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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's not my job to accommodate my coworkers and "be friends". I have friends already. I don't have time for that kind of garbage.

Being accommodating and respectful of strangers, let alone co-workers, is what I'd expect of most people. No-one's expecting you to "be friends", but if you can't accommodate and bend over a bit for your fellows, then that's just depressing. and if I was your employer, I'd be criticising that kind of ethic towards your colleagues.
If I'm sitting down to game with them, I want to be able to have a nice dialogue with them, have relaxed, casual fun, and for us both to put in effort to have a mutually beneficial time. Beating the tar out of eachother with lists designed to win just does not appeal to me.

The way I look at it, compare an expressive dance duet to a dance battle. The former is made with the intent of conveying a narrative or emotional response, and requires both people to be working towards the same goal of reaching that narrative/emotional climax. In game terms, this is two people using their armies to convey a narrative, and as they're playing, they're using the models to help them tell a story, small victories and defeats determined by the roll of the dice.
The latter is two people showcasing their technical skills and seeing to outperform the other. In game terms, this is two people using their armies to defeat the other and achieve their own victory with skill, luck, and well built forces.

Both are fine, but you can't just dismiss the idea of the hobby as requiring a social contract just because you don't like it.

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

I've sent multiple emails. The game deserves better, and you deserve better, even if you're delusional and don't see it yet. As of now, until we get the changes we actually deserve, GW will never get money from me directly ever again.

Good for you. Genuinely, I mean that. I hope you feel happier in your life, because I don't think this is helping you.

I'll continue to enjoy the hobby, if you don't mind? Unless my "delusion" offends you.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I love the moment that you decide to try and win, it's all the sudden a tournament and you're now a bad friend.

Are you insinuating that anyone that plays handicapped for fun will automatically lose control and go for the kill as though it was a tournament?

or are you trying to say something else because i dont get it.

You're both throwing the most extreme examples of each others' viewpoint at each other as a strawman to make a point.

Eh fair enough.

If you are looking for something that has a positive attitude about the hobby - you may want to check out this Podcast (disclaimer: it's mine). We have been around almost 10 years now.

http://theindependentcharacters.com

 Galas wrote:
"You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"

Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.

This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
"You are not wrong Rick. You are just an ass hole"

Every single game outside the tournament scene needs a social contract to work.
All the time, when for example we go to a party and the host pulls out a shooter, or a mario kart, or a fighting game for people to play, I have to play relaxed because most of the people present arent as skilled in videogames as me.
Sometimes I encounter someone at my level or even better and we have epic duels for the ages, and thats even better. But I also have fun going more easy on friends, or other people at the party, because they are having fun too.
This does not justify GW balancing. But the notion that outside of a tournament I should have 0 considerations over how I behave based in my opponent is as wrong as american of a mindset.

This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.

There is the general impression to the outside world that Americans are very much "bigger is better" all the time, that they have to be the best at everything. A lot of stuff that is state provided by the lot of the world is ran by corporations in a cut throat manner (so it appears), further fuelling the "be successful or suffer" impression that seems to be portrayed.

Small examples, when GW release something on a weekend that's an American only holiday, American people usually seem really amazed, because it's a local centric way of thinking.

I'd hasten to add that's not a view shared by everyone, just a loose generalisation.

Yes but when you refer to a place as large as the USA in generalist fashion like that it's really going to make some people annoyed. I mean unless every country likes to be treated like that. Now, don't take that as a " My feelings be hurt " I just want to know if that's all good with everyone.

I would ask as well, if we will be so generalized, at least link in the Team America song.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yes but when you refer to a place as large as the USA in generalist fashion like that it's really going to make some people annoyed. I mean unless every country likes to be treated like that. Now, don't take that as a " My feelings be hurt " I just want to know if that's all good with everyone.

I would ask as well, if we will be so generalized, at least link in the Team America song.

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Jokes aside some stereotypes do have a certain value of correctness due to cultural institutions and specific social contracts bound by location.

As for individualistic, or egoistic, there are worse exemples out there of said stereotype.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.

Considering he isn't from Liechtenstein, yes he mostlikely will not just walk across his country....

Not Online!!! wrote:

AngryAngel80 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

That's ok, I like tea enough for both of us. Are you saying you don't just walk right across the country daily ? My mind is blown right apart now.

Considering he isn't from Liechtenstein, yes he mostlikely will not just walk across his country....

it's more of a jog then a walk as I understand it!

I apologize to my fellow american dakkanites. I used american, in effect, as an hiperbolyc generalisation as a response to the extreme viewpoint Slayerfan was expressing. I should had linked the America feth yeah video as a way to show that it should not be taken seriously. But nonetheless it was unnecesarely and unfairly generalistic.

Now if you excuse me I have a paella to make but first I have a bull to kill and some gold to plunder.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The question is, why are you not playing at your regular level? Why would your friends ask you to dumb yourself down? WHY is there an obligation to do that but not for them to improve at said game at all?

You are not obligated to anything. Just like you are not obligated to open the door for a stranger that carries a heavy box, or you are not obligated to give a present to a friend in his or her birthday, or you are not obligated to spend time with your grandparents.
Doing things for others well being that dont benefit you directly is called being a polite and good person. A socially functional one.

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best? You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

That's what enables this sort of horsegak to continue. You can enjoy yourself and make do with what you have while not trying to act it's somehow okay that you have to.

In the case of switzerland it's an Anschluss.
(considering how often we accidentally invaded Lichtenstein during maneouvre trainings )

Herbington wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!

It's alright for the most part, now the extreme chav phase appears to have gone away, I'm pretty happy here to be honest, it's just dull!

Herbington wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

Regrettably?? Never regret coming from God's Own Country, it's a privilege!

Considering you plebians couldn't even draw a simple cross on your flag

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best? You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

That's what enables this sort of horsegak to continue. You can enjoy yourself and make do with what you have while not trying to act it's somehow okay that you have to.

Bit, I am ok that I have to? If I didn't like the rules or the company I'd play something else. Why co tinue doing something you don't enjoy? But the point here is if Slayer is making other people not enjoy it.

AngryAngel80 wrote:
This has been asked but I'll add to it, what exactly is an American mindset ? Please, enlighten me as I don't want to take it as some kind of insult when you're just a little heated with one poster who happens to be American.

As an American, it's the prescriptive at least pseudo authoritarian mindset that you MUST be told EXACTLY what you HAVE to do. Without going into the hyper competitive aspect of American society. That running joke about keeping up with the Jones' from ye old boomer times anyone? I can rattle off examples all day if you like, the country as a whole has a serious problem accepting things that seem even slightly outside their expectations or anyone else doing better than them.

Meanwhile, you can remove the stick and live life by making some guesses and moving on. Not having to win every single time, not having to be told the exact steps to take in every aspect of life. It's quite nice, and you get far less offended when someone else does things differently. Common decency isn't something that has to be codified for you, it really should be something you can generally figure out. Much like rules to a game.

I don't really subscribe to it myself, but I'll laugh at anyone who insists it isn't a thing. It's why I don't play in tournaments here, it's not worth dealing with those kinds of people.

Also I think the whole America reference is because, at least in games, it seems to be the US who wants it to be 100% competitive, never anything else, if you don't bring your best then why even bother sort of approach with wanting everything to be hyper-competitive with world championships and stardom, while in Europe (and the UK especially) it seems to be people who can and do enjoy playing competitive in a tournament but toning it down and playing something weird/fun in a casual game. They know when to bring their A-list and when not to, and seem to be perfecty fine with this approach.

The US, on the other hand, seems to have a strong aversion to the idea of "toning it down" (as evident, not to single him out, by Slayer's repeating the Peregrine style approach of "Why do I have to tone it down, why can't you jack it up?" as an answer) and feels it has to be 100% competitive all the time, as though the only enjoyment comes from winning a game, not having a fun game. There really does seem to be the idea that you're doing a "disservice" by not min/maxing and bringing the best list every single time, whether it's to a casual game night or a tournament.

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?

I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.

Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.

You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?

I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.

*shrug* to each their own, I just don't get how anyone can pay a premium price for rules and then be okay with them being "basic" instead of the whole thing. More power to you for using it as a framework. I am a little envious of the oft-seen UK player's mindset that the rules are a framework, not a bible. Warhammer would be better if everyone thought that way :(

Dudeface wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

I don't disagree, you have states larger than England and people still do the stupid assumption that we're all plum in cheek, tea swilling, football loving Hugh Grant's.

Do you even English bro?

Yeah, just regrettably from Yorkshire, although I don't drink tea and I'm not a huge football fan. I also like this idea that we see the royal family all the time and that because it's a small country people just travel end to end on a whim.

That's football as in the New England Patriots, right? Go sports!

Wayniac wrote:
*shrug* to each their own, I just don't get how anyone can pay a premium price for rules and then be okay with them being "basic" instead of the whole thing. More power to you for using it as a framework. I am a little envious of the oft-seen UK player's mindset that the rules are a framework, not a bible. Warhammer would be better if everyone thought that way :(

Nah, that's fair enough. I'm not confident enough to say if that is genuinely a UK vs US thing, could just be coincidence? But personally, I do agree that the hobby might be better off with that mindset, but then, I'm sure that there'd be people who disagree and think that my opinion is damaging.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?

I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.

Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.

You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?

I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.

So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?

This is the thing nobody is answering.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

Wait it is actualy told or writen down somewhere? Can I ask where?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Wayniac wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Why do you support subpar rules for our instead of taking it to GW instead of DOING THEIR JOB FOR THEM?

I think we disagree on what we expect GW to do for us.

You don't expect quality in a product that you pay good money for and is presented as the best?

I feel that the product is quality. If you don't agree, don't buy it.

Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean you have to be.

You dont expect "write good, well-written rules" to be part of the job of a company selling a game (and no, their whole we sell models and not a game isn't true no matter how many times they repeat it) that has professional game designers working for them? You're basically being promised you're getting a new car and paying for one, and then getting the frame and have to put it together yourself and then rather than be upset just say oh well I'll just ask my friends to help me build it even though I paid for a completely built car.

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

You expect something else than I do, which is fine. But as far as I'm concerned, I get what I pay for, and I'm fine with that. If I wasn't, then I wouldn't buy it. If Slayer doesn't like what they get for their money, then they shouldn't buy it. However, what Slayer and I expect for our money are different.

Now I agree Slayer is sounding harsh but accepting mediocre work that's being peddled as quality is nonsense. You're getting an inferior product and somehow you're okay with that because it's "good enough" and you can work around it.

And what if I don't think it's inferior, and am largely fine with what I pay for?

I haven't got a problem with you having different standards to me, but don't expect me to abide by your standards.

So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?

This is the thing nobody is answering.

You're mistaking making the rules work vs making a game work. I expect that my opponent will have some expectations on what sort of game they would like, as such I make moves towards enabling a mutually enjoyable game instead of the game I want singularly.

Grey knight player walks in, states they want a tight game - take a good list and have a competitive match. If their list can't compete then you know that they asked for that kind of game and you can advise them how to improve. If they want a casual game, include some fun or kooky units, dial back the big combos and play to the mission but in a relaxed manner, add narrative etc.

None of that facilitates amending rules, working with wonky sets, that's just social skills.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So why DO you expect to put legwork into making it work? Why should you have to in the first place?

This is the thing nobody is answering.

Because that's what I do for every game. Because we clearly have far deeper views on what we expect from a game that descends into far deeper human psychology for us both.

You've made it very clear yourself that you do not support or accommodate for your co-workers. I do support co-workers and accommodate for strangers.
You play to test your skill within an existing set of parameters. I play to create a narrative scenario with a lot of flexibility and co-operation.
You see GW as a company that should be putting out well finished watertight products. I see GW as a company putting out open-ended rulesets with room for personal interpretation according to personal whims.
You think that GW's product is overpriced for what you get. I don't have a problem paying for what I receive.

I expect to put legwork in because that's what I expect of any leisure game, presumably because various experiences in my life, culture and personality have raised me that way.
If that's not a satisfying answer for you, I'd ask you for your response to "why is the idea of putting legwork into something to make it work so unspeakable for you?"

Karol wrote:

No, I'm being promised basic rules and models, and I expect to put in some leg work myself to tailor those rules so that they suit my playstyle better. Again, it goes back to my point on that we expect different things.

Wait it is actualy told or writen down somewhere? Can I ask where?

Nowhere, that's just how I approach any game: I'll attempt to follow the rules as best I can, applying a bit of RAI and streamlining where necessary, but at the end of the day, I treat any rules as a mechanism by which to base a framework of playing the same.

In the same vein, is it written down or actually told that I should be expecting a tightly written and watertight game?