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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

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!

In all seriousness, my son has ADHD and metaphors are a bit of a problem.
Some people can have a legitimate reason to not understand and still be intelligent.
Just trying to help out what is becoming a weird and strangely funny moment.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

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!

In all seriousness, my son has ADHD and metaphors are a bit of a problem.
Some people can have a legitimate reason to not understand and still be intelligent.
Just trying to help out what is becoming a weird and strangely funny moment.

I think Evil Inc understood just find.
He's just ignoring everything.

This is far from his first time doing exactly this.

Very early in his posting history you'll find many examples where he accuses someone of saying something, but refuses to produce evidence when called it, hiding under the umbrella of "Nuh-uh, you go find it".

This isn't new. Or shocking. It is funny though.

Indeed.

 Blacksails wrote:
This is far from his first time doing exactly this.

Very early in his posting history you'll find many examples where he accuses someone of saying something, but refuses to produce evidence when called it, hiding under the umbrella of "Nuh-uh, you go find it".

This isn't new. Or shocking. It is funny though.

'Pathetic' was the word I was looking for.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Alpharious, not a problem, if that is allowed it is allowed.

My goodness you're killing me, what the heck are you talking about?? "If that is allowed"?? If it's allowed then it's obviously not a problem for you to just quote what I said that was so graphic and sexual

Just trying to be polite and friendly. Now if only everyone followed suit.

Libel is not polite and friendly (the polite thing would be to PM me or just report to a mod instead of public slander).

It is not polite and friendly to tell people they either accept changes regardless of anything or otherwise they are selfish losers who refuse to learn new things (the polite and friendly thing is to not insultingly pigeon hole people).

Disregarding complaints as "oh well people would complain even if they were given a million bucks" is not polite and friendly (the polite and friendly thing to do would be to not reply at all if you have nothing nice to say).

Just because you aren't directly insulting an individual does not mean you are not mean you are not insulting people and does not mean you are being polite.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?

I agree that small changes make the game play differently. However the core game is the same, it hasn't changed since 3rd.

because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?

I agree... however several editions have only been a few small changes away from being really solid and after all these years we still have a bloated mess of a poorly written game.

because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?

I disagree with you here. The game should be ever changing, small tweaks here and there, updates to fix poorly worded rules, codex changes to rebalance. The problem isn't the changes, it's that the changes are rarely actually refining what they have, they are just shuffling the junk. If they picked an edition and stuck to it, we'd be stuck with Eldar being top dogs, BA being awful, Raveners being pointless, etc etc etc. The thing that gives me hope in 40k is maybe one day they'll actually change it for good instead of just reshuffling it.

rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.

"basically the same" is NOT the same. By adding in the basically, you are negating the word "same". Each edition HAS changed. Different mechanics different ways of doing things. For example, look at how we do vehicles now. Each facing has an AV and your assumed to hit the facing closest to you. Remember the datacards where there were gridded pictures and you rolled to see where ya hit (cant remember if that was 2nd or 3rd). That whole thing has changed. You mentioned the psychic phase, look at the differences it has evolved through. Remember the charts on rogue trader? How bout the chaos mutation chart? it was D1000 (yes, thats 3 zeros) and every single model in your entire army could have different mutations. Is that how chaos is played now?
I made a point to say that it was MY opinion or view that these differences changed the game enough for them to be considered different games that had a lot of sililarities.

Calling someone out on a behavior is not playing moderator. it was a request from one person to another. Had i been playing moderator, I would have sent him sort of pm notifying him he had broken a rule and edited his post. There is a HUGE difference.
Curious, whose name did I mispell? I was not aware I had and if I did I apologize. Over time, there are people with names that are actual multiple words put together and chosen the main word without any ill will intended and I remember grimtough going by the name of "grimmy" on warseer. Was not aware of doing so. However, I see a lot of posts I see as impolite ridulculing me simply because i disagreed with them on the 3 items I mentioned. of course being the outsider, I make an easy target so it is ok and allowed and I'm used to that.

MWHistorian, I agree that GW has yet to make a perfect set of rules. I'm the one who coined that phrase here. lol I would be content to have a single consistant set of rules even if they arent super amazing. The inconsistance is what is harming us as much as the rules themselves. If was a single set, we wouldnt be having such arguments as to which broken set we like best. I think things like that hurt the community even worse. Because it turns us against each other instead of GW. I'd be happy with a single set just for the consistancy and learn to live and deal with the parts I dont like for that. A price I'd be willing to pay.

AllSeeingSkink, ignoring the parts that are not relevent to the thread...I'm glad you finally seethe points I have made. Been easier pages ago but better late than never. lol
I'm ok with your disagreeing on a single edition where the rules dont change. That being said, I didnt mean the current rules. I mean A set this, last, 2nd or an all new one, I dont care. THEN bring all of the codexes in line with it so you dont have one codex being super and another useless. Custom each codex to the rule set and then they could flesh out and add in and tweak new units as time goes on working within the same basic unchanging rules. I think you had misunderstood me on that part. Again, I have no problem with you disagreeing on that as that is a purely opinion based view. I will not call you names or ridicule you, I accept that your view on that is different from mine. I refuse to do to others as has been done to me.

 EVIL INC wrote:
rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.

I don't know why I'm going to explain this, but I'm sitting on the sofa with nothing better to do... Then you missed what I was getting at. The rest of the posters (and myself) were waiting for an answer to what exactly was "sexually explicit" in Skink's post(s). You completely avoided answering the question and moved on to answering something nobody had asked. Moving. The. Goalposts.

Do we need to bring Jeremy Paxman into the thread?

Can we all just try to remember the horse fondly and get back to the actual topic?

 EVIL INC wrote:
rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.



Psienesis, as you and everyone else here are well aware, to explain in detail the statement and explain it would be worse than the statement itself. It was officially allowed so I'm letting it be. Nice try trying to trick me into possibly breaking my first rule here though. I'll give ya credit there. Alpharious said was ok, so it was ok.

If the mods allowed it, then repeating it wouldn't be breaking the forum rules. I am still not aware of how Skink said anything inappropriate. Honestly. Please tell me what you thought was inappropriate, even if its in PM because I'm dying out of curiosity.

redacted because mod says to get back on topic. Sorry for all the off topicness everyone

 EVIL INC wrote:
rigeld2, i'm not acknowledging that metaphor because it is not relevent. He is trying to say my stance has changed when it has remained constant. The insinuation is untrue and I refuse to acknowledge it.

No, it hasn't. It's stayed basically the same, but not constant. What's that about basically the same?

"basically the same" is NOT the same. By adding in the basically, you are negating the word "same".

Oh.

That whole thing has changed.

Yes - overall the current system is vastly different from rogue trader. That's what I'd expect from something that evolved through Editions.

Calling someone out on a behavior is not playing moderator. it was a request from one person to another. Had i been playing moderator, I would have sent him sort of pm notifying him he had broken a rule and edited his post.

Well, no - you wouldn't have edited his post because you physically can't. Saying that you weren't playing moderator because you didn't edit his post is ... well, we'll go with laughable. Also, you've used the word "suck" before in the same context - just FYI. Might want to edit that post if you find that word offensive.

Curious, whose name did I mispell? I was not aware I had and if I did I apologize. Over time, there are people with names that are actual multiple words put together and chosen the main word without any ill will intended and I remember grimtough going by the name of "grimmy" on warseer. Was not aware of doing so.

Alpharius. And Grimtuff. It's not Grimtough. It takes all of 3 seconds to doublecheck spelling of someone's name.

However, I see a lot of posts I see as impolite ridulculing me simply because i disagreed with them on the 3 items I mentioned. of course being the outsider, I make an easy target so it is ok and allowed and I'm used to that.

No, they're not ridiculing you simply because you disagree. And it has literally nothing to do with being an outsider.

Still failing to see what is sooooo wrong about these 3 statements (4 with the add on)...

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.
Again, If i misspelled someone's name, I apologize, as you well know, my grammar is horrible but I make an effort. Even so, I miss something once in a while and make myself clear. Heck, I misspell my own name on here often because of hitting a wrong key and i challenge ANYONE to prove that they have never ever even a single time made a grammatical error.

To remain on topic,
I was not intending that I thought the current edition should be the one end all last edition that I think they should release. Just that they have one in order to maintain some sort of stable continuity. It is putting out different editions that keep us players at one another's throats instead of at GW's throat where we belong. Then, they could bring all codexes in line with that single ruleset so none get left out or pumped up and maintain a balance. I'd be supportive of a D10 based one.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Because I feel that different rule sets make for different games and how they are played (mechanics)?

They aren't different games. They're all Warhammer 40k. Or are you comparing 2nd edition to Tiddlywinks? Those are different games.

because i feel that there is no "perfect edition"?

No one gives a damn.

because I feel that GW would be better off making a single edition and not changing it?

Nope, that's not it either.

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.

If that's all you feel you've said in this thread, sure. But it's not.

people should have the right to have and voice their views and perspectives. Especially over something as minor as a mere game.

Has someone said you don't?

Again, If i misspelled someone's name, I apologize, as you well know, my grammar is horrible but I make an effort. Even so, I miss something once in a while and make myself clear. Heck, I misspell my own name on here often because of hitting a wrong key and i challenge ANYONE to prove that they have never ever even a single time made a grammatical error.

Impossibility of perfection does not mean you can ignore the simple things like your/you're.

To remain on topic,
I was not intending that I thought the current edition should be the one end all last edition that I think they should release. Just that they have one in order to maintain some sort of stable continuity. It is putting out different editions that keep us players at one another's throats instead of at GW's throat where we belong. Then, they could bring all codexes in line with that single ruleset so none get left out or pumped up and maintain a balance. I'd be supportive of a D10 based one.

No, it's not. And most people are "at GW's throat". And even with all codexes "current" with an edition (we're closer with 7th than any edition before that I'm pretty sure) it won't help balance. They have to do much more work before that.

rigeld2 wrote:
... And even with all codexes "current" with an edition (we're closer with 7th than any edition before that I'm pretty sure) ...

2nd and 3rd ed both had full sets of codexes. Although in both cases the last was released fairly soon before the next edition dropped.


I wouldn't go so far as to call each new edition a new game, but they are bigger changes than I feel is good for the game. Big changes to a game system can be good... or they can just drive people away. Not because they struggle to win games with the new rules (I didn't lose any more games of 6th than I did of 5th... I still hated 6th) but simply because they make that part of the game different.

New editions are necessary to keep the game 'alive'... but they should be refinements, not wholesale change for the sake of change. We shouldn't need a new system for calculating wound allocation every single edition. Nor should the rules for, say, a bolter be constantly changing... because there's just no need for those sorts of changes.

That, combined with the sudden sharp drop in the standard of the rules writing, also happening in conjunction with GW's apparent complete and utter disinterest in providing any sort of FAQ support, is where the 'hate' for 7th edition is coming from. Although the specific nature of the changes plays a part as well... 6th/7th edition is in many ways a massive step backwards from the style of game that had been trending from the previous editions up to 5th. It was moving more and more into a squad-based game of massed combat... and then suddenly did a u-turn and returned to micro-management of everything on a model-by-model basis, while still trying to encourage people to put more and more models on the board.

Which is madness.

Insaniak, you pretty much summed up what I said but in a more succinct manner. Of course, I'm SURE someone will come along later and falsely deny this to cover their tracks.
The only difference if my belief of the "final" edition. Even then, I'd be ok with refinements or FAQs.

Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Insaniak, you pretty much summed up what I said but in a more succinct manner.
The only difference if my belief of the "final" edition. Even then, I'd be ok with refinements or FAQs.

Except it's nothing like what you've said, but... Whatever.

Luckily I can play any edition I want because the local 40K environment consists of myself, a buddy, and a wife if I can rope her into playing. So if I want to play skirmish games of 2nd and mass battle games of 4th, whose to judge?

Hell, I can get just as much 40K by playing Epic games, everything around here is so dead. I have one store within 50-75 miles that even carries GW product at all anymore. Hell, they are the only store that carries ANY wargame.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Luckily I can play any edition I want because the local 40K environment consists of myself, a buddy, and a wife if I can rope her into playing. So if I want to play skirmish games of 2nd and mass battle games of 4th, whose to judge?

Hell, I can get just as much 40K by playing Epic games, everything around here is so dead. I have one store within 50-75 miles that even carries GW product at all anymore. Hell, they are the only store that carries ANY wargame.

You are fortunate in that you have the 2 friends/spouse that will play with you, and play whatever you want, but also unfortunate in that there's no real store support in your area. It really sucks for the people who may have the latter, but not the former. There's a local store, say, with 5 other players... but none of them want to play 3rd ed (or 5th or whatever) because reasons. That person that doesn't like 7th is kinda SOL in this situation.

There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that. The rules are still terrible from a quality control standpoint when viewed that way. If you've bought the rules 4,5,6,7 times... you've shelled out about $200, $300 2014 dollars on them. Plus your codexes. Call it $500 in adjusted dollars, JUST FOR THE RULES. Every time you drop another $50 on a book, much less $20 on a PDF, its a slap in the face.

I think GW's latest push into PDFs is going to make copy infringement worse, as if you need a book and 3 PDFs to get your old list back together, you may as well skip the book. and once you skip one book for a PDF, $0 looks a lot better than $50+rage.

Now a $10/mo subscription would probably work if it gave access to everything, but I don't see GW being that forward thinking.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.

Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at

many players do have to decide if they want to travel when there are no locals who want to play earlier editions. it is rare of course to find a player who wont even entertain it. Most players I have come across are more than willing to give it a shot or play other editions once in a while. The problem is they dont want to put $ into it so your likely gonna hafta be the one to provide the rules and stuff for them.
It can indeed be fun. Unfortunately, there are indeed areas where this is not really an option or you might not be able to travel. I remember having to drive 2 hours just to get ANY game in.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.

Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at

Or it would make Y2K and Skynet combined look like a minor glitch.

The game would set up some online paradox where multiple instances of the same situation resolved differently and the whole internet would suffer a massive logic conflict and the whole world would shut down.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
There's a reason there's not a "real" 40k computer game. Computers need precision and for the rules to be clearly articulated. GW doesn't do that.

Imagine if GW did actually make a 40k computer game, we'd get so many answers to questions that we currently just randomly guess at

Ive played different 40k games and even worked on the dev team for the 40k mod for Tribes.
I would likely seriously go crazy for a 40k game set up like Civilization. maybe not exactly, but along those lines. Course, maybe I'm just a nut. lol

Isn't there like a 'Peoples revised 7th edition' somewhere? If not, that should be a thing...

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.

What purpose doe this post serve other than to increase your post count? You knew what you are getting from the title.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:
Oh for goodness sake, another complaint thread about people harking back to old editions.

What purpose doe this post serve other than to increase your post count? You knew what you are getting from the title.

He fulfilled the obligatory complaint of "Not this again!".
I must admit, we are forever optimists of trying to find that magic answer.

Ah, having said that I will have another go:

40k hate is not it specifically.
Just the present rule-set we are saddled with now is not meeting player's needs (more like GW's).
We just wanna play with other people, our friends are fine and all but we are social animals and like to meet people.
Having a game that seems to just beg for argument right out of the gate is contrary to that.
I moved on to X-wing for the pick-up games but am happy to play 40k with those I already know.

By creating this behavior of veteran players: how are new players going to get introduced to 40k?
Probably only when I am playing my buddies and I would be hesitant to play the "new guy".

So wait for a roll of the dice and the rules become more welcoming in the next edition / update / FAQ.

Thank-you all for your patience, I had to do that...

I want to love 40K. I still do love 40K. But GW makes it harder and harder for me to do so. It's kind of sad really.

By the way, this thread was pretty funny. Thanks, Dakka, I needed that.

I play since Rogue Trader too and i can and must agree with EVIL INC that there never was a perfect edition.

But there were better ones and worst ones.
The 3rd was so bad many players i know stuck to 2nd (to this day) and GW started "trial rules" within a year that became official in tournaments within 2 years and became 4th edition after 4 years.
The current 7th is the first time since 3rd that i see the same type of reactions.

I have most armies of most GW games (including the Specialist games).
In WH40K and WHFB i never buy or even play the "current good units", i even don't play broken (too good) units on general principle.
I field flexible armies that are different, usually above-average in size and they always do pretty well, win more than i lose (because i know what i am doing) and sometimes win tournaments.
I usually don't mind change in codex or edition, my playing style or even armies are hardly ever hit hard.
I do sometimes buy 2nd hand models from play-to-win-players though when a new codex or edition arrives and the last codex broken unit is bad now, so they sell it :-)

But 7th really is different, more different than usual.
IMO the main reason is how you win: not by beating the opponent or take and hold objectives but just by being faster and reach objectives.

I do have fast armies that could do reasonably well, but it's the first time in many editions that many armies i have do not have a chance at doing well, even though most are 3k+ and never optimised for any codex or edition.
And that IS different in 7th.

That's in my opinion the reason for "WHY THE HATE?".
The answer to "WHY NOT PLAY OLDER EDITION?" is that this just does not happen in a large enough comunity so you get stuck with a few or no players at all after a couple of years.
Many WH40K en even more WHFB players i know have stopped playing the last 5 years and many sold their armies too.