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.

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

40k in general caters to scrubs, but what i mean is that a scrub has their own idea of how the game should be played, and calls anyone who disagrees with them cheesey. It's not scrub to play 40k and not like Apoc, it IMHO is scrub to not like apoc and think that everyone else should also not like apoc and are cheesey if they want to use it. You can still agree not to use it.

I don't think people are anything if they like apoc, I just have no interest in apoc stuff IE super heavies, formations, gargantua mc's and so on. At the same time I see no reason to play against that stuff while being passive aggressive and labelling the other player, I'll simply not play. But yeah, we play a game full of entitled people, my preferences are often made out to be bigotry.

And if point is if you go arould think you better them the Apoc player because they like to play apoc, your a "scrub". It is the judge other people part that matters. Not if you like it or not.

Noir wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Basically the scrub mentality adds their own restrictions (e.g. I will play Eldar but won't take a Wraithknight even if I want to) and on top of that expects everybody else to follow their same code of honor.

Sorry wayne but you've just setup a situation in which anyone who never enjoyed apoc and resents being forced to play it in 7th is a "scrub". I just played eldar on sunday, on the condition we play 40k and not apoc and it was a better game for it.

40k in general caters to scrubs, but what i mean is that a scrub has their own idea of how the game should be played, and calls anyone who disagrees with them cheesey. It's not scrub to play 40k and not like Apoc, it IMHO is scrub to not like apoc and think that everyone else should also not like apoc and are cheesey if they want to use it. You can still agree not to use it.

I don't think people are anything if they like apoc, I just have no interest in apoc stuff IE super heavies, formations, gargantua mc's and so on. At the same time I see no reason to play against that stuff while being passive aggressive and labelling the other player, I'll simply not play. But yeah, we play a game full of entitled people, my preferences are often made out to be bigotry.

And if point is if you go arould think you better them the Apoc player because they like to play apoc, your a "scrub".

people who label others are to be labeled x, got it

 Accolade wrote:
At this point I don't know what people expect with GW though, that they'll change if we customers throw enough money at them?

It ends up being one of those "fool me once, fool me twice, three times...four tim-oh, new Adeptus Mechanicus!"

This is a very good point. There's a reason I only buy GW stuff used.

Although I will say that the Mechanicus army was a sure crowd pleaser, and one of the smartest decisions GW has made in a long time. It's almost like they listened just once... Well even a stopped clock is right twice a day, I suppose.

 fallinq wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
At this point I don't know what people expect with GW though, that they'll change if we customers throw enough money at them?

It ends up being one of those "fool me once, fool me twice, three times...four tim-oh, new Adeptus Mechanicus!"

This is a very good point. There's a reason I only buy GW stuff used.

Although I will say that the Mechanicus army was a sure crowd pleaser, and one of the smartest decisions GW has made in a long time. It's almost like they listened just once... Well even a stopped clock is right twice a year, I suppose.

Well I can at least be content that mechanicus is seemingly getting a full codex with an actual hq choice. If I had purchased the skitarii book I could see being a little upset lol

 Crablezworth wrote:

 fallinq wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
At this point I don't know what people expect with GW though, that they'll change if we customers throw enough money at them?

It ends up being one of those "fool me once, fool me twice, three times...four tim-oh, new Adeptus Mechanicus!"

This is a very good point. There's a reason I only buy GW stuff used.

Although I will say that the Mechanicus army was a sure crowd pleaser, and one of the smartest decisions GW has made in a long time. It's almost like they listened just once... Well even a stopped clock is right twice a year, I suppose.

Well I can at least be content that mechanicus is seemingly getting a full codex with an actual hq choice. If I had purchased the skitarii book I could see being a little upset lol

And yet I know guys that bought the Skitarii book, including one guy who dropped money on the special edition. These aren't rich guys either. I mean, if you absolutely have to have the rules right now, get the White Dwarf books! They're so much cheaper! People like that are the ones who insulate GW from making any major changes.

RE the article with the wicked evil Hound who made the PTSD victim have flashbacks;

I will agree that The Hound was a jerk when he tried to insist that you can't quit because THE RULES say you have to quit in a certain way; that's an idiotic rule, whoever wrote it is an idiot, and The Hound is a bit of a tool for insisting it be followed. I consider myself an idealistic realist; I think rules for games should be balanced and sensible. I recognized that they aren't always and sometimes house ruling is necessary, but I try to minimize that by playing games that do not need a lot of house ruling.


With that said; do not the Author of the article and his friends bear a modicum of responsibility? They took a person who they knew was mentally fragile and both brand new to the game and a player who they knew to be a bit of a hardass in the games he plays, and they did not tell either player what to expect from their opponent. Seems like an donkey-cave move to me. If I knew someone who was both new to a game and mentally fragile, and also someone who enjoys playing brutally competitively, I might try to make sure both sides knew where the other was coming from. If The Hound has literally only ever played the game from a cutthroat standpoint, I don't think it should be very surprising that he didn't consider any other possibility.


EDIT: To clarify, it sounds like the Author and his friends passively sat there and watched as PTSD and Hound agreed to play a game and Hound spent all game completely overwhelming her.

Smacks wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
He says he's a teacher: I hope his subject isn't English.

Heh, "The visual side of my learning manifests through my chosen profession – there’s a reason I teach English", and now we also know the reason students fall asleep in lessons.

Must've missed that bit. But then I was facepalming so hard I was reading the thing through a concussed daze.

Pete Melvin wrote:
That said, I dont like the useage of scrub.It implys that people who play narrative lists or have accused someone of being a WAAC jerk, even legitimatly, are somehow lesser fools.

Agreed with Wayne's, MWHistorian's etc. definition. For extras, my particular view and gripe with scrubs is Azreal's alternative: apologists. Not so much a collection of individuals with 'codes of honour' about personal restrictions, but what seems like an entire movement as a symptom of 40K's extreme imbalance and listbuilding exploitation. The idea that fluffy lists is the intended way to play, because the perfectly legal competitive lists are apparently so traumatising to play against. (or at least that there's effectively two different games in basic 40K) Not to say that there's no room for pre-game discussion, but if fluffy lists were the way to play, they and competitive lists would be almost one and the same, and the tragedy is that GW could achieve something like that if they gave half a gak about balance and playtesting rather than shilling the latest shiny kit. IIRC the space marine list in Epic: Armageddon was built to function as SMs do in the fluff: as a highly mobile, hard-hitting strike force. (Which still needed some nous to play beyond piling on the 'best' units.) Anyways, if the underlying problems were fixed by, in order of likelihood, a) GW going under, b) fanboys moving to a better set of rules, c) 40K being improved, I think the grumblings of 40K scrubs would quiet down to a less extreme level. (Ditto the grumblings of us 'haters'. )

Grot 6 wrote:
I've read through Johnny the teachers Manifesto, and in this day and age, I'm not really surprised that someone would go to this length to write about how important it is to me just like everyone else, and that being a winner just for showing up is the most important.

That bit suddenly made this bit spring to mind. If people don't like the term 'scrubs', can we use 'sansweets' instead?

Now see I do think fluffy lists are the intended way to play. It's been clear that GW build lists in that style. The problem is they shunt responsibility for fun onto the players by allowing gross imbalances and then saying "But if you DO use that, you're a bad person and not acting in the spirit of the game as we intend". Then why allow it at all?

That's my bigger problem. If the game is meant to be casual/fluffy and narrative, where's the book explaining how to create your own scenarios and link games together into a campaign? Even though I don't play 40k I would gladly buy a GW version of Donald Featherstone's Wargaming Campaigns that talked about all the cool stuff involved in coming up with narrative games and provided examples.

They want to pass 40k off as catering to everybody, when it clearly doesn't.

Back on the scrub topic, my viewpoint on scrubs is that it's okay to play in a scrub manner so long as you understand it's what you're doing. For example, if I tone down my Warmachine playstyle because the people in my group are scrubs, I'm acting like a scrub but I'm not a scrub because I know I'm hindering myself for the sake of fun. That's analogous to in 40k not taking certain units or hashing out rules (e.g. no LoW) with your opponent, you're aware and cognizant of what's going on.

A real scrub has their own idea of how the game should be played. For example let's say that personal rule states: Lords of War should not be used in games of less than 3,000 points since LoW are a common issue that I see. The scrub plays by this rule in their own games, even though no such rule actually exists and the scrub could field a LoW if they chose to, and expects everybody else to adhere to that limitation too or they're "cheap" (or "cheesey", "WAAC", "TFG" and other names). So the minute they come up against somebody who fields an Imperial Knight or a Wraithknight (those are LoW now right?) they grumble and cry "cheese" because in their mind, you shouldn't use a LoW in less than 3k points. The scrub behavior is claiming the moral superiority (e.g. "You only won because Wraithknights are OP" or "You're cheesy because you took a LoW") for a rule that they impose themselves.

That's basically how GW themselves position the game, with the "spirit of the game" crap. You CAN take minimal troops and maxed out heavy/fast/elite (that's still a thing, isn't it?) but you're a bad person for doing it and not playing the game "right". That's scrub mentality in a nutshell when it's applied with a brush on everybody.

That's different (albeit subtly) from having a talk beforehand or having established club rules that might say no superheavies in less than X points without opponent's consent. The scrub gets mad that people aren't playing by their own set of rules, and uses their self-imposed restrictions as a way to claim to be the better player.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Now see I do think fluffy lists are the intended way to play. It's been clear that GW build lists in that style. The problem is they shunt responsibility for fun onto the players by allowing gross imbalances and then saying "But if you DO use that, you're a bad person and not acting in the spirit of the game as we intend". Then why allow it at all?

Aye, I had a moment of doubt typing that about fluffy lists, hence the bit in brackets, in which I agree with the rest of this quote: fluffy might be the intended way to play (and I have no problem with that whatsoever; despite appearances I prefer it myself) but GW's crafting of the game is so shoddy and slack, it allows what's almost a second, different, contradictory game within the core rules. Why allow it, indeed? The 'spirit' of playing the game as intended should begin with the 'spirit' of developing the game as intended.

I stopped going to BoLs when it stopped being about the wargaming hobby years ago.

Glad to see some others finally realizing this.

 Vermis wrote:
Aye, I had a moment of doubt typing that about fluffy lists, hence the bit in brackets.

It's a really good point though. I might be about to contradict my earlier posts pretty hard here, but bringing Sirlin into 40k can feel bit "insane" at times. Not that I don't agree with his ideas, but usually if I were talking about games and scrubs, I'd be doing it from a position where I have at least some modicum of faith in the game developers being competent. It's really hard to make the argument: "If it wasn't intentional: it wouldn't be there" when I know what a bunch of useless fethwits the GW design team are. If it came to light that the designers were literally jerking each other off when they wrote the last few codex books, I'd just be like: "Yeah... that explains a lot". It's almost like their moto should be "designed by scrubs... for scrubs", and with that in mind, it's really hard to tell people not to scrub, while keeping a straight face, or without a little bit of a self doubt creeping in. It's also true that 40k has RP roots, where it becomes debatable whether the objective really is "to win" or to live out some kind of escapist fantasy.

The only way I can reconcile all of this is to be pragmatic about it. While it might be interesting to think about what the designers intended, and forging a narrative, and "fun"... these things are far too ambiguous and subjective. They depend on an honour system, which will be different for each person, and is ultimately untenable. So we are always returned to "the one truth", the only truth the game knows, which is winning and losing in accordance with the rules.

When two players meet with different expectations, for example: player A (lets call him "The Hound" ) who has only one expectation: that the rules be followed, meets player B ("Sansa") who has more than one expectation: the rules be followed, and also the game corresponds to some subjective narrative that only exists in her head; itself based on even more subjective ideas about what the designers might have intended, all muddled up with arbitrary notions of "fun" and "fairness"... In this situation, our English teacher friend from BoLS seems to be arguing that the onus is somehow on The Hound to make concessions to appease Sansa. I would say that is completely absurd. The Hound has only one expectation left to concede, while Sansa's expectations don't even make sense. The Hound could try, but there is no guarantee he would ever be able to figure out what she really wants. The onus here should always be on Sansa to at least realize that she is the one bringing a bunch of "special requirements", not him.

Now I did not say whether The Hound is a power gamer. It might be that he is just a casual player, and they never have a problem with each other. Or, it might be that he is running the most brutal net-list, and he tables Sansa on the first turn. In either case, The Hound is not doing anything wrong, and his expectations have not changed. His philosophy is simple, functional, and based on something true (the rules). Sansa's expectations are fuzzy and subjective. So when people say both their approaches to the game are "equally valid", that is certainly diplomatic, but it isn't entirely true. The Hound should be beyond reproach. Sansa's approach might not even be functional.

That doesn't mean that Sansa shouldn't try to enjoy her own version of the game in her own way, and look for players that she can make that work with. But it does mean that when she plays against The Hound, she should be respectful of the fact that he is playing the "true" game (at least the only truth that can be quantified), and accept that she has no right to criticize him for that or be upset if she gets tabled. Calling him "cheap" or even "competitive" just because the actual (true) game does not match up with her idea of what the game "should" be, is plainly wrong, and that's the path to scrubdom. It's a fallacious, snide and hypocritical attitude, which is why being a scrub is always wrong... even when it's 40k, and being a scrub seems like the only option.

If I may interject, my group and I had a lovely discussion (re: loud, angry confrontation with years of personal baggage aired in the open) regarding this article, the one takeaway of real consequence is right in the title; unacknowledged playstyles.

Indeed, the simplest way to play the game is in some capacity, RAW ,as the game is "designed" to use such generous language for 40k. The problems stem quite heavily from the language of the design, and the legacy of 40k resulting in all sorts of interpretations of how the game is supposed to be played, and people who harken back to varying eras of game design. It's a big game with a long lifespan which has undergone many different "thematic" incarnations of the ruleset with varying levels of functionality within that same framework.

From all that, the legion of different playstyles and interpretations of how one plays the game is extreme, and the extreme openness and imbalance in the game makes it quite glaring. Narrative, casual, competitive are merely the chief archetypes and there are legions of variations below them, combinations thereof and so on, and the problem stems from people not recognizing other perspectives on the game.

I don't think I know anyone who plays 40k exactly as the rules are structured for the express purpose of winning, being the simplest realization of the game's design. Everyone has their own "code" or "limitation" or particular preferences, and no one is especially good at communicating that with one another. The most competitive, WAAC-ish player I know still dislike D weapons, loathe Maelstrom and avoid netlists like the plague, and expects other players to conform to that conception of the game, much like the #2 competitive guy has no problems with D and loves maelstrom, but abhors gunlines. Both still follow the basic tenant of follow the rules and achieve victory first and foremost, but they still have their perception of the game and straying beyond that is either being cheesy or "kicking a puppy" to quote one of them.

So what? Everyone has different ways to approach a game at all levels, whether it be Call of Duty or Warhammer 40k, the problem is only in games where those playstyles don't function well together. There's always differences between a hardcore competitive type and someone casual, but I can't think of an environment, aside from maybe SC2 and other e-sports designed for it, where the gulf between different playstyles is so dramatic. Subtle differences in personal preferences can, due to glaring imbalance, hand someone a massive advantage over other people, even who are otherwise similar: WAAC Eldar versus WAAC SM isn't even a competition, to say nothing of the hardcore fluffbunny's; what fluff you like has very real game implications; footslogging guard versus Fish of Fury as two suboptimal examples with massive power differences.

And because this is a much more social exercise than any video game; you play quite often with the same people you know in your regular life over the course of several hours and can't simply go "feth off donkey-cave" and leave a server that isn't to your liking, there's a lot of social harm caused by it. What the article is suggesting is something which is kind of a fact of life for having fun in 40k; negotiate the hell out of every game. GW has abdicated any and all responsibility for making a functional ruleset, which is so broad and ill-defined that the probability of two players just showing up and having a fun game is not exactly high. Tournaments are actually a good expression of that; they have their list of house-rules, the missions expected and everyone going agrees on what kind of game they are playing a well-organized campaign can do the same; the type of games expected are clear, houserules defined and so on. If you do not like what is on offer, you do not participate (or undermine it from within in protest of what you don't like, as I've had some fun managing in the past). Pick-up games and "casual" play don't have that structure; the ruleset doesn't provide it, and so we as players need to. The only way I play 40k anymore is either against players I know I'm a very good match for, something one can develop over years of playing together, or through heavy negotation, i.e. "Alright, let's try and build some roughly equivalent lists for an urban battlefield using Hammer and Anvil with Maelstrom where you discard any objective you can't accomplish," and we basically have to co-operatively build lists.

Adds a lot of lead-time to the game, and it really shouldn't be neccessary, but when the choice is between unacknowladged or anticipated playstyles resulting in the whole experience being a waste of time for one or the other because GW can't be arsed to make a remotely functional game, that's what I do.

Or I play 30k where, due to actual playtesting, a functional modified ruleset and a more controlled selection of factions designed to work against each other, it isn't important at all. Reminds me of 5th edition when the only "extra" effort required was "Dude, don't bring Draigowing again, I'm bored of it" Our group was a lot happier then, it was actively growing rather than stagnant and the store was making a good deal more money off 40k; competitive, casual, complete newbie with no idea what you were doing, really didn't matter much, the ruleset for all its design faults still present provided enough of a framework that differences of perceptions and playstyle weren't critical. The difference between the most hardcore, RAW, power-gamer and the fluffybunny CSM players was an uphill battle, not turn 2 tabling and heaps of vitriol being plied between them.

"By scrubs, for scrubs" is pretty accurate to 40k.

It's been obvious that 40k's rules are left open to interpretation for whatever reason rather than being clear and concise, and while that's fine for groups that know each other (which seems to be GW's intended people playing) it's terrible for pickup games where you might not really know the person you're playing or not know them at all.

What I find most disturbing/amusing about these BOLS articles is that people are okay with it. It really is like a cult, they don't even realize that GW is the outlier here, other games don't write rules in a weird format and leave it up to you to decide what they mean. Other games don't require you to negotiate what makes a fun game with a prospective opponent, the only negotiation tends to be asking if they want to play at all, and then how many points.

The closest analogy to how 40k works seems to be the historical games of yore, think like 70s era Napoleonic wargaming clubs (which I guess could still exist today) where you had to talk about what battle you wanted, how it was set up, who should get what, how you should handle logistics, and the like.

I also definitely agree (and disagree with the article) that the onus is somehow on one player more than the other to dumb down their list so the other player doesn't have a negative experience. In fact, that view is what got me called out by Warmachine players, no less, perhaps because I had more than a little bit of vitriol at the idea of a competitive player being forced to "scrub it up" so the casual player doesn't feel overwhelmed. In fact that entire idea stinks of modern political correctness, and while I don't want to get too much into that can of worms I'll leave it at being akin to the idea of teaching children that everyone is a winner.

Yeah, it really is weird, Wayne. Not only are they okay with the rules the way they are, they'd gladly pay more for them! Even while knowing the rules are never actually being improved, they'll happily pay GW higher and higher prices for rules that last a year or two. Heck, I sometimes see the argument that the rules should be more expensive!

It's absolutely insane, I can't understand paying a company for such a low-value product with such enthusiasm. It feels a bit unique to 40k.

 Accolade wrote:
Heck, I sometimes see the argument that the rules should be more expensive!

No...no...no...

Where? I must see this with my own eyes.

 Accolade wrote:
Yeah, it really is weird, Wayne. Not only are they okay with the rules the way they are, they'd gladly pay more for them! Even while knowing the rules are never actually being improved, they'll happily pay GW higher and higher prices for rules that last a year or two. Heck, I sometimes see the argument that the rules should be more expensive!

It's absolutely insane, I can't understand paying a company for such a low-value product with such enthusiasm. It feels a bit unique to 40k.

It's a legacy thing; 40k has been a big thing in people's lives for a long, long time. I've been into the IP, though not the actual tabletop game until the last few years, since I was in my young teens. I put up with some level of gak which I wouldn't in other product lines. Same deal with Star Trek, Starwars, anything which people love the idea of will put up with bad executions thereof, some fanatically so.

For someone like me who's more into the IP than the tabletop game, I've reached the point where I won't buy any more rules from GW; i'll play the game as best I can, keep an eye on Black Library or the licensed PC games, but I'm not going to reward GW prime for anything else, they've exhausted my patience. But at the same time, I'm not about to sell things and bugger off, which I would do were Infinity, for instance, to take some consistent bad turns; my investment in time, money and personal enthusiasm was never and likely never will be the same; they screw up, I'll cut my losses and leave.

For people in my group who have a lot more of their personal self worth or enjoyment tied up in 40k, they're still buying stuff up; the codexes, supplements, models, the works. They complain, they get frustrated, they don't like the direction but they're not about to cut drastically just yet. Some are getting there, some have a long time ago, one or two might never, and no matter how bad they know things are they'll keep buying stuff up.

One even thinks there aren't any problems and if we just maintain a stiff upper lip and roll with it there are no problems (he may or may not play Eldar).

 MajorStoffer wrote:
So what? Everyone has different ways to approach a game at all levels, the problem is only in games where those playstyles don't function well together.
...
this is a much more social exercise than any video game; you play quite often with the same people you know in your regular life over the course of several hours and can't simply go "feth off donkey-cave" and leave a server that isn't to your liking, there's a lot of social harm caused by it. What the article is suggesting is something which is kind of a fact of life for having fun in 40k; negotiate the hell out of every game.

That all sounds fine and agreeable, but compromise is only a good option when both positions are equally valid. Not all positions really are equally valid though, some are just downright unreasonable.

Imagine (for example) that you have two dreadnoughts, and then I steal them off the gaming table. Then later I get caught (arrested), and I say to you "Hey let's compromise, you can have one back, and I'll just keep one. One each is a fair comprimise, right?". I hope you'd tell me to feth off. Because I have no business stealing your stuff, you have the law on your side, and also I've already been arrested so I'm in no position to negotiate. That's not a compromise, it's just me being a dick.

Right now in 40k there are a lot of people who are kind of being dicks. Insisting that other people should "negotiate" and "compromise" when said 'other people' are not doing anything wrong, and have the rules on their side.

I'm kind of straying into an offensive analogy here, so I'm sorry, I'm not trying to liken any one group to "thieves" or get into hyperbole. I just think a lot of the people who are going around shouting "unfair" are, in fact, the ones who are being the most unfair themselves, by expecting something that they really are not entitled to (which is other people "going easy" on them).

EDIT: reworded some stuff.

 RatBot wrote:
RE the article with the wicked evil Hound who made the PTSD victim have flashbacks;

I will agree that The Hound was a jerk when he tried to insist that you can't quit because THE RULES say you have to quit in a certain way; that's an idiotic rule, whoever wrote it is an idiot, and The Hound is a bit of a tool for insisting it be followed.

I don't know know the game so I can only speculate, but in a game like poker you're not supposed to fold out of turn because it would influence the betting. You also can't pick up your chips and leave halfway through a hand, because that's cheating. I can think of lots of reason why someone quitting at an inappropriate moment might impact the game and be unfair on other players. I used to play a strategy game online where capturing another player's HQ would mean you knock them out the game and also inherit all their resources (a huge advantage). Oftentimes, during multiplayer games, people would wait until the very last moment, and then resign the game just before their HQ fell, so all their resources would return to neutral instead of being captured. There wasn't any rule against this, sometimes people would do it to help their own team, or their friends in FFA. Sometimes it was just out of spite for the person who knocked you out. What's important though is it had a huge impact on the outcome of the game. I don't know how the game in the story works, but it stands to reason that if you're not allowed to withdraw while you're being attacked, then it might be because it does something unfair.

This discussion is making me glad I played Fantasy more than 40K - at least there were alternative games where I could use the figures when the rules became unplayable bits of garbage.

[Insert Game of Choice] is a much better balanced game than WHFB. I am glad that folks were bale to use their existing armies in a better game.

The Auld Grump - for me [Insert Game of Choice] is Kings of War - but I have heard good things about other games as well.

WayneTheGame wrote:

I also definitely agree (and disagree with the article) that the onus is somehow on one player more than the other to dumb down their list so the other player doesn't have a negative experience. In fact, that view is what got me called out by Warmachine players, no less, perhaps because I had more than a little bit of vitriol at the idea of a competitive player being forced to "scrub it up" so the casual player doesn't feel overwhelmed. In fact that entire idea stinks of modern political correctness, and while I don't want to get too much into that can of worms I'll leave it at being akin to the idea of teaching children that everyone is a winner.

I could talk about Malifaux, meself. I learned to play it against the host of our gaming group, who loved it so much he became a Wyrd Henchman. Now me, I went fluffy. I liked the look and sound of Hoffman most, so I took him and a few robots. Hoffman back then was one of the weakest masters. Could barely walk, let alone run, etc. Whereas my opponent could call on a wide range of crews and some terrifying masters like Lady Justice, Mei Feng, etc., and he 'brought it'. Most of our games ended up with me taking a savage beating, and I ended up disliking the game. But I didn't blame the guy. Not to claim some kind of moral high ground myself, but it didn't even occur to me to go scrub and wheedle him or anyone else to neuter their crews; they were what they were. And what they were was pretty apparent: that Malifaux was subject to some bad, 40K-like imbalance and power creep (a quick comparison of the 1st ed peacekeeper and rail golem would tell that much) and as a result also too dependent on some form of listbuilding.

Auldgrump: I hear ya. Although that's part of the tragedy of what Wayne, Accolade and Majorstoffer have been saying: there are decent-to-good alternatives that people can slot their 40K minis right into, but unless entire gaming groups (like your good example) get sick of 40K at the same time, it can be an uphill struggle. The GW hooks go so deep that people can't even conceive that other rules might be viable, let alone mixing and matching their existing minis with those rule sets. Forget about shifting to another game entirely.

I don't know know the game so I can only speculate, but in a game like poker you're not supposed to fold out of turn because it would influence the betting. You also can't pick up your chips and leave halfway through a hand, because that's cheating. I can think of lots of reason why someone quitting at an inappropriate moment might impact the game and be unfair on other players. I used to play a strategy game online where capturing another player's HQ would mean you knock them out the game and also inherit all their resources (a huge advantage). Oftentimes, during multiplayer games, people would wait until the very last moment, and then resign the game just before their HQ fell, so all their resources would return to neutral instead of being captured. There wasn't any rule against this, sometimes people would do it to help their own team, or their friends in FFA. Sometimes it was just out of spite for the person who knocked you out. What's important though is it had a huge impact on the outcome of the game. I don't know how the game in the story works, but it stands to reason that if you're not allowed to withdraw while you're being attacked, then it might be because it does something unfair.

That's possible and I hadn't considered it, but I'm under the impression from the article that it was a one-on-one game so I'd think there'd be zero difference between losing and quitting, but I'm just making assumptions.


I have actually found the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules online, and while I don't have time to sit down and read them right now, apparently there are rules on "withdrawing" from the game, and if you do so you actually get a "victory point", but I would argue that that's completely different from "I quit, you win" which is what I assume 'Sansa' or whatever the hell the example is (never watched or read Game of Thrones) wanted to do. Like, if it was me, it's just "I'm not withdrawing, I'm quitting. You win."

 Smacks wrote:
That all sounds fine and agreeable, but compromise is only a good option when both positions are equally valid. Not all positions really are equally valid though, some are just downright unreasonable.

Imagine (for example) that you have two dreadnoughts, and then I steal them off the gaming table. Then later I get caught (arrested), and I say to you "Hey let's compromise, you can have one back, and I'll just keep one. One each is a fair comprimise, right?". I hope you'd tell me to feth off. Because I have no business stealing your stuff, you have the law on your side, and also I've already been arrested so I'm in no position to negotiate. That's not a compromise, it's just me being a dick.

Right now in 40k there are a lot of people who are kind of being dicks. Insisting that other people should "negotiate" and "compromise" when said 'other people' are not doing anything wrong, and have the rules on their side.

I'm kind of straying into an offensive analogy here, so I'm sorry, I'm not trying to liken any one group to "thieves" or get into hyperbole. I just think a lot of the people who are going around shouting "unfair" are, in fact, the ones who are being the most unfair themselves, by expecting something that they really are not entitled to (which is other people "going easy" on them).

EDIT: reworded some stuff.

The problem with taking the legalist approach with 40k is the rules barely function in a fundamentally social experiment. Assuming your opponent will follow the rules as written when they are vague, self-contradictory and in many cases fundamentally broken is no better than someone yelling "CHEESY TFG!" when you don't conform to their view of the game, they're two sides of the same problem. Negotiation isn't really the solution in general either; it is between two players who use that as their means to continue enjoying 40k, it's one of many valid approaches to making the whole frankenstein mess work, sort of, but what's key, and what the original article emphasized is making it clear what kind of game each player wants. A fluffbunny jumping into a PUG without stating how he likes to play is no different or problematic than someone who expects a complete RAW approach. What matters is each player be clear about what kind of the game they want beforehand. Expecting a fluffybunny to play RAW is no better than expecting a RAW player to play casual, but by being clear about who you are and what you want from the get-go the two players can find a solution. Is compromise viable to both of them? Swell, awesome. Do they not want to change how they play and decide it would be better to find alternate opponents? Also awesome, you just avoided any real unpleasantness or wasting time.

Moral highground or superiority doesn't enter the equation; it's a badly written game with awful balance run by a gakky amoral company, take steps to keep having fun, whatever version of fun you're down for.

 RatBot wrote:


I have actually found the Vampire: The Eternal Struggle rules online, and while I don't have time to sit down and read them right now, apparently there are rules on "withdrawing" from the game, and if you do so you actually get a "victory point", but I would argue that that's completely different from "I quit, you win" which is what I assume 'Sansa' or whatever the hell the example is (never watched or read Game of Thrones) wanted to do. Like, if it was me, it's just "I'm not withdrawing, I'm quitting. You win."

Withdrawing from the game in VtES isn't quitting the game, you need to jump through several (very difficult) hoops to successfully withdraw from a game and people only actually do it to win the game (since the game is decided on victory points).

 Vermis wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

I also definitely agree (and disagree with the article) that the onus is somehow on one player more than the other to dumb down their list so the other player doesn't have a negative experience. In fact, that view is what got me called out by Warmachine players, no less, perhaps because I had more than a little bit of vitriol at the idea of a competitive player being forced to "scrub it up" so the casual player doesn't feel overwhelmed. In fact that entire idea stinks of modern political correctness, and while I don't want to get too much into that can of worms I'll leave it at being akin to the idea of teaching children that everyone is a winner.

I could talk about Malifaux, meself. I learned to play it against the host of our gaming group, who loved it so much he became a Wyrd Henchman. Now me, I went fluffy. I liked the look and sound of Hoffman most, so I took him and a few robots. Hoffman back then was one of the weakest masters. Could barely walk, let alone run, etc. Whereas my opponent could call on a wide range of crews and some terrifying masters like Lady Justice, Mei Feng, etc., and he 'brought it'. Most of our games ended up with me taking a savage beating, and I ended up disliking the game. But I didn't blame the guy. Not to claim some kind of moral high ground myself, but it didn't even occur to me to go scrub and wheedle him or anyone else to neuter their crews; they were what they were. And what they were was pretty apparent: that Malifaux was subject to some bad, 40K-like imbalance and power creep (a quick comparison of the 1st ed peacekeeper and rail golem would tell that much) and as a result also too dependent on some form of listbuilding.

Auldgrump: I hear ya. Although that's part of the tragedy of what Wayne, Accolade and Majorstoffer have been saying: there are decent-to-good alternatives that people can slot their 40K minis right into, but unless entire gaming groups (like your good example) get sick of 40K at the same time, it can be an uphill struggle. The GW hooks go so deep that people can't even conceive that other rules might be viable, let alone mixing and matching their existing minis with those rule sets. Forget about shifting to another game entirely.

Right, some of these people seem to have literally become Arco-Flagellants or similar and been lobotomized by the Imperium (i.e. GW) where they can't see anything else. I mean I get still enjoying 40k despite its flaws, but there are a lot of people that don't see any flaws with 40k at all and will vehemently argue that it has no flaws.

 MajorStoffer wrote:
The problem with taking the legalist approach with 40k is the rules barely function in a fundamentally social experiment. Assuming your opponent will follow the rules as written when they are vague, self-contradictory and in many cases fundamentally broken is no better than someone yelling "CHEESY TFG!" when you don't conform to their view of the game.

I agree that the rules are a mess, but most of the bitching is related to other people's lists. The army lists are far from perfect, but they are fairly simple and clear on what you can take and how much things cost. I don't think you will find much there that is confusing or contradictory.

A fluffbunny jumping into a PUG without stating how he likes to play is no different or problematic than someone who expects a complete RAW approach.

I'm worried that we might be starting to confuse "legal army list" with "RAW fundamentalism". A person who turns up to a PUG with a legal army and no other expectations, is not going to have the same kind of problems as a fluffbunny who's looking for something very specific.

what the original article emphasized is making it clear what kind of game each player wants.

Well it depends what you mean by "emphasized". That is certainly the take-away message from the last couple of paragraphs, but the previous 95% of the text consists of long meandering anecdotes stressing how diabolical competitive gaming is. So all things considered, I feel that's the message that was emphasized.

Also, competitive players aren't going to give a gak if someone brings a fluffy list and wants to get beaten. So the article being "for the benefit of everyone" is disingenuous. And the idea of self declaring would only work if people saw themselves the same way that others see them, which they don't. One man's power gamer is another man's pwnt n00b. So the whole thing comes across as some kind of self-affirmation, to justify being a scrub like it's some kind of lifestyle choice.

 RatBot wrote:
That's possible and I hadn't considered it, but I'm under the impression from the article that it was a one-on-one game so I'd think there'd be zero difference between losing and quitting, but I'm just making assumptions.

Three people are named in the story, so I presume they were all playing. Though it sounded like the writer himself was not there, and he has an axe to grind, so it's questionable how much is completely truthful. In any case, the character he called The Hound was just playing a game, and apparently winning, and the other person obviously had a panic attack because they have mental health issues which are nothing to do with how someone plays a game. It was a pretty stupid story, and even stupider to blame what happened on the poor guy who was just playing cards.

I have yet to read any of the response comments, but this post was really something. I don't follow RPG news myself so this was very interesting, not to mention informative. A different example that this reminds me of is Blizzard Entertainment's history of handling of World of Warcraft. I used to play the game in the early Burning Crusade era. I wasn't there for vanilla but I was close enough to experience the tail end of what was there before it was all wiped clean and replaced with instances and linear paths and quests. They actually designed the world to be explored, and rewarded you for doing so. Quests would challenge you to traverse the land and discover new things you wouldn't have otherwise noticed. They were almost a means to the end, and the end being exploration and story telling. Those were the days...

But my point is that Blizzard listened to its fans. And you know what its fans wanted? They wanted more grinding. Of course they didn't say it in that way, but it was all "make A, B, and C" easier to do. When you're not faced with a challenge, you're just killing and getting loot, killing and getting loot. Grinding. They wanted less time flying to locations, less time sailing on ships, less money on mounts, the point of the game was quickly relegated to instanced play, leaving what was once an actual half-decent open world as nothing more than a lobby with background scenery in which you can grind to better prepare for all the instancing. To compound this, people were complaining about asymmetry. One class can do something better than the other classes. The classes weren't exactly balanced, but instead of taking the route of DOTA (and League of Legends? I never played League) and simply making every class overpowered in their own way, they listened to the fans. And the fans didn't give them creativity, the fans gave them DEATH. Nerf this ability! Nerf that one! That one's unfair, and get rid of that! Of course there's always someone there to throw in a empowering idea or two, but it's always just one drop in the rain of "NERF THIS PLZ" So Blizzard did. They listened to the majority, and what we're left with is a game in which you can wander into the woods, fight your way into a clearly guarded house to find an inviting looking chest literally sitting on a pedestal in the center of the room, the only thing missing being a neon arrow-sign pointing to it saying "Check this out!" in flashing lights. And when you manage to get to it, you are unable to interact with it in any way. You are unable to interact with anything there. Left with no option but to return to the village (quest hub) to play out a predictable storyline that eventually takes you back to that closely-guarded house that you need to desperately fight your way back inside because now that you're on this quest you can interact with this part of the world. Everyone in the game is fine with this. At least enough to keep paying for it. There are other factors, I admit. But again, my point is that it's not a result of Blizzard just deciding to destroy the adventure. It's a result of Blizzard listening to millions of zombies who just want to spend the money they made working to log onto an online game where they can work some more. Zombies. I'm glad the Elder Scrolls games exist. Otherwise I'd feel like everyone's this dead inside.

Maybe I should have made this into its own thread...

 Quarterdime wrote:


I have yet to read any of the response comments, but this post was really something. I don't follow RPG news myself so this was very interesting, not to mention informative. A different example that this reminds me of is Blizzard Entertainment's history of handling of World of Warcraft. I used to play the game in the early Burning Crusade era. I wasn't there for vanilla but I was close enough to experience the tail end of what was there before it was all wiped clean and replaced with instances and linear paths and quests. They actually designed the world to be explored, and rewarded you for doing so. Quests would challenge you to traverse the land and discover new things you wouldn't have otherwise noticed. They were almost a means to the end, and the end being exploration and story telling. Those were the days...

But my point is that Blizzard listened to its fans. And you know what its fans wanted? They wanted more grinding. Of course they didn't say it in that way, but it was all "make A, B, and C" easier to do. When you're not faced with a challenge, you're just killing and getting loot, killing and getting loot. Grinding. They wanted less time flying to locations, less time sailing on ships, less money on mounts, the point of the game was quickly relegated to instanced play, leaving what was once an actual half-decent open world as nothing more than a lobby with background scenery in which you can grind to better prepare for all the instancing. To compound this, people were complaining about asymmetry. One class can do something better than the other classes. The classes weren't exactly balanced, but instead of taking the route of DOTA (and League of Legends? I never played League) and simply making every class overpowered in their own way, they listened to the fans. And the fans didn't give them creativity, the fans gave them DEATH. Nerf this ability! Nerf that one! That one's unfair, and get rid of that! Of course there's always someone there to throw in a empowering idea or two, but it's always just one drop in the rain of "NERF THIS PLZ" So Blizzard did. They listened to the majority, and what we're left with is a game in which you can wander into the woods, fight your way into a clearly guarded house to find an inviting looking chest literally sitting on a pedestal in the center of the room, the only thing missing being a neon arrow-sign pointing to it saying "Check this out!" in flashing lights. And when you manage to get to it, you are unable to interact with it in any way. You are unable to interact with anything there. Left with no option but to return to the village (quest hub) to play out a predictable storyline that eventually takes you back to that closely-guarded house that you need to desperately fight your way back inside because now that you're on this quest you can interact with this part of the world. Everyone in the game is fine with this. At least enough to keep paying for it. There are other factors, I admit. But again, my point is that it's not a result of Blizzard just deciding to destroy the adventure. It's a result of Blizzard listening to millions of zombies who just want to spend the money they made working to log onto an online game where they can work some more. Zombies. I'm glad the Elder Scrolls games exist. Otherwise I'd feel like everyone's this dead inside.

Maybe I should have made this into its own thread...

Are you saying that GW shouldn't listen to the players? 'Cause they aint listening now and the game and finances are crap.

 RatBot wrote:
With that said; do not the Author of the article and his friends bear a modicum of responsibility? They took a person who they knew was mentally fragile and both brand new to the game and a player who they knew to be a bit of a hardass in the games he plays, and they did not tell either player what to expect from their opponent. Seems like an donkey-cave move to me. If I knew someone who was both new to a game and mentally fragile, and also someone who enjoys playing brutally competitively, I might try to make sure both sides knew where the other was coming from. If The Hound has literally only ever played the game from a cutthroat standpoint, I don't think it should be very surprising that he didn't consider any other possibility.


EDIT: To clarify, it sounds like the Author and his friends passively sat there and watched as PTSD and Hound agreed to play a game and Hound spent all game completely overwhelming her.

But if they did that, or just didn't let them play each other, then they wouldn't have an article. Apparently PTSD was a necessary sacrifice to show the world how competitive players are all just relentless bullies and dicks.

 Quarterdime wrote:


I have yet to read any of the response comments, but this post was really something. I don't follow RPG news myself so this was very interesting, not to mention informative. A different example that this reminds me of is Blizzard Entertainment's history of handling of World of Warcraft. I used to play the game in the early Burning Crusade era. I wasn't there for vanilla but I was close enough to experience the tail end of what was there before it was all wiped clean and replaced with instances and linear paths and quests. They actually designed the world to be explored, and rewarded you for doing so. Quests would challenge you to traverse the land and discover new things you wouldn't have otherwise noticed. They were almost a means to the end, and the end being exploration and story telling. Those were the days...

But my point is that Blizzard listened to its fans. And you know what its fans wanted? They wanted more grinding. Of course they didn't say it in that way, but it was all "make A, B, and C" easier to do. When you're not faced with a challenge, you're just killing and getting loot, killing and getting loot. Grinding. They wanted less time flying to locations, less time sailing on ships, less money on mounts, the point of the game was quickly relegated to instanced play, leaving what was once an actual half-decent open world as nothing more than a lobby with background scenery in which you can grind to better prepare for all the instancing. To compound this, people were complaining about asymmetry. One class can do something better than the other classes. The classes weren't exactly balanced, but instead of taking the route of DOTA (and League of Legends? I never played League) and simply making every class overpowered in their own way, they listened to the fans. And the fans didn't give them creativity, the fans gave them DEATH. Nerf this ability! Nerf that one! That one's unfair, and get rid of that! Of course there's always someone there to throw in a empowering idea or two, but it's always just one drop in the rain of "NERF THIS PLZ" So Blizzard did. They listened to the majority, and what we're left with is a game in which you can wander into the woods, fight your way into a clearly guarded house to find an inviting looking chest literally sitting on a pedestal in the center of the room, the only thing missing being a neon arrow-sign pointing to it saying "Check this out!" in flashing lights. And when you manage to get to it, you are unable to interact with it in any way. You are unable to interact with anything there. Left with no option but to return to the village (quest hub) to play out a predictable storyline that eventually takes you back to that closely-guarded house that you need to desperately fight your way back inside because now that you're on this quest you can interact with this part of the world. Everyone in the game is fine with this. At least enough to keep paying for it. There are other factors, I admit. But again, my point is that it's not a result of Blizzard just deciding to destroy the adventure. It's a result of Blizzard listening to millions of zombies who just want to spend the money they made working to log onto an online game where they can work some more. Zombies. I'm glad the Elder Scrolls games exist. Otherwise I'd feel like everyone's this dead inside.

Maybe I should have made this into its own thread...

I'm not exactly sure what this has to do with any of these articles.

Blizzard listened to it's customers and a small portion of the customers didn't like it.

Are you trying to say people complaining about issues in 40k are the majority and GW shouldn't listen to them because... they don't like money?

Or are you trying to make some sort of similarity between someone with a minority view about WoW and people that dislike the current direction of the game being the minority... when we have no idea what the actual profitability of each group is?

As a current/former WoW player, no. Blizzard listened to the majority of its players and made the game more accessible and the minority at the very top started bitching because they couldn't be unique snowflakes anymore.

Now that I am properly enlightened re what "withdrawing" means in the context of VtES, I think only one of the following conclusions can be drawn:

1.) The Hound insisted that Victim was not allowed to quit, in which case, Hound is a dick and Author and friends are idiots for not saying "Dude, stop being a dick and let her quit."

2.) Victim kept saying that she wanted to withdraw when she meant quit because she, being a new player, was possibly using the incorrect terminology, in which case, Hound, Author, or Author's friends should've chimed in "Do you mean you want to quit?"

3.)The entire story is fabricated (which to be fair I doubt is the case), or has been exaggerated to paint competitive players in a bad light.

Regardless, even if Hound was a dick, Author and friends were also complicit as accomplices to dickery.