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.

GW is a bit of a conundrum. If you take it at face value, and believe they are what they say they are, then the fact that their rules are not the greatest doesn't really matter; they are not a game company, they are "the best makers of miniatures in the world" (or something to that effect...). In that regard, their rules are fine, in that they created some rules.

Now if you are to assume that they are, indeed, a gaming company, you are then allowed to place a much higher degree of criticism on their product, which would then be their rules. In that regard, they make horrible rules.

So in summary: as a company that produces models, they create fine rules to accompany them. As a company that produces a game, they create rules which have too many problems to be considered complete.

It's like an auto manufacturer. If you claim to make the fastest cars in the world, and your cars are the fastest, then you are not held to as high a standard for other things (interior volume, cargo room, seating capacity, etc.). If, on the other hand, you claim to make the most luxurious car in the world, and you have great interior materials that are not comfortable, excellent cargo space but no headroom, and a great ride feel but too much noise, then you start to see where you are falling short of your own claims.

This, I feel, is the reason GW continues to always state they make the finest tabletop miniatures in the world, and they just so happen to make a game you can play with them if you want. As opposed to them stating they are a company which produces the best games in the world, with fantastic miniatures to field in battle. Ah-heya, right...

xruslanx wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

When Skyrim was released I had to cheat and use the console just to advance in the game. As it is there is an entire city that is out to kill me simply because of a glitch in the game. Yet it is still lauded as a fantastic game, 9/10 on reviews etc.

By contrast 40k has rules problems that crop up once every 20 games and it's an unplayable mess. They are clearly not "sloppy" rules, or so many people wouldn't enjoy them. Such needless exaggeration only weakens your point since it makes you look deranged.

skyrim sucks and sucks hard. positive ratings must be from all the 8 yearolds playing that think it's OMG so awesome. It's just the same old crap, the combat has been the same since daggerfall. terribly boring combat at that.

boring sandbox is boring. their games are a jack of all trades master of none.

kb305 wrote:

skyrim sucks and sucks hard. positive ratings must be from all the 8 yearolds playing that think it's OMG so awesome. It's just the same old crap, the combat has been the same since daggerfall. terribly boring combat at that.

boring sandbox is boring. their games are a jack of all trades master of none.

his point wasn't about the same rehashed arguments of the game, which if we're taking this into account, GW's 2 big games have used the same basic mechanics for decades now, and yet no one complains about the same stat rolling mechanic since 2nd edition, etc... We're talking about the quality of the product into relation to its completeness. He is stating that Skyrim is a flawed game because of bugs, but GW isn't for some hackneyed reason... and that day 1 faqs that don't answer much of anything and aren't updated for 6 months at least are better than a regular patch system.

Also for context xruslanx, I work in software. I know how the patching cycle works, you get things in a regular flow of motions because every time you release a new patch you hope to take care of 100% of those issues, and limit the number of issues you might open up with that patch. Having a regular patching cycle is far better than ignoring the issues for 6+ months.

xruslanx wrote:


Contrast this to 40k where 99% of problems can be resolved in a few seconds. 40k certainly is more "polished" than Skyrim.

If you compare 40k to a video game you should do so with a multi-player game. When you do this you will see that the overwhelming majority of multi-player video games are better than 40k in the rules department and here's why -- the rules work. If you get into a game of counter strike, starcraft 2, or hell a tactics game like xcom and play for a bit you will find that you NEVER ONCE will have to argue with an opponent about how the mechanics of said game work. You can cry your little eyes out about game balancing, but the fact of the matter is that the rules are not the problem and work as they were written to work.

Now some may think it's not fair to compare apples to bananas and it's not because a video game has to be written to work the way it does, this doesn't leave room for gaping holes like warhammer 40k. So lets compare Plantains to Bananas. Any of you who have played any game written by Wizards of the Coast know that rules for a pen and paper, table top, or card game can be done hundreds of times better than GWs. Frankly I am amazed the game is as popular as it is.

The redeeming qualities of the game are as follows. It has some of the coolist sci-fi fluff in any game I've ever seen, It's a large scale miniatures game with beautiful models, the game has an excellent community when you meet people off the net (at least in my experience), and it's the biggest and most successful miniatures game on the market.

TL;DR: If rules are the most important part of a game to you do not play GW games. If rules don't need to be perfect, you like miniatures, tactics, and actually finding people to play with -- Warhammer might be for you

From wrote:

xruslanx wrote:


Contrast this to 40k where 99% of problems can be resolved in a few seconds. 40k certainly is more "polished" than Skyrim.

TL;DR: If rules are the most important part of a game to you do not play GW games. If rules don't need to be perfect, you like miniatures, tactics, and actually finding people to play with -- Warhammer might be for you

Sorry, but this is another area where 40k falls majorly short on IMO. Compare it to other games out there and 40k is just seeing how many dice you can throw about on the table. GW removed a lot of their elements of tactics by making 40k randomhammer.

 Alfndrate wrote:

kb305 wrote:

skyrim sucks and sucks hard. positive ratings must be from all the 8 yearolds playing that think it's OMG so awesome. It's just the same old crap, the combat has been the same since daggerfall. terribly boring combat at that.

boring sandbox is boring. their games are a jack of all trades master of none.

his point wasn't about the same rehashed arguments of the game, which if we're taking this into account, GW's 2 big games have used the same basic mechanics for decades now, and yet no one complains about the same stat rolling mechanic since 2nd edition, etc... We're talking about the quality of the product into relation to its completeness. He is stating that Skyrim is a flawed game because of bugs, but GW isn't for some hackneyed reason... and that day 1 faqs that don't answer much of anything and aren't updated for 6 months at least are better than a regular patch system.

Also for context xruslanx, I work in software. I know how the patching cycle works, you get things in a regular flow of motions because every time you release a new patch you hope to take care of 100% of those issues, and limit the number of issues you might open up with that patch. Having a regular patching cycle is far better than ignoring the issues for 6+ months.

ya, sorry, it's a bit off topic, ive just really started to despise Bethesda games. oblivion was the last of their games that I tried to like but after closing a few of the gates that was enough of that.

their games are like an all you can eat buffet of bland mediocre food.

Don't know why people keep comparing 40k to any video game or video game company.

This a forum for miniatures discussion, and a thread about a ruleset for a miniature game.

So, xruslanx, have you seriously played any other tabletop game? Because answering this would provide a lot of us some background reasoning as to why you seem to not grasp at some core concepts most of us keep bringing up.

 Grimtuff wrote:

From wrote:

xruslanx wrote:


Contrast this to 40k where 99% of problems can be resolved in a few seconds. 40k certainly is more "polished" than Skyrim.

TL;DR: If rules are the most important part of a game to you do not play GW games. If rules don't need to be perfect, you like miniatures, tactics, and actually finding people to play with -- Warhammer might be for you

Sorry, but this is another area where 40k falls majorly short on IMO. Compare it to other games out there and 40k is just seeing how many dice you can throw about on the table. GW removed a lot of their elements of tactics by making 40k randomhammer.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I find that as much as the weight of dice do play into a dice game there are still tactics involved. I will however agree if you play on a board covered poorly in terrain and are against Tau it will feel a lot like a rolling competition.

xruslanx wrote:
Day 1 FAQs. Can't get much quicker than that.

Ok, in all the history of GW, how many codices, army books, and/or main rule books had an FAQ released less than 30 days after the books release date?

Then, compare that to how many of those same books did not receive a FAQ of any type until 6+ months after the release date?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Don't know why people keep comparing 40k to any video game or video game company.

It's called a red herring fallacy. It's an attempt (conscious or not) to distract from the main point of the argument by bringing up completely irrelevant subjects.

Saldiven wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
Day 1 FAQs. Can't get much quicker than that.

Ok, in all the history of GW, how many codices, army books, and/or main rule books had an FAQ released less than 30 days after the books release date?

Then, compare that to how many of those same books did not receive a FAQ of any type until 6+ months after the release date?

So far it's only been a 6th Edition thing so that's really not representative of what they're doing if we're mixing old policy with new policy.

Saldiven wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Don't know why people keep comparing 40k to any video game or video game company.

It's called a red herring fallacy. It's an attempt (conscious or not) to distract from the main point of the argument by bringing up completely irrelevant subjects.

Actually I did it to point out that being a gaming company meant nothing as that was being used as a point on why we should criticize.

The real issue is GW needs tighter wording on their rules. I get that they probably don't want them to be too wordy, but there comes a point were you need to then either decided to keep it, wordiness and all, or trash it and rethink the concept to make it even tighter.

Oh, and they need an actual proper editing department.

Okay, cool, but I figure if we're discussing a rule set, I would have figured the only truly pertinent or valid comparisons would be to other rulesets.

So again, xruslanx, have you played any other games? Any at all?

GW could get away with even that if they'd be more responsive with official positions on rules conflicts as soon as they were pointed out by the player base.

Here's a big difference between a software gaming company and GW. If a computer game has an issue, it takes a while to identify the coding problem, create a fix, and disseminate that fix to the public. Most of GW's rules issues could be solved by someone with authority to do so answering a yes or no question.

I enjoy 40k, you obviously have to make some concessions on the rules but most things people agree to and arent complete ass hats. I do say that warmachine has the better rule set but play is completly bland. In a steam roller event you only ever see 2 cryx casters in my meta and everyone plays the same cookie cutter lists all the time, i don't think i have seen a faction not take gorman in a list if they have access to him. Because of this I play more 40k, in competitive play I have yet to play the exact same list 2 times in a row. I know at Lock and load i played 3 identical skorne lists in a row. The rules are much better, but no one ever plays with units that people deem unworthy.

Saldiven wrote:
GW could get away with even that if they'd be more responsive with official positions on rules conflicts as soon as they were pointed out by the player base.

Here's a big difference between a software gaming company and GW. If a computer game has an issue, it takes a while to identify the coding problem, create a fix, and disseminate that fix to the public. Most of GW's rules issues could be solved by someone with authority to do so answering a yes or no question.

could be. could

This is why GW is garbage in the rules department. Their players find the discrepancies in the rules within the first 2 weeks, they write one small FAQ on day 2, and do nothing about all the other problems for months to follow.

From wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
GW could get away with even that if they'd be more responsive with official positions on rules conflicts as soon as they were pointed out by the player base.

Here's a big difference between a software gaming company and GW. If a computer game has an issue, it takes a while to identify the coding problem, create a fix, and disseminate that fix to the public. Most of GW's rules issues could be solved by someone with authority to do so answering a yes or no question.

could be. could

This is why GW is garbage in the rules department. Their players find the discrepancies in the rules within the first 2 weeks, they write one small FAQ on day 2, and do nothing about all the other problems for months to follow.

Well, don't forget that core of this issue is not from a FAQ or decision making area, but from the basic writing and testing before even a draft is completed. And then proper editing. And then more drafts. And then more editing. And so on until the rules make sense.

Well, we have an answer in the copycat thread as to whether xruslanx has played other games. It's not pretty. I honestly don't know how to respond to an analogy like that...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/553737.page#6086759

 Grimtuff wrote:
Well, we have an answer in the copycat thread as to whether xruslanx has played other games. It's not pretty. I honestly don't know how to respond to an analogy like that...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/553737.page#6086759

Oh wow...

No words.

xruslanx wrote:

Super Newb wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know.

LOL! You can't be serious. They are a GAMING company. Regardless of what else goes on in the world, if they continuously put out codexes with obvious errors, with sloppy language that raises issues practically the moment they are released, then yes they should be criticized for this. GW is not even close to perfection (and no one is demanding this). They are SLOPPY.

When Skyrim was released I had to cheat and use the console just to advance in the game. As it is there is an entire city that is out to kill me simply because of a glitch in the game. Yet it is still lauded as a fantastic game, 9/10 on reviews etc.

By contrast 40k has rules problems that crop up once every 20 games and it's an unplayable mess. They are clearly not "sloppy" rules, or so many people wouldn't enjoy them. Such needless exaggeration only weakens your point since it makes you look deranged.

LOL! Thanks for confirming to me that you are not serious! You fooled me the first time though!

 Blacksails wrote:


Well, don't forget that core of this issue is not from a FAQ or decision making area, but from the basic writing and testing before even a draft is completed. And then proper editing. And then more drafts. And then more editing. And so on until the rules make sense.

I've not forgotten as my prior post compares GWs writing (or lack there of) department to that of another game company that actually goes through that process, namely WotC. However you could factor FAQs in this discussion, Peregrine didn't say a word about not including FAQs to this as they're a quintessential part of GW rules. I'm surprised you didn't knock me for ignoring the whole "don't include factors like People, fluff, etc".

ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

Your argument would appear to be that no-one should ever criticise anything unless they criticise everything.

Bottom Tier. I've tried and tried, and I just don't understand the rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

No, of course not. The point is we can't pretend GW is alone in this bad decision making program.

EDIT: And it seems despite what I was hoping would provide context that it wasn't clear enough. My response was to point out that GW isn't alone with this problem and it's an issue that's rampant in pretty much every industry, including games, not to try and justify GW for anything.

Nobody thinks that GW is the only company in the world that releases sub-par product. But the fact that some other companies also do it is no reason to just accept it without complaint...

I never said people shouldn't complain, I was just pointing out that criticizing GW because they're a gaming company who screws up is a bit of a weak argument when we should be doing this with ANY company that's legitimately screwed up.

Your argument would appear to be that no-one should ever criticise anything unless they criticise everything.

No, that would be dumb. I'm saying don't criticize companies based on their industry, but on their failings. Saying GW is a "GAMING" company and that's why we should be mad at them when they fail is silly. We should just be mad at them for the quality of the product alone and leave any other nonsense like field out of it. If the product is a game then be mad because the game is bad, not because it was made by a gaming company.

Especially when said "GAMING" company markets themselves as a modeling company thus making that point rather moot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just to try and make my point clearer: the point is that we should leave all the extra details people hide behind out of it and just look at the product and why that is good or bad over why the company should be held accountable for that product.

If I call myself a modelling company but make an unplayable game for those rules than I should be criticized for making a bad game regardless. Labels like "modelling company" just form excuses for people to hide behind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also "gaming company" is a really broad term as it can include video game companies and they throw the bell curve for quality right down the loo.

xruslanx wrote:

Peregrine wrote:It's GW's greatest marketing success. They've managed to convince a non-trivial percentage of their customers that not only should they accept low-quality rules, they should be proud of those low-quality rules because the worse the rules are the more of a "beer and pretzels" game it is. Accepting the possibility of better rules would mean admitting that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who cares about the rules and doesn't understand that it's all about fun and pushing models around the table while spending time with friends.

I can't think of anything in the world that couldn't be improved in some way. Why 40k should be singled out for this I don't know. Apparently I'm the only person that buys novels full of typos and errors, and computer games with bugs that render them unplayable that aren't fixed for months.

But no, everything else in your life is perfect, so 40k should be too.

And here's the point you keep missing:

If other companies put out low-quality products then everyone criticizes them. If MTG's newest release had a game-breaking issue there would be outrage and demands to fix it. You wouldn't see any meaningful number of people saying "it's a casual game, just accept it and keep having fun". And if WOTC continued to put out low-quality products then people would lower their opinion of the company and eventually stop buying.

If GW puts out low-quality products a significant number of their customers will loudly praise them for making low-quality products because it's a sign of how "beer and pretzels" the game is when nobody really cares too strongly about the rules. People like you brag about how "casual" the game is because you can still have fun pushing your models around the table, and demanding better rules would be a sign that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who doesn't understand that the rules don't matter and you should just push your models around and "have fun".

Needless to say GW loves this situation because they don't have to spend money on making better products.

A more reflective sample, rather than those who specifically come on Dakka Discussions to bitch about 40k, can be found here. That's 66% of players rating 40k as good or better.

You mean the biased poll that you even admitted was deliberately set up as a biased poll so you could "prove" that people enjoy 40k?

Sargow wrote:
I enjoy 40k, you obviously have to make some concessions on the rules but most things people agree to and arent complete ass hats. I do say that warmachine has the better rule set but play is completly bland. In a steam roller event you only ever see 2 cryx casters in my meta and everyone plays the same cookie cutter lists all the time, i don't think i have seen a faction not take gorman in a list if they have access to him. Because of this I play more 40k, in competitive play I have yet to play the exact same list 2 times in a row. I know at Lock and load i played 3 identical skorne lists in a row. The rules are much better, but no one ever plays with units that people deem unworthy.

Sorry, but this has to do with two things that aren't related to the quality of the rules:

1) The 40k community tends to be more 'experimental', even in tournaments. Only a small minority play perfectly optimized lists, most people get tired of that and bring 'fun' or 'fluff' units even if the core of the list is still the same tournament winner. If people played 40k purely based on winning you'd see extremely bland lists and often face very similar opponents because 40k's balance is awful and most codices can be reduced to a very small set of viable options.

2) 40k is a bigger game. If you're only using 5-10 models (especially with few upgrade choices to make) then you have fewer possible choices than a game with 100+ models. In 40k the sheer number of models on the table makes it a lot more likely that you'll face lists that are identical in concept and function but superficially different in ways that don't make much of an impact on the game. For example, taking a melta bomb on a random sergeant instead of on an HQ model is technically not the exact same list, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that the difference matters.

 Peregrine wrote:

And here's the point you keep missing:

If other companies put out low-quality products then everyone criticizes them. If MTG's newest release had a game-breaking issue there would be outrage and demands to fix it. You wouldn't see any meaningful number of people saying "it's a casual game, just accept it and keep having fun". And if WOTC continued to put out low-quality products then people would lower their opinion of the company and eventually stop buying.

If GW puts out low-quality products a significant number of their customers will loudly praise them for making low-quality products because it's a sign of how "beer and pretzels" the game is when nobody really cares too strongly about the rules. People like you brag about how "casual" the game is because you can still have fun pushing your models around the table, and demanding better rules would be a sign that you're one of those WAAC TFGs who doesn't understand that the rules don't matter and you should just push your models around and "have fun".

That's because you insist on mixing in game errors with design philosophy when you attack GW. Sometimes the rule is broken or incorrect, sometimes it's not, but if people don't like it they'll attack GW with it anyway. No one would object to people pointing out flaws or errors in the rules as they're written, but oftentimes will lump in simply everything they don't like about gw, without bothering to distinguish between things that don't actually work, and things that they don't like.

You also see people using a rigid syntax to come to absurd rule conclusions - there are any number of these in YMDC, take your pick. They are always rules that, to the casual player, are completely unambiguous and fine. Yet on the internet they are utterly nonsensicle and allow you all manner of stupid things. A demon prince wrapping his wings around himself to deny LOS to all shooting, all sorts of LOS abusings on vehicles and models, bikers in the new SM codex that can't take special weapons. All of those simply wouldn't occur to a casual gamer, but people on the internet cry "broken! Don't they rules-test bla bla bla". And of course any rules discrepancy should have been caught in play testing, yada yada yada. Basically amounts to "why didn't GW write the rules for hardcore wargamers rather than casuals". Yet try reading a fandex that is written as specifically and "tight" as possible, and it's virtually unreadable.

xruslanx wrote:
That's because you insist on mixing in game errors with design philosophy when you attack GW.

Sorry, but when GW's "design philosophy" seems to be "4+ it because writing good rules takes too much effort" then it deserves to be attacked.

You also see people using a rigid syntax to come to absurd rule conclusions - there are any number of these in YMDC, take your pick.

You know why people use that "rigid syntax"? Because competent professionals write rules that function properly even when you read them as rigidly and literally as possible.

They are always rules that, to the casual player, are completely unambiguous and fine.

Only if you define "casual" to mean "does not try to understand what the rules mean", which is an absurd definition. If you use a more reasonable definition, like "does not invest much of their life in the game", those rules are far from ambiguous. If you look at YMDC quite a few of the rules arguments are started by a question from someone who seems to be sincerely confused about how to play the game.

Basically amounts to "why didn't GW write the rules for hardcore wargamers rather than casuals".

Again with this idiotic assumption that "casual" gamers don't benefit from good rules. The only people who don't benefit from good rules are the minority of people who take pride in how much abuse they're willing to suffer to play with their toy space marines.

Yet try reading a fandex that is written as specifically and "tight" as possible, and it's virtually unreadable.

Could that possibly be because most fandexes are written by people who aren't professional game designers?

And again, the counter-examples are obvious. X-wing has few, if any, rule issues and is a nice readable 30-page book (with lots of pictures and large fonts) that even non-gamers can learn in 15 minutes. MTG has rules where arguments longer than "here's the answer on page X" are impossible and yet "casual" players have no trouble learning and enjoying the game.

Peregrine, forget it dude, you're shouting at a wall.

You are better off doing my favorite alternate activity of teaching a cat astrophysics.

I agree with Azreal13.

xruslanx has no measuring stick; no comparison to even base 40k against. Having played only the single game system, its all he knows and honestly doesn't understand what we're trying to get at.

But hey, its easy for him to wave away our concerns as being too 'hardcore' or 'not having enough fun', or 'taking it too literally', but all it would take for him is to run into a guy who has a differing opinion than him about something key to his army's workings.

And for the record, I have read a small handful of well written fandexes. Granted, they were all done by one guy, but they were on par with (I'd go as far as better than) GW, and were rapidly updated with feedback from the community and volunteer play testers.

Its not hard to write a good rule set. Stop making excuses for GW and see that its not this airtight or 'cinematic' game you want us to believe it is. We've played it, and several other games. 40k pales in comparison to at least a dozen rule sets I've either played or at least read through the rule book. 40k's only redeeming factor is that its designed to be played with some sweet models in a great universe.

But I would shell out a significant amount of money for a completely redone 40k with redone codices made by a 3rd party group with a history of solid rules.

 azreal13 wrote:
Peregrine, forget it dude, you're shouting at a wall.

You are better off doing my favorite alternate activity of teaching a cat astrophysics.

Oh, I don't know... staring off into space seems to be a popular pastime for cats....

But, yeah - no experience with other systems, but still calling GW's tottering pile of rules well written... not worth much argument.

The Auld Grump

I don't think you have to play all game systems, but you have to
be open to the possibility of other game systems or at least, I
don't know, read up on them before you outright dismiss them.

 malfred wrote:
I don't think you have to play all game systems, but you have to
be open to the possibility of other game systems or at least, I
don't know, read up on them before you outright dismiss them.

I'm not dismissing other game systems, I'm sure they're perfectly fun. But I don't see why that should detract from my opinion of 40k, just because someone else decides that the rules of game systems I've never even heard of are "better". In no way does that impact my use and enjoyment of 40k rules, and I see no way that it should. My interest is 40k, not "all tabletop wargaming". Models are difference matter, since you can use 3rd party miniatures with your existing collection, so rule of cool applies.

I'm not going to belittle peoples' opinions on a film just because I've seen films that are better. I might tell them that I think the film I've seen is better, but I wouldn't call them a troll for maintaining the position that *their* film is brilliant.