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.

 Grimtuff wrote:
IOW "I've already been banned from my local GW for being a knob so cannot do this as everyone in the local area won't play me".

Have you even played a game IRL?

Funnily enough I helped run the local club back when it was still around about 10 or so years ago. It closed since there were only 5 people showing up regularly of which 4 were secondary school students and couldn't afford the rents even when charging for table time. Sadly I live in the middle of nowhere with the nearest GW 2 hours away.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Bharring wrote:
No; by his logic, asking your opponent to have 0 shots with their melta gun instead of 1 after advancing is a problem, as RAI is clear to him and his opponent.

Alternatively, by your logic, asking to get 1 shot instead of 0 with the same advancing meltagun is a problem, as RAW is clear to you and your opponent.

Um, there's a two and zero before that last zero...

So that's not what he's saying at all.

That's because Scotsman BCB were using two different examples for their arguments; I attempted to project both onto the same basic premise, to try to more fairly contrast them. So there *isn't* supposed to be a `20` before that last 0.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
IOW "I've already been banned from my local GW for being a knob so cannot do this as everyone in the local area won't play me".

Have you even played a game IRL?

Funnily enough I helped run the local club back when it was still around about 10 or so years ago. It closed since there were only 5 people of which 4 were secondary school students and couldn't afford the rents even when charging for table rent. Sadly I live in the middle of nowhere with the nearest GW 2 hours away.

So basically you've never put any of your blathering about 8th's broken rules into practice with a real person?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.

So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.

Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!

Making false equivalences doesn't win arguments. Almost everytime I've seen you say "by your logic" you don't use their logic but instead make a false equivalence. It's just poor argumentation.

I don't think you are arguing in bad faith, I do think you have a pretty poor grasp of logic and argument.

When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

 Grimtuff wrote:
So basically you've never put any of your blathering about 8th's broken rules into practice with a real person?

I've been playing on Tabletop Simulator with goats?

And I've never had someone actually complain about me sticking to the rules, so make of that what you will.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
The fact that you accept the fact that you can stand a tank up on end to draw line of sight but also do not recognize that that would very clearly be viewed as TFG behavior I think says more than I could ever really reply with, so I'm just going to leave it there.

So, again, by your logic asking your opponent to only have 1 shot with their meltagun instead of 200 is also TFG behaviour. I don't view following the rules as TFG behaviour in any circumstances because following the rules is the entire point of having a rules system.

Here is a challenge for you, let's have a game on TTS but I get to follow your own logic and get to ignore any rules I find inconvenient. My 200" range LOS ignoring Railguns that are heavy 200 will have lots of fun!

Here is a challenge for you: Travel, in person, to any Games Workshop store with a large group of people playing. Play against an actual human opponent, stand up your tank on end to draw line of sight, and refuse to allow your opponent to fire an Assault weapon after advancing.

Call the owner of the store over and explain that what you've done is allowed in the rules, and your opponent is cheating, and demand that they be kicked out of the store.

Likewise, I would never play in a club or store.

I promise you, pinky swear, there is no club or store in existence that plays by your version of rules as written, and no in-person gathering of more than two people that you would not consider "extreme house rules". You are to the internet what a wonderfully colorful kind of fish that can only live in one species of coral is to the wider ocean.

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

It's like you're a broken record. Are you a Sith? Do you only deal in absolutes? Do all of your tanks suddenly look like the anti aircraft tanks from Mega Force?

That last one I would really like to see.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?

There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.

Bharring wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?

There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.

It depends, was it explicitly given as a rule that my sibling may not sneak out at nap-tip? If so, then it isn't. I agree that TFG behavior might be based on "soft" skills, but following the rules of a game cannot be considered TFG behaviour, because if that is the case than ALL rule following is TFG behaviour.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Not heard of the ol' lawful evil? You can play exactly by the letter of the rules (which even I suspect you do not do) and be an utter bellend about it.

The advent of lack of WYSIWYG in 8th is one of these things. "bUT iT's NoT iN tHe RuLeS!"

8th isnt the advent. 7th also does not have a rule requiring wysiwyg.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

This is an assertion, please demonstrate it is true. It also completely ignores the points I presented and simply restates an earlier assertion, which is poor form.

So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?

 Lance845 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Playing by the rules cannot, by definition, be TFG behaviour.

Not heard of the ol' lawful evil? You can play exactly by the letter of the rules (which even I suspect you do not do) and be an utter bellend about it.

The advent of lack of WYSIWYG in 8th is one of these things. "bUT iT's NoT iN tHe RuLeS!"

8th isnt the advent. 7th also does not have a rule requiring wysiwyg.

Did it not? Another reason I'm glad I sat that edition out then as they really doubled down on the stupid there...

Moriarty wrote:
So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?

....the base for a valkyrie is on the ground....otherwise the model would fall down, my dude.

Moriarty wrote:
So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?

Did Terminators ever wear Terminator armour in 4th? I guess we'll never know.

Moriarty wrote:
So, purely in the interests of piling another train on the wreckage, was it impossible to disembark troops from a Valk in previous editions, as the base was too high?

I seem to remember that was indeed the case, but my memory might be a bit fuzzy on that regard (never been a big fan of flyers or guard). I do remember a time when disembarking was measured from the disembarking doors on the hull of the vehicle, regardless of whether it had a base or not.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Bharring wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Drager wrote:
When playing in an environment were it is commonly accepted that one cannot stand a tank on end it is TFG behaviour to do so without previously discussing the possibility with an opponent. Claiming to have a 200 shot Meltagun is the same sort of behaviour and also TFG. The fact that one is RAW (arguably) and the other is not is immaterial as what is making you TFG is a social failing not a legalistic one. If you do not know which things you are going to do will cause a problem watch some games, read and talk to others. If you still can't understand you may need more help than dakka can offer.

The one that is RaW is not TFG behaviour because following the rules cannot be TFG behaviour.

When your sibling snuck out of their room at nap-time, would it have been TFG behavior to tell your parents right away?

There is very little that cannot be TFG behavior. TFG is about soft skills, not technical skills.

It depends, was it explicitly given as a rule that my sibling may not sneak out at nap-tip? If so, then it isn't. I agree that TFG behavior might be based on "soft" skills, but following the rules of a game cannot be considered TFG behaviour, because if that is the case than ALL rule following is TFG behaviour.

Here's another one of my favorite moderation stories:

We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYG DKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.

Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.

This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ArbitorIan wrote:
- If they look like Salamanders, play them as Salamanders. If they look like green not-Salamanders, play them as whatever your want.
- If they look like Blood Angels, play them as Blood Angels. If they look like orangey-red not-Blood Angels, play them as whatever you want.

Exactly!

This standard is silly though. Lets say my guys are painted as ultramarines but I want to try ravenguard tactics. I tell you at the beginning of the game I'm using RG tactics. That's not hard to remember during a game.

I do agree running multiple detachments with the same paint scheme but different tactics is BS but that's a separate issue

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's another one of my favorite moderation stories:

We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYG DKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.

Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.

This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"

And who gets to define "poor taste"? If I define "poor taste" as "making me roll to hit for my shots", would you allow it?

If I say that your, I dunno, Space Wolves are offensive to me because Vikings once ravaged my homeland, would you accept being banned and/or prohibited from playing?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
Here's another one of my favorite moderation stories:

We had a dude show up with a WYSIWYG DKOK army covered in freehanded swastikas on every banner, on freehanded red armbands on every trooper, and a large contingent of bane wolf tanks because...well, obvious gak taste joke is obvious.

Obviously, he never got a chance to get past taking his models out and showing them to everyone, but assuming he had played perfect RAW, showing up with a 1000$+ joke in the worst possible taste is TFG behavior.

This all just comes back to my original post on this subject: Every single TFG in existence has a definition of that term in his head that is constructed to exclude himself. I just highlighted the two most common constructions of that definition: "I'm just playing by the rules" (whether or not they actually are, they will argue that they are) and "I'm just giving my army what it deserves to have/needs to compete"

And who gets to define "poor taste"? If I define "poor taste" as "making me roll to hit for my shots", would you allow it?

If I say that your, I dunno, Space Wolves are offensive to me because Vikings once ravaged my homeland, would you accept being banned and/or prohibited from player.

This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.

If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.

If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.

My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13, insisting she was Catholic to her deathbed. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.

If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.

My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.

LPT- free speech only protects you from persecution from the government. You can't rock up to a store with an army covered in swastikas and claim "mUh FrEe SpEeCh!". That's not how it works.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
This is the most strawest man of strawmen I've ever seen.

If you're honestly comparing as to why an army of SS troopers that is very real and there are parents, grandparents and great grandparents still alive that lived through this and is still a raw topic and Vikings? Then I literally have no words. You're simply impossible.

My Great Grandmother fled the Bolsheviks due to being Jewish during the October Revolutions. She died when I was 13. If someone pulled out a WW1 Russian inspired DKOK army I'd shake their hand and call it an amazing army because I respect free speech and am not a snowflake.

LPT- free speech only protects you from persecution from the government. You can't rock up to a store with an army covered in swastikas and claim "mUh FrEe SpEeCh!". That's not how it works.

Marsh v. Alabama disagrees with you there bud. At least in the US. Here in the UK we have no such right to freedom of speech, much to our detriment.

FWIW, Grimtuff, that's exactly how it works in many jurisdictions. Just not yours, which is not the world. Have a goosey at "horizontal effect".

The claimant in your specific example is unlikely to win, but they might.

So by the first amendment I'm obligated to play agaisn't a nazi Imperial Guard or a My Little Pony Space Marine army? USA is surely very silly sometimes.

Slightly off topic but Marsh v. Alabama wouldn't really apply in this situation. There is a massive difference to handing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk and entering the inside of a private business and engaging in activities that the owner and other patrons find offensive.

 Galas wrote:
So by the first amendment I'm obligated to play agaisn't a nazi Imperial Guard or a My Little Pony Space Marine army? USA is surely very silly sometimes.

No, you're not. Horizontal effect has been pooh-poohed by the SCotUS and in any event there is no right to a game of 40K to be violated and form a cause of action.

But a store might be forced to let swastikas on to their tables in England, or Canada, or many other places.

----------------------------------------------------------------

I have no idea what Marsh v. Alabama is. I got my degree in England and all my practical experience is in Ontario. My knowledge of U.S. law is little better than a layperson's.

There is nothing in Marsh vs Alabama that suggests you might possibly be required to play against such an army.

Not only does it not work that way, but you also enjoy your freedom of speech.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Slightly off topic but Marsh v. Alabama wouldn't really apply in this situation. There is a massive difference to handing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk and entering the inside of a private business and engaging in activities that the owner and other patrons find offensive.

Now now, you can't be applying "technicalities" or "intent of the law" here, that's TFG behaviour!