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.

Not how it works, mate.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I too enjoyed 5th edition. The only part i did not like about it was assault units consolidating into other units after winning a combat without the 2nd unit getting a chance to fire at it in it's own turn or even snap fire.

5th edition didn't allow consolidation into close combat.

Really? that was the only real issue i had with it. You are the absolute first person to tell me this. with life/jobs/lack of playing time, the editions run together.
You would think that instead of giving me the treatment for saying that i didnt like that single thing about 5th edition, someone woulda just told me that.
My bad on that and I thank you for telling me.
It doesnt magically make me prefer 5th edition over any other though because i still maintain my belief that the actual rules are secondary to the enjoyment had by playing the game.

MrDwhitey, thats just how its gonna hafta be. Not going to break the rules by being so impolite as to treat them like they are unable to do so and not going to spam the thread with hundreds (or even thousands) of links. The "prove it" technique to say that to every statement is as old as the hills. They can accept my theory or not, it is up to them. if they dont, it will not be because of a lack of information they can find on their own. they are perfectly free to discard it in their own eyes.
Note, that it IS a theory. Impossible to prove without actually going into people's brains and "reading them". I am not alone in thinking it though as the google search will provide endless others who think the same, including real world military personel.

How is that possible? If you play against the same people, on the same terrain and rules are the only thing that is different, then there is no way for their quality to not impact on the game.
Lets say someone plays a melee army, his fun will be linked to how melee friendly an edition is. And no matter how awesome friends he is with his opponents, the fact that an edition may not be friendly has a huge impact on fun he can have with the game.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that different playstyles would be more effective in different sets of rules which COULD affect which edition they preferred. this was denied yet I still maintain that belief.

You misrepresent my words. I said the rules are secondary to the other players and time spent enjoying the game through one another's company and the escape from the real world ect. To many that means far more than winning or losing which is where the rules would come in in terms of "army type" having any advantages. Thus, the rules would be secondary to those who think like this. That is not to say they would not be important or play a part.
of course, not everyone shares this mentality. Some just care about winning or they may just be far more competetive or they may simply just not be able to play with friends whose company they enjoy this much. So while my statement may be true for me, it will not be shared by everyone.
Edit: For example I have one buddy who I think has never ever won a game on his own. He has been partners with other players and his "team" won but never on his own. This unde ANY edition. Like me, he doesnt have a favorite just enjoying playing the game. He will make up his own little objectives like 1. Kill my sarge who killed his general in the previous game or protect a special building because he has decreed it a library and he wants to save knowledge or whatever else and if he succeeds, he considers it a personal victory. to him the rule set used doesnt matter so long as he gets to play.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Really? that was the only real issue i had with it. You are the absolute first person to tell me this. with life/jobs/lack of playing time, the editions run together.
You would think that instead of giving me the treatment for saying that i didnt like that single thing about 5th edition, someone woulda just told me that.
My bad on that and I thank you for telling me.
It doesnt magically make me prefer 5th edition over any other though because i still maintain my belief that the actual rules are secondary to the enjoyment had by playing the game.

MrDwhitey, thats just how its gonna hafta be. Not going to break the rules by being so impolite as to treat them like they are unable to do so and not going to spam the thread with hundreds (or even thousands) of links. The "prove it" technique to say that to every statement is as old as the hills. They can accept my theory or not, it is up to them. if they dont, it will not be because of a lack of information they can find on their own. they are perfectly free to discard it in their own eyes.
Note, that it IS a theory. Impossible to prove without actually going into people's brains and "reading them". I am not alone in thinking it though as the google search will provide endless others who think the same, including real world military personel.

No. If anything, the very idea that you think we'd buy this "I don't want to break the rules by being impolite" and "I don't want to spam thousands of links" BS is insulting in itself, so you're already failed in that respect.

Provide 3-5 or so of your better sources if you really don't want to spam. Problem solved. Wow. It's almost as if it really isn't such a big deal after all.

In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

It is a big deal. First because it would be impolite to call them stupid. This is what i would be doing were I to provide them. They are PERFECTLY able to open up a browser to a google search page and type in wargaming and personality types or wargaming and the military o researching wargaming or any other combination of words which will bring up links. I actually found most of it boring. Here is an example of one of the links that are the LEAST boring and it nearly put me to sleep.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wargaming-survey-part-i-understanding-your-local-grognard.htm
i spent the weeks reading and searching through them once before. i'm not going to redo it all for some guy online who is capable of doing it himself. It is just not that important to me. Like I said, they dont have to believe me, they are perfectly free to dismiss it. Also like I said, it is only a theory many share with no irrefutable concrete proof, so it very well COULD be wrong.

I enjoyed 4e most; I found it to allow for a wider variety of useful army builds and permit a broader array of winning strategies than the dominant one-dimensional spam armies that came into favour in 5e and beyond.

 EVIL INC wrote:
I personally fieel it is insulting and impolite to demean others for preferring a n edition other than 5th.

Double standards much? You label the people who liked 5th as being the most violently vocal.

Also, providing links to support a claim that you are making as part of the topic of discussion is not impolite, in fact it's quite the opposite, it's an impolite thing to do. It is so incredibly impolite to say "I found this thing through my research, but I'm not going to substantiate it, you go do your own research until you come to the same conclusion". If that's the way research worked we'd all be fethed. The reasonable and polite thing to do is provide links.

Calling people a violently vocal minority and shoe horning them in to ill fitting boxes is an impolite thing to do, especially when you offer no credible evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

True a lot of people that played or started in 5th no longer play. When we did there was 13 for us, I remember because of the noob tournament that was made for us. Out of those 113 only 4 play now. And when talking to people from other cities on other forums most of the posters and tournament goers from 5th are gone too. And even now most people say that 5th was best and a lot didn't even play back then. It could be a local thing though.

Nope. No double standard at all. This is what we were discussing. The theory is that a more aggressive player will be more likely to play an aggresive army while a more laid back player is more likely to play a more laid back army. Likewise, an aggressive player is more likely to be more vocal in complaints while a more laid back player will be less likely tobe as vocal in complaints. The theory may be wrong but a simple google search will show I am not alone in following that line of reasoning. I'm not saying you have to follow the same line of reasoning, just asking that my right to think this be respected as I respect your right to believe your own theory on that issue. No, I'm not going to ask for proof for whatever theory you hold to because the fact that you believe it is enough to make it valid for me.

Makumba, your anecdotal evidence from your local area is indeed valid and it may be that worldwide, a higher number of players prefer 5th. In each and every case, they are correct because it is a purely personal decision. I wonder though in terms of pure numbers, how many players actually played 5th edition. then I wonder how many players actually played RT or 2nd edition. i am fairly certain there werent as many players playing the earlier editions and how many people were questioned about why they quit playing after 2nd edition or 3rd or 4th ect.... Only bringing up those questions because they demonstrate how time itself can alter such things as polls or threads on forums. Just for curiosity and to show it is not as cut and dried a question (or answer) as many may think.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Nope. No double standard at all. This is what we were discussing.

Actually that's the tangent topic you brought up, what we were discussing is what was your favourite/best edition. No one tried to label any other player until your post.

Funnily enough... no one is this thread had said ANYTHING about another player, insulting or not until your post. Everyone was talking exclusively about the game itself. You were the first one to start talking about the players, and you started off by going straight in to something impolite toward other gamers.

The theory is that a more aggressive player will be more likely to play an aggresive army while a more laid back player is more likely to play a more laid back army. Likewise, an aggressive player is more likely to be more vocal in complaints while a more laid back player will be less likely tobe as vocal in complaints. The theory may be wrong but a simple google search will show I am not alone in following that line of reasoning.

Interesting theory, you should try backing it up some time because I don't think it's true.

just asking that my right to think this be respected as I respect your right to believe your own theory on that issue.

You can believe whatever you want, I've never said otherwise. But once you make your beliefs publicly known, expect them to be publicly discussed.

No, I'm not going to ask for proof for whatever theory you hold to because the fact that you believe it is enough to make it valid for me.

That's nice... it's not very practical though. I expect what I say to be scrutinized and I will scrutinize what other people say. If I have no evidence for what I'm saying, I'll specifically state that (or if I forget and someone calls me out on it I'll correct myself).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

Oh no, we they are

The topic is what edition we prefer. that is what i am discussing and the also on topic discussion of which edition a player would prefer based on what type of army they play is still on topic.
You dont follow the same theory as myself and many others, good for you. Believe whatever theory you prefer.
That that that is established we can continue with the discussion.

 EVIL INC wrote:
It is a big deal. First because it would be impolite to call them stupid. This is what i would be doing were I to provide them. They are PERFECTLY able to open up a browser to a google search page and type in wargaming and personality types or wargaming and the military o researching wargaming or any other combination of words which will bring up links. I actually found most of it boring. Here is an example of one of the links that are the LEAST boring and it nearly put me to sleep.
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wargaming-survey-part-i-understanding-your-local-grognard.htm
i spent the weeks reading and searching through them once before. i'm not going to redo it all for some guy online who is capable of doing it himself. It is just not that important to me. Like I said, they dont have to believe me, they are perfectly free to dismiss it. Also like I said, it is only a theory many share with no irrefutable concrete proof, so it very well COULD be wrong.

There you go again, still implying that citing references is, in fact, calling everyone else stupid, whereas your misguided belief that we'll all be swayed by your avoidance tactics and complete refusal to provide sources in the name 'politeness' is actually the ONLY thing you could possibly do that is actually genuinely insulting.

You also never said that people are free to dismiss anything, you said "If you choose to disregard the theory out of a lack of looking for yourself, feel free to do so". That's not "perfectly free to dismiss it", it's simply stating that anyone who disregards it hasn't got the information--information that you are, time and time again, completely and utterly unwilling to provide under the pretence of not wanting to break imaginary rules--and immediately criticises their allegedly free choice to disagree.

The onus of proof is on you. You don't hand in a university assignment and tell the professor "I would have provided references, but you know all the books and what you're looking for; you're perfectly able to find them yourself and I didn't want to be impolite and imply that you're stupid.". You don't stand up in court and state "I would love to provide evidence that my client is innocent, but you know where the evidence is kept, and as the judge you have access to all the files on this trial, so you're perfectly capable of finding the evidence yourself."

If you're too lazy to back up this 'theory' of yours with anything but your own words, then you're doing nothing but spamming the thread--something I believe you wanted to avoid earlier.

 koooaei wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
In all fairness, we shouldn't also forget that people that haven't even played in 7-th or 6-th might have participated in the vote. That affects the vote too as the results overlap with those who play currently but love previous editions. Thus shifting the average result towards older ones.

Given the poll was taken 2 years after 6th was released, I'd say it'd be biased toward people who prefer 6th and 7th because people who disliked 6th enough to quit are less likely to still be on forums discussing it.

Oh no, we they are

There's definitely a few who hang around and keep posting... I'd suggest the bulk of them wouldn't though. At least that's the logical thought. Most my mates who have quit over the years don't follow GW at all any more, they'll ask me every 6 months or so if GW have done anything new, but they don't follow themselves.

 EVIL INC wrote:
...and the also on topic discussion of which edition a player would prefer based on what type of army they play is still on topic.

Or rather, it would be, if that discussion was happening.

Repeating yourself over and over is not a discussion. So since it seems you're not prepared to carry on an actual discussion on that topic, I think it's best to let it drop.

So, back to the original topic, hmm?

I think my favourite edition would be 4th but then again, a lot of that is a bit of rose tinted nostalgia since I was playing 40k regularly during that era. I freely admit that it had issues. 5th was good too I suppose - I just think that editions from 5th onwards became a little, I don't know, soulless? Like 40k has lost some of its character and become a little bland.

 filbert wrote:
I think my favourite edition would be 4th but then again, a lot of that is a bit of rose tinted nostalgia since I was playing 40k regularly during that era. I freely admit that it had issues. 5th was good too I suppose - I just think that editions from 5th onwards became a little, I don't know, soulless? Like 40k has lost some of its character and become a little bland.

Funny, I always thought that 5th was the blandest...it had very abstracted rules, the Codex of the Cavatore era (4th/early 5th) were very bland, most notably CSM book...now it looks like 40k has gone to other extreme. It's like GW doesn't get the concept of 'middle ground'...

Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

 insaniak wrote:
So, back to the original topic, hmm?

Just in case some of you missed my colleague's post. Further posts deemed OT will be deleted without warning, and it's possible other negative things may happen as a result.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

There were parts of 6th I liked, though Allies wasn't one of them - the implementation was too ham-handed (both in terms of who could ally with whom, and especially with regard to what happened when allied ICs joined other units), and detracted heavily from the idea of disparate forces fighting for a common goal. I decided, by the end, that I wasn't especially interested in a game where Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition could all be fighting together. I did like pre-measuring, random charge distances, and the random psychic powers. And Smash; Smash was a good one.

I think I'd go with 5th; even given all of the rules messiness (see the INAT FAQ), it was the most streamlined edition since early 3rd, in terms of how quickly you & a complete stranger could get a game finished. Given how precious time is these days, that's a big selling point. (Later 3rd got bogged down with the number of rules sources you had to carry around.)

 Janthkin wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
So, back to the original topic, hmm?

Just in case some of you missed my colleague's post. Further posts deemed OT will be deleted without warning, and it's possible other negative things may happen as a result.

 Musashi363 wrote:
Call me crazy, but I actually enjoyed 6th. I liked the emphasis on shooting, warlord traits and allies. Too bad the execution wasn't as good as it could have been.

There were parts of 6th I liked, though Allies wasn't one of them - the implementation was too ham-handed (both in terms of who could ally with whom, and especially with regard to what happened when allied ICs joined other units), and detracted heavily from the idea of disparate forces fighting for a common goal. I decided, by the end, that I wasn't especially interested in a game where Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition could all be fighting together. I did like pre-measuring, random charge distances, and the random psychic powers. And Smash; Smash was a good one.

I think I'd go with 5th; even given all of the rules messiness (see the INAT FAQ), it was the most streamlined edition since early 3rd, in terms of how quickly you & a complete stranger could get a game finished. Given how precious time is these days, that's a big selling point. (Later 3rd got bogged down with the number of rules sources you had to carry around.)

6th had its charm. Allies and deathstars really needed to be fixed.