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.

 azreal13 wrote:


It isn't the phrase itself, it is what it connotes. Saying "you whatevers" is just suggesting that you're positioning yourself on some sort of moral high ground and mentally separating yourself from everyone else. This sort of language may antagonise.

Then how IS he supposed to say it? Because he clearly does have a different opinion than others, and he's clearly separating himself from them. Having a different opinion is hardly claiming some sort of moral high ground.

You're taking it as an attack; he's just saying he thinks differently than you do. Please tell us all how you'd prefer he set himself and those with his opinion separate from you and those with your opinion without being... antagonistic, as you say. Because from my viewpoint (a WFB player whose sole interest in your debate is how 40K 7th will affect GW and demonstrate how FB 9th will likely be treated... and received) that antagonism is a bit difficult to see.

 Vulcan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


It isn't the phrase itself, it is what it connotes. Saying "you whatevers" is just suggesting that you're positioning yourself on some sort of moral high ground and mentally separating yourself from everyone else. This sort of language may antagonise.

Then how IS he supposed to say it? Because he clearly does have a different opinion than others, and he's clearly separating himself from them. Having a different opinion is hardly claiming some sort of moral high ground.

You're taking it as an attack; he's just saying he thinks differently than you do. Please tell us all how you'd prefer he set himself and those with his opinion separate from you and those with your opinion without being... antagonistic, as you say. Because from my viewpoint (a WFB player whose sole interest in your debate is how 40K 7th will affect GW and demonstrate how FB 9th will likely be treated... and received) that antagonism is a bit difficult to see.

Imagine if it was said to a black person: "I don't know what the problem is with 'you people' ". It would be like wait, wtf people do you mean? "You know... your sort". Does it sound bigoted enough for you then?

Frankly, I'm not here to provide an English lesson, and there are literally so many ways to express what you're asking it could turn into that "nose joke" scene from Roxanne, and I'm sure you don't want this to end with me punching you in the face.

 Smacks wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


It isn't the phrase itself, it is what it connotes. Saying "you whatevers" is just suggesting that you're positioning yourself on some sort of moral high ground and mentally separating yourself from everyone else. This sort of language may antagonise.

Then how IS he supposed to say it? Because he clearly does have a different opinion than others, and he's clearly separating himself from them. Having a different opinion is hardly claiming some sort of moral high ground.

You're taking it as an attack; he's just saying he thinks differently than you do. Please tell us all how you'd prefer he set himself and those with his opinion separate from you and those with your opinion without being... antagonistic, as you say. Because from my viewpoint (a WFB player whose sole interest in your debate is how 40K 7th will affect GW and demonstrate how FB 9th will likely be treated... and received) that antagonism is a bit difficult to see.

Imagine if it was said to a black person: "I don't know what the problem is with 'you people' ". It would be like wait, wtf people do you mean? "You know... your sort". Does it sound bigoted enough for you then?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1iV24hL8Rk

 Smacks wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


It isn't the phrase itself, it is what it connotes. Saying "you whatevers" is just suggesting that you're positioning yourself on some sort of moral high ground and mentally separating yourself from everyone else. This sort of language may antagonise.

Then how IS he supposed to say it? Because he clearly does have a different opinion than others, and he's clearly separating himself from them. Having a different opinion is hardly claiming some sort of moral high ground.

You're taking it as an attack; he's just saying he thinks differently than you do. Please tell us all how you'd prefer he set himself and those with his opinion separate from you and those with your opinion without being... antagonistic, as you say. Because from my viewpoint (a WFB player whose sole interest in your debate is how 40K 7th will affect GW and demonstrate how FB 9th will likely be treated... and received) that antagonism is a bit difficult to see.

Imagine if it was said to a black person: "I don't know what the problem is with 'you people' ". It would be like wait, wtf people do you mean? "You know... your sort". Does it sound bigoted enough for you then?

just came to say thats very out of context.

If there happened to be a black guy with a bunch other people in the middle of the road, and I then said "hey you people, get off the road", I am 100% certain that no one will hang themselves that night because I said you people. I didnt even use "you people" in a negative way at all. Like any phrase or sentence, in some situations it can be taken negatively. Frankly I think hes just being a bit anal and offended over nothing. If I meant to antagonize I would have used the phrase in a very different way. In fact, if he didnt take the time to mention those three words, I can be very sure nobody would have given it a second thought.

Heck I even changed it to you guys (something nobody finds offensive but oddly enough replace guys with people and it is?) blatantly showing that I had meant nothing by the phrase. If it was meant to antagonize I would have not changed how I worded it when used a second time.

So get over it "you people".

Donald Sterling approves of the line "You People"

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 azreal13 wrote:


It isn't the phrase itself, it is what it connotes. Saying "you whatevers" is just suggesting that you're positioning yourself on some sort of moral high ground and mentally separating yourself from everyone else. This sort of language may antagonise.

Then how IS he supposed to say it? Because he clearly does have a different opinion than others, and he's clearly separating himself from them. Having a different opinion is hardly claiming some sort of moral high ground.

You're taking it as an attack; he's just saying he thinks differently than you do. Please tell us all how you'd prefer he set himself and those with his opinion separate from you and those with your opinion without being... antagonistic, as you say. Because from my viewpoint (a WFB player whose sole interest in your debate is how 40K 7th will affect GW and demonstrate how FB 9th will likely be treated... and received) that antagonism is a bit difficult to see.

Imagine if it was said to a black person: "I don't know what the problem is with 'you people' ". It would be like wait, wtf people do you mean? "You know... your sort". Does it sound bigoted enough for you then?

just came to say thats very out of context.

If there happened to be a black guy with a bunch other people in the middle of the road, and I then said "hey you people, get off the road", I am 100% certain that no one will hang themselves that night because I said you people. I didnt even use "you people" in a negative way at all. Like any phrase or sentence, in some situations it can be taken negatively. Frankly I think hes just being a bit anal and offended over nothing. If I meant to antagonize I would have used the phrase in a very different way. In fact, if he didnt take the time to mention those three words, I can be very sure nobody would have given it a second thought.

Heck I even changed it to you guys (something nobody finds offensive but oddly enough replace guys with people and it is?) blatantly showing that I had meant nothing by the phrase. If it was meant to antagonize I would have not changed how I worded it when used a second time.

So get over it "you people".

Referring to me in the third person in a conversation I'm still active in now?

The faux pas just keep on flowing with you don't they?!

I'd also counsel caution when referring to groups of black people and lynching too, just sayin.

I've explained, twice, why I thought that particular turn of phrase was telling, I stand by it, especially given your history and opinions that I'm already aware of.

I was talking to the person I quoted. Didnt refer to you at all.

Lynching has never been an issue here, people dont think black people when someone mentions hanging. They simply think of people being hung.

For someone who who is against the use of agitating phrases and behavior you seem to use it frequently.

 Pacific wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
I think there was actually a lot more to the rules in 2nd edition. In terms of mechanics it was a more complex game (grenade throwing, turrets blowing off tanks and landing on people etc.), although somehow a great deal easier to grasp than today's bloated mess of special rules and abstractions.

The point was about putting codexes into the core rulebook, not the size of the rulebook itself honestly.

I wish they would remove that face-palming orkmoticon, it always manages to come across as offensive even though I'm sure from your posting habits that that wasn't your intent.

I really did slap my forehead because it seemed like people were missing the point about the number of units (which was the central point of that bit) and instead focusing on everything else. Was it meant to be offensive? No. But it was an honest response for people missing the point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's almost as if GW knew this would happen and have already taken steps to nullify it.

Yeah, it's called "sales are down, fire all the store managers".

 welshhoppo wrote:
Don't forget with Warmachine all the additional books too.

You have Warmachine Prime and each of the Faction books.
Warmachine: Mercenaries
Warmachine: Wrath
Warmachine: Colossals
Warmachine: Convergence of Cyriss
Warmachine: Vengeance.

Plus that is only half of the game. You also have Hordes.
Hordes: Primal and all the Faction ones
Hordes: Minions
Hordes: Domination
Hordes: Gargantuans.
Hordes: The New one that is out soon.

So Warmachine also has a damn tonne of books. But they can be allowed this because everything except Primal and Prime contain only units and fluff. The models come with cards and the warroom app makes them very cheap.

But don't be mistaken that the books are cheaper overall.

To your point, none of those books are needed to play though because of the cards included in the miniatures. Unlike GW where you are required to AT LEAST buy another $50 codex to get the rules for your units.

Also, I want to point out that PP also does the books releases right. Offering them in both hardcover and softcover. If you get the softcover rules, you only need pay $30 for the rules. I myself prefer the hardcover for the core rules and softcover for the expansions, since you don't need the expansions when you play. That reminds me of another point, with Warmahordes, you only need to carry around the rulebooks to play - none of the expansions. A lot less weight to carry. Whereas with GW, you are now lugging around a small library in addition to your miniatures.

The thing is, what PP does now (with the new books adding and advancing the story and adding units to the game) should be where GW is at. GW has managed to do that with their LOTR-SBG rules. Simply improving the broken areas each release to the rules now are well-balanced and playable. Yet their core games, which have had 25 years (for 40k) and 30 years (for WHFB) they STILL are a complete mess.

Coming around to the subject of the original post, it is not good on GW for splitting into three books and not selling the rules separate. How many times are customers expected to pay for the same 130+ pages of cut-and-paste fluff? Or a 144+ pg miniatures catalog? How can we say good on them for getting us to pay for the same garbage over and over again?

Yeah, it's called "sales are down, fire all the store managers".

Plus... To me, this is padding the financials. Hint. The new rule set will come out before this half of the financials ends.

Kind of funny this version of 6.5 comes out when they need to show their shareholders the GOOD NEWS!!!.... WE BE MAKEN MONNEEEEY.

Heh.... Heh.... Heh.... I'll go and sip on some sweet tea and chew down some Kansas City Style BBQ Ribs and just.... smile on how everything is falling into place.

A word of friendly advise. I suggest you listen to Wayshuba, Sean, Weeble, H.M.B.C. and a few others in a constructive manner. They know what they are talking about in their respective fields.

I give him credit and well as others on how they are trying to explain things as best as they are able within the (possible) constraints they might be in.


I thank them as these people reinforce the information on what I already know and sometimes fills in the gaps that I don't. That is what makes Dakka Great. the transfer of information for the hobby that we enjoy.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pacific wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
I think there was actually a lot more to the rules in 2nd edition. In terms of mechanics it was a more complex game (grenade throwing, turrets blowing off tanks and landing on people etc.), although somehow a great deal easier to grasp than today's bloated mess of special rules and abstractions.

The point was about putting codexes into the core rulebook, not the size of the rulebook itself honestly.

I wish they would remove that face-palming orkmoticon, it always manages to come across as offensive even though I'm sure from your posting habits that that wasn't your intent.

I really did slap my forehead because it seemed like people were missing the point about the number of units (which was the central point of that bit) and instead focusing on everything else. Was it meant to be offensive? No. But it was an honest response for people missing the point.

You actually did slap your forehead while reading my post? OK, that's different then and entirely acceptable

My point was meant to be made in a general context, so probably shouldn't have replied to your post directly. i.e. that page count/size isn't always an indicator of quality. 2nd edition managed greater depth with its rule mechanics, less abstraction and more tactical options for the playing of the game as a result, yet needed a much lower page count to convey those to the player.

The whole thing is quite sad really; the fans obviously are so desperate to have something good to feel about playing GW games, and the pickings are so slim that you have to make a big deal about the fact that the price hasn't gone up 100% on the rules (less than 2 years after you had to buy the last lot, less for the expansions) and that the company has deemed you worthy enough to learn about the impending arrival by hosting a little Youtube vid.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Don't forget with Warmachine all the additional books too.

You have Warmachine Prime and each of the Faction books.
Warmachine: Mercenaries
Warmachine: Wrath
Warmachine: Colossals
Warmachine: Convergence of Cyriss
Warmachine: Vengeance.

Plus that is only half of the game. You also have Hordes.
Hordes: Primal and all the Faction ones
Hordes: Minions
Hordes: Domination
Hordes: Gargantuans.
Hordes: The New one that is out soon.

So Warmachine also has a damn tonne of books. But they can be allowed this because everything except Primal and Prime contain only units and fluff. The models come with cards and the warroom app makes them very cheap.

But don't be mistaken that the books are cheaper overall.

I can't even cipher your point here. If I was to compare this to GW, I would have to point out every codex and army book that is running well over $60 last time I checked and PP's book line still wouldn't even cost near half of GW's collection. Or are you dredging up the same short sighted tired point of "Well if you collect everything PP has it's more expensive than collecting a few things from GW." Because the logic on that breaks in an instant. Let's not forget that PP's books are absolutely not required between their liberal use of online sources and stat cards. GW can't even begin to scratch at that. The codex is mandatory and has to be bought in addition to the models.

 Surtur wrote:

I can't even cipher your point here. If I was to compare this to GW, I would have to point out every codex and army book that is running well over $60 last time I checked and PP's book line still wouldn't even cost near half of GW's collection. Or are you dredging up the same short sighted tired point of "Well if you collect everything PP has it's more expensive than collecting a few things from GW." Because the logic on that breaks in an instant. Let's not forget that PP's books are absolutely not required between their liberal use of online sources and stat cards. GW can't even begin to scratch at that. The codex is mandatory and has to be bought in addition to the models.

No, not trying to dredge up the PP versus GW collecting thing. This is simply about the books and PP is just a good example for comparison. The same could be done with Cipher Studios, Corvus Belli, Battlefront, or others. I just chose PP to make the point.

My point was, what PP is doing with their rules and books is what GW should be doing. Having a solid set of core rules by now (heck, they've had 25 years to get them right) and other books expanding the options of the game, rather than be yet another volume of rules you need and the endless cycle of throw out every book you bought before to replace it with the new shinnies we have come up with, yet again.

 Surtur wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Don't forget with Warmachine all the additional books too.

You have Warmachine Prime and each of the Faction books.
Warmachine: Mercenaries
Warmachine: Wrath
Warmachine: Colossals
Warmachine: Convergence of Cyriss
Warmachine: Vengeance.

Plus that is only half of the game. You also have Hordes.
Hordes: Primal and all the Faction ones
Hordes: Minions
Hordes: Domination
Hordes: Gargantuans.
Hordes: The New one that is out soon.

So Warmachine also has a damn tonne of books. But they can be allowed this because everything except Primal and Prime contain only units and fluff. The models come with cards and the warroom app makes them very cheap.

But don't be mistaken that the books are cheaper overall.

I can't even cipher your point here. If I was to compare this to GW, I would have to point out every codex and army book that is running well over $60 last time I checked and PP's book line still wouldn't even cost near half of GW's collection. Or are you dredging up the same short sighted tired point of "Well if you collect everything PP has it's more expensive than collecting a few things from GW." Because the logic on that breaks in an instant. Let's not forget that PP's books are absolutely not required between their liberal use of online sources and stat cards. GW can't even begin to scratch at that. The codex is mandatory and has to be bought in addition to the models.

My point is, if I was to play my Khador army and want physical copies of every book with Khador rules in them. I would need to buy each of those books in order to play with them. Some people love having a physical copy. In order to play my CSM army, I would need the rulebook and the codex (codices) but I would not need the SM codex (unless I wanted to make myself cry.)

I know the thread regarding 7th edition in the news and rumors forum is a monster, but there is no reason this conversation should not have been in there.

Especially given how OT this conversation has gotten as well, I'm going to lock it now.