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.

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

My look at it is that all Walkers with pilots should be MCs, ones like Daemon Engines should be vehicles.

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

not really. glad to know you're making your arguments from a completely uninformed position though. playing other ttg's equates to sex with non-humans? bizarre, and slightly insulting. and not all that relevant, or accurate either!

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

we're not. we are simply coming from a more informed position where we are saying "there is a lot more to the situation and hobby than you are admitting you, and frankly, you are being willfully ignorant of this".

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

stop the melocramatic opera please. it doesnt annoy us that you enjoy 40k (plenty others do to), it annoys us because you are being completetely, and deliberately ignorant of the wider state of the hobby, and are only looking at this whole argument through an incredibly narrow and extremely skewed point of view. and furthermore, you are unwilling to broaden your horizons, or accept that others have a valid point of view that can add to it.

we have no issues with other peole enjoying it. at least they're honest in their appraisals regarding the game though.

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

not really. glad to know you're making your arguments from a completely uninformed position though. playing other ttg's equates to sex with non-humans? bizarre, and slightly insulting. and not all that relevant, or accurate either!

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

we're not. we are simply coming from a more informed position where we are saying "there is a lot more to the situation and hobby than you are admitting you, and frankly, you are being willfully ignorant of this".

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

stop the melocramatic opera please. it doesnt annoy us that you enjoy 40k (plenty others do to), it annoys us because you are being completetely, and deliberately ignorant of the wider state of the hobby, and are only looking at this whole argument through an incredibly narrow and extremely skewed point of view. and furthermore, you are unwilling to broaden your horizons, or accept that others have a valid point of view that can add to it.

we have no issues with other peole enjoying it. at least they're honest in their appraisals regarding the game though.

I get that you think my enjoyment of 40k is wrong. I also get that you don't see why my enjoying something means I would appraise it positively. Do you not do that? Do you enjoy something, see that people on the internet hate it, and decide that it's crappy?

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

Nobody is telling you that you are wrong for enjoying 40K. Some people are telling you that you are wrong for insisting that everyone who doesn't enjoy 40K is wrong.

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

I said this in the other thread, I find the game playable, and I have a good time playing it. It's not perfect but for what I want out of it (a casual game with friends) it delivers decently.

That said better is never a bad thing.

I enjoy the current rule set (mostly). It's not perfect and I'm not happy with some of the hits that my Nids have taken. But, all in all I can't complain that much.

Now if only GW would get off their butts and get out much needed FAQs.

xruslanx wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I'm also not a fan of a ruleset requiring as many FAQ's and Errata's as 40K. The rules and codexes should probably be out for more than 24 hours before an Errata is posted, hmmmm?

So after a codex has gone to the printer's, they shouldn't even bother looking at it or playtesting it? I get that people don't like the mistakes in rulebooks but complaining about day 1 fixes to some of the worst ones seems hypocritical.

Playtesting is supposed to be going on during the months of writing on the rules. That's the method you are supposed to use to get the rules finalized, not catch tons of stuff after it goes to the printer. Especially if you are building on three previous editions of rules. And all the new stuff is supposed to get the most stringent of testing.

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

Well, in actuality, the point you made with this is that you don't know if you'd enjoy sex more with non-humans.

But really, such a cringy, awkward, and just overall poor example. Though definitely sig worthy for its originality.

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong. Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

And nowhere has anyone told you your version of fun is wrong. You continue to warp and twist and interpret our points as such for no reason, and yet you insist that we're the ones who are wrong and have an incorrect perception of fun. Ironic isn't it? But you won't see that.

Furthermore, no one's annoyed. Most of us are quite amused at this point. You seem particularly uninformed on this subject, and yet insist to others (who have significantly more experience or at least more varied ones) that you are somehow more correct with nothing to back your statements other than stating over and over again that you like them.

And finally, the poll in the dakka discussion section has an over 50% agreement the rules are downright sub-par, and another 20 something who think the rules are sufficient, but are an obstacle to overcome. And it has more votes.

But hey, confirmation bias and all that.

Setting - love it.
Models - love them.
Community - usually nice and thus far the largest in tabletop wargaming scene, making finding gaming groups relatively easy.

But the rules and the codices? Sorry to say, they just aren't good. It just wasn't designed from the ground up for serious competitive play. Which is fine, but in recent editions GW and the players seem like they are trying to jam a round peg into a square hole. I always love when I see these Nova or Ard Boyz tournament results and all the armies are similar variations on some sort of spam, and people act like it's some sort of gaming accomplishment to win one of these things.

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

Whether or not this is seperate from "there are too many mistakes in the 40k rules and they don't FAQ them quickly enough", I don't know, I've yet to get a definitive answer on.

xruslanx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

Whether or not this is seperate from "there are too many mistakes in the 40k rules and they don't FAQ them quickly enough", I don't know, I've yet to get a definitive answer on.

What if I told you that you can take an objective look at something without hating it? Further to this, 40k would still be a 40k if it had a better ruleset. You continue to cling to these weird assumptions despite pages of well written and well reasoned responses.

You just don't seem to want to actually discuss 40k as a ruleset. Nothing else, just the rules divorced from every other aspect. Objectively and comparatively to other similar examples.

 Blacksails wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

You're welcome to enjoy whatever you like. But when you insist that GW's rules have no problems worth complaining about, it shouldn't be too susprising to you by this point that some people are going to disagree. If you're happy just ignoring the holes in the rules, that's great for you. Others prefer a more professional product. Neither you nor they are 'wrong'... just different.

True. If other people would prefer 40k be like non-40k, that's fine. But then, that wouldn't be 40k. But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue. It is simply different to what other people like.

Whether or not this is seperate from "there are too many mistakes in the 40k rules and they don't FAQ them quickly enough", I don't know, I've yet to get a definitive answer on.

What if I told you that you can take an objective look at something without hating it? Further to this, 40k would still be a 40k if it had a better ruleset. You continue to cling to these weird assumptions despite pages of well written and well reasoned responses.

You just don't seem to want to actually discuss 40k as a ruleset. Nothing else, just the rules divorced from every other aspect. Objectively and comparatively to other similar examples.

I can happily discuss the 40k ruleset objectively so long as it isn't simply a list of minor rules problems blown out of all proportions by the internet hate machine, sure.

As someone who has actively followed alt 40k rulesets, I have seen some alternatives. Usually over-hauls are pretty crappy but more often than not there's a few good ideas sprinkled in.

xruslanx wrote:

I get that you think my enjoyment of 40k is wrong. I also get that you don't see why my enjoying something means I would appraise it positively. Do you not do that? Do you enjoy something, see that people on the internet hate it, and decide that it's crappy?

Except I said nothing of the sort- I have no problem with you, or anyone else enjoying 40k.

However, I would ask you to be honest in your assessments. Don't simply appraise it positively. Appraise what is worth appraising - appraise its good points. But be intellectually honest to acknowledge its bad points too, and be open and honest and willing to compare it to what else is out there.

If I enjoy something - I'll enjoy it for a reason. But if some guy can demonstrate to me that it's either (a) not as good as I think it is because of reasons x,y and z, or can tell me this other product is better, I'll at least listen to them instead of screaming from a mountain as a devoted white knight, denying all evidence that contradicts my fundamentally small world view.

I play too many ttgs to be so clannish to one company. The simple fact that you've not played other ttgs but yet dismiss them so readily and without any knowledge of them is a bit sad. Playing only one game does nothing for you other then give you an extremely narrow and short sighted point of view. There I'd far more to this hobby than the small fishbowl that is gw gaming.

You said above that you've not played any other ttgs. The loss, quite simply is yours. Now, I don't generally mind this, but you equate playing other games bizarrely as having sex with non humans. Why? Why so dismissive? And crucially, why so dismissive from a position of admitted ignorance of these games?
Furthermore, against all the evidence to the contrary, you ascribe solely to gw games things like character, and awesome, clever rules, despite bring offered evidence that other games do this, and do this in a better and far less ham fisted approach. You deny, and ignore many of the presented arguments demonstrating how gw games contain rules bloat, rules excess, poorly thought out rules, poorly balanced rules, and poorly faqed problems.

Do you still want to play and enjoy 40k? By all means - do so. But do so within the context of bring honest about the existence, and relevance of other games too - gw is no sacred cow. Gw do not have a monopoly on good fluff to table top integration. Also don't be so deliberately blind to its many faults. Being a zealot benefits no one

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

My look at it is that all Walkers with pilots should be MCs, ones like Daemon Engines should be vehicles.

I would think it would be the other way around, you know because (at least right now) there exists no vehicle and no definition of vehicle (DISREGARD AUTOPILOT) that would include something without a pilot. Monstrous creatures obviously don't need pilots as they are their own beings.

xruslanx wrote:
But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue..

That doesn't make any sense. How popular something is has absolutely no bearing on how professionally made it is, or how well written it is. If 17 million people buy an iPhone, and 17 people buy Crazy-Qwan's-Totally-Not-an-iPhone, and both of those phones fall apart 3 days after purchase, the iPhone isn't any better made just because more people like it.

You also seem to be once again overlooking that fact that being better written wouldn't have to make 40K a different game. The game could work exactly the same as it does now (assuming that through some fluke you've wound up playing all of the various assorted grey areas the way the studio intended you to play them) with more clearly written, better edited rules. The only difference would be that those players who do find that badly written rules impact their enjoyment of the game would have better written rules, and so would enjoy the game more. And more players enjoying the game, and having fewer rules arguments, means everyone wins.

There are certainly things I dislike in the current ruleset, but I do enjoy it, overall, more than 5th. Too much random junk is the main offender for me (random charge ranges make me want to punch myself).

Fluffstalker said it best for me.

I've played in quite a few tournaments and not had tons of issues come up, but they were just local affairs with like 20 people, nothing like Adepticon or similar.

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans

This went to a weird place.

I just don't understand what is wrong with sex with non-humans. Captain Kirk did it all the time and he turned out OK.

 Ouze wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans

This went to a weird place.

I also haven't tried bungee jumping without a cord, if you care to know Ouze.

But seriously, this is like him saying that coconut is the best food there is while being stuck in an island with only coconuts to eat.

Bravo xruslanx, this really explains a lot why you're so very shortsighted. Because you've seen nothing else.

Like I say in the Dakka Discussions thread, I really find 40K rules... supbar, and maybe even worst than that.

Did I always feel that way? No. I used to enjoy playing 40K, 10 years ago, when it was the only game I knew. And I never went to a GW shop, I got a demo from friends, and reallly like the game. I bought the bases of my Eldar army.

About 2 or 3 years after that, my FLGS started to stock a new game, called "Warmachine". I looked at the box, and dismissed it almost immediately. How could someone could play with only 4 minis? this game is probably dumb, without any tactical depth, because, In my 40K mind, an IC and 3 dreadnought are incredibly easy to kill, especially if you ave the right weapons to do so. And the movement is so easy when you have so few mini on the board!

Was a student at this time, and I had a lot of free time. One afternoon, I went to my FLGS and no one was playing 40K, and I was offered a Warmachine demo. Better than doing nothing right? And I really enjoyed the game too. A part of my GW vision have changed, because I realized that you could like several games (seems really stupid right now, but well, It's never to late to learn!)

After this game, a lot of comparisons with 40K was inevitable. Still was favoring 40k for the "big" battles feel, but I like some Warmachine rules design, like the "no need for any table, just compare dice + stat against opponent stat". And after some thinking, I also found that most of warmachine rules made sense, despite being abstracted on some point. Most of the time, when something happened, it was logical (my biggest WTF with 40k at this time was saves... why only one save? if you have an armor AND a power field, why only one of them worked? same problem with cover...)

Then I decided to test a whole lots of other games, some I found good (Infinity), some bad (Confrontation.. nice minis, but the whole single D6, 1 does nothing is good when you can have stats like in 40K... not on single rolls!), and after that, I started to have sa strong opinion against 40k rules.

i could just have sold my minis and moves on, because this game is obviously not for me. But I still like my army, the fluff behind it, and most of GW fluff (even if the most recent one is... well let's say different...). But I can no longer accept the mediocrity of the rules, and the whole "game is for fun so rules are not important!" design philosophy of GW (and the nothing is too strong as long as it's random, but It's more a personal opinion, a lot of players like it). Especially when smaller company put out objectively better books (Compare the new "rules only" 40k book with any other hard cover rulebook on the market, and tell me if the price tag is justified)

Conclusion : i think I'm not alone in thins position. I liked 40K, but It really suffer the comparison with other products, especially on the rules level. But I still like a lot of my mini, which is enough for me to keep them.

 darthnatus wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lobukia wrote:
4th: hated it, very boring, very unbalanced... actually kinda sat out this edition and just collected/painted... worked on War@Sea collection

5th: Good, some wonky rules, a little too mechanized but still fun... necrons and GK at the end was unbalanced and SM had to watch everyone else get Marines +1, but other than that, not too bad

6th: Like it. A lot. But, GW needs to make all walkers MC or all walkers vehicles not this weird some are, some aren't. I would also like to see some of the new restrictions on assaults go away... but that's about it. I do know that at the tournament level the newest codices have dominated (TauDar), but I think this is more a symptom of being in the middle of the update/rebalance process and less of unbalanced armies.

My look at it is that all Walkers with pilots should be MCs, ones like Daemon Engines should be vehicles.

I would think it would be the other way around, you know because (at least right now) there exists no vehicle and no definition of vehicle (DISREGARD AUTOPILOT) that would include something without a pilot. Monstrous creatures obviously don't need pilots as they are their own beings.

Actually CSM have walkers with no fleshy pilots, which was part of the difference. Additionally I'd probably keep the From walker as a vehicle as there is no squishy center. And the squishy center was my qualifier for the walkers. I wouldn't apply the same idea to tanks or flyers, just our loveable trundling robots.

Deadnight wrote:

xruslanx wrote:

No I haven't tried other TTGs. I also haven't had sex with non-humans, that doesn't mean I'm going to question whether or not I actually enjoy having sex with humans. See my point?

not really. glad to know you're making your arguments from a completely uninformed position though. playing other ttg's equates to sex with non-humans? bizarre, and slightly insulting. and not all that relevant, or accurate either!

xruslanx wrote:

Stop telling other people that their version of "fun" is wrong.

we're not. we are simply coming from a more informed position where we are saying "there is a lot more to the situation and hobby than you are admitting you, and frankly, you are being willfully ignorant of this".

xruslanx wrote:

Does it annoy you that I enjoy 40k? Does it annoy you that far more people enjoy it than hate it?

stop the melocramatic opera please. it doesnt annoy us that you enjoy 40k (plenty others do to), it annoys us because you are being completetely, and deliberately ignorant of the wider state of the hobby, and are only looking at this whole argument through an incredibly narrow and extremely skewed point of view. and furthermore, you are unwilling to broaden your horizons, or accept that others have a valid point of view that can add to it.

we have no issues with other peole enjoying it. at least they're honest in their appraisals regarding the game though.

"Us" "We?"

Holy hell, Venom's got a computer!

I'm in the same position as Deadnight, at the very least. That makes it plural, therefore "us" and "we" is appropriate.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's with him.

Hi folks.
In a FORUM DEDICATED TO PLAYING THE GAME.FULL OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIKE TO PLAY THE GAME.

94% (at time of writing,) enjoy the game play of 40k , but believe the rules could be improved.

If I am interpreting the poll correctly .

Some people seem to be getting confused between the enjoyment of the table top minature game hobby in general.And the way GW rules for 40k detract from this .

I like collecting and painting minatures.I like the social interaction and discussing the background of the army I created.

Is general enjoyment of the TTMG hobby.

ANY argument over rules interpretation , play style ,(WAAC, FAAC,) cost effectiveness, rules lawyering etc.
Is ALL down to poor rules writing for 40k.

 insaniak wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
But if I and a huge number of people enjoy 40k - more than any number of people enjoy any other tabletop game - then to insist that the 40k ruleset is poor, badly written or unprofessional could be said to be untrue..

That doesn't make any sense. How popular something is has absolutely no bearing on how professionally made it is, or how well written it is. If 17 million people buy an iPhone, and 17 people buy Crazy-Qwan's-Totally-Not-an-iPhone, and both of those phones fall apart 3 days after purchase, the iPhone isn't any better made just because more people like it.

You also seem to be once again overlooking that fact that being better written wouldn't have to make 40K a different game. The game could work exactly the same as it does now (assuming that through some fluke you've wound up playing all of the various assorted grey areas the way the studio intended you to play them) with more clearly written, better edited rules. The only difference would be that those players who do find that badly written rules impact their enjoyment of the game would have better written rules, and so would enjoy the game more. And more players enjoying the game, and having fewer rules arguments, means everyone wins.

At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much you se to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

 heartserenade wrote:
I'm in the same position as Deadnight, at the very least. That makes it plural, therefore "us" and "we" is appropriate.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's with him.

I was personally raised to never even come across as trying to speak for another person without asking first. So I find usage of "we" and "us" to be rather odd when discussing something subjective.

xruslanx wrote:
At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much you se to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

I think nobody here denied you the right to like 40k.

But a lot of people thinks the game could be better with nearly the same rules, just by eliminating the grey areas.

Correcting mistakes don't make things worse : I'm french, and my english is terrible. My posts are probably a pain to read. I'm sure they would be better with correct english, right?

Maybe you have no interrest in other rules system, but that doesn't mean they doesn't exists. Every system has it's shortcomings, and 40k is not an exception.

IMHO, the rules should be totally redone to make 40K an enjoyable game (ignoring fluff and minis). But that's just my opinion, and on this, we can just agree to disagree.

xruslanx wrote:

At this point the argument has simply become "I say 40k is bad because I have played more games than you". If you can't critisise the 40k ruleset outside of picking apart a couple of minor rules inconsistencies, then your argument isn't of much you se to the overwealming majority of players who have no interest in other rules systems.

I don't know why you continue to ignore dozens of post that accurately and succinctly point out a number of ways in which the 40k rule set could be significantly improved, or pointing some very not insignificant errors and oversights.

You have a very flawed perspective on this. Whenever a point against the game, or ways in which it is not good, or flaws in its writing are brought up, you simply hand wave them away as being insignificant, yet provide no backing or reasoning as to why. Several people who play in large tournaments in both of these related threads have explained why these seemingly small errors are actually rather significant and unacceptable.

So, instead of simply stating that our arguments are invalid with no backing, rationale, or thought process, I challenge you to actually type up a response that genuinely refutes the dozens of responses in both threads that lay out what exactly is wrong with 40k.

Because right now, your argument is 100% invalid, as its based purely on personal opinion, with no comparisons, argumentation, or refutation.

And no, the argument isn't 40k is bad because I've played more games. That's laughably inaccurate. Try raising a real point that isn't a straw man.

On one thread that got closed, he asked people to post evidence why we say GW games are targeted to kids, to which people did. When I ask him to post evidence why he thinks that they're targeted for adults, this is his response:

xruslanx wrote:I can see where this is going to go. You are going to continue "demanding evidence" for something that you know full well I don't have. No, I can't prove that adults are the guys spending huge amounts of money. Top job old fella.

As I say, I also cannot prove that diamond encrusted rings are bought by adults. Also unlike you I accept that *I* do not have hard evidence to back up what I am saying.

I don't think arguing with him will bring any fruits of actual discussion, Blacksails.

 heartserenade wrote:
I don't think arguing with him will bring any fruits of actual discussion, Blacksails.

I'm starting to agree with that.

Oh well, can't blame me for trying anyways.