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.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Even typing all of that out would be insulting and telling a lie.

Its not insulting, and its not telling a lie. You're making it out to be an insult for reasons unknown, which rest entirely on your perception. If you feel that the problems with the game should either be solved by the players or that the players in any way shape or form make it worse by taking anything they want within the confine of rules, you're defending GW's actions. The extent to which can be debated, but it doesn't make that stance any less apologist.

No one is saying that GW is not doing anything detrimental to the game and often it is the exact same things that we feel are detrimental. Just because we feel that GW is not the only company doing so or that we are admitting that there is no such thing as a perfect game because no matter how much one person "likes" a rule, there will always be someone else who doesnt or because we feel that there are better ways to address than just going online and finding some "whipping boy" to "beat up on" (who often actually agrees with you) is not the way to address the issue does not make us apologists.

Stop foisting this perfect game analogy. Everyone is aware no game is perfect. No one has argued that since time immemorial. Whenever you bring up this fallacy, you invalidate your own point and much of anything else you have to say. For the sake of your own arguments, do not reference this perfect game nonsense.

If you're paying attention to the discussion happening, there are people who believe its the player's responsibility to not use certain units for fear of being a WAAC TFG. That stance is most definitely an apologist stance as it shifts the responsibility from GW onto the players and ignores so much of what some people may enjoy about the game. That is the issue at hand, and what is being referred to in this case as being an apologist. And it most certainly is.

You can also drop the hyperbole of claiming people go online just to find someone as a whipping boy. Get over yourself. Go read through your own comments in this thread. You've asserted that GW games are a seperate hobby unto themselves, that rock paper scissors requires balancing and fixing, and that balance problems can be solved by buying a different army. In all three of those cases you are undeniably and laughably incorrect. If you feel like you're being unfairly picked on, maybe consider that your thoughts are not strong, cogent, relevant, or correct in any way.

In my case, your preaching to the choir in many cases because i felt that way long before you did, I am only more polite in addressing it.

You can also drop this holier than thou nonsense about being more polite. You've accused plenty of people on this forum for breaking various rules, yet yourself found to be in the wrong in most of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

Also also

Spoiler:

Flithy Blacksails you've insulted people before, I promised I'd find the proof of you not getting the repercussions of doing such things

 Blacksails wrote:
We don't have every single detail of the codex, so we couldn't possibly form an informed opinion.

We must have faith in GW's superior balancing ability.

What could a bunch of random forum goers know about game design anyways?

ImAGeek, you're probably a nerd anyways.

You're alright in my books Mozzy.

Mozzy,
I don't disagree with your point.

I think the analogy doesn't work because we're talking about different things.

One claim is that the game should be balanced. While this presupposes that it currently isn't, I havent seen anyone in this thread argue that.

The other claim is that, with the current state of the game, taking more "reasonable" lists outside comparative environments would be a good thing.

Claiming that the second claim is invalid because the first claim is true is what's throwing some of us through a loop.

Claiming that supporting the second claim means we're rejecting the first claim is a bit off.

The analogy was about rejecting the second claim because you support the first claim.

The issue then comes back to what reasonable is.

If you and your opponent can both agree to a reasonable compromise where on side lowers the power level and the other raises their's to match, power to you.

If you and your oppoent can't agree to a compromise, you should find other players, or suffer through a one sided match (or enjoy it, if that's your thing, 40k BDSM?).

Either way, so long as everyone acknowledge that the responsibility ultimately rests on GW's shoulders, and that having to negotiate your list is a symptom of the poor state of the game, then I can't fault much else in people's thinking. There's just no way to define a universal reasonable, and it comes down to you and your opponent, which varies too much to write down even the roughest of guidelines.

In the end, the final solution is to not throw money at GW and basically mash together a bunch of editions and codices to form some super house rules Franken-40k, but that only works with close knit groups unfortunately.

*Edit* Added humour to ensure serious levels remain below critical. I also struggle with words tonight.

What is "reasonable" is actually the issue. You have issues that are "reasonable or unreasonable" in any game you play.

One side here says that it is possible for 2 players to communicate and work out what is reasonable and work together to have a fun game. This is not always possible of course but it CAN be done in many cases. It is the opinion of this side that the rules are broken but that with work among like minded players, it can be addressed in many settings.

The other side is saying that the opinions of side 1 are not valid at all because of the underlying rules being broken.

I can see both sides and see neither as being of an apologist stance. It is true that we should not have to work so hard to agree on reasonable. Acknowledging that here is that issue and finding a way around it till it is adressed is not a bad thing. Sometimes a pain in the rear of course though. But i am not going to call someone names just because they are willing to put in hard work when they shouldnt have to to have fun playing a game in a mythos they love. Instead I will applaud their ingenuity, maybe ask what "standards" they are using and possibly ask them hat exact issues they are having that they want addressed and add them to the list to take to GW if they are not already on your list.
A united front is much stronger than a divided one.

Peregrin wrote:1) There is no such thing as a "standard" troops choice. Some troops are infantry, some are vehicles (whether it's LRBTs in an armored company or just token scoring units in Wave Serpents), some are jetbikes, some are jump/jetpack infantry, some are cavalry, etc.

Ok. So you're telling me that if I had all of the codices in front of me, and I went to the section entitled "Troops," the majority wouldn't be infantry?

2) The CAD still allows you to take 1 HQ, 2 troops, and then 3 each of fast attack and heavy support. For example, IG can take Pask, two veteran squads in Chimeras, three Hellhound squadrons and three LRBT squadrons. That's a pure vehicle army with token infantry squads to fill a FOC requirement, not a "mostly infantry" army like you seem to think the CAD FOC demands.

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. Did I say "demands"?

3) You've moved the goalposts. What you originally said was that the CAD pushes you to have a mix of infantry/vehicles/MCs/etc, not that it makes you take infantry. A pure infantry army disproves your claim just as well as a pure vehicle army.

Why don't you go get your codex? Open it up, and go to the "troops' section. What percent are infantry? What percent vehicle? What percent are monstrous creatures? Then switch over to fast attack. What percent infantry? What percent vehicle? What percent monstrous creatures? I can keep questioning you along these lines. You can see where I'm going with this.

Of course that's a random mix of units. That's a straightforward "take a little of everything" list with no coherent purpose behind it.

Translation: "If it's not a spam/cheese list, it's 'take a little of everything' with no coherent purpose."

Ok. Just so we're clear on that.

And yet over and over again you talk about it, even if you never explicitly say the word "fun". Your position is very clear: you play the game the "right" way, and everyone who doesn't play it your way is a WAAC TFG.

He's not a WAAC TFG because he's not having fun or because he makes the game less fun for other people. He's a WAAC TFG because 1. he takes advantage of unfair rules, and this, 2. without concern to how that affects everyone else. He displays a habitually unjust character (albeit probably in a minor degree; it is, after all, only a game).

In fact (with respect to not caring about how his actions affect everyone else), the gentleman from Alabama will insist that the rules are broken. He will insist that the rules for the wraithknight are unfair. And then he'll buy 2. He'll insist that scatter bikes are broken. And then he'll buy 30.

In the long run, who is really to blame for breaking the game? GW or people like the gentleman from Alabama? GW's a business. What's our gentleman's excuse?

Nice job ignoring the rest of that argument, where I pointed out that what is "fair" in one metagame is "overpowered cheese" in another and "why are you wasting my time with such a weak list" in a third. Which means that, like I said, "fairness" depends on your point of view.

We're talking past each other. Your claim is: "But look, in a certain meta, everyone is using broken, overpowered stuff. So it balances."

That doesn't have anything to do with the point that I'm making: in point of fact, there are broken, overpowered components in warhammer, and if you take advantage of these broken, overpowered components, then you are, by that very fact, at an unfair advantage (albeit not necessarily in relationship to this or that list). You admit this very fact if you admit that there are broken, overpowered components. That's roughly the same thing as saying "there are unfair components." Yes, you stop being at an unfair advantage if everyone plays like that, but so what? That's not what I'm talking about.

No, because that's a stupid and irrelevant claim to make. See my other post about the bait and switch you're attempting to do.

Then you admit that there are unfair components to the game. If you take advantage of those components, then you are taking advantage of unfair components. That's trivially true.

Hmmm isn't another rule is to stay on topic, and this thread isn't about talking about the rules of Dakka.

My take is that it's kind of pointless to argue what's acceptable gaming etiquette is on the internet when what's going to be actually acceptable and indeed possible is dependent on where and who you are playing with. In other words, this threads not going to go anywhere soon, you're all going to just keep arguing with each other until a mod locks it.

 EVIL INC wrote:

Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.

No they don't.

 EVIL INC wrote:
Again, using the definition of the word, it is insulting and telling a lie as it does not represent the stance of those you are calling an apologist.

Once more EVIL, its not insulting because you feel it is. Its not the intention, its not the definition. If you are personally offended, that is entirely your problem, and no amount of stating you're offended will change that or make anyone care. So once more, get over yourself.

The issue being discussed is not the rules at all. There is no such thing as a perfect set and nly differences of opinion as to which sets are more or less perfect.

Technically any issue with the game will be about the rules. A game is literally just a set of rules, and any issues with the game must therefore be issues with the rules.

And once more you mention this perfect game nonsense. Do you even bother reading other people's responses?

the issue is how we as players react to the rules.

Side 1. Says that players CAN take the initiative upon themselves to take reasonable lists. They acknowledge that the rules are broken.

I agree with them in many cases. leagues, private groups and among friends, this is fairly easy to do as the people involved often find it less competitive and know one another's weaknesses. In tournaments or "public games", i feel they are being foolishly optimistic as either there is a prize involved that everyone wants and are willing to "fight for" and B, you are far less likely to be able to have as much "social fun" when playing a stranger and thus will concentrate on the "winning fun".

The issues people are having with so-called 'side 1' is that its being asserted (unintentionally or not) that players should or even must temper their lists and avoid certain units. That's the issue generating friction. I feel everyone here understands that ultimately you and your opponent will have to either work something out or suffer through some power disparity, which is still a problem and symptom.

Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.

I agree with them in that the loopholes and exploits should not be there for players to take advantage of in the first place.
I disagree with them in that I feel that putting the entire hobby and IP to the torch and attacking other players is not the way to address the problems.

Both the sides are not mutually exclusive. Well, you know, except for your insistence on this notion of a perfect game that quite literally NO ONE in this thread or any thread since time immemorial has ever argued. What people want, in a short summary, is for every unit to have a viable function or role within an army list that still requires the player to make meaningful choices in army design that allow for multiple flavours, themes, or styles of play.

Side 1 is not denying that there are issues, they are only saying that there are not harmfull to the other players in the hobby who actually agree with you in other ways.

Honestly EVIL, all this raises a point that you seriously need to work on how you convey your message, because what you intend to say and what you actually say don't seem to match up more often than not.

It doesn't help your case when claim that rock paper scissors needs fixing or balancing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:


My take is that it's kind of pointless to argue what's acceptable gaming etiquette is on the internet when what's going to be actually acceptable and indeed possible is dependent on where and who you are playing with. In other words, this threads not going to go anywhere soon, you're all going to just keep arguing with each other until a mod locks it.

Exactly. Too many people with too many different concepts of what fun, fluffy, casual, thematic, or narrative means to even try to hammer down some sort of acceptable or reasonable set of list building guidelines.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 EVIL INC wrote:

Side 2. Thinks that there should be perfect balance in the rules and codices so that no matter what you choose to field, there will be a 50/50 chance of winning.

No they don't.

Tells you not to call apologists that as it does not reflect their stance.

Makes up stance for opposing side.

Peregrine wrote:So you think that a player who brings an unbound list consisting of a single squad of grots to a 5000 point game should have a roughly 50/50 chance of winning?

Quote abolutely anything that I said in the course of this thread or absolutely any other thread which would give you any reason to think that any such thing should follow from my arguments.

I never said anything remotely like this. Nothing even remotely like this follows from anything that I said.

Ok, here's where you're going wrong with this. You're assuming everyone plays the game the way you do. So, here's the situation in your mind:

Everyone in the group agrees to bring lists with a diverse mix of vehicles/infantry/flyers/etc and refrain from taking "too many" copies of overpowered units. But since this is just an unwritten rule enforced by social pressure there's nothing preventing someone from taking advantage of the lack of explicit bans and bringing their best tournament list. This would be "unfair" because nobody else can match it, and the games wouldn't be much fun.

But here's your problem: you're confusing the balance issues with the exploitation of social norms. The player with the tournament list isn't behaving badly because they took a powerful list, they're behaving badly because they're exploiting the fact that you didn't explicitly say "don't do this" and taking advantage of a loophole in the group's rules. But that isn't the situation in other groups, so your assumption that powerful list = unfair doesn't apply.

Again, false. I am saying that our "competitive power gamers" (if we wish to speak euphamistically; if not, then "WAAC TFG") are playing in an unfair way and they darned well know it. "Wow, why on earth would GW make a wraithknight be worth 295 points? This is undercosted by 50 points. This is so unfair...GW totally sucks to do something like this...I want two of them."

But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.

I'm pretty sure that wraithknights aren't in the space marines codex.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.

I'm pretty sure that wraithknights aren't in the space marines codex.

Well, you have the choice to play Eldar, so you have equal access to anyone else. Plus, allies and unbound and stuff.

According to this definition, it is an insult...
in·sult
verb
inˈsəlt/
1.
speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.
"you're insulting the woman I love"
synonyms: abuse, be rude to, slight, disparage, discredit, libel, slander, malign, defame, denigrate, cast aspersions on, call someone names, put someone down; More
antonyms: compliment
noun
noun: insult; plural noun: insults
ˈinˌsəlt/
1.
a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action.
"he hurled insults at us"
synonyms: abusive remark, jibe, affront, slight, barb, slur, indignity.

But to stay on topic,all that is needed for a post to be on topic is a part of it. You an put in asides and additions within the rules such as discussing the rules so long as part of your post is on the topic at hand, ...

Side one is not saying that players HAVE to temper themselves. They are saying that it is a possibility that CAN be used if desired as a stopgap (not sure if I'm using this correctly) to use until the issue is resolved. A thumb in the dike if you will. It is fully acknowledging the issues that are present but offering it as a reminder that it might be more fun to play the game than argue about it.

yes, I do have issues getting a point across.
Your right, rock paper scissors is rather balanced but even with it, you could add in other "options" for points values and so forth and it would soon become unbalanced.

You don't get to choose how people meant what they say. No one meant it as an insult, you can't pick a definition where it is an insult if that's not how they meant it.

And none of those definitions have anything to do with 'apologist' so I don't know how they prove that everyone was insulting you.

Traditio wrote:

Peregrine wrote:But that's not the case in 40k. Everyone has the same access to all of the rules, including the overpowered ones.

I'm pretty sure that wraithknights aren't in the space marines codex.

The idea is probably that you should bring OP allies or outright switch the army you play if something proves too strong to handle. And that's what really disturbs me in the current game - armies that have weaknesses are supposed to shore them up by bringing another army along while the strong armies can become even stronger with the right allies. Why should I have to bring flyers and AA from outside my SoB Codex when other armies have both? And why can those other armies increase their power even more by taking some nice ally combo when they're already powerful on their own?

ImAGeek wrote:Well, you have the choice to play Eldar, so you have equal access to anyone else. Plus, allies and unbound and stuff.

This line of reasoning openly admits that wraithknights are broken and that it's unfair to use them in the precise way which is permitted by the rules as they stand. You're basically saying: "If you don't use them, and your opponent does, then you are going to get creamed regardless of what you bring. So you'd better bring one (never mind the fact that there is no good fluff reason for eldar and space marines to ally with each other). Wraithknights confer an unfair advantage. So buy one!"




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:The idea is probably that you should bring OP allies or outright switch the army you play if something proves too strong to handle. And that's what really disturbs me in the current game - armies that have weaknesses are supposed to shore them up by bringing another army along while the strong armies can become even stronger with the right allies. Why should I have to bring flyers and AA from outside my SoB Codex when other armies have both? And why can those other armies increase their power even more by taking some nice ally combo when they're already powerful on their own?

I agree. I agree entirely. There is, of course, a perfectly good metagame answer to this: "But of course. GW is a business. They need to sell more codices and models, man."

In game? There's no good reason for this. It reeks of unfairness.

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:Well, you have the choice to play Eldar, so you have equal access to anyone else. Plus, allies and unbound and stuff.

This line of reasoning openly admits that wraithknights are broken and that it's unfair to use them in the precise way which is permitted by the rules as they stand. You're basically saying: "If you don't use them, and your opponent does, then you are going to get creamed regardless of what you bring. So you'd better bring one (never mind the fact that there is no good fluff reason for eldar and space marines to ally with each other). Wraithknights confer an unfair advantage. So buy one!"

Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game, and there's no reason for them not to use them. It's just as unfair to ask them not to use it (if not more) than it is for them to use it.

ImAGeek wrote:Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game

If you specifically purchased the model because it is broken, then yes, it is your fault that you have and are using a broken unit. If you are further aware that the unit is broken and you don't tailor your list accordingly to make it less broken (say, by capping your points at 50 points less than what you're playing against), then you are to blame!

and there's no reason for them not to use them.

Because of fairness/justice.

It's just as unfair to ask them not to use it (if not more) than it is for them to use it.

False. It is not unfair to request that someone not act unfairly. What you just said is a massive self-contradiction...it's right up there with 1984:

"War is peace." "Freedom is slavery."

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:Yes they might be broken, there's nothing in the rules to stop you using them. It's not the players fault the model they spent £70 on, lovingly built and painted is very good in the game

If you specifically purchased the model because it is broken, then yes, it is your fault that you have and are using a broken unit.

What if you didn't? And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?

ImAGeek wrote:What if you didn't?

Really?

Really?

...

...

Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?

And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?

Yes. If the rules are unfair, and you're aware that they're unfair, it is unfair to take advantage of them. Period.

And look. I'm not telling you not to use your wraithknight. I am telling you to cap your list at 50 points less than the allotted number of points for each one you have, though. Because wraithknights should cost that much more, by common concensus.

Traditio wrote:

Really?

Really?

...

...

Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?

Are you seriously proposing this isn't a real possibility?

ImAGeek, the definitions I provided show it to be used as an insult according to the context in which it is used.
You may think it is the players fault for bringing an 'unbalanced list". I disagree with you there. I feel that the fault is with GW for roviding rules that allow for it.
I feel that 2 players should be able to communicate with one another and have a discussion about what they each see as being fair or reasonable and work together as a team to have a game that is "close". I fully acknowledge that this is not always possible. The difference is that many here believe it is impossible in every case and that players should not even make the attempt to pick up GW's slack and that those who try to have fun with what is available should be figuratively burnt at the stake instead of the true culpret which is GW.

Its best at this point to just let EVIL be offended and the rest of us can move on with our feelings unhurt.

Traditio wrote:

ImAGeek wrote:What if you didn't?

Really?

Really?

...

...

Really? Are you seriously proposing this as a real possibility? Tell me, did you have a straight face when you hit the "submit" button? I bet you're still giggling about it, aren't you?

And how do you even police that? There wouldn't even be discussions like this if the game was decently (not perfectly, EVIL, so there's no confusion, just decently) balanced, yet somehow it's the players fault? They're being unfair by running models they spend a lot of time and money on in the confines of the rules?

Yes. If the rules are unfair, and you're aware that they're unfair, it is unfair to take advantage of them. Period.

And look. I'm not telling you not to use your wraithknight. I am telling you to cap your list at 50 points less than the allotted number of points for each one you have, though. Because wraithknights should cost that much more, by common concensus.

Erm, yes? I'm being serious, the Wraithknight is a pretty sweet model, not everyone who buys one will be doing so because it's broken. Obviously. Are YOU being serious..?

And I've not seen any common consensus that WK should be 50pts more. I've seen numbers thrown around but no consensus on anything. This is the internet after all. You aren't going to get a common consensus.

To the people that think that players should houserule the games and personally limit themselves, how do you expect the game to grow.

Now as limited as I am in money and time right now, I'm comfortable in the number of models that I have that I could probably purchase enough to field a less powerful army than GW intentionally gave me.

But I've been in the game a while now. What about the new players? The ones that may have gotten a netlist because they're new and want something that they know will be good to help the learning curve?

How do you tell little Jimmy that he can't field the Wraith host army he bought in the big box last year to get an army on a budget?

What about the rules? How do you expect anyone to be interested in a game where you have to agree to things before it starts, then if there is a question about what you're allowed to do, there is nowhere to look up? That you have to figure it out with a coin toss?

How do you sell someone a game with a rule that you that you'll have to make stuff up on the fly and agree to or flip a coin for? Or that there is some subtlety to making an army that may require you to avoid entire units or equipment without any clear indication to which ones they are?
What about telling the new comer that they're TFG because they picked up a book and saw that scatterlaser bikes seem like a good mobile unit with good offensive power?

GW's sales are going down. Probably because of the reasons above. How do you expect a new player to get into this game?

Blacksails wrote:Are you seriously proposing this isn't a real possibility?

I'm saying that it's laughably improbable in at least the vast majority of cases.

Traditio wrote:


"War is peace." "Freedom is slavery."

And a Scrub* is a Scrub

*I'm using it in the context as outlined in the link. Not derogatory, but simply playing by imaginary rules they've made up and then try to impose on the other players. Scrubs are WAAC TFG types and going on about fair and unfair. Guess what? You bought the rules and play the game. If it's broken, then play something else. You're not the game designer and you're actively forcing your idea of fun on someone else. The finger your pointing is actively being wagged back at you because you cannot define someone else's idea of a fair and fun game.

Eldar are extremely overpowering, without a doubt. But that's because GW is bad at their jobs, at least from game design.

Evil, you can't take offense to "Apologist" because it is not meant to be offensive by use or definition.
You're an American. Do you take offense if I call you such?
You might say "But other people don't like Americans and think they're imperialist arrogant jerks."
That may be, but it has no baring on what the term actually means or how it's used.
"Apologist" is an academic term. Someone who defends something. You say that you agree with those that criticize GW, yet everything you say is in defense of it. If that's not your intention, you need to work on your writing skills because you keep saying that we're misstating your stance. Yet if everyone misunderstands the same way, the fault lies with the writer.
And for the last time, stop talking about perfect balance. It has nothing to do with what anyone is saying.

The WK is a pretty slick model. Frankly, most of the Eldar range is pretty good looking. My wife has a small collection for painting, and I'll be damned if I won't convince her to paint up a WK.

 EVIL INC wrote:
ImAGeek, the definitions I provided show it to be used as an insult according to the context in which it is used.
You may think it is the players fault for bringing an 'unbalanced list". I disagree with you there. I feel that the fault is with GW for roviding rules that allow for it.
I feel that 2 players should be able to communicate with one another and have a discussion about what they each see as being fair or reasonable and work together as a team to have a game that is "close". I fully acknowledge that this is not always possible. The difference is that many here believe it is impossible in every case and that players should not even make the attempt to pick up GW's slack and that those who try to have fun with what is available should be figuratively burnt at the stake instead of the true culpret which is GW.

I never said it's the players fault. I said the complete opposite. And no one has said it's impossible to be reasonable and whatever, just that in some situations it's not that simple and that we shouldn't have to do so. That's all people have been saying.

Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:Are you seriously proposing this isn't a real possibility?

I'm saying that it's laughably improbable in at least the vast majority of cases.

According to who? You?

You need a stronger argument than that if you want to be taken seriously. Unless you can read minds, I'd suggest you don't assert what people's motivation are for buying and using models.