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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.

I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.

Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.

But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"

Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.

This used to be my argument until practically everyone I know was using the beta rules like they were a core rule. I can't explain it - it's just the way it is. It probably is because people would just rather not argue about rules before the game starts and this is just the easiest solution for them.

Maybe the majority like the idea of either the rules themselves or giving them a fair shake?

The majority also likely want to play with the same rules all the time so if any are likely to play somewhere that might adopt the beta rules they want to play them all the time so they don’t get mixed up.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That is the first post I've ever seen where "talk things out with your opponent beforehand" was considered a bad idea.

I've done that in literally every wargame ever and I think it's a necessary feature of tabletop wargaming with any system.

Doing it is a good thing, The fact that you have to because certain rules are painfully ambiguous or unclear is a bad thing. The more you have to clarify before game the worse it is. I would prefer to limit it to things like "is forgeworld ok?" Chapter approved missions or BRB?" Things that have more to deal with personal preference. Ideally you should not have to discuss things before hand, but we all know that is never going to happen. We should still strive for that ideal by reducing as many things that have to be agreed upon before the game. Talking before game with your opponent is a bad idea is a gross oversimplification.

But that's literally the point of the beta rule, it's for testing. It's like logging into a game with my friend and saying "PTS server or main game?"

Beta tests of future content is a routine thing, and playing with a friend on, say, Elder Scrolls Online means you need to figure out whether you're playing the beta test (Public Test Server PTS) or playing the main version. I don't know why that's such a bad thing in wargaming.

This used to be my argument until practically everyone I know was using the beta rules like they were a core rule. I can't explain it - it's just the way it is. It probably is because people would just rather not argue about rules before the game starts and this is just the easiest solution for them.

Pretty much exactly that. If I can eliminate an unnecessary source of conflict then I would much rather do so. Instead of just asking "beta rules or nah," you also have to make sure they are on the same page with what the current interpretation is. It's just one more way things could go wrong that is easily fixed. All the personal insults that people have been throwing back and forth is pretty strong evidence why I would like to eliminate sources of conflict. People aren't even arguing over how it is meant to be played, it is literally over whether or not GW should update the text to match author's intent. I can only imagine how much worse it is when you explain to someone that "yes my orks can charge you with da jump turn 1" and they thought the FAQ made them safe. Talking beforehand also isn't a magic cure, cognitive dissonance is a thing.

Good