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.

So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

so far, you have yet to post anything that does not fall under either "Reductio ad absurdum", "Ad hominem" or blatant strawman.

As long as every single post you make is composed of nothing but logical fallacies, there is honestly no point of attempting to have any sort of discussion with you any further.

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

BoomWolf wrote:
And for the love of god, souping different regiments while using a SINGLE UNIFORM APPEARANCE for all of them, that's crossing the path form a healthy doze of powergaming to an unhealthy doze of TFG.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

so far, you have yet to post anything that does not fall under either "Reductio ad absurdum", "Ad hominem" or blatant strawman.

As long as every single post you make is composed of nothing but logical fallacies, there is honestly no point of attempting to have any sort of discussion with you any further.

What are you even talking about?

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

Clearly you missed the deleted posts that were insulting "powergamers" blatantly enough to get deleted and a moderator warning post.

And you're right, our definitions of "fun" don't match. Yours involves absurd rivet-counting and obsessing over your opponent's motivation, mine is about how balanced the game is going to be. If an army is much stronger or weaker than mine then the game isn't going to be fun, regardless of whether the rivet counters would consider their rules a perfect match for their paint scheme or what their reasons for picking those rules might have been. That's what matters, not whether or not their army has the correct Cadian markings.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

Not really. If you want to see brinks of absurdity then look at your own position, refusing to play against an army over ridiculous rivet counting and a poor understanding of the fluff while simultaneously accusing the player of "powergaming" regardless of how strong their list actually is.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
I'm saying if you bought the Cadian models and painted them as Cadian you should use those rules. If you have those models but painted them as a world without rules by all means pick the one that fits your fluff.

And this is why people are not impressed with your position. You're ok with playing an army if it's painted with orange shoulder pads, but if it has Cadian symbols on the shoulder pads instead it's suddenly WAAC POWERGAMING NOOOOOO and you refuse to play. You're obsessing over rivet-counting, and you aren't even getting the fluff right when you do it. You're exactly the kind of person that nobody is going to want to play, smugly refusing games over trivial details and insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards.

First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

Asmodios wrote:
First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

"I haven't insulted anyone."
*Immediately insults the hypothetical player.*

Makes sense to me.

Also, it's a really stupid thing to say. Not only are you assuming that the army is strong to the point of not being fun to play against, based entirely on what color it is painted, you're assuming that the player who brought that army is a TFG trying to curb stomp people rather than someone expecting to play a game against someone at equal strength. And you can't even be consistent in your speculation about the player's intent. If there are plenty of competitive players around to give them a game (where, presumably, their opponent's list strength will be at least as good as theirs) then how can you possibly assume that they showed up to curb stomp helpless "casual" players? Why jump to absurd conclusions instead of assuming that they came to 40k night to play against the other competitive players?

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

It's also absurd rivet-counting when applied to space marines. GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG. For example, it would clearly be fine to paint an army blood red with green shoulder pads and use the Black Templars rules for your Crimson Knights chapter. But somehow if you paint the shoulder pads red instead of green you're a "powergamer" for not using the Blood Angels rules? And this is true regardless of whether the army is strong or weak? Nonsense.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG.

It's not exhaustive, but it seems pretty clear to me that GW encourage you to use the Chapter Tactics of either the chapter you painted them as or of the one the fluff says they're descended from.

“If your army is Battle-forged, all INFANTRY,BIKERand DREADNOUGHT units in a Space Marines Detachment gain a Chapter Tactic, so long as every unit in that Detachment is drawn from the same Chapter. The Chapter Tactic gained depends upon the Chapter they are drawn from, as shown in the table opposite. For example, an ULTRAMARINES unit with the Chapter Tactics ability gains the Codex Discipline Tactic. If your Chapter does not have an associated Chapter Tactic, use the Chapter Tactic of its founding Chapter. For example, Crimson Fists are a successor Chapter of the Imperial Fists, so should use the Chapter Tactic of the Imperial Fists. If you are unsure of a Chapter’s founding Chapter, either consult the background sections of our books or choose a Tactic from the table that best describes its character and fighting style.”

Or, you could make up a new chapter and call them a successor of whatever you want.

But if you paint your Marines as Crimson Fists, you use Imperial Fists rules, because the background says so. Not 'whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG'. Literally the opposite of that.


.

The thing is, with the vastness of the 40k fluff, that almost anything can be justified. For instance, say I had my models painted as the Cadian 8th yet wanted to run them as Mordians. It would be pretty trivial to make up some fluff to cover that situation. In this case my highly disciplined regiment was saved from certain doom by the intervention of some Cadians. They consider this a blood debt, which in their culture means that they mimic the dress of their saviours until they consider the debt paid. Or, a unit of Valhallans was accidentally shipped the wrong uniforms and now has to dress as Steel Legion.

With the vastness of the Imperium you can explain almost anything with differing local customs or, my personal favourite, bureaucratic mistakes.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
First off I haven't insulted anyone I've said time and again in this thread that it's my perception. I have a limited amount of time to play a limited amount of games so if I see a Black Templar army claiming to be a salamanders army because they just got a buff I'm just not going to play that person because MY perception is that the person is most likely doing this to curb stomp people on 40k night and that's not why I came to the store. There's always plenty of competitive gamers to give those people games nobody is insulting anyone.

"I haven't insulted anyone."
*Immediately insults the hypothetical player.*

Makes sense to me.

Also, it's a really stupid thing to say. Not only are you assuming that the army is strong to the point of not being fun to play against, based entirely on what color it is painted, you're assuming that the player who brought that army is a TFG trying to curb stomp people rather than someone expecting to play a game against someone at equal strength. And you can't even be consistent in your speculation about the player's intent. If there are plenty of competitive players around to give them a game (where, presumably, their opponent's list strength will be at least as good as theirs) then how can you possibly assume that they showed up to curb stomp helpless "casual" players? Why jump to absurd conclusions instead of assuming that they came to 40k night to play against the other competitive players?

Also, I don't see why my position is so abstract there are plenty of SM chapters that use the same models but play differently according to the rules im simply being consistent with playing guard the same way. If you painted your guy's blood angels play blood angels if you are dark angels play dark angels.

It's also absurd rivet-counting when applied to space marines. GW encourages you to paint your models however you like and use whatever rules you want, as long as their weapons and equipment are WYSIWYG. For example, it would clearly be fine to paint an army blood red with green shoulder pads and use the Black Templars rules for your Crimson Knights chapter. But somehow if you paint the shoulder pads red instead of green you're a "powergamer" for not using the Blood Angels rules? And this is true regardless of whether the army is strong or weak? Nonsense.

You seem to think that personal thoughts are insults and well they aren't. If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally. I'm not being insulting I'm simply following my instincts and avoiding what could be an unpleasant experience. Just like this I'm going to just nicely say I'd rather not play. I'm not screening in his face calling him TFG and telling everyone around the store. Both the guy in the ally and gamer could be the nicest guys and have completely diffent intentions then what I think and I recognize that but it doesn't mean I wanna risk having an unpleasant experience when I could just say "nah I'd rather not play"

 Peregrine wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
So far, you people are the only one who used an insult at any point, so I don't see how I'm the one "insulting anyone who doesn't live up to your standards. ", I'm simply not playing with you because our concepts of fun does not match.

Clearly you missed the deleted posts that were insulting "powergamers" blatantly enough to get deleted and a moderator warning post.

And you're right, our definitions of "fun" don't match. Yours involves absurd rivet-counting and obsessing over your opponent's motivation, mine is about how balanced the game is going to be. If an army is much stronger or weaker than mine then the game isn't going to be fun, regardless of whether the rivet counters would consider their rules a perfect match for their paint scheme or what their reasons for picking those rules might have been. That's what matters, not whether or not their army has the correct Cadian markings.

And you also keep pushing things to the brinks of absurdity on purpose because your "agenda" is nonexsitant and you know it.

Not really. If you want to see brinks of absurdity then look at your own position, refusing to play against an army over ridiculous rivet counting and a poor understanding of the fluff while simultaneously accusing the player of "powergaming" regardless of how strong their list actually is.

Errr. how exactly is that my fault what somebody else did?
Am I the same person? are we a hive mind? Did I at some point sign a legal document that I am responsible for his behavior?

Especaily when I mentioned time and again, what you seem to fail to grasp, that powergaming is not an insult, its simply a way to game that isn't MY way,
The playground is big enough we don't all have to play in the same corner, and if the game you play isn't my cup of tea, I'm walking to the other side of the playground to play a game that is.
Whats so godamn infuriating about it?

Now you on the other hand, keep sticking "rivet counting" as a label of sorts, defiantly in an attempt to throw a (rather lousy) insult.
Completely missing the point that what bothers me to begin with is not ACTUALLY how your dudes are painted, and "how many rivets are on the side of the tank", or whatever delusion is in your head .
What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.
Its a symptom, not the actual issue I have with you. (the general "you", because I have a feeling you'll take it personally if I won't clear it up)

But I'm not going to ignore an obvious red flag just because there are other possible red flags as well. if your list is the most optimized "net list" than you are probably a power gamer even if the appearance of your models is to the letter of the GW official schemes, and I wouldn't want to play you either. I just couldn't easily tell by merely looking at your models, I had to see your list to figure it out.
Maybe only mid game, when I see you are measuring every single possible angle and calculating probabilities for multiple-turn events before making the slightest move and each of your turns take over an hour I'll realize.
It changes not the fact the way I play is different than yours. and I'd rather play people in the same mindset.

Asmodios wrote:
If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally.

But in this case you have a bunch of 300lb tattooed guys telling you they're just rescuing abandoned kittens in said alley, and even after they've shown you Mr. Fluffles, Hairball and Fuzzy, you accuse them of having bad intentions. "No man weighing more than 200 pounds should ever be in an alley, especially not if you have a tattoo! I'm calling the Arbites!"

 BoomWolf wrote:
Errr. how exactly is that my fault what somebody else did?
Am I the same person? are we a hive mind? Did I at some point sign a legal document that I am responsible for his behavior?

I don't know, but you're sure content to generalize about "you people" when it comes to the people you disagree with.

Especaily when I mentioned time and again, what you seem to fail to grasp, that powergaming is not an insult, its simply a way to game that isn't MY way,

And yet "you people" use it as an insult over and over again. When it's not smug superiority about how "casual" players are better than "powergamers" it's outright accusing "powergamers" of showing up to curb stomp helpless opponents and ruin everyone's day.

The playground is big enough we don't all have to play in the same corner, and if the game you play isn't my cup of tea, I'm walking to the other side of the playground to play a game that is.
Whats so godamn infuriating about it?

It's infuriating because it divides the community and makes it harder to find games, and it isn't even based on reasonable beliefs.

What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.

IOW, "I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer', despite multiple people giving reasons why someone might do it for other reasons and how my understanding of the fluff is completely wrong".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
You seem to think that personal thoughts are insults and well they aren't. If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally. I'm not being insulting I'm simply following my instincts and avoiding what could be an unpleasant experience. Just like this I'm going to just nicely say I'd rather not play. I'm not screening in his face calling him TFG and telling everyone around the store. Both the guy in the ally and gamer could be the nicest guys and have completely diffent intentions then what I think and I recognize that but it doesn't mean I wanna risk having an unpleasant experience when I could just say "nah I'd rather not play"

At some point "instincts" become paranoia, and you're well past that point.

Panzergraf wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
If I am walking at night and see a 300 pound huge guy with gang tattoos waiting in an ally I'm simply not going to walk down the ally.

But in this case you have a bunch of 300lb tattooed guys telling you they're just rescuing abandoned kittens in said alley, and even after they've shown you Mr. Fluffles, Hairball and Fuzzy, you accuse them of having bad intentions. "No man weighing more than 200 pounds should ever be in an alley, especially not if you have a tattoo! I'm calling the Arbites!"

No im assuming some guy has a Black templar army out on a table and says "hey wanna play my Salamanders" to which I polightly say "no thanks". I like how not even my hypothetical in my head is allowed to go down the way I think it would instead now I'm in an ally talking to 200 pound kitten tamers. Even in your example I simply would have never entered the ally to see the kittens or how nice they are because I simply avoided the situation. I recognize that the guy playing black templars as Salamanders could be the nicest guy ever and it could be the best game I've ever played. I'm simply not taking the risk when I only have time to get in one game I'd rather just play the blood angels player who's actually playing blood angels. I'm not being mean I'm not yelling at people I'm not flipping tables I'm simple saying "no thanks" and moving on. If you take "no thanks" as an insult welp I guess I'm a monster


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

And yes, I used "you people", as in "the people who have commented directly towards me in the last few posts"

"isn't even based on reasonable beliefs"
Personal taste is not reasonable in your mind I see.
So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?


And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.
There are rules, you follow them.
There are guildlines, you sorta follow them.
There is a spirit of the game-you don't follow it at all.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.
However, powergamers often wouldn't bother giving any reasoning, or handwave it as a one-liner who is a rather obvious cop-out excuse.
There is having an excuse, and having a legitimate reason. there isn't a clear defined line between the two, but you can tell them apart when you run into one.

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

And yes, I used "you people", as in "the people who have commented directly towards me in the last few posts"

"isn't even based on reasonable beliefs"
Personal taste is not reasonable in your mind I see.
So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?


And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.
There are rules, you follow them.
There are guildlines, you sorta follow them.
There is a spirit of the game-you don't follow it at all.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.
However, powergamers often wouldn't bother giving any reasoning, or handwave it as a one-liner who is a rather obvious cop-out excuse.
There is having an excuse, and having a legitimate reason. there isn't a clear defined line between the two, but you can tell them apart when you run into one.

Exactly

Asmodios wrote:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

Why should I have to change all of my rules (and then probably change unit configurations, change fluff, etc) to suit your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and paranoia about "powergamers"?

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Also if you guys are so concearned about getting in a game why wouldn't you just play your army as what it is if someone didn't want to play it as a huge proxie. Aren't you being equally unforgiving and rude by insisting that you won't play unless your Black templars are actually Salamanders

Why should I have to change all of my rules (and then probably change unit configurations, change fluff, etc) to suit your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and paranoia about "powergamers"?

Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

BoomWolf wrote:
What bothers me is your mentality as a player, and you playing an army who is not ACTUALLY your army, because its "technically legal" and the rules are superior mathematically, it singles me that your mentality is not what I'm looking for in a casual game.

It certainly comes off as that.

Honestly my opinion is that you can justify almost any choice fluff-wise, so people are free to mix and match models and regiments accordingly.

Even assuming the Cadian models are painted as Cadians here are some examples of Cadian equipment but not Cadian rules:

Cadian regiment that is a veteran of armoured warfare- steel legion rules to represent not just their experiences but also their divergence from standard doctrine.

Group of conscripts from Planet X are suddenly needed for a campaign, so they are suddenly issued surplus Cadian white shields gear but no training and thrown into the fray- boom Cadian models and Valhallan rules are the most appropriate, do we really expect the Imperium to repaint the armor of soldiers destined to be used as a mine clearing device?

Death World troops issued standard Cadian gear but laughing at the training regime? Cadians with Catachan rules, alternately Catachans come across Cadian equipment and deciding a flak vest and helmet may be nice is another explanation.

Agri-world full of hunters recruited in a similar manner can pass as using Tallarn rules.

Siege regiment issued Cadian gear because of the horrendous losses can even lead to a good Death Korp proxy, Cadian pattern armor seems super common and sieges are more about logistics than looking cool, so having a steady supply of armor is fluffy to me. Gas Masks are nice but only needed in certain situations, WWI soldiers tended to not wear them more than they did, and the Death Korp don’t have any gas weapons either in the game.

Those are just a few examples, but I think saying Cadian painted models must follow Cadian rules is disingenuous; we are talking about assigning traits and qualities to a particular armor which literally anybody can wear, which is nonsensical. Strap Cadian gear on a Tallarn and they are still a Tallarn, and put a head wrap on a Cadian and they are still Cadian.

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

It's all over your general attitude, and your assumption that "powergamers" are not going to be fun to play against.

So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?

No, but when your lack of enjoyment is directly caused by your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and ridiculous assumptions about a player's motives in painting their army then you aren't being a reasonable person. There are good reasons to decline to play against someone, but yours aren't good.

And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.

Because it's only "sending you a message" because of your psychic ability to sense motives, and your stubborn rejection of all of the other reasons for having the same pairing of models and rules. You can't possibly tell the difference between a "powergamer" and someone who is playing a fluffy army with a paint scheme you dislike just by looking at their models.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.

Which directly contradicts the idea that you can look at an army and tell if you should accept the game or not. Perhaps, instead of going through all this trouble to determine a player's motive in picking an army, you should just look at the strength of their list relative to the strength of yours and ignore what color it is painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

"Personal preferences" is not a blanket excuse for bad behavior.

Y'all need to just hit report and move on with your lives.

 Peregrine wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
When on earth did I say anything that remotely compares to " "casual" players are better than "powergamers" "?

It's all over your general attitude, and your assumption that "powergamers" are not going to be fun to play against.

So, I guess that if anyone wants to play 40k at all, he is must to play with everyone at any scenario even if he ins't enjoying playing with that person?

No, but when your lack of enjoyment is directly caused by your poor understanding of the 40k fluff and ridiculous assumptions about a player's motives in painting their army then you aren't being a reasonable person. There are good reasons to decline to play against someone, but yours aren't good.

And how the feth did you just from "you having the looks of one thing and playing another is sending me a message" to ""I am psychic and know that anyone doing this is a 'powergamer'" is beyond me.

Because it's only "sending you a message" because of your psychic ability to sense motives, and your stubborn rejection of all of the other reasons for having the same pairing of models and rules. You can't possibly tell the difference between a "powergamer" and someone who is playing a fluffy army with a paint scheme you dislike just by looking at their models.

And you keep ignoring that I've stated, more than once, that people with actual legitimate reasons are getting a free pass, and if done well getting a high five.

Which directly contradicts the idea that you can look at an army and tell if you should accept the game or not. Perhaps, instead of going through all this trouble to determine a player's motive in picking an army, you should just look at the strength of their list relative to the strength of yours and ignore what color it is painted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
Why should I have to change my own personal play preferences just so you get in a game? Neither of us needs to compromises because there's people in both camps more then willing to play with our style

"Personal preferences" is not a blanket excuse for bad behavior.

Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Asmodios wrote:
Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Do you honestly not see the difference between "you must accept every game, no matter what, or give yourself 40 lashes for bad behavior" and "refusing games for stupid and/or petty reasons is bad behavior"? Making up your own special version of the fluff, declaring anyone who doesn't comply with it to be "powergamers", and refusing to play against them is bad behavior. Declining to play a game because you're tired and don't feel like playing anymore that day is not.

I mentioned 4 mentalities a while back but I also see two main reasons why people are having such strong feelings:

People who think that you should stick to your Faction rules: These people likely remember the time when, infamously, space marines would jump from codex to codex to abuse whichever was the flavour of the month at the time, where Ultramarines could be Blood Angels, Dark Angels were Space Wolves, or you had Imperial Fist Grey Knights. Those times created a stigma for people who didn't stick to their chapter's rules as they just wanted to win games without having to paint up an entirely new army each time. This was especially bad for Dark Angel and Blood Angel players, as one edition saw one to be powerful, another saw the other, and then sometimes vanilla ended up being better than both.

For these people, they are right in that someone who just cherry picks rules likely just wants to win, as for a while that was actually true. But what they need to understand is that there are people out there who legitimately feel a different set of rules will grant a different feel for an army, one that makes them feel comfortable while still remaining aesthetically pleasing to them.


People who thinks your models shouldn't matter to your rules: These people feel that, since the models are just representations of your units, you should be free to do as you like with the rules, especially if you have a good reason to do so (like tank companies for certain regiment worlds). Why should they be restricted when someone who made the "Periwinkle Platypus" regiment gets the perks, when you got locked into a choice without your free will just because you happened to like a combination of blue and gold on your marines?

For these people, they are right in that players should have freedom to build their lists as they please and not be restricted due to aesthetic choices, but they should also realize that if you consciously choose a chapter/regiment/legion, there's a small unspoken agreement that you're trying to roleplay them to a degree on the tabletop, and sticking with their rules is kind of part of it.

While both sides have their points and their faults, it should be noted that BOTH are valid ways of approaching the game. What devolves into namecalling is to go to the extreme of both; the former can turn into the guy who feels that any deviation from the "intent" can be a sign that a person has no morals and is an underhanded cheat who just wants to win, and the latter can turn into someone who thinks that anyone who just wants to enjoy the "feel" of the game is some uptight, highhorse prude who likes to nitpick every minute detail. Those type of people do exist, but they are a very, very tiny minority. What both sides needs to understand is that the vast majority of players do not have malicious intent in their game choices.

And once again, all of this could be avoided if GW simply chose not to tie named factions to these rules. If you need to blame anyone, blame them.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Man I'll have to remember the next time I say "no thank"s to a game because of any personal preference whether it is time, fluff, fun, tiredness, etc. I need to give myself 40 lashes for bad behavior. I have to remember that this game is entirely based on how you see it and my personal preferences don't matter and are no excuse for myself......... I've been so selfish for so many years playing this joint for my own enjoyment and never realized the lives I was ruining

Do you honestly not see the difference between "you must accept every game, no matter what, or give yourself 40 lashes for bad behavior" and "refusing games for stupid and/or petty reasons is bad behavior"? Making up your own special version of the fluff, declaring anyone who doesn't comply with it to be "powergamers", and refusing to play against them is bad behavior. Declining to play a game because you're tired and don't feel like playing anymore that day is not.

Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable? I've never even said in this thread that you can't play your Black templars as Salamanders just simply that I didn't want to be a part of it. But I keep forgetting that you almighty sir have passed down the acceptable ways I'm allowed to play with my plastic toys and that I must play with them even if I don't want to for whatever reason because you think I should. The next time I turn down a game for any reason I'll make sure I run it by you as you are clearly the authority on exactly what games should be played on the table top.

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Well. I see no further value in continuing this argument so I'll drop it.

For anyone who is reading this thread just play the game with the models you like. At the end of the day they're just rules and you're free to deal with them as you please. Want to play a group of Valhallan armored infantry squads using Steel Legion rules? Great! Cadians who have experienced long range desert warfare with Tallarn rules? Fantastic. Just want to use the rules that fit your army composition best? Most excellent.

Just use some whiteout over the word "Catachan" and write in "Jungle Fighter" regimental doctrine. It's what GW should've done from the start.

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Your using a lot of logical fallacys.

Just because one a group of people decide to be huge dick heads does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone to be huge dick heads.

Just because there are other people with a petty standard of black black templars having to be played as black templars but orange black templars can be used as anything doesn't mean it isn't a petty dickish way to play a game or that the people who hold those opinions are not wrong for having them.

It is crazy. It is unreasonable. You are free to be as crazy and unreasonable as you like, but nobody has to accept it and tell you your being a good guy for your pettiness.

 Lance845 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Do you honestly not see that two people might have two different standards on what is and is not acceptable?

Well yes, clearly people have different standards. You, for example, have created your own standard based on ignorance of the IG fluff. But the mere fact that a standard exists does not mean that we're obligated to pretend that it is a reasonable standard.

Several people have said exactly what I'm saying so it must not be too crazy and unreasonable. But either way we have said all along we aren't going to force this on you so it seems like you not using my standard gets us back to exactly what I've said and keep saying..... play however you want there's some people that just don't wanna play that way. It's really no big deal and will most likely almost never happen and at the end of the day is the worst case senario is you play someone else

Your using a lot of logical fallacys.

Just because one a group of people decide to be huge dick heads does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone to be huge dick heads.

Just because there are other people with a petty standard of black black templars having to be played as black templars but orange black templars can be used as anything doesn't mean it isn't a petty dickish way to play a game or that the people who hold those opinions are not wrong for having them.

It is crazy. It is unreasonable. You are free to be as crazy and unreasonable as you like, but nobody has to accept it and tell you your being a good guy for your pettiness.

I don't need a pat on the back or a "thata boy!" I was simple expressing my views that a couple people happen to agree with. You can say that you feel I'm TFG or I'm worse then Hiltler or whatever.... I really don't care. This is a discussion board and I was just discussing my thoughts on a posted topic.in these posts everyone keeps saying things like your "does not mean it must be reasonable for everyone".... well Duh if you read my posts I clearly state I realize it's not reasonable for everyone it's just reasonable for me. You keep building a straw man that I'm pushing my beliefs on others while in reality I'm saying "you do you man I'll be over here doing things my way". No hate, no pushing agendas, no secret plots to get people to only play my way...... just the way I personally (and a couple other people) will be handling these rules updates

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


No, you've missed the actual discussion. It boils down which of these people are you:
A) Does not think a paint scheme should dictate what you play your models as, and will happily play it as it makes no difference if you play your Imperial Fist-painted army as Raven Guard.
B) Thinks if you painted your models in the Cadian colours, you have to play them as Cadians, or you're a powergamer and should be ridiculed.

Really, "should be ridiculed"? when did anyone say anything even REMOTELY like that?
Yes, we said if you paint, model, and mark one way than play another you are powergaming (because you are) and we are likely to refuse a game, but unless refusing to personally spend time with you is considered ridiculing in your world, you just made up a strawman.
Again.

No, you see, when something is presented in clear text, it's not a strawman. Here's a little more than something "REMOTELY" like that

 lolman1c wrote:

Ahh... so you're that player who everyone avoids in the club and jokes about behind their back? The amount of times I've heard people make fun of the phrase "I call following the rules of the game" and avoid the players who say it... sometimes they're is more than just rules to this game. It's also about community and friendship.