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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Besides, using "SJW" as a way of dismissing someone's criticism is beneath you.

I thought I was mirroring your ironic use of the term, just like "play like you have a pair." Now I feel we are playing waltzing goal posts, instead. But as to this:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you seriously saying you can't understand why someone who physically can't satisfy the criteria for the "fun" rules might not think they're "fun"?

I'll recapitulate my position: any non-mechanic can be substituted for any other non-mechanic without affecting the game. At first, I was tempted to call out the overly legalistic approach to "beard rules" as a bad faith attempt to foment internet argument. But I am beginning to understand this is just part and parcel of the same mindset that cannot imagine a game without a points system being plausibly playable.

 Manchu wrote:
Previous iterations of WHFB did not address the douche line issue, either. This problem is not unique to AoS. What is unique to AoS is that it doesn't care about douche lines. Whoever wrote AoS realized that a douchebag remains a douchebag no matter what game s/he happens to be ruining for other people this month.

But that's exactly the point - if anyone at all is a douchebag, then there is indeed a "douche line" somewhere! And it's going to be tough for people not to think others are on the wrong side of that line if they field something that is out of the expectations of the other person (presumably without realizing it, since this is obviously meant to be a friendly game). Such as N + 5 powerful units, where N is the expectation of what the first person thought was acceptable (same goes for unit size, etc). I know this totally exists in most wargames, it's just that now it's wide open and there is even less structure to agree upon a game within.

Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
sounds like it will totally work for your gaming group

We'll see. It has already been somewhat of an uphill battle. I describe this points-based mindset as "entrenched" for a reason.

It's an out of the box idea, so it will be interesting to see if they can show it works. I know it'd be tough for me in the groups I game with, and isn't something I want to put myself through honestly

 RiTides wrote:
I know this totally exists in most wargames, it's just that now it's wide open and there is even less structure to agree upon a game within.

The reason expectations differ widely even as a matter of more structured games, to adopt your term, is because "structure" does not actually determine expectations as much as we tend to think. Communication is the answer.

 RiTides wrote:
It's an out of the box idea, so it will be interesting to see if they can show it works.

It's a more traditional idea but applied to a new context, where the audience is not aware of its pedigree. Some people in my group have realized this but there is still resistance, which is entirely reasonable because (a) it is a big change if your expectations about wargaming formed around points-based notions of "balance" and (b) we haven't played it yet. I think I have mentioned elsewhere that I plan to play AoS strictly out of the starter box at first, which I think will help.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Besides, using "SJW" as a way of dismissing someone's criticism is beneath you.

I thought I was mirroring your ironic use of the term, just like "play like you have a pair." Now I feel we are playing waltzing goal posts, instead. But as to this:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Are you seriously saying you can't understand why someone who physically can't satisfy the criteria for the "fun" rules might not think they're "fun"?

I'll recapitulate my position: any non-mechanic can be substituted for any other non-mechanic without affecting the game. At first, I was tempted to call out the overly legalistic approach to "beard rules" as a bad faith attempt to foment internet argument. But I am beginning to understand this is just part and parcel of the same mindset that cannot imagine a game without a points system being plausibly playable.

Are you the unfrozen caveman lawyer? I know you like to poke around game design theory a lot, but I'm curious why you're actually surprised that people take rules literally. In 4th edition there was a serious discussion about if SM terminators had terminator armor, because it was not listed as equiptment in the unit description. that was eventually shouted down, but design intent has never been a popular tool when discusisng GW's games.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


That's fair. I don't think it's conciously or maliciously sexist, but in general I just avoid the word sexist because it tends to bring the worst out of all people online.

You may have a point there.

Unfortunately, I was simply trying to be accurate, not to use the term as a pejorative, and may have stumbled into an Online Context Problem.

its capitalism not sexism

 Polonius wrote:
I know you like to poke around game design theory a lot, but I'm curious why you're actually surprised that people take rules literally.

You ever heard the expression "I'm shocked but I'm not surprised"? It's sort of like that. You provided a great example:

 Polonius wrote:
there was a serious discussion about if SM terminators had terminator armor, because it was not listed as equiptment in the unit description

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


That's fair. I don't think it's conciously or maliciously sexist, but in general I just avoid the word sexist because it tends to bring the worst out of all people online.

You may have a point there.

Unfortunately, I was simply trying to be accurate, not to use the term as a pejorative, and may have stumbled into an Online Context Problem.

And you've also unwittingly proven my actual point, which is that by underselling the issue a bit, I encouraged more dialogue than by overselling my point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I know you like to poke around game design theory a lot, but I'm curious why you're actually surprised that people take rules literally.

You ever heard the expression "I'm shocked but I'm not surprised"? It's sort of like that. You provided a great example:

 Polonius wrote:
there was a serious discussion about if SM terminators had terminator armor, because it was not listed as equiptment in the unit description

I do know that my veiw of YMDC changed pretty dramatically about half way through law school. Before, I saw this interesting play of interpretations and meanings, but really, I saw that nobody was close to any actualy legal analysis.

Once I realized that things that look like mistakes probably are, that intent and context are more critical to understanding any passage than diagramming a sentence, and that no arguments really matter if there isn't a third party to decide, I never went back to YMDC.

and I adore the phrase "suprised but not shocked." I wonder if that is a lawyer phrase...

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

You're just mad because you can't grow a beard.

Come to think of it, I developed this critical approach to the latent literalism and fundamentalism running through our culture about halfway through law school as well. But my God the last thing we need is more Americans going to law school. Out of the frying pan and into the fire ...

They could have been funny if the rulebook wasn't a joke.

 Manchu wrote:
Come to think of it, I developed this critical approach to the latent literalism and fundamentalism running through our culture about halfway through law school as well. But my God the last thing we need is more Americans going to law school. Out of the frying pan and into the fire ...

So I actually thought about how I'd play it, and I'm curious how you intend to. I think these rules are almost like a memento morti, only a reminder that we're playing a game. My thought is, I'd at least make a joke or acknowledge that I don't have a beard. I'd also never think to call an opponent out for taking one of these advantages without performing the stunt.

I get the sense that you view the "requirement" as fluff, as not really a requirement but rather flavor.

I think you're supposed to just get into it somehow. I would encourage my opponent to try any kind of dwarfiness, even something comparatively tame (like quote Gimli from LotR). But I get some people are just really shy. Since I tend to know the people I play with, I would be in a position to know if they would be comfortable or not and act accordingly. Basically, the same way I would handle a situation in a RPG.

For those that can't grow a beard, there are always knitted beards...

Along that line of reasoning:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And the bigger point is, how little editing did these rules go through, that somebody thought rules that favor men over women would be okay?

Very little thought or effort was put in to those rules.

If the rules stated "This model gets to reroll its to-hit dice, but must take the second roll if you choose to do so. We suggest that when you use this reroll, you talk about your (or your Thane's) magnificent beard, to give flavor to the action." it would have been no problem at all, and it'd have been flavorful and still amuse the people who like silliness in their games.

This feels better to encourage people to get in-character than adding in an actual in-game bonus. Otherwise, it's less about passion for the game and more about min/maxing.

Sadly, since there's no DM, you can't have (mostly) unbiased rewards for good roleplaying like in, say, Exalted.

 Melissia wrote:
Otherwise, it's less about passion for the game and more about min/maxing.

Disagree. RPGs have similar mechanics. If you get to assume all of the good will out of a given instance of gaming then I get to conclude that there is no reason to play to begin with.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Otherwise, it's less about passion for the game and more about min/maxing.

Disagree. RPGs have similar mechanics..

While also having wildly different ones.

For example, dungeon masters / game masters / storytellers (depending on what each system calls it)-- by itself, this is a massive difference between the hobbies, as most tabletop wargames don't have anything remotely similar.

It seems like you are evoking the concept of an unbiased referee, which of course used to be quite common in war games, including miniatures games ... and in fact is the origin of the concept of the Dungeon Master. (TheMoreYouKnow.gif) Of course a DM is not just a referee these days. Not that you need a DM or even a referee to play the rules in question without sticking to an absolutely literal interpretation.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Otherwise, it's less about passion for the game and more about min/maxing.

Disagree. RPGs have similar mechanics..

While also having wildly different ones.

For example, dungeon masters / game masters / storytellers (depending on what each system calls it)-- by itself, this is a massive difference between the hobbies, as most tabletop wargames don't have anything remotely similar.

warhammer and most other tabletop wargames are miniature collection hobbies first and wargames second, the whole point is to collect amazing miniatures, paint them and use them in some kind of setting (or just show them off)... I believe someone at GW specifically stated "we make miniatures" which is exactly what they do and they do it well and I doubt anyone here can actually say "GW miniatures are crap", everything else is just an added bonus... heck I would be more than happy for GW to just produce miniatures and "fiction" (story books, lore, art) and let the "collectors" create their own rules for gaming etc... I would actually ENDORSE them stopping any and all attempts at making ANY rules of ANY kind...

maybe its why I like AoS, its a very basic set of rules to start you off, everything else you can add yourself and its all free (rules that is)

GW makes amazing miniatures, they make and have always made "average" games.... there are PLENTY of other better gaming systems that could be used to play anything you want but GW will always be in my eyes number one miniature makers (them and forge world)

maybe that is what GW is trying to do, they are moving away from the dying art of "gaming" and focusing on making lore, fiction, miniatures that we all love and enjoy, maybe that is there long term plan and well, hate me for it or not... I like that, they can focus exclusively on making miniatures...

even the whole Matt Ward nonsense, he makes great books (lore, fiction etc) but rules not so much... maybe that is the problem with GW at a core, they are trying to do both things when financially and logically it would be better to focus on one thing... gaming vs lore/miniatures (I might make a thread to discuss that)

I definitely would not like to see GW make only miniatures and no rules because that would probably lead to one-off sculpts. So there would be a single Chaos Warrior rather than a unit of them. Yes, you could buy ten of that one sculpt but the resulting unit would not look anywhere near as cool.

I don't buy the miniatures because I enjoy painting them. I hate painting. I buy them because I want to use them for the game, where painting is just a chore I have to complete to make sure they're ready for it (because I'm too poor to afford to pay someone else to do it for me). In comparison to that long post above, the lore is the most important aspect to me, the game second, and "the hobby" dead last.

Seems like in the other thread, you said you would not even be willing to yell WAAAGH for your orks so this whole beard issue seems a bit disingenuous.

 Manchu wrote:
Seems like in the other thread, you said you would not even be willing to yell WAAAGH for your orks so this whole beard issue seems a bit disingenuous.

No, that is still well in line with what I have posted in this thread.

I don't like the "the beard" rules listed, as this thread collectively refers to them as-- such as shouting a warcry, the rule about kneeling, or, obviously, the requirement to have a beard. I have described them / talked about them in this thread as:

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

 Melissia wrote:
[...] idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

 Melissia wrote:
[...] I think these "beard rules" are badly written. I find almost all of them immature and undesirable, and a couple of them to be even a bit misogynistic [...]

 Melissia wrote:
Very little thought or effort was put in to those rules.

The "must have a beard to get this reroll" example is simply one of the two that annoy me the most, for reasons I've stated numerous times in this thread. The others I find to be... well, look at the quotes above.

It's one thing to suggest that someone get more in to the game by doing things like this. That's perfectly fine, just a company trying to get its customers to be passionate about its product. But requiring these kinds of antics for the sake of gaining an in-game benefit is ridiculous.

 Melissia wrote:
But requiring these kinds of antics for the sake of gaining an in-game benefit is ridiculous.

TBH I am not sold on them myself. I am having to heavily redevelop my concept of what is possible with miniatures game design thanks to AoS. My theory is, the beard rules fit but you have to get the whole game and not treat it like it ought to be 9th Edition.

 Manchu wrote:
I definitely would not like to see GW make only miniatures and no rules because that would probably lead to one-off sculpts. So there would be a single Chaos Warrior rather than a unit of them. Yes, you could buy ten of that one sculpt but the resulting unit would not look anywhere near as cool.

well its why I said AoS makes sense, very basic rules that could be worked on by others... and I think miniatures themselves would be based on sales, imagine your warriors box coming with more items to mix and match, multiple weapons types, multiple bitz...

right now a box of warriors comes with things that can make warriors based on the rules (swords, hammers etc) if they ignored the rules they could release a box filled with multiple weapons, multiple heads, multiple bitz... even if they did release 1 warrior in a box for say a silly price of £10 but each box comes with 10 heads, 10 weapons, 10 pets, 10 different shields etc... the potential is there if you ask me... and at least they can focus on making good lore and great miniatures instead of an average game.

lets say GW is using 70% of all its powers on miniatures and lore and 30% of making the gaming aspect, if they consolidate and focus 100% of say miniatures and lore they could make even more profit, let the others do their "dirty" work... heck GW stores can become gaming centres where people come in with multiple rules and game (rpg, large tactical, scneraios, tournies) but only using GW miniatures (mostly)

 Mysterious Pants wrote:
So I'm noticing a lot of talk about the silly rules that are in some of the units Warscrolls, pretty much spread across Dakka. I thought it might be good to make a thread showing all of these ridiculous rules and ask what people think.



So what do you think? Are you looking forward to having silly shenanigans?

Are these legit?!?!? hahaha. I haven't read through every warscroll, just the ones for my armies

40KNobz11 wrote:


Are these legit?!?!? hahaha. I haven't read through every warscroll, just the ones for my armies

If by legit, you mean actual rules from actual Warscrolls, then yes.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't buy the miniatures because I enjoy painting them. I hate painting. I buy them because I want to use them for the game, where painting is just a chore I have to complete to make sure they're ready for it (because I'm too poor to afford to pay someone else to do it for me). In comparison to that long post above, the lore is the most important aspect to me, the game second, and "the hobby" dead last.

and that is OK... I prefer to make them and paint them (even if I suck at painting) because I enjoy the "chore" (like building model airplanes) but as you said you buy mainly for the LORE, surely you would agree that GW should stop focusing on the "game" aspect and just focus on lore and miniatures... or at least sell the gaming side to someone else that way they can refocus their efforts on things they do best.

its like this... they make fantastic lore, they make fantastic miniatures but they make an OK game, why stick with someone you are "ok" with when you could focus all your efforts on something you are fantastic at.

bitethythumb wrote:


maybe its why I like AoS, its a very basic set of rules to start you off, everything else you can add yourself and its all free (rules that is)

GW makes amazing miniatures, they make and have always made "average" games.... there are PLENTY of other better gaming systems that could be used to play anything you want but GW will always be in my eyes number one miniature makers (them and forge world)

maybe that is what GW is trying to do, they are moving away from the dying art of "gaming" and focusing on making lore, fiction, miniatures that we all love and enjoy, maybe that is there long term plan and well, hate me for it or not... I like that, they can focus exclusively on making miniatures...

even the whole Matt Ward nonsense, he makes great books (lore, fiction etc) but rules not so much... maybe that is the problem with GW at a core, they are trying to do both things when financially and logically it would be better to focus on one thing... gaming vs lore/miniatures (I might make a thread to discuss that)

Out of interest which systems would you say are better then GW games and why? I've tried warmachine and malafax and while I've enjoyed them I've always gravitated back to 40k and WHFB but always interest to try other games.

Though I a big factor is what your friends or club are playing as your going to have more fun if you have a variety of opponents to face

SouthKlaw wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:


maybe its why I like AoS, its a very basic set of rules to start you off, everything else you can add yourself and its all free (rules that is)

GW makes amazing miniatures, they make and have always made "average" games.... there are PLENTY of other better gaming systems that could be used to play anything you want but GW will always be in my eyes number one miniature makers (them and forge world)

maybe that is what GW is trying to do, they are moving away from the dying art of "gaming" and focusing on making lore, fiction, miniatures that we all love and enjoy, maybe that is there long term plan and well, hate me for it or not... I like that, they can focus exclusively on making miniatures...

even the whole Matt Ward nonsense, he makes great books (lore, fiction etc) but rules not so much... maybe that is the problem with GW at a core, they are trying to do both things when financially and logically it would be better to focus on one thing... gaming vs lore/miniatures (I might make a thread to discuss that)

Out of interest which systems would you say are better then GW games and why? I've tried warmachine and malafax and while I've enjoyed them I've always gravitated back to 40k and WHFB but always interest to try other games.

Though I a big factor is what your friends or club are playing as your going to have more fun if you have a variety of opponents to face

depends really on what you are looking for in terms of your games.... like I said I am not a "big" gamer (but AoS does look nice... I like simplicity and focus on communication and "making it work) but I do like Broms Dark Age (several years ago) so I personally enjoy the lore and minis more, but seriously... Google tabletop wargames, there are HUNDREDS of them and many are free and many are more tactical and "fair" than GW has ever produced (maybe not as popular)... I mean, I know its still GW (or forge world) but have people forgotten WARHAMMER HISTORICAL BATTLES? or warhammer Ancient battles... (WAB)...

but just have a look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_miniature_wargames
http://freewargamesrules.wikia.com/wiki/Freewargamesrules_Wiki

you could spend years playing them all... and I am sure some would fit you far more than GW, rules, just keep buying the miniatures

backgammon is still my one and only true game

 Melissia wrote:
The "must have a beard to get this reroll" example is simply one of the two that annoy me the most...

What if GW could sell you a beard, you know one of those $1 store disguise ones. Obviously it would also have skulls on it and it would cost $10 or $20. Would that help?

I wonder if the Nurgle characters will gain a gamer-funk based special rule.