing the game because they recognize that providing the best possible gaming environment is what will make their game successful, (bolded for your benefit) because it makes the game more fun and players having fun will continue to play, and recommend the game to their friends.

Except taking X model is not an exploit of any kind (Nor would your vernacular not be accepted anywhere else, despite your twisted definition of it) it's something that is imbalanced. Say it with me, Imbalanced

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imbalanced Here, have a dictionary.

It's the same. Exact. Concept. I empathize if you still don't understand. That's an awful situation to be stuck in.

Keep thinking your right, I enjoy seeing what comes from your personal little worldview

But a video game can be patched in a manner of weeks. An errata can be posted online and easily distributed and disseminated. That sort of quick fix never existed back in the day. And certainly wouldn't have been considered a priority in the tabletop gaming industry

And yet they don't errata weak and horrible models, they don't errata the big bad heldrakes and the purifiers and things of that nature. They fix the bugs, the actual exploits within the system. They don't patch up models which is what you keep saying exploits are.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
I know some of you young'uns that live in today's far more dynamic and fast moving world don't understand how things worked 20 years ago, lol. And some who might even be old enough, just have forgotten.

But a video game can be patched in a manner of weeks. An errata can be posted online and easily distributed and disseminated. That sort of quick fix never existed back in the day. And certainly wouldn't have been considered a priority in the tabletop gaming industry. The guys at Games Workshop had never seen Internet trolls, so they figured that players would just work that sort of thing out on their own because they played for fun (back then), so why wouldn't everyone else?

Foolish, I know. But it was a different time.

Your horse is high, sir, it's hurting my neck just reading your post.

You get all kinds of players playing all kinds of war games. Some personalities enjoy different aspects of a game. To say the flaw of a game's balance rests with those players however, is faulty reasoning. If a game is unbalanced it's because of the way its rules are written and the game is designed. Period.

Personally I don't like the way we always have a period where some codices are written for an old edition, and some are not. That, to me, is where the balance issues lie. What I would like GW to do (in an ideal world) is release a rulebook alongside updated codices for that edition, all at the same time. Not gonna happen though

Ironically it seems GW is trying to do exactly that, IE making all the codices current by releasing them so quickly. Still doesn't guarantee a product without tons of flaws.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Nor would your vernacular not be accepted anywhere else

Okay, so you're saying it would be accepted. Good, at least we agree.

Keep thinking your right,

My right what?



Sorry, I know I said I was gonna stop, but that was too much fun, considering how much you were harping on language usage. Sorta walked yourself right into that one. See, there's a difference between when you try to argue semantics, and when you actually have a real argument.

Regardless, I'm like a shark in bloody waters with stuff like this, so I need to step out of this conversation before you make it get out of control.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

ZebioLizard2 wrote:Nor would your vernacular not be accepted anywhere else

Okay, so you're saying it would be accepted. Good, at least we agree.

Keep thinking your right,

My right what?



Sorry, I know I said I was gonna stop, but that was too much fun, considering how much you were harping on language usage. Sorta walked yourself right into that one. See, there's a difference between when you try to argue semantics, and when you actually have a real argument.

Regardless, I'm like a shark in bloody waters with stuff like this, so I need to step out of this conversation before you make it get out of control.

I'm not sure where you had a legitimate argument to begin with, also thanks for the little stealth insult at the end. Good job

Gamers are like longbeards, things were always better in the good old days.

Tycho wrote:

"You're taking Abbadon and his Terminator body guard again?" Cool. I'll prep my Eldar skimmers with "pop-up" rules and buckets of sustained fire dice, or "I'll let my bike mounted tech marines with Virus grenades know it's game time.

Virus grenades didn't work against Marines... That was part of why they were considered so bad. They only affected models that weren't wearing a helmet... which pretty much meant entire guard, tyranid and ork armies, and not really anyone else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
But a video game can be patched in a manner of weeks. An errata can be posted online and easily distributed and disseminated. That sort of quick fix never existed back in the day.

Can't speak for RT, but it most certainly existed in 2nd edition. White Dwarf at that point included an FAQ section every month, and they introduced several rather big changes to the game (limiting how many copies of each Wargear card could be used, limiting the number of 'field' saves a model could have, removing the 'Virus Outbreak' strategy card, just off the top of my head) through that FAQ section.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
You don't get it, so I'll break it down to the simplest terms possible, and then I'll let it go, because you'll have a snarky comeback even though it will be as ludicrously wrong as what you just posted.

Online gaming companies ban people who exploit the mistakes they made while designing the game because they recognize that providing the best possible gaming environment is what will make their game successful, (bolded for your benefit) because it makes the game more fun and players having fun will continue to play, and recommend the game to their friends.

Gaming groups/stores/tournament organizers back in the day banned the stuff that were game design mistakes by Games Workshop because they recognized that doing so would provide the best possible gaming environment, ensuring everyone had fun, which would in turn incentivize players to continue collecting models and playing the game.

It's the same. Exact. Concept. I empathize if you still don't understand. That's an awful situation to be stuck in.

I'm wondering, surely *someone* has come up with something like this for 40k? I've seen swedish comp and just flat out restrictions in Fantasy tournaments but never the slightest hint of one in 40k.

If someone knows of an up-to-date list of restrictions or whatever used in a tournament for 40k I'd be much obliged if you'd flick it my way. This game has some serious issues and I don't feel I'm experienced enough to try and tackle them in a fair manner.